I saw her face.
Now I’m a believer.
Yay! Someone replying to my carefully considered post about faith with another carefully considered post about faith! Take that, Bricker and everyone else who’d rather talk about Sarah Palin in the train wreck Pit thread that’s currently exhausting the new hamsters!
Woo-hoo! Score another point for sane theism. Might I ask though, this God you believe exists, is it simply a Newtonian-type God, set the universe in motion and then buggered off to watch some telly, or is it the one who created Adam to rule over all the animals, chose the Israelites as its best buddies, sent a guy who was itself yet also its own son to die to redeem our sins against it, etc etc? Cos the former version of God is a hell of a lot more defensible than the latter.
It doesn’t. That’s not its job. Except in so far as most scientists probably consider the question meaningless (I do anyway). I was careful in my posts to restrict the whole faith vs evidence cage-match to questions of what goes on in the world. ‘Why’ is a whole different ball-game, and it derails this thread to start playing that one (and who am I to decide what derails the thread, well, maaaaaybe I’m not the OP, but I am the OP’s ‘first cause’, so there :p).
OTOH, if you really insist that such questions must be grappled with (and aren’t category errors), before lamenting too much that science doesn’t answer such questions, ask yourself how well religions do. We’re here to serve God. Uh huh. How do we know that? Because some people asserted it many years ago? Oh well, if you put it like that… :dubious: And how do we serve God? Read more of this book. How do we know that’s true? It just is! But what about all the other people with old books which say completely different things? They’re wrong!
And so on… it gets wearying to keep having to pretend that all this old-book-one-upmanship has any intellectual integrity. I can see why Dr. Rowan Williams looks so tired all the time.
It doesn’t. Though ‘it just does’ is, again, evidentially supported. Which you know, of course.
Well in this thread I’m more concerned with their beliefs being unsupportable, rather than their actions being wrong. I brought up those various abhorrent episodes in reply to the guy who suggested that faith was a personal matter, and my point was, ‘not on this planet it ain’t’.
Oh alright, I’ll veer off briefly.
Evidence-BASED, I doubt it. Evidence-USING, yes. If we start from the moral axiom ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ (which of course really has fuck all to do with Jesus, as these monkeys could tell you) then we can use evidence-based methodology to say what is good behaviour and what is not (does behaviour X promote fairness? Let’s do a study.) That still leaves the initial axiom not backed by evidence, but then, no religious strictures are either, so it would hardly make sense to go to them instead.
Fair enough.
That’s where your attitude, and that of most religions, part ways.
I can’t quite buy this line of reasoning. Believe something without evidence until such time as you find counter-evidence? Well, that’s certainly better than threatening the counter-evidence with eternal hellfire, but how about not believing until you have evidence? Unless you like multiplying entitities unnecessarily ;)?
Well it’s old Occam’s razor again. Having provided an explanation that dispenses with the necessity for a god, why keep the god? What do you gain by keeping the god in?
I like Willard Quine’s take on this (paraphrased from memory). Someone quoted at him the line from Shakespeare, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy”. He replied, “That may be so, but my concern is that there should not be more things in my philosophy than are in heaven and earth”.
Scientific findings can’t disprove the existence of gods, but they can and do remove the need to postulate their existence.
ETA: and Der Trihs, now I love you again. Don’t break my heart!
I must have missed your previous posts on this board where you ranted about how people with those beliefs were fundamentally dishonest, and how much evil they have brought to the rest of the world because of those beliefs.
And I’ve never seen you satisfied with just pointing out the elephant in the room. You have to scream that everyone should join you in torturing it to death.
Nobody’s ever come into the SDMB and tried to defend those beliefs.
And they haven’t caused nearly as many problems as religious faith has. World shape, not now, not ever. AIDS immunity from virgins… well not yet, but AIDS hasn’t been around that long either.
Actully, I understand that the latter belief has resulted in a lot of infants being raped in places where it’s held. So yeah, it’s caused harm.
And yes, I don’t rant about beliefs like that because people don’t come on this board and defend them. If I started a thread on raping infants in an attempt to cure AIDS, I’m quite sure that it would be very one sided, with everyone agreeing with me, so why bother ? On the other hand, plenty of people here defend religion, even in it’s more disgusting versions.
As it should be clear, I do not use a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe the Bible is a combination of legend, oral history, and allegory. I believe God is outside the universe, but still interacts with it, without violating the laws of nature. I realize that that is not scientifically defensible; that is why I call it faith.
First, I agree, that was my point. 
Second, meaningless in terms of science, but do you really consider “what is my purpose?” to be personally meaningless? Do you never introspect?
You make a good point, but it doesn’t really matter to me what other people believe. Their beliefs may have influenced me, but I do not accept the dictates of any authority; my beliefs are ultimately mine.
Agreed. Dogma irks me to no end.
As a scientist, I find the question of “why does science work?” to be of great importance and fascination. To give up on answering it simply because science can’t answer it does not satisfy me.
Ah, I misunderstood your point. I would reply instead that faith is a personal matter, but actions are not. There is a thin line between the two, when faith demands certain actions. But I would still judge the actions, rather than the faith. After all, one’s actions can be determined by evidence, while ascertaining someone’s faith is much more difficult.
But the lack of evidence is not a problem for a religion, while it is for someone who claims their actions and beliefs (including moral judgements) are based on evidence. Personally, I see no problem with an atheist (disavowing any gods) having a code based on non-evidential moral choices. Thus, an atheist with faith, not in God, but in some principle.
Yes. But you may be surprised at how many religious people are more similar to me than to the stereotypical Biblical literalists who get all the press.
This is where the difference between objective and subjective evidence comes into play. My personal experiences have led me to my current beliefs. They are not supportable by logic and contain unnecessary entities. That does not mean they are wrong, though, merely unsupportable and non-scientific.
Oh I’m quite aware it’s caused harm. I didn’t know about the infant raping :(, but it’s caused harm simply through the easily-preventable spread of AIDS. I simply meant, that belief hasn’t caused as much harm as organised religions, simply because it hasn’t been around nearly as long.
Pleonast: some points before I go to bed. Actually the whole thing is way OT now, but hey…
Yes I introspect plenty, I just don’t use faith in my introspection. And whatever purpose I have, I decide myself. I also do find the question of why science works as well as it does, to be fascinating. But that question itself is one that neither science or religion have answers to. And we’re talking about science and religion here. Finally, what the hell is ‘subjective evidence’? Sounds like one of the smoke bombs Liberal keeps throwing on this subject. There’s subjectivity in interpretations of evidence, but that can’t be what you meant if you made a distinction between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ evidence. 
What evidence can be used to answer “what is my purpose?”? Do you really decide using only evidence and never make an ungrounded assumption? I’m impressed if you do, because it’s beyond my capabilities.
Well, religion can answer why science works. A simple answer could be “God made it so”. Not very satisfying, but an answer still. And while I don’t have an answer I’m satisfied with, my religious beliefs give me a framework to approach it with.
By subjective evidence, I mean personal experiences that are non-verifiable, non-repeatable, or otherwise not amenable to scientific rigor. I make the distinction because a use of “evidence” is “grounds for a belief”. I’m probably guilty of sloppy word use.
Evidence and reason can tell you if a presumed purpose is possible, or if the result of following that purpose is something you desire.
However, the real answer from science for the question “what is my purpose”, is “none, except spreading your DNA”. There’s no evidence that we have any consciously imposed purpose at all, beyond whatever we make for ourselves. Science can’t possibly tell us a purpose that doesn’t exist.
Why don’t you just decide what your own purpose is ? I really fail to see the attraction of having some hypothetical God predefine your purpose.
I don’t see why; it’s easy. The difference is, unlike claims based on the supposed unquestionable, absolute pronouncements of a God, you simply regard them either as your best guesses, or as personal preferences.
A rather worthless answer. How did God do so ? Where did God come from ? And the answer to those questions, of course, will be something like “It’s a Mystery” or “there’s no point in thinking about it” or “Believe or burn in Hell”. Attributing science or anything else to God isn’t an answer; it’s an attempt to silence questions. It’s a dead end that never reveals anything or leads anywhere; nothing new was ever discovered by shrugging our collective shoulders and saying “God did it”.
It’s more like it gives you a framework to simply ignore the question.
What evidence do you have that there is a meaningful answer to the question?
Just because a question can be asked does not mean that a meaningful answer can be offered in response, or even that the question itself is indeed meaningful.
For example:
“What is the opposite of Elvis?”
It’s a silly question, to be sure. The Elvis entity does not have some objective measurable value for which an opposite can be calculated or identified. You may, indeed probably do, recognize this immediately. And yet the instinctive part of your brain, almost unbidden, starts going off on tangents, trying first to interpret the question in a way that it can be sensibly answered, and then to produce those answers.
“Well, let’s see. Elvis is American, bluesy, deep roots; how about a European musician, no better yet a group to contrast the individual: the Beatles! The Beatles are the opposite of Elvis. Well, no. They’re all men. Okay. Cher? That’s pretty good. I’d buy Cher as the opposite of Elvis. Well, except for the whole big glitzy live-performance thing. Okay. Janis Ian!” and on and on and on.
I assert that questions like “what is my purpose” and “what is the meaning of life” are basically empty and meaningless, that they are collections of words that trigger something instinctive but that cannot logically be addressed in any sort of sensible fashion, and that the only rational response is to treat them as unanswerable and therefore leave them answerless.
You may disagree, of course. But if you want to convince me that there’s something there, you will first need to show me the square root of Burt Reynolds.
I can’t think of any that could. But I think you misunderstood. When I decide what my purpose is going to be, I don’t use any evidence (directly on the q of what my purpose should be, that is). And that’s ok, it doesn’t contradict what I said earlier, because if I choose my own purpose, it’s a question of personal taste, not one of objective fact. There’s no more need for me to find evidence that my purpose is (e.g.) to solve the P=?NP problem, than there is for me to find evidence that green is my favourite colour.
Good grief, when I said ‘religion can’t answer’, did I really have to spell out that I meant ‘give an answer with at least some trace of logical thought and/or evidence and/or utility and/or justification…’?
Ask a baby for its views on the theory of loop quantum gravity. It replies “Ba!” and claps its hands. Yes, technically that’s an answer, but are you really going to split hairs with someone coming along and saying ‘that baby can’t answer’? Who in their right mind would consider that an answer, except possibly a Zen monk in a koan?
I repeat, unrepentantly: religion CAN’T answer why science works. OK?
Fair enough. I once received a buttload of subjective evidence that the consciousnesses of all sentient beings are connected in a tree-like structure, with our subconscious processes branching out ‘underneath’ our individual consciousnesses, and various group minds connecting ‘above’ our individual consciousnesses, and all of this leading towards some primary point that could somehow be identified with the universe. This all happened on a coach ride back from a skiing trip, shortly after a room-mate had offered me some cookies that he hadn’t found the time to eat himself.
I leave you to ponder what was in those cookies, and in which orifice I figuratively stuffed my new found subjective evidence, once the trip (uh, skiing trip) was over.
I’m probably going to bow out of this thread, my whole purpose in making the points I did was to discuss why faith is a bad idea in determining how the world works. Questions of ethics and metaphysics aren’t really my scene, I’m happy to admit that I haven’t got terribly good answers on such questions. Not because they aren’t interesting, but because I can’t think of any. But I sure as shit know, that religion cannot help me with those. ‘Idunno’ is so much more honest than ‘goddidit’.
God, or other superfluous pseudoexplanatory placeholder, I wish I could find that guy with the cookies again.
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.
Nanacarrow thank you for replying earlier to my post in some detail. I am in a different time zone to yours so i could not post a considered response at that time. I shall do so in a bit. Please check back a while later if you are still interested.
I’m tired and I admit I’ve only skimmed this thread, partly because it’s late and I’m sick and partly because I’m vaguely irked that I’ve SAID THIS over and over and it’s only the fact that my post count’s a measly four digits and I’m best known as “that person who was a GM for City of Heroes” but here goes:
I believe in God.
I realize it’s not rational. I’m rational about pretty much everything else, including such classics as “I will not seriously date you because you have been a fuckup for the decade I’ve known you”, “I could sit here and cry about my situation or I could save the energy and either try to get out of it or read a book”, and “There’s no point in arguing with Der Trihs.” My irrational religious side is responding to the last part, so if I start typing in tongues, you can blame yourself. 
I can recite the Nicene Creed without feeling like a hypocrite, though I suspect that Jesus was just a really nifty guy who started a movement. His deeds were mythologized and he might not have been the awesome dude some people think he was, but as basic tenets go, “love your neighbor and treat him as you’d be treated” is one that has worked for me. It worked when I was a Lutheran, it worked when I was in a Wiccan circle, it worked when I was in Catholic school, and it worked when I was an antireligious agnostic.
I believe that religion has many fine qualities, and among them are NOT rationality of thought or the scientific method. Religion is good for getting groups of people to agree to do a thing, whether it’s feed the hungry or burn the infidel. I don’t think God needs religion, but I think many many people do. I suspect I do not, but I don’t need this computer either yet here I am.
There might be no God. Or god. Or it might not be mine. Despite my personal epiphanies, despite my faith, despite the experiences I have had where I believe I was in touch, if only briefly, with the essence of His being and His love, despite all that, I know the power of the human mind to explain and invent and delude. If my brain can spit up a dream where I’m Michael Jackson wearing Elvis’s white spangled jumpsuit, it can fill me with the absolute, complete, mindblowing love I have experienced. It could be all in my brain, in which case I would recommend someone figure out what makes that happen and market that sucker as the best drug in the world, since I darn sure wasn’t on any psychotropics at the time.
There might be no purpose, no natural justice, no final balance by which good and evil can be judged except that which human beings have constructed, and that is beautiful and terrible, just like God. God might just be a shaky reflection of mankind, a heat-image, a mirage, a dream, a tendency, a story. I know that. I reflect on it every day. It makes life difficult and Sunday weird.
Off-ish topic, Der Trihs, I never get to hear anything about your personal life. I hear about how you hate this and that and I see you in Cafe Society once in a while, but you strike me as almost a ghost in the machine. Even for other people who stay out of MPSIMS I know that Scylla is married, Sampiro has a delightfully (?) wacky family (GO FIG), all that, but you reveal nothing of your personal life. I hope it is happy and full of love and support and beautiful quiet Sunday mornings where you sleep in with the full and certain knowledge that nobody needs or expects you to get out of bed for another hour.
After the personal details I let slip were distorted and used at insults against me, I decided to try to stay silent on anything personal.
There have been a lot of views expressed on this thread and i am beginning to get a better understanding of Nancarrow’s position on this question. I hope you wont mind if i condense [in part] some of the views you have expressed in separate replies.
*"Faith, is maintaining despite lack of evidence, and even contrary evidence. This is a virtue. To me this gets right at the core of my beef with religions. The gospels were just some books written ages ago, and there’s no good reason to accept that anything in them is true. If anything i would rather be a Doubting Thomas. Each time i subject faith to scientific judgement - God looks more and more like a creator who doesn’t want to be found, whose modus operandi more and more becomes “design the universe to look exactly like it would look if I didn’t exist at all”.
My anti-religious stance is heavily influenced by the two religions that make the biggest headlines in the Western World today - Christianity (aka Us) and Islam (aka Them). Mhmd. Atta, the Pope, Witch burning and alleged infant raping [thanks to Der Trihs love for an argument] prove to me that religion causes more harm than good.
Religion does not answer basic questions for me - “What is God”, “Why so many contradictions?” “Where is the evidence?” . Science does not have so many contradictions and can explain things better, so i chose to go with science. " *
While the above may not be a complete representation of your views, i hope it’s not a mis representation. I dont intend to issue a rebuttal, but i do have counter opinions
Science is a process of observing phenomena, theorising an explanation which fits the natural laws of physics and having the phenomenon and the theory replicated at any given point in the observed universe. Gravity is a good phenomenon to choose as an example. It cannot be seen as a physical entity, but it is undeniably observed and a Theory of Gravity is hypothesised to explain it. It can be observed in varying degrees on Earth, the moon, the solar system - the known universe.
Faith - in comparison - cannot be similarly judged by Science as god is an unobservable phenomenon. God cannot be seen as a physical entity and neither can a theory be made to fit natural laws. Your conclusion is that god does not exist. My conclusion however is that science cannot be used to judge faith and that other means should be adopted. My reasons are below.
Both religion and science are human constructs! They are both likely to be incomplete knowledge. No one knows the cast iron path to god, and no one has proved the Theory of Everything. If between the two you choose to go with Science, thats your decision. I may say that you look outward and around you for explanations. I choose to look inward and within me for explanations. I find parts of my religion which seem right, it seems worthy of pursuing. I try to work it into my own life as an experiment. A spiritual journey is not for the feint [sic] of heart, and it is a tough one. I have had only very limited success. Any path you take with good intentions is a valid one, be it one of atheism. There are religions which allow this!
To poke holes in dogma is no great acheivement. Any reasonably intelligent person can do that. As someone mentioned upthread, a literal reading of scripture perhaps misses the point. In allegory, metaphor and oral tradition the truth might lie hidden. Many people before us have tried to answer the obvious contradictions in organised religion. Their answers have much more depth, and their experiments have much more rigour than we can hope to have.
If you will indulge me for a bit, i can give you a small explanation for creation that i read somewhere - The universe is a constant cycle of creation and destruction. That which we call god is the doer of these cycles. Humanity , you and me are only parts of this. Our insignificance is like that of a drop of water in an ocean. Our importance is in that without this drop of water the ocean would not exist. God is in me, in you, in Der Trihs, in Barack Obama, in a tree, in a hungry dog, in air, in light. God is both with form and formless.
I am aware that this may not be for you, a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the material world. This is only a theory, even if it is one worth considering. “I dont know why” the material world exists and I suspect it is the same with you!
If you are looking at the sun through a telescope which has a scratched lens, would you say the sun has a scratch on its surface? The by products [good or bad] of organised religion have no relevance in determining the existence of god. Organised religion is also a human construct.
Without any disrespect to specific religious institutions, i say that there are other systems of thought which you must explore. Why - even within Christian thought you could find answers to your questions.
Science is best described as a method. It is not an edifice of knowledge; it is a means of acquiring knowledge, of evaluating prospective information and discarding that which does not survive close scrutiny. As such, science is knowingly and necessarily incomplete. That is its great strength. Not only is it open to self-correction, it demands constant re-evaluation and improvement. Religion, by contrast, admits no such possibility of error, and tolerates no such evolution of its facts.
The methods of science have been proven to work, and to bring us closer and closer to understanding.
“Looking inward,” on the other hand, has been proven to lead us into error, over and over and over and over again.
Keep your religion. Enjoy it if you want. But it does nothing for me, and a lot of others.
Sorry in advance for the long post.
Then to the extent that your personal tastes and choice of your purpose are not based on evidence they are based on faith. A nonreligious, atheistic faith.
I think you do need to spell it out, because what is acceptable as an answer may differ from person to person. Some people are satisfied by “God made it so”. You and I are not, but it is presumptuous not to think others are. And, I would point out that while there’s no evidence religion can answer why science works, neither is there evidence it cannot. I would call your statement “religion can’t answer why science works” an article of faith (distinguishing faith from religion and theism).
I agree that faith is a bad way to determine how the world works. But I am not satisfied when science says “we do/can not know”, just as a simple “God did it” does not. I do use religion to help me look for answers that are meaningful to me. As you say, you cannot. I respect that.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I have no evidence at all. But neither do I assert there is. My point was that science cannot address that question.
Do you have evidence to support this?
I do not try to convince anyone of my beliefs.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Do you have evidence to support this?
The adage “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” applies, I think.
“Personal preference” sounds remarkably like a non-evidential belief, i.e., faith. And, if you’re not careful, “best guess” often ends up having little to no evidence supporting it, i.e., a small step from being faith.
We may agree that it a worthless answer, but that is a personal preference that others may disagree with. And that answer does not silence questions that science cannot answer. When science says it cannot answer a question, are you satisfied by “we do/can not know”? I am not.
Huh? Science says it cannot answer the question “what is my purpose” (as I understand it; I’ll wait for you to get back with evidence that the answer is “none”). I approach the question within a religious framework. In other words, I don’t let science’s lack of an answer deter me from trying to answer it.
While we disagree on some things, this is not one of them.
Nonsense. Personal tastes aren’t based on faith OR evidence, but are simply part of the way you are.
Since it’s a dead end “answer” that explains nothing, it’s not presumptutious at all. What’s “presumptuous” is people using something for which they have zero evidence as an “explanation” and demanding to be taken seriously.
Of course there is; thousands of years of religion failing to be right about anything. People have tried innumerable times to explain innumerable things with religion, and been relentlessly wrong. That’s not an article of faith, it’s an observation of the failure of religion to accurately explain anything at all. And claiming it’s an article of faith is just another example of the standard religious attempt to drag science down to it’s level, to pretend that science and religion are intellectual equals, instead of opposites.
Biology.
No, it doesn’t. Not when there’s no evidence that the thing being asserted is even possible. Again, there’s no reason to consider God any more worthy of being taken seriously than a fairy tale like Jack the Giant Killer - less, actually, since God is less plausible. Or to quote Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As opposed to religion, which makes extraordinary claims with no evidence at all.
Only to someone trying to twist what I say so they can point at me and say “AHA ! You have faith too ! HA ! HA !”
Saying that I like spaghetti or I find women attractive or that I like freedom isn’t a statement of faith, it is an assertion.
Well, that’s why you should be careful. And a little evidence is far, far better than none at all, not just a little better. And most faith is about outright denial of reality and logic, not just believing things without evidence.
It’s not a “personal preference”, it’s a simple, practical fact. When was the last time that claiming God was the cause of something ever lead to understanding it ? All it does is silence questions; calling it “worthless” is overgenerous. It’s more of an “answer” with a negative value; it increases ignorance.
Well, too bad for you; science is what works. Religion doesn’t. As said earlier, claiming that religion answers such questions is like asking a baby a question and taking “Ba !” as a valid answer. Religion doesn’t meaningfully answer such questions; it CAN’T. It lacks the ability. It has nothing factual to work with, only fiction.
You are the one asserting that such a purpose exists; it’s your job to provide evidence there is, not mine to prove a negative.
Yes, you do. Religion can’t meaningfully answer that question or anything else. It’s empty; it’s made up; expecting it to answer any factual question accurately is foolish. Claiming that you are trying to answer it with religion is just admitting that you can’t answer the question so intend to make your own answer up without admitting it.