IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTI

[Stranger]

Woo ah, I think you guys have forgotten how voluntary participation on an Internet forum. I don’t have to respond in the time it takes to rattle off a sound bite in the fashion of yourself nor jump to attention to satisfy someone who is/or was a big noise elsewhere and that is how they are used to being treated.

You don't have to say anything at all but if you make claims, then you can expect to be asked to justify them. If you don't want to, that's fine too but you can't then expect to be taken seriously.

That said I have plenty of reasons to get it down to either a prime explanation for the universe or the universe popped out of nothing.

We've covered this multiple times and you've never actually produced an argument that leads from the unknown to your god-concept. You also keep on ignoring most of the alternative hypotheses that you've been given other than "popped out of nothing".

I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by the words reason and method.
What do you mean by them.

Yet again, I'm not going to do your job. It's up to you to make a proposal and then we can see if it stands up to logic and reasoning.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Yes, but the problem is much bigger than the non-testability of these supposed characteristics – it’s that there’s no agreement on "god" having them at all. Some think “He” has all of them, some think He has some of the them, some think He has none of them. Yet others think there to be god(s), but with different characteristics entirely. And here’s the thing: none of them are demonstrably wrong, even when the claimed characteristics contradict each other. That’s what happens when you rely on a personal faith beliefs for your definition of “god”: one person’s faith definition is no more or less valid than any other person’s faith definition.

In short, that’s the definition problem right there: “I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean X”.   

“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Y”.   

“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Z”.

How then would a dialogue about what “god” (supposedly) is take place when there’s no consensus even on the basic definition?   

BHS - this is where you and I disagree. You seem to think that personal faith beliefs in gods are in a different category from other beliefs in abstract concepts that people can't agree definitions on, and I disagree. And I explained my thinking in relation to Welby's view on "justice" and Pratchett's view on "justice". Defining words like justice using another abstract concept like fairness is not really defining anything. What is fairness? How do you define it in order to establish that it has been achieved?

Hence my view that fairness seems to be based on a feeling of rightness, which is different for each individual who views an issue, and which is no different to the feeling of rightness a theist has in relation to the god they believe in. Some theists may tell you their definition of god is an eternal supernatural entity that is the source of the creation of the universe and judges the actions of humans. Other theists may have a less grandiose concept. I see no problem with dealing with each individual's definitions of "god" or "fairness" or "justice" as I find them.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Those of us who regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory may well think that there are no methods specific to supernatural claims, and not without cause since we've asked theists posting here often enough but with no result: but still we ask because there is always the possibility that we might be wrong and that one of you guys might one day post a game-changer of a methodology that can be shown to be suitable for verifying supernatural claims.

Nope - remember the main reason I keep asking you for a method to verify 'God' claims is because I see no good reason to take your claim of 'God' seriously: and why would I bother "seeking a way of finding" something that I regard as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory?

As ever you're missing the point: so I'll say again, if I regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory then I'm not ever reaching for an empirical or naturalistic basis to reject the existence of 'God' since all I need do is reject the arguments for 'God' made by theists because, and I'll say it again, I regard them as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory.

Then you'd be wrong, again.

Then do tell what this specific reason is.

And I will say thisI do not regard claims of God being incoherent, illogical and contradictory and find it rich coming from people whose Cosmic Godlessness is based on not knowing the explanation of the universe but knowing it wasn’t God combined with a noble ignorance which can’t be accepted by you in anyone who opposes you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed, although in some cases this goes beyond a personal preference, which implies a choice. I think there are subjective truths (true for me) that are inherent in individuals and not a preference or choice. I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated.
I'd argue that specific religiosity is inherently learned behaviour, even if there may be an inherent human tendency towards non-specific religiosity, linked to our evolutionarily-driven curiosity and social behaviours. Virtually all people who have a particularly religiosity were brought up in that way - very few genuine change from one religion to another and very few people brought up in a non-religious manner become religious. And I think the reason is that, as adults, the claims of religions seems implausible if we come to them cold - the only way in which we can suspend that implausibility is if we've been taught from being a child that the implausible is, in fact, true. And even then many people simply see through that implausibility as adults.

That is somewhat different to food preferences (or music etc), as although we might be brought up to like particular kinds of food or music I don't think that makes us find other types of food or music intrinsically unpalatable, although they may be an acquired taste. And a further point is that we can comfortably like bangla music or Caribbean cooking without being expected to 'buy into' a particular world view and inherent behaviours. Religion isn't like that.

I would agree that people's choice of religion, politics, cultural values as well as their practices of these things are usually heavily influenced  by their upbringing. For example I do charity work but have no interest in the status of holding an official position in a charity unless it helps me complete a task for the charity quicker than I would if I was not holding an official position - this is because this was the exact same approach my parents took to charity work. I have no problem with my parents' attitude to charity work and share the same view. I don't see a problem with following the beliefs and practices of your parents unless the behaviour is causing significant harm to the person or others. Harm is of course hard to define. Lots of beliefs and practices that could be said to cause harm are tolerated by society until the harm becomes too significant to tolerate.

In the case of religion I must be one of the exceptions - my parents aren't particularly religious though they forced me to go to the Hindu temple with them once a week when I was a child so that I would not lose my culture and heritage. When I became a teen I found the notion of gods implausible and religion seemed stupid so I told them I was an atheist and therefore refused to go to the temple. They left the country when I was 18, and a few years later I started believing in god and became a Muslim about a year after that.

[ProfessorDavey]

As adults? This generation from boomers on must be the most neotenised bunch of people there has ever been. Haven’t you noticed that this forum ticks over on the law of the playground.

As adults indeed.

Yes Vlad - as adults - you know the term used to describe people over the age of 18.

And why did I use that term - well because it links to the academic research on the topic which shows that nigh on 100% of adults who are religious were brought up as religious (i.e. learned behaviour). However the same isn't true for non religious people, sure nigh on 100% of people not brought up in a religious household will be non religious as adults, but at least 50% of children brought up in a religious household become non religious as adults, demonstrating that non-religiosity cannot be considered learned behaviour in the manner that religiosity can.

But hey why let good old facts and research stop you from having a typical Vlad tantrum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't have to say anything at all but if you make claims, then you can expect to be asked to justify them. If you don't want to, that's fine too but you can't then expect to be taken seriously.

We've covered this multiple times and you've never actually produced an argument that leads from the unknown to your god-concept. You also keep on ignoring most of the alternative hypotheses that you've been given other than "popped out of nothing".

Yet again, I'm not going to do your job. It's up to you to make a proposal and then we can see if it stands up to logic and reasoning.

I don’t reject them as hypotheses. I Think they are unfalsifiable. What I tend to reject is a natural explanation for nature and even then I have not dismissed a necessary universe but ask in what way it is it necessary? I never reject a testable hypothesis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes Vlad - as adults - you know the term used to describe people over the age of 18.

And why did I use that term - well because it links to the academic research on the topic which shows that nigh on 100% of adults who are religious were brought up as religious (i.e. learned behaviour). However the same isn't true for non religious people, sure nigh on 100% of people not brought up in a religious household will be non religious as adults, but at least 50% of children brought up in a religious household become non religious as adults, demonstrating that non-religiosity cannot be considered learned behaviour in the manner that religiosity can.

But hey why let good old facts and research stop you from having a typical Vlad tantrum.

Unfortunately Dave we have discussed this and I think we disagreed on what the definition of a religious upbringing was.
Anyway sounds like you are building up to a massive argumentum add populum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes Vlad - as adults - you know the term used to describe people over the age of 18.

And why did I use that term - well because it links to the academic research on the topic which shows that nigh on 100% of adults who are religious were brought up as religious (i.e. learned behaviour). However the same isn't true for non religious people, sure nigh on 100% of people not brought up in a religious household will be non religious as adults, but at least 50% of children brought up in a religious household become non religious as adults, demonstrating that non-religiosity cannot be considered learned behaviour in the manner that religiosity can.

But hey why let good old facts and research stop you from having a typical Vlad tantrum.

Would you say this kind of study applies to say the early Christians where nigh on 100% of them weren’t brought up as Christians?

[Stranger]

I don’t reject them as hypotheses. I Think they are unfalsifiable. What I tend to reject is a natural explanation for nature and even then I have not dismissed a necessary universe but ask in what way it is it necessary? I never reject a testable hypothesis.

Firstly, why do you persist with the references to the universe "popping out of nothing"? Secondly, you still haven't produced an argument that gets us from the unknown to your notion of god, so none of the discussion of cosmology constitutes a reason to accept your god as anything better than a random guess.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would agree that people's choice of religion, politics, cultural values as well as their practices of these things are usually heavily influenced  by their upbringing. For example I do charity work but have no interest in the status of holding an official position in a charity unless it helps me complete a task for the charity quicker than I would if I was not holding an official position - this is because this was the exact same approach my parents took to charity work. I have no problem with my parents' attitude to charity work and share the same view. I don't see a problem with following the beliefs and practices of your parents unless the behaviour is causing significant harm to the person or others. Harm is of course hard to define. Lots of beliefs and practices that could be said to cause harm are tolerated by society until the harm becomes too significant to tolerate.

I think many of us follow the exemplars we see as we grow up. Not least because it often defines the boundaries of what we think we can (or should) do and what we cannot (or should not do). And that is why positive mentoring roles are so important, particularly for kids brought up in less advantaged backgrounds who all too often feel that certain things are not attainable for 'people like them'.

So sure we should choose to follow our parents approach if we wish, but the key point here is that it must be a choice. We should feel just as free not to follow our parents' approach if that isn't aligned with our own personal development and aspirations. And as parents we should nature that ability to make those choices and have them respected. That doesn't mean that, as parents, we might not challenge our children (particularly when relatively young) on those choices, but ultimately our children are not us, and we are not our parents.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, why do you persist with the references to the universe "popping out of nothing"? Secondly, you still haven't produced an argument that gets us from the unknown to your notion of god, so none of the discussion of cosmology constitutes a reason to accept your god as anything better than a random guess.

I have no clue what you are saying here. At the risk of you coming out with your usual spatial temporal wibbliwoblium shit why is it wrong to introduce or consider the idea of popping out of nothing........after all Hume did and he seems to be a poster boy around here.

[Gordon]

And I will say thisI do not regard claims of God being incoherent, illogical and contradictory and find it rich coming from people whose Cosmic Godlessness is based on not knowing the explanation of the universe but knowing it wasn’t God combined with a noble ignorance which can’t be accepted by you in anyone who opposes you.

Do you ever read what people tell you and/or take time to think about what they've said?

Again - I'm not saying that 'God' isn't the explanation for "the universe": I saying that there are no good reasons to think that it is.

I have no problem is agreeing that I am ignorant as regards an explanation for the universe, partly because I'm not even sure that the presumption that there is such an explanation is a valid presumption.

[Roses]

Poor Vlad I suppose one should feel sorry for him really.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise. If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only; then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.

And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.



I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.

When I was an atheist at school I got enjoyment in pointing out to the theists at school why their beliefs were illogical / contradictory etc. It wasn't personal. I felt the same way about Islam when I first started engaging with Muslim theology at university and became good enough friends with Muslims to question their beliefs.

So it makes sense that people are interested in challenging ideas put forward on a debate forum.

I remember we had to wear white lab coats for physics, chemistry and biology lessons and everyone used to scribble the names of their favourite boy bands or draw little hearts or personalise their lab coats in some way - this had been allowed for years.  I wrote on the back of mine with a thick black permanent marker in big Gothic script "God did not create Man, Man created God". Sometimes I would walk through school with my lab coat on in between my science lessons for the day. To be fair other people did that too, if they couldn't be bothered to go to the lockers in between lessons. But maybe I was trying to be provocative or maybe I really wanted to express my views to others. Within a month the headmistress said no one in the school was allowed to write on their lab coats. I had to buy a brand new lab coat as washing it did not remove the writing.

[Stranger]

I have no clue what you are saying here. At the risk of you coming out with your usual spatial temporal wibbliwoblium shit why is it wrong to introduce or consider the idea of popping out of nothing........after all Hume did and he seems to be a poster boy around here.

I assume by "spatial temporal wibbliwoblium shit" you mean Einstein's theory of general relativity? Regardless, "popping out of nothing" very loosely, just about describes just one of many hypotheses, so to characterise it as the alternative to the supernatural (as you often seem to do) is a misrepresentation. Hume knew nothing of modern cosmology, so I've no idea what you think he has to do with it.

All of which is just more distraction from the fact that none of these descussions have led to you presenting an argument for your god that can distinguish it from a random guess.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.

There’s no such thing as “atheists” in the sense you’re attempting that we all think the same way, but the “talk of tests” is merely telling you that the burden of proof rests with the theist (or with the leprechaunist for that matter) to explain why his assertions should be taken seriously. That you cannot or will not do that doesn’t make the problem go away.   

Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise.

Atheists are no more “seeking a way of finding God” than you’re seeking a way of finding leprechauns. Why would anyone “seek” anything when there are only unqualified assertions that they exist at all.   

If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only;…

Why do you insist on lying about this?

…then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.

No, it’s just because we’ve been given no good reasons of any kind to conclude otherwise.

And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.

As “that basis” is a lie your supposed questioning is redundant.

I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.

What reason do you have other than not being given good reasons to believe it? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think many of us follow the exemplars we see as we grow up. Not least because it often defines the boundaries of what we think we can (or should) do and what we cannot (or should not do). And that is why positive mentoring roles are so important, particularly for kids brought up in less advantaged backgrounds who all too often feel that certain things are not attainable for 'people like them'.

So sure we should choose to follow our parents approach if we wish, but the key point here is that it must be a choice. We should feel just as free not to follow our parents' approach if that isn't aligned with our own personal development and aspirations. And as parents we should nature that ability to make those choices and have them respected. That doesn't mean that, as parents, we might not challenge our children (particularly when relatively young) on those choices, but ultimately our children are not us, and we are not our parents.

Yes I agree. My parents respected my choices, though they did challenge my atheism because of my refusal to go with them to the temple when I was 13 - but I think that was more to do with me losing my cultural heritage/ not spending family time with them and pulling away, mixed in with a bit of what are we going to tell others at the temple when they ask us where our kids are / what mischief will they get up to left home alone unsupervised on a Friday evening.  They eventually said they did not care what I believed, I had to go with them as there was no problem with atheists going into a temple. They got tired of the arguments and after a while left me at home sometimes and my older brother got to stay home too so I would not be home alone. He was also an atheist but just did not feel the need to proclaim it.

To be fair, not wanting to go to the temple had less to do with atheism than just finding the whole experience so tedious whereby I would struggle to keep my eyes open as soon as the chanting started as it went on for what seemed like forever.

My parents also respected my choice to become a Muslim. I am sure we would be a lot closer if I shared the same world view as them on religion - they are non-practising Hindus and are politely tolerant of my tendency to practice my religion. I am pretty sure my mother finds the praying and fasting a bit silly and I can relate to that perspective but when my children were young and wanted to have a sleep over at their place sometimes during Ramadan, my mother would set her alarm to get up at 3am to help the children with eating something before dawn, which was nice of her.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Poor Vlad I suppose one should feel sorry for him really.

Should we? Why? We don't feel sorry for you that your contributions to the forum are usually limited to "IMO" followed by something a 5 year old could write and ending with "scum".

[Roses]

Should we? Why? We don't feel sorry for you that your contributions to the forum are usually limited to "IMO" followed by something a 5 year old could write and ending with "scum".

Thanks dear, how kind.  Are your contributions any better?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks dear, how kind.  Are your contributions any better?

You're welcome  . Glad you got the message.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the case of religion I must be one of the exceptions - my parents aren't particularly religious though they forced me to go to the Hindu temple with them once a week when I was a child so that I would not lose my culture and heritage. When I became a teen I found the notion of gods implausible and religion seemed stupid so I told them I was an atheist and therefore refused to go to the temple. They left the country when I was 18, and a few years later I started believing in god and became a Muslim about a year after that.

Not sure you are an exception Gabriella - although you have clearly shifted from the religion of your upbringing to a different religion as an adult. But that is a religious to religion shift, not non religious to religious, which is the thing which is very rare.

Now I've had a similar discussion with Vlad, who claimed to have been brought up in a non religious household yet was sent to Sunday School. I think this misunderstands what a non religious household and non religious upbringing means. Let's not forget that only about 10% of people in the UK (probably far less than that) participate in organised religious activities on any kind of regular basis, such as going to church, temple, mosque etc (except for weddings, funerals or perhaps once a year at Christmas). So the 90+% is what a non religious household looks like, what a non religious upbringing looks like - you don't go to church, you don't go to the temple, you don't go to Sunday school etc, etc. So regardless of how you perceive your patents religiosity they were clearly in that tiny proportion of activity religious people as they regularly went to the temple and took you - indeed it would appear that they were fairly insistent you go.

So Gabriella - whichever way you look at it, in the contexts of the research you were brought up in a religious household, not a non religious one.

And it isn't uncommon for people to 'rebel' against their upbringing as a teenager. Indeed it is very common. So you will find all sorts of people who claim to have been atheist and then became religious (Vlad is one I think, and you in a slightly less overt manner is another). But the reality is that you, and Vlad were brought up in a actively religious manner (temple, Sunday School), may have spent some time rebelling against that upbringing but largely folded back into it, albeit in your case into a different religion.

But I think moving from one religion to another is very different from genuinely moving from being non religious to being religious. The point being that most, if not all, religions are based around belief in a god, faith, tradition, custom and ceremony. If you are comfortable with that as you were brought up in that manner, then even a different religion will have very familiar elements to it. If, on the other hand you were brought up in a non religious manner those fundamental elements of religion may seems alien, unfamiliar and frankly unfathomable and implausible.

[ippy]

What's that Shakespearean play called now, ah yes it starts off 'Much ado etc

When you think you're getting through to this bloke it's usually when it's time to move the goal posts, it's not worth the bother.

ippy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not sure you are an exception Gabriella - although you have clearly shifted from the religion of your upbringing to a different religion as an adult. But that is a religious to religion shift, not non religious to religious, which is the thing which is very rare.

Now I've had a similar discussion with Vlad, who claimed to have been brought up in a non religious household yet was sent to Sunday School. I think this misunderstands what a non religious household and non religious upbringing means. Let's not forget that only about 10% of people in the UK (probably far less than that) participate in organised religious activities on any kind of regular basis, such as going to church, temple, mosque etc (except for weddings, funerals or perhaps once a year at Christmas). So the 90+% is what a non religious household looks like, what a non religious upbringing looks like - you don't go to church, you don't go to the temple, you don't go to Sunday school etc, etc. So regardless of how you perceive your patents religiosity they were clearly in that tiny proportion of activity religious people as they regularly went to the temple and took you - indeed it would appear that they were fairly insistent you go.

So Gabriella - whichever way you look at it, in the contexts of the research you were brought up in a religious household, not a non religious one.

And it isn't uncommon for people to 'rebel' against their upbringing as a teenager. Indeed it is very common. So you will find all sorts of people who claim to have been atheist and then became religious (Vlad is one I think, and you in a slightly less overt manner is another). But the reality is that you, and Vlad were brought up in a actively religious manner (temple, Sunday School), may have spent some time rebelling against that upbringing but largely folded back into it, albeit in your case into a different religion.

But I think moving from one religion to another is very different from genuinely moving from being non religious to being religious. The point being that most, if not all, religions are based around belief in a god, faith, tradition, custom and ceremony. If you are comfortable with that as you were brought up in that manner, then even a different religion will have very familiar elements to it. If, on the other hand you were brought up in a non religious manner those fundamental elements of religion may seems alien, unfamiliar and frankly unfathomable and implausible.

Fair enough - if that was the definition of a religious household in the survey then, yes I grew up in one and lost interest because I preferred Friday night TV at home to a temple, became an atheist because I wasn't provided a reason that made sense to me to believe and my parents were accepting of my lack of belief but wanted my cultural participation and wanted me to spend time with them (they both worked during the day), and then when it made sense to me shifted from atheism to a different religion.

There are other cultural practices that I discarded and then folded back into in some way though not exactly like my parents, so being religious is just another one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fair enough - if that was the definition of a religious household in the survey then, yes I grew up in one ...

I think that it is pretty self evidence that in a country where less than one in ten people participate in religious activities such as regularly going to religious worship, then if your household does (or did) then that is a religious household.

I think some people can lack perspective - effectively not seeing the whole spectrum in which the vast majority never engage in religious activity and then conclude that perhaps because they know some people at their church (or temple) who attend more often, or perhaps seems more fervent, or many engage in a range of ancillary activities within the church or temple, then somehow that means their household isn't really religious at all. If your household actively and regularly participate in religious worship or other religious activities then, by definition your household is religious. Non religious households simply don't do that.

[ProfessorDavey]

... then, yes I grew up in one and lost interest because I preferred Friday night TV at home to a temple, became an atheist because I wasn't provided a reason that made sense to me to believe and my parents were accepting of my lack of belief but wanted my cultural participation and wanted me to spend time with them (they both worked during the day), and then when it made sense to me shifted from atheism to a different religion.

There are other cultural practices that I discarded and then folded back into in some way though not exactly like my parents, so being religious is just another one.

Fair enough - and I think you are being honest that religion was very much part of your upbringing and therefore many of those elements that were familiar from childhood resonate within the context of a different religion, but a religion nonetheless.

I think the point is that if you have been brought up in a non-religious household and never exposed to those religious elements and norms then the whole concept can seem very bewildering and the underpinning assumptions (e.g. a god, miracles etc etc) seem completely implausible. And for those brought up in a non religious manner I don't think the notion of merely being active in a cultural or social manner (even if you don't really believe) seems in any way attractive as the norms, culture and ceremony aren't familiar but tend to be rather alien.