80 000 denominations of christianity

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why are you so sure that the truth is unknowable? I find that to be an extraordinary claim.
Further, even though I do not know the truth I am fairly sure that some things are not the truth and will treat people who believe them accordingly. For example if I meet someone who believes in Santa, I will treat him with the utmost skepticism and strongly suspe ...[text shortened]... eligion? What if his religion teaches things that we believe are not to for the good of society?

I agree with you that theistic claims should be treated with the utmost skepticism. Personally, I think that everyone should be an atheist. But they're not. Most people continue to be theists. Why? Because it apparently has some utility in their lives. It is useful to them. Within that theistic group there are tens of thousands of different conceptions of what god is. If the truth about god is not unknowable, then it is abundantly clear that it is not currently known. Therefore, once you have committed to the proposition that there is a god (for whatever reason), any approach you take toward that god is purely subjective. One could choose to be a Christian, a Muslim, an animist, or any other religion. Or they could choose to be any combination of religions. Or they could choose to construct a highly personal approach that does not fit into any pre-existing category. Any of these approaches are equally valid. As such, an individual should adopt an approach which has the greatest utility for their own life (while keeping within the bounds of civil law), and keep firmly in mind that their chosen approach has no greater chance of being 'true' than anyone else's.

Originally posted by rwingett
I agree with you that theistic claims should be treated with the utmost skepticism. Personally, I think that everyone should be an atheist. But they're not. Most people continue to be theists. Why? Because it apparently has some utility in their lives. It is useful to them. Within that theistic group there are tens of thousands of different conceptio ...[text shortened]... in mind that their chosen approach has no greater chance of being 'true' than anyone else's.

I think your argument is a fallacy. The fact that there are many religions or beliefs about God does not conclusively show that none of those beliefs are true or backed by evidence. A variety of belief may be grounds for skepticism but it is not proof of falsehood. There is a variety of hypotheses about the Big Bang, String theory, and other areas of science where scientist do not necessarily agree, but that does not make everyone wrong, nor does it make anyone claiming to know the truth wrong, nor does it make all hypotheses equal. Surely the Catholics have a higher chance of being right?

I certainly don't think it is logical to conclude that because nobody currently knows, or at least we don't know of anyone who does - therefore it cant be known and we shouldn't bother trying.

Because almost nobody willingly chooses their beliefs, your proposition that they choose based on utility does not have any practical use.
I also doubt that theists are theists based on utility, I think it may be true in some cases, but the spread of ideas such as theism is more complex than that and may not necessarily be useful to the believer. What is worse is that what may give a person a short term reward feedback may not necessarily be good for them (most addictive substances for example).

You believe atheism to be a better position than theism. Why does your 'all positions are equal' not apply to atheism?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think your argument is a fallacy. The fact that there are many religions or beliefs about God does not conclusively show that none of those beliefs are true or backed by evidence. A variety of belief may be grounds for skepticism but it is not proof of falsehood. There is a variety of hypotheses about the Big Bang, String theory, and other areas of scie ...[text shortened]... better position than theism. Why does your 'all positions are equal' not apply to atheism?

For the umpteenth time, I do not claim that any of the various claims about god* are not true. My claim, which I will repeat yet again, is that it cannot be known which (or if any) of them is the truth. The fact that the Catholic Church has millions of adherents does NOT give it a higher chance of being correct. As long as it is free from internal contradictions, any claim about god has EXACTLY the same probability of being true as any other. For the life of me I cannot see where you've come up with the idea that I have claimed that because the truth cannot be know that we shouldn't bother trying. My entire participation in this thread has been a specific endorsement of trying various approaches, albeit while keeping in mind that it cannot be known if your's is the right one.

It may be true that religious beliefs are not based on utility, although I would claim that much of them are. There is a great utility in getting along with your neighbors, therefore most people will choose the prevailing religion of their region. But even if religious beliefs are not based on utility, my claim is that they should be.

My position is that all positions within theism are equal. I do not believe the available evidence warrants being a theist, however. One should choose to be an atheist, or at best one should become an agnostic theist.

*When I talk about "truth" in this context, I am talking exclusively about truth in relation to the existence and postulated attributes of a god. I am not talking about truth in general. We can, and do, make and evaluate a variety of theories within the scientific realm. But as I'm sure any theist will tell you, god does not lie within the realm of science.

Originally posted by rwingett
My claim, which I will repeat yet again, is that it cannot be known which (or if any) of them is the truth.

But you are yet to support that claim. Why can it not be known? It may not be known by you or I, but to claim that it cannot be known implies you know something that is preventing such knowledge from being available.

The fact that the Catholic Church has millions of adherents does NOT give it a higher chance of being correct.
Actually it does, though not a very significantly higher chance.

As long as it is free from internal contradictions, any claim about god has EXACTLY the same probability of being true as any other.
Only if you have no other evidence available - which is not the case at all.

For the life of me I cannot see where you've come up with the idea that I have claimed that because the truth cannot be know that we shouldn't bother trying.
You keep insisting that the truth cannot be known and that the only possible reason for choosing a particular faith is personal utility.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are yet to support that claim. Why can it not be known? It may not be known by you or I, but to claim that it cannot be known implies you know something that is preventing such knowledge from being available.

[b]The fact that the Catholic Church has millions of adherents does NOT give it a higher chance of being correct.
Actually it does, ...[text shortened]... e known and that the only possible reason for choosing a particular faith is personal utility.[/b]

My argument that the truth about god 'cannot be known' is not an a priori argument. It is an a posteriori argument. Experience has shown that truth about god in all probability is not known, and in all probability will never be known. Is that free enough from absolutes to suit you?

It therefore follows that in all probability there is no one among us who is in possession of the 'truth' in relation to god.

Originally posted by rwingett
Experience has shown that truth about god in all probability is not known, and in all probability will never be known.

I am simply not convinced that any amount of wrong beliefs leads to the conclusion that it is improbable that we can ever know the truth about God.
Why should we not apply the same argument to science? It is a fact that there have historically been many speculations and beliefs about the origins of the universe. In all probability it is not known exactly how the big bang started. Why should we not use your argument to conclude that 'in all probability will never be known.'?

Originally posted by rwingett
My argument that the truth about god 'cannot be known' is not an a priori argument. It is an a posteriori argument. Experience has shown that truth about god in all probability is not known, and in all probability will never be known. Is that free enough from absolutes to suit you?

It therefore follows that in all probability there is no one among us who is in possession of the 'truth' in relation to god.

The conclusion is a bit circular is it not?

Originally posted by rwingett
My position is that all positions within theism are equal. I do not believe the available evidence warrants being a theist, however. One should choose to be an atheist, or at best one should become an agnostic theist.

But that is from your standpoint based on your conclusions from the evidence available to you. However, let us suppose there is a person who has evidence available to him that has lead him to believe that Catholicism is reasonably accurate. Are all positions equal from his standpoint? Your argument only holds if you can show that his evidence is not significant, but if you could show that then surely he would become atheist. But you instead telling him to maintain his beliefs, but recognize as equally valid all other theistic beliefs.

As long as he believes his evidence is convincing, I do not see why he should recognize other theistic beliefs as equal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The conclusion is a bit circular is it not?

Rwingett is an aficionado of tautological statement! Just ask him about natural rights ...

Originally posted by rwingett
My argument that the truth about god 'cannot be known' is not an a priori argument. It is an a posteriori argument. Experience has shown that truth about god in all probability is not known, and in all probability will never be known. Is that free enough from absolutes to suit you?

It therefore follows that in all probability there is no one among us who is in possession of the 'truth' in relation to god.

but how can this be, for while José Mário is "the special one", I am "the chosen one!"

Originally posted by rwingett
My argument that the truth about god 'cannot be known' is not an a priori argument. It is an a posteriori argument. Experience has shown that truth about god in all probability is not known, and in all probability will never be known. Is that free enough from absolutes to suit you?

It therefore follows that in all probability there is no one among us who is in possession of the 'truth' in relation to god.

how do we "know" anything?

1.Tenacity
2.Trusted Authority
3.personal Experience
4.reasoning
5.Scientific method

Originally posted by duecer
how do we "know" anything?

1.Tenacity
2.Trusted Authority
3.personal Experience
4.reasoning
5.Scientific method

Do not forget the most common method: Wishful thinking.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am simply not convinced that any amount of wrong beliefs leads to the conclusion that it is improbable that we can ever know the truth about God.
Why should we not apply the same argument to science? It is a fact that there have historically been many speculations and beliefs about the origins of the universe. In all probability it is not known exactl ...[text shortened]... hy should we not use your argument to conclude that 'in all probability will never be known.'?

The answer is that science has demonstrably provided us with factual answers to a host of questions. It has a proven track record. It is reasonable to speculate that the origins of the universe may eventually be discovered. Religion, on the other hand, has no such record. No article of religious faith has ever been factually demonstrated. It is reasonable to speculate that none ever will.

My conclusion is not circular because it is disprovable. Just like the statement 'all swans are white' can be debunked by the appearance of a single black swan, my argument is easily disproved by a single factual demonstration of an article of religious faith. Given that in the long history of mankind no such demonstration has ever been forthcoming, I am justified in expressing my skepticism that it ever will.

Part of the criteria for evidence is that it not only convince proponents of an argument, but that it be able to convince people who are not inclined to accept an argument. It must overcome the burden of proof. Theists have presented a variety of arguments for their position over the centuries. The teleological argument, the cosmological argument, arguments from design, arguments from personal experience, etc. None of them has been able to overcome that burden of proof. They all lead to a Scotch verdict. They are not proven.

But neither are they proven false. A theist could still be right. If someone wants to adopt a theistic approach, that is their business. But they should refrain from claiming to 'know' with certainty that their approach is the right one. The available evidence does not justify it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Rwingett is an aficionado of tautological statement! Just ask him about natural rights ...

Judas Iscariot! You go from lauding my position earlier in this thread to calling it tautological. You should go hang yourself!

My argument in the 'natural rights' thread was the first time I had tried that one out. It may still need a little polishing...

Originally posted by rwingett
Judas Iscariot! You go from lauding my position earlier in this thread to calling it tautological. You should go hang yourself!

My argument in the 'natural rights' thread was the first time I had tried that one out. It may still need a little polishing...

Ha! Look, if anyone's going to make you start arguing in circles, it's our friend twhitehead. Besides, my comment was merely a cheap shot designed to annoy you; it refers to you and not your argument, the development of which I haven't read since the laudatory moment you mention (what was I thinking?).

As for the other thing, I don't think your basic stance needs the crutch of natural rights. Unless you are really a natural rights fundamentalist, in which case -- God help you 😵