Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

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

648 replies

notfluffyatall · 31/01/2012 11:11

I don't think we've quite finished yet Grin

OP posts:
HolofernesesHead · 09/02/2012 16:37

ElBurro - no scientist can prove the outermost limits of life, the universe and everything. So the belief that all knowledge is mediated through scientific methodology is an untestable hypothesis.

HolofernesesHead · 09/02/2012 16:39

and last thing....'morethan the sum of one's parts' means that I believe that who I am is more accurately answered by reference to non-physical factors than physical ones - so yes, I believe in the soul.

GrimmaTheNome · 09/02/2012 16:41

Trusting in a physicalist / materialist / empiricist philosophical framework is as much an act of trust as trusting in a God, because neither can be proven definitively.

And I'll say again, its an entirely different type of 'trust'.

GrimmaTheNome · 09/02/2012 16:46

who I am is more accurately answered by reference to non-physical factors than physical ones

ok... what non-physical factors would those be?

Soul - you'd better give your definition for that too, as it means different things to different people. Do only humans have them or dogs? Ants? Sea slugs?

HolofernesesHead · 09/02/2012 16:46

So how do you see trust then, Grimma?

Himalaya · 09/02/2012 16:47

What on earth is the outermost reaches of life, the universe and everything? That kind of assumes that we are at the centre of it?

HolofernesesHead · 09/02/2012 16:50

Oh - souls. I have lots of friends who say that all living creatures have souls. I guss that as a christian, I'd say that what it means to have a human soul is to ber the image of God - to have somehing in me which resembles the nature of God. It's non-physical (and thus non-scientifically verifiable) - so probably not something you're interested in! Grin

HolofernesesHead · 09/02/2012 16:51

No, Himalaya! Just that the universe is infinite, and no living person has plumbed the depths of everything that is. It's not possible!

ChickenLickn · 09/02/2012 17:03

A better name for the thread might be, why do some people find it hard to be reasonable?

AIBU? Grin

GrimmaTheNome · 09/02/2012 17:06

YABU, I think everyone who's survived to this point is trying to be reasonable. Grin

Himalaya · 09/02/2012 17:09

"living person" ... Do you mean like it's not possible to scientifically study heaven? Well fair enough. It's not possible to scientifically study fairies (sorry!) either. There are all kinds of 'knowledge' that we could suggest is beyond the reach of science and reason. But I can't think of one bit of actual knowledge that's come about that way.

ElBurroSinNombre · 09/02/2012 17:10

As soon as it gets down to describing what exactly you mean it all becomes very vague (e.g. science can't explain life, the universe and everything etc.). We all know intuitively that we are just the sum of our physical parts - its just some of us think it through say it explicitly. If you really believed that you have a soul that transcended your body then you would not really care whether you were alive or dead. But I bet that you do - because if we are honest - we all know intuitively that our death is the end.

BobbinRobin · 09/02/2012 17:18

"Trusting in a physicalist / materialist / empiricist philosophical framework is as much an act of trust as trusting in a God, because neither can be proven definitively."

It really isn't the same thing though. And it's not an either/or. My earlier point was that we all (on this thread) agree that the physical world exists, with all its laws as far we we currently understand them. Some people choose to believe that there's a supernatural layer on TOP of this - it's this further step that makes the difference.

ChickenLickn · 09/02/2012 17:20

"What I would say is this: you don't have the option not to trust in a philosophical framework of some sort or other. "

What you are saying there is that you think people must be forced to believe in religion?
When actually, those who don't believe prefer to 'trust' in things that sound reasonable and probable and likely to them. They can cope with uncertainty. Perhaps tomorrow, something will be discovered that will change the world, like electricity or the internet. Quite unexplainable from a religious point of view developed 2000 years ago, but quite believable when you can see it in action. We can then learn more about it and become "truly enlightened", AKA knowledgeable.

HolofernesesHead · 09/02/2012 17:37

No Chicken, that's not what I'm saying. I don't think I have it in me to explain yet again...

Bobbin: yes we do all agree on the physical world - the difference is, as I see it, some people believe that the physical world is all that we can know, and some people believe that there is more. That's really simple, and actually really reasonable.

ElB - no, I don't intuitively know that I'm just the sum of my parts or that death is the end - quite the opposite. I could tell you how I see death from a Christian POV if you like...

ElBurroSinNombre · 09/02/2012 17:50

If the things that you believe in did exist then they would have to fit in to the scientific, materialist view of the world because they are manifested and real (to you at least) in the scientific materialist world. Science would be able to accomodate them and its understanding of the world would change as a consequence. Science is ultimately about the truth rather than just the physical. The reason why you (and others) seek to put religion outside science is that you know that the two are incompatible and you need something to hang your spiritual beliefs on.

GrimmaTheNome · 09/02/2012 17:58

Holo - you trust in science and in god, yes? Do you really think those two sorts of trust are in any way comparable? Is the basis for your trust in science the same as that for your trust in god? You seemed to be implying that for non-believers their 'trust' in science was comparable to a believer's faith in god - qualitatively they seem to me to be very different things.

Burro - I've known people who seemed to really believe death wasn't the end; who enjoyed this life but looked forward to the next in due course. However, these may well be exceptions - a lot of 'believers' behave in the way you suggest. For instance, yesterday hearing on the news something to the effect that the family of Ian Paisley were very worried about his medical condition...couldn't help thinking, well that's interesting, why would they be worried? Either they don't really believe in Heaven, or maybe they aren't too sure that he'd be welcome there.

BobbinRobin · 09/02/2012 18:39

"yes we do all agree on the physical world - the difference is, as I see it, some people believe that the physical world is all that we can know, and some people believe that there is more."

That's what I said Grin

CrunchyFrog · 09/02/2012 19:10
CheerfulYank · 09/02/2012 19:18

Oh, I am still so sad about Hitchens. Way too young. :(

Apparently my contributions to this thread will be to pop in, spout something meaningless and off-topic, and then dash out again....

Himalaya · 09/02/2012 20:02

I can sort of understand the mutual lack of comprehension between (lovely, reasonable) religious folks and (lovely, reasonable) atheists.

It's like we materialists have a tin ear for an emergent property that is obvious to theists. Like one group can only hear a series of notes and the other cant help hearing a tune. Or how some people who can't see those magic eye 3-D pictures.

I think maybet the feeling of god and soul must be like one of those optical illusions where even when you know the illusion you just help seeing it that way.

Technodad · 09/02/2012 20:04

Hello all?. My, you have all been busy while I have been at work! :-)

Trusting in a physicalist / materialist / empiricist philosophical framework is as much an act of trust as trusting in a God, because neither can be proven definitively. - I Think I might scream if I hear this again!

Holo, I can completely comprehend that you have a "belief" and that you have trust in this belief (it is a wholly alien concept to me, but I can accept that some people need this in their life - I don't mean that in a patronising way and I genuinely don't look down on anyone who does (much - joking?)). Please try to put your "belief" to one side for a moment and consider the following (you don't have to accept it, but just consider it and give an honest appraisal of it with your "belief" hat off for a minute):

You will find very little atheists in the world (including Dawkins and EVEN me), that when asked "is there a god and can you prove it" will ever say "There is no god - fact". If you ask an atheist that can explain things well (some can't) you will find is they will respond that "the likelihood of there being a good is probabilistically very low indeed, and so low that we can be very confident that no god exists. This is a scientific theory that is fully supported by all current scientific data and there is no evidence to the contrary. However, we can not say definitively that no god exists because the evidence does not support this". (this is where atheists usually move onto Russell's teapot, or my unicorn banter - but only because people of religion always say "well if you can't prove that god doesn't exist then he must" - which just angers us as a concept because it just goes to show that no one was listening to the very carefully and scientifically correct worded probabilistic argument!)

This probabilistic statement is in no way a "belief" system in itself, because the scientific method is being used (no guess work, no ignoring data and no skewed logic). If someone were to say to you "There is no god and I can prove it" then they are wrong (based upon current available evidence) and I would agree with you that they have their own "belief" system (however more credible than religion this 100% atheist "belief" may be).

Does this help?

One of the big problems in my view is the media and I personally think that poor reporting of science is a real issue. The global warming "debate" and the MMR vaccine "debate" make it look to the layman that scientists can't agree between themselves, thus it must be a belief system. But the truth is that these "debates" are caused by a small minority of rogue scientists and are not supported by the vast majority of scientists (the credible scientists). Sadly the media think that they have to create "balance" to everything and think that they have a duty to give airtime to the "counter argument" without the technical knowledge to make the judgement that "counter argument" is utter arse! This is very damaging for credible science and does not help with the religious "debate"

I can't remember who was asking about the DNA of Jesus, but there is some good information here:

CheerfulYank · 09/02/2012 20:14

Techno! 'Zat you?

Himalaya · 09/02/2012 20:18

Optical illusion ....I mean like this one - the logical side of your brain just can't tell the sensory bits not to see it.

boingboing.net/2008/02/08/color-tile-optical-i.html

CheerfulYank · 09/02/2012 20:23

I have thought of that sometimes, Himalaya. When I was younger it was like, I can hear this tune so clearly, why can't you?!

But it's just...because. Because the world looks and sounds differently to everyone, and so does God. It is what it is and all. :)