Why Religious Proof Or Disproof Is Unimportant

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Theists (all franchises) are often asked to prove that their god(s) exist. Non-theists (all franchises) are often asked to disprove the existence of god(s). Proofs of this sort seem to fall into two broad categories - evidentiary and logical. My contention is that exercises of this kind are about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit.

Gods, by their very nature, are not particularly subject to proof or disproof in any meaningful sense. A sufficiently subtle deity isn't going to provide direct evidence of its existence. Logical constructs (for and against) seem to always start with or to contain premises which are arguable enough to render the entire construct suspect, if not invalid.

A much handier way to evaluate whether gods exist has sometimes been called 'The Reasonableness of Belief'. Hume's argument regarding miracles (which I won't repeat here) is a good example of this sort of evaluation, as is the faeries-at-the-bottom-of-my-garden problem: It may indeed be the case that there are invisible, undetectable faeries living in my garden, but in the absence of evidence for them, it isn't reasonable to believe that there are.

As long as we can propose naturalistic, mundane explanations for mysterious phenomena, it simply isn't reasonable to propose others. And, given the track record or naturalism as an explicatory mechanism, it isn't reasonable to propose non-naturalistic explanations for things which we do not, as yet, understand.

This strikes me as the strongest support imaginable for non-theism. Until and unless theism can point to a phenomenon or group of phenomena for which no naturalistic explanation is possible, it leaves theism as an unreasonable belief.

I'd write more on this, but my painkillers are kicking in.

Boru

[Ben Davis]

Gods, by their very nature, are not particularly subject to proof or disproof in any meaningful sense. A sufficiently subtle deity isn't going to provide direct evidence of its existence. Logical constructs (for and against) seem to always start with or to contain premises which are arguable enough to render the entire construct suspect, if not invalid.

Indeed. Moreover, the type of deity which is worshiped in church on a sunday is not this type of subtle, non-interventionist god, often the only type of god which can be supported by 'philosophical' arguments. That doesn't stop theists from claiming that these 'proofs' demonstrate the existence of their interested-in-you-personally, interfering, all-everything god.

[Doubting Thomas]

A sufficiently subtle deity isn't going to provide direct evidence of its existence.

I guess I'm going to have to throw out that piece of toast with Jesus' face on it then.

[Walking Void]

I wish there were more theoretical theists than adamant theists. The theorists are people who would use logical reasoning to fit in a possible god figure, if able, but never forges the validity of such a god existing. Just like math, we propose different theories on solving patterns, then expand that beyond measurements. Before long You have abstraction that is no longer applied.

Tl;dr- theoretical theists try to work a god into real equations or expressions, but never declare any statements on the matter.

The adamants are the common group of theists that regardless of their intelligence, make illogical claims and push them. Why? Because it bears some sort of relevance. What relevance? It is not known, but still important. We might know what relevance it bears to to head of state (like the church), but the followers are simply loyal companions.

Tl;dr- adamants say god(s ) exist(s), regardless of logic.


TL;DR - Why can theists not hypothesize and attempt to solve how a god exists WITH UNCERTAINTY instead of null-claiming that existence with CERTAINTY?

[Faith No More]

Until and unless theism can point to a phenomenon or group of phenomena for which no naturalistic explanation is possible, it leaves theism as an unreasonable belief.

There will always be gaps in our knowledge that theists will be able point at and proclaim god is responsible. These gaps are what theists use when they've already come to a certain conclusion but no positive evidence for their beliefs exist. For example, there is no evidence for the soul, but Christianity is entirely dependent upon its existence. So, if someone concludes that Christianity is true, they then have to use the holes in our natural understanding of the mind to support their belief.

My point is that they don't construct their beliefs from the ground up, so any gap in knowledge will be desperately clung to regardless of whether or not the Christian knows for certain that no natural explanation is possible.

[Zazzy]

Until and unless theism can point to a phenomenon or group of phenomena for which no naturalistic explanation is possible, it leaves theism as an unreasonable belief.

I don't know if theism IS unreasonable, unless you're forcing its tenets on others. People feel what they feel, and I know very reasonable religious people who just can't shake their very strong feeling of a deity. That I don't share that feeling is neither here nor there as to the feeling's reasonableness.

It's fine for me to say that theism is unreasonable FOR ME. It's also fine for me to say that it is unreasonable for you to push your beliefs into my private life, or into political action. But I don't think I can say that theism is flat-out unreasonable, because I can't tell people what they feel, or should feel.

[Raeven]

But I don't think I can say that theism is flat-out unreasonable, because I can't tell people what they feel, or should feel.

But isn't that the very essence of 'reasonableness'? Isn't reason the practice of setting aside emotion and examining the facts to arrive at a conclusion unsullied by that very emotion? I think a strong case can and ought be made to discern between what someone feels, as opposed to what they may actually believe. I can FEEL something is true, but I still may not BELIEVE it.

My definition of reason is very different from yours.

[Brakeman]

Gods, by their very nature, are not particularly subject to proof or disproof in any meaningful sense.

Why would "gods" have that nature? There is no reason for them to have that nature in reality. It is simply a cop out used by theists when people claim that their crap is all made up.

[Zazzy]

But isn't that the very essence of 'reasonableness'? Isn't reason the practice of setting aside emotion and examining the facts to arrive at a conclusion unsullied by that very emotion?

It's something I have to think about more, since it is reasonable to have emotions, and hard to get away from them.Very strong feelings are hard to ignore, and we make decisions all the time based on them, and that's not always wrong. I think it's possible to make reasonable decisions for yourself based on both logic AND emotion, although maybe you can talk me out of that position.

I think a strong case can and ought be made to discern between what someone feels, as opposed to what they may actually believe. I can FEEL something is true, but I still may not BELIEVE it.

You'd have to give me an example, since the only ones I can think of now are from drug experiences- I FEEL that the trails in the air are real, because I can see them, but I know that they're a product of the shrooms. I think we tend to believe what we feel if the feeling lasts long enough (unlike the trails).

My definition of reason is very different from yours.

OK. As you have explained it, though, I don't think such a state of pure reason is possible in actual life for any extended period of time. Again, I'm open to reconsidering that position.

[Polaris]

To all those who waste their time about whether God exists or not, grab a beer and shut the fuck up.