Is man getting too big for the world?

[Shaker]

It's the killer for you since you mean by method, the scientific method and that is both limited and does not establish the philosophy implicit in your objections to God.

Any method will do that's capable of differentiating actuality from making shit up. Or, more politely, pious guesswork.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any method will do that's capable of differentiating actuality from making shit up. Or, more politely, pious guesswork.

Well then we can look forward to you submitting the methodology for what you believe......or are you just making shit up................(Yes)

[bluehillside Retd.]

.....And your warrant for that statement is?

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that the category "conjectures believed to be true as items of personal faith but about which the proponents can offer no method of any kind to distinguish his assertions of objective truth from nonsense" can be populated with "God" and "leprechauns" alike.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Well then we can look forward to you submitting the methodology for what you believe......or are you just making shit up................(Yes)

In which Trollboy demonstrates that he still hasn't grasped the concept of burden of proof.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

My post clear and I have forgotten more than you will ever know about God and the bible.

Nope. You may well know lots about what the Bible has to say about "God" but you offer nothing to suggest that God is isn't a fiction, and nor will you until you finally manage to find a way out of your circular thinking of "the Bible is true because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so".

Good luck with it though.   

[Owlswing]

Sassy,

Nope. You may well know lots about what the Bible has to say about "God" but you offer nothing to suggest that God is isn't a fiction, and nor will you until you finally manage to find a way out of your circular thinking of "the Bible is true because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so".

Good luck with it though.

Rotating in ever decreasing circles at ever increasing speeds until vanishing up the anal orifice in a shower of orange pips!

[wigginhall]

One of the interesting things about some theists is that they assume a kind of binary set-up.  That is, if you are not satisfied with arguments for theism, you have to suggest your own version of reality.  But this is not correct.   Apart from reversing the burden of proof,  it also suggests that arguments for theism are only deficient, if other arguments for another type of reality are presented.   Not so.

Take the beginning of the universe.   If X says he is not satisfied with the idea that God did it, X is not obliged to suggest another idea.  He could say, I don't know, and this doesn't disqualify him from pointing to the deficiencies of the creationist version.

But this black and white thinking is quite common on the internet - you can't criticize me, unless you have an alternative theory.   Of course, it's a familiar way of avoiding the gaps in one's own arguments.

[Nearly Sane]

To be fair, I think some people see their god as so intertwined with their perception of reality that without that they cannot conceive of another person having any perception of reality without something more than a I Don't Know. It makes no sense to them.

[Shaker]

Take the beginning of the universe.   If X says he is not satisfied with the idea that God did it, X is not obliged to suggest another idea.  He could say, I don't know, and this doesn't disqualify him from pointing to the deficiencies of the creationist version.

I never fail to be surprised as well as disappointed how phobic some people can be to the concept of: "I don't know - there's isn't enough hard data yet to be able to form an opinion."

Seems reasonable enough to me (as well as honest) but it's kryptonite to some theists.

[Nearly Sane]

I think when you have discussions with people who make the effort to go down the Kalam and all the other 'rationalist' attempts to deal with a their god belief. It's interesting how few of them, if you ask would cite those as the reasons they believe in their god. Their belief almost seems separate, and is based on experience/gut/instinct or some combination of those.

In that sense, they cannot see that I Don't Know could be a position because it's not their experience. It's why so often you get the idea of goddodging, epitomised in Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven.

[wigginhall]

I never fail to be surprised as well as disappointed how phobic some people can be to the concept of: "I don't know - there's isn't enough hard data yet to be able to form an opinion."

Seems reasonable enough to me (as well as honest) but it's kryptonite to some theists.

Yes.  Do you think there's a word for this position - you can't criticize my position, unless you outline your own?  It sounds a bit like tu quoque, but I wonder if there's another term. 

[wigginhall]

I think when you have discussions with people who make the effort to go down the Kalam and all the other 'rationalist' attempts to deal with a their god belief. It's interesting how few of them, if you ask would cite those as the reasons they believe in their god. Their belief almost seems separate, and is based on experience/gut/instinct or some combination of those.

In that sense, they cannot see that I Don't Know could be a position because it's not their experience. It's why so often you get the idea of goddodging, epitomised in Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven.

Yes, that always strikes me with the flakey five and other arguments.  I can't believe that anyone has ever exclaimed 'eureka' on hearing these arguments, and become a theist.   That seems a gut thing, as you say, and then the arguments are after the fact.  And probably some people have no idea why they are religious at all, and don't have arguments for it.

[Nearly Sane]

As an additional point, when I realised I didn't believe in the god that I was told about as a child, I didn't work it out rationally to start with. I just thought I don't believe in this thing. I then worked out why but that first few months on it, part of my struggle to why was I could have even conceive of what it was I was stating. Not that life without a god belief was hard, that I could not understand what it had ever meant z

[Nearly Sane]

I know the whole methodology thing is seen as being about the supernatural claims, but it also relates to having rational argument, and hence the presuppositionalist argument that circularly places god in the very idea of argument. At base it's desperate and as noted circular, but it underlines that they can see no other view than their god. It isn't argument, it cannot be, as it cannot conceive of any other position, hence the rest o us are not wrong, we are lying.

[Maeght]

I think when you have discussions with people who make the effort to go down the Kalam and all the other 'rationalist' attempts to deal with a their god belief. It's interesting how few of them, if you ask would cite those as the reasons they believe in their god. Their belief almost seems separate, and is based on experience/gut/instinct or some combination of those.

In that sense, they cannot see that I Don't Know could be a position because it's not their experience. It's why so often you get the idea of goddodging, epitomised in Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven.

Absolutely. It's about belief not knowledge. I don't tend to question their beliefs but do question the arguments some theists put forward to support their beliefs and point out that they aren't actually proof of God at all.

I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.

[wigginhall]

As an additional point, when I realised I didn't believe in the god that I was told about as a child, I didn't work it out rationally to start with. I just thought I don't believe in this thing. I then worked out why but that first few months on it, part of my struggle to why was I could have even conceive of what it was I was stating. Not that life without a god belief was hard, that I could not understand what it had ever meant z

Well, how many theists can tell you what it means?  It all becomes very vague and fuzzy, being loved, being created, being forgiven, and so on.   But that doesn't get you very far, although I suppose it appeals emotionally.  I've been through twists and turns in my own thinking, but thinking actually didn't come first, it's more unconscious.  I think for me, it's a lot to do with response to symbols, but I realized a few years ago that I get a response to many religious symbols around the world, and of course, to art which isn't religious at all.

[wigginhall]

I know the whole methodology thing is seen as being about the supernatural claims, but it also relates to having rational argument, and hence the presuppositionalist argument that circularly places god in the very idea of argument. At base it's desperate and as noted circular, but it underlines that they can see no other view than their god. It isn't argument, it cannot be, as it cannot conceive of any other position, hence the rest o us are not wrong, we are lying.

This is a bit like basic belief as put forward by Plantinga.   It seemed like a way of avoiding arguments, since you could just say that religious belief is a kind of foundation, and need not be rationally justified.   It's a bit desperate really.   It became a big thing in reformed epistemology.

But as I said earlier, I don't see religion in terms of belief, but in terms of response to symbols.  But this is not true for everyone.

[Shaker]

I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.

Being a non-believer who was once a believer - true of several posters here - makes all the difference, I think. If you're a non-believer who has never believed - true of others, myself included - then yes, it's incredibly difficult and could even be impossible really to understand faith. You may get intellectual purchase on it, but that's about it.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, how many theists can tell you what it means?  It all becomes very vague and fuzzy, being loved, being created, being forgiven, and so on.   But that doesn't get you very far, although I suppose it appeals emotionally.  I've been through twists and turns in my own thinking, but thinking actually didn't come first, it's more unconscious.  I think for me, it's a lot to do with response to symbols, but I realized a few years ago that I get a response to many religious symbols around the world, and of course, to art which isn't religious at all.

And while the unexamined life is apparently not worth living, a statement I have never felt comfortable with, I am unsure what examination means, or indeed if we are capable of it. There is a reason why the worst might be full of passionate intensity, but maybe lacking all conviction is not that different in terms of how you get there.

[wigginhall]

Absolutely. It's about belief not knowledge. I don't tend to question their beliefs but do question the arguments some theists put forward to support their beliefs and point out that they aren't actually proof of God at all.

I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.

I'm skeptical that it's about belief actually.   If you are a church-goer, you are soaked in symbols and rituals, and they provide an experiential narrative.  OK, you can say that you believe in X, but I think that's a cover story.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

I do think it is very difficult for a believer to put themselves in the mind of a non believer and vica versa - hence the endless discussions/debates on here that will never get anywhere.

I agree, but I still think that you can say to a theist something like, "look, in other areas of your life you apply some basic tests of reason and evidence to weigh up the likely veracity or otherwise of the claim that's put to you. That's why for example you won't accept my offer to sell you a flight on my tame dragon. You must therefore accept that other people will apply exactly the same tests to your claims about "God" when you want them to accept your claims as true for them too, regardless of how convinced you are that your opinion on the matter is the correct one."   

[wigginhall]

And while the unexamined life is apparently not worth living, a statement I have never felt comfortable with, I am unsure what examination means, or indeed if we are capable of it. There is a reason why the worst might be full of passionate intensity, but maybe lacking all conviction is not that different in terms of how you get there.

That reminds me of a key idea in psychotherapy, that some people can't think about their feelings.   This can get you in hot water of course, but if you transfer it to religion, there is something similar going on at times.   Or there is a split between thinking, emotion, and symbols.   Simone Weil used to freak out if she recited the Lord's Prayer in Greek, I'm not sure what is going on here. 

[Nearly Sane]

This is a bit like basic belief as put forward by Plantinga.   It seemed like a way of avoiding arguments, since you could just say that religious belief is a kind of foundation, and need not be rationally justified.   It's a bit desperate really.   It became a big thing in reformed epistemology.

But as I said earlier, I don't see religion in terms of belief, but in terms of response to symbols.  But this is not true for everyone.

Iirc, Jack Knave is a Jungian, and certainly that sort of approach, not necessarily with the idea of collective, but at least a common type of consciousness. That some of choose different archetypes, or rather see different archetypes makes it impossible to see the others. In order to see other's beliefs, we can have no beliefs of our own.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm skeptical that it's about belief actually.   If you are a church-goer, you are soaked in symbols and rituals, and they provide an experiential narrative.  OK, you can say that you believe in X, but I think that's a cover story.

Yep, that makes sense. Belief itself is a rationalisation, a structuring of emotional reaction so that we try to avoid the confusion of contradictions. Maybe because we are legion, as dear Walt declared, we create these little shared legions, demons in their own way, that haunt us.

[wigginhall]

Iirc, Jack Knave is a Jungian, and certainly that sort of approach, not necessarily with the idea of collective, but at least a common type of consciousness. That some of choose different archetypes, or rather see different archetypes makes it impossible to see the others. In order to see other's beliefs, we can have no beliefs of our own.

Well, if you go down the Jung road, religion is non-rational, or trans-rational, as some people say.   I think it's OK to say 'these symbols are valuable to me', but as with other stuff, you can't then say, 'they are valuable to everyone'.  And if you don't find them valuable, I will kill you.