Belief... or lack thereof

[guanophore]

At first, I thought North Korea! ;)

But then, … The Pirahã from the Amazon.

And, if you’re willing to accept the testimony of an European in the 1500’s: books.google.co.uk/books?id=xZyOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=pero+vaz+de+caminha+letter+beliefs&source=bl&ots=dj-fbXPO6O&sig=PBDuz2v-pzA5k08Ypp7av9jz66g&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pero%20vaz%20de%20caminha%20letter%20beliefs&f=false (I hope that link leads to the exact page where the first brazilian people to have contact with europeans are described… “they had no political social organization or religious belief”.

Neither of these sources is very convincing. They both admit that it was the conclusion of the visitor that the natives did not believe. The first one clearly indicates that the tribe believes in spriits and one strong “higher power” from “above” that manifests itself to the people.

The fact that sixteeth century European explorers did not recognize or apprecieate the beliefs of the natives does not mean the didn’t have any.

They all thought the Amerindian peoples were primitive and uncivilized too, but that does not make it so.

I used a winky smiley for a reason there. I was joking with that.

I thought that smiley was sticking out the tongue?

 

[pocaracas]

Many are more certain of God’s existence than anything else. What evidence do you have that indicates that this certainty is a fantasy.

Ask anyone of those who are so certain how can they show that fact to others so they too can be certain… others like me… and you’ll likely see the certainty escape from their minds as they struggle to present it.
Ultimately, they tend to go for the “you need faith” to be so “certain”.

So, you need to accept it prior to being certain of it… not the most intellectually honest way to go about determining if something immaterial is true, if you ask me…
Abstract mathematical constructs are not first accepted and then you come up with ways to become certain of them… it’s usually the other way around. First you develop the calculations, taking you where they may… and then you interpret the outcome and accept it.

 

[pocaracas]

I wonder. He had regrets and remorse. I am sure he believed at the time he was doing what was right, and “worked best” according to his understanding of God.

Don’t we all have regrets and remorse?
youtube.com/watch?v=WLzJAebfEIg

Just like his view worked best for him… yours works best for you.
Keep it that way.

our “nature” is homogeneous to the extent that we all yearn and pursue meaning and purpose. Yes this pursuit can lead to many divisions, because people follow their own perceptions, which are necessarily individualistic.

Definitely the divisions are only a gift to the extent that through them, the Truth can be known. God desires unity.

And yet, He does nothing to accomplish such unity… For thousands of years, men have been calling their perceived gods as aides in their divisive wars.

It all depends upon one’s perceptions. Joseph Campbell believed that he found patterns all around the world, and was able to unify them into one pattern.

Yep… depends on the concept of similarity…
A icosagon is similar to a circle… but that’s out pattern seeking brain at work.

Well, I am a Christian, and you believe that is a myth, so you have said that something about me is a myth…

You’re not the one that’s a myth, are you?

It does not, but you have rejected all the sources external to yourself, so the last bastion of the revelation of God, found within the human soul, is the only hope left.

I’d like to have sources external to myself… I just wish to avoid potentially faulty sources.
Independently verifiablility… independent from human psychology… is a must in a field that seems corrupted by that psychology.

Thank you.

I don’t think we any longer have a “believing society”. Christians have become a minority in American culture.

Were you to say “European culture”, I’d agree… but American? The place where mega-churches crop up everywhere and fill up with people?

 

[guanophore]

Ask anyone of those who are so certain how can they show that fact to others so they too can be certain… others like me… and you’ll likely see the certainty escape from their minds as they struggle to present it.
Ultimately, they tend to go for the “you need faith” to be so “certain”.

So, you need to accept it prior to being certain of it… not the most intellectually honest way to go about determining if something immaterial is true, if you ask me…
Abstract mathematical constructs are not first accepted and then you come up with ways to become certain of them… it’s usually the other way around. First you develop the calculations, taking you where they may… and then you interpret the outcome and accept it.

I think this is true, Poca, and is a testimony to the fact that there are other ways of knowing and being in the world in addition to logical certainty. Christianity is a matter of the heart, as much as it is the head. It is not about calucuating certainties as much as it is Relationship (which is inherently unpredictable). In fact, I would venture that your mindset is one of the main factors in the failure of marriage and family institutions today. We see couples “trying it out” before marriage to have that “certaintly”. We see some never attaining it, but staying together anyway. We see more broken families because people have lost the ability to persevere in the face of uncertainty. The notion of relating to someone “until death do us part” has gotten very rare, partly because the commitment to relationship is not “certain” or even logical at times.

 

[pocaracas]

Neither of these sources is very convincing. They both admit that it was the conclusion of the visitor that the natives did not believe. The first one clearly indicates that the tribe believes in spriits and one strong “higher power” from “above” that manifests itself to the people.

The fact that sixteeth century European explorers did not recognize or apprecieate the beliefs of the natives does not mean the didn’t have any.

They all thought the Amerindian peoples were primitive and uncivilized too, but that does not make it so.

Well, after that, those explorers spread christianity all over, so that now we get no pristine culture that never had access to any such belief system.
Certainly, the Aztec and the Maya had some sort of belief system, so the American indigenous population did have some access to such concepts.
What the europeans saw in Brazil was that they didn’t display it. It was probably similar to those Pirahã.

I thought that smiley was sticking out the tongue?

Nope… winky winky!
But it could have been sticking out the tongue… I use those almost interchangeably…

 

[pocaracas]

I think this is true, Poca, and is a testimony to the fact that there are other ways of knowing and being in the world in addition to logical certainty. Christianity is a matter of the heart, as much as it is the head. It is not about calucuating certainties as much as it is Relationship (which is inherently unpredictable). In fact, I would venture that your mindset is one of the main factors in the failure of marriage and family institutions today. We see couples “trying it out” before marriage to have that “certaintly”. We see some never attaining it, but staying together anyway. We see more broken families because people have lost the ability to persevere in the face of uncertainty. The notion of relating to someone “until death do us part” has gotten very rare, partly because the commitment to relationship is not “certain” or even logical at times.

Yep… it is sad that marriage has come to be little more than a glorified living-together.
Maybe that is as it should…
If we look at how chimps and bonobos handle relationships, maybe we find out more about our own natural tendencies in that field… and it certainly is not a monogamous pairing “until death do us part”.
However, monogamy in humans is not the same as it is in animals. I once heard a nice sentence about it: monogamy is not one partner for life (as it is in animals), but one partner at a time (which is, technically, polygamy). Humans are not naturally monogamous animals. Marriage, and the cultural requirement for virginity until marriage, have produced an unnatural situation that is clearly not stable. In theory, it looks awesome: every child gets to have a mother and a certified father, no need for DNA testing, and both parents care for that child, while also avoiding venereal disease spreading.
But in practice, people have different desires: females tend to stick with the male they perceive to be the best, while males tend to gather a harem of such females.

Maybe what we see going on nowadays is closer to how our natural tendencies work?

 

[PRmerger]

At first, I thought North Korea!

Er…no…

sundayex.catholic.org.hk/node/1388

But then, … The Pirahã from the Amazon

From your own source: “Their decoration is mostly necklaces, used primarily to ward off spirits” and “However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.4 Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach”

That is, clearly, “an acknowledgement of something beyond this material world.”

But, regardless…if you want to insist that they are an atheistic culture, let’s see you put your money where your mouth is:

Do you have anything written by a Piraha which provides evidence for their atheism?

I’d like at least 5 different sources. Thanks.

You, of course, cannot object to this, because I am simply holding the same standard that atheists do regarding Christianity. You know–isn’t one of the objections that no one who actually saw Jesus resurrected wrote about it?

So at least 5 different member of the Piraha tribe, please, documenting their atheism, or I won’t believe that there is a society which doesn’t believe in something beyond this material world.

 

[pocaracas]

Er…no…

sundayex.catholic.org.hk/node/1388

How about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea?

From your own source: “Their decoration is mostly necklaces, used primarily to ward off spirits” and “However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.4 Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach”

That is, clearly, “an acknowledgement of something beyond this material world.”

I know… spirits.
Not exactly gods.
Besides, your challenge was “name a society that did not have religion”.
Do you call such “spiritism” a religion?

But, regardless…if you want to insist that they are an atheistic culture, let’s see you put your money where your mouth is:

Do you have anything written by a Piraha which provides evidence for their atheism?

I’d like at least 5 different sources. Thanks.

You, of course, cannot object to this, because I am simply holding the same standard that atheists do regarding Christianity. You know–isn’t one of the objections that no one who actually saw Jesus resurrected wrote about it?

So at least 5 different member of the Piraha tribe, please, documenting their atheism, or I won’t believe that there is a society which doesn’t believe in something beyond this material world.

Right… get 5 members of a tribe that doesn’t have a writing system to write such a thing! LOL
Let’s not go there…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

(which is, technically, polygamy).

See also: serial monogamy
Psychology Today:

The difficulties surrounding romantic relationships in modern society have popularized a version of monogamy, which may be termed “serial monogamy.” In this version, commitment or exclusivity typical of monogamy is maintained but it is usually confined to a limited period. In this increasingly popular romantic pattern, people still believe in some moderate form of ideal love, but give up their basic pretense that it should last forever. The beloved is still regarded to be unique, but in many cases he is not so for the rest of our life.

Source: psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200810/is-serial-monogamy-worth-pursuing

 

[guanophore]

Well, after that, those explorers spread christianity all over, so that now we get no pristine culture that never had access to any such belief system.

It is a great disappointment to anthropology that these cultures were contaminated with the infusion of Christianity before their beliefs could be understood.

I find it a commentary on the gross hubris of mankind that Europeans considered indiginious persons 'uncivilized and primitive"

Certainly, the Aztec and the Maya had some sort of belief system, so the American indigenous population did have some access to such concepts.

What the europeans saw in Brazil was that they didn’t display it. It was probably similar to those Pirahã.

Which supports my point that human beings are religious in nature. The preconcieved prejudiced notions of the explorers may have prevented them from seeing and appreciating their religious beliefs.

 

[pocaracas]

See also: serial monogamy

Source: psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200810/is-serial-monogamy-worth-pursuing

At first I thought I was out of touch, but then en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy:
“Anthropologists treat serial monogamy, in which divorce and remarriage occur, as a form of polygamy as it also establishes a series of households that continue to be tied by shared paternity and shared income.”

 

[pocaracas]

It is a great disappointment to anthropology that these cultures were contaminated with the infusion of Christianity before their beliefs could be understood.

I find it a commentary on the gross hubris of mankind that Europeans considered indiginious persons 'uncivilized and primitive"

Blame it (mostly) on the Portuguese (me) and the Spanish.

Which supports my point that human beings are religious in nature. The preconcieved prejudiced notions of the explorers may have prevented them from seeing and appreciating their religious beliefs.

Are they really religious?
Or do they just tend to find similar immaterial answers to those unanswerable questions?
Immaterial, because material answers don’t work.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

At first I thought I was out of touch, but then en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy:
“Anthropologists treat serial monogamy, in which divorce and remarriage occur, as a form of polygamy as it also establishes a series of households that continue to be tied by shared paternity and shared income.”

Ah, I had wondered where the line was drawn between the two. So there is no line. Serial monogamy is just a type of polygamy.never knew that!

 

[guanophore]

Blame it (mostly) on the Portuguese (me) and the Spanish.

Mine are English, and they were not respectful to the first nations either. The very idea that they believed they could set foot on America and claim it as their own reflects the colonial attiude of hubris.

Are they really religious?
Or do they just tend to find similar immaterial answers to those unanswerable questions?
Immaterial, because material answers don’t work.

Material answers just don’t explain all of our experience as persons, since we are also spiritual. I guess it defines on how one defines “religion”.

 

[MPat]

Yes, that looks strange, but the context of that sentence of mine was not the one you seem to be assuming.

Our first guess or attempt to explain something is mainly rooted in intuition and the physics of everyday life. Not logic, unless it’s the one embedded in that physics…
I was looking for a clip of the pendulum that seems to come back and touch your face, but I found this one instead :
youtube.com/watch?v=DVSYA1RnSMQ

When in such a position, intuition tells us we should back away from that ball coming directly at our face… but logic tells us it won’t reach our face… and yet, most of us will go with intuition.
That’s just what I was trying to convey.

Oh, I’m pretty sure you didn’t claim to be overusing intuition.

In fact, the context and even the actual meaning of your words doesn’t matter here that much - they just inspired me to formulate a hypothesis that you were using intuition where I expected you to use logic, and that such mismatch is the cause of much disagreement here.

Then I have found that this hypothesis can explain several things. It would be nice if you would check them and tell me if you agree that you did use intuition in such way there. And, of course, if you do not agree, I’d like to see the alternative explanation.

I was looking for a clip of the pendulum that seems to come back and touch your face, but I found this one instead :
youtube.com/watch?v=DVSYA1RnSMQ

I guess the clip you were looking for is something like youtube.com/watch?v=xXXF2C-vrQE?

By the way, it might help to explain something mentioned here:

Ultimately, they tend to go for the “you need faith” to be so “certain”.

So, you need to accept it prior to being certain of it… not the most intellectually honest way to go about determining if something immaterial is true, if you ask me…
Abstract mathematical constructs are not first accepted and then you come up with ways to become certain of them… it’s usually the other way around. First you develop the calculations, taking you where they may… and then you interpret the outcome and accept it.

For, you see, just like we tend to use the word “belief” in different ways (that might be why you keep denying that atheism is a belief - for that matter, I wonder if anyone has reached a compromise “Atheism is a belief that atheism is not a belief.”? ), we also use the word “faith” in different ways.

That is, when atheists talk about “faith”, they mean something like “accepting a belief for a bad reason or no reason at all”.

But let’s look at the video. The “hero of the video” starts by describing himself as a believer. In what sense? Just how you have said, he accepts logical conclusions, has faith in them, even when intuition tells him something else. That’s also the faith as understood by Catholics. And I hope you do agree that this kind of faith is a virtue (somewhat connected to courage), and that in the video it was truly worth of applause.

And that is the faith you need before you can be persuaded to take Catholicism seriously. We can offer logical arguments, we can show how all objections fail, but all that will be in vain (for you - naturally, other readers can get the benefit) if you just won’t have faith in logic. Like in the case when I was trying to get you to agree that something that doesn’t exist cannot do anything - and you couldn’t bring yourself to agree because of baseless fears generated by intuition.

And, as I have noted, it’s not about actually undertaking those experiments, but running them in your head, based on the methodology presented by the teacher, or textbook.
Of course, they should start with simple experiments, easily verifiable by intuition, and then proceed to more complicated issues… build upon, stand on the shoulders of giants.

That looks like another instance of the same problem. You seem to think that something can be “verifiable by intuition”. I think intuition is completely unsuitable for verifying anything.

ok… we’re using different concepts of “justifying”.
Let’s go with yours.
I’ve explained how I ended up atheism, yes?
Now, to provide a good reason to accept that atheism… how about all the reasons I provided when explaining how I got there?
yeah… both those question still seem the same to me…
It seems you’re still thinking that atheism is a belief.

Actually, your list gave no “reasons” as such. It listed lack of “psychological pathways”. I am not sure what they are supposed to be.

Wasn’t it for a rhetorical question?

No, it wasn’t.

 

[pocaracas]

Oh, I’m pretty sure you didn’t claim to be overusing intuition.

In fact, the context and even the actual meaning of your words doesn’t matter here that much - they just inspired me to formulate a hypothesis that you were using intuition where I expected you to use logic, and that such mismatch is the cause of much disagreement here.

Then I have found that this hypothesis can explain several things. It would be nice if you would check them and tell me if you agree that you did use intuition in such way there. And, of course, if you do not agree, I’d like to see the alternative explanation.

Remember that low probability I assigned to the existence of the divine?.. that’s what we may call an “intuitive probability”… No math went into it. No overall information of all possibilities… We can’t tell what would constitute 100% of cases in there.
So there you have one example of the use of intuition… with a sprinkle of logic in the mix, of course.

I guess the clip you were looking for is something like youtube.com/watch?v=xXXF2C-vrQE?

Ah, yes… Why do you think the prof. in the video closed his eyes?
Had he kept them open, it’s likely that he would move away as he saw the ball coming towards him with enough apparent velocity to hit him and do some real damage… And this perception of potential damage is not exactly something that his intuition would have allowed.

By the way, it might help to explain something mentioned here:

For, you see, just like we tend to use the word “belief” in different ways (that might be why you keep denying that atheism is a belief - for that matter, I wonder if anyone has reached a compromise “Atheism is a belief that atheism is not a belief.”? ), we also use the word “faith” in different ways.

That is, when atheists talk about “faith”, they mean something like “accepting a belief for a bad reason or no reason at all”.

But let’s look at the video. The “hero of the video” starts by describing himself as a believer. In what sense? Just how you have said, he accepts logical conclusions, has faith in them, even when intuition tells him something else. That’s also the faith as understood by Catholics. And I hope you do agree that this kind of faith is a virtue (somewhat connected to courage), and that in the video it was truly worth of applause.

And that is the faith you need before you can be persuaded to take Catholicism seriously. We can offer logical arguments, we can show how all objections fail, but all that will be in vain (for you - naturally, other readers can get the benefit) if you just won’t have faith in logic. Like in the case when I was trying to get you to agree that something that doesn’t exist cannot do anything - and you couldn’t bring yourself to agree because of baseless fears generated by intuition.

What you claim about logical arguments is so similar to the claim by Muslims that their belief is the most logical one… that leaves me baffled.
Here are two logical forms of reasoning that arrive at somewhat conflicting results. Why?

Well, if both reasonings are logically sound, then the most likely culprits for the divergence are the premises employed.
From what I’ve seen, both use the cosmological arguments in pretty much the same way… but I never got to understand the leap then taken from “there is a conscious entity that created the Universe” to “that entity is the God of [Catholicism/Islam]”…

I’ve, hopefully, given enough reasons to cast some shadow on the premises of such cosmological arguments…
Even granting the existence of an entity that created the Universe, I am still unable to make claims about it as bold as the ones made by PRmerger.

That looks like another instance of the same problem. You seem to think that something can be “verifiable by intuition”. I think intuition is completely unsuitable for verifying anything.

Intuition, backed by logic, built upon by previous efforts at logic and some actual experimentation.
Intuition can be trained, a bit…

Actually, your list gave no “reasons” as such. It listed lack of “psychological pathways”. I am not sure what they are supposed to be.

As long as the brain remains mysterious, that will happen.
Here’s something that I can only accept through some sort of belief… the mind seems to be locked inside the brain (and it’s many neurological pathways that spread all over the body). Perhaps some very accurate form of fMRI will give us the final insight into this… perhaps it’ll always be mysterious…

That people have a tendency to invent some “structures” that let them connect certain events making them line up in a neat pattern, is obvious.
That the divine realm is such a “structure”, is not so obvious, but it can be thought as such, and that leads one to understand religion as something that provides some psychological relief, originating in a time period when humans were totally unable to come to the correct solution.
Such relief remains to this day. It’s grown so as not to include only answers to unanswerable questions, but also to be a provider of hope for the future and other neat things that actually help people cope with the harsh reality of life.
Regardless of the existence of such divine realm, the effect of belief in that existence on people is very real.
And, as long as some things remain beyond the reach of science, it makes sense that some people will hold on to that belief.
Science is bound to progress… and yet, somethings are seemingly beyond its grasp… thus the belief is bound to remain with us.

No, it wasn’t.

You said it yourself…

 

[MPat]

Remember that low probability I assigned to the existence of the divine?.. that’s what we may call an “intuitive probability”… No math went into it. No overall information of all possibilities… We can’t tell what would constitute 100% of cases in there.
So there you have one example of the use of intuition… with a sprinkle of logic in the mix, of course.

Um, I have asked you about 3-4 things I have mentioned in the post with this (I am not citing all of it, as you will still have to go back to the post to quote from it):

And that gives me an idea: could it be that you are overusing that “intuition” where logical arguments should be used?

Let’s see if this hypothesis fits the data that was not used to formulate it.

It would be nice to find out if I was right about them.

Ah, yes… Why do you think the prof. in the video closed his eyes?
Had he kept them open, it’s likely that he would move away as he saw the ball coming towards him with enough apparent velocity to hit him and do some real damage… And this perception of potential damage is not exactly something that his intuition would have allowed.

Perhaps - after all, that is close to my point.

What you claim about logical arguments is so similar to the claim by Muslims that their belief is the most logical one… that leaves me baffled.

I guess that this your claim “leaves me baffled” too. I have no idea how anything I have said about logical arguments can be similar to something some Muslims have said about Islam… After all, Islam is not an argument.

Perhaps you meant that my words reminded you of all that?

Here are two logical forms of reasoning that arrive at somewhat conflicting results. Why?

Well, if both reasonings are logically sound, then the most likely culprits for the divergence are the premises employed.

You are not going to find out without looking at the arguments in detail. For that matter, “Islam is the most logical religion.” is ambiguous - “logical” in that statement could have several meanings. You would have to find out which of them is actually meant.

From what I’ve seen, both use the cosmological arguments in pretty much the same way… but I never got to understand the leap then taken from “there is a conscious entity that created the Universe” to “that entity is the God of [Catholicism/Islam]”…

I have given you an outline - edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html. Cosmological arguments are covered by the second step, specifically Christian claims start on the fifth step.

Also, the cosmological arguments do not necessarily end with “there is a conscious entity that created the Universe” - St. Thomas Aquinas thought that proving that Universe was not eternal is not possible. Thus his version of arguments gives us Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause, Pure Act. Then it is shown that this Unmoved Mover is one, intelligent etc. (look at “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles” for more details).

So, now many kinds of polytheism, pantheism, atheism and the like have been ruled out. That leaves us different kinds of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are rather similar, thus we have to look at something that is different - for example, the Resurrection. By this time we know that miracles are possible, thus that can no longer be an objection. Thus we can move on to something like peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm.

I’ve, hopefully, given enough reasons to cast some shadow on the premises of such cosmological arguments…

No, you haven’t given anything like that. “What about singularities?” or “What if the world is very very strange?” are not even close to being valid objections.

Still, back to the point, would you agree that faith in logic is necessary here in at least some sense…?

Intuition, backed by logic, built upon by previous efforts at logic and some actual experimentation.
Intuition can be trained, a bit…

Sure - a bit. It is still unreliable. And anyway, it is no replacement for experiments. For we got there because you thought only things that actually cause belief in most cases (there are “outliers” like the same Feser - edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html) have to be considered in order to evaluate the belief. So, if all experiments can be replaced by thought experiments so easily, why is anyone still performing “real” experiments that are so much more costly?

As long as the brain remains mysterious, that will happen.
Here’s something that I can only accept through some sort of belief… the mind seems to be locked inside the brain (and it’s many neurological pathways that spread all over the body). Perhaps some very accurate form of fMRI will give us the final insight into this… perhaps it’ll always be mysterious…

Let’s see:

I agree… it’s a very well thought out religion.
Very little loose ends… and the ones that are loose, are quickly dismissed as “mysteries”, still retaining validity, of course… God only knows, huh?

So, it appears that atheism also has its mysteries…

You said it yourself…

Oh. I see that my answer was ambiguous. I meant “No, it is not [sufficient].”, not “No, it is not [a rhetorical question].”.

 

[babylonfalling]

I wouldn’t mind going to other faith’s forums, but this one is nicer.
And we know you guys don’t hunt us down and kill us and our families.

Do you worry about that a lot?

 

[pocaracas]

Um, I have asked you about 3-4 things I have mentioned in the post with this (I am not citing all of it, as you will still have to go back to the post to quote from it):

It would be nice to find out if I was right about them.

I thought you had just established those things are were happy with them… but ok, let’s look at them in detail, then:

You know, that does look a bit strange… You do mention “intuition”, but not “logic”.

And that gives me an idea: could it be that you are overusing that “intuition” where logical arguments should be used?

Let’s see if this hypothesis fits the data that was not used to formulate it.

If you only get to belief by some common psychological flaw (indoctrination, faulty reasoning from incomplete data, etc), then the likelihood that the thing being believed in has some bearing in reality is low…
The null hypothesis remains the more likely outcome.

That answer had implied that other known things rely on some physical process behind them, a physical process that has been shown time and again to be the cause of such thing.
Unless we adopt a solipsistic attitude, those other things can be said to be known, to be real… things like gravity, electricity, magnetics, etc…
Unlike what is available for any deity.
And what is available for any deity is pretty much indistinguishable from what is available for children’s imaginary friends.
Hence, the likelihood that such entities are real is practically as low as that of imaginary friends.

Silly because you’re equating the teaching of a methodology based on physical testing, with the teaching of a potential fairy tale.

But I was going further that the teacher and the student. I was telling you that those experiments have been done and can be done again, anytime, even if the student can’t perform them due to financial or temporal reasons… they can be done and yield the same results over and over again.
This is, again, a fundamental difference between the sciences and what is presented by religion.

Little aside over, that gradual introduction into a belief is the same as a gradual introduction into writing? As if the writings didn’t have immediate palpable results, while the other… you’ll see it when you die… come on… apples and oranges.

The thing is: it’s not the same reasoning. It’s a similar one, I grant you that, but there’s a difference at the level of the origin of the information that is being passed.
Writing is, evidently, a human invention… one that is ever evolving, one that is required for us to communicate right now, as I write this and you read (and vice-versa)
Deities, on the other hand, are passed on, but they don’t seem required for anything. Certainly, the belief does help some people in coping with life…but it doesn’t mean that the thing being believed in is real.

The same hypothesis can explain why you give so much importance to “avoiding self-delusion”. If you were using logical arguments, such emphasis would be excessive (you would only have to check if no fallacies slipped through etc.). But if you are using intuition, the danger is real and only great care stops you from ending up with something unmanageable.

Again, the origin of information about any god should come before I acknowledge the content of that information.
But that’s not how it’s presented. The order is, perhaps purposefully, switched. That seems to indicate some foul play… and the result is indistinguishable from a self-delusion, which only serves to reinforce the hint of foul play.

This makes me suspicious of any god claims by humans, for they may have thus been induced in error… a self-perpetuating error…
I hope that was a bit more satisfactory… it seems you were missing some details, when you came to the conclusion that I only used intuition on those cases…
Certainly, intuition must be there, somewhere… I’m only human, after all…

[cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

Perhaps - after all, that is close to my point.

Your point that we humans apply intuition to most (if not all) of our activities and thoughts?
That is perhaps generally true, expect, maybe, in mathematical fields…

I guess that this your claim “leaves me baffled” too. I have no idea how anything I have said about logical arguments can be similar to something some Muslims have said about Islam… After all, Islam is not an argument.

Perhaps you meant that my words reminded you of all that?

No, that’s not what I meant… sorry… I meant: proponents of both religions use logical arguments to arrive at their specific religion.
Some of the arguments are even very similar, like the cosmological ones. The prime mover, etc…

You are not going to find out without looking at the arguments in detail. For that matter, “Islam is the most logical religion.” is ambiguous - “logical” in that statement could have several meanings. You would have to find out which of them is actually meant.

yep… looking at them all individually…
This is the first time that I hear that “logical” can have several meanings… can you elaborate on that?

I have given you an outline - edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html. Cosmological arguments are covered by the second step, specifically Christian claims start on the fifth step.

Yep… I remember getting stuck on step II.

Also, the cosmological arguments do not necessarily end with “there is a conscious entity that created the Universe” - St. Thomas Aquinas thought that proving that Universe was not eternal is not possible. Thus his version of arguments gives us Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause, Pure Act. Then it is shown that this Unmoved Mover is one, intelligent etc. (look at “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles” for more details).

Those will take some time to go through…

So, now many kinds of polytheism, pantheism, atheism and the like have been ruled out. That leaves us different kinds of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are rather similar, thus we have to look at something that is different - for example, the Resurrection. By this time we know that miracles are possible, thus that can no longer be an objection. Thus we can move on to something like peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm.

Oh yeah… if magic is possible, anything is… even Mohamed’s cleaving of the moon.
Hmmm… if magic is possible, then… humans may, somehow, harness it, use it… advance… hmmm… interesting…

No, you haven’t given anything like that. “What about singularities?” or “What if the world is very very strange?” are not even close to being valid objections.

So you seem to be unaware of what a singularity is.
A singularity is some event that breaks the known laws of physics… mathematically, some quantity becomes infinite… and may break the known laws of logic themselves… causality is one of them.
If the Big Bang was such a singularity, how can we apply Aquinas’ logic?

Of course… this is a “may”… we humans don’t know how those things operate. Because of that, we best remain silent, while investigations move on… always aware that we may never come to know.

Is it better to provide an explanation arising from an argument that may not be applicable, or to wait until experiments tells us how things are?

Still, back to the point, would you agree that faith in logic is necessary here in at least some sense…?

Faith in logic… if our logic remains applicable…

Sure - a bit. It is still unreliable. And anyway, it is no replacement for experiments. For we got there because you thought only things that actually cause belief in most cases (there are “outliers” like the same Feser - edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html) have to be considered in order to evaluate the belief. So, if all experiments can be replaced by thought experiments so easily, why is anyone still performing “real” experiments that are so much more costly?

Certainly, actual experiments are necessary.
The repetition of them is also a must.
But must every single person repeat them? Or is it enough to be aware of the requirements for them, the materials involved, the physical principles, the order of actions and the results?
Do you want to remake Marie Curie’s experiments? It didn’t turn out very well for her… but were crucial for present-day medicine.

So, it appears that atheism also has its mysteries…

Atheism is not a religion that purports to explain the world around us.
Science is… and yes, science still has some unknowns.

Oh. I see that my answer was ambiguous. I meant “No, it is not [sufficient].”, not “No, it is not [a rhetorical question].”.

It’s sufficient for a rhetorical question.