The Faith & Religion mega Thread

No, it's not really technical. It's kind of like questioning the basis of truths from a fundamental point.

Whether you believe in God or not, how do you determine what is truth? What will you accept as truth and what level of proof do you need to accept something as the truth? Is mathematical proof the only valid proof of anything? Or are there other kinds of proofs?

I mean these are questions that people should ask whether they believe or not because it will get you thinking about your whole belief system.

You were trying to point out the irony of an atheist calling religious people arrogant because they too state an absolute fact as a part of their belief system. This is incorrect and thus your point about their arrogance is mute.

The fact is (as anyone who gives it much thought is aware) while there may be "absolute truth", we as humans are more than likely incapable of finding it. While I may never find absolute truth, I can through various means find out what isn't true. What I am saying is that evidentialism is pretty much the only way we can ascertain "truth claims". In other words, if someone's religion claims X happened at Y and I find that not to be the case, then I can say with some certainty that the religion's claim that their religious book is infallible to be a lie.

How much evidence is required to accept a claim? That's different for everyone but the fact is, it's not unreasonable to have an expectation for evidence, even if it's just a handful.

You were trying to point out the irony of an atheist calling religious people arrogant because they too state an absolute fact as a part of their belief system. This is incorrect and thus your point about their arrogance is mute

Well, from the evidence of this thread, I've seen quite enough arrogance and it's not been just on one side.

Also wanted to point out that the whole thread is off-topic because it's about individuals ranking their religious beliefs and it has turned out into a huge debate/war between the two sides.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Well, from the evidence of this thread, I've seen quite enough arrogance and it's not been just on one side. Also wanted to point out that the whole thread is off-topic because it's about individuals ranking their religious beliefs and it has turned out into a huge debate/war between the two sides.

Sure, it's hard for a topic about religious belief not to go off topic and I agree arrogance isn't necessarily inherent in religious belief but it happens in a lot of irreligious people because "they know they're right and that those religious people are wrong". I think a study of epistemology, or just different philosophies generally takes the cockiness out of people. I know that when I was in seminary and was exposed to other religions and philosophies, that humbled me greatly and opened me up to a whole new way of thinking rather than sitting back *knowing* I was right.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Well, from the evidence of this thread, I've seen quite enough arrogance and it's not been just on one side.

I have never claimed that all/most religious folks are arrogant. I simply claimed that bluegospel is.

Originally Posted by vharishankar No, it's not really technical. It's kind of like questioning the basis of truths from a fundamental point. Whether you believe in God or not, how do you determine what is truth? What will you accept as truth and what level of proof do you need to accept something as the truth? Is mathematical proof the only valid proof of anything? Or are there other kinds of proofs? I mean these are questions that people should ask whether they believe or not because it will get you thinking about your whole belief system.

I don't think (well, apart from mathematics, and I'm not sure about that because it might be a different category of proof) there are any absolute truths. Even in science sometimes there are only approximations. Having limited resources and incomplete knowledge, we're just not able to KNOW what is 100% true. We can only assume that certain things are true at this particular period of time. Once it was assumed that the earth was the centre of the universe. With more evidence, this theory was revisited.
Therefore, given the knowledge we have today, I can assume that, for example, the theory of gravity is true (and can verify it)
Given the knowledge we have today, we can probably assume that mobile phones may have some harmful effects on your health (there's some evidence to support it but it's still a controversial topic)
Given the knowledge we have today, I can also rather assume that there are no gods/unicorns/spaghetti monsters (so far there hasn't been a shred of valid evidence to support the existence of them)

If people were bit less into absolutism, this thread would make more sense.

As it stands, you've got the typical monothiests declaring that 'the bible/koran/torah is the word of god, and is all true, and the proof is.....the bible/koran/torah'. Atheists declaring 'no gods exist' as though that is a provable fact.

From what I can, amlmost all the atheists here are using middle eastern based monothiesms as a basis for the rejection of religion, with very little knowledge about other religions. That is like rejecting 'open source' because some linux distro started using hyperbole to market thier OS ('super-linux is uncrashable!'), then the other linux distros jumping on the bandwagon ('what, super-linux says its 'uncrashable'? our new mega-linux is not only uncrashable, but it will clean your head and clear your throat!'). If all the linux distros start spouting such nonsense, that does NOT mean that all open source software/OSes are making stupid claims as well.....

Originally Posted by basica Incorrect. An atheist doesn't say "There is no God". An atheist says "I don't believe in any gods". It's a very important distinction. I certainly doubt the existence of God but I cannot say that there isn't one with absolute certainty.

More absolutism? 'Atheism' is more complex than you are allowing. See here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

The position you are taking basica is probably best described as atheistic agnosticism. But thats my opinion, they are both complex terms with many possible meanings.

Originally Posted by cascade9 More absolutism? 'Atheism' is more complex than you are allowing. See here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism The position you are taking basica is probably best described as atheistic agnosticism. But thats my opinion, they are both complex terms with many possible meanings.

Sure, we can argue what the word "atheist" means and I don't really care what label is assigned as no label is perfect. I'm of the position that everyone is an agnostic as no one can "know" if there is or isn't a deity of some sort. I would basically break religious belief into 4 categories:

Strong Atheist
Weak Atheist
Weak Theist
Strong Theist

EDIT: So, basically what I am saying is while it's accurate to describe me as an atheistic agnostic, the label agnostic is redundant as all of us are agnostic and hence I don't use the term of anyone.

Anyways, I realize I cannot speak for *all* atheists as there are some who do actually claim that they *know* there is no deities of any kind. Now that's arrogance right there but it'd still be accurate to label them as an atheist, even though being an atheist doesn't imply the additional belief that one *knows* there is no God.

Originally Posted by cascade9 If people were bit less into absolutism, this thread would make more sense. Atheists declaring 'no gods exist' as though that is a provable fact.

I agree.

It might well not be a provable fact. The reason for the fact that there hasn't been any evidence so far is that it might not be provable at all. I think it's just atheists' reaction to believers mixing up beliefs and facts. As I said before, if only people didn't take what they "believe in" as facts/truths, atheists would have no grounds for any debate.

If you came to me and said: "I personally believe in god", it'd be hard for me to challenge it. It'd be like trying to question your food/music preferences. I can't argue with that. It's your belief/preference. It looks different when people posting here "know" that god exists. They "know" that bible/koran/torah are true words of true god. It's then that atheist posters start asking for proofs. If you "know" it, you must have some evidence to support your knowledge, don't you? If you don't have any evidence, it means that you have no grounds for claiming that you know it and that it's true. You simply believe in it... and here I have no problem whatsoever

I wouldn't have any problems if posters like bluegospel admitted: "There's no way I can know if god really exists, but I deeply believe in it." I wouldn't be able to argue with it. How could I? But no... bluegospel not only seems to know that god exists, he also claims to know god's plans.

Perhaps the problem lies in the way the challenges are being made. A direct "Prove it..." statement is a bit aggressive in my opinion, both in tone and substance. Especially on an online forum with strangers. Yes, I agree that proof is important, but how can anybody "supply" that proof in a thread on an online forum to a stranger probably half-way across the globe and about whom one knows nothing about through the medium of verbal communication and limited to supplying links to sources which might be trashed anyway?

And I believe that when it comes to asking for proof, I think it follows that the thread has reached the end of the purely argumentative/theory discussion possibilities. And from there it goes into circles.

As such, I am glad to see that the tone of this thread is improving from a purely confrontational attitude to one that is willing to explore the topic further, though in my view probably in the thousands odd posts, the topic has been discussed pretty exhaustively already.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 So I'll ask the atheists and agnostics again because I don't see anyone rushing to answer the questions yet How did the universe come about? How did life come about on this planet? How did Homo Sapien Sapien come about and why is there NO actual real link between us and other species of "human ancestor"?

1. Don't know.
2. Don't know.
3. Don't know.
4. Evolution and depending on what you mean by actual, there is. Plus, the evidence doesn't hinge on a particular "missing link".

The problem of course if that you're just making an argument from ignorance, the famous God of the Gaps ploy. Hardly compelling.

Originally Posted by cascade9 From what I can, amlmost all the atheists here are using middle eastern based monothiesms as a basis for the rejection of religion, with very little knowledge about other religions. That is like rejecting 'open source' because some linux distro started using hyperbole to market thier OS ('super-linux is uncrashable!'), then the other linux distros jumping on the bandwagon ('what, super-linux says its 'uncrashable'? our new mega-linux is not only uncrashable, but it will clean your head and clear your throat!'). If all the linux distros start spouting such nonsense, that does NOT mean that all open source software/OSes are making stupid claims as well.....

Primarily because there aren't a lot of non-christians posting their point of view. I just had a long discussion with a Hindu on Facebook who found me through a comment I made on NPR, though. All the religious arguments are the same, though, just change the names. Most of that conversation involved him quoting various religious texts in lieu of actual evidence. And he pretty much came right out and said that some things can only be known by the authority of an appropriately advanced spiritual guru or otherwise through revealed truth and that material evidence was unimportant.

Originally Posted by varishankar What's the difference in actual practice? So it's all a personal stance. So where does that get us?

In practice, religion is just one of a multitude of weird beliefs that plague us. It only gets special attention because of the incredible public support and political power it has. But the point is to promote scientific skepticism, for me at least.

Whether you believe in God or not, how do you determine what is truth? What will you accept as truth and what level of proof do you need to accept something as the truth? Is mathematical proof the only valid proof of anything? Or are there other kinds of proofs?

All propositions for me lie on a continuum of confidence. The proposition that I am really sitting here writing this gets very high confidence, scientific ideas like evolution or quantum theory get somewhat less confidence (because I am not an expert in those fields and must rely on the scientific community), to religious claims which have almost no confidence, for lack of any evidence whatsoever that any religion is anything but a human invention. If God laid down quantum theory in the Bible in an intelligible manner, that would be strong evidence for him, if any religious text ever clearly presented real knowledge about the universe that could not have been known to anyone at the time, it would be evidence. If intercessory prayer had proven to work, it would be evidence. There are many many religious claims that have been made over the millenia and they invariably have been provably wrong. If instead, there was a greater than chance pattern of these claims proving correct, that would be evidence. And then, with multiple lines of evidence converging on the same answer, ie God of whatever sort, I would provisionally accept God's existence, ie, be relatively confident, but open to changing my mind based on new information.

My point throughout this thread has not been that *I* know the truth. It's that no one can possibly know anything about God(s) his/their attributes, etc. Maybe the Bible or other religious text is true, but no one can know. What we can say is that specific religious claims have been debunked. We know there could be no literal Adam and Eve for example, because genetics tells us there was never a bottleneck of only two humans in history. Which undermines the whole edifice a wee bit.

So whenever folks go on about the nature of God and what he/she/they want or desire or meant, my only question is how do you know? And the answer always boils down to faith and revealed truth, which is utterly unacceptable as evidence for anything, let alone constituting knowledge.

must rely on the scientific community

Aha, again you show the basic problem with any kind of belief system. At some stage or the other you rely on somebody else to show you a "proof" which you inherently accept because of your confidence in that person's ability or trustworthiness or simply because enough people say so. At some point you have to accept the truth of that proof otherwise you'd start to doubt everything.

Sure, some science can be accepted on face value because there is visible or sensory evidence, but so much of science is inherently a "belief" unless you trust the scientist to be 100% correct or enough scientists agree with it.

Originally Posted by vharishankar No, it's not really technical. It's kind of like questioning the basis of truths from a fundamental point.

On fundamental point - you cannot determine truth at all. Because you could be a brain in a jar and everything else could be a simulation. Or maybe there's even no brain. Mathematics is another story, because it is strictly defined, it is strictly logical and you can build newer theories based on existing ones - as long as you can provide the proof. As a result, when it comes to real world, people start with fundamental assumptions (everything I and other people percieve is real), and round off probabilities. "I think there's a 0.1% chance that god exists" becomes "I think there is no god". When it comes to science there's assumption that there are fundamental unchanging laws of universe. In other word - an experiment that yields same result will always yield same result in identical conditions. I think Robert Sheckley has written a short story (forgot its name) about everchanging world where your wristwatch could turn into crow and fly away for no reason. Science would have harder time in universe like that, although even such world could probably be reduced to several fundamental laws.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Whether you believe in God or not,

There's gray area, called "I don't know if god exists".

Originally Posted by vharishankar how do you determine what is truth?

You do not determine the truth. You pick a theory that is most convincing and decide that it is true, because if you dig too deep, then you'll run fundamental probelm - you can't prove that anything except you exists (and you don't know what you are), and you can't prove your own existence to anybody else. The difference between skeptic and religious fanatic is "stability" of theory they pick as truth. For a fanatic one word from religious leader may be enough because he/she does not question. Skeptic will test new "theory" (potential "truth"), and check its validity using currently established "truths". Another interesting thing is that (according to discussion with reed9 from few months ago) job of science is to build models (think "mathematical model") of real world. If model proves to be incorrect or if there are errors, it is refined, improved, or discarded. Religion normally claim to know everything from the start.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Atheists declaring 'no gods exist' as though that is a provable fact.

If there's really "no gods", then it would be interesting to see proof of that - as I understand it, disproving existence of every possible god (or proof that no god can exist) requires insane amount of knowledge, so a valid proof of that theory surely would be quite educational. You can try to disprove individual gods, though - one by one, as long as there's a definition.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Perhaps the problem lies in the way the challenges are being made. A direct "Prove it..." statement is a bit aggressive in my opinion, both in tone and substance. Especially on an online forum with strangers. Yes, I agree that proof is important, but how can anybody "supply" that proof in a thread on an online forum to a stranger probably half-way across the globe and about whom one knows nothing about through the medium of verbal communication and limited to supplying links to sources which might be trashed anyway?

Yes, but don't you think that challenges are appropriate to the claims here? I'll repeat what I said before: If you believe in something, it'd be weird of me to ask you to prove your beliefs. If you claim you know something is true, I'm inevitably going to ask you to prove it.

Originally Posted by vharishankar And I believe that when it comes to asking for proof, I think it follows that the thread has reached the end of the purely argumentative/theory discussion possibilities. And from there it goes into circles.

It does go in circles and therefore is rather pointless.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Sure, some science can be accepted on face value because there is visible or sensory evidence, but so much of science is inherently a "belief" unless you trust the scientist to be 100% correct or enough scientists agree with it.

I think in most areas of science the scientists themselves are not 100% sure of their findings. The claims/theories are only valid until new evidence comes in. I also don't put 100% confidence in them because they NEVER claim (and wouldn't ever claim) that a particular scientific theory is the ultimate truth that will never be revised.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Aha, again you show the basic problem with any kind of belief system. At some stage or the other you rely on somebody else to show you a "proof" which you inherently accept because of your confidence in that person's ability or trustworthiness or simply because enough people say so. At some point you have to accept the truth of that proof otherwise you'd start to doubt everything. Sure, some science can be accepted on face value because there is visible or sensory evidence, but so much of science is inherently a "belief" unless you trust the scientist to be 100% correct or enough scientists agree with it.

You miss the point. Belief, as I mean it, is basically any proposition we take to be true. As such, everything is belief. That's not at issue. The issue is what justifies belief.

All scientific truth is provisional, but roughly, we are justified in believing it because it works, we wouldn't have computers and planes and rockets to the moon if scientific truths were not at least close to reality. Also, it is accessible in principle to anyone. There are no revealed truths, no privileged access to truth. No matter who or where you are, the earth revolves around the sun, the inverse square law of gravity holds, etc. etc.. We trust the evidence of science in part because science is self-correcting, whatever its flaws or the flaws of individual scientists, science celebrates objective inquiry and dissent. When a group declares they have evidence of neutrinos going faster than light, scientists don't say, "NO! Thou shalt not contradict his holiness Einstein." Scientists say, ok, could be, but relativity has a huge amount of evidence behind it, so let's make absolutely sure you haven't made a mistake somewhere and that the results can be replicated. If so, we'll look to revise relativity. There's no authorities in science, only experts, and experts can be wrong.

Bertrand Russell offered advice for the lay person on how to assess expert opinion:
(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) thet when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.