spetey wrote:harvey1 wrote:spetey wrote:The first important question is: do you think you can (at least in principle, given lots of time and patience) give a rational, open-minded atheist publically available reasons to believe in the Abrahamic God, or does it in the end require an "act of God" or non-shareable "intuition" or what I would call faith for that atheist to believe? (Harvey1, from you especially I want a straightforward answer to this.)
Yes, absolutely. BUT, your current conceptual scheme that is based on some particular aesthetic premises prevents you from understanding the impact of those arguments; from my perspective, that is the problem I see.
I hear this as though you had said "yes, BUT, no." So this only strengthens my suspicion that you want to appeal to faith without claiming as much. Let me explain why I read your response that way: you say yes, BUT that my "conceptual scheme" has some "aesthetic premises" that prevent me from seeing the impact of your arguments. I'm not sure what work "conceptual scheme" or "aesthetic" are supposed to do for you in this context. But I take it you're saying there's some belief I have (like that
there's no God?!) that is an exception (a big "BUT") to the claim that you can reason with me about the issue at hand. And that sounds like saying there
aren't publically available reasons you can share with me for believing your way. And that sounds like what
I want to call an appeal to faith. Is there a way you can appeal to publically available premises that will shake me out of my "aesthetic premises", or rules of reasoning you can appeal to that will convince a rational atheist of the "impact" of your argument, or no?
It really depends on the person. Some people hold onto their beliefs regardless of the intuitive merit of a new conceptual scheme. In addition, some people slowly back away from their conceptual schemes as they replace the old scheme with a new scheme. Are there intuitive reasons to motivate those changes? Absolutely. Does a scheme prevent someone from seeing the full impact of those reasons? Absolutely.
As I said, if someone won't change their conceptual scheme given, what you think are, sufficient intuitive reasons to do so, then you have to move 'higher' up the 'chain of intuitive schemes' and try to reason with them through the back-alley approach. The problem here, though, is that the intuitive argument becomes muddier since you are asking someone to see something intuitively in a mindset that they reject in the first place. You can say that it is faith based, but it isn't. You are not asking someone to believe on faith. You are asking them to think globally and intuitively through the lens you wish them to look. You can provide, example after example, situation after situation, in the hope that they will 'get it'.
Of course, sometimes in this process you realize that it is yourself who didn't see the global picture in the right intuitive lens, and you apologize and then you are in route to changing your own conceptual scheme. Often though, the 'muddiness' at this level makes it too difficult to see the global picture. In effect, you are trying to persuade via intuitive analogies, which are easy to reject by someone who is 'stuck' in a particular conceptual scheme. So my answer is, in principle, one can change their conceptual scheme by intuitively reasoning it out with another person, but in practice it usually never happens based on intuitive arguments alone. People need to see overwhelming force which means they can no longer reject it without jeopardizing the 'higher' intuitive base (e.g., rational thought).
spetey wrote:harvey1 wrote:In fact, I have already given you my reasons for believing in the Abrahamic God. Remember, the Hebrews evolved in a methodological natural environment that selected sophisticated intuitive beliefs. That is, these beliefs evolved under the necessary conditions to produce truth (e.g., evolutionary pressures).
I very much doubt the circumstances you appeal to (being captured by other cultures, not just exposed to them, and other
ad hoc events) are necessary to get truth, as I have explained. But at any rate you don't need to show their necessity--you need to show their
sufficiency.
You need to separate proof from an intuitive reason to believe something. I'll define proof as the evidence needed to obtain agreement on a theory is such that whatever expert in the same field who
rejects the evidence will be in such a small minority that they won't be taken seriously in their criticism of the evidence. Now, mind you, this pragmatic definition of proof is fallible since all the experts at the time could be under an extreme condition (e.g., German scientists living in the Third Reich during WWII), but I think such a definition holds at least
some validity over large time periods and over multiple philosophico-scientific cultures (i.e., that adhere to a methodology which we recognize as philosophical, scientific, mathematical, etc).
Now, the lack of such proof (as this definition) is not a good basis for rejecting a conceptual scheme. It
could be the basis for not
accepting a conceptual scheme, but by itself it is not the basis for rejection. Rejection of intuitive reasons comes from the opposite spectrum of proof, and that is 'folly' (i.e., proof and folly). It is folly to believe something if the evidence needed to obtain agreement on a theory is such that whatever expert in the same field who
accepts the evidence will be in such a small minority that they won't be taken seriously in their
acceptance of the evidence. This pragmatic definition of folly is also fallible since all the experts at the time could be under an extreme condition (e.g., the Third Reich time, etc). However, I think such a definition for folly holds at least
some validity over large time periods and over multiple philosophico-scientific cultures (i.e., that adhere to a methodology which we recognize as philosophical, scientific, mathematical, etc).
The amount of faith is judged on a scale. Visual evidence of the most common type (e.g., there is a sun in the sky that exists) taking the least amount of faith, and abstract-intuitive evidence of the least common type (e.g., there are green goblins running around in the daytime) taking the most amount of faith. On the most extreme scale of faith, or ultrapure faith, the judgements to have faith would be judged as folly by the experts. For your typical faith statements (e.g., there are black holes), the judgement to have faith would not be judged as folly by the experts. You still need 'faith' on every end of the scale due to our lack of ontological knowledge of the way the world truly is, however everything does not require the same category of faith in order to sincerely say you believe it (e.g., believing in green goblins running around in daytime).
Now, with regard to your comment. Most intuitive notions are not folly. They can be believed without proof, but this not to say they are equivalent to faith. They do require faith, as everything does, but they can be believed due to their intuitive merit, it's just that not everyone will sign up.
spetey wrote:harvey1 wrote:It's difficult since I originally entered the discussion in your other thread assuming God exists and that God is involved in religion (i.e., the context of your original post led me to believe that you would allow those assumptions).
No, I asked for a reason to believe in God that wasn't also a reason to believe in Zeus (or Vishnu or the
Invisible Pink Unicorn if you like). You cannot appeal antecedently to the existence of just
one of these deities in showing there is reason to believe that deity exists. This is not starting "in the middle"--it's asking for a reason to believe (the Abrahamic) God exists, with a constraint that the reason shouldn't obviously be transferrable to other religions that I presumed you find false. Since you
sometimes seem willing to believe that somehow Hinduism and Christianity believe the same ("approximate") thing, despite obvious contradictions between them and despite your odd unwillingness to convert to Hinduism in the face of the views being "equally" true, you think I granted that
your God exists from the outset. But I certainly didn't!
Spetey's Opening Post in Argument from Diversity thread wrote:Let's pretend that I believe in a god, but not the God of the Abrahamic tradition. Instead, I believe in Zeus, and the other Greek gods. Of course there aren't really any (or many) Zeus-worshippers these days... Now here's the exercise: can you give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God--one that I don't already have for believing in Zeus?
Notice that in this exercise you allowed a belief in a metaphysical entity that is God. In other words, I don't have to convince you that a metaphysical entity ('God') exists. Likewise, since you cited that you already believe in Zeus (as a matter of argument), I could assume that you accept the creation myths of Greece. Since arguing evolution is non-sensical, I took the added liberty of assuming that you see those Greek creation myths in theistic evolutionary eyes. I think these assumptions were valid. So, I assumed that all I have to show is how the Greek religion failed to meet an obvious criteria of theistic evolution. That is, if it doesn't survive, then it wasn't part of the theistic plan. It was allowed to die. By choosing a religion that has died out, you made my task pretty easy, which is why I thought it would be a debate that might be fun (of course, had I known 'you' I would have debated anyway...
).
spetey wrote:harvey1 wrote:Your complaint was that I specifically picked historical events that were only true of the Hebrews, however that just so happens to be indicative of the very evolutionary pressures that I am talking about.
It's exactly that "just so happens" that's suspicious. Why is it that the exact events that happened to the Hebrews produce truth, as it "just so happens", but not the events that led to Hinduism? If you want to say the processes are equally good, then again you have given me no reason to believe in the Abrahamic God, which is what I was asking for. Put it this way: worshippers of the
Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) are a product of a Judeo-Christian society, so they had the benefit of
all the ideas of the Hebrews, plus (what I think you want to think of as) the new and improved ideas of Christianity. Plus, in today's society, they also were probably raised with some knowledge of Hinduism, and Buddhism, and astrology, and who knows what else. People forming new religious belief systems today have been exposed to more ideas than in any other time in history, by a
longshot! And they are a new step forward, a change of ideas, so they represent another
evolution in the evolution of ideas. Are the sincere believers in the IPU (supposing for now there are some... I can pick a
real new religion if you like, but the IPU is cuter) therefore the product of the best possible evolution of ideas available?
That's just it, though, the IPU doesn't exist as a religion. First, you'd have to pick a real religion. Of course, you could be nasty and pick the Branch Davidians, and I'll forgive you if you do. But, fortunately, any potential evolutionary development must be able to survive, which most cults do not do. There must be some reasonable chance that they will get their memes into the wider meme pool by which to influence evolution in the direction of God's will, and I think most cults safely do not merit such a claim. However, it is always possible, that we'll nuke each other, and who knows, maybe planet of the apes. However, surveying the belief landscape as it stands now, it appears that religion will become more individual and less doctrinated, and it appears that different religions will look for what binds them rather than what separates them. But, anything can happen. I can't predict with certainty the course of science either, but my forecast looks the same for science.
spetey wrote:You see, in strict biological evolution, no one species is "better" than any other. If they've lasted this long, they've all displayed a certain amount of fitness, and newer doesn't mean better. Just because humans came some time after the coelacanth doesn't mean they are somehow more fit or some such. But you want to suggest, in the "evolution of ideas", that some extant ideas are better than others. I agree, but we disagree about which they are. On what grounds do you say belief in the Abrahamic God is better? Are they grounds you can share with me despite our initially different starting points?
'Ideas' are better in the same sense that some 'biological structures' are better. That is, they are better at <something> which makes them more fit for the environment. Similarly, Christianity is better at <something>, and as a result it has survived for 2,000 years in very competitive and ruthless environments. Religion offers explanation to people (philosophical-based, moral-based, psychological-based, social-based, etc). And, explanations have to be fit or they are selected to die. So, yes, I think Christianity offers superior explanations over many of the religions that died out. Those explanations have varied over time. But, on the most part, those explanations have been non-violent ones that touched people enough that they were willing to make the necessary sacrifices, etc, to spread their explanation memes far and wide.
For the most part, explanations are selected for their intuitive merit, and as a result, explanations within this evolutionary context tend toward intuitive sophistication. This is where the nature of truth develops. If people are able to intuitively comprehend truth (which I believe people like Ramanujan demonstrate), then religious explanations evolve toward truth. That is a trend. It doesn't mean that they don't fall by the wayside, or that they don't go astray for whatever reason, but if evolutionary processes are allowed to work, the process is a self-correcting one. The Invisible Hand at work.
