"Universal need of religion" still in affect?

[Telemachus]

I have some questions that stem from reading and having conversations with atheists / scientific materialists / etc., as well as internal conversations and contemplations.

Are human beings losing their “religion core?” There seems to be a point beyond which a conversation can’t move because of a question like this: “What is existence, and from where / what does it stem?”

At this point, it becomes clear that the “believer” ponders this question quite a bit, and it is the foundation of his search for understanding and God, whatever form that may take. For the “non-believer,” this question can only be met with “Why does it matter?” He might add “Science will explain it eventually,” but I want to focus on the first quote.

I’m stuck. I have no idea how to move beyond something like this. Contemplation of a reality beyond the material, and in the end Belief itself, is founded upon admitting that such a question matters. What do we call the idea “It doesn’t matter”? Is this “materialism” or simply apathy? And either way, from whence does this horrific apathy come from? What could stop a human being from pondering his own existence?

I’m very disturbed by this observation, because it seems to me like the very conciousness of some people has been literally sucked-out. And yet, here they are, still having convictions for some reason, still living their lives as if they mattered, still having children and raising them in love and care. Why? What’s the point to them?

I don’t know how to interact with or perceive these folks. It’s like trying to imagine having a conversation with a cow or a robot. Furthermore, it’s personally insulting, because these same folks are usually those who look on “believers” with condescending smiles, and the words “Poor unthinking, dependent fool. Can’t free himself from _____.”

The existence of such an apathy throws into doubt the “universal need of religion,” such that one of the key things that distinguishes human beings from other animals is disappearing. And if it’s disappearing, how can religion go on? Religion is founded upon a search, and if one can comfortably say “What search?”, how can Belief go on.

Am I perceiving things wrongly? I’m really hoping I am and that this so-called “universal need of religion” is still in affect, because if it isn’t, I’m very doubtful about the future of humanity, myself included. If it was so easily lost somehow, how does one protect it? Can one get it back? I feel like I’ve lost it to a certain respect, and I don’t know how.

I have hypotheses that might answer these questions, but I’d like to hear the viewpoints of some of the other posters first.

 

[mike7795]

I have some questions that stem from reading and having conversations with atheists / scientific materialists / etc., as well as internal conversations and contemplations.

Are human beings losing their “religion core?” There seems to be a point beyond which a conversation can’t move because of a question like this: “What is existence, and from where / what does it stem?”

At this point, it becomes clear that the “believer” ponders this question quite a bit, and it is the foundation of his search for understanding and God, whatever form that may take. For the “non-believer,” this question can only be met with “Why does it matter?” He might add “Science will explain it eventually,” but I want to focus on the first quote.

I’m stuck. I have no idea how to move beyond something like this. Contemplation of a reality beyond the material, and in the end Belief itself, is founded upon admitting that such a question matters. What do we call the idea “It doesn’t matter”? Is this “materialism” or simply apathy? And either way, from whence does this horrific apathy come from? What could stop a human being from pondering his own existence?

I’m very disturbed by this observation, because it seems to me like the very conciousness of some people has been literally sucked-out. And yet, here they are, still having convictions for some reason, still living their lives as if they mattered, still having children and raising them in love and care. Why? What’s the point to them?

I don’t know how to interact with or perceive these folks. It’s like trying to imagine having a conversation with a cow or a robot. Furthermore, it’s personally insulting, because these same folks are usually those who look on “believers” with condescending smiles, and the words “Poor unthinking, dependent fool. Can’t free himself from _____.”

The existence of such an apathy throws into doubt the “universal need of religion,” such that one of the key things that distinguishes human beings from other animals is disappearing. And if it’s disappearing, how can religion go on? Religion is founded upon a search, and if one can comfortably say “What search?”, how can Belief go on.

Am I perceiving things wrongly? I’m really hoping I am and that this so-called “universal need of religion” is still in affect, because if it isn’t, I’m very doubtful about the future of humanity, myself included. If it was so easily lost somehow, how does one protect it? Can one get it back? I feel like I’ve lost it to a certain respect, and I don’t know how.

I have hypotheses that might answer these questions, but I’d like to hear the viewpoints of some of the other posters first.

Perhaps you’re stuck because you’re asking the wrong question. “Why” is rather irrelevant, and can never really be answered, hence the numerous religions found in the world today, each attempting to answer that question.

However, THAT you exist you are sure of. So, find out who or what you are. That’s the only question that matters in life, because we are really the only thing we have to work with.

And I wouldn’t be too quick to knock the atheists/agnostics! I think they often have an easier time of this work, because they’re not locked into a certain idea of what God must be like.

Regards,
Mike

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m very disturbed by this observation, because it seems to me like the very conciousness of some people has been literally sucked-out. And yet, here they are, still having convictions for some reason, still living their lives as if they mattered, still having children and raising them in love and care. Why? What’s the point to them?

I feel exactly the same way. I even wonder if these people have souls. Perhaps they are soul-less zombies operating purely under mechanistic biological instinct. (I’m serious)

 

[ateista]

I feel exactly the same way. I even wonder if these people have souls. Perhaps they are soul-less zombies operating purely under mechanistic biological instinct. (I’m serious)

Excellent observation. Now move one step further. Ask yourself how well do these zombies operate? Can you distinguish the soulless zombies from the soul-bearing humans? If you cannot, then what is the problem? The zombies pass the duck-test, don’t they?

Now back to the OP. Obviously many people desire something “beyond” the physical world. Also obviously many others do not. As a trend, the ones who do not, are getting more and more numerous - as a percent of the population.

Here is a little statistical observation. There is a strong statistical correlation (not to be confused with causation!) between the level of education and the “depth” of religious devotion. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are deeply religious. (I repeat the disclaimer: it should not be asserted that religious people are somehow “inferior” or less intelligent. They are not.)

But the zombies are taking over… is that a scary thought for you?

I find it very encouraging, but I am one of the zombies.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Excellent observation. Now move one step further. Ask yourself how well do these zombies operate? Can you distinguish the soulless zombies from the soul-bearing humans? If you cannot, then what is the problem? The zombies pass the duck-test, don’t they?

Yes, the hypothetical zombies are indistinguishable from the people with souls. The difference is subjective - can only be seen by the subject about himself.

Now back to the OP. Obviously many people desire something “beyond” the physical world. Also obviously many others do not. As a trend, the ones who do not, are getting more and more numerous - as a percent of the population.

Here is a little statistical observation. There is a strong statistical correlation (not to be confused with causation!) between the level of education and the “depth” of religious devotion. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are deeply religious. (I repeat the disclaimer: it should not be asserted that religious people are somehow “inferior” or less intelligent. They are not.)

But the zombies are taking over… is that a scary thought for you?

I find it very encouraging, but I am one of the zombies.

No, I’m not afraid of them It’s sad though, that they will spend their lives pursuing things that are temporary.

 

[ateista]

Yes, the hypothetical zombies are indistinguishable from the people with souls. The difference is subjective - can only be seen by the subject about himself.

Well, if they cannot be told apart, then for all practical purposes, they are the same. Which is a great argument against the existence of a “soul”.

No, I’m not afraid of them

I did not think you would. Though I was referring to the **prospect **that humans will be replaced by the zombies.

You know, I am absolutely delighted by your introduction of the word “zombie”. Every time I see it, I have a huge grin on my face. I wonder, if I can petition to change my user name to “zombie”. I will ask.

It’s sad though, that they will spend their lives pursuing things that are temporary.

Temporary, for sure. But “real” nonetheless. On the other side of the coin, I feel sad that so many humans persue an eternal, but illusiory goal. Though, of course, if that gives them happiness and fulfillment, more power to them.

Let me tell you a true story. James "the Amazing" Randy - maybe you heard of him, a famous stage magician - was asked once to investigate a "miracle". A young girl exhibited the "ability" to read with her fingertips. She only practiced her talent in church, reading the Bible. 

When Randy came to take a look, it was obvious that the girl was cheating. Even though blindfolded, she could look down and see the text in the narrow crevasse next to her nose. Simple trick, and Randy pointed it out. The "miracle" was exposed as a fraud. 

So far, it is not a big deal. Just another "miracle" debunked. The astonishing part was the reaction of the girl's mother. She wept and asked Randy: "Why did you have to expose her? Don't you believe in God?" 

The point is that some people **want** to be fooled. They cringe from reality and embrace the "mysterious". To me this is incomprehensible. Reality is so beautiful that it is impossible for me to understand, why look at illusions, and seek "fulfillment" from the imaginary.

But, then again, I am just a zombie.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, if they cannot be told apart, then for all practical purposes, they are the same. Which is a great argument against the existence of a “soul”.

I don’t think so, since subjectively its very obvious to me that I have an existence distinct from my physical existence. It’s so clear to me that it’s shocking to hear someone else deny it. Which is where the term zombie comes in

I did not think you would. Though I was referring to the **prospect **that humans will be replaced by the zombies.

You know, I am absolutely delighted by your introduction of the word “zombie”. Every time I see it, I have a huge grin on my face. I wonder, if I can petition to change my user name to “zombie”. I will ask.

grin Unfortunately I can’t take credit for it. David J. Chalmers in his book The Conscious Mind uses the term to differentiate between a hypothetical human being which does not have conscious experience. Experience being the key word.

Temporary, for sure. But “real” nonetheless. On the other side of the coin, I feel sad that so many humans persue an eternal, but illusiory goal. Though, of course, if that gives them happiness and fulfillment, more power to them.

Let me tell you a true story. James "the Amazing" Randy - maybe you heard of him, a famous stage magician - was asked once to investigate a "miracle". A young girl exhibited the "ability" to read with her fingertips. She only practiced her talent in church, reading the Bible. 

When Randy came to take a look, it was obvious that the girl was cheating. Even though blindfolded, she could look down and see the text in the narrow crevasse next to her nose. Simple trick, and Randy pointed it out. The "miracle" was exposed as a fraud. 

So far, it is not a big deal. Just another "miracle" debunked. The astonishing part was the reaction of the girl's mother. She wept and asked Randy: "Why did you have to expose her? Don't you believe in God?" 

The point is that some people **want** to be fooled. They cringe from reality and embrace the "mysterious". To me this is incomprehensible. Reality is so beautiful that it is impossible for me to understand, why look at illusions, and seek "fulfillment" from the imaginary.

But, then again, I am just a zombie.

Yes, people definitely want to believe Us believers think that God designed us with a need to believe in something more. Most of us would love to see solid proof but its hard to come by!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think you are conflating a number of things. You ask whether our need for religion is waning. I’m not exactly sure that I understand what you mean. There is some research that suggests that the human brain may be wired so to speak for faith or God. It may indeed by a normal aspect of sentient life. There has been some very limited suggestion that animals of a higher nature, apes for instance have some sense of death. Elephants seem to exhibit certain mourning periods. This suggests some rudimentary idea that we ponder some idea of what happens then.

I believe that faith occurred as the first human looked upon his/her world and contemplated how it came to be, and how he came to be. Unable to answer such a question, humans have posited a supernatural reality wherefrom this reality was created.

As we grew over time in learning, we narrowed the place of the supernatural. Science undoubtedly has been a spur to that because it has explained so much of what historically had no explanation. Some folks hate and dispise science as if it were a living thing for that, and today reject it insofar as it has impinged upon the safe world they have constructed.

Yet we are told that science may never be able to answer the ultimate question, and indeed it may be that our brains are incapable of such an answer. In any event, we are still left with that question. That question cannot be answered, simply put. For indeed, if a supernatural God exists, proof would mean he is not supernatural. Thus I suspect it will forever remain unanswered.

Now people respond to this difficult personal problem in a variety of ways. Some, realizing that believing in something unproveable seems a waste of time, and decide that they can trust only what is proveable in this reality.

Others, decide that they believe in God, but feel that they are ill equipped for such analysis and figure it’s not their job to do so anyway. God is god, man is man, and man should simply get on with human things. God does as God wishes. They may be categorized as the one’s who shrug and say, “get on with your life.”

Others find in one faith or another something tangible that makes them feel centered and in tune with other people. They are your church goers, people who find value in the sacred texts of their faith and find value in living in a way dictated by this faith.

Some, unable to cope with the instability and unpredictability of this reality, take their faith and by selective means create a surety in their own minds. But they go further, and seek out specific information that supports their view. They believe that God is proven, not because he can be or is, but because they so desperately need him to be. They will fixate on a sacred text and invest it with supreme law. They will claim a faith as perfect and unchanging. They will demand a Church that is utterly dependable in every way. They are called fundamentalists. Theirs is simply a psychological disorder that has found a home.

I don’t think these groups have changed since the beginning of recorded history. There were no doubt atheists in the cave as there are today. Most of us fall in between. But the atheist and the fundamentalist are the extremes.

 

[v3orb]

Every human has a religion, no matter what they say. Their ingrained beliefs are religion, even if it’s not one that we can recognize from the outside. Atheists etc. have a god, although it’s the god of Random Chance, or the god of Reason rather than a God of all creation.

 

[Catherine_W]

Originally posted by SpiritMeadow:
But the atheist and the fundamentalist are the extremes.

What is your definition of fundamentalism? Do you mean the protestant fundamentalism movement? Or are you referring to orthodox Catholics?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Every human has a religion, no matter what they say. Their ingrained beliefs are religion, even if it’s not one that we can recognize from the outside. Atheists etc. have a god, although it’s the god of Random Chance, or the god of Reason rather than a God of all creation.

I think I basically agree with you, but I would find the term beliefs sufficient to encompass that idea. Religion is to me an organized group who profess a similar set of beliefs and values. I don’t think the god of atheists is random choice. I assume and to my knowledge of atheists I know, they have the same series of values that most of us have. They see the world in terms of morality, justice, freedom etc. Most atheists as far as I can determine are quite moral people, perhaps more so in action than many so called religious people. Religion does not have a corner on virtue or morality.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Wow thats a really good post SpiritMeadow. (really) But did you have to call one perspective a psychological disorder and not the others?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What is your definition of fundamentalism? Do you mean the protestant fundamentalism movement? Or are you referring to orthodox Catholics?

I refer to either, or none as the case may be. Fundamentalism is a psychological state not tied to any particular faith. We are most aware of two types at the moment, radical islam which is fundamentalist in nature and a segment of Christianity which also is. There is a small segment of Catholicism also driven by this mental arrangement.

Fundamentalists are those who cannot handle life with uncertainty. They seek assurance in concrete facts on which they can base their lives. Thus, it is insufficient to believe in God, one must construe sacred texts as infallible truth, correct in every respect, rather than the work of fallible humans. The world is largely black and white to the fundamentalist. There is but one singular way to salvation. Others must be taught they are wrong, violently if necessary. In any case, the world must be changed to conform to the norms they profess. Others will be required to adhere minimally to their laws and rules. What is of paramount importance is stability. God is and never can be anything else. The sacred text is perfect, any proof to the contrary must be rejected. Science is rejected insofar as it impinges on the accuracy of sacred writings. Theocracy is of course the ultimate goal, for there is really no other way to obey the perceived command to correct the sinner.

Fundamentalism is so strong that people are willing to appear totally ignorant and foolish rather than release ideas they need to protect their world view. Obviously some are willing to kill themselves to further the aims of the faith. Others are more than willing to kill those who stand against them. We see evidence of both in both Islam and Christianity. Elements exist in Judaism, and I am told in some parts of Hinduism and even Buddhism.

Of course there is not proof for the things they deemed “proved”. Deep down, they know this, but this just makes them more vehement and strident in their claims. They do all this in pursuit of some magical secure ground upon which to stand. As the great Pima Chodron said, we must learn to live in the instability. In that we will find the peace we desire.

My point is that we all suffer from this desire. Most of us accept that there is no secure ground. Some of us cannot, and become willing to basically discard rational thought to exist in a “safe” place. Atheists as I said, find the entire exercise proof that there is no God and no point. They are no more secure of course, but they essentially have concluded that God is not a way of finding it either.

 

[ateista]

Atheists as I said, find the entire exercise proof that there is no God and no point.

That is not precisely correct (though your posts have a lot of wisdom in them). The lack of the possibility of proof is more important.

The phrase “absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence” is actually incorrect, because it is evidence - just not conclusive evidence, it is not proof. Correctly it should say “absence of proof is not a proof of absence”.

Mostly it boils down to epistemology. The way to gain knowledge about reality. All believers say that there are two tools, reason and faith (epistemological faith, not religious faith). Atheists deny the epistemological validity of faith, because it is supposed to replace reason - in the matters of seeking certain types of truths.

Nowadays it is customary to pay lip-service to reason and say that there is “place under the Sun” for reason, but that is merely lip-service. When push comes to shove believers assert the primacy of faith over reason. Luther went all the way and said: “Faith must trample reason underfoot” and “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”.

Such outright hostility against reason (“The wisdom of the world is folly with God”) is out of fashion these days. Even the most conservative people are forced to admit the findings of reason aka science. They have no choice, reality has this nasty habit no going away; no matter strongly denied.

If something is reasonable, it needs no faith. If something needs faith, it is not reasonable. Reason has proved it usefulness since time immemorial. Its finding are testable, they do not rely on authority. The truths of science are open to everyone, who wishes to invest time and effort to acquaint themselves with them…

Faith relies on authority, trust in authority. Its findings are not subject to proof, they are “revealed”.

When one tries to apply reason to religious claims, they simply evaporate. On the other hand, no one tries to apply the methods of faith to real world problems, because they do not lead anywhere.

No matter how strongly one would believe in walking on water, one test is enough to show the futility of this belief. Of course it is never admitted: “ye of little faith…” and the fault is always the lack of sufficient faith. “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell that mountain, go yonder, and it will go…” said Matthew. How many attempts have been made to verify it? How many of them succeeded?

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible… pretty much sums it up. If it is said to be edible, but one bite reveals that it just wax, one should discard the claim, no matter how strongly it is asserted by whatever “trusted” authority. Someone standing on reason will do exctly that. Someone standing on faith will blame his own lack of faith.

 

[Telemachus]

Hmmm, this is not exactly what I was looking for. You folks are justifying my original statements completely. All I read is obfuscation and an unwillingness to think through things out of a fear of being “fundamentalist” or whatever.

I’m just going to sit for a bit and wait for some more postings.

 

[Telemachus]

Well, ok, one response, because it’s the attitude of ateista in his postings on the rest of the forum that got me thinking about this stuff in the first place.

Obviously many people desire something “beyond” the physical world. Also obviously many others do not.

“Desire”? I’m not talking about desire, I’m talking about the inability to even discuss external reality because of a fundamental difference between two ways of thinking: the questions “matter,” or they “don’t matter.”

Here is a little statistical observation. There is a strong statistical correlation (not to be confused with causation!) between the level of education and the “depth” of religious devotion. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are deeply religious. (I repeat the disclaimer: it should not be asserted that religious people are somehow “inferior” or less intelligent. They are not.)

Oh, wow, haven’t heard that one before. Despite your disclaimers, you are, in fact, implying that “religious = undereducated,” and nothing more. To get rid of religion, let’s just make sure everyone is “educated,” whatever that means.

Well, here’s a thought for you ateista: education does not guarantee wisdom. I’m asking about wisdom in this thread, not knowledge. I’m an electrical engineer by trade, studying German language and partikel-measurement technologies in Germany right now; I think I’m more than qualified in that regard. But quite frankly, it’s not enough. I’m interested in things outside the mundane, and this interest affects my life personally, and yours as well.

But the zombies are taking over… is that a scary thought for you? I find it very encouraging, but I am one of the zombies.

Are they taking over? Perhaps not. But yes, the growth in the number of people who simply say that these questions do not matter is “scary” to me, because I’d like my children to grow up in a human community that is strong enough to say what’s right and what’s wrong, and to not give a false impression to my children that “anything goes” in terms of thinking about non-materialist matters. Why this matters is not the topic of this thread, so I’m not interested in your opinions on it.

---

Whatever. At this point, I kindly request the convinced atheists, agnostics (“convinced agnostic” probably an oxymoron), and otherwise “non-believers” (or “free-thinkers,” or whatever you like to call yourselves) to sit on their hands and not clutter up this post unless they have thoughts on the following question: do the questions of “where does existence come from,” “where is it going,” “why do we exist,” etc., matter? I’m looking for a yes or a no answer, why or why not, and what are the implications. You can wax philosophical in the other threads. I’m looking for insight here into a concreate idea, not your personal (ir)religious opinions.

Thanks a bunch,
Telemachus

EDIT: No more talk of “zombies.” We’re human beings, and I’d like that term to stop being used.

 

[ateista]

Oh, wow, haven’t heard that one before. Despite your disclaimers, you are, in fact, implying that “religious = undereducated,” and nothing more. To get rid of religion, let’s just make sure everyone is “educated,” whatever that means.

No, I do not. I merely say that there is a statistical correlation between the two.

Well, here’s a thought for you ateista: education does not guarantee wisdom. I’m asking about wisdom in this thread, not knowledge.

You did not mention “wisdom” in your OP. Of course education does not guarantee wisdom, and neither does intelligence. Wisdom is simply the ability to separate the important from the “mudane” as you put it. However intelligence and education are prerequisites for wisdom.

Are they taking over? Perhaps not. But yes, the growth in the number of people who simply say that these questions do not matter is “scary” to me, because I’d like my children to grow up in a human community that is strong enough to say what’s right and what’s wrong, and to not give a false impression to my children that “anything goes” in terms of thinking about non-materialist matters.

Don’t even try to insinuate that lack of religion imples lack of “morals”. That attitude is not simply false, but also insulting.

Whatever. At this point, I kindly request the convinced atheists, agnostics (“convinced agnostic” probably an oxymoron), and otherwise “non-believers” (or “free-thinkers,” or whatever you like to call yourselves) to sit on their hands and not clutter up this post unless they have thoughts on the following question:

Just a friendly advice: don’t try to prescribe what should or should not the posters address. It is not our job and it is explicitly forbidden in the rules.

do the questions of “where does existence come from,” “where is it going,” “why do we exist,” etc., matter? I’m looking for a yes or a no answer, why or why not, and what are the implications.

Now to the meat of your post. They do not matter to me. I understand that such questions “matter” to many people. I can say one thing about those people: they are well-fed, live in comforable conditions and have quite a bit of free time on their hands.

Hungry, sick, desperate people don’t care. They care about their survival. They have no time to ponder such questions.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Mostly it boils down to epistemology. The way to gain knowledge about reality. All believers say that there are two tools, reason and faith (epistemological faith, not religious faith). Atheists deny the epistemological validity of faith, because it is supposed to replace reason - in the matters of seeking certain types of truths.

Nowadays it is customary to pay lip-service to reason and say that there is “place under the Sun” for reason, but that is merely lip-service. When push comes to shove believers assert the primacy of faith over reason. Luther went all the way and said: “Faith must trample reason underfoot” and “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”.

I wonder which believers you’ve known who have led you to form this idea about faith and reason. Are you talking about fundamentalists? If you did your research online you might not have experienced other types of believers…

For me Faith doesn’t trample reason. They are both useful and certain judgements of reason can’t and don’t contradict with certain knowledge from faith. It’s a very important part of how religious people think, that there can’t be a contradiction there.

If something is reasonable, it needs no faith. If something needs faith, it is not reasonable. Reason has proved it usefulness since time immemorial. Its finding are testable, they do not rely on authority. The truths of science are open to everyone, who wishes to invest time and effort to acquaint themselves with them…

Why does anything that needs faith have to be unreasonable? What about the most basic things of faith, that I am here for a reason, that God will make sure things work out for the best in the end? How do those violate reason? Believers may have to resort to things of faith like an afterlife and a judgement, but those things are compatible with reason since reason can’t disprove them. So there isn’t a conflict between the two.

Faith relies on authority, trust in authority. Its findings are not subject to proof, they are “revealed”.

The most basic faith that believers start with is that we are here for a reason, that there must be an answer to “why are we here, what is the meaning of life”. Authority provides some of the more specific answers, but there is faith before the specifics of any one religion.

When one tries to apply reason to religious claims, they simply evaporate. On the other hand, no one tries to apply the methods of faith to real world problems, because they do not lead anywhere.

No matter how strongly one would believe in walking on water, one test is enough to show the futility of this belief. Of course it is never admitted: “ye of little faith…” and the fault is always the lack of sufficient faith. “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell that mountain, go yonder, and it will go…” said Matthew. How many attempts have been made to verify it? How many of them succeeded?

The fault isn’t just lack of sufficient faith, it can be the fault of asking for the wrong things. Those sayings are meant to make us think, but they are true.

People who believe have seen evidence that putting faith in God yields wonderous results. I haven’t had any good reason to ask God to move a mountain or to let me walk on water. So I haven’t tested it. I believe it though. I think it has to be God’s will too though, and we have to understand what we’re asking for. Moving a mountain could have disastrous consequences…

The things that I could list from my own life that have been proof that God cares for me, and that faith in Him is justified, you could and would write off as co-incidences. So I won’t list them, because it would hurt my feelings to see you do that, and wouldnt’ be useful. You set the bar so high that it’s made it hard for you to begin to have a relationship with God. I will pray for you, since you seem very sincere.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Wow thats a really good post SpiritMeadow. (really) But did you have to call one perspective a psychological disorder and not the others?

LOL, yes I did. I’m not sure it rises to the level of disorder, needing treatment. Many fundamentalists lead happy productive lives no doubt. Most are not called upon to state publically their oddly arrived at conclusions. When it becomes a public statement, you must begin the search for why. It is inevitable. You don’t just stand there and say, hey that dude believes something that is against all the evidence and is against like 99 percent of the world. What’s up. It cries for explanation. From my study, the psychological one answers the questions the best.

I recall reading a study of the American mind, oh back in the 80’s. The author, who I no longer recall, but who was by all accounts a leader in the field, suggested that the fundamentalist was one of the more fascinating psychological studies around. The ability and strength required to compartmentalize such diverse and contradictory information and never address those issues was impressive. It is indeed to me. You can believe in the science that allows us to go to the moon, but claim that the science that explains the fossil record is pure hogwash. The fact that our knowledge of DNA now confirms in every respect evolution is simply ignored.Yet these same people will eagerly listen to a doctor who promises that that same DNA science may offer a cure for their child’s disease. They will never examine this contradiction and will go on happily with this split brain. The fact that they don’t go crazy is quite shocking.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That is not precisely correct (though your posts have a lot of wisdom in them). The lack of the possibility of proof is more important.

The phrase “absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence” is actually incorrect, because it is evidence - just not conclusive evidence, it is not proof. Correctly it should say “absence of proof is not a proof of absence”.

Mostly it boils down to epistemology. The way to gain knowledge about reality. All believers say that there are two tools, reason and faith (epistemological faith, not religious faith). Atheists deny the epistemological validity of faith, because it is supposed to replace reason - in the matters of seeking certain types of truths.

Nowadays it is customary to pay lip-service to reason and say that there is “place under the Sun” for reason, but that is merely lip-service. When push comes to shove believers assert the primacy of faith over reason. Luther went all the way and said: “Faith must trample reason underfoot” and “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”.

Such outright hostility against reason (“The wisdom of the world is folly with God”) is out of fashion these days. Even the most conservative people are forced to admit the findings of reason aka science. They have no choice, reality has this nasty habit no going away; no matter strongly denied.

If something is reasonable, it needs no faith. If something needs faith, it is not reasonable. Reason has proved it usefulness since time immemorial. Its finding are testable, they do not rely on authority. The truths of science are open to everyone, who wishes to invest time and effort to acquaint themselves with them…

Faith relies on authority, trust in authority. Its findings are not subject to proof, they are “revealed”.

When one tries to apply reason to religious claims, they simply evaporate. On the other hand, no one tries to apply the methods of faith to real world problems, because they do not lead anywhere.

No matter how strongly one would believe in walking on water, one test is enough to show the futility of this belief. Of course it is never admitted: “ye of little faith…” and the fault is always the lack of sufficient faith. “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell that mountain, go yonder, and it will go…” said Matthew. How many attempts have been made to verify it? How many of them succeeded?

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible… pretty much sums it up. If it is said to be edible, but one bite reveals that it just wax, one should discard the claim, no matter how strongly it is asserted by whatever “trusted” authority. Someone standing on reason will do exctly that. Someone standing on faith will blame his own lack of faith.

Your criticisms are well made I believe. I stand corrected and find your technical explanation closer to the mark. I for my part, come down in favor of faith. I do so, understanding that it is indeed just that. I can construe a basis for my own logical conclusion of course, but I concede that it doesn’t qualify as objective proof. That is what faith is after all. I believe deeply that there is another reality. But I cannot prove it. I don’t spend one second of time trying to do so. I try to experience that other reality, for that is what I believe it is for.