Why do some people find it hard to believe in God? Part 2

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

The thing is, for all your appeals to factuality, no-one can prove that God doesn't exist. Or that he does. So your trust in scientific materialism is as trusting as my faith in God. I.e. your positon is no more logical than mine. You are also caught in a loop of unprovability!

It really irks me when people talk about Christians / members of religions as though we are stupid / morally inadequate / scared of the real world. The self-congratulation and mutual flattery of atheists like Dawkins is a real turn-off (as if there wasn't enough to turn me off already!)

No, I don't think you are listening.

I can't be any clearer by saying: I don't need to know all the answers, if the science method can't prove it, then I don't guess, I just accept that we don't know.

No trust required, because there are no leaps of faith.

Like I say, just because you you can't prove something doesn't exist, it doesn't by default mean that it does. To argue thus is utterly childish - hence my first first post that stated that the debate is pointless because it is impossible to reason with people who have true faith.

My mind is still boggling at the revelation that Jesus's came from Mary and Joseph's DNA. Wondring if god played divine turkey baster with a bit of stolen sperm (presumably after a bit of selection) or if he just ran a perfect strand of Mary and Joseph's DNA off the divine database?.... or if it was just one of those "techically a virgin" pregnancies you hear about.

I suspect they had a run of the mill 5hag

The thing is, for all your appeals to factuality, no-one can prove that God doesn't exist. Or that he does. So your trust in scientific materialism is as trusting as my faith in God. I.e. your positon is no more logical than mine. You are also caught in a loop of unprovability!

The unprovability is true. However, the rest of this is not so clear. (1) because of the logic of 'Russels teapot' - the onus is on you to prove not on us to disprove. (2) the probability that the type of God you believe in is low. The Christian god is transcendent - (unprovable, irrelevant), but also incarnate and interventionist - this is what makes this type of god relevant but also open to scrutiny. (3) the opposite of trusting in your god isn't 'trust in scientific materialism'. Its simply - not trusting in your god.

Aw Holo, you sound a bit irked. I'm sorry I just can't get my head around the mental gymnastics you apparently have to perform in order to explain your position not to mention the fair bit of making it up as you go along dressed up as "interpretation".

"The self-congratulation and mutual flattery of atheists like Dawkins is a real turn-off (as if there wasn't enough to turn me off already!)"

This comment was very unlike you though, I'm guessing it's just because you're irked. I'd like to think that atheists themselves wouldn't make you continue believing in something you knew to be untrue. Let's face it, Dawkins might occasionally be a bit pompous but he's never blown up an abortion doctor or flown a plane into a building full of people, and still you're on the theist side of the fence.

The loop of unprovability...

Holo - the faith based position that underpins a scientific world view is not about whether there is a god or not. It is simpler than that. It is the belief that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe and through time.

We can't prove this, but without this assumption we can't make any decisions or draw any conclusions from our observations (not just scientists but in everyday life)....

...When you step on a paving stone you believe that the molecules in the stone will hold together as they always have, not turn to jelly. There is no proof that the laws of physics will stay stable as you take a step, but on the other hand they've never failed before....

By the same token if someone tells you that a virgin had given birth, a dead man come to life or a couple of loaves and fish turned into a meal for 1000s there is every reason to doubt them since these claims involve bending the laws of physics.

Is a transcendent god, outside of time and space consistent with the view that the laws of physics are constant? Yes, but there is nothing more to say about that.

Is a god who interacts with the world of atoms and cells and gets them to do impossible things consistent? No.

If you believe that there are spirits that interfere with the natural world then all bets are off. How can we know anything in a world where the laws of physics are not fixed but arbitrarily changed by the will of the unknowable?

I didn't even know this thread was here! Hello, everyone. :)

Hi CY!

Him, what I meant is this: we humans don't know the limits of everything - we can't! So the options are either agnosticism, or a decision of some sort or other.

It does not work to say 'I don't trust God.' I am writing somehting at the mo about the nature of trust and suspicion, and could talk you through my reasoning (but then I'd be accused of obfustication! ) - but basically, my bottom line is that you can't know anything of any sort without trust of some sort in something. Which is blatantly obvious, really....

Grimma - the onus on me is to prove God? Well that is a logical impossibility for you!

Notfluffy - yes, the 'ooooh, aren't we atheists so sophisticated and witty and morally superior and courageous, and look at those poor benighted fools in their belef systems' is just deeply unattractive. I don't think it's just that Dawkins is pompous (although that is true), I think it's a strategy which is used to set up Christians to look like lesser people, and combined with the logically impossible questions that the Dawkins etc. camp puts to faith (with no intention of actually giving any real thought to) it is game, set and match to atheists -'oh, look at theose stupid Christian halfwits, they can't even answer a simple question like 'who made God' without going off on a great long ramble about eternity and transcendence - there's no reasoning with these people, you know...'

No, as far as I know no atheist has blown up a building in the name of scientific materialism - but as I said earlier, I don't think it's good logic to argue against the validity something by reference to the abuse of it.

Morning Cheerful (or evening... which timezone are you in?).

Oh - and just to add that that blowing up buildings is not part of the core belief system or ethics of any religion - it's a small, dangerous minority who do these things (but you knew that already) - whereas setting Christians up to look like idiots, asking them logically impossible questions and then saying 'There! I told you so!' seems to be standard atheist rhetorical strategy...

Now Hitchens has gone, who's the 'etc' in addition to Dawkins who gets up your nose?

And I think to a large extent that somewhat strident attitude is a reaction to the automatic superiority assumed by the faith groups - not just in attitude but in the real priveliges they have.

It does not work to say 'I don't trust God.'
we've been round this before. You may mean a different thing by the word trust. Its a relationship word. I don't believe there's a god, so I can't even get to the page of trusting him.

My 'trust' in science is probably not much different to your trust in science - e.g. you implicitly trust the laws of physics every time you take a step. You (probably) trust a double blind drugs trial to be a useful but not complete assessment of a medicine. Its an entirely different thing.

Holo -most atheists, you never hear from at all. The 'standard atheist strategy' you cite is what you find in the few who manage to grab any airtime at all, who are the 'extremist' wing if you like. ('Militant atheists' ... that's such an OTT phrase for a few people talking). So, comparing these people to religious extremists has some validity. Blow up a building versus...what's the worst thing Dawkins has done?

It's not really fair to blame atheists for asking logically impossible questions if religions set up a position based on logical improvables.

I sad it last night and this morning - scientific materialism is equally logically improvable! We really are going round in circles here...

"- but as I said earlier, I don't think it's good logic to argue against the validity something by reference to the abuse of it."

You missed my point spectacularly there holo, my point was that ^^ is exactly what you've done by dismissing atheism based on your opinion of Dawkins et al.

""The self-congratulation and mutual flattery of atheists like Dawkins is a real turn-off (as if there wasn't enough to turn me off already!)""

I see Grimma's brought up the militant atheist tag. There's a picture circulatinf FB at the moment. With a photo of a militant muslim, yes the terrorist, the militant christian, with a lovely picture of the Westboro Baptists and their God Hates Fags banners and the militant atheist, a picture of Christopher Hitchen sitting having a cigarette and a whisky.

No no NF, I was responding to your point, not Dawkins.

As for those pictures....does the phrase 'the pen is mightier than the sword' mean anything to you?

Holo - but you can't be agnostic about the laws of physics. Otherwise you couldn't get out of bed.

Yes religious terrorists, Jonestown massacres etc... are the minority but how can we know they are not doing god's will? If it is equally reasonable to conclude they are doing gods will, or they aren't or to be agnostic about it....what is the point?

Can we not convict someone for murder if they said an angel pulled the trigger, or restrain someone who wants to jump from a plane without a parachute because they believe that god will catch them on the way down?

... How can we know when the laws of physics apply and when mystical intervention is at work?

'the pen is mightier than the sword' mean anything to you?
indeed it does. The implication of you mentioning it in this context is that discussing ideas is worse than actual militancy. I'm sure that's not what you meant so not quite sure what your point was!

Last post before I start work for the day!

Him, I'm not agnostic about the laws of physics. That would be ridiculous! The point is this: we humans do not know the limits of everything. Therefore to say that God does not exist is logically improvable. To say that God does exist is equally so. Therefore, scientific materialism is as logically improvable as belief in God.

Grimma: no, of course I'm not saying that physical violence and writing influential things are on the same level. The point is this: there is a strong relationship between what we believe and what we do. I don't know if atheist philosophy would ever lead to violence - who can say? - but the implication of those pictures (as I understood NF's post) was 'look at all these terrible people doing terrible things, and look at this lovely gentleman doing nothing.' Whereas I'd say that when we think, when we write, when we read, we are doing something (which might turn out to be massively influential).

Right, have a good day, everyone. I am trying to finish a writing project...my goal is 2000 more words by bedtime...

Questions like "where did god come from" and "why is he so elusive" aren't stupid questions to ask. They're very reasonable ones.

That you don't have a good answer for them other than ones that a) rely on a long and complicated semantic dance around the meanings of the words transcendent, trust, faith etc and then ultimately boil down to b) "God's like that because, well, we say he is" doesn't make the questions poor ones or the people asking the questions stupid.

Scientific materialism is, in some philosophical senses, unprovable. But it relies on evidence which goes a very long way in providing a basis for believing that there is truth in the theories it produces. Therefore it is very much stretching the point to conclude that it is therefore equally as unprovable as a belief in one particular form of a religion for which there is no evidence whatsoever other than what you believe inside your own head.

Whereas I'd say that when we think, when we write, when we read, we are doing something (which might turn out to be massively influential).

Of course. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case currently in the media, Abu Qatada, its what he's said not actual acts which make him dangerous. OK, put his picture up next to Hitchens, that's fair yes? Still a huge difference - one is inciting actual terrorism, the other was engaging in intellectual debate and maybe wanting democratic changes. The pen inspiring swords is the problem.

And the Westboro Baptists generally spread god's word through written signs and shouting so I think it's fair to put those up against Hitchens and Dawkins.

Holo -

Religious belief (of any kind of interventionist variety) requires a belief that the laws of physics can sometimes be suspended so that divine intervention can happen. (and there is no way of knowing for sure when divine intervention is happening but it is deemed reasonable to believe it on the evidence of a strong feeling or the say-so of an old book).

If you think that the laws of physics can be arbitrarily suspended (without leaving any proof) then it is not so much that humans can't know everything, but we can't know anything.

People used to think that disease had a supernatural cause, but germ theory etc.. showed how it was natural. The scientific explanation displaced the supernatural, because one conformed to the laws of physics and the other didn't (and therefore one was useful for making predictions, taking action etc.. and the other not so much).

But as you say the law of physics are not provable. What if disease is really, caused (or cured) by a clever supernatural being that is able to mess with the apparent laws of physics to give the perfect impression of a natural cause without leaving any trace? According to your reasoning it is equally reasonable to believe either way, or remain agnostic.

Similarly, people used to think that god created the world, and man in his image for a purpose etc... and then they found out that we evolved through the purposeless and natural process of evolution.

The get out clause involves bending the laws of physics 'What if there is a transcendent god working behind the scenes with a purpose, while leaving the impression of a completely natural process etc... We have no way of knowing etc...'

When people like you, Holo, claim that the likes of the Westboro bunch of idiots are abusing their religion, I always wonder - would they not say the same about you? After all, their claims have equal biblical validity (unless you believe that some bits of the special book are more true than others?)

When you look, for example, at the sectarianism in NI, you can really see the ridiculousness of this viewpoint. God's on everyone's side, you know. The free Presbyterians have levels of hate for other protestant sects that have to be heard to be believed - are they extremists? They've been indocrinated to hate.

If you start claiming that so and so is wrong about the god you share, and that they are interpreting God's instructions badly, I think you're on pretty shaky ground. What gives you the knowledge that your particular sect has it right?

A belief that a being can selectively choose whether or not to follow the rules of the universe is a belief in magic.