I had occasion for a chat with the Priest last Sunday. I enjoy these chats, but I think he’s having trouble accepting my new-found lack of faith.
“It’s very simple,” I said. “I used to think feelings and experiences were good evidence for my beliefs, and now I realise that those things are not sufficient to establish the truth of an idea.”
He stopped and considered for a moment. He seemed like a doctor trying to ask the right question to find the source of the disease.
“Are you reading the scriptures?” he asked.
“No,” I said. “Although I will sometimes cite one on a blog post. And I’m just as familiar with their contents as ever, But reading them by course, no.”
“Do you pray?”
“Nope.”
He then asked, “How are you supposed to get an answer if you won’t do what you need to build your faith?”
Keep in mind that in the Mormon view, great emphasis is placed on the need to pray and receive a personal witness of the truthfulness of God’s existence and other religious principles. But notice what’s implicit in the Priest’s view. The idea is that faith has to be nurtured in order for it to grow. It’s not enough to just read the ‘theory’ (if I can use that term to mean ‘a belief system’). You have to keep working it. Like a leaky balloon, you have to keep pumping it up. Keep reading, keep praying, keep thinking right, keep living by the rules, so that the theory will seem ‘truer’. If you don’t do this, the theory may seem less believable, and you may not believe it anymore and abandon it entirely.
By contrast, consider a principle that is as true as anything can be in science. Let’s say gravitation. We can do thousands of experiments with gravity. We have theories about what gravity is and how it works. The theories can be tested against observable facts. And so by now the theory is pretty solid, though it may get modified if we need. As a result, nobody gets very excited about it. No one says you need to keep reading about gravity or studying about it or talking to scientists in order to keep believing in it. There are no meetings at the Church of Gravity. Instead, you find it to be a more or less fitting account of what happens (or you don’t, in which you get to work on a better theory).
There are goods and bads with the scientific method. The bad side is that the prevailing theory could be changed if more facts come to light, so what you think now could be wrong. The good side is that you have reasons for your ideas that you can show people and have them verify. You can go to the wall for an idea, and say, “Given what we know, this is the best theory available.” Faith needs continual propping up because there’s nothing behind it. Without support, it falls over easily, and you have to imagine that it’s standing up by itself. And this kind of self-deception is difficult for a halfway aware person to keep up without feeling a good deal of cognitive dissonance.
“I don’t think you understand,” I said. “If I read the scriptures and prayed, and then had a big religious experience, it would prove nothing. It would show that I had a feeling. People have all kinds of feelings, like what kind of ice cream to have, or to drown their children one by one in the bathtub. But that doesn’t mean they’re good ideas. If a phenomenon is valid, it’ll be backed up by facts. Not feelings.”
Now what if I had said yes to both the Priest’s questions about reading and praying? What would he have said then? Well, he could have asked more. Are you attending your meetings? Sure. Living the Word of Wisdom? Yes. Being honest with people? I think so.
Paying tithing? No. Well, then there’s your problem right there!
I’m not saying these are bad things to do (except tithing — I hope no religion ever gets any of my money ever again). But in my particular strain of Christianity there were so many things to do that you could never really do them all, and any missing pieces could be cited to show that one’s faith needs to be worked on. This is convenient for the Priest because in this view, lack of results never means the belief system has failed. The adherent just needs to work harder at it. Such is the leaky balloon of faith.
14 August 2006 at 2:35 pm
And the vicious circle continues. I always found it strang that my father, who is very aware of the methods of “brainwashing” has no problem with that kind of logic. Well, if you’ve prayed hard enough you’ll know.
But I have.
Then you need to pray harder until you do feel that way.
Classic brainwashing.
15 August 2006 at 5:52 am
So true!
“Take this test, and you’ll get this result.”
Someone may say: I took the test, and I didn’t get the result.
“Then repeat the test until you get the result I think you should get.”
It’s just bad science.
I tend to reserve the term ‘brainwashing’. I think what your dad is doing a very human thing. It’s very easy to be aware of logical fallacies and psychological defense mechanisms while not applying this knowledge to your own cherished beliefs. I did this for years. And I fancied myself a critical thinker.
It’s easy. Why not just think it’s true? After all, I’ve had spiritual experiences. I mostly like church. I’m in a supportive community. It gives me status because I have a leadership position. The temple is a very pretty place to be in. And I like the way it feels. Why would I jeopardise all that just for a philosophical position and have the others in the group view me as an apostate?
And you can do that for a long time while the cognitive dissonance grows louder and louder and louder… maybe even for your whole life.
But I couldn’t lecture students about critical thinking and evidence-based methodology and Occam’s razor while the flaws in my own assumptions and reasoning were so glaring. So at some point it became time to dump.
15 August 2006 at 5:54 am
I think a lot of the best things about human beings are as irrational and unsubstantiated as faith: love must be nutured in the heart, and so must a sense of wonder. Even that inexplicable infatuation with one’s offspring wears off in 13 or 14 years’ time without maintenance. Have self-sacrifice, or turning the other cheek, ever been proven to “work” every time?
Physical principles, on the other hand, are immediately observable in our material life; we don’t have to work at “seeing” the evidence.
15 August 2006 at 11:36 am
I again find myself writing a small essay in response to a posting. I hope you don’t mind too much. And hey, if you do you can delete it. You have the power!
Unfortunately some people hold to ‘science’ like a religion. ‘Science can do no wrong; and if it can’t be explained by science then clearly, it does not exist.’ Now I’m not religious (anymore) however I like to think of myself as ‘spiritual’ in a kind of tree hugging way and I think we need to leave room for the possibility that not everything in life can be explained. Isn’t it all just us humans trying to explain our existence?
I’d really like to learn more about Mormonism, and all religions for that matter (unfortunately UWA doesn’t have a theology course). I too find chats with religious people interesting. I have been having less of them of late as I’ve found that when you begin to say that you don’t believe, it makes them sad.
A chat with my mum last year reminded me of when I was 14 and very religious. I friend of mine announced he was gay. I lay in bed and cried that night and prayed that God would save him and not send him to hell.
I think that the majority of religious people just try to do what they think is right and try to help others ‘see the light’. My dad is a minister and my mum very religious and they want me to be a Christian because they love me and they honestly believe that it is the right thing. This is another story in itself; my parents are very intelligent people, but they are still religious, which I find hard to comprehend.
On another note; I used to date a Jewish boy whose family had huge issues with my not being a Jew. Furthermore my family was Baptists, and my dad a minister! When I suggested, “Well actually we’re not all that different. Christians were Jews, now we just believe in an extra bit.” oh boy! Ever met a Jewish Matriarch? A bit the same with ‘Christians’ and Mormons. As you may be aware, the use of the term ‘Christianity’ when referring to Mormonism may be met with some debate. Absolutely no offence intended, hey. 🙂
15 August 2006 at 5:00 pm
I’m gonna have to disagree with you here Daniel. Your argument seems to rest upon the faulty supposition that religion is a competing hypothesis invoked as an explanation for natural phenomenon. If this were the case, then Occam’s Razor would certainly apply, but we both know this simply isn’t true.
People don’t believe in God because they think it’s the most logical explanation for how the world came to be, they hold to these belief systems because they provide meaning and define one’s place within (and relationship to) the rest of the universe. Questions of meaning and value are inherently subjective and lie outside the pale of scientific enquiry, so the latter has no competing theory to offer when it comes to the “questions of the soul”.
You could always argue that, since there is no empirical evidence for the suppositions of any given belief system, the only rational conclusion is to deny the validity of these questions altogether. That, however, would be outright abuse of Occam’s razor (one which its namesake would certainly resent, being a Franciscan monk and all.) Taking that approach would strip human experience of some of its most important elements, as Jaelen pointed out. You’d be reducing human-existence to a mere side-effect of clever self-replicating molecules and robbing it of any genuine meaning.
Hell, I think that kind of attitude would produce greater cognitive dissonance than anything cooked up by religion. How can a person continue to function in day-to-day life and simultaneously hold to the conclusion that there’s no real point to it all? In this way, faith is a shield against dissonance.
I might not be able to furnish evidence in favour of my particular belief system, or even articulate my reasons for believing such things in a logical fashion, but I hold to these assumptions anyway because, for me, they are posited out of necessity. I can’t know for certain that it’s all true, and I certainly can’t prove it. I just hope it is. That’s what faith is all about.
15 August 2006 at 6:01 pm
oh, this should be a fun one. As I stand somewhere between Dan’s current views and those of Alarik I can’t wait to see hwere this one goes.
15 August 2006 at 10:28 pm
alarik’s point is a good one, but I feel slightly uncomfortable that it may be suggesting that one cannot find meaning, value, place in the universe, whatever, from holding a purely scientific view. As if being a unique set of self-replicating molecules isn’t awesome enough? As if finding myself ‘aware’ in a random, chaotic system isn’t fascinating?
I know at the end of the day it’s all metaphors, even the language of science is essentially a metaphor, but personally I find the possibilities inherent in a scientific view much more laden with creativity, potential and wonder than some old myths that people go around claiming to be ‘true’. Science and some eastern religions seem to be the only paths that don’t claim absolute truths.
Anyway if I want a good metaphor against which to examine my values and beliefs, I’d choose Shakespeare any day.
16 August 2006 at 2:53 am
I’m not suggesting that you can’t find meaning and value in a universe without God. What I am saying is that as soon as you start ascribing that sort of meaning, you’ve stepped beyond science by introducing subjective elements into your world view. I don’t think this is bad, on the contrary I think it’s absolutely necessary.
The fact remains, however, that any model you come up with to create those meanings and values will exist largely independent of any examinable evidence. If you’re going to abuse Occam’s Razor the way Daniel is doing, then that sort of thing just isn’t allowed if you’re “halfway aware” of the principle.
Faith isn’t rational or objective, but nor are concepts like love, morality and ethics. Does that make sense? By finding meaning in the universe, Snowqueen, you’ve taken a step beyond science. If that’s the case, then you can no longer cite the principle of parsimony against a belief system, because you will have conceded that what counts as a “necessary assumption” for one individual may not be accorded the same status by another.
16 August 2006 at 3:55 am
Ah, I love a good arguement. 🙂
It seems to me that faith is all about clinging scared onto something for which we have no proof. Religion is almost a human universal; all humans trying to make sense of this thing we call life.
Clinging blindly to a faith is neither productive nor necessary.
All it does is placate and numb us to other possibilities.
16 August 2006 at 4:04 am
I actually agree with you, alarik. The search for meaning in the universe is very much a personal search. An art, not a science. I like art, by the way.
I think of it like a Rorschach test. The meaning people give to the little inkblots is (in theory) indicative of what they bring to it. In like manner, when people talk about the ‘meaning’ of life like there’s some kind of answer out there, they’re doing art, not science.
Instead of asking “What’s the meaning in life?” I might ask “What meaning did you bring to your life today?” I find great meaning in being a dad, in working on research, in teaching, in singing (first rehersal tonight!), and interacting with all of you on the blog. That’s how I like to live.
This is all very unscientific, isn’t it?
So how does this relate to my hardcore scientific bent? Simple. I live the way I do, and if I find that I believe anything counterfactual, I dump the belief and keep the fact. This is the opposite of how I used to live, where my beliefs were more important to me than the facts. And if a contrary fact came along, I’d dismiss it because it was tampering with my meaning!
Scientific tools like statistics and logic are really good at helping you figure out if something’s real or if it’s just your imagination. Statistics can even tell you how likely your answer is to be correct.
My point about the whole God thing is that there are natural explanations for things people claim are supernatural. Think healing through prayer is real? (Or energy healing, for that matter?) Science has the tools to check your claim while controlling for bias. And the claims fall apart when we analyse them. There’s nothing supernatural going on here. I am using Occam’s Razor appropriately, even if it’s not what William of Occam would have intended. And if you’re using faith to pump up your theory instead of facts, then you’re doing it wrong.
And FYI, alarik, religions do make factual claims about the physical world, and we can evaluate them. And guess what — they turn out to be wrong every time. I hope you’re following the creation/evolution debate, whichever side you come down on — it’s a great example.
What I’m hearing is that by insisting on living my life according to facts, I’m removing some kind of meaning from life. Some meaning, if it’s based on falsehoods! Is your life so impoverished that you can’t feel it’s worthwhile unless you have fictional gods? So science doesn’t offer you a theory of What Life Means. Does that mean you get to make shit up? Because that looks a lot like what you’re doing.
The starting point is to use science, logic, and reason to find out what’s really going on (as best we can). Then derive what meaning and purpose you can from there. But be prepared to change your theory if the evidence demands it. Anything else is self-deception, and I haven’t got room for it.
16 August 2006 at 5:05 am
bravo…simply bravo.
16 August 2006 at 6:53 am
I really enjoyed Snowqueens posting as her comments were getting very close to the questions I wanted answered by Daniel. I was going to expand on them but instead Daniel has already answered and very well I must say.
16 August 2006 at 7:22 am
faerie: I would never delete a comment, especially not one of yours.
Yes, the debate over whether Mormons are Christians rages on. Mormons say yes because they believe in Christ. Other Christians say no because… Mormons have weird beliefs! Unlike other Christians. Hm.
Unfortunately some people hold to ‘science’ like a religion. ‘Science can do no wrong; and if it can’t be explained by science then clearly, it does not exist.’
Yeah, that wouldn’t be a very good view. Fortunately, the more someone understands science, the less likely they would be to hold that view. Religious people sometimes try to cast science as a religion. Is that because everything looks like a religion to them, or because they want to claim equivalency? Anyway, science isn’t a body of beliefs — more like a set of tools.
Now I’m not religious (anymore) however I like to think of myself as ‘spiritual’ in a kind of tree hugging way and I think we need to leave room for the possibility that not everything in life can be explained. Isn’t it all just us humans trying to explain our existence?
I think you’re probably right about that. But don’t leave the door so open that just anything can get in. Use sound principles to evaluate ideas critically.
This is another story in itself; my parents are very intelligent people, but they are still religious, which I find hard to comprehend.
Sounds like a lot of us are having this experience. But you know, when I think these kinds of thoughts, I wonder “What loony ideas have I not quite relinquished yet?” Mote and beam, you know. Appropriate humility is a constant challenge.
16 August 2006 at 9:28 am
i find it interesting that people are trying to choose sides.
maybe science and religion or at least spirituality can live side by side, each being to the benefit of humanity and helping us progress.
who says that religion can’t be logical and reasonable? without this intellect we would be superstitious. and without science there would be no avenue of discovering what this awesome universe has to offer. we have the capacity to be both of faith and of logic. why should one have precedence over another? einstein was a man of faith, a lot of scientists (and artists and others) derive inspiration for their discoveries from faith.
why does one have to choose?
16 August 2006 at 9:50 am
Hi, anon.
Most people don’t choose. They take advantage of scientific advancement because that seems true enough, and then believe whatever they want in the spiritual realm because that seems true enough. And they see no problem with this.
I see two problems.
Religious belief systems make counterfactual claims, especially with regard to the physical world. I’ve discussed this in the comment upthread. You can’t really believe both sides and be consistent.
The other problem is that religious belief systems make unprovable claims, especially about the existence of supreme beings and the afterlife. There aren’t any ways to test these claims empirically (I argue), so why believe them if they can’t be checked? You might as well believe in the FSM.
For people who just believe what they like, these two problems pose little discomfort. It’s more of a problem for people who are trying to think a bit more critically.
16 August 2006 at 9:53 am
Could you strike the word ‘unprovable’ above, and insert ‘unverifiable’?
Thank you.
17 August 2006 at 12:21 am
I think the difference is that I’m 100% sure that I’m making my meanings up and I’m honest about that and comfortable with that (I like being creative) while religions ‘give’ people meanings and people tend to get rather upset when I suggest they’re operating on stuff that’s made up, instead claiming that it’s ‘real’ because (insert unverifiable beliefs here).
So Occam’s Razor still applies in my opinion. What is the most plausible explanation why I find/create meaning in a sunset? Maybe because for some reason it’s an adaptive behaviour and humans do that sort of thing to help them cope with an uncertain world. Whatever. But it’s not going to be because a supernatural being called ‘God’ made sunsets and gave me appreciation of beauty.
17 August 2006 at 6:09 pm
It seems we all pretty much agree that there’s a lot to life that is difficult to scrutinise from a purely scientific perspective. I think the division is probably more complex than simply science and art, but for our purposes I’m sure it will be sufficient.
I should probably mention that I’m not and never have been anti-science. That’s largely why I felt the need to join the discussion… I love science, I studied it at university and was intent for the longest time on becoming a research scientist professionally (I am also, unfortunately, notoriously clumsy and quite a dangerous individual to let loose in a lab… I expect the CSIRO have me blacklisted after all the money I cost them.) And yet, I’m still religious, and begrudge the idea that something must have gone “terribly wrong” in my training to be able to hold that view.
I want to go back to the idea of Occam’s Razor again. We know that its usefulness lies in its ability to direct scientific investigation along those lines of enquiry that are most likely to prove productive, but we also recognise that the “necessity” of a particular idea isn’t some objective property that everyone agrees on. What happens then if none of the theories being examined are falsifiable? “God as described by religion X does exist” is as equally as irrefutable “God as described by religion X does NOT exist” on empirical grounds. The Razor loses its value in this instance because neither of the options can be investigated further. Given that parsimony can’t (and doesn’t claim to) prove the more complex theory to be false, we’re left in a position where we can’t make any definite statement at all.
Ignoring for a moment the claims religions make about the physical world (I’ll get back to those shortly), the fundamental components of a religious belief system cannot be verified, as you noted. This does not automatically make them false, it just makes them unscientific. For this reason alone, you cannot refer to gods as “fictional” with any certainty; all you can say is that you personally find no reason for believing in them.
That doesn’t mean that other people don’t have their reasons, even if you don’t find them particularly compelling. There are a great many intelligent individuals who are simultaneously religious and rational, who think critically about their own beliefs and yet do not reach the same conclusions that you have. They don’t ignore the problems that scientific progress presents to their routines, they engage them and consider various hypotheses and select the one they feel is best. Since the process is subjective, not everyone reaches the same solution.
The formulation of religious belief then is more closely allied to art than science. You’re correct about religions making some falsifiable claims, but those claims are rarely fundamental to the belief system in question. For centuries religions taught that thunder and lightning were manifestations of the wrath of a god. Asimov thought that the practice of churches erecting lightning rods in the 17th century was a dramatic victory of science over religion, yet Christianity lives on… Why? Because its validity did not rest upon that particular claim, believers have since rejected it in favour of the more rational explanation provided by science. I don’t imagine it will be all that long before the same thing happens with evolution (that should tell you where I stand in that debate, btw.)
So where does all this leave us? It means that the majority of religious belief systems have nothing to fear from science (and vice versa) in that their claims are either: 1) solely spiritual and therefore non-falsifiable, OR 2) not integral to the system and therefore expendable in face of contradictory evidence. Science and religion only have to come into conflict when the latter stubbornly adheres to a disproven idea about the physical world, or when scientists make dogmatic assertions about the validity of questions their methodology is ill-equipped to answer.
I understand that you might think the two ideas are fundamentally opposed, but I can honestly say that I have no trouble being both a scientist and a theist (though you may well think me an idiot for it.)
Just because people are capable of reaching different conclusions doesn’t mean that they’re somehow not thinking properly or can’t be good scientists.
18 August 2006 at 6:50 pm
Hi, alarik.
No, I don’t think you’re an idiot. The lucidity of your thought and writing would be enough to falsify that claim. 🙂
I think there’s something you’re missing though. Let me focus on this bit:
What happens then if none of the theories being examined are falsifiable? “God as described by religion X does exist” is as equally as irrefutable “God as described by religion X does NOT exist” on empirical grounds. The Razor loses its value in this instance because neither of the options can be investigated further. Given that parsimony can’t (and doesn’t claim to) prove the more complex theory to be false, we’re left in a position where we can’t make any definite statement at all.
Well, no, it doesn’t, and we’re not. I’m sure with your background that you’ve heard of the null hypothesis (I’m linking to this article despite the authorsnark). If we can’t prove or disprove God’s existence, do we start by assuming God exists? No, no, and no. If we go that way, we may as well assume that any nutty theory is true.
I have a theory that there are blue fairies in my garden. We can’t see them because they hide. I can’t prove they exist. You can’t prove that they don’t exist. Are we going to assume by default that they exist? No, we start with the null hypothesis — that they don’t exist — and then see if the evidence is strong enough to overturn the null hypothesis.
Related to this is the idea of ‘burden of proof’. As someone advancing a ‘God hypothesis’, you have the responsibility of providing evidence for your view that can’t be explained any other way. So far, all the evidence for theism that I’ve seen has a natural explanation, in which case Occam’s Razor requires us to reject the supernatural theory because it posits an extra layer of entities. My ‘blue fairy’ idea bites the dust for the same reason.
But maybe you know about some empirical evidence that I don’t, in which case I hope you’ll present it.
This is why I say that people who believe in God aren’t using scientific principles. Religion isn’t in some zone of immunity where science can’t touch it. Science is perfectly capable of handling these ontological issues, and helping us decide which of the two hypotheses are preferable.
One more thing: you’ve cited some good examples of (what I might cast as) religious retreat in the wake of scientific progress. You seem to be saying that it’s not fatal for religions to abandon doctrines that turn out to be wrong because they’re non-essential. I see instead an attempt by believers to salvage the belief system despite its tenets being proven wrong, time after time. Tell me the Millerites didn’t think the date of the Second Coming was a core doctrine. They called themselves ‘Adventists’, for Pete’s sake. It’s only afterwards that people say, “Oh, well, that one didn’t matter very much!” People are very good at preserving the system in the face of disconfirmation. I recommend reading “When Prophecy Fails” by Festinger et al for a close-up example of this.
I value your comments.
19 August 2006 at 4:22 am
Daniel,
Here is the part I don’t get. You keep switching between religious systems that can and do make counterfactual claims in the physical world that science can disprove, and a more general idea that there may be a reality that can be described as “God”. Never met a religion I liked after studying it for a while. Most look good when you are learning the theory but once you see how the theories play out in real life… well no thank you. So I can’t, nor do I want to, refute that part of your argument.
Your use of science to try and live as thoughtful a life as possible with as few hypocricies as possible is probably the best we can do.
The cave is dark however and I think we are probably all pretty near sighted so using our penlight of a tool to see what we can is great but I don’t think it gives us any idea of what things look like outside of the cave. I may not know much but I do know that there are a lot of things I don’t know, don’t understand and can’t even imagine. This is part of the wonder of this gift of existance for me. [Insert your favorite shakespear quote here.] I am that I am. For me God has always been the metaphore for all that is unknown, all that is part of me and part of every other person and thing in existance that I don’t have words for. God is that which is. God is my wonder and joy at finding myself in this existance. It may just be a word that simply means…yea, I’m alive! but that is what god is for me. And I don’t need a bearded Zeus father figure for that.
On the other hand I guess I don’t need the word God for that either. Maybe that is part of why so many get uncomfortable when all you are really doing is using science as a good tool.
But maybe thats why the blue fairy, nul hypothisis thing doesn’t work either. We can all pretty much agree on what blue and what a fairy would be but pinning down an idea like God is more difficult. It may just be that indescribable thing that makes us all feel so connected to this existance and the things we find around us while the absence of God may be that feeling that we are all so seperate from all else.
Point is I don’t know and neither do you or Alarik for that matter.
All that said I find your approach in the end far more palatable than any orginized religion.
Chaio for now.
20 August 2006 at 5:43 pm
”Well, no, it doesn’t, and we’re not.”
Assuming the second part of that comment refers to my assertion that we can’t make any definite statements, then I’m afraid I definitely have to disagree with you. Parsimony doesn’t reject the more complex theory, it just puts it on the backburner. Even if we were to agree on its applicability in this case, it still doesn’t justify a definite statement that god(s) are fictional.
I’m familiar with the concept of null hypotheses, but one of the essential characteristics of a valid null hypothesis is its own falsifiability (for obvious reasons.) What could pass as evidence to overturn the hypothesis “God does not exist”? It might all work if you’re dealing with a “God of the Gaps” argument, but what about a conception of God that does not hinge upon observable phenomena?
Your Blue Faerie example isn’t directly comparable, unless we add a couple of conditions:
1) Your garden is on Magrathea, or the faeries are invisible or undetectable, or some other such condition that would place them outside observation and render your null hypothesis untestable.
2) Belief in said faeries is not contingent upon observable phenomenon, but rather stems from some deeply personal, subjective experience that convinces the individual of the existence of such beings.
All of a sudden the blue faerie hypothesis is beyond scientific investigation. There is no “burden of proof” unless the individual is attempting to propose the idea to a wider audience. The believer already has sufficient reason to believe (otherwise they wouldn’t ;P) but those reasons aren’t transferable. This is why most belief-systems, if they are inclined to “spread the word” as it were, encourage potential adherents to seek their own revelatory experiences. Empirical evidence gives no indicator one way or the other, so any “faith” has to be based on subjective experience out of necessity.
I’m intrigued that you’d choose to characterise acceptance of scientific theories as “religious retreat.” If adherents to a particular belief system rejected those theories despite the evidence then you’d probably regard them as narrow-minded fundamentalists. It seems the religions can’t win either way, the only viable option in that logic is to shut-shop and abandon the whole system.
I really don’t agree. Sure, a handful of belief-systems might depend upon those few disproven tenets, but the vast majority of them can exist quite happily without them. My beliefs are born out of deep, personal experiences that I couldn’t produce tangible evidence for even if I felt required to do so. Science simply doesn’t deal with that sort of thing, and I still contend that I can accept both without experiencing that dissonance you claim is the universal hallmark of the half-aware religionist.
20 August 2006 at 11:04 pm
“My beliefs are born out of deep, personal experiences that I couldn’t produce tangible evidence for even if I felt required to do so. Science simply doesn’t deal with that sort of thing”
If you’d ever worked with people who have had strokes or other forms of brain injury you wouldn’t be so trusting of ‘deep personal experiences’ ever again. Science offers all sorts of explanations for religious experiences – my experience is that people don’t like the idea that their own ‘deep personal experiences’ could possibly just be a bunch of neurons firing in a particular way.
I prefer the view of my friend who is a life-long Christian. She’s come to the point where she’s comfortable with the idea that there might be no God and frankly doesn’t care if there is or isn’t. She thinks that what is important is trying to live your life the way that a God you ‘believe’ in would want you to.
21 August 2006 at 3:11 am
Snowqueen:
“She thinks that what is important is trying to live your life the way that a God you ‘believe’ in would want you to.”
Amen to that!
21 August 2006 at 4:27 am
Hi Snowqueen,
I’m not so trusting of those experiences that I’d stake my life on them, but for me they’re enough to hold a hope in the existence of God. Sure, it might all “just be a bunch of neurons firing in a particular way” but who’s to say for certain? The same could be said of falling in love or appreciating music.
I wouldn’t claim to know with any certainty the things I believe, I just think I’m able to hope for things like that and not be practicing self-deception.
Everyone else is free to reach their own conclusions.
(BTW, what part of Kent are you from? My lot are all from the Romney Marsh)
21 August 2006 at 11:14 pm
Alarik – at the risk of abusing Daniel’s blog, but not wanting to appear rude – I’m not ‘from’ Kent, I just live there – between Folkestone and Canterbury. Probably better to comment personally on my blog!
24 August 2006 at 5:05 pm
I am writing this some days after the end of this discussion BUT, though late, I wanted to say that I liked very much what Alarik said.
I did not feel like going on arguing over opinions.
27 August 2006 at 4:12 pm
What do the people here think of the “new” intelligent design theory? not that I believe it myself, but I am interested to hear what your thoughts are.
1 September 2006 at 3:46 am
You would have to fill me in on it. I really haven’t followed the debate. It made me too angry like the first time I heard on a university campus someone say that they were being discriminated against because the liberal profs would only teach evolution and not creationism. It felt so icky to hear that on campus. Of course it was just a state school.