What would it take?

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What would it take?

This is a question for theists - what would it take for you to STOP believing in God? Obviously, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, so don't even try going there. If nothing would get you to do this, doesn't that make you something other than open minded?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
whenever a good argument is

whenever a good argument is presented to them, they just follow SoldierInGodsArmy and close their eyes and say "jesus jesus jesus!"


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Well we already know that

Well we already know that scientific evidence to the contrary does not affect their belief in jeebas/yahweh/allah. I don't think you are going to get many interesting answers to this one. I tried this a while back and not much came of it, maybe you will have a better turnout.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Whatever it would take for

Whatever it would take for for a truly scientific person to know, from an unscientific standpoint, that the universe was created through one--as opposed to many-- particular series of events described in a theory of science, that might be enough.


Until such a time that I must make that decision.. I find Christian Theism a reasonable alternative to Atheistic humanism.

I consider it a much easier task to prove where a theist is fundamentally irrational in his/her belief--something I would consider myself very open to seeing. (As much as an irrational person can be in accordance with his own irrationality. Heh.)

On a sidenote, I would contend that most everyone is "something other than open minded".

I am of course assuming that where you put "God", I can put "X belief" and still keep in line with the definition.

Anyways. Smiling I've asked this question a few times.. it's interesting to see what kind of answer one gets.

The problem is that it's all hypothetical--and even a person who believes he's telling the truth is only speaking of what he 'hopes' or 'believes' will be the case.

Similar to the question: What would you do if offered 500k to testify against an individual you knew to be innocent (of murder)?

or..

If you saw someone being mugged would you jump in to stop it?

or..

To save X Y & Z, would you give up X?

Of course.. just because the answers aren't absolute.. doesn't mean I don't find it interesting to ask. Smiling


DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
wait what??? theory of

wait what??? theory of science???


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
theory of science???

As in.. a theory of science.. not as.. science is a theory. Heh.. Smiling Sorry if that was the confusion.

If you're asking what I mean in saying "a theory of science"-- then.

"A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena." -Wiki.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Whatever it would take for for a truly scientific person to know, from an unscientific standpoint, that the universe was created through one--as opposed to many-- particular series of events described in a theory of science, that might be enough.

So you want a specific scientific theory describing the creation of the universe, explained such that anyone can understand it?  One thing I think scientists will agree on is that the Genesis account is higly implausible.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Until such a time that I must make that decision.. I find Christian Theism a reasonable alternative to Atheistic humanism.

I have to wonder why you feel that you must come to a conclusion rather than saying "I don't know right now." Isn't it more reasonable to admit when you don't know something that to arbitrarily decide to believe in something that makes little sense in the first place?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I consider it a much easier task to prove where a theist is fundamentally irrational in his/her belief--something I would consider myself very open to seeing. (As much as an irrational person can be in accordance with his own irrationality. Heh.)

On a sidenote, I would contend that most everyone is "something other than open minded".

I think I agree with you here. In fact, I don't think that open-mindedness is necessarily a good thing in all cases. I strive to be open-minded to good arguments and new evidence, and even the conclusions of competant scientists, but I am decidedly and intentionally closed-minded to purely subjective emotional experiential "arguments", and to the attempts by theologians and preachers to encroach upon the domain of science.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

The problem is that it's all hypothetical--and even a person who believes he's telling the truth is only speaking of what he 'hopes' or 'believes' will be the case.

Just because we do not know the answer to a question does not mean that it does not have a real, correct, objective answer.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So you want a

Quote:
So you want a specific scientific theory describing the creation of the universe, explained such that anyone can understand it?  One thing I think scientists will agree on is that the Genesis account is higly implausible.

That's not what I stated at all.  I know of a few scientific theories that describe the 'creation' of the universe independent of a God figure-- I consider them possible if not plausible.  Infinite time, infinite space.. somethings bound to happen at sometime I always say.

Quote:
I have to wonder why you feel that you must come to a conclusion rather than saying "I don't know right now." Isn't it more reasonable to admit when you don't know something that to arbitrarily decide to believe in something that makes little sense in the first place?

As of now, on this subject, I do say "I don't know right now".. this is not to say that I cannot "arbitrarily decide" on the basis of what I perceive to be useful, relevant, to act on a "belief" of what is real.  All people do this (I believe it can be argued)-- the process isn't unique to religion.

"Little sense in the first place" however, I must contend with. Smiling

Quote:
I think I agree with you here. In fact, I don't think that open-mindedness is necessarily a good thing in all cases. I strive to be open-minded to good arguments and new evidence, and even the conclusions of competant scientists, but I am decidedly and intentionally closed-minded to purely subjective emotional experiential "arguments", and to the attempts by theologians and preachers to encroach upon the domain of science.

I would agree that "subjective emotional" experience should not be held as if it were anything more than that-- people can choose to measure its meaningfulness as they see fit.

As for the "the attempt of theologians and preachers" to encroach upon the domain of science.

Not if they're being scientific.. anyone can be scientific in their approach-- but yes, I would that it's an easy line to be on the wrong side of when it comes to theologians and preachers.

Quote:
Just because we do not know the answer to a question does not mean that it does not have a real, correct, objective answer.

Agreed.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
So you want a specific scientific theory describing the creation of the universe, explained such that anyone can understand it?  One thing I think scientists will agree on is that the Genesis account is higly implausible.

That's not what I stated at all.  I know of a few scientific theories that describe the 'creation' of the universe independent of a God figure-- I consider them possible if not plausible.  Infinite time, infinite space.. somethings bound to happen at sometime I always say.

I guess I don't really know what you were talking about then. Can you elaborate? I have to admit that I had to read your first paragraph several times, I guess I failed to see what you were getting at.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
As of now, on this subject, I do say "I don't know right now".. this is not to say that I cannot "arbitrarily decide" on the basis of what I perceive to be useful, relevant, to act on a "belief" of what is real.  All people do this (I believe it can be argued)-- the process isn't unique to religion.

So, are you saying that you have arbitrarily decided on Christianity because you perceive it to be useful? That doesn't seem like a belief at all.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
"Little sense in the first place" however, I must contend with. Smiling

I would point to the death and resurrection of Jesus as something that makes little sense, and it is quite fundamental to Christianity.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
As for the "the attempt of theologians and preachers" to encroach upon the domain of science.

Not if they're being scientific.. anyone can be scientific in their approach-- but yes, I would that it's an easy line to be on the wrong side of when it comes to theologians and preachers.

Anyone can take a scientific approach, but the people who attempt literal interpretations of Genesis do not succeed in doing so despite their attempts to appear that they do.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I guess I don't

Quote:
I guess I don't really know what you were talking about then. Can you elaborate? I have to admit that I had to read your first paragraph several times, I guess I failed to see what you were getting at.

I made out an extremely qualified statement in order to point out something I perceive to be true regarding science, the beginning of the universe, and certainty.

Science seems to be a system of eternal questioning.

The beginning of the universe seems to be a thing that cannot be recreated or observed.

Certainty, with regards to the beginning of the universe, cannot be known (especially by a truly scientific person) because of the vast amounts of evidences coupled with the seemingly endless ways in which they can be fit together into a construct known as a "theory".

So, I say, whatever it takes for a truly scientific person to be convinced that he knows, on a personal level, that the world started with respects to a particular theory-- that is what it would take.

It's not impossible.. it's just, unlikely, because of unique characteristics of "universal beginning" and "science".

Quote:
So, are you saying that you have arbitrarily decided on Christianity because you perceive it to be useful? That doesn't seem like a belief at all.

"Arbitrarily decided" to believe something..

The same way I "arbitrarily decided" to believe that everything I see is not a figment of my imagination..

There is no way I will be sure and there are plenty of other possibilities, all equally possible and logical, just.. aren't perceived as very useful to believe.  As so I've chose to accept it, to "believe it", and act in accordance with that belief.

With this "arbitrary decision".. I see life through a particular prism.  

With regards to "everyone existing" the prism is "external existence"-- not only me.

With regards to "Christianity" the prism is "external reason"-- not only this.

Quote:
I would point to the death and resurrection of Jesus as something that makes little sense, and it is quite fundamental to Christianity.

I understand this.  Yet, I was contending on a personal level.. even as you were asserting on one.

Quote:
Anyone can take a scientific approach, but the people who attempt literal interpretations of Genesis do not succeed in doing so despite their attempts to appear that they do.

I'm not a literalist.. so, I can't (or won't) say.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Science

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Science seems to be a system of eternal questioning.

I think I agree with this, as long as it's understood that this does not preclude coming to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
The beginning of the universe seems to be a thing that cannot be recreated or observed.

I'm not sure. I don't even think it's appropriate to assume right now that there was a beginning. All I could really do is speculate.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Certainty, with regards to the beginning of the universe, cannot be known (especially by a truly scientific person) because of the vast amounts of evidences coupled with the seemingly endless ways in which they can be fit together into a construct known as a "theory".

There are certainly a lot of possible explanations for the universe, but I think the Christian god can be safely ruled out because it is not one of the possabilities. The Bible is full of things that could not happen.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
So, I say, whatever it takes for a truly scientific person to be convinced that he knows, on a personal level, that the world started with respects to a particular theory-- that is what it would take.

It's not impossible.. it's just, unlikely, because of unique characteristics of "universal beginning" and "science".

I'm not sure what you mean by 'on a personal level'. Why would a scientist's personal feelings on a subject be more worthwhile than, say, a widespread consensus of many scientists?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
So, are you saying that you have arbitrarily decided on Christianity because you perceive it to be useful? That doesn't seem like a belief at all.

"Arbitrarily decided" to believe something..

The same way I "arbitrarily decided" to believe that everything I see is not a figment of my imagination..

Well, that is certainly a more fundamental question than the one at hand. I guess I still entertain doubt on this question as well, even though I consider it is unlikely that everything is a figment of my imagination. I feel that that is a position which can be supported by some evidence.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
There is no way I will be sure and there are plenty of other possibilities, all equally possible and logical, just.. aren't perceived as very useful to believe.  As so I've chose to accept it, to "believe it", and act in accordance with that belief.

This sounds like a variant of Pascal's Wager. I would dispute the equality of the possibility of the competing hypotheses. For instance, it is very unlikely that a personal god could exist because there is no evidence that any such thing has ever involved itself with life on Earth. This is only an example; you haven't said what specifically you believe in, and I don't know you believe in a personal god.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I think I agree with this, as long as it's understood that this does not preclude coming to conclusions with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Agreed. Yet.. even scientific "reasonable certainties" have been known to change from time to time. Yes, I agree though.

Quote:
I'm not sure. I don't even think it's appropriate to assume right now that there was a beginning. All I could really do is speculate.

Agreed. My statement was not qualified. I realize that there are theories out there which do not include a "beginning".

Quote:
There are certainly a lot of possible explanations for the universe, but I think the Christian god can be safely ruled out because it is not one of the possabilities. The Bible is full of things that could not happen.

I won't get into a conversation about this in this thread since.. well-- the question was not "X is filled with things that cannot happen, let's discuss!"-- it was merely "What would it take?"

Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'on a personal level'. Why would a scientist's personal feelings on a subject be more worthwhile than, say, a widespread consensus of many scientists?

I state "on a personal level" because, as a "truly scientific person", one would probably never, with regards to the earlier assertion, state that he "knows" to a certainty that something is true. So he must accept it on a personal level despite the fact that science, itself, does not allow him to make the belief. To "know" is to stop searching and testing.. which I don't believe science, a methodology, can do.

Quote:
Well, that is certainly a more fundamental question than the one at hand. I guess I still entertain doubt on this question as well, even though I consider it is unlikely that everything is a figment of my imagination. I feel that that is a position which can be supported by some evidence.

Please. Site some evidence. I'm pretty sure this particular problem is a dilemma because all evidence you would site would be circularly based upon the truth of that which you are trying to evidence.

Granted.. within the previous statement.. I am speaking of "scientific evidence".

Quote:
This sounds like a variant of Pascal's Wager. I would dispute the equality of the possibility of the competing hypotheses. For instance, it is very unlikely that a personal god could exist because there is no evidence that any such thing has ever involved itself with life on Earth. This is only an example; you haven't said what specifically you believe in, and I don't know you believe in a personal god.

Perhaps a variant.. yet I don't believe in the whole "lost nothing" "lost everything" "gained everything" trichotomy.

I would have to contend with your assertion that there is "no evidence" for a "personal God", it is merely evidence that can be interpreted multiple ways and does not necessitate a personal God. A similar relationship exists with all the theories regarding universal beginning (or non-beginning).. lots of evidence, just, can be interpreted different ways.

As for what I believe. I am a theist.. as my tag rightly states.. therefore I believe in a personal God. To believe in anything else I would consider pointless for me with regards to "God beliefs" (e.g. polytheism, deism, pantheism, etc.).  Atheism, however, has a unique category of its own with regards to my opinion thereof.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: I won't

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I won't get into a conversation about this in this thread since.. well-- the question was not "X is filled with things that cannot happen, let's discuss!"-- it was merely "What would it take?"

Fair enough. I'm not looking to hijack the thread either, I just want to clarify your original response, since I didn't quite understand what you meant by it.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I state "on a personal level" because, as a "truly scientific person", one would probably never, with regards to the earlier assertion, state that he "knows" to a certainty that something is true. So he must accept it on a personal level despite the fact that science, itself, does not allow him to make the belief. To "know" is to stop searching and testing.. which I don't believe science, a methodology, can do.

I don't think 'knowing' means that you stop questioning your conclusion at all. It just means that you are sufficiently satisfied with the evidence that you feel you can assume it correct until prooven otherwise. Unquestionable certainty is something that religion often demands, but science never does.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
Well, that is certainly a more fundamental question than the one at hand. I guess I still entertain doubt on this question as well, even though I consider it is unlikely that everything is a figment of my imagination. I feel that that is a position which can be supported by some evidence.

Please. Site some evidence. I'm pretty sure this particular problem is a dilemma because all evidence you would site would be circularly based upon the truth of that which you are trying to evidence.

I don't really think this thread is the place to get into this question, but I will point out that, as I said before, I still entertain significant doubt on the matter and do not consider it well-settled at all. If you would like to discuss the reasons either way, perhaps we could take it to another thread, but I'll leave that up to you.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I would have to contend with your assertion that there is "no evidence" for a "personal God", it is merely evidence that can be interpreted multiple ways and does not necessitate a personal God. A similar relationship exists with all the theories regarding universal beginning (or non-beginning).. lots of evidence, just, can be interpreted different ways.

I don't see how you can call something evidence for the existence of a personal god if it can be interpretted as something else. It seems that, when there are multiple known reasonable interpretations of a piece of evidence, an honest person must acknowledge the uncertainty rather than assuming one to be true arbitrarily.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Fair enough. I'm not

Quote:
Fair enough. I'm not looking to hijack the thread either, I just want to clarify your original response, since I didn't quite understand what you meant by it.

No pasa nada.

Quote:
I don't think 'knowing' means that you stop questioning your conclusion at all. It just means that you are sufficiently satisfied with the evidence that you feel you can assume it correct until prooven otherwise. Unquestionable certainty is something that religion often demands, but science never does.

That is why I am speaking from a personal level.  Think of this-- think about whatever stereotype you have of theist (you mentioned "unquestionable certainty" as a marker-- but in anycase, it could be something else).

Now.. whatever would allow a scientist to have this level of certainty with regards to a particular "universe theory"-- that might be enough.

Now.. I'm not saying that I have this level of certainty with regards to theism-- however, I believe that my beliefs are a valid model of how the world came into being and why it is the way it is.

Of course.. the model is open to change.

Quote:
I don't really think this thread is the place to get into this question, but I will point out that, as I said before, I still entertain significant doubt on the matter and do not consider it well-settled at all. If you would like to discuss the reasons either way, perhaps we could take it to another thread, but I'll leave that up to you.

Heh.  Alright.  I'll ask the question in this forum.  I'm pretty sure the all the answers will be based upon "a necessity to accept in order to meet a perceived necessity to survive".

Quote:
I don't see how you can call something evidence for the existence of a personal god if it can be interpretted as something else. It seems that, when there are multiple known reasonable interpretations of a piece of evidence, an honest person must acknowledge the uncertainty rather than assuming one to be true arbitrarily.

The pursuit of useful knowledge is filled with things that are "true arbitrarily".

Once again.. I must point to the question above.  What evidence do you have that anyone exists as a separate entity from yourself? So therefore, if you be a scientist, by extension of the first question, you accept a disease to be real for the sake of helping others, because you have arbitrarily accepted that they are in fact "others" to be helped.

I do not mean to tear are knowledge down, far from it, merely try some equality between groups.  I truly feel that if atheist believe themselves to be rational and theist to be irrational, no "meaningful" progress will come about-- even as I feel that if theist believe themselves to be rational and atheist irrational, no "meaningful" progress will come about.

There seems to be an air of elitism, that finds it home in many places.

As for "evidence".. "evidence", in the most basis sense, is just "basis for a belief"-- the spectrum goes from A to Z, from "feelings" to "a rock".  "Evidence" is not necessarily "universally mandated as acceptable evidence" or "scientific evidence"-- it is merely, evidence.

Anycase. Now to ask the question and see what happens.  I've always been a bit tentative about starting threads.. :/