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

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

There must be space for different types of knowledge, surely?
Yes; but you have to recognise them for what they are, and the limits of what the various types can and can't be applied to.

Scientific and mathematical knowledge is universal.

Experiential truths aren't (to take your childbirth example - I know what that was like for me, but that has very little bearing on what it would be like for anyone else). Religions have an unfortunate tendency to behave as if their 'truths' are universal whereas really very few of them are. A Muslim's 'truth' about Jesus is entirely different to that of a Christian (and within that label, many versions) and the actual historical truth is almost certainly something different again, if we could invent a functioning retrospectroscope and look back to what really happened 2000 years ago.

"However, it's impossible to do that if you don't believe (in the other sense) that God exists. Its a prerequisite."

No, it's the other way round. In our daily lives we have to trust/believe in all sorts of things that can cannot confirm/believe. I have no way of knowing, for example, that you, Grimmathenome, are a real human being. You could very well be a chatbot, and it would be very difficult to prove that you are not. But I trust that you are a human being: it doesn't matter for the purposes of treating you as if you were a human being that I can't know that you exist.

"Scientific and mathematical knowledge [are] universal."

Mathematical knowledge is different from the knowledge generated by empirical science. Mathematical equations can prove things that have no existence in the physical world -- that are purely abstract concepts.

Scientific knowledge is not universal, it is contingent. What is accepted as true today can be overtaken tomorrow. One day people might see the theory of evolution by natural selection as a wrong answer to the right question, much as they do Phlogiston.

I don't think that logic is quite right. You are sufficiently 'convinced of the actual existence' of a person typing this mail that you'll trust I'm a real person. You don't have proof, but the balance of probabilities allows you to proceed on that basis. I am entirely unconvinced of the actual existence of God; I think it is highly improbable one exists and even less probable that there is a benign deity. Therefore it is impossible - nonsensical even - to suppose that I could place any faith in god.

Our understanding of scientific truths are contingent - our knowledge is only partial; however, the realities underlying them are universal.

"Religions have an unfortunate tendency to behave as if their 'truths' are universal"

Ha, ain't that the truth

niminypiminy - when you say "One day people might see the theory of evolution by natural selection as a wrong answer to the right question" what do you mean?

"Our understanding of scientific truths [is] contingent - our knowledge is only partial; however, the realities underlying them are universal.

But you were saying that the knowledge is universal. Now you are saying it is partial and contingent. Not sure what you mean by 'the realities underlying them are universal': do you mean the natural phenomena scientific theories seek to explain -- or do you mean that, say, the law of gravity somehow existed before Newton thought of it?

BobbinRobbin, what I meant is that at present we consider that evolution by natural selection is the only theory that explains all the phenomena and which is backed up by evidence. But that doesn't mean to say that it will stand, unchanging, for all time. The history of science is littered with theories that were accepted at the time only to be replaced.

Grimma, I think it is the case, logically speaking, that you have to believe/trust that something exists in order to contemplate whether you believe/prove it. When you say 'God doesn't exist' you have admitted 'God' to that order of concepts whose existence you can discuss.

Hands up, I used 'knowledge' sloppily.

Not sure what you mean by 'the realities underlying them are universal': do you mean the natural phenomena scientific theories seek to explain -- or do you mean that, say, the law of gravity somehow existed before Newton thought of it?

The natural phenomena. The law of gravity existed before newton thought of it. The 'somehow' makes me think you're using the words a bit differently to me so probably we're at cross purposes,

BobbinRobbin, what I meant is that at present we consider that evolution by natural selection is the only theory that explains all the phenomena and which is backed up by evidence. But that doesn't mean to say that it will stand, unchanging, for all time. The history of science is littered with theories that were accepted at the time only to be replaced.
True. There have been refinements of Darwin's original theories. But, something natural happened and the scientific method is the best way we have of homing in on what it was.

Grimma, I think it is the case, logically speaking, that you have to believe/trust that something exists in order to contemplate whether you believe/prove it. When you say 'God doesn't exist' you have admitted 'God' to that order of concepts whose existence you can discuss.

No, that's not logical at all. We are discussing whether God exists, not whether the concept of God exists. Entirely different things, of course. Invisible pink unicorns are a concept whose existence we can discuss - that does not mean that, logically speaking, you have to believe/trust that they exist.

Grimma, you sound a bit like Paul in 1 Corinthains 13; 'now I know in part, then shall I know, even as I am known.'

I can't help thinking that trying to apply empirical thinking to religion is a category error. We (generally) think badly of those who marry for 'empirical' (measurable) reasons, because there is a higher logic, the logic of love that supersedes measurable gain. Therefore, to marry for measurable reasons debases what marriage is. (Oh, that could open a can of worms!) I wonder if religious knowledge is a bit like that...that it's not that it contradicts empirical knowledge as such, it just occurs at a different level? I don't know, I'm thinking aloud without having pondered this one - I've spent all day in deep abstract thinking / conversation with people with brains the size of planets....

Just to backtrack a moment, phlogiston isn't a good example of scientific knowledge being superceded - because it never was a proper scientific theory.

I can't help thinking that trying to apply empirical thinking to religion is a category error. We (generally) think badly of those who marry for 'empirical' (measurable) reasons, because there is a higher logic, the logic of love that supersedes measurable gain. Therefore, to marry for measurable reasons debases what marriage is

well, I'm not sure I agree with that entirely either. I'm inclined to think marriage is best a combination of the head and the heart. If you know there's a good logical reason not to marry someone but you go ahead because you're 'in love' then that too debases marriage. To extend the analogy to absurdity, if you are 'in love' with someone who empirically doesn't exist, you're not going to have a very satisfactory marriage

There can be layers of different types of 'knowledge' but if they contradict empirical knowledge (which theistic religions do) then its hard to argue that they are valid.

"There can be layers of different types of 'knowledge' but if they contradict empirical knowledge (which theistic religions do) then its hard to argue that they are valid."

Yes, knowledge is a confusing word to use in this sense - wouldn't something like 'I think / I feel / I experience that God is real' be a more accurate use of language than 'I know that God is real'?

Otherwise it just sounds like you are using know in the sense of 'I just know that Manchester United will win tomorrow' - yes people may say it but not in the same sense that they could say 'I know Manchester United is a football team'.

BobbinRobbin, I wasn't trying to say that I know that God exists, I was more trying to test the hypothesis that anyone can claim that God doesn't exist.

You're right about marriage, Grimma, being a mixture of head and heart. But that does pre-suppose 'heart' knowledge of some sort, doesn't it?

Theistic religions contradict empirical knowledge? We're going round in circles here! As I said, that only works logically if empirical knowledge id the only type of knowledge there is - if we concede that other types of knowledge exist, then it becomes possible logically to say that religion belongs within the sphere of a different sort of knowledge to empiricism. Science and religion aren't competing for the same epistemological space -scientific materialism andtheism are, yes, but there is no logical reason to say that science leads inevitably to materlism. As I said, this is a philosophical dispute, not a scientific one. You are defending a philosophy, not 'science'!

Oh, and also, I was thinking I'd like to read 'The God Delusion' and see what I think of it. Has anyone here read it? Does anyone fancy an online discussion of it?

I've read it, years ago, great book.

I've just seen that I can read it free online! I'm reading the Preface, and already stubbed my toe on his assertion that 'God is a scientific hypothesis.' Errrr, no. That's what this thread is all about! The good Prof and I aren't going to see eye to eye, I can tell that from two minutes' reading!

I made Dawkins' point in this regard, yesterday I think, when I pointed out the burning bush and other 'miracles' were in direct contradiction of science.

NF...yes, the very definition of a miracle is that which is beyond the laws of nature. Therefore it is the laws of nature that give miracles their meaning. So they don't contradict the laws of nature, they affirm them. (I.e. miracles only make sense because of the laws of nature - a bt like 'negative space' in art).

But they also indicate that the laws of nature are not the totality of all possibility - they suggest that God, as beyond nature, is free to suspend the laws of nature.

Now obviously this is a theological / philosophical answer, but your point is a philosophical one too - it states that the laws of nature cannot be suspended, and therefore by implication, that there is no 'beyond' them. So again, you're defending a philosophy, not 'science.'

Be all that as it may, to assert that God is a 'scientific hypothesis' situates God within the laws of nature, by suggesting that God occupies the same epistemological status as any other hypothesis. This is really not the Christian view of God! The Christian view is that God is beyond,
greater than our minds could comprehend. If that were not so, we would be greater than God. So to posit God as a scientific hypothesis is more akin to the Christian concept of idolatry, thereby making a nonsense of the word 'God' - so Dawkins' argument seems to betray a real lack of understanding of Christianity. So the God of his 'God Delusion' is not the Christian God Is he particularly anti-Christian, or just anti-religion in general?

So they don't contradict the laws of nature, they affirm them

sorry, that simply doesn't make sense. Miracles do not affirm the laws of nature, they are in direct contradiction to them (or would be, if they actually happened). Perhaps you meant to say that the laws of nature affirm the miraculousness of miracles? - I suppose that would make some sense (for a given value of 'sense')

You're right about marriage, Grimma, being a mixture of head and heart. But >that does pre-suppose 'heart' knowledge of some sort, doesn't it?
In the context of marriage. It does not therefore follow that 'heart' knowledge is applicable in all situations.

I wouldn't say that God is a scientific hypothesis. I'd say God is an unscientific hypothesis. Not properly falsifiable for one thing.

Fortunately atheists are allowed to disagree with the Word of Dawkins

Jeeeez, Holo, I hate this repeating myself

Unicorns are not properly falsifiable either, dies that tell you therefore there is a possibility they exist?

I guess I'd have to concede that theoretically they could exist.

We then come on to the question of probability, which requires a different methodology.

Do you know if Dawkins is particularly bothered about any specific religion? Or is it just 'religion' in general that gets his goat? I don't know much about Dawkins (as polemicist) at all, really.

Grimma, just seen your post. Your scientific / unscientific dichotomy there...you do realise that that's not the diiscourse of the Christian God, don't you? So whatever God you think is 'unscientific', it can't be the Christian God, for the reasons I've said. So whoever it is you don't believe in is not the same God I do believe in! Do you see the line of thinking?

I think its religions, particularly theistic ones, in general. But (like many of us) he's most familiar with Christianity and therefore that's the one that gets most focus (IIRC he says something about this in GD)

you do realise that that's not the diiscourse of the Christian God, don't you?
No, I don't think I do.
I used to believe in the Christian god - in as far as I know a pretty standard manner - and what I say seems to me to be applicable.

So whoever it is you don't believe in is not the same God I do believe in!
Well of course. Since I think that God is purely the product of the human mind, each person has (or doesn't have) their own God.

I agree with Grimma about RD's take on religion.

Grimma, the reason I say that the scientific / unscientific dichotomy is unhelpful wrt the Judeo-Christian understaning of God is this:

'Scientific' or 'unscientific' are categories that are useful for describing things that belong to the universe. So, the law of gravity is scientific, the assertion that gravity is a hoax is unscientific. So far so good?

But...the Judeo-Christian God does not belong to the universe - this God is above and beyond the universe. So the category 'scientific' or 'unscientific' is just plain wrong when applied to (the Christian) God who, by definition, is beyond 'science.' As a very, very banal analogy, a grown-up is beyond the categories that describe things that belong to schoolchildren, like asking a 40 yer old 'Are you in the top set?' Anyone asking this shows they have understood the nature of adulthood. (Of course, this analogy is unhelpful in suggesting that God is a more 'developed' example of the same genus in which humans participate, which is v. far from the Christian idea of God).

As one if my favourite theologians puts it, 'God is not an item in any universe.' So applying scientific categories to God presupposes a God that is an item in the universe, which , in Judeo-Christian terms, eqates to an idol.

So it's not just that I think of God differently to you - it's that your methodology is outside of Judeo-Christian thinking - so whoever you / Dawkins disbelieve in (your 'unscientific' uses the same categories of thought as Dawk's 'scientific', so you're on the same spectrum of thought), is potentially a God that I don't believe in either!