Comments on: God and Supernaturalism http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/ Life from the view of a Christian pragmatist and educator. Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:15:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: larryniven http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-1505 larryniven Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:23:54 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-1505 The only reason to think that any particular god is unfalsifiable is because that god is epistemologically equivalent to atheism, i.e., it is responsible for at most the creation of the universe and, beyond that, will have no effect whatsoever on anyone's life or afterlife, if such a thing exists. Notably, however, pretty much no popular gods actually fall into this category. So, while you may not want to rigorously examine the reasonable predictions that would follow from the existence of your specific God, purposefully leaving them vague doesn't help you convince anybody: if your God is really one that cannot be disproven empirically, it will never matter to anyone, and so atheism is just as rational as theism. Moreover, since the majority of religions posit a god that frequently and systematically intervenes in human life, the question of empirical evidence is entirely relevant to the existence of gods: if no empirical evidence can be found, or if all the purported evidence is empirically indistinguishable from non-evidence (such as in your case), then we can eliminate those gods from our consideration. In other words, you have it backwards when you say that atheists irrationally reject too much in rejecting your experience. Since you are positing an apparently arbitrary distinction between apparently identical events, you're going directly against everything that's apparent to the intellect and thus believing irrationally. Not that you should stop, necessarily - everyone's got something they hold to without solid grounding, but when you refer to emotions and other "higher" experiences of humans (which, for the record, can in and of themselves be empirically observed, as brain activity) as justification for belief, you've removed yourself from the realm of rationality. The only reason to think that any particular god is unfalsifiable is because that god is epistemologically equivalent to atheism, i.e., it is responsible for at most the creation of the universe and, beyond that, will have no effect whatsoever on anyone’s life or afterlife, if such a thing exists. Notably, however, pretty much no popular gods actually fall into this category. So, while you may not want to rigorously examine the reasonable predictions that would follow from the existence of your specific God, purposefully leaving them vague doesn’t help you convince anybody: if your God is really one that cannot be disproven empirically, it will never matter to anyone, and so atheism is just as rational as theism. Moreover, since the majority of religions posit a god that frequently and systematically intervenes in human life, the question of empirical evidence is entirely relevant to the existence of gods: if no empirical evidence can be found, or if all the purported evidence is empirically indistinguishable from non-evidence (such as in your case), then we can eliminate those gods from our consideration. In other words, you have it backwards when you say that atheists irrationally reject too much in rejecting your experience. Since you are positing an apparently arbitrary distinction between apparently identical events, you’re going directly against everything that’s apparent to the intellect and thus believing irrationally. Not that you should stop, necessarily - everyone’s got something they hold to without solid grounding, but when you refer to emotions and other “higher” experiences of humans (which, for the record, can in and of themselves be empirically observed, as brain activity) as justification for belief, you’ve removed yourself from the realm of rationality.

]]> By: larryniven http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-2298 larryniven Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:23:54 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-2298 The only reason to think that any particular god is unfalsifiable is because that god is epistemologically equivalent to atheism, i.e., it is responsible for at most the creation of the universe and, beyond that, will have no effect whatsoever on anyone's life or afterlife, if such a thing exists. Notably, however, pretty much no popular gods actually fall into this category. So, while you may not want to rigorously examine the reasonable predictions that would follow from the existence of your specific God, purposefully leaving them vague doesn't help you convince anybody: if your God is really one that cannot be disproven empirically, it will never matter to anyone, and so atheism is just as rational as theism. Moreover, since the majority of religions posit a god that frequently and systematically intervenes in human life, the question of empirical evidence is entirely relevant to the existence of gods: if no empirical evidence can be found, or if all the purported evidence is empirically indistinguishable from non-evidence (such as in your case), then we can eliminate those gods from our consideration. In other words, you have it backwards when you say that atheists irrationally reject too much in rejecting your experience. Since you are positing an apparently arbitrary distinction between apparently identical events, you're going directly against everything that's apparent to the intellect and thus believing irrationally. Not that you should stop, necessarily - everyone's got something they hold to without solid grounding, but when you refer to emotions and other "higher" experiences of humans (which, for the record, can in and of themselves be empirically observed, as brain activity) as justification for belief, you've removed yourself from the realm of rationality. The only reason to think that any particular god is unfalsifiable is because that god is epistemologically equivalent to atheism, i.e., it is responsible for at most the creation of the universe and, beyond that, will have no effect whatsoever on anyone’s life or afterlife, if such a thing exists. Notably, however, pretty much no popular gods actually fall into this category. So, while you may not want to rigorously examine the reasonable predictions that would follow from the existence of your specific God, purposefully leaving them vague doesn’t help you convince anybody: if your God is really one that cannot be disproven empirically, it will never matter to anyone, and so atheism is just as rational as theism. Moreover, since the majority of religions posit a god that frequently and systematically intervenes in human life, the question of empirical evidence is entirely relevant to the existence of gods: if no empirical evidence can be found, or if all the purported evidence is empirically indistinguishable from non-evidence (such as in your case), then we can eliminate those gods from our consideration. In other words, you have it backwards when you say that atheists irrationally reject too much in rejecting your experience. Since you are positing an apparently arbitrary distinction between apparently identical events, you’re going directly against everything that’s apparent to the intellect and thus believing irrationally. Not that you should stop, necessarily - everyone’s got something they hold to without solid grounding, but when you refer to emotions and other “higher” experiences of humans (which, for the record, can in and of themselves be empirically observed, as brain activity) as justification for belief, you’ve removed yourself from the realm of rationality.

]]> By: In the Spirit & Dancing Calvinists (Monday Links & Quotes) « Ben Byerly’s Blog http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-1475 In the Spirit & Dancing Calvinists (Monday Links & Quotes) « Ben Byerly’s Blog Mon, 19 May 2008 07:20:16 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-1475 [...] and most recently “Clear as Mud”. Drew Tatusko has contributed a post on “God and Supernaturalism“as well as “Dear Atheist“. My own posts include “Does Being Exist?” [...] [...] and most recently “Clear as Mud”. Drew Tatusko has contributed a post on “God and Supernaturalism“as well as “Dear Atheist“. My own posts include “Does Being Exist?” [...]

]]> By: qetzal http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-1470 qetzal Sat, 17 May 2008 15:32:27 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-1470 I agree that many people have personal experiences that they interpret as some sort of contact with something they call God. The issue (for me) is how one extrapolates from that experience to the actual existence of God (i.e. God as something more than just an internal mental/emotional/physiological phenomenon that some people experience). I agree that many people have personal experiences that they interpret as some sort of contact with something they call God. The issue (for me) is how one extrapolates from that experience to the actual existence of God (i.e. God as something more than just an internal mental/emotional/physiological phenomenon that some people experience).

]]> By: qetzal http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-2299 qetzal Sat, 17 May 2008 15:32:27 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-2299 I agree that many people have personal experiences that they interpret as some sort of contact with something they call God. The issue (for me) is how one extrapolates from that experience to the actual existence of God (i.e. God as something more than just an internal mental/emotional/physiological phenomenon that some people experience). I agree that many people have personal experiences that they interpret as some sort of contact with something they call God. The issue (for me) is how one extrapolates from that experience to the actual existence of God (i.e. God as something more than just an internal mental/emotional/physiological phenomenon that some people experience).

]]> By: Drew http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-1468 Drew Sat, 17 May 2008 02:28:57 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-1468 But to take it a step further, I am not so sure that my experience is so idiosyncratic that it is all that very unique. It is the shared experience among individuals that creates what sociologists call a plausibility structure to legitimate concurrent experiences in kind. Without that plausibility structure in place to legitimate it, I would probably be a rather devout agnostic today as my own pragmatist sensibilities would dictate. But to take it a step further, I am not so sure that my experience is so idiosyncratic that it is all that very unique. It is the shared experience among individuals that creates what sociologists call a plausibility structure to legitimate concurrent experiences in kind. Without that plausibility structure in place to legitimate it, I would probably be a rather devout agnostic today as my own pragmatist sensibilities would dictate.

]]> By: dtatusko http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-2300 dtatusko Sat, 17 May 2008 02:28:57 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-2300 But to take it a step further, I am not so sure that my experience is so idiosyncratic that it is all that very unique. It is the shared experience among individuals that creates what sociologists call a plausibility structure to legitimate concurrent experiences in kind. Without that plausibility structure in place to legitimate it, I would probably be a rather devout agnostic today as my own pragmatist sensibilities would dictate. But to take it a step further, I am not so sure that my experience is so idiosyncratic that it is all that very unique. It is the shared experience among individuals that creates what sociologists call a plausibility structure to legitimate concurrent experiences in kind. Without that plausibility structure in place to legitimate it, I would probably be a rather devout agnostic today as my own pragmatist sensibilities would dictate.

]]> By: qetzal http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-1466 qetzal Fri, 16 May 2008 21:08:36 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-1466 Thanks for the clarifications. If your belief comes from your own idiosycratic experiences, I'm fine with that. As for the "we" language, it was not meant to refer to all atheists - merely to Dr. Moran and myself (since he posed the question in his post, and I repeated it in the comments). Thanks for the clarifications. If your belief comes from your own idiosycratic experiences, I’m fine with that.

As for the “we” language, it was not meant to refer to all atheists - merely to Dr. Moran and myself (since he posed the question in his post, and I repeated it in the comments).

]]> By: qetzal http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-2301 qetzal Fri, 16 May 2008 21:08:36 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-2301 Thanks for the clarifications. If your belief comes from your own idiosycratic experiences, I'm fine with that.<br><br>As for the "we" language, it was not meant to refer to all atheists - merely to Dr. Moran and myself (since he posed the question in his post, and I repeated it in the comments). Thanks for the clarifications. If your belief comes from your own idiosycratic experiences, I’m fine with that.

As for the “we” language, it was not meant to refer to all atheists - merely to Dr. Moran and myself (since he posed the question in his post, and I repeated it in the comments).

]]> By: Drew http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/15/god-and-supernaturalism/#comment-1462 Drew Fri, 16 May 2008 15:26:46 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=369#comment-1462 I actually did answer that specific question on Larry's blog, maybe in another thread than the one that got you here. The quick answer is that it comes from experience of what I believe to be God understanding that what I believe to be God has been irreducibly conditioned by my psycho-social constructions of reality. This is quite satisfying to me and it works for me. And I understand the philosophical weakness of the pragmatist position for many, but there it is. And I don't think that arguments for God's existence will go anywhere. The better grounds for argument is whether belief in God is fundamentally irrational and even dangerous which is quite a powerful charge against religious belief. That is what interests me here. Arguing God's existence is an unfalsifiable claim either way and useless to brow-beat in my view. One more thing: The "we" language is not helpful either as if all atheists are united in some monolithic front. I would not want you to characterize all Christians under the same umbrella of degree of belief and I would not want Christians to do the same for atheists. But this kind of language perpetuates that untruth. It's pedantic I know, but worth mentioning. :-) I actually did answer that specific question on Larry’s blog, maybe in another thread than the one that got you here.

The quick answer is that it comes from experience of what I believe to be God understanding that what I believe to be God has been irreducibly conditioned by my psycho-social constructions of reality. This is quite satisfying to me and it works for me. And I understand the philosophical weakness of the pragmatist position for many, but there it is.

And I don’t think that arguments for God’s existence will go anywhere. The better grounds for argument is whether belief in God is fundamentally irrational and even dangerous which is quite a powerful charge against religious belief. That is what interests me here. Arguing God’s existence is an unfalsifiable claim either way and useless to brow-beat in my view.

One more thing: The “we” language is not helpful either as if all atheists are united in some monolithic front. I would not want you to characterize all Christians under the same umbrella of degree of belief and I would not want Christians to do the same for atheists. But this kind of language perpetuates that untruth. It’s pedantic I know, but worth mentioning. :-)

]]>