Theory number 3.

[Mystic]

Here is another perspective of why "Atheists" don't know God exists from the perspective that God is knowable to humans.

It can be that "knowledge" is of various types, and our personality, experience, skill, play a role on what type we become good at.

For example, some people are very bad at math. They have a hard time grasping math. They don't do well in Calculus.

Some people have little to no insight to art. They don't understand it and don't perceive what the Artists tend to perceive. They can try as hard as they might, they simply won't be good at it.

It can be that, the "spiritual" aspect, is similar. The God concept maybe a sort of perception, that varies in humans in degrees, from very strong perception to none.

It can be that it takes "willing" power to chose what type of knowledge one is to rely on.

The problem with religion is as follows. Imagine you learned a subject not by understanding but simply by accepting authority.

For example, suppose you didn't understand evolution in details yourself, but you listened to the details from an authority figure, and you just parrot it yourself. This means your analytical knowledge function of the brain is not being used, by you are relying really on authority.

The same can be true of many people in religions. It can be even that most people who believe in religions believe in God due to simply their religion.

But others, may not, and may while believe in their religion, believe in God on the spiritual power sight of the mind/soul.

Case in point. Most people believe in objective morals. Many people however will throw away their objective moral sense and follow culture/religion/authority instead with regards to certain issues.

But some people have a strong moral sense that is correct in most issues and are not blindly following others.

Others are moral nihilist because they lack properly basic sight of objective morality.

Now the case of knowledge of God can be similar, some people have a strong art sense, some people don't.

Perhaps what drives this knowledge is the strength of attachment towards spirituality with God and pleasure in "remembering" God.

Perhaps people whom become artistic and develop a strong sense, do so because of their soul choosing early on to love art and want to be good at it. The formation of the mind then favors that talent.

But it can't be said, it's "all" about the passion. It maybe very well be some people just like some people are not good at math, are not that "good" at spiritual vision.

In this case, some people it will come easy. Some people will have to have a passion and struggle to make their spirit see. This might take meditations.

Others, like some people without an Art sense, may never really be able to see, no matter how much they try.

[Cyberman]

Please stop calling these speculations theories, interesting though they are. It only confuses the fundies.

[Angrboda]

You equivocate and mix your metaphors in an inutile way. That people have different competencies does not imply that these competencies correspond to distinct "kinds" of knowing.

In addition, some of your examples are flawed. Cognition is a deep and complex subject, not served well by folksy examples or sheer phenomenological Ballzac. It's not clear, but I'm guessing you're not well acquainted with the literature on the subject, much less have conquered recurrent bogeymen. I would start with the following subjects, intelligence, bounded rationality, "trait theory", and memory.

Overall however, the main flaw is you are arguing about what "might" be true (God knowledge) based on something that also "might be" true (that there are different types or ways of knowing). I'm not going to dispute the latter point as I feel buried under the muck there is a grain of truth there, but not enough to justify this leap. Regardless of that premise's soundness, I don't think it's sufficient. Failing shoring these points up, you have a weak analogy, based on weak evidence, supporting an extraordinary hypothesis.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't take the detour into God.

That being said, the foundational problem is lack of a specific and demonstrable understanding of just what knowledge herself is. Lacking that, the rest is just logical dancing. You're waving a finger haphazardly at a moon that may not even be there and expecting a miracle to occur. Go back to basics. Psychology and epistemology.


I had some dim hope to recommend some reading here, but only In The Palaces of Memory comes to mind, and that work is outdated. I would strongly urge you to read Patricia Churchland's Neurophilosophy. It's a bit off your mark, about how to think and how not to think about issues in cognitive science and philosophy of mind. I consider it one of the most important books I've ever read. It's not directly up your alley, but I think you would find it useful.

[Annik]

This is only minorly connected to the OP, but I am of the opinion that you can learn art with the right instruction. Math, too.

[Angrboda]

This is only minorly connected to the OP, but I am of the opinion that you can learn art with the right instruction. Math, too.

According to some, in certain Asian cultures, intelligence itself is not fixed but teachable and malleable.

[Mystic]

This is only minorly connected to the OP, but I am of the opinion that you can learn art with the right instruction. Math, too.

Maybe it's also possible for all humans to know God too. But it's not entirely their fault or their fault at all if they don't (various factors influence them not to use that power of sight).

Maybe it takes some intense "longing" to "see" or to "know" God exists, and some people feel satisfied not knowing. Or perhaps it takes "patience" to hold on to this knowledge, since it cannot be inferred from argument and doesn't have a constant application in the real world, as does logic or art or morals.

Anyways, I'm going to say, I really don't know why Atheists don't believe in God. I understand there is a lack of evidence and that is a factor, in the sense, if there was evidence, Atheists would believe.

When people originally believe in (objective) morality, they do so without thinking about why they do....they simply do. But then a lot will never use their faculty of seeing morals but simply follow culture.

In the case of math, there can be a lot of practice. But in the case of "seeing" eternal praise/glory/greatness/ultimateness, we aren't really applying this knowledge or practicing it.

I would say perhaps a way to practice it, is in an sense of pride of the originality of the soul, and therefore witnessing the sacred origin of the soul. If you constantly take pride in that perception, it would constantly be applicable.

Or if you would constantly want to summon a spiritual power within the soul, to overcome negative thoughts, and you see the spiritual power link to the "eternal" or it's "eternalness" or "origin" and that constantly helps you, you constantly are putting into practice that knowledge.

However, how would a person who doesn't perceive "see" and "practice" to see. I don't know.

Questions of how to overcome doubt, is a good question. I know in Shiite hadiths, doubt of God was seen simply to be through the impurity of the soul, while the purity of the soul knows God exists. And it's a struggle between the impurity and purity.

I don't think that is a true, but perhaps there is "negative" thoughts, that need to be overcomed.

[Angrboda]

Perhaps. But how do you separate it from confirmation bias?


When I was in my teens, I was convinced that the fundamental structure of matter was toroidal, because the mathematics appealed to me. My brother tried to disabuse me of the notion to no avail. I grew out of it, but it took time.

If you're talking about God as a feeling, I have no problem with that. Our insides are mysterious. Sometimes it makes sense to talk about them in terms of mysteries. However, where there are more robust and reliable ways, it is self destructive to cling to the old because it is familiar or pleasurable.

Perhaps. You have a lot of "might be true" things. The class of things which "might be true" is infinite. This is the factual corrolary to logical explosion. If we do not hold to a higher epistemic standard, our world will shudder throughout with the dissonance of infinitely many inconsistent tacit beliefs. And while science and philosophy can't tell you what is true, they can tell you more reliably what is most probable. And that assessment can range from 1% to 99%. However all the deist arguments I've seen you give tend to cluster at around the 0.000001% mark. Science works, not arbitrarily, but because it is founded on good logic and epistemology. If you want to run the old nags and old paint against her Secretariat, be my guest; just don't expect to win.

[Mystic]

Perhaps. But how do you separate it from confirmation bias?

Perhaps it's double edge sword. Our emotions wanting to believe in something can be a strength or a weakness.

For example, our belief in morals, is heavily emotionally driven. We also refuse to believe we have no free-will perhaps primarily to emotion. Not upon analytical reasoning.

In this case, I would say "praise" "value" are also emotionally driven beliefs. We want to believe in these things, and without that want to believe, there is a high chance we would not believe in them.

Does that mean however we cannot know a moral truth? Most humans refuse to believe this notion.

There is no cold "logic" here. It's emotional/spiritual and roundy with curves as opposed to straight forward.

Perhaps. You have a lot of "might be true" things. The class of things which "might be true" is infinite. This is the factual corrolary to logical explosion. If we do not hold to a higher epistemic standard, our world will shudder throughout with the dissonance of infinitely many inconsistent tacit beliefs. And while science and philosophy can't tell you what is true, they can tell you more reliably what is most probable. And that assessment can range from 1% to 99%. However all the deist arguments I've seen you give tend to cluster at around the 0.000001% mark. Science works, not arbitrarily, but because it is founded on good logic and epistemology. If you want to run the old nags and old paint against her Secretariat, be my guest; just don't expect to win.

Science works, but we also need "art", we also need "morals" and I feel we also need "God".

We need to have a sense of pride and science won't tell us the value of our being.

There is "cold" type knowledge that is rather dry, and then there is "hot" "curvy" knowledge that is controversial .

I would say if we only had the "cold" type knowledge, our existence would rather be dry.

And if we inferred God from a "cold" type knowledge, it would feel dry and boring, and not as pleasurable.

We need both squares type knowledge and curvy type knowledge.

We need controversial moral subjects. We need to come across things some people praise and some people condemn.

Or else it would be really really boring

[Faith No More]

Except your "hot" and "curvy" knowledge always ends up "brown" and "stinky."

You're using emotions as a way to discern truth when emotions are our biggest obstacles to overcome when trying to figure out truth. You must cast aside your emotions when searching for the truth.

[Mystic]

Faith no more, I think without emotionally driven beliefs, we would all become nihilist. No morality, no praise, no value, no goodness, no meaning.

And it's hard to fall in love with someone you feel has no value . So you telling me I shouldn't care about that either.

It seems "marriage" institution might fall without emotionally driven beliefs as well.