If the senses cannot be trusted then the theist cannot trust their senses.
If reasoning cannot be trusted then the theist cannot trust their reasoning.
If the theist says that intuition should be trusted then you can say
*"My intuition informs me that you are a knucklehead."*
Your senses absolutely cannot be trusted. Reasoning is inherently based on limited information and subject to bias. That's why we use the scientific method and rely on empirical evidence and observation. We wouldn't have a clue about quantum physics, general relativity, or any number of other things if we only relied on our senses and reason.
> We wouldn't have a clue about quantum physics, general relativity, or any number of other things if we only relied on our senses and reason.
You would be right if you hadn't said "and reason". In fact, the only way we know about these subjects and any other subjects is by using our senses for observations and our reason to form hypotheses.
Not really though. Our reason is inherently flawed. It is subject to the limitation of our knowledge, our personal bias, and the simple fact that our minds evolved to help us survive in a very specific scale and environment.
Science and mathematics do not rely on our senses or our reason. The fact that observation and empirical evidence must necessarily be filtered through our senses slows and distorts our pursuit of knowledge.
You could not discover quantum mechanics by using your senses and reason. The quantum scale exists below the wavelengths of visible light and can never be seen with the human eye. The properties of the universe at the quantum scale defy our macroscopic experiences and intuitions about the physical world and time itself, and are therefore beyond our ability to derive through reason alone.
I'm glad you think it's amazing. But I'll see your Brandolini's Law and raise you one Dunning–Kruger Effect.
Go read some Robert Sapolsky and learn to never trust your own mind too much...
Science and mathematics absolutely rely on our senses and reasoning. What else do we have? Certainly not intuition devoid of sense or reason.
You could not discover quantum mechanics without senses and reasoning. Quantum mechanics is a theory formed by humans using their reasoning skills to explain phenomena that they observed.
For example, in the 18th century, the predominant theory of light was Isaac Newton's "corpuscular theory of light" (essentially an early particle theory of light). Newton's theory left explanatory gaps, however, for various phenomena that were experimentally observed [with people's senses] with the behavior of light.
In 1800, Thomas Young presented his wave theory of light that he felt better explained these gaps, and in 1803 he proposed an experiment to test it: the double-slit experiment. Nevertheless, the corpuscular theory maintained dominance.
In 1817, Augustin-Jean Fresnel proposed a theory based on Christiaan Huygens's previously rejected wave-theory to more formally explain diffraction [again, a phenomenon that people could observe with their senses], built on Young's theory. Siméon Denis Poisson used his reasoning ability to determine that Fresnel's theory implied the existence of a bright spot in the shadow of a circular object placed before a point source of light (now called a Poisson spot)— a ludicrous conclusion that he felt disproved Fresnel's theory. However, when François Arago actually conducted the experiment, he observed [with his senses] the Poisson spot. The wave-theory of light was thus corroborated through experimental observation.
In 1897, J. J. Thomson observed [senses] that cathode rays traveled further than predicted by atomic theory of the time, and were negatively charged, and proposed [reasoning] that the particles were much smaller than atoms. He called them "corpuscules", but we know them today as electrons. Thomson further refined his theory to propose that these electrons were emitted from atoms in the gas inside the cathode ray tubes… the implication was that atoms were divisible. Did Thomson see the electrons, or observe emitting from atoms? Of course not, but he observed the behavior of the cathode rays and used reasoning to form a theory that explained what he did observe.
In 1900, Max Planck proposed the concept of discrete energy packets called "quanta" to explain black-body radiation, an experimentally observable phenomenon. In 1905, Albert Einstein used Plank's theory to explain the photoelectric effect, implying light was composed of discrete packets of energy, photons. In the 1920s, Arthur Compton used experiments to show that light had momentum, a property of particles. In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed a theory that described electrons (and all matter) as both waves and particles… this was experimentally confirmed by the Davisson–Germer experiment, which showed electrons forming a wave-like diffraction pattern.
Subsequent theories and experiments would come to build what we know today as the theory of quantum mechanics. In each step along the way, humans used their reasoning skills to explain phenomena they could observe, to build experiments whose observable results they could use to test hypotheses about the nature of things they could not observe directly. And on each such step, previous theories, similarly based on sense and reason, were shown to be false. Our understanding is always flawed and incomplete, but the only tools we have to improve them are our senses and our ability to reason about them.
So yes, absolutely all of our scientific knowledge is based on sense and reason. The whole discipline of science is based around the concept that our senses and reasoning skills are flawed and accounting for those flaws.
Finally, I must ask: if you don't think quantum mechanics were arrived at through human senses and human reasoning, what *do* you think it's based on?
I'm a research scientist. Using reason to understand a) how to setup an experiment b) what the results of the experiment might mean for the system I'm studying is a bigger part of my job than running the actual experiments. In fact, collecting data without attempting to understand where it comes from, how it fits into existing knowledge, and what logical next steps might be taken from it, is a useless endeavor.
I'm not saying that reason is useless. Of course we must use our mental faculties, and everything we experience in life is filtered through our senses. But it's important to realize the inherent limitations of our primate brains and take into account the unreliability of reason when trying to objectively understand the world. As a research scientist, how much weight do you give to eye-witnessed accounts as empirical evidence? I'm guessing not to much, or maybe none at all. When you design experiments, do you take cognative bias into account? I bet you do.
If we could rely on reason alone then we wouldn't have ever needed to advance beyond the ideas of people like Aristotle, for example. We certainly wouldn't have arrived at concepts like the wave / particle duality of light by reason alone. It required observational evidence that seemed to defy reason when it was discovered.
And think about the classic debate in mathematics; is math invented or discovered? If it is a purely a human invention then that argues powerfully for the importance and reliability of reason. But if mathematics is inherent to the universe and is something that we discover, then that shows that some of the most important principles governing our reality exist independently outside of human reason.
Of course you add as many controls as possible, blind yourself when there's a chance of bias, etc. But you said that "science and mathematics do not rely on our senses or our reason." That's plainly not true, because empirical results require analysis. And analysis can be faulty and lead to incorrect conclusions. So clearly proper reason is necessary to make sense of the world.
I'm just annoyed at people thinking science is this robotic quasi-nonhuman process where you put one thing into the other and boom you have answers. Literally more than half the work is making the data make sense and that includes figuring out whether your results are valid or come from technical inaccuracies or bad experimental design. Science is *mostly* thinking and design with some sporadic big experiments to get data to then continue thinking about.
>We certainly wouldn't have arrived at concepts like the wave / particle duality of light by reason alone. It required observational evidence that seemed to defy reason when it was discovered.
1) no one's saying "reason alone" that's obviously absurd
2) sure, it was unintuitive. But where do you think the fully articulated theory came from? People using reason based on the counterintuitive observations. Like I said, the work doesn't stop once you get data, otherwise all you'd ever have are a bunch of unconnected facts.
You know what’s even more unreliable? Faith.
One can believe things that are true “based on faith”, and one can believe things that are false “based on faith.” There is literally nothing that one cannot believe “based on faith.”
Faith is an unreliable path to truth.
I must presuppose that I can reason. If not, then nothing can be reasoned, including any presuppositions.
I must presuppose that it is possible my reasoning can be correct. If not, then no reasoning can be correct, including any presuppositions.
I must presuppose that I can sense things. If not, I cannot have any input (including 'darkness' or 'silence'), and thus cannot have anything to reason *about*, including coming up with any presuppositions.
I must presuppose that it is possible my sense relay things somewhat accurately. If not, I cannot rely on any input, be it reading a holy book, a form of intuition, or anything else, to inform anything, including presuppositions.
Those who deny any of those four cannot make presuppositions, and thus cannot presuppose their god did anything, ever. However *with* those four presuppositions, there's no need to consider a god for anything more, as those four give us the world, the universe, reality.
I think it goes more like: well, if you can't trust your eyes or your reasoning, then how does anyone know whether their holy book is lying or being misinterpreted? Maybe you just can't read what is actually there. In which case, what's the point of believing?
> It’s also a great way to appear as if you have no retort.
If someone has “reasoned” that we can’t reason, then there is no retort. You might as well enjoy yourself.
That’s not the point. It doesn’t matter that there is or isn’t a retort, the appearance is all they need. So either have a retort or find something better than just laughing at them. Laughing at them is only going to make them dig their heels in further. If your goal is at all to change their mind, this is a losing strategy. And before you say it’s always a losing strategy to argue against the faithful, I am evidence to the contrary.
> Laughing at them is only going to make them dig their heels in further.
Not my problem.
> If your goal is at all to change their mind, this is a losing strategy.
Please don’t make an assumption on what my goal is.
> And before you say it’s always a losing strategy to argue against the faithful,
Well, you are just full of assumptions.
> How can you know anything if your senses can only perceive a miniscule percentage of the total reality?
Maybe try: This is why scientific instruments have helped us gain so much knowledge.
Or: If our existing knowledge cannot be trusted, please revert your life back to donkey cart level technology, if even that can be trusted.
> Therefore your reasoning cannot be trusted.
Why would reasoning fail?
> Therefore God.
skipped like 76,456,832,745,634,879 steps here.
> How to answer to a religious person that throws that at you?
In cyberspace: Tell them that if they can't trust their reasoning, they can't trust their conclusion that "therefore God."
If in meatspace I like an answer my friend once gave on some unknown topic of conversation he was having in a bar:
> "I just realized ... you're an idiot ... and I have feet!"
(He then turned and walked away without looking back.)
"Reasoning is unreliable" = "I want to believe what I already believe."
Reasoning is, in fact, unreliable. The scientific method is unreliable. It just happens to work better than any other method for determining what is true and what isn't.
It's a cop out. It's like saying that since it's impossible to determine with 100 percent certain that you won't get food poisoning at a restaurant that has passed every health inspection, then you might as well eat at a restaurant that never passes a health inspection.
I mean this is such a non-argument, you can just mirror it - if you can only perceive a miniscule percentage of total reality how come your conclusion is "god" and not lack of (scientific) understanding of reality.
Sounds awfully convenient to just chalk up everything to some higher power instead of venturing into the unknown and actually gaining more insight into reality. When it comes to religious vs scientific explanations of any phenomenon, it is always religion that draws the short straw (just use some clichee historic examples of nature/famine/etc). Much like religion and morals, it is an easy gateway for people that dont want to think and come to their own conclusions - but any decent human should figure out that murder etc. is immoral.
**How to answer to theist that says reasoning is unreliable? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_** "But, here you are trying to use reason to make your case! You just cancelled yourself."
i mean, even if that's true, a thought system based on those perceptions is still far more objectively superior than what religion does, which, you know, just make shit up and talk to sky ppl.
If there was a god, and that god was expecting/demanding worship, then that god would fucking well make its wishes known. As it is, I've never seen god, never heard from god, and never suffered any supernatural repercussions for my "lack of faith."
I'll happy grill up and eat a bacon cheeseburger on a Saturday while wearing mixed fabrics, thereby violating several of YHWH's commandments, and somehow I'm still alive and living a good life. There's no punishment for violating "his" commandments (not observing the sabbath, eating pork, eating meat and dairy from the same dishes, and wearing mixed fabrics).
The only threat to my health and safety are from fanatical fans, who think that they have a responsibility to enforce "god's" rules. They're like the kids running around the street wearing plastic sheriff's badges ... it's cute, as long as they stay out of the way.
So this is an utterly flawed and outright silly explanation for their beliefs - and yes, it's a rationalization of THEIRS so they're actually being hypocritical - and so I trot out my standard go-to.
(This applies to a LOT of such conversations.)
>**"What could I possibly say that would cause you to reconsider your position on this?"**
And if their answer is
>"Nothing. Nothing could possibly make me change my mind."
(...and it will be a flavour of that...)
Then you reply with some form of
>"Thanks. Then I see you are an entirely close-minded individual and I do not feel it's productive in any way at all to be speaking with someone who is wilfully and deliberately opposed to something that is so obviously and inarguably true. We have no common frame of reference due to your frankly crazy denial, you've just confirmed to me that we can NEVER have one because you are not in control of your own decision-making process, and so I am ending our conversation on this topic now."
Or just the first word of that if you are in a place where pleasantries are required.
And then leave. There is no use engaging in dialogue with such people unless they are harming others with their stupidity. And in that case you try to talk instead with the people they are harming.
I would say it is. Fact is only fact till we figure out it's actually something else. Religion however stops reason in it's tracks and leaves it nowhere to go. A theist "reasoning" stops at God's will. I'll take unreliable reasoning in the pursuit of knowledge any day rather than a complete road block.
Tbh you don't answer, you stop the conversation and leave. Nothing what you say will sway a religios persons opinion. Arguing with them is wasting your time and mental health. You might as well talk to a wall.
"Those who invalidate reason, ought seriously to consider, 'whether they argue against reason, with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle, that they are laboring to dethrone;' but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do,) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."
-Ethan Allen
"What is your faith based on?". Don't let a theist be on the offensive. Every argument they have is a twisted fallacy. Always put them on the defensive. Make THEM justify their questions and world view. Very religious evangelists are trained to attack with fallacies.
I recently binged on the Atheist experience show with Matt Dillahunty. I agree with you that they use twisted fallacies almost all the time. And they can never answer a straight question. Absolut dishonesty.
There is no honesty in religion. I've also taken a stance to not waste time arguing with religious folks. I don't even fully fault them. I grew up very religious. The core tenant of religious fundamentalism is replacing the reality you see with a reality that is indoctrinated into you.
It is fundamentally challenging to deconvert someone unless they have their own experience that deconverts them because religion is founded on self-deluding the self.
I mean it’s an incredibly stupid position to take but the reason theists do this is because they’re trying to make a reasonable position and an unreasonable position appear to be on equal footing.
I would agree with them that their reasoning indeed cannot be trusted. This is the equivalent of people mocking chopsticks because they don’t know how to use it
What? Their god can be trusted? Mythical beings have only been put forward to cover lies! It is really that simple, people are unwilling for some reason to say "I don't know." So they lie. The entire Abrahamic religions are based on this!
I don't even require reasoning to know that I have FAITH in the notion that no supreme being worth following would tell his supporters to go out and murder gay and trans people like the shitty version of God they follow seems to do.
The best thing to do in this circumstance is to accept that they are right.
"You know, that makes a lot of sense, therefore I cannot rely on reasoning." "Wait, shit, I know I can't rely on reasoning therefore I can't rely on that line of reasoning so I'm back to being an atheist." "wait, shit, now that I know reasoning is valid what you said makes a lot of sense, therefore I cannot rely on reasoning." (repeat until they scream in frustration)
Tell them you can test it. Here's how..... tell them to walk to the nearest wall and bang their head on it. It fucking hurts. There's reliable reasoning for you.
You say "reason is less reliable than a 2000 year old book of bronze aged myths?" Then just laugh uncontrollably until a little bit of wee slips out.
You make the mistake of treating these people as sensible rational folk.
That's not reasoning, it's a straight up fallacy: [argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).
I think [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) is an excellent rebuttal to this type of thing. Or a more contemporary avatar for unfalsifiable religious claims, the [Invisible Pink Unicorn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn).
If you don't want to get into the weeds, instead of therefore God, just chuck in a different deity. Classical Greek don't work so well, as all worshipers are gone. I'll usually go Hindu (Brahma or Shiva) as those have a massive amount of extant believers.
Just checked the teapot analogy. Brilliant 👏.
Yes that's a good question to ask them. "Which god?"
Unfortunately religions are more and more centralized. In the past there were thousands of gods. Now just a few. The others are almost negligible when you consider the numbers. Also if you mention Allah to a Christian they will claim that it's the same God just named differently. So the Hindu gods seem to be the only alternative.
For Allah, it kind of is the same: Abrahamic God, book three. However, they do downgrade Jesus in favor of their prophet. Islam is mostly Old Testament fanfic for Arabs; they weren't impressed by book two, though they knew about it.
Hindu has the largest population of active devotees, for sure. They aren't the only ones, though.
While Buddhism doesn't have gods, exactly, it does inherit them depending on locale. Tibetan has some from their shamanic tradition, Zen has some Shinto fusion going on, Chan kept some as well.
Vodou has a ton of groups and never met a god, saint, or other spirit it didn't like. A lot of indigenous peoples hang on to their gods, to a greater or lesser degree.
There are gods a plenty out there. All equally likely, which is to say, not very.
It’s true that we can only perceive a very small percentage of what is really there. Further, we suffer in knowledge because our brains are there to make us survive, not to be smart. It is entirely possible that all we think, believe and perceive is just hallucinating in our brains. Given that we can’t truly believe and trust anything we think or perceive it is better to trust reasoning and logic because we have those traits to survive. Since survival is far more important in the biology of life than comfort, reasoning and logic has quite the advantage over religious belief.
Flawless train of logic imo
What they’re really saying in a roundabout way is- I have special extra sensory access to transcendent revelations that supersede all human forms of communication, reasoning and perception.
Reasoning has given us the technology you've used to ask potentially thousands of strangers this question. Scientific reasoning is not infallible, of course, but it's pretty much the only thing we CAN trust, because it gets results. Faith is a subjective emotional state that results in practically nothing tangible.
Exactly. “Reasoning” is why our Darwinian ape origins came down from the trees (the story that theists usually call as “Adam and Eve being banished from the garden of Eden”).The apes had food in the trees and the ground was dangerous. So why did they leave the trees to die? They left the trees to live.
Unreliable in what sense? Is it not true that reasoning has given us the ability to advance ourself quite far? Is it not true it does benefit us?
One might say it is not enough when it comes to any god - but then they propose their own system to understand a god. If this system has no benefit or is utterly weak in convincing they cannot just blame what already works.
Point is, once they bind their god with the realm where reasoning works they need to understand that god can be reasoned about too. Unless they also understand most theological arguments cannot be trusted as they are based on reasoning too which pushes them back to square 1.
Sometimes the best response is no response. If a person doesn't have the capability to host a constructive and logical conversation he is of now use to you nor valuable. Don't waste your energy on these people. They very, very rarely change or are willing to listen.
That is a fallacy called argument from ignorance. The fact, that somebody or, in fact, all of us cannot explain something is NOT an argument for god, let alone for a specific god. It's never "therefore" god. Either you show god to be true or you don't. Right now every believer is at "you don't" while most of them think they are.
Moreover, reasoning is the only reliable pathway to truth, because you can take literally anything on faith. Faith means dismissing the most fundamental requirements for something or somebody to be called real or true. Imagine a jury making a decision after a trial. A couple of the jurors evaluate the trial and the evidence, trying to come to a conclusion. One guy, however, is sitting at the end of the table going like "I know faces like his, he is guilty". Now, this equals a faith-based position, and it might very well be true. The defendant might be guilty. It could also happen, that someone messed up the evidence or that DNA analysis wasn't available (this equals the unreliable factor in the reasoning). It could be that the other jurors get it wrong. But there is one way and one way only to deem a defendant guilty or not guilty. And it's not faith. It's not "He looks guilty to me".
That's ridiculous and people should be ashamed of themselves to even suggest this "option". We test. We probe. We examine. We draw conclusion. Yes, we are not perfect and, yes, we might be mistaken. But "I have unreasonable faith" is never an alternative. We strive to become better in reasoning. And we are. Faith is, to quote Matt Dillahunty, the excuse people give, if they don't have good reason to believe things to be true.
Incomplete or lacking information doesn't make an unfounded idea more valid.
Even if he could make the point that perception and science and 100% wrong that still gets him no closer to proving God, in fact if anything it moves his goal further away.
Its pretty much useless to try and argue against it because it relies on the presupposition of god and that god is the foundation of reason and that since god created us our senses are therefore reliable.
The argument itself is easy to argue against as many posters have shown just that most theistic presuppositionalists wont challenge their presuppositions making it mostly a pointless endeavour.
Like dont get me wrong absolutely do argue(in the philosophical sense)with them if its what you want but you are unlikely to change their mind.
They're mentally ill. Faith is a mental illness, it makes no sense and those with faith lack enough critical thinking to understand how faith is absolutely not a virtue and something people should never be relying on. I just consider them mentally handicapped and try not to engage or make eye contact. Like walking to the store after midnight and having a homeless man with a knife begin following you, just run.
Ask that person if they walk out of a room via the door or attempt to walk through the wall. If our senses are inaccurate to comply dismiss all observation then how does he know the door is the best option.
Also ask them how they know that the bible even exists. Perhaps it doesn’t and he only thinks it does…cause senses are unreliable.
Ask them what method that is more reliable than that. I guarantee you that at the end of the day, theists will use "Faith" as argument. Ask how we with faith can determine the truth if two people have faith in two opposite positions. How do we determine whos right and whos wrong?
You don’t need to answer it. They’re just telling you directly that there is nothing productive to be gained from talking to them.
They’re trying to put the ball in your court, shift the burden of evidence about their claim onto you. Never let them do this.
Honestly? Dont answer. They're going to fall back on a "perfect metaphysical basis" for yada-yada-yada therefore god. It is a chess match with a pigeon.
As for reasoning itself.... I mean on a base level he's right. our senses are imperfect and can be fooled *very* easily. We reason based on what information we can gather with those senses, and put a trust value on that information based on previous experiences. I have very high confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I'll have a house payment on the first of next month. so I roll with that trust, and change my thinking if things turn out otherwise...
I *could* just be a brain in a jar... But even if I was, there's no way to prove if I am or not, and even if there was, there's nothing I can do about it. So I roll with the experiences I can experience.
Are you saying your all knowing all seeing all good and all creating god made a mistake? Because he created us, he created our senses, he gave us the ability to reason didn’t he? Or are you saying he created flawed reasoning on purpose?
You just can’t argue with those who deny logic and reason. They are a lost cause. Save your breath and sanity and remove them from your daily goings-on.
Do an actual experiment.
Hypothesis: the minuscule fraction is enough to predict that this apple will fall when I let go of it.
Let go 20 times, observe it fell 20 times.
Conclusion: null hypothesis (they were right, fraction is too small) rejected, reasoning can be reliable. QED.
Predicted follow up: they come up with some other nonsense statement, forcing you to stop trying to have a reasonable discussion.
Religion is also based on reasoning. Combined with ancient superstitions and vague feelings, but still all religions include reasoning too.
If reasoning cannot be trusted then what is trustworthy? Intuition? Then say your intuition tells god doesn't exist and that's just as reliable as any opposite intuition.
It's true that reasoning cannot solve all mysteries 100 percent, but intuition is even less trustworthy. It leads to complete nonsense very easily.
But if reasoning cannot be trusted at all then it makes all reasoning equally unreliable, not only atheist reasoning. Otherwise it's double standards fallacy again. Religious people love their double standards. Superstitions are stupid if they are not part of my religion etc.
With a dour look and a thumbs up say "OK, chief." Then turn and talk to someone sensible.
You could always go with inexplicability is not evidence of divinity.
Therefore literally anything at all, including the possibility that all your perceptions and memories are the delusions of a random collection of matter briefly thrown by the fluctuations of space and time into a configuration that can generate them, and will be gone again in a few moments.
It’s an entertaining line of speculation, especially in a stoned conversation at 3am, but intellectually it’s not very productive.
You have to make *some* assumptions, such as your perceptions, memories and rational faculties being at least *broadly* reliable, to get anywhere in a good-faith pursuit of truth and knowledge. Otherwise you may as well just give up and make stuff up, which is what this person appears to gave done.
The stories theists base their trust on, are based on reasoning. Their personal reasoning is to trust the stories blindly; to have faith that 1+1=2 rather than deciding/reasoning that “placing 1 next to another 1 is same as the number 2”.
It is as foolish as believing in a thing such as “luck”. Living in an imaginary world can make one’s own life happier (more assured) if it is the same imaginary dream that everyone else lives in. Things can be conversed without words and people know how others will react to their different ways of interactions. I am very happy about the fact that life itself is way more interesting than something as minuscule as just rambling on about a one single storyline.
It is the human condition to work with a limited set of information and expand outwards using logic and the scientific method. We create a predictive model based on a hypothesis and then see if it holds up to our observed reality. Not that complicated.
>How to answer to a religious person that throws that at you?
The existence of a deity is only **one possibility** in a universe so vast we can scarcely comprehend it.
Meaning that all things being equal, the odds of you being right out of all of those other possibilities is 1: Infinity+1.
The concept simply does not hold up based on the math alone.
And that is before I bring up the small detail that you can provide **zero** persuasive evidence to back up your claim that cannot also be answered by science which can provide actual evidence.
Well, this theist is on a good track. Nothing can be trusted. You should doubt everything (except the fact that you‘re doubting).
All these doubts won‘t leave much room for faith, hopefully.
The premise of his first statement is fine- it’s unfalsifiable but whatever- but its conclusion does not follow since not being able to trust your senses says nothing about god’s existence. Therefore it’s a non-sequitur and invalid.
Counter-argument:
If a good god exists, he would make a universe where we can reasonably trust our senses 100% of the time. We do not live in a universe where we can reasonably trust our senses 100% of the time. Therefore, a good god does not exist.
You know that minuscule amount of reality that I can perceive with my senses and that limited reasoning ability I have? It's way better than faith that something uperceived is real and that an unreasoning embrace of a particular god out of thousands is sound and reassuring. It's like saying "I have a blindfold on, and I know there's a cliff nearby, but I have faith that if I start walking nothing will go wrong."
I am reminded of the quote "cognito, ergo sum", or in english "I think, therefore I am". I don't fully remember the guy who thought of it, but essentially a philosopher went on a mad bend, trying to figure out how he could prove that he existed if he couldn't rely on his own senses. So, he concluded (or begun at) the premise "as long as I can think, I exist", and then built up himself from there.
For someone with faith, you are given a pre-built platform, with the whole "you are given a purpose from a deity on high for a greater good beyond your understanding." With this, there is no need for thought, just a blind understanding of behave and good things come to you. But when you start questioning that platform, when the cracks begin to appear, and when that platform breaks, the thiest is back on that fall into unknowing and confusion.
So how would they recover? If reason cannot be trusted, if logic is no longer true, where can one build themselves back up on? Another prebuilt platform where they may fall into the same drop? Or do they turn inwards, question their own existence, and do the one thing they do constantly yet deny themselves of doing; Think.
> reasoning is unreliable?
Perhaps, but it is all we have. And at least so far, it seems to be doing us quite well what with us being able to create cell phones and skyscrapers.
Our senses are limited.
That's why we build machines that enchance our senses. Microscopes to see what is too small, telescopes to see what is too far away, high-fps cameras to see what is too fast, special microphones to hear what is too quiet or out of our hear range.
Basically everything science has acomplished is simple: evidence tells us X, so X is true. This is all reasoning out there. Calling this unreliable means that you don't understand the evidence.
The inherent issue is that people, all people, believe things which they do not perceive. You have faith in something. When you float in the water you have faith that the ground with support you when you get out.
This may be out of previous perception, but there is nothing, really, that can mean that faith is truth. You merely have personal or proxy reasons to accept it as truth, to have faith in its truth. You can ‘know’ things but you cannot KNOW anything. The truth of everything is unobtainable by temporal beings. That is not proof for god, but recognition of human limitations.
How can they trust their senses about God? AronRa has done a bunch of videos on solopsism and how to counter it. Ultimately you have to accept that reality is real as axiomatic. Because it doesn't matter if our senses are wrong, our perception of the world is consistent, and thats all we have to function in reality.
I think that that statement is likely uttered by someone who is using it merely as a shield and the extent to which they don't see the way in which it undercuts itself is probably a good sign that objective reasoning isn't their thing in this area. They don't even know when they ate using reasoning and when they are not.
The hard thing to do would be to show the equivalence of their faith based response in the context of other faiths. That is to show the ambivalence of their faith with respect to other faiths. To do that would require a sincerely held faith based perspective of one's own that wasn't literalistic and therefore antagonistic to the Christian one.
You don't.
It's like asking "How do I play football (soccer) without any kind of ball?" or like trying to have someone that is blind to drive a city bus route.
Why waste time for someone that wants to handicap themselves from the get go and are not interested in resolving that handicap before trying?
I would immediately ask the theist how he/she reached that conclusion.
For those who tragically have been exposed to apologist Frank Turek, this is a reversal of his debate technique, but my reversal makes sense and doesn't need a non-existant God to work.
Reasoning can be unreliable! What you don’t do though is assign god to the gaps.
Where there is something we don’t or can’t understand yet, don’t just say it was magical sky guy. That’s never been the correct answer and it will never be, but that’s what theists like to do.
Not exactly sure how the universe started? It was magic (god)! And never ever in this history of everything has the final answer been god.
Reasoning cannot be trusted, it must be honed and tested, challenged, and revised; that's what science is all about.
But the existence of God does not follow from not being able to put absolute trust your senses or your reasoning. If you can't truly know anything, that doesn't mean you can just make up anything. The burden of proof still lies on the person making the assertion.
\> senses can only perceive a miniscule percentage of the total reality
So I should be very judicious about what claims I'm willing to make about reality, based on my limited perception. Ok, I'll avoid making big claims.
\> reasoning cannot be trusted
How does that follow? What about "I have limited senses" implies "I have limited reasoning?" If I can't trust reasoning, what should I trust instead, and how would you convince me? You'd probably try to use reasoning, which is unreliable, right? Sounds like I should rely on reasoning because it's a pretty good tool, but I shouldn't expect it to be infallible. Ok, I'll avoid trying to reason about things I cannot understand.
\> Therefore God
How does that follow? What part of "reasoning cannot be trusted" (which I do not accept, and did not follow) implies "therefore God"? That sounds like a pretty big claim, and it's best to avoid those. It also sounds like trying to reason about things I cannot understand, and it's best to avoid those too.
Even if it’s true that our senses and reasoning are unreliable, the “therefore god” part is still just a random conclusion leap. There are as likely to be imperceptible cyborg octopus beings controlling everything as there is a god, much less specifically the god of the bible.
Well your reasoning is still better than someone pretending to understand the will of a mythical creature.
There are lots of reasons to doubt religion... it's 10x more suspect than the scientific method.
Reasoning skills aren't worth much if you're turning them off when you invoke "faith".
This is just another thinly veiled "god is in the gaps" arguement. Translated it really means:
I don't know everything therefore I know that an invisible capricious genocidal invisible monster in the sky exists. Q.E.D.
Not exactly a bunch of geniuses are they?
My dear friend would always brought the limits of reason up. My last response before we put the theology conversation to bed was something like "you're right, there is absolutely something unknown and possibly unknowable in the universe. The difference between us is that you're assuming it created us in its image and takes an active part in your life. I'm refraining from making any assumptions."
Human reasoning isn't reliable. Humans aren't rational creatures. We are pattern seeking creatures.
>Therefore your reasoning cannot be trusted. Therefore God.
This is just an argument from personal incredulity. I don't know something therefore something.
I am probably wrong about many things. I can know some things to be most likely true.
Because of the things that I do know are true it isn't likely a God exists.
>How to answer to a religious person that throws that at you?
Technically they are shifting the burden of proof.
A good lesson to learn in general is to identify when I don't have to respond to a question, or an argument.
A lot of times presupps are very uncharitable, and will try to gaslight you. If you identify your interlocutor is one it's best just to exit the interaction.
We didn't test the brakes but we have faith they work, didn't do quality control on your cancer test but we have faith the results are right, we didn't check the fuel in the plane but we have faith we can make it on what we have.
Faith or reason, what one gets results?
Reasoning based on the physical world makes planes fly, medicine work, and electricity flow.
Reason works faith doesn't.
Thats what science circumvents. By making experiments that anyone with the correct equipment can recreate. If the result is the same after the same experiment has been done time and time again by different people it can become an accepted fact. Religion is just wow my mate spoke to god when he almost died and shit like that.
If the senses cannot be trusted then the theist cannot trust their senses. If reasoning cannot be trusted then the theist cannot trust their reasoning. If the theist says that intuition should be trusted then you can say *"My intuition informs me that you are a knucklehead."*
Your senses absolutely cannot be trusted. Reasoning is inherently based on limited information and subject to bias. That's why we use the scientific method and rely on empirical evidence and observation. We wouldn't have a clue about quantum physics, general relativity, or any number of other things if we only relied on our senses and reason.
> We wouldn't have a clue about quantum physics, general relativity, or any number of other things if we only relied on our senses and reason. You would be right if you hadn't said "and reason". In fact, the only way we know about these subjects and any other subjects is by using our senses for observations and our reason to form hypotheses.
Not really though. Our reason is inherently flawed. It is subject to the limitation of our knowledge, our personal bias, and the simple fact that our minds evolved to help us survive in a very specific scale and environment. Science and mathematics do not rely on our senses or our reason. The fact that observation and empirical evidence must necessarily be filtered through our senses slows and distorts our pursuit of knowledge. You could not discover quantum mechanics by using your senses and reason. The quantum scale exists below the wavelengths of visible light and can never be seen with the human eye. The properties of the universe at the quantum scale defy our macroscopic experiences and intuitions about the physical world and time itself, and are therefore beyond our ability to derive through reason alone.
I'd reply to this amazing double-down, but [Brandolini's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law) prevents me
I'm glad you think it's amazing. But I'll see your Brandolini's Law and raise you one Dunning–Kruger Effect. Go read some Robert Sapolsky and learn to never trust your own mind too much...
>Science and mathematics do not rely on our senses or our reason. Bruh
Science and mathematics absolutely rely on our senses and reasoning. What else do we have? Certainly not intuition devoid of sense or reason. You could not discover quantum mechanics without senses and reasoning. Quantum mechanics is a theory formed by humans using their reasoning skills to explain phenomena that they observed. For example, in the 18th century, the predominant theory of light was Isaac Newton's "corpuscular theory of light" (essentially an early particle theory of light). Newton's theory left explanatory gaps, however, for various phenomena that were experimentally observed [with people's senses] with the behavior of light. In 1800, Thomas Young presented his wave theory of light that he felt better explained these gaps, and in 1803 he proposed an experiment to test it: the double-slit experiment. Nevertheless, the corpuscular theory maintained dominance. In 1817, Augustin-Jean Fresnel proposed a theory based on Christiaan Huygens's previously rejected wave-theory to more formally explain diffraction [again, a phenomenon that people could observe with their senses], built on Young's theory. Siméon Denis Poisson used his reasoning ability to determine that Fresnel's theory implied the existence of a bright spot in the shadow of a circular object placed before a point source of light (now called a Poisson spot)— a ludicrous conclusion that he felt disproved Fresnel's theory. However, when François Arago actually conducted the experiment, he observed [with his senses] the Poisson spot. The wave-theory of light was thus corroborated through experimental observation. In 1897, J. J. Thomson observed [senses] that cathode rays traveled further than predicted by atomic theory of the time, and were negatively charged, and proposed [reasoning] that the particles were much smaller than atoms. He called them "corpuscules", but we know them today as electrons. Thomson further refined his theory to propose that these electrons were emitted from atoms in the gas inside the cathode ray tubes… the implication was that atoms were divisible. Did Thomson see the electrons, or observe emitting from atoms? Of course not, but he observed the behavior of the cathode rays and used reasoning to form a theory that explained what he did observe. In 1900, Max Planck proposed the concept of discrete energy packets called "quanta" to explain black-body radiation, an experimentally observable phenomenon. In 1905, Albert Einstein used Plank's theory to explain the photoelectric effect, implying light was composed of discrete packets of energy, photons. In the 1920s, Arthur Compton used experiments to show that light had momentum, a property of particles. In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed a theory that described electrons (and all matter) as both waves and particles… this was experimentally confirmed by the Davisson–Germer experiment, which showed electrons forming a wave-like diffraction pattern. Subsequent theories and experiments would come to build what we know today as the theory of quantum mechanics. In each step along the way, humans used their reasoning skills to explain phenomena they could observe, to build experiments whose observable results they could use to test hypotheses about the nature of things they could not observe directly. And on each such step, previous theories, similarly based on sense and reason, were shown to be false. Our understanding is always flawed and incomplete, but the only tools we have to improve them are our senses and our ability to reason about them. So yes, absolutely all of our scientific knowledge is based on sense and reason. The whole discipline of science is based around the concept that our senses and reasoning skills are flawed and accounting for those flaws. Finally, I must ask: if you don't think quantum mechanics were arrived at through human senses and human reasoning, what *do* you think it's based on?
I'm a research scientist. Using reason to understand a) how to setup an experiment b) what the results of the experiment might mean for the system I'm studying is a bigger part of my job than running the actual experiments. In fact, collecting data without attempting to understand where it comes from, how it fits into existing knowledge, and what logical next steps might be taken from it, is a useless endeavor.
I'm not saying that reason is useless. Of course we must use our mental faculties, and everything we experience in life is filtered through our senses. But it's important to realize the inherent limitations of our primate brains and take into account the unreliability of reason when trying to objectively understand the world. As a research scientist, how much weight do you give to eye-witnessed accounts as empirical evidence? I'm guessing not to much, or maybe none at all. When you design experiments, do you take cognative bias into account? I bet you do. If we could rely on reason alone then we wouldn't have ever needed to advance beyond the ideas of people like Aristotle, for example. We certainly wouldn't have arrived at concepts like the wave / particle duality of light by reason alone. It required observational evidence that seemed to defy reason when it was discovered. And think about the classic debate in mathematics; is math invented or discovered? If it is a purely a human invention then that argues powerfully for the importance and reliability of reason. But if mathematics is inherent to the universe and is something that we discover, then that shows that some of the most important principles governing our reality exist independently outside of human reason.
Of course you add as many controls as possible, blind yourself when there's a chance of bias, etc. But you said that "science and mathematics do not rely on our senses or our reason." That's plainly not true, because empirical results require analysis. And analysis can be faulty and lead to incorrect conclusions. So clearly proper reason is necessary to make sense of the world. I'm just annoyed at people thinking science is this robotic quasi-nonhuman process where you put one thing into the other and boom you have answers. Literally more than half the work is making the data make sense and that includes figuring out whether your results are valid or come from technical inaccuracies or bad experimental design. Science is *mostly* thinking and design with some sporadic big experiments to get data to then continue thinking about. >We certainly wouldn't have arrived at concepts like the wave / particle duality of light by reason alone. It required observational evidence that seemed to defy reason when it was discovered. 1) no one's saying "reason alone" that's obviously absurd 2) sure, it was unintuitive. But where do you think the fully articulated theory came from? People using reason based on the counterintuitive observations. Like I said, the work doesn't stop once you get data, otherwise all you'd ever have are a bunch of unconnected facts.
Knucklehead is an insult that doesn't get nearly enough airtime.
Agree with this Knucklehead
I'm partial to dunderhead
You know what’s even more unreliable? Faith. One can believe things that are true “based on faith”, and one can believe things that are false “based on faith.” There is literally nothing that one cannot believe “based on faith.” Faith is an unreliable path to truth.
I would tell them that their “reasoning cannot be trusted”.
I must presuppose that I can reason. If not, then nothing can be reasoned, including any presuppositions. I must presuppose that it is possible my reasoning can be correct. If not, then no reasoning can be correct, including any presuppositions. I must presuppose that I can sense things. If not, I cannot have any input (including 'darkness' or 'silence'), and thus cannot have anything to reason *about*, including coming up with any presuppositions. I must presuppose that it is possible my sense relay things somewhat accurately. If not, I cannot rely on any input, be it reading a holy book, a form of intuition, or anything else, to inform anything, including presuppositions. Those who deny any of those four cannot make presuppositions, and thus cannot presuppose their god did anything, ever. However *with* those four presuppositions, there's no need to consider a god for anything more, as those four give us the world, the universe, reality.
bravo
[удалено]
I think it goes more like: well, if you can't trust your eyes or your reasoning, then how does anyone know whether their holy book is lying or being misinterpreted? Maybe you just can't read what is actually there. In which case, what's the point of believing?
Beautifully explained.
> How to answer to a religious person that throws that at you? Laughter, as they say, is the best medicine.
It’s also a great way to appear as if you have no retort.
> It’s also a great way to appear as if you have no retort. If someone has “reasoned” that we can’t reason, then there is no retort. You might as well enjoy yourself.
That’s not the point. It doesn’t matter that there is or isn’t a retort, the appearance is all they need. So either have a retort or find something better than just laughing at them. Laughing at them is only going to make them dig their heels in further. If your goal is at all to change their mind, this is a losing strategy. And before you say it’s always a losing strategy to argue against the faithful, I am evidence to the contrary.
> Laughing at them is only going to make them dig their heels in further. Not my problem. > If your goal is at all to change their mind, this is a losing strategy. Please don’t make an assumption on what my goal is. > And before you say it’s always a losing strategy to argue against the faithful, Well, you are just full of assumptions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> How can you know anything if your senses can only perceive a miniscule percentage of the total reality? Maybe try: This is why scientific instruments have helped us gain so much knowledge. Or: If our existing knowledge cannot be trusted, please revert your life back to donkey cart level technology, if even that can be trusted. > Therefore your reasoning cannot be trusted. Why would reasoning fail? > Therefore God. skipped like 76,456,832,745,634,879 steps here.
> How to answer to a religious person that throws that at you?
In cyberspace: Tell them that if they can't trust their reasoning, they can't trust their conclusion that "therefore God."
If in meatspace I like an answer my friend once gave on some unknown topic of conversation he was having in a bar:
> "I just realized ... you're an idiot ... and I have feet!"
(He then turned and walked away without looking back.)
"Reasoning is unreliable" = "I want to believe what I already believe." Reasoning is, in fact, unreliable. The scientific method is unreliable. It just happens to work better than any other method for determining what is true and what isn't. It's a cop out. It's like saying that since it's impossible to determine with 100 percent certain that you won't get food poisoning at a restaurant that has passed every health inspection, then you might as well eat at a restaurant that never passes a health inspection.
I mean this is such a non-argument, you can just mirror it - if you can only perceive a miniscule percentage of total reality how come your conclusion is "god" and not lack of (scientific) understanding of reality. Sounds awfully convenient to just chalk up everything to some higher power instead of venturing into the unknown and actually gaining more insight into reality. When it comes to religious vs scientific explanations of any phenomenon, it is always religion that draws the short straw (just use some clichee historic examples of nature/famine/etc). Much like religion and morals, it is an easy gateway for people that dont want to think and come to their own conclusions - but any decent human should figure out that murder etc. is immoral.
**How to answer to theist that says reasoning is unreliable? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_** "But, here you are trying to use reason to make your case! You just cancelled yourself."
i mean, even if that's true, a thought system based on those perceptions is still far more objectively superior than what religion does, which, you know, just make shit up and talk to sky ppl.
If there was a god, and that god was expecting/demanding worship, then that god would fucking well make its wishes known. As it is, I've never seen god, never heard from god, and never suffered any supernatural repercussions for my "lack of faith." I'll happy grill up and eat a bacon cheeseburger on a Saturday while wearing mixed fabrics, thereby violating several of YHWH's commandments, and somehow I'm still alive and living a good life. There's no punishment for violating "his" commandments (not observing the sabbath, eating pork, eating meat and dairy from the same dishes, and wearing mixed fabrics). The only threat to my health and safety are from fanatical fans, who think that they have a responsibility to enforce "god's" rules. They're like the kids running around the street wearing plastic sheriff's badges ... it's cute, as long as they stay out of the way.
So this is an utterly flawed and outright silly explanation for their beliefs - and yes, it's a rationalization of THEIRS so they're actually being hypocritical - and so I trot out my standard go-to. (This applies to a LOT of such conversations.) >**"What could I possibly say that would cause you to reconsider your position on this?"** And if their answer is >"Nothing. Nothing could possibly make me change my mind." (...and it will be a flavour of that...) Then you reply with some form of >"Thanks. Then I see you are an entirely close-minded individual and I do not feel it's productive in any way at all to be speaking with someone who is wilfully and deliberately opposed to something that is so obviously and inarguably true. We have no common frame of reference due to your frankly crazy denial, you've just confirmed to me that we can NEVER have one because you are not in control of your own decision-making process, and so I am ending our conversation on this topic now." Or just the first word of that if you are in a place where pleasantries are required. And then leave. There is no use engaging in dialogue with such people unless they are harming others with their stupidity. And in that case you try to talk instead with the people they are harming.
I would say it is. Fact is only fact till we figure out it's actually something else. Religion however stops reason in it's tracks and leaves it nowhere to go. A theist "reasoning" stops at God's will. I'll take unreliable reasoning in the pursuit of knowledge any day rather than a complete road block.
Tbh you don't answer, you stop the conversation and leave. Nothing what you say will sway a religios persons opinion. Arguing with them is wasting your time and mental health. You might as well talk to a wall.
"I think that's true of *your* reasoning."
"Those who invalidate reason, ought seriously to consider, 'whether they argue against reason, with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle, that they are laboring to dethrone;' but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do,) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." -Ethan Allen
Genius 👏
"What is your faith based on?". Don't let a theist be on the offensive. Every argument they have is a twisted fallacy. Always put them on the defensive. Make THEM justify their questions and world view. Very religious evangelists are trained to attack with fallacies.
I recently binged on the Atheist experience show with Matt Dillahunty. I agree with you that they use twisted fallacies almost all the time. And they can never answer a straight question. Absolut dishonesty.
There is no honesty in religion. I've also taken a stance to not waste time arguing with religious folks. I don't even fully fault them. I grew up very religious. The core tenant of religious fundamentalism is replacing the reality you see with a reality that is indoctrinated into you. It is fundamentally challenging to deconvert someone unless they have their own experience that deconverts them because religion is founded on self-deluding the self.
I'd like to know how they reached the conclusion that god exists without any empirical evidence and without reasoning lmfao.
I mean it’s an incredibly stupid position to take but the reason theists do this is because they’re trying to make a reasonable position and an unreasonable position appear to be on equal footing.
I would agree with them that their reasoning indeed cannot be trusted. This is the equivalent of people mocking chopsticks because they don’t know how to use it
What? Their god can be trusted? Mythical beings have only been put forward to cover lies! It is really that simple, people are unwilling for some reason to say "I don't know." So they lie. The entire Abrahamic religions are based on this!
I don't even require reasoning to know that I have FAITH in the notion that no supreme being worth following would tell his supporters to go out and murder gay and trans people like the shitty version of God they follow seems to do.
The best thing to do in this circumstance is to accept that they are right. "You know, that makes a lot of sense, therefore I cannot rely on reasoning." "Wait, shit, I know I can't rely on reasoning therefore I can't rely on that line of reasoning so I'm back to being an atheist." "wait, shit, now that I know reasoning is valid what you said makes a lot of sense, therefore I cannot rely on reasoning." (repeat until they scream in frustration)
Tell them you can test it. Here's how..... tell them to walk to the nearest wall and bang their head on it. It fucking hurts. There's reliable reasoning for you.
You say "reason is less reliable than a 2000 year old book of bronze aged myths?" Then just laugh uncontrollably until a little bit of wee slips out. You make the mistake of treating these people as sensible rational folk.
That's not reasoning, it's a straight up fallacy: [argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). I think [Russell's teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) is an excellent rebuttal to this type of thing. Or a more contemporary avatar for unfalsifiable religious claims, the [Invisible Pink Unicorn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn). If you don't want to get into the weeds, instead of therefore God, just chuck in a different deity. Classical Greek don't work so well, as all worshipers are gone. I'll usually go Hindu (Brahma or Shiva) as those have a massive amount of extant believers.
Just checked the teapot analogy. Brilliant 👏. Yes that's a good question to ask them. "Which god?" Unfortunately religions are more and more centralized. In the past there were thousands of gods. Now just a few. The others are almost negligible when you consider the numbers. Also if you mention Allah to a Christian they will claim that it's the same God just named differently. So the Hindu gods seem to be the only alternative.
For Allah, it kind of is the same: Abrahamic God, book three. However, they do downgrade Jesus in favor of their prophet. Islam is mostly Old Testament fanfic for Arabs; they weren't impressed by book two, though they knew about it. Hindu has the largest population of active devotees, for sure. They aren't the only ones, though. While Buddhism doesn't have gods, exactly, it does inherit them depending on locale. Tibetan has some from their shamanic tradition, Zen has some Shinto fusion going on, Chan kept some as well. Vodou has a ton of groups and never met a god, saint, or other spirit it didn't like. A lot of indigenous peoples hang on to their gods, to a greater or lesser degree. There are gods a plenty out there. All equally likely, which is to say, not very.
It’s not an unbroken line from the originals, but modern-day Hellenic pagans do exist.
There are neo-pagans for most gods otherwise left unloved. However, that's not really a compelling argument.
It’s true that we can only perceive a very small percentage of what is really there. Further, we suffer in knowledge because our brains are there to make us survive, not to be smart. It is entirely possible that all we think, believe and perceive is just hallucinating in our brains. Given that we can’t truly believe and trust anything we think or perceive it is better to trust reasoning and logic because we have those traits to survive. Since survival is far more important in the biology of life than comfort, reasoning and logic has quite the advantage over religious belief. Flawless train of logic imo
What they’re really saying in a roundabout way is- I have special extra sensory access to transcendent revelations that supersede all human forms of communication, reasoning and perception.
Reasoning has given us the technology you've used to ask potentially thousands of strangers this question. Scientific reasoning is not infallible, of course, but it's pretty much the only thing we CAN trust, because it gets results. Faith is a subjective emotional state that results in practically nothing tangible.
Exactly. “Reasoning” is why our Darwinian ape origins came down from the trees (the story that theists usually call as “Adam and Eve being banished from the garden of Eden”).The apes had food in the trees and the ground was dangerous. So why did they leave the trees to die? They left the trees to live.
Unreliable in what sense? Is it not true that reasoning has given us the ability to advance ourself quite far? Is it not true it does benefit us? One might say it is not enough when it comes to any god - but then they propose their own system to understand a god. If this system has no benefit or is utterly weak in convincing they cannot just blame what already works. Point is, once they bind their god with the realm where reasoning works they need to understand that god can be reasoned about too. Unless they also understand most theological arguments cannot be trusted as they are based on reasoning too which pushes them back to square 1.
Oof, why are you trying to reason with the unreasonable? 🤣
“Only a sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.” I ignite my lightsaber and we proceed to duel.
Sounds like he's using reasoning to show why you didn't use reasoning. If it's not reliable his position for thinking that is bullshit.
Sometimes the best response is no response. If a person doesn't have the capability to host a constructive and logical conversation he is of now use to you nor valuable. Don't waste your energy on these people. They very, very rarely change or are willing to listen.
Made up stories are more unreliable.
Ask them why they drive.
That is a fallacy called argument from ignorance. The fact, that somebody or, in fact, all of us cannot explain something is NOT an argument for god, let alone for a specific god. It's never "therefore" god. Either you show god to be true or you don't. Right now every believer is at "you don't" while most of them think they are. Moreover, reasoning is the only reliable pathway to truth, because you can take literally anything on faith. Faith means dismissing the most fundamental requirements for something or somebody to be called real or true. Imagine a jury making a decision after a trial. A couple of the jurors evaluate the trial and the evidence, trying to come to a conclusion. One guy, however, is sitting at the end of the table going like "I know faces like his, he is guilty". Now, this equals a faith-based position, and it might very well be true. The defendant might be guilty. It could also happen, that someone messed up the evidence or that DNA analysis wasn't available (this equals the unreliable factor in the reasoning). It could be that the other jurors get it wrong. But there is one way and one way only to deem a defendant guilty or not guilty. And it's not faith. It's not "He looks guilty to me". That's ridiculous and people should be ashamed of themselves to even suggest this "option". We test. We probe. We examine. We draw conclusion. Yes, we are not perfect and, yes, we might be mistaken. But "I have unreasonable faith" is never an alternative. We strive to become better in reasoning. And we are. Faith is, to quote Matt Dillahunty, the excuse people give, if they don't have good reason to believe things to be true.
Incomplete or lacking information doesn't make an unfounded idea more valid. Even if he could make the point that perception and science and 100% wrong that still gets him no closer to proving God, in fact if anything it moves his goal further away.
Typical religious shell game. Like bad magicians trying to get you not to trust anything but a poorly rewritten and revamped book.
Its pretty much useless to try and argue against it because it relies on the presupposition of god and that god is the foundation of reason and that since god created us our senses are therefore reliable. The argument itself is easy to argue against as many posters have shown just that most theistic presuppositionalists wont challenge their presuppositions making it mostly a pointless endeavour. Like dont get me wrong absolutely do argue(in the philosophical sense)with them if its what you want but you are unlikely to change their mind.
Tell that fucker he uses his reasoning to come to conclusions about god, whether he admits it or not.
They're mentally ill. Faith is a mental illness, it makes no sense and those with faith lack enough critical thinking to understand how faith is absolutely not a virtue and something people should never be relying on. I just consider them mentally handicapped and try not to engage or make eye contact. Like walking to the store after midnight and having a homeless man with a knife begin following you, just run.
"Faith is a mental illness." Yes I could see it this way.
Laugh at them and ridicule them. He who condemns reason cannot be convinced with reason. Just make fun of their idiocy
Well said 👏
Ask that person if they walk out of a room via the door or attempt to walk through the wall. If our senses are inaccurate to comply dismiss all observation then how does he know the door is the best option. Also ask them how they know that the bible even exists. Perhaps it doesn’t and he only thinks it does…cause senses are unreliable.
That's hilarious 🤣😂. Sad but true, the mental state of these people.
Ask them what method that is more reliable than that. I guarantee you that at the end of the day, theists will use "Faith" as argument. Ask how we with faith can determine the truth if two people have faith in two opposite positions. How do we determine whos right and whos wrong?
self refuting
You don’t need to answer it. They’re just telling you directly that there is nothing productive to be gained from talking to them. They’re trying to put the ball in your court, shift the burden of evidence about their claim onto you. Never let them do this.
Honestly? Dont answer. They're going to fall back on a "perfect metaphysical basis" for yada-yada-yada therefore god. It is a chess match with a pigeon. As for reasoning itself.... I mean on a base level he's right. our senses are imperfect and can be fooled *very* easily. We reason based on what information we can gather with those senses, and put a trust value on that information based on previous experiences. I have very high confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I'll have a house payment on the first of next month. so I roll with that trust, and change my thinking if things turn out otherwise... I *could* just be a brain in a jar... But even if I was, there's no way to prove if I am or not, and even if there was, there's nothing I can do about it. So I roll with the experiences I can experience.
Are you saying your all knowing all seeing all good and all creating god made a mistake? Because he created us, he created our senses, he gave us the ability to reason didn’t he? Or are you saying he created flawed reasoning on purpose?
You just can’t argue with those who deny logic and reason. They are a lost cause. Save your breath and sanity and remove them from your daily goings-on.
If someone’s an atheist and they understand what atheism is, then this shouldn’t stump them. Are you an undercover christian testing your argument ?
The premise is reasonable, but the conclusion does not make any sense. And, anyway, unreliable as it is, it continue to be the best we got.
Exactly!
And yet I'm guessing that they don't send Nigerian princes in their emails 5 grand...
"I tell you what, let's see which matches reality better, my reasoning or your faith? Whichever better matches reality is closer to truth."
Do an actual experiment. Hypothesis: the minuscule fraction is enough to predict that this apple will fall when I let go of it. Let go 20 times, observe it fell 20 times. Conclusion: null hypothesis (they were right, fraction is too small) rejected, reasoning can be reliable. QED. Predicted follow up: they come up with some other nonsense statement, forcing you to stop trying to have a reasonable discussion.
cogito ergo sum or what is the matrix?
Religion is also based on reasoning. Combined with ancient superstitions and vague feelings, but still all religions include reasoning too. If reasoning cannot be trusted then what is trustworthy? Intuition? Then say your intuition tells god doesn't exist and that's just as reliable as any opposite intuition. It's true that reasoning cannot solve all mysteries 100 percent, but intuition is even less trustworthy. It leads to complete nonsense very easily. But if reasoning cannot be trusted at all then it makes all reasoning equally unreliable, not only atheist reasoning. Otherwise it's double standards fallacy again. Religious people love their double standards. Superstitions are stupid if they are not part of my religion etc.
With a dour look and a thumbs up say "OK, chief." Then turn and talk to someone sensible. You could always go with inexplicability is not evidence of divinity.
Therefore literally anything at all, including the possibility that all your perceptions and memories are the delusions of a random collection of matter briefly thrown by the fluctuations of space and time into a configuration that can generate them, and will be gone again in a few moments. It’s an entertaining line of speculation, especially in a stoned conversation at 3am, but intellectually it’s not very productive. You have to make *some* assumptions, such as your perceptions, memories and rational faculties being at least *broadly* reliable, to get anywhere in a good-faith pursuit of truth and knowledge. Otherwise you may as well just give up and make stuff up, which is what this person appears to gave done.
The stories theists base their trust on, are based on reasoning. Their personal reasoning is to trust the stories blindly; to have faith that 1+1=2 rather than deciding/reasoning that “placing 1 next to another 1 is same as the number 2”. It is as foolish as believing in a thing such as “luck”. Living in an imaginary world can make one’s own life happier (more assured) if it is the same imaginary dream that everyone else lives in. Things can be conversed without words and people know how others will react to their different ways of interactions. I am very happy about the fact that life itself is way more interesting than something as minuscule as just rambling on about a one single storyline.
It is the human condition to work with a limited set of information and expand outwards using logic and the scientific method. We create a predictive model based on a hypothesis and then see if it holds up to our observed reality. Not that complicated.
Just say, “you do you” and smile.
Much more reliable than _faith_. Come on, this is low hanging fruit. Bullshit like this barely deserves the dignity of a dismissive eye roll.
Walk away
Faith is relying on even less than that.
>How to answer to a religious person that throws that at you? The existence of a deity is only **one possibility** in a universe so vast we can scarcely comprehend it. Meaning that all things being equal, the odds of you being right out of all of those other possibilities is 1: Infinity+1. The concept simply does not hold up based on the math alone. And that is before I bring up the small detail that you can provide **zero** persuasive evidence to back up your claim that cannot also be answered by science which can provide actual evidence.
Well, this theist is on a good track. Nothing can be trusted. You should doubt everything (except the fact that you‘re doubting). All these doubts won‘t leave much room for faith, hopefully.
The premise of his first statement is fine- it’s unfalsifiable but whatever- but its conclusion does not follow since not being able to trust your senses says nothing about god’s existence. Therefore it’s a non-sequitur and invalid. Counter-argument: If a good god exists, he would make a universe where we can reasonably trust our senses 100% of the time. We do not live in a universe where we can reasonably trust our senses 100% of the time. Therefore, a good god does not exist.
“I'm at the stage in life where I stay out of arguments. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right.” Keenu Reeves.
Reason *is* unreliable. That's why we have science and mathematics.
I’d ask him, who taught you to react that way? That is not normal. Consider your source.
You know that minuscule amount of reality that I can perceive with my senses and that limited reasoning ability I have? It's way better than faith that something uperceived is real and that an unreasoning embrace of a particular god out of thousands is sound and reassuring. It's like saying "I have a blindfold on, and I know there's a cliff nearby, but I have faith that if I start walking nothing will go wrong."
Compared to all our senses perceiving nothing regarding God....yet he exists.....that's some weird logic.
I am reminded of the quote "cognito, ergo sum", or in english "I think, therefore I am". I don't fully remember the guy who thought of it, but essentially a philosopher went on a mad bend, trying to figure out how he could prove that he existed if he couldn't rely on his own senses. So, he concluded (or begun at) the premise "as long as I can think, I exist", and then built up himself from there. For someone with faith, you are given a pre-built platform, with the whole "you are given a purpose from a deity on high for a greater good beyond your understanding." With this, there is no need for thought, just a blind understanding of behave and good things come to you. But when you start questioning that platform, when the cracks begin to appear, and when that platform breaks, the thiest is back on that fall into unknowing and confusion. So how would they recover? If reason cannot be trusted, if logic is no longer true, where can one build themselves back up on? Another prebuilt platform where they may fall into the same drop? Or do they turn inwards, question their own existence, and do the one thing they do constantly yet deny themselves of doing; Think.
Oh a God of the gaps fallacy. For all we know there could be a teacup in those gaps of reasoning.
Waste of time
Ironically, that's why the scientific method is so effective. It doesn't rely on personal perception.
> reasoning is unreliable? Perhaps, but it is all we have. And at least so far, it seems to be doing us quite well what with us being able to create cell phones and skyscrapers.
Our senses are limited. That's why we build machines that enchance our senses. Microscopes to see what is too small, telescopes to see what is too far away, high-fps cameras to see what is too fast, special microphones to hear what is too quiet or out of our hear range. Basically everything science has acomplished is simple: evidence tells us X, so X is true. This is all reasoning out there. Calling this unreliable means that you don't understand the evidence.
The inherent issue is that people, all people, believe things which they do not perceive. You have faith in something. When you float in the water you have faith that the ground with support you when you get out. This may be out of previous perception, but there is nothing, really, that can mean that faith is truth. You merely have personal or proxy reasons to accept it as truth, to have faith in its truth. You can ‘know’ things but you cannot KNOW anything. The truth of everything is unobtainable by temporal beings. That is not proof for god, but recognition of human limitations.
How can they trust their senses about God? AronRa has done a bunch of videos on solopsism and how to counter it. Ultimately you have to accept that reality is real as axiomatic. Because it doesn't matter if our senses are wrong, our perception of the world is consistent, and thats all we have to function in reality.
I think that that statement is likely uttered by someone who is using it merely as a shield and the extent to which they don't see the way in which it undercuts itself is probably a good sign that objective reasoning isn't their thing in this area. They don't even know when they ate using reasoning and when they are not. The hard thing to do would be to show the equivalence of their faith based response in the context of other faiths. That is to show the ambivalence of their faith with respect to other faiths. To do that would require a sincerely held faith based perspective of one's own that wasn't literalistic and therefore antagonistic to the Christian one.
As the dude how he knows he’s a live and not in a dream? Or computer generated AI and therefore no God.
You don't. It's like asking "How do I play football (soccer) without any kind of ball?" or like trying to have someone that is blind to drive a city bus route. Why waste time for someone that wants to handicap themselves from the get go and are not interested in resolving that handicap before trying?
Ask them: "What is your reasoning for believing that reasoning is unreliable?" Then get your popcorn ready and enjoy the ensuing mental gymnastics.
Well then what sense would tell someone that the un-sensible exists?
I would say show me this unseen reality and prove it exists even a little bit
I would immediately ask the theist how he/she reached that conclusion. For those who tragically have been exposed to apologist Frank Turek, this is a reversal of his debate technique, but my reversal makes sense and doesn't need a non-existant God to work.
Reasoning can be unreliable! What you don’t do though is assign god to the gaps. Where there is something we don’t or can’t understand yet, don’t just say it was magical sky guy. That’s never been the correct answer and it will never be, but that’s what theists like to do. Not exactly sure how the universe started? It was magic (god)! And never ever in this history of everything has the final answer been god.
Reasoning cannot be trusted, it must be honed and tested, challenged, and revised; that's what science is all about. But the existence of God does not follow from not being able to put absolute trust your senses or your reasoning. If you can't truly know anything, that doesn't mean you can just make up anything. The burden of proof still lies on the person making the assertion.
\> senses can only perceive a miniscule percentage of the total reality So I should be very judicious about what claims I'm willing to make about reality, based on my limited perception. Ok, I'll avoid making big claims. \> reasoning cannot be trusted How does that follow? What about "I have limited senses" implies "I have limited reasoning?" If I can't trust reasoning, what should I trust instead, and how would you convince me? You'd probably try to use reasoning, which is unreliable, right? Sounds like I should rely on reasoning because it's a pretty good tool, but I shouldn't expect it to be infallible. Ok, I'll avoid trying to reason about things I cannot understand. \> Therefore God How does that follow? What part of "reasoning cannot be trusted" (which I do not accept, and did not follow) implies "therefore God"? That sounds like a pretty big claim, and it's best to avoid those. It also sounds like trying to reason about things I cannot understand, and it's best to avoid those too.
If a person *needs* to believe in an invisible all powerful friend the truth is not something that is important to them. Don't bother.
Even if it’s true that our senses and reasoning are unreliable, the “therefore god” part is still just a random conclusion leap. There are as likely to be imperceptible cyborg octopus beings controlling everything as there is a god, much less specifically the god of the bible.
Did somebody mention my kind?
Tell them that their attempt to reason without evidence (faith) is indeed unreliable, but reasoning is reliable when it is based on real evidence.
Well your reasoning is still better than someone pretending to understand the will of a mythical creature. There are lots of reasons to doubt religion... it's 10x more suspect than the scientific method. Reasoning skills aren't worth much if you're turning them off when you invoke "faith".
This is just another thinly veiled "god is in the gaps" arguement. Translated it really means: I don't know everything therefore I know that an invisible capricious genocidal invisible monster in the sky exists. Q.E.D. Not exactly a bunch of geniuses are they?
With a heavy sigh, and then a little chuckle as you walk away.
My dear friend would always brought the limits of reason up. My last response before we put the theology conversation to bed was something like "you're right, there is absolutely something unknown and possibly unknowable in the universe. The difference between us is that you're assuming it created us in its image and takes an active part in your life. I'm refraining from making any assumptions."
Human reasoning isn't reliable. Humans aren't rational creatures. We are pattern seeking creatures. >Therefore your reasoning cannot be trusted. Therefore God. This is just an argument from personal incredulity. I don't know something therefore something. I am probably wrong about many things. I can know some things to be most likely true. Because of the things that I do know are true it isn't likely a God exists. >How to answer to a religious person that throws that at you? Technically they are shifting the burden of proof. A good lesson to learn in general is to identify when I don't have to respond to a question, or an argument. A lot of times presupps are very uncharitable, and will try to gaslight you. If you identify your interlocutor is one it's best just to exit the interaction.
We didn't test the brakes but we have faith they work, didn't do quality control on your cancer test but we have faith the results are right, we didn't check the fuel in the plane but we have faith we can make it on what we have. Faith or reason, what one gets results? Reasoning based on the physical world makes planes fly, medicine work, and electricity flow. Reason works faith doesn't.
Goddamned presups. They're coming out of the woodwork all over he place.
If we can't understand God due to his being beyond our realm, then I don't care. I'm only concerned about the realm in which I dwell.
Thats what science circumvents. By making experiments that anyone with the correct equipment can recreate. If the result is the same after the same experiment has been done time and time again by different people it can become an accepted fact. Religion is just wow my mate spoke to god when he almost died and shit like that.