"Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"

[drogulus]

The final thread which broke in my Atheism was the realization that my belief in science was based upon a philosophy of materialism and naturalism.  Ultimately, all Atheists (distinct from agnostics) have to rationalize their beliefs through the lens of logical positivism, the philosophy that in order to have meaning an idea must be based on a physically tangible reality and must be falsifiable.  Moreover, most Atheists believe that we can study the world through science and arrive at an objective understanding of that reality.  I think it would be incorrect to characterize Atheists as needing proof to believe.  More generally, they believe that if there is no chance for objective proof, then it is irrational to believe.

      I don't accept that. Ideas can have meaning without referring to a physical objects. If you want to say that something nonphysical exists, you can indicate what you mean and how you can confirm it.

     The objection is to ideas that posit the existence of something without indicating what would have to be true in order to confirm it, so that there's no discoverable difference to look for. That would place the question beyond any possible knowledge, rendering the original statement meaningless, and in fact a contradiction. The knowledge the statement must be based on in order to be about the world can't be had, so it isn't a statement about the world, it's at most a statement about a belief. As a belief it can have a type of meaning.

      Logical positivism was an early stage in the history of analytical philosophy, which tried to make sense of the field by forcing speakers to define what they mean strictly enough so that they could understand what exactly they were saying. That way listeners wouldn't have to put up with so much nonsense. Needless to say it hasn't caught on outside the boundaries of the discipline, nor entirely inside it. All philosophy is analytical, in the sense that understanding the meaning of statements and clarifying their meaning is a big part of what philosophers do. I think philosophy is this analysis to a large part, and the part about the specifics of what's true about the world is now science, at least at the frontiers. What we call ordinary life is just the science of an earlier time, or an earlier stage in our own life when we learned new things. 

     If I want to believe something I want to know what that is, and how I know it's true. If I don't know it's true why do I want to believe it? This doesn't seem like a truth, it seems like a wish, a desire. Shouldn't these be kept separate? There has to be a way of telling the difference, and there is. The ideas that can pass some test have truth value, and the ideas that can't be tested must find some other explanation. One such explanation is that the idea is a general rule, not a fact. An example is verification, which is used to establish the truth of a statement. Is verification itself true? No, it's a generalization about how to establish facts, not a fact itself. You could say that it's a meta-statement, not a fact about the world. Then there are value statements, which are treated differently. The situation is not as stark as you portray it. I don't go around trying to prove things any more than other people. Only the weird cases excite this behavior, so it's your fault. 

     

[Catison]

Well, Ernie, you'll see I included the word "falsifiable" especially for you. 

The final thread which broke in my Atheism was the realization that my belief in science was based upon a philosophy of materialism and naturalism.  Ultimately, all Atheists (distinct from agnostics) have to rationalize their beliefs through the lens of logical positivism, the philosophy that in order to have meaning an idea must be based on a physically tangible reality and must be falsifiable.  Moreover, most Atheists believe that we can study the world through science and arrive at an objective understanding of that reality.  I think it would be incorrect to characterize Atheists as needing proof to believe.  More generally, they believe that if there is no chance for objective proof, then it is irrational to believe.

Also, I know I muddled logical positivism and verificationism, but they are often identified together.

[drogulus]

Well, Ernie, you'll see I included the word "falsifiable" especially for you. 

Also, I know I muddled logical positivism and verificationism, but they are often identified together.

      Yes, I see that.  And I'd point out that analytical philosophers are quite self critical. Logical positivism didn't give a very good account of value statements. They were termed emotive statements, not statements of fact. I think this is right, but insufficient. Value statements are not harmed by not being factual, and not meaningless. The emotional system tells us how to turn what we experience into action plans, because facts without desires can't tell you what to do about what you know. You have to feel something. On the other hand, feelings can't establish the facts they need to work on. Many statements made by believers are value statements disguised as fact statements, which creates a confirmation problem that needn't arise when the actual meaning is teased out from the verbal confusion.

     People want a good life and want it to have as much meaning as possible, and they are willing to establish a fact rather than declare a value because this seems the quickest and surest way of doing it, and they are not too squeamish about the incongruities. There are also facts about death and suffering that are hard to accept, so they are not accepted. By covert means values become facts to solve these problems. It works well enough at the institutional level as well as the personal because it accords well with human nature which has a limited capacity to pursue truths beyond the survival value of what's near and immediate. We shouldn't be too surprised that a weak fact detection system is overruled by a very strong value system. The scientific/philosophical approach to these subjects is a late and somewhat discomfiting adaptation that doesn't need to be accepted universally to be valuable. People think they have the right to think what they want, and they do, of course. I just don't want the right to believe to be confused with warranted belief, which is what concerns me.

[Catison]

     If I want to believe something I want to know what that is, and how I know it's true. If I don't know it's true why do I want to believe it? This doesn't seem like a truth, it seems like a wish, a desire. Shouldn't these be kept separate? There has to be a way of telling the difference, and there is. The ideas that can pass some test have truth value, and the ideas that can't be tested must find some other explanation. One such explanation is that the idea is a general rule, not a fact. An example is verification, which is used to establish the truth of a statement. Is verification itself true? No, it's a generalization about how to establish facts, not a fact itself. You could say that it's a meta-statement, not a fact about the world. Then there are value statements, which are treated differently. The situation is not as stark as you portray it. I don't go around trying to prove things any more than other people. Only the weird cases excite this behavior, so it's your fault. 

I didn't doubt you would say anything different (not that there is anything wrong with that  0:)).

This is a common criticism of religion.  If you believe in the Christian God, then I can believe in vampires, or Hercules, or Frankenstein or a flying monster made of pasta.  Or, because you don't have any proof, you just want your God to exist because it makes you feel good.

These are very good criticisms, in my opinion.  The key component these arguments miss, and this is still a difficult one for me, is that belief in the (Christian) God generates Truth in the physical world.  Faith tells believers the right way to live.  Faith gives believers morals.  Faith motivates believers to humble themselves and be kind to their neighbors.  This is because only God holds the objective Truth, so he does not lead us astray.  Faith tells us what to do, and even when a believer doesn't follow it, he knows he should have.

Belief in other things, though, does not offer this moral consistency.  You may have morals, but if they are not grounded in an objective truth, they are arbitrary.  You may say that you get your morals from Frankenstein, but in reality you are just making them up on your own.  Even the evolutionary model of morals has this problem, because that theory simply states that the morals we have now are just the emergent set of whatever history we've had, not that these are the best set of morals.

This is a very Catholic understanding of the interaction of Faith and Truth, I'll admit.  And no doubt M has his "bullshit" key on a hair trigger and will bring up the Crusades to show the immorality of all Christians, but that's OK.  It will just allow me to write more. 

[Brian]

Hey, Brian...how did your summer abstinance from GMG go? Did you get a ton of reading in?

41 books! Or maybe it was 43, I can't remember. 

[Joe_Campbell]

And no doubt M has his "bullshit" key on a hair trigger and will bring up the Crusades to show the immorality of all Christians, but that's OK. 

It's right next to his "I find that interesting" key.

[Catison]

By covert means values become facts to solve these problems. It works well enough at the institutional level as well as the personal because it accords well with human nature which has a limited capacity to pursue truths beyond the survival value of what's near and immediate. We shouldn't be too surprised that a weak fact detection system is overruled by a very strong value system. The scientific/philosophical approach to these subjects is a late and somewhat discomfiting adaptation that doesn't need to be accepted universally to be valuable. People think they have the right to think what they want, and they do, of course. I just don't want the right to believe to be confused with warranted belief, which is what concerns me.

Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most.  (I wouldn't have made it this far in grad school without it.)  As such, I still converted first with my mind and then with my will.

I always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way.  I would like to think that one can be strong intellectually and still be religious.  The differences lie in matters of philosophy, not in matters of intelligence.

[adamdavid80]

Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most.  (I wouldn't have made it this far in grad school without it.)  

maybe, maybe not.  Are you on scolarship or are paying the school full tuition? 

[Brian]

Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most.

Unless you're in the humanities like me; then it's your BS detection system, surely. 

I always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way.  I would like to think that one can be strong intellectually and still be religious.  The differences lie in matters of philosophy, not in matters of intelligence.

Eh, that's a generalization [the first sentence]. I'm an atheist and have no problem telling you that Isaac Newton, Jane Goodall etc. are in no way "weak" because they believe in something. I believe that all people are basically good, and that's certainly irrational. 

[Bulldog]

Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most.  (I wouldn't have made it this far in grad school without it.)  As such, I still converted first with my mind and then with my will.

I always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way.  

For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves.  There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.

[drogulus]

  The key component these arguments miss, and this is still a difficult one for me, is that belief in the (Christian) God generates Truth in the physical world. 

   No, I think my last post addresses this point. Belief does not generate truths about the world beyond the dispositions of the believers. And then you illustrate precisely the point I tried to make in your next 3 sentences:

 Faith tells believers the right way to live.  Faith gives believers morals.  Faith motivates believers to humble themselves and be kind to their neighbors.  

     I couldn't put it better, though I certainly tried!

I always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way.  I would like to think that one can be strong intellectually and still be religious.  The differences lie in matters of philosophy, not in matters of intelligence.

     I don't do that. Smart people can believe dumb things, and provide brilliant rationalizations for doing so. I don't like to communicate with dumb people. It's nearly impossible to find anything interesting in what they say, and they don't understand anything I say, so it's a waste of time.

     Brett, we had an interesting exchange about the meaning of objectivity some time back. How could I possibly have that with a dumb person? Maybe you know a better class of dumb person than I do. IMO, they're like, really awful! 

For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves.  There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.

     That's too bad. This works better if you play along and have it out. And it doesn't make you a jerk, either, though jerks are allowed to play, too.

[adamdavid80]

For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves.  There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.

Amen.  Well said, Don.

[Catison]

Eh, that's a generalization [the first sentence]. I'm an atheist and have no problem telling you that Isaac Newton, Jane Goodall etc. are in no way "weak" because they believe in something. I believe that all people are basically good, and that's certainly irrational. 

For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves.  There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.

Yes, yes, yes.  Pardon my generalizations.  I should have said that I see this in the most outspoken Atheist, and I saw it in myself when I was an Atheist.  This is, of course, not what I said, so I am sorry.

[Catison]

   No, I think my last post addresses this point. Belief does not generate truths about the world beyond the dispositions of the believers.

But what other truth is there for beliefs, i.e. intangibles, to elucidate?   Faith doesn't tell you about the material world.  That is the unique job of science.

[drogulus]

Amen.  Well said, Don.

     I don't think there is anything about atheism that requires it to be kept private. The point is to explain the nature of beliefs in a way that makes the most sense, so you have to account for all the reasons beliefs are held. The truth of a belief is one reason, and there are others. There are survival values in some beliefs without regard to their truth. You may need to know the truth about a lion there in front of you, but the truth about a god is different. You have time to make up your mind, and tools you can use so you aren't thrown back on intuitions that aren't sharpened by the need to avoid being eaten. 

But what other truth is there for beliefs, i.e. intangibles, to elucidate?   Faith doesn't tell you about the material world.  That is the unique job of science.

     Beliefs don't elucidate truths except about what you feel and see in front of you. You need sharper tools to go beyond that. That's why I think the evolutionary explanation is good. It accounts for why we believe so accurately about near field things related to our needs and so poorly about distant things. We have to use our wits against our own inclinations to discover what's out there.

     If you really believed that faith didn't tell you about the material world you'd have to reevaluate those beliefs that are telling you about it, like the existence of a supernatural realm beyond the material world, which is a theory about the material world in covert form. Science doesn't have a fenced off area to operate in. That's an unwarranted belief, too. There would be no way of discovering such a thing, so it's a contradiction to propose it. When something is actually discovered it isn't fenced off, it's incorporated, and that's unlikely to change. Quine talks about the "web of belief", and what I think this means is that when something new is found the web is altered in some ways. A new web is never started, since there's no need. We benefit greatly by not being absolutists that have to abandon everything instead of changing it. 

[Catison]

That's an unwarranted belief, too. There would be no way of discovering such a thing, so it's a contradiction to propose it.

Aww now c'mon Ernie.  Is there any way to discover that that is true?

[Bulldog]

     I don't think there is anything about atheism that requires it to be kept private. The point is to explain the nature of beliefs in a way that makes the most sense, so you have to account for all the reasons beliefs are held.

Although I think the two of us possess similar views about religion, we differ greatly about the private/public issue.  Sure, there's nothing that requires that atheism or theism be kept private.  However, making these views public just causes dissension and ill-will, as we often see on this board of well educated and intelligent persons.  IF everyone simply practiced their religious/non-religious beliefs in a private matter, the world would be more stable and amicable.  

I'm confident you see good things that come out of debating these matters, but I see nothing but constant repetition and/or bitching.

[Bulldog]

That's too bad. This works better if you play along and have it out.

Well, I think it's a waste of time except for those who love the subject.

[drogulus]

Aww now c'mon Ernie.  Is there any way to discover that that is true?

     Yes, by trying to see if there's warrant for the supernatural belief.

     There's a realm beyond knowledge.

     I have a belief about it.

     The belief is therefore not knowledge.

     Or, the first statement isn't true, and the belief is about something else.

     How much more unwarranted can you get?  _0:)
     
     

Well, I think it's a waste of time except for those who love the subject.

     That's true. Hooray for those who are interested, then! All others beware! _{(I think they do beware, don't they? But that's up to them)}

[Catison]

     How much more unwarranted can you get?  _0:)

Ernie, by your own standards, the statement that all things should be verifiable is itself unwarranted.  There is no way to prove things need verification to be true, therefore it is a belief.