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

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

HiH, I believe both of those things!

sorry - to be clear, yes I believe God made us human, and alsop I believe that we evolved (as i understand it - I have no scientific qualifications above GCSE level!)

Yes, I get what you're saying. But not all paradigms are equal. I'm sure you can think of paradigms which have been discarded as fallacious.

As I (and I suspect most others) understand it, Creationsim and Evolution are mutually exclusive theories. A key to understanding evolution is that there is no master plan, so we could not be made in anyone's image if we have evolved. No doubt, I am thinking in the wrong 'philosophical paradigm'.

HH how did both happen? Evolving and creation?

Oh, I think I know this one (or at least, one of the versions of the answer). The 'image' isn't literal - its sort of more like the ability to be 'godly'. The human bodies evolved, and at some point (not sure whether simultaneously across the populated world, or gradually) God put a 'soul' into them. At which point, fully fledged human with consciousness and conscience and ...whoops... they know when they're being bad so they are now sinners.

How's that sound?

Grimma, yes, of course some paradigms have been discarded. The point is that, if you believe in God, you understand the world in a certain paradigm, which is coherent. If you are a child of the Enlightenment and see scientific methodoolgy as definitive of reality, then you frame it differently. Either way, the questions of definitive reality go beyond the normal bounds of science and start to become philosophical ones, and if they become defined by religion, then they become theological (i.e. dealing with specifically religious ideas about God). All of which is why I say that you can't use 'science' simply to answer questions of definitive, ultimate reality. You have to do something with the scientific data, which means putting them into a paradigm of some sort or other. So again, what you are doing, and what we are all doing on this thread is talking philosophically / theologically, not talking scientifically.

I was thinking earlier of the differences between information, analysis and evaluation - scientific data give us bits of information which we then analyse, synthesise with other bits of information, ths forming paradigms, then evaluate the worth / usefulness of those paradigms. Doesn't that make sense? so simply wheeling out bits of information isn't going to persuade anyone of anything without analysis and evaluation.

HiH - I wouldn't dream of presuming to say how evolution happened. As I said, I have no scientific qualifications to speak of! As to how God created, well, there are some words about that in the Bible but it is all very metaphorical - as I have said in this thread, the bible is not a science book. So sorry, I'm not much help on that one either! (Job 38-41 explains my reticence to say how God made the world).

ElB - 'creationism' - what do you mean by that? young earth creationism / 6 - day creation / biblical literalism? In which case, I agree, those are not good ways of seeing things.

The point is that, if you believe in God, you understand the world in a certain paradigm, which is coherent

Is it though, is it really? See, I've been there and the cracks started showing and then that paradigm just went 'pop'. My own experience (yes I know this is as subjective as it gets!) is that its not a reliable paradigm. It only works (to the extent it does) within its own framework, within its own circular arguments. Can't you see why anyone who doesn't believe doesn't accord it much validity?

The point of my post is that we could not be made in God's image and have evolved as well - which is what you said you believed. That is a logically inconsistent position. But I suppose to you using logic to draw conclusions is a part of the 'scientiific materialist paradigm' and therefore doesn't extend to your world view.

Yes, I can tbh Grimma. If you believe that you can only know God really through revelation, then that makes it difficult to understand from the outside. Which is why I think the young earth creationists etc argue on scientific (or, rather, pseudo-scientific) grounds - because, to be frank, that's easier than talking about a transcendent God who is above and beyond science and yet was made incarnate in the person of Jesus.

Although I guess the flipside of this is that I think that scientific-materialism is just as circular. I can't see the obviouisness of it, I really can't. To me, the world, an the universe, invite questions about a creator. You can say (as you did on the other thread) 'there is no beyond', but I can't see why that must be so. The only real answer seems to be 'because there isn't', which seems pointlessly self-limiting to me. To me, you can explore and enjoy the diversity and riches of earth without hviang to give up the belief in heaven.

ElB, a baby in the womb evolves - I followed both of my pgs with weekly evolutionary progress updates and took great joy in seeing the little lives evolve! and yes, my dc are v. much 'in my image', bless their little hearts! (I have a little budding philosophre for a dd). So believing in evolution and seeing humans as made in God's image are entirely consistent.

Grimma - "Philosophy: some of it is just stating the bleeding obvious but some of it is Just Made Up Stuff."

You are wise

Why does trying to justify a belief in god always result in a load of esoteric eheral wordage? To me, a fairly simple straight forward person, it makes it seem beyond most logical people, why would a god that wanted all to know him personally make it so darn convoluted and complex?

*ethereal even

HH,
As I suspect that you know, your baby gestating inside you is not the same thing as the theory of evolution. For me, there is no point in debating this anymore. It does surprise me that on the one hand you say that you know little about science but are dismissive of what it can and can't explain.

HH - from your example you would appear to be confusing evolution with growth and development. Once your child has is conceived, the genetic evolution part has already happened.

Also, a question re theology as it's not a subject I'm that familiar with - for you, does the study of theology pre-suppose the existence of god(s)?

Holo again

The clear cut division between science and scientific materialism. You cannot do science without the assumption of materialism.

Say you have a hypothesis you want to test - say " plants give out oxygen when the sun shines on them". So you do the GCSE science thing with the gas collection tube and the lighted splint and it goes pop. So you say 'yay that supports the hypothesis'.

Then someone comes along and says, 'no, no that oxygen was given out by a transcendent spirit that got into the equipment. I have a very strong feeling about it, but there will never be any evidence because it's transcendent.
So what do?

Do you say 'don't be silly' and get on with your experiment (= scientific materialism)

Or do you say 'you could be right and there is no way of knowing (in which case there is really no point in continuing to pants around with the test tube and glowing splint).

My example is trivial, but the same thing applies if you are testing the hypothesis that conscience emerges from the workings of a particular part of the brain, and someone comes along and says "conscience and the essence of humanity is a property of the transcendent/immortal soul'.

If you deny the possibility that humanness is all about the soul then that's your cardinal sin of *scientific materialism^, but if you concede that memory, consciousness, conscience etc...may reside in the spiritual realm there is really not much point messing around with brains anymore.

ElB, yes, a baby developing and the theory of evolution are different processes - but (again, as a non-scientist) is it possible to see evolution as a lot of different, very complex developmental processes? I'm not sure I've dismissed anything, tbh - it would be dishonest of me to try and defend evolution scientifically, as I really don't know anything about it much at all. That's not the same as 'dismissing' something though, is it?

HiH - I find a lot of science-speak esoteric and wordy! Doesn't mean it's not important stuff, though.

Bonfire, 'theology' is as broad a subject as science. From a university POV, it covers ancient texts and languages, church history, sociology of religion, philosophy of religion, the development of beliefs, as well as purely 'theological' questions like 'Who or what is God?' It differs a lot from university to university too, so I can only speak of what I know. So no, you don't have to believe in God to do that work and do it well. You do have to be interested, though, and apply your mind to the questions you're working on, the same as any subject really.

Himalaya, that's not what scientific materialism is, the doing of science in empirical fashion and deducing stuff from the results, rejecting supernaturalist results as you go along.

Scientific materialism is a post-Enlightenment philosophy that says 'we can only know what can be tested scientifically - God cannot be tested scientifically - therefore God doesn't exist.'

That's clear, isn't it? No esoteric wordage there?

is it possible to see evolution as a lot of different, very complex developmental processes?
well, no, I wouldn't have said so. One is inventing new recipes, the other is baking the cake (not too bad an analogy... the same recipe can yield different results according to the conditions under which it is cooked, but chocolate batter will never give a lemon sponge)

Bonfire - the study of theology certainly doesn't require the theologian to personally believe. (I gather quite a lot of people who study the subject start out as believers and end up sceptics - not sure about the reverse.)

If that's what scientific materialism is then I'm not sure there are many people who really are pure scientific materialists. You seem to be trying to put us in a certain philosophical box but I'm not sure its the right one.

The argument nowadays isn't usually 'God cannot be tested scientifically - therefore God doesn't exist'. Its more to do with looking at the evidence for particular types of god as portrayed by various religions and considering the probability that they exist. Whether a deist 'first cause' non-interventionist god exists is unfathomable but also to all intents and purposes irrelevant. Whether the God of Abraham exists - well, that can be examined rationally. Not necessarily scientifically but logically, looking for consistency etc.

We've been round this before haven't we?

Holo - but how do you reject supernatural explanations for your results as you go along?

If the supernatural claims are completely transcendent and unknowable you cannot rule them out through scientific method.

I don't see the distinction you are making.

If someone claims that the oxygen produced in the plant experiment is really produced by invisible, imperceptible lepruchauns then by your definition it would be scientific materialism to say 'we can only what can be tested scientifically - invisible imperceptable leprechauns cannot be tested scientifically therefore they don't exist."

But if your lab could be infested by IILs there is really no point doing experiments and thinking you can deduce anything from the results.

HH - "is it possible to see evolution as a lot of different, very complex developmental processes?"

Yes it is, but evolutionary biology is not about the processes which take place within ONE individual organism (such as a baby growing in the womb).

It is about a genetic game of chance. If say, a wolf has a litter of cubs, they will all be slightly different genetically. They will differ from each other in terms of colour, eyesight, leg length, muscle size, temperament, teeth size etc etc.

The cubs with slightly bigger teeth and coordination (for example) might grow up to be more successful hunters, and catch more food than their siblings. This will give them a better chance of living longer, mating, and passing the genes for big teeth and coordination onto their cubs.

The gene sets that code for 'big teeth' and 'good coordination' will be more likely to survive - ie be 'selected for', and pass down through the generations.

It's not about any one individual, or species, or pre-determined design. It just happened that big teeth and good coordination genes were helpful in the game of wolf survival, so those genes survived and shaped the way that wolves look and behave today.

And it may well be that in humans, the genes which code for a tendency towards 'civilised behaviour' survived at the expense of genes which code for 'just pick a fight with any other human you see'.

And really, can't Jesus' message of love your neighbour etc be boiled down to just 'civilised behaviour' as opposed to 'rampant barbarian behaviour'?

GrimmaTheNome If that's what scientific materialism is then I'm not sure there are many people who really are pure scientific materialists. You seem to be trying to put us in a certain philosophical box but I'm not sure its the right one.
Exactly.

The argument nowadays isn't usually 'God cannot be tested scientifically - therefore God doesn't exist'. Its more to do with looking at the evidence for particular types of god as portrayed by various religions and considering the probability that they exist. Whether a deist 'first cause' non-interventionist god exists is unfathomable but also to all intents and purposes irrelevant. Whether the God of Abraham exists - well, that can be examined rationally. Not necessarily scientifically but logically, looking for consistency etc.

For me, it's the comparison between the different religions, and the multiple and mutually contradictory interpretations that theologians of different persuasions have put on the same basic texts, which has led me to conclude that what believers consider to be god cannot possibly exist. No almighty, all-knowing deity who wanted the best for humanity would really have revealed scriptures which apparently require years of specialist study in order to be understood. And which when misunderstood (?) have justified religious wars, execution of heretics, intolerance of various kinds.

I guess this is my Protestant/Nonconformist background speaking: the "Word of God" is/should be accessible to all, not something which has to be filtered through a privileged class. I may be a child of the Enlightenment (why is that such a bad thing?) but I am also the product of a particular religious background. One which has encouraged me to think for myself :)