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

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

Because he doesn't answer the phone.

(I meant "god" not "good" in my last post - sorry for the spooling mistake)

Techno! 'Zat you? - That has gone over my head .

Those optical illusions are a beautiful demonstration of the human brain, but I honestly think that using the optical illusions to demonstrate why people can't 'comprehend" the atheist perspective is not doing the intelligence of those individuals justice.

Fundamentally I think a good number are brainwashed from an early age (one of the reasons I am campaigning for a secular schooling system: epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1617.

I know many people who believed in god for years because they were made to go to church and genuinely frightened of thinking that god didn't exist (most are now atheists).

There are of course a good number of very vulnerable people who are easily convinced by a nice story - this thread being a perfect example: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/1392035-I-finally-feel-as-though-there-is-proof-that-God-exhists

I feel genuinely distressed when I read some religious posts on MN, especially when people want others to pray for them because they are having troubles in their life - it is a cry for help and I am sure people could be given more practical help, but I can see how it offers comfort.

There is ANOTHER poster who often has techno and dad in his name, then. 'Scuse the confusion. :)

"I feel genuinely distressed when I read some religious posts on MN, especially when people want others to pray for them because they are having troubles in their life - it is a cry for help and I am sure people could be given more practical help, but I can see how it offers comfort."

True. Which is why, though I'm a Christian, I never want to do just prayer.

The Harvard Prayer Experiment would suggest not to bother at all.

But it might make them feel comforted, as you said. Sometimes that's all you can do. :) I don't exactly pray for things anyway.

I can understand that. Fair play.

HH, thats a very facile answer "oh I cant be bothered to explain"

I am saying, I do believe there is more to this world than we can see, as an atheist.
For example, 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. However I am quite satisfied, after my investigations, that there is no god of which you speak. It was quite easy to dismiss as there is no evidence, other than interesting mythological stories.

One of the big problems in my view is the media and I personally think that poor reporting of science is a real issue.

So true.

You know one thing that really did annoy me about Richard Dawkins? That while he held the chair for the [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/home Public Understanding of Science ]] he spent so much time talking about that snakeoil sideshow of religion, instead of the positive beauty and wonder of science.

Jesus on the other hand, was a revolutionary thinker, and his ideas on how to build a good community are the foundations of our modern society.

Science is wonderful and beautiful. I just think God is, too. :)

Chicken - you may like this quote from the link I just made:

'The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all.'

Its those layers and layers which are so exciting! We've got lots of 'known unknowns' (Dark matter, dark energy...) and who knows how many more unknown unknowns!

Grimma - yes, I would like to see much more on the wonder of science, because I see it everyday, and its a shame for anyone to miss out.
The other wonderful thing about science is that it is always improving. So there are always amazing new events, true miracles! - happening around the world.

Yes! Every time I read something about string theory or dark matter or alternate universes or... anything I am agog. :)

tcha... the link I failed to make Public Understanding of Science

this "god" cult is but a poor imitation of the miraculous reality.

And, even better, if you study reality you can understand the pieces of the puzzle, and discover even more wondorous "miracles". Whereas the bible is just one old book.

and I do quite like old books.

Grimma - good link :)

It was very important for Richard Dawkins to discuss religion because of the threat it posed to the understanding of science by the public, particularly in parts of america and the middle east.

Seeing that optical illusion made me think of the McGurk effect:

A truly fantastic example of how the human brain has evolved in a way that means it prioritises different information from the different senses!

Sorry, I didn't do the link properly before.

Thanks - I'd never seen that before.

Morning!

Chicken, I wasn't being deliberately evasive - if you scroll through this thread you'll see how much I've posted. Saying the same thing over and over again gets a bit wearisome after a while!

TechnoDad - probability. Thanks for your summary there. I do have a major problem though - basically, a tool has to be fit for the purpose. So, you've decided somewhere along the line that mathematical / scientific probability is the best tool for assessing whether God exists. Therein lies the 'trust', iyswim. You trust that math / scientific probability is the best tool for this job, so you use it with confidence. So...my real problem with this method, starting from the POV of the Judeo-Christian tradition which I am very happy to be part of, is that one of the absolutely central things that we believe about God is that God is eternal and transcendent, beyond time and space. So whilst probability is very useful for assessing all sorts of things, it is utterly irrelevant wrt God, if the God in question is the eternal transcendent God of the Abrahamic traditions.

We've been round this quite a few times on this thread - whch of course you can't be expected to know....the conversation normally goes from here 'Oh that's a fancy semantic dance', (in other words, sod off) or 'What about the incarnation?' or 'what about miracles?' (which both require a bit of explanation - to which the answer is normally 'oh, that's a fancy semantic dance' = 'sod off')

One of my problems with Dawkins, with whom I am honestly deeply disappointed as a thinker, is that in the God Delusion, he doesn't even consider this. He just wades in with the idea that God is a 'scientific hypothesis' without considering that this is problematic. So he puts the question of God's existence within an enitrely materialist framework, and - lo and behold! - say that the logic doesn't work, to which the answer is, no, of course it doesn't, because he's using the wrong tool for the job. Like I said yesterday, as anyone who's done a degree in just about anything knows, the answer you get depends on the question you ask....

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 are smart enough to know that the two are incompatible and you need something to hang your spiritual beliefs on.

It isn't problematic, Holo, because if god exists without the universe and its laws, then he/she/it is irrelevant.

If god exists and is able to interact with this universe, then there should be a demonstrable impact.

There is not.

That's not failing to take into account that there might be a deity/ some kind of creature that is not part of or subject to the laws of our universe - but once it enters our universe, then it will impact upon it, or it would make no odds whether it were here or not!

How do you explain the capricious nature of the abrahamic god? Is that just people getting it wrong again? (By that I mean the choosing of "special people," contradictory instructions, brutality and misogyny in old testament.)

WRT to the sectarian thing - in my life as a wannabe religioso, I hung out with the RC, Anglo Catholics, CoI, Presbyterian, Maranatha and Brethren churches. One thing they all have in common is an overwhelming sense of their own correctness. In the cases of the non-conformists, they have a constant refrain of "this is not religion, we are living by faith." This is, in fact, demonstrable bollocks. It is utterly and entirely religion.

I've seen the McGurk effect before, but it always makes my head spin!

I think its a good metaphor for thinking about the different way that goddies and the godless view the world. (better than sponge cakes and meringues! )

Its like the godless amongst us only hear the sound so we hear baa, baa, baa (scientific materialism always stands...)

And the goddies sense 'some other reality' of the pictures so sometimes they hear baa and sometimes they hear faa (sometimes scientific materialism stands and sometimes mystical things really happen).

If you can't see the pictures you can't experience the McGurk effect, but seeing the pictures doesn't make it easier to accurately understand the sounds (in fact it makes it impossible).

HH - you also approach the whole area from the relativist viewpoint whereby all views of the world are subjective and therefore can have equal value. The problem with this argument is that the scientific materialist world has the experimental method making its findings testable and therefore objective.