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?
-
Sounds like a hobby
you're not wrong
-
Did you grow up religious? Or maybe more specifically, did you grow up around this religious group and established connections young?
yes to both
-
There is a prevelant theory but it's still an unanswered philosophical question that noone truly intelligent would tell you they knew definitively. Anyone asserting that matter 100% comes before conciousness is on the same wavelength as someone telling you there is 100% a god controlling everything.
So we can at least agree that people who are confident in something unproveable are objectively unintelligent.
Unintelligent? Maybe. Maybe the rest have had the power of imagination constrained so long, it's atrophied. But exercise may restore a degree of it.
-
Sounds like a hobby
Not the commenter, but Christian as well. Consider myself non-denominational, but attend/worship at an Episcopalian Church. The hobby comment isn't entirely untrue, but there's more meaning to it than that for me at least.
Most hobbies don't have such an outsized influence on my life. The hobbies that could would cost a lot of money.
-
You're wiggling a bit but let's go with that and get to your original question.
Based on your responses, you probably hold a core belief that matter comes before consciousness. You're smart enough to admit it's not a certainty but you've probably lived your whole life fairly assured it's the case. You speak English well so you have at least been exposed to western culture - which is very materialistic (religious or no, Christianity is also functionally materialistic), and so the core belief both serves you well, and is positively reinforced.
Any new information you get is subconsciously aligned to this core belief. Any decision you make is informed by it. You have a network of data in your head and it all connects to this and some other core beliefs. The same way a religious person can be highly logical but they hold a different core belief and so subtly, everything they know aligns to that belief. The more irrational the core belief, the more convoluted the links are of course but it makes sense to them - they just may not be able to represent it to you with the symbols that is language. And sometimes you'll just get them doing the loading screen face when they try to rationalize their views - then it just becomes a question of which core VALUE is deeper for them; rationality or their religious view.
If rationality is more valuable, it necessarily demolishes the religious view. It demolishes a core belief to which they have aligned all their knowledge about the world. Which is a hell of a trip, and can be very scary. Which is also why rationality often loses.
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.
-
You're wiggling a bit but let's go with that and get to your original question.
Based on your responses, you probably hold a core belief that matter comes before consciousness. You're smart enough to admit it's not a certainty but you've probably lived your whole life fairly assured it's the case. You speak English well so you have at least been exposed to western culture - which is very materialistic (religious or no, Christianity is also functionally materialistic), and so the core belief both serves you well, and is positively reinforced.
Any new information you get is subconsciously aligned to this core belief. Any decision you make is informed by it. You have a network of data in your head and it all connects to this and some other core beliefs. The same way a religious person can be highly logical but they hold a different core belief and so subtly, everything they know aligns to that belief. The more irrational the core belief, the more convoluted the links are of course but it makes sense to them - they just may not be able to represent it to you with the symbols that is language. And sometimes you'll just get them doing the loading screen face when they try to rationalize their views - then it just becomes a question of which core VALUE is deeper for them; rationality or their religious view.
If rationality is more valuable, it necessarily demolishes the religious view. It demolishes a core belief to which they have aligned all their knowledge about the world. Which is a hell of a trip, and can be very scary. Which is also why rationality often loses.
Maybe some hold both in esteem and sort ideas accordingly holding all is a bit of the whole.
-
Unintelligent? Maybe. Maybe the rest have had the power of imagination constrained so long, it's atrophied. But exercise may restore a degree of it.
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 Christian, Episcopalian. What drives me to continue practicing? There's a lot of things:
Socially, I enjoy the sense of community that comes with being an active member of a congregation, and it provides both a reminder to and a venue for giving back in the form of volunteering and charity.
Personally, I appreciate the rhythm it gives to my weeks and years, with specific times set aside for joy and grief, reflection and action, uncomfortable growth and quiet recovery.
Spiritually, I draw both comfort and strength from my relationship with God; whether or not this is a spiritual sort of "rubber ducking" doesn't change how it affects me.
Morally, I think the example of Christ is a good one to follow, and again, that doesn't really depend on Him being a real historical figure.
Very nicely put. This describes my own faith almost to a T.
-
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...
