Morality of the religious without faith

[flamingjimmy]

I can look at the world around me, understanding it through the lens of science, and see it as evidence of the existence of a creator God.

 

Weren't you objecting to something he said about Christian scientists scientists who are Christians?

 

You appear to have moved the goalposts to vague deism.

[RootsBooster]

It's a bit pointless if you go deliberately misunderstanding stuff.

I can look at the world around me

stuff exists

understanding it through the lens of science, and see it

(that's the science bit)

as evidence of the existence of a creator God.

Whether you think that is rational or not is totally irrelevant, it's compelling and convincing evidence for my belief.

so a god must have created it.

I may have misunderstood, but I don't see how

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it is not a matter of compartmentalisation (whatever it means) for a rigorous, leading scientist to hold deep Christian beliefs and self-identify as a Christian (or a Muslim, Hindu etc).

 

It's not an either/or choice, faith and scientific brilliance are not mutually exclusive. Some brilliant theist scientists even credit god with their discoveries and inventions. (of course, others namecheck LSD & warm beer)

I don't disagree

The second point I'm trying to make is that belief in a deity is not the same as a belief in Paris or believing in the existence of the moon. It is belief of a different category altogether.

Obviously

 

My third point is that what counts as evidence depends entirely on your standpoint in the first place

I thought we were talking about a scientific standpoint, although I may have misunderstood

[Cyclone]

That's an incredibly narrow view that doesn't engage with the category problem we are addressing.

 

I can look at the world around me, understanding it through the lens of science, and see it as evidence of the existence of a creator God.

No you can't, not unless you switch off your science at the end and just make something up for which there is no evidence. It's not a hypothesis unless it makes predictions and is testable and you then try to prove it wrong.

 

Whether you think that is rational or not is totally irrelevant, it's compelling and convincing evidence for my belief.

Whether you find it compelling or not is irrelevant, it's irrational.

 

You seem to believe that the relationship between belief and direct experience is causal. But direct experience is shaped by belief as much as belief is shaped by direct experience.

The relationship between experience and believe is causal. If you experience something you will most likely believe that it happened. What you are suggesting is that believe need not come from experience, and that's also true. But don't try to pretend that believe based on faith is anything other than make believe.

Experience is not shaped by belief though, believe that gravity won't exist and you won't float away. Reality doesn't care what you believe, it just is.

 

You also seem to believe in some kind of absolute objectivity that doesn't exist.

I believe that there is a physical reality, it is completely objective, the rules don't change depending on whether you believe them or not and there is no room within those rules for santa claus, thor or a christian god.

 

Are you "compartmentalising"?

I don't have to, I don't have conflicting world views that I need to isolate.

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2013 at 07:30 ----------

 

 

The second point I'm trying to make is that belief in a deity is not the same as a belief in Paris or believing in the existence of the moon. It is belief of a different category altogether.

Agreed, one is verifiable, testable and therefore worth sharing, the latter is none of those things, but appears to be akin to a believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, it's delusional.

 

My third point is that what counts as evidence depends entirely on your standpoint in the first place.

Not really.

[carosio]

It can if you are the Irish scientist Prof John Lennox.

http://www.thinkchristianly.org/is-belief-in-the-supernatural-irrational-with-john-lennox-video/

 

In the video, professor Lennox is arguing that science should recognise the possiblity of the supernatural, and that miracles do indeed occur, notably by God, although he does not name or identify (at least in this video) which god he believes in.

 

In one of the questions put to him, he says he does not know why some people are indifferent to religion. He also says that one of the proofs of the resurrection is that it is "historically attested". The final question (near the end of the video) asks whether or not he believes that miracles occur outside of Christianity (eg, in other religions). On this, he rambles off in another direction and never really answers that awkward question.

[Phanerothyme]

No you can't, not unless you switch off your science at the end and just make something up for which there is no evidence. It's not a hypothesis unless it makes predictions and is testable and you then try to prove it wrong.

It's very difficult to explain this to you it seems. Belief itself isn't rational, logical, scientific. Rationality, logic and science are constructs, belief is inherent, in all its forms. Belief is not the carefully arrived at conclusion of scientific enquiry, it's the state of mind that arises partly as a result.

Whether you find it compelling or not is irrelevant, it's irrational.

No it's entirely relevant. If I find it compelling, then I do believe in a creator god. The existence or otherwise of that god is irrelevant, but my belief is unimpeachably rooted in the compelling evidence of my senses.

The relationship between experience and believe is causal. If you experience something you will most likely believe that it happened. What you are suggesting is that believe need not come from experience, and that's also true. But don't try to pretend that believe based on faith is anything other than make believe.

I'm not pretending anything here.

Experience is not shaped by belief though, believe that gravity won't exist and you won't float away. Reality doesn't care what you believe, it just is.

It's astoundingly obvious that belief definitely does shape experience. It is a well established, well documented phenomenon.

I believe that there is a physical reality, it is completely objective, the rules don't change depending on whether you believe them or not and there is no room within those rules for santa claus, thor or a christian god.

I'm glad you have beliefs. I note that you hold them strongly. But since you cannot susbtantiate them, that is what they remain - beliefs.

I don't have to, I don't have conflicting world views that I need to isolate.

I'm not even convinced that compartmentalising as you describe it is even possible.

Agreed, one is verifiable, testable and therefore worth sharing, the latter is none of those things, but appears to be akin to a believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, it's delusional.

That is your opinion, and a value judgement, rather than a provable/disprovable assertion. I'm not sure whether your simply being terse or actively hostile. It's not delusional, for example, to have a religious experience, and consequently discover a strong belief in a deity or numinous entity. That would be a completely rational conclusion.

Not really.

Yes, really.

[janie48]

In the video, professor Lennox is arguing that science should recognise the possiblity of the supernatural, and that miracles do indeed occur, notably by God, although he does not name or identify (at least in this video) which god he believes in.

 

In one of the questions put to him, he says he does not know why some people are indifferent to religion. He also says that one of the proofs of the resurrection is that it is "historically attested". The final question (near the end of the video) asks whether or not he believes that miracles occur outside of Christianity (eg, in other religions). On this, he rambles off in another direction and never really answers that awkward question.

I acknowledge that Prof Lennox will not have the answers to awkward questions addressed to him, because as knowledgeable as he is, he can't possibly know all the answers to the mystery of life and the unfathomable, no one can, nonetheless he puts a very good effort into trying as demonstrated on the "The god delusion" and "Has science buried god" debates where I thought he managed to challenge Professor Dawkins very successfully.

[Cyclone]

It's very difficult to explain this to you it seems. Belief itself isn't rational, logical, scientific. Rationality, logic and science are constructs, belief is inherent, in all its forms. Belief is not the carefully arrived at conclusion of scientific enquiry, it's the state of mind that arises partly as a result.

When you started that sentence I thought you'd finally got it. But then it all went wrong. Rationality and logic are not constructs anymore than belief, and science is simply a methodology. Belief can be driven by rationality, or not. When it isn't, it's probably a belief in something incorrect.

 

No it's entirely relevant. If I find it compelling, then I do believe in a creator god. The existence or otherwise of that god is irrelevant, but my belief is unimpeachably rooted in the compelling evidence of my senses.

Bully for you. See how hard you argue against logic to stop your belief system being compromised.

 

I'm not pretending anything here.

No, I realise now that since you are taking it personally, you have to make these arguments or accept that your belief is illogical and probably wrong. I can't help you with that, you belief in something for which there is no evidence or support.

 

It's astoundingly obvious that belief definitely does shape experience. It is a well established, well documented phenomenon.

It doesn't however alter reality, which is what you'd really like to be the case as then you might not be wrong.

 

I'm glad you have beliefs. I note that you hold them strongly. But since you cannot susbtantiate them, that is what they remain - beliefs.

All my beliefs are logically supported and open to question, unlike your own, which you are defending right now by simply telling me that beliefs should not be questioned rationally because they are somehow special.

 

I'm not even convinced that compartmentalising as you describe it is even possible.

Perhaps you are a demonstration of it. You are capable of applying logic and reason, but choose not to do so in this case. You probably believe you are doing though, self delusion in order to maintain a consistent internal world view. Compartmentalisation.

 

That is your opinion, and a value judgement, rather than a provable/disprovable assertion.

I can't prove negatives, but if your argument is that I can't disprove that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden then most adults will see your argument for what it is. The same applies to sky pixies.

I'm not sure whether your simply being terse or actively hostile.

I'm responding in kind to the strong anti rational argument that you are making.

Belief is not special, it should be supported by things that can be measured, predicted and observed.

It's not delusional, for example, to have a religious experience, and consequently discover a strong belief in a deity or numinous entity. That would be a completely rational conclusion.

It might be, if the best possible explanation you can come up with for a hallucination or other mental phenomenon was supernatural intervention.

But since there are myriad better explanations, occams razor should apply and a minor stroke (for example) might be a more logical explanation. Thus leading to a believe that you should see a GP instead of a belief in a god.

[MrSmith]

You probably believe you are doing though, self delusion in order to maintain a consistent internal world view.

 

I addressed this here.

 

Faith is most likely a shared psychotic disorder, it occurs when someone begins believing the delusions of someone with whom they have a close relationship; the source of the delusion is most often in a position of strong influence over the other person, parents for example, this allows them, over time to force their strange belief onto their offspring. This is repeated generation after generation resulting in a shared global psychotic disorder.

[carosio]

I acknowledge that Prof Lennox will not have the answers to awkward questions addressed to him, because as knowledgeable as he is, he can't possibly know all the answers to the mystery of life and the unfathomable, no one can, nonetheless he puts a very good effort into trying as demonstrated on the "The god delusion" and "Has science buried god" debates where I thought he managed to challenge Professor Dawkins very successfully.

If he did acknowledge the possibility of miracles as described in other religious texts, then I think he would be negating or at least diluting the uniqueness (according to Christains) of the central doctrines of Christianity, and being a Christian himself, something he would be reluctant to do.

 

I haven't yet seen the other debates, but will do.

[Phanerothyme]

When you started that sentence I thought you'd finally got it. But then it all went wrong. Rationality and logic are not constructs anymore than belief, and science is simply a methodology. Belief can be driven by rationality, or not. When it isn't, it's probably a belief in something incorrect.

"Incorrect"

Scientific method is a tool, it is a construct. Logic was invented, it is a construct. Belief is not a construct, it is emergent in the mind, regardless of whether it's a belief in fairies, god, Paris, the luminiferous aether, osteopathy or scientific method.

Bully for you. See how hard you argue against logic to stop your belief system being compromised.

Bully for me?

My belief system? I don't have a system, and I've only used myself as a hypothetical example here - a rhetorical form. I'm an atheist, if it matters to you.

No, I realise now that since you are taking it personally, you have to make these arguments or accept that your belief is illogical and probably wrong. I can't help you with that, you belief in something for which there is no evidence or support.

I can't take it personally, because it's not personal.

It doesn't however alter reality, which is what you'd really like to be the case as then you might not be wrong.

Ah so you can see into my mind now? That strikes me as a somewhat supernatural belief.

All my beliefs are logically supported and open to question,

Apart from two:

a) The belief that all your beliefs are logically supported and open to question

b) The belief that you know my mind.

 

unlike your own, which you are defending right now by simply telling me that beliefs should not be questioned rationally because they are somehow special.

I'm not arguing for my beliefs, I can't believe you think I'm defending some kind of theistic position. I'm arguing that belief isn't subject to logic, it's not a product of logic, belief isn't by it's nature, logical.

Perhaps you are a demonstration of it. You are capable of applying logic and reason, but choose not to do so in this case. You probably believe you are doing though, self delusion in order to maintain a consistent internal world view. Compartmentalisation.

Psycho-babble - unless you can explain exactly what you mean.

I can't prove negatives, but if your argument is that I can't disprove that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden then most adults will see your argument for what it is.

It's clearly not that. You seem unable to distinguish between religious belief and the existence of god. Gods can exist without religion or religious individuals. Individuals can be religious and form religions without gods. The two questions are essentially unrelated, but you keep conflating them.

The same applies to sky pixies.

I'm responding in kind to the strong anti rational argument that you are making.

Well I'm flattered you think it's a strong argument, but it's not anti rational. It could clearly be expressed better judging by how much it is being misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Belief is not special, it should be supported by things that can be measured, predicted and observed.

Perhaps it should, but the obvious fact is that it isn't, it's subject to the same cognitive biases as everything else.

It might be, if the best possible explanation you can come up with for a hallucination or other mental phenomenon was supernatural intervention.

Given that you cannot experience the religious experience of others, and you haven't experienced one yourself, you're not in a position to apply that razor, nor to judge how convincing and compelling an experience would be to the person experiencing it. In fact, it can truthfully be said that you don't know what you are talking about. (unless you have had a religious experience, in which case I am mistaken!)

But since there are myriad better explanations, occams razor should apply and a minor stroke (for example) might be a more logical explanation. Thus leading to a believe that you should see a GP instead of a belief in a god.

Occams razor suggests that the simplest explanation should take preference over more convoluted explanations.

 

Can you see here, in your example, how much belief will influence the judgement of "simplest" by any given individual?

 

 

It really boils down to a few pretty indisputable scientific facts.

 

1. No-one can experience an objective reality

2. Belief is conditioned by experience.

3. Experience is modified by belief.