This is such a complicated question because it gets into the origins of religion and belief systems in general, but also power and class struggles, economics, social psychology and propaganda, and more.
Lots of people haven’t been properly educated Lots of people have been indoctrinated Lots of people have a reason to exploit the beliefs of others Lots of people value comfort and community above scientific accuracy or consistency
I have to imagine you’re not an American, because yeah, millions of Americans legitimately want to ignore science completely. They’re pretty loud about it too.
Adding to this comment: Science is fundamentally agnostic. You can even go so far as to say that the existence of God or a higher power is the one question which is forever doomed to be unanswerable by science and logic, almost by definition of God.
Of course, specific parts of the mythos of specific religions can and have been contradicted by science. But the main question of whether or not a higher power exists remains and will forever remain unanswerable.
It’s funny how it works one way and not the other. If we had even a hint of positive evidence for God you would never stop hearing about it. But since we don’t we are told that we have to pretend this is outside our knowledge. Heads I win, tails you lose.
They are irreconcilable. People who try to merge the two are using double-think also known as cognitive dissonance. I know, I did it for years.
Religions make claims and the evidence more often than not doesnt support the claims being true. You are free to try to square the circle, but you will fail. And the extent of your failure will be the effort you put in.
Just to poke at Buddhism. Sidrattha made claims about the geography of the world, those are not true and we have lots of good data backing up a round world. He made claims about rebirth and the soul which logically contradict each other.
Good idea, maybe using some sort of widely-available service in a section where “ask” is part of the name. Might not reach every demographic equally but it’s easier and less expensive than hiring an army to conduct door-to-door surveys.
One thing atheists often ignore is that being part of a religion means being part of a community, a group. That alone is reason enough for many people to stick with it.
Sure, the preacher/priest/whatever may be a scammer asshole, but this isn’t about him, it’s about me and the people around me. I belong in here and so do these people.
Remember, humans are social creatures. Being part of a group is a big fucking deal.
Another thing I’ve been giving some thought, religion can be a “lazy shortcut” for the brain to acknowledge some stuff without having to spend too much energy thinking about it. It’s a lot easier to wrap your head around “Because God wants it” than digging deep into the hows and whys of anything. No, it’s not scientific in the least, but humans are lazy. I am lazy, you are lazy, everyone here is lazy, we just opt to save energy in different things.
The funny thing is that that kind of talk of the previous poster is just a bad type of generalization, a lazy shortcut. The existence of bad elements within a large group is a given. There are pedophile priests, just as there are pedophile uncles or teachers. The only difference here is in how accountable they are for their actions, as the Roman Catholic Church is well known for protecting its abusive priests, which isn’t too different from Epstein’s friends having money shields.
As for carpet bombing and general violence, one could say it’s “politics as usual”. When words fail (whether on purpose or not is irrelevant here), violence emerges, because one side wants to impose its will. Religion is just another lazy (and often effective) shortcut to rally people behind a cause, not unlike patriotism
I’ve known atheists who go to church for the community. I’m an atheist, and I have recommended going to a nondenominational church to other atheists who had said they really lacked community support.
Of course, sometimes religious community systems can actually be very hostile and nonsupportive and downright exploitative. Really just depends on the specific church community. Just like there are some great people and some major assholes out there. Churches are no different.
Wonder why atheists often do not value the communal aspect of a community they are often excluded from. It is almost as if they do not value not being included in the group? Also, lazy shortcuts often lead to bad outcomes. Being wary about that is a good thing, in my opinion.
Existence is meaningless and we just wobble around here for a little while and then we die. There's nothing to it. Everything that happens is just a logical consequence; beauty is nothing but a tiny chemical reaction in your brain. Once you rot it's all worthless.
Science is great at giving explanations, but not so good at providing meaning. For a lot of people, meaning is probably more helpful in order to facilitate a happy life.
Nietzsche writes at length about this stuff, most famously in the anecdote about the madman coming down from the mountain to inform the villagers that God is dead and that we have killed him. Everybody knows the three words "God is dead", but I think it's worth reading at length:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
Nietzsche, whose father was a priest, recognizes that "God has become unbelievable", but he does not celebrate it as the progress of science. Rather, we lost something that was fundamentally important to humans, and which science cannot easily replace.
Here one could start talking about the Free Masons, who attempted learning from religious rituals without the added layer of religion. Or one could dig deeper into the works of Nietzsche, and the contrast between Apollonian and Dionysian. It's all fascinating stuff.
In short though, spirituality used to offer people a sense of meaning that is not so easily replaced by science alone. How do we bury our dead now that we know our rituals are pointless?
Very well written, and insightful. Thanks for sharing this perspective in the discussion as I personally found it very valuable. You articulated my own perspective on this much better than I could have, and gave some great philosophical background to boot. 10/10 👍
Asking a bunch of non-religious people is nothing but a circle jerk.
People believe in religion for a variety of reasons. I believe in what I believe in because I’ve had personal experiences, and because it gives me a way to be better than I am.
It’s literally their arguments in a nutshell. It’s either Faith or My book says. They can’t have anything else otherwise they’d have produced it over the past 2000 years.
It’s the same people believing in Ghosts. You’re not going to find some Ghost believer Einstein that’ll blow your mind with his reasoning on why he believes in ghosts…
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
That’s a very long post, to say “I have no proof…”
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
I reiterate. If what I’m claiming their reasons are is wrong, give me the reasoning that they are using that I am missing. Stop telling me I’m wrong and show that I am wrong by providing a reason to believe in God that’s not faith or the Bible says.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
This is irrelevant to the discussion and also just your personal opinion.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
Yea, pretty sure the majority of religious people are going to disagree with you. Religious believers believe in a God and a supernatural realm. What you are saying is simply wrong for the majority of religious followers.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
Horrific analogy. Coffee is real and we can both touch and taste it. Also, coffee doesn’t command us to stone gays or see women as second class citizens. Just horrific analogy.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
I’m not talking about any religion in particular. They all share the same tenants that I’m attacking here. Belief without good reason.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
For some reason you feel that me speaking the truth and demanding evidence for religious belief is condescending. When you claim to have all the answers via your imaginary friend and you seek to impose your views on others, I’m going to call you out on it.
This will be my last reply unless your next reply actually provides evidence, as demanded at the beginning of this thread. Otherwise have a great day.
That’s a very long post, to say “I have no proof…”
Yeah. I rejected your command and didnt aim to proof anything.
This is irrelevant to the discussion and also just your personal opinion.
Umm… No, it’s neither? I was explaining how you’re asking the wrong question which religion doesn’t aim to answer.
by providing a reason to believe in God that’s not faith or the Bible says.
I can’t. It’s faith. Faith is the reason to believe in a god. Never claimed anything different.
What you are saying is simply wrong for the majority of religious followers.
You’re just pulling stuff out of your ass that you can’t possibly have any data to. I’ve had productive discussions with people who studied theology.
Horrific analogy. Coffee is real and we can both touch and taste it. Also, coffee doesn’t command us to stone gays or see women as second class citizens. Just horrific analogy.
Yeah, didn’t think that you’d get it, tbh. I was trying to explain that you’re making a cathegorical error by demanding proof of a god. Separate your domains of inquire, my dude.
I’m not talking about any religion in particular. They all share the same tenants that I’m attacking here. Belief without good reason.
Bullshit. You’re dunking on abrahamic religions (“stone gays”) and use these to extrapolate to any religion. You have no idea about paganism, buddhism, sikh, shintoism, etc.
For some reason you feel that me speaking the truth and demanding evidence for religious belief is condescending.
What is the “truth” you’re supposedly speaking? That there is no scientific proof that something supernatural exists? Wow. What a well of wisdom you are. Did you know that you can be a secular buddhist?
When you claim to have all the answers via your imaginary friend and you seek to impose your views on others, I’m going to call you out on it.
You’re confusing christianity (and maybe islam) with every other religion again. Judaism doesn’t have missionaries. Neither do hundreds of other religions.
This will be my last reply unless your next reply actually provides evidence, as demanded at the beginning of this thread. Otherwise have a great day.
I’m not religious and you’re constantly misrepresenting or simply reducing the reasons why people have faith. That way it’s easier for you to attack them. That’s what a strawman is.
Religion is an alive feature of humanity and what was consensus in e.g. christian faith 400 years ago has been replaced within the church and the faith of the individual believers. Religion isn’t about “proof of existence” anymore, since it stopped being about answering questions that have been answered by science in the meantime.
Contemporary religion is about philosophy and ethics. Claiming that religion can’t answer questions it’s not trying to answer doesn’t proove that religion is moot.
It’s like someone asking why some people like coffee and you can’t understand why people like coffee, because if you can’t survive on coffee alone. The whole premise is outdated.
I guess you’re thinking about american evangelical lunatics and substitute all of spirituality with them. Christianity (and radical islamism) is some weird, imperialist perversion of faith. Forcing other people to boin your religion, or else is not the only mode, spirituality is expressed in the world.
When you’re speaking in such a condescending manner of religious people when you actually mean evangelical lunatics just makes you seem arrogant and keeps you from actually learning anything about your fellow human beings.
Having welcomed into my home and talked to quite a number of people preaching door to door (and having even participated in an organised discussion between Physics Degree pupils and a preacher of some Baptist church) I can confirm it’s invariably a logic chain that is either circular or ends up in some supposedly “truth” about which there can be no questioning (aka an axiom) the most basic one being “it says so in the Bible”.
Either that or it’s some poor old ladies who really can’t string much of a logic chain of though (it’s pretty much direct to “it says so in this book”).
And it’s all perfectly acceptable in one’s Personal Sphere. It’s just not an actual argument to justify anything outside the Theological and Personal Spheres, such as, for example, having the Law impose one’s Morality on others or having one’s country managed in one way rather than a different way.
For me Religion is absolutelly fine as long as it stops at the boundary of the religious person’s life and choices, and does not go into shaping other people’s life and choices: believers can feel free to try and convert others so that they shape their own life and choices the same way, just not to force their own morality on others.
You are confusing reasons with proof. Most believe because they choose to. Because believing in God gives them meaning and purpose, and a drive to be better, to do better. And because they have had personal experiences that lead them towards belief.
The proof for them is in the effects that faith has had on them. “By their fruits” and all that. Not far different to the “proofs” of dark matter.
Though it’s very ironic that you stereotype people of faith, and think I’m the one who needs to meet more of them.
Alright, so I was right you have nothing other than “faith”.
I am asking you to provide any evidence for God that I can independently verify.
Faith or how things make you feel are irrelevant. There are people who believe in Goku and like how it makes them feel when they are shooting Kamehamehas… That doesn’t make it real.
You jumped into this conversation train unprepared. I’ve been arguing, reading, discussing and debating religion for decades. I’ve seen it all. God has been shrinking for the past 2000 years.
I’m not even going to touch your dark matter comment because you are also incredibly ignorant on that subject given that you have referenced it in this context.
I never tried to prove God to you. Trying to prove the existence of God is a foolish undertaking. I, quite frankly, don’t care what you believe. I’ve only tried to point out to you that people have plenty of reasons to believe in God that science can’t provide.
You making ignorant ad hominem attacks doesn’t make your bigotry any less transparent. It’s only a comment on you that you’ve ostensibly spent so much time discussing things that are close to people’s hearts without developing a shred of empathy or understanding.
You don’t get to force me into the discussion you want to have by trying to bully me. Your opinion isn’t going to bait me. I’m comfortable with having made the point I wanted to make.
Fair enough, so you also are unable to provide any reason. You seem to think that getting angry and insulting me will somehow magically count as having made a point on the original topic.
No worries, I didn’t expect you to be able to provide anything, because better people than you have tried and failed over the last 2 millenia.
For most religious people, religion is a way to be a better person and live a better life.
Let’s say you struggle with anger issues? How do you deal with it?
Religions have thousands of years of lessons about anger. Churches will have entire support groups built around helping with anger. You’ll often get sermons about anger. Ways to deal with it. Why it happens. Benefits of not giving into anger etc.
If you have a slip up with anger, religions have ways of handling it and helping you grow.
Probably the most visible thing is addiction. Churches have helped soooo many people deal with addiction who otherwise might be dead by now.
Religion is not for everyone, but there are certainly lots of people who feel they are better off because of it
I’m not sure if I agree with this explanation. Sure, religion is something some people turn to after having issues, but it’s also equally, if not probably more frequently, an excuse to cause issues.
I see it more often used as a coping mechanism, not a way to be a better person. It’s something to give hope of your problem just solving itself, and an excuse when it doesn’t work. It’s also used to excuse horrible behavior towards other people, not to be a nicer person towards them.
There’s both sides of all of this obviously, but I see it doing the inverse of what you said much more frequently.
The biggest boon I see from religion is that it creates community by default. In a time period so lacking in community, religion would be a good tool for this. I think it’d be better for people to form non-religious community, but there’s no force to push towards that.
What part of “all the knowledge humans have” irrefutably proves that god does not exist? Just because you think our limited knowledge of the universe implies the inexistence of the god, doesn’t mean it is the absolute truth or everyone should be coming to the same conclusion as you.
What part of “all the knowledge humans have” irrefutably proves that god does not exist?
The burden of proof lies solely on the ones making the claim that god DOES exist.
Has there ever been irrefutable evidence, provided by any of the religious leaders over the last many thousands of years, which proves that god exists?
No one is trying to make you or anyone else believe, they are just believing and doing their own thing therefore no need to prove anything considering both parties are approaching respectfully to eachother. OP was asking why people haven’t dropped religion. Since there is no proof of inexistence of the god, there is also no reason for people in 2024 to stop believing.
No one is trying to make you or anyone else believe, they are just believing and doing their own thing
Unfortunately, that’s not true at all. Religions are designed to spread, like a virus.
They go door-to-door, stand on corners (with loudspeakers or just to give you flyers), they visit underdeveloped countries in missions to convert others, they use their power to influence laws related to reproduction and sexuality, they harm children (i.e. protect pedophiles within their congregation), they demonize and persecute gay people, and so on.
Organized religion, for several thousands of years, have started wars and killed countless people “in the name of god”.
And that’s only the major religions. If you get into smaller religions, then you’re talking about anything from harassment to mass suicide to child wives and beyond. Anything goes when “god is with you”.
OP was asking why people haven’t dropped religion. Since there is no proof of inexistence of the god, there is also no reason for people in 2024 to stop believing.
You can’t prove the non-existence of something… and it’s nobody’s job to prove that something does not exist.
To the OP: There’s a small book called “Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith Paperback” by J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer, which would be of interest. You can probably read it in an afternoon, but it’s insightful.
You can in fact prove the non existence of a thing that is logically incoherent. Obviously the default position to be is agnostic, but you can actually disprove the existence of specifically a tri omni God via the problem of evil.
If an all knowing, all powerful, all loving being existed, we would not observe evil in the world as it would be knowledgeable enough, powerful enough, and care enough to get rid of it. We observe evil, so this being does not exist.
Of course, a lot of behaviour of God in the bible suggests that he is not all loving, which would trivially resolve the paradox, but a lot of Christians believe in a tri omni being anyway, which makes my prior argument non entirely irrelevant.
You can’t prove the non-existence of the god(s) that today’s religions worship, because their goalpost is always moving and logic isn’t in their belief system. That’s because religiosity allows someone to suspend logic and rational thought. This leads to someone believing in illogical things as fact, even if fact hasn’t been established.
Yes, the fact that evil exists would prove that an all-powerful, loving god who will do anything to protect “his children” doesn’t exist.
But then the religious folk would say, “evil things happen as part of God’s plan.” and that shuts down your evidence. It’s always like this, because faith is quite literally “believing in the absence of evidence”.
It’s super easy to disprove, for example, the “power of prayer”, but the person claiming that prayers are answered should be the one to prove this, in a way that can be tested and verified.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. If someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, cool, they need to prove its existence and the rest of us can go around as if one doesn’t exist. If someone claims there isn’t a teapot floating in space, now the burden of proof is on them. We can quickly exercise some critical thinking and realize that, while there might be a teapot in space someone brought with them and left, it’s not going to be beyond the asteroid belt.
Now do every belief system with empirical evidence. You can’t, primarily because belief in the logic used to prove that empirical evidence is the best evidence is itself a belief system. Changing any one of the axioms that underpin your methodology completely changes the methodology (eg parallel lines meet at infinity turns geometry into hyperbolic geometry). Furthermore, we can extend Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to any formal system, like you’re attempting to employ, and show that they can’t prove themselves.
In other words, we must take things on faith if we want to use logic and pull out statement related to logic like “burden of proof is on the positive.” You can believe whatever the fuck you want; you just can’t prove it and, in most metaphysical cases, you can’t disprove it either.
If someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, cool, they need to prove its existence and the rest of us can go around as if one doesn’t exist. If someone claims there isn’t a teapot floating in space, now the burden of proof is on them.
Disagreeing with the first claim doesn’t put the burden of proof on you. It merely keeps the ball in the first claimant’s hands.
You can believe whatever the fuck you want; you just can’t prove it and, in most metaphysical cases, you can’t disprove it either.
Again, nobody is expected to disprove metaphysical claims. Claims for the metaphysical should be proven by whoever is making them.
Trying to disprove something that hasn’t been proven to exist could be as easy as saying “It doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist”, and that would be logically and factually sound.
The person who is holding the belief in god(s), ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, Santa Claus, Men in Black, a flat earth, a young earth, and anything else you can dream up is the only person who has to justify those beliefs.
This is why I wish we had more people like James Randi around, who put up real money to anyone who could prove their claims of paranormal, magical, psychic, or other metaphysical claims to be true. In over 50 years, nobody could prove what they claimed. Randi didn’t have to disprove anything.
Again, fundamental misunderstanding of Russell’s Teapot. You’re attempting to talk about proof, using the language of logic, to make sweeping claims that logic cannot make.
If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.
If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.
Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound. Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic. More importantly, you’re depending on logic as a system of faith, just like religion, unless you’ve found some results that contradict Gödel and company. We’ve made all of it up and, with our understanding today, it is not objective.
If you’re saying we can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical, we’re on the same page.
Give me an example of a metaphysical claim, and I will tell you whether it can be proven or disproven. Simply talking about broad subjects doesn’t help to clarify the discussion.
In the context of religion, some claims made would be pretty easy to prove if they were true.
For example, many Christians believe that the earth is approx. 6000 years old. This would be very easy to prove, but we’ve already disproven it 1000x over.
Another claim, for example, is proving whether prayer works. When actually tested, we know that it doesn’t (at least, not in the spiritual/“direct connection with god” sense).
If you’re saying the metaphysical doesn’t exist because no one has proved it and they have to prove it first, you don’t understand how logic, as we understand it today, works.
I’m not saying that AT ALL. I’m pretty agnostic about most claims.
If someone makes a claim, be it metaphysical, paranormal, or otherwise, then that claim needs to have been formed on some basis of evidence. If that evidence cannot be presented and/or observed and/or tested and/or repeated, then it doesn’t support the claim.
People who KNOW that heaven exists have never proven that it does. Neuroscientists can give a dozen reasons why someone might have a near-death experience where a person claims to have “visited heaven”, yet someone steeped in religion will never accept those explanations.
Really, that’s part of what makes religion so awful. It causes people to believe things that are so illogical, that you’d have to suspend reality in order for it to make any sense. And even then, it’s 99% crazy.
Edit: to highlight your issues a little, “it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” isn’t logically sound.
I disagree. If I were to hold out my empty hand and say that “the ball in my hand does not exist because it does not exist”, that would be true, would it not?
Unlike Russell’s Teapot, circular logic is an actual, provable fallacy rather than a rhetorical tool that is not a result of logic.
Circular logic is a strategy used in religious debates almost as a means to deadlock the debate (which is to their advantage, since they can’t prove anything otherwise).
That’s why the rebuttal, in the context of a religious claim, “It doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist” is as lazy and unhelpful as saying “god exists because god exists”.
I’ve spent too many hours watching “debates” where the religious side will simply spiral into a black hole of laziness as to render the entire debate a complete waste of time. They’ll say “you can’t know that god doesn’t exist because you don’t know everything”, yet they’ll turn around and say that they are 100% certain that god exists because they know god exists. I mean, where can you go from there?
You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.
not saying that … pretty agnostic
Cool, we’re on the same page.
If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence
This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value. If you’re going to rigorously define evidence, you’re going to need to create a system that can’t contradict itself. Per your quotes, either there is a ball in my hand or there isn’t.
This is called a consistent system. We agree on a set of axioms that we will achieve results from. If we have a consistent system and build a bunch of results on top of that, eventually we’ll run into things that are true but we cannot prove. We know this because of a famous result I’ve already mentioned. In other words, we must take central results on faith. A common one that, several decades ago, was met with ridicule because it was “so illogical” mathematicians had “suspend reality in order for it to make any sense” is the axiom of choice.
In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.
doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist… isn’t circular logic
You’re conflating a tautology with circular reasoning. Circular reasoning boils down to “A because B; B because A;” and you’ve said “A because A” without any support for A. The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.
Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.
You’re very focused on religion and seem to be missing all of the points about logic.
Religion is quite literally the topic that the OP brought forth. And there is no logic when it comes to religion, so why bother sidelining the thread with discussion about logic rather than region?
<span style="color:#323232;">If someone makes a claim… it needs… evidence
</span>
This is problematic without a rigorous definition of evidence. I’m assuming you mean something along the lines of repeatable and independently verifiable since you won’t take a claim at face value.
I think you’re overcomplicating things.
If someone says that a character named Noah put two of every species of animal on a boat, can that be verified? Is it even possible mathematically, knowing what we know about how many species of animals exist, and the volume that two of every species would take up? Yes, and mathematically, the story is BS.
What about the age of the earth? We know that it’s older than 6000 years, so that’s another religious belief thrown out the window.
What about the age of humans? The bible has people 400+ years old. Can this be proven? We know that there are no humans alive or ever alive, that could be that old.
It gets even worse when you think about the miracles of saints. Why is it, at a time when we could absolutely be able to verify whether something is a miracle or not, we don’t get miracles.
God was doing all sorts of things merely two thousand years ago. Crazy thing like turning people into salt and raining fire down from the sky.
These things don’t happen any more, conveniently.
In other words, you can’t use logic and reason to say those that believe in religion are idiots because you have just as much proof as they do (just faith) if we accept the basic axioms that drive our logical system.
I’m asking them to prove what they believe in to be true. It’s as simple as that.
People devote their entire lives believing. They ruin their kids lives through their beliefs. They also ruin the lives of others through the stripping away of basic rights, all based on their own beliefs.
It really isn’t too much to ask for their beliefs to be challenged.
The lack of something in your hand is not necessary and sufficient to prove the ball’s existence. The only claim we can make is that your hand is empty.
And yet I can claim that there is a god, without producing evidence of that god, and everyone is to believe that the god exists? Because that’s what religious folks are doing.
At least with the ball example, I proved that it doesn’t exist by showing you that there is no ball. Why is there no ball? Because it was made up. It never existed. See how that works?
Here is a metaphysical claim for you to chew on: it is possible to know whether or not it is possible to prove a claim.
Yes. Courts, scientists, and insurance companies do it all the time.
Do you have an example of a claim that we can test this out on?
All of this continues to go past you. You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours. How can insurance companies prove something? Why are they right? If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one? Prove it. Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.
You want to attack the metaphysical for its belief system yet you completely miss when you make the same logical leaps for yours.
I want to challenge baseless claims. My sarcasm in response to baseless claims is intended to show how completely useless “logical leaps” actually are. I’m surprised you haven’t caught on.
How can insurance companies prove something?
Interviews, dash camera footage, police reports, etc. Evidence of what happened is gathered.
If a court makes a decision, is that the correct one?
If they are applying the law fairly and without prejudice, then it is often correct.
But in a court, you at least have the opportunity for both a plaintiff and defendant to present evidence of their position.
If you had someone in court say that “god told me to do it”, they had better have some strong evidence supporting that, no? In those cases, that person’s lawyer may try to argue that their client is insane, and rightfully so.
Only you can’t use logic or anything that comes from logical systems because, based on your attacks on religion, you’re not allowed to use the faith to prove the faith.
Faith = the belief in something without evidence. Faith itself is not evidence for anything.
If religion is going to use faith to “prove” all their claims, they will be challenged.
You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right. You’re not seeing the forest for the trees.
Your faith is that evidence trumps all. That is a baseless claim unless you can prove it without the structures of evidence-based discourse. You are using logic to prove your statements which is logically equivalent to “god said so.” You argue your beliefs trump theirs; you are equivalent using your foundation. Your religion is logic which, as I have pointed out many times without comment from you, is just as made up as any religion and more importantly has the introspective capabilities to prove so.
This is a fairly straightforward epistemological argument; I’ve run out of ways to say it. Good luck!
You haven’t shown that an insurance decision is correct. You also didn’t show that a court decision is right.
Are you suggesting that insurance companies and courts simply roll the dice to come up with a verdict or conclusion? That none of the evidence presented means anything?
How do you make decisions if you can’t believe anything? I can’t imagine having a worldview where evidence counts for nothing and faith guides my every choice. It’s simply nonsensical.
Your faith is that evidence trumps all.
Evidence removes faith from the equation. And the more of it you have, the better the quality of the evidence, the more people can test the conclusion, etc., the stronger your claim/belief/hypothesis is.
This is something we learned as young children: “how did you come up with that result?” requires explanation. If you can’t explain it, then you have no understanding.
You can’t explain logic so I’m not sure you have an understanding of the arguments you’re attempting to make. I’m not seeing any justification other than “I think it’s it right.” I’ve seen no counters to the quantitative philosophical propositions and a general lack of understanding of any of the things that underpin your belief system. You still haven’t explained why your system is right.
If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else. You don’t know why you believe what you believe and you’re completely incapable (so far, based on the evidence you’ve provided) of doing anything beyond “James Randi says it so it must be true.” You seem to blindly believe anything anyone in a position of authority states (courts, insurance always right provided they have a modicum of evidence to support their claim). You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
You remind me of the evangelicals I’m also not a fan of.
If it is so self-evident, you should be able to explain why your faith in evidence trumps anyone else’s faith in anything else.
Why evidence based truth is better than no evidence faith? Again, are you trolling?
What makes you believe the messages you send are being received? Faith?
You pound the “evidence trumps everything” pulpit yet can’t explain why, logically, that might make sense.
I’ll assume you aren’t trolling.
If I make a claim, there are pretty much three options:
I can either substantiate that claim, often with evidence.
Or, I can say that “The claim is true, and while I can’t prove it, I have faith”.
Or, I can say " I’m not sure if the claim is true or not, but I will gather enough evidence, data, test the claim, repeat it, and see if it still holds true (a distilled version of the scientific method).
Only 1 and 3 will validate the claim, while 2 doesn’t even try.
From what it sounds like, you believe that option 2 is as valid as options 1 and 3 for validating a claim and finding what’s true.
What makes you think that?
You keep saying that I haven’t explained why options 1 and 3 are right. I’m saying they are the best options we have.
Absolutely, 100% better than option 2, which is lazy and completely disregards any truths.
Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong? You don’t seem to realize any of the foundation you’re building on and you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple. But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough. We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
Why are 1 and 3 the correct options? Why are they even correct? Why is 2 wrong?
Why aren’t they correct?
And why isn’t 2 wrong?
you’ve done nothing other than say “if I provide evidence,” that’s enough.
I’m saying that providing evidence is better than not providing evidence, if the objective is to verify/confirm/support a claim.
This is universally accepted and applied to just about every aspect of life. It’s how you make daily decisions, too. I’m sure you’ve based 100 decisions on this method just in the last day.
Here’s a thought experiment. I take you into a closed room, put purple film over a window, and tell you the sky is purple. You’ve now got irrefutable proof that the sky is purple.
Sorry, but you don’t have irrefutable proof that the sky is purple, but you can say that the sky appears purple from inside that room. You haven’t been able to explain why it’s purple, you’ve only made an observation.
Science has already explained why the real sky appears in colours, and it was done through more than believing the lie of a single person.
From everything you said, it would be just as right to believe (the lie) without any further investigation. Or even worse, you’d make up a story about the gods being upset with you, and they turned the sky purple.
But wait, you say! I can go outside and find different evidence, so clearly having evidence alone is not enough.
That makes no sense. Going outside to get a different perspective, realize that the sky does not appear purple, and enter a line of further inquiry and investigation is exactly how you’d get answers.
The more evidence you gather, the closer you get to the truth. And when you have enough evidence, you’ll be able to prove and test your claim with mathematical precision.
We could even sidestep the problem by saying that the sky is colorless; it’s the refraction of the light that makes the color. Different frame; different counter.
With evidence to support that hypothesis, you would be as close to right as you can be.
It would surely be better than blindly believing the liar, no?
Religion has never been about god. Religion is about control and unlike more intelligent mechanisms we created to assign positions of power, religion (by design) assigns power to the worst kind of scum.
So proof of non existence of god is not required to wonder why species calling itself intelligent still believes in vile shit that historically and factually demonstrated itself to cause nothing but grief, suffering and incessant delays to progress.
Alright cool, lets assume religion is ALL about control, all the religious people are being controlled by “religious” people in power. Without the existence of the god (or a similar omnipotent being) how are they going to control the people? Its always about so called god’s will and providence.
There is no way any sort of control is going to stay if the inexistence of god is irrefutably proven. Saying religion not being about god is comical at best.
If god exists or doesnt, the control is there and has been. You cant prove a negative so irrefutable proof of nonexistence of anything isnt going to work. I’m sure you’ve heard of the teapot orbiting past saturn? It’s highly unlikely to exist, but cant be proven to not exist.
You’re describing religion as a theoretical concept, but unfortunately it is part of our reality with all the inconvenient facts you’re choosing to ignore.
It is able to survive because gullible or often evil parents and vile predators in the form priests, imams and rabbis continue to peddle various versions of this bullshit to unfortunate children thus sustaining the wicked concept. God has nothing to do with it since it has never presented itself to humans so saying organized religion cannot be sustained without God is nonsense at best.
I know many extremely bright people who are religious, but I do agree with what your saying. Nothing wrong with having existential dread. Such is the human condition.
It’s not about what an individual could know, it’s about what they do know and how structured is a person’s thinking.
So just because out there somewhere there are tons of explanations for tons of things doesn’t mean people actually know them (lots if not most is quite obscure or requires understanding of a lot of other things first before you can trully understand those things) plus people have to think in very structure ways to spot gaps or flaws in what they thing they know and go look for better info.
And this is just the Logic level problem.
The Emotional level stuff is way more important. Religion:
provides easy non-scary explanations for tons of things which can be terrifying to accept as just random (Massive Earthquake, killing hundreds of thousands: “It’s the will of Deity” is a calming explanation which implies “someDeity” has control)
provides hope for one’s and one’s loved one’s future (Granny died: “She’s gone to Heaven!”)
makes the World seem so much simpler and hence understandeable for anybody by explaining away all complexity (All those lights in the night-sky: “There was a fight between the SunGod and the MoonGod during which his rays pierced the black veil that surrounds us”).
for those born into it, it’s just familiar and “the way people think”.
And last but not least, Religion is a ready made tribe, generally mutually supporting, so it satisfies people’s lowest tribalist instincts and provides concrete benefits from being part of a social circle from which you can get help.
This also explains why supposedly Religious people are selective in what they believe from their religion (notice how almost none of Christians take to hearth the whole point of Christ casting out the Money Lenders from the Temple), why they don’t actually know all that much detail about their own Religion (if they don’t think in a way that helps them spot what they do not know, that gets reflected on not looking for more info both outside and inside religion) and why it’s so easy to manipulate people with religion (if the complexity of the world is explained as “blady, blady, blah, Deity”, those trusted to understand the Deity can make sure pretty much all complex things get reasoned as “Deity wills it so because my bullshit reason” - plus remember, religious types are the non-structured non-skeptic thinkers).
Eh…it’s easier than that. You know what you’re told growing up.
Kids who are abused think that’s normal. Kids who are abused with religion also think that’s normal.
Kind of like how your dad’s fav sports team is your fav too cuz reasons. If your dad was Muslim you probably will be too.
Religions are sort of like mind viruses. The ones that have survived have done so because they are very good at taking root and multiplying in the human mind. Sort of a natural selection of ideas. They develop the necessary features like a way to ignore contrary evidence and severe consequences for not believing
I have a minor in religious studies because belief in things outside science seemed ridiculous.
Then, a couple years ago I was walking my dog with my wife talking about Huitzilopochtli & a hummingbird flew from the top of a giant redwood to about a foot from my face, flew in a perfect square 7 times, then back to the top.
Then I was under a sycamore tree at the Rosicrucian temple in San Jose meditating on Hathor & inadvertently copied a statue of Plato when I tried to clean a cobweb off it with a walking stick & a single leaf fell gently to the exact middle of my feet.
Then I was driving & thinking about getting a tattoo of Horus when a falcon began flying next to my head outside my driver’s side window for about 5 seconds, flew past my windshield, perched on a freeway sign & watched me drive off.
I could go on but the gist is I always said I couldn’t believe unless I had concrete proof & now I have concrete proof.
I believe in science and have had a lot of experiences that lead me to believe math is a language used to describe the metaphysical, and whether divine intervention, there are patterns and things that happen that seem to appear in nature when they statistically shouldn’t. Things that point to more than my day job and Netflix. Maybe it’s monkeys typing Shakespeare over an infinite time, yellow car syndrome, projection, but it’s just so narcissistic and small minded to think we know it all and this is it, and we’re not connected to anything more than the mundane, ants scurrying about a spinning rock consuming our environment until our cave collapses becoming another dead satellite spiraling toward a burning star. I’ve experienced love. Wonder. The unexplainable. Just because we have Western words to describe something, doesn’t make it less magical or spiritual.
It’s amazing. I want to say what it is about this exchange that makes me suggest it but I don’t want to spoil it. I think you would enjoy it from this tiny bit of Internet sharing through which I know you 🤷
“Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and also a protest against it. Religion is the opium of the masses. Religion is the heart of a heatless world. Religion is the soul of soulless conditions.”
Religion isn’t a separate thing from culture that can be cleaved off like this. The form it takes is contingent on conditions of people’s lives and power structures. People also don’t make a conscious choice to believe or disbelieve in religion, if you’re an atheist you can’t just willingly choose to believe. Society is not directed by the willful actions of people’s collective beliefs like this either, it’s more a Darwinian process.
Also civil religion is a thing and it doesn’t necessarily align with what people think of “religion” but operates in a very similar way. A lot of atheists are probably adherents to aspects of civil religion without knowing or thinking of it this way.
if you’re an atheist you can’t just willingly choose to believe
I wouldn’t really agree with this. As a programmer, I was always sceptical and an atheist, but I never had problems with believing into something obviously not true, such as when LARPing or TTRPGs. And when I once got into a rabbit hole of mysticism in high-school, one of the movements I read about was advocating for doing “paradigm shifts”, forcing yourself to believe into a specific religion, like truly believe, so you can try it out in practice and see whether you get something out of it or not and should move on. And since that felt like a fun experiment, I tried it with various dogmas or religions, and once you get over the inherent jugement and feeling pretty stupid chanting, drawing circles and burning incense in your room (which may take a while), you may get to point where you slowly convince yourself to believe. That is, if you are serious about it. And it’s also pretty fun.
Being a programmer, I was always just as baffled about religion, mysticism, and various esoteric stuff, because it just didn’t make logical sense, and it was hard to take people who are into it seriously.
tldr:Was sceptical, gave it a try just for fun and to see what’s the fuss, found out it’s net-positive as long as you don’t take it too seriously, let it define your whole personality, or use it as an excuse to be a dick. It’s basicaly just like playing solo TTRPGs, and it feels great once you get rid of your jugement.
Then, during high-school, I’ve stumbled upon the Psychonaut Field Manual, which is a nicely written guide about chaos magic. And I read into it, because the presentation seemed fun, and most importantly - it was the first book where the introduction and first few pages convinced me, that it makes sense and could, in a limited fashion, actually work.
What convinced me was looking at mysticism as something akin to “hacking your own mind” - by using symbols, rituals, meditation and whatnot, you convince your unconscious mind to push you slightly more towards doing what you need. And that sounded like something interesting, especially since I just finished reading the Art of Game Design, which had a few great chapters focused on the subconscious and how to work with it when being creative. Of course I still don’t believe that you can affect any external factor of your life through it, but now something like “I do a ritual to finish this exam”, and my subconscious may just give me a little nudge to study more, since that’s what it’s convinced we really want.
So I went into the rabbit hole of modern mysticism, and eventually discovered more about the whole movement of Chaos Magic, with authors like Phil Hine. And their reasoning has won me over - their main point is that all mysticism is the same - learning symbols and doing rituals, so you can convince your subconsciousness. And the flavor or dogma you attach to it doesn’t matter, so just do whatever you want. Want to do Wicca? Suit yourself. Christianity and angels? If it works for you. Invoke Spongebob with pentagram out of pizza, or go with Lovecraftian Old Gods? Why not, the only important thing is that you do really believe in it, because otherwise you probably won’t convince your subconscious.
And that’s why they work with something I find really interresting - they call it paradigm shifts, where you hop around various systems, dogmas and religions, immersing yourself into their rabbit hole and honestly giving it a try, to see if that’s what works for you. And that sounded like fun, letting go of the prejudice about religion or esoteric bullshit, and just trying it out for myself, log what results I have, and have fun learning about it.
There’s another point that won me over for chaos magic - one of their core principles is, that every mysticism was so full of themself and took it too seriously, that they’ve forgotten how to have fun. And having fun while doing it is important.
And so I throughout next few years went into the rabbit hole of Wicca, Golden Dawn, Enochian, and probably bunch more I don’t really remember, just trying to take it seriously and see for myself how does it work for me. The hardest part was getting rid of feeling absolutely stupid when you sit in your room with candles, incense, and memorize various bullshit, but it was still pretty fun.
To get to the point - Wicca is one of the only systems I’ve tried that is also a Religion, and works with deities. And I’ve enjoyed this system more than the others, which were more focused on occultism and abstract concepts, because it basically meant you got an imaginary friend. The small daily rituals, that are celebrating nature while also being appreciated by said imaginary friend were fun little games, that made my day pretty much universally better, just like it turned a simple walk through nature as something wonderful - because I started paying more attention to what is around me.
As long as you don’t take it too seriously, don’t let it control your life, don’t talk about it with others that are not interrested, or use it as an excuse to be a dick to anyone, and just enjoy adding a little bit of magic and fantasy into your daily life, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s a net-positive change, and not too different than just playing a game of TTRPGs.
I’ve since forgotten about it and don’t really do anything in regards to religion or mysticism, but I still fondly remember the few years I’ve tried, and it has definitely changed my point of view on a lot of things in life. I’d recommend to everyone here to give it a try and see for yourself - you don’t have to tell anyone, it’s a fun rabbit hole to explore (if that’s something you find interresting), and most importantly - you can decide it’s not for you and forget about it at any moment.
When I was a kid I could not understand how that line was meant to be peaceful. Even listening to the rest of the song, it was still unsettling. I was raised Catholic so the song just starts with like “imagine the worst case scenario”. As an atheist now, it’s more hopeful to me. Like imagine what the world could be like if we weren’t just biding time until we were dead. If we all just knew this was the one chance one opportunity mom’s spaghetti.
I mean… the first thesis statement in capitalism is “there is a scarcity of resources” and that dominates our lives. Yet, not when we think of life itself.
This is more relevant than most people realise. There is seemingly an increase in religion the older you get. As you said, fear of death and the comfort of something still to come.
Add comment