The Religious are Mentally Ill

[Geodude]

Originally Posted by Azrael

Yeah, that sounds about right. To further demonstrate my point, I would challenge you to provide me with a knowledge claim that is absent any epistemological suppositions.

A priori knowledge has no epistemological suppositions.

Originally Posted by Azrael

To me, it seems little more than a red herring with little actual relevance to the debate, if the participants are already operating under the same epistemological beliefs.

Only irrelevant if you presume people are aware of their epistemological beliefs. I am, and you clearly are. But in my experience in debates amongst non-philosophers, typically people are actually very unaware of their epistemological beliefs. Further, very often when you try and set such parameters, it becomes a rather vexed issue. Having gone from several years of formal education, to dealing with stupid people all day, I have learned the need to clarify the terms of the debate, as the stuff you take for granted may simply not be so for others.

Taking this point further, many of the atheists who I have heard saying they know god doesn't exist, upon examination were not willing to accept any level of doubt or fallibility around science, or knowledge. In light of that, pointing out that their point of view is a leap of faith too is a useful and effective rhetorical point. It was to such people that my original post was directed.

Originally Posted by Azrael

From my perspective, all three of these participants have very flawed arguments.
Man 1 is attempting to support his argument with an ungrounded, unfalsifiable metaphysical claim.
Man 2 fallaciously assumes that because Man 1's argument is faulty, his conclusion must be incorrect. He also contradicts himself in saying that something is "morally acceptable" while claiming that "morality does not exist."
Man 3 then comes in with the irrelevant point that they are operating under certain epistemological beliefs, rather than correctly attacking the faults of their arguments.

Regarding Man 1 - I think saying it is ungrounded is a bit of a stretch. I don't think rational argument is the only way to ground a belief about the world. A revelation of faith is grounding. Perceiving a miracle is a reason (leaving aside if it was a miracle or not). The person probably thinks they have sufficient reason. Frankly, I don't think it's enough to convince someone other than themselves, but ungrounded is taking it too far. Also, I would say it's not an unfalsifiable claim. The existence of god is a falsifiable claim, because ultimately the universe either contains god or it doesn't. The fact that we are not currently in an epistemic position to be able to prove either way doesn't change the ontological status of God. It's like 200 years ago we were not in an epistemic position to prove the existence or otherwise of atoms, but that didn't mean they were unfalsifiable either.

For me the problem with Man 1's claim is that he doesn't provide compelling enough evidence to accept the metaphysical basis of his claim. The problem isn't that it's not grounded or falsifiable, it's just that he hasn't presented a compelling case for anyone other than himself to accept it.

Regarding Man 2. Hahaha you totally caught me out on my shitty writing, he completely does deny morality and make a moral statement. This is proof that I should re-read my fucking post. Ummm, I think you're totally on the money with this, it's a glib dismissal of a conclusion.

Regarding Man 3 - Well, as I've said before, I think he is performing an important clarificatory function regarding the boundaries of the discussion. It may seem pointless, but it's really helpful to have had someone do this, and you really notice when it hasn't been.

Originally Posted by Azrael

Well, that's not exactly what you have been saying.
On the one hand, you have stated that you refer solely to "knowledge claims," BUT on the other, you have further asserted that atheism and theism are equally "leaps of faith" and are both epistemologically unjustified. I am arguing that the metaphysical stance of atheism is justified under rational epistemological stances (even if the stances themselves require a leap of faith.)

And I stick to this. From a hard epistemological standpoint, any claim to knowledge for or against the existence of God is unjustified, because there is no conclusive evidence either way. Knowledge claims are either justified or unjustified - they are bivalent propositions, not fuzzy ones. You don't "kind of" know, or 30% know.

Beliefs, on the other hand, can be more or less justified. They are fuzzy. They relate to a proposition that an individual accepts. There can be a continuum of better or worse justifications for acceptance.

I guess a question I would have for you, though, is why is justification by science or rational argument more valid than justification through (say), perception of miracles, 100's of prophecys validated etc? Note, I don't know if this is what Religious people would use to justify their belief. Why do you think science or rational argument provide better justification for a belief? I'm not saying they don't, but you have repeatedly stated that atheism is more justified. From a scientific/rational point of view this might be true. However, take a person with faith. They're simply going to say "Well I think these miracles, prophecies and the deep unshakeable belief I have is better justification". It's all well and good to mock and scoff this, but that doesn't tell them why your criteria for justification is better than theirs. I mean people can shift the burden of proof back and forth all day, but given you have a clear stance here, I would like to know what you would say to someone who doesn't share the stance to convince them.

[Azrael]

Some interesting questions and points! I look forward to answering them, but I should probably do it in the morning.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Geodude

A priori knowledge has no epistemological suppositions.

I suppose I can grant you this, though I find it ironic that even a priori knowledge only exists because of experience.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Only irrelevant if you presume people are aware of their epistemological beliefs. I am, and you clearly are. But in my experience in debates amongst non-philosophers, typically people are actually very unaware of their epistemological beliefs. Further, very often when you try and set such parameters, it becomes a rather vexed issue. Having gone from several years of formal education, to dealing with stupid people all day, I have learned the need to clarify the terms of the debate, as the stuff you take for granted may simply not be so for others.

I think you're maneuvering a little bit away from the original issue though, which was whether calling epistemological suppositions into account was relevant (or at least practical) in evaluating whether theism or atheism is more rational. It is somewhat like saying that someone who believes that President Obama doesn't exist is equally rational to someone who believes that he does, merely because neither of them can prove it without certain epistemological suppositions.

I would agree that if, in a debate, someone attempts to bring in "evidence" that is non-empirical or not logical, epistemology needs to be addressed. But otherwise, it seems largely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Taking this point further, many of the atheists who I have heard saying they know god doesn't exist, upon examination were not willing to accept any level of doubt or fallibility around science, or knowledge. In light of that, pointing out that their point of view is a leap of faith too is a useful and effective rhetorical point. It was to such people that my original post was directed.

Well, I would agree that people who assert that they know god doesn't exist are taking a leap of faith.
However, I could assert that "the Judeo-Christian God - endowed with his typical attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence - cannot exist, due to logical contradictions in his attributes." The general term "god" though, is obviously much more broad.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Regarding Man 1 - I think saying it is ungrounded is a bit of a stretch. I don't think rational argument is the only way to ground a belief about the world. A revelation of faith is grounding. Perceiving a miracle is a reason (leaving aside if it was a miracle or not). The person probably thinks they have sufficient reason. Frankly, I don't think it's enough to convince someone other than themselves, but ungrounded is taking it too far.

Well, everyone has (a) reason(s) for what they believe. Too often, though, they simply have poor reasons.
Either way, when I said that it was "ungrounded," I was referring to his argument, not his belief. It simply had no objective support.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Also, I would say it's not an unfalsifiable claim. The existence of god is a falsifiable claim, because ultimately the universe either contains god or it doesn't. The fact that we are not currently in an epistemic position to be able to prove either way doesn't change the ontological status of God. It's like 200 years ago we were not in an epistemic position to prove the existence or otherwise of atoms, but that didn't mean they were unfalsifiable either.

Actually, most conceptions of God are either all-encompassing, in such a fashion that distinguishing "God" from "nature" would be impossible...or they posit him as existing outside of the universe. I've never met anyone who thought that God's existence could be proven via science...

Originally Posted by Geodude

Regarding Man 3 - Well, as I've said before, I think he is performing an important clarificatory function regarding the boundaries of the discussion. It may seem pointless, but it's really helpful to have had someone do this, and you really notice when it hasn't been.

But again, even if it is helpful to clarify these suppositions, is it relevant to the question "is theism or atheism a more rational belief?"

Originally Posted by Geodude

And I stick to this. From a hard epistemological standpoint, any claim to knowledge for or against the existence of God is unjustified, because there is no conclusive evidence either way. Knowledge claims are either justified or unjustified - they are bivalent propositions, not fuzzy ones. You don't "kind of" know, or 30% know.

Beliefs, on the other hand, can be more or less justified. They are fuzzy. They relate to a proposition that an individual accepts. There can be a continuum of better or worse justifications for acceptance.

I think perhaps the essential disagreement between us lies in your phrase "from a hard epistemological standpoint."
You seem to be taking the pyrrhonian skeptic's approach of dismissing all knowledge claims requiring experience, whereas I am taking the academic skeptic's approach, while also using a more pragmatic and broader definition of "knowledge" as inclusive of that which is justified under one's epistemology. (In this manner, I earlier made the distinction between "knowledge" and "certainty.") Furthermore, since I am also arguing that a certain epistemology is more rational than others (empiricism), this ultimately leaves us with a single "most rational default stance," though I wouldn't necessarily call it a true "knowledge claim" due to the fact that it is a negative stance.

Originally Posted by Geodude

I guess a question I would have for you, though, is why is justification by science or rational argument more valid than justification through (say), perception of miracles, 100's of prophecys validated etc? Note, I don't know if this is what Religious people would use to justify their belief. Why do you think science or rational argument provide better justification for a belief? I'm not saying they don't, but you have repeatedly stated that atheism is more justified. From a scientific/rational point of view this might be true. However, take a person with faith. They're simply going to say "Well I think these miracles, prophecies and the deep unshakeable belief I have is better justification". It's all well and good to mock and scoff this, but that doesn't tell them why your criteria for justification is better than theirs. I mean people can shift the burden of proof back and forth all day, but given you have a clear stance here, I would like to know what you would say to someone who doesn't share the stance to convince them.

Ah, and now we get to it.

Essentially here, we need to determine what the most rational epistemological beliefs are, in order to determine whether "miracles," "prophecies," and "faith" are as trustworthy as "science" or "logic." So, let's employ the method of Cartesian doubt - take everything off the table and see what we can put back on it. Let's start with logic, since it would detail the necessary rules of existence.
Well, the trouble with denying logic is that you can never provide a proper reason to do so. If you say "I deny logic as being trustworthy because..." you are basically trying to provide a rational argument against rationality, which is self-defeating. In effect, all arguments against logic are self-defeating.

So, logic is back on the table.
But, if we look at the Münchhausen Trilemma, we are now faced with three very unsatisfying choices regarding our arguments for additional beliefs or knowledge. We see that all arguments are in essence either regressive, circular, or axiomatic. All of these are basically fallacies in use. The irony of this is that while logic tells us that objective truth does exist, we can never be certain whether we have achieved it. But of course, since I am merely arguing for a "more rational" belief and not a "perfectly logical" belief, we can move on! Which of the three should we choose? Rather than protecting some preconceived bias, we are here to build an epistemology from scratch, so axiomatic is obviously the best choice.

What axiom(s) should we accept? Accepting nothing would (as I said earlier) leave us with endless, unmitigated metaphysical speculation with no grounds to form a worldview...yet mathematically speaking, accepting more axioms increases our probability of error. So, we then must accept the fewest number of axioms possible to form a worldview. The 5 senses are the one consistent group of beliefs which have guided your basic understanding of yourself. They are directly attached to your "being." As Mauser said: "Esse est percipi." (Being is perception.)

This provides us with the axiom: "My 5 senses are generally trustworthy." An implication of this is metaphysical objectivism (or "philosophical realism"), because to disbelieve that the qualia of the mind were not perceptions of an external reality would constitute "deception," and thus would be indicative that your senses were not trustworthy, thereby nullifying your axiom.

The 5 senses provide us with a uniform and repeated experience involving what we know as the "natural world." Even so-called "supernatural phenomena" are usually perceived through these senses, and merely interpreted poorly through the use of superstitious preconceptions and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. Though all reasoning done on the subject of experience is ultimately inductive, it is still an extremely valuable form of logic, in that it provides probabilistic intuitive calculations for daily life.
For example, few would ponder before sitting on a chair "will this chair hold me up?" because they have made the conclusion based on past experience that it probably will. It is not a certainty, but it is a supported and justified belief. Now since the chair could still break in theory, this may not be considered 'knowledge,' but with the acceptance of the axiom mentioned previously, one can have the 'knowledge' that "this chair exists."

Empiricism logically follows from this accepted precept, which opens the doorway for belief in science (whose core philosophy is empiricism.)

Now miracles, prophecies, and faith all lead to contradictions in one or more of the above beliefs! "Faith," which is typically defined as "belief without sufficient evidence" goes directly against both empiricism and logic. "Miracles" are essentially natural phenomena which have been interpreted in such a way as to impose silly preconceptions (anti-logic and anti-science.) "Prophecies" essentially break the uniform and repeated perception of causality, and have never been proven in any consistent way so as to justify belief (anti-empiricism, anti-science.)



Yeah...this is a gigantic post. Sorry.

[murderegina]

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, but I just want to say the title of this thread makes me giggle every time I read it.


Alright, now resume debate.

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by Azrael

I suppose I can grant you this, though I find it ironic that even a priori knowledge only exists because of experience.

I think you're maneuvering a little bit away from the original issue though, which was whether calling epistemological suppositions into account was relevant (or at least practical) in evaluating whether theism or atheism is more rational. It is somewhat like saying that someone who believes that President Obama doesn't exist is equally rational to someone who believes that he does, merely because neither of them can prove it without certain epistemological suppositions.

I would agree that if, in a debate, someone attempts to bring in "evidence" that is non-empirical or not logical, epistemology needs to be addressed. But otherwise, it seems largely irrelevant.


Well, I would agree that people who assert that they know god doesn't exist are taking a leap of faith.
However, I could assert that "the Judeo-Christian God - endowed with his typical attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence - cannot exist, due to logical contradictions in his attributes." The general term "god" though, is obviously much more broad.


Well, everyone has (a) reason(s) for what they believe. Too often, though, they simply have poor reasons.
Either way, when I said that it was "ungrounded," I was referring to his argument, not his belief. It simply had no objective support.


Actually, most conceptions of God are either all-encompassing, in such a fashion that distinguishing "God" from "nature" would be impossible...or they posit him as existing outside of the universe. I've never met anyone who thought that God's existence could be proven via science...


But again, even if it is helpful to clarify these suppositions, is it relevant to the question "is theism or atheism a more rational belief?"


I think perhaps the essential disagreement between us lies in your phrase "from a hard epistemological standpoint."
You seem to be taking the pyrrhonian skeptic's approach of dismissing all knowledge claims requiring experience, whereas I am taking the academic skeptic's approach, while also using a more pragmatic and broader definition of "knowledge" as inclusive of that which is justified under one's epistemology. (In this manner, I earlier made the distinction between "knowledge" and "certainty.") Furthermore, since I am also arguing that a certain epistemology is more rational than others (empiricism), this ultimately leaves us with a single "most rational default stance," though I wouldn't necessarily call it a true "knowledge claim" due to the fact that it is a negative stance.


Ah, and now we get to it.

Essentially here, we need to determine what the most rational epistemological beliefs are, in order to determine whether "miracles," "prophecies," and "faith" are as trustworthy as "science" or "logic." So, let's employ the method of Cartesian doubt - take everything off the table and see what we can put back on it. Let's start with logic, since it would detail the necessary rules of existence.
Well, the trouble with denying logic is that you can never provide a proper reason to do so. If you say "I deny logic as being trustworthy because..." you are basically trying to provide a rational argument against rationality, which is self-defeating. In effect, all arguments against logic are self-defeating.

So, logic is back on the table.
But, if we look at the Münchhausen Trilemma, we are now faced with three very unsatisfying choices regarding our arguments for additional beliefs or knowledge. We see that all arguments are in essence either regressive, circular, or axiomatic. All of these are basically fallacies in use. The irony of this is that while logic tells us that objective truth does exist, we can never be certain whether we have achieved it. But of course, since I am merely arguing for a "more rational" belief and not a "perfectly logical" belief, we can move on! Which of the three should we choose? Rather than protecting some preconceived bias, we are here to build an epistemology from scratch, so axiomatic is obviously the best choice.

What axiom(s) should we accept? Accepting nothing would (as I said earlier) leave us with endless, unmitigated metaphysical speculation with no grounds to form a worldview...yet mathematically speaking, accepting more axioms increases our probability of error. So, we then must accept the fewest number of axioms possible to form a worldview. The 5 senses are the one consistent group of beliefs which have guided your basic understanding of yourself. They are directly attached to your "being." As Mauser said: "Esse est percipi" (Being is perception.)

This provides us with the axiom: "My 5 senses are generally trustworthy." An implication of this is metaphysical objectivism (or "philosophical realism"), because to disbelieve that the qualia of the mind were not perceptions of an external reality would constitute "deception," and thus would be indicative that your senses were not trustworthy, thereby nullifying your axiom.

The 5 senses provide us with a uniform and repeated experience involving what we know as the "natural world." Even so-called "supernatural phenomena" are usually perceived through these senses, and merely interpreted poorly through the use of superstitious preconceptions and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. Though all reasoning done on the subject of experience is ultimately inductive, it is still an extremely valuable form of logic, in that it provides probabilistic intuitive calculations for daily life.
For example, few would ponder before sitting on a chair "will this chair hold me up?" because they have made the conclusion based on past experience that it probably will. It is not a certainty, but it is a supported and justified belief. Now since the chair could still break in theory, this may not be considered 'knowledge,' but with the acceptance of the axiom mentioned previously, one can have the 'knowledge' that "this chair exists."

Empiricism logically follows from this accepted precept, which opens the doorway for belief in science (whose core philosophy is empiricism.)

Now miracles, prophecies, and faith all lead to contradictions in one or more of the above beliefs! "Faith," which is typically defined as "belief without sufficient evidence" goes directly against both empiricism and logic. "Miracles" are essentially natural phenomena which have been interpreted in such a way as to impose silly preconceptions (anti-logic and anti-science.) "Prophecies" essentially break the uniform and repeated perception of causality, and have never been proven in any consistent way so as to justify belief (anti-empiricism, anti-science.)



Yeah...this is a gigantic post. Sorry.

well said. very, very well said. but the problem is, faith was established before the acceptance of common logic, and therefore, both form a clashing paradox for today's times. i do believe that if we could completely find an infallible way to prove something, whether it be logically, linearly, mathematically, etc., we can then and only then decide what people should think, and which side is essentially correct.


And to the atheists who are getting mad at the other atheists (seemingly the xNTP atheists are the ones being chastised) for trying to have an argument, it is in the nature of some people's personalities to be this way, whether they are discussing religion, science, or what to eat for breakfast. its just the way their brains are wired, as is the way mine is. so you are practically chastising someone for something that is embedded in their subconscious. This is comparable to punishing someone for having an eating disorder, as they cant just change like a light switch just for the sake of benefiting you or the way they represent any "group" or "affiliation" that both you and that person are a part of. Let a debate be a debate, i do believe that is the purpose of this forum is it not? thank you.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by JonnyBoy245

well said. very, very well said.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by JonnyBoy245

but the problem is, faith was established before the acceptance of common logic, and therefore, both form a clashing paradox for today's times.

It is true that the concept "faith" emerged prior to the set of rules for reasoning known as "logic." However, the ability to reason is an intuitive ability that everyone develops to a certain degree, and it is consistently trustworthy. However, the concept of faith is counter to all reason and by nature, cannot be consistent or reliable.

[Nyx]

Anybody who can say that about religion has no idea what it is...actually the best people I've ever met were religious...I'm not just saying that...

I'm not really religious, but at some point I was, and it was THE BEST time of my life...hardly anyone would even understand unless you feel the unbelievable happiness that feels like it comes from your soul...it makes you wnat to do things for others and it makes the pain and suffering alright...

I'm no religious, but I know God exists...or some higher power...adn I'm not one of those repelling close minded persons

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by Azrael

It is true that the concept "faith" emerged prior to the set of rules for reasoning known as "logic." However, the ability to reason is an intuitive ability that everyone develops to a certain degree, and it is consistently trustworthy. However, the concept of faith is counter to all reason and by nature, cannot be consistent or reliable.

i leave the option of faith open, to do two things: 1. avoid conflict resulting in digression from the topic at hand. and 2. to appease those who are closed-minded enough to believe that faith is infallible. I completely agree with you on the intuitive reasoning everyone has developed to some extent. its just that people arent always on the same level.