I was recently called unreasonable and unscientific for defending my position to a friend that there is a God. The way that I discuss things with this friend, no one ever means any offense and none should be taken. I have been presented with the false dichotomy between faith and reason and been referred to a very illogical video that could be used to support solipsism. I do enjoy the back and forth though. I must address one thing that my friend has said that is one of the most unreasonable statements I have ever heard and demonstrates a huge problem that atheists and the like have with their logic. The statement is “…lack of evidence is a pretty conclusive proof of lack of existence.”
For a perfect demonstration of how this is complete bull we can take an imaginary journey. Let’s pretend that we are living 3,000 years ago anywhere you like on Earth. A person then comes to us and says, “There are invisible particles shooting through your body all the time and you have no way to see them. There are also sounds occurring all around you that humans cannot possibly hear.” This person has an extreme lack of evidence as the things described cannot be seen or heard. But we now know of and can measure many different types of particles fitting that description and we can measure sounds outside of the 20-20,000 Hz range. Did these things not exist for people because of the lack of evidence, but currently because we are so advanced and have evidence they magically do exist now? No, they always existed whether humans knew they did or not. A big problem with non-believers is that they think that we know much more than we do. We still don’t have a clue about anything and just as the people 3,000 years ago had no idea about neutrinos and super-frequencies, we today have no idea that we don’t know it or what it even relates to. It has always been a common trait of theology and science to conclude that we do not know everything and the sooner someone understands that the better.
One might say, “Well, this principle doesn’t apply to religion.” Why not? If we cannot take a principle learned from scientific discovery over the ages and apply it to all things what good is it? We have a clear and sanely indisputable case of something that no person could detect until a relatively recent date. Why would we suppose that there is not any more out there that cannot be detected by us? To stop searching and declare all things known, is to cut off scientific discovery. The hypothetical man from 3,000 years ago was completely vindicated in his belief in something he couldn’t see, hear or detect.
With a different friend I once asked, “Where did belief in God come from? If it was not given to man, why would a caveman invent an elaborate scheme of a sky man or sky men that would then restrict him from living his life in a riotous way, with lots of women, killing, plundering and other fun pastimes?” My friend’s answer, “He was the caveman who didn’t get the girls.” My response, if we had not been interrupted would have been, “So you are telling me that this beta male is clever enough to not only invent this whole religious system but to then dupe his peers into going along with it just so he could get some girls? But at the same time he is so stupid that he would not just kill the alpha male in his sleep?” What is more likely, Ug the super-genius, idiot caveman or humans still just aren’t very smart? If your answer is the former then you have proven the latter.
I believe that everything has a scientific explanation even if humans are too stupid to understand the science. I must edit the aforementioned statement to say, “lack of evidence is never conclusive proof of lack of existence.”
This person is your friend!
“Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers” – Joseph Smith
That quote is for rational people. some one who doesnt believe in God is not rational.
I got served
Quite humorous! If your friend were arguing the existence or extraterrestrial live, he’d surely quote SETI scientists who say lack of evidence is not proof of lack of existence. Incredibly, the genius minds at SETI gets more and more money every year for failing. Wish I were that smart.
Although their lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence, it should prove a lack of funding. Unless some crazy billionaire wants to throw his money away.
I wonder which deity would be the right one to pick out of all the ones that seem to have been created? I pick Santa Clause: He knows who’s naughty, knows who’s nice, and he gives presents to the nice folks and gives coal to the not-so-nice folks.
Joking aside, no one has ever seen deities or angel, except for folks who say, “Take my word for it.” That’s why I say that everyone should take my word that I am the prophet of all gods and I deserve at least thousands of dollars in donations (in PayPal, I am “Zoopari”). Take my word for it.
Ah, but see, I don’t have the credibility of a “real” prophet, psychic, or other representatives of mysticism. I haven’t been vetted. So, how to we properly vet these folks? How do we tell that I’m not a prophet and someone like Joseph Smith, Jr. was? Wait… The spirit speaks to me of prayer. We pray about it and achieve what psychology might call a state of pleasant self-hypnosis. Of course, no god or gods are required to achieve that, as far as I can tell. Damn.
I would say that no one can be sure that a god or gods do not exist, and maybe the lack of evidence is simply because god(s) are formed of WIMPs, neutrinos and other such particles.
I had a hilarious incident yesterday where my brother was claiming that Mom’s belief that my youngest cousin was “sent by Abuelita” (my dead grandmother) was “Catholic superstition.” He had the audacity to say that when he believes (as Catholics do) in something as outrageous as virgin birth, walking on water, and resurrection (a.k.a. zombie-vication, lol).
As far as the radiation example goes, folks may not have known it was there, but they could have figured out that things like radium are poisonous (“That rock is evil”) and certain areas are “cursed” because the inhabitants die (from building upon radon-infested ground). Their anthropocentric explanation using anonymous moral agents would still count as evidence, [not] much like chariots of fire in the Bible are proof of UFOs (chuckle, chuckle).
I guess my point is that all of us have things we are agnostic about, and my guess is that most self-declared atheists are willing to grant that there is a possibility that invisible beings do exist. But I think it is equally silly to say, “Invisible beings do exist! 100% true!” as it is to say, “Invisible beings do not or cannot exist!!”.
For my part, I grant the possibility of invisible beings, but I will never again claim that they exist, having no extraordinary evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim (or are we considering chills, a burning in one’s heart, or an whispery internal dialog to be extraordinary nowadays?) 😉
I hope you enjoyed reading this little rant as much as I enjoyed considering it and putting it here.
One last thing: Science is all about questions. If anything, the idea that science claims to know everything is a wonderfully and entertainingly laughable proposition. [Not to say I haven’t thought such a thing, but any professional scientist should acknowledge the fact that they have more questions than answers. Case in point: dark matter and dark energy (which could be what “spiritual” worlds are made of, I suppose).]
Your initial question has put you in the same boat Joseph Smith found himself in. Although he was actually sincere. Let’s take a trip down your little road for a minute though.
So old Joe gets it in his head that he wants to be a preacher. He decides to make up a book about people that lived in the western hemisphere long ago. (Which is a great idea to win converts because no one believes that the Bible is the lone infallible word of God) When writing this book he decides to use a lot of Hebrew forms and styles. (Just to make it extra convincing, he uses many Hebrew literary elements that have not been studied or pointed out) but he studied up good and made it authentic. Then he starts the church up and dupes thousands to follow him. The whole time he is making up fake revelations and predicting wars that won’t happen for 30 years. (Just to make it convincing).
He decides that preaching doesn’t get him enough women. Although it works for other preachers and politicians, having secret affairs isn’t good enough for him. So he decides to trick these, obviously religious and pious, people that have followed him, into marrying multiple women. (That should win him more converts.) Well phew, look at that. It worked even though they have always been taught to be virtuous, since he claimed it as a revelation from God, they fell for it. He decides that he wants more money and women though and keeps duping these people into building houses and temples so he can live in them. He even tricks them into having the mass hallucination of seeing angels and other unexplained phenomena. His greed and lust push him to the point where he decides to turn himself in to face some more false charges even though at the time he turned himself in he knew that he would be murdered and he could have easily escaped. In the quest for this money, women, fame or whatever else people say, he decides that he can best get these things by being killed by a mob of people. As an extra part of his evil plot he would get others to see things like the plates, angels, Jesus, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter James and John and heaven itself. After his special effects displays, he gets them to never deny anything they testified to, even to their dying breath. Oh what a good joke he played on everyone by dying for his lies. His made up crap then dupes millions of people for hundreds of years after his death.
It is far more unreasonable to not take Joseph at his word. I believe him. And the more I have looked into it the more I know he is right. If someone is fed selective scraps then it can easily be made into a case of him being a Marshall Applewhite or a Warren Jeffs. But when someone actually looks into it honestly, they will find a different story.
If you can do all of the above then I will donate to your paypal account. But it won’t do much for you, as you will be dead.
With regard to radioactive rocks being ‘evil’. I have just been going at it in a different venue with a Mormon who believes that Laman and Lemuel actually flipped and turned into black guys. I have shown him all the scriptures that demonstrate that the dark skin was generational and most likely due to mixing with natives and that first generation dissenters are never specifically said to have dark skin themselves (in fact, the opposite is demonstrated). He won’t hear it though. I have told him that people in the old days had no idea about dominant and recessive traits so to them it was more mystical than it would be to us.
I have also argued and shown the scriptures that demonstrate that the ‘flood’ could have been local and that old testament authors had no idea what the entire earth was so to trust their scientific assessments completely is foolish. But he aint having it either.
One Last Thing: In my original post I stated very clearly that science “conclude[s] that we do not know everything and the sooner someone understands that the better.” The complaint of thinking “Now that we know about neutrinos we know there is nothing else out there that exists” is not a complaint about scientists or science. I love science and scientific discovery. It is a complaint about atheism and those who claim science as a reason for not believing. You have erroneously equated atheism and the like, with science.
P.S. Invisible beings do exist! 100% true! – Since to be invisible all that is required is to not be seen.
If eye-witness accounts are to be held reliable, should we then believe in extra-terrestrial visitations to our little pale blue dot? We have multiple eye witnesses, many who do not recant before they die. With a Google search, you can find any number of accounts that agree with each other, proposing all sorts of evidence.
For my part, I remain skeptical of aliens, since most of their group experiences can be understood better as a manifestation of (hopefully unintentional) cognitive biases or other eye-witness faults that make such testimony so unreliable, generally speaking. Furthermore, the experiences change with pop culture. Just take a look at what flying saucers looked like in the 50s versus today. (Related aside: Richard Feynman had a nice spiel about UFOs as spaceships: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLaRXYai19A )
Before what follows, you should know that I still hold a soft spot for Mormonism. It really was the only system of Christianity that seemed to make sense of all the crazy things in the Bible. I mean, the Joseph Smith Translation seems to even clear up all those spots where God is the agent bringing evil into the world directly (e.g. God hardening Pharaoh’s heart).
As far as Joseph Smith, Jr. goes, I think the testimony of him and Cowdery and others might sometimes come down to the Concorde fallacy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy ). That is by no means a nice thing to say, but it could be one amongst a multitude of explanations as to why people will die for their beliefs. Contemporary examples of the Concorde fallacy might be Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and perhaps even Osama bin Laden. My guess is that all of them know they are wrong on a number of things they have told people, but they stick to their guns because they think that’s all they’ve got. Then again, they might simply be sincerely misguided.
Thus we come to sincerity. Are my questions simply to egg you on, or are they sincere*? I will take the bait:
Simply because I do not seek your idea of deity or someone else’s does not mean that I am insincere. I simply seek the truth and I prefer that the truth have evidence instead of just a little “warm fuzzy” feeling or some other such (of what I consider) peripheral and/or self-hypnotic experience. I can generate my own “Book of Mormon conversion experience,” at will. Those same feelings, tears, chills, warmth, and even that still small voice in my head, can be called upon without any god, gods, spirits, prophets, or any other external influence required, so why should I seek any truth that would twist such a wonderful, mind-expanding experience into a belief in what I (now have come to) consider as imaginary? If I could find answers that would seem to indicate that belief or disbelief is anything other than an epistemological difference of opinion, rest assured that I would re-up on my lost belief (preferably starting as a deist, and then maybe moving towards theistic or pantheistic philosophies of belief). As is, I think a general optimistic skepticism and willingness to question is requisite to the pursuit of truth.
Sorry for the super-long response and all these comments, but I like chatting with you. This way, we can look at this years from now and be like: “This is what my friend Dave [Gus] said back in the day when we didn’t have all that new-fangled [insert name for a technology of 2034]!”
* Thus I create a false dichotomy, but the question sounds nicer with two options instead of saying, “Are my questions simply to egg you on, are they sincere, or are they something else?”
Little pale blue dot: Reminds me of Arrested Development – Uncle/Father Oscar.
UFO’s: I do not doubt that people see things far away that they cannot explain. When they undertake to explain it by their own knowledge of course they will not get it right. I myself have seen UFO’s. I saw one that still boggles my mind. I always just remember that the military officially thanked a town I lived in as a missionary (Tonopah, Nevada) because the people didn’t freak out about seeing strange aircraft in the sky. (Although, many of the townfolk worked on the projects.) It is when the alien lands, tells you his name, tells you to bring forth a book that has such relevance to the historic time it purports to be from and has the styles that would be found in writings from that time and a myriad other things, that it becomes harder to write off. Has such a thing happened amongst the UFO people?
Sunk Costs: I must admit this is up there with the most ridiculous explanations for Joseph Smith. Especially when you consider that Oliver was out of the venture and still never denied anything. Even with no skin in the game he held true. Let’s lock the UFO people and the Concorde people in a tiny jailhouse and charge at them while firing guns. I doubt too many will remain in their positions. Even with this ludicrous accusation against Joseph, Oliver and the witnesses there remains way too much to overcome against just the Book of Mormon among other things. There is plenty of evidence to sift through if you are willing to question your current prophets and what you believe is the very firm ground of this world.
Questioning: I very much dislike the assumption that I am an unquestioning dupe and that I do no research. I have questioned a great number of things. I have done as Thomas Jefferson suggested to his nephew to “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” I have read materials from Origen to Dawkins; from Brodie to Peterson and have reasonably asserted my position. I feel to remind you that the fruit of the spirit is not “tears, chills [and] warmth” but is really something entirely different. I add my word to the hits, evidence, hints and testimonies past, that God does exist, that he is the Father of your spirit/consciousness. He wants you to progress in the evolutionary process that will make you like him. To know this is not to fool yourself, but rather to unfool yourself. Join back up Gus and continue on to sweet vindication.