How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

liamw

For the past couple of years I've looked at religion and it's truth claims, how and why man concieved of religion and the human predisposition to the supernatural. Any evidences for any specific religion that I've seen have been weak. Most semi-decent arguments tend towards deism but still seem weak.

I guess my primary goal was to figure out why we had religion, but more specifically why some intelligent people still believed in it. This was a question that, up to now, I just reconciled as brain compartmentalization or lack of applying the same critical thinking to that area.

However, I still think I'm missing something. I'm finding it hard to concieve how someone like Ken Miller can be a Bible believing Christian. People like Ken, and perhaps Francis Collins, really appear to apply rational thought and critical thinking. They even claim that their theism is deduced completely rationally.

I don't think they are intentionally lying about this. Why exactly do you think these people still believe that the bible is the word of god? Are there really some arguments I'm missing? Do they tend to put more weight on 'personal experience' that others? Surely these people understand the fallibility of the human brain.

Here is an example of one of Ken's speeches which got me thinking about this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Scarinae

I have wondered the same thing, but it is difficult to ask people this because if they take it the wrong way they could think that you're implying that they're stupid

My flatmate is very intelligent, and is doing a science PhD. Yet not only does she believe in god, she also comes out with statements like "There are no coincidences" and "Everything happens for a reason". I have tried to appeal to her logical side by saying that this is confirmation bias, but to no avail. I honestly don't understand how she can have one set of logic rules for her academic/work life, and another set for her personal/spiritual life

Meanwhile, one of her friends from the lab strongly believes in astrology. Almost as soon as she meets people, she asks what their starsign is. Apparently she has turned down guys for being an incompatible starsign (she has a particular thing against Aries men). I have pointed out that I am a Virgo, and so is my flatmate, but we are incredibly different people, but she has found 'common traits' we have to back up her assertions. I would call this confirmation bias again, especially since upon reading descriptions of all twelve starsigns I can find traits in each one that describe me somewhat :P

I find both cases particularly odd since they have both had rigorous scientific training and are working in science every day... I just don't understand the lack of consistency. At this rate, it wouldn't surprise me if another person from their lab turns out to believe in fairies

Nemi

Good video. I've not been that interested in the whole creationist debate, but he really gives a good picture of the issues at stake.

On to your main question, I'd feel that he presents an answer himself when he says why he thinks people who should know better back creationism. If you think anything that undermines religion undermines public morality, then you'll argue for creationism because you think its necessary to fool people into behaving morally.

I think it links to some of the stuff the Pope said recently when he, rather clumsily, linked atheism and totalitarianism. (Does saying 'totalitarianism avoid breaking Godwin's Law?) His argument for Christianity seems to be that it makes human life better. If it does, then its a reason to do it even if its false.

A not dissimilar point came up on the current thread on Satanism. Why ponce about with some load of black magic wankery?

Zillah wrote: »

There is a great deal of melodrama and showmanship to Satanism, but one must remember that they are very honest about that. They understand the psychological benefits of ritual and suspension of disbelief, they're just honest about their use of it, unlike theistic religions.

I'm obviously not saying this is why reflective people practice a faith. Only they can answer that. But if some people find making model trains cathartic, or collecting fossils, or whatever, why wouldn't they find something in practicing the discipline of a religion?

liamw

Fishie wrote: »

I have wondered the same thing, but it is difficult to ask people this because if they take it the wrong way they could think that you're implying that they're stupid

It is difficult to ask this alright. I think you have to be very careful with your approach. Respectfully, I would love to have a chat with some of those people you mention. I've known one or two people like this but the responses have just been very defensive, perhaps partially due to my approach to questioning.

Nemi wrote: »

I'm obviously not saying this is why reflective people practice a faith. Only they can answer that. But if some people find making model trains cathartic, or collecting fossils, or whatever, why wouldn't they find something in practicing the discipline of a religion?

That's the point though. Ken Miller knows well damn that just becuase one would find something comforting or whatever, should lead no credence to the truth of a claim and therefore belief. I'm wondering is there some much deeper psychological stuff at play here; for instance is the desire to believe so inately strong subconsciously clouding his judgement, even if he thinks he is being objective.

Ghost Buster

I know this doesnt apply to everyone but dont underestimate the power of childhood indoctrination.
I would be a typical Irish (former) catholic. Very devout parents, former alter boy and received the first 3 sacraments etc etc. But into my teenage years i got very very involved in bible readings and more in depth Christianity which oddly enough lead to the whole thing unraveling on me. I realised it was rubbish, hateful rubbish.
But it took me to well into my late twenties to finally decide I was agnostic and heading toward atheism and the guilt and the angst along the way was considerable.
Then I met my now wife who is into Wicca and low and behold i got sucked into that for a brief spell. Even so far as having one of these 'personal experiences' that so many Christians waffle on about, Mine involved a very fetching pentacle, a lump of meteorite and some mead.:)
I think what Im getting at is that if you have something drip fed into you as a child its very very hard to completely withdraw from it. There is a tendency toward wanting to believe in "something else".

amacachi

It's something I really struggle with. One of my favorite TV shows is The Colbert Report. Colbert is a legend and I used to think his whole religion thing was part of his conservative act but it turns out he actually is religious and does some Sunday School teaching as well. I just can't square it up with his intelligence and wit.

liamw

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I know this doesnt apply to everyone but dont underestimate the power of childhood indoctrination.

I think what Im getting at is that if you have something drip fed into you as a child its very very hard to completely withdraw from it. There is a tendency toward wanting to believe in "something else".

But, I'm sure that these theists I'm referring to are very aware of the power behind childhood indoctrination and the evolutionary trait behind soaking information as a child. I'm sure they are also aware of the predisposition of the brain to the supernatural, and yet, continue to believe in Yahweh.

Denerick

Its threads like these that really make me loathe to call myself a full blooded 'atheist'. Do you want the simple answer or the difficult answer OP? The simple answer is around 5,000 books on theology and some incredibly intelligent and moving writings on what it means to be human.

The difficult answer is the feeling in your gut when you watch the sun rise on a foggy morning.

liamw

Denerick wrote: »

Its threads like these that really make me loathe to call myself a full blooded 'atheist'. Do you want the simple answer or the difficult answer OP? The simple answer is around 5,000 books on theology and some incredibly intelligent and moving writings on what it means to be human.

The difficult answer is the feeling in your gut when you watch the sun rise on a foggy morning.

Why does what we could refer to as a spiritual experience have to be attached to religion though? What does meaning in life have to do with religion?

Denerick, why are you not convinced from all this and these 5,000 books on theology while Miller is?

Denerick

liamw wrote: »

Why does what we could refer to as a spiritual experience have to be attached to religion though? What does meaning in life have to do with religion?

Denerick, why are you not convinced from all this and these 5,000 books on theology while Miller is?

I am a skeptic. When I was religious I was skeptical of religion, now that I am not religious I am skeptical of atheism.

For a start all art and literature would lose most of its lustre and interest if it were abstracted down to cold rationality. How dull and boring that life would be.

Turtwig

Cognitive dissonance : how many scientists actually apply the scientific method and know what logical fallacies are? Liam we are in a minority, but even so we are most likely not free of supernatural thought. Do you believe in luck? Are you in the slightest bit superstitious. The default/neutral brain mode is believing in the supernatural, we are simply the minority who switches closer to first gear.

liamw

Denerick wrote: »

I am a skeptic. When I was religious I was skeptical of religion, now that I am not religious I am skeptical of atheism.

For a start all art and literature would lose most of its lustre and interest if it were abstracted down to cold rationality. How dull and boring that life would be.

I didn't know you could be a skeptic of a lack of belief. Perhaps you mean you are still open to the possibility of some religion being true?

Nothing has to be abstracted down to cold rationality. Carl Sagan illustrates beautifully how we can be atheist and still appreciate the beauty of life, art etc.

I don't want to drag this thread off topic.

harbel

Words can be limiting. Every scientist and philosopher 'believes' there is the unknown.
Otherwise they would not be doing what they do. Some claim that it is logical not to believe without evidence. It is though logical to believe that truth exists where there is (at least yet) no evidence.
The unknown positively exists and are there logical rules to limit its description?

Zombrex

Denerick wrote: »

For a start all art and literature would lose most of its lustre and interest if it were abstracted down to cold rationality. How dull and boring that life would be.

Statements like that really annoy me. Why does rationality have to be "cold". The universe is far more beautiful and exciting when one looks at what it actual is than what some ancient farmers and sheep herders imaged it to be.

But anyway I digress, to answer the question I think it is because religion is a lot more about emotion than rationality. It is about want and desire, how we wish things were not how they are.

Very intelligent people are theists for the same reason very intelligent people cheat on their wives with hookers and expect not to get caught, or believe their husbands are not cheating with hookers despite tons of evidence, or believe their children are genius despite them failing college 6 times, or believe they are a healthy weight despite being 22 stone and eating pizza every day.

Even very intelligent people compartmentalize and believe things in a certain way if they make them feel better, or make things easier to mentally process, which is what religion does.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

Cognitive dissonance : how many scientists actually apply the scientific method and know what logical fallacies are? Liam we are in a minority, but even so we are most likely not free of supernatural thought. Do you believe in luck? Are you in the slightest bit superstitious. The default/neutral brain mode is believing in the supernatural, we are simply the minority who switches closer to first gear.

I'm assuming there are some theists though who are well aware of logical fallacies and also are top class scientists in their field. I'll admit that there are not many, but there are some and I'm trying to understand their thought process.

I'm not superstitious, I do not believe in luck. However I do have that desire you speak of to believe in things like that sometimes. I just override it by being objective and understanding the predisposition and how my mind is fallible. Surely someone like Ken would do the same thing though? That's why I feel like I'm missing something.

Nemi

liamw wrote: »

Ken Miller knows well damn that just becuase one would find something comforting or whatever, should lead no credence to the truth of a claim and therefore belief.

Just holding on that point for a moment, I think its worth dragging this out in a bit of (rather boring) detail.

We can, its true, hold that a lie can be useful. For the sake of argument, not telling someone before some crucial exam that a near relative has died.

At the same time, I'm not sure that practice of a faith is as episodic as that. Its not "If I tell myself one big lie, then I won't be afraid to die". Its more, from what we can glean, that regular practice of the faith is reported by such people as beneficial. Lets, for a moment, accept that on face value.

Now, we can contend that the best way to spend your life is deluded. In fact, some moral philosophers account for the evolutionary development of a moral sense by speculating that being a convincing liar is an evolutionary advantage, and the most convincing liars would be the ones who convince themselves, thus conjuring the human moral sense into being.

Alternatively, it would seem to me an acceptable use of Occam's Razor for someone to say 'I find my practice of this faith beneficial to me. Maybe that's because it does exactly what it says on the tin. I'm God's creation, and I'm happy because I'm worshipping my creator exactly as I intended to".

Alternatively, you could say 'I find my practice of this faith beneficial to me. That's because some evolutionary eddy conferred a reproductive advantage on people who are a bit deluded.' That's equally feasible, but requires someone to ignore the evidence of their own experience.

All in all, I'd contend its reasonable for someone to take the fact of a faith being comforting as giving some credence to its validity. Its not utterly irrelevant.

But should we not be looking at what such people say themselves?

TimeToShine

What if you're wrong?

simplistic2

People believe in fantasies because of child abuse.


The death of reason

Nemi

TimeToShine wrote: »

What if you're wrong?

Sorry, what if who is wrong about what?

axer

I think believing in deities etc by otherwise rational people is a defense mechanism. The "meaning" of life is such a hard idea to deal with that some people's brains accept deities to protect their brains from overload.

I see ideological rational people make illogical decisions the whole time. Its when one lets emotion overcome rationality that beliefs come into play.

Des Carter

Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical and after a lot of thinking and reasoning I came to the conclusion that a God does exist.

Imo God is far more complex than we are and as a result it is almost impossible to fully understand "him" in the same way a robot would not be able to "understand" humans. So I dont believe that "God" is a deity or a supernatural being living in the sky or somewhere and I believe that this view is very 2dimensional or too black and white. I however do believe God is a force or like Karma or fate or something (its really hard to explain).

I also believe that when you die you will be "rewarded" for doing good and "punished" for doing bad. Now again I dont think this is like God judges us and sends us to heaven with pearly gates or hell with fire and pitchforkes etc. In fact I dont think God judges us at all I believe we have a consciounce so that we judge ourselves. If we deep down truley believe we have lived a good honest life we will be rewarded (Im not quite sure how I would believe that it would be a sense of being at peace with yourself as opposed to feeling depressed and shameful if you have done wrong).

Now I am a Christian and I go to mass and everything and the main reason for this is because I was born one. I really dont think it matters what your beliefs are as long as you live a good life. I mean the idea that a Christian who kills and rapes people has a better chance of getting to "heaven" than a hindu who lived a good life but doesnt believe in the "correct" God is ridiculous. But i still practice my religion because I think it gives you guidelins on how to live a good life. As for if Jesus is the son of God I dont know as I would need more information about the real man as opposed to the fictional character being shown by the Church (I believe there is a possibility that he was married etc)

Im also critical of the Catholic Church as it has manipulated and even altered many parts of the bible etc to push an alternative agenda and have become corrupt from their power. I could go into more detail but in short many people have turned away from religion due to human failings as opposed to religious shortcommings.

Finally I am also critical of Atheists as I think the whole I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not and we cant just go on scientific data as it may not be advanced enough to pick up any information about God. For example many years ago everyone thought the world was flat as this was the logical thought given the scientific technology at the time however it turned out to be false proving that you can never be sure.

I hope this answers some questions and sorry for rambling I got a bit carried away.

strobe

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical and after a lot of thinking and reasoning I came to the conclusion that a God does exist.

Imo God is far more complex than we are and as a result it is almost impossible to fully understand "him" in the same way a robot would not be able to "understand" humans. So I dont believe that "God" is a deity or a supernatural being living in the sky or somewhere and I believe that this view is very 2dimensional or too black and white. I however do believe God is a force or like Karma or fate or something (its really hard to explain).

I also believe that when you die you will be "rewarded" for doing good and "punished" for doing bad. Now again I dont think this is like God judges us and sends us to heaven with pearly gates or hell with fire and pitchforkes etc. In fact I dont think God judges us at all I believe we have a consciounce so that we judge ourselves. If we deep down truley believe we have lived a good honest life we will be rewarded (Im not quite sure how I would believe that it would be a sense of being at peace with yourself as opposed to feeling depressed and shameful if you have done wrong).

Now I am a Christian and I go to mass and everything and the main reason for this is because I was born one. I really dont think it matters what your beliefs are as long as you live a good life. I mean the idea that a Christian who kills and rapes people has a better chance of getting to "heaven" than a hindu who lived a good life but doesnt believe in the "correct" God is ridiculous. But i still practice my religion because I think it gives you guidelins on how to live a good life. As for if Jesus is the son of God I dont know as I would need more information about the real man as opposed to the fictional character being shown by the Church (I believe there is a possibility that he was married etc)

Im also critical of the Catholic Church as it has manipulated and even altered many parts of the bible etc to push an alternative agenda and have become corrupt from their power. I could go into more detail but in short many people have turned away from religion due to human failings as opposed to religious shortcommings.

Finally I am also critical of Atheists as I think the whole I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not and we cant just go on scientific data as it may not be advanced enough to pick up any information about God. For example many years ago everyone thought the world was flat as this was the logical thought given the scientific technology at the time however it turned out to be false proving that you can never be sure.

I hope this answers some questions and sorry for rambling I got a bit carried away.

Ok

You don't seem to be

Whoa....deja vu













Edit: Sorry, before you ask what I mean by that. Your beliefs seem to be at odds with Christian doctrine. So why call yourself a Christian if you don't follow one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity?

Turtwig

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical and after a lot of thinking and reasoning I came to the conclusion that a God does exist.

Imo God is far more complex than we are and as a result it is almost impossible to fully understand "him" in the same way a robot would not be able to "understand" humans. So I dont believe that "God" is a deity or a supernatural being living in the sky or somewhere and I believe that this view is very 2dimensional or too black and white. I however do believe God is a force or like Karma or fate or something (its really hard to explain).

I also believe that when you die you will be "rewarded" for doing good and "punished" for doing bad. Now again I dont think this is like God judges us and sends us to heaven with pearly gates or hell with fire and pitchforkes etc. In fact I dont think God judges us at all I believe we have a consciounce so that we judge ourselves. If we deep down truley believe we have lived a good honest life we will be rewarded (Im not quite sure how I would believe that it would be a sense of being at peace with yourself as opposed to feeling depressed and shameful if you have done wrong).

Now I am a Christian and I go to mass and everything and the main reason for this is because I was born one. I really dont think it matters what your beliefs are as long as you live a good life. I mean the idea that a Christian who kills and rapes people has a better chance of getting to "heaven" than a hindu who lived a good life but doesnt believe in the "correct" God is ridiculous. But i still practice my religion because I think it gives you guidelins on how to live a good life. As for if Jesus is the son of God I dont know as I would need more information about the real man as opposed to the fictional character being shown by the Church (I believe there is a possibility that he was married etc)

Im also critical of the Catholic Church as it has manipulated and even altered many parts of the bible etc to push an alternative agenda and have become corrupt from their power. I could go into more detail but in short many people have turned away from religion due to human failings as opposed to religious shortcommings.

Finally I am also critical of Atheists as I think the whole I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not and we cant just go on scientific data as it may not be advanced enough to pick up any information about God. For example many years ago everyone thought the world was flat as this was the logical thought given the scientific technology at the time however it turned out to be false proving that you can never be sure.

I hope this answers some questions and sorry for rambling I got a bit carried away.

Ok, so in a nutshell God is something that is highly complex, and is just something that is there...a force....something. You don't have any proof for Him/It, yet you think that people who say He doesn't exist are copping out because they have no proof for Its non-existence either. So let's put this differently shall we? As a Christian you belong to a group of people of which the majority of them believe in the idea that people are born with sin*. In other words, you are saying I am guilty of a crime that will ultimately lead to me going to hell unless I repent and accept the Word of God and Jesus as my saviour. Now, you openly admit that there is no proof for God, other than it is something that exists that is so complicated we cannot explain. Imagine, if tomorrow you were put on trial for murdering someone, (Sorry I just watched "The Life of David Gale" on RTE) how would you react if the prosecution's evidence was that the evidence is so complicated we cannot prove it, but we believe it to be true and we'll know for certain when we die. Therefore, anyone in the jury who thinks s/he's innocent is being a cop out. I doubt you would react positively to such reason and assessment of evidence. I hope this illustrates the bizarreness I see your in "rational" position.

Oh, and fyi, most of the posters here don't say that God doesn't exist, they'll admit they can't know that, they'd just prefer people actually owned up to the fact that they don't know.


Theologically this is disputed, but there is a huge percentage of Christians who believe it to be true, either way it has no net bearing on my analogy.

Daftendirekt

Des Carter wrote: »

Finally I am also critical of Atheists as I think the whole I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not and we cant just go on scientific data as it may not be advanced enough to pick up any information about God. For example many years ago everyone thought the world was flat as this was the logical thought given the scientific technology at the time however it turned out to be false proving that you can never be sure.

Nobody says "God mustn't exist", it's more a case of "nobody has ever put forward any convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of a deity, so why would we believe in one?"

Also, with regard to the bolded part: don't you find the "I don't see or understand God so he must exist" argument equally as absurd?

Improbable

I'll say that I'm a scientist, doing an MSc at the moment and someone who believes in logic and rational reasoning. I will never say to anyone that god does not exist. I admit that we do not know whether such a being exists or not. The common consensus amongst the more intelligent atheists I've met is that we just don't know one way or the other. The only thing we have to judge this by is evidence and there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a god. Depending on how you interpret your particular religious text, there may be evidence against god, age of the universe and earth, evolution etc.

Most of the religious scientists you'll find simply ignore those bits of their religion which are incompatible by science. I would say most of that comes from the intelligence that they have which is restricted by childhood indoctrination.

MagicMarker

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical and after a lot of thinking and reasoning I came to the conclusion that a God does exist.

Imo God is far more complex than we are and as a result it is almost impossible to fully understand "him" in the same way a robot would not be able to "understand" humans. So I dont believe that "God" is a deity or a supernatural being living in the sky or somewhere and I believe that this view is very 2dimensional or too black and white. I however do believe God is a force or like Karma or fate or something (its really hard to explain).

I also believe that when you die you will be "rewarded" for doing good and "punished" for doing bad. Now again I dont think this is like God judges us and sends us to heaven with pearly gates or hell with fire and pitchforkes etc. In fact I dont think God judges us at all I believe we have a consciounce so that we judge ourselves. If we deep down truley believe we have lived a good honest life we will be rewarded (Im not quite sure how I would believe that it would be a sense of being at peace with yourself as opposed to feeling depressed and shameful if you have done wrong).

Now I am a Christian and I go to mass and everything and the main reason for this is because I was born one. I really dont think it matters what your beliefs are as long as you live a good life. I mean the idea that a Christian who kills and rapes people has a better chance of getting to "heaven" than a hindu who lived a good life but doesnt believe in the "correct" God is ridiculous. But i still practice my religion because I think it gives you guidelins on how to live a good life. As for if Jesus is the son of God I dont know as I would need more information about the real man as opposed to the fictional character being shown by the Church (I believe there is a possibility that he was married etc)

Im also critical of the Catholic Church as it has manipulated and even altered many parts of the bible etc to push an alternative agenda and have become corrupt from their power. I could go into more detail but in short many people have turned away from religion due to human failings as opposed to religious shortcommings.

Finally I am also critical of Atheists as I think the whole I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not and we cant just go on scientific data as it may not be advanced enough to pick up any information about God. For example many years ago everyone thought the world was flat as this was the logical thought given the scientific technology at the time however it turned out to be false proving that you can never be sure.

I hope this answers some questions and sorry for rambling I got a bit carried away.

This post is very illogical.

axer

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical and after a lot of thinking and reasoning I came to the conclusion that a God does exist....

The problem is you are treating a hypothesis/conjecture as if it were theory or even possibly fact. So you may be generally a logical/rational person but you are not when it comes to this topic.

They even claim that their theism is deduced completely rationally.

I think 'compartmentalising' sums it up

It's funny how any of us can think we are logical and rational but still have skewed thinking. I mean in general not just for religion. It's scary to think that you can come up with mad conclusions even when you think you're being logical.

AudreyHepburn

Fishie wrote: »

I have wondered the same thing, but it is difficult to ask people this because if they take it the wrong way they could think that you're implying that they're stupid

But isn't that sort of what's being implyed?

Not trying to get at you, I just can't see how else asking that kind of question could be taken except to suggest that you can't be intelligent and religous at the same time.

I'm sure the Jewish Albert Eintstein would disagree with that

Dades

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh, and fyi, most of the posters here don't say that God doesn't exist, they'll admit they can't know that, they'd just prefer people actually owned up to the fact that they don't know.

This - for a start!

Des Carter wrote: »

Finally I am also critical of Atheists as I think the whole I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not and we cant just go on scientific data as it may not be advanced enough to pick up any information about God.

I don't understand why you would be critical about atheists for not believing in something that has no evidence for it's existence. You do the same with every other religion except the one you were born into without any qualms whatsoever. And you don't even believe the parts of that religion that make it a religion anyway.

You sound like someone who needs a religion, but can't reconcile the faulty logic of your inherited one, so have decided to ignore the uncomfortable bits and tell yourself you can still be a part of it.

If I'm honest, I don't see how you can stand up and say you used critical thinking or reasoning to get yourself into that position.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical and after a lot of thinking and reasoning I came to the conclusion that a God does exist.
...
I however do believe God is a force or like Karma or fate or something (its really hard to explain).

Your post is some what redundant without the logic or rationality behind your belief in "God" (I quote that because your description of what you believe in seems quite removed from Christianity).

Without that we have no way to assess if your belief is based on sound logical reasoning or if you are an example of a very rational and logical person who still holds strongly illogical and rational beliefs.

Des Carter wrote: »

Finally I am also critical of Atheists as I think the whole I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not and we cant just go on scientific data as it may not be advanced enough to pick up any information about God.

We don't know for absolute certain what happens when we die (just as we don't know anything for absolute certainty) but we have a very good idea what happens when you die, your body ceases to function and your components are digested by bacteria.

The problem with that of course is a lot of people don't like that idea. But that is not a reason to say we don't know.

Des Carter wrote: »

For example many years ago everyone thought the world was flat as this was the logical thought given the scientific technology at the time however it turned out to be false proving that you can never be sure.

It was never logically thought that the world was flat. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round, it only took simple experiments to establish this.

It was "common sense" that the world was flat (backed up by religious doctrine) since the vast majority of people never thought about it that must and just assumed it was.

This highlights the dangers of assuming common sense (ie the ability of humans to personally assess the state of something based on held intuition) is valid without external confirmation.

PhiloCypher

liamw wrote: »

For the past couple of years I've looked at religion and it's truth claims, how and why man concieved of religion and the human predisposition to the supernatural. Any evidences for any specific religion that I've seen have been weak. Most semi-decent arguments tend towards deism but still seem weak.

I guess my primary goal was to figure out why we had religion, but more specifically why some intelligent people still believed in it. This was a question that, up to now, I just reconciled as brain compartmentalization or lack of applying the same critical thinking to that area.

However, I still think I'm missing something. I'm finding it hard to concieve how someone like Ken Miller can be a Bible believing Christian. People like Ken, and perhaps Francis Collins, really appear to apply rational thought and critical thinking. They even claim that their theism is deduced completely rationally.

I don't think they are intentionally lying about this. Why exactly do you think these people still believe that the bible is the word of god? Are there really some arguments I'm missing? Do they tend to put more weight on 'personal experience' that others? Surely these people understand the fallibility of the human brain.

Here is an example of one of Ken's speeches which got me thinking about this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

I don't get it if he believes in evolution and has no time for intelligent design what role did the god he claims to believe in have in the origins of the universe ?

Des Carter

strobe wrote: »

Ok

You don't seem to be

Whoa....deja vu

Edit: Sorry, before you ask what I mean by that. Your beliefs seem to be at odds with Christian doctrine. So why call yourself a Christian if you don't follow one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity?

I call myself a Christian because I go to mass and go to funerals and weddings etc I am a practicing Christian. Also all my familly and neighbours are also so its not worth the trouble to tell them Im not a Christian any more and I havent converted to any other religion.

Also I believe in Jesus' teachings and what he taught (love your neighbour as yourself, sermon on the mount the turn the other cheek etc.) As for his teachings about God I believe that he was just making it easier for Jews to understand like a parable.

Turtwig

Des Carter wrote: »

I call myself a Christian because I go to mass and go to funerals and weddings etc I am a practicing Christian. Also all my familly and neighbours are also so its not worth the trouble to tell them Im not a Christian any more and I havent converted to any other religion.

Also I believe in Jesus' teachings and what he taught (love your neighbour as yourself, sermon on the mount the turn the other cheek etc.) As for his teachings about God I believe that he was just making it easier for Jews to understand like a parable.

Ok here's a simple contrast for you : Me.

I go to mass, funerals, weddings etc. I am not a practicing Christian, but in the eyes of many Christians in Ireland you could argue I'm actually more devoted than them as I normally attend a religious service every week. I also think that many of Jesus's teaching were good, but I also realise that many of His teachings weren't actually His. Many teachings emerged well before Jesus appeared the classic example is the Golden Rule. Which you merely restated above - Do not do to others what you wouldn't like done to you. It has many forms, the way Jesus expressed was just one way out of several different philosophies. I take the good bits of out philosophy and some religions but I don't go using does good bits as arguments for the existence of a deity. You and I could possibly be classed cultural Christians, but members of faith? Certainly not.

Oh and I don't just attend Christian services.:cool:

Des Carter

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, so in a nutshell God is something that is highly complex, and is just something that is there...a force....something.

Yes IF God does exist then he would be far more complex than a giant man with a beard living in the clouds.

Malty_T wrote: »

You don't have any proof for Him/It, yet you think that people who say He doesn't exist are copping out because they have no proof for Its non-existence either.

I think its a cop out for many Atheist because they only view God in a very basic sense ie. a big man in the sky and just take the easy option of saying oh I cant prove it so therefore he mustnt exist (which as any rational person would know is not true) However if you have really thought about all the possibilities and have done lots of research etc and have then drawn your conclusion then fair enough. And as you said yourself most people would admit that they dont know/would not rule out the possibility of a god and so they are not copping out

Malty_T wrote: »

So let's put this differently shall we? As a Christian you belong to a group of people of which the majority of them believe in the idea that people are born with sin*. In other words, you are saying I am guilty of a crime that will ultimately lead to me going to hell unless I repent and accept the Word of God and Jesus as my saviour.

I havent really thought about this in depth but at the moment I dont believe this as I believe this is something the Church as an institution has pushed and not Jesus (I could be wrong on this but as far as I know that idea came from the Old testament with Adam and Eve - something I dont believe.)

Malty_T wrote: »

Now, you openly admit that there is no proof for God, other than it is something that exists that is so complicated we cannot explain. Imagine, if tomorrow you were put on trial for murdering someone, (Sorry I just watched "The Life of David Gale" on RTE) how would you react if the prosecution's evidence was that the evidence is so complicated we cannot prove it, but we believe it to be true and we'll know for certain when we die.

This happens all the time for example the O.J Simpson case they had insufficient evidence and so couldnt prosecute him

Malty_T wrote: »

Therefore, anyone in the jury who thinks s/he's innocent is being a cop out. I doubt you would react positively to such reason and assessment of evidence. I hope this illustrates the bizarreness I see your in "rational" position.

No if you came to this conclusion by examining all the evidence in depth and then came to this conclusion then its not however anyone who believes that O.J.Simpson is innocent should be open to the possibility that he is guilty and vice versa.

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh, and fyi, most of the posters here don't say that God doesn't exist, they'll admit they can't know that, they'd just prefer people actually owned up to the fact that they don't know.

I completely agree and I totally admit that I dont know if God exists or not Just hate when people follow a belief system blindly without questioning it

Turtwig

Des Carter wrote: »

This happens all the time for example the O.J Simpson case they had insufficient evidence and so couldnt prosecute him

Em, the point was that if the courts used the logic you used to assess whether God exists or not, then OJ would have been deemed guilty. No evidence, but many believed people him to be guilty, so if you using the God logic, OJ would be found guilty.

Read my post again.

Des Carter

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Nobody says "God mustn't exist", it's more a case of "nobody has ever put forward any convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of a deity, so why would we believe in one?"

Actually manny people have its just that a lot of them were later disproven by science. There are so many books written on this topic that it would be impossible to read them all but im sure there are good arguments there somewhere. For example Jesus rising from the dead is pretty convincing and countless miracles. however the vast majority of these can be disputed so I believe that people should be open to the possibility of a God.

Similarly There is no convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of aliens or ghosts and so I would be skeptical but at the same time I would not rule out the possibility of them existing.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Also, with regard to the bolded part: don't you find the "I don't see or understand God so he must exist" argument equally as absurd?

Yes.

Dades

Des Carter wrote: »

I think its a cop out for many Atheist because they only view God in a very basic sense ie. a big man in the sky and just take the easy option of saying oh I cant prove it so therefore he mustnt exist (which as any rational person would know is not true)

An atheist is an atheist because no theist has offered proof (or even valid evidence) of a god. It doesn't make sense that one has to prove the non-existence of something (an impossibility) to believe it's made up. We all lack belief in many things that we haven't disproved.

You sound more like a Deist than a Christian, tbh.

Des Carter

axer wrote: »

The problem is you are treating a hypothesis/conjecture as if it were theory or even possibly fact. So you may be generally a logical/rational person but you are not when it comes to this topic.

im treating a what as a what now instead of a what?

sorry but im kinda lost but Id love to try and answer you if you refrase it.

Des Carter

Dades wrote: »

I don't understand why you would be critical about atheists for not believing in something that has no evidence for it's existence.

i just dont like people who just automatically rule things out because there is no proof - just because something cant be proven (yet) doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You also say there is no proof but did you read every book, hear every idea and look through every piece of evidence im guessing no so therefore you dont know if there is proof or not.

Dades wrote: »

You do the same with every other religion

I do the same? The same as what?

Dades wrote: »

except the one you were born into without any qualms whatsoever. And you don't even believe the parts of that religion that make it a religion anyway.

Ok your contradicting yourself there you are saying that I dont question/amnt critical of Christianity yet I dont believe in parts of it. I dont believe in parts of it because I WAS critical of it and have come to the conclusion that many parts of it are flawed and are a load of rubbish.

Dades wrote: »

You sound like someone who needs a religion, but can't reconcile the faulty logic of your inherited one, so have decided to ignore the uncomfortable bits and tell yourself you can still be a part of it.

very possible as I will admit that the idea of dieing and then just being gone forever is a very depressing one. However I did not ignore parts because they were uncomfortable, I ignored them because they made no logical sense.

Dades wrote: »

If I'm honest, I don't see how you can stand up and say you used critical thinking or reasoning to get yourself into that position.

You are entitled to your opinion

MagicMarker

Des, do you also believe in the toothfairy, witches, leprachauns, zeus, cupid etc etc?

Serious question btw..

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

Your post is some what redundant without the logic or rationality behind your belief in "God".

ok first off great point and one that I often think about myself but I started with the fact that we dont know if a god exists so from there I decided to explore what "God" would be like if he did exist. So we have no way of knowing if God exists so we either just live and then die or there is a god and so by believing in a God you are more likely to live a morally sound and good life.

Yes this is a cop out but I have more logic etc its just very complicated and Im still thinking about it so this is the best way for me to describe it at the moment.

Wicknight wrote: »

This highlights the dangers of assuming common sense (ie the ability of humans to personally assess the state of something based on held intuition) is valid without external confirmation.

Isnt the idea that once you die your gone for good not common sense?

axer

axer wrote: »

The problem is you are treating a hypothesis/conjecture as if it were theory or even possibly fact. So you may be generally a logical/rational person but you are not when it comes to this topic.

Des Carter wrote: »

sorry but im kinda lost but Id love to try and answer you if you refrase it.

The idea of there being a god is merely a hypothesis or conjecture since there is no proof to back it up. It is just an idea. One that I and most atheists dont rule out.

Do you think it is rational to threat a hypothesis as if it were fact or even a theory?

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

ok first off great point and one that I often think about myself but I started with the fact that we dont know if a god exists so from there I decided to explore what "God" would be like if he did exist. So we have no way of knowing if God exists so we either just live and then die or there is a god and so by believing in a God you are more likely to live a morally sound and good life.

You are going to have to explain that to me again. Are you saying that the reason you believe in God (or a notion of a god) is that people who do believe in a deity lead better moral lives?

Leaving aside that I don't think that is true, if we assume it is that still doesn't seem to be a rational reason to propose the existence of a deity.

Particularly in light of all the research into the evolutionary reasons for religious behavior and belief. It seems that religion is the by product of evolved instincts towards social behavior which includes morality.

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes this is a cop out but I have more logic etc its just very complicated and Im still thinking about it so this is the best way for me to describe it at the moment.

Fair enough, take your time. I don't mean to attack you. You are though holding yourself up as an example of a rational logical person who believes in god(s) for rational logical reasons, so I guess it is only fair to warn you that your reasons will be heavily scrutinized on this forum. Some people don't like that or confuse it with a personal attack. At least from me it doesn't mean to be. On this forum we critically analyze things to death, and sometimes cherished ideas get ripped to pieces.

Des Carter wrote: »

Isnt the idea that once you die your gone for good not common sense?

Not according to humans.

From an early age humans develop a mental ability to view a persons "mind" as separate from their body. A lot of research has gone into this, particularly with children

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

Couple this with a natural instinct to fear death humans have developed a natural tendency to view people as still existing after death. This happens even without the framework of a religion to explain it, so it is easy to see how such ideas would be incorporated into religion.

Even the phrase "gone for good" implies existence some where else, just not hear. We very rarely tend to use definitive terms not no longer exists as we have serious mental trouble processing such concepts. It is far easier to imagine a person as simply not being here than to imagine them no longer existing.

Des Carter

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok here's a simple contrast for you : Me.

I go to mass, funerals, weddings etc. I am not a practicing Christian, but in the eyes of many Christians in Ireland you could argue I'm actually more devoted than them as I normally attend a religious service every week. I also think that many of Jesus's teaching were good, but I also realise that many of His teachings weren't actually His. Many teachings emerged well before Jesus appeared the classic example is the Golden Rule. Which you merely restated above - Do not do to others what you wouldn't like done to you. It has many forms, the way Jesus expressed was just one way out of several different philosophies. I take the good bits of out philosophy and some religions but I don't go using does good bits as arguments for the existence of a deity. You and I could possibly be classed cultural Christians, but members of faith? Certainly not.

Oh and I don't just attend Christian services.:cool:

I am well aware that many of Jesus' teachings were borrowed, including the golden rule but the simple fact is that Im just not bothered looking through all the different religions/philosophies and picking out the parts that suit me as jesus' teachings cover most of these in some form. I also dont think this proves the existence of a deity i was just explaining why I was a christian even though many of my beliefs are contrary to it.

here is a question for you Malty, if you dont believe in a God or afterlife then why pick the good out of certain philosophies/religions and do "good" when you end up going to the same place as someone who does "bad"?

I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.

Des Carter

Malty_T wrote: »

Em, the point was that if the courts used the logic you used to assess whether God exists or not, then OJ would have been deemed guilty. No evidence, but many believed people him to be guilty, so if you using the God logic, OJ would be found guilty.

Read my post again.

No its deemed that its impossible to know - something I admit but I believe (not know) that there is a god just like I believe (not know) that O.J is guilty.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

I am well aware that many of Jesus' teachings were borrowed, including the golden rule but the simple fact is that Im just not bothered looking through all the different religions/philosophies and picking out the parts that suit me as jesus' teachings cover most of these in some form. I also dont think this proves the existence of a deity i was just explaining why I was a christian even though many of my beliefs are contrary to it.

This issue I think most Christians would take with this is that you are ignoring some of Jesus' teachings. So why accept some and not others. Why would some bits of it be profound and from the mouth of God, but not others?

Des Carter wrote: »

here is a question for you Malty, if you dont believe in a God or afterlife then why pick the good out of certain philosophies/religions and do "good" when you end up going to the same place as someone who does "bad"?

I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.

Most people "do good" because they have strong emotional instincts that reward socially benefitial behavior and discourage socially determental behavior through emotional systems such as pride, guilt, empathy.

If I cheat on my girlfiend I feel guilty. If I steal from my mother I feel guilty. If I hand in a 50 euro note I feel pride. These are evolved emotions that regulate social interaction.

They can of course not function the same in everyone which is why you get people on different scales of morality. Various genetic and environmental factors can greatly alter how they work. While being social creatures we also have concepts of aggression and protective behavior that lessing these instincts. We treat our family or close social group (tribe) different to how we view outsiders. Where this line is drawn is different for different people.

Morality and emotions systems are complex and variable, but in my opinion the only context they make any sense in is in an naturalistic/evolutionary context. Introduce God and you end up with a whole host of contradictory and convoluted reasoning.

robindch

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical [...] I came to the conclusion that a God does exist [...] I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not.

It's really very illogical to think that just because you can't prove that god doesn't exist, that it's ok to think that he does.

What about all the gods that aren't catholic? Do they exist too just because you can't show that they don't?

Ickle Magoo

Des Carter wrote: »

I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.

You really think that you require religion and the threaT of hell to be good? How do you explain atheists that volunteer and have a clean rap sheet?

ColmDawson

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You really think that you require religion and the thread of hell to be good? How do you explain atheists that volunteer and have a clean rap sheet?

Anything but the thread of hell! Have mercy, I beg you!

Turtwig

Des Carter wrote: »

I am well aware that many of Jesus' teachings were borrowed, including the golden rule but the simple fact is that Im just not bothered looking through all the different religions/philosophies and picking out the parts that suit me as jesus' teachings cover most of these in some form. I also dont think this proves the existence of a deity i was just explaining why I was a christian even though many of my beliefs are contrary to it.

here is a question for you Malty, if you dont believe in a God or afterlife then why pick the good out of certain philosophies/religions and do "good" when you end up going to the same place as someone who does "bad"?

I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.

Well Nozzferratho, sorry I can't spell has a much better prose for explaining this so I hope he doesn't mind if I just plagiarise it.

I find human morality very simple to explain. It is not some divine attribute existing outside ourselves. It is merely the extension of our desires for ourselves or as philosophers have often put it “Enlightened self interest”....I love my family. I do not want them to be killed. Therefore I want to live in a society where people are not killed. Simple.

I care for children and the children of my siblings. Therefore I want them to be not molested or harmed. Therefore I want a society where Children are not raped and harmed. Simple....

I love the older members of my family. I hope that when they choose to use public transport that they will be presented with a seat to ease their pain and trouble. Therefore I want to live in a society where such actions are performed. Hence I perform it myself when I have the chance. I, with my own hands and my own actions, help lay the blocks of such a society.

In fact, although in a sense the premise of this moral system could be described as being selfish to its core, I struggle to find any moral the religious amongst us claim, that I cannot also form in this fashion. Since we, as humans, share a lot of our selfish desires, we have many areas where overlap occurs. Consensus is reached often on many subjects. The majority of us respect old people as above, want to protect children as above and are against violence as above. Not all people are, but most.

This almost universal consensus is what apologists such as D’Souza use in an attempt to elevate morality beyond its means. People who perform to this consensus are labelled “good”. People who do not are labelled “evil”. These labels are subjective human categorizations and no more. Where such morals have their parallel in the morals espoused in the bible “good” and “evil” are relabelled “good” and “sin” as if there were some distinction.

Good, evil and sin are not entities in and of themselves requiring explanation. They are not an indication of a divine moral standard. They are, above all, not evidence for the existence of a god figure.

We miss ya nozzy, where ever you are.