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?
-
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
-
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.
Why is it good that it makes you uncomfortable? And I’ll go a step further and ask whether all discomfort regarding religion is good. For example, was your chaplain saying you should be uncomfortable because you’re not sure if it’s rooted in truth, or were they saying you should be going out of your comfort zone and challenging yourself to do more and/or expressing your faith in new ways? If so, are the two equivalent?
I’m asking in genuine curiosity: I grew up Catholic, and never felt much of a community motivation for my religion. Once I got to college, I mostly stopped going to church, with occasional bursts where I’d decide to go for a month or so. So going to church dried up before my faith did for me, and I don’t really understand going in the absence of faith.
I hung on as an agnostic theist for years, though lately I think I’ve been more of an agnostic atheist. I agree with your sentiment on God existence not being predicated on belief, but have also reached the conclusion that if I need belief to accept something as true, it probably isn’t.
-
This post did not contain any content.
You likely also participate in rituals that were taught to you that are not solely grounded in logic or science. Do you do things in a certain order for no reason other than your parents taught you to do so? Do you avoid eating certain foods because you never ate them growing up?
People who are raised religious may not be fanatic believers, but they may still be "culturally religious" e.g. take part in Ramadan, avoid eating pork, because that's the way they grew up, and a lot of the time it means they can be included in cultural matters of the community they come from.
As for why some people are proper religious, fully believing and all, I also don't think all beliefs have to be rational. Some beliefs are comforting. If it helps someone to get through a difficult time by believing there's a higher power rooting for them, or who has pre-planned their suffering for a greater good, they may choose to believe that because it's mentally easier. Arguably that is a rational belief anyway because it benefits you and makes your life easier to get through.
-
I'd be very surprised if Quantum Fluctuations are pop-sci misinformation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Hmm, but that seems to be again that there's actually fields there, rather than proper nothing. At the very least, I would still say that the universe already existed before the Big Bang, if there was fields spanning all over the place and they just needed quantum fluctuation to turn into something you can touch. Especially, because "touch" is still just an interaction with a field.
And I'm not trying to say that the phenomenon itself is pop-sci misinformation, but rather how it's portrayed. They'll write a title like "How Quantum Fluctuation Creates Something from Nothing", which is technically something you could say, because "nothing" doesn't have a sharp definition. But it's also misleading as people will not think that "nothing" could also mean that there is actually still fields there. Instead, they will interpret it as proper nothing. And pop-sci journalists do that, because it brings in clicks, unfortunately.
-
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.
I wouldn't say unintelligent, I would say untrained to think beyond certain constraints. We break through one barrier, then another.
