I came across some argument recently. The general gist of it is that some beliefs cannot be demonstrated. Reason does not inclines us to believe or not those things. But we must necessarily make a decision because it is not possible to remain neutral on the issue. It being the case that reason is unable to settle things when it comes to the existence of God, can we then rely on hope and happiness to decide on the matter?

What this line of reasoning is implying is that given the nature of the question, atheism, while it may not be false, is not rationally justified; because reason is inadequate to decide on the matter.

The argument which is being pushed under this premise, as a follow up of sorts, is that compared to atheism, Christianity offers a superior view of life because it provides a better context for our hope and happiness (the criterion we must turn to in order to decide on the question of the existence of God).

...

The objection to this line of reasoning that first sprang to mind was with regards to turning to hope and happiness and what exactly determines this inadequacy of reason. I mean, we make certain assumptions when doing science, for example, that cannot be demonstrated but when deciding to uphold them we do not need to turn to hope and happiness, do we? Unless one would deem as "hope" the idea that nature will remain uniform.

Quote:The general gist of it is that some beliefs cannot be demonstrated.

Then they can be safely ignored.

(October 29, 2014 at 8:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The general gist of it is that some beliefs cannot be demonstrated.

Then they can be safely ignored.

What about the assumption we make on science, for example, like the uniformity of nature? I don't think these can be demonstrated in the way that is being spoken of here.

When someone produces EVIDENCE that natural laws are not uniform we can discuss it. Until then................................

Science does not rely on "belief."

Moron jesus freaks believe their godboy came back from the dead.

(October 29, 2014 at 8:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When someone produces EVIDENCE that natural laws are not uniform we can discuss it. Until then................................

Science does not rely on "belief."

Moron jesus freaks believe their godboy came back from the dead.

The only credible ways to explain the apparent fine tunning of the Universe are:

1)either God dunnit.
2)A multiverse exists where the natural laws differ between daughter universes.

(October 29, 2014 at 9:14 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 8:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When someone produces EVIDENCE that natural laws are not uniform we can discuss it. Until then................................

Science does not rely on "belief."

Moron jesus freaks believe their godboy came back from the dead.

The only credible ways to explain the apparent fine tunning of the Universe are:

1)either God dunnit.
2)A multiverse exists where the natural laws differ between daughter universes.

False dichotomy.

3) It could be no other way.
4) It could have been some other way, but it isn't.

But the real point is that there is no apparent fine tuning at all. The entire concept assumes that we couldn't be her if it were different.

So what? Then we wouldn't be here.

(October 29, 2014 at 9:18 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 9:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: The only credible ways to explain the apparent fine tunning of the Universe are:

1)either God dunnit.
2)A multiverse exists where the natural laws differ between daughter universes.

False dichotomy.

3) It could be no other way.
4) It could have been some other way, but it isn't.

But the real point is that there is no apparent fine tuning at all. The entire concept assumes that we couldn't be her if it were different.

So what? Then we wouldn't be here.

Those are not credible options so the dichotomy remains true.

Quote:the apparent fine tunning

The fine tuning? (One "n" in tuning, btw). For what?

Earth has been hammered, too



but the moon serves to show that your silly-assed god doesn't know shit about orbital mechanics.

(October 29, 2014 at 9:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: Those are not credible options so the dichotomy remains true.

Except that the premise the dichotomy is based on is itself untrue: there is no fine tuning. For something to have been fine tuned for life, you would need to establish that this set of conditions was, you know, fine tuned, instead of just being the way those conditions shook out. In essence, without establishing first that life in the universe was a pre-determined success state, in which other universes sans life are failure states, you can't establish fine tuning at all. If this universe was just one potential outcome, with no specific significance to it, then our particular universe is no more or less remarkable than any other.

That's the problem with the fine tuning argument: not only is it unforgivably anthropocentric for no reason at all, it includes a hidden premise that it just assumes to be true without ever demonstrating.

As for the OP's question, I don't find "it makes you happier!" to be a good reason to accept an untrue belief. And I don't see why anyone else would want to be condescended to like that either.

(October 29, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Dolorian Wrote: I came across some argument recently. The general gist of it is that some beliefs cannot be demonstrated. Reason does not inclines us to believe or not those things . . . .

That still sort of works if you change "God" for "Santa Claus" and "Christianity" for "Belief in Santa Claus". Try it for yourself.

Regards

Grimesy