Chrsitianity and supernaturalism

[juliod]

I am an atheist. But I think of atheism as only being a small subset of the tenets of naturalism.

I don't believe in the christian god. But I don't believe in any gods. But beyond that I don't believe in any supernatural beings, powerful or weak. And indeed I don't believe in any supernatural things at all. Not god, not TV psychics, not dowsers, not astrology.

One thing difficult to express to theists is that I consider their beliefs to be the same as belief in psychics or palmistry.

All these things have been shown to be false long long ago. It takes an act of personal will to believe in them. The problem, as I see it, is that theists view that act of will to be a virtue, not as it is, a vice.

DanZ

[RevJP]

All these things have been shown to be false long long ago

I disagree. These things may have not been proven as true, but they have not been empirically proven as false.

No proof is not the same as disproof.

[juliod]

but they have not been empirically proven as false.

Empirically is exactly the way these things have been shown false. All supernaturalisms fail as soon as they make any statements at all. The major religions can only survive by strenuously avoiding any claims at all.

People pray. But you must give up the idea that praying can have any effect on anything. Yet they still pray. And further, they insist it works. But they will never explain how we can verify that it works. This is exactly the same as astrologers and other frauds.

DanZ

[RevJP]

Again, lack of proof is not disproof.

People pray. But you must give up the idea that praying can have any effect on anything. Yet they still pray. And further, they insist it works. But they will never explain how we can verify that it works. This is exactly the same as astrologers and other frauds

Support the bolded assertion please. Why must you give up the idea that praying can have an effect? Because you say so?

So, what you are saying in essence is. Someone prays, and they claim their prayers have been answered, but since some guy doesn't come along and say "I heard you and am answering your request" that the prayer/answer continuum is not verifiable.

Anything that is not physically verifiable is false? That claim then contradicts your definition of empirically proven to be false. To be proven such, there would have to be physical evidence, so what you have is, once again, lack of empirical evidence, which is lack of proof, NOT disproof.

[juliod]

So, what you are saying in essence is. Someone prays, and they claim their prayers have been answered, but since some guy doesn't come along and say "I heard you and am answering your request" that the prayer/answer continuum is not verifiable.

No, I'm saying it is false because it has never been verified. If prayer were capable of causing any real effect, that would easily be verifiable, and would have been done so long ago.

Two facts are paramount. 1) Through prayer you cannot acquire knowledge you did not already have. 2) Through prayer you cannot influence events to an extent greater than random chance.

If either of those statements were false then it would be trivial to demonstrate the "power of prayer". In this case, absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

Anything that is not physically verifiable is false?

No. Anything that could be easily verified, but is not, is false.

For example, "I saw Elvis" is a claim frequently made (in jest, mostly). Is it reasonable, in your view, to suspend judgement on whether Elvis is dead just because a couple of nut-jobs make unsubstantiated claims?

DanZ

[RevJP]

Basically you just keep saying the same thing:

Lack of proof = false

Philosophically, scientifically, and logically that claim is false.

Absence of proof = absence of proof

[ENIGMA]

Basically you just keep saying the same thing:

Lack of proof = false

Philosophically, scientifically, and logically that claim is false.

Absence of proof = absence of proof

In that spirit, I hereby wish to declare your notion of a God completely and utterly incorrect because the universe began roughly 12 seconds ago.

Yay, universal first post

[chrispalasz]

juiod: One thing difficult to express to theists is that I consider their beliefs to be the same as belief in psychics or palmistry.

All these things have been shown to be false long long ago.

I'm going to go ahead with and make the bold claim that you are wrong. If you truly believe this, then I ask you in your next response to prove your above claim to me.

juiod: It takes an act of personal will to believe in them.

It takes an act of personal will to believe anything.

juiod: The problem, as I see it, is that theists view that act of will to be a virtue, not as it is, a vice.

I don't know why you insist on typing these things. In order to have this be acceptable, it would have to say: "The problem, as I see it, is that theists view that act of will to be a virtue, not as I see it, a vice."

You have absolutely no backing for your claim that would set that "act of will" as a vice apart from anything else. There is simply nothing you can offer. For everything negative you can say about it, I can say something positive. Furthermore, for everything negative you can say about somebody possessing this "act of will", I can say something negative about somebody that does not possess it. That leaves you with nothing, I'm afraid.

Also, just FYI: 33% of the police departments in the U.S. hire psychics to try and solve murder cases (Don't fret, I think it's ridiculous too).

Lastly...

juiod: All supernaturalisms fail as soon as they make any statements at all. The major religions can only survive by strenuously avoiding any claims at all.

What do you mean by this? I couldn't make any sense out of it. Thanks.

[mrmufin]

All these things have been shown to be false long long ago

I disagree. These things may have not been proven as true, but they have not been empirically proven as false.

No proof is not the same as disproof.

I don't often side with the theists, but I'm going to this time. However, I'm doing so, at least in part, on a technicality.

First, the technicality: "proof" can be an ambiguous term outside of mathematics and alcohol. In mathematics, proofs are rigorous, unambiguous, and undeniable. This is why it took over 300 years to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. In legal circles, however, the term proof is not as rigorous and is pretty much interchangeable with clear and convincing evidence.

With all that in mind, I'd like to defer to my often used example regarding the incredibly elusive Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Assuming the current trend continues and searches for WMDs yield none, at what point, if any, can we conclude that there are no Iraqi WMDs? Strictly speaking, the most accurate statement that can be made is no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been found. This is not equivalent to there are no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

One of the reasons that the gods can't be disproven (and the debate will continue eternally) is that theists consistently avoid describing the gods in unambiguous, falsifiable terms. To use the WMDs analogy again, even if Dubya had stated, "A cache of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be found by May 31, 2004," the statement itself can either be supported by compelling evidences or clearly falsified. However, falsifying the statement about WMDs does not conclusively prove their nonexistence.

As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Regards,
mrmufin

[juliod]

It takes an act of personal will to believe anything.

No! If something is fundementally true, an honest person will eventually believe it, even if it runs counter to their will.

For example, in graduate school I studied a particular gene. My advisor and my co-workers were studying the process of intracellular protein transport. We thought this gene was involved in the process. We devoted many years to it. Not only did we want that to be true, we needed it to be true. My advisor's tenure decision rested on it, and we students degrees also. But that gene is not involved in that specific process. Our sincere and even extreme desire could not resist the pressure of the facts. (In the end the careers of 2 post-docs, 4 graduate students, and a junior faculty member were hamstrung by it.)

I don't know why you insist on typing these things. In order to have this be acceptable, it would have to say: "The problem, as I see it, is that theists view that act of will to be a virtue, not as I see it, a vice."

You're right. Partially. I'll stop writing "as I see it". It's just a waste of verbiage. My opinions are the arbiter of reality.

You have absolutely no backing for your claim that would set that "act of will" as a vice apart from anything else. There is simply nothing you can offer.

Let's make a deal. You don't tell me what claims I can make, and I won't tell you want claims you can make.

The "act of will" in believing supernatural claims is a vice. It stops one from being able to discern truth from falsity. It expresses itself when a dowser is again proven to be unable to find water, gold, or anything else. The dowser and their supporters say "Well, I still believe it".

If my advisor and I had been in a theology department the falsity of our initial position would not have been a hindrance to our careers. If we had been espousing the Montanist heresy, for example, there would be no way to see that we were wrong. It's all "faith".

"All supernaturalisms fail as soon as they make any statements at all. The major religions can only survive by strenuously avoiding any claims at all."

What do you mean by this? I couldn't make any sense out of it. Thanks.

Dowsers, for example, claim to be able to find water. Since they claim that ability, it is easy to show they are wrong. Representatives of the major religions won't make any such testable claim. When a theist gets too excited on these internet groups and starts going on about the power of prayer, they instantly backtrack as soon as 50 atheists suggest means to seeing if it is real.

In the end, the theist is left with no claims at all.

DanZ