What are the alternatives to evidence?

[Flail]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

[cnorman18]

But as you say, on serious note, gambling and religion are not analogous, and thoughtful religious faith is not as random and self serving as you imply.

The point was that belief in winning the lottery is "only a tool en route to the point". Winning the jackpot isn't the point just as the factual existence of God isn't the point as claimed by you and cnorman.

"wining the jackpot" or "God" can be substituted with a great deal of others things for other people. It doesn't appear to matter as long as the end result is the same. E.G., that the "experience of open-ended non-guaranteed love is "better" than the clarity of evidence, more at the root of things, more life-giving and joy-making, more open rather than cautious."

I agree with Slopeshoulder; gambling and religion are not analogous. This "analogy" seems to me to be no more than a way to continue to poke fun at religion, of any kind whatever, without having to actually address the ideas stated.

For starters:

religion : fundamentalism =/= gambling : addiction.

In the former, we are talking about a very basic -- fundamental, if you like -- difference in beliefs and approach; a difference in the nature of the activities themselves. In the latter, we are talking about precisely the same activity, the difference being only in one's attachment to and dependence upon it. I also doubt very much if many, or any, gamblers would agree that "winning is not the point," that the activity itself is somehow equally satisfying whether one wins or not. Further, whether or not one wins is a verifiable, inarguable, objective fact; the existence of God is none of those.

Not analogous; more pejorative than objective, more about polemic than debate.

How about addressing the actual ideas here? That values, related to a heritage of belief, and tradition, and a body of literature which one may or may not take literally, might justify respect for that heritage itself and be a rational reason not to spit on it and discard it wholesale, which is rather clearly the contention of some who post here?

If anybody wants to defend this hugely flawed analogy, deal me out; not interested. If anyone wants to talk about the actual ideas I and others have expressed here, on the other hand, I'm in.

[scourge99]

I agree with Slopeshoulder; gambling and religion are not analogous. This "analogy" seems to me to be no more than a way to continue to poke fun at religion, of any kind whatever, without having to actually address the ideas stated.

I've identified quite clearly what is analogous. Obviously any analogy is not perfect.

It is often that case that when one's core beliefs are criticized or challenged, such "attacks" are inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude. If this critique of your core beliefs is too personal that you cannot separate criticism from personal attack then you need not respond. I can assure you that I offer nothing more than my honest criticism of what has been presented.

For starters:

religion : fundamentalism =/= gambling : addiction.

In the former, we are talking about a very basic -- fundamental, if you like -- difference in beliefs and approach; a difference in the nature of the activities themselves. In the latter, we are talking about precisely the same activity, the difference being only in one's attachment to and dependence upon it.

You miss the point. Your discussion was not about christian fundamentalism just as my analogy was not about gambling addiction. It is about the lottery/God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence. The HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which cannot be known - that validates that belief.

I choose something like "the lottery" because a typical person will dismiss such a belief out of hand. But when I wrap it up in the same language and arguments you used for self-justifying belief in a god, such dismissal isn't so easy.

This is a similar strategy that is used in criticism of Anselm's ontological argument (perhaps referred to as an "overload objection"). Being unable to address the logic directly, an alternative approach is to do what Gaunilo did and overload the argument. This is done by presenting the argument for the perfect island, or perfect pencil, or perfect lizard. Thus, this argument clearly puts the proponent in a quandary. That (1) there exists a perfect island. Or, (2) there is something wrong with Anselm's argument.

In much the same way, I am overloading your argument. You must accept that (1) a "belief in" the lottery is equally valid on the same grounds or (2) there is something fishy about your reasoning.

I also doubt very much if many, or any, gamblers would agree that "winning is not the point," that the activity itself is somehow equally satisfying whether one wins or not.

and I'm sure many christians would disagree that the factual existence of god is unimportant. But just as the factual existence of god isn't germane to your argument, "winning the jackpot" isn't germane to mine.

I apologize if my analogy to gambling/lottery/winning wasn't clear enough to indicate this.

Further, whether or not one wins is a verifiable, inarguable, objective fact; the existence of God is none of those.

focusing on winning or not winning misses the point in exactly the same way arguing for or against the factual existence of god misses the point.

It is about the lottery/God "as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence. The HOPE that there is a truth that validates that belief. Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them."

[scourge99]

Duplicate

[cnorman18]

I agree with Slopeshoulder; gambling and religion are not analogous. This "analogy" seems to me to be no more than a way to continue to poke fun at religion, of any kind whatever, without having to actually address the ideas stated.

I've identified quite clearly what is analogous. Obviously any analogy is not perfect.

It is often that case that when one's core beliefs are criticized or challenged, such "attacks" are inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude. If this critique of your core beliefs is too personal that you cannot separate criticism from personal attack then you need not respond. I can assure you that I offer nothing more than my honest criticism of what has been presented.

For starters:

religion : fundamentalism =/= gambling : addiction.

In the former, we are talking about a very basic -- fundamental, if you like -- difference in beliefs and approach; a difference in the nature of the activities themselves. In the latter, we are talking about precisely the same activity, the difference being only in one's attachment to and dependence upon it.

You miss the point. Your discussion was not about christian fundamentalism just as my analogy was not about gambling addiction. It is about the lottery/God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence. The HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which cannot be known - that validates that belief.

I choose something like "the lottery" because a typical person will dismiss such a belief out of hand. But when I wrap it up in the same language and arguments you used for self-justifying belief in a god, such dismissal isn't so easy.

This is a similar strategy that is used in criticism of Anselm's ontological argument (perhaps referred to as an "overload objection"). Being unable to address the logic directly, an alternative approach is to do what Gaunilo did and overload the argument. This is done by presenting the argument for the perfect island, or perfect pencil, or perfect lizard. Thus, this argument clearly puts the proponent in a quandary. That (1) there exists a perfect island. Or, (2) there is something wrong with Anselm's argument.

In much the same way, I am overloading your argument. You must accept that (1) a "belief in" the lottery is equally valid on the same grounds or (2) there is something fishy about your reasoning.

I also doubt very much if many, or any, gamblers would agree that "winning is not the point," that the activity itself is somehow equally satisfying whether one wins or not.

and I'm sure many christians would disagree that the factual existence of god is unimportant. But just as the factual existence of god isn't germane to your argument, "winning the jackpot" isn't germane to mine.

I apologize if my analogy to gambling/lottery/winning wasn't clear enough to indicate this.

Further, whether or not one wins is a verifiable, inarguable, objective fact; the existence of God is none of those.

focusing on winning or not winning misses the point in exactly the same way arguing for or against the factual existence of god misses the point.

It is about the lottery/God "as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence. The HOPE that there is a truth that validates that belief. Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them."

I've appreciated your posts before, and I'll take your word that you intended this one to be be probative and to make a point; but I'd prefer to deal with the arguments presented here directly, rather than clouding the issue with highly debatable and questionable analogies. I just don't find this one useful. Sorry we disagree here, but as I said, I don't think defending the analogy is particularly useful either -- and for the record, I don't think I "must accept" anything, thanks.

[scourge99]

I agree with Slopeshoulder; gambling and religion are not analogous. This "analogy" seems to me to be no more than a way to continue to poke fun at religion, of any kind whatever, without having to actually address the ideas stated.

I've identified quite clearly what is analogous. Obviously any analogy is not perfect.

It is often that case that when one's core beliefs are criticized or challenged, such "attacks" are inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude. If this critique of your core beliefs is too personal that you cannot separate criticism from personal attack then you need not respond. I can assure you that I offer nothing more than my honest criticism of what has been presented.

For starters:

religion : fundamentalism =/= gambling : addiction.

In the former, we are talking about a very basic -- fundamental, if you like -- difference in beliefs and approach; a difference in the nature of the activities themselves. In the latter, we are talking about precisely the same activity, the difference being only in one's attachment to and dependence upon it.

You miss the point. Your discussion was not about christian fundamentalism just as my analogy was not about gambling addiction. It is about the lottery/God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence. The HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which cannot be known - that validates that belief.

I choose something like "the lottery" because a typical person will dismiss such a belief out of hand. But when I wrap it up in the same language and arguments you used for self-justifying belief in a god, such dismissal isn't so easy.

This is a similar strategy that is used in criticism of Anselm's ontological argument (perhaps referred to as an "overload objection"). Being unable to address the logic directly, an alternative approach is to do what Gaunilo did and overload the argument. This is done by presenting the argument for the perfect island, or perfect pencil, or perfect lizard. Thus, this argument clearly puts the proponent in a quandary. That (1) there exists a perfect island. Or, (2) there is something wrong with Anselm's argument.

In much the same way, I am overloading your argument. You must accept that (1) a "belief in" the lottery is equally valid on the same grounds or (2) there is something fishy about your reasoning.

I also doubt very much if many, or any, gamblers would agree that "winning is not the point," that the activity itself is somehow equally satisfying whether one wins or not.

and I'm sure many christians would disagree that the factual existence of god is unimportant. But just as the factual existence of god isn't germane to your argument, "winning the jackpot" isn't germane to mine.

I apologize if my analogy to gambling/lottery/winning wasn't clear enough to indicate this.

Further, whether or not one wins is a verifiable, inarguable, objective fact; the existence of God is none of those.

focusing on winning or not winning misses the point in exactly the same way arguing for or against the factual existence of god misses the point.

It is about the lottery/God "as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence. The HOPE that there is a truth that validates that belief. Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them."

I've appreciated your posts before, and I'll take your word that you intended this one to be be probative and to make a point; but I'd prefer to deal with the arguments presented here directly, rather than clouding the issue with highly debatable and questionable analogies. I just don't find this one useful. Sorry we disagree here, but as I said, I don't think defending the analogy is particularly useful either -- and for the record, I don't think I "must accept" anything, thanks.

The analogy was not the sticking point. The ability to overload your argument is the point.

As I stated in my overview: What distinguishes religious beliefs from an arbitrary belief that also provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc?

[cnorman18]

The analogy was not the sticking point.

It certainly was for me.

The ability to overload your argument is the point.

As I stated in my overview: What distinguishes religious beliefs from an arbitrary belief that also provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc?

Perhaps your analogy was what was "overloaded." I never claimed that my remarks did or did not apply to anything else at all, nor do I do so now. Comparisons to fundamentally unrelated ideas and activities are of, shall we say, limited value, in my opinion. If you want to debate my remarks about religion, I'm on board; if you want to draw or impose conclusions about anything else, I have nothing to say, because that was not my intent.

[scourge99]

The ability to overload your argument is the point.

As I stated in my overview: What distinguishes religious beliefs from an arbitrary belief that also provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc?

Perhaps your analogy was what was "overloaded."

I await your argument in support of this.

I never claimed that my remarks did or did not apply to anything else at all, nor do I do so now.

You have quite clearly claimed that your remarks do NOT apply to the argument I have made. So you have claimed your remarks do not apply to something else.

Comparisons to fundamentally unrelated ideas and activities are of, shall we say, limited value, in my opinion. If you want to debate my remarks about religion, I'm on board; if you want to draw or impose conclusions about anything else, I have nothing to say, because that was not my intent.

Critics of Ganuilo's 'perfect island' argument will claim something similar. That the logic used to support a perfect god cannot be used to support a perfect island. You are free to argue likewise against my claim if you wish. But merely dismissing my claims out-of-hand does not support your claim.

[Flail]

But as you say, on serious note, gambling and religion are not analogous, and thoughtful religious faith is not as random and self serving as you imply.

The point was that belief in winning the lottery is "only a tool en route to the point". Winning the jackpot isn't the point just as the factual existence of God isn't the point as claimed by you and cnorman.

"wining the jackpot" or "God" can be substituted with a great deal of others things for other people. It doesn't appear to matter as long as the end result is the same. E.G., that the "experience of open-ended non-guaranteed love is "better" than the clarity of evidence, more at the root of things, more life-giving and joy-making, more open rather than cautious."

I liked the analogy as far as it goes. Good work.

But obviously, no one is going to play the lottery without the potential of winning a pot of money, just as no one is going to 'seriously' practice theism without at least the potential of pleasing a beneficent and/or vindictive 'God'. There are those IMO, who 'play' at religion for the social/business/family/community benefits without any serious consideration of a 'God' being involved and others who thoughtlessly go along for the ride as the path of least resistance. I don't think these are factors in playing the lottery.

[scourge99]

But obviously, no one is going to play the lottery without the potential of winning a pot of money, just as no one is going to 'seriously' practice theism without at least the potential of pleasing a beneficent and/or vindictive 'God'. There are those IMO, who 'play' at religion for the social/business/family/community benefits without any serious consideration of a 'God' being involved and others who thoughtlessly go along for the ride as the path of least resistance. I don't think these are factors in playing the lottery.

I disagree. For example, I don't play poker with my friends merely because I want to win their money. I enjoy the game, the competition, the time spent with friends, among other things. Likewise, who here has bought a lottery ticket and NOT imagined your life and what you would do if you won! That "feeling" of exhilaration is enjoyable and the thoughts about your changed life should you win can cause you to re-focus upon how you live your current life and examine what is important to you. Such things can be worth the measly $1.

There is more to gambling (for some) then merely "winning the jackpot".

[Flail]

But as you say, on serious note, gambling and religion are not analogous, and thoughtful religious faith is not as random and self serving as you imply.

The point was that belief in winning the lottery is "only a tool en route to the point". Winning the jackpot isn't the point just as the factual existence of God isn't the point as claimed by you and cnorman.

"wining the jackpot" or "God" can be substituted with a great deal of others things for other people. It doesn't appear to matter as long as the end result is the same. E.G., that the "experience of open-ended non-guaranteed love is "better" than the clarity of evidence, more at the root of things, more life-giving and joy-making, more open rather than cautious."

I agree with Slopeshoulder; gambling and religion are not analogous. This "analogy" seems to me to be no more than a way to continue to poke fun at religion, of any kind whatever, without having to actually address the ideas stated.

For starters:

religion : fundamentalism =/= gambling : addiction.

In the former, we are talking about a very basic -- fundamental, if you like -- difference in beliefs and approach; a difference in the nature of the activities themselves. In the latter, we are talking about precisely the same activity, the difference being only in one's attachment to and dependence upon it. I also doubt very much if many, or any, gamblers would agree that "winning is not the point," that the activity itself is somehow equally satisfying whether one wins or not. Further, whether or not one wins is a verifiable, inarguable, objective fact; the existence of God is none of those.

Not analogous; more pejorative than objective, more about polemic than debate.

How about addressing the actual ideas here? That values, related to a heritage of belief, and tradition, and a body of literature which one may or may not take literally, might justify respect for that heritage itself and be a rational reason not to spit on it and discard it wholesale, which is rather clearly the contention of some who post here?

If anybody wants to defend this hugely flawed analogy, deal me out; not interested. If anyone wants to talk about the actual ideas I and others have expressed here, on the other hand, I'm in.

Well stated as usual. I think most non-believer's find the most troubling issues with Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, who seem able to detect particular specific Gods with very judgmental rules of inclusion and exclusion despite a total lack of veracity and reason.

I must say that there are those who profess a 'liberal, non-fundamental, modern theology', which in some cases seem to take an actual/factual 'God' completely out of the equation. I suggest that perhaps such 'believers' give up theism altogether and join a secular organization for the social and other group benefits. The philosophy, ideals, moral precepts etc of any and all religions are readily available for consideration and utilization even to non-members and non-believers. IMO, there are far too many harmful negatives with fundamentalist theism to risk being viewed as 'included' with them under a religious banner with the same name and hero.