Why are you atheist?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Good morning. No surprises as regards progress... As predicted.

@askthepizzaguy: That something is required for our survival does not mean that it's logical from an objective pov.

That depends largely on what you mean by "logical" and "objective". It's not an opinion that the process of both inductive and deductive reasoning has allowed mankind to move into a technological society. That's perfectly objective. it's also an objective fact that none of it would have happened without such forms of reasoning. I argue that you're wrong on this point, from a logical, objective standpoint.

If you are speaking from a nihilistic point of view, then nothing matters and nothing has more value than anything else; which of course, means that a nihilistic point of view has no more value than a rational one, which means it is utterly pointless to say anything with a nihilistic bent.

I am of the opinion that logical-ness is not a value in itself (how could it be?), but only in so far as it serves humanity. And if illogical things serve it, they are fine too. That makes both induction and the concept of God just as valid.

I'm unclear on what you're trying to say here.

What of the benefits of God(s), then? Someone may well, say, succumb to torture if not for their belief in God.

That's not God, though; that's belief in God. Belief in the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun may have the same effect. Or perhaps believing in morality without a God can have the same effect. I am not weaker without an imaginary friend.

Faith is really the best thing to give you psychological strength imo.

Well now we are getting into things that we like, and other opinions... not much fodder for debate. I like cake.

Then there is the aforementioned artistic angle. And belief that you'll get to continue life after death and maybe see what becomes of the world and your offspring/achievements, can give a lot of motivation for many people who'd otherwise say "Meh. What's the point? I'll just eat more cookies and watch some pr0n to go with it.". I dare say there are no such genuinely religious people, or at least very little.

So the idea of God is the carrot which drives the mule. Fair enough; that doesn't mean that God is real, or that there aren't better motivators. What about the idea of rightness? Far more important than the idea of God is the idea of morality.

Sure, these benefits are, as we speak, outsripped by the hatred and violence that religions tend to inspire and encourage. But just because things are that way now, doesn't mean it will necessarily be the case in the future. (See what I did there? I'd be sorry if it wasn't more convenient to be snide about it. ) It is not faith itself that is to blame - only what we believe in. The only bad side of faith is that it tends to combat with reason and step into the arena of science where it is an inappropriate guest; one could say induction is the proper God of science. With careful design of the God-concept, I'm pretty optimistic this could be avoided.

But that's just it; it is a design. A Harry Potter novel. I don't need to read it to have a happy normal life. And I have read it and I dislike it.

Spoiler :

Timeline A: X----------------------------------T----------------------------------Y

X = BIG BANG ~14 billlion yrs ago
T= tomorrow (@warpus: not the day after this particular day, but after any day that we're currently living, now or in the future. Today is still yesterday's tomorrow, etc.)
Y = End of the Universe (if applicable; this is irrelevant for the example)

--- = current set of natural laws/values

Timeline B: X----------------------------------T**************************Y

The same as before, except exactly 10 am tomorrow morning:

*** = another set of natural laws/values (say, the speed of light suddenly doubles, with all the wonderful benefits that it entails... Or not.)

My question is basically the same as lovett's: how can you conclude from the fact that the natural laws have been the same for the last 14 billion years, that they will stay the same for any length of time counting from this very moment? How can you tell that we're on timeline A, as opposed to timeline B, from the current set of information? We cannot. As we do not have the whole set of data (we cannot see the future), even the probability of us living in either timeline cannot be assessed.

Sorry, I must roll my eyes here. I won't play these hypothetical games.

Fact of the matter is: If the laws of physics change from day to day and the universe itself has no inherent continuity or meaning, then no point of view is the correct one; only the view of the day.

Well, I live in THIS universe, not a hypothetical one. I live according to the laws of today. If you must change the nature of the universe to have a rhetorical leg to stand on, then you have lost your argument.

Intuition and pragmatism are the only things that make us trust in induction. But they are both non-logical (in the strict deductive sense)

Intelligence is more than deductive reasoning; it's another reason why we are different from computers. We can arrive at solutions without deductive logic or mathematics; solutions that work, and help us survive, because we have inductive reasoning. Intelligent animals can do this too. Again, you have to define logic in the most narrow (and IMO useless) of terms in order to be winning your point here. And again, the point is inherently pointless. Some forms of induction are more useful than others; and we are comparing actual induction to random guessing when it comes to matters of God. They are not the same thing.

So on technicality, you have at best a stalemate because you have to change the universe or very narrowly define logic and induction in order to have really said anything. It's a very hollow victory; it's like being correct on spelling but not on substance.

intuition is itself based on induction, while pragmatism is neither here nor there: whether we live or die has no bearing on whether something is logical or not. So, you must admit, as must other who believe in induction, that you ultimately take it on faith and nothing else. Then comes the question: if it is more pragmatic/intuitive to believe in God than not believe, why not believe in it/Him? You may ofc argue that such a situation may never arise, and that is fine with me; as long as you acknowledge that induction is faith-based, then I'm a happy puppy. However, since you are you and no-one else, you shouldn't be fain to judge on what is practical or intuitive for others.

Induction isn't a belief any more than breathing is. It is a mechanism for survival. This is not the same as religion; I need one to survive, I don't need the other. They aren't the same in terms of value.

To all questions pertaining to why not believe in God, the question must first be why, in the first place, to believe in any specific deity? Why that one instead of any other? And why must I believe in it? I am doing quite fine without it.

Demonstrate why I must believe in God, and then I will demonstrate why all of those points are invalid. The onus is on you to first give me a reason to believe in something, and define the terms. Then I will use those terms and show you why I have no use for it, and what I have, which is rationalism, is perfectly adequate for all situations one might turn to God for.

As a final note: there is not anything in the natural laws themselves that sets them in stone for all time, is there? I never really thought about this even in Uni. If there is, I suspect it too is inductive in nature. Let's hear from our physicists, if there are any in this thread!

This is the point of absurdity in the discussion; it inevitably turns to "What if the universe were different, would logic serve you then?" Or variants thereof.

I would prefer to confine the discussion to this reality or this universe, because that's the absurdity argument. If we talk about an absurd universe, then you still have no way of proving an absurd argument, because I could come up with an absurd defense, and that's a stalemate. Let's confine our thoughts to the CURRENT system of laws the universe works with, please.



Before we lose track, what are we arguing?

Q. Why don't I believe in God?

A. There is no reason to believe in one God or supernatural being or supernatural concept over any other supernatural being, God, or concept. If I believe in any of these things, but not in others, I would have no way of explaining why except that I simply prefer one to the other. Here, we are also talking about a nebulous undefined God, which has no inherent meaning other than "supernatural being".

Q. Why don't I believe in Specific God # 147826348-J?

A. Because I have not seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, or been in any discernible way affected by Specific God # 147826348-J, first of all. Secondly, there is no more reason to believe in Specific God # 147826348-J than Specific God # 147826348-Q, or Specific God # 9997348483-D. I have no way to deduce why I should believe in Specific God # 147826348-J instead of Specific God # 147826348-Q, so deductive logic doesn't serve me here. I also have no intuitive reason to believe in any particular God because I can live my life just fine without it. I have also heard many things about Specific God # 147826348-J which are contrary to other things I have heard about Specific God # 147826348-J.

Finally, even if there is a Specific God # 147826348-J, what advantage does believing in it have? Specific God # 147826348-J does not help me solve any of my problems. Specific God # 147826348-J does not give me any hope. If there is an eternal afterlife, but I need to believe in Specific God # 147826348-J in order to gain entrance, then obviously I would want to believe in Specific God # 147826348-J. However, I do not know which God is real, and it should not be my fault that I have not guessed correctly who Specific God # 147826348-J is, because Specific God # 147826348-J has "designed" me in such a way that I would like a little more than nothing as a reason to believe in it over other supernatural beings. The fact that Specific God # 147826348-J expects me to guess correctly that it exists, and is the only right and true God, but gives me no conclusive evidence whatsoever as to its existence and its nature, means that this particular deity, Specific God # 147826348-J, is simply a creature which rewards random guesses, and then morality is simply a roulette wheel with an infinite number of numbers on it, and I have spun incorrectly.

In other words, the "test of faith" is that I must believe in (A) A specific God, and (B) Only that specific God and (C) I must believe in it, even with the absence of evidence or reasons to deduce that this God is the one correct God. And if I do not do these things correctly I am forever punished. That means this particular hypothetical God is both unfair and amoral. If God is a creator being, then I am the way it made me, and if it does not like that, then it can only blame itself. I do not believe in an amoral being which governs my existence forever, because it is not to my advantage to believe in such a thing, I have no reasons to believe in such a thing over any other thing, and since it is virtually impossible to GUESS what this hypothetical God wants of me, then it cannot complain when I have guessed incorrectly. There's no reason to believe any Holy Book (out of the thousands of holy books and millions of other books) is the correct one. I have not witnessed anything which is conclusively a miracle. I have not seen any other supernatural beings or events which lead me to believe ANY supernatural thing is real. The assumption that the universe has a creator leads to the question "who created the creator" and so therefore even the explanations that the assumption of God provides only lead to more questions; they create no new values, no new knowledge, and helps us decide nothing that we couldn't already decide without it.

In a word, God is nothing; it is not morality, it is not a law, it is not ethics, it is not an explanation, it is not a source of intellect, wisdom, science, or strength. It has demonstrated no impact on the natural world that is conclusively not just the natural world impacting itself. It has not struck me down with lightning for shouting out loud how much of a lie it is. It has not rewarded me for believing in it. It has not punished me for not believing in it. It has not shown me why I should trust in it, and only it, and not other similar Gods, or instead of not trusting in any Gods.

Now, can the BELIEF in God have effects? Yes, but the belief in justice, or morality, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can have the very same effect. But the belief in certain specific Gods has led to intolerance, hate, and violence, whereas a neutral stance towards the imaginary has not led to such. Sure, militaristic atheism (or religious non-God belief) has led to similar intolerance, but neutral agnosticism has not. It is the neutral, natural, logical, and default position people take if they have not been exposed to supernatural beliefs and they have a basic education, because people are not born believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either. It is a fiction that is created and spread, but it is not intuitive, it is not rational, it is not reasonable, it is not proven, it is not useful, and it is not any more moral than non-belief.

Only the belief itself holds any power over people, but so do narcotics. Should we simply take whatever pill makes us stronger or more suited for a situation? There are always side-effects. Religion is simply a drug for the masses that they are addicted to, with both positive and negative effects. I have no such need for narcotics.

 

[lovett]

What's wrong with induction?

What does it have to do with atheism/theism anyway?!

Apologies but I'm not going to answer these questions in detail. They've been well covered in this thread.

But, if you mean Induction is a useful assumption to science as a reason to assume God is true, the difference is results.

If we define 'useful' as 'will be useful in the future' (and we should) then our idea that Induction is more useful than God is, naturally, inductive.

I still don't accept the comparison, because while I may be compelled to act in a manner consistent with an acceptance of induction, I do not believe in it - in fact I am aware of the contradiction. I don't, and perhaps can't prove induction as valid and so the position I take is the only one that seems intellectually sound - I don't know.

Of course I've no idea how I might act on this in a way that would satisfy you that I'm not equivalent to someone with an unjustified religious belief, but I accept that induction is unsound as I currently understand it. I'd happily consider acting on this, if I had the slightest idea where to start. Our brains are clearly built on induction, but they are apparently capable of perceiving the flaws that this represents.

Uncertainty is only a threat to a rational view of the universe if we despair at realising it and in our despair cling to the certainty of our scientific outlook (failing to remember that certainty and science do not walk together) and in doing so draw the equivalence between our rational scientific outlook and it's nemesis.

I must ackowledge that your arguments have been rather shamefully successful at teasing irrational claims out of the others, but then they should never have accepted your premises.

This is a pretty good line of argument. However the idea that you are compelled to act in such a way that you believe in inductions isn't quite right. We act according to our beliefs. It is nonsensical to say that I do not believe in the external world (or induction) despite acting in a way that shows I am absolutely certain about it. There is no inherent contradiction in acting in a manner that shows I don't believe in induction; my behaviour would be erratic and suicidal certainly, but perfectly conceivable. That's why we can say how absurd it would be if one didn't believe in induction. They wouldn't do anything, they'd die.

But it isn't contradictory. One must conclude not that we are compelled to act in a manner consistent with a belief in induction but that we are compelled to believe in induction. This is a difference between the concept of God and that of induction and offers potentially fruitful atheistic arguments. But I think rather frail ones.

We can say the same thing about other types of knowledge. I firmly believe 12*12=144. Unless we think of knowledge as a useless concept I feel comfortable saying that I 'know' this. Yet this knowledge is no more secure than inductive knowledge, indeed I would argue it is partly based on inductive knowledge.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, I live in THIS universe, not a hypothetical one. I live according to the laws of today. If you must change the nature of the universe to have a rhetorical leg to stand on, then you have lost your argument.

Sorry, I wanted to do a follow up on this:

If I have to claim a rhetorical and philosophical victory only in this particular universe and reality, then I will be happy with that particular victory, for obvious reasons. If you wish, I can "tip my king" in all alternate realities.

But of course I am only ever arguing for things which affect this particular universe, so basically, I haven't even begun to argue about other ones. So any other discussion is a victory against someone who isn't playing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If we define 'useful' as 'will be useful in the future' (and we should) then our idea that Induction is more useful than God is, naturally, inductive.

And we just assumed induction would be useful ("Induction is a useful assumption to science as a reason to assume God is true") the difference is still results.

 

[lovett]

T

Well, I live in THIS universe, not a hypothetical one. I live according to the laws of today. If you must change the nature of the universe to have a rhetorical leg to stand on, then you have lost your argument.

This seems to ground a lot of your argument. The issue is that you don't know what 'THIS' universe is. You're assuming eternal uniformity. Because of this you're using a straight inductive model and, In Greizer's scenario, concluding that Timeline A is correct. Isn't it true that the burden of proof fall on the person making a positive assertion? If so, you have yet to provide any proof that your assumptions are valid. You can't do this; there is no reason to believe that Timeline A is more likely than B because they both have the exact same track record. This is key, before time 'T' Timeline B has been exactly as successful in predicting the future as Tiimeline A. Why prefer one to another?

And we just assumed induction would be useful ("Induction is a useful assumption to science as a reason to assume God is true") the difference is still results.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. My contention is that we can't properly know what the 'results' will be; they're in the future.

 

[Greizer85]

@askthepizzaguy: I am fan of pills, what can I say? To me, utility has more value than truth, and beauty more than either. Well, barring extreme cases. At the very least, you shouldn't deny others their medication; they may need it even if you don't.

To be totally logical in all matters leads to nihilism. I believe you have visited the "Is the Universe deterministic?" thread, which clearly demonstrates this. As does this one, although you may ofc object.

I could object to some of your points, but I think we can agree that this is a mere (even if colossal ) technicality as regards induction; as for god(s), do you agree that as long as we keep our belief to ourselves (which rarely happens because of today's god-narratives), it's ok? If yes, then I think we both can find better things to do with our time.

 

[tycoonist]

would everyone shut up about induction... its a stupid argument with no correct opinion or view. everyone always loses in arguments about induction, because every philosophical argument, even ones against induction, always end up depending on induction.

in fact, every single philosophical question ever presented can be answered by the simple statement "it does not matter". so as to why i choose not to believe in god, i am changing my answer to "it does not matter". cause it doesn't.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. My contention is that we can't properly know what the 'results' will be; they're in the future.

I never said anything about knowing what the results would be.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

This seems to ground a lot of your argument. The issue is that you don't know what 'THIS' universe is. You're assuming eternal uniformity. Because of this you're using a straight inductive model and, In Greizer's scenario, concluding that Timeline A is correct.

If the universe were to suddenly change, there's nothing I could really do about it. I'm assuming I live in this universe, with its current laws, and it hasn't been demonstrated otherwise. I don't live in a different hypothetical future universe, and I don't care to discuss one either, because it is irrelevant.

Isn't it true that the burden of proof fall on the person making a positive assertion?

Yes; so when someone suggests there is a God, burden of proof.

When someone asks me why I don't believe in God, I give reasons. But it isn't my burden to prove or disprove God.

When someone suggests that induction is as "valid" as random guessing, burden of proof.

I'll give my reasons why induction isn't the same as random guessing. But it isn't my burden to argue your point for you.

If so, you have yet to provide any proof that your assumptions are valid.

Be specific, which assumption?

You can't do this; there is no reason to believe that Timeline A is more likely than B because they both have the exact same track record.

Likelihood of possible alternative realities is not a subject any of us are experts on, and to debate it is absurd. But I do have reasons to believe things will remain as they are, and it falls under "inductive" reasoning.

This is key, before time 'T' Timeline B has been exactly as successful in predicting the future as Tiimeline A. Why prefer one to another?

Prefer in terms of desire: I prefer a universe that makes sense. But that's not open for debate, that's opinion/personal desire.

Prefer in terms of value/probability: Because you're talking about a different universe. This one operates on a set of physical laws which do not change, as demonstrated by observation. If that changes, then we aren't IN this universe anymore, we are in a different one. The universe would have to CHANGE in order to be a different universe. Can we predict that the universe will spontaneously alter itself into something different? No. But we know that if it does, it is no longer this universe. By changing the laws of the universe, you are destroying the old one and replacing it with a new one. That IS a different universe, and I exist within this universe, and I don't care to debate alternative realities, because it serves no purpose.

There is a reason to believe that this universe will continue on just as it is; because the physical laws of the universe have remained unchanged since the beginning, and all indicators show that it will continue, not abruptly end.

Now we can go around and around with this; the fact is that billions of years of observable history, indeed even looking up into the sky and seeing billions of years into the past, shows that there is a continuity in the universe, and every second of every day which passes affirms that continuity to a large extent. There are indicators that the universe as we know it will not be around forever, but the indicators don't show that it will end tomorrow.

Now, those ARE REASONS to believe in universal continuity. That doesn't mean they are conclusive. But it is inductive reasoning, it is science, it is valid because it has predicted things in the past. It is more useful, because without it, we would not exist as a species. There is no reason to believe the universe won't exist or that the laws will change tomorrow. That's not inductive reasoning, that's random guessing. Now, inductive reasoning can be wrong, and random guessing can be right, but intelligent inductive reasoning has a much better track record than unintelligent guessing, so the odds favor inductive reasoning over random guessing. From a standpoint of usefulness, induction is better than randomness, as induction allows for science, while randomness allows for near-guaranteed failure.

That is where the "preference" comes from. Repeated success as opposed to failure, as well as a nearly unlimited number of different indicators which suggest one is more likely than the other. This is positive evidence that assuming the universe will continue as it is is a valid assumption.

You keep referring to a universe which has laws which suddenly change one day after billions of years of continuity, and then show that the histories are the same up to this point. And then you ask why I prefer to think of the universe, or predict that the universe, is a certain one, instead of the other, when the track records up to this point are the same. But now you're asking me my personal opinion, which is that it is a certain way, when neither of us knows which is the correct answer.

But this is merely a game; pick a color, red or blue. It has been red for billions of years, on every single try. Yes, it may one day be blue, but there is no reason to believe that it will be blue instead of red. Therefore, we choose red. One day, it may change to blue, and every day it may be blue. Then, we choose blue every time. But this still doesn't demonstrate in any way that random guessing is more valid as a method than inductive reasoning, because it is not. It is simply a way of stating: "Imagine the universe suddenly behaved differently than it always has, and I suddenly became correct. Therefore, induction is not more valid than random guessing."

But that doesn't follow. Any hypothetical, carefully designed, could lead to any conclusion. What if the universe were such that murdering an innocent child would give everyone immortality, would it still be immoral? Well gee, now I've created another absurd hypothetical. And what if the universe suddenly were so, and any murder of any innocent child will result in spontaneous immortality? Should murdering an innocent child now be considered moral? Or should we prefer the idea that it is still wrong?

There may be no "future" track record to base our opinions on, but there is the past track record, and the inherent consequences of being wrong, and the apparent odds that it would still be wrong to do so. There is no value in assuming nothing; there is value in making predictive hypotheses, and therefore a value in inductive reasoning. A hypothetical where the non-intuitive random guess presents the correct solution does not aid us in becoming better people.

If we were to reject all of our values and assumptions because there are hypothetical situations which could conceivably conclude the opposite, then we become nihilists, and nihilism is still not better than rationalism, because under nihilism, no value is inherently better than another. So even if the nihilistic argument were true somehow, it is still never more valid than rationalism, because nihilism is self-defeating.

Again we have gone off on a long tangential discussion about absurdities, and we see how it gets us nowhere.

1. The positive assertion that randomness is equally valid to induction has not been proved, the only evidence presented is a hypothetical.

2. The positive assertion that inductive reasoning has validity has much more evidence to support it, and can be concluded to be a positive value (depending on your definition) based on historical reliability, moral argument, and probability.

3. The assertion that there is no more reason to believe in induction than randomness is disproved. There is obviously a much larger grand total in the "reasons to believe in induction" column.

4. As you point out, the future is unknown, but that does not change the fact that there is more reason and more evidence to conclude one thing than another.

5. If you only rank the outcome, rather than the reasons, in your "value" statement, then the outcomes have so far been in the predictability camp. (Sun rising everyday, heart pumping, etc, even seemingly random things in nature such as movements of subatomic particles move in predictable patterns like waves, orbits, or things of that nature, and we can even predict decay and chaos in the system to a large degree) The universe has been more predictable, more "lawful", than not. So there is reason to assume the universe will be a certain way, rather than another, in the future. The what-if regarding if it does not does not change that fact, and the score is still greatly in favor of predictability.

So, on probability: the odds are in favor of induction. On reliability: history favors induction. On morality: there can be no morality without some amount of universal continuity. So on those three measures of value, induction has value and is valid. If the universe ceases to be as it is, and induction fails, then nobody wins, and it won't matter if randomness is valid, because we won't be able to function in such a universe.

Now let us present a third alternative: Imagine a universe just like ours, with the same track record, that suddenly changes... and the laws of the universe are tossed out the window and replaced with new ones. Now, is induction still valid? Yes: because now, there are new laws upon which to predict things.

So, out of the three scenarios, the universe remains the same, the universe alters and induction doesn't work anymore, and the universe alters and induction is still valid, is a 2:1 situation. Those odds favor my position, even if you give infinite universes to induction doesn't work, and infinite universes to induction does work, because there will always be one universe where induction does work, and it happens to be the one we're in, which is the most important one to us.

In the end, induction does win, even in the absurd sense, because the score is still infinity to infinity plus one. I can play the absurdity game, but we would be better suited to return to rationality for a while.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

@askthepizzaguy: I am fan of pills, what can I say? To me, utility has more value than truth, and beauty more than either. Well, barring extreme cases. At the very least, you shouldn't deny others their medication; they may need it even if you don't.

Back to a more useful discussion:

It is not my purpose to deny others their narcotics, only point out that they don't actually need it, because it's possible to live a perfectly normal life without it.

However, others do seek to deny me my right not to live in a narcotic-induced dreamworld, by legislating religion into the laws, disallowing freedoms to certain people, censoring anti-religious speech, attempting to force religious teachings onto the public, and of course, fighting wars based on religion. I'd also like to not be bothered by door-to-door lie peddlers, or have to subsidize religious organizations with my tax dollars.

To be totally logical in all matters leads to nihilism.

Nihilism is the rejection of logic and all other things as being no more valuable than their opposite. So you'd have to clarify what you mean here; I strongly disagree.

I believe you have visited the "Is the Universe deterministic?" thread, which clearly demonstrates this. As does this one, although you may ofc object.

Someone must have presented a really absurd argument in such a thread, because I've never seen a case where logic necessarily leads to nihilism. Nihilism is essentially the same thing as saying (0=1), or (-1=1). Neither are logical statements, or factual ones. But under nihilism, nothing is more true than the other, nothing is more moral than the other, so all values are valueless. It is the antithesis of logic, and you'd have to come up with some really warped logic with obvious flaws to conclude an obviously false or self-defeating statement.

I could object to some of your points, but I think we can agree that this is a mere (even if colossal ) technicality as regards induction;

The entire discussion about induction really amounts to the same proving a negative about God. No, I can't prove there's no God, but I can prove that it is nearly impossible to be correct about what God is or what he wants, because of all the limitless possibilities, and point out the obvious contradictions and absurdities inherent in believing in certain Gods. That's a fight I want to have.

No, I can't prove that induction will always lead to the right answer, or even necessarily lead to the right answer, but I can show that it has more applications, more usefulness, and a better track record than random chaos. It's an easy battle, but it can never be won because there is always "tomorrow" and the rematch which happens "tomorrow". The score can be a billion to 3, but since the game isn't over... oooo I guess we don't know yet which is better. But I know which team I'm betting on, and being correct day after day is fun.

as for god(s), do you agree that as long as we keep our belief to ourselves (which rarely happens because of today's god-narratives), it's ok? If yes, then I think we both can find better things to do with our time.

Short answer yes, long answer no.

Short answer: If you keep God to yourself, then the negatives and positives in theory only affect you. But they ultimately do not.

Long answer: Your beliefs impact others. If your belief harms you in any way (such as believing God will cure you instead of going to a doctor) then you have by extension harmed others. Others must take care of you, others will want to help you, others must dispose of your remains. If your belief requires that you abstain from sex until marriage, for example, might it not compel you to get married before you are ready, perhaps marry the wrong person, and cause unhappiness for you both? If your belief is that condoms are evil, doesn't society have to bear the burden of your additional children? If your belief is that gay people are evil sick people who need God, then it may cause you to react differently around them (even if you're trying not to) than you otherwise would have, and these people will feel alienated and harmed by your bigotry, when they have done nothing to harm you. And the list goes on and on.

Even with the best of intentions, even trying to be kept to oneself, religious beliefs can cause serious damage, depending on what they are.

It isn't the belief in a righteous God that causes the problem. It isn't the sermons on how to be good people. It isn't the acts of charity and self-control which cause problems. Many of these things are either neutral or positive. The problem lies in making brazen assumptions about what is right or wrong based on the assumed words of a particular assumed deity without thinking critically about whether these assumptions are true or not.

Such is faith; belief in a thing based on opinion alone, which often becomes religion, which is often rationalized with illogical arguments and inconclusive evidence, as well as threats about what might happen if you don't believe in it. The track record so far shows how terribly unhealthy it can be; it is not necessarily a positive force. It is an affecting force; positive in some aspects for some, less positive for others.

Why is neutral agnosticism better? Because you can hold those same opinions as before, but not be BOUND to them by fear of God. If someone can disprove your bad opinions, you might change your mind. Under religion, there is the assumption that you're correct and have chosen the correct path. It isn't a work in progress or a hypothesis; in your mind, everything is settled law. It's a closed minded approach.

Under agnosticism, you have no agenda; you don't need to prove God to others or disprove God to others. You don't need to establish agnosticism as the dominant force on earth. You don't have opinions based on radical assumptions involving a benign/malignant/apathetic supernatural being which may not exist. You don't hate everyone of a certain opposing religion. You don't need to waste money on religious organizations. If you have a moral center, and most people do, it is based on the available facts, or you might be persuaded by the available facts. It isn't the case that all agnostics are open-minded, but usually an agnostic bases his ethical and moral standards on real things that can be debated.

There is also the problem that religion, unless taught to others, will eventually die, because children are not born believing in such things. So you know that quite honestly, it cannot be kept to oneself. And that's when things start to go awry. And of the people that are taught this stuff, some will believe it so much that they are willing to kill others for denying it's truth, or persecute them. In the end, no matter how good its intentions, it still becomes a disease of the mind to millions of people too gullible/crazy to tell the difference between fiction and fact, moderation and fundamentalism, rationalism and extremism. It will continue to be a source of pain to people who never wanted anything to do with it.

That is the sinister problem of religion; the faith/extremism component. When you are willing to believe an unproven thing so badly that it becomes your main mission in life, and you consider those who disagree to be your enemies, (this is inevitable in religion because it is sold as something that you must believe or else you are doomed, evil, or whatever) then it will cause pain and hardship upon the world.

Even if there were a God, if he had a heart, he'd tell people it is OK not to believe in him, because he should be able to see clearly the pain the idea of him causes.

 

[Greizer85]

Wow - actually informative walls of texts! Mr pizza guy, don't make me believe in the usefulness of the Internet! I'd spend even more time there if that was the case.

I'm afraid I can't aspire to as much, but here goes:

Back to a more useful discussion:

It is not my purpose to deny others their narcotics, only point out that they don't actually need it, because it's possible to live a perfectly normal life without it.

"Normal" is just the right word. I want an extraordinary life, and religious experiences can certainly help with that. To clarify, my position is romantic (at least until I get some compelling revelation, if I ever will): I view things with open eyes and value things that are interesting, even if they may be harmful otherwise, to a certain extent.

Religious experiences cannot be expressed in words to any meaningful degree; that is one of their defining characteristics. They are not mere hallucinations in the visual sense. If you've ever taken psychedelic drugs in sufficient doses, you will understand what I mean. Even very intelligent persons cannot express their experience in words. It is compelling to the point that if it's not followed, it will undermine the very foundation of the individual's perspective on life.

However, others do seek to deny me my right not to live in a narcotic-induced dreamworld, by legislating religion into the laws, disallowing freedoms to certain people, censoring anti-religious speech, attempting to force religious teachings onto the public, and of course, fighting wars based on religion. I'd also like to not be bothered by door-to-door lie peddlers, or have to subsidize religious organizations with my tax dollars.

Those are all problems with the current god-narratives, not with the concept itself. Perhaps also with the general ignorance of the public, which tends to make them easily suspectible to inspiring of religious, ethnic or really any kind of "us vs. them" hatred.

Nihilism is the rejection of logic and all other things as being no more valuable than their opposite. So you'd have to clarify what you mean here; I strongly disagree.

I said unalturated logic leads to nihilism; after we get there, it can be discarded. And must, as I will show in the next paragraph.

Someone must have presented a really absurd argument in such a thread, because I've never seen a case where logic necessarily leads to nihilism. Nihilism is essentially the same thing as saying (0=1), or (-1=1). Neither are logical statements, or factual ones. But under nihilism, nothing is more true than the other, nothing is more moral than the other, so all values are valueless. It is the antithesis of logic, and you'd have to come up with some really warped logic with obvious flaws to conclude an obviously false or self-defeating statement.

The argument (mine btw) in that monstrosity of a thread was that since we are nothing but atoms behaving according to physical laws, and all thoughts and emotions arise as a direct consequence or certain combinations of atoms and electrons (i.e. brainstates), and there is only causality between the actual electro-chemical reactions (since thoughts and emotions are non-tangibles), it cannot be said that we have free will, and so we cannot make free choices. This makes the concept of "I" that we have a mere illusion or a technicality; the laws of physics govern all things, including "our" "decisions". In such a world, since there are no free actors, there is no morality. I originally meant nihilism as regards morality. But since we don't exist (other than as atoms and illusions), nothing has real value, so it may be extended to all things.

As for induction, if it doesn't hold, everything is arbitrary, i.e. nihilism prevails. (What a sordid saying btw! Or not. ) We cannot prove that we cannot prove induction with deductive logic, though... So as tycoonist said, the whole debate is pointless. The only strictly logical position is agnosticism, as with most things. Thank God we humans aren't strictly logical!

The entire discussion about induction really amounts to the same proving a negative about God. No, I can't prove there's no God, but I can prove that it is nearly impossible to be correct about what God is or what he wants, because of all the limitless possibilities, and point out the obvious contradictions and absurdities inherent in believing in certain Gods. That's a fight I want to have.

Most people who are not pretend-believers (because of tradition, etc) have personal proof of the existence of their deity. Also, any god worth believing in would forgive you not believing in him after death (if there was an afterlife).

No, I can't prove that induction will always lead to the right answer, or even necessarily lead to the right answer, but I can show that it has more applications, more usefulness, and a better track record than random chaos. It's an easy battle, but it can never be won because there is always "tomorrow" and the rematch which happens "tomorrow". The score can be a billion to 3, but since the game isn't over... oooo I guess we don't know yet which is better. But I know which team I'm betting on, and being correct day after day is fun.

So far, it has the same track record as potential random chaos.

Short answer yes, long answer no.

Short answer: If you keep God to yourself, then the negatives and positives in theory only affect you. But they ultimately do not.

Long answer: Your beliefs impact others. If your belief harms you in any way (such as believing God will cure you instead of going to a doctor) then you have by extension harmed others. Others must take care of you, others will want to help you, others must dispose of your remains. If your belief requires that you abstain from sex until marriage, for example, might it not compel you to get married before you are ready, perhaps marry the wrong person, and cause unhappiness for you both? If your belief is that condoms are evil, doesn't society have to bear the burden of your additional children? If your belief is that gay people are evil sick people who need God, then it may cause you to react differently around them (even if you're trying not to) than you otherwise would have, and these people will feel alienated and harmed by your bigotry, when they have done nothing to harm you. And the list goes on and on.

Those things are all problems with current God-narratives, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I don't know about Buddhist marriage traditions, but they have no objections to medical treatment, condoms or gays iirc. It all depends on the religion. The fault is in the execution, not in the concept itself imo.

Also, even without religion, people hold many harmful and irrational beliefs. They add color to a dull existence (as long as we stay within certain limits). In fact, it's impossible to live your life without ever harming anyone in any way, or being exploited. What you lose here, you take back there. Cf. the quote in my sig. If you never push anyone, you're always being pushed around.

I'd argue that in Western countries, the more children you have the better for society, given our birthrates.

Even with the best of intentions, even trying to be kept to oneself, religious beliefs can cause serious damage, depending on what they are.

It isn't the belief in a righteous God that causes the problem. It isn't the sermons on how to be good people. It isn't the acts of charity and self-control which cause problems. Many of these things are either neutral or positive. The problem lies in making brazen assumptions about what is right or wrong based on the assumed words of a particular assumed deity without thinking critically about whether these assumptions are true or not.

The Bible and other holy books can be 'interpreted' to accommodate modern standards of morality. Basically you ignore the bad stuff when it's convenient. Although in the case of such a violent books this can be hard, religious people's ability to sustain cognitive dissonance helps greatly with this. In Finland we have female priests and as of recent have a priest who had a sex-change operation.

Such is faith; belief in a thing based on opinion alone, which often becomes religion, which is often rationalized with illogical arguments and inconclusive evidence, as well as threats about what might happen if you don't believe in it. The track record so far shows how terribly unhealthy it can be; it is not necessarily a positive force. It is an affecting force; positive in some aspects for some, less positive for others.

Agreed.

Why is neutral agnosticism better? Because you can hold those same opinions as before, but not be BOUND to them by fear of God. If someone can disprove your bad opinions, you might change your mind. Under religion, there is the assumption that you're correct and have chosen the correct path. It isn't a work in progress or a hypothesis; in your mind, everything is settled law. It's a closed minded approach.

Again, a problem with current narratives. Although I admit the main lure of religion is its perceived infallibility.

Under agnosticism, you have no agenda; you don't need to prove God to others or disprove God to others. You don't need to establish agnosticism as the dominant force on earth. You don't have opinions based on radical assumptions involving a benign/malignant/apathetic supernatural being which may not exist. You don't hate everyone of a certain opposing religion. You don't need to waste money on religious organizations. If you have a moral center, and most people do, it is based on the available facts, or you might be persuaded by the available facts. It isn't the case that all agnostics are open-minded, but usually an agnostic bases his ethical and moral standards on real things that can be debated.

Agnostics are boring. Rationality is boring. This is my main objection to it: all people are rational in the same way, while they can be irrational in innumerable ways.

Morality is based on feelings more than rationality, although obviously rational arguments can refine decisions. Without a conscience, however, people generally turn into monsters, no matter how much philosophy they've read.

There is also the problem that religion, unless taught to others, will eventually die, because children are not born believing in such things. So you know that quite honestly, it cannot be kept to oneself. And that's when things start to go awry. And of the people that are taught this stuff, some will believe it so much that they are willing to kill others for denying it's truth, or persecute them. In the end, no matter how good its intentions, it still becomes a disease of the mind to millions of people too gullible/crazy to tell the difference between fiction and fact, moderation and fundamentalism, rationalism and extremism. It will continue to be a source of pain to people who never wanted anything to do with it.

Imo, religion shouldn't be thought in schools; at the very least it should be optional and come only after a certain (high) age. All religions should ofc be given equal (neutral) treatment. And that science and religion do not mingle should be pounded into student's heads.

That is the sinister problem of religion; the faith/extremism component. When you are willing to believe an unproven thing so badly that it becomes your main mission in life, and you consider those who disagree to be your enemies, (this is inevitable in religion because it is sold as something that you must believe or else you are doomed, evil, or whatever) then it will cause pain and hardship upon the world.

Problem with current religions, not necessarily all of them.

Even if there were a God, if he had a heart, he'd tell people it is OK not to believe in him, because he should be able to see clearly the pain the idea of him causes.

Quite a paradoxical scene: God's voice booming from the skies, declaring: "Relax folks; it's ok if peeps don't believe in me! Take another toke and rock on in the free world, comrades! Oh, and if you ask me reeeal nice, I might give some rain to Africa and cancel all reality tv shows."

Have you read any of the major books of Hinduism, btw? They say essentially that we are God's playthings, or rather, God playing with Himself. There's a religion that's worthy of your hate! They also say that it's getting worse as we speak and will not get better for another 426000 years... Kinda gives you leeway for exploitation, no?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

IOne might say that the only rational position is to be an agnostic regarding both induction and god(s). But induction's truthfulness is a useful assumption for science. Why not assume that God is true - if it helps you and is not harmful to others? Logically these two are equivalent, whether they're beliefs or assumptions.

And I'm saying that I do not wish to assume that induction is true, and certainly not to proclaim its validity as my central philosophy. I don't assume that induction is false, I just accept that I can't know and get on with my life as best I can. Also assuming induction is not 'useful for science' since it fundamentally undermines the whole approach.

As a final note, the very rationality of science rests on whether induction is valid or not.

Absolutely. People unwilling to accept this render their position nonsensical.

This is a pretty good line of argument. However the idea that you are compelled to act in such a way that you believe in inductions isn't quite right. We act according to our beliefs.

Yes. My position is that I don't know whether or not induction is valid, and that this undermines any certainty in the scientific method that I might otherwise have had.

It is nonsensical to say that I do not believe in the external world (or induction) despite acting in a way that shows I am absolutely certain about it. There is no inherent contradiction in acting in a manner that shows I don't believe in induction; my behaviour would be erratic and suicidal certainly, but perfectly conceivable. That's why we can say how absurd it would be if one didn't believe in induction. They wouldn't do anything, they'd die.

I have to repeat, my position is that I don't know whether or not induction is valid. If I were to act upon the certain belief that induction was not valid, I would be just as bad as those who believe absolutely that it is true. I would also contend that my actions are consistent with my belief, though I'd welcome you to try and refute me.

But it isn't contradictory. One must conclude not that we are compelled to act in a manner consistent with a belief in induction but that we are compelled to believe in induction. This is a difference between the concept of God and that of induction and offers potentially fruitful atheistic arguments. But I think rather frail ones.

I absolutely reject the idea that we are compelled to believe in induction. The vast majority of people that have ever lived have never even considered the problem, and should therefore be put in the 'don't know' column with me. The fact that we're even talking about this should demonstrate that we are not compelled to believe in it. I cannot imagine that our brains compel us to believe in anything.

 

[Greizer85]

If you continue eating, you assume induction is valid, whether you're conscious of it or not. Assumptions do not have to be true, only useful. That is where they get their name from: you assume them to be true in order to get to some other result. Propositions that you consider to be certainly true are called beliefs - whether justified or not. Currently to believe in induction is not a justified belief.

But you do believe in induction; all humans do. I will explain:

Note that the assumption that you need induction to survive is itself inductive in nature. It goes like this:

we needed food to survive in the past, so we will need it in the future
we needed to assume induction valid to survive in the past, so we will need to assume so in the future
we needed to assume that "we needed to assume induction valid to survive in the past, so we will need to assume so in the future" was true to survive in the past, so we will need to assume so in the future
...

It leads to an infinite regress, at the end of which is your irrational belief in induction. It is based on nothing but itself, as are, ultimately, all beliefs in god(s). "The Bible says the Bible is the word of God"; "This religious experience says it is a religious experience"; "Induction says induction is valid". Circular logic all the way, yo!

Put it this way, to be less nebulous: could you even imagine ever stopping eating - other than for suicidal purposes (if ever applicable)? If not, you could never conceive of letting go of induction. That is characteristic of irrational belief.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

If you continue eating, you assume induction is valid, whether you're conscious of it or not. Assumptions do not have to be true, only useful. That is where they get their name from: you assume them to be true in order to get to some other result. Propositions that you consider to be certainly true are called beliefs - whether justified or not. Currently to believe in induction is not a justified belief.

But you do believe in induction; all humans do. I will explain:

Note that the assumption that you need induction to survive is itself inductive in nature. It goes like this:

we needed food to survive in the past, so we will need it in the future
we needed to assume induction valid to survive in the past, so we will need to assume so in the future
we needed to assume that "we needed to assume induction valid to survive in the past, so we will need to assume so in the future" was true to survive in the past, so we will need to assume so in the future
...

It leads to an infinite regress, at the end of which is your irrational belief in induction. It is based on nothing but itself, as are, ultimately, all beliefs in god(s). "The Bible says the Bible is the word of God"; "This religious experience says it is a religious experience"; "Induction says induction is valid". Circular logic all the way, yo!

Put it this way, to be less nebulous: could you even imagine ever stopping eating - other than for suicidal purposes (if ever applicable)? If not, you could never conceive of letting go of induction. That is characteristic of irrational belief.

That's complete nonsense from start to finish. Even if I outright denied induction, all I would be saying is that the fact that food was essential to my survival in the past, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I will need to do so in the future. Quite why you think that conclusion would lead to an immediate starvation diet is beyond me, but I have to say again that outright denial of induction is every bit as irrational as blind faith in it.

The problem of induction lies in how we reach the conclusions that we do, not in the conclusions themselves. If I were to outright deny induction, I would be accepting the possibility that I might not necessarily need to continue eating just because I had previously needed to (continuing to require food would also be quite compatible with a world without induction). So not only is this fictional induction denier committing the same crime of irrational belief that you're decrying (the problem of induction is that it cannot be shown to be necessarily true, not that it is necessarily false), but they are also discarding now questionable knowledge despite the lack of competing theories (since there could be no such theories if induction were categorically false), and actually adopting a new and contradictory theory (I should stop eating food) for no apparent reason whatsoever.

If I categorically thought that induction were false I would probably continue to eat, and since I in fact take the much more justifiable position that I cannot possibly know, I think my course of action is not only compatible with this belief, but in fact demanded by it.

As I see it, it may or may not be true that my previous experiences necessarily leads to the conclusion that I should eat. If it is true I should most certainly continue eating otherwise I would perish. If it is not true, then this does not necessarily follow, though I have no real way of knowing and I might in any event suddenly morph into a giant octopus then turn inside out and explode. As you can see there are significant potential pitfalls to not eating, but no predictable pifalls to continuing eating, even if I were sure that induction were not valid.

 

[lovett]

Yes. My position is that I don't know whether or not induction is valid, and that this undermines any certainty in the scientific method that I might otherwise have had.

I have to repeat, my position is that I don't know whether or not induction is valid. If I were to act upon the certain belief that induction was not valid, I would be just as bad as those who believe absolutely that it is true. I would also contend that my actions are consistent with my belief, though I'd welcome you to try and refute me.

I absolutely reject the idea that we are compelled to believe in induction. The vast majority of people that have ever lived have never even considered the problem, and should therefore be put in the 'don't know' column with me. The fact that we're even talking about this should demonstrate that we are not compelled to believe in it. I cannot imagine that our brains compel us to believe in anything.

I don't think it true to say that we can't believe something just because we have never considered it. The vast majority of people have probably not considered issues of epistemology; the existence of the external world for example. I don't think it follows that we cannot say these people believe in the external world. The manner in which they act shows that they do. Belief does not have to be explicit.

The issue is that we would act totally differently if we withheld judgement on induction. When we 'don't know' something we do not act in such a way as we would if we believed it. We tend not to act on that thing at all. Yet our general life shows a clear belief in induction; when I wake up in the morning I expect the grass to be green, the sky blue and the sun in the sky. I wager you do too. If I didn't know I would surely wake up and think "The sky might be blue today. Or it might not."

Our debate isn't really about whether we should believe in induction because I don't see how we could possibly not believe in induction. It a debate about whether that belief is justified. I don't see why it implausible to say we cannot help but believe in induction. It's like saying we can't help believing tautologies. E.g. All bachelors are unmarried men. I think it more plausible to say that we are compelled to believe something than that we are compelled to act in a given way.

 

[West 36]

I grew up with the whole religious thing, church every Sunday, praying at dinner and bed. I had started to get a bit disillusioned in middle school, carried through to high school and by my junior year I considered myself agnostic. Don't believe in any higher power, never felt any sort of godly spiritual feeling, I like the whole science thing. So I'm atheist. It's fun. For the time being anyway.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I don't think it true to say that we can't believe something just because we have never considered it. The vast majority of people have probably not considered issues of epistemology; the existence of the external world for example. I don't think it follows that we cannot say these people believe in the external world. The manner in which they act shows that they do. Belief does not have to be explicit.

The manner in which they act is also compatible with their complete ignorance of the issue, or with their taking a sensible 'I don't know' position as anyone who has properly considered the problem should. I really don't think you've thought through the appropriate course of action that one would logically take if we accepted that such things were unknowable.

The issue is that we would act totally differently if we withheld judgement on induction. When we 'don't know' something we do not act in such a way as we would if we believed it. We tend not to act on that thing at all. Yet our general life shows a clear belief in induction; when I wake up in the morning I expect the grass to be green, the sky blue and the sun in the sky. I wager you do too. If I didn't know I would surely wake up and think "The sky might be blue today. Or it might not."

This is the crux, and you've completely ignored the arguments I made in my last post. Even if we outright denied induction there would be no real incentive to act any differently, and if we merely withhold judgement, our course of action would logically be more or less identical to that we would take if we believed in it, albeit with an extra sprinkling of uncertainty. My actions, and to a lesser extent the actions of those who have not even considered this issue, are completely compatible with an agnostic approach to induction.

As for the sky, my line of thought would be that I expect the grass to be green, the sky to be blue and the sun to be in the sky, but that I can't be sure that these things are necessarily true just because they were previously. If in making this argument you're trying to say that I would, without thinking, just assume that the sky would be blue, and therefore be surprised if it weren't, you may be right. My subconscious mind makes many simplistic assumptions that my conscious mind can overcome. My subconscious mind cannot fathom relativity, nor the fact that a solid object is composed almost entirely of empty space. Assumptions about induction are indeed built into my subconscious mind, but my conscious mind is a bit more sceptical.

Our debate isn't really about whether we should believe in induction because I don't see how we could possibly not believe in induction. It a debate about whether that belief is justified.

I had to cut the rest of that paragraph because I absolutely won't accept those parameters. My objection to your arguments is precisely that we need not believe in induction (not least because I don't), and I agree completely that any such belief would be unjustifiable (which is why I don't hold it). It seems to me that you are just projecting your own irrational belief in induction onto the rest of us.

 

[Abaddon]

I don't believe any religion.. a human invented it to manipulate others.

However, since we have to go back in time and try and work things out. Eventually you simply say "An god started it all"

Which doesn't mean anything really.

 

[Greizer85]

@Enkidu Warrior: If induction is false, then if there are pitfalls or advantages to anything, we cannot know them (since we can't see the future). There's no particular reason to eat or not to eat; all actions are equally logical. Anything may potentially result from anything. More appropriately, anything may happen - in the broadest sense possible. I concede that you may survive in an inductionless world; however, the chances of that are exceedingly low (simply because there are far more events that could kill you than those which would allow you to survive).

I admit some problems with my former approach. The terms 'belief', 'assumption' and your weird 'acting as if it were true' look like they're in need of some delicate consideration. For now, I'll let lovett argue about this for me too, since our positions seem identical. Right now I must get some air; I hope the Sun still shines when I go outside. Since, well, hope is all I've got to go on.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Right now I must get some air; I hope the Sun still shines when I go outside. Since, well, hope is all I've got to go on.

Look on the bright side, there might not even be an external world for you to use your flawed inductive reasoning on