Atheists and proof

[Kdtym10]

On several threads, some atheists have said they would believe in God/the Divine if they had proof. If you’re an atheist what would that proof look like to you?

The Ellsberg Paradox is a good one.

Being presented as an absolute truth, yet there is lack of agreement even in their own ranks.

But atheists don't need to have ranks, or believe in an "absolute truth"

All atheism is, is a lack of belief in any God. As opposed to, for example, a Christians lack of belief in the Celtic God's.

We don't have to all agree why we don't believe it because we never set out to be a united viewpoint anyway, unlike an organised religion

And given there are numerous religions and numerous God's that have or are being worshiped it's not like the belief in a/any God's can be presented as an absolute truth as there is a lack of agreement in those ranks. Heck the lack of agreement between Protestants and Catholics has been responsible for years of deaths.

Believers measure the truth of competing ideologies only by the rules of their own game. The followers are so tied into their own belief system that they are often blind to what they are doing.

Yes this can be a problem with religious beliefs

A quick google seems to say that it is about people being numpties about maths, about probability outcomes. That's not cognitive dissonance (simultaneously holding two opposing ideas), it's being acognitive (not using your brains).

Are you drunk?

No, I’m an atheist. I don’t actually believe gods can exist. The point is that any being assigned the label God is just a more evolved or differently evolved individual incorrectly labeled as a god by someone who is following a religious construct to explain what they don’t understand.

A quick google seems to say that it is about people being numpties about maths, about probability outcomes. That's not cognitive dissonance (simultaneously holding two opposing ideas), it's being acognitive (not using your brains).

@senua, the Ellsberg paradox says something quite telling about human nature. In that there is often a preference for that which is quantified and known over that which is not known even though the unknown might offer greater benefits.

In terms of cognitive dissonance, where two opposing ideas held causes mental discomfort, it is easier to dismiss one over the other than searching for a link between the two ideas (which may take time and indeed never happen). For example, with the old argument of nature versus nurture it would have been premature to polarise the positions. We are now finding out more and more biologically how intertwined these factors are in determining our physical and mental state.

the Ellsberg paradox says something quite telling about human nature. In that there is often a preference for that which is quantified and known over that which is not known even though the unknown might offer greater benefits.
Might? You want me to place a bet on 'might'?

God might exist. So might unicorns. Which one shall I believe in?

@senua,

Might? You want me to place a bet on 'might'?

Look closely at the Ellsberg Paradox. There is reason for choosing an option of unquantifiable odds which often greater benefits than that with quantified not very favourable odds which offers lesser benefits. And yet people tend to favour that which is quantified and known.

God might exist. So might unicorns. Which one shall I believe in?

The choice is yours. Many would rather believe in unicorns it would seem...

Offers not often

@senua, do you understand how a tolerance for cognitive dissonance is necessary for learning now? It prevents a premature polarisation of positions. Rather than dismissing the new information because it clashes with a position already held (that which is already 'known') maybe try holding the alternative position as long as possible in the hope you can reconcile the two.

So as such I have no problem with scientific knowledge existing alongside my faith in God. Even when scientific discoveries appear to conflict with religious teachings. It is simply not the complete picture.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is my choice. You can’t “disprove” it. It’s just the same as saying you believe in science. They are two different models to understand the universe. I don’t have any evidence for it but the demand for evidence is something your worldview insists on, not mine. You are closed-minded. You are being aggressive when you doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You are not providing new information though, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

You are also incorrectly assuming that someone with a rational scientific approach treats the current best theory as an absolute belief.

They are two different models to understand the universe.

@CaterhamReconstituted, not according to my understanding which if you are talking about models of understanding is relevant here. In my model of understanding there is overlap as I have talked about upthread. I suspect many people of faith think like me. And many scientists are also people of faith. It is you that is trying to create a false dichotomy.

You are not providing new information though, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

@fedupandstuck, cognitive dissonance can cover subject matter which includes what might be possible along with what has already being experienced, you know.

And new information can include ideas and philosophies.

We can accept there are things we don’t understand. Science also doesn’t tell us how to live our lives. There are important things aside from science.

But when religions make claims about the material world - how the Universe formed, the existence of deities, miracles, the power of prayer to affect events, people being born to virgins and coming back from the dead - these directly intrude upon the territory of science and are irreconcilable with what we know to be true.

are irreconcilable with what we know to be true.

@CaterhamReconstituted,as yet irreconcilable I would say. Which makes 'know' a moot point. And if you get more comfortable with cognitive dissonance you are in a better position to find out exactly how the spiritual might manifest into the physical realm. But quite humourously you are asserting these things would have to be miracles (as they conflict with scientific laws) or untrue so you have plumped for untrue.

Even when scientific discoveries appear to conflict with religious teachings. It is simply not the complete picture.

@heyhohello It sounds like you are not open minded and curious about the possibility that new discoveries might DISPROVE God's existence. You seem unwilling ti even consider any other explanations.

That's where non believers differ - we are curious and open minded and will to change our minds, based on any new evidence.

*willing

@Lalupalina well we'll have to wait and see won't we.😉

”I” haven’t done anything. It’s not me. My appeal is to science.

I can accept the “spiritual” (self-transcendence etc) without meaning I have to accept things that we know are not true, such as the virgin birth. There is absolutely no evidence for this and plenty of evidence that it is impossible for virgins to give birth.

The domain of the sacred or the spiritual has been co-opted by religions to give credence to their dogmatic claims.

@CaterhamReconstituted what does spiritual mean to you then? And why would this preclude a belief in God?

Self-transcending experiences, meditation, awareness of consciousness etc. All of that is great.

I’m not saying it precludes a belief in God. I’m saying it doesn’t suppose a belief in God.

"cognitive dissonance can cover subject matter which includes what might be possible along with what has already being experienced, you know."

How is that statement relevant to the point I was making in my previous post.

"And new information can include ideas and philosophies."

A new idea is there to be assessed, and if it is baseless and offers no evidence, then it can be judged as irrelevant and put to one side. The onus is then on the originator of the idea or its supporters to demonstrate that there is evidence to support the idea. Similarly for new philosophies - the onus is on the originator or their supporters to demonstrate that their philosophical arguments are logical and follow.

It is not always or only cognitive dissonance that allows for new ideas and for scientific progress, or learning in general. There is an incorrect assumption or assertion that rational people who follow the scientific method hold the current theories they are working from as an absolute truth. That they ignore religious and spiritual claims because of the supposed cognitive dissonance that this might cause them because those claims are counterfactual to the current state of knowledge. No. They are dismissed because they provide no evidence, and so are irrelevant, not counterfactual.

How is that statement relevant to the point I was making in my previous post.

@fedupandstuck it was CaterhamReconstituted who said,

"Religious faith and science can only exist side by side through management of cognitive dissonance."

I then talked about how being tolerant of cognitive dissonance is important when faced with information which conflicts with what is understood to be true in order to learn and refine understanding. You then said I wasn't presenting any new information to which I replied the new information could include ideas and philosophies.

The onus is then on the originator of the idea or its supporters to demonstrate that there is evidence to support the idea.

In terms of personal understanding I would say the onus is (also) on the person coming across the new idea to not dismiss it out of hand and give good consideration to it. Otherwise you are asking to be 'spoon fed' knowledge. I think it is important to own your own learning.

There is an incorrect assumption or assertion that rational people who follow the scientific method hold the current theories they are working from as an absolute truth. That they ignore religious and spiritual claims because of the supposed cognitive dissonance that this might cause them because those claims are counterfactual to the current state of knowledge. No. They are dismissed because they provide no evidence, and so are irrelevant, not counterfactual.

I am asserting you need to be able to put up with cognitive dissonance in order to allow enough time to find evidence or even seek it. Plus also proper consideration to a volume of people's lived experiences when questioning something that is not well understood. If something is not well understood or not experienced by you personally or people who think like you it doesn't mean it is not a phenomenon.