Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Locked
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Dark Matter »

You sure have a low opinion of the human species, Spectrum. You must be a source of depression for those around you. :cry:
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Spectrum »

Dark Matter wrote:You sure have a low opinion of the human species, Spectrum. You must be a source of depression for those around you. :cry:
Rather it is you who has a low opinion of the human species in insisting they must believe in an illusion as real, i.e. God.
In supporting the illusion that a God exists as real, one is complicit as moral support for theists who continue to kill, spread terror and violence around the world in the name of God.

I have a high opinion of the human species that each individual has the potential to improve on its current state as a master of his/her own destiny, take charge of one's own well being and contribute to world peace without resorting to an illusion as a crutch, i.e. God. This effective strategy has been practiced by many from Eastern spirituality.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Dark Matter »

Spectrum wrote:
Dark Matter wrote:You sure have a low opinion of the human species, Spectrum. You must be a source of depression for those around you. :cry:
Rather it is you who has a low opinion of the human species in insisting they must believe in an illusion as real, i.e. God.
In supporting the illusion that a God exists as real, one is complicit as moral support for theists who continue to kill, spread terror and violence around the world in the name of God.

I have a high opinion of the human species that each individual has the potential to improve on its current state as a master of his/her own destiny, take charge of one's own well being and contribute to world peace without resorting to an illusion as a crutch, i.e. God. This effective strategy has been practiced by many from Eastern spirituality.
And how does all this "improvement" ultimately end for the individual?

-- Updated November 8th, 2017, 1:20 am to add the following --

“It may be that what the atheist lacks the conceptual means to interpret may be nothing as elementary as a foreign language or an alien medium of communication, but rather the very experience of existence itself.”

-- Updated November 8th, 2017, 1:24 am to add the following --

“True philosophical atheism must be regarded as a superstition, often nurtured by an infantile wish to live in a world proportionate to one’s own hopes or conceptual limitations.”
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Eduk »

But I don't agree children will believe in a God until they are informed of the 'concept' of a God from their parents or society.
Religion didn't pop into existence fully formed one day, in order for it to be taught to children. It formed gradually, over great time, it evolved. Logically the concept of a god must come before the teaching of said concept.
Point is, whatever reasons for a belief in God you can think of, they are all reducible to the existential factor and the existential crisis.
I already agreed with this, more than once. EVERYTHING is reducible to existential factors (or at least everything I can think of right now). If this is the case then you have already answered your own question, why do you keep asking it?
And how does all this "improvement" ultimately end for the individual?
If your religion is made up then likely you would be better off without it. Not necessarily every single individual would be better off but the majority of people would be better off. If your religion is real then likely you would be better off with it. The improvement Spectrum is talking about is clearly in attempting to remove erroneous unconscious and incorrect beliefs. I think most people would agree this was a good thing. For example I'm guessing you don't believe in homeopathy and would therefore prefer a world where other people didn't make the mistake of believing in homeopathy. For me personally it's not about specific beliefs like Christianity or homeopathy it is about the general principles. If you avoid unconscious thinking and all our various bias then you naturally avoid homeopathy and Christianity.
So what is left is arguing about whether your religion is the right one or not. We likely have the same end goal in that we would like to know if your religion was true or false. And if false we would like to not believe it.
True philosophical atheism must be regarded as a superstition, often nurtured by an infantile wish to live in a world proportionate to one’s own hopes or conceptual limitations
I have never understood this argument. Let us imagine I am a Christian and an atheist tells me they are not a Christian. Perhaps the atheist explains that they require empirical evidence of my claims before they will believe them (as a Christian I would think this not unreasonable). Maybe the atheist goes further and says my beliefs are not based on logic and that I simply have faith in something because I want to have faith in it (I don't quite agree with this by the way, but it is an argument I have heard atheists make). So in response I tell them that their atheist belief in not believing in Christian God is actually a faith based belief that they want to believe (oh and I add they are childish too).
Where does this leave us? Do two wrongs make a right? If I am right that atheism is faith based then I have I demonstrated that Christianity isn't faith based? If I attack someone for faith based beliefs while I myself have faith based beliefs is that not hypocritical? Also what if I am wrong? What if not believing in Christian God is not actually a faith based belief but actually the opposite of a faith based belief (as would be understood normatively)?
I guess my point is, if you are right then what have you proved other than we are both wrong? And obviously if you wrong then you are simply wrong (you are simply wrong by the way, but that's not the main point I'm trying to make).
Unknown means unknown.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Dark Matter »

I have never understood this argument. Let us imagine I am a Christian and an atheist tells me they are not a Christian. Perhaps the atheist explains that they require empirical evidence of my claims before they will believe them (as a Christian I would think this not unreasonable).
I would think it's unreasonable.

It's kinda funny: atheists tend praise the virtue of reason and logic until it turns against them. They then demand physical evidence for a spiritual reality. It is not unreasonable to call this "an infantile wish to live in a world proportionate to one’s own hopes or conceptual limitations."
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Eduk »

If this spiritual reality exists on a non physical plane then how the heck do you know about it? Being that you are a physical being with access only to the physical plane?

I must admit that my above example is not fully thought through. I will also accept philosophical, or purely reasoned, arguments provided they don't directly contradict physical evidence and have things like logic (non contradiction etc) and prior plausibility going for them. I am not adverse to philosophical arguments. Indeed I think science is a philosophy and should be guided by philosophy. I'm not an absolutist.

But again it's the old adage. If you are asking a lot from me then you need a lot of evidence. Plus you have to consider other people's opinions, not just your own. If I don't believe this is not a conscious choice, I don't choose my beliefs. If I am unconvinced by religious claims then this should be expected from a religious person.

For example Einstein came up with relativity at a time that it couldn't be empirically tested. Now I, a non physicist, would I think be perfectly reasonable in saying that I don't believe in relativity (at the time he came up with the idea). But physicists on the other hand have the expertise to realise that his idea was good enough to explore. But until they got the empirical evidence to support it they would not have said that everyone should just simply take their word for it.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by SimpleGuy »

Everybody knows that turings hypothesis , claims that if an axiomatic system of a complexity of natural numbers is assumed , there are theorems that can neither be proven nor refuted inside of this axiomatic system. So one can custruct infinitely many axioms without beeing contradictory. Perhaps god is such an axiom , if one could switch it on or off in most fitting times lot's of presumptions can get proven or refuted just according to the wish of the creator of the personal axiomatic system of ones own philosophy.

-- Updated November 8th, 2017, 2:05 pm to add the following --

One should introduce in philosphy a sort ITL, interval temporal logic, such that one can define a time-dependent god variable , quite usefull if one needs it and simply without any effect if it is not wished for.
User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 59
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Kathyd »

The OP makes no sense because if was possible to prove God, then one would not need to believe.

So really, the OP would be better titled "Why believe in a God?" It's a given that God cannot be proved.

I mean, why believe in anything that cannot be proved? No scientific theory is absolutely proven. Every one might be false. So why do people "believe" in the big bang? It might be a quite false theory even though there is some evidence to support it. Why not suspend judgement in every case?

So I think the reason some people believe in a God is the exact same reason some people believe in various scientific theories --- it makes them feel comfortable, gives them a certain confidence, helps sustain their already existing world view --- in other words, it helps them to "navigate" their life, to have a reference. This is what is common for believers and non-believers alike.

You have to believe in something, otherwise you would not know where to go or what to do. You would have no direction, not even a very general direction, for your life. The only question is what, in particular, you believe in.

Some believe there is no God, others believe there is. Some believe the Universe began with a big bang, others believe it began with a Word. Everyone believes in something, and the real reason they believe in the things they do is often more motivated by psychological considerations and feelings (what makes them feel good) rather than what is reasonable or what the evidence suggests.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Dark Matter »

Eduk wrote:If this spiritual reality exists on a non physical plane then how the heck do you know about it? Being that you are a physical being with access only to the physical plane?

I must admit that my above example is not fully thought through. I will also accept philosophical, or purely reasoned, arguments provided they don't directly contradict physical evidence and have things like logic (non contradiction etc) and prior plausibility going for them. I am not adverse to philosophical arguments. Indeed I think science is a philosophy and should be guided by philosophy. I'm not an absolutist.

But again it's the old adage. If you are asking a lot from me then you need a lot of evidence. Plus you have to consider other people's opinions, not just your own. If I don't believe this is not a conscious choice, I don't choose my beliefs. If I am unconvinced by religious claims then this should be expected from a religious person.

For example Einstein came up with relativity at a time that it couldn't be empirically tested. Now I, a non physicist, would I think be perfectly reasonable in saying that I don't believe in relativity (at the time he came up with the idea). But physicists on the other hand have the expertise to realise that his idea was good enough to explore. But until they got the empirical evidence to support it they would not have said that everyone should just simply take their word for it.
Either reason and logic are valid or they are not. If you elect to believe something as loopy as what Spectrum is saying, be my guest. But as long as there are questions like 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' 'Why is the universe intelligible?' 'What must be in order for what is to be as it is?' and 'What is the mysterious power behind being itself?' there will be people trying to answer them. But given man's innate desire to have answers for these questions, it is dehumanizing to argue that it 'doesn't matter,' 'that it's a matter of probabilities,' 'I don't know,' or say that people who try to answer these kinds of questions suffer from some kind of psychological angst.

"It is true," wrote Francis Bacon, "that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." Read the underlined. It is your choice to go no further than second causes (the empirical order of things).

-- Updated November 8th, 2017, 7:39 pm to add the following --

It is your choice to not seek answers for the questions posed in the first paragraph.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Chili »

God can be a joyous glue which knits a community together. Come, join the flock, and sing joyous songs with us. We will feed you and your flesh will be our flesh.

It's easy to see how a tribe with a joyous and/or scary God would be more compelling and hold together more than one based on breakfast only.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Spectrum »

[b]Eduk[/b] wrote: Religion didn't pop into existence fully formed one day, in order for it to be taught to children. It formed gradually, over great time, it evolved. Logically the concept of a god must come before the teaching of said concept.
DNA wise ALL humans has the inherent potential [a priori] towards believing in a 'god' and driven by primal reason to an ultimate ontological God. For some this potential is not activated or it was suppressed by rational thinking.
So its the potential [DNA wise] that preceded the "concept" which has evolved over history from the conceptions of animism, polytheism to monotheism.
Children has the inherent potential to believe in something greater than humans but this potential is only fed and realized with knowledge of theistic concepts from parents or society. I believe there are still primitive tribes around the world which believe in animism but not theism, so their children will turn to animism when they grow older.
I already agreed with this, more than once. EVERYTHING is reducible to existential factors (or at least everything I can think of right now). If this is the case then you have already answered your own question, why do you keep asking it?
Noted you agreed on the existential factor. But note this is merely a tip of an iceberg.
Where there is repetition it is for the sake of others who are skeptical of the point.

-- Updated Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:10 pm to add the following --
Dark Matter wrote:It's kinda funny: atheists tend praise the virtue of reason and logic until it turns against them. They then demand physical evidence for a spiritual reality. It is not unreasonable to call this "an infantile wish to live in a world proportionate to one’s own hopes or conceptual limitations."
You are getting ridiculous here.

You equated 'demanding physical evidence for a spirituality reality" as "an infantile wish". Your view is really infantile and immoral.
Demanding evidence to justify a claim is a default of morality and intellectual integrity.
If someone is accusing you of murder or rape, surely you have a moral right to demand for evidence.

In the case of God, it is not there is no empirical evidence, I have proven it is not even empirically or physically possible for a God to exist.
It is true, a God can be inferred from logic and reason but that is based on primal reason which even some animals [dogs, monkeys, apes, elephants, dolphins, etc.] possess.
see video below, on how a monkey's reason work when encountered that trick.
Primal [pure] reason [Critique of Pure Reason by Kant] is kindergarten compared to the more refined, sophisticated and rational reason.
Primal reason tend towards crude reasoning on questions like;
  • 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'
    'Why is the universe intelligible?'
    'What must be in order for what is to be as it is?' and
    'What is the mysterious power behind being itself?'
    There must be a first cause.
Primal reason has survival value and it works very spontaneously and subliminally in jumping to quick conclusions, i.e. driven by psychological factors such as angst, "zombie parasite" and the likes.

This is reflected in Kant's point where primal reason drives one to believe in illusions. [Read it carefully].
Kant wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

-- Updated Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:46 pm to add the following --
[b]Kathyd[/b] wrote:The OP makes no sense because if was possible to prove God, then one would not need to believe.

So really, the OP would be better titled "Why believe in a God?" It's a given that God cannot be proved.
Note the difference between "opinion," "beliefs" and "knowledge."
"Beliefs" has an very strong element of personal conviction such that what is believed is really real based on one's subjective experiences and justifications. Beliefs can be empirically based [UFOs] or non-empirically based [God, soul,].
Empirically based "Beliefs" when shared, proven with justified verifications and agreed by consensus becomes knowledge, e.g. scientific theories.

The idea [not a concept] of God is merely based on personal conviction and it is always purely transcendental, i.e. not empirical.

I have no issue with ideologies like "It's a given that God cannot be proved" and where such a belief is confined to be private, personal and do not infringe on the basic human rights of others.

But the reality is the idea of a God [actually illusory] is believed [by majority of theists] as most real and a perfect all powerful Being who delivered his message via prophets & messenger and compiled into a holy book which among others contain evil laden elements.

Throughout history theists had being inspired by their God's words and command to kill, terrorize, commit evils & violence on non-believers and even their own. This evil by SOME believers [especially Muslims around the world at present] is so evident and to argue against it would insult one's own intelligence. At the extreme these theists could even be a threat to exterminate the human species when WMDs are cheap and easily available as it is a win-win for them regardless of what happen on Earth.

It is with the current events of terrible evils and a threat of the extermination of the human species that we need to address and trace this serious problem to its ultimate root cause and 'defang' it from the root level.
This is why it is critical to expose the ultimate root cause of why people believe even when God is an impossibility. The answer is, the root cause is traced to a psychological issue of existential crisis rather than a real God exists to command believers.
The term 'impossibility' [as proven] is critical so as to leave no room for theists to squeeze in any possibility of God's existence thence to inspire them to commit evil acts in God's name.

The point is when theism is replaced [not got rid of] totally by effective spiritual approaches in the future [not at present] voluntarily, logically there will be no more theistic based evils and violence*.

*Note: To be on topic, the focus here is on theistic issues and its related evils. I am not ignoring secular-based evils [North Korea, drug cartels, etc.] which could be worse and must be addressed & dealt with elsewhere.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Dark Matter »

Sprctrum:

Thank you for verifying my "bias" against atheists is not unfounded.

-- Updated November 8th, 2017, 10:56 pm to add the following --

Sorry, my friend. I just can't you ideas seriously.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Spectrum »

Dark Matter wrote:Spectrum:
Thank you for verifying my "bias" against atheists is not unfounded.
Sorry, my friend. I just can't you ideas seriously.
As usual, your one-liners without supporting arguments and views as usual.
I can understand that. Such one-liners are often thrown out as compelled from the unconscious and subliminal to soothe the subliminal existential angst.

You will note I have supported most of my views with thorough arguments and relevant references.
I am just expressing my views and I do not expect any one to accept or agree. Most of the points I have presented are clues, hints and are tip-of-icebergs of various deeper issues. Preferably, one should not accept these ideas until they have done extensive research to verify the claims I have presented.

-- Updated Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:40 am to add the following --
[b]SimpleGuy[/b] wrote:Everybody knows that turings hypothesis , claims that if an axiomatic system of a complexity of natural numbers is assumed , there are theorems that can neither be proven nor refuted inside of this axiomatic system.
So one can custruct infinitely many axioms without beeing contradictory. Perhaps god is such an axiom , if one could switch it on or off in most fitting times lot's of presumptions can get proven or refuted just according to the wish of the creator of the personal axiomatic system of ones own philosophy.
Once we declared an assumption within a hypothesis, then whatever the conclusions, they are limited by that assumption.
An ultimate God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God or ontological God cannot be grounded nor be conditioned on any assumptions at all.
God is by default The Absolute, i.e. totally unconditional.
Therefore the principles of the Turing's Hypothesis [as stated above] cannot be applied to a God Hypothesis.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Dark Matter »

Spectrum wrote:
You will note I have supported most of my views with thorough arguments and relevant references.
It has been pointed out to you by myself and others that your arguments fail.
I am just expressing my views and I do not expect any one to accept or agree. Most of the points I have presented are clues, hints and are tip-of-icebergs of various deeper issues. Preferably, one should not accept these ideas until they have done extensive research to verify the claims I have presented.
All that's fine, but what you present is a poorly formulated straw man that avoids the questions I asked above: 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' 'Why is the universe intelligible?' 'What must be in order for what is to be as it is?' and 'What is the mysterious power behind the things that exist? Given man's innate desire to have answers for these questions, it is dehumanizing to argue that it 'doesn't matter,' 'that it's a matter of probabilities,' 'I don't know,' or say that people who try to answer these kinds of questions suffer from some kind of psychological angst.

The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division, addeth zeal to both sides; but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests; when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith, non est jam dicere, ut populus sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus ut sacerdos. A third is, custom of profane scoffing in holy matters; which doth, by little and little, deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion. They that deny a God, destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on, when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a God, or melior natura; which courage is manifestly such, as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and assureth himself, upon divine protection and favor, gathered a force and faith, which human nature in itself could not obtain. Therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself, above human frailty. As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations.
Clearly, I am not the first person perceive the dehumanizing nature of atheism.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Post by Eduk »

Either reason and logic are valid or they are not. If you elect to believe something as loopy as what Spectrum is saying, be my guest.
No the problem is that not all reason and logic are equal. Again take Einstein's relativity, this theory has its origin in empirical evidence which contradicted or couldn't be explained by other accepted theories. For example Newton's theories couldn't account for the movement of celestial bodies. So Einstein through pure reason and logic came up with a theory which did not contradict known evidence. But again, not all theories are equal. Einstein and others still required empirical evidence that his new theory was correct before they said that it was confirmed. If no such evidence had been found then Einstein's theory would be an interesting foot note for physicists and we would be without satellite navigation and many and various other things. So Einstein really required three things, empirical evidence which could not be explained, reason, logic, creativity etc, and empirical evidence that confirmed his theory.
To give you another example. You have accused me of cherry picking when I wish to use reason and logic. Now you don't know me, you've never met me. But still you attack my character without evidence. Now this may be an example of reason and logic to you, but to me it is an example of bad reason and logic. I could be convinced otherwise. Simply provide some empirical evidence which demonstrates your example and or provide good examples of reason and logic to back up your claims.
Oh and by the way I have disagreed with a lot of what Spectrum has said. As evidence I provide previous posts in this forum which you can read right now!
But as long as there are questions like 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' 'Why is the universe intelligible?' 'What must be in order for what is to be as it is?' and 'What is the mysterious power behind being itself?' there will be people trying to answer them.
There are people trying to answer them or questions like them. Many people. The world over. Through out history. I have never said that one should not. It's just that I draw a distinction between good attempts at answering questions and bad attempts at answering questions. For examples of good attempts at answering questions I provide the scientific method which I seriously wish I didn't need to defend as its efficacy is all around all of us. Please note the scientific method is not the only good attempt as it is so wrapped up in philosophy to begin with. After all the scientific method does not ask the question, it is simply a tool to find the answer. To give bad examples of answering questions I provide things like homeopathy which has zero effect clinically. Or things like religions which provide no answers and offer no definitions or explanations, as evidence for the lack of efficacy of religion I point at all religions which no longer exist. By the way I'm not saying that religion is poison (to coin Hitchens) I'm just saying there is no evidence of its efficacy. You can point to things like art but so can all religions and all atheists.
But given man's innate desire to have answers for these questions, it is dehumanizing to argue that it 'doesn't matter,' 'that it's a matter of probabilities,' 'I don't know,' or say that people who try to answer these kinds of questions suffer from some kind of psychological angst.
It's not dehumanising to say 'I don't know'. And it's kind of disturbing that you think it is. There is so much that I don't know, I don't know how to create electricity, smelt steal, skin an animal, I can go on for ages. If you think that's dehumanising then it's no wonder you are forced to 'answer' your questions in whatever way you can. Which actually rather supports Spectrum's psychological angst theory. He is saying you are suffering from cognitive dissonance because you don't know something and therefore your brain is giving you an answer and rewarding you for doing so. This is a well understood neurological process that all humans suffer from to greater or lesser extent.
wrote Francis Bacon, "that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
This is an obvious no true Scotsman fallacy. Is it not enough to disagree with someone? Must you also say that if only they were clever enough then they wouldn't be arguing with you in the first place? I guess you must think that all the many philosophers over the ages who weren't religious were simply too stupid to be able to understand. In my experience religion and intelligence are two different things. To give an example there is a world famous cancer doctor called Dr Francis Collins who attempted to map Hitchens' genome to create a tailored cure specifically for Hitchens. Amazing medical science, it sounds like science fiction. I'm sure Dr Collins is far more intelligent than I am in practically any measurable way. He is religious but he is not stupid, I wish you could extend the same basic good treatment of people with conflicting opinions to your own. It is interesting to me that you complain of dehumanising while quoting passages which dehumanise. Do you not see the contradiction? Do you realise why you have this contradiction?
Thank you for verifying my "bias" against atheists is not unfounded.
A bias is by definition unfair. Perhaps you do not realise the definition of the word? Also you are suffering from a serious lack of logic if you can't spot the clear formal logic mistake you have made here.
1. Spectrum says something wrong (let us for not just assume that it is 100% wrong)
2. Spectrum is an atheist
3. All atheists are wrong

Do you see any problems with the above?
Unknown means unknown.
Locked

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021