Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't knowingly believe anything without evidence, so my beliefs are either evidence-based or else I am delusional in that I think the evidence I have mandates a certain belief, but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont define faith as belief-without-evidence but it is true there is no objective evidence - merely a subjective experience, inaccessible to others. I dont accept this as no evidence, although I concede it is weak, unreliable and worth doubting (especially if it leads to a conclusion contradicting empirically derived beliefs). I think there is a third category of evidence-derived beliefs one has. My route to theism involved discovering I believed in God, not choosing to do so. I can see several obvious naturalistic explanations for my experiences (which psychologically I think I would prefer to be true) - so I am not in the position of thinking the evidence mandates my belief, merely that it supports it, albeit very weakly. Dont you have some beliefs even though you can see that there are alternative explanations for the evidence before you? Ie some beliefs without certainty?

It is also entirely possible (and I would think very likely) that you have a whole bunch of beliefs which arent derived from evidence - I'm thinking of the consequences of cultural, political, psychological or emotional differences that exist between people for example. My comment arose from considering this situation. The question then is, what would happen if one of those was pointed out to you? I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming the ability to "switch off" a belief if they suddenly became aware that there was a gap in their evidence chain (though I expect it would gradually disappear over time).

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Most people think their beliefs are justified. I don't think any human being on this planet would find that the majority of their beliefs actually are, if they could examine them reliably and objectively.

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't knowingly believe anything without evidence, so my beliefs are either evidence-based or else I am delusional in that I think the evidence I have mandates a certain belief, but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont define faith as belief-without-evidence but it is true there is no objective evidence - merely a subjective experience, inaccessible to others. I dont accept this as no evidence, although I concede it is weak, unreliable and worth doubting (especially if it leads to a conclusion contradicting empirically derived beliefs). I think there is a third category of evidence-derived beliefs one has. My route to theism involved discovering I believed in God, not choosing to do so. I can see several obvious naturalistic explanations for my experiences (which psychologically I think I would prefer to be true) - so I am not in the position of thinking the evidence mandates my belief, merely that it supports it, albeit very weakly. Dont you have some beliefs even though you can see that there are alternative explanations for the evidence before you? Ie some beliefs without certainty?

It is also entirely possible (and I would think very likely) that you have a whole bunch of beliefs which arent derived from evidence - I'm thinking of the consequences of cultural, political, psychological or emotional differences that exist between people for example. My comment arose from considering this situation. The question then is, what would happen if one of those was pointed out to you? I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming the ability to "switch off" a belief if they suddenly became aware that there was a gap in their evidence chain (though I expect it would gradually disappear over time).

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Most people think their beliefs are justified. I don't think any human being on this planet would find that the majority of their beliefs actually are, if they could examine them reliably and objectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm. Nah. It reads like a comparison of apples, oranges and old socks.

I believe rhubarb tastes good ...but it contains the 'to me'. It doesn't lead me to make universal claims about rhubarb.

The "subjective experience" source that can't be shared - such as not liking redheads because of a nasty next door one when we were 9 but we have no conscious understanding of is not like a known religious experience that causes us to have a belief. It's more like the reasons I don't like blue.

luckyme

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't knowingly believe anything without evidence, so my beliefs are either evidence-based or else I am delusional in that I think the evidence I have mandates a certain belief, but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont define faith as belief-without-evidence but it is true there is no objective evidence - merely a subjective experience, inaccessible to others. I dont accept this as no evidence, although I concede it is weak, unreliable and worth doubting (especially if it leads to a conclusion contradicting empirically derived beliefs). I think there is a third category of evidence-derived beliefs one has. My route to theism involved discovering I believed in God, not choosing to do so. I can see several obvious naturalistic explanations for my experiences (which psychologically I think I would prefer to be true) - so I am not in the position of thinking the evidence mandates my belief, merely that it supports it, albeit very weakly. Dont you have some beliefs even though you can see that there are alternative explanations for the evidence before you? Ie some beliefs without certainty?

It is also entirely possible (and I would think very likely) that you have a whole bunch of beliefs which arent derived from evidence - I'm thinking of the consequences of cultural, political, psychological or emotional differences that exist between people for example. My comment arose from considering this situation. The question then is, what would happen if one of those was pointed out to you? I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming the ability to "switch off" a belief if they suddenly became aware that there was a gap in their evidence chain (though I expect it would gradually disappear over time).

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Most people think their beliefs are justified. I don't think any human being on this planet would find that the majority of their beliefs actually are, if they could examine them reliably and objectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm. Nah. It reads like a comparison of apples, oranges and old socks.

I believe rhubarb tastes good ...but it contains the 'to me'. It doesn't lead me to make universal claims about rhubarb.

The "subjective experience" source that can't be shared - such as not liking redheads because of a nasty next door one when we were 9 but we have no conscious understanding of is not like a known religious experience that causes us to have a belief. It's more like the reasons I don't like blue.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a belief about what it feels like to me when I stub my toe? If yes, crucial to that belief is the subjective experience of what it feels like to you when you stub your toe.

Subjective experience is a source of evidence - it's just amongst the weakest and least reliable there is.

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't knowingly believe anything without evidence, so my beliefs are either evidence-based or else I am delusional in that I think the evidence I have mandates a certain belief, but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont define faith as belief-without-evidence but it is true there is no objective evidence - merely a subjective experience, inaccessible to others. I dont accept this as no evidence, although I concede it is weak, unreliable and worth doubting (especially if it leads to a conclusion contradicting empirically derived beliefs). I think there is a third category of evidence-derived beliefs one has. My route to theism involved discovering I believed in God, not choosing to do so. I can see several obvious naturalistic explanations for my experiences (which psychologically I think I would prefer to be true) - so I am not in the position of thinking the evidence mandates my belief, merely that it supports it, albeit very weakly. Dont you have some beliefs even though you can see that there are alternative explanations for the evidence before you? Ie some beliefs without certainty?

It is also entirely possible (and I would think very likely) that you have a whole bunch of beliefs which arent derived from evidence - I'm thinking of the consequences of cultural, political, psychological or emotional differences that exist between people for example. My comment arose from considering this situation. The question then is, what would happen if one of those was pointed out to you? I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming the ability to "switch off" a belief if they suddenly became aware that there was a gap in their evidence chain (though I expect it would gradually disappear over time).

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Most people think their beliefs are justified. I don't think any human being on this planet would find that the majority of their beliefs actually are, if they could examine them reliably and objectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm. Nah. It reads like a comparison of apples, oranges and old socks.

I believe rhubarb tastes good ...but it contains the 'to me'. It doesn't lead me to make universal claims about rhubarb.

The "subjective experience" source that can't be shared - such as not liking redheads because of a nasty next door one when we were 9 but we have no conscious understanding of is not like a known religious experience that causes us to have a belief. It's more like the reasons I don't like blue.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a belief about what it feels like to me when I stub my toe? If yes, crucial to that belief is the subjective experience of what it feels like to you when you stub your toe.

Subjective experience is a source of evidence - it's just amongst the weakest and least reliable there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

All that says is "if someone else has this experience it'll likely feel the same to them" which is not the case with liking rhubard or not liking redheaded girls. Toe-stubbing assumptions are easily dismissed with a mere few words from some co-stubber stating a differing experience.

Even a person who believes it's going to rain when their knee aches wouldn't claim it's "weak and unreliable" evidence .... in that case they wouldn't trust it, just as they don't trust their nose itches indicate stock market moves.

Someone changing their worldview to include a eternal powerful entity that cares about their life doesn't consider the evidence for it "weak and unreliable" ..that's a conceptual oxymoron.
( the fact it is weak and unreliable notwithstanding)

luckyme

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
All that says is "if someone else has this experience it'll likely feel the same to them" which is not the case with liking rhubard or not liking redheaded girls. Toe-stubbing assumptions are easily dismissed with a mere few words from some co-stubber stating a differing experience.

Even a person who believes it's going to rain when their knee aches wouldn't claim it's "weak and unreliable" evidence .... in that case they wouldn't trust it, just as they don't trust their nose itches indicate stock market moves.

Someone changing their worldview to include a eternal powerful entity that cares about their life doesn't consider the evidence for it "weak and unreliable" ..that's a conceptual oxymoron.
( the fact it is weak and unreliable notwithstanding)

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
You've lost me now, I'm afraid. My worldview has changed to include an eternal powerful entity that cares about my life and I consider the evidence weak and unreliable. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I dont understand the first part either. I thought you were stating a view that the only beliefs relying on subjective experience were preference statements. I dont think this is true. I think we have uncontroversial, positive beliefs which rest (in part) on our subjective experiences.

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the first part either....

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a luxury to be understood.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

luckyme

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

bunny,

What do you mean when you say "God"?

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

My best definition of god is "The benevolent creator of the universe able to do everything it is possible to do and able to know everything it is possible to know."

EDIT: In case you are going down the "How does your experience imply the existence of god (as opposed to a mentally communicating alien, a comforting self-delusion or a culturally conditioned interpretation of some mental phenomenon for example)?" - I dont think it does logically imply it. These are some of the alternative naturalistic explanations I feel a skeptical observer should be more likely to back. My position is that my belief in god was a discovery - backed by only one slender piece of evidence of dubious value with many competing and more ontologically simple explanations. My preference would be to accept one of the competing explanations and that was the path I tried to take for several years, but ultimately it didnt alter the fact that I still found myself believing in a god.

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the first part either....

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a luxury to be understood.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Want to have another go and luxuriate in your achievement?

Re: In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is also entirely possible (and I would think very likely) that you have a whole bunch of beliefs which arent derived from evidence - I'm thinking of the consequences of cultural, political, psychological or emotional differences that exist between people for example. My comment arose from considering this situation. The question then is, what would happen if one of those was pointed out to you? I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming the ability to "switch off" a belief if they suddenly became aware that there was a gap in their evidence chain (though I expect it would gradually disappear over time).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are beliefs that I hold that don't have anything to do with the objective world. For instance, I believe that it is good to refrain from hurting people for no reason. That belief is concerning a subjective judgement, not an objective fact. To my knowledge (excluding axiomatic beliefs such as that there exists an objective world at all) I don't hold any beliefs about the objective world which I realise are unsupported by evidence. You can suggest some possible ones I might hold if you think I'm wrong.