To believe or not to believe, that is my question

Remove all ads!

Let me share something that is truly a belief for me.

I believe the universe was not formed.

I also do not believe there is a god.

Those sentences are both true in my case; they're also very different things.

Either it's rational or !rational, logical or !logical. That's the way those concepts work.

 

Taza, that sounds like a very good example of doublethink but it does make sense in a way. If you think about it, the big bang is a very good theory but there are a lot of things that seem a bit to random to have happened by accident.
It's like, I believe in God but I also believe in evolution

 

That's because much of the bible is metaphorical in an attempt to make it easier to distribute in a manner that could be explained to masses and also made the clergy think for a change rather than point 'n' punch Minsc style.

There are also different levels of rationality and logic, from the simplest level there is one rational solution, one logical solution, when looking at the mechanical level there can sometimes be multiple logical and rational solutions usually in an order of preference, by the time you get to the human level of rational and logical thought there are too many external factors to a single decision to easily define religious faith of any creed as irrational and illogical based on the simple statement of "I believe in God/A Pink Unicorn"
(I went to a Christian school for three years, one girl ernestly held her ground in believing angels rode unicorns. It was quite sweet really in a rather odd manner.)

One belief that seems to hold atheists together is that they believe religious people are wrong

 

Not to go off topic, but I can easily see how someone can believe in both. You can say that evolution is the process by which God designed humans to come into existence. I don't view belief in God and evolution to have any mutually exclusive aspects in them. However, I will agree if you change the wording a bit. For example you cannot believe in both evolution and creationism, or evolution and the literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

God, I love you 8. And since we're wallowing deep in the bog of semantics already I mean 'only' "a strong positive emotion of regard and affection" and concerning your posts, specifically in this thread.

 

I think that was the best post on this thread Iku. It really is all down to how you accept a words meaning

 

Ok, that's fine, but it's still a belief, and that's my point.

This is true, and there are some 'atheists' (I think of them more as agnostics than atheists) who hold only the second, and nothing more, but there are a great many who hold the second as well as some other specific belief. Enough, I would guess, to say that this is the standard position of atheism.

Ancient hebrews believed the Earth was a sphere. Was this rational or irrational?

While you are technically correct, the problem is that the vast majority of english speakers use words like 'irrational' and 'illogical' to say 'in defiance of rationality or logic', as in, it can be proven wrong. This is not the case with religion, and it is dishonest to imply that it is. Religion cannot be proven through logic or rationality, but neither can it be disproven. Unfortunately, while 'illogical' and 'irrational' are the technically correct terms for this, their connotations are far more specific, and improper for this situation. Thus why I prefer non-rational.

I'll say it again. Read Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. Here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132
You can get it for about $5 if you don't mind a used copy.

Now, I will agree that evolution and the modern concept of creationism are mutually exclusive, and I believe evolution to be the more correct of the two (still not 100%, though).

 

NOG you're really missing an important point. I do not believe in the big bank (edit: oops bang) theory. I do not believe in evolution. These are merely the most plausable explainations set forth so far, so I accept them. There is no belief but instead acceptance. You may not see the difference, but many other people do and it's an important distinction.

I do not accept the premise of a God. There is no belief involved at all.

 

Aren't we talking about the financial crisis in another thread?

 

Anyone heard the lecturers brain analogy

Easily ripped to shreds, but amusing in it's own context.

@ Iku
Aww, I hold you in a state of positive emotional regard and opinion within the state of written communication over a multi-user internet based system designed for the sharing of opinions and information originally dedicated to a specific genre of gameplay too

And words wonderful?

 

So does the Pope. So I think you're on safe ground.

Either that or you're some sort of heretic.

Well. You're right insofar as that at some point everyone morality and worldview and so on are arbitrary. But even if you want to go that route there remain differences of degrees. And the degree of difference between atheism and theism is akin to the degree of difference between the theory of evolution and young earth creationism. Of course, theism isn't all the same. St. Augustine is to Jerry Falwell as Einstein is to a child. Or something.

 

It's not doublethink at all. It's a concept apparently too difficult for most religious people and scientists, despite the acceptance of infinity being a critical part of both.

I'm not religious, I just believe the universe has been here forever. That's a belief. I can't prove nor disprove it yet I think it is so.

I do not believe in a god. That's an opinion. I don't accept the proof of someone (anyone, thus far) else as suitable backing for what to me is a ludicrous concept.

Says you.

I have human level of rational and logical thought - though you may debate that - and I say I can effortlessly define any religious faith as irrational and illogical. The very concept of faith is irrational and illogical; ergo, any religious faith is contaminated just by being faith.

Admittedly, any opinion about an infinite/finite universe and prime cause is also irrational and illogical. We quite literally cannot know because comprehending or proving any of the possible options is beyond any sentient being; bar possibly a truly omnipotent and omniscient being. One that is capable of withstanding logical contradictions in it's own being. A two-dimensional square circle, if you will.

 

You kinda proved my point

For just as many people that can rationalise it as illogical or irrational there will be someone who can rationalise it as logical and rational. Too many solutions with too little proof either way to conclude to an outright answer

 

Now you're just redefining words to suit you.

An outright answer is that believing in something without proof is both irrational and illogical. And also makes you delusional according to some definitions.

Faith is fundamentally incompatible with rationality and logic, unless you specifically note that the result is going to be skewed due to unknown variables.

Cannot say faith is incompatible with rationalization though. But we weren't talking about rationalization here.

 

Taza, you've already stated that I'm irrational for believing in God so you'll be pleased to know that I'm now getting a rational belief in you not reading the original post. I didn't ask whether God existed or not, I want to know why it's wrong to say that athiest believe there is no God

 

It's "wrong" because it's most often found in the context of a proselytizing rhetorical tactic.

A point of "believers and non-believers have something in common" can be driven through by saying that atheists are convinced that there is no god(s)/God/Pink Unicorn/Spaghetti Monster and theists, deists are convinced that there are.

And more so by claiming that atheist might have a conviction that religions are nonsense. Religious people most likely do have a conviction that their faith and their religion specifically is more or less true.

Now find me a "true believer" who doesn't utter a word of his/her faith and keeps it under the lid; find me a believer who does not proselytize. Find me an atheist who'd say that "No, I don't have a conviction that God/gods/Xenu/Pink Unicorn Spaghetti Monster does not exist". In the way the world lies, in the context of western culture this is not the easiest task.

(Might as well get a lantern, a blindfold and start looking for an "honest man"...)

@8people: yes, words are more wonderful than mere words can describe

edit: funky logic played havoc on my base-line

 

So, here's a complete drive-by post, but there's some important distinctions not being made.

Strong atheist: 'I believe there is no god.'
Weak atheist: 'I do not believe there is a god.'
Agnostic: 'I do not know if there is or is not a god.'

 

Make that a double on the strong atheist:

"I do not have a belief that there is no God. There is no God, because only the things that are possible to be as subjects to a scientific enquiry are valid to be placed into propositions concerning the world. If a thing or a phenomenon as it appears to us is per definition not possible to be as a subject of a scientific enquiry, then it does not exist. Only those things exist that can be perceived and/or have a direct causal relation to the things that we perceive, the causal relation being such that the phenomenons that we perceive would not appear and be possible without such causal relation. Everything we know through all the fields of natural science does not necessitate the existence of an omnipotent being. Therefore the claims for an omnipotent being are only wild hypotheses that have no relevance whatsoever for the way that scientific research is made and how scientific hypotheses should be formed. Moreover it would be better not to have belief systems such as organized religions, since the belief systems such as certain specific organized religions are misleading in the way that they teach how this world works, since all kinds of ethical and moral guidelines are flimsily derived from a wild hypotheses that have no basis in the natural science and its observations and these moral guidelines or even directives or even laws hinder scientific research in the current political climate and moreover might even lead to premature deaths, spreading of diseases and even instigate political conflicts and wars."

..or something like that...

 

Ok, a lot to respond to over all, but here goes.

Hmm, the distinction between belief and acceptance, interesting. What is the distinction? It seems, from the way you're putting it, that the distinction is once again in a degree of certainty. Acceptance of the possibility seems to imply even less certainty than belief.

So, then, this seems to put you in a different category than the typical atheist who is insulted by the term belief. You don't 'believe' anything, but rather admit great uncertainty on the whole field. You seem to generally feel the premise of God is far less likely than other explanations, but are not really even certainly against that (because if you are, then you believe in the non-existence of gods)?

Ok, that makes much more sense, actually.

This is disengenuous in the extreme. You present it as though there were some proof for atheism. The reality is that there is a great deal of circumstantial proof for God (all of which can be explained away with coincidences and the like) and no evidence for the lack of God (not that much evidence would be expected). Both beliefs are reasonable, and neither one is really more supported by science/archeology/history than the other. It's more like comparing the flat-earth theory of the ancient greeks to the geocentric theory of the ancient greeks, all in the reference of the ancient greeks.

Just to point something out to you, science has confirmed that, at the least, the universe can not have existed as it is forever. For one thing, the universe is expanding, and at an increasing rate. For another, as things are now, there is no way to decrease entropy, while everything increases it. Entropy is not infinite, thus this system could not have been around forever. Either the universe has a finite beginning, or there have been some drastic changes along the way (both are plausable, I just want to make sure you aren't falling into the static universe theory).

The only way you can define religious faith as illogical is to define all faith as illogical, including your own faith in your own senses. This is the only definition of 'illogical' that can be accurately applied to religious faith in general: that which is not strictly supported by logical proof.

It's good to see someone else gets this.

Ok, that moment is gone now. What definition of 'delusional' are you using?

This is false. Faith and rationality can co-exist quite well, they can even interact with each other, they just don't destroy each other.

Rationality cannot disprove belief in God, therefore rationality has no contradiction with such faith. Likewise, belief in God (depending on the god), has no problem with rationality (and Christianity, at least in it's purest form, actually encourages rationality). The two are no more contradictory than belief in your own senses is contradictory to rationality.

*whistles* Wow, Iku, I didn't realize you lived in such a small universe. I mean, no dark matter, no dark energy, no planets orbiting other stars, no black hole at the center of our galaxy, not even much of an Oort Cloud. Well, I guess there's no more point in scientific inquiry or exploration, if only those things that are currently testable and provable/disprovable by science exist. No more undiscovered species, not even in those unexplored parts of the world. Everything's already on our plate, I guess.

To be perfectly clear, the above is a completely ridiculous supposition. The idea that, just because we can't currently test something, it flat out does not exist is flat out contradictory to logic and rationality in the context of our universe. Science itself has disproven this idea completely.

To be clear, anyone who says that science is absolute and all there is, and the only things that really exist are those that can be replicated and tested in a laboratory, is deluding themselves and has basically accepted their own non-existence (let's see you reproduce me under experimental controls, I dare you).

Science is a tool for understanding the universe, and it is a powerful and reliable tool, but it is no more the totality than pure logic is. I see this failing far too often. These are both tools and systems of examining evidence brought before us, but they are nothing more than that. There are a vast number of widely recognized phenomena right here on earth that cannot be replicated in a lab, and many that cannot be understood by modern science. Am I saying that these things are bad tools and should be abandoned? No, I'm just saying that they have their limitations and it is important to recognize those limitations for what they are.

Another point: there are HUGE differences between being logically and rationally supportable, not being logically or rationally supportable, and being logically and rationally disprovable. Belief in God falls into the second of these, not the first, and not the third. Belief in our senses likewise falls into the second of these, not the first and not the third. Your belief in Pluto probably falls into the second of these, not the first and not the third.