Refuting Religious Agnosticism

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’ve already a few things above which you don’t address in your post.

Conviction of truth is what matters most with respect to truth. This conviction is only possible if one opens one’s heart as well as one’s head to the reality of God. Since the agnostic, like the atheist, does not do this, persuasion is impossible. Neither the atheist nor the agnostic can experience the reality of God because of deliberate shut-down of all but the material avenue to experiencing God. No one of faith is so absurd as to say that God is a physical being or a mere personal being like you or me.

So there is a Catch 22. They demand proof but they refuse the experience of God which is the only proof that convinces.

I did tackle that in my response to you in post 9. Specifically:

We know there are people just as sure that their concept of a detiy or deities who are as absolutely sure that what they believe is true as any Christian. You and I would also agree that these people are incorrect in their beliefs. This shows that a confidence in a belief is not evidence in its truth. It most certainly is not proof. Proof is demonstrable and faith (Christian or one of the many others) simply is not.

In short, one’s conviction as to something being true is not a substitute for evidence.

Let’s keep this in the realm of the supernatural but out of the realm of deities. There are a great many things that some people believe that other people doubt. I don’t know where you stand on things like ESP, telekenesis, fortune telling, dowsing, but I have to believe there’s at least one such thing that you don’t believe to be true.

Pick any one and its proponents can be broken into groups. I’ll go with ESP. The first group are those that think that their ESP can be proven like any other discipline. Double-blind tests show otherwise. The second group state that their ESP belief requires a prior belief (or at least a lack of prior disbelief) in order to be “proven”. The believers will often claim that those who disbelieve in ESP are doing so without an open mind, when in reality the disbelievers simply haven’t been presented with evidence.

It’s clear that the idea that if one doubts the truth of something can’t rely on how convicted or steadfast it’s believers are. Conviction doesn’t equal proof. In fact, we have evidence where for some their convinction grows when they are presented with information that flies in the face of their beliefs. It’s a bit long (23 pages) but if you’re interested check out “When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical Overview” by Lorne L. Dawson where the failed prophecy of some religions led to its followers gaining an even stronger conviction.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I did tackle that in my response to you in post 9. Specifically:

In short, one’s conviction as to something being true is not a substitute for evidence.

As I said in an earlier reply, the evidence is in the experience of God, not in demonstrating the existence of God as you might demonstrate the existence of a far-off planet.

So there is evidence that leads to conviction. You evidently don’t have the experience of God, but you also don’t have to deny that others who have the experience of God have evidence even if you don’t find the evidence convincing.

We all live by conviction or lack of conviction, though some of our convictions may be delusional. It is not for you to prove that our convictions are delusional but yours are not…

 

[meltzerboy]

I did tackle that in my response to you in post 9. Specifically:

In short, one’s conviction as to something being true is not a substitute for evidence.

Let’s keep this in the realm of the supernatural but out of the realm of deities. There are a great many things that some people believe that other people doubt. I don’t know where you stand on things like ESP, telekenesis, fortune telling, dowsing, but I have to believe there’s at least one such thing that you don’t believe to be true.

Pick any one and its proponents can be broken into groups. I’ll go with ESP. The first group are those that think that their ESP can be proven like any other discipline. Double-blind tests show otherwise. The second group state that their ESP belief requires a prior belief (or at least a lack of prior disbelief) in order to be “proven”. The believers will often claim that those who disbelieve in ESP are doing so without an open mind, when in reality the disbelievers simply haven’t been presented with evidence.

It’s clear that the idea that if one doubts the truth of something can’t rely on how convicted or steadfast it’s believers are. Conviction doesn’t equal proof. In fact, we have evidence where for some their convinction grows when they are presented with information that flies in the face of their beliefs. It’s a bit long (23 pages) but if you’re interested check out “When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical Overview” by Lorne L. Dawson where the failed prophecy of some religions led to its followers gaining an even stronger conviction.

This paper, “When Prophecy Fails,” was written by one of my graduate school psychology mentors, the celebrated social psychologist, Leon Festinger, who formulated the theories of cognitive dissonance (on which the ‘prophecy’ paper depends) and social comparison.

 

[Ormond]

Those who experience God have the proof.

They have not proof, but experience. Experience is far more valuable and interesting than proof anyway, so they are in good shape. Let’s not worry so much about “experience of what?”. Let’s worry about having more experience. To insist the experience must have a provable explanation, or any explanation at all, is to deny the value of the experience itself.

When we are hungry and meet that hunger by eating a piece of food, does it really matter so much what the name of that food is? Is it really that constructive to endlessly argue over whether it is a potato or a potawto, a tomato or a tomawto? Isn’t it far more important to stay focused on eating?

Those who deny God do so because they have no experience of God and therefore no proof.

Those who deny God have their own path to walk. The real divide is not between those who believe in God or not, but between those on either side who follow their own chosen path through to the end, and those who travel only a little way and then sit down and start building a fort.

Faith and reason lead to the same place in the end. Whichever path we’re on, honor that path, and keep walking.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Those who deny God have their own path to walk. The real divide is not between those who believe in God or not, but between those on either side who follow their own chosen path through to the end, and those who travel only a little way and then sit down and start building a fort.

Faith and reason lead to the same place in the end. Whichever path we’re on, honor that path, and keep walking.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

As I said in an earlier reply, the evidence is in the experience of God, not in demonstrating the existence of God as you might demonstrate the existence of a far-off planet.

But as I explained in my analogy in the last post people can experience things but that doesn’t make them true. For example:

So there is evidence that leads to conviction. You evidently don’t have the experience of God, but you also don’t have to deny that others who have the experience of God have evidence even if you don’t find the evidence convincing.

So there is evidence that leads to conviction. You evidently don’t have the experience of ESP, but you also don’t have to deny that others who have the experience of ESP have evidence even if you don’t find the evidence convincing.

If you believe in ESP then replace it with some other supernatural belief that you don’t subscribe to. The people that have these experiences do experience something, but it’s not proper to credit what they believe is the cause of the experience without evidence.

We all live by conviction or lack of conviction, though some of our convictions may be delusional. It is not for you to prove that our convictions are delusional but yours are not…

But agnostics don’t try to prove or disprove anything. The whole point is that these supernatural ideas for which people claim to have experiences are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. A definitive yes or no can’t be given, so an agnostic might say “Maybe and likely”, “Maybe and doubtful”, or “Maybe and I’m not leaning either way”.

Let’s take this step-by-step.

1. Charlemagne, do you agree that there are other supernatural phenomena besides Christianity that would cause one to have an experience that would be difficult or impossible to prove to someone who has not had that same experience?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This paper, “When Prophecy Fails,” was written by one of my graduate school psychology mentors, the celebrated social psychologist, Leon Festinger, who formulated the theories of cognitive dissonance (on which the ‘prophecy’ paper depends) and social comparison.

Meltzerboy, I’m sure you’re aware, but for anyone else who might be reading the paper I linked to “When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical Overview” is influenced by “When Prophecy Fails”. Lorne L. Dawson, the author of the more recent paper, explained that while the first “When Prophecy Fails” paper is widely known there have been several other similar papers in the 30 years since the first. He compiled the results from those papers and expounded greatly on the work from the original going from simple cognitive dissonance to the various forms of disonnance management. He talks not only of adaptational strategies (which work and which don’t) but also the conditions that decrease the likelihood of ending a religious movement.

By the way, here is a better link to the Lorne L. Dawson paper where the whole thing can be read.

Taking it back to the topic at hand, if anyone says that a believer’s conviction correlates with the evidence for that belief need only read this paper to see that is decidedly not true.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy, I’m sure you’re aware, but for anyone else who might be reading the paper I linked to “When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical Overview” is influenced by “When Prophecy Fails”. Lorne L. Dawson, the author of the more recent paper, explained that while the first “When Prophecy Fails” paper is widely known there have been several other similar papers in the 30 years since the first. He compiled the results from those papers and expounded greatly on the work from the original going from simple cognitive dissonance to the various forms of disonnance management. He talks not only of adaptational strategies (which work and which don’t) but also the conditions that decrease the likelihood of ending a religious movement.

By the way, here is a better link to the Lorne L. Dawson paper where the whole thing can be read.

Taking it back to the topic at hand, if anyone says that a believer’s conviction correlates with the evidence for that belief need only read this paper to see that is decidedly not true.

Thanks for the information and links. Indeed, people who put so much time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears into a movement, religious or otherwise, are not going to abandon it so soon even if it fails repeatedly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. Charlemagne, do you agree that there are other supernatural phenomena besides Christianity that would cause one to have an experience that would be difficult or impossible to prove to someone who has not had that same experience?

Yes, because God reaches out to all of us.

The question is not whether it is impossible to prove, but whether the evidence of experiencing God is irrelevant, which you seem to be asserting over and over. I grant that to you it is irrelevant, because you keep wanting to approach God as a scientifically observable phenomenon subject to scientific scrutiny. This is obvious by your repeated demand reference to “unfalsifiable.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes, because God reaches out to all of us.

I don’t understand. You’re saying people believe in ESP, Ouija boards, telekinesis, etc. because God reaches out to them?

The question is not whether it is impossible to prove, but whether the evidence of experiencing God is irrelevant, which you seem to be asserting over and over. I grant that to you it is irrelevant, because you keep wanting to approach God as a scientifically observable phenomenon subject to scientific scrutiny. This is obvious by your repeated demand reference to “unfalsifiable.”

What you’re doing is special pleading, where the rules for deciding whether something is true or not – and whether it’s possible to know whether it’s true – don’t apply. Why? Because you say the deity question just has to be accepted as positive.

There is no reason why we should completely ignore doubts. It doesn’t mean that it is necessarily true or false, but it does call into question whether we can know the answer to the deity question.

 

[minkymurph]

What’s your best refutation of religious agnosticism, the view that we cannot know whether or not there is a God?

Here is Chesterton’s:

“…we don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”

In short - I don’t have one.

The reasons I don’t have one are:

It is not within my capacity to present ‘proof’ or evidence an agnostic would categorize as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence.’

The unreasonable agnostic has no desire to have a reasonable discussion, and thus any attempt to have one will be futile.

You cannot appeal to someone who is radically or deeply entrenched in their position irrespective of what that position is. Such an individual will automatically reject any argument you present irrespective of how sound or legitimate it is on principle.

The reasonable agnostic is by and large happy not to interfere with your faith and let you get on with on the proviso you don’t preach at them.

Mother Theresa said, ‘Preach the Gospel and if necessary use words.’ Christians believe Jesus asked his followers to preach the Gospel. This has now been achieved in the sense that the message of the Gospel has been preached throughout the world. I personally believe what we are now called to do is preach the Gospel through living our faith, and living our faith is a more productive form of ‘preaching’ in contemporary society. In my personal view it should be evident from your life you believe in God, and thus words are not necessary.

Winning arguments does not win hearts. Winning an argument may serve no other purpose than causing rancor, rancor has a a negative radicalizing effect that can result in undesirable sociopolitical effects that are detrimental to society as whole. It is at least possible the heart of the reasonable agnostic may be won through living our faith, but if not it is at least possible we can earn a degree of respect, establish common ground and work in harmony to achieve collective objectives - all be it our individual motivation for doing so may differ. Even the most radical atheists concede religion produces at least some good.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

PRmerger and Charlemagne:

Why do you guys keep misrepresenting agnosticism?

I can’t state it any simpler than the following:

“I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic.** I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means**.” - Clarence Darrow

“It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism.” - Thomas Huxley

"“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle
…
. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.” - Thomas Huxley

“Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word “Agnostic” to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox [atheists], dogmatise with the utmost confidence” - Thomas Huxley

 

[Vonsalza]

What’s your best refutation of religious agnosticism, the view that we cannot know whether or not there is a God?

Here is Chesterton’s:

“…we don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”

As we Catholics bridge the material and rational gaps with faith, I’m not sure we CAN refute religious agnosticism on any basis wherein they accept all the premises employed in our conclusions. After all, “undefined” is the ultimate starting point for the pursuit of truth in all its forms: philosophical, scientific and otherwise. And “agnostic” is the theological equivalent of “undefined”.

“Atheism” is a far, far easier idea to critique. And it is not the same.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

As we Catholics bridge the material and rational gaps with faith, I’m not sure we CAN refute religious agnosticism on any basis wherein they accept all the premises employed in our conclusions. After all, “undefined” is the ultimate starting point for the pursuit of truth in all its forms: philosophical, scientific and otherwise. And “agnostic” is the theological equivalent of “undefined”.

“Atheism” is a far, far easier idea to critique. And it is not the same.

Good and fair points, especially that last one. The dogma that tends to stick to atheism is ‘naturalism’. Most atheists explicitly or implicitly accept naturalism when they reject and ridicule all claims regarding the supernatural.

 

[Vonsalza]

The dogma that tends to stick to atheism is ‘naturalism’.

I’ve never thought about it like that so directly and explicitly.

But boy, does it have some resonance when I “ding” it against my previous interactions with atheists…

I’m going to take that and mull it over for awhile. Thanks for the insight.