God and Certainty

[Pebble]

I

My question is about our interest in a potentially invaluable
treasure that might possiblity exist. We can't logically rule it out.

Why not? Seems entirely reasonable to me to rule out the existence of god as envisaged by the Abrahamic sects. As to any creator, Occam's razor puts paid to that. So what kind of god are we to begin imagining and why?

[rayback]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being.

Of cource, I'm not saying I'm as clever as him, but one can never be
sure about what is, and is not, out there.

You have to keep your mind open about uncertain things.

[Croydon Bob]

So what kind of god are we to begin imagining and why?

Exactly. How can we discuss the possible existence of a god when rayback won't explain which god he is talking about?

Does God exist?

a) Sure, I have been touched by his noodly appendage.
b) Yes, Allah akbar!
c) Indeed, I had a chat with Quetzecotl just last week.
d) The Sun God exists, I can see it out of my window right now.
e) None of the above.

What god? Which god?

[DrS]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being. ... You have to keep your mind open about uncertain things.

There is a difference between accepting a theoretical chance so small as to be effectively non-existent (which is how I understand Dawkins' stance) and actively keeping an open mind to a real possibility.

[Croydon Bob]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being.

You are broadly correct that he has said that, but you might want to quote the full context for clarity. Obviously a 'supreme being' might exist, but there's no evidence or reason to worry about it is there?

[do'h beaten by DrS]

[Mulder]

My theory is that the 'bigger' the idea, the lower the level of evidence people will accept for it. This is why lots of people are religious, many believe in UFOs and ghosts and few care about the Tooth Fairy.

[CriticalSock]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being.

Of cource, I'm not saying I'm as clever as him, but one can never be
sure about what is, and is not, out there.

You have to keep your mind open about uncertain things.

Russells teapot.

(Could someone post the link to the wiki on Russell's teapot for me? I'm lacking in power!)

Would you base your life on the teapot?

[Croydon Bob]

(Could someone post the link to the wiki on Russell's teapot for me? I'm lacking in power!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Antipositor]

God is a major problem for many people.

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

But a more important question to consider is:

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.

Wagers are based on uncertainties; and Pascal's Wager implies that there is no way to be completely certain of God's existence/nonexistence, therefore it's best to hedge your bets. I believe the critical difference between an atheist and an agnostic is often defined as that the atheist is certain there is no God, but the agnostic is uncertain either way.

Some debate within skeptical circles has been over whether skepticism itself should follow an "atheistic" or an "agnostic" approach to unanswered questions. My own view is that solving for the X factor by declaring it a zero is a fallacy, therefore uncertainty (agnostic) better defines skepticism than denial (atheistic).

[Antipositor]

My theory is that the 'bigger' the idea, the lower the level of evidence people will accept for it. This is why lots of people are religious, many believe in UFOs and ghosts and few care about the Tooth Fairy.

Yes indeed a truism, I agree; and,

• The bigger the amount of unclaimed riches in Nigeria, the more times caution is thrown to the wind and the more life savings are sent.
  
• The more gratifying lies a political candidate can tell, the more votes they receive (works for husbands as well).
  
• The more serious the crime, the more likely whomever is accused will be convicted.
  
• The greater the perceived rewards in the afterlife, the more bizarre the religious beliefs, rituals and actions.

[Antipositor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

You did a fine job of linking it yourself :-)

Russell's teapot does not disprove a fallacy in my opinion, so much as it describes a flawed approach to basing one's beliefs on levels of certainty/uncertainty. Basing a certain belief on such miniscule odds is not false, but it does incur a high probability of error.

A "teapot orbiting the sun" is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, and quite correctly, most reasonable people will conclude it doesn't exist. This is not exactly the same as it having a zero probability. A human being can choose to be 100% certain, but the actual probability of some things can never truly be zero.

The flawed approach I believe, for choosing such a belief based on "cain't prove diff'rnt" -type logic that is based on failing to attribute reasonable weight to a belief, based on evidence and logic (science and testing). The reasons for this are likely to be motivated by the allure of a "big payoff" of some sort, or perhaps even the misguided post-modernist tenet that all beliefs should be given equal weight. Perhaps this is a corruption of the ideal that all opinions should have equal opportunity to be heard.

[Pebble]

Some debate within skeptical circles has been over whether skepticism itself should follow an "atheistic" or an "agnostic" approach to unanswered questions. My own view is that solving for the X factor by declaring it a zero is a fallacy, therefore uncertainty (agnostic) better defines skepticism than denial (atheistic).

Your high degree of certainty in uncertainty creates some logical problems. Where something is known to be so, then one can be certain that the opposite is not the case. So for example we are certain that the earth orbits the sun, it is clear that there is zero uncertainty about a statement that the earth does not orbit the sun (assuming we are discussing the same sun).

Thus when it comes to gods, there are logically impossible gods such as the abrahamic god, there are logically implausible gods (creators), so while agnosticism is technically correct, it makes no more sense to not believe in faries or goblins than in god(s). On this basis atheism is a more coherent position, when there is some evidence worth considering I am happy to re-evaluate.

[Antipositor]

Your high degree of certainty in uncertainty creates some logical problems. Where something is known to be so, then one can be certain that the opposite is not the case. So for example we are certain that the earth orbits the sun, it is clear that there is zero uncertainty about a statement that the earth does not orbit the sun (assuming we are discussing the same sun).

Thus when it comes to gods, there are logically impossible gods such as the abrahamic god, there are logically implausible gods (creators), so while agnosticism is technically correct, it makes no more sense to not believe in faries or goblins than in god(s). On this basis atheism is a more coherent position, when there is some evidence worth considering I am happy to re-evaluate.

Of course, some things are so far from probability that they constitute a virtual improbability; to the point where any consideration seems like a waste of time. Where this question becomes more important is when the individual errs by forming a certitude about a belief that is actually not so certain to be absolute as they perceive.

While I agree there's not much chance of a God showing himself to prove an atheist wrong, it's purely a matter of intellectual honesty to refrain from declaring absolute certainties about subjects where the evidence is insufficient to do so.

[Pebble]

Of course, some things are so far from probability that they constitute a virtual improbability; to the point where any consideration seems like a waste of time. Where this question becomes more important is when the individual errs by forming a certitude about a belief that is actually not so certain to be absolute as they perceive.

While I agree there's not much chance of a God showing himself to prove an atheist wrong, it's purely a matter of intellectual honesty to refrain from declaring absolute certainties about subjects where the evidence is insufficient to do so.

There is no evidence for the existence of any particular god, there is no evidence for flying pigs, there is no evidence for perpetual motion machines etc. Are you seriously suggesting that to be credited with intellectual honesty one has to accept the possible existence of every weird notion the human imagination is capable of?

[Tony Williams]

The debate over atheism vs agnoticism is why I no longer use either term - I just say that I have no religious beliefs, and leave it at that.

I tried to tackle the question of the relative weighting of different beliefs here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Scales.htm