Religious but otherwise sensible and intelitgent people

Post Reply New Topic

The problem with such a critique is that it missing the point of my post. I wasn't directing my post to everyone. I was answering DentArthurDent's question, sharing his basic assumptions, and showing how a person of superior intelligence can believe in something of less than superior rationality.

But, in terms of my case, I will say this:

1) Unless otherwise shown, metaphysical naturalism is the simplest explanation (it involves only one type of causation, probabilisitc or deterministic). In accordance with the Principle of Parsimony. Postulating a supernatural entity whose constitution and nature are unknown and inherently unknowable, beyond human comprehension, assumes an immense entity.
2) An interventionist God has been rendered unneccessary as there have been no physical mysteries which are easily explained and predicted by postulating such an entity.
3) A detached, deist God only explains the "first cause" yet is still needless complex (see premise 1) and dualistically adds a second plane of existence and set of laws of causality or probabilistic restraints. Furthermore, it presupposes everything must have a cause. Plus even multiverse hypotheses in physical cosmology are less complicated than a deistic god.
4) Ergo, belief in a supernatural God is of less than superior rationality.

As an atheist I agree with much of what you say but point 2 indicates a basic attitude in religious people that is most disturbing to someone who adheres to the scientific faith that the universe is substantially comprehensible. If a God is postulated as the directing force behind basic phenomena and the thoughts of that God are not available for human analysis then the conclusion must be that the basic structure of the universe is unknowable. This is the forceful conclusion that humanity should not strive for knowledge since that effort is ultimately futile and a superbeing that can violate the laws of the universe makes science a farce. I cannot accept that.

To get anywhere in a democracy, you have to at least pretend to believe in the popular religion.

Hypocrisy has its uses. For hundreds of years the USA has claimed the political equality of all people. That obvious falsehood in the state of US democracy has helped to attain it to a better degree although it obviously has some distance yet to cover.

Perhaps not Wicca per se, but its general family (New Age belief) has certain subsets which perpetuate harmful beliefs. In the case of New Agism it's the anti-vaxer and alternative medicine sects which impose their beliefs on their children (something that usually falls under family jurisdiction, but when it comes to medicine can prove fatal).

Sweden and the Czech Republic must be something other than democracies than.

This need to show your devoutness is a relatively new phenomena, at least I do not believe that ones personal beliefs have not had such importance in politics for a very long time. Growing up in the UK I do not remember the likes of Ted Heath, Jim Callahan, Harold Wilson, or even Margaret Thatcher ever discusing there religious convictions. But Tony Blair seemed to need to make sure everyone new his, the same is happening here in Australia and I suspect religious conviction is far more important than it used to be in the US as well.

A religious convict is an interesting term considering the strictures of rigid dogmatism.

Doesnt seem to be too critical in Canada.

I'm not a Christian, by definition, but I believe in Christ. I admit that I have not thoroughly studied the Bible, but I recognize the immense importance of the Gospels. I have come to view the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Matthew as one of the most important guides for living virtuously that has ever come to be. Christ's words of guidance in this are as Universal to human understanding as is the Bhagavad Gita. Why is this? Not because it has relevance to the physical world. Not because it pretty words or because it has words that translate well into its original languages.

Instead, scripture is relevant because it speaks to the spirit. Scripture is like a person, in that it has physical form: organized books, chapters, verses and even varying translations. It also has spiritual form in that, regardless of translation or even oral tradition, its spiritual message retains its integrity. Spiritual integrity is all that matters.

There are many who wish to interpret the Bible literally. IMO, they might as well reject Christ as the Messiah altogether, as His very fulfillment of Hebrew scripture was anything but literal. To take the Bible literally is to take it for its material form, or at the very least, with a significant ignorance of its spiritual form. Coincidentally, literalists tend to be the same group that have adopted "creation science". This puts them on a parallel with atheists by trying to prove/disprove the Existence of God or the meaning/relevance of Scripture by material/scientific means.

So often, the argument I hear against the Existence of God has to do with trying to justify aspects of the world or its perpetual state of suffering. Most peoples' argument against Faith/God deals with war/atrocity or the resentment of the actions of people of faith. Things which people(mistakenly) think that an All-Loving God should intervene on.

When this is the case, I must point out that your problem is with humanity or yourself. Not God. My intention is not to push, pressure, or proselytize. However, I think Bo Diddley's words fit well: "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."

This may be a rough depiction, and scientifically minded people will probably disagree or try to pick it apart: Science is about finding the best, most relevant answer to physical phenomena. Science is about ultimately finding the correct answer. Spirituality is metaphysical. Spirituality is perceptive. The words "correct"and "incorrect" do not apply. Because spiritual truth relies on a single word: purity. Purity of heart, conscience, will, and motive. Different people and different religions approach this purity in different ways. Some even approach it through science. To each his own.

Does adherence to a religion or to atheism reflect upon a person's intelligence? No. It only reflects upon a lifetime of perceptions and experiences. Does it reflect on one's ability to live a good life? No. Does it reflect upon the accuracy or relevance of a person's perception? Not necessarily. Are there misled/misguided/deluded people out there? Absolutely.

It's time to accept that we each have a unique set of solutions. The only way to prove the accuracy/validity/relevance of a person's solution set is for that person to live it. The most accurate set will inspire others, hence people like Christ/Buddha and all of the well accepted scientists. Even then, the outcome is relative to the perception of other people.

I never really underestimate the sensibleness, intelligence, and sincerity of either the atheist or the religious person. But for me the entire universe with all its design, order, and complexity seems to argue for an intelligent Designer. From my research it seems to be far more logical for me to believe in the Bible's opening words, "In the beginning God created" than it is to believe in atheism's premise, "In the beginning chance created."

I like what Einstein said: “Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”

It continuously surprises me that many people seem to feel that there isn't a basic intelligence in the interplay of the basic forces that form the dynamics of the universe. That some alien "smart" character has to undetectably step in and orchestrate what we see going on before our eyes. No doubt there is much to learn and even recently new forces have been detected but why something totally invisible and mysterious?

Don't be too optimistic.

1) It's critical enough for the leftmost party and one whose base is largely secular to try and synthesize its ideals with religious rhetoric..
2) It's critical or at least acceptable enough for the PM to use "God Bless Canada" at the end of his speeches.
3) It's critical enough for only 59% of Canadians to accept common decent while 42% of canucks believe humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at the same time.
4) It's critical enough for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to reject funding for Brian Alters attmept to study anti-evolution inflitration in Canada schools because such a study "justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent-design theory, was correct." These are top notch, highly educated, social researchers proclaiming that ID and evolutionary biology are equally true!

While not as egregious as the States, Canada is no Northwestern Europe when it comes to religion.

The design argument has been rebuked for quite some time, initally by David Hume.

1) It can be shown that some order in the Universe arises from simpler and more basic order.
2) Because you've seen orderly objects, like watches, constructed (or at least are acquainted, by society, of their construction) you know such objects are always designed. But you've never seen the universe designed nor have you seen how it could be. Therefore, you're making analogies outside of your experience governing unknown processes.
3) A natural property, X, could alternately explain such observed order (I'd personally add that any natural property is inherently more parsimonious then postulating an infinitely powerful supernatural agency).
4) You've proven a minimal Deism, nowhere near extending to the maximal theisms this argumente is used to support.

Further arguments go that you're postulating an unknown and inherently unknowable entity to explain the Universe, from an explanatory perspective very unsatisfying.

Since Hume's time, a lot more order in the universe has been explained by much more fundamental order. The only parsimonious view of the universe at present is that it is ultimately a combination of random chance and neccessity.

Physical cosmologies have already provided alternate hypotheses, one being multiverse theory (still simpler than your divine agency).

A much funner Einstein quote would have to be...

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." - Einstein [1]

Of course, I've never been one for appeals to irrelevant authorities, so I wouldn't argue on the basis of this quote.