Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Felasco]

Sure we don't know everything. It does not follow that some particular thing we don't know is real.

Agreed.

Only that something that doesn't contradict what we know to be factual and doesn't have contradictory attributes is possible.

Again, you are assuming that nothing in reality can be, or appear to be, contradictory.  Prove it please.

[LadyForCamus]

But from a practical standpoint, what function does pondering over what may or may not lie beyond our mortal limits serve?  How would this change my every day life?  I don't see how it would effect me in any meaningful way. 

Well, I really don't know.  Presumably it would effect you at least to the degree that assuming you are in a position to reject god proposals affects your life, whatever that might be.

Well, like Mister Agenda just said, accepting we can't know everything and asserting that there is some "thing" out there, are two different positions. I'm inclined to reject positive God claims due to lack of evidence and human reason. I don't think that's so unreasonable. [emoji39]

[LadyForCamus]

Sure we don't know everything. It does not follow that some particular thing we don't know is real.

Agreed.

Only that something that doesn't contradict what we know to be factual and doesn't have contradictory attributes is possible.

Again, you are assuming that nothing in reality can be, or appear to be, contradictory.  Prove it please.

I don't get your angle here. Why all the demands? Are you a theist? Are you a Christian? Being straightforward about your beliefs (or lack thereof) would help move this discussion along, I think.

[LadyForCamus]

Look, Felasco (and this is also directed toward Chad, who is a Christian). I don't know if you are a Christian, but I think it's reasonable to assume you're at least a theist based on your posts. (Please correct me if I am wrong).

All the philosophizing over mortal limitations, and the "nature of reality" in the world, will never be enough to get you to the God/s of organized religion. Felasco, if you are in fact a theist then I'm sure you have some at least vaguely outlined definition or personification of this being in your mind (of which you have used human reason to rationalize into existence, by the way).

When you expect a theist to "open their mind" to what could be "out there," you are really asking us to believe in your GOD. In order to believe in God (or anything) we must first define God, and this is where it starts to really fall apart. First, how can you define something that by your own assumption, we as humans can't even comprehend? Second, there exists NO coherent, unchallenged definition of God in the world. Where to even begin? Or am I left to invent my own definition based on what seems right to me within human reason and logic?

Sometimes I don't who is more annoying: our fundies with their shameless ad hoc arguments and apologetics, or our philosophers who hide behind text walls of vague pontificating, thinking that it gives their beliefs some kind of street-cred. They are happy to quote philosophers all day, but when someone brings up Adam and Eve or the crucifixion, they are nowhere to be found.

At least the atheists here are transparent about their positions...

[Neo-Scholastic]

When people talk loosely, they tend to say someone is being irrational when what they really mean to say is that person made an error somewhere along the line or failed to lacked knowledge of important details. That seems not to be what some AF members, like yourself, are claiming. Some here want to judge people as rational, or not, by the conclusions they reach rather than the process by which they reach them. In practice they are saying that your reasoning is flawless and if someone doesn’t agree with you then, they are by definition irrational. Are they truly prepared to call profound thinkers like David Bentley Hart irrational. You may think he is wrong, but irrational. C’mon.

For example, I do not think testability is required to justify belief. Like parsimony it helps guide people toward the best explanation of natural phenomena. The testability of a proposition (P) depends on two conditions 1) not-P is conceivable and evidence for not-P could plausibly be found.

If the reasonableness of all propositions were required to be falsifiable then some fields of knowledge would be excluded, like mathematics and philosophy, when not-P is often inconceivable. Measuring physical objects cannot not test the proposition that phi is an irrational number. Modus pones is a truth preserving structure because the contrary is inconceivable. In other cases, condition 2 cannot be met. No circumstance excludes or confirms whether or not nomena lie are behind phenomena.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Please provide proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within.

If you ask around, I think you'll find that many if not most theists here seem to believe that their god exists outside of reality itself, which is how they get around the conundrum of how a god living in reality might have created that reality, and where was he before reality came into being.

Point being, there's an assumption built into your challenge which isn't shared by many believers.

Additionally, the idea that the "rules of human reason" are "binding" is a misstatement of sorts. They aren't prescriptive, but rather mental tools to assist us in building a closer mental approximation of reality in our heads.

[LadyForCamus]

When people talk loosely, they tend to say someone is being irrational when what they really mean to say is that person made an error somewhere along the line or failed to lacked knowledge of important details. That seems not to be what some AF members, like yourself, are claiming. Some here want to judge people as rational, or not, by the conclusions they reach rather than the process by which they reach them. In practice they are saying that your reasoning is flawless and if someone doesn’t agree with you then, they are by definition irrational. Are they truly prepared to call profound thinkers like David Bentley Hart irrational. You may think he is wrong, but irrational. C’mon.

For example, I do not think testability is required to justify belief. Like parsimony it helps guide people toward the best explanation of natural phenomena. The testability of a proposition (P) depends on two conditions 1) not-P is conceivable and evidence for not-P could plausibly be found.

If the reasonableness of all propositions were required to be falsifiable then some fields of knowledge would be excluded, like mathematics and philosophy, when not-P is often inconceivable. Measuring physical objects cannot not test the proposition that phi is an irrational number. Modus pones is a truth preserving structure because the contrary is inconceivable. In other cases, condition 2 cannot be met. No circumstance excludes or confirms whether or not nomena lie are behind phenomena.

Way to not address a single specific issue that I brought up, but instead go off on a tangent about justified belief.  Bravo.  Thanks for reinforcing my point.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Only that something that doesn't contradict what we know to be factual and doesn't have contradictory attributes is possible.

Again, you are assuming that nothing in reality can be, or appear to be, contradictory.  Prove it please.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

This is a subtle strawman. No one has said that things cannot appear contradictory. Why are you asserting that they assume that?

[I_am_not_mafia]

In practice they are saying that your reasoning is flawless and if someone doesn’t agree with you then, they are by definition irrational. Are they truly prepared to call profound thinkers like David Bentley Hart irrational. You may think he is wrong, but irrational. C’mon.

Is it rational to base your life on some non-existent phenomenon solely because someone else told you to do so? A phenomenon for which no physical evidence exists, no logical way that it could exist and there is no reason to suggest has any bearing on your life?

No. But then humans are not rational beings. To function rationally we need to be able to make irrational choices.(it's an observed paradox, deal with it).

So while technically David Bentley Hart and all other theists are irrational, this doesn't really say much.

This is why I prefer to think of theists as being infected by a parasitic meme. It takes over the lives of believers, costs them precious resources and influences their actions in order to propagate itself.

[Whateverist]

I think Jorm is just saying if a hard atheist finds the "lack of belief" stance irrational, wouldn't it be more consistent to call it out as such just as they are happy to do in the case of theist belief.

Oh, okay I'm sorry.  I misunderstood.  In fairness, yes they should.  I wonder if that is the feeling of our hard atheists here?  I don't think I've ever seen it discussed.

I shouldn't really speak for anyone else.  But if I'm wrong she is fully capable of ripping me a new one ..I mean.. correcting me.