Religious People Are Less Intelligent, But We Win Anyway...

[Tassman]

Where is the evidence that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. Prove that you are not being deceived.

[Charles]

Where is the evidence that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. Prove that you are not being deceived.

If you want to play that game, it will take a couple of hundred pages to get anywhere near an answer that will meet the most obvious objections in a strict philosophical sence. And it's not that the people who have a scientific approach to the world are more obliged to give an answer to that question than those who believe in God. If we cannot even trust our senses and don't know whether other people, our computers, this forum, the sky and so on really exist then it sure is going to be even harder to convince anyone in the existence of God.

[Charles]

1 If the God of the Bible is true then I would never expect to see scientifically valid evidence. He is not a part of His creation.

And while there may be some wisdom in following that line of thought I am often left wondering why some people then chose one specific God to believe in. If the reason behind that line of thought is true, then - put very shortly - I think it leaves it very open whether human beings are even able to know if God exists. But you may have some further words to share on your reason for actually believing in the God of Christianity (even that is an open concept since Christianity is quite a lot).

[seer]

If you want to play that game, it will take a couple of hundred pages to get anywhere near an answer that will meet the most obvious objections in a strict philosophical sence. And it's not that the people who have a scientific approach to the world are more obliged to give an answer to that question than those who believe in God. If we cannot even trust our senses and don't know whether other people, our computers, this forum, the sky and so on really exist then it sure is going to be even harder to convince anyone in the existence of God.

No, the point Charles, is that you can not prove empirically or deductively that what goes in your head corresponds to reality, Descartes closed that door centuries ago and no one has been able to reopen it. And I'm not saying to distrust your senses but to realize that you do so without rational justification. A true "leap of faith."

[Charles]

No, the point Charles, is that you can not prove empirically or deductively that what goes in your head corresponds to reality, Descartes closed that door centuries ago and no one has been able to reopen it. And I'm not saying to distrust your senses but to realize that you do so without rational justification. A true "leap of faith."

Don't be too quick on all of this. First of all Descartes ended up trusting his senses though he did doubt then for a given period. Did you actully read his meditation, because then you would know. He did use God in that equation, by the way.

The idea that Descartes "closed" that door centuries ago seems a bit strange to me. First of all the idea that you are being constantly decieved has of course been discussed long before there even was a religion called Christianity. When you wake up from a nightmare, you don't need to be a philosophical genius in order to ask yourself whether what you woke up from might be a dream inside another dream. So the doubt he described was by no means new while his answer was different.

Then, of course to say that no one has opened the door ever since is to say that thousands of pages written on this do not come to a conclusion that there is a correspondence. Sureley you will find those who disagree and I would like you to see some of the existing theories even being mentioned before they are just written of.

[Charles]

And the point remains: If you want to hold that we cannot trust our senses but must including a leap of faith, then this surely does not make it any easier to believe there is a God behind the "reality" which may not be a reality.

[seer]

And the point remains: If you want to hold that we cannot trust our senses but must including a leap of faith, then this surely does not make it any easier to believe there is a God behind the "reality" which may not be a reality.

Again my point is that we all take leaps of faith, here at the most fundamental level, our experience of the world itself. And I'm not attempting to demonstrate the existence of God, I'm only showing that to approach reality even the atheist has to make a real faith commitment.

[Charles]

Again my point is that we all take leaps of faith, here at the most fundamental level, our experience of the world itself. And I'm not attempting to demonstrate the existence of God, I'm only showing that to approach reality even the atheist has to make a real faith commitment.

But that is assuming that there actually is a leap of faith. Descarted actually ended up claiming there was not (opposed to what you said). Many philosophers would claim there is not a leap of faith. And even if there is, I think that kind of "leap of faith" is very different to the "leap of faith" one would take in a religious context. All those claims that "atheists are also belivers since they do not know that God does not exist", "the scientist believes in his science and he does not know" are all in my opinion rather weak attempts to create a similarity between two very different situations. One usually gets the impressions that those who actually say that have a limited understanding both of science and religion.

[seer]

But that is assuming that there actually is a leap of faith. Descarted actually ended up claiming there was not (opposed to what you said).

If you know Decartes you know the only way he could square the circle was to invoke God. That is not an option for the atheist.

The argument runs like this:

But since God is not a deceiver, it is quite clear that he does not transmit the ideas to me either directly from himself, or indirectly, via some creature [other than corporeal substancea great propensity to believe that they are produced by corporeal things. It follows that corporeal things exist

Many philosophers would claim there is not a leap of faith. And even if there is, I think that kind of "leap of faith" is very different to the "leap of faith" one would take in a religious context.

I have been discussing this subject for quite some time, if you believe there isn't a leap of faith please present the argument - I have yet to see one. And why would you think this leap of faith is different from a religious leap of faith? Based on what? Qualified by what?

All those claims that "atheists are also belivers since they do not know that God does not exist", "the scientist believes in his science and he does not know" are all in my opinion rather weak attempts to create a similarity between two very different situations. One usually gets the impressions that those who actually say that have a limited understanding both of science and religion.

I'm not speaking to the issue of science or religion per se - but merely the fact (and it is a fact) that one can not even approach reality without relying on unprovable assumptions.

[Jedidiah]

Science is the systematic knowledge of the natural gained through observation and experimentation. If you wish to add a supernatural deity into the mix you need to provide evidence of a supernatural world and this you've been unable to do..

As I said, ignorant.

[Jedidiah]

The supposed science advocate asking someone to prove a negative.

[Charles]

As I said, ignorant.

Leaving no one any wiser...

[Charles]

If you know Decartes you know the only way he could square the circle was to invoke God. That is not an option for the atheist.

The argument runs like this:





I have been discussing this subject for quite some time, if you believe there isn't a leap of faith please present the argument - I have yet to see one. And why would you think this leap of faith is different from a religious leap of faith? Based on what? Qualified by what?




I'm not speaking to the issue of science or religion per se - but merely the fact (and it is a fact) that one can not even approach reality without relying on unprovable assumptions.

I have already pointed to the fact that Descartes pointed to God, so it is no surprise. An atheist could point to other absolutes, logic, the absurd cosequences of the opposite and so on. But it takes quite long clarification. You are already starting to talk about a fact while also claiming that one cannot approach reality without unprovable assumption. But the fact is supposedly not an improvable assumption?

Believing in a personal God who sets etchical standards, is a guarantee for salvation etc. is by its very nature different than assuming the screen yoy are lookung at right now actually exists.

[seer]

I have already pointed to the fact that Descartes pointed to God, so it is no surprise. An atheist could point to other absolutes, logic, the absurd cosequences of the opposite and so on. But it takes quite long clarification. You are already starting to talk about a fact while also claiming that one cannot approach reality without unprovable assumption. But the fact is supposedly not an improvable assumption?

Then Charles, make an actual deductive argument that what goes on in your head actually corresponds to reality. This should be easy for you, who relies on the rules of logic.

[Charles]

Then Charles, make an actual deductive argument that what goes on in your head actually corresponds to reality. This should be easy for you, who relies on the rules of logic.

I started out by saying it would take a couple of hundred pages. Any short form would be laughable. You could look for philosophers supporting direct critical realism if you are looking for litterature on this. That is just one place to start.