A demonstrably false claim. They do compete, in every conceivable set of propositions. In any conflict, the scientific thing to do would be to choose the scientific explanation. People who strongly believe think that it's the wrong thing to do, many are so deluded they believe that pixies really are a better explanation for dew than condensation. Still the scientific thing to do.

If a person has theistic beliefs that wholly prevent them from doing the scientific thing or accepting a scientific conclusion..then no matter how many of other people's superstitions they're willing to disregard - there's clearly a line. Biology is popular. Honestly, I've always thought that was a weird one. As though, if a god "made us", it somehow had some authoritative say over us...or this effort made us special. It seems to me that arguing along those lines does serious damage to the credibility of the beliefs, and if it succeeds, would only lead to something even more objectionable to the likely target audience.

(May 15, 2023 at 2:51 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A demonstrably false claim.  They do compete, in every conceivable set of propositions.  In any conflict, the scientific thing to do would be to choose the scientific explanation.  People who strongly believe think that it's the wrong thing to do, many are so deluded they believe that pixies really are a better explanation for dew than condensation.  Still the scientific thing to do.

If a person has theistic beliefs that wholly prevent them from doing the scientific thing or accepting a scientific conclusion..then no matter how many of other people's superstitions they're willing to disregard - there's clearly a line.  Biology is popular.  Honestly, I've always thought that was a weird one.  As though, if a god "made us", it somehow had some authoritative say over us...or this effort made us special.  It seems to me that arguing along those lines does serious damage to the credibility of the beliefs, and if it succeeds, would only lead to something even more objectionable to the likely target audience.

I disagree that it's a false claim because it's how the choice is framed and the differing levels of explanation.  Suppose I showed you a picture of a Model T and said the choices to explain it's existence are the laws of internal combustion/mechanical engineering or Henry Ford, please choose.  Or why is the water boiling?  You describe heat transference, excitement of atoms, etc.  I answer that because I'm making pasta.  They don't conflict, they are differing levels of explanation and are complimentary.

(May 15, 2023 at 2:47 pm)Kingpin Wrote: No just that science in and of itself does not lead one to a worldview one way or another.  Some are theists, others atheist, agnostic etc.  Science and theism don't compete unlike Stephen Hawking's view that one must choose between science and God.

Science contradicts much of the theist worldview - so much so that any god must hide in the gaps of our knowledge.

A scientist can be a theist one of two ways

1. Massive cognitive dissonance
   
2. Creating an unfalsifiable version of God.
   

The first is a form of insanity IMO, and unfalsifiable theories have no predictive value.  Well I guess the pragmatic value is psychological -- a hope of heaven, despite no evidence for it.

(May 15, 2023 at 3:16 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(May 15, 2023 at 2:47 pm)Kingpin Wrote: No just that science in and of itself does not lead one to a worldview one way or another.  Some are theists, others atheist, agnostic etc.  Science and theism don't compete unlike Stephen Hawking's view that one must choose between science and God.

Science contradicts much of the theist worldview - so much so that any god must hide in the gaps of our knowledge.

A scientist can be a theist one of two ways

1. Massive cognitive dissonance
   
2. Creating an unfalsifiable version of God.
   

The first is a form of insanity IMO, and unfalsifiable theories have no predictive value.  Well I guess the pragmatic value is psychological -- a hope of heaven, despite no evidence for it.

How do you see contradictions between science and a God?  I believe in a God of the whole show.

(May 15, 2023 at 3:27 pm)Kingpin Wrote:

(May 15, 2023 at 3:16 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Science contradicts much of the theist worldview - so much so that any god must hide in the gaps of our knowledge.

A scientist can be a theist one of two ways

1. Massive cognitive dissonance
   
2. Creating an unfalsifiable version of God.
   

The first is a form of insanity IMO, and unfalsifiable theories have no predictive value.  Well I guess the pragmatic value is psychological -- a hope of heaven, despite no evidence for it.

How do you see contradictions between science and a God?  I believe in a God of the whole show.

Perhaps you've chosen option 2 - the god of deism.  One that explains no scientific phenomenon, and has no effect on our lives.

But, you say you are a Christian - meaning you believe in an active God, who is in control of the universe, and who intervenes in the world.  That's a hard belief to hold without some cognitive dissonance.

I've been in Stage 1 as a True believer.  I consider myself to have been insane.  I then went to Stage 2 when I realized that the claims of an intervening God were false.  Eventually I realized is was all a myth, just like the myths humans have created for themselves throughout the ages.  We are myth-makers, especially when faced with the unknown.

(May 15, 2023 at 3:39 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(May 15, 2023 at 3:27 pm)Kingpin Wrote: How do you see contradictions between science and a God?  I believe in a God of the whole show.

Perhaps you've chosen option 2 - the god of deism.  One that explains no scientific phenomenon, and has no effect on our lives.

But, you say you are a Christian - meaning you believe in an active God, who is in control of the universe, and who intervenes in the world.  That's a hard belief to hold without some cognitive dissonance.

I've been in Stage 1 as a True believer.  I consider myself to have been insane.  I then went to Stage 2 when I realized that the claims of an intervening God were false.  Eventually I realized is was all a myth, just like the myths humans have created for themselves throughout the ages.  We are myth-makers, especially when faced with the unknown.

That last line reads like the Freudian argument that God is a wish fulfillment to absolve oneself of guilt.  The problem with Freud's argument is that it works both ways.  If there is a God then denying that God also works as a wish fulfillment to not be held liable.  If there is no God, Freud's argument works perfectly.  If there is a God, it cuts both ways.

(May 15, 2023 at 3:46 pm)Kingpin Wrote: That last line reads like the Freudian argument that God is a wish fulfillment to absolve oneself of guilt.  The problem with Freud's argument is that it works both ways.  If there is a God then denying that God also works as a wish fulfillment to not be held liable.  If there is no God, Freud's argument works perfectly.  If there is a God, it cuts both ways.

I never said anything of the sort, and Freud was a quack.

Myths  explain who we are and where we are going.  They aren't always about gods or the supernatural.  They are about philosophy and meaning. They may have some value as art or coming to terms with the human condition, but they are wrong if trying to discuss truth.

(May 15, 2023 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: @Kingpin, IMHO every demonstration for the existence of God presupposes a philosophical framework. For example the logic of the 5 Ways are impeccable and the premises sound but it only works if you accept the assumptions of classical philosophy regarding infinite regress and honor basic distinctions between potentiality/actuality, etc. What tends to happen is the apologist defends the argument while to atheist goes meta to sidestep the argument, either to nihilism or their substitute god of the multiverse.

In your opinion, is it '[going] meta' to point out that it doesn't answer the fundamental question it purports to answer, not to me anyway, ie why something not nothing? ...because it itself is something not nothing? From my POV then, all it does is offer an unfalsifiable leap of faith, that may provide a sense of meaning if that's what you're after, but given my view also that I've seen nothing to suggest God's intervention in the world we see, and indeed you seem to allude to similar views yourself with what you've often said about 'divine hiddenness', then the most I could take from that is deism. It's possible, that's all I can give it, but the most it could ever mean to me was deism.

(May 15, 2023 at 3:09 pm)Kingpin Wrote:

(May 15, 2023 at 2:51 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A demonstrably false claim.  They do compete, in every conceivable set of propositions.  In any conflict, the scientific thing to do would be to choose the scientific explanation.  People who strongly believe think that it's the wrong thing to do, many are so deluded they believe that pixies really are a better explanation for dew than condensation.  Still the scientific thing to do.

If a person has theistic beliefs that wholly prevent them from doing the scientific thing or accepting a scientific conclusion..then no matter how many of other people's superstitions they're willing to disregard - there's clearly a line.  Biology is popular.  Honestly, I've always thought that was a weird one.  As though, if a god "made us", it somehow had some authoritative say over us...or this effort made us special.  It seems to me that arguing along those lines does serious damage to the credibility of the beliefs, and if it succeeds, would only lead to something even more objectionable to the likely target audience.

I disagree that it's a false claim because it's how the choice is framed and the differing levels of explanation.  Suppose I showed you a picture of a Model T and said the choices to explain it's existence are the laws of internal combustion/mechanical engineering or Henry Ford, please choose.  Or why is the water boiling?  You describe heat transference, excitement of atoms, etc.  I answer that because I'm making pasta.  They don't conflict, they are differing levels of explanation and are complimentary.

Easy questions.  Ford isn't even a factual explanation among the set of human innovators associated with ice.  Water doesn't boil because you're trying to make pasta.

But why did you ask, do these things seem ambiguous to you? Do you think ice works because henry ford existed or water boils because you want noodles....? Are these additional things, along with biology, that you draw the line on?

(May 15, 2023 at 4:05 pm)emjay Wrote:

(May 15, 2023 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: @Kingpin, IMHO every demonstration for the existence of God presupposes a philosophical framework. For example the logic of the 5 Ways are impeccable and the premises sound but it only works if you accept the assumptions of classical philosophy regarding infinite regress and honor basic distinctions between potentiality/actuality, etc. What tends to happen is the apologist defends the argument while to atheist goes meta to sidestep the argument, either to nihilism or their substitute god of the multiverse.

In your opinion, is it '[going] meta' to point out that it doesn't answer the fundamental question it purports to answer, not to me anyway, ie why something not nothing? ...because it itself is something not nothing? From my POV then, all it does is offer an unfalsifiable leap of faith, that may provide a sense of meaning if that's what you're after, but given my view also that I've seen nothing to suggest God's intervention in the world we see, and indeed you seem to allude to similar views yourself with what you've often said about 'divine hiddenness', then the most I could take from that is deism. It's possible, that's all I can give it, but the most it could ever mean to me was deism.

IMHO your notion that the arguments do not demonstrate what they set out to demonstrate is a fair point and not "going meta". To me theism is a logical conclusion within the existential stance that reality has an intelligible order and also that human reason is effective. If someone else does not share both those stances then there is no common ground for discussing the 5 Ways. And that is where things tend to go sideways. On set of athiests will argue that reality does not have an intelligible order (usually making reference to quantum phenomena) And another set will challenge the implicit foundationalism of Scholastic philosophy, with radical skepticism...the kind that ends with brains in vats. That is what usually happens.