New potential response to "Belief in God is dumb because there is no evidence"

[shunyadragon]

But we do not know things: All we can do is to develop beliefs about them. (To be sure some people may say that a very strong belief is practically knowledge. But I would repeat it's just beliefs.)

The things that we actually 'know historically' is very limited in proportion to what is believed.

[Truthseeker]

The things that we actually 'know historically' is very limited in proportion to what is believed.

As short as my post (#30) was, you apparently did a poor job of reading it.

Instead of your reply, how about this:
He who thinks he knows any part of history is a fool.

[JimL]

But we do not know things: All we can do is to develop beliefs about them. (To be sure some people may say that a very strong belief is practically knowledge. But I would repeat it's just beliefs.)

However you want to define the natural world, we know that it exists, we don't believe it, we know it. That is the distinction that I am making between knowledge and belief. That the natural world exists is something known, that god exists is not known, it is a belief.

[shunyadragon]

As short as my post (#30) was, you apparently did a poor job of reading it.

Instead of your reply, how about this:
He who thinks he knows any part of history is a fool.

This is indeed the problem with what we know of history surrounding the life of Jesus Christ, which is indeed very little, and what is claimed to be known by traditional Christianity concerning the life of Jesus Christ.

[Truthseeker]

This is indeed the problem with what we know of history surrounding the life of Jesus Christ, which is indeed very little, and what is claimed to be known by traditional Christianity concerning the life of Jesus Christ.

[shunyadragon]

You may, but there are far more specific witnesses, including foreign scholars and diplomats, letters and actual writings that document the life and teachings of Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha.

[shunyadragon]

But we don't believe in metaphysical naturalism shunya, we have no need "to believe" in the natural world, we "know it empirically." In order to believe in the existence of a thing, you can't already know of its existence.

What we know of the natural world is through Methodological Naturalism. We know absolutely nothing empirically beyond this to conclude that Metaphysical Naturalism is true by the objective scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism.

The 'belief' in Metaphysical Naturalism has to be based on a belief and a philosophical assumption that it is true, and nothing exists beyond the physical realm.

[JimL]

What we know of the natural world is through Methodological Naturalism. We know absolutely nothing empirically beyond this to conclude that Metaphysical Naturalism is true by the objective scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism.

We don't need to know anything beyond what we know to be true about the natural world in order to know that what we know is true. You could argue that there may be, or that you believe that, there is something else besides the natural world, but that is the difference between knowing and believing. For the former we have emprical evidence, for the other we have no evidence.

The 'belief' in Metaphysical Naturalism has to be based on a belief and a philosophical assumption that it is true, and nothing exists beyond the physical realm.

No, one doesn't have to believe that the natural world exist, we can see it, we experience it. That can't be said with respect to beliefs in other realms.

[shunyadragon]

We don't need to know anything beyond what we know to be true about the natural world in order to know that what we know is true. You could argue that there may be, or that you believe that, there is something else besides the natural world, but that is the difference between knowing and believing. For the former we have empirical evidence, for the other we have no evidence.

'Need to know is not an issue here!' Arguing what there may or whatever is not the issue either. Again, the empirical evidence only relates to our physical world, and not philosophical nor theological assumptions of the existence of anything beyond that.

The 'belief' in Metaphysical Naturalism has to be based on a 'belief' and a 'philosophical assumption' that it is true, and nothing exists beyond the physical realm.

No, one doesn't have to believe that the natural world exist, we can see it, we experience it. That can't be said with respect to beliefs in other realms.

True! So what?!?!!?

[JimL]

'Need to know is not an issue here!' Arguing what there may or whatever is not the issue either. Again, the empirical evidence only relates to our physical world, and not philosophical nor theological assumptions of the existence of anything beyond that.

The 'belief' in Metaphysical Naturalism has to be based on a 'belief' and a 'philosophical assumption' that it is true, and nothing exists beyond the physical realm.

The existence of our physical world is not a belief, the existence of anything beyond that is, thats the point.

True! So what?!?!!?

So what? Thats the point, unlike the belief in the existence of a realm beyond, the existence of the natural world is not a belief.

[37818]

". . . the existence of the natural world . . ." So JimL you do not believe in the natural world which exists. Is that right?

[JimL]

". . . the existence of the natural world . . ." So JimL you do not believe in the natural world which exists. Is that right?

Thats correct, because if i believed it to exist, then that would mean that i didn't know it existed. You believe that there is a realm beyond the natural world, but the reason that you believe that realm to exists, is because you don't know it to exist. There is a difference between believing and knowing.

[shunyadragon]

The existence of our physical world is not a belief, the existence of anything beyond that is, thats the point.


So what? Thats the point, unlike the belief in the existence of a realm beyond, the existence of the natural world is not a belief.

Your not communicating well, and ignoring my posts and fundamental academic philosophical and theological concepts. I never said, nor do any sane proponents of Methodological Naturalism consider the knowledge of the material world a belief.

The question is as to whether worlds exist beyond our physical existence. There is no empirical method to determine the existence nor nonexistence of spiritual worlds, nor God(s) beyond the physical existence. These are the realm of philosophical and theological considerations, assumptions and questions. The problem is similar to proving the existence or non existence of God(s). This question cannot be answered empirically nor logically with a satisfactory proof nor conclusion. There are not logical arguments nor empirical methods and evidence that could remotely answer the question. These are questions of philosophical/theological assumptions and belief, and cannot be answered by empirical methods and methodological naturalism.

[InspectorG]

I think the universality of these beliefs across the ages, throughout countless cultures, and given that we seem to even be hardwired for belief, would suggest that these beliefs should be taken as at least rational beliefs to hold in the absence of an actual demonstration that they are false.

That would be an appeal to popularity.

Most people believe and experience the Sky as 'up'. And as blue.

Is the Sky 'up' while in orbit? Is it blue during dawn/dusk?

Humans tend to like linear, easily digestible narratives that confirm daily experience. They tend to dislike nonlinear narratives that have 'too many' contexts or probabilistic reasons for things to 'be'.

Many artists have trouble explaining their reasons for creating their art as they did because many just 'dont get it' even though it was sufficient for the artist to do the work in the first place.

Also, the beliefs were 'true' until better explanations came along.

The Greeks thought lightening was created by Zeus.
Want to defend that idea? It 'worked' until it didnt.

[JimL]

Your not communicating well, and ignoring my posts and fundamental academic philosophical and theological concepts. I never said, nor do any sane proponents of Methodological Naturalism consider the knowledge of the material world a belief.

The question is as to whether worlds exist beyond our physical existence. There is no empirical method to determine the existence nor nonexistence of spiritual worlds, nor God(s) beyond the physical existence. These are the realm of philosophical and theological considerations, assumptions and questions. The problem is similar to proving the existence or non existence of God(s). This question cannot be answered empirically nor logically with a satisfactory proof nor conclusion. There are not logical arguments nor empirical methods and evidence that could remotely answer the question. These are questions of philosophical/theological assumptions and belief, and cannot be answered by empirical methods and methodological naturalism.

Right, there is no empirical method or empirical evidence to make a determination as to whether the belief in the supernatural has any validity, ergo, the belief is based on ignorance. I think it basically goes back to Locke's question; "why is there something rather than nothing?" Thats what we are ignorant of, and we can't accept that the reason for it is just that it is a brute fact, so we imagine there to be another something, a creative something, which itself has no reason for it's existence other than it being a brute fact, which we've named the supernatural or god, and we believe this, those of us who do believe, in order to satisfy our rejection of the notion of the existence of natural world as being brute fact.