Why Religious Proof Or Disproof Is Unimportant

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The question is then: Can we truly know EVERYTHING?

Clearly, we can't, but I'm unsure what that has to do with the OP.

Boru

[freedomfromforum]

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.

Can you get me some shrooms?

---

The question is then: Can we truly know EVERYTHING?

Probably not. Which is exactly why saying that any one god in particular (especially the one in the bible) even exists. My mind can talk me into believing anything - and so can yours.

[GodsRevolt]

The question is then: Can we truly know EVERYTHING?

Clearly, we can't, but I'm unsure what that has to do with the OP.

Boru

Here is what I am responding to from the OP:

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.

The claim, as I understand what you are saying, is that naturalistic explanations have a track record of kind of "demystifying" supernatural claims. Following the patter that naturalistic explanations have shown, if we wait long enough all things will be explained though this natural method.

So the real question is, "Can we really know everything?" If there are some things that cannot be known for certain within the naturalistic method which you propose, then they MAY (notice: not 'must' only 'may') go on as being defined as supernatural.

You said that clearly we can't in response to my original question "Can we really know everything?" I'm curious on why you said that.

[Foxaèr]

If there are some things that cannot be known for certain within the naturalistic method.

Then the automatic answer is not goddidit. That would be the intellectually lazy route.

[GodsRevolt]

If there are some things that cannot be known for certain within the naturalistic method.

Then the automatic answer is not goddidit. That would be the intellectually lazy route.

I can agree with this. "Goddidit" as you say, means the seeker has stopped seeking. It is almost as mundane as "I know it all! Let's take nap!" although I do not disagree with naps.

In my defense, I did not that the argument MAY go on being called supernatural - Not MUST go on as such. Free will remains in any situation.

[downbeatplumb]

Saying something is supernatural is a trick people play to try and place whatever it is they want to claim is supernatural outside of the need for proof.
I am tired of this asinine word play.

[Whateverist]

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.

My sentiments exactly. Looking for proof in either direction is reason to think the situation has been misunderstood. But even then, perhaps looking for proof is what's next for the person looking. With time, the feeling that proof is needed may abet.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The claim, as I understand what you are saying, is that naturalistic explanations have a track record of kind of "demystifying" supernatural claims.

Correct.

Following the patter that naturalistic explanations have shown, if we wait long enough all things will be explained though this natural method.

No, that isn't what I said, and apos if I implied it. There may be things that we will never know, but that isn't a justification for a supernatural explanation. What I said was that theists need to find a phenomenon for which there is no possible naturalistic explanation. As long as naturalistic explanations remain a possibility, however remote, supernaturalism fails the 'reasonableness' test by default.

Suppose, for example, your car has stopped running. You check a dozen or so things on the car and announce, 'Well, since I can't find anything wrong, the only possible explanation is that someone has placed a curse on my car.' Since 1) you haven't eliminated naturalistic explanations for the trouble and 2) curses placed on cars are non-natural events you don't have a reasonableness of belief for your car being under a curse.

So the real question is, "Can we really know everything?" If there are some things that cannot be known for certain within the naturalistic method which you propose, then they MAY (notice: not 'must' only 'may') go on as being defined as supernatural.

Correct, but no one has ever proposed a phenomenon for which there is no possibility of a naturalistic explanation. Even the biggies, such as NDEs or the origin of the universe, have plausible if unproved naturalistic proposed mechanisms. My point (again) is that until naturalistic explanations are exhausted, it is not reasonable to believe that there are supernatural ones.

People seem fond of invoke supernatural explanation - particularly God - at nearly every turn. We've all seen athletes thank God for their victories (odd how they never seem to blame him for their defeats, though) when a much more natural, reasonable explanation is that they simply played or performed well enough to win. Or Aunt May makes a remarkable recovery from a disease and every starts throwing the word 'miracle' about, even though we know that some diseases do go into remission on their own.

You said that clearly we can't in response to my original question "Can we really know everything?" I'm curious on why you said that.

Carl Sagan's 'Broca's Brain' had a terrific chapter called 'Reflections On A Grain Of Salt'. He made the point that a salt crystal (1 microgram, I think) has more atoms than the number of connections in the human brain. Clearly then, we cannot know the position of every single atom in this speck of salt. However, we know beyond all possibility of reasonable doubt how sodium and chlorine atoms behave. The rules of valences and the nature of these atoms determine how they are arranged within the crystal. We may not know where they are, but we know where they have to be.

So without knowing everything, we can clearly know enough to get by.

Boru

[Raeven]

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).

Zazzy, didn't mean to leave our conversation up in the air, just got blindsided by some IRS guidance that has a big impact on the work I do and I was scrambling yesterday and today to stay on top of things!

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Years ago when I lived alone, I had a hard time going to take a shower by myself. Credit movies like Psycho. I could FEEL so strongly that there was someone else creeping up on me that I would frequently peek around the edge of the shower curtain to make sure I was still alone. I KNEW my feelings were unreasonable. My reason told me so. The facts told me so. I had no basis whatsoever for my feelings that I was being prowled by a homicidal maniac... but my actions were nonetheless dictated by my unreasonable feelings. They were sometimes so strong that I would leave the shower dripping wet to reconnoiter the house before returning to finish up. They were so strong that I eventually purchased a clear plastic shower curtain so nothing would sneak up on me. (By the way, my reason was always correct. I was always alone!)

I've lived alone for long stretches in my life and owing to widowhood have now lived alone for most of the past 6 years (1 year exception) without necessity of a clear shower curtain or any sense of homicidal maniacs lurking about while I shower. I only share this dreary story as a means of demonstrating that our FEELINGS can be very powerful -- so much that they even dictate behaviors which are fully unreasonable in light of the facts. And I'm sure you can think of similar examples in your own life.

My point is, when you know your feelings may lead you astray, it leaves only reason and factual evidence to rely upon for truth. Hence the term, "reasonable."

[Whateverist]

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.

Not directed to me but since I share Zazzy's perspective, I thought I'd respond.

Do you really apply a test of reasonableness to everything you feel? I can understand applying it to feelings of apprehension toward what may be under the bed or in the closet. But those sorts of baseless fears are anomalies for the most part. Feeling serves many purposes.
Feeling informs you what is interesting, what has meaning for you, who you respect, who you feel affection toward and much more.

We don't willfully control our feeling but we always act on its behalf in one way or another. If we are suspicious of feelings in general, then we are acting on behalf of our fears (irrational in this case). The correct use of feeling is to guide reason, not the other way around.