Obtenebrator
Verified User
Let me ask you a simple question: do you think a "not guilty" verdict in a courtroom is an "agnostic" position in regards to the guilt of the defendant?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Apostates versus converts
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Let me ask you a simple question: do you think a "not guilty" verdict in a courtroom is an "agnostic" position in regards to the guilt of the defendant?
Leaving open the theoretical possibility of dieties is just hijacking agnostic principles, and putting lipstick on it.You lump all forms of atheism in here and make a mistake.
Atheists such as my self merely use the same logic as a court trial. No one would say a "not guilty verdict" is an "agnostic" position. The person will be set free. That's a decision.
But the route to that decision goes through "hypothesis testing" which is how science makes decisions. The key being that at all points it is recognized that the decision could be in error and the only thing one can possibly do is attempt to minimize that error. Usually people seek to minimize a "false positive" (ie Type I error).
This is a rational approach to atheism. It posits no perfect knowledge nor does it posit perfect certainty. That would be absurd. But, by the same token, it is not merely a "I don't know". Just as the jury verdict is not an agnostic position on the facts of the case as presented.
Your little courtroom story doesn't cut the mustard.
Science is utterly incapable of providing sufficient evidence one way or the other as to the possibility of a transcendent reality which humans give various avatars to: the eternal logos, the Tao, Brahman, Li, or the clockwork god.
In principle, science can only explain how things work, not why they work at the most fundamental level. This understanding of science goes back to Newton
Looking at the creation and rational mathmatical organization of the universe it is just as rational to say it demonstrates a purposeful organizing principle, as it is to say it is all due to random chance.
Nor is saying I believe therefore it is true validLeaving open the theoretical possibility of gods is just hijacking agnostic principles and putting lipstick on it.
Your little courtroom story doesn't cut the mustard.
Science is utterly incapable of providing sufficient evidence one way or the other as to the possibility of a transcendent reality which humans give various avatars to: the eternal logos, the Tao, Brahman, Li, or the clockwork god.
In principle, science can only explain how things work, not why they work at the most fundamental level. This understanding of science goes back to Newton
Looking at the creation and rational mathmatical organization of reality it's just as rational to say it demonstrates a purposeful organizing principle, as it is to say it is all due to random chance.
I don’t think they were referring merely to attendance. I’ll have to find the podcast again to ascertain the authors of the studies.I wonder what the scientific or statistical survey basis for these claims are?
I stopped regularly attending church as soon as I was old enough to make my own decisions because I liked to sleep in on Sunday, and weekly Church attendance was a hassle. Not because I did any studying and research on religion, or became an enlightened atheist. I suspect there were millions of teenagers and young adults just like me.
On the other hand, my brother inexplicably began attending Methodist service in his 40s, and my mother started regularly attending Quaker meeting in her 60s, and they were both highly educated.
The basics were the differences between each kind of conversion. When I hear stories from the deconverted, they tend to validate what the studies concluded. Deconversion was long, painful, arduous and full of fear. Typically, they were in adulthood rather than teenage years.
People who were taught Christianity as children don't do so by choice.I don’t think they were referring merely to attendance. I’ll have to find the podcast again to ascertain the authors of the studies.
The basics were the differences between each kind of conversion. When I hear stories from the deconverted, they tend to validate what the studies concluded. Deconversion was long, painful, arduous and full of fear. Typically, they were in adulthood rather than teenage years.
Sunday school to me was just more school.
I never understood the conversion thing. My math teachers did not require I become a mathematician.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Leaving open the theoretical possibility of dieties is just hijacking agnostic principles, and putting lipstick on it.
Your little courtroom story doesn't cut the mustard.
Actually my courtroom story is a perfect example. Unless you think a "not guilty" verdict is somehow an "agnostic" position.
Science is utterly incapable of providing sufficient evidence one way or the other as to the possibility of a transcendent reality which humans give various avatars to: the eternal logos, the Tao, Brahman, Li, or the clockwork god.
Juries are utterly incapable of having perfect proof of any defendent's guilt or lack thereof. We are all hampered by imperfect knowledge.
But, again, the verdict is, itself, not a position of "agnosticism". It is merely a decision undertaken with the knowledge that there is the possibility of error but with the earnest and honest effort of biasing against that error. And it is one merely of rejecting the null or failure to reject the null.
Honestly, as a fellow scientist I'm curious why this seems to be stumping you so.
Looking at the creation and rational mathmatical organization of the universe it is just as rational to say it demonstrates a purposeful organizing principle, as it is to say it is all due to random chance.
I do not, nor have I ever (hopefully) denied you the right to be completely without a decision on the question of God. I am curious why my choice is such a burden for you and why you seem to have such a hatred of my position.
My position is informed by my career as a research scientist and my appreciation of how hypotheses are tested. God is simply another hypothesis presented to me which I am free to test. That is all I can do. That is all any of us can do.
Again, I will ask: do you think a "not guilty" verdict is an agnostic position?
Obtenebrator
Verified User
I am fascinated that none of the agnostics on this forum can answer a simple question: is a "not guilty" verdict in a court of law an agnostic position with regards to the person's guilt or lack thereof?
I found the study referenced in the podcast.I wonder what the scientific or statistical survey basis for these claims are?
I stopped regularly attending church as soon as I was old enough to make my own decisions because I liked to sleep in on Sunday, and weekly Church attendance was a hassle. Not because I did any studying and research on religion, or became an enlightened atheist. I suspect there were millions of teenagers and young adults just like me.
On the other hand, my brother inexplicably began attending Methodist service in his 40s, and my mother started regularly attending Quaker meeting in her 60s, and they were both highly educated.
Altemeyer B., Hunsberger B. (1997). Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion. Prometheus.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
I found the study referenced in the podcast.
Altemeyer B., Hunsberger B. (1997). Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion. Prometheus.
The thing I find most interesting are those cases of people who did psychedelics and came back from a trip converted from being non-religious to being religious. It would also seem to point to a difference in brain function. Since psychedelics often work on the serotonin system I wonder if there is a quantifiable and physical relationship between carrying a faith vs not carrying a faith.
I also wonder if, after having been trained up from childhood to believe in something, if it doesn't create a neural path prone to accepting that claim which may be why deconverting from religion to non-religion is often harder and more fraught. Once those neural pathways are established do they ever really go away?
I still find that my brain defaults sometimes to that credulity of my former faith which makes atheism feel more like a true "choice" I am making rather than simply giving into my default mode network.
This is not to denigrate or any way delegitimize the real faith people have. But I can also see why some simply seem to "default" to their faith without really thinking about it or letting it get in the way of whatever action they truly want to take regardless of what their faith says about it.
That's absolutely true for a large part of the population.Joining a religion means one wants a social group. Not needing a social group is one reason many are not religious.
Your mistake is that of course you would know there is a God by merely asking for the Holy Spirit !Leaving religion does NOT lead to atheism.
I left my religion...and atheism never crossed my mind. I would be making the same mistake I had made while indulging in religion. My reason for leaving was that there was no way I could KNOW that a GOD existed in any form, let alone with all the attributes assigned to the one I was "worshiping."
I also knew that there was no way I could KNOW there were no gods.
So I adopted what I saw at the intelligent alternative...agnosticism.
I've since refined that to a description rather than just use a descriptor, which could easily be mistaken.
Someone had to have the engineering degree to be able to build a physical universe ,after the Satan Rebellion disaster that caused the "Big Bang"!I am persuaded by Aristotle's description of god as thought or intelligence. Not a personal being.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Your mistake is that of course you would know there is a God by merely asking for the Holy Spirit !
It is the blase "ease" with which the believer mocks the non-believer. "You would be enlightened like me but you did it wrong".
I am happy for those people who found their faith and feel comfortable in it. But it is the height of conceit to assume that you were the lucky one to find the TRUE PATH and those who fail to arrive at your destination are doing it all wrong.
But what if say my experience was visa versa?Those that rejected their faith were typically head over heels believers. To their core. Evangelical. Hallelujah, praise Jesus, Bible thumping believers.
Then, they began to exercise some real thought and observation rather than accepting everything that had been fed to them.
As I said and these studies validate. Knowledge over faith. Intellect over emotion.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Someone had to have the engineering degree to be able to build a physical universe ,after the Satan Rebellion disaster that caused the "Big Bang"!
This is a new exegesis. Kudos on coming up with that one.
I do not accept the premise of the question, which is fundamentally flawed.I am fascinated that none of the agnostics on this forum can answer a simple question: is a "not guilty" verdict in a court of law an agnostic position with regards to the person's guilt or lack thereof?
Experimental science is not in a position to be a courtroom arbiter in this case.
Science only gives epistomological knowledge. It does give ontological or metaphysical knowledge.
Since you claim to have studied philosophy in college, these distinctions between knowledge, truth, and being should have been second nature to you.
Both of you would flunk an into philosophy class.I do not accept the premise of the question, which is fundamentally flawed.
Experimental science is not in a position to be a courtroom arbiter in this case.
Science only gives epistological knowledge. It does give ontological or metaphysical knowledge.
Since you claim to have studied philosophy in college, thesee distinctions between knowledge, truth, and being should have been second nature to you.
But you both would get an 'A' in trolling.
Sounds like Cypress! That's why he quotes whoever's name he is dropping that day!Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge is not possible.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
I do not accept the premise of the question, which is fundamentally flawed.
How is it flawed? I am presented with a claim that "there is a God".
Why is it flawed to then test that claim?
Experimental science is not in a position to be a courtroom arbiter in this case.
Then forget science. Talk about the jury verdict. It is the same thing. They are testing against the null hypothesis of "not guilty". That is the essence of our judicial system. Why is it not allowable to apply it to other claims? You surely can't believe juries make most of their verdicts on numerical data. It is the same reasoning, the same rubric, however.
You disallow that one may use scientific reasoning to draw a conclusion, now you seem to be denying the use of any reasoning to come to a conclusion.
I am curious how you test claims in your life. Or are you literally agnostic about any and every claim presented to you?
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Both of you would flunk an into philosophy class.
But you both would get an 'A' in trolling.
No one cares about your whining. Please do try to add something to the conversation.