Many religious people who hold a literal interpretation of their religious texts *have * descended into crude irrationalism- for example, by saying that God planted dinosaur fossils here to ‘test’ our belief in Him.
However, I find it an almost absurd position to say thatprobablythere are no other entities in the universe that are much much greater than man, simply because we cannot see them.
If the universe with those entities is utterly indistinguishable from the universe without them, how am I justified in concluding they exist?
First, I think most religious people have active disbelief in other religions, not just lack of belief - strong atheism, in a way. But I think this is more from being instructed that their religion is the only true one than from an analysis of the other religions. This includes branches of their own religions.
I know quite a few people who have hopped religions, and it seems that they have the need to believe in something greater, so religion n+1 works while atheism does not. They also seem to latch on to the closest one, in a sense, without doing much of an analysis.
There is also the social stigma of atheism, and I think the increase in disbelief is a function of the decrease in this stigma. And it is a lot tougher to be an atheist in some parts of the country than others.
You misinterpreted my post, which was a reference, as Revenant Threshold noted, to the common observation that the religious disbelieve in all gods but one, and atheists just disbelieve in one more.
When science was like philosophy there were many, many schools and nothing ever got decided. If religion were like science there would be one or two of them at most. Or, given the evidence, none.
I assure you I understand how science works, doing it more or less for almost 50 years.
What do you mean by greater than man? I can easily accept that there are entities much more advanced and smarter than we are. Heck, we can do much of what God was supposed to do in the Bible. We raise people from what they would have considered being dead. We can make the sun stand still - well not stand still, but we could shine a big spotlight on the battlefield.
Supernatural stuff is something else.
OK. I get your point, I think (hope!). And, I certainly don’t doubt your connection with science.
I would say that at the time of which you speak, we hadn’t really figured out scientific method yet, and the division between religion and science was less complete than it is today.
Newton came close to solving the multiple planets problem. He pretty much had the math he needed. However, when it got complicated he decided that it was just something God was doing and gave up. The mixing of religion and science got him!
I still think religion and science are different tools, each with serious restrictions.
Measuring the capabilities of one by the kind of result the other is attempting to achieve could well be a mistake.
No, but if you say it exists and I say it doesn’t, then you have something to prove, and I don’t have anything to prove. God doesn’t not exist until you find him, God doesn’t exist UNLESS you find him. And I get to stand there and smirk while you look.
There is very ample evidence of something that might be called “God” - whatever mechanism it is that allows for all the results in quantum mechanics that we have determined to be absolutely true assuming we’re not being deliberately toyed with by a malevolent force. One very reasonable interpretation of all the evidence is that the mechanism by which it is determined which of several outcomes are observed is some sort of power behind this universe that is able to play with these results to tweak things so as to make certain things that are somewhat unlikely, but not impossible, actually manage to happen. This sort of belief can be compared to Einstein’s response to quantum mechanics: “God does not play dice”. The inherent idea in that statement is that it is God that is making those decisions that quantum mechanics requires, and the way things are distributed, it appears as though He chooses somewhat randomly. It seems perfectly logical to go in this direction and say that God is capable of responding to our prayers by altering probabilities in a way that favors the outcome we desire.
Of course, this is effectively just another version of Deism, doing nothing to prove any specific religion is correct in their specification of God, so none of them entertain it. It probably doesn’t help that an understanding of quantum mechanics is probably beyond most people. It’s possible that it’s even beyond my abilities, and my proposition of this as a mechanism through which God might possibly work doesn’t actually work within a more rigorous quantum mechanism that is beyond those who don’t have PhDs in Physics as opposed to what can be taught to undergrads or written about in popular science books.
That’s not to say that I “believe” in this theory; as pointed out by others in this thread, actively thinking about this kind of belief is just plain silly. It’s much the same as arguing over the interpretations of quantum mechanics, which most working physicists think is pointless until someone can come up with a way in which one can conduct an experiment that rules out one of them. Since they all use the same math, that’s basically impossible, and arguing about the underlying reality gets you nowhere. But it seems to me like quite a reasonable argument a religious person could put forth for how God interacts with the world, yet I’ve never heard anything about people believing this kind of thing beyond Einstein’s quote. Maybe it just says something about the inclination of people able to understand quantum mechanics - even if they’re religious, they’re probably smart enough to realize that it’s pointless to try to come up with a logical explanation for their religion.
Anecdotal, of course, but I’ve never actually seen an atheist try to ‘convert’ a theist to atheism. They don’t even bring it up.
I have seen them fend off puerile attempts at proselytizing by theists, though, and have done so myself. I’m a Jehovah’s Witness’ worst nightmare.
Right - we have a strong desire for answers. It’s so strong that if we don’t have a ready answer, we’re more than ready to ascribe it to god.
The “I don’t know” answer IS the truth in these cases. But, it seems to take some work to accept that.
And, yes, Einstein’s quote has nothing to do with an actual god. His point was that there must be an underlying principle of physics that caused the behavior we see. He found it hard to accept quantum mechanics. Or so it seems to me.
Faith is intellectually unsatisfying even to those who profess to have it. Few people want to admit when their beliefs are based solely on emotion. Not only do we tend to denigrate “emotional thinking” as being in the domain of “lesser” beings (animals, children, the mentally and emotionally impaired…women if you are a misogynist), but emotional thinking doesn’t mesh well with the concept of free will. People want to think that their religious beliefs are something they weren’t brainwashed into as young children, but that they came about through the hard, thoughtful, rational consideration you’d expect in a free-will possessing human being. The concept of free will is important to many religious people, at least of the Christian persuasion. If you can claim that your belief in God stems from your study of all the facts (the Bible), then it becomes easier to justify why non-believers should be punished (“They are making a choice not to believe! They made the wrong choice!”)
I’ll preface by stating that I hope this doesn’t constitute thread shit.
But I’ve often felt that the belief in God had some sort of evolutionary purpose. I’ve no evidence to support my crackpot theory on this topic but I’ve wondered if perhaps there were advantages to the hominids that believed in superstitions and God-like beings that had the power to control their lives. Maybe such belief gave them a cultural iconography to strengthen social bonding within tribes, thus making them more loyal to one another. Maybe it gave them more courage when fighting other tribes or when confronted with dangerous animals.
I’ve sometimes thought that the Bible is one of humankind’s first attempt (just one of perhaps several or many) to write a kind of guidebook by which humans ought to live peacefully with each other. After the agricultural revolution and the birth of civilization there were probably new kinds of problems that larger and more complex problems had to deal with. I get the feeling that the Bible was a reaction to these perceived social ills and was an attempt to get people to do their part to stabilize society without the need for more coercive measures by members of the king’s military or police.
Paraphrasing the late great Christopher Hitchens: ‘…and because it is humanity’s first attempt at moral guidance, it remains humanity’s worst attempt.’
So, we should also read your sig as “I am not a real Constitutional scholar” too?
('Cause the SCotUS in no way decides what is or is not a ‘religion’. Legally, in fact, for the purposes of questions of, most often, the First Amendment Atheists are given the same rights as any other religious believer.)
CMC fnord!
A single idea in an infinite lack is a far bigger difference than that between many ideas and a few. It’s got corresponding power. Ironically, the diminishing language you’ve used there only adds meaning to what you’ve said.
Even humans as opposed to who?
You’re correct, there’s been many interpretations, and beyond that there’s infinite possibilities. Usefully, though, as soon as you say one thing, you can often use that to say other things too. Even something like suggesting a god or gods or so on that play absolutely no role in the creation of the universe or time after it, we can say that such beings cannot or have not done so.
Why do religious people try to prove god exists? They don’t want to admit that they are wrong.
It just boggles my mind that people can be unaware of such basic, fundamental flaws in the argument they’re presenting, and that they’d try to offer a ‘proof’ while doing no critical thinking of their own. I think a point (4) is that they’ve been taught that all of the unbelievers just haven’t been exposed to The Word and that all you really need to do is tell them a little bit about Jesus and they’ll see the error of their ways. That is, the ‘provers’ don’t really think of the argument as a logical argument, but more as a vehicle to to throw the concept out there, since they ‘know’ that’s all they really need to do. You see this idea in a lot of evangelical material, like the infamous Jack Chick tracts, where they seem to seriously think that a long-haul trucker who grew up in a regular American town would have never even heard the name Jesus before.
I’d agree your first line is a fair point. After that… I can’t disagree, since otherwise people would never convert between faiths or between branches of their faith without first losing it entirely, yet they do. And there’s also something to be said for the idea that having found something that explains the universe to you removes some of that need to examine other viewpoints, although that’s partially true for atheism as well. But I’m wary of saying that being instructed that their faith is true leads to an active disbelief - it just seems like part of the faith, in that case, to me. It’s something that would automatically go if the faith was lost, where a spiritual experience or something of that ilk wouldn’t.
I think that’s unfair. That they’re changing religions at all is a sign of analysis. And changing to a similar faith doesn’t necessarily strike me as a sign of lazy or simple analysis; to the contrary, it seems like it could be more consistent with the position they’ve already staked out.
Seems reasonable, sadly.
Doesn’t this just have the same problems as the First Cause argument? I mean, if we follow this point and say that we cannot say there isn’t a god, then we next have to say “Well, it’s an almost absurd position to say that probably there are no other entitites in the universe that are much much greater than this god”, and we have to accept the possibility of something greater still. And then greater still. And so on. Turtles all the way down.
Reported. 