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?
-
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."
-
veritassium did a video replicating a FASCINATING study that proves that logical people get dramatically less logical when they encounter facts that contradicts their deeply held beliefs; they get even less logical that "non-logical" people
so they don't consolidate the 2 sides of themselves; instead they apply their logic to the things that they don't care much about and get less logical on the subjects/topic that they care more about it.
-
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?
Honestly, it's such a deeply core part of my personality that I can't envision someone without it that's still "me".
I know most people who don't grow up religious don't seek it out later (though some do) and I'm not vain enough to think that I'm that different from most people.
As to changing religions, yes, I've had the opportunity to convert, and yes, I felt no desire to because I'm mostly satisfied with my religion. I flirt with the idea of attending a Unitarian or Quaker congregation sometimes but I already belong in an Episcopal one, y'know?
-
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.
Does it bother you that only one of those criteria is actually tied to faith in a god’s existence?
-
Does it bother you that only one of those criteria is actually tied to faith in a god’s existence?
Sometimes!
My college chaplain often said "If religion makes you comfortable you're doing it wrong." So, yes, I'm bothered that so much of my connection to my religion is circumstancial, but I'd rather be uncomfortable about it than dishonest with myself. And admittedly, I'm kind of at a low point right now, so my answers might be very different in eighteen months.
That said, God exists or doesn't regardless of what I believe. I don't particularly need to take anything on faith to find value in my religion.
-
Sometimes!
My college chaplain often said "If religion makes you comfortable you're doing it wrong." So, yes, I'm bothered that so much of my connection to my religion is circumstancial, but I'd rather be uncomfortable about it than dishonest with myself. And admittedly, I'm kind of at a low point right now, so my answers might be very different in eighteen months.
That said, God exists or doesn't regardless of what I believe. I don't particularly need to take anything on faith to find value in my religion.
God exists or doesn't regardless of what I believe.
This is a very profound realisation
-
This post did not contain any content.
I’m curious what you mean by “drop their skepticism.”
I believe the universe was created and I also believe that modern science does an incredibly good job describing the way it functions to the best of our ability. I do not believe the idea of religion is 100% at odds with science
-
I’m curious what you mean by “drop their skepticism.”
I believe the universe was created and I also believe that modern science does an incredibly good job describing the way it functions to the best of our ability. I do not believe the idea of religion is 100% at odds with science
By drop their skepticism I mean dropping their scientific mindset of theories are not facts, an experiment needs to be reproduceable, etc. I don't believe that science disproves religion but I do believe there are too many unproveable aspects of most religions for me to be too skeptical to believe in fully
-
By drop their skepticism I mean dropping their scientific mindset of theories are not facts, an experiment needs to be reproduceable, etc. I don't believe that science disproves religion but I do believe there are too many unproveable aspects of most religions for me to be too skeptical to believe in fully
Gotcha gotcha
-
This post did not contain any content.
No, there are no such people.
-
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
we have no evidence for or against, and the outcome doesn’t really change how we interact with the world
I've heard it described as "flying spaghetti monster for the religious" because, much like FSM, it's a useful allegory to frame the point, but not very interesting beyond that.
-
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.That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don't just pop into existence, ever.
But they do! Not a classical scale, but on the quantum scale this literally happens all the time.
-
By drop their skepticism I mean dropping their scientific mindset of theories are not facts, an experiment needs to be reproduceable, etc. I don't believe that science disproves religion but I do believe there are too many unproveable aspects of most religions for me to be too skeptical to believe in fully
There is plenty of science with a non-reproducible basis. Richard Dawkins has gone as far to say that evolution is fact. And yet we have never observed one species changing into another - sure, the headlines say we have, but when you drill right down into the source material the best you can find is "these creatures do not normally reproduce with each other". Note the wording: "do not normally". Not "cannot", which is what the headline fundamentally requires in order to be truly accurate.
-
Sounds like a hobby
Yes you're right. Church activities have a lot in common with hobbies and clubs, and church folk criticise me for saying that. Any time people get together for shared activities will exhibit a lot of commonality.
-
There is plenty of science with a non-reproducible basis. Richard Dawkins has gone as far to say that evolution is fact. And yet we have never observed one species changing into another - sure, the headlines say we have, but when you drill right down into the source material the best you can find is "these creatures do not normally reproduce with each other". Note the wording: "do not normally". Not "cannot", which is what the headline fundamentally requires in order to be truly accurate.
Evolution in complex organisms takes millions of years so no it's not something you'll witness in your life time. The evolutions you do witness are in faster aging, less complex organisms such as microbes which we can practically witness evolving in real time. Evolution isn't a theory, it is an inevitability, those that survive their surroundings pass on their genes, that is all that evolution is.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Historically/anthropologically, conforming to the beliefs of the society you live in is the most logical thing a human can do for their survival.
-
Historically/anthropologically, conforming to the beliefs of the society you live in is the most logical thing a human can do for their survival.
In the sense that people who aren't really religious go to church to conform?
-
In the sense that people who aren't really religious go to church to conform?
In the sense that people who aren't actually being watched by a higher power will legitimately believe they are because believing anything else can be hazardous to their health.
-
That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don't just pop into existence, ever.
But they do! Not a classical scale, but on the quantum scale this literally happens all the time.
Hmm, I'm no expert, but I think I looked into this a while ago and it turned out to be pop-sci misinformation. What I'm finding from looking this up right now seems to confirm that it's not actual empty space, but rather space with electro-magnetic fields or in a "false vacuum", whatever that is precisely. If you happen to know a specific keyword for this phenomenon, though, I'd look into it some more.
-
Hmm, I'm no expert, but I think I looked into this a while ago and it turned out to be pop-sci misinformation. What I'm finding from looking this up right now seems to confirm that it's not actual empty space, but rather space with electro-magnetic fields or in a "false vacuum", whatever that is precisely. If you happen to know a specific keyword for this phenomenon, though, I'd look into it some more.
I'd be very surprised if Quantum Fluctuations are pop-sci misinformation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
