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]

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.

You've seen it.

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.

Uh, that would be correct. I said what I said about religious belief, and said nothing whatever about gambling, nor did I intimate that my remarks applied to anything else at all.

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.

What claim? As far as gambling is concerned, or anything else, for that matter, I haven't made one.

My remarks about belief IN God as opposed to belief THAT God objectively exists remain; I have no interest in how anyone else might apply those ideas to anything else, and I don't feel the need to defend an application of them that I didn't make.

Once again, if you'd care to discuss those remarks directly, instead of coming at them sideways by applying them to subjects I don't agree are related or comparable, fine; but as long as the remarks themselves are sitting there, I don't feel a need to ignore them in favor of some other subject in which I am not interested and upon which I have no comment nor opinion.

[Flail]

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".

Obviously there is much more to playing poker with friends than asking a clerk at the convenience store for a lottery ticket. I thought the analogy was lottery. In any event, I doubt there would be much serious poker playing without someone keeping track of who was winning(money or chips only), just as there would be no serious theism practiced by atheists.

[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.

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.

Well, I think that's probably why the Unitarian/Universalists and Humanistic Jews exist; but for myself, I feel no particular need to eschew God entirely. I don't say that there is no God; I think that there is -- though, with apologies to Bill Clinton, I don't know what the meaning of "is" is in that affirmation; nor do I feel any particular need to beat myself up on that point in order to come up with definitions that I can't, with integrity and honesty, claim to know.

As far as being "included" with more objectionable theists, I'd just as soon be included with the Jews, thanks. There are already reasons aplenty to distance myself from my adopted heritage, chief among them the vicious antisemitism that's still endemic in some parts of the world, but I'd rather take my stand with my people, Orthodox and all. I don't think I need to abandon my people, my culture, and an enormous body of literature and learning in order to please those who are repelled by the very idea of God. That is their problem and not my own.

As I've said before, satisfying the objections of atheists just isn't very high on my list of personal priorities. Rather than advising all rational theists to abandon God entirely in order to avoid being associated with toxic fundamentalists, perhaps those atheists who consider any allusion or mention of God whatever to be unworthy of respect might consider learning to drop their own stereotypes and prejudices and make room in their own thinking for the idea that maybe God-belief isn't entirely toxic. You don't feel the need to tell avowed atheists they should deny that label in order not to be "included" with Stalin and Pol Pot, do you?

[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.

Well, I think that's probably why the Unitarian/Universalists and Humanistic Jews exist; but for myself, I feel no particular need to eschew God entirely. I don't say that there is no God; I think that there is -- though, with apologies to Bill Clinton, I don't know what the meaning of "is" is in that affirmation; nor do I feel any particular need to beat myself up on that point in order to come up with definitions that I can't, with integrity and honesty, claim to know.

As far as being "included" with more objectionable theists, I'd just as soon be included with the Jews, thanks. There are already reasons aplenty to distance myself from my adopted heritage, chief among them the vicious antisemitism that's still endemic in some parts of the world, but I'd rather take my stand with my people, Orthodox and all. I don't think I need to abandon my people, my culture, and an enormous body of literature and learning in order to please those who are repelled by the very idea of God. That is their problem and not my own.

As I've said before, satisfying the objections of atheists just isn't very high on my list of personal priorities. Rather than advising all rational theists to abandon God entirely in order to avoid being associated with toxic fundamentalists, perhaps those atheists who consider any allusion or mention of God whatever to be unworthy of respect might consider learning to drop their own stereotypes and prejudices and make room in their own thinking for the idea that maybe God-belief isn't entirely toxic. You don't feel the need to tell avowed atheists they should deny that label in order not to be "included" with Stalin and Pol Pot, do you?

Apologies to your Jewish roots, for which I have utmost respect. My comments were intended toward fundamental Christians and Islamists, but perhaps that was not clear. I have no intention of satisfying atheists or apologizing or defending individual zealots and radicals present in any group.

I suppose Christians have a choice to disavow Christianity in favor of going their own way alone or following just the teachings of Jesus or some other faith instead of Christianity. They could also opt to correct abuses internally while remaining members of the faith. It seems to me that too often, Christians give a pass to the radicals in their midst just as do Muslims. If I were part of an organization filled with hateful radicals, I would leave the group or speak out and take action. Perhaps we all should take a lesson from the Nazis, many of whom claimed ignorance of their leader's insane and murderous behavior after the fact.

[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.

You've seen it.

I've seen you attempt to dismiss points I haven't made.

I have NOT seen your argument against overloading your argument. I've only seen your out-of-hand dismissal of it.

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.

Uh, that would be correct. I said what I said about religious belief, and said nothing whatever about gambling, nor did I intimate that my remarks applied to anything else at all.

I agree that you didn't claim your remarks applied to anything else.

My over arching argument has been the arbitrary nature of your line of thinking. That it can and does apply to other things. Hence the whole bit about overloading your argument. This demonstrates how arbitrary such beliefs are.

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.

What claim? As far as gambling is concerned, or anything else, for that matter, I haven't made one.

My claim is that:
1) many beliefs exist that provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc, that you claim your belief in god does for you.

2) "belief in god" (in the manner you propose) can be substituted with anything that "gives 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."

My remarks about belief IN God as opposed to belief THAT God objectively exists remain;

I agree that I have not disputed your remarks about belief IN God as opposed to belief THAT God objectively exists. However, I have criticized the arbitrary nature of such beliefs.

I have no interest in how anyone else might apply those ideas to anything else, and I don't feel the need to defend an application of them that I didn't make.

You are under no obligation to defend your argument from my criticism just as proponents of Anselm's argument are under no obligation to argue against the glaring problems that arise from Ganuilo's perfect island.

Dismissing out-of-hand or ignoring the criticism does not make it any less valid.

Once again, if you'd care to discuss those remarks directly, instead of coming at them sideways by applying them to subjects I don't agree are related or comparable, fine; but as long as the remarks themselves are sitting there, I don't feel a need to ignore them in favor of some other subject in which I am not interested and upon which I have no comment nor opinion.

Its irrelevant as to whether or not I have criticized your arguments in a form you would prefer. Nor is the form in which I have criticized your arguments against this forum rules.

[scourge99]

Obviously there is much more to playing poker with friends than asking a clerk at the convenience store for a lottery ticket.

the lottery example was used in the same manner unicorns and leprechauns are used in an argument. To demonstrate a flaw by using something commonly agreed upon as false or wrong. I.E., no one honestly believes leprechauns exist just as no one honestly bases their life in some esoteric truth related to gambling.

In any event, I doubt there would be much serious poker playing without someone keeping track of who was winning(money or chips only), just as there would be no serious theism practiced by atheists.

Others have posited the notion of a belief in hope of the truth. Thus even strong atheists can be religious with such a mind set.

[cnorman18]

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.

You've seen it.

I've seen you attempt to dismiss points I haven't made.

I have NOT seen your argument against overloading your argument. I've only seen your out-of-hand dismissal of it.

Since you were addressing points that I also never made, i.e. about unrelated activities and unrelated concepts, I'm OK with dismissing them.

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.

Uh, that would be correct. I said what I said about religious belief, and said nothing whatever about gambling, nor did I intimate that my remarks applied to anything else at all.

I agree that you didn't claim your remarks applied to anything else.

My over arching argument has been the arbitrary nature of your line of thinking. That it can and does apply to other things. Hence the whole bit about overloading your argument. This demonstrates how arbitrary such beliefs are.

Define "arbitrary" and defend your definition. If you mean that I choose my beliefs without reference to anyone else's opinion, I'm OK with that too.

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.

What claim? As far as gambling is concerned, or anything else, for that matter, I haven't made one.

My claim is that:
1) many beliefs exist that provide similar satisfaction, hope, etc, that you claim your belief in god does for you.

I don't deny that, nor do I see why I should have to.

2) "belief in god" (in the manner you propose) can be substituted with anything that "gives 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."

That may or may not be true, depending on the "anything" one chooses to examine. I haven't denied that either, nor do I think it makes my own statements incorrect or objectionable in any way even if it's true.

All of which, of course, is a polite way of asking "So what?"

My remarks about belief IN God as opposed to belief THAT God objectively exists remain;

I agree that I have not disputed your remarks about belief IN God as opposed to belief THAT God objectively exists. However, I have criticized the arbitrary nature of such beliefs.

Again, define "arbitrary," and this time please demonstrate why that is objectionable or makes my position false or unreasonable.

Since I urge my beliefs upon no one, and condemn no one else's beliefs or approach to these questions, is there a reason why I can't arbitrarily believe whatever I like, or why I should justify what I think to you or anyone else? I have always presented my own views, and my own understanding of modern Judaism, as a matter of showing that there are other ways to be "religious" other than the prescriptive, condemnatory fundamentalist or literalist approach. I have no interest in proselytizing anyone, nor in justifying or proving my beliefs to be "true" to anyone else's satisfaction.

I have no interest in how anyone else might apply those ideas to anything else, and I don't feel the need to defend an application of them that I didn't make.

You are under no obligation to defend your argument from my criticism just as proponents of Anselm's argument are under no obligation to argue against the glaring problems that arise from Ganuilo's perfect island.

Dismissing out-of-hand or ignoring the criticism does not make it any less valid.

I'm sure that's true, but then I don't see anything wrong with declining to participate in an argument that doesn't interest me.

Once again, if you'd care to discuss those remarks directly, instead of coming at them sideways by applying them to subjects I don't agree are related or comparable, fine; but as long as the remarks themselves are sitting there, I don't feel a need to ignore them in favor of some other subject in which I am not interested and upon which I have no comment nor opinion.

Its irrelevant as to whether or not I have criticized your arguments in a form you would prefer. Nor is the form in which I have criticized your arguments against this forum rules.

That's equally true; there's nothing wrong with your declining to participate in arguments you're not interested in, either.

You don't approve of my views, and you'd rather not address them directly. I'm OK with that, too. Peace to you.

[Flail]

Cnorman wrote:

Since I urge my beliefs upon no one, and condemn no one else's beliefs or approach to these questions, is there a reason why I can't arbitrarily believe whatever I like, or why I should justify what I think to you or anyone else? I have always presented my own views, and my own understanding of modern Judaism, as a matter of showing that there are other ways to be "religious" other than the prescriptive, condemnatory fundamentalist or literalist approach. I have no interest in proselytizing anyone, nor in justifying or proving my beliefs to be "true" to anyone else's satisfaction.

Putting the debate as to the 'lottery analogy' to the side and returning to the OP question, do you agree that non-fundamental religious 'God' beliefs are speculative and perhaps imaginary?

[Flail]

Opie wrote:

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?

If there is no credible evidence to support God claims, what else is there to support religions truth claims? If there is no credible evidence that the Bible emanates from BibleGod, upon what basis can there be any sound BibleGod beliefs other than imagination and speculation?

[cnorman18]

Cnorman wrote:

Since I urge my beliefs upon no one, and condemn no one else's beliefs or approach to these questions, is there a reason why I can't arbitrarily believe whatever I like, or why I should justify what I think to you or anyone else? I have always presented my own views, and my own understanding of modern Judaism, as a matter of showing that there are other ways to be "religious" other than the prescriptive, condemnatory fundamentalist or literalist approach. I have no interest in proselytizing anyone, nor in justifying or proving my beliefs to be "true" to anyone else's satisfaction.

Putting the debate as to the 'lottery analogy' to the side and returning to the OP question, do you agree that non-fundamental religious 'God' beliefs are speculative and perhaps imaginary?

Not only have I already agreed to that, I have asked -- what else could they be? They certainly aren't matters of objective and verifiable fact.

That said, I don't think it's reasonable to equate "speculative and perhaps imaginary" with "worthless, false, malignant, pernicious and/or objectionable in any way" either. Justice is a concept (to name only one of many), the definition of which is equally "speculative and perhaps imaginary" as well, and I see nothing whatever wrong with dedicating one's life to that, either.

Now we can get all wrapped around the axle arguing over whether the example of "justice" is wholly applicable, too; but I think the point is made. If there's something absolutely WRONG with speculation and imagination in areas where that's all that's available, sing out.

Bear in mind that I'd also instantly grant that preferring speculation and imagination to hard fact in areas where hard fact IS available is stupid, counterproductive, unjustified, and rather often malignant, etc. Dogma ought NEVER replace rational thought, logic and verifiable scientific fact -- but sometimes scientific fact doesn't have the answers one seeks. Logic and rational thought are to be retained even then.