Religion, relevant and rational?

[BEAKER]

When some of the facts are not known, some of the facts are not known. No reason to attribute the gaps in knowledge to an entity that exists outside of nature.

 

I picture a elderly, respected scientist discussing some topic on a stage before a large "rational" crowd of other lofty men and women with fancy sounding degrees hanging on their office walls, and the letters PHD after their names; when they come to a point in the lecture where they must say, "When some of the facts are not known, some of the facts are not known." And everyone nods in agreement and accepts the fact that they simply don't have all the answers.

 

Sounds a lot like a church service to me.

 

No matter how you slice it, it's faith plain and simple.

 

"A rose by any other name, is still a rose.":rose:

[infamous]

In science there is no such thing as supernatural. When some of the facts are not known, some of the facts are not known. No reason to attribute the gaps in knowledge to an entity that exists outside of nature.

 

How would you define nature Linda? If God exists, why would he have to exist outside of nature? Websters defines nature as; "the entire physical universe". Why would God have to exist outside of the entire physical universe?

[Stargazer]

In science there is no such thing as supernatural. When some of the facts are not known, some of the facts are not known. No reason to attribute the gaps in knowledge to an entity that exists outside of nature.

This is obvious. You could fill the gaps with anything, and so people fill it with what they would like to be there. Why not just be honest instead and say "we don't know this" instead of saying "god exists because there's evidence" and then not present any such evidence. They can't even present a definition of a god. I am starting to believe it's a tremendous waste of time to discuss anything with theists.

[Stargazer]

I am happy to give this a shot, SG. But this is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

Make a claim about nature, and either it is testable or it is not. If it is, then it should be tested, otherwise it's not scientific to begin with.

 

1) I don't use the term "supernatural". I think that if God exists, he is part of nature (by definition) and He could not be "above" Himself.

No, it's true that she's not supernatural. Nothing is.

 

2) There are events and states of nature that are not testable, or are weakly testable. That is, the scientific method has boundaries that (logically) do not include all of nature or all of history. Some things are not now known and will probably never be known. This basket of unknowable, untestable information may drive some to posit answers to questions that are beyond the scientific method. Some are merely human interest (e.g., Was George Washington really a highly moral man?) Others are of perceived great import (e.g., Why are we here?) The latter set is the category of answers that includes theism.

If you can't find answers, or good estimates based on what observations one have, why should one then go ahead and simply make stuff up?

 

It is not true that there is no evidence for God. I think it is true that the evidence is weakly testable, and generally difficult to falsify.

Which god? There are many.

 

A) Does God exist, and

;) If He does, is He personal? By "personal", we are asking the question whether He has intimate knowledge of individuals, and cares about their individual decisions. This is contrasted with a God that plays only a background role in supporting nature.

 

To avoid writing a tome here, we can divide the arguments in support of part A) into two core pieces: A1) Something was the first cause for generation of the universe, and theists believe it was God.

How would we be sure of this? And why call it god? Is it so that the theists can pick up their favourite fantasy tale and say "see, I told you god exists... this god, that is."

 

A2) Something makes humans unique (including things like self awareness and free will) and theists believe that was God as well. Do keep in mind that there is real evidence for both A1 and A2. It is just weakly testable, and difficult to falsify.

Chimpanzees are unique, and surely have some level of self awareness.

Mars is unique.

Every snowflake, I am told, is unique.

 

Oh, and what exactly is free will, and how is it that we have it yet our closest cousins the Chimpanzees don't?

 

And how would this prove god in any way? It's just a bunch of claims that certainly in no way leads to the conclusion "there is a god, especially my favourite god."

 

 

Point B above extends the issues in point A2 above. One of the unique attributes of humans is their self awareness, and this breeds other issues. It includes the propensity to investigate, including (for example) your desire to ask a question that you even acknowledged might be a little silly. This propensity to investigate drives many humans to attempt to identify their purpose in life. Many folks come to the conslusion that their purpose in life is greater than survival, procreation and economic viability. The drive to establish purpose seems to be broadly held within mankind. Those folks that believe we have a purpose often come to the conclusion that we have a personal God.

This purpose is surely a choice, and not a discovery.

Also, the conclusion that all this points towards an undefined god simply does not follow.

 

 

Most of the world falls into this latter camp, so apparently the search for purpose is broadly distributed. The personal God includes all of the religions that came from Abraham (e.g., Judaism, Islam and Christianity). I am not aware of any other "personal" God religions, although there may well be some. Oddly these three major religions share some source holy documents, although there are certainly differences. Many have said that this commonality in source it itself evidence of the personal nature of God.

How would this be evidence that there is a personal god? It doesn't follow.

 

If this is the best you can do, that is, present non-evidence as evidence and draw conclusions that doesn't follow, then what am I doing "discussing" this with you? Come back when you have actual evidence. Or did they strike out the part in the FAQ that demands one to present evidence or proof when one is making extraordinary claims?

[paultrr]

In science there is no such thing as supernatural. When some of the facts are not known, some of the facts are not known. No reason to attribute the gaps in knowledge to an entity that exists outside of nature.

 

That's true and I agree fully with that. But also, by the same logic one cannot claim that everything is fully deterministic if some of the facts are not known as you just put it so aptly. One can however make the claim that what we do know seems to favor a deterministic system. Going beyond the facts to make any claim is its own version of a leap of faith or appling such as the substance of things unseen(unknown).

[paultrr]

"Most of the world falls into this latter camp, so apparently the search for purpose is broadly distributed. The personal God includes all of the religions that came from Abraham (e.g., Judaism, Islam and Christianity). I am not aware of any other "personal" God religions, although there may well be some. Oddly these three major religions share some source holy documents, although there are certainly differences. Many have said that this commonality in source it itself evidence of the personal nature of God."

 

The above is not fully correct either. Judaism, Islam,Christianity are not some one major whole even within themselves. There are offshoots and sects within each of these like say the more Liberal camps out of christianity that reject aspects of the personal nature of God themselves. Judaism during the time of Christ if one can trust the Bible had its own division with one group even denying the resurrection in the beyond or hereafter. Some of the common Jews, of which the Apostle's came from also had overtones of a belief in reincarnation(ie was it his sin or his father's sin that caused him to be born blind?).

 

Most every world religion tends to see God as personal in one way or another. For instance, modern neo-paganism, while seeing no one God, except nature itself, has a tendency to see us human's as extensions of God and attributes personality to the ultimate source itself. It's not as whole across the board as you presuppose. Another good example is that while modern Satanists like Ley Vey's group tend to reject any real personal god outside of ourselves, there are Satanists fringe groups that see Satan as both personal and alive(Church of Seth). And yes, Satanism is a religion that is also recognized by the US Military while spiritualists are not generally recognized. I always found that part interesting in those forms that mention religious preference given that the majority representation of them tends to reject a personal being beyond ourselves. That at least applied back in the 70's and 80's. What they currently recognize I do not know.

[paultrr]

And yes, faith is blind. Faith is when you believe something yet have no evidence or reason for it. That is faith, whether you like it or not.

 

I think that's true myself. The verse, "Thinking themselves wise..." comes to mind when it comes to a lot of the more recent versions of faith some christians are after today. I'm also reminded of a passage in Romans 12 concerning the renewal of the mind where its God's word and his spirit that are to alter the mind, not some set of logic rationalism admixtured with beliefs. If their God is so true and supposed to be self evident then there is no reason to prove anything since its the spirit of God that is supposed to do the work in the hearts of men. The only thing required of God's servant by my reading of the Bible besides study to show themselves approaved unto God is to preach his word. I don't believe that was to preach his word and try and prove everything out.

 

I'd also add that the majority opinion of people of faith has never been any sort of evidence to begin with. Yes, its true that taken as a whole the population of this planet tends towards one where the majority has some form of belief system. One could ask if this is simply the attempt of humans to answer the age old question of why am I here? Which I believe is one thing Science is after also. But our means of deriving that answer is different. We rely upon logic and rationalism. Faith involves something else and trying to mix the two together simply does not work.

[paultrr]

Is Religion relevant? That really depends upon one's point of view to begin with. Since religion, or at least true relion, is supposed to be personal for them it should be relevant at least when it comes to their own daily lives. From a pure humanistic perspective the fact that we live in a religious minded world translates to world affairs having some impact from the religious elements of this planet. That in my book makes religion relevant as far as society and getting along with other people goes. But its not actually relevant from a scientific perspective or at least should not be so if one is true to scientific principles irrespective of weither one believes or not. Science is designed as a tool to understand nature itself. Not to prove or disprove out the God equation, so to speak.

 

Is Religion Rational? Boil it all down and since Faith is supposed to be the substance of things unseen then I'd say that passage answers that question in itself. That by the way does not translate to faith being wrong either. There simply is no way to justify faith on rational grounds alone. Faith is supposed to involve absolute trust even where there is no logical explination to support such. I doub't that Abraham, when told to go sacrifice his son, really saw anything logical in that outside of the fact that God had promised to build a nation out of that same offspring. He trusted God blindly at that point on his word and on his personal experience with God according to that story. Personal experience is not always logical, at least to the individual trying to fathom such. I'm reminded of a scientists reply to Spock on the Startrek movie about "whoever said the human race is logical?"

 

So in general religion is not actually supposed to be rational to anyone except the person involved and even there rational thought can and does go out the door, so to speak. ;)

[Biochemist]

Make a claim about nature, and either it is testable or it is not. If it is, then it should be tested, otherwise it's not scientific to begin with.

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is fundamentally untrue. Many claims about nature cannot be tested. It is certainly possible to limit scientific discussion to claims that are testable, but it is another thing altogether to suggest that nature is limited to testable items.

If you can't find answers, or good estimates based on what observations one have, why should one then go ahead and simply make stuff up?

Well, urgency for one. People only live so long, and some people want to find answers to questions of import during their lifetimes.

This purpose is surely a choice, and not a discovery.

And this statement is a postulate, not a fact. You are welcome to posit that no one else has found God, or that He doesn't exist. But that is certainly a postulate, not an observation.

Or did they strike out the part in the FAQ that demands one to present evidence or proof when one is making extraordinary claims?

You may recall that I was answering YOUR question, and I outlined in my first sentence that the discussion is philosophical, not scientific. It is perfectly reasonable for this forum to restrict discussion (generally) to topics that can be supported or voided by the scientific method. But we ARE in a philosophy thread. Further, it would be foolish to presume that nature is limited to observations provable by the scientific method method. It is also at odds with the scientific method to presume that lack of evidence equals lack of existence.

[BEAKER]

This is obvious. ... "god exists because there's evidence" and then not present any such evidence. They can't even present a definition of a god. I am starting to believe it's a tremendous waste of time to discuss anything with theists.

"Since the creation of the world, His (not her) invisible attributes, are clearly seen by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they (all of us) are without excuse". -Romans. the Bible.

 

The evidence is all around you; plain as the nose on your face. The reality is, you just don't want to believe; but rest assured, you will be held accountable for what you did know.

 

Can I prove it? Of course not. Does that make it untrue? Of course not.

 

The original temptation given to Eve was..."You will be like God, knowing good and evil". -But that was a lie. You'll never know enough to be like God.

 

I know that's just not good enough for some people.

 

Too bad. so sad.

[paultrr]

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is fundamentally untrue. Many claims about nature cannot be tested.

 

 

Name one that cannot be eventually answer via nature and logic.

 

It is certainly possible to limit scientific discussion to claims that are testable, but it is another thing altogether to suggest that nature is limited ot testable items. Well, urgency for one. People only live so long, and some people want to find answers to questions of import during their lifetimes.

 

 

That may be true. But they also want to find correct answers, not those based upon guess work.

 

And this statement is a postulate, not a fact. You are welcome to posit that no one else has found God, or that He doesn't exist. But that is certainly a postulate, not an observation.

 

 

Its rather an observation since at the present time outside of faith one really has no hard evidence to go on. Not even the hard evidence we can produce via scientific means. Perhaps some do not like those answers and perfer the faith path. But, the facts are the facts.

[BEAKER]

And this statement is a postulate, not a fact. You are welcome to posit that no one else has found God, or that He doesn't exist. But that is certainly a postulate, not an observation.

 

If you want to get your quote in the quote bubble, get rid of the slash on the first quote.

And this statement is a postulate, not a fact. You are welcome to posit that no one else has found God, or that He doesn't exist. But that is certainly a postulate, not an observation.

;) - Just an observation.

[lindagarrette]

 

The evidence is all around you; plain as the nose on your face. The reality is, you just don't want to believe;

 

Too bad. so sad.

The universe is evidence of nature, a physical reality we are just beginning to understand. It's possible we may never learn it all but nothing, not even religious beliefs will stop us from trying. I don't believe anything supernatural exists and can't imagine why I should. Everything to do with the supernatural conflicts with scientific knowledge. Belief does not require evidence, it just requires the desire to believe or the fear of something unpleasant that might happen without the belief. Reason doesn't leave room for that sort of fantasy.

[Fishteacher73]

What some claim to be supernatural may in fact exist, but it is just an aspect of nature that we have yet to understand. It would have seemed very supernatural to watch someone leave in front of you and have them come up and tap you on the shouldter from behind if you did not understand that the world was round. This same correlation could be drawn to some of the claimed "supernatural" events. (Many of which can already be readly descibed as natural phenomenon).

[Biochemist]

...Everything to do with the supernatural conflicts with scientific knowledge....

If by "supernatural" you mean elements of nature that cannot be confirmed by the scientific method, this is categorically untrue. On the contrary, it is quite unreasonable to assert that if something cannot be proven, it is untrue, or even not a part of nature. It would have to be proven untrue to be refuted.

[rds1331]

One of the aspects of 'Nature' that I cannot seem to understand is the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory while not accepting the First law of Thermodynamics.

 

How does matter expand when it cannot be created? Science it seems is contradictory, or are these theories of different aspects of science?

 

Does the existance of matter when science says it cannot be created provide any concrete evidence that someone or something exists and that this presence of matter should suggest a belief in a supernatural being or beings?

[paultrr]

One of the aspects of 'Nature' that I cannot seem to understand is the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory while not accepting the First law of Thermodynamics.

 

How does matter expand when it cannot be created? Science it seems is contradictory, or are these theories of different aspects of science?

 

Does the existance of matter when science says it cannot be created provide any concrete evidence that someone or something exists and that this presence of matter should suggest a belief in a supernatural being or beings?

 

The BB theory does not actually prepose that energy comes from nothing, in the strict sence of the word. The nothing spoken of is the vacuum itself and its vacuum energy that matter came from. So in general with the BB there is no violations of the first law at all. All energy did was change form, not appear out of nothing at all. The reason sometimes people get confused on this is twofold: At times it is not presented very clearly. Also, the singularity point with the standard BB sometimes comes across as energy coming from nothing. But consider this, every blackhole out there has a singularity in it. If there was no energy present in that singularity then there would be no real blackhole.