Problem with the arguments

[Kheldarson]

Since we've massively pulled a politics thread off-topic and into the realm of religion, I figured I'd see if I couldn't pull that argument over here so that thread can go back on topic.

So let's have the arguments for and against religion here.

But I'm going to submit that there can be no winner; no convincing of absolute truths for those who argue, and for one major reason:

We aren't starting from the same collective premise.

This isn't an argument of law where we collectively agree that some laws have merit and then present why or why not a law has merit under our definitions of what makes a law good or not based on complete empirical evidence. This isn't an argument of social mores, where we agree that some behavior is decent or indecent and can make arguments using real world examples.

This is an argument of faith. And the problem with the arguments for or against faith is simply this: we can't collectively agree if God exists or not.

If my arguments for my beliefs come from the logical starting point of the existence of God, this will never convince someone who believes He does not. The same holds true in reverse.

That being said, let's use this thread to have that discussion out instead of the politics thread. I'm not personally interested in continuing the discussion, as stated, without a collective starting point, it's going to be talking to brick walls and I don't feel like writing my dissertation yet. I've got another political/religious topic for my doctoral in mind.

But I will leave these more learned men to argue for the existence of God. They had more time to study than I, so if they cannot convince you, then who am I to?

St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Peter Kreeft's Twenty Arguments for God

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

We aren't starting from the same collective premise.

This is, btw why political arguments fail as well. Sure you can cerebrally wank the supposed fallacies of the other side, but once you get to the arguments of the more intelligent of the other side what you generally find is certain assumptions are simply different. In that argument it's often the degree with which society is obligated to treat its weakest members. Of course it is also framed differently such as individual freedom (social contract talk is hilariously circular) but it's usually the same thing.

When it comes to this topic I had exhausted my interest by 20 and I became convinced that vocal of both sides were the same type of people by about 22 because they could not drop it. Frankly I love reading the more intelligent arguments of both sides in their... well most intellectual form. The problem is, when Atheists and Theists get together and do this, it often sounds like a less intelligent greatest hits record. So for me, I've been quite comfy with my agnosticism or like David Hume (who is often considered Atheist), rather I am irrelgious. Or, as some atheists would call me "intellectually lazy."

So if we're throwing out reading material, let me toss out Russell's Why I'm Not a Christian and Am I an Agnostic or an Atheist. What is telling about these, is you can basically lay out New Atheism and essentially point quite quickly to the dearth of new thoughts on this topic. Rather, the change tends to be one of being more vocal and more directly argumentative with religious people. Also Russell was not speaking at a time where science could directly contradict as many parts of the bible.

That said, if you talk to a religious leader that's had serious study, they are usually fluent in the metaphorical aspects of the texts they're using, the history of them, the problems with translation, and why certain parts got emphasized historically. How scholastic and how simple they make it depends on the audience. I generally encourage people who are serious about their atheism that if they truly want to know what the counterarguments (at least in Christianity) are to generally just have a friendly discussion with the highest level Catholic you can find (Bishop, Cardinal) and keep it philisophical rather than confrontational. They can be fascinating discussions even if you choose not to believe. And I say Catholic not because there aren't learned protestants, but just because it's more of a grab bag with no hierarchy and you're just as easily going to find a scholar as an idiot with cult of personality which makes it a bastian of confirmation bias.

[Andara Bledin]

But I'm going to submit that there can be no winner; no convincing of absolute truths for those who argue...

I said as much in the thread in question.

This is an argument that's been hashed out dozens of time on this very forum, and it's really shocking that the one person whose absolutely been here for every round is bringing it up again.

[Rapscallion]

Since this is about the existence or non-existence of a divine being, it would be good if people were to put forward their definition of a divine being.

This is partly motivated by the learned expectation I have of every time I counter a point, someone else pops up saying, "That's not how the god I believe in works."

Come on theists, you're claiming you have a god, so bring your versions forward.

My views are pretty simple. I do what I can to not shit on people who don't deserve it. I'll cheerfully shit on those who do. Most of the time I don't want to engage with the religious in debate, but right now I think it required of me to speak up. I have yet to see any credible evidence that there is a divine being of any sort. Since studies of religious claims have yet to provide anything regarded as credible evidence (reproducible and measurable), I conduct myself as if there are no supernatural beings as described.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

It's fine that you conduct yourself as if there is no divine being. That's great.

When you state as fact that those who believe that there is or might be a divine being are wrong, that makes it look like you have some answer that nobody else does.

You don't know that they're wrong. You believe that they're wrong based on the evidence currently available. And you could be right.

My issue with the debate is when people who claim to set so much store by scientific theory not only pretend that it can do things it isn't designed to do, but then go ahead and eschew it entirely when it doesn't lend enough support for their claims.

Also, the argument often isn't whether there is or is not a god. That's a shifting of goalposts that is used to frame the argument in a manner that is unwinnable.

The basic truth is that I have no proof that there is or is not a god. No more than you do. I don't claim to have all the answers, unlike you. My claim is that I believe there is a God. No more, no less. Whether you believe there is a god or not, or whether science fails to find evidence of there being a god is utterly and ultimately irrelevant.

If proof is brought forth that there is no god, then I'll change my position. As it stands, however, there is nothing that argues the lack of a god and my personal belief in such a thing enriches my personal life without damaging anyone else's.

So, to anyone that has a problem with me believing in a god: Go get stuffed. It's not hurting you, it's not hurting me, and the only problems I have as related to my faith are the oppressive assholes who think they know better than I how to live my life.

[Rageaholic]

This is partly motivated by the learned expectation I have of every time I counter a point, someone else pops up saying, "That's not how the god I believe in works."

That's most theological debates in a nutshell. You'll say God's a tyrant for sending people to hell, but they'll argue that God doesn't really do that. You just have to interpret it the right way.

Though at least they admit that it's a matter of how you interpret it. Some apologists think that their way is the only way to interpret it. Even though they jump through similar hoops to explain away the contradictions. It's why I'm fine with just admitting that I don't have the answers.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Raps, I'm just going to cut this section from the Book of Mormon (the musical) which is stated by Joseph Smith.

Oh, God... why are you letting me die?
Without having me
Show people the plates?
They'll have no proof I was
Telling the truth or not.
They'll have to believe it just...
Cause.
Oh! I guess that's kinda what you
Were going for....
Blargggh...


So when you say

I have yet to see any credible evidence that there is a divine being of any sort.

the response has to be, well obviously.

One can't have faith in a provable thing. That's called knowledge. If you choose to not believe without knowledge, most people are fine with that as that's just skepticism. Some people aren't, but they are... well dicks.

In all honesty, this is a non argument because both people on both sides would absolutely change their position with incontrovertible proof. But that's probably not going to come either way. And since arguing religious text is arguing metaphors written at different times by different people, it takes on an extremely Sisyphusian punishment type quality.

[Rageaholic]

One can't have faith in a provable thing. That's called knowledge. If you choose to not believe without knowledge, most people are fine with that as that's just skepticism. Some people aren't, but they are... well dicks.

The issue with faith is that you're essentially being told "shut up, stop asking questions, and just believe". Now I know a lot of people admit that their religion is just something they believe in, but there are a lot of fundamentalists who believe that their faith is the absolute truth and everyone should adhere to the teachings. In which case, telling someone to "just have faith" doesn't fly.

[Ladeeda]

Meanwhile, some athiests tell others "shut up, stop asking questions, and don't believe", which is just as bad.

It's the telling others what to think/believe that's the problem, regardless of what that belief is or isn't.

[Andara Bledin]

It's the telling others what to think/believe that's the problem, regardless of what that belief is or isn't.

This! This right here!

Evangelicals on either side are irritating assholes. They aren't winning any converts and are just pissing off everyone they try to convert and pushing people away from their side in the process.

You could be 100% right with more evidence than we have for gravity, but if you're a know-it-all asshole who claims that those who don't think like you are stupid or foolish, you're just going to make them move further towards whatever it is they believe and remember you whenever anyone else brings it up.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The issue with faith is that you're essentially being told "shut up, stop asking questions, and just believe". Now I know a lot of people admit that their religion is just something they believe in, but there are a lot of fundamentalists who believe that their faith is the absolute truth and everyone should adhere to the teachings. In which case, telling someone to "just have faith" doesn't fly.

Yes, if my definition of a religious person is a firebreathing zealot. Do you think that is a fair interpretation of a majority of religious people? If you do, then yes the position makes sense. I just don't think sociologically speaking you will find the vast majority in the 1st world of that opinion. It's the same reason my picture of the average atheist is not Bill Maher.

Now religions in 3rd world countries you could make some hay in, but you would find it impossible to decouple violence from economic variables. You just wouldn't be able to do it.

[Rageaholic]

Yes, if my definition of a religious person is a firebreathing zealot. Do you think that is a fair interpretation of a majority of religious people? If you do, then yes the position makes sense. I just don't think sociologically speaking you will find the vast majority in the 1st world of that opinion. It's the same reason my picture of the average atheist is not Bill Maher.

Now religions in 3rd world countries you could make some hay in, but you would find it impossible to decouple violence from economic variables. You just wouldn't be able to do it.

I specifically said that I know not all religious people are like that.

[Andara Bledin]

I specifically said that I know not all religious people are like that.

No, you said something that likely meant the same but didn't actually say that at all. It was not at all a qualifier to the prior statement about religion as stated.

I have a question for everybody involved in the debate:

Replace religion with placebos. Giving a person a placebo and letting them believe it is medicine is proven to work. Because the person had faith that what they were taking was medicine. Since it can be proven that they are not taking medicine, does that mean the practice of using the placebo effect to treat the patient should be stopped? After all, doctors are lying to them in order to make them believe something that is not true. How is this any better than allowing someone to believe in faith when it causes no harm? Why should it be ok to believe things in the name of science but not in the name of religion?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I can't really answer that one but I think it has something to do with the way medical ethics are constructed which probably stems from being a profession that had to differentiate itself from snakeoil salesman.

I think placebo's get specifically used during studies only in which case the patient has given informed consent. I'm not really sure how to logically tie the two together.

[Panacea]

Since this is about the existence or non-existence of a divine being, it would be good if people were to put forward their definition of a divine being.

I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the Triune God of the Roman Catholic Church. One God, three mysterious aspects.

This is partly motivated by the learned expectation I have of every time I counter a point, someone else pops up saying, "That's not how the god I believe in works

You have to learn to separate the belief in God from the dogma and doctrine of a particular aspect of the faith. I'll address mine, since I'm Catholic and I can make a better point from using my own faith.

Even in Catholicism, which has a very hierarchical structure, there is room for interpretation and discussion. Catholics have been discussing, debating, and fiddling with their beliefs for 2000 years. The Church does actually change from time to time. At a glacial pace, true. But it does change. Very little is actually set in stone; the things that are are referred to as dogma and bear the seal of the Magesterium.

The vast majority of the teachings of the Catholic Church (which are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are not dogma. They do not bear the seal of the Magesterium, meaning the Pope has not used his authority to speak ex cathedra on matters of faith. So while the teachings are official for the Church, there is room for discussion, questions, and debate. That's what theologians do. There are a variety of opinions on some topics. There are factions within the Church who push for change. In the very early Church, priests could marry. There is a push to restore this. Girls at one time could not be altar servers. Now they can. While I don't expect major changes in church practices under Francis, I do think that in the next 100 years or so we'll see female deacons and marriage of male priests (deacons are already allowed to marry). I think we'll see softer stances on homosexuality.

This is why I keep saying I don't have to check my brain at the door as a Catholic. If I start contesting the Trinity, then I've got problems. But I can question the Church's stances on homosexuality, abortion, in vitro fertilization, and other things openly . . . though if I'm too open I can expect correction. But excommunication is pretty rare; I'd have to really be extreme to do that. There are Catholic organizations who openly advocate on a variety of positions not in line with church teachings. So it really isn't the "my way or the highway" that many people often assume.

The issue with faith is that you're essentially being told "shut up, stop asking questions, and just believe". Now I know a lot of people admit that their religion is just something they believe in, but there are a lot of fundamentalists who believe that their faith is the absolute truth and everyone should adhere to the teachings. In which case, telling someone to "just have faith" doesn't fly.

No, it doesn't fly. Granted, there are sects that do this. But not all do. I've never been told to shut up, stop asking questions, and just believe: not as a Catholic, not when I was a Methodist (I'm a convert to Catholicism, not a cradle Catholic). My parents always encouraged me to ask questions, and the vast majority of ministers of various Protestant faiths I came in contact with over the years encouraged that as well. So did friends of mine who are Bahai (they have no formal ministers), friends of mine who were Wiccan (one was a priestess), and friends of mine who were Muslim and Buddhists.

Now I have met preachers (mostly Protestants, a Catholic nun once, a couple of Muslims) who were of the don't question variety. They were more the exception than the rule, but I do know that they are out there and they do a lot of damage to people with this mindset.

I have a question for everybody involved in the debate:

Replace religion with placebos. Giving a person a placebo and letting them believe it is medicine is proven to work. Because the person had faith that what they were taking was medicine. Since it can be proven that they are not taking medicine, does that mean the practice of using the placebo effect to treat the patient should be stopped? After all, doctors are lying to them in order to make them believe something that is not true. How is this any better than allowing someone to believe in faith when it causes no harm? Why should it be ok to believe things in the name of science but not in the name of religion?

That's an apples vs oranges argument. Usually the patient does not know they are taking a placebo. They know if they are following faith or not.

Sometimes giving a placebo can cause harm if it results in the patient not getting needed care. Likewise, follow the precepts of some religions, especially cults which are based more on personality than they are the following of God or a god, can also be harmful. Remember, faith and religion are not the same thing. Faith is a belief in God. Religion is the hows and whys of the process by which we worship that God.

I can't really answer that one but I think it has something to do with the way medical ethics are constructed which probably stems from being a profession that had to differentiate itself from snakeoil salesman.

I think placebo's get specifically used during studies only in which case the patient has given informed consent. I'm not really sure how to logically tie the two together.

It is not ethical to give a patient a placebo unless they are participating in a controlled double blind study for which they have signed informed consent and agree that a placebo may in fact be given instead of the experimental treatment. In such cases, the use of placebos is in fact ethical because the patient has agreed to take them.

The problems ethically with placebos don't arise from issues of medical quakery so much as they arise from treating patients as dignified human beings. When we give a placebo instead of a treatment we are in essence making decisions regarding health care for the patient, and doing it deceptively. The physician is playing God.

With snake oil salesmen, the issue is fraud; he is trying to get money from the patient by selling false hope, knowing the treatment won't work and not caring.