My first reaction is that belief and reason are indeed incompatible. My first reaction is also that all faith is blind. I am also pained by these first reactions.
But why should a first reaction be the right one?
A God We Know Nothing About
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
My first reaction is that belief and reason are indeed incompatible. My first reaction is also that all faith is blind. I am also pained by these first reactions.
But why should a first reaction be the right one?
I think a lot has to do with how one views them.
For instance I think most people (even atheists) would accept that a harmonious world view consists of a symbiotic mix of belief and reason.
eg - One may have a belief that a certain woman is their mother, and this is a reasonable idea since it is compatible with one's experience (I don't think even Dawkins had a dna test done on his mother)
I guess the devil of the details (at least on sci) lies in extending it to the metaphysical - IOW making claims about the ultimate nature of reality and the degree this does/does not require the contribution of reason/faith as the most important (as opposed to one and only) player.
You're strange, my mother is not
What tests have you carried out to determine if there is a god and if so why is it actually deserving of praise?
So did you determine she was your mom empirically?You're strange, my mother is not
For reasons that I won't get into, yes. I believe LG was referring to birth mother.
Anyway, distractions from LG are not uncommon. It is a favorite tactic for him when losing a debate. The fact is, LG has not put up one iota or given us a glimmer of all he knows all about God. I can only assume he cannot produce anything people will actually believe. Maybe he is afraid of becoming a laughingstock. As long as he doesn't divulge then he can comfortably stay in the discussion. Otherwise he's toast.
I thought the point was that everyone reaches important conclusions not via empiricism. Me, I have many reasons to believe my mother is my mother, but I certainly did not approach the issue empirically, not in any rigorous scientific sense. Sure, sense data are part of why I believe that, that that is hardly science.
People make political, ethical, psychological, practical beliefs, actions and decisions all the time based not on empirical studies. These decisions lead to uncounted deaths, saved lives, problematic and beneficial results, etc.
Yet in discussions like this it seemed implicit, for some reason, that theists don't follow empiricism when drawing important conclusions but some of most atheists always or even usually do.
That's really silly. It is not paying attention to what one is doing.
That may be the case but at the moment your mother (or more particularly, your acceptance of her as such) is destabilizing your world view that you insist all things measure up to.You're strange, my mother is not
to test anything you have to begin with a qualitative model (IOW you have to know the qualities of the object)
As evidenced by your "I know nothing about god" thread, even you are capable of this
The next step is to have an effective means to bridge the gap between a qualitative model of knowledge and a quantitative one.
For instance, suppose we started with the (qualitative) idea that water is wet. An effective way to test this is to jump in the ocean. An ineffective way is to jump in sand that has been baking in the sahara desert for 60 drought ridden years.
And here is the hitch in your learning curve. You insist on the equivalent of jumping into the sand (aka empiricism).
Empiricism/jumping in the sand may be effective in coming to certain quantitative ends ... but god/wetness is not one of them.
Theistic paradigms rely on existential criteria. Not formative.
Theistic paradigms begin by looking at one's state of being (IOW the very vehicle that one uses for seeing). Not the external world of the senses (what one is already seeing).
You bury your head in the sand to see how high the Empire State Building is. You see it's the tallest building in the universe therefore the ocean is wet. That tells you your mother wasn't really your father thus no 1 can see your ass waving in the air.
Allright.
Not that DNA tests are 100% proof. There is always the possibility of human error, of the samples being contaminated, of other possible factors that can interfere with the outcome of a test.
So even with a DNA test, it all comes down to trusting it ... which brings me to the next point -
So the underlying issue seems to be about that which is taken for granted and thus ignored; that which is exposed and declared; and that which is unknown.
Which also brings in issues of self-image and self-presentation, e.g. 'I want to appear powerful to these people, therefore I will use power words such as 'truth', 'reality', 'proof' in a positive manner and so that I will appear on the winning end.'
I think our Western culture is one where approval from many people can be gained by exhuding confidence, and one of the ways to do that is to use power words and power formulations, borrowed from science and applied as absolutes, or borrowed from spirituality / religion / philosophy and applied to science; whether they are accurate or not is another matter. Many people are not intelligent and educated enough to tell the difference, or they are too distracted or intoxicated to do. So the power words approach works.
I apologize for the speculative tirade. I am just trying to understand the appeal and power of someone like Dawkins - as my first reaction is to succomb to him.
You mean that the theists are being wrong here or not paying attention to what they are doing?
Thus not much difference between the average theist and atheist. Now a theist as yourself, one who has the disciplines of thought firmly conquered and the material world categorized as nothing much more than god's laboratory/transition zone/nexus, has attained a state of being that permits you to have intimate knowledge of God. This knowledge is comprehensibly incomprehensible, reserved for individuals that reach this level of consciousness. IOW it cannot be explained to those of us who remain attached to the physical world.
I believe you make too many assumptions here. Contrary to what you believe, atheists are quite good at thinking. However you assume that we do not go beyond this material world. This is your biggest mistake. At some point in their thinking, theists like yourself and atheists reach a common ground. If you want to say it is a place buried in the subconscious then go ahead, but we both get there.
When we arrive, logic and reason take over. However, because you are willing to let go of your material attachment to the world then you feel you've reached a special plateau. It also helps that other famous philosophers have reported the same feelings, not that they influenced you or not. If they did I'd hate to see all you've worked for go down the drain.
Atheists who reach the same pivotal moment in their thinking know that the peak has been reached. To move on to your state would be something like starting the trek down Everest except on the other side, a side unseen, speculative and imaginary. For an atheist like myself, logic and reason dictate that to move in the theist direction is equivalent to shutting out reality for fantasy, a step backwards. A theist like yourself on the other hand makes the logic & reason decision once in the non-material zone or fantasy realm. Again I hope the decision you make here does not contain one iota of influence from the material world. Just the fact that you may despise the physical world is enough to affect decision making.
Already too long a post for me so I'll cut it off here
Last edited:
The latter.
My interpretation of what is often implicit in this kind of argument....
Theists do not follow scientific methods when developing their beliefs in God.
This is an important belief.
One should use scientific methods or at least use as authority those who have when making important decisions about belief.
I do this.
But then if one looks over at politics, psychology, self and other assessment we see important beliefs being built up by pretty much every group via intution, appeal to not necessarily expert authority, habit, emotional investment, etc.
There is a false dichotomy being created. Two groups with different methodologies.
I don't think so.
If by 'science' and 'scientific' you are referring to traditional Western science, then the whole subject of believing in God is excluded to begin with.
Using traditional Western scientific methods leads to viewing oneself 'objectively' - something which you have expressed a disaffiliation to.
If you want any kind of belief in God that will be personally relevant to you, you will probably have to look past the traditional Western scientific method.
And secondly: What about things such as the meaning of life? Do you think the best thing a person can do is to wait for science to figure out what the meaning of life is? What should a person do until then? Should they just go on living, hoping that some day science will figure out what they should consider the meaning of life?
How can a person use the scientific method on his or her own, in order to arrive at the meaning of their life?
Moreover: Do you think that it is indeed impossible to scientifically come to a belief in God? By 'scientifically' I mean it pertaining to the scientific method itself, without the Western specific that excludes God.
Last edited:
Nope. If you have actual evidence than god is perfectly acceptable to science.
It is blind faith which science frowns at.
but theism religions all say they have actual evidence ..i'm sure the educated theists must have been given something to chew on..
And I say I have a bridge to sell you.
(Some) Theists are educated.
Theists say they have actual evidence.
Therefore gods are perfectly acceptable to science.
That's your story & you're sticking to it?
Theists say they have actual evidence.
Therefore gods are perfectly acceptable to science.
That's your story & you're sticking to it?