4 ms·

> I've met many devout Christians who happily admit there is no factual proof of God There are factual cases for God, some attempting to be proofs even. For ex

> I've met many devout Christians who happily admit there is no factual proof of God There are factual cases for God, some attempting to be proofs even. For example, many consider objective morality (race based slavery is bad, say) to be a case for absolute good, which is hard to explain by pure randomness. Faith, to a Christian, is making choices in the face of this problem. A Christian knows that everyone has to decide whether to follow God or not, and in that way, everyone has faith in some set of axioms. Many people (intelligent, kind, smart ones!) have immense faith that only matter and energy exist despite basically no proof in that metaphysical axiom. Despite how hard it is to explain this, it's actually a clear thought to a reasonably educated Christian. It's just hard to communicate since words like 'rational', 'proof', and 'facts' are overloaded and cause confusion in these sorts of conversations. In this way, the balkanization of our culture is a negative feedback loop as misunderstanding promotes division which promotes more misunderstanding. > strongly believing in them anyway can make sense if membership of organised religion is attractive enough The point of Christianity isn't being part of an organization. People who go to worship services because it's their favorite social club are actually criticized pretty heavily by Jesus in the Bible. To be fair, I think most churchgoers don't understand the implications of this.

hueving 10y ago
It's quite simple. Some people demand testable theories to accept a religions' god as existing. There is no evidence of the Christian god, the Hindu god's, or the Greek gods doing what their holy texts claimed, so I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct. It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with. And you wouldn't think that if you were born in other circumstances. > I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct Fair enough. My point was that everyone assumes some things and that there will be more peace and understanding when we acknowledge that instead of establishing outgroups.
  - hueving 10y ago
    But my assumptions are based on the presence of evidence. I can't condone systems based on anything else because there is nothing that prevents it from escalating into 'kill the others'.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      One way to avoid 'kill the others' is to avoid creating 'others'. Understanding others' beliefs doesn't require condoning them, but it does require mutual respect. On a side note, physicalist assumptions can and do lead to harsh utilitarianism and eventually the devaluing and ending of human life. Finally, the "don't kill" part of the Bible is very clear. You don't have to be a theologian to know that people killing in the name of Christ aren't Christians. Just like you don't have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2=4.
sievebrain 10y ago
I think you are all proving my point for me; as a reminder, my point was that trying to create a social network oriented around debating of facts would rapidly run into problems due to people who present things which are actually beliefs as if they were facts. The existence of God is not a fact, not even remotely close to being one. If it was then basically everyone would believe in God because any unbeliever would be seen as crazy as someone who doesn't believe in gravity. But lots of people don't believe in God. The existence of God is an article of faith, and that is simply not something you can blow off as "words like 'fact' are overloaded". Really, this whole sub-thread is strong evidence for why edraferi's proposal would be very difficult. Such a website or tool could not even handle a debating-101 discussion on religion because people would have no way to agree on what the facts were.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  The inexistence of God is an article of faith as well. It's typically faith in the truth of the physicalist position. But I agree with you on the tool. Even if we can assume a healthy community (a huge assumption) the tool would have to pick some first principles and scientific standards that would inevitably be controversial. We could maybe have different sections based on different first principles, but then we're back to a fragmented, insular culture.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Maybe machine learning could help identify differences in accepted definitions of words and different assumptions. This came up in another thread recently, but I'll restate the idea here: maybe an n-dimensional vector can be assigned to each assumption or each individual's understanding of a word, and then nearby vectors compared to see where different groups have similar ideas but use different words to describe them (or vice versa). The word "faith", for example, probably means something completely different to a scientist who has "faith" (confidence) in a particular experimental method, versus a religious person who has "faith" (belief/hope) in God, versus a parent who has "faith" (trust) in a child. A tool for discussion could help elucidate these differences in usage and bridge the linguistic gap that can form between groups.
nitrogen 10y ago
For example, many consider objective morality (race based slavery is bad, say) to be a case for absolute good, which is hard to explain by pure randomness. I just want to clarify some incredibly common misconceptions here. There are lots of claims on these issues, so it can be difficult to get a clear picture of which claims are actually supported by evidence. First, from an empirical perspective, all signs point to morality being an evolved phenomenon. This is studied scientifically by surveying different cultures, conducting game-like experiments, and testing for moral behavior in other species. You can find videos of monkeys who appear to have a sense of fairness, for example, and lots of other species (dogs, crows, other primates, etc.) all display varying levels of behaviors we call moral. This is what we would expect to find if these behaviors evolved as adaptations. Second, "randomness" is not an accurate word to use to describe evolution by natural selection. Mutations are mostly random, but those rare mutations that survive DNA repair mechanisms and produce a reproductive and survival advantage persist and spread. Something similar occurs with cultural memes, including those layers of morality which do not come from instinct. Finally, though you didn't mention this specifically, it's important to point out that scientists did not decide there was no God and then set out to prove it (a common misconception with some people I know). Most historical scientists were religious, but over time as more and more evidence was collected, scientists in aggregate found that what they had been taught about God was unnecessary for and often contradictory to their scientific discoveries. Thus, despite some scientists remaining religious, science itself is an atheistic process, as that is what has been proven to work. It's this track record of epistemological success that leads people to accept metaphysical materialism, not an a priori assumption. If you want more detailed summaries of the empirical support for these arguments, I recommend the book Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  > science itself is an atheistic process Should this be non-religious instead of atheistic? When we say atheistic we mist often assume someone who is opposed to the idea of all religions, not just somebody who doesn't let it interfere with his work.
  - humanrebar 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

It's quite simple. Some people demand testable theories to accept a religions' god as existing. There is no evidence of the Christian god, the Hindu god's, or the Greek gods doing what their holy texts claimed, so I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct. It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with.

humanrebar 10y ago
> It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with. And you wouldn't think that if you were born in other circumstances. > I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct Fair enough. My point was that everyone assumes some things and that there will be more peace and understanding when we acknowledge that instead of establishing outgroups.
- hueving 10y ago
  But my assumptions are based on the presence of evidence. I can't condone systems based on anything else because there is nothing that prevents it from escalating into 'kill the others'.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    One way to avoid 'kill the others' is to avoid creating 'others'. Understanding others' beliefs doesn't require condoning them, but it does require mutual respect. On a side note, physicalist assumptions can and do lead to harsh utilitarianism and eventually the devaluing and ending of human life. Finally, the "don't kill" part of the Bible is very clear. You don't have to be a theologian to know that people killing in the name of Christ aren't Christians. Just like you don't have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2=4.

sievebrain 10y ago

I think you are all proving my point for me; as a reminder, my point was that trying to create a social network oriented around debating of facts would rapidly run into problems due to people who present things which are actually beliefs as if they were facts. The existence of God is not a fact, not even remotely close to being one. If it was then basically everyone would believe in God because any unbeliever would be seen as crazy as someone who doesn't believe in gravity. But lots of people don't believe in God. The existence of God is an article of faith, and that is simply not something you can blow off as "words like 'fact' are overloaded". Really, this whole sub-thread is strong evidence for why edraferi's proposal would be very difficult. Such a website or tool could not even handle a debating-101 discussion on religion because people would have no way to agree on what the facts were.

humanrebar 10y ago
The inexistence of God is an article of faith as well. It's typically faith in the truth of the physicalist position. But I agree with you on the tool. Even if we can assume a healthy community (a huge assumption) the tool would have to pick some first principles and scientific standards that would inevitably be controversial. We could maybe have different sections based on different first principles, but then we're back to a fragmented, insular culture.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Maybe machine learning could help identify differences in accepted definitions of words and different assumptions. This came up in another thread recently, but I'll restate the idea here: maybe an n-dimensional vector can be assigned to each assumption or each individual's understanding of a word, and then nearby vectors compared to see where different groups have similar ideas but use different words to describe them (or vice versa). The word "faith", for example, probably means something completely different to a scientist who has "faith" (confidence) in a particular experimental method, versus a religious person who has "faith" (belief/hope) in God, versus a parent who has "faith" (trust) in a child. A tool for discussion could help elucidate these differences in usage and bridge the linguistic gap that can form between groups.

nitrogen 10y ago

For example, many consider objective morality (race based slavery is bad, say) to be a case for absolute good, which is hard to explain by pure randomness. I just want to clarify some incredibly common misconceptions here. There are lots of claims on these issues, so it can be difficult to get a clear picture of which claims are actually supported by evidence. First, from an empirical perspective, all signs point to morality being an evolved phenomenon. This is studied scientifically by surveying different cultures, conducting game-like experiments, and testing for moral behavior in other species. You can find videos of monkeys who appear to have a sense of fairness, for example, and lots of other species (dogs, crows, other primates, etc.) all display varying levels of behaviors we call moral. This is what we would expect to find if these behaviors evolved as adaptations. Second, "randomness" is not an accurate word to use to describe evolution by natural selection. Mutations are mostly random, but those rare mutations that survive DNA repair mechanisms and produce a reproductive and survival advantage persist and spread. Something similar occurs with cultural memes, including those layers of morality which do not come from instinct. Finally, though you didn't mention this specifically, it's important to point out that scientists did not decide there was no God and then set out to prove it (a common misconception with some people I know). Most historical scientists were religious, but over time as more and more evidence was collected, scientists in aggregate found that what they had been taught about God was unnecessary for and often contradictory to their scientific discoveries. Thus, despite some scientists remaining religious, science itself is an atheistic process, as that is what has been proven to work. It's this track record of epistemological success that leads people to accept metaphysical materialism, not an a priori assumption. If you want more detailed summaries of the empirical support for these arguments, I recommend the book Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

reitanqild 10y ago
> science itself is an atheistic process Should this be non-religious instead of atheistic? When we say atheistic we mist often assume someone who is opposed to the idea of all religions, not just somebody who doesn't let it interfere with his work.
- humanrebar 10y ago