contradictory evidence!?

I have taken this from another thread and wish to focus on it here. removed points specifically related to Islam because I don't know enough about Islam. I can however recognize fallacious arguments and I believe there are a couple of common ones in what Crunchy Cat has presented. I think if these arguments were not being used against theism, most rationalists would notice the inherent problems. But in the context of an argument with theists some basic reasoning goes out the window.

It should be noted that this was presented by Crunchy Cat after a request for evidence contradictory to the existence of various entities including God and Angels and things like Heaven and Hell. Please make careful note of that. I will be arguing that these are not evidence contradictory to the existence of God, as a test example, and further that this is obvious.

[I added the numbers]

Numbers 1, 2, 3 are confusing an explanation about why certain people might have a believe with proof that what they believe in does not exist. This is absurd. The people he is referring to could in fact believe in God for precisely the reasons he is putting forward AND be coincidentally right. The problems and foundation of their beliefs cannot be used as evidence against the existence of God. And are not evidence that there is no God, or Angels, or Heaven or Hell, etc. It can be a useful psychological theory. It can be a counterargument in the face of a theist who says 'How come so many people believe in God if there is no God? But it is in no way evidence that God does not exist.

[as a tangent, but an important one, scientists and rationalists should be cautious with arguments bases on 'human tendencies to anthropomorphize.' Why? Because scientists for a long time, following Descartes, treated animals as mechanical devices. In fact, within the scientific community, it could be very damaging for your career to write about animals in terms of emotions and intentions. IOW to anthropomorphize them. This was true until about 40 years ago when it slowly became more acceptable to do this. Currently such anthropomorphizing is generally acceptable, with provisos that the emotions and intentions may not be the same, but the old model of humans as non-mechanical, conscious, emotional and intentional creatures as the absolute exception is dead and animals are seen as having these 'qualities' to varying degrees and perhaps in different but related ways to us. So there we have within the history of science itself a misuse of the anti-anthropomorphizing sentiment. This sentiment was also horrifically common in relation to non-white races and even women, including white women, who were seen as not having these qualities as much as white men. So we have a trend within science itself towards extending the boundaries of what can be anthropomorphized. To which many people of course react to with a 'Duh'.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, its why I did not bother to expand on his opinions. Though curiously enough, he could not understand that they are opinions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it's because you're unable to respond with any amount of intellectual honesty. You even had to lie about that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PM or take it to one of the SAM threads, please, and stay on topic.

 

his arguements can be used though to attempt to explain how those people who believe in god define or conceptualize him, which is something that i'm contemplating quite a bit at the moment. i don't think that most people including myself, have a real good idea of what god actually is. is he a being? is he a force? is he an entity that is separate from us, or is he some collective conscious? i think that the use of the term "father", and the fact that the bible says that he made us in "his image" are descriptives that could easily be misconstrued, and used as the foundation of false assumptions made about his being.

 

I want to add a clarification. All the points I listed (including the ones ommitted) were intended to contradict a specific human-claimed life form named 'Allah'. As you are no doubt well aware of, a generic 'God' is not falsifiable; however, specific human claims of named gods that have had specific interactions with reality are.

Additionally, the 1), 2), and 3) that you listed are observable for the human species, in fact I don't recall there being any exceptions. While there are other contributing factors towards the propensity of people to accept the idea that an external super life form exists, these appear to be some of the more important factors as they are ultimately rooted in increasing the chances of a person's survival.

Regarding the tangent, my understanding is that human life is scientifically viewed as biological difference detection machines that collect energy to persist/reproduce. It is quite obvious that humans think, feel, experience, etc. and these epiphenomena are viewed as a result of our biological mechanics.

 

Generally speaking, if reality corresponds to a concept then its not an opinion.

 

ok then lets unpack this little gem

Your three basic premises are something like this

1. there is a tendency to place personal characteristics in circumstances where there are none
   
2. there is a tendency for the seeking of authority/group identification in human society, even when it is not really founded in anything substantial
   
3. there is a tendency to "fill in the blanks" of one's knowledge with speculation/belief in human society

and your conclusion is something like

Because god is said to be possess a personality, is possessed of ultimate authority ( including being a unifying factor) and holds a function that we can not approach with our current funds of knowledge (abiogenesis etc), he is, in reality, a culminative product of these three illusory phenomena in human society.

Basically the problem with writing off your conclusion as anything more than an opinion is that your premises are all tentative.
IOW just because some people have the tendency to make mistakes in no way guarantees that some people didn't. If god is actually observed to rightly possess these characteristics (possessed of personality, ultimate authority and summum bonum of knowledge) the mistakes others may make in the same said fields does not really account to much more than an opinion.

 

Something like that. There is of course a 'why' component to each premise, primarily that they increase the chances of an individuals survival.

The conclusion would be more accurately described as "'God' is genetically imposed psychological phenomena that promotes survival".

As far as I am aware, all humans share these same psychological traits. Humans, to varying degrees, also have the ability to choose how those traits influence what they accept as truth (i.e. that's where the tentativness is coming from).

 

Perhaps I didn't explain my point clearly enough.

The reason it is tentative is because the premises do not provide for a solid conclusion.

To say that because some people are making mistakes therefore everyone is making a mistake is not a convincing argument.

 

In the mind of an "objectivist" like Crunchy Cat, they do.

The "objectivists" would first have to be convinced that "objectivism" is wrong before they would concede counterarguments like Sowhatifit'sdark's and yours.

I don't really see how such could be possible, though.

 

OK point taken, but in the context of the discussion it seemed to be part of evidence against the existence of a whole range of things, including Heaven, Hell, Angels and so on. Also those on the mystical side of religion, even Islam, say the Sufis, for example, would have much looser ideas about the specific details in the Koran.

 

Well done.

 

I might not be explaining things clearly as well. The reason I think the conclusion is solid is because all people exhibit the psychological phenomena listed. It should consequently also be a given that all people make "mistakes".

Take into consideration that such "mistakes" increase the chances of human survival (at least they used to when we didn't have such dominance over our environment). That acts as positive reinforcement and when it gets integrated into religion then the mistakes are reinforced again through indoctrination and natural positive reinforcement.

 

The only component of objectivism that I would agree with is that a mind-independent reality exists. The rest of objectivism appears more like a personal philosophy and I see it as irrelevant.

 

Specifically Allah's angels, heaven, hell, jinn, etc. (not generic concepts but specific man-made claims again). The reason I went for the head honcho itself is because the moment that is invalidated all notions dependent on it are invalidated as well.

As long as any human claim is made to something paranormal that interacts with reality in some way, falsification becomes possible.

 

You are mistaking an argument from evidence and mechanism for a logical proof.

The reduction of the possible circumstances of those people being right to coincidence (which would then appear to be a very, very unlikely coincidence) is exactly the force of the argument.

But no one is looking for a "guarantee" here. Extreme unlikelihood will do, in the non-mathematical world.

You are claiming that the genuine occurrence of a truly extraordinary, utterly mind-boggling, and otherwise irreproducible, unverifiable event

matches perfectly the attributes of a small set of common, verifiable, reproducible, and familiar human mistakes and illusions,with explicable causes and solid real foundations in discoverable, physical human nature,

by coincidence.

Sure that's possible, in theory. But the argument against it has force nevertheless.

 

By mistakes I mean you are arguing that because some people are getting it wrong (anthropomorphizing, seeking authority and knowledge in illusory foundations) everyone is getting it wrong.

Its just like saying because it can be shown that certain people are arriving at an incorrect answer for a mathematical problem, all people who attempt to answer the problem are also wrong.

All you can talk of is tendencies (the tendency to make mistakes). If you hold that as an absolute foundation for determining reality, you can argue against anything, since mistakes are made in absolutely all disciplines of knowledge.

How many times have scientists been proven wrong in their estimations of a phenomena? Does that mean we should reject all scientists?

How many teachers have been proven wrong in their applications? Does that mean we should reject all teachers?

How many parents have been proven negligent in their duties? Does that mean we should reject all parents?

Is the only safe course of action to reject everyone and trust no one?
If that's the case, what degree of knowledge can you hope to achieve?
(I vaguely recall some obscure greek philosopher who advocated that everything was false - he used to interact with the world solely by wiggling his finger after having reached a certain level of conviction ....)

 

then I guess that is a step down from

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat
Generally speaking, if reality corresponds to a concept then its not an opinion.

I am claiming that empiricism has no scope for a monopoly on knowledge. If you don't agree with that, then I guess it would be truly extraordinary etc to empirical standards

once again, to say that some people are getting it wrong does not mean that everyone is getting it wrong - particularly when it comes from the mouths of people who adamantly neglect the processes a person may claim necessary to apply for perceiving the nature of god.

 

I leave it to the Muslims to defend their versions. But just so it is clear, you have not offered a shred of evidence that there is no god, or angels, etc, or any other similar hitherto unproven by science entities.

Sure, but I have seen nothing that proves there are not, for example, angels. You have taken a shot at undermining Islam. Again, not something I feel qualified or interested in defending. But nothing you have said counters or falsifies angels or God in general.

You have presented psychological and genetic reasons why people might think these things were true. People who grew up in controlling cults and leave them may be very suspicious of the government. They may, coincidentally or not, be correct about their governments. Their foibles and personal tendencies tell us little about the existence of, for example, God. Even if you have nailed ALL BELIEVERS reasons for believing, you still have not proven or even supplied a bit of evidence that God does not exist.

If you had, then you would be making a strong atheist case.

I find it amusing that atheists spend, here, a great deal of time mocking believers for thinking that atheists have a belief. They repeat over and over that atheism is a lack of belief. Fine. I know an atheist like this. I know it is possible. But the case you seem to be making is that you have evidence there is no God.