Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I said 'problematic' I was talking about from the point of view of a scientist. A scientist can be a theist, but I don't know what the scientist would believe that God would actually *do*, for the reasons I listed earlier.
Looking at it rationally, if you believe that God is a being that, though a Supreme Being in some definition of the term, can participate in space/time (that is, perform a 'miracle') in a manner that humans can detect, what does it mean for God to do so, and under what conditions and for what purpose, *and* would this happen only very occasionally as opposed to often? If God can do this and also wants a relationship with humans, why doesn't this happen more often? If a rational person believes that the alleged instances of God participating in space/time cannot be documented by verifiable evidence, it is reasonable for the rationalist to be skeptical about the actuality of any such event happening in the past because there might be alternative explanations for what was encountered by the alleged witness(es) of the 'miracle'.
So we are left with, from a rationalist point of view, a situation where, even assuming that God can and does participate in space/time, humans don't/can't know (1) God's motivation to act in such a way, (2) whether such an action would ever occur in the future, (3) whether such an action has occurred in the past, and (4) can't get information about why God isn't doing this more often (with the implication that God really doesn't care to communicate with humans via space/time participation). If God exists and is friendly toward humans, this is not what a rational person would expect. Furthermore, if God created humans, who obviously have a rational faculty, why would God not interact with humans in a manner that can be comprehended more easily and more directly by human reason?
For me, and I was raised as a Southern Baptist, the more I have thought about all these things, the more that I believe that all the "God talk" is just mumbo-jumbo and using words to confuse and play tricks on other human beings in order to build political movements and consolidate social power by elites.
The God of the Bible just doesn't make sense. He supposedly created humans with reason but then doesn't interact with us in a manner that is consistent with reason. Why would God be so coy about what is happening in space/time? It just doesn't make sense, especially after you factor in all the human misery that has been experienced, the cold logic of natural law, the wide realm of scientific knowledge that has been acquired in the last 500 years, etc. All this knowledge leaves the God of the Bible with very little to do to keep the universe going. The Bible's God certainly cannot be taken literally; it is too primitive, tribal, cruel, and arbitrary. It obviously is the creation of a people trying to make a go of it in a tough part of the world; harshness is the dominant mode of existence (the Old Testament would reflect a very different dominant mode of human existence if it had been written by folks living in Hawaii, for instance). It doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of an educated person.
I basically agree with the following quote from Seneca, who was basically an adherent of the philosophy known as Stoicism.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
-- Seneca
Last edited by ParkTwain; 11-21-2007 at 09:37 PM..
When I said 'problematic' I was talking about from the point of view of a scientist. A scientist can be a theist, but I don't know what the scientist would believe that God would actually *do*, for the reasons I listed earlier.
Ok, this is good. We agree that a scientist can be a theist and not contradict or compromise his/her standing as a scientist. That's good, solid, common ground.
But then you add the doubt about what a theistic scientist would believe about God's activities. Well, Newton was a scientist. What did he think? I'm actually not sure what you're trying to conclude, so I'll read on....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Looking at it rationally, if you believe that God is a being that, though a Supreme Being in some definition of the term, can participate in space/time (that is, perform a 'miracle') in a manner that humans can detect, what does it mean for God to do so, and under what conditions and for what purpose, *and* would this happen only very occasionally as opposed to often?
Alright, you raise four questions: (1) what does it "mean" to say God performs miracles, (2) under what conditions would God perform miracles, (3) what purpose would God have to perform miracles, and (4) what is the frequency of miracles. I assume this is all from the standpoint of science--in other words, from the standpoint of what the theistic scientist might say? There's a lot to say here, but I'm going to keep it short. The second, third and the fourth are pretty much out of the arena of scientific knowledge. The first question, however, might get some traction, in terms of defining the laws of nature (etc.).
Now, I think these are good questions. They're just not within the jurisdiction of science. Maybe in some ways science can help us illuminate some of these issues, but by and large, these are metaphysical or theological matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
If God can do this and also wants a relationship with humans, why doesn't this happen more often? If a rational person believes that the alleged instances of God participating in space/time cannot be documented by verifiable evidence, it is reasonable for the rationalist to be skeptical about the actuality of any such event happening in the past because there might be alternative explanations for what was encountered by the alleged witness(es) of the 'miracle'.
Alright, so the rational person, you claim, will ask these questions and become perplexed, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will begin to doubt that God ever acted in history. Two things I want to say. First, if we're talking about this separate from all other reasons to believe in God and his activities, the most a "rational person" would be entitled to doubt would be that God has acted in a way that is scientifically verifiable. But just because something cannot be scientifically verified does not mean that it is irrational to believe--we get this conclusion only if we put scientific empiricism on a pedestal. But this requires argument, which is (I think) impossible for science to prove. And second, a scientist can believe that God only very seldom acts in ways detectable to our current capacity to scientifically verify. Maybe we just don't have the technology. God is perhaps a subtle mover of events, working in the hearts of men, or touching the energy in things, far beneath the strongest scopes available to us. This is not against reason. This is not against science, or religion.
(By the way, "rationalist" usually refers to a particular philosophical school of thought--think Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
So we are left with, from a rationalist point of view, a situation where, even assuming that God can and does participate in space/time, humans don't/can't know (1) God's motivation to act in such a way, (2) whether such an action would ever occur in the future, (3) whether such an action has occurred in the past, and (4) can't get information about why God isn't doing this more often (with the implication that God really doesn't care to communicate with humans via space/time participation). If God exists and is friendly toward humans, this is not what a rational person would expect. Furthermore, if God created humans, who obviously have a rational faculty, why would God not interact with humans in a manner that can be comprehended more easily and more directly by human reason?
This is your central claim: "If God exists and is friendly toward humans, this is not what a rational person would expect."
I have a number of problems with this. First, you do yourself no favor by defining your position as that of the "rational person's," since this just means that people who do think that God exists and is friendly towards us are irrational. I think I'm rational. And I disagree with you. So too would most of the "rational" people in history. Maybe I should just say that you believe this because you're an un-regenerated sinner, and we'll call ourselves even. Rationality is not the central issue. We're all more or less rational about this.
Second, Why should we know God's motives to act or not act in observable ways? You put God on our level, a being among beings. He is God, and we do not know his ways.
Third, there are many ways to understand what counts as evidence of God's actions or existence. The biggest evidence, for many people (myself included) is that nature itself exists and operates according to certain principles, and gives rise to life and meaning and beauty and consciousness. So, in a sense, your questioning misses the target. A scientist who believes in God may very well have become a scientist to learn more about God through the natural world--not to "see what God's going to do next." By studying the beauty and wonder of the world, we get a glimpse of God's mind, and a bit of his purpose. Far from undercutting belief, the study of the world can enhance it. It hardly matters at all, I think, that God is not "caught in the act," as it were, as if he were some being in the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
For me, and I was raised as a Southern Baptist, the more I have thought about all these things, the more that I believe that all the "God talk" is just mumbo-jumbo and using words to confuse and play tricks on other human beings in order to build political movements and consolidate social power by elites.
The more I think about all these things, the more I believe. The more I really try to understand, the more I think I do understand. So I think it's really the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
The God of the Bible just doesn't make sense. He supposedly created humans with reason but then doesn't interact with us in a manner that is consistent with reason. Why would God be so coy about what is happening in space/time? It just doesn't make sense, especially after you factor in all the human misery that has been experienced, the cold logic of natural law, the wide realm of scientific knowledge that has been acquired in the last 500 years, etc. All this knowledge leaves the God of the Bible with very little to do to keep the universe going. The Bible's God certainly cannot be taken literally; it is too primitive, tribal, cruel, and arbitrary. It obviously is the creation of a people trying to make a go of it in a tough part of the world; harshness is the dominant mode of existence (the Old Testament would reflect a very different dominant mode of human existence if it had been written by folks living in Hawaii, for instance). It doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of an educated person.
Boy, just say what you really mean.
Much of this isn't related to the issue of science, or whether someone can be a scientist and a theist. And, what you're saying here isn't really an argument, but more a collection of things you believe. Obviously, I think you're completely wrong. I would say that between theism and atheism (or Christianity and atheism), atheism fares far worse in the arena of rational debate. The arguments for God's existence give solid grounds for rational belief. Plenty of people--millions and millions in history--would disagree with your assertions here. Many people look at the same evidence and come to a completely different conclusion. Why? Is it you who have been led astray? Or me? I certainly think reason is on my side.
In any case, what do you think of the distinction I proposed, between metaphysical and methodological naturalism?
That's false. Science does not have a definitional commitment to the metaphysical position of naturalism. If you define science like that, you're just begging the question. Science is concerned with natural processes--but that's a very different thing from saying it rests on naturalism as a metaphysical commitment.
Pardon my short wording.
Science is a method. That method is defined as naturalistic. "Methodological naturalism" and "the scientific method" are synonymous.
Quote:
Why?
Because we have yet to develop a method for investigating the supernatural.
Indeed, if phenomena are observable, testable and repeatable, such phenomena would be natural by definition. If science cannot arrive at an explanation for a phenomenon, the phenomenon remains unexplained. Science does not and cannot use the supernatural to explain the unknown.
Science is a method. That method is defined as naturalistic. "Methodological naturalism" and "the scientific method" are synonymous.
We largely agree. Though I don't think they are synonymous (but we don't need to argue about that)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Because we have yet to develop a method for investigating the supernatural.
also, just to be clear, methodological naturalism does not entail metaphysical naturalism. So, even if we use the method of science, it is still possible for evidence to point to something besides metaphysical naturalism. This cannot be ruled out by definition without begging the question.
Indeed, if phenomena are observable, testable and repeatable, such phenomena would be natural by definition. If science cannot arrive at an explanation for a phenomenon, the phenomenon remains unexplained. Science does not and cannot use the supernatural to explain the unknown.
Agreed. There is no method for investigating the supernatural. But that doesn't mean that some phenomena might better be explained through a supernatural explanation. Take the whole world, for example. Or take the laws of nature, or that there is life at all. These "phenomena," which science investigates and comes to understand, can perhaps be explained by some other metaphysical theory besides metaphysical naturalism. Why should we automatically prefer a naturalistic explanation to everything? I think that's playing with a fixed deck.
Agreed. There is no method for investigating the supernatural. But that doesn't mean that some phenomena might better be explained through a supernatural explanation. Take the whole world, for example. Or take the laws of nature, or that there is life at all. These "phenomena," which science investigates and comes to understand, can perhaps be explained by some other metaphysical theory besides metaphysical naturalism. Why should we automatically prefer a naturalistic explanation to everything? I think that's playing with a fixed deck.
Fine let's play that game.... The entire reason why the earth, universe, and everything is here is because I believe there is a supernatural syyrofoam cup involved. There is no proof that there isn't a supernatural styrofoam cup therefore the theory has some validity right? Now, you tell me, would you find my scientific analysis accurate or not based on these premises?
The supernatural styrofoam cup (which I'll refer to as SSC from now on) is the basis for all of my hypothesis. Therefore, any scientific data that I encounter must be the workings of SSC. I know what science says but I firmly believe in the SSC therefore anything scientifically related must have something to do with SSC. Perhaps you're right, maybe we should look at things less naturalistically. While we're at it, maybe we can also figure out that perhaps the reason I am having nightmares is because there's a bogeyman in my closet. We don't have any proof of it but then again, we're not supposed to be taking things naturally either!
Fine let's play that game.... The entire reason why the earth, universe, and everything is here is because I believe there is a supernatural syyrofoam cup involved. There is no proof that there isn't a supernatural styrofoam cup therefore the theory has some validity right? Now, you tell me, would you find my scientific analysis accurate or not based on these premises?
The supernatural styrofoam cup (which I'll refer to as SSC from now on) is the basis for all of my hypothesis. Therefore, any scientific data that I encounter must be the workings of SSC. I know what science says but I firmly believe in the SSC therefore anything scientifically related must have something to do with SSC. Perhaps you're right, maybe we should look at things less naturalistically. While we're at it, maybe we can also figure out that perhaps the reason I am having nightmares is because there's a bogeyman in my closet. We don't have any proof of it but then again, we're not supposed to be taking things naturally either!
First, you belittle the idea of God by suggesting that these are legitimate parallel examples. They're not. God is not some being in the world, to be compared with fictitious "cups" or "bogeymen." If you want to make a legitimate point against theism, you have to first take it seriously, or you're just going to end up making a straw man argument (a "straw man" argument happens when you take the weakest version of a position and attack that, rather than being charitable and taking the strongest version of a position).
So "the cup" isn't a parallel example, and there's no reason to believe or suggest such a thing. But there are plenty of reasons to believe in or suggest the existence of God. I'll repeat the usual: consciousness, life, beauty, truth, moral goodness, the existence of the world, etc. We may fumble for naturalistic explanations for these things, or we may use theistic explanations. If we are to "follow reason where ever she may lead us," then why would we exclude either of these alternatives? Anyone who simply rules out theistic explanations simply because it's not "science" or this wouldn't be naturalism, is really, truly, being dogmatic. I hope you can see that.
The point I'm making is that the things you mentioned are not all "on the same page". I'm not discounting your statement, I'm just saying that the statement "Yes, I support Creation, gravity, electricity, and a round earth rotating around the sun" is just as valid. (when we're saying "evolution" in this case we're talking about the process by which all things came to be.)
The point I'm making is that the things you mentioned are not all "on the same page". I'm not discounting your statement, I'm just saying that the statement "Yes, I support Creation, gravity, electricity, and a round earth rotating around the sun" is just as valid. (when we're saying "evolution" in this case we're talking about the process by which all things came to be.)
You are misunderstood on proveable facts and the word 'theory'. Evolution is much a fact as any other scientific 'theory', such as gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics etc etc
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
