Are there people that are otherwise logical but drop their skepticism when it comes to l religion? How do they consolidate those 2 sides of themselves?
-
yes to both
I know this would be difficult to know for sure but you've probably thought about it before, do you feel you would have the same desire to belong to a religious community if you weren't raised in that environment? Furthermore, did being raised in that environment lead you to turning down the possibility of belonging to another religious group?
-
Your intelligence is your ability to learn, It would be hard to argue that someone is very good at learning if they are confident in things they can't prove. If Neil degrasse told me he knew exactly what happened after death then I would reconsider anything I've learned from him.
I'm not so sure about that. Anyway I can only speak for myself. I'm not ”100% confident” in my personal beliefs. I
believewhat I put out in thought, word and deed eventually comes back around, although perhaps not in the exact way or form, from the same venues, that I put it out there. Can I prove it? No and that's why it's "faith" and "belief.” I'm not trying to convince anyone, but am open to discussion, when I've time and inclination, and feel it's in good faith. -
Wait, there's more: Some people are skeptical even of religion, yet still practice a religion.
We reconcile that by:
-
admitting that we can't make sense of everything
-
recognizing that many of the ways our religion interacts with reality are aspirational rather than descriptive
-
rejecting dogma
-
choosing to persevere in doubt rather than cling to false certainty
Greatly worded imo.
There are doubts and things we can't understand or explain no matter what we ultimately believe.
I personally left my religion and considered myself atheist but I continued to research other religions and belief systems and happened to have found one that I agreed with on a pretty consistent basis and didn't oppose my other understandings of the world, obviously belief still fluctuates and I do have doubts but on average I believe my religion to be true more than I doubt it.
TLDR: No explanation/understanding is "beyond all reasonable doubt", so "more likely than not" is enough and that happens to be a religious framework for me personally.
-
-
Born and raised in north america, went to a baptist church as a kid so I'm fairly familiar with the bible as well as different types of religious people you'll meet.
As an agnostic now, my only core belief is I know that I don't know. That's something I apply to any philosophical question so it's alien to me that some people can separate logic and religion.
For me, I get that logic too is just models that predict things. Backwards or forwards. But it doesn't answer what anything is. You can only EXPERIENCE what something is, but you can never accurately represent it. Because the moment you try to represent an experience, it's not the experience itself, just a representation. So logical conclusion is that the only way to know something for sure, is to experience it as it is before any representation.
People with religious experiences may get to the ineffable truth but then they get enamored by their own attempts to represent it. They focus on the representation, instead of the experience, and they start to insist that their representation is the bestest and most correctest - because everything in their head aligns to it. Then it just becomes a matter of who has the most charismatic foghorns and the most appealing representation. Which has a very reasonable logic of it's own, as far as it goes.
-
Maybe some hold both in esteem and sort ideas accordingly holding all is a bit of the whole.
Sure, many people do that kind of a dance or compartmentalization. But that only lasts as long as nothing severe comes to challenge it. Sudden death of a loved one is a cliche but commonly forces people to conclude something.
-
I'm not so sure about that. Anyway I can only speak for myself. I'm not ”100% confident” in my personal beliefs. I
believewhat I put out in thought, word and deed eventually comes back around, although perhaps not in the exact way or form, from the same venues, that I put it out there. Can I prove it? No and that's why it's "faith" and "belief.” I'm not trying to convince anyone, but am open to discussion, when I've time and inclination, and feel it's in good faith.Are you otherwise a very logical person in other aspects of life? Because it sounds like you may not be the type of person I'm talking about.
-
This proves god how?
Generally its considered polite when asked a question to give a response before asking one yourself
-
Doublethink, bro. Doublethink.
You’re saying I could be thinking twice as fast
-
For me, I get that logic too is just models that predict things. Backwards or forwards. But it doesn't answer what anything is. You can only EXPERIENCE what something is, but you can never accurately represent it. Because the moment you try to represent an experience, it's not the experience itself, just a representation. So logical conclusion is that the only way to know something for sure, is to experience it as it is before any representation.
People with religious experiences may get to the ineffable truth but then they get enamored by their own attempts to represent it. They focus on the representation, instead of the experience, and they start to insist that their representation is the bestest and most correctest - because everything in their head aligns to it. Then it just becomes a matter of who has the most charismatic foghorns and the most appealing representation. Which has a very reasonable logic of it's own, as far as it goes.
Logic is reasoning based on proveable facts so no it's not going to tell you what something is, just how probable something is.
That wouldn't be the logical conclusion because we are limited as humans. We make mistakes, we don't understand everything, we misremember, we can even gaslight ourselves such as the mandela effect. If 50 people told me they experienced an alien abduction, that doesn't make it logically true, now if they were to show me proveable facts of the abduction then I would be more inclined to believe.
I'm not sure what you mean with the last paragraph, you are clearly describing illogical subjective experiences but calling them "very reasonable logic of it's own". What you are describing isn't logic, what you're describing is the opposite of logic. Someone claiming something they believe is true but can't provide validity.
-
What if I were to propose to you that there's no way to prove that matter comes before consciousness? For all you know, everything exists inside consciousness but most people believe matter is the prior condition. This is pure logic. But when it's brought up to science minded people, they tend to get very uppity about it.
Beliefs be like that.
i’d say it’s less that people “get very uppity about it” and more that it’s not something that’s particularly relevant. we have no evidence for or against, and the outcome doesn’t really change how we interact with the world
likewise the universe could be entirely chaos and everything that exists in this instant: your memories and understanding of the universe and everything to back it up could just be the current arrangement of things and will be torn apart in the very next instant
but it’s not really a useful position to form conjectures from: if it is, it doesn’t matter what you do; if it isn’t, then you should act as if the universe will be here and that your memories are valid
-
You’re saying I could be thinking twice as fast
Not you, no
~/s~
-
What if I were to propose to you that there's no way to prove that matter comes before consciousness? For all you know, everything exists inside consciousness but most people believe matter is the prior condition. This is pure logic. But when it's brought up to science minded people, they tend to get very uppity about it.
Beliefs be like that.
To me, that's a rather pointless thought experiment, similar to the conspiracy theory that we're in a big simulation. Like, yeah, there's no way to disprove this idea, but if it were the case, then we still gotta work within the constraints that we're given. It's not like you can be conscious differently or escape the simulation or whatever.
Science-minded folks might dismiss that idea perhaps less favorably as "unscientific", but that's basically saying the same thing. If there's no way to prove or disprove an idea, then we call it "unscientific", which is kind of just means there's no point in spending time thinking about it. This is also taking into account that it would be provable or disprovable, if it had an impact on our reality. Theoretically something could have an impact on our reality and then trick us into believing that it does not, but yeah, at that point we need quite a lot of unproven theories stacked on top of each other and there's still nothing we can do about it...
-
This post did not contain any content.
I consider myself a very logical person. I consider myself "religish". Mainly, the idea of death being the end makes me very anxious, so I choose to believe it's not, which inherently brings one to religion of some sort.
-
Are you otherwise a very logical person in other aspects of life? Because it sounds like you may not be the type of person I'm talking about.
Imo, things can affect logic, like mood, nutrition, health, how much people have happening at once. So yes, I like to think I'm fairly logical, certainly a lot less emotional as I age. But I'm not wedded to it, because I have faith I'll wake up tomorrow, but know there's a possibility I won't. That seems logical.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I had a colleague a few years ago, who wasn't dumb. He'd question everything, often discussing things down to excruciating details. Like, you seriously couldn't shut him up, with how much he was putting everything into question.
Except when it came to the bible. That was what he considered unquestionable truth.
One time, I felt like I kind of got through to him. We were discussing the Big Bang and whatnot, and I told him that I don't believe that actually started the universe, which really caught him off-guard, because he thought all the science people were a big hivemind and no one's allowed to disagree. I'm guessing, because that's how he's been taught about the bible, so he just assumed the enemy is taught the same way.
And yeah, I explained to him that I don't believe it started things, that I don't believe in creation (the fundamental concept as well as the non-evolution thingamabob), because things don't just randomly start existing. When you produce a chair, that's just some atoms rearranged from a tree, which is just some atoms rearranged from the ground and the air, which is rearranged from yet another place. That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don't just pop into existence, ever.What's also kind of interesting/funny, is that he did not actually have a terribly good understanding of the bible.
One time, I don't know how we got to that topic, but I was like, wait, isn't there a commandment that says you shouldn't be using god's name in vain? And at first he just said no, there's not, to then start really heavily thinking when I didn't back down. But yeah, I had to then look it up to confirm it, because he did not know his commandments.
That was his worst moment by far, but we had many bible debates, where I, with my shitty school knowledge and never having been interested in any of it, was telling him things he didn't know. -
Imo, things can affect logic, like mood, nutrition, health, how much people have happening at once. So yes, I like to think I'm fairly logical, certainly a lot less emotional as I age. But I'm not wedded to it, because I have faith I'll wake up tomorrow, but know there's a possibility I won't. That seems logical.
You might be thinking of a personal definition of logic. Mood, nutrition, and health can affect a person's ability to use logic, it does not affect logic itself. Having faith that you'll wake up tomorrow and understanding there is a possibility you won't is not an example of logic, that is an example of understanding mortality.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I used to know this guy who majored in astrophysics or astronomi (can't remember which).
To paraphrase his reasoning: There is nothing about physics that prohibits the existence of a god. The Bible has many things that clashing with modern scientific understanding, but the Bible was an interpretation of things as they stood almost two thousand years ago, and is therefore likely to fail in many of its explanation.
He considered himself a Christian, and didn't see why that and his field of study would be mutually exclusive. Also, he was pretty open minded about most things and overall a pretty chill guy regarding other people's view and lifestyles.
-
Logic is reasoning based on proveable facts so no it's not going to tell you what something is, just how probable something is.
That wouldn't be the logical conclusion because we are limited as humans. We make mistakes, we don't understand everything, we misremember, we can even gaslight ourselves such as the mandela effect. If 50 people told me they experienced an alien abduction, that doesn't make it logically true, now if they were to show me proveable facts of the abduction then I would be more inclined to believe.
I'm not sure what you mean with the last paragraph, you are clearly describing illogical subjective experiences but calling them "very reasonable logic of it's own". What you are describing isn't logic, what you're describing is the opposite of logic. Someone claiming something they believe is true but can't provide validity.
You said that you don't know for sure if it's matter or consciousness that comes first but everything you're saying hinges on you very firmly believing that matter is prior.
If you had genuine uncertainty about it, you would be much more careful about how you go about asking for proof. If you weren't sure that matter is prior, it would occur to you to question what "objective" and "subjective" means. I could also ask you, can you step outside consciousness and objectively prove to me that your matter exists? If not, why do you value objective over subjective so much?
So to round back to your initial question: you can intellectually acknowledge the difficulty of proving matter vs. consciousness, yet if we probe it, clearly you hold a firm belief about it despite not being able to rationally prove your belief. So you can ask your initial question from yourself now.
-
You said that you don't know for sure if it's matter or consciousness that comes first but everything you're saying hinges on you very firmly believing that matter is prior.
If you had genuine uncertainty about it, you would be much more careful about how you go about asking for proof. If you weren't sure that matter is prior, it would occur to you to question what "objective" and "subjective" means. I could also ask you, can you step outside consciousness and objectively prove to me that your matter exists? If not, why do you value objective over subjective so much?
So to round back to your initial question: you can intellectually acknowledge the difficulty of proving matter vs. consciousness, yet if we probe it, clearly you hold a firm belief about it despite not being able to rationally prove your belief. So you can ask your initial question from yourself now.
Can you point out what specifically makes you think I believe that? If it will clear things up I will give you my opinion about the subject outright, I would say it depends on whether there is a creator or not, does this creator have a physical form, where did they come from, what allows them to create life, and many more questions. This question can't be answered with our knowledge and it is built on other unanswerable concepts so any answer is just a guess.
Could you explain what that has to do with understanding objective and subjective means? I cannot prove to you that anything exists, I can't even prove to you that we live in the same reality, or that you are a sentient being and not a figment of my imagination. "I think, therefore I am", I can observe my reality but I can neither prove my existence nor confirm my observations are correct. The only conclusion that leaves me with is, I know that I don't know.
I don't value objectivity over subjectivity unless we're talking about logic because logic is about overcoming subjective beliefs to find the objective truth, so it should follow that I hold your logic to the rigidity that it's defined by no?
And again, you are making assumptions about me with no truth behind them.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It isn't like religion is incompatible with logic and science.
There are some religions that require rejecting science, and some that require blind faith, but it isn't all throbs religions, and it isn't inherent to religion itself.
The only time it takes any mental gymnastics is when the religion does reject science as a methodology (as opposed to rejecting blind faith in science) and/or require that each follower must agree to reject it as well.
Something like neopaganism isn't as prone to excluding science as methodology, and berry very often supports science as a body of knowledge, but focuses on the parts of life that science doesn't cover. It happens still, and some of the zealots from those religions can be just as crazy as zealots from something like christianity. But, on average, your typical Wiccans aren't going to be science haters, they're just more interested in other things.
Now, you will get a lot of those sorts choosing to reject science based information on specific things, but that's no more or less than when your average agnostic or atheist buys into pseudoscience. That means it isn't really a religion thing, it's a human thing.
You'll find plenty of monotheists in science even, and they're not conflicted because science, logic is about the concrete, the physical world. They can freely choose to lol are their holy texts as humanly made, but divinely inspired, and thus a product of its time. So there's no conflict. The scientific method simply explores the world as it is, seeking a better understanding of what their god created, without worrying about the why.
There doesn't even have to be a conflict in the Abrahamic sects between evolution and creation. If the specific sect and follower assumes that god is all powerful and all knowing, them evolution is simply the will of god as it expresses itself over time. Or, that god created a universe that is meant to grow and change independently, and thus evolution was part of that creation from the beginning.
As much as religious thought can be a limitation to thinking, it doesn't have to be. They just have to accept that the religious stuff is about the soul, and that souls aren't relevant to logic or science. When that way of thinking is in place, it's possible to logically know that no religion can be proven any more than the existence of the divine can be disproven, so it simply isn't relevant to science at all.
Fwiw, I'm not religious. The closest I get is an appreciation of Buddhist principles, and taoist outlook on viewing reality. They're "fun", they give a platform to work from in dealing with the unpleasant aspects of existence, so they have value. But that's not the same as being religious, or even "spiritual". Plus, when the topic of religion comes up, I can throw those out there as shorthand for "I'm not interested in your religion becoming my religion, thank you."
