In today's enlightened world (and especially here on BYOND), people take on an increasingly skeptical view on the subject of religion. Here on BYOND, many of us are open about their athiesm (or maybe agnosticism.) While this is perfectly fine, I honestly think we oughta be giving religious people a break.
Assuming that a person doesn't take every word in their bible literally, there is no reason why science and religion cannot possibly co-exist. Science answers "how" things happen, and religion tries to answer "why" things happen. And to put things simply, there are plenty of questions out there that can really only be answered by the existance of a higher power:
- Most people in the science world agree on some variation of the Big Bang theory, but acceptance of this theory means acknowledgement that the universe is not infinite, and not permenant. Since this is the case (and this argument has been used before--I found some interesting points in the book "The Case For Christianity"), and since any other universes that our own may have branched off of would likely also be infinite (science as we know it doesn't like the idea of things being constant) there has to be some original creator. Wouldn't some sort of "god," who transcends the boundaries of our known universe, and who had the power to create, be a reasonable answer based on what our collective knowledge is today?
- While science and biology can explain what makes people run, and evolution is becoming more fact and less theory, there are still two questions: How did life come about when there was no life, and How is free will (or even the illusion of free will) possible based solely on what can be justified in the scientific world? The idea that a chain of amino acids just happened to start replicating on its own and eventually leading to life as we know it seems kind of far-fetched, and it would likely be impossible to give the link between the primordial soup and the powers of reasoning that humanity has today.
These two major points seem to outline a valid reason to believe in some form of higher power. Just remember: regardless of how obsurd religious belief may seem to you, there are valid questions to which god is a very reasonable answer.
ID:36417
 Nov 6 2007, 6:08 am
|
|
|
Nov 6 2007, 6:19 am
|
|
Quaddw
 |
Not as absurd as BYOND for/against religion posts
|
Vexonater,
Win. | |
Science does answer both how and why. You can't know one for sure without the other. Science teaches us that we don't know hardly anything. We are still learning though. Just because science is showing us how much we don't know, it doesn't mean that we know less than before.
Just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean you can make one up. Saying a god caused the big bang leaves the question of what caused the god. Free will is a result of the way our brain works. We must adapt to situations instantly, meaning our brains must be able to figure out what to do, even if it doesn't seem like the most logical thing to do, like running behind cover rather than running away. This can't be something pre-designed in the mind. | |
Well said. Religion is inherently irrational, because it claims at least partially to answer a number of questions that pure reason can never answer. On the other hand, since reason itself acknowledges that reason has limits, there may be a rational case for embracing religion's irrationality.
| |
Saying a god caused the big bang leaves the question of what caused the god. Not necessarily. A "god" could, in fact be the definitive constant in the universe. Remember, that religion arises from primitive peoples trying to get a grasp on what is occurring around them. In many ways, it *is* science in its simplest form. Likewise, "science" can often become as dogmatic as religious stereotypes. In it's ideal form, science is a process of truth seeking. Not coincidently, so is religion. But they do largely address different issues. Science concerns itself with "hard" realities, religion with moral codes and social obligations. Also, I agree with Gughunter. | |
Gughunter wrote:
...there may be a rational case for embracing religion's irrationality. Ehh... I'd argue that there is never a rational case for embracing irrationality. Throwing one's arms up in the air and saying "Well, I can't come up with any other explanation!" isn't making a rational argument. People who are religious have many causes to believe what they believe... but that doesn't mean that the decision to believe in God is a rational one. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Gughunter wrote: According to you, an obvious atheist (or agnostic?) | |
Koil wrote:
According to you, an obvious atheist (or agnostic?) Atheist... but how does that affect the logic of what I said? Belief in God is a belief in the irrational; there isn't much of a debate to be had about that. That's why the term "faith" is used. | |
"The idea that a chain of amino acids just happened to start replicating on its own and eventually leading to life as we know it seems kind of far-fetched, and it would likely be impossible to give the link between the primordial soup and the powers of reasoning that humanity has today."
Why does that seem farfetched? Given small changes every generation, things can evolve into lots of other things over millions of years. There is a chapter in Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene that explains the concept of life coming from non-life in a very easy-to-understand manner. I reccomend the book to anyone but a fundie, 'cause they'd probably just destroy it. | |
SilkWizard:
Rationality is a process and is derived from concepts that are by and large opposed by empiricism (though they are not mutually exclusive). In other words, is the primary source of truth deduction or experience? Interestingly, rationalism can very easily support religion, as can empiricism (though by a wholly different premise). Indeed, rationalist philosophers acknowledge the limitations of the human mind in rational deduction and it it may be that such a process is only possible by a divine being (Decartes proposed that humans innately knew God and faith)! Which is a interesting conclusion, to say the least. The point is, rationalism is not without limits. While great for math and theorems, as Hume points out, it is a limited measure of much of the human experience. You may be surprised to know that Christian rationalism is one of the the three main approaches recognized in modern Christian philosophy (Christian existentialism and Christian pragmatism being the two others). | |
Seriously, belief in a god? And what "whys" has religion answered, just out of curiosity? Who made God?
| |
I do not equate the philosophical definition of Rationalism with rationality.
Rationalism and Empiricism boil down to this: people who forsake reality for mysticism, or people who think that the only way to understand reality is to forsake their mind. Rationality is the acceptance that reason is a person's only source of knowledge, one's only value judgement scale, and one's only guide to action. To say that rational deduction is to be left up to an intangible divine being isn't an interesting conclusion... it's a contradiction. A concession to the irrational invalidates a rational thought process, changing its course from the action of perceiving reality into that of faking reality. | |
Gods not real, if he is show me where he lives.
| |
Ehh... I'd argue that there is never a rational case for embracing irrationality. Pascal's Wager is a famous attempt to make a rational case for it. Of course, one can say that his valuations of the payouts were themselves irrational, but it's a good try anyway. Which is, IMHO, kind of a big Achilles' heel in Objectivism in general (and for what it's worth, I think much, much more highly of Objectivism than most other isms). It says people must always check their premises -- which is quite true -- but it also reserves the right for individuals to set their own priorities about what they value; yet those priorities become, for all practical purposes, premises. If I love a woman (i.e., respond to the values she represents to me) so much that I would die for her, that is commendable to an Objectivist, because I recognize that the value I obtain from standing up for her is greater than the value I would obtain from allowing her to fall into dire straits. If I love a God equally well, however, some generous Objectivists might express regret that I was such a deluded fool -- even though the God is, to me, not only the representation, but also the source and the summation of all values. (Note that I do not here assert a God who demands altruism, let alone demands that altruism must manifest in forms acceptable to, say, the New York Times editorial board.) Yes, the Objectivist would say that I have a right to that delusion, as long as I don't seek to impose it upon anyone else, and believe me, I know that's a lot more than a lot of people would grant me. But the Objectivist would sure respect me more if I felt that way about a woman instead of a God. ...Unless she wasn't really all that great a woman, which, let's face it, by Objectivist standards, at least 95% of women (and men, for that matter) aren't. My point, if I indeed have one, is that Reason will tell you whatever you want to hear, as long as you establish your premises properly. The handy thing about a God is that he will tell you things you don't necessarily want to hear. | |
The Unknown Ninja From Hell wrote:
Gods not real, if he is show me where he lives. ... | |
If reason is the only value, then the system has no values at all. Reason is a process, not a goal. Rationality is merely comparison. And that's the rub- anytime we start assigning goals and values we must choose a methodology. Invariably, this degenerates into subjectivity.
To say that a divine being is perhaps the only being capable of pure rational thought acknowledges that humans do not have perfect information and senses that approach omniscience. Of course, an innatist might feel otherwise.... As a practical matter, though, what does it matter? Except for a few extremists, most people seem to be able to get along despite disagreements in a number of areas. Which is, I think, is Vexonator's point- live and let live. TUNFH: FAIL! Not only is that easy (God lives in Heaven!), but you have Hell in your name, which clearly identifies you as an opponent of God and simply trying to slander him with ninja-trickery ;-P | |
Jmurph: I strongly disagree. Are you saying that we live our lives by a code of values and ethics that exist outside the realm of reality? Reason is the process that we use to identify our values.
As you might expect, I have an Ayn Rand quote that is the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of a response to the question you pose: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. ...Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man -- in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life." ---from The Objectivist Ethics Gughunter; great post. I'm wrapping my head around the concept that you've brought up... I'll reply in just a bit. | |
Alright Gughunter...
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the woman you love and God are valuable to you based upon premises devised from your reasoning... that the same process made them valuable to you, so how can one be viewed as a rational value, and the other not? My best answer is that the woman is a tangible value that exists in reality, and God isn't. There is no proof that God exists (and no proof that He doesn't!), so if you strongly value a being that exists outside the realm of human perception, your reasoning is flawed. Under the Objectivist standards, a rational being bases his understanding of the world in reality... which inherently rejects any nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. Now I'd say that an Objectivist would only commend you for holding a woman as such a high value if that woman were worth the praise. I admit that you're right when you point out that this would exclude a very high percentage of people. In my opinion, belief in a higher power isn't delusional. What I'd consider delusional are people who live their life by a moral code they that ascribe to a higher power which they cannot prove exists. Gughunter wrote: My point, if I indeed have one, is that Reason will tell you whatever you want to hear, as long as you establish your premises properly. The handy thing about a God is that he will tell you things you don't necessarily want to hear. I think that it goes both ways... but it's very true that people can try to distort reason and reality with attempts to rationalize something. And wouldn't you know it, I have yet another Ayn Rand quote up my sleeve! "Since an emotion is experienced as an immediate primary, but is, in fact, a complex, derivative sum, it permits men to practice one of the ugliest of psychological phenomena: rationalization. Rationalization is a cover-up, a process of providing one's emotions with a false identity, of giving them spurious explanations and justifications --in order to hide one's motives, not just from others, but primarily from oneself. The price of rationalizing is the hampering, the distortion and, ultimately, the destruction of one's cognitive faculty. Rationalization is a process not of perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one's emotions." --- from Philosophy: Who Needs It | |
There is proof, yet people do not accept them as proof. When you have decided to actually take the time and read all of the religious books that have "claimed" to have come from God, then tell me there is no proof. I in no way see why believing in God is irrational.
When you begin to question the existence of God, that is when you have strayed too far. | |