Why bother with God? (General)

by dhw, Friday, May 27, 2011, 14:26 (4738 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: The distinction is getting blurred, dhw. I know you're using dictionary definitions of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" but many atheists are identifying themselves under exactly the definition used by agnostics--for precisely the reason that they feel that the "agnostic" label gives unnecessary weight to the supernatural.-Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God. Atheists believe there is no God. You are now telling me that many atheists neither believe nor disbelieve in God because not believing and not disbelieving gives unnecessary weight to the supernatural. Time for the breathalyzer?-MATT: Part of why I wish to complete our epistemological framework is because I myself simply don't know how to give weight to things like the paranormal. Five people who saw the same thing are only giving an eyewitness account of something, and that simply isn't enough for me to make a positive claim for its existence [...]
 
I have no frame of reference. How about that? There's nothing for me to believe because there's nothing for me to study--objectively they're just words on paper. What's the difference between paranormal stories and Christ's resurrection? If I give weight to a guy who said he was abducted by aliens, or saw a ghost--how am I to treat the Resurrection?-I have precisely the same problem with the examples you have given, but I specifically drew your attention to the one area of paranormal activity which DOES have a frame of reference. I can only repeat what I said before: Pim van Lommel, David, BBella and I have all given examples of people obtaining information to which they could have had no normal access. The information has been confirmed by third parties. As a neutral observer, I focus on this form of the paranormal because it is precise and testable in so far as the information has proved to be true. No-one can explain consciousness, and these examples could imply a form of consciousness, perception and identity that is independent of the physical brain. Until a satisfactory explanation has been found, I withhold belief and disbelief.
 
MATT: In terms of "dodging," remember that "God did it!" is a conclusion.
 
Remember that "Chance did it!" is also a conclusion. I repeat: what hard questions do theists dodge which are not also dodged by atheists?-dhw: If it is appropriate for you NOT to consider the problem of origins, then clearly you are in favour of "dodging" the issue ... which is precisely what you accuse theists of doing! (You introduced the term ... I didn't!) And by ignoring the problem, you continue to misrepresent the argument against chance.
MATT: How? Be explicit. If we don't have an answer for something, how am I supposed to bring it into a discussion on evolution? You don't need to know how abiogenesis happened in order to study life, or clearly biology wouldn't exist. The question of origins is separate from the question of evolution. One studies life after it happened, one studies how life came to be.-But the discussion is not on evolution. The discussion is on the issue of Chance versus Design. You dismissed David's argument "Life is too complex to arrive by chance" as an attempt to dodge hard problems, two of which you identified as abiogenesis and cosmology. You now say it is "appropriate" not to consider abiogenesis! Ah, Matt, in the contest between xeno and xeno, who do you put your money on? Of course it suits you (and Pigliucci?) to restrict the discussion to evolution, because you can point to all the aspects that are not dictated by chance. We have no disagreement on these. But the research being done on the genome is uncovering layer upon layer of complex mechanisms. The more our scientists uncover, the greater the complexity of the mechanisms that have made evolution possible. This ... Chapter 1, not Chapter 2, of life's history ... is the core of the case for design, and for the belief that "life is too complex to arrive by chance".
 
At the risk of being a bore (a risk I take far too often ... my apologies!), let me just reiterate my own position. Like David, I find it impossible to actively believe that chance could assemble the complex mechanisms which gave rise to life and evolution. Unlike David, I find it impossible to believe in an intelligent being of infinitely greater complexity that somehow just happens to be there. This leaves me open to the possible truth of both alternatives ... chance and design ... and hence also to the possibility that a) there is nothing, or b) there are dimensions and forms of existence, beyond the material world as we know it.