5 ms·

"There's probably no God" I was going to be critical of that weak use of the word "probably" (especially in the context of atheistic belief), but then I realiz

by kirse 18y ago

"There's probably no God" I was going to be critical of that weak use of the word "probably" (especially in the context of atheistic belief), but then I realized it better explains the true situation - that it simply comes down to where you assign your faith. Too many atheists and macro-evolutionists (especially Dawkins), can't think outside their own dogmatic beliefs and realize that they, too, employ many powerful background assumptions which are grounded in faith alone. These assumptions, of course, are then used as a framework for claiming what is the "truth".

dazzawazza 18y ago
Dawkins has said that he wouldn't use the term 'probably' preferring to use something like 'highly improbable'. I don't think saying god is highly improbable based on the evidence before us is dogmatic. Dawkins is on record saying he would like there to be a god and is waiting for concrete evidence. That doesn't sound dogmatic to me.
netcan 18y ago
bite can't think outside their own dogmatic beliefs and realize that they, too, employ many powerful background assumptions which are grounded in faith alone The point is that these "powerful background assumptions" are common to both 'macro evolutionists' & micro evolutionists(?). The latter simply have more, additional 'faith-based' assumptions. I assume we are talking about things like 'I'm not a brain in a vat,' 'tomorrow will follow today' & other unresolved fundamental issues. It seems interesting to me that recently whenever I get into these discussions (I know, bad habit), 'God doesn't exist' is countered with (metaphorically) 'maybe you don't exist' or 'Maybe you call red what I call green' While that is a good question, it's not really relevant ( I don't think so anyway). In fact, it's cheating. Define your fundamentals however you lie. I'll admit our fundamentals are all shaky. But lets move past that. Especially if if in the same breath as macro evolution (Do we really have to say macro now? Feels like the term is under attempted hijack). Yes, we assume that human logic works & that our observations are reality & that we are not a brain in a vat.
joubert 18y ago
Grounded in faith alone? Unlike theists and deists, atheists reach their conclusion through critical, rational thinking.
- kirse 18y ago
  Isn't it funny how we can intuitively identify almost every single object in this world as designed (or not), except somehow our intuition is only wrong about the very thing we know best -- ourselves? Highly logical there, isn't it? It's also pretty clear there are non-physical entities (such as human consciousness) that cannot be explained by scientific naturalism, nor will they ever be explained. To claim that the metaphysical domain does not exist (or if it does, is really explained by laws of an entirely different domain - the physical) is far from rational and completely faith-based, especially when you have your own conscious existence as personal evidence.
  - iron_ball 18y ago
    "that cannot be explained by scientific naturalism" Sure, with you so far. "nor will they ever be explained" How do you know?
  - netcan 18y ago
    we can intuitively identify almost every single object in this world as designed (or not) The economy? It's also pretty clear there are We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident
tokenadult 18y ago
I've had the privilege of meeting Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, http://friendlyatheist.com/ http://friendlyatheist.com/ at a talk in my town, and I think he gets the issue of communicating with believers very well, perhaps because he was brought up in the Jain religion. It is quite an art to understand where the other person is coming from and to communicate with that person. I realized it better explains the true situation - that it simply comes down to where you assign your faith. At the risk of showing I'm not as smooth a communicator as Hemant, "permit me to not completely agree with this opinion," in the words of my favorite mathematician. I think what religious belief (which I used to have) and secular rationalism differ in is HOW they assign confidence to what they rely on, and I think, properly speaking, the natural scientist doesn't have faith in the sense of faith in a body of religious doctrine. I think the truth-seeking of the scientist, and of the members of the general public who learn from scientists, is different in nature from the truth-assuming of those who put faith in religions. I've been there, and I've done that. I have a LOT of compassion for people who have deep religious faith, and I appreciate gentle efforts to communicate with them, but I don't think people who go through life in active, fact-tested truth-seeking are just putting their faith in a different object. Thanks for making an interesting early comment that got me thinking about my rather recent "conversion."
- InVerse 18y ago
  i interpreted kirsh's claim as: "in spite of the theoretical procedural differences in assigning faith, both camps are substantially influenced by culture and tradition.
shaunxcode 18y ago
I like to argue that people should take pascals wager to the next level and believe in absolutely every possibly permutation of a higher being/afterlife. you know... just in case.

by kirse 18y ago

dazzawazza 18y ago

Dawkins has said that he wouldn't use the term 'probably' preferring to use something like 'highly improbable'. I don't think saying god is highly improbable based on the evidence before us is dogmatic. Dawkins is on record saying he would like there to be a god and is waiting for concrete evidence. That doesn't sound dogmatic to me.

netcan 18y ago

bite can't think outside their own dogmatic beliefs and realize that they, too, employ many powerful background assumptions which are grounded in faith alone The point is that these "powerful background assumptions" are common to both 'macro evolutionists' & micro evolutionists(?). The latter simply have more, additional 'faith-based' assumptions. I assume we are talking about things like 'I'm not a brain in a vat,' 'tomorrow will follow today' & other unresolved fundamental issues. It seems interesting to me that recently whenever I get into these discussions (I know, bad habit), 'God doesn't exist' is countered with (metaphorically) 'maybe you don't exist' or 'Maybe you call red what I call green' While that is a good question, it's not really relevant ( I don't think so anyway). In fact, it's cheating. Define your fundamentals however you lie. I'll admit our fundamentals are all shaky. But lets move past that. Especially if if in the same breath as macro evolution (Do we really have to say macro now? Feels like the term is under attempted hijack). Yes, we assume that human logic works & that our observations are reality & that we are not a brain in a vat.

joubert 18y ago

Grounded in faith alone? Unlike theists and deists, atheists reach their conclusion through critical, rational thinking.

kirse 18y ago
Isn't it funny how we can intuitively identify almost every single object in this world as designed (or not), except somehow our intuition is only wrong about the very thing we know best -- ourselves? Highly logical there, isn't it? It's also pretty clear there are non-physical entities (such as human consciousness) that cannot be explained by scientific naturalism, nor will they ever be explained. To claim that the metaphysical domain does not exist (or if it does, is really explained by laws of an entirely different domain - the physical) is far from rational and completely faith-based, especially when you have your own conscious existence as personal evidence.
- iron_ball 18y ago
  "that cannot be explained by scientific naturalism" Sure, with you so far. "nor will they ever be explained" How do you know?
- netcan 18y ago
  we can intuitively identify almost every single object in this world as designed (or not) The economy? It's also pretty clear there are We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident

tokenadult 18y ago

I've had the privilege of meeting Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, http://friendlyatheist.com/ http://friendlyatheist.com/ at a talk in my town, and I think he gets the issue of communicating with believers very well, perhaps because he was brought up in the Jain religion. It is quite an art to understand where the other person is coming from and to communicate with that person. I realized it better explains the true situation - that it simply comes down to where you assign your faith. At the risk of showing I'm not as smooth a communicator as Hemant, "permit me to not completely agree with this opinion," in the words of my favorite mathematician. I think what religious belief (which I used to have) and secular rationalism differ in is HOW they assign confidence to what they rely on, and I think, properly speaking, the natural scientist doesn't have faith in the sense of faith in a body of religious doctrine. I think the truth-seeking of the scientist, and of the members of the general public who learn from scientists, is different in nature from the truth-assuming of those who put faith in religions. I've been there, and I've done that. I have a LOT of compassion for people who have deep religious faith, and I appreciate gentle efforts to communicate with them, but I don't think people who go through life in active, fact-tested truth-seeking are just putting their faith in a different object. Thanks for making an interesting early comment that got me thinking about my rather recent "conversion."

InVerse 18y ago
i interpreted kirsh's claim as: "in spite of the theoretical procedural differences in assigning faith, both camps are substantially influenced by culture and tradition.

shaunxcode 18y ago

I like to argue that people should take pascals wager to the next level and believe in absolutely every possibly permutation of a higher being/afterlife. you know... just in case.