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.
I don't think you really mean this. Who are these "people of science" you're talking about? Atheists? That would be question begging. I know "people of science" who have faith. So I don't know what you're talking about. Unless you mean "people of science" should not have have? If so, you have to give some sort of evidence for that claim.
You act as though the "scientific method" (I'm not even sure that has any definite meaning) is the only standard when it comes to what we should, and should not, believe.
So, I ask you: are you claiming that we should only believe things that have a scientific explanation, that are verified on the basis of the "scientific method"?
As you have probably observed many times, some atheists seem to think they have a corner on logic and science when all they have as I see it is half of a view of the whole. Many Christians and other Deists also value science, but they don't close their minds to the probability that man is a dual creature, composed of both physical and spiritual components.
One Christian scholar with a PhD recently wrote:
"There is no getting around Blaise Pascal’s practical analysis of the wager we make with our hearts and actions. Bet on God by living his commandments and, if you are right, you win eternal life; if you are wrong, you lose nothing when you annihilate at death. However, I find that bet on the hereafter less compelling than the attraction I feel to practice with my religious community here and now, and to indulge the inspiring hope that we are all divine-human beings on the road to more joy together—abundant life."
It was an idea that evolved in some truly bizarre ways.
"I believe humans believe what we do about reality and truth—no matter how wise we are or where we were socialized and educated—by choosing to believe something we desire to be true in the face of under-whelming evidence to the contrary." C Randall Paul
In any case, I agree that most people don't make up their minds about something and never return to examine the issue again. But there are many different ways of "examination." One can continually "examine" an issue without having an open mind--one can remain fixated on only disproving the opposing side, one can cling to one's position, because the alternative is not desired. And this goes for both believers and disbelievers.
It'd be more convincing to call others closed minded if you could actually point out something that's being ignored by those closed minded people.
Quote:
Atheism is not the cool, detached conclusion of a rational, deductive argument. It is not the conclusion of a process wherein evidence and experience are weighed, and rational arguments given. Atheism, in my opinion, seems to begin with either little thought at all about the subject (my wife, for example, was an atheist of this sort), where it's just not important enough to really think about, or it begins with something akin to not wanting it to be true. And all the arguments and "evidences" follow from this. It is not seen as beneficial or good that there be a God, and it is not desired.
The "god is bad so I wish it didn't exist" non-believer isn't really a non-believer. It's a confused or conflicted believer.
Your other objection - that other people don't find your particular religion as important as you do so they must be doing something wrong - seems to be a bit self centered. There's lots of things that other people find important that have no meaning to you, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't forget to give others that courtesy as well without assuming that they are doing it out of some sort of rebellion or closed-mindedness.
Again, if you could provide something more concrete than "I like how believing in gods makes me feel, so everyone else should make it their #1 priority" then you might have a better case to complain.
Quote:
The starting point for really committing to belief in God is in the valuation. One has to think it is valuable in some way, desirable--the thought of there being a God fills you with hope, a thrill that the world may be more wonderful and beautiful than you can imagine, that there is hope for you. People who are "value-neutral" to God's existence, or people that truly feel such beliefs are poison, are not open in the least to the possibility of God. Being "open" means, at the very least, putting aside one's value judgment that God would be a bad thing, putting aside one's personal biases, and looking with fresh eyes at the possibilities.
I'm unimpressed with a god who is so powerless that it can't even convince skeptical people it exists. Things that are real - electricity, disease, taxes, and so on - work whether we believe in them or not. A god who doesn't even rise to that level doesn't seem worth the time to worry about.
I've spent a lot of time in school and then learning things on the job. I've never been in a situation where I had to believe something existed before I started learning about it. A good teacher is able to teach concepts about the real world to even a skeptical audience. If a puny human can do this better than your idea of god, perhaps this "we should worship god" idea is backwards. Or maybe gods "exist" somewhere other than the reality.
Quote:
So, to sum up, I'm suggesting that belief in God, faith in God, or the rejection of such belief or faith, is not about evidence or rationality, but about how we view God, how we value the prospects of there being a God. And I suspect that this changes how we even view and respond to "evidence."
The two options are not symmetric. Rejecting an irrational belief isn't automatically irrational just because the belief is.
So, I ask you: are you claiming that we should only believe things that have a scientific explanation, that are verified on the basis of the "scientific method"?
That's exactly what im saying.
These "people of science" are those that us that use the scientific method and do not resort to other means for explanations, i.e fairy tales. Sure there are people of faith that use the SM, but they will not be taken seriously when their religion is interjected into the Scientific community.
That's exactly what im saying.
These "people of science" are those that us that use the scientific method and do not resort to other means for explanations, i.e fairy tales. Sure there are people of faith that use the SM, but they will not be taken seriously when their religion is interjected into the Scientific community.
Ok, you claim that this is true:
(1) We should only believe things that have a scientific explanation, that are verified on the basis of the "scientific method"
So you must have used the scientific method to verify the truth of (1), or else you wouldn't believe it, right? You must have a scientific explanation to back up your claim that you are justified in believing that (1) is true. So what "scientific explanation" do you have for believing that we should only believe what has a scientific explanation?
Yes. All of you very strange people. I have some times told the answer to a question "who such God in the Western Christianity". At you the limited review. You have got used to "West leadership" without noticing other places not the far.
All is simple. You should study not Christian cults. All will understand.
There there are no "prejudices". I speak about indoeuropean a cult from Spain to mountains of Ural Mountains
...I'm unimpressed with a god who is so powerless that it can't even convince skeptical people it exists. Things that are real - electricity, disease, taxes, and so on - work whether we believe in them or not. A god who doesn't even rise to that level doesn't seem worth the time to worry about...
"I believe all people receive divine communications that God knows each person will interpret differently according to different desires and prior experiences. I believe God could communicate much more clearly (in human terms) to everyone, but does not, in order to bring people to face their conflicting interpretations about the purpose of existence, the nature of God, and the way we should treat each other. I believe this unclear communication allows us to wrestle over truth as a test of our desire to love others in spite of our conviction that they are dangerously wrong about important truths. The world is designed for people to disagree and then decide what to do about it." C. Randall Paul
It'd be more convincing to call others closed minded if you could actually point out something that's being ignored by those closed minded people.
I'm simply putting forward a hypothesis for how many people form religious beliefs, which can apply to believer or non-believer. as I said, I'm suggesting that we form such beliefs based on our prior desires/feelings toward the object of that belief. Do you deny that our desires and feelings have no influence upon our belief-forming capacities? Now, I'm not saying that when the beliefs we form are influenced by our wishes or valuations that the resulting belief is "irrational." I don't think that's the case. And I don't claim that atheism in itself is irrational--one can be atheist and rational.
What I deny is that atheists are simply the "pure followers of reason." Can you give a bullet-proof argument for the truth of atheism? Nobody can. Belief formation is complex, and there is not a soul alive that has ever only believed what is logically or experimentally provable--that would be a form of insanity. (You would become an uber-skeptic, only believing in the existence of your own mind and nothing more--a pure solipsist.) Metaphysical commitments (the big ones) cannot be arrived at through the path of pure reason, as Kant did a pretty good job of showing. We make "jumps" in our reasoning all the time when it comes to metaphysical worldviews. How could anyone, based on reason alone, prove either that God exists or that God doesn't exist? And since the truth is illusive with respect to finding unassailable arguments for either side, and reason is inconclusive, we ask for what we have a right to believe--that is, what justifications do we have for believing whether God exists or doesn't, or some other metaphysical worldview. And this is where we bring our full person into the picture, not just the detached "intellect" that fails to prove things one way or the other. We approach such questions with the intellect, but also with desires, feelings, wishes, fears, longings, despair, etc. This is true for everyone who seriously considers such matters. Belief formation is not simply a calculus of logical moves, but involves the complex yearnings of the heart.
You of course can deny what I'm suggesting--this is after all only a theory I'm putting forth. And you can continue to claim that atheists are smarter than theists, or that atheists are justified and theists are not, or that atheists are "rational" and theists are "irrational." But why would you (anyone) continue to say such things, when there are obviously brilliant believers who have extremely clever arguments for the justification of their belief in God? There are likewise brilliant atheists, who also have clever arguments. Because of this, I would say that our religious beliefs are not about how intelligent or brilliant we are, but they are formed, at least in part, because of something else within us. And maybe this has to do with what we hope and wish and long for (or don't).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
The "god is bad so I wish it didn't exist" non-believer isn't really a non-believer. It's a confused or conflicted believer.
I'm not suggesting that the influences of our hopes and desires are consciously involved in belief formation. I think this, for the most part, influences the process without our direct awareness. So, for example, if a person doesn't believe in God, but then later comes to believe in God, we could say he "had a change of heart." I suspect that this person came to see the object of the belief (God) in a different light, in a positive way--that the world would be better off with God, that he himself would be better off if there were a God. Before the belief, before the commitment to a theistic picture of the world, there could be a thrill of hope. And this influences how everything is seen. (But I'm not saying this is always true for everyone)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Your other objection - that other people don't find your particular religion as important as you do so they must be doing something wrong - seems to be a bit self centered. There's lots of things that other people find important that have no meaning to you, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't forget to give others that courtesy as well without assuming that they are doing it out of some sort of rebellion or closed-mindedness.
I'm offering a descriptive theory, not a normative theory. So I'm not claiming that there's something wrong with people who don't hold to my religious views. We are all in some ways "closed-minded" when we don't see our own biases. And I think such biases can be found in our desires, fears and hopes--and this is true for everybody. I do think, however, that when atheists make sweeping claims about how intellectually superior they are to believers, they are being close-minded to how their own non-cognitive mental states influence their belief formation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
I'm unimpressed with a god who is so powerless that it can't even convince skeptical people it exists. Things that are real - electricity, disease, taxes, and so on - work whether we believe in them or not. A god who doesn't even rise to that level doesn't seem worth the time to worry about.
Well, that's an opinion, no doubt. But there are lots of other ways of looking at the issue. Maybe you like seeing it from this angle? Maybe it satisfies you in some way? (And by raising these questions I'm not trying to be flip)
Now, you would be right to throw this theory back in my face if you wanted to. You could say that my own religious beliefs have been influenced by my hopes and desires, my fears, longings, etc. And I would agree. The value that I put on the object of a religious belief affects how I will respond (whether I will believe or not). And for me, personally, my own belief in God begins primarily with a "pro-attitude," a favorable inclination toward God, and a hope that He is, that He loves, that one day every tear shall be wiped clean.
Thanks for your comments.
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.
