I explain the end of my confident faith in God and the beginning of what became irreparable doubts about God’s existence, given the current lack of motivating evidence for believing in Him. All excerpts used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under “fair use” in Title 17 § 107 of the USC. Music: “Deus” by Electric Skychurch .
Tags: Deconversion25 Comments
Great videos.
@CalebDWilliams
Where you the guy that back then said “the leap from non living to living is just too much for me”?
Well you might want to look up the “life 2.0″ project that recently publicated its results. Scientists have finally sinthetized the first completely artificial bacteria whose parent is not a living organism but a computer and they have even put in its DNA their website address.
Excellent stuff here, and thanks for sharing.
@CalebDWilliams
Well, as I said you can keep the question to yourself, maybe you can come back with an answer of sorts one day.
And if you do want to ask or keep going on about anything (I have myself left quite some things unanswered it seems) well, theres always PM.
Take care.
@Azotadeth Yeah, there’s not really any falsifiable method for God, but that doesn’t bother me too much because I don’t think falsifiability is supreme. No offense taken. I do feel like I’ve accomplished my goals of proving that belief in God is not without it’s merits so I’m all for letting Evid3nc3 have his board back.
Good conversation, take it easy
@CalebDWilliams
This is all nice,albeit I cant relate.
But I do beg to point out, I had asked you for falsification, not verification ;p
Now, I know I wouldnt know the answer to that, so I wont expect you to do so (non-condescending).
You may keep the question to yourself, maybe it doesnt make sense to you now, maybe it will one day, or maybe not.
W/ that as far as Im concerned, I think Ive done my part in portraying points of skepticism to you here, so Im up for stopping the channel spam :p
@Azotadeth What I’m getting at more is the underlying assumptions of the discipline of science itself. The philosophy of science, if you will.
@Azotadeth I mean overrated only in the sense that it is seen as absolute. Yes, science is the best way we know of to get at knowledge, but it is not ultimate and shouldn’t be treated as such, or so I believe.
@CalebDWilliams
And believe me, the skepticism IS turned inwards, albeit it can be difficult for the same person to do it, that is why peer-review exists and is such a great idea.
There is no assumption so “sacred” as it cannot be questioned tested by whoever can do it.
This is part of the basics after all, of what makes science a better way to understand the workings of the world than faith ever does.
@Azotadeth Is that unhelpful? Probably. Is it honest? Yes.
As far as the Bible goes, the layers upon layers of types and shadows throughout speak to its authenticity (there are some really interesting one, if you’re interested ask about Jael). Further there’s this sense of conviction that this is truth that I attribute to God.
Like I said, you wouldn’t like it, but I’m not going to hide what I believe for the approval of a human.
@Azotadeth Absolutely, but you’re not going to like my answer. Christianity is seen (by Christians at least) not as a religion, but a relationship. It seems cliché–and please know I realize this–, but there really is a sense of communion with God that I get. I realize this isn’t testable, but I’m OK with that. A lot of it is faith, a lot of it is the community of the Church, a lot of it is relational. There’s also this overwhelming sense of peace and a sense of love and forgiveness.
@CalebDWilliams
Dont know about overrated, it works very well when applied to empirical and scientifical knowledge, wonderfully in fact. It also works quite well in logic as long as you dont try to push it on basic premises and methodologies as previously seen, althought it is not its field per-se.
It may not be uber-perfect, but it is undoubtedly the best way to confirm truths from falsehoods we know of yet, the principle of confirmation gave rise to loads more problems.
@CalebDWilliams
And since we have come to the notion of falsifiability of points of view, I now get to slip in the questions I wanted to make at some point, in actual response to your argument.
What about your worldview ? What would make god falsifiable to you ?
Rephrasing the question in a hypothetical light:
If god could be only an imaginary concept invented by people, how would you tell it apart from your God ?
How would you tell if the Bible was the word of man and not of god ?
Any idea?
@Azotadeth Thanks.
@Azotadeth Or perhaps the ideal of falsification is overrated. If you were to take this view, though, you would see science like I see it: Helpful, but not ultimate. The problem with atheists/scientists/whathaveyouists is that they rarely turn their skepticism inward on their own assumptions and I think that’s what we have here.
Again, this is why I see science as lacking, certainly helpful, but certainly not the end-all, be-all.
(Semi-related: What then would be?)
@CalebDWilliams
Kudos on bringing up the notion tho, I didnt think we would get to that.
@Azotadeth Again, that’s why I would follow Neitzsche if I weren’t a Christian. This is one of those tests I put my faith through. I said in another board that it’s either Neitzsche or Jesus, this is what I meant. I think that if one really looks at logic one is drawn to either theism or nihilism/solipsism.
@CalebDWilliams
The first logical possibility I can think of is that the principle of falsifiability shouldnt be applied to pure logic and logical methodology, it can seem a mere convenience, but then again, using a logical argument to question logic itself doesnt make much sense at all either.
The way I see it logic is pretty much a constant appliable to human thought.
I could question it, but I might as well question the constants of the universal forces.
@Azotadeth You’re not the only one that doesn’t want it to be right, at least you realize it. I would challenge you for when you read it treat your skepticism with the same skeptical attitude you treat the Bible with. As for the cascading questions, there is over 2,000 years worth of theology that makes sense of these issues. I know a little bit, but I’m far from an expert. I guess just be open minded to it, you might be surprised. Then again, you might not and then what have you really lost?
@CalebDWilliams
We could even go further than throwing a wrench in and bomb the building. What about logic ? Is logic falsifiable ? How are we ever going to prove that ? But since logic is arguably the quality of correct reasoning how the hell would that be done without falling into tautology. It couldnt be done, in fact, without it we couldnt consider just about anything and be reduced to an, again nihilist/solipstic view, only without being conscious of it.
@Azotadeth Here again you’re wrong. Because of the structure of Hebrew poetry we can tell what is and isn’t poetry. Remember, Hebrew poetry isn’t built on meter and rhyme like English poetry is, but on parallelism of ideas. Again any basic hermeneutics class will go into the specifics of Hebrew poetry and the other genres.
@Azotadeth Let’s assume for the sake of argument it is the Word of God and that inerrancy applies only to the autographa. Should we believe that larger narrative that is logically consistent (and it is, Hebrews sums it up nicely) is corrupted by minor sections that, as you claim, have seen some editing? There’s no doubt there are some areas that are doubious, but conservative scholars have those called into question and don’t build too much on them.
@CalebDWilliams
TBH I might not want it to be right, it would be pretty nasty as I see it.
But looking at it from a skeptical standpoint, you simply cannot take it seriously.
It talks about things for which there is no reference, evidence or possibility of replication. For every problem you solve in its interpretation you get more problems, many of them adressing validity of the interpretation and how it clashes with God’s perfection.
And if you interpret it literally, damn, thats even worse.
@CalebDWilliams
See, the main problems is the intepretations of what is verse and poetry, what means something else and what is strictly true was made by theologians, who are after all, men.
Men make mistakes. Men cannot fully understand god. Therefore any and all of these theories are fallible and ignorant to a point, and should not be considered to be the truth of what is in the Bible. The word there is whats supposed to be the truth, not what men make of it which has infinite possibilities.
@Azotadeth Forgive me if I appear angry, certainly not my intention or feeling. Granted that falsifiability is intended for use in science, but at it’s heart it is a philosophical principle.
If we really want to throw a wrench into things let’s ask this question: Is the principle of falsifiability falsifiable? Certainly it isn’t. Therefore, falsifiability is unfalsifiable. What does this have to say about the entire scientific method based on the principle?