The demand for evidence for the existence of God

[Touchstone]

This seems to be a fundamental point of contention: TS thinks he can embrace life only by looking forward to it ending. If it were ‘unlimited’ he could no longer value it, see it as precious. “I love it so much that I want it to end.” Quite a paradox.

Meanwhile the Christian is accused of despising life, because he hopes for its redemption and eternal continuation. An accusation that is again paradoxical.

From Pope Benedict’s Spe Salvi:
Paul reminds the Ephesians that before their encounter with Christ they were “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of course he knew they had had gods, he knew they had had a religion, but their gods had proved questionable, and no hope emerged from their contradictory myths. Notwithstanding their gods, they were “without God” and consequently found themselves in a dark world, facing a dark future. In nihil ab nihilo quam cito recidimus (How quickly we fall back from nothing to nothing)[1]: so says an epitaph of that period. In this phrase we see in no uncertain terms the point Paul was making. In the same vein he says to the Thessalonians: you must not “grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Th 4:13). Here too we see as a distinguishing mark of Christians the fact that they have a future: it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness. Only when the future is certain as a positive reality does it become possible to live the present as well. So now we can say: Christianity was not only “good news”—the communication of a hitherto unknown content. In our language we would say: the Christian message was not only “informative” but “performative”. That means: the Gospel is not merely a communication of things that can be known—it is one that makes things happen and is life-changing. The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.TS, however, thinks he can embrace the hope that life will end in emptiness, as long as he enjoys it while it lasts.

I hope it ends in happiness.The emptiness is what comes after life, and that is precisely why life is precious, because it is non-emptiness, and it is available in very limited supply. The emptiness is the non-life that provides the basis for valuing life, just as a black background provides contrast for a bright, illuminated subject.

With eternal life, you have a dilution problem. Wittgenstein made the point that Nietzsche announced that “everything is always in flux”, that understanding rendered “flux” meaningless. If everything is ‘in flux’ then there is no semantic value in “flux” as we do not have any stability as a matter of contrast, to differentiate ‘flux’ from ‘stability’.

So, to, ‘eternal life’ renders ‘life’ meaningless. There is no non-life, no non-consciousness going forward, no loss of personality, ever. There is no contrast to give “life” meaning against “non-life”. That’s the value, of course – it’s anodyne, and soothes the natural terror, and thus value, life as final represents to us.

The quote above is a nice example of what Nietzsche identified as “slave morality”, by the way. He admired the Jews who invented it, and Jesus who perfected for their inventions, but but pitied those who just shuffled into its shadow generation after generation. I think there is psychological value in the belief that death is not the end, and that, magically, all things eventually do get put right. But is damnation by faint praise. If that’s all the goal, beliefs constructed to get by, true or no, hope for hope’s sake, I think that is useful, but a ‘slave morality’ that just supplies the demands of small souls.

-TS

 

[LongJohnSilver]

But, what flavor? Hindu? Muslem? Christian? Jewish? Budhist? How could someone looking in know what bell had the right tone? Because exactly everything you would say for a christian icecream, someone would say the same for a hindu or muslem one?

If there is One objective Truth, wouldn’t a sincere seeker find it? Worry about flavor later, put your money on the counter first.

Betterave, great posts!

 

[Touchstone]

So this thread has been interesting and challenging, but the main point seems to be that TS admits this fact:

He has no objective reason for not believing that God exists.

As I told the Exodus, that has never been controversial so far as I’m aware. That’s a “blank slate” view, though, making no assumptions about shared values. If one shares the values of truth-as-propositions-in-correspondence-to-extramental-reality – admittedly, not everyone’s cup of tea – then we have a basis for objective analyses that make God belief problematic.

But certainly, if there aren’t some shared goals, some common ground to work from, there’s not much to say, no basis for dialog. Values gave to align somewhat at some level for any of the dialectic to work.

So we shouldn’t try to demonstrate this to him. He understands that his unbelief is not rational.

No, that badly misunderstands, or perhaps just purposely distorts what I’ve said. As soon as you proceed from values that put a priority on truth-as-correspondence, rational critique, evidential analysis, or what we casually refer to as “rational”, then the values are there which can make a conversation meaningful, and which make God belief problematic, or, uh, mysterious, or… mystical or… But once you want to traffic in ‘rational’ – and no one is holding a gun to your head on that value which is the salient import of ‘no objective basis for arguing against God’ – then your on grounds where you superstitions fail, and badly on those grounds. Magical thinking doesn’t fare well, there.

But, it’s important to note that if someone simply values superstition and intuition and magical thinking over rational analysis, I got nothin’. More power to 'em. There’s no basis for wasting my time, or theirs.

He seems not to understand, however, that it can’t be good to be irrational.

I value rationality, but I can see ways that irrational behavior is useful. Indeed, I think the irrationality of Christianity has lots of practical benefit. It’s anodyne to think everything magically gets fixed up all right in the great beyond. It’s irrational on a dispassionate basis, but it serves visceral passions, so it’s easy to see why that’s good or useful on that level.

And his belief/unbelief in fact seems to be irrational. He claims that good and being and truth are independent, so being/reality can be irrational/bad, truth can be bad/irrational, and the good can be false/non-existent. So his subjective embrace of the subjectively construed ‘goodness’ of subjectively construed notions of ‘rationality’ and ‘reality’ are all reducible (in his subjective system) to arbitrary functions of his subjective preferences.

Well, I’m no existentialist or disciple of Kant. Man is an animal, and thus inherents distilled values honed and shaped by evolution over millions of years, a “moral grammar” that provides a rudimentary moral sense and framework he can no more abandon than he can change the color of his eyes. This is objective as a grounding – it’s not dependent on the mind, will or preferences of any man, but is a brute fact of biology. But on top of that, each chooses her own goals and values, which are by definition subjective. For some, those goals include valuing objective, rational analysis!

Now this is indeed ‘rational’ but only because ‘rational’ has been rationalized to the point of being no different from ‘irrational.’ So sure, TS’s view is ‘rational,’ but we need to remember 1) that from other perfectly ‘rational’ standpoints TS’s view is also ‘irrational,’ and 2) that TS doesn’t have a problem with this. He’s too busy embracing the ‘now.’ He has made his rational-irrational decision to drink the deep draught of the present moment for the short time that he projects to be able to do so and to seek to forget about the unknown that lies beyond. So good luck changing his mind about that!

Yeah, the afterlife thing is really lame and shallow the more you think about it. It’s good if you hold it in some emtionally fuzzy embrace and don’t think much about it, but the more you press on that, the more absurd, cruel, implausible and incoherent it is. I’m always interested in hearing better theories, but the more people, including myself at the time, talk about the afterlife the more clear how such tropes are exercises in fanciful self-indulgence.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

If there is One objective Truth, wouldn’t a sincere seeker find it? Worry about flavor later, put your money on the counter first.

But that seems to signal one is not sincere in seeking the truth. That’s a chump’s maneuver, putting your money on the counter first. That’s ASKING to fool yourself, and to be fooled and bamboozled at every turn.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

But, what flavor? Hindu? Muslem? Christian? Jewish? Budhist? How could someone looking in know what bell had the right tone?

That’s a good question, provided it’s not purely rhetorical.

Because exactly everything you would say for a christian icecream, someone would say the same for a hindu or muslem one?

Exactly the same? Are you sure about that? What is it, then, which each would say, exactly the same? (If that were true, we’d have to rethink a lot of things - but is it true?)

 

[Betterave]

I hope it ends in happiness.The emptiness is what comes after life, and that is precisely why life is precious, because it is non-emptiness, and it is available in very limited supply. The emptiness is the non-life that provides the basis for valuing life, just as a black background provides contrast for a bright, illuminated subject.

That’s not true though, certainly not in general (although as the Pope pointed out, we can see where you and Nietzsche are coming from - its not entirely balmy). A precious resource is precious only accidentally, only in a shallow economic sense, because of its rarity. Clean water is also precious, even though it is relatively cheap and common, and even though we usually fail to notice that it is precious because it is cheap and readily available. It is in fact much more precious than gold, in real terms (and certainly much more precious than minivans! ).

With eternal life, you have a dilution problem. Wittgenstein made the point that Nietzsche announced that “everything is always in flux”, that understanding rendered “flux” meaningless. If everything is ‘in flux’ then there is no semantic value in “flux” as we do not have any stability as a matter of contrast, to differentiate ‘flux’ from ‘stability’.

It’s a good point, but the question remains: how does it apply?..

So, to, ‘eternal life’ renders ‘life’ meaningless. There is no non-life, no non-consciousness going forward, no loss of personality, ever. There is no contrast to give “life” meaning against “non-life”. That’s the value, of course – it’s anodyne, and soothes the natural terror, and thus value, life as final represents to us.

…And it certainly seems: NOT like this. Eternal life does NOT mean “everything always in flux,” “no fixed semantic points,” “no contrasts” - surely??

As for your attempt at psychoanalysis here, doesn’t the thought that one can look forward to annihilation just as naturally provide solace against terror? In the words of Epicurus: “Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us.” Therefore, death is nothing to be feared. Comforting, perhaps, but true?

The quote above is a nice example of what Nietzsche identified as “slave morality”, by the way. He admired the Jews who invented it, and Jesus who perfected for their inventions, but but pitied those who just shuffled into its shadow generation after generation. I think there is psychological value in the belief that death is not the end, and that, magically, all things eventually do get put right. But is damnation by faint praise. If that’s all the goal, beliefs constructed to get by, true or no, hope for hope’s sake, I think that is useful, but a ‘slave morality’ that just supplies the demands of small souls.

-TS

“Damnation by faint praise”? LOL! How about “damnation by trite phrase”? You’ll need to do better than that if you want to present yourself as someone who is committed to being rational about all this.

 

[tonyrey]

Doesn’t the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning?

Yes but very often he wants them to have meaning on his own terms!

Doesn’t he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?

Not necessarily! There are great advantages in having a life, happiness and fulfilment of desire restricted to this world. It means you are your own boss…

 

[Pieman333272]

But, what flavor? Hindu? Muslem? Christian? Jewish? Budhist? How could someone looking in know what bell had the right tone? Because exactly everything you would say for a christian icecream, someone would say the same for a hindu or muslem one?

Go with your favorite (i.e. most philosophically and emotionally satisfying), of course!

 

[tonyrey]

If there is One objective Truth, wouldn’t a sincere seeker find it?

Not necessarily - especially in this secular environment dominated by the success of science and technology at the cost of personal values.

 

[Betterave]

As I told the Exodus, that has never been controversial so far as I’m aware. That’s a “blank slate” view, though, making no assumptions about shared values. If one shares the values of truth-as-propositions-in-correspondence-to-extramental-reality – admittedly, not everyone’s cup of tea – then we have a basis for objective analyses that make God belief problematic.

So you assert…

But certainly, if there aren’t some shared goals, some common ground to work from, there’s not much to say, no basis for dialog. Values gave to align somewhat at some level for any of the dialectic to work.

Obviously.

No, that badly misunderstands, or perhaps just purposely distorts what I’ve said.

Let’s see about that…

As soon as you proceed from values that put a priority on truth-as-correspondence, rational critique, evidential analysis, or what we casually refer to as “rational”, then the values are there which can make a conversation meaningful, and which make God belief problematic, or, uh, mysterious, or… mystical or… But once you want to traffic in ‘rational’ – and no one is holding a gun to your head on that value which is the salient import of ‘no objective basis for arguing against God’ – then your on grounds where you superstitions fail, and badly on those grounds. Magical thinking doesn’t fare well, there.

This sounds pretty mysterious. What are you talking about? (I get that you are again asserting that for some reason your view is ‘rational’ - but of course, asserting don’t make it so.)

But, it’s important to note that if someone simply values superstition and intuition and magical thinking over rational analysis, I got nothin’. More power to 'em. There’s no basis for wasting my time, or theirs.

But it’s important to note that YOU often seem to value superstition over rational analysis, as the discussion in this thread has demonstrated.

I value rationality, but I can see ways that irrational behavior is useful. Indeed, I think the irrationality of Christianity has lots of practical benefit. It’s anodyne to think everything magically gets fixed up all right in the great beyond. It’s irrational on a dispassionate basis, but it serves visceral passions, so it’s easy to see why that’s good or useful on that level.

What do you mean by “useful” in this context?? (This is your superstitous magical use of “useful,” perhaps? Or does it actually mean something?)

Well, I’m no existentialist or disciple of Kant. Man is an animal, and thus inherents distilled values honed and shaped by evolution over millions of years, a “moral grammar” that provides a rudimentary moral sense and framework he can no more abandon than he can change the color of his eyes. This is objective as a grounding – it’s not dependent on the mind, will or preferences of any man, but is a brute fact of biology. But on top of that, each chooses her own goals and values, which are by definition subjective. For some, those goals include valuing objective, rational analysis!

In other words: No objection.

To remind you, here’s what I said:
And his belief/unbelief in fact seems to be irrational. He claims that good and being and truth are independent, so being/reality can be irrational/bad, truth can be bad/irrational, and the good can be false/non-existent. So his subjective embrace of the subjectively construed ‘goodness’ of subjectively construed notions of ‘rationality’ and ‘reality’ are all reducible (in his subjective system) to arbitrary functions of his subjective preferences.

Yeah, the afterlife thing is really lame and shallow the more you think about it. It’s good if you hold it in some emtionally fuzzy embrace and don’t think much about it, but the more you press on that, the more absurd, cruel, implausible and incoherent it is. I’m always interested in hearing better theories, but the more people, including myself at the time, talk about the afterlife the more clear how such tropes are exercises in fanciful self-indulgence.

Yeah, totally lame dude… just, like, think about it. I’d rather be, like, rational. See, that’s just what I value, eh? I mean, just look at me: I’m so rational! Can’t you see it? Boy, I love being rational… I sure am glad I’ll die some day though. I wouldn’t want to be rational forever. I mean, there’s such a thing as too much of a good thing, right?

(Sorry, TS, but seriously, man. Your attempts to be rational are much better than many others, who think they’ve been insulted if you offer them a rational criticism, but still, they’re often totally unconvincing.)

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Not necessarily - especially in this secular environment dominated by the success of science and technology at the cost of personal values.

Mat 7:8:
For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

 

[atheistgirl]

Go with your favorite (i.e. most philosophically and emotionally satisfying), of course!

Easier said than done. I dont find any of them philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

Sarah x

 

[LongJohnSilver]

But that seems to signal one is not sincere in seeking the truth. That’s a chump’s maneuver, putting your money on the counter first. That’s ASKING to fool yourself, and to be fooled and bamboozled at every turn.

-TS

No it’s not. Nobody is asking or forcing you to leave rationality and critical judgement at the door when entering. Or do you think all believers are fooling and bamboozling themselves?

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Easier said than done. I dont find any of them philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

Sarah x

Does atheism satisfy you philosophically and emotionally? If so, how?

LJS

 

[atheistgirl]

No it’s not. Nobody is asking or forcing you to leave rationality and critical judgement at the door when entering. Or do you think all believers are fooling and bamboozling themselves?

I think the vast majority of believers are very sincere. But I think you are being asked to leave rationality and critical judgement at the door by faiths. And if you question too much, or too closely, you’ll find yourself banned, or shunned, or called horrible names. That’s the reality of exchanges between believers and nonbelievers. In fact, if you go too far in some cases, you can find a death sentence on your head for daring to even ask a question.

Sarah x

 

[Pieman333272]

Easier said than done. I dont find any of them philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

Sarah x

Less satisfying than a temporary, purposeless existence bound to be forgotten by a unconscious, completely unoriginal machine of a universe where it began out of random chance?

 

[atheistgirl]

Less satisfying than a temporary, purposeless existence bound to be forgotten by a unconscious, completely unoriginal machine of a universe where it began out of random chance?

Yes for me very much more unsatisifying - I know I have one life, here, and need to make the most of every single second of it. I will live on in my writings, my friends, my family and my children. I could ask for and want nothing better.
I live a moral life, and have brought my family up to do the same. I am so proud they are in the world, and when the time is right, they will make a huge difference to this rock and the people that inhabit it. And I will have played no small part in that . I cant think of anything better one could hope for.

Sarah x

 

[Pieman333272]

Yes for me very much more unsatisifying - I know I have one life, here, and need to make the most of every single second of it. I will live on in my writings, my friends, my family and my children. I could ask for and want nothing better.
I live a moral life, and have brought my family up to do the same. I am so proud they are in the world, and when the time is right, they will make a huge difference to this rock and the people that inhabit it. And I will have played no small part in that . I cant think of anything better one could hope for.

Sarah x

Atheism cannot satisfy. Under atheism all of that is meaningless, and you just happened to be lucky enough not to be born into a family full of poverty and suffering. What purpose do morals have under atheism? Sure, you can say it’s to advance the species, but why do that? We’re just going to die out sooner or later. Like it or not, when you’re an atheist it is impossible to deny the apparent reality of nihilism.

 

[atheistgirl]

Does atheism satisfy you philosophically and emotionally? If so, how?

LJS

Emotionally - I dont rely on satisfying someone that can in effect never be satisfied. I dont live my life believing I am never and will never be good enough but depending on the effort made, may be able to rely on charity to get a pass. I am good enough right now, but I am a work in progress and always will be until the clock runs out. I have continuously self improved and felt good about it.
When I havent been at my best, I dont feel the need to apologise to anyone other than myself and those I have affected. Once we’re sorted, we’re good to go. I dont need to beat myself up and continue to beat myself up and always feel Im not worthy.

Philospohically - When I dont understand something, or think I do, I am always open to being corrected and having my knowledge expaned. I dont find anything helpful or fulfilling in simple having to accept things - just because. Im spared the torment of wondering if Ive been good enough to please someone who will never be pleased. I dont agonise over asking questions and exploring things, wondering if its something I shouldnt be doing. I dont have to tie myself to a believe that simply cannot be logically explained and is determined entirely in the first place by an accident of birth.

Sarah x

 

[mdrummer5]

I think the vast majority of believers are very sincere. But I think you are being asked to leave rationality and critical judgement at the door by faiths. And if you question too much, or too closely, you’ll find yourself banned, or shunned, or called horrible names. **That’s the reality of exchanges between believers and nonbelievers. **In fact, if you go too far in some cases, you can find a death sentence on your head for daring to even ask a question.

Sarah x

I wouldn’t say that this is always the case… but I do have to agree that at least from my experience before I “found faith” (I hate that phrase for some reason but it fits) that it is the norm… sadly I think it’s what keeps a lot of people from faith.

Having been on both sides my take on it is this: people who’ve accepted God feel a satisfication that simply can not be explained to someone who has not. The problem is that they’re so excited about it and they want to share it with everyone so much that they try to force it on people… without being able to explain it. Again, not all but some and in my case before deciding to convert it was most.

Faith and the feeling it gives one who has it is a very abstract thing so it can be very difficult for a free thinking logic driven person to accept… it took me 31 years lol.