I realized Yoda was right

Or at least I see the "naturalistic fallacy now".

I see now that the absolutist naturalistic arguments against "theism" are fallacious.

This isn't an argument for theism per se, however the argument that a "supernatural" belief "shouldn't" be believed is actually dishonest.

Because what this is actually calling for is the acceptance of only that which has been verified by the "scientific method" even in individual circumstances - which in itself is a faith based belief (that the scientific method or "consensus" is absolute truth) and the polar opposite of what the scientific method is designed for.

The scientific method is a particular standard of evidence used in particular circumstances decided on by individuals; there is no "obligation" for this standard of evidence to be used in every individual person's circumstances. Just as the standards of evidence required in a murder trial are not automatically required in a civil court.

This line of reasoning appears to be referred to as "scientism" and I'm beginning to see it now as a quasi-religion in its own right, since it's defacto equating evidence gathered by the scientific method with absolute truth, along with a quasi-"divine" obligation to accept it as such - if the same line of reasoning were applied outside of the natural sciences then people would see that it's pretty ridiculous - ex. the idea that indiviuals are "obligated" to believe that OJ Simpson isn't a murder because a court of law found him not guilty.

Not to mention it is hypocritical because it's impossible and impractical to apply this standard of "evidence" in day to day life - a person who says they don't believe anything which there is not scientific evidence for obviously isn't practicing that when they drive to work and have "faith" that they won't be hit by a truck and die, since they didn't do any "empirical testing" or publish any peer-reviewed studies to gain a consensus of this.

Plus if everyone actually followed this then Galileo would have had "no reason to believe" that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, since scientific consensus of his day and age said it did not.

This is a problem I've been noticing with the modern atheistic and anti-"religion" trend among others - and ironically I'd say it's actually likely more dangerous than some hillbilly in the boondocks believing that the earth is 6,000 years old - because if science is treated as a quasi-religion then that discourages actual research regardless of its validity for fear of going against "consensus".

So I'd now say to say that a person is "wrong" to believe a certain "supernatural" thing (and I even see the term "supernatural" now is pretty meaningless) as a blanket statement is incorrect, because that's a applying a hasty generalization - a person could in theory believe something that's "wrong" but still be right in doing so if they were making the best call they could with the information they had rather than being intentionally anti-intellectually dishonest - and that's between them and their own intent (or God).

And criticizing a specific claim that a specific person makes for (or against) the existence of God (ex. a specific argument from Kent Hovind) is a completely different ballpark from making a blanket statement about believing things "without evidence" or the arbitrary distinction of "supernatural".

This is also a problem with pure consequential logic that I see; it oversimplifies and reduces things, making a case that a belief is incorrect is a lot different than making a case that an individual is "incorrect" to have it, because it is way too reductionist and removes all kinds of things like human intent, experiences, etc. Which is why I'd now say that virtue is actually a lot more important than pure consequentalism.

So I fairly clearly see now that this is really just pseudo-intellectualism - in some ways a lot more like the Inquisition than actual scientific research.

I agree with Kant when he said questions regarding god can't be answered by human understanding. We don't know and we can't know.


However, it's the fact that I don't know that makes me an atheist because I will create my own morality, I will try to discover the world with reason, with my capacities (and the capacity of others obviously). Because since we don't know and can't know who he is then why do we suppose he tells us how to act (like in the bible or the quran).


And even if you think you have a metaphysical argument that proves the existence of some transcendance, of some sort of creator you still don't have the slightest idea of what he is, of what he wants. So why in the hell would you suppose it? My problem is not the probability of the existence of god it's the incredible lack of logic in believing in what an holy book says, it's religion.

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

Maybe if you look at that book from a logical point of view instead of as a rule book you will find some help from others there. Not leaning entirely on your own understanding is wise. The next question is how do you determine who to get your help from?

__________________
Letterboxd

I don't think sure knowledge can really be acquiered, by the help of scientific studies, logical arguments, etc. I think we can find some particular truths about some things, but not a definite clear cut way to live. The problem I have with religion is that it claims a knowledge it doesn't have.

You don't think moral truths are observabel and can become knowledge?

First: I thought this was one of those username replacement things. Imagine my pleasant surprise to learn otherwise.

Second, a quick thanks to 90sAce. Big of him to say, and indicative of a good faith search for truth, whatever our remaining disagreements. It's appreciated. And with that, the universe explodes.

Third, I'm not sure Pussy Galore's response is really about the specific topic in this thread, though any thread about God ends up being about every other aspect of God and religion no matter how much I try to keep it on topic, so I'll just reply anyway.

This feels like a question you're intelligent and educated enough to already know the answer to: because it's been revealed to us, both in the overarching collective conscience of human history and by specific historical events. You may or may not find these rationales persuasive, but I'm not sure why you would ask a question that pretends they don't even exist.

Clarify something for me, if you would: is your complaint that religion literally claims something is true without reason, or that you think religion claims to be sure of something it can't be entirely sure about?

I thought Ace was admitting the possibility of a god, I was answering to that, that even if you accept the metaphysical argument it doesn't give any sort of legitimity to religion.

I don't know how can someone of reason and intelligence think the resurection of Jesus or any other of these hypothetical events give any rationnal ground for a particular way to act. I'm not in any denying the possibility of God, I even would be tempted to say that my intuition says that without any sort of transcendance I can't understand how something came out of nothing (I haven't read Lawrence Krauss book that explains it, I will). I'm only saying that those who claim to know who God his don't have a good case for it, I'm open to listen to them, but so far I haven't been impressed.

I'd say it's both haha. We can't really know if god exist, he might, he might not. So basing my life on the hypothesis he exists is a little strong in my opinion. But my biggest problem is the justification any sort of religion tries to give in order to tell us what god is. The resurrection of Jesus for instance as an historical event, maybe or maybe not I can't prove to you it's you, but you can't prove to me it is. You can accept it if you want. But the lack of logic for me is that if you accept an hypothetical and base your life on it, it doesn't make sense. I'd add that the resurrection of Jesus is less believable then any other historical event becuase it goes agains't the laws of physics that we know. I'm not saying it's impossible that it happened, but just that it's less probable then lets say Socrates being sentenced to death.

Like I said I don't think ''the good life'' is possible to be described, there are many ways to lead good lifes. And I prefer to base my actions on reasoning since I don't know any certainty, I will create with my reason and the reason of others with the help of arguments they say to me my own morality, the way I will lead my life, make my decisions. And it's always changeable if someone tells me an argument that makes the way I live ''wrong'' for a lack of a better word then I will change it.

*rubs eyes painfully*

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

And I thought he was back!

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.