The simplest refutation of theism

[Underseer]

But if they can't define it, how can you know what they're talking about?

If someone can't tell you the difference between their God and jdghtnrdbjiyhn, why would you assume that they're giving you any information at all about their God?

Honestly, igtheism is probably correct, however I question how useful it is as an anti-apologetics argument. Theists simply will not notice that their concept of god is incoherent, and will probably resist any attempt by an atheist to demonstrate that their concept of god is too poorly-defined to be proved.

But then, if we're going to be completely honest, I have the same problem with discussions about free will. I think we all have a definition that is too poorly defined for any truly meaningful discussion about it.

 

[bilby]

But if they can't define it, how can you know what they're talking about?

If someone can't tell you the difference between their God and jdghtnrdbjiyhn, why would you assume that they're giving you any information at all about their God?

Mate, don't take the name of jdghtnrdbjiyhn in vain. He will lightning bolt your arse for that. No kidding.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The argument is via negativa. God is so different from us, so beyond understanding that logic can gain us no understanding. God cannot be understood by the intellect. We can only say what God is not. All we can know is what God tells us by revelation, the Bible, Quran et al. Of course, some religions, such as Catholicism disagree since at least Thomas Aquinas. Of course one can argue this sort of manner about the nature of a naturalistic physical Universe, or even fairies and unicorns. Taken to its illogical conclusion, Alvin Plantinga states that even if we can offer no evidence, no proof or even solve the logical problems of theology, belief in God and Christianity is properly basic.

How can we say what God is not? Doesn't that make God knowable? Also, only what basis can we trust a revelation from an ineffable God?

Saying that God cannot be understood with the intellect... isn't that the same thing as saying God is ineffable. Which brings us to my original point?

Depends on how pure one's via negativa is. Some theologians such as al Ghazali demonstrated that understanding god is logically impossible and sank into mysticism. We cannot reason even with revelation to guide s so mystical outlook is all that is left. Belief despite the problams. Early on, some Islamic thinkers thoroughly abandoned kalam, that is any argument or attempt to figure any of this out logically.

http://www.correctislamicfaith.com/thescienceofdebate.htm
Some Muslims sects, particularly salafis, reject Kalam as deviation and innovation. They also exaggerate the impact of non-Islamic influences and philosophy on the evolution of the 'schools of kalam'. As a matter of fact, many of kalam's early themes, such as the status of the sinner or the question of political legitimacy, arose within a purely Islamic context. The Salafis and their like minded groups should understand that the religion cannot progress if we limit the understanding of fundamental beliefs, saying ‘we cannot discuss issues related to faith’.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

All of this naturally leads to other issue being debate today by theologians etc. The problem of the "hiddeness of God" and "skeptical theism".

http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/

[h=1]Skeptical Theism[/h] Skeptical theism is the view that God exists but that we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance. In particular, says the skeptical theist, we should not grant that our inability to think of a good reason for doing or allowing something is indicative of whether or not God might have a good reason for doing or allowing something. If there is a God, he knows much more than we do about the relevant facts, and thus it would not be surprising at all if he has reasons for doing or allowing something that we cannot fathom.

 

[bilby]

All of this naturally leads to other issue being debate today by theologians etc. The problem of the "hiddeness of God" and "skeptical theism".

http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/

[h=1]Skeptical Theism[/h] Skeptical theism is the view that God exists but that we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance. In particular, says the skeptical theist, we should not grant that our inability to think of a good reason for doing or allowing something is indicative of whether or not God might have a good reason for doing or allowing something. If there is a God, he knows much more than we do about the relevant facts, and thus it would not be surprising at all if he has reasons for doing or allowing something that we cannot fathom.

aka 'Anything goes'.

Perhaps God really does want me to slaughter every person I see (for His own unfathomable reasons).

Perhaps God really does want me to buy a beer instead of an ice cream.

If anything is God's will - and anything could be, by this philosophy - then everything is equally legitimate. In short, this philosophy achieves exactly nothing; we are exactly as well informed and prepared for the challenges of our lives without it, as we are with it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Can't remember the poster from the old days of Internet Infidels, but the refrain was, "Show me your god."

It doesn't get any more direct than that. I think that's what the OP is about.

No, I'm not. If God is ineffable I couldn't possibly "see" God even if I was staring right up his rectum. That's what ineffable means. So showing me this type of God is pointless.

Did you get the number of that airplane?

 

[DrZoidberg]

After a yoga class I found myself in a discussion with a group of people with a wide array of beliefs. None of them were traditionally religious, but they had a bunch of mystical pseudo-theistic beliefs. With my skeptical mind I did my best to pose Socratic questions and (I think) came up with the simplest, yet water-tight, refutation of anything remotely mystical.

The argument goes like this: In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

All theistic religions, to my knowledge, posit the ineffability of God. Once they've admitted this the argument is won IMHO.

So guys, is my logic solid or am I making life too easy for myself?

The position you are stating is igtheism or ignosticism.

I learned something new today. Thanks. Seems pretty watertight to me

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

All of this naturally leads to other issue being debate today by theologians etc. The problem of the "hiddeness of God" and "skeptical theism".

http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/

Skeptical Theism

Skeptical theism is the view that God exists but that we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance. In particular, says the skeptical theist, we should not grant that our inability to think of a good reason for doing or allowing something is indicative of whether or not God might have a good reason for doing or allowing something. If there is a God, he knows much more than we do about the relevant facts, and thus it would not be surprising at all if he has reasons for doing or allowing something that we cannot fathom.

aka 'Anything goes'.

Perhaps God really does want me to slaughter every person I see (for His own unfathomable reasons).

Perhaps God really does want me to buy a beer instead of an ice cream.

If anything is God's will - and anything could be, by this philosophy - then everything is equally legitimate. In short, this philosophy achieves exactly nothing; we are exactly as well informed and prepared for the challenges of our lives without it, as we are with it.

The argument from philosophers that usually consider this argument is that it means we must abandon all attempts to prove anything about God as this is a rationalization that means morality of God becomes meaningless. Once one takes refuge in skepticism to avoid the logical problems of the God concept, one cannot prove one is not wrong about God or his supposed attributes. Logically, if anything goes, that includes strong varieties of atheism. But this undermines claims of revelation also. Its a Pyrrhic sort of manuver to save appearances.

As I have posted before, the idea of super-omnipotence, the claim God creates the rules, laws, the very logic of the Universe undermines the idea there is some sort of unknowable reason God must accept moral evil as part of the universe et al, that this sort of argument is created to side step. For me, an even stronger reason for rejecting these sort of claims of an unknowable god who is yet the god of revelation with qualities of goodness and omnipotence etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But if they can't define it, how can you know what they're talking about?

If someone can't tell you the difference between their God and jdghtnrdbjiyhn, why would you assume that they're giving you any information at all about their God?

Mate, don't take the name of jdghtnrdbjiyhn in vain. He will lightning bolt your arse for that. No kidding.

jdghtnrdbjiyhn makes just as much sense as any other word when it comes to describing something religious. Beyond communication value within religious meaninglessness these words comprise their own language and have no external meaning or relevance. Soul, grace, holiness, sin, heaven, spirit, etc. They're just different sounds. And new words continue to come along to extend the phenomenon like igtheism or ignosticism or atheism.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Mate, don't take the name of jdghtnrdbjiyhn in vain. He will lightning bolt your arse for that. No kidding.

jdghtnrdbjiyhn makes just as much sense as any other word when it comes to describing something religious. Beyond communication value within religious meaninglessness these words comprise their own language and have no external meaning or relevance. Soul, grace, holiness, sin, heaven, spirit, etc. They're just different sounds. And new words continue to come along to extend the phenomenon like igtheism or ignosticism or atheism.

Wittgenstein's "language game" theory. Sometimes language games are meaningful and fruitful (physics) and sometimes pathological and not fruitful. (Alchemy) Religion....

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's a difference between being able to perceive something and being able to describe it to others. Languages have their limits, and evolve to communicate ordinary, everyday situations. Add the fact that the mystical experience posits a heightened or expanded consciousness, ineffability would be expected.

I've done plenty of psychedelics. These are famous for putting the user in a similar state of mind as those experiencing revelation or being enlightened. Yes, I agree that the subjective experience defies verbal description. But we don't have to be able to describe the subjective experience. We can stop at describing what is happening in the brain. Even though we have a very limited understanding of the brain, I think we have the scientific knowledge necessary to pull the blanket off of any religious mystical experiences. It can all be explained by pretty mundane scientific explanations. You don't need to be particularly well read on science to realise that our systems of perceptions aren't built for accuracy. They're built for speed. They rely on a bunch of inbuilt assumptions to speed up the process. While most often correct they can fail in spectacular ways.

To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"If we were honest about shortcomings of human physiology then "optical illusions” would instead be labelled “brain failures”"

I think we know enough about the brain to rule out magic as a contending explanation for mystical experiences.

The argument goes like this: In order for us to be able to evaluate whether to believe in something or not, we have to be able to define it. If only to talk about it intelligently. If we can't, then I just shift it over into the category of things I cannot possibly know and I stop worrying about it.

So if something can't be defined its reality is doubtful?

That's not what I said. Both parts are wrong.

1) Some things can be defined just fine, but we still can't explain it accurately. One example is the weather. There's no mystery regarding the forces of nature create weather. Beyond just a few days the maths just gets too complicated. There's nobody who can do it. We know we should be able to work it out. We just don't know how. Until then we'll just have to accept that there's a large degree of uncertainty regarding the weather during our trip to Spain this summer. That's what I'm talking about.

2) If something can't be defined in a meaningful way then what does it mean that it "really exists"? Have we in fact said a true statement (or false)? It equivocates between non-definition and non-existence. Non-definition just means we can't talk about it intelligently. It doesn't mean I deny it's existence or possible existence. As regards to the OP. I think it's valid to question the point of discussing God until it is well defined. What's the point in believing in something that may hypothetically be true? Isn't that the same thing as believing in anything? Literally anything. Even utter nonsense.

I wonder how an uncontacted, Amazon native would describe his experience to the family, were he suddenly transported to the middle of a modern city for a day? Even without neurological alteration this would be a challenge.

I don't know. But we do know how people historically have described things they don't quite understand. Via metaphor of stuff that they do know and understand. And then hope that the analog is good enough. Here's a fitting quote:

"Because we do not understand the brain very well we are constantly tempted to use the latest technology as a model for trying to understand it. In my childhood we were always assured that the brain was a telephone switchboard. ('What else could it be?') I was amused to see that Sherrington, the great British neuroscientist, thought that the brain worked like a telegraph system. Freud often compared the brain to hydraulic and electro-magnetic systems. Leibniz compared it to a mill, and I am told some of the ancient Greeks thought the brain functions like a catapult. At present, obviously, the metaphor is the digital computer."

-John R. Searle, MINDS, BRAINS AND SCIENCE, p 44

So to answer your question. I think the Amazon native would describe it wrongly and we would be amused if we heard it.