If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[Godlesspanther]

I appreciate those who responded to my second post. A number of you critiqued that I was using a ploy to lower the meaning of evidence. Actually, I would argue that I believe the opposite. I believe that much of what we call evidence is actually our interpretation of the evidence. Hence, the statement “the facts say” or “just give me the facts” confuse the meaning of facts and evidence. These statements actually speak about our interpretation of the facts. Therefore, my desire is to help us understand the difference between fact and the interpretation of the fact. The author, G. K. Chesterton, wrote an essay entitled “The Club of Queer Trades”. This essay does a good job at illustrating the difference between fact and interpretation of the facts. I encourage everyone to read the essay. It is available on google books.

My point is that the difference between us is not a matter of evidence, but our interpretations. Some of you acknowledged this point and I appreciate that. This is important because it is a major reason why a theistic belief system is plausible. If it was simply a matter of the evidence then there would be no disagreement. We all would be either theists or atheists. However, the theist points to the same evidence as the atheist, but we come away with opposite conclusions. Why is this and how do these interpretations formulate? Before I deal with this question I would like to make a second proposal.

Can empiricism truly evaluate the theistic argument?


I know the initial reaction in our culture is a definitive yes. However, I do not agree. I base this heavily on the fact that we truly believe in absolute realities. Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact. However, can empirical investigation truly evaluate the reason or origin of right, wrong, beauty, or courage? Does the intellect alone make us choose right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? How about the gut? Does the Gut make us decide right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? I would submit that empirical investigation cannot definitively tell us why there are some things that all of us define as wrong, or why the soldier stands up in the midst of battle, or what beauty is.

Ok, so I know that someone is going to say well aren’t those simply determined by chemical reaction? But these studies only describe what is going on. None of them deal with what causes them or why these causes are different from one culture to another. Further, do these studies explain why a soldier stricken with fear will work to overcome the fear? Where does this sentiment for honor come from? The studies show very little about how chemical reactions in the brain can account for one's full range of sentiments.

If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence? The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation. There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from empiricism. Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?

Empirical investigation combined with solid logic and testability is all we really have. What you are suggesting is that there is some kind of special method that we can use to investigate the realm of woo-woo. "I just feel it" or "I KNOW this to be true. This is not a special methodology -- all it is is raw dogmatism. There is no method by which we can check facts or evaluate what you "just know."

If you declare all methods of investigation to be invalid when it applies to your god, then your god is invalid and useless.