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?

"cognitive dissonance is important when faced with information which conflicts with what is understood to be true in order to learn and refine understanding."

It's not important. What you describe is not cognitive dissonance. "What is understood to be true" in the scientific method is the current best understanding. There is no cognitive dissonance at play when new information is discovered. It is part of the process to refine theories (or replace them) based on current best evidence.

“ n 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.”

I haven’t suggested or described dismissing anything out of hand. I said it should be assessed and judged according to the available evidence or if a philosophical position, by its logic. What part of that sounded like “dismiss out of hand”? Is the patronising tone of your last two sentences intended or just an accident of your conversational style?

“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”

Oh I’m sure it’s a phenomenon. I’m just ascribing a different set of causes, with evidence, than those who ascribe those experiences to some deity/spirit/divine/higher power - explicitly without evidence.

Yes it does sum it up. I’m not sure it’s game over. I suspect you don’t view the statement with the same level of joy I do

No - jet lagged as I have been crossing continental borders with work lol!

There is no cognitive dissonance at play when new information is discovered. It is part of the process to refine theories (or replace them) based on current best evidence.

@fedupandstuck, well that is the ideal in terms of scientific methodology isn't it? But how capable are we of it? I don't think we are so hence I think it is important to declare it, declare and accept the struggle is the honest and transparent way to deal with this. Learn from it. By attempting to cover it up and not admit bias you then give those biases free rein to affect the conclusions without check.

Anecdotally, I think it interesting when my cancer check ups describe not finding anything remiss as 'unremarkable'. Yet statistically speaking I am remarkable having survived Stage 3 triple negative breast cancer this long especially as I declined some of the treatments (further chemo after an initial reoccurrence) offered. I know it's just medical phrasing and it doesn't offend me but I find it a strangely uninterested sounding word to use in the situation.

But it’s only valid within its own framework of reference! What does it mean to be valid?

Science is always "valid". As someone quoted upthread, "science works whether you believe in it or not."

It's simply that you choose not to use it, in order to keep your fantasies alive.

What does it mean to be valid?
Indeed. When there are so many different gods, so many different religions something's gone wrong somewhere.

Oh, I don’t think that at all. On the contrary, if you look at it like this (again I would underline my belief in a perennial philosophy), I think it underlines the truth of there being something divine. So many diverse cultures have attempted to explain the divine through their own language and reference points. This widespread belief in the divine (almost universal across cultures) builds a very strong case imo.

But what does validity mean to you?

But what does “valid” mean?

So many diverse cultures have attempted to explain the divine through their own language and reference points. This widespread belief in the divine (almost universal across cultures) builds a very strong case imo.
God / divinity is just shorthand for "stuff we don't understand".

I whose opinion?

Mine. And it's valid.

If divinity appears in every culture but every culture has a different divinity then that implies that man creates god, not the other way round.

If divinity appears in every culture but every culture has a different divinity then that implies that man creates god, not the other way round.

Yes, and by definition they cannot all be true, so it's very unlikely that most of them are true.

If am so intrigued as to why some believers are unwilling to even question whether their beliefs might not be true?! It's the 'blind' faith I do not comprehend. Maybe it's indeed wishful thinking?

valid
/ˈvalɪd/

adjective

1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

You'd think that as explorers set off round the globe in the early modern period, discovering New Worlds that they would bump into another culture who said, "Yahweh / Christ / Allah / whoever revealed themselves to us, too. Let's compare notes and see if we got the message first or you did."
Has this ever been recorded?

First time I've pictured this 😃 I love it! Obvs never happened, deities being culture-specific. Either God's got a serious case of dissociative identity disorder, or each society invents gods to suit itself. So they each think they've got the right one(s) and their deities will help them slaughter the other lot with the wrong gods.

With the amount of slaughtering and subjugating attributed to gods the world over, it seems clear that they're tribal emblems rather than actual beings.

It implies man creates a way to understand a divinity that is recognised far and wide

Also
“Valid” is often used to express agreement, understanding, or recognition of someone's perspective, experiences, or feelings. When someone says that something is “valid” or refers to someone as “valid,” it means that they acknowledge the legitimacy or truthfulness of that person's thoughts, emotions, or opinions.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here!

I used to work as a research scientist in a large facility in the UK. There were various clubs and groups amongst the staff - by far the largest was Christian group. I don't think science and religion are incompatable - the more you learn about the universe the more wonderful and enigmatic it seems to be and at the moment the only ultimate explanation for its existence may as well be called "god". (Though as an agnostic I'm not choosing sides 🙂)

the only ultimate explanation for its existence may as well be called "god"

Yep, but that doesn't extend much further. People of faith believe that "the source" answers individual prayers from members of a single species on a single planet. Even if you choose to surmise a consciously intentional "source", that idea doesn't withstand the most basic scrutiny.

Actually, your comment about entity Answering prayersjust one view of God. That isn’t my view of the Divine at all.

What “basic scrutiny” does the concept of a Source not withstand?

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here!
What “basic scrutiny” does the concept of a Source not withstand?
Gosh, you're having trouble with comprehension this morning. Still jet-lagged?

@sarsaparillatree "the more you learn about the universe the more wonderful and enigmatic it seems to be and at the moment the only ultimate explanation for its existence may as well be called "god""

Absolutely not. And the moment the only explanation for its existence is "we don't know yet." You are right exemplifying "the God of the gaps" perfectly.