Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[Lukraak_Sisser]

But, a question from the other side.
A number of atheists here, including me, have explained why they do not believe.

Perhaps some of the theists will explain why they do?
And what made them decide their interpretation of their faith was correct and all the others are wrong?

I see no real difference between Christianity and Islam, nor between protestant and catholic or orthodox christians. So what arguments convinced those that do believe to pick their version?

 

[GDon]

Well, health is clearly the most obvious. Thousands of years of prayers have never actually improved the chances of a sick person being cured and no prayer ever has brought lost limbs back or restored the lame.

I'm after examples in modern times to support the proposition "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." The idea that as science advances, belief retreats, is simply a myth. Science has increased exponentially over the last few generations. If increasing science results in retreating belief, then the number of conflicts in the last, say, 25 years must be higher than in the previous 25 years, and higher than in the 25 years before that, and so on. But that's simply not true. It's a myth.

In the near future even creating life will be something we can do and thus no longer be something only a god can do.

There is no religious dogma "creating life is only something god can do" as far as I know.

 

[David Mo]

I'm after examples in modern times to support the proposition "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." The idea that as science advances, belief retreats, is simply a myth. Science has increased exponentially over the last few generations. If increasing science results in retreating belief, then the number of conflicts in the last, say, 25 years must be higher than in the previous 25 years, and higher than in the 25 years before that, and so on. But that's simply not true. It's a myth.

I don't understand the correlation between more science more conflicts. However the correlation between more religious beliefs and more conflicts is clear in history.
In addition the correlation between the level of knowledge in science and religious scepticism is well reflected in statistic, both at individual as social levels.

 

[dann]

You're the obfuscator, ynot! Welcome to the real world where you're trying to define your way out of your own cognitive dissonance:

Obviously two things can be true at the same time, but two mutually exclusive things can’t (by definition), and that’s what we’re specifically talking about (please don’t obfuscate). “Consider both true" is inappropriate when two things CAN’T be true at the same time. An appropriate term would be “believe both true” (despite the fact they can't be). That some might not feel much cognitive dissonance, doesn’t mean it applies to them any less in reality.

Notice how Bob Bakker handles that cognitive dissonance: If the story of Adam and Eve is incompatible with the science of evolution, he discards Adam and Eve as nothing but a story and sticks with evolution:

He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.
Robert T. Bakker: Religious beliefs (Wikipedia)

He's obviously a believer whose belief is being secularized. And he himself is the one who's delivering facts and arguments for others to follow in his footsteps. That's real progress! Your bickering isn't.
Neither is the (pseudo-)scientific attempt to extend life beyond what the prevention of diseases brings. I'm ten years older than Aubrey de Grey, didn't buy into any of his ideas and practices, and yet not quite as grey as he is ...

Science establishes the knowledge of mortality, religion propagates the belief in immortality.

Apparently, a lot of people who believe in science want it to propagate the belief in immortality, too. (And I find them much more embarrassing than the uneducated people who believe in Paradise.)

So what? What has that ramble got to do with science and religion being mutually exclusive or not? (please don’t obfuscate)

Please try to cope with your cognitive dissonance in a more productive way. In the real world religious scientists are an actual thing. You can't define them into non-existence.

This isn’t all about your country or your personal crusade. I’m sure there’s as many god believers as “believers in science” world-wide that hope science will bring them immortality. So what? (please stop obfuscating)

You're still the obfuscator. I don't know what my "personal crusade" is supposed to be, but your idea that many "god believers probably "hope that science will bring them immortality" is probably true, which only goes to show the extent to which religious believers are being secularized and often aren't even aware that it is happening. Nowadays, the unrealistic hopes and dreams (as well as fears) of people take on the form of science fiction, which only goes to show the extent to which science has won and is still winning. Unfortunately, it also shows that the living conditions of ordinary people still haven't reached the level where they feel comfortable with giving up entirely on the opium of the people.

"Cosmic and eternal consciousness" is just another way of saying "immortal and eternal soul".

No, it isn't. If it's your way of saying it, it's a very bad one.

More god believers world-wide obviously believe in the magic and miracles of ancient religious texts and myths than don’t. I don't know any that don't.

I don't know any, personally, that do.

 

[dann]

I don't understand the correlation between more science more conflicts.

Neither do I. I think it's nonsense.

However the correlation between more religious beliefs and more conflicts is clear in history.

Why do you think so? Where are your facts that show this? WW1 and WW2 were very secular and so was the Vietnam War, probably the three biggest in the 20th century.

In addition the correlation between the level of knowledge in science and religious scepticism is well reflected in statistic, both at individual as social levels.

What is your point?

 

[dann]

I'm after examples in modern times to support the proposition "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." The idea that as science advances, belief retreats, is simply a myth.

So you don't think that the science of evolution has chipped away at the belief in Genesis?! Man, are you in for a surprise if you ever take a look at the real world!

Science has increased exponentially over the last few generations.

Yes, it has, hasn't it?!

If increasing science results in retreating belief,

It only does so in people who are taught science. There's no reason to assume that it does so in people who remain ignorant of science. However, even people whose children are protected from diseases by means of vaccinations can't help but believe in the white-coated distributors of vaccines rather than the witchdoctors of old, but to be on the safe side (they think), they sometimes use both ...

then the number of conflicts in the last, say, 25 years must be higher than in the previous 25 years, and higher than in the 25 years before that, and so on. But that's simply not true. It's a myth.

Why?!

There is no religious dogma "creating life is only something god can do" as far as I know.

That would depend on who you're asking.

 

[dann]

I see no real difference between Christianity and Islam, nor between protestant and catholic or orthodox christians.

Even if you don't, I hope that you've at least noticed that many of those guys do!

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Even if you don't, I hope that you've at least noticed that many of those guys do!

Yes, hence my question if someone who is religious can maybe explain what factors convinced him/her that their religion is right, and every other interpretation or faith is wrong.

 

[dann]

Sectarianism! (Wikipedia)

 

[Thermal]

It's the carrot and the stick. Enjoy eternity in heaven (perhaps with 72 virgins, depending which god you subscribe to, I don't think the women get anything though) or suffer eternal torture, courtesy of the "loving god".

Never got the virgin thing. For a heavenly experience, wouldn't one want someone who knew what they were doing?

 

[David Mo]

Why do you think so? Where are your facts that show this? WW1 and WW2 were very secular and so was the Vietnam War, probably the three biggest in the 20th century.

What is your point?

Even in the twentieth century the conflicts in which religion has played a predominant role are legion, against a few counter-examples that you can propose. If we go back, the list increases. Here you can consult a list, although it is not complete (the Holy Crusade of Generalísimo Franco in Spain, for example, is missing): http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Religious_Wars#Before_the_Common_Era

My point: even if religion and science are not strictly incompatible in all cases, there is some thing in the practice of science that opens the eyes on the irrationality of religion. The habit of rational thinkng, perhaps.

 

[dann]

You do know that you just referred to WW1, WW2 and the Vietnam War as "a few counter-examples," don't you?
But do you know that the Holocaust wasn't really about religion? That it was an attempt to exterminate a race not a religion? And that it didn't really matter to the Nazis if so-called Jews had converted to Christianity generations ago?

 

[GDon]

I don't understand the correlation between more science more conflicts. However the correlation between more religious beliefs and more conflicts is clear in history.

It certainly is NOT clear. Otherwise people wouldn't keep using the same two "usual suspects": evolution and Galileo. If increasing science led to more religious conflicts, then you'd expect that there would be more conflicts in the (for example) last 25 years than in the same period before that. It just isn't there.

In addition the correlation between the level of knowledge in science and religious scepticism is well reflected in statistic, both at individual as social levels.

Most religious beliefs have nothing to do with science. Sin, grace, forgiveness, indulgences, the after-life, etc. Some people speculate on how science may or may not prove or disprove such ideas, but dogma rarely is specific enough to be testable.

People use the examples of evolution and heliocentrism to try to extrapolate from that there is a broader conflict, but struggle to find examples beyond that, despite how science has increased so dramatically in the last 100 years. Why? Shouldn't there be more conflicts as science increases?

 

[GDon]

So you don't think that the science of evolution has chipped away at the belief in Genesis?! Man, are you in for a surprise if you ever take a look at the real world!

Right back at you! Evolution and heliocentrism are the go-to examples, what I call "the usual suspects". Even those aren't clear. A literal belief in Genesis has been questioned for thousands of years, long before evolution was thought of. Darwin worked with Christian biologists to help develop the theory of evolution, and those Christians (e.g. Asa Gray) helped Darwin to promote his theories.

Same question I posed to David Mo: People use the examples of evolution and heliocentrism to try to extrapolate from that there is a broader conflict, but struggle to find examples beyond that, despite how science has increased so dramatically in the last 100 years. Why? Shouldn't there be more conflicts as science increases?

 

[Pixel42]

I can think of quite a few conflicts that have arisen in the last 25 years. Whether people should be kept alive (often against their will) with advanced medical treatment, the morning after pill, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc. Religious and non-religious people tend to have very different opinions about such things, with the religious usually objecting using phrases like "playing God", "the sanctity of life", "God's will", etc.

 

[GDon]

I can think of quite a few conflicts that have arisen in the last 25 years. Whether people should be kept alive (often against their will) with advanced medical treatment, the morning after pill, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc. Religious and non-religious people tend to have very different opinions about such things, with the religious usually objecting using phrases like "playing God", "the sanctity of life", "God's will", etc.

Yes, both those aren't conflicts between science and religion in the way that expression is usually used, but the moral implications arising from scientific advances. For example, no religions oppose stem cell research per se. They do oppose the use of embryos in embryonic stem cell research, while not opposing adult stem cell research. That is related to the moral implications of using embryos, and not to the science involved. Similarly "playing God", "the sanctity of life", etc.

 

[ynot]

You're the obfuscator, ynot! Welcome to the real world where you're trying to define your way out of your own cognitive dissonance:

"No I'm not! You are! So there!" = Childish.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with addressing mutual exclusivity or cognitive dissonance.

 

[ynot]

Never got the virgin thing. For a heavenly experience, wouldn't one want someone who knew what they were doing?

Virgins have no prior male performance experience to rate you against. Therefore you're "the best" by default.

 

[dann]

Right back at you! Evolution and heliocentrism are the go-to examples, what I call "the usual suspects".

I don't see your point. Does it comfort you to know that you've given them a nickname?

Even those aren't clear.

There's nothing unclear about heliocentric and evolution - except for the fact that helios turned out be be just the centre of the solar system, nothing more.

A literal belief in Genesis has been questioned for thousands of years, long before evolution was thought of. Darwin worked with Christian biologists to help develop the theory of evolution, and those Christians (e.g. Asa Gray) helped Darwin to promote his theories.

Yes, and Newton was a (weird) kind of Christian, too, and at one point Darwin himself was a Christian, too. Nobody's been denying the contribution of Christians to the fact that "Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief." In fact, their contribution is much appreciated. I already mentioned Bob Bakker as one of the modern contributors. He is still a believer, but what he believes has been reduced from what Bible thumpers used to* think to "an ethical and moral guide, rather than a literal timetable of events in the history of life." I.e. The Old Testament has been more or less obliterated, and a dwindling minority believe in the stories about Jesus waking people from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine etc.

* Some still do, of course.

 

[dann]

"No I'm not! You are! So there!" = Childish.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with addressing mutual exclusivity or cognitive dissonance.

Yes, ignoring my arguments is the adult way of handling them ...