Reply to How can sensible, educated people be religious?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "How can sensible, educated people be religious? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]How can people who understand basic science also believe that there is a god in heaven protecting them and that they will live there forever after they die here on earth?[/quote]

What “basic science” rules out God?  I suspect your concept of basic science smuggles in a whole host of assumed metaphysical premises that could be disputed if made explicit.  [/quote]

The same "basic science" that rules out Leprechauns, Bigfoot, and universe-farting blue elephants.  No reason to think any are there until there is evidence.[/quote]

What would constitute evidence in your view? I suspect that most believers would take the position that the existence of the universe provides some evidence for a creator, so presumably you have some sort of unstated premise that rules that out.  It would be a more interesting conversation if you made that premise explicit.   Of course, we also all believe lots of things we don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this. [/quote]

No I do not rule it out, and it is not my burden to do so.  I don't agree the existence of the universe is evidence for anything other than the universe, and despite hearing hundreds of cosmological arguments never heard one that wasn't flawed from the premises onward.  And certainly not one that had an iota of evidence for any specific god. More than welcome to listen to another, if you have it.

What are other things we believe that we don't have evidence for, "direct" or otherwise?[/quote]

It is indeed your burden to do so if you are stating that basic science proves God does not exist. [/quote]

Good thing I made no such claim, and in fact explicitly stated so, in the very sentence you are posting.  Why do you ignore what I have said?  Because it makes your narrative more difficult, possibly?

[quote]Further, you are starting with a materialist premise that is nowhere proved; it is assumed.  [/quote]

I have done no such thing.

[quote]The idea that only things that can be observed directly exist is a metaphysical premise, not an objective fact.  Don’t get me wrong:  it’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s only that, an assumption.  
[/quote]

If we disagree on the presupposition that it is unreasonable withhold belief until there is evidence then we fundamentally live differently.

[quote]So too for your view that the existence of the universe proves nothing with regard to the potential for a creator. That’s an interpretation, not a demonstrated fact. Finally you are being slippery about my question on believing things without evidence.  [/quote]

Nope!  See the point above.  The claim that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator relies on the presupposition that a creator is required for a universe.  Not only is that unsupported by evidence it is wholly circular logic.

[quote]Who’s the “we” you are referring to?  
[/quote]

The "we" the poster (you?) I was reply to typed with "[i]Of course, we also all believe lots of things [b]we[/b] don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this. [/i]"

[quote]I submit that YOU necessarily take a lot of things on faith because you believe certain authorities are reliable.  Is that not so?[/quote]

I do not believe it to be so.  Back up your claim. What do you think I take on "faith" without evidence? [/quote]

I was assuming you were the OP, perhaps incorrectly. If so, my bad. The statement "how can people who understand basic science also belive that there is a god" seemed to me to be a pretty strong claim that it is *inconsistent* to accept basic science while also believing in god.  I'm not sure how this could be interpreted any other way, but i suppose it is possible i misunderstood. I'm waiting to see the inconsistency; this is unproven and indeed not even asserted explicitly IMO. So I will state it a bit more precisely:  do you believe the existence of a god is inconsistent with "basic science" and if so how? 
[/quote]

I make no claims about god, generically.  It needs to be defined by the claimant.  You can define a god into existence if you want to, whether Spinoza's god or the worshipping my coffee mug as one.

[quote]But if all you are stating is that nobody can *prove* god exists, I freely concede it to be so.  That's almost a tautology and would not be controversial even among believers.  
[/quote]

I don't claim nobody can prove god.  Please stick with what I do type because I try to be thoughtful about it.  I say I have not seen sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in one.  Happy to re-evaluate once some is provided.

[quote]If the orginal post was merely an honest question, the honest answer is that there is nothing about "basic science" that is inconsistent with the existence of god.

I understand that you don't "agree" that the existence of the universe proves anything wrt a creator, but that doesn't make the alternative prior that it does unreasonable -- the idea that something cannot appear from nothing may be *incorrect,* but its not an irrational premise.  It's not "circular," its a just premise you reject.  Certainly science does not clam to have an answer to that question at the moment, merely competing, unproven, and potentially unprovable hypotheses.  [/quote]

It's entirely unreasonable and irrational and entirely circular.  You have no evidence of "nothing" ever existing, and in fact I doubt you can even define it.  You claim a universe can't exist without a creator and the evidence for the creator is the universe.  I couldn't make that more circular with a compass.

[quote]Also still waiting to hear what you might accept as "evidence" of a god; if there is literally nothing that could change your mind, you're just reiterating your assumptions.  [/quote]

I have no idea what I might accept as evidence of a god.  Fortunately I am not making a claim about god so I don't have to.  Would have to start with that god being defined, of course.

[quote]My guess is that there are a host of scientific findings you take as true, not because you have directly observed them, but because you believe the words of others about them.  
[/quote]

Nahh that's bullsh*t.  I believe the evidence and research.  Just because I am not a doctor doesn't mean I can't look up the research on a medicine.  Bad argument, you should stop making that one.

[quote]This is true for basically every scientific publication or experiment you don't replicate yourself directly. 
[/quote]

You know that's not how science works or how we value it.  Really super silly point. But since you make it, whose peer-reviewed evidence supports your belief in god?

[quote]For example, when you take a medication, you don't yourself replicate the clinical trials that demonstrate the effectiveness of that medication yourself before taking them. Rather, you believe that the medication is more likely to do you good than harm because you believe that the process that led to the approval of the medication--a process conducted by others, of which you don't have direct experiential knowledge--is reliable. [/quote]

The others have done the research and gone through a peer review process. For the third time, this is a dumb argument - in fact this works AGAINST your position because you admit others have done research and there are tangible reasons to accept the findings as fact.

[quote]This is a totally good and reasonable thing to do, but it is different than having direct evidence; it's just a proxy.  
[/quote]

Again, no, it is EXACTLY direct evidence, man.

[quote]Others may have that direct evidence, but you yourself do not.  
[/quote]

Wrong again, we all have the evidence.  The evidence is there.  You can find it.  You can read it.  You can understand it.  There is no comperable thing for your god.  None.  Nada. Zilch.

[quote]You trust that they do.  That's a rational thing, of course, but its a different thing than having that evidence yourself.   Again, my point here is "what counts as evidence sufficient to justify a belief," which is a much more complicated thing than your post implies. [/quote]

It really isn't, and shouldn't be. Unless, of course, the thing believed is untrue.

[/quote]

That’s all very interesting, but you’re totally handwaving about evidence.  You suggest that the only way to have a justified belief is to have evidence. You seem to deny the self-evident proposition that in many cases you rely on the word of others as to the existence of that evidence.  If you ever taken a pill without reviewing the underlying clinical studies, you are taking someone else’s word for the evidence.  This seems indisputable to me and I don’t know why you find it such a hard bullet to bite. And it’s not “direct evidence, man” it involves a host of assumptions about how the world works, some of which may be true and some of which are potentially not.  I mean, people do make stuff up sometimes, right?

You’re wrong about the supposedly circular nature of the argument from the existence of the universe; I’m not using the existence of the universe to prove the existence of a creator in a deductive sense.  That would indeed be circular. Rather, it is merely one hypothesis regarding the origin of the universe that has not been falsified.   There certainly are others.  It’s an empirical question, not a deductive conclusion.  The point is, you can have defensible premises that yield the result that the existence of the universe is evidence for a creator.  Obviously you can also have other ones where the weight of this evidence is zero.  Or you can just handwave the question away, as many do: pay no attention to the universe around you; all questions about its ultimate origin are simply out of bounds.  But that’s just another axiom.

And finally, I note you evaded the major question in this thread. The OP suggested that there is an inconsistency in understanding “basic science” and belief in God.  It’s fine if you don’t have a position on that question, cool, although it seems to make the rest of this discussion a little academic.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics