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

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

"When you define your version of God as something that is fundamentally immune to scientific analysis which essentially means you're saying that your version of God is immune to rationality"

No, no, no! That is only the case if you think that the only form of rationality is scientific analysis!

The idea that science (actually scientific materialism) is a 'master discourse', the standard of truth and rationality by which all others can be judged, is quite a recent one. It emerged in the late nineteenth century. It's an ideology, that is, an idea which despite its historical contingency, has assumed the status of a timeless truth.

So Richard Dawkins feels no need to read any theology, or even to accept that theology can make any truth claims, because he believes only scientific materialism can arbitrate about what is truthful and rational.

Who is sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'La la la'? In many ways, it is Dawkins, because he simply refuses to engage with the intellectual tradition of Christianity.

BobbinRobin, I am arguing against the idea that materialism is the only logical position to take.

I am arguing that God is beyond earthly categories, therefore cannot logically be a 'scientific hypothesis' in any way.

I am arguing that the type of knowledge involved Christianity is of a different type to scientific knowledge, and that therefore the two are not incompatible.

As to why I believe all of this....like I said on the last thread, I am a lifelong believer and base my faith both on my own experience of prayer, worship, Christian community, learning about Christianity, suffering etc etc, and also because I believe that God has been in the church down the ages - so it's not just my individualistic, subjective faith, but 'the faith of the church.'

I'm not interested in playing 'My Dad's bigger than your Dad' because obviously, we're all grown-ups on MN I am interested to representing Christianity as it is, and trying to think through the apparent impasse between 'religion and science' that we get in our culture. It does require a bit of thinking - it's so easy just to assume that scientific categories define all knowledge - but that's as much a 'faith' position (in the sense of 'conviction about the truthfulness of the cosmos') as Christianity - it is not a logical imperative arising from the discourse of science itself.

Hi Ninimy! [waves] Yes, the concept there of a 'master discourse' is essential to recognise here. (I like the mediaeval phrase 'Queen of the Sciences', which means the same thing, taking 'sciences' to mean all learning done within a university).

For you, natural science is 'Queen of the Sciences', the filter through which all knowledge must pass. I reject that

I wouldn't say all knowledge must pass through it. I did say 'any of God's supposed interactions with the material world should be amenable to analysis'. I don't see how you can refute that. You're setting up a false dichotomy - either you look at everything scientifically or you do whatever it is that you do. Why limit yourself? Do both. Read the bible as a non-scientific document, read the thoughts of scientists as materialistic arguments. If both stack up - fine. If not - well, up to you how you deal with that.

Grimma, that's just my point - both do stack up.

Your statement there 'any of God's supposed interactions with the material world should be amenable to analysis' is interesting. It could be very worthwhile unpacking what 'interactions' we are talking about, and what kind of 'analysis' is appropriate to use. Then we can start to test that hypothesis!

Bother! I'd just written a reply when it got lost!

Yes, I'd agree both do stack up. My point (trying to reconstruct here) is that the problem is when you start insisting that they have to stack up in the same way, and give the same answers. If you insist that only one thing can be true at a time then you will never accept that both can stack up.

I would say, however, that it is possible for two incompatible things to be true at the same time (in mathematics, or quantum physics for example, as well as in other areas of knowledge).

I don't see any problem with agreeing that 'any of God's supposed interactions with the material world should be amenable to analysis'. The question is whether you will accept that there are other methods of analysis that are valid (historical scholarship, or texual analysis, or philosophical theology for example) as well as the methods of natural science?

"If both stack up - fine."

But for me (and, I think, for HolofernesesHead) both do stack up.

It seems to me the impasse here is the implicit demand that different kinds of analysis (say, natural science and theology) have to stack up in the same way, and give the same answers, and that's impossible.

I agree that 'any of God's supposed interactions of the world should be amenable to analysis': but there are other kinds of analysis that the methods of natural science. (Those used by historians, say, or philosophers.) They give different answers because they are asking different kinds of questions and using different methodologies.

It's entirely possible for two incompatible things to be true at the same time, and that's not just relativism (ie 'my truth-your truth').

OOps -- my previous post suddenly appeared

"The question is whether you will accept that there are other methods of analysis that are valid (historical scholarship, or texual analysis, or philosophical theology for example) as well as the methods of natural science?"

Valid analysis in what sense though? Valid as ways of exploring ideas about history or philosophy, certainly - but imo not valid as a method of extracting definitive proof that god(s) exist or ever existed.

It seems to me the impasse here is the implicit demand that different kinds of analysis (say, natural science and theology) have to stack up in the same way, and give the same answers, and that's impossible.

Who's demanding that? Fairly unlikely theology will come up with any objectively true answers.

What are you thinking about on the scientific side which you think does stack up? I can't think of anything.

The question is whether you will accept that there are other methods of analysis that are valid (historical scholarship, or texual analysis, or philosophical theology for example) as well as the methods of natural science?

historical scholarship and textual analysis are valid for doing what they do, within their limitations. Philosophical theology - well like all philosophy, there's going to be a mix of good, bad and bonkers.

Bobbin, that's exactly what I mean when I talk about natural science as a 'master discourse'.

You are using it as the arbiter of what can be counted as true. What I am saying is that history, philosophy or theology (and, I would add, experience) produce truth in different ways.

Saying that there has to be definitive proof that God exists is tantamount to saying that only science can determine what is true. Have a think, for a minute, before you say that history cannot give us any proof that Darwin existed.

Valid analysis in what sense though? Valid as ways of exploring ideas about history or philosophy, certainly - but imo not valid as a method of extracting definitive proof that god(s) exist or ever existed

of course not, doubt anyone would think they could. Historians and archaeologists can give input on the veracity of events recorded as historical.

Grimma, I'm going to have to go and do some work, but I just wanted to say, I don't think it does the cause of scientific naturalism any favours to describe another way of knowing the world as 'a mix of good, bad and bonkers'. It just makes you look ignorant, which I'm sure you're not.

Your post simply exemplifies the attitude of scientism (the idea that only science can produce truth). I agree natural science is valid for doing what it does, within its limitations. What I think we disagree on is the idea that natural science might have limitations.

Since I said that philosophy includes the good, what you said just then is an unfair criticism. Philosophising can certainly be a valid exercise; that does not mean that the output of philosophers is always going to be valid.

Of course the output of philosophers is not always valid - just take David Hume for an example!

The idea of a 'master discourse' or 'Queen of the Sciences' is not that what goes on within that discipline is always right, but rather that it sets the rules by which all other disciplines have to play. I guess the foundational thought behind this is that life, the universe and everything are not piecemeal but connected (so Dawkins is right to point out that science and religion are conneced one way or another), and that for us to make adequate sense of life, the universe, and everything, we need an interpretive matrix. A key in which to play, if you like.

So the impasse is just that; which do we accept as the rules of the game? It strikes me that the natural sciences are a bit like a 10 inch ball - you can play football with it, which means you play by one set of rules. Or you can use it to play basketball, in which case you play by a different set of rules. Scientism / materialism is one 'game', Christianity another. You could just keep it in your bedroom and watch it grow dusty. But Dawkins is definitely playing a philosophical game in GD - he's using science to play the game he wants to. Using it skilfully maybe, I don't know, haven't read enough to say yet - but definitely using it nonetheless.

Grimma, I'd like to talk more about the types of analysis we can justifiably use wrt God's 'supposed interactions'. You up for that?

At least everyone knows science has a ball (the material universe), and the rules are transparently clear. Religions though - well, each religion believes it has a ball, and there's lots of different rules, and the goalposts get changed...

Interactions? Well, the obvious one to start with is intercessory prayer - so obvious I bet you've already lined up a response

Hmmm...the rules of science are clear, yes. So science is its own game. But it's also a 'ball' in the sense that it may be used as the means of playing a different game (e.g. materialism / scientism). Do you see the distinction? Same with Christianity - it has its own internal coherence, so it is a 'game'. But it can be, and all too often is, used as the means, the 'ball' for playing a different game (e.g. politics of certain sorts, etc). I guess it takes some wisdom to determine when either discipline (science and religion) are being lived / worked out according to their own inner coherence (i.e. when they are the game) and when they are used in a completely different context of internal coherence (i.e. when they are the ball.) Do you see what I mean?

Intercessory prayer...so the question is, what are appropriate criteria we can use to judge this? It' not an easy one, and as someone who's been around the church for a while I'm not going to give you any glib answers, but I'd rather hear your thoughts first!

Same with Christianity - it has its own internal coherence, so it is a 'game'.
Its very much an internal coherence - viewed from the outside, without faith it appears rather differently. And the game of Fundamentalist is very different from Liberal ....etc

Intercessory prayer? well, christians routinely pray on behalf of the sick. Experiments have been designed to try to determine whether prayer has any beneficial effect on the outcome. It would seem not. Of course there are various explanations (God doesnt exist, god doesn't answer intercessory prayer, god doesn't answer intercessory prayer in obvious ways, Thou Shalt not put the Lord Thy God to the Test...) . But whatever, a way in which many christians believe their God is active in the world doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I don't really see the point of your first comment re. how faith looks from the outside / inside, tbh, Grimma. Does that matter, do you think?

Are you saying that there are no suitable criteria for defining whether God hears prayer? Or that there are criteria, but not good ones?

I don't really see the point of your first comment re. how faith looks from the outside / inside, tbh, Grimma. Does that matter, do you think?

Oh yes. Having done both, of course it matters. How could it not?

Are you saying that there are no suitable criteria for defining whether God hears prayer? Or that there are criteria, but not good ones?
Neither. The question is whether God acts on prayer; there is a good criterion for testing this (do people statistically have better outcomes if they are prayed for).

So, first point. Christianity has an internal logic. Yes. It look different from the outside. Yes. Does that make it less true? Or is it more like the internal coherence of a dance, or a family gathering, that may be observed from the outside but only really understood by participation? Maybe if someone stops dancing, or going to family gatherings, for whatever reason then yes, they may view the dancers / family gatherees with different eyes. But does that undermine the internal coherence of the dance / gathering?

Prayer...ah, the question's changed! We started by asking how we may say whether God answers prayer, now we're asking whether God does. I need to go for a while and look after my dc but I will give you my answer later!

So, first point. Christianity has an internal logic. Yes. It look different from the outside. Yes. Does that make it less true?

Yes, I'm afraid it really does. There's 'true' and there's true. I 'knew' things when I was a christian which from the outside are false. Any 'truth' which relies on faith is a poor thing compared to one which doesn't (though I know () that from the inside it may seem like a richer truth)

I missed the nuance of your question but I think my last answer included (in outline) the 'how' which the researchers used to determine 'whether'.

We have reached a point where some people are claiming that their particular version of a particular religion's God is ipso facto entirely beyond scientific reasoning and therefore untouchable by anything approaching logic or intellectual rigour. There's no basis for such a belief other than that's what you want to believe because that's what you believe.

We have other people who are claiming that there's nothing special about science, it's just something you can pick and choose to apply to stuff. If you want. And if it doesn't raise any difficult questions. But if you try it and it does raise difficult questions then just throw it out and claim that there are different kinds of truth other than, you know, the kind of objective truth you get from the scientific process. And that the scientific process isn't a carefully honed and well established method of evaluating theories and hypotheses, oh no. Apparently it's just some 'ideology' that is apparently based on 'faith'.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. This is the point I'm going to bow out. I have lost the will to try to explain what science is.

Oh please don't bow out heresiarch - you put things so clearly.

I think that both of those people you've described there are me, heresi! (although I'd have a few quibbles with your summary there!)

Go on, one last big push before you go - tell me, what is science?