D
Desertsailor
Guest
Good Post. It requires a lot of FAITH to be an atheist.
- Status
S
sadiebelle
Guest
Hmmm. I’ve never read this before. It looks good to me, but, again, I’m not sure that an atheist could be reasoned into faith, you know? It seems like serious atheists need to have empirical evidence. This certainly isn’t empirical evidence. And I’m still waiting for someone to help me understand why we can’t get empirical evidence of God. It would seem to me that we should be able to.
S
sadiebelle
Guest
That doesn’t seem fair. I’ve heard that before but being an atheist only means that someone hasn’t been convinced that there is a God, not that they actively believe there isn’t one. The standard answer to this that I’ve heard is that it doesn’t take more faith not to believe in aliens than it does to believe. Or, um, then you must have a lot of faith to not believe in zeus, or whatever.
It doesn’t really make sense to me that it would take a lot of faith to be an atheist because their come-back is right. It doesn’t take more faith for me to not believe in Zeus. That’s easy and takes no faith at all.
D
duffyk4
Guest
Sadie, “it is said: you shall not tempt the Lord your God.” You cannot demand a sign from God in order for him to prove himself.
S
sadiebelle
Guest
Ok, I gotcha. I’m just saying that an atheist wouldn’t accept something without evidence even in Einstein said it.
S
sadiebelle
Guest
Is that what tempt means? We can’t prove God or do experiments? We cannot ask God to prove himself? Don’t people do that all the time? Don’t we say that if you just ask God with an open mind and a willing heart that he will come into your heart and show you that he is Lord? Is that tempting too? 'Cause that seems way more “tempting-ish” (ok, that’s not a word, but you get my drift, right?
) than doing an experiment to measure the things that God is doing anyway, ie healing people, lifting spirts, giving hope, etc.I’m really trying here, but I’m having a hard time understanding.
D
duffyk4
Guest
I apologize, here’s some more modern language, along with full context of the passage.Is that what tempt means? We can’t prove God or do experiments? We cannot ask God to prove himself? Don’t people do that all the time? Don’t we say that if you just ask God with an open mind and a willing heart that he will come into your heart and show you that he is Lord? Is that tempting too? 'Cause that seems way more “tempting-ish” (ok, that’s not a word, but you get my drift, right?
I’m really trying here, but I’m having a hard time understanding.
*5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
***” 'He will command his angels concerning you,
******and they will lift you up in their hands,
*so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’"
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[c]”*
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Your other thread “The Catholic God and Suffering” seems to be a variation on this theme, or at least that seems to be where you are trying to direct that discussion, but maybe that’s just my take on it.
This is called a “universal negative” which is impossible to prove. As such, it has never been an acceptable argument in a logical discourse. All you can say is that you, as an individual, have never encountered what you deem to be acceptable proof for the existence of a divine being. If atheists claim to be rational-minded then their “best argument” ought not be a logically irrational position.
- Love does not manifest in a measurable way.
- Love cannot be examined under laboratory conditions.
- According to your reasoning, love does not exist.
The implication in your statement is that the scientific method is the only valid way of discerning truth. The problem is that it fails its own test. In other words, the scientific method cannot prove that the scientific method is the only valid way of discerning truth. The concept is self-contradictory, and therefore must be discarded as false.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
That thread is an exploration of my opinion about the values of this god, as depicted in the stories about him. It’s not an argument against his existence.
I fully grant that it’s possible that a god exists whom I would consider a monster. The argument against his existence isn’t “I think he’s a monster,” but rather, “There’s no evidence he’s real.”
No, all I can say is that mankind has never discovered any evidence whatsoever that any god is real (or that any other supernatural thing is real, mind you).
It bears repeating: knowledge is not based on what one person has experienced or thinks. I don’t need to personally see electrons to know with a good degree of certainty that they exist – and the reason for that is that the human race has amassed a great deal of evidence over the years.
Love is a label we put on a wide variety of emotions. Emotions exist – they’re products of brain chemistry, and we have indeed observed them at work in brains. And furthermore, we’ve all experienced them. Whether or not emotions exist isn’t in question.
To try to pretend that claims about the existence of supernatural beings is in any way comparable to the existence of emotions for which every last one of us has incontrovertible evidence (in addition to more scientific evidence affirming their existence) is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
Actually, what I’m implying is that evidence-based inquiry is the only reliable method of determining what is likely to be true, and I make that statement based on evidence: all of the discoveries that have enabled humans to control their environment – strongly suggesting that these discoveries do indeed accord with reality – have come about through evidence-based inquiry.
The computer that you are reading this post on, for example, is the result of evidence-based inquiry.
I’m not claiming that every last piece of evidence we have must be obtained scientifically – the vast majority of the decisions we make in our daily lives don’t require scientific experiments – but they do require evidence.
Different claims require different kinds of evidence. The claim “I feel happy right now” only requires the evidence of my own observation of my being. The claim “a flying car exists in my backyard” requires significantly different kinds of evidence and may very well require evidence obtained from scientific methods if it is to be considered valid.
As to evidence-based inquiry being unable to “prove” itself…the question itself is non-sensical because proof necessarily entails evidence. Go on, explain a method of determining truth that does not rely on evidence. And then explain how you know that its conclusions are true.
You cannot escape evidence.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Are you really suggesting that experience and reason cannot result in the attainment of knowledge?
Love transcends emotions. It is ultimately about choices made which may or may not have an emotional component associated with it at the time. Plus, when emotions are present, they may be anywhere from sensual bliss to the pains of sacrifice.
Then I am challenging you to describe the evidence-based method you would use to affirm the existence of love. And for the sake of the discussion at hand, the burden of proof for the existence of love must be set to the same standards as the burden you require for proof of the existence of God. If you are going to claim that my reasoning reflects “incredible intellectual dishonesty” then I ask that you do me the courtesy of backing that up with something other than your personal opinion as to what is and is not scientifically feasible.
I do not doubt that. But evidence based inquiry is not the only valid method for discerning truth. The scientific method is highly useful and valuable, but not the sole method. The human race discerned a lot of truth prior to the conception of the scientific method. A philosopher once discerned the concept of atoms long before science confirmed their existence.
Furthermore, the scientific method can only measure observable reality. There are elements within reality that are not observable but exist nonetheless. For example, we can study the effects of memory, but not memory itself. Memory itself is one of the great mysteries of science. We can study the effects of dreams but not dreams themselves.
But some of what we accept as evidence in daily life has little or no scientific basis. For example, there is the testimony of others whom we deem to be credible. Consider all the decisions people make based on that alone (“My friend told me to get this,” “My brother recommended that”, and so forth). My point is not to downplay the importance of science but simply to be realistic about its limitations.
I did not say that evidence-based inquiry is unable to prove itself. I said that the scientific method cannot be used to prove that the scientific method is the only valid method for discerning truth. Furthermore, an evidence-based inquiry does not necessarily mean the scientific method. There are some things that we experience in life and therefore provide evidence in some form or fashion, or we could not have perceived it to begin with. But not all of this evidence can be scientifically identified, measured, quantified and subject to repeated examination, which is what the scientific method is.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Because we’re just people. Just simple people. Even the smartest persons who have ever existed are so limited that it’s almost ludicrous. Nobody need empirical evidence of God. If they’re interested, they need to spend an couple hours in front of the blessed sacrament with an open mind, and a few minutes on their knees in prayer for understanding of his glory and gifts.
It is not empirical evidence that atheists lack. It is faith they lack There’s nothing less believable or less scientific in Thomas Aquinas, then there is in Steven Hawking or whoever you’d like to put up. I’ve read dawkins. He’s certainly not very smart, and has virtually no good science in his book at all. Why wouldn’t empirical minds demand evidence from this fellow? Because they don’t WANT to believe in God. That’s the whole point. They just want to be stroked on the back by a pseudointellectual and told that not believing in God is the smart thing to do. Be with the “in crowd”.
If you have atheist loved ones, friends, family, then I recommend good old fashioned prayer for them, and living by example. If they want to argue, give them aquinas. Ask them to read it themsevles. (They won’t), in good part because they won’t understand him, and they’ll be looking for places to tear it apart anyway, instead of praying for enlightenment and understanding of what’s being taught.
God bless us all, including the atheists. Here’s a quote by C.S. Lewis which I’ve always thought sums it up: “A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.”
God bless you, and good luck with whoever is at the core of this with you. Just don’t argue. Pray for them. Love them, and live like Christ in front of them without shame.
Peace,
Steven
S
sadiebelle
Guest
S
sadiebelle
Guest
Now, I know this was not directed at me, but this has come very close to convincing me…of something
So the conclusion is you cannot measure love, but you know it exists and any atheist would say that it exists, so they can’t argue that that only accept things based on evidence?
Hmmmm. I guess that my question would be…almost everyone experiences love. Not that that means it is real, it could be mass hysteria, I guess. But, we do know some of the reasons that we feel love because of evidence. We know that oxytocin has something to do with it. It is the “love hormone” after all. There is some evidence that love is a biological function, right? I suppose I’m questioning here if love exists as a thing. Surely it is a concept, but is it just a word that people use to describe the rush of hormones and the lasting effects of those hormones on the brain?
Oh, man. I think your proof just made me question the actual existance of love as a thing.
Also, I have to say that even if we accept that love is a thing, almost everyone has experienced it and it seems reasonable enough to accept it. However, why hasn’t everyone experienced the Christian God? Surely He is just as real as love? We don’t need anyone to tell us that that feeling we have when we hold our child is love. Why would we need someone to tell us that there is a God? Shouldn’t that be just as self evident?
Edited to add: Whoops. I see that Anti-theist has touched on some of this already. I’m really trying to hold on to my faith here…
S
sadiebelle
Guest
But we do have evidence of some things. And even in our limited state, it seems to me that we could collect evidence of the work God is doing in this world. Why is everyone disagreeing with me? I don’t understand. We should be able to measure the difference between praying to God and not or between praying to the Christian God and not. We should be able to do this in a scientific way. It should always come out the same way, no matter who is doing the data collection. Just like no matter who is doing the collection, gravity always works. Why can’t this be done?
But so many atheists have done just that and come away feeling nothing. I have certainly done that and I feel my faith slipping away from me. I am trying so hard to hold on. I want to believe so badly. I still do believe, I don’t think that I’ll ever let go of God, but I’ve come here to build up my faith and all of my reading and questioning is just making that harder and harder. I go to confession weekly, I confer with my priest, I go to adoration weekly, I study the Bible, I pray, pray, pray. Please don’t tell me that I’m not trying hard enough or doing it right, or that I lack faith or that I don’t want to believe. That’s so insulting. And believe me, not having faith is not being in the “in crowd” where I am.
D
duffyk4
Guest
Sadie, you have no idea how much your message connects with me. I’ve been struggling with the very same things you have, which partly led mto the creation of this thread. But I’ve come to realize that God transcends everything material on this earth, there will never be a scientific study that proves or disproved God or the effect of praying. Not only because the logistics of such a study would be impossible to retrieve (the effects of prayer to God: are you really going to survey everyone who prays?) but also because God relies on faith. Not blind faith, mind you. Can you not feel God inside you when you partake of the sacraments or have a really good prayer? The tree is judged by the fruit it bears, and look around you: God’s fruits are everywhere. If you truly are sincerely trying to hang on to your faith, don’t stop at this forum. Voice these concerns to you priest. He can help you much better than any of us probably can.
S
sadiebelle
Guest
Thanks, Duffy. I’m trying not to sound petulant with all of the “why, why, why?” stuff, but I’m really searching here.
You said that there will never be a scientific study tha tproves or disproves God or the effect of praying, but they’ve been doing these studies for years. Here’s a link to three showing that prayer had some positive effects godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html and here is a link showing that the largest and most recent study showed that not only did prayer not work, but it was slightly harmful msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ and here is one that showed that it did nothing, but that mit therapy did seem to help washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401695.html .
What’s up with that? Why would that be that some studies show one thing and some studies show others? Like I said before, if you did a study on gravity it would always work. Every time. Why wouldn’t all the studies show that prayer worked?
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Thanks for your feedback on this. In my discussions, I tend to address the concept of knowledge that is derived from the scientific method. In other words, being able to measure and quantify that which is being studied and subject it to repeatable experimentation. In past I’ve met atheists who made claims such as “There is no evidence for the existence of a divine being”. But the question is really not “Is there evidence?” but rather, “What can be accepted as evidence?” That’s when the atheist usually clarifies that evidence (in his opinion) is something that can be subjected to the scientific method. And the position that is taken is usually, “I withhold belief in a divine being until evidence of a divine being can be tested via the scientific method.”Now, I know this was not directed at me, but this has come very close to convincing me…of something
So the conclusion is you cannot measure love, but you know it exists and any atheist would say that it exists, so they can’t argue that that only accept things based on evidence?
But, as I pointed out, humans believe in many things that are not subject to the scientific method, such as love. Nevertheless, generally speaking, people do not withhold belief in such things. Therefore, to withhold belief in God but not in, say, love, is a double-standard. It is almost as if the person himself decides what ought to exist and what ought not to. If confronted with a concept about something he wants to exist, he readily accepts it with no scientific validation required. If confronted with a concept about something he does not want to exist, he requires scientific validation in order to believe.
Along these lines, consider the ramifications of the fact that the existence of love cannot be validated through the scientific method. Namely, people who claim to have gotten married “because of love” made what was arguably the most important decision of their lives based on something that cannot be proven to exist with the scientific method.
(Continued in my next post)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
The phenomenon of love encompasses a wide range of emotions and behaviors. You have described the euphoria that is sometimes associated with love. For example, the giddiness a person may feel after a first kiss, which could, at least in part, be connected with the “love hormone.” But then there is the person who subconsciously has a crush on someone who they intellectually don’t like, and this emotional attraction actually makes them mad. There is no euphoria there. And then there are situations about unpleasant sacrifices that people make for the sake of love. I know of a mother who was taking care of her sick child by herself for several days because her husband was in another country. The child cried almost constantly and would not sleep, and therefore this woman could not sleep either, day after day. She told me that she was so worn out and exhausted that she started crying. Her care for that child was motivated by a mother’s love, but there was no euphoria there every time she got up in the middle of night to the sound of a screaming baby. And this example also leads us to remember that love is not always a situation involving romance, because there is the love between parents and children, between siblings, etc.
Consider your question in light of the fact that the Bible teaches that God is love, and that anyone who knows love knows God (1John 4:7-8). So I could say that anyone who experiences love has likewise experienced God. But there is often a disconnection between what a human experiences and what he chooses to label that experience. For example, in the old song “I’m Not in Love” by 10cc, the singer is declaring that what he is experiencing is not love (“It’s just a silly phase I’m going through”) and yet it is very obvious to the listener that he is, indeed, experiencing love. From the way I see it, humans experience God in a variety of ways, but we are free to label it as something else, and convince ourselves accordingly. To be fair, an atheist could accuse me of incorrectly labeling the experience as God, because, all in all, the existence of God is not clearly evident (as you have pointed out).
In my opinion, God would not permit himself to be 100% clearly evident (at least not this side of heaven). He would not permit his existence to be proven by the scientific method. The reason I say this is because Christianity teaches that our relationship with God is meant to be a relationship of love and, more specifically, a love that is founded upon faith. If people could prove the existence of God through a laboratory experiment, they would believe in God as a result of cold rationality. In other words, people would believe in God because he obviously exists. But God wants love through faith, not intellectual acknowledgement of laboratory experiments. I believe that the sun exists because I can readily see it, and the effects it has on my environment are clearly demonstrable. But I do not say that I have faith that the sun exists. It seems to me that faith can only truly be exercised if there is the possibility of doubt. After all, when we speak of having faith in something, isn’t it usually in the context of having reason to doubt, and yet overcoming this doubt in order to believe?
A
AntiTheist
Guest
No, I was merely pointing out that knowledge – human knowledge – is not simply based on what only one person has seen and experienced. My knowledge encompasses a lot more than just what I’ve experienced. For example, I know that electrons exist, even though I’ve not personally experienced them. The evidence for their existence has been collected, and that knowledge has allowed mankind to do many other things.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Love is an emotion – or, more accurately, a label placed on a wide group of various emotions. Sure, love feels really, really good, but it’s still just a product of brain chemistry.
I can demonstrate to myself quite readily that I am in love by observing the evidence of my emotional state. That’s all the evidence required for such a claim, since the claim is about what’s going on inside my head, and thus the only evidence I need is other stuff going on inside my head.
Now, if I were to make a claim about love like, “Love is a magical transcendent force that lives in rainbows and takes us out of our emotions as it flies on happy wings!” – implying that love is some kind of force external to my head – I would have to find evidence external to my head that suggests this.
But I don’t make claims like that because love isn’t a force. It’s an emotion.
Only if you claim that love is some kind of force external to your mind, which it’s not.
Yeah, that particular philosophical speculation panned out – and we confirmed it by, surprise, surprise, evidence-based inquiry – but about a thousand other philosophical speculations have not. What about the four-element theory or the idea of “humors”?
I’m not denying that people can’t make a lucky guess sometimes by intuition, but my claim is that evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of knowing what is likely to be true.
Sure, but we understand that those things have a material basis. For example, there have been experiments done where memories have been triggered and/or altered by stimulating parts of the brain. It’s not like they’re magic that has no explanation. We don’t have a perfect understanding of neuroscience, but we know quite a bit, and we’re learning more all the time.
And again, different claims have different burdens of proof. Ordinary claims will probably be accepted as a matter of convenience.
If you tell me that you own a dog, I will accept that claim as a matter of convenience – it’s an ordinary claim, and it doesn’t really impact my life if you’re lying.
But if you tell me that you own a fire-breathing dog and that you want me to pay you $1,000 immediately or else you will have this beast attack me, I would not accept that claim without really good evidence – because in this case, it’s an extraordinary claim, and it does impact my life if you’re telling the truth.
Of course not. So go ahead and submit another valid method for discerning truth and explain how you know that its conclusions are true.
So far, you’ve pointed out that people can occasionally guess things that later turn out to be true (and we then know which ones are true thanks to evidence). Surely you have a better example than that?
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Because if your claim is that a being exists outside of our minds, then we need to have evidence that exists outside of our minds to confirm it.
And love, unlike your supposed god, exists inside our minds. The kinds of evidence required to demonstrate to yourself that you’re in love and to demonstrate that a god exists outside of your head are nowhere close to being the same.
You are confusing the fact that different orders of claims require different orders of evidence.
- Status