Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:16:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > > Okay, okay, I'll buy that. But in casual conversation and in debates in
> > > general, can you give me a term to use that will be as readily understood
> > > as "atheist?"
> >
> > What's wrong with "agnostic"?
>
> I dislike that term because it's often seen as too wishy-washy, or a way to
> hedge one's bet. It can also carry a connotation of undecidedness, due not
> to a lack of evidence but a lack of conclusion. Additionally, if you say
> "I'm an agnostic" to 100 people on the street, I'd guess that better than 90
> of them would understand you to mean "I haven't made a decision re: which
> religion is right for me, but I think that one of them is."
I definitely agree-- to be agnostic is really to be undecided. And if you really
simply "don't believe in God", but *would* if given sufficient reason, then I'd
say agnostic matches pretty well.
> > This sounds closer to atheism-- IE you believe in not-the-Christian-god. In
> > my experience with agnostics, they often reject one (or multiple) religions,
> > but are 'undecided' about the rest: "I don't know what religion is right,
> > but I *KNOW* it's not ________".
>
> Do you accept that there is a difference between the statements "I believe X"
> and "I conclude X"?
Hmmm. Not really. I guess I see a difference insofar as 'conclude' is more of an
action versus 'believe' is more passive, but otherwise I don't think I would see
it as a real difference. I would expect that I would "conclude" something, THEN
"believe" that something, until it were no longer held by as the most accurate
out of contradicting solutions.
> Based on the description of the nature of the Christian
> formulation of God, I judge his characteristics to be logically
> contradictory. Therefore I conclude that his existence as formulated is
> impossible. This is not a statement of belief, nor even, really, of
> disbelief. It is an assertion of a conclusion based on logic.
I guess here's where I'd have to use the tried and true "Logic, shmogic." Who
are you to say that belief in God is illogical? Why is the logical logical? Why
should I believe after I see a fox chase a chicken, that it is "logical" to
assume it would chase a rabbit? How about a bear? Another fox? Is it "logical"
to assume any of these?
If I see foxes chase squirrels, rats, chipmunks, chickens, and gophers; and if I
also see foxes deliberabely NOT chase wolves, moose, deer, bears, and t-rexes,
what should my conclusion be about whether or not they'd chase rabbits? How
about woodchucks (nearly the same size as a fox). What should "logic" dictate?
Probably that it'd chase a rabbit, and MAYBE a woodchuck if it were really
hungry. Why? Because empirical evidence has shown that foxes chase living things
that are smaller than it, yet still large enough to provide a few bites of meat
for it.
But what if I had just seen the fox chase the chicken? Should I conclude that it
would chase an eagle? I mean, it chased the chicken-- why not the eagle? Just
because the eagle's bigger than the fox, why should that matter? What if I've
got a falsifiable theory, but am unable to conduct an experiment that falsifies
the theory? And, in the case of something as wildly complex as a fox, who's to
say it'll even be a 'good enough' experiment? Will it ALWAYS chase EVERY chicken
it sees?
As far as I can tell, people who have a belief in God find that 'God' is a
logical solution to many issues, and without sufficient evidence to support nor
deny that conclusion, find it to be the choice for them. In other words, all
we've is the fox chase the chicken. Is it going to chase a moose? In light of
the fact that we don't know any more than that, it *IS* a logical conclusion,
but it just has very little evidence to back up the claim. Yet, still, some
people would have no problem believing it.
I think the difference is that many people *want* to believe in it, hence, they
believe it with more fervor than they "should" as dictated by science. Science
would have them say "I think there's a god, but I could be wrong", but instead
they choose to say "There's DEFINITELY a god".
Hence, I would say that science favors the truly agnostic: "I really don't know
and don't have an opinion", but that's useless. The useful favors the decisive:
"I believe X is true". At least having a belief is usable in some way. The
impractical holds its belief true, even in the face of contradiction: "I refuse
to believe I'm wrong, no matter what". But the truly practical reigns supreme:
"I believe X, and will continue to do so until shown otherwise".
One could argue God's existence on minimalistic empirical evidence:
- The majority of the natural world, outside of 'life' does not show an
ability to create life, therefore something outside of the natural world
must have created life.
- Cultures of humans with apparenly no outside contact have almost always
independantly concluded upon the existance of the god/s without direct
experience OF god/s.
Not great, but it's something. Is it evidence of God? Uh, I guess so. But it's
no more likely of a conclusion than something else. A true agnostic: "Huh.
Y'know, I'm not sure." The religious: "Sounds like a God to me!" The atheistic:
"Nah, doesn't sound like a good theory".
I'd say you're an atheist. You believe that no god exists, but will accept it as
a plausible theory-- and only a believe in it when shown evidence contrary to
your belief that no god exists.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
