This is equally irrational. Each individual has a different confidence judgment threshhold for making metaphysisical, epistemological, and other types of decisions. It is irrational to conclude that your particular threshhold should be adopted universally.
Religion offers spiritual progress, which has been described in considerable detail in all of the world’s major text-based religions, and I can assume the same is true for religions that rely more on oral transmission than on a book. Spiritual progress can take the form of heightened concentration, inner peace and immovability, insensibility to emotional discomfort, freedom from fear, a personal relationship with god, etc. All of these trappings of spiritual progress present sufficient internal evidence that the religion to which the believer subsribes is “true.”
Religion, just like science, often lacks to the tools (at least according to many people) to determine exactly what everything is or where it comes from. But for many, many people, it works, which is sufficient proof of its truth. Just like science.
But the doubter does not gain the same spiritual benefits as the true believer, at least in some religions. Fides quaerens intellectum, at least according to St. Anselm. Faith seeks understanding. Even Buddha, whose teachings contain virtually no articles of faith, requires that his followers have enough faith to take the very first step on the right path.
Either way, you cannot swallow the creation, the existence of God, the holy trinity, or dharma half-heartedly if you want to reap the benefits.
And it is neither logical nor irrational to dismiss someone who does claim to know for sure if he has evidence in hand, even if it is not the kind of evidence that you would normally accept.
In addition to reference to the sources, there are people who report experiences which they attribute to God manifesting Himself to them. Some of these people are, to be totally frank, self-evidently raving lunatics. Others, including myself, attempt to be as rational on the subject as is humanly possible for them.
This strikes me as a variation on the argument from authority – if someone makes such a report, you are bound to make a quick evaluation of whether or not this person also believes that fairies dance at the foot of his garden every sunset, or gives some evidence of being otherwise a reasonable person. If the latter, you should then give credence to his or her report, not necessarily as proof of God, but as an accurate report of what he or she did experience, and then a critical evaluation of what other than his or her conclusion that it was God “appearing” to him or her might conceivably have caused those results.
In the course of all this, the psychological questions of why people might believe are definitely worth raising. Clearly, some people have a “will to believe” regardless of evidence – the credence given by a variety of people to the most irrational concepts, such as the small grey large-eyed aliens who abducted them and performed experiments on their genitalia (it was, of course, actually Elijah Wood;)). Likewise, a wide variety of people tend to give credence to the idea that the universe makes sense – that there is some coherence explaining why we experience the things we do. This can manifest itself as a certitude in scientific theory or as a belief in a god or gods causing those results for its/their own purposes.
It’s worth noting, however, that equally probable, on a purely logical plane, are the two concepts that these are irrational constructs of the mind, and that they are tendencies implanted by a deity intending to cause a certain mindset in the humans it has created. (I am not saying that the deity is equally probable – just that the two assumptions as to the cause of the will to believe and the belief in coherence and teleology are, in and of themselves, equally probable, with no assumptions made as to the nature of the external world, which would, in this circumstance, be begging the question.)
Well, yeah, for a very few believers your assertion is accurate – they unquestioningly adhere to what they were taught as children. It’s been my experience, however, that the overwhelming mass of people who believe in God do so for other reasons than that, having asked serious and probing questions of themselves and/or others, and have come to the conclusion that their belief is in fact appropriate.
For the vast majority of believing people, by the way, what “faith” means is not “emotionally based adherence to the concept that God exists and is gonna get them if they don’t express adherence to that idea” but radical trust in a personal entity that seems at once powerful and benevolent – I “believe in” God in the same sense that I “believe in” my best friend – because they are people that I know I can trust. By inference, this form of belief includes, as a necessary condition, credence in His existence, but goes beyond such an intellectual affirmation to a love-based adherence to Him.
Because I found much of my belief on my own experience, and I do see in myself the will to believe and the need for a coherent, teleological universe, I have subjected my experience and beliefs to a moderately skeptical analysis. I’d be happy to discuss that at further length with you on this thread or elsewhere, but I think I’ve said enough for the moment. (You might want to review the thread Gaudere started on this topic over on the temporary BBBoy board’s Great Debates forum for some background on this.)
The Lewis argument stands or falls on a couple of unspoken assumptions:
> The Gospels accurately report what Jesus said and did.
> What Jesus meant by His claims has been accurately parsed by theologians. For example, “I and my Father are one” might have been not a claim of membership in the Trinity but of a role in which His total person was subjected, à la Islam, to God’s will. This would leave room for him being a Messiah in the pre-N.T. Jewish view but not the Second Person of the Trinity.
> Jesus was Himself not mistaken in His assertions about God.
Wallace D. Fard claimed to be Al’lah incarnate, more or less, and as such founded the Black Muslims (which are, rather obviously, an Islamic heresy, their doctrines being totally rejected by traditional Islam). His claim differs only in detail from that of Jesus, but of course is not believed by much of anybody other than the Farrakhanite remnant of the Black Muslims.
While, as you know, I agree with you on the vast majority of our understanding of Jesus’s life and work, nature and intent, I feel it only fair to bring up these problems, so that we can accurately deal with them and resolve them.
I believe that you, as others, are not allowing for the possibility of a rational being holding a belief based on inferences drawn from incomplete data, incidentally the most common form of logic practiced in application. For example:
A. I saw a one-legged man win an ass-kicking contest in St Louis.
B. I saw a one-legged man win an ass-kicking contest in Chicago.
C. I missed the ass-kicking contest in LA.
D. I saw a one-legged man win an ass-kicking contest in Omaha.
Therefore, I infer that all ass-kicking contests are won by one-legged men.*
Certainly, this frivolous example would not be considered a “proof.” It’s entirely possible that a six-legged man won in LA, or that a legless man won some other contest. Nevertheless, it is perfectly rational to draw the inference based on the data presented.
Certainly understandable, DJ, but I don’t believe this responds to the OP, or even the direction the thread has taken. Point the first: Even in syllogistic logic, as opposed to the inferencial example above, a rational person can indeed draw a valid but false conclusion from a logical construction, given an inaccurate (false) premise. Logic doesn’t guarantee you’re gonna be right; it just allows you to be consistent and orderly in your reasoning, and draw valid conclusions from the premises accepted. Every philosophy must begin from premises which, by definition, cannot be proven. No philospher worth his salt shaker has ever claimed otherwise. Another way to state this is to say that a valid argument is truth-presenting. That is, if you put in true premises, the syllogism cranks out a true conclusion. Example:
p: All human beings are mortal
q: Wisest Novel is a human being
-> Wisest Novel is mortal
Works great, as long as you accept the premises. But there’s the rub, as anyone from the Michigan DopeFest this month might feel free to question whether q is true. Now, we could probably have a whole separate thread if we replaced “Wisest Novel” with “Jesus Christ”, but I’d rather not. Which leads to…
…Point the second. Mister V, unclear as he’s been, never asked anyone to disprove anything. Near as I can fathom, his request was for theists to relate what evidence (read premises) they have used in order to draw their own conclusions or inference about the existence of a supreme being. Certainly this invites non-believers to relate similarly how they arrived at their own conclusions or inferences, as you have done above. However, stating that anyone who arrives at a different conclusion than you “is making an irrational statement” is, in fact, demonstrably wrong.
Mister V, please come back and clarify the intent of your question, so we can keep a potentially excellent discussion on track. In particular, if I’ve misinterpreted you, please set me straight.
*Apologies to all one- and six-legged men who may be offended by this post.
Suppose a murder was committed. A person was found who had blood all over him, whose fingerprints were on the knife found in the victim, and who was on the security camera’s tape which recorded the murder.
When questioned the man replies “I didn’t do it!” - A rational course of action would be to review the additional evidence. An irrational move would be to just take the man at his word. 2 different levels of “judgement thresholds”. Though both views can exist, only one qualifies as rational as I understand the word. In the same way, accepting you have enough proof to determine the exact nature of reality in a universe where we (as a species) have viewed a tremendously minor amount of the total reality that appears to exist, is not rational as I understand the word. You can argue semantics if you like, but I believe I am using the word in a manner that is consistent with general usage.
It may make people feel better about themselves, but it offers no mechanism for adapting to new evidence as it is discovered (how would christianity deal with us finding an alien race that created humanity as an experiment? Science could work this - or any other development - into a new theory that accounts for this new confirmed data). It claims to have solved the question of everything before knowing what is included in everything. Religion may make an individual feel better, but it can’t build a bridge, and this is what I mean when I say progress - new knowledge, not warm fuzzies.
The fact that it helps someone feel better to believe in dusty texts does not constitute proof of it’s truth, rationally. A repeatable, verifiable experiment complete with predictions regarding the outcome does constitute rational proof because I can confirm it for myself. Religion offers no such testable aspects, making it an irrational basis for knowledge. Again this is as I understand the word rational (whose definition you may wish to debate further).
How convienient that a thing that is unprovable requires that you accept that lack of proof without question. This is certainly a rational way to present a system if you know it to be a lie (or made up - ie you wrote it), but it is irrational to just accept this.
No one who has ever claimed to know the exact nature of existence with %100 certainty has ever offered anything even remotley like rational evidence. It is a pure faith thing, and therefore irrational.
Now I do not claim that all people must behave in a rational manner. As long as you don’t hurt anyone do whatever floats your boat. Just accept that you are behaving irrationally. Thinking you know for sure where everything came from is irrational based on the lack of solid & verifiable evidence (a lack of knowledge that science continues to try to banish). Until religion offers a test*, I consider blind belief irrational.
Finally, in anticipation of what is to follow:
From Websters.
DaLovin’ Dj
A test other than dying. How convieninet that proof comes at a time when you can no longer share your findings with others. “You’ll see when you’re dead . . . Anyway, here’s the money basket for the third time and send us your little boys.”
Ditto what Bibliocat said (re: figuring the universe isn’t one giant accident, and personal experiences). I feel the same way. I have issues with believing “God” to be a giant White guy with a beard and whatnot ;), but there are things which, to me, make it evident that there’s something “out there” Bigger Than Me.
And I agree that nobody should have to justify such a belief (or lack thereof). But I do have to say that I know many a believer who does seem “brainwashed”, because when they’re pinned down, they really CAN’T say much that would be convincing to anyone not inclined to believe in God.
I for one find it perfectly acceptable to say, “I believe/don’t believe because [insert supporting personal experience here].”
Chances are I’ll buy it, especially because I consider “religion”, as it were, to be a deeply personal thing.
What I do have a problem with are believers (and I know quite a few) who not only attack athiests/agnostics, but have nothing but The Bible to throw out there as “proof”.
I mean literally, their whole argument is basically that God exists because The Bible says so (then they get carried away talking about what The Bible says regarding those who don’t believe).
OR they just say something like, “If God doesn’t exist, where did this tree come from?”
:rolleyes:
And I think maybe THAT’s what the OP is getting at–how to get away from the Usual Rhetoric about the existence of God (i.e., shit you’ve been told to believe), and really think about WHY it is that you (and you… and you…) believe in God, if you do.
JMO.
Polycarp, thanks for the excellent, well-reasoned responses in this thread. They made for a good morning read. Since I assume you personal belief system is comprised of a rather complex construct of deduction and induction, may I ask–in the spirit of the OP–if there is any “one thing” that sealed your conclusion on the existence of God, particularly if it falls in the realm of personal experience vs authoritative sources? Feel free to disregard if this is over-personal.
Perhaps you can explain to me how this example is relevant to metaphysical, epistemological, or other such decisions. I look forward to see how you are going to argue against the truth of subjective standards “rationally,” without recourse to diffusive anecdotes or counterexamples.
So then you are arguing that one is only “rational” when one is making deductions and inferences from a completely closed system. I find this rather academic view of rationality completely inconsitent with general usage. Reason itself is never going to furnish proof immune to scrutiny in any open system.
You may still be rational and yet be wrong. If your premise that belief in god requires “proof” first is wrong, then it follows that whatever conclusions you reach will also likely be wrong, however rational they may seem to you. Reason tells us nothing we do not already know.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to have persisted rather nicely in spite of the revelations that Jews do not have horns and that in fact the sun does not revolve around the earth. Religious doctrines are hardly monolithic and immune to reform. Lately reform in massive institutions comes slowly, but this is no different than in any other enormous, far-reaching organization.
Science is also hardly monolithic. “Science” would work it into hundreds or thousands of competing theories that may not resolve themselves into a single possible truth for a long time.
If you are going to argue that absolute religious faith is irrational, it would behoove you not to misrepresent it so grossly. Mystery is an integral part of the religious experience of all of the major world religions. The mystery of creation, the mystery of god, the mystery of the human mind and soul, etc. To the experienced and sensitive practitioner, it is not all dogmatic hogwash.
The fact that you value bridges more than mystical experience reveals your own foundation premises. For my part, I would rather live in a world without bridges if humanity were spirutually enlightened. Unlocking the knowledge within oneself is every bit as fundamental a human endeavor as exploring the world around us. To call it “warm fuzzies” is just as ludicrous as calling bridges, all structures, and the scientific progress of man “useless material crap.”
And the fact that you fall when you jump out of a tree does not constitute proof of gravity, rationally.
If you can, well, you are surely better than the scientific community, which appears to be rife with polemic, squabbling, unrepeatable experiments, persistent wrongness, and generally the same crapola that infests just about every other human institution.
The fact that you have never been interested or able to perform such spiritual “tests” does not mean that they do not exist or are not worthwhile. I cannot perform my own atom splitting in a cyclotron. Why should I believe those guys at the Institute when they say they can do it?
Because they can create a nuclear weapon.
So why should I believe a dusty old tome?
Because it can create an individual of powerful wisdom.
No, quite frankly, it’s not. If enough acceptable “proof,” such as, for example, a spiritual yearning, convinces you to adopt articles of faith, you are certainly behaving rationally. You have been presented with evidence, and you draw conclusions within your particular rational framework. The premises may be different, but the choice is no less rational.
Let’s have a cite where someone does claim to know the exact nature of existence with 100% certainty? Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed were made of flesh, not straw.
Irrationally by your premises, which I would be irrational to adopt on your authority alone, especially if they conflict with my own evidence.
I’m obviously not the one who made the statement you were responding to, but I want to add something to this. If that’s the conscious reason for such a belief, then of course it’s an awful one, but a completely subconscious desire for a raison d’etre isn’t illogical at all. To quote Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy (mostly because I like to type his name… so many consonants… oh yeah) “both [Hamlet and the Dionysiac man] have looked deeply into the true nature of thing, they have understood and are now loath to act.” And then to drive it home, a few sentences later: “Understanding kills action, for in order to act we require the veil of illusion.”
If you were able to subconsciously accept the idea of heaven, or even just the existence of [a] God, you might enjoy the comfort so much that you feel no need whatsoever to convince yourself otherwise, and why should you?
E-gad… Not the trilemma. I thought we ripped this to shreds ages ago?
I’m not criticizing, just trying to get at what you were saying…However, did you mean to say that if you “feel” the presence of God upon “opening yourself to him”, this literally proves his existence? Or that whatever causes the resulting sensation is indistinguishable from what the presence of God might feel like, and therefore from your perspective/for your purposes “it” exists?
Now to add in my own ideas. There is a huge range of belief as to the extent of God’s existence/control of the universe. I personally don’t see the evidence I would require for some levels of this belief (but don’t assert that they are thereby impossible), but there is a point where I must say “ok, so maybe he does exist”. For me it has more to do with limited cognitive ability. I can trace the course of the universe all the way back to the Big Bang no problem. Perhaps our current science doesn’t explain the entire thing, but I’m confident that it could in time. I do, however, run into trouble imagining what happened before that point. I’ve heard all manner of explanations (and any examples of such would be hijacking this thread), but my mind remains unable to digest it. So instead of spending all of my waking hours trying to understand this particular facet of reality, I just accept that perhaps there was some entity that started it all. Does this entity have any of the characteristics traditionally associated with a higher power? Did it do it on purpose? Is it still around, watching over us? These are certainly interesting questions to ponder, but irrelavent to this discussion. Point is, even if you require more proof than what you think is available for certain beliefs in God, there still could be a possibility for which the best you can say is “I dunno.”
Also, I ran out of time so I only read the first page of this thread. If things I brought up here have already been covered in other posts, my appologies.
I agree that at some point Lewis’ argument becomes essentially untenable. It works if you make certain assumptions.
Though, I still hold that everything else I posted on the resurrection essentially holds up. There are no other reasonable claims to make on where the body of Jesus went.
But again, faith comes by hearing the word of God. If it has not been granted to a man to hear, he won’t. It won’t make sense to him and will seem nothing more than foolishness.
I agree that at some point Lewis’ argument becomes essentially untenable. It works if you make certain assumptions.
Though, I still hold that everything else I posted on the resurrection essentially holds up. There are no other reasonable claims to make on where the body of Jesus went.
But again, faith comes by hearing the word of God. If it has not been granted to a man to hear, he won’t. It won’t make sense to him and will seem nothing more than foolishness.
That analogy reveals what you think the question is. Here’s how I see it: I witness a man stab another to death. I see him drive the knife in. I see blood spurt all over his clothes. The police, however, only find a corpse. The murder weapon is found later, but it’s been wiped clean. There was a security tape, but it didn’t clearly show the murderer’s face. The murderer burned the clothes.
I’m the only eyewitness. A jury may not convict based on my testimony, but it would be irrational for me to conclude that the man I knew committed the murder did not, in fact, commit that murder, since he couldn’t be convicted.
But actually what you’ve got is no physical evidence: knife wiped clean, clothes burned, blurry security tapes. And millions and millions of eyewitnesses. Is it not irrational of you to continue to maintain this guy’s innocence?
This too seems like a false way to characterize the problem. Somewhere, you’ve made a mistake. The question is: “does God exist”, which seems to me to be a religious question. Then, you maintain that one answer is “rational” and one is “not rational”. And since rational answers are preferred, we know that God cannot exist.
What you are doing is equating the position “God does not exist” with a scientific viewpoint and “God exists” with a religious viewpoint. Then, you’re asserting that the two viewpoints are incompatible. Then, that science is better (this is so convenient, science gets the cachet of being “rational”). All three of these steps are unjustified.
That’s the false dichotomy. Religious and scientific ways of knowing do not address the same questions. I could say that science is unable to adapt to new dilemmas as they’re discovered (how would science deal with us finding a drug that killed all HIV positive poeple?). My religious tenets can address this question.
So you’re right about religion. And I’m right about science. That does not allow us to reject either one.
And, I should point out that some religious beliefs do not make us “feel better about ourselves”. They’re sometimes exacting and hard ways to live.
Mine doesn’t.
Religion isn’t about how to build bridges; or even the choice of bridges vs. tunnels vs. ferries. It would be unsatisfying if it was. Science is incapable of making spiritual or moral progress. You might dismiss that as “warm fuzzies”, but that doesn’t mean I have to, even if I am rational.
I don’t believe that all or even the majority of your knowledge comes from rigorously applying the scientific method. Did your parents love you? Is that painting beautiful? Where do you want to go today? My point is that insisting that the scientific method is capable of discovering all things that are true, and is the only way to do so, is not a rational approach to knowledge. That is, as I understand the word “rational”.
I suppose if you defined truth as “that which can be determined by the scientific method” then you might be on firmer ground. Is that what you think truth is? If so, was the flogiston theory ever true?
OK, I will, as long as you do too.
Thanks for the definitions. Now I see that my religious beliefs are both rational and logical.
It is relevant to discussion of what is rational and not rational. A rational course of action considers all available evidence, what evidence is lacking, and what tests can be done to confirm truths. Accepting something because someone (or something like the bible) told you it is true, without reference to facts, without a mechanism by which you can test it, is irrational regardless of whether the issue is metaphysical or everyday ho-hum. The standards of rationality don’t change based on the subject. It is a description of a way of thinking – it does not have a different meaning for christians or buddhists.
No. That is not what I said at all. Nice try though. What I am saying is that one is irrational if one makes “absolute” statements about a system whose attributes are not understood (in any testable way) “absolutely”. Science, as a process, accepts that it may be wrong about it’s predictions and offers ways to find out. The major religions cannot, and are therefore based in irrational premises. It is a different debate whether irrational behavior is a bad thing at all times, but religion requires things of it’s followers that are utterly irrational – for better or worse.
Belief in anything, without a way to test it, is irrational. I never said belief in God requires proof, only that rational beliefs do.
I would say the Bible fits that description quite well.
Which makes it a rational way to approach knowledge.
Because rational and provable concepts are not consistent with the stories people made up thousands of years ago. This doesn’t make religion rational, it only goes to show how irrational it is. The fact that being irrational is a requirement for accepting a religious doctrine does not make believing in it rational.
No, but if I can predict how long it will take me to fall a certain distance based on a theory of gravity, and that prediction turns out to be true, I have evidence that my theory is at least partially correct. Religion offers no such verifiable aspects, so belief in it is totally irrational.
And it offers a way by which it can weed all of these things out, one by one. Again religion offers none of this. FTR, belief in the conclusions inferred from an unrepeatable experiment would not be rational or scientific. Poor example.
Ahhh . . .OK, care to enlighten me as to what verifiable tests religion offers. I’d love to give it a try.
Big difference between your 2 examples. A nuclear weapon is real and tangible and so are it’s effects. Whether a person is wise or not is in the eye of the beholder. I find people who make rational conclusions wise and those who make irrational conclusions lacking in wisdom.
Accepting Spiritual yearning as proof is like saying “I didn’t do it” constitutes proof in my earlier example. The quality and repeatability of the evidence is what’s in question, not your frame of reference.
The bible claims for certain to understand the complete nature of reality. There’s your cite. Science doesn’t offer the answer, it offers a way to find the answer based on rational thought. There is the difference.
Your own evidence which was gained in a manner not consistent with rationality.
You are persisting in admitting that there is no possibility that one can arrive at articles of faith by considering all available evidence, what evidence is lacking, and what tests can be done. You are accepting a pseudo-scientific method as an article of faith, which, to my mind, is not intrinsically better than using the bible as one’s sole guide to nature and conduct. Neither is transcendant, neither is intrinsic to humanity. Both are perfectly historicizable and both are subject to the same human failings.
The issue is premises, not standards. It may take more evidence to convince me that Proposition A is true because I approach the evidence with different foundation premises. Hene my standards for making a confidece judgement are different by definition.
This does not make me any less rational. Same system, different assumptions.
I think this is at the heart of your conceptual failure. You are comparing the most lofy ideals of science with the basest, most dogmatic nadir of religion. In my opinion, this reveals both deep ignorance of the history of both science and religion, as well as extremely woolly thinking.
Science, “as a process,” accepts absolutely nothing. Individual scientists perform their own experiments for their own ends, and maintain their own truths as they see fit. The history of science is full of the same kind of pig-headed dogmatism and irrationality that one finds in the history of religious institutions. But you don’t have to take my word for it; we have a particularly esteemed expert right here on the subject. Kimstu, if you are out there, perhaps you could recommend a few books.
On the other hand, religion certainly does not require a practitioner to become a brainwashed dunderhead, with perhaps the exception of the Church of Scientology. Spectacular literary, historical, and anecdotal evidence undermines this rather simplistic conclusion. What exactly does religion require that is irrational of its followers?
Does science not require that its followers accept foundation principles? And is there truly such thing as a “rational” foundation premise?
How do you test that you really exist?
Is that why Judaism and later Christianity has been in a constant state of doctrinal flux, change, and revision for milennia? I would be more than happy to share some of the nuts and bolts of the incorporation of Aristotle into 12th and 13th century doctrine, as well as the explosion of institutional creavity of the medieval church and its sudden acceptance of new spirituality. Ready to crack open your Aquinas or Bernard of Clairveaux?
Why? Because you believe that by means of this approach you will ultimately find the truth?
Do you not realize that this is the same kind of stupendous assumption that belief in god requires?
In an open system, dj, what exactly is provable? Is believing modern fictions that we take for truth really any better than believing old ones?
So such verifiable aspects? Tell that to a trained yogin, a priest, or a drunk who accepted god and changed his life. While the results may be less than predictable, it does not really diminish their “partial” correctness.
Oh? Is that why bad ideas have persisted for so long then and continue to persist? The marketplace of ideas is a lovely concept, but I find it to be naked social darwinism, especially in science. This is grist for another mill, however. One that I would be happy to discuss in further detail in another thread.
Your definition of science is ludicrously teleological. Perhaps a scientist can correct me of I am wrong, but science is judged by the method of inquiry, not by the outcome. Just because the precise results of an experiment cannot be repeated does not make it nonscientific.
Gladly. Let’s start with something easy and brief. Read Plato’s Symposium. Come back to me when you are done.
It is “real” only because you accept the conclusions of your senses without question. This is fine and well, and it is an easier way to live one’s life. But do not be deluded into thinking that is the only way, however.
Furthermore, when different people are drawing conclusions with different foundation premises, reason is also in the eye of the beholder.
I am pretty familiar with the bible. Where does it say that? The bible is a book; how does it understand anything at all?
And accepting that reason > truth is no different than accepting that god exists.
Incorrect again. At the expense of repeating myself again, reason governs the process, not the premises. If you are unwilling to accept this, just be honest with yourself and admit it.
It didn’t even look like criticism to me, Kaje. You can relax on that score.
What I am suggesting is that the existence or non-existence of God is a spiritual question, and that therefore perhaps we have to approach it as a spiritual question. I believe that it is ultimately not a question amenable to the scientific method.
So, how do we approach spiritual questions? Well, how do you know if you like the new Mapplethorpe exhibit? We can debate it (and debate it and debate it). We can read the reviews of “experts”. We can talk to lots of people who’ve seen it and either like it or don’t.
Ultimately, the only real way to know if you like the Mapplethorpe exhibit is to hop on a bus and go down to the museum and check it out.
I’m also reacting to something that irks me a tiny bit. Discussions of the spiritual question of the existence and non-existence of God, and the evidence that we should use to make such conclusions, usually turn out the same. Some empiricist comes along and says:
Belief in God is a religious position, non-belief in God is a non-religious position
Religious positions are not rational, non-religious positions are rational
Rational is better than non-rational
Therefore, God does not exist
The discussion of the existence of God gets turned (by proponents of both sides) into a question of “religion” vs. “science” with the assumption that you can’t have “both”.
To me, starting from the idea that all true things must be amenable to discovery through repeatable experimentation is as ridiculous as starting from the idea that God exists.
I see the point espoused by people like dalovindj, I really do. I am by profession a scientist. But their approach of reducing every question to a scientific question seems to be effectively denying that there is any such thing as a non-scientific question (or at least, non-scientific answers). And I’m not that naive. The very question of the OP seems to be “how can we approach questions that are not amenable to scientific examination”, and I think there’s a better answer than “We can’t” or “there’s no such thing”.
