I enjoyed reading this “My Defining Moment” piece from actor and writer Ricky Gervais.
He became an atheist at age eight, over one afternoon. How smart must he be? It took me years! Sometimes I get envious of other people’s intellect.
I enjoyed reading this “My Defining Moment” piece from actor and writer Ricky Gervais.
He became an atheist at age eight, over one afternoon. How smart must he be? It took me years! Sometimes I get envious of other people’s intellect.
Comments are closed.
© 2024 Good Reason
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
25 February 2008 at 9:58 pm
His thinking is clean, crisp, and witty with sprinkled bits of british humor too. And I agree with the conclusion. However, he arrived there because there was no evidence of God in his experience.
However, if God does demonstrate that existence to you, then what do you do? Wait. Don’t answer that. I’ve already heard it. Mass hysteria, delusion, see a shrink, blah-blah.
Instead, maybe you should consider there are believers out there that have had remarkable experiences that they cannot explain any other way. You should be understanding and be very careful about what you conclude and not rule out the possibility of there being a God. God can exist outside of some people’s experience just fine (for a time). I really don’t have a problem with that. But, don’t think that all the rest of humanity is deluding themselves either.
26 February 2008 at 6:42 pm
This is nothing more than the old argument that if you experience something outside your realm of understanding, the default explanation must be a god, rather than it’s something YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND. And sorry, but belief in god IS delusional, since it is a belief for which there is not one shred of evidence.
26 February 2008 at 7:49 pm
anon,
Don’t be silly. “not one shred of evidence” is a silly limb to climb out on when speaking about the existence of God. Let me clarify what you are really saying. Unless you can see God and everyone else can see God, there is no evidence you will ever accept no matter how strong. However, to claim there isn’t any evidence is ludicrous on its face. There is plenty of historical evidence that you can get from personal accounts that show the existence of God; however, this evidence is not something you’ll ever accept because it involves trusting the accounts of people that have seen/experienced those remarkable events. I myself have experienced similar things, but the standard answer for those unexplainable events is that it was a random occurrence and God had nothing to do with it.
26 February 2008 at 11:50 pm
Don’t be silly. “not one shred of evidence” is a silly limb to climb out on when speaking about the existence of God.
This would be more convincing if you were able to provide a shred of evidence. I have asked.
Unless you can see God and everyone else can see God, there is no evidence you will ever accept no matter how strong.
Now you’re alluding to a really great question: what kind of evidence would be acceptable? It’s not true that no evidence would be sufficient. I’ll give you two.
1) If there were some (yes) double-blind replicable study showing that some goddy practice (e.g. prayer) had some effect beyond what we could explain by other variables. Many such studies have been done, and they all show no effect, or can’t be replicated.
2) If someone were able to make very specific predictions that came true, that we couldn’t explain in the usual ways, that’d put them in the running for supernatural-being-hood. Like one thing god could do is to tell how he made the world, and then have those methods confirmed by experimental results.
Of course, this would presume god were more willing to show up than he has historically been. God’s kind of secretive, like UFO’s. People say god does things? Drag his sorry ass in here and let’s get some answers!
Ironically, having gods or angels appear to you would be poor evidence. You could hallucinate angels or imagine you saw god. People do. You’ve got to make sure you’re not fooling yourself.
27 February 2008 at 12:05 am
Tobin you say: maybe you should consider there are believers out there that have had remarkable experiences *that they cannot explain any other way*.
That assumes that they have the knowledge (and capacity to apply that knowledge) to have excluded all other possible explanations. As the explanation that it is produced through neurological activity is perfectly plausible and much evidence exists to support it (such as people having ‘religious’ experiences when parts of the their brain is stimulated) I can only assume that the people you are referring to haven’t actually exhausted all the ‘possible explanations’ and are simply ignorant or ill-educated or in denial.
27 February 2008 at 12:06 am
hmm that previous comment was from me.
27 February 2008 at 12:58 am
Daniel,
I’ve already answered your question about specific evidence. That is why I have continued to ignore your repeated requests for evidence because your approach contains some flawed suppositions (which you later highlighted). To start with – suppose God is a four dimensional being as I have no doubt that God is. Such a being would seem to have amazing abilities and would be a dynamic and active force in the universe. However, do you really think that being would participate in a double blind study? As far as telling the future, I’m sure that isn’t a problem for God either. But you’d have to speak to God about it.
Anyway, to make it more clear, all the evidence I have for God is completely insufficient to address your requirements because I can only rely on my own experiences (which you have not shared) and historical accounts for which you can conjure any number of alternate explanations for (even though it goes right to my point that God is an active and dynamic force in time). My personal interactions I have had with people that have shared similar experiences (even those that aren’t believers and don’t understand what those experiences are) just reinforces the evidence that I have, but again – none of this would be sufficient enough for you. So, what is the point of trying to answer your challenge when it is beyond my abilities (being that I am not God)? All I can tell you is that there is most certainly a God and it is inevitable that you will be confronted with that reality. Other than that, there really is nothing I can do to help you since finding that out isn’t really up to me – it is between you and God.
27 February 2008 at 3:46 am
Fun activity: Try swapping ‘Thor’ for ‘God’ in Tobin’s last comment.
Wait until you die and have to suffer the wrath of Thor. Then you’ll be sorry.
Tobin, my man, if you’re making a claim, it’s not unreasonable for me to ask for solid empirical evidence for that claim. Feelings and experiences don’t cut it.
27 February 2008 at 4:40 am
Following up on snowqueen’s comment:
Tobin says: maybe you should consider there are believers out there that have had remarkable experiences that they cannot explain any other way.
Their lack of imagination is not my problem.
I’m calling this one “Argument from Paucity of Imagination”.
27 February 2008 at 4:42 am
Now I’m reminded of this page of Proofs of God.
Tobin’s is on there: it’s #335.
ARGUMENT FROM FEELING GOD’S PRESENCE
(1) Atheists just haven’t truly felt God’s presence yet.
(2) If they had ever felt God’s presence, they would not be Atheists.
(3) Theists have truly felt God’s presence.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
27 February 2008 at 5:50 am
Thor exists. My Marvel Encyclopedia says so.
Vaguely related question: where do you guys stand on issues like the historicity of the Trojan War or King Arthur?
Trust me, there’s logic behind the question.
27 February 2008 at 1:36 pm
I have no doubt that King Arthur is a four dimensional being.
27 February 2008 at 7:57 pm
Daniel,
Give me a break. You set such a high bar for the existence of God, yet I know you don’t have such proof for the vast majority of other “facts” you supposedly know. A lot of what we know is based on our belief in what someone else says or prints and our own experiences. Also, plenty of scientists have tried to put forward scientific theories based on their own beliefs and experiences that go against the thinking of the time to only have been rebuffed in exactly the same way because we have inadequate technology to prove it. Today, people are quite certain that there is other life in the universe. Can we prove it? No. But, it is undoubtedly true.
You have no evidence that God exists. Fine. Don’t believe it. That is only rational. But, I’m telling you that in time we will see who is right. That is the funny thing about the truth; it has a way of panning out in the long run.
27 February 2008 at 8:44 pm
“That is the funny thing about the truth; it has a way of panning out in the long run.”
God exists because there’ve been people through history who’ve ‘felt’ him but there is no universally available evidence.
Scientific understanding of the world (‘facts’) have enabled us to send men to the moon and back, light our houses, create computers (the list is endlesssssssssssssss)
On the ‘panning out in the long run’ competition, God’s definitely losing out big time.
Tobin – if you are so sure of God’s existence and your salvation, why on earth do you persist in these discussions – just to be *right*?? Just be happy!
27 February 2008 at 8:49 pm
snowqueen,
Fine. If my comments are annoying people, I’ll happily refrain from now on. I came into this with full knowledge that there was a zero probability of changing anyone’s mind. I have enjoyed the back-and-forth banter. Thanks guys.
27 February 2008 at 11:28 pm
Aw, I like having a theist around. Just to have the other side represented, you know.
I haven’t really set a high bar for supernatural existence. I’ve listed two possibilities, and they’re pretty mild. I haven’t asked for any heavenly visitations or world peace. Just a replicable study! What could be more pedestrian?
You set such a high bar for the existence of God, yet I know you don’t have such proof for the vast majority of other “facts” you supposedly know.
You know, I bet you’re right on this. There are probably a lot of things I think are true (like was there really a city called Troy?), but if I examined them evidentially, they’d turn out to be false. Good! Everyone: please tell me when that happens! Then I learn more.
The difference between you and me is that if I find out that a belief is poorly evidenced, I change my beliefs.
And the remedy is more science, not less.
28 February 2008 at 2:35 am
“There are probably a lot of things I think are true (like was there really a city called Troy?), but if I examined them evidentially, they’d turn out to be false.”
The evidence for Troy is ambiguous, and there’s no scientific way of discerning how many of the myths about it are true. There was a time when the whole thing was generally dismissed as a fairy tale, but then a fellow called Heinrich Schliemann came along with a rather naive belief in the accuracy of the Homeric epics and actually found ruins of the right size and age in the right place.
The debate is still going, and aside from the occasional lucky find, it’s really just a question of how convincing you find the various accounts to be. Same for King Arthur, there’s no way of knowing if he ever existed, it’s a question of which authors you find convincing. Was Geoffrey of Monmouth telling the truth about the source he was using, for instance? Science can’t help here.
This is where I agree with Tobin. A lot of religious belief comes down to how convincing you find the various authors. Was Joseph Smith telling the truth, or did he make the story up? Which accounts are true, which ones are false? The judgement is a subjective one. If you’re inclined to trust stories like that, and you have personal experiences that support that view, then your beliefs are justified.
Since Tobin can’t transfer his experiences to me, I’m not in a position to judge whether or not they come from God. Even if I could, it would be a subjective judgement.
28 February 2008 at 11:52 pm
Tobin, I think I said ‘be happy’ not ‘go away’!!! (and this isn’t my blog anyway) It was a genuine question – is your motivation to be right? If so, why?
29 February 2008 at 12:29 am
snowqueen,
It hard to pick up nuance in blogs – I just felt you didn’t see a point to my posts and was wondering if I wouldn’t be happier just being right and to get lost. Anyway, I’m not interested in being “right”. I’m more interested in being “wrong” and testing my ideas in open discourse. In my experience, that is the best way to learn. That is where I differ with Daniel in his characterization of what I’m saying and driving at. I’m not only trying to challenge his ideas, but my own as well. I also learn from my mistakes and improve. Any rational person should start with the premise that they may be mistaken and attach some likelihood to that being true. To verify that you are correct, you can’t put your head in the sand and not test and try your ideas, since there is no way to gain real insight with people that always agree with you. One of the best ways to do that is expose yourself to a people that don’t necessarily endorse your views. Since I’m Mormon, I find that I naturally gravitate towards those who were formerly Mormon (and hopefully passionately so).
29 February 2008 at 1:01 am
This isn’t my area, so you’ll need to excuse my naïveté.
The debate is still going, and aside from the occasional lucky find, it’s really just a question of how convincing you find the various accounts to be. Same for King Arthur, there’s no way of knowing if he ever existed, it’s a question of which authors you find convincing. Was Geoffrey of Monmouth telling the truth about the source he was using, for instance? Science can’t help here.
I’m not sure science won’t help. It’s just that the situation you’re describing is one where facts are scarce, and so there are limited conclusions we can draw (not that that stops people!). But ceteris paribus, the more available the facts are, the easier it is to reach consensus about what really happened, no? I doubt it would be possible to have a discipline where everyone were making things up without any facts at all. Such a discipline would be a noisy tumult of opinions and strife. Or am I describing a typical history department? 🙂
Anyway, the situation you’re describing is a bit different than the one we’re in. Yes, the stories of Jesus and Joseph Smith happened long ago, but people are still claiming that god finds their car keys, heals their diseases, and so on every day. We can examine these claims.
You may find it interesting that I didn’t start to doubt Joseph Smith directly, but only as I came to doubt god’s existence in the present did I conclude that he must have been mistaken or dishonest. That was disillusioning!
29 February 2008 at 4:40 am
Daniel,
Actually, I find that very interesting and refreshing. “You may find it interesting that I didn’t start to doubt Joseph Smith directly, but only as I came to doubt god’s existence in the present did I conclude that he must have been mistaken or dishonest.”
Most ex-Mormons start having problems with other things, which always strikes me as rather odd. If God has told you to be Mormon (something more than just feelings), then it has always bothered me greatly when someone leaves the church over minutia having to do with church history, etc. A much better way to attack the problem is if you have no evidence of God, then Joseph is clearly a nut and a liar and should not be believed. Makes sense to me. It isn’t true, but it is a reasonable approach.