Does God Believe in Einstein?

[(Q)]

1. What are the three ingredients needed for Christian conversion?
2. What is your and my part in the process of conversion?
3. Why is this the first step in Christian conversion and how does this relate to the Holy Spirit's work in Christian conversion?
4. Why is it that not everyone we share Christ with immediately accepts Jesus?
5. Is Evangelism making a person receive Jesus? What is Evangelism?
6. Why use the Salvation Tract What Is Eternal Life? in sharing the Gospel?

Evangelism:
The Time Is Now!

 

[geeser]

Not always the case Geeser. I was a drug user and became atheist.

godless I never said it was impossible, for someone, to come from theism to atheism.(or irrationality to rationality)
but the other way round it's definitely impossible.

I find that every one perhaps has a turning point. For an elder atheist, his turning point may be old age, and fear of dying. So he may turn irrational, to suppress his fears, and believe that he may continue if he just believes in a supreme diety. Who knows fear is one of the strongest emotions there is, and it makes many do irratianol behaviors.

Godless

I take you point, fear is an irrational emotion, unfortunately we all have it.
but the main point is the old man had to become irrational, did he not, he could not of believed in a diety, from a rational standpoint.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

an atheist convert to theism is impossible, that's asking us to believe they've gone from the rational to the irrational, this can and does only, happen when someone has had some kind of physical or mental trauma, or is a drug user.

It is clearly not impossible that people convert from atheism to Christianity as there are plenty of examples e.g. C.S. Lewis (quoted earlier) is a prominent one.

Belief based on subjective experience is NOT irrational, otherwise it would be irrational to believe in your own self awareness (for instance). Religious belief is rooted in faith but supported by personal experience (see the Varieties of Religious Experiences quote). It is not a product of being old or indoctrinated - it is the way many people find fulfillment in life.

To maintain the belief that an atheist cannot convert to Christianity in the face of contradictory evidence clearly IS irrational.

 

[Sarkus]

Belief based on subjective experience is NOT irrational, otherwise it would be irrational to believe in your own self awareness (for instance).

Where belief is based purely on subjective experience then it is the interpretation of that subjective experience that is open to question and where the irrationality (if any exists) will lie.

For example - in the absence of evidence other than subjective experience - why would someone interpret something as a ghost, rather than explore the possibility that it was something for which evidence currently exists?

It is irrational, in this instance, to interpret the subjective experience as a ghost unless you first discount every other alternative.

Given the irrational interpretation - any subsequent beliefs based on these interpretations, no matter how rational with respect to those underlying interpretations, must themselves be flawed - and the whole basis of the belief deemed irrational.

In order to come to the conclusion that the ultimate belief is NOT irrational, you would also have to demonstrate that the supporting interpretations are also NOT irrational.


Remember, however, that "irrational" merely describes the process of reaching the end result. You can sometimes reach the right answer through illogical and irrational means.
Just don't expect others to follow (or understand) your journey!

To maintain the belief that an atheist cannot convert to Christianity in the face of contradictory evidence clearly IS irrational.

And in this instance would also be correctly deemed delusional.

 

[fadingCaptain]

I admire Einstein...but his pantheistic dialogue was gutless and has caused confusion ever since. Spinoza I understand, given the time period and revolutionary implications of his work. But Einstein, he should have known better.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Where belief is based purely on subjective experience then it is the interpretation of that subjective experience that is open to question and where the irrationality (if any exists) will lie.

For example - in the absence of evidence other than subjective experience - why would someone interpret something as a ghost, rather than explore the possibility that it was something for which evidence currently exists?

It is irrational, in this instance, to interpret the subjective experience as a ghost unless you first discount every other alternative.

Given the irrational interpretation - any subsequent beliefs based on these interpretations, no matter how rational with respect to those underlying interpretations, must themselves be flawed - and the whole basis of the belief deemed irrational.

In order to come to the conclusion that the ultimate belief is NOT irrational, you would also have to demonstrate that the supporting interpretations are also NOT irrational.


Remember, however, that "irrational" merely describes the process of reaching the end result. You can sometimes reach the right answer through illogical and irrational means. Just don't expect others to follow (or understand) your journey!

I think you make a very good point Sarkus, that it is the process of interpretation of evidence to form a belief that is irrational or rational.

The ghost example is also an interesting one. Ghosts may exist, we do not know, however they currently lie outside the accepted "methodological materialist" paradigm of science. So someone's personal experience which legitimately convinces them, can only be anecdotal evidence to us. In talking of ghosts, we are still speaking of hypothetical phenomena in the material world, which will require material evidence to become accepted by scientists. Acceptance would entail a huge paradigm shift for science.

Religious experience is not something of the material world at all, and therefore the scientific method for evaluating evidence does not work. We cannot seek "material evidence" of God, subject to peer review in the same way as we can for ghosts. Therefore we can only form our beliefs through a rational process based on the evidence of our own or other people's subjective experiences. What those experiences are and the framework of assumptions we apply (e.g. materialism, dualism, idealism etc.) will mean we all end up with different beliefs. That is OK, and is what we expect to find among equally logical, rational people.

Much more interesting for me therefore, is "what is the way to the good life?", which is why the Greeks first started philosophy, but which has become neglected in modern philosophy. I became a theist because I believe it holds out more hope, but I realise it's a problem we are all trying to solve.

And in this instance would also be correctly deemed delusional.

I'm pleased we agree!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I admire Einstein...but his pantheistic dialogue was gutless and has caused confusion ever since. Spinoza I understand, given the time period and revolutionary implications of his work. But Einstein, he should have known better.

He was certainly no genius in theology. I think he is interesting because he bridges the gap between science and religion (so often opposed). He seemed to find his religion THROUGH science.