Secularism by analogy

[pjkeeley]

I am not sure where this post belongs as it involves first religion and then politics, so I will leave it here for now. First, I want to discuss a point that bugs me that is often raised in religious discussions by believers, which is as follows: "but you can't disprove God, and therefore you must accept the possibility that He exists."

If what is meant by this is that I must accept the mere fact that God cannot be disproved and that there is therefore a possibility that a god or gods exist, I consider this a rather shallow argument. Of course I accept that a basic fact of human subjectivity is that we cannot be certain of anything. This is so obvious (to me at least) as to be axiomatic in any philosophical discussion. It does nothing to advance the argument of the believer, and few atheists worth their salt would argue against it.

But if, on the other hand, what is meant is that I must take the possibility of God's existence seriously -- an attempt to silence atheists who oppose religion -- I must object. I will do so by analogy, so bear with me. I hope this isn’t too painful.

Imagine that a murder takes place and a list of suspects is gathered, though there are no witnesses. At first as the case is reported, public sentiment as to the identity of the killer is divided between the suspects based on common knowledge of their supposed attributes, often exaggerated. Based purely on the initial reports of the crime scene and each of the suspects' infamy, accounts of how the murder took place and who was involved develop and are widely circulated.

In time however the evidence that accumulates fails to indicate that any of the suspects was involved in the killing and in fact contradicts the accounts that have been circulating in the press and by word of mouth. In fact, after some time has passed, the evidence that has been uncovered seems to point to the fact that it may not have been a murder at all, and some begin to speculate that it may have been an accident or a suicide. However, with so many people still captivated by murder claims, such a finding in this case would be unsatisfying to the public, and so the often fantastical and unsubstantiated claims about the suspects' alleged deeds continue to sell books. As a matter of fact they have become the stories used to scare children as well as teach them moral lessons.

Of course, since there were no witnesses no one can ever be sure what happened. But my question is this: wouldn't it be best to assume (and I do mean assume, not declare for certain) that the death wasn't a murder, even if we don't quite yet know exactly what happened, since there is some evidence to that effect, and no evidence to implicate any of the suspects? I am not suggesting that further evidence shouldn't be sought, but imagine the case has been dragging on for years and years, and a substantial amount of police time and resources are being used to keep the suspects in custody. Would it really be wise here to assume that all accounts of the alleged crime are equally possible? Should the rampant speculation, for which there is no evidence, be taken equally as seriously by authorities as the picture the evidence itself paints?

This is more or less how I see the question of God's existence today. Of course we cannot rule out for certain the possibility that a god or gods created the universe, just as we cannot rule out a good many examples of magical thinking, such as astrology or superstition. But God has begun to appear increasingly irrelevant, since life is now thought to have appeared on its own by way of natural processes, consciousness has been shown to correlate to brain activity, and though the cause of the Big Bang has not been explained, perhaps it does not require a cause at all. God who was once involved in all facets of human affairs has been demoted to a "God of the gaps" and the gaps continue to get smaller and smaller as science progresses. This is why I think it wise for us to assume that God doesn't exist for the sake of public policy. In private, people will believe what they will, but this belief shouldn't influence decisions that are made by public officials, regardless of how they act in a private capacity.

I do not mean to suggest that religion should be abolished. It doesn't matter to me what people think, only the way they act on those thoughts. I am arguing for secularism, a separation of religion and state. Note that this separation necessitates religious tolerance, meaning it also protects private religious belief. However, I am arguing that the basic assumptions of democratic institutions should include nothing that is based on any religion. Religion, as I have shown, should be a private matter. I accept that religion does influence the decisions of people in public office but I find this regrettable, since it often leads to private morality being forced upon the public.

Ultimately I will continue to argue against religion because although it has benefits for some, it continues to have a negative effect on many people around the world. I consider the best way to live a life is to live with the assumption that there is no god or afterlife, and to accept a secular account of morality, and will promote that belief because I want more people to live better lives. I am willing to admit this is my own opinion. I repeat that I believe in secularism (and therefore religious tolerance), and I would never advocate abolishing religion or promoting a law that prevented a person from practicing their religion.

People have a right to decide for themselves the best way to live a life. They should not use public office to force it upon others.

[Nick_A]

Hi pjkeeley

Would you accept the possibility that Simone Weil may be right in her profound observation?

[Juice]

Let me begin by offering an alternative "analogy". Analogy, from my perspectives, is the downfall of any argument!

Assume that you have an object in your possession which I profess you to have stolen from me. Naturally you deny the allegation but do not remember how the object came to be in your possession and have no evidence to prove that it is "not" stolen. As evidence I produce a photo which clearly shows the same object in my possession. You continue to deny my claim. Now some people will assume that there is no proof that you didn't steal the object and some will claim that there is no proof I actually ever had ownership of the object and some will side with you and some will side with me. You will continue to live your life insisting that you never stole the object and I will insist that you did.

Meaning that proof is in the eye and ears and reasoning of the beholder. Further, what constitutes evidence or proof for you will not necessarily constitute proof for me or any other person for that matter. The same can be applied to your analogy. Analogies automatically annul any premise since they are susceptible to counter analogies, thereby making any analogy baseless and have no value to establishing Truth or concept of truth.

The reference to the possibility that God can be likened to mystical, astrological or superstitious thinking is not the same as conceptualizing God by reason. I'm sorry my friends but the same reasons one can apply to not believing in God are the same reasons one can apply to believing in God with the same value applied to both, particularly if we are to play the analogy game.

I agree that stating there is no absolute proof that there is no God is no reasoned proof that there is a God, but so is saying that I don't see God so therefore I have no reason to believe in God. Language is a precarious fault and God is a paradox.

It also doesn't matter to me what people think or believe or choose not to believe in so far as their choice concerns God. As you state such things are a personal matter and I am sure that God, if He exists, sees it pretty much the same in so far as it being a personal matter.

As far as your other objections are concerned it is a fact, at least here in the US, that upwards of 86% of the population believe in a personal God, so no person seeking elected office, worth his wax, is going to admit to secular, atheist, or amoralist tendencies.

There is a reason for this! Since no reasoning rational individual who values individualism and freedom is going to be fooled by someone claiming authority over others by claiming to be God, or of having authority of others by reason of having God granted authority over others then there must be some level or degree of authority which gives principles to the idea of government, particularly where freedom and free peoples abound. Remember that the Founding documents of the US give each individual authority for themselves and over government according to Judeo-Christian principles so that each person is accorded rights, freedom and peace granted by a higher authority over men from those who would wish to rule them by fiat from their own subjective hubris, authority and self aggrandizement.

I will go further to say that in no way can the ideas of atheism, amoralism or secularism garner such authority according to their own precepts and explanations for being which would allow for any level of peaceful coexistence without fostering the gradual nullifications of freedom and liberty for the individual. I think I can speak for the vast majority of individuals that no man or woman can have any authority over me so long as we have the same or equal capacity for reason as any other human being.

In other words there is no way any man can prove what he says, thinks, feels or reasons is better than what I think, feel or reason unless there is some other authority over us which can be reasoned to be an overriding value of both our reasons and reasoning.

A very simple analogy of logic and reason from the Bible where Jesus is tempted by the devil that he may have his Kingdom and authority over the earth if Jesus simply bows to him.

To change these ideas and precepts one would simply vote for those who are not religiously affiliated or have no belief in God. Let's see how they can explain the actions they take over others without assigning to themselves the moral authority to do so.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[pjkeeley]

Nick_A, I don't understand the meaning of the quote. Sorry.

[Juice]

PJ-Lets try to be a little practical here by first not belittling and comparing the concept of an all powerful being and possible creator of all that is with mythological creatures of an earthly manifestation. This is a mistake nonbelievers make in presenting their argument by proving that they have no reasonable concept of God which, therefore, limits legitimacy to that argument. By analogy there is no explanation for gravity, in fact scientist don't know what causes it, where it is, or how it works. It is the weakest natural force known, yet without it, well who knows. One may as well call it God for all the word actually doesn't define. One would not compare gravity to a unicorn or suggest that it is some mystical magical property, all that is said is that it exists and an explanation is forthcoming thanks to the "marvels" of scientific ability. (We know that the Newtonian model for gravity breaks down with general relativity and now with quantum wave mechanics we can have more predictability of the motion of submicron particles but only with the application of theoretical mathematics yet to be developed).

Phenomenon that contradict the laws of gravity;
Extra fast stars, Pioneer anomaly, Flyby (boomerang) anomaly, Accelerating expansion and a few more.

Problems with evolution; Genetic entropy and Nachman's U-paradox. Not to mention the sex paradox and the life from non-biologic origin paradox.

It would do well to understand that mathematicians predicted the genetic codex before its discovery. Very telling in terms of design probability Biology in context with the pure sciences of mathematics, physics, chemistry and cosmology yields some very interesting results for those who want to "reason" Gods "probability". Hardly the stuff of fantasy or magic. Sorry, but they don't teach people everything so how does one apply everything to the possibility that there is no everything?

The purpose of my "analogy" is to show that people will want to choose on their own what to believe and how to believe it, and also what constitutes a valid interpretation of what constitutes and merits proof. Regardless of what anyone wants, people will do what they feel is best and for themselves using thier own method of reason and intuition.

Making the assumption that there is no evidence for God is based on the assumption that the evidence proves there is no God particularly in regard to most peoples limited perceptions of what could constitute such proof. What constitutes proof? That there is something instead of nothing and something to know the difference? Is reason limited to the five senses?

Secularism, atheism and amoralism fail since they cannot explain the need for values beyond the material which in turn fails due to varied concepts of values from individual to individual. They provide no rational for moral consistency. The only way they could do this is by force.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Scott]

I like pjkeeley's analogy. It reminds me of a post I made before, not particularly about religion: How much evidence does it take to believe or to know?

In one sense of the idea 'know for certain,' it is true we cannot know anything for certain. No amount of evidence can prove something beyond unreasonable doubt.

In common language, we can know things. For instance, I know Hartford is the capital of Connecticut, and I know Florida is NOT the capital of Florida.

One can also believe something without knowing it, or disbelieve something without knowing it is false.

One could also lack enough information or evidence to believe one way or the other.

Many people probably are inconsistent in their beliefs. Biases cause them to use a stricter standard of belief when discussing something they do not want to be believed, and they use a more liberal standard of belief when they want something to be believed. For instance, I think it would be inconsistent to believe Santa is real but believe that the Easter Bunny is not real.

Regardless, different people can each have a different standard of belief, but at the same time each person could be consistent with him or her self. He or she could just be consistently more skeptical or consistently more willing to believe things.

Anyway, my point is this: We cannot answer the question of whether or not there is enough evidence to believe a given proposition without first agreeing on a standard of belief. If we realize two people have different standards, we can agree that a certain proposition is believable using one standard and not believable using the other.

Nonetheless, the lack of evidence proving an impossible amount certainty for a certain belief (e.g. the claim that we cannot know for certain god does not exist) of course is not at all evidence to believe the opposite (e.g. "Therefore, let's believe in god(s).") To use pjkeeley's analogy, the inability to prove that a murder did not take place is not evidence that it did take place, is not under any standard a reason to believe the murder did take place, and is not reason to believe any one of the suspects is guilty. A prosecutor would be laughed out of court if his case rested on the claim, "You can't prove beyond an unreasonable doubt that a murder did not take place, therefore this particular defendant is guilty."
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Juice]

It would be fallacious to believe that a jury of "peers" determines for or against any particular aspect of judicial advocacy based solely on law or evidence since most people who sit on juries would not have a reasonable foundation in the law to make such a determined verdict. Instead it is more likely that people come to conclusions based on conscience. In the case of evidence, and although forensic science is getting better, one cannot be sure that all the evidence presented is all the evidence there is. Furthermore some may give more weight to some evidence than others. For instance in the case of rape some jurors may believe that the word of the victim is more important than the DNA evidence even if such evidence proves the contrary of her statements (unlikely but just an analogy).

As far as the God of the gaps argument goes I doubt any serious detractor of Darwinism ever presented that as an argument. Rather what is says is that there is sufficient gaps in Darwin's theory as to make it suspect of any consideration beyond mere theory {speculation, myth, unicorn )

I understand that evolution is not a proper discussion for this forum science was brought up in the OP requiring rebuttal.

I bring up the fact that sexual dimorphism or the advent of two distinct sexes from a single primordial organism only capable of asexual reproduction is irreducibly complex. We must understand that such an evolutionary undertaking would require that two distinct organism would have develop specialized organs, working in concordance, simultaneously for sexual reproduction to work. Hardly discussed by Darwinian proponents. Square peg in a round hole analogy. Be careful of not being willing to question science whenever possible.

The eye has no evolutionary explanation and before anyone gets into it with me I suggest you get an in depth course in the structure of the eye and what makes it work and how it works and how science guesses it evolved before hand.

I submit that secularism, amoralism or atheism cannot be a determined way of presenting and arguing the value of any law so therefore has no reliability as a defense for the validity of law so therefore cannot work as a means for the governance of free people since its precepts would come from men subject to the same faults, failures, weaknesses and strengths of any other men.

I submit that the Constitution is created based on Judeo-Christian principles, and was done so since no higher authority can be found among men which can reliably secure and defend the inalienability of rights accorded to each individual man and as such no moral authority can exist among men without God.

"BIG CAN OF WORMS FOR THOSE WILLING"
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[ape]

[Nick_A]

pjkeeley

[Belinda]

PJkeeley in #1 decribes a scenario in which the event may have been deliberately caused by a conscious third party, or as increasing but not conclusive evidence shows, it may have been an accident, or caused by the agent himself. This scenario implies that God created all as a once and for all act, out of nothing(ex nihilo). Modern process theologians claim that God creates, created, and will create the creation out of himself(ex deo)as an ongoing and uncompleted process.

The version of God in process theology could be a personification of human consciousness, and will towards the good and the true.There is no need for speculations about some supernatural being. In process theology God is spirit of goodness and truth and not some heavenly Santa Claus.



Creation as a one-off event is therefore inconsistent with modern science and a moral way of conducting politics, but creation as continual and ongoing is consistent with science, and is inspiring and a positive aim for all of us who care about morality in politics.
_________________
Socialist

[pjkeeley]

[Juice]

If a mod wants to switch this thread to religion or metaphysics I think it would be better served, but just as well here if no one minds the level to which this discussion may proceed. I hope!

This is philosophy so I think I want to start with what exactly is the fundamental goal of philosophy if we are to take it seriously or believe that it should be that of a serious exercise of meaning, a worthwhile effort. In that context PJ has done what needed to be done to effect that goal and that is postulate and marry several ideas into what should formulate the basis for the exercise upon which the goal of philosophy should be founded.

No one can be excluded from this discussion regardless of main level of interest and/or expertise since the entirety of the human endeavor is aimed, for better or worse, truth or false, on everything humanity does.

The theory of everything doesn't reside in the stars but in the minds of men. Nothing can be said about the physics of a star that a poet doesn't consider equally expressed in verse. And biology means nothing unless in the end it can catch a star.

What do I mean? If there is a Truth then there must be a way to touch it, at least get a pinky around it and from my view it can't be done unless it includes whatever it is we are supposed to know. Science, religion and politics. They have to mean something!

I think for the most part none of us are comfortable with "existence". There seems to be something unnatural about the whole ordeal. Almost an exercise in futility. Our minds continuously put things in order only to have it question what exactly is order and why is it so important to have it. We know when our rooms are a mess, we may not care, but we know it. But, it seems to take a long time for us to realize that our lives are a mess. Something we should have done but didn't. Something we did but shouldn't have done. Things we wish we could do, things we're sorry we can't.

For the most part I read, think and write. Someone writes something, I read it, then write what I think about it. Sometimes I get to think all on my own and come up with something semi-original. I feel like those people in UFO movies who do something they can't figure out but are compelled to do it. So now I don't believe anything anyone says unless I can figure it out for myself. Why is the sky blue? Would anyone believe me if I said that despite all the assuredness surrounding a blue sky there is a certain attribute in nature which suggests that the sky should not be blue at all? Go figure.

Anyway, I need to respond to PJ but its late. I just wanted to encourage more people to see their way clear to get involved in this thread, before I start throwing wrenches into the works. Someone has to do it.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[ape]

[Juice]

When it is proposed that there is no evidence for God a Christian will respond with the Words in the Bible. Granted, under secular reason, and for those who oppose the validity of the Bible as empirical evidence then the value of the Bible itself, as evidence, is debatable depending on the goal of the debaters. But the value of the Bible as a philosophical tool to direct someone to evidence of the existence of God may be possible. Like a map or Rubik's Cube.

The Bible says, in effect, that the world, the other life creations on the world, including resources are mans to use as he sees fit. I don't think this just means to use everything as a material exploitation of some sort but also to look at the world and everything that makes it what it is and learn from it. Thinking along those lines I wonder what it was like for a hard thinking human being of ancient times who was trying to figure existence out if he thought that once the technology becomes available we'll be able to figure it out. I mean I wonder if having never seen an atom the ancient Greeks thought that there would someday be technology which would allow someone to see an atom. It just seems strange that people who would contemplate such a thing would not have the natural curiosity to want to see the things of their dreams. Of course it would be over a thousand years before someone actually devised an instrument to see atoms. It is a wonder that the idea of the atom persisted, in various forms, for so many years without anyone actually having to see one.

We talk about beauty, such an abstract idea. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The saying has been around since 300 BC in one form or another. Shakespeare used it in "Love's Labors Lost", and Hume touched on its property in the mind. I suppose we can be talked into considering that something is beautiful, like babies. I swear to this day my first born is the most beautiful child ever to come forth from a woman’s womb. But, I still get arguments from those who feel the same about their child, no matter how bald the kid is. Along those lines of beauty, necessity and use I think about the butterfly. We seem to take things for granted. Like sex, the eye and the butterfly, pretty much thanks to Darwin otherwise the evidence for God would be so much more prevalent, even obvious.

[Nick_A]

pjkeeley