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

[Godlesspanther]

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?

But those things you've mentioned are not beyond empirical observation. We're slowly mapping out the brain and how it functions, but even if we couldn't, we can study humans and their behavior. Along with viewing psychology from an evolutionary point of view, we can begin to observe and understand the motivations behind human actions and the emotions that drive them.

The brain is highly complex and we do have a long ways to go to fully understanding it, but that does not put abstract notions such as courage or beauty beyond empirical reasoning.We have a long ways to go before understanding human behavior becomes a hard science, so much of what we do know is based upon recognizing patterns in that behavior.

Besides, the problem with philosophical endeavors that rely on no empiricism is that the skeptics have completely demolished their validity. That's why empirical evidence is so important, because philosophy without empirical evidence is just wishful thinking.

And that wishful thinking so often leads to dogmatism which leads to authoritarianism.

[max-greece]

---

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.

Actually I am not even sure what you mean by absolute realities. Our reality is determined by what we are, our physical size and our senses.

Beware of absolutes - they rarely are in my experience.

Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact.

Had you actually asked us, however, rather than assuming the answer, I think you would have found that VERY few of us hold to this viewpoint. Highly unlikely - yes, absolutely no chance, no. Simply not enough evidence to warrant belief.

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.

I don't think intellect has anything to do with it. Evolution through natural selection of an intelligent, social creature, however, probably has a great deal to do with it. It appears, in common with some other social, intelligent creatures that we are, to an extent, pre-programmed for empathy, reciprocation and an essential sense of fairness. Beauty? That's in the eye of the beholder but a sense of the aesthetic is probably again a by-product of how we have evolved - alongside an element of the encouragement to breed.

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.

Agreed - see above.

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?

And this is the foundation of theist belief - but it is dangerous ground. How do you decide one God over another? How do you eliminate the possibility of any other mythical being or place?

In simpler terms - if you have a given phenomenon and 2 possible explanations, one of which involved an unprovable deity and one which doesn't. which do you think its the more logical to choose?

Over the centuries God has been cited as the reason or cause for a great many things from being the only plausible explanation for the variety of life to the only way the heavenly bodies can stay in place. To date that explanation has yet to prove correct. It appears that there is always a more logical explanation that science can reveal that makes no requirement for an omnipotent being.

[pocaracas]

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.

That's sort of what I said about "fact" and "truth".
And it's why it grinds my gears when religious people tout a "truth" as something absolute... that makes no sense.

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.

Somehow, I think you're not talking about the same kind of evidence...

If it was simply a matter of the evidence then there would be no disagreement. We all would be either theists or atheists.

I'd say that theists tend not to look at any evidence and go along with their indoctrinated beliefs...

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?

One is honest and makes no unfounded claim... the other, not so much.

Before I deal with this question I would like to make a second proposal.

Can empiricism truly evaluate the theistic argument?

Let's look at the theistic argument, shall we?
- Abrahamic religions:
. a god talks to Abraham requesting he kill his own son, only to then say, "no, bro, I was just messin' with ya".
. a god makes a bush burn without consuming it.
. a god talks to Moses, writes on stone and carves out tablets with those writings.
. a god prevent people from building a tower and magically makes them talk in different languages.
. etc...

Could empiricism evaluate these events, if they occurred nowadays? yes.
Can empiricism evaluate the past claims of such events? no.
Can empiricism evaluate if Darth Vader is truly dead? no.
Can empiricism discern between a true story and a false one, when there's no evidence for either? no.
If there's no evidence for either, then which should we accept? none!

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.

Reality is what it is and cares not about what we think about it, nor our models for it.
Of course, I'll exclude such mental masturbations as "brain in the vat" and other matrix-like scenarios where we can't discern the real from an exterior construct mimicking a reality.

Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact.

Which god?... Ah... capital G, so Abrahamic god, huh?
That one is a fairy tale god... a fairy tale gone wrong!

However, can empirical investigation truly evaluate the reason or origin of right, wrong, beauty, or courage?

What does that have to do with any god?
Mental states, social behavior, appreciation for a healthy environment are all traits that help with the overall survival of the species, hence it makes sense that throughout our evolution we'd enhance such behaviors.

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.

In a nutshell and oversimplifying it: Evolution did it.

If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence?

If that god talks to humans, then yes.
If that god interacts with humans, then yes.
If that god interacts with the environment, then yes.
If that god produces any physical object, then yes.

If that god is indistinguishable from a made-up god, then no.
If that god lives only in the minds of people, then no.
If that god is indistinguishable from Zeus, Ra, Darth Vader, Kahless, or the white walkers, then no.

The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation.

Then why call them "realities"?

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?[/b]

The clue is in the verb you used... "is".
I underlined it for you.

Care to tell me what this verb means?

[Tonus]

Actually, I would argue that I believe the opposite.

You don't have to argue that you believe the opposite, you only have to state it.

What you are discussing in your most recent post would work best if there were only two alternatives: to believe that a specific god exists, or to reject belief in that specific god. But that isn't the case. Around the world, millions (if not billions) of people worship different gods, or different versions of the same god, or the same god with differing interpretations of his plans and desires. At best, your non-empirical method allows you to posit the notion of A god. How do you apply it in order to eliminate all other gods and convince everyone that your specific god is the only real one?

[RobbyPants]

If there was a loving God, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not.

In my opinion, facts are simply points on our mental grid of what we interpret reality to be. Atheism is simply an interpretation of how these facts (points) intersect with one another. Therefore, facts can point in many ways. An atheist will look at the facts and interpret them one way. The theist will look at the facts and interpret them to fit their mental grid. But neither of these is necessarily reality itself. Reality is in fact only the right interpretation of the facts.

So, let me get this straight: are you amending your question to say
"If there was a loving God, but you couldn't know he existed for sure, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not."?

If so, I'll amend my answer to "No. I would have no reason to believe he existed.".

[Guy27Bd]

You know whats funny is how your question is worded. I mean you go to say if their was a god that exists meaning that I think you also believe that one doesnt exist? I mean I like the pretending going on in the question but I have a better one. Would you love the easter bunny if he existed? You know he does hop around every night before easter and gives us candy :d

[Darkstar]

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 I understand correctly, this is essentially an argument from ignorance, is it not?

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?

God is supposedly a being; not a concept, not an emotion, a being. That is, a god is some sort of thing, an entity. Even if we were to grant that this entity were (somehow) non-physical (whatever that means), one would still expect empirical evidence. The evidence would be indirect (i.e. observing the effects that this god has on the universe, rather than the being itself*), but it would be empirical nonetheless. Whenever the cause of a certain phenomenon (e.g. lightning) has been discovered with reasonable certainty, it has not been a god at work; it has been natural.

Why posit a god with no explanatory power, but that requires much explaining itself (or massive special pleading)?

*This is ignoring the fact that the Christian god has supposedly revealed himself in spectacular ways in the distant past, but refused continue doing so once people started to get a good grip on science. Highly coincidental timing...

[Mister Agenda]

Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact.

What makes that ironic is how wrong it is. Those who would argue that the nonexistence of any conceivable version of God is an absolute are a tiny minority among Western atheists. Perhaps you could conduct a poll on the issue if you doubt me? Or refer to what I've already explained atheism actually is.

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.

How could you demonstrate that?

There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from empiricism.

True, and it can be demonstrated (a contradiction is involved in knowing absolutely everything about the universe from within the universe).

Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?]

It can (and has) determined that if there is a God, it has no empirically detectable effect on reality that we've been able to verify thus far. As far as empiricism is concerned, God is indistinguishable from imaginary entities. What alternative method do you propose to evaluate the probability of God?

[Angrboda]

FYI, For those who critiqued that I have not responded. I first posted yesterday afternoon. I am a full time graduate student with a 2 and 3 year old. Therefore, I will respond as I am able to, but this will likely be only once a day. I hope you understand the demands on my schedule and I will be as active as my time allows.

If you're this busy and you took time out of your day to bring us the old "you can't see and touch justice" argument, then you have issues.

[Bad Writer]

FYI, For those who critiqued that I have not responded. I first posted yesterday afternoon. I am a full time graduate student with a 2 and 3 year old. Therefore, I will respond as I am able to, but this will likely be only once a day. I hope you understand the demands on my schedule and I will be as active as my time allows.

If you're this busy and you took time out of your day to bring us the old "you can't see and touch justice" argument, then you have issues.

"Issues" seems to be an understatement here.