Why Religious Proof Or Disproof Is Unimportant

[Esquilax]

So the real question is, "Can we really know everything?"

No, we can't: how would we know if we did? We wouldn't be aware of the things we didn't know, so we can claim to know everything without actually doing so. Since we can't ever know that we know everything, the question is self refuting.

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.

Why make that leap, though? What's so horrible about just admitting that you don't know, in situations like those? Why the desperation to tack on supernatural possibilities, when that's in no way an honest answer?

[Zazzy]

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.

I agree. We often make decisions knowing full well they are based on emotion. Sometimes those are bad decisions (because emotion completely ignores reason in a way that hurts us- like staying with an abusive partner). Sometimes they are the right decisions because the emotion IS real. For instance, paying a great deal of money to go the symphony is not a wise financial decision for me. But if they're playing Beethoven, my emotion takes over and I buy the tickets- and I'm generally not sorry because it was a real experience- if an emotional one.

Lots of religious people navigate the line between emotion and reason I think in the same way everybody navigates those lines. This particular emotion isn't one I share, but that doesn't make it more unreasonable than the other intangible feelings we have.

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."

I know exactly what you mean with this- I am still afraid of the monster under the bed that might grab my foot at night if it's uncovered.

We all have these experiences, but in them we're not totally convinced by them. If you were totally convinced that a murderer was in your house, you'd act very differently (and it would be reasonable for you to act defensively). Many religious people are, or seem, totally convinced by the emotional experience of their deity. I'm convinced that my sweetheart loves me. I can't know it for sure, and all tests of reason bear it out- but he MIGHT be planning to kill me with his 22 year old stripper girlfriend for insurance money. My belief that he loves me is based on reason AND emotion, and I might be wrong. I sure hope not, though.

[Polaris]

If you count that as someone being a "badass," you seriously need to get out more.

Walking Void doesn't think you're a "badass", he's mocking you.


And we're laughing..

Nah. You're just mad because I don't give a fuck.

[Brakeman]

Walking Void doesn't think you're a "badass", he's mocking you.


And we're laughing..

Nah. You're just mad because I don't give a fuck.

AGHHhhh! You're right! Please Please Please give a fuck! We want you to care!

[Walking Void]

The Punisher can't give a fuck.

[Raeven]

We all have these experiences, but in them we're not totally convinced by them. If you were totally convinced that a murderer was in your house, you'd act very differently (and it would be reasonable for you to act defensively).

See, I'm not sure I would -- unless some additional FACTUAL evidence came to my attention to galvanize me to action. An unexplained noise, the dog suddenly barking in a frantic manner, something like that. Without those additional FACTS, I would probably just remain a sitting duck for the homicidal maniac, occasionally peeking around the shower curtain. I would assume my fears were not well-founded.

And isn't that ironic? In my quest to quell unreasonable fears about scary attackers coming unbidden into my home, I would disregard all but the most compelling of evidence of same -- right up to the point that I was reenacting the Psycho shower scene!

Still, facts are facts, and for me, reason is based on that alone. I try to keep my feelings out of it, because my feelings can so readily mislead me.

I thought about all this as I was showering this morning.

[T.J.]

I hate whenever anyone asks me to disprove something that already possesses no evidence supporting it, because you can then make any claim you'd want for the existence of something on the grounds that there is nothing to prove that it doesn't.

If you claim something exists in a debate then it falls on you to prove that it does. It's as simple as that. If you can't do that then don't make the case in the first place. Then you are free to believe anything you want.

[Tonus]

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.

It still leaves an out. How do we know that a naturalistic explanation of any particular phenomena will ever be possible? The progression of knowledge hasn't stopped people from grasping for any gaps that remain. We may never answer every question, and that will leave opportunities for people to make up answers and build entire belief systems around them.

Then again, it seems to me that most of the remaining gaps allow for only the most vague expressions of god. The beginning of the universe, or the beginning of life on Earth, things that are not as easily studied and verified. Or images of religious icons on a piece of toast or a kitchen tile, or a cloud formation that "looks like an angel." We need more of that walking on water stuff, or feeding thousands with a few small fishes and a loaf of bread. Or curing paralysis with a command. And please, lets have something a bit better than Bigfoot-style levels of evidence, as well.