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
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

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

Post by Belindi »

I think that the original question should be reviewed.

The word 'believe' changes its meaning according to the context or frame.
The original question has 'Believe' and 'Prove ' in the same sentence so it looks as if the origianal poster presumes that God is the sort of thing that if it can't be proved to exist , might not exist.

'Existence' is another vague word which is given meaning by its context.

If the question were to be 'Why Trust in God when it's impossible to prove?' ' there are several sufficient reasons for trusting in God.

I myself prefer the question 'Why have faith in God when it's impossible to prove?'

Trust in God is too unquestioningly docile. I imagine that even God does not want unquestioning docility. Faith is what keeps a person going even when his life is in tatters and he is sure of no moral certainties, but keeps on seeking the Good whatever that may be.
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 »

it looks as if the origianal poster presumes that God is the sort of thing that if it can't be proved to exist , might not exist.
I'm possibly misunderstanding your meaning here. If we take something which can't be proven to exist how do we then show that it absolutely does or doesn't? Saying something might not exist if it can't be proven to exist seems like a minimal amount of presumption to me.
I guess you could argue that the OP is presuming logical laws such as non-contradiction and A equalling A, stuff like that. But it's not clear they are presuming this.
Unknown means unknown.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

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

Post by Fanman »

Steve3007,
On the subject of absolute morality versus relativist morality, my own view is that there is essentially no difference between the two. A moral absolutist tells you some actions that he/she believes to be morally right or wrong. So does a moral relativist. They're both giving you their opinion. In both cases nobody else's opinion is there's to give.
I think that's correct. A moral relativist may have, say, a code of conduct, so does a moral absolutist. Both believe in a way of living and both have principles that they adhere to. A moral absolutist may adhere to Jesus' famous “do unto others, as you would do unto yourself” maxim, whereas a moral relativist, not being religious, may adhere to the “golden rule” maxim, which is effectively the same thing. DM sees a strong distinction between the two, and epistemologically there may be, but effectively there isn't as they're both adhering to standards of morality, albeit not from the same perspectives.
Nevertheless, Dark Matter's assertion is a commonly made one by moral absolutists. It is the assertion that people choose to be moral relativists because it frees them from the notion that they cannot simply do as they choose; that they cannot simply follow their own personal preferences. In other words, it is the assertion that moral relativism is about selfishness. Conversely, a moral relativist might level a similar accusation of selfishness against an absolutist by suggesting that they are setting themselves up as the arbiter of morality by claiming personal access to objective moral truths.
I agree. I think that moral absolutists will think negatively of anyone who doesn't conform to their understanding of principles; hence DM's comment in reply to me “I cannot imagine a better example of moral cowardice.” I haven't thought about it enough to feel sure, but I think that a moral relativist would be more accepting of another person's principles, even if they personally reject them, because they don't view things in absolute terms. I think that the problem with any form of absolutism, is that anyone who disagrees becomes the enemy, which (if he will excuse me) leads to a siege, mentality like DM seems to display.

---

Eduk,
I guess you could argue that the OP is presuming logical laws such as non-contradiction and A equalling A, stuff like that. But it's not clear they are presuming this.
I don't mean this as a personal criticism of Spectrum, but I find that he presumes things more than anyone I've encountered. You can be sure he's presuming something, even if it's not entirely clear what he is presuming.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

Belindi wrote: January 17th, 2019, 8:26 am I think that the original question should be reviewed.

The word 'believe' changes its meaning according to the context or frame.
The original question has 'Believe' and 'Prove ' in the same sentence so it looks as if the origianal poster presumes that God is the sort of thing that if it can't be proved to exist , might not exist.

'Existence' is another vague word which is given meaning by its context.

If the question were to be 'Why Trust in God when it's impossible to prove?' ' there are several sufficient reasons for trusting in God.

I myself prefer the question 'Why have faith in God when it's impossible to prove?'

Trust in God is too unquestioningly docile. I imagine that even God does not want unquestioning docility. Faith is what keeps a person going even when his life is in tatters and he is sure of no moral certainties, but keeps on seeking the Good whatever that may be.
Very logical and insightful post. Though your red question does not follow, because the purpose of faith is specifically to address the unprovable. That is, if something is provable then you don't need faith, you can just accept the proof.
"As usual... it depends."
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 »

On the subject of absolute morality versus relativist morality, my own view is that there is essentially no difference between the two.
That's just plain silly. I'd expect something like that from Spectrum, but not Steve. The moral absolutist has feet planted firmly planted on thin air; his or her opinions are arbitrary by definition. The moral absolutist envisions an Absolute against which his opinions are measured though, it does not imply certainty. The claims of a moral absolutist who denies an Absolute is irrational and arbitrary.
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 »

Fanman is there a difference epistemologically between do unto others as you would have them do unto you and the golden rule?
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 »

Dark Matter wrote: January 18th, 2019, 4:01 am
On the subject of absolute morality versus relativist morality, my own view is that there is essentially no difference between the two.
That's just plain silly. I'd expect something like that from Spectrum, but not Steve. The moral absolutist has feet planted firmly planted on thin air; his or her opinions are arbitrary by definition. The moral absolutist envisions an Absolute against which his opinions are measured, though it does not imply certainty. The claims of a moral absolutist who denies an Absolute is irrational and arbitrary.
Truth, goodness and beauty are meaningless concepts without their respective Absolutes. This realization, by itself, answers the question: it gives us something to aim for instead of engaging in pointless debates and hysterically waving our arms in the hope that we can get everyone to agree.

This brings us back to the question of relativism: are all ideas created equally? Are all beliefs equivalent? I think Steve's statement answers those questions regarding his own worldview.
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 »

Correction in red
Dark Matter wrote: January 18th, 2019, 4:48 am
Dark Matter wrote: January 18th, 2019, 4:01 am

That's just plain silly. I'd expect something like that from Spectrum, but not Steve. The moral relativist has feet planted firmly planted on thin air; his or her opinions are arbitrary by definition. The moral absolutist envisions an Absolute against which his opinions are measured, though it does not imply certainty. The claims of a moral absolutist who denies an Absolute is irrational and arbitrary.
Truth, goodness and beauty are meaningless concepts without their respective Absolutes. This realization, by itself, answers the question: it gives us something to aim for instead of engaging in pointless debates and hysterically waving our arms in the hope that we can get everyone to agree.

This brings us back to the question of relativism: are all ideas created equally? Are all beliefs equivalent? I think Steve's statement answers those questions regarding his own worldview.
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 »

Also up is down.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

Dark Matter wrote: January 18th, 2019, 4:48 am
Dark Matter wrote: January 18th, 2019, 4:01 am

That's just plain silly. I'd expect something like that from Spectrum, but not Steve. The moral absolutist has feet planted firmly planted on thin air; his or her opinions are arbitrary by definition. The moral absolutist envisions an Absolute against which his opinions are measured, though it does not imply certainty. The claims of a moral absolutist who denies an Absolute is irrational and arbitrary.
Truth, goodness and beauty are meaningless concepts without their respective Absolutes. This realization, by itself, answers the question: it gives us something to aim for instead of engaging in pointless debates and hysterically waving our arms in the hope that we can get everyone to agree.

This brings us back to the question of relativism: are all ideas created equally? Are all beliefs equivalent? I think Steve's statement answers those questions regarding his own worldview.
This appears to be a solipsist view, as if positing, "What is true, good and beautiful to me is true, good and beautiful per se".

A cow may have a different view of the beautiful veal you eat, and whether it is good when her heifer is taken away for slaughter. The absolutist idea of "Thou shalt not kill" is, of course, completely relative. Thou shalt not kill humans - do what you like with everything else, apparently. I am yet to see absolutists advocate on behalf of the voiceless in this world, whom they objectify as surely and cruelly as they themselves were objectified in their early days of victimisation.

Yet showing mercy to other species dependent on our goodwill is not a universal either. If I am an northern Indian villager being terrorised by tigers, then interactions with nature are a matter of survival, not morality.

DM, do you have any examples of absolute good or absolute beauty that cannot easily be reduced to relativities?
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

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

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Fanman wrote: January 17th, 2019, 2:03 pm I think that's correct. A moral relativist may have, say, a code of conduct, so does a moral absolutist. Both believe in a way of living and both have principles that they adhere to. A moral absolutist may adhere to Jesus' famous “do unto others, as you would do unto yourself” maxim, whereas a moral relativist, not being religious, may adhere to the “golden rule” maxim, which is effectively the same thing. DM sees a strong distinction between the two, and epistemologically there may be, but effectively there isn't as they're both adhering to standards of morality, albeit not from the same perspectives.
Though the relativist could not think of what they are doing as good, nor can they criticize others for their behavior. Perhaps, they can accuse someone of being a hypocrite, but then they are trying to engage the other person's morality against them. They can certainly care about others, but there is no need for a maxim, either their desire pulls them to do this or not. It would be strange for them to try to live up to or follow a maxim. Why? one has no way of knowing if it is better than any other maxim, according to their own beliefs. They can say, Oh, I hate Trump. I don't like what is happening, but they cannot mount a moral case against him, or more important in any discussion of morals. At a meeting at work they can say 'I'd like us to....X' But they cannot say that Joe who doesn't want to recycle is wrong. They are out of the game of convincing others of the better way to live. Unless, in a Machievellian sense they pretend to have morals to make the world how they want it to be. Which, actually, is fine, or at least consistant, if in a sense hypocritical but not bad.
I agree. I think that moral absolutists will think negatively of anyone who doesn't conform to their understanding of principles; hence DM's comment in reply to me “I cannot imagine a better example of moral cowardice.” I haven't thought about it enough to feel sure, but I think that a moral relativist would be more accepting of another person's principles, even if they personally reject them, because they don't view things in absolute terms. I think that the problem with any form of absolutism, is that anyone who disagrees becomes the enemy, which (if he will excuse me) leads to a siege, mentality like DM seems to display.

Though I think he is, perhaps not clearly, responding to people who are also absolutists but call themselves or try to appear as relativists. IOW they dislike religious people for have a set of deontological rules. But you'll notice that they also condemn as evil fundamentalists or homophobes or republicans or the Tea party. It's a cake and eat it too position. And one that I think has actually gotten out of hand.

There are so many cultural, habitual, corporate cultural, habit based things that do not matter to me. I am a relativist regarding those. But I do have something quite similar to absolute stands.

You like some of the absolutists will have stuff you just think is wrong and will fight just as hard against. YOu may make some epistemological caveats, but IRL we will see angry, condemning, judgmental behavior based on moral positions. I think both sides work under this illusion that many people are relativists. I don't believe it.

So if you imagine his anger aimed at people claiming to be relativists who in the next sentence will condemn him on moral grounds, you might understand his rage. (DM may not agree with me in my analysis, he may think they really are relativists, but his descriptions include moral condemnations from their side, so I don't buy it. But hereäs the key thing: these faux relativists may well think they are not moral judgers, that they always see two sides or more, that they are acccepting and more loving. I am sure there are some people like this, but there are very few of them.)

Even a moral absolutist can deal with those they disagree with in nuanced non-agressive not binary ways. A Martin Luther King, say.

Most of us are not open to seeing pedophilia involving, especially, our own children, in relative terms. Like, no, I see the possible truth in both sides and I can't decide which is right.

And at war demonstrations and counterdemonstrations, we do not have relativists vs. absolutists, we have a clash of morals. Likewise at abortion pro and con demonstrations. Likewise around Trump.

It's this weird and I think sick collusion between both sides to think, generally, the left are relativists. They both feed this illusion, and both have strong psychological reasons for doing this. The absolutists don't like getting down in the epistemology of their morals (how they know they are right) and the lefties are still trying to disidentify with various churches. These day it should be clear that everybody has their index finger out and think that finger is empowered but THE TRUTH.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

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

Post by Fooloso4 »

The moral relativist points to the various competing claims made by absolutists. They cannot all be right and each claims that his version alone is.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

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

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Fooloso4 wrote: January 18th, 2019, 10:35 am The moral relativist points to the various competing claims made by absolutists. They cannot all be right and each claims that his version alone is.
Sure, but in real life, pretty much every relativist is an absolutist. And once an relativist has pointed out what you say above, that's really all he or she can do. I mean, he or she can't say it's bad to be sure when your epistemology seems weak.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

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

Post by Belindi »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: January 18th, 2019, 10:45 am
Fooloso4 wrote: January 18th, 2019, 10:35 am The moral relativist points to the various competing claims made by absolutists. They cannot all be right and each claims that his version alone is.
Sure, but in real life, pretty much every relativist is an absolutist. And once an relativist has pointed out what you say above, that's really all he or she can do. I mean, he or she can't say it's bad to be sure when your epistemology seems weak.

On the contrary it's good to be able forever to not know, and to know that you will never know. This is a positive ability.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

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

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Belindi wrote: January 18th, 2019, 10:55 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote: January 18th, 2019, 10:45 am
Sure, but in real life, pretty much every relativist is an absolutist. And once an relativist has pointed out what you say above, that's really all he or she can do. I mean, he or she can't say it's bad to be sure when your epistemology seems weak.

On the contrary it's good to be able forever to not know, and to know that you will never know. This is a positive ability.
I didn't say anything about it being good or bad. And then, how can a relativist say it is good? I can see saying that you, personally, enjoy it, but good`? (a relativist can't say it's good or bad)

But perhaps the grammar of my last sentence was not clear. In my last quoted sentence above, I mean that the relativist can say that the absolutists certainty is bad.
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