RoR: Forum

An excellent article and discussion. I hope we hear from you often.
I have tried to make similar points in recent articles re: the dangers of condemning all religious people, so I welcome your perspective on this matter.

Post 21

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:33am

Thank you, James. Gotta do it, man- the RWF hammerheads have no boundaries.

Post 22

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:25am

Rich,
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you mean by religious. Are you using religious and spiritual synonymously? Does a religious person, according to your definition, have to believe in God?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 23

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:48pm

Glenn Fletcher asks the Big Question:

I'm having a hard time figuring out what you mean by religious. Are you using religious and spiritual synonymously? Does a religious person, according to your definition, have to believe in God?

If you mean do they have to be a deist, no. "God" is used broadly, much to the chagrin of RWF'ers (I like that, it's blatantly insulting if you look at it wrong...).

The basic viewpoint on what religion, and the religious/spritual/mystical (interchange at will) consists of for people like me often traces back to the work of William James, who broke a lot of early ground. James is good to look at because of his philosophic (as in pretty much creating Pragmatism) and scientific, and psychological background. Bertrand Russell wrote an interesting treatment on James in "The History of Western Philosophy" (a very fine used copy of which I was happy to find at 1/2 price books for four bucks the other day...) The lecture series "On the Varieties of Religious Experience" dealt with accepting that religion is a collective term, just like God. A quick zoom there might help you with your figuring, if you don't mind crossing over to the Dark Side for a moment. Clear your browser history immediately afterwards, and we will never speak of this again. http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james3.htm#26 .

rde
See you in hell.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/10, 2:49pm)

Post 24

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 12:40pm

Snow Dog,

You wrote,

"Reason can prove that God does NOT exist"

and then you gave the following in support that statement,

"Positive assertions without evidence must be reasonably rejected"

This is true, but then you assume it proves that God does not exist presumably because the theist hasn�t given any evidence of God�s existence. But that is too much. The absence of evidence for the existence of God is NOT evidence for his absence (i.e., his non-existence). This is the appeal to ignorance and it is a fallacy. And you can see why. All you have to do it corner a really stupid 10 year old kid and say, �Can you prove God exists?� and when he says he can�t throw your hands up in triumph and claim that you've just proved that God does not exist.
The most you can say is that your opponent hasn�t proven his position and therefore you don�t have to accept the existence of God. But this is very different from providing a proof that God does not exist.

Fred

Post 25

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:34am

The most you can say is that your opponent hasn�t proven his position and therefore you don�t have to accept the existence of God. But this is very different from providing a proof that God does not exist.

I disagree. There must be some distinction between arbitrary assertions and credible assertions. Without evidence, it's just arbitrary and arbitrary assertions must be thrown out of the body of knowledge and not considered. On what basis would one consider an arbitrary assertion possible? There's no evidence for the consideration. Is the lack of evidence for an arbitrary assertion 'proof' that the assertion is false? That's an interesting question. It's like the proverbial question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" It implies that arbitrary assertions can be proven. But the arbitrary assertion is beyond proof. It's beyond the point of consideration, equally as invalid.

But for the issue of God, it's not the lack of evidence that invalidates the concept. It's that God cannot be defined. Without a definition, there's nothing to even look for. There's no concept for which one could even try to find evidence. To find evidence for something, the 'thing' must first be defined.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie (Houston)

Post 26

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:49am

Snow Dog:

But for the issue of God, it's not the lack of evidence that invalidates the concept. It's that God cannot be defined. Without a definition, there's nothing to even look for. There's no concept for which one could even try to find evidence. To find evidence for something, the 'thing' must first be defined.

The proof of burden for definition lies on the one attempting to do so. Language is a particular difficulty here. Even though "God" is a broadly-used word, the common usage is that there is a guy upstairs, made in man's own image, but with awesome super powers. A much more precise language is needed.

It's like when you say "world," it's likely that most people have common images of what that is- the microcosm of the little town they live in, or a picture of the whole planet with everyone in it, and so on. When I use the term "world," in the context of these kinds of discussions, it means something more inclusive in terms of cosmology.

The experience of "God" is pluralistic, it is unique to the individual, with some commonalities appearing that can be discussed.

The real issue is as I said before- logic is equally ineffective whether it argues for or against religion. You can either accept that you have failed in your mission to persuade someone and look to the reasons, or dismiss any and all that you have attempted to persuade as unevolved independent thinkers, "mystics" (in the derogatory sense that O'ism uses it), "evaders," and so on.

You cannot convince me that there is no "God" because of the depth of my individual religious experience- logic cannot unpry it. Your evaluation of what that means about me makes no matter. The purpose of what I wrote, of course, was different.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/13, 11:50am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/13, 11:53am)

Post 27

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 12:00pm