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

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

Nimmy,
Science does not ask us to believe in theorhetical physics - the clue is in the name. Yes, in science, there are conflicting theories for all sorts of things, but these often lead to experiments or analysis being designed to uncover the objective truth so one or other of the theories can be discounted. This is not at all like religion, which tends to hold onto dogma (often by force) until it is has to change its view because it is no longer tenable with the facts as known at the time.

As I tried to explain to HH, you seem to be happy to include subjective experience as evidence to Gods existence. This sort of evidence would not be considered valid in a good scientific experiment. I would ask you to consider this;
Do you really believe that people who claim to receive messages from god are actually communicating with a divine being?
If you do believe this then I would ask you the following question;
Why was what the Yorkshire ripper did wrong? (His defence was that god told him to kill prostitutes).

I am guessing that you will answer Yes to both of these which, to me at the very least, seems inconsistent.

Holo - science and supernatural religion are mutually incompatible, although many people manage to compartmentalise their understanding of the world so that the cognitive dissonance doesn't become deafening.

I've said this before, but I'll try one more time

The incompatibility goes both ways.

Science can only make sense if we assume that the laws of the universe are regular. When you do an experiment the results are interpreted in terms of physical forces, you don't have to consider whether there was really some inexplicable intervention from the spirit world which caused the results. If you consider that the spirit world may intervene in the physical world at any time without leaving any evidence then it is impossible to draw any conclusions from observations, so you can't know anything through scientific investigation.

If the laws of the universe are regular then it is reasonable to assume that extraordinary claims with no evidence are false (I.e. Miracles dont happen). Without miracles the claims of most religions are pretty thin, and their ability to know anything about the spirit world/transcendent have no basis. If you don't think that the transcendent can meddle with the laws of physics then there is no way of us physical beings to know anything at all about the trancendent.

At a less basic level I think evolution is a very strong reason to think that the religious ideas that a) humans are special, b)were created with a purpose and c) exist in an original design without the pain and bad stuff is not consistent with how it really happened.

I guess it just comes down to this, in the end.

Do you think empirical science is the only way we can access any kind of truth about the universe?

If you do, then you also think that history, poetry, philosophy, mathematics, theology (and all the other ways of inquiring about who we are, what is the world like, how does it work, and so on) are at base invalid.

That's a philosophy, called 'scientism'. It's not the necessary consequence of doing science, or thinking that science is an incredibly powerful way of understanding the world. Scientism comes in and out of fashion: it was dominant amongst scientists at the beginning of the twentieth century, and then waned. Now it is back. It's important to understand that you are defending a philosophy -- not an immanent law of the universe.

Re Peter Sutcliffe. I do not think it was God talking to him and of course he was not right to do what he did. God could well have talked to him, but on balance of the evidence (if you look at all of God's communications with humans over the milennia) telling people to kill prostitutes is not the kind of thing God does. (I said, on balance of the evidence -- I'm happy to argue on that basis, because I don't hold with zero-sum arguments).

I'll be away for a few days now, and will be interested to see how the conversation develops while I'm away.

So god kills people (including babies) with earthquakes and war (etc), but doesn't tell an individual to kill prostitutes.

I am finding it difficult to keep up with why god thinks killing babies is more justified than killing prostitutes. He Does work in mysterious ways doesn't he!

"balance of the evidence (if you look at all of God's communications with humans over the milennia)"

Eh? What evidence? I thought the whole point is there is no evidence... That's why you have to have faith.

The implication of your last paragraph is that God didn't speak to Sutcliffe but speaks to you and people who think like you. Do you realise what that looks like - quite apart from it being quite irrational - it is completely egocentric and vain. Why would god speak to you and not him - why are you so special and what's wrong with Sutcliffe?

The god that spoke to Sutcliffe was as real to him as yours is to you. Incidentally, I'd also would have thought that killing prostitutes would be very compatible with a Christian view of the world if you take the old testament literally. But of course, we don't count the OT nowadays because the world, and our knowledge of it, has moved on. As for religion generally being a force for good in the world, that is really very debatable.

Yes, I do believe that empirical science is the only way to access truth about the material world. Its framework is flexible enough to encompass new information when it is discovered. This is in stark contrast to religion which has to keep reinventing its beliefs in order for its adherants to appear to be rational.

Nah ElBurro - a prostitute and her family were in fact the only ones spared in the battle of Jericho

I do think accusations of "scientism" are a bit of a con-trick.

People always pull out the same list of high-minded 'ways of knowing' to put along side theology. ...poetry, history, philosophy ....with the implication being that by ruling out mystical claims without evidence ('scientism') you are a reductionist philistine and a bit hard-hearted.

I mean why not cake decorating, dog grooming, music, sculpture, table-tennis, soap operas etc... is it 'scientism' not to recognise that each of these different disciplines is a 'different ways of knowing' ?!?

History is a way of making sense of what happened in the past, where the evidence can be sketchy, but is still evidence. It is not a 'different way of knowing' than science e.g. of your historic documents suggest that someone was in two places at once you should conclude that something is wrong with your historic analysis, rather than that proclaim that 'history has proved that this is possible, its just that science can't understand it'.

Poetry is an art-form and a way of communicating insights and ideas. Its not a way of accessing truth about the universe.

Ideas from philosophy and mathematics can be tested against reality.

Theology is something like Warhammer - it has consistent internal rules but no relationship to truths in the real world.

Thanks for your answer, Himalaya

I don't actually agree with your logic, but thanks for explaining! I guess part of my problem with the scienfic-materialist worldview is that it presents science as pristine and definite, whereas from my experience of medicine, I know how un-pristine, messy and experimental it can be.

Oh , the 'God of the gaps' thing - everyone (well, nearly) thinks that's a terrible idea!

ElB - maybe you could try and explain to me how I'm wrong on worldviews?

Holo - I don't think science is pristine at all, it's a continual work in progress. And medicine is definately messy.

I see it the other way - approaches that are not scientific have a 'pristine' foundation - whether it is the bible, inerrancy of the pope or Samuel Hanneman's ideas on 'the law of simiars' or whatever and they can't progress through testing.

Can you say which bit of the logic you don't agree with, or is it just the conclusion?

Well, it seems to me (sorry if I mis-represent you here) that you re saying that x must always = x, and y must always = y, otherwise we'll not have any way of knowing what anything is and go into an existential meltdown (not that I'm putting words in your mouth or anything! )

My problem with this scenario is that if God is real, then the one being woh has got the wherewithal to change the rules is God. So if God wants to do a miracle, God can suspend the laws of nature - that doesn't invalidate those laws of nature though, it just says that God has the freedom to do whatever God pleases with the rules (s)he made.

I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative here; tbh, the scientific-materialistic worldview (or whatever you want to call it) is as baffling to me as Christianity is to a lot of atheists. Dawkins was no help to me in trying to understand all this - maybe there are some more sophisticated arguments out there, but I haven't come across them so far.

I'll post more later!

Hi Holo,

maybe there are some more sophisticated arguments out there, but I haven't come across them so far.

I am not sure that more sophisticated arguments are going to help. The simple and very easy to understand arguments have already been presented and you have failed to understand them (or failed to try to understand them).

It can not be said any simpler than saying that science is an eternal process of gathering data, creating theories, tests those theories, and then adjusting the theories. Science does not claim to give all the answers, and atheists do not need to know all the answers to get through their life (although many are clearly very inquisitive - otherwise science would not develop like it does).

Faith, is based upon some historical records which can not be proven and require the holder to "believe".

Well, it seems to me (sorry if I mis-represent you here) that you re saying that x must always = x, and y must always = y, otherwise we'll not have any way of knowing what anything is and go into an existential meltdown (not that I'm putting words in your mouth or anything! )

Basically, when considered all evidence in its entirety (including information from the bible and all the scientific evidence) the theoretical likelihood of a god changing the laws of physics at-will is very very low indeed. Since no credible scientific theories consider the likelihood of a god changing the laws of physics, there are no credible theories whether there will be an existential meltdown or not.

is as baffling to me as Christianity is to a lot of atheists

Christianity isn't baffling to me at all. You just don't like my view on why you are Christian. Like i have said before, I think it must be very comforting and sometimes I am jealous of the fact that you have that comfort, but I think it is a shame that so much effort is put into something which is in your head rather than in the physical world.

There is an argument to say that you (as an individual) may never be able to understand the above arguments or may never wish to try.

HH - re Christianity / religion being baffling, no it really isn't. I'm sure you're familiar with the 'god shaped hole' concept. For religion to be such a global phenomenon, now and in the past, it has to be emergent from basic human psychology.

It's entirely natural to want to feel parented, cared for, loved. Even if the 'parent' seems harsh on occasion, and their actions sometimes seem to make no sense, that's not so different from the human equivalent.

Thanks Techno.

Right - your point (1). I have no problem with your definition of science - I like it in fact . I am happy to embrace that kind of scientific endeavour, and faith.

Your point (2). Christianity is unlikely! Miracle are unlikely. Doesn't make them impossible. Your second sentence there says that science gets to decide what is feasible (which, as you know, I don't accept).

(3) I am in the physical world! Therefore, what's in my head is in the physical world.

Bobbin, yes, there are lots of social-scientific reasons why religion is so widespread. To me, those arguments can't make any kind of value judgement as to whether there is a reality behind (or in) all that religion. You can give social-science reasons as to why people marry / cohabit / whatever, but you can't say on that basis whehter love is real.

HH - "You can give social-science reasons as to why people marry / cohabit / whatever, but you can't say on that basis whehter love is real."

It's not really an equivalent though, is it? People who fall in love / cohabit / marry do so with a real person. It doesn't follow that therefore god is real.

Same re your mind being a physical entity. Yes of course it is, that doesn't mean that everything that you imagine / think of / feel is real in the same way.

And on the subject of love, I've now got into pondering the nature of the 'reality' of feelings, and the projection of human feelings onto situations. I've felt like I was head over heels in love on far too many occasions when in fact I was sadly deluded, since the object of my affections gave not a shit Is unreciprocated love 'real'? I'd argue not really, although it feels very real indeed at the time. But I suppose that's not really comparable with 'loving god' since it's not like he's going to send actual roses and ask you out on a date

Holo

Jack the rippers thoughts were in his head therefore by your definition were in the physical world. That doesn't mean he was right, or reasonable. Or do you support his views as valid just because he thought them and he exists?

Perhaps a more interesting case to consider than Sutcliffe - when Bush and Blair had their breakfast prayer meeting, they believed that God was telling them to go ahead and start a war. They are both avowed Christians. Both presumably sane. What do you think really happened there?

GTN,

I think the answer might be that God works in mysterious ways, and then something about trancending and truth.

Would it help convince you if I put some other random and meaningless words in a sentence?

Thanks, but I'd like an attempt at a serious answer to this one.

Its been bugging me since the Bideford result - all the secularists are being so nice and accommodating as usual (for all the thanks we get, branded as 'militant' ), saying sure, its fine to pray before a political meeting. Well really, is it?

Seems to me that either (a) if there is a God he might have told them something a bit more along the lines of 'make bloody sure there really are WMD before you do this, and don't go calling it a Crusade' or (b) there isn't a God and the effect of politicians praying before a meeting is likely to just confirm that whatever they've already decided to do is What God Wants.

or possibly

c) They knew that what they were doing was potentially bloody dodgy and wanted some divine backup from Him.

And of course the 'God is with us' line is very effective in winning American hearts and minds. Not so much here, obviously, but what we wanted wasn't terribly important was it.

Niminy - you said that "telling people to kill prostitutes is not the kind of thing God does."

In Deuteronomy 22 it says that a woman who turns out not to be a virgin when she marries should be stoned by all the men of the town. I think telling a whole town to stone any woman who has had sex before marriage is as eyebrow raising as telling someone to kill prostitutes. How is it completely different? What particularly galls is that, chances are, one of the men chucking boulders at her head would have had sex with her.

Actually to be fair if it turns out she was a virgin and her husband is just trying to get shot of her he gets punished too, he has to give some money to his father in law, and has to stay married to her, so it's not like he doesnt get in trouble. That'll teach him.

I bet the wife would've had a right laugh about it with her friends in the unleavended bread isle at her local supermarket, how her silly husband tried to get her stoned and then had to stay married to her. "Here Judith, you'll never guess what 'im in doors did the other day, Oh I was crying with laughter, the buffoon"

I have been moved to read some Deuteronomy. It turns out the Lord had it in for the trannies too:

"A woman must not wear men?s clothing, nor a man wear women?s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."

So heaven help you if you were a woman who wore trousers and shagged around.

Actually it's quite fascinating - in amongst the dire warnings against immorality are handy farming and style tips:

10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. 11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. 12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

A bit like the Daily Mail of the time I suppose.

I like the one that says if two man are scrapping and the wife of one of them gets involved and touches the other man's 'secrets' she has to have her hand cut off.