Answer for: Is it reasonable to believe in 'God?
#3 Technically, it's not unreasonable.
| 
47 Comments
the existence of Godâloosely definedâlacks evidence on either side of the argument, "for" and "against." it's unnecessary to add extra entities to a working model of reality, but it's not invalid.
Comments |
Leave a comment
Using this logic then, it's not unreasonable to believe that the Loch Ness Monster is actually the creator of this world.
He also loves each and every one of us. Dearly.
I am and I'm glad that I'm finally getting the credit I deserve. "God", indeed.
Thanks, holotone.
I love you! Dearly.
Everyone else, too.
yes, yes, I know this. I'm not trying to start a war here or a long thread of tiring tangents, just representing a different view from what had been previously posted. you're not going to sway me, just like I'm not going to . . . blah, blah, blah. I've read Dawkins, and I agree. I just don't accept the empirical world view merely because it's the most efficient.
I've posted it before and I'll post it again:
"The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."
~Richard Dawkins
It is maybe a little hard to choose which myth is the correct one to believe in, there are quite a few of them.
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
@Ferre:
I should have been way more precise in my description, but one of the reasons I say "loosely defined" is because I'm only referring to the belief "God exists" and nothing more, no specific religious/mythologicalâwhat's the difference, right?âdoctrines attached.
that site looks pretty cool. I'll have to check it out more thoroughly later.
"the existence of Godâloosely definedâlacks evidence on either side"
it doesn't just lack evidence, it is simply untestable
again, so what? I don't need to test it empirically. I'm not a scientist. I simply find the whole issue interesting. I'm not worried about whether you're going to share my belief or reject it. I'm not out to prove anything or convert anyone.
sure, fine, just realize that saying "technically its not unreasonable" is neither a technical nor reasonable statement
yes, you've seemed to have painted me into my skeptic's corner. but, the thing is, I've been here the whole time. I like it here. I'm not ashamed of being metaphysically adventurous or playful.
yes, you're right. language gets very tricky from this side of the room. that's one of the things that's fun about it. all this talk about "saving time" by not having to contemplate certain issues, you'd think that people are actually volunteering that their consciousness be built on an assembly line.
your perspective is welcome, but I would have to disagree with the statement:
"you'd think that people are actually volunteering that their consciousness be built on an assembly line. "
This is a bit glib, I think people have realized the bounds of reality and consciousness, and are simply trying to work with this context, cause it's all we got.
Trust me, I would LOVE to live in a world of magic, spirits, and astral projection, it would be so frickin' cool. Unfortunately, we don't, so people like me just try to work with what we have, "dance with what brung ye" if you will
I'm working with what I have, just like you. I see possibilities and I take them to different places in my mind. you see improbabilities and within your world view it's fitting to discard these "fringe" beliefs.
I don't think that we've realized the bounds of reality at all. it reminds me of the "Science works, bitches" meme. it always irritates me. yes, it "works," as in it does what we want it toâwhat's so amazing about that? it's pragmatic . . . and that's about it. I'm not "against" modern medicine or exploration of the physical universe or technological advancement, but none of these things say anything decisive about the limits of reality unless you already presume that these are the limits.
well, enjoy your exploration of the world, don't fall prey to flim flam artists, and realize, until we develop a better way of knowing, science is still the most successful method to date
Actually "it works" in that it accurately describes the universe. It doesn't do what we want it to do, or there would already be flying cars, cures for cancer, etc.
When we reach the edges of reality there will be science there telling us how everything works. It may be dramatically, though not fundamentally, different than it is today but it will be there.
u wanna know how lame I'm am?
I have this
http://imgs.xkcd.com..._square_5.jpg
Its kinda sad really
How do you keep her from running away?
science!
For the record, I have nothing against science.. or Skrrrriti's dog for that matter. I just don't think that science and religion are as incompatible as some people think. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
~Albert Einstein
What does that even mean? I don't see how it contradicts my previous quote.
Einstein, the way I understand him, used the underlying concept and parable of "God" as a literary aid to help himself and others easily perceive the concept of the unknown inner workings of the universe as they related to the scientific understandings of physics.
Ah, I see. I guess that makes sense. I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes sense. So then what do you think he meant by first quote?
"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
~Albert Einstein
So you think that he's saying that science is a religion? In the first quote it definitely sounds like he's treating them as two different concepts.
@Friar:
I'll clarify. I was thinking more on the production side of things. as in technology. if we set out to create a product, we utilize scientific principles and generally we get that product. that's great and all, but utility doesn't equal truth.
as far as research is concerned I don't see as how you've added anything new to the conversation. you're assuming that physical reality is ultimately everything, all there is. science will "confirm" this, because science only works within this framework anyway . . . I'm not impressed. if I assume that there's more than that, what then? well, namely I'm stuck with some bizarre, extra entity or set of entities, but science won't help in telling whether my assumption corresponds to reality or not. inversely, I cannot positively tell you that empiricism is false; I just believe that it is. I generally don't care that this leaves me in a position where I can't positively state much of anything.
I don't even know what you mean by your talk about science always being here. when did I claim it would "go away"?
I think that he's saying that using the concept of "god" and religion as a visual aid is integral to science in that in fills the gap in imagination that the scientific method inspires; The passage quoted actually begins like this:
"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up."
In other words, the simple imagineering and "explaining away" that supernatural belief inspires serves as a guiding light toward those mysteries most important (from the perspective of our culture) for science to take aim at solving.
@ holotone - "In other words, the simple imagineering and "explaining away" that supernatural belief inspires serves as a guiding light toward those mysteries most important (from the perspective of our culture) for science to take aim at solving."
At some point, everyone reaches the limit of his or her understanding. Where did the universe come from? We don't know -- no one does. I believe that that should always be the position a scientist takes on the matter. However, an attitude of such skepticism does not work well at all in daily life. Like it or not, humans are emotional creatures who strive to find purpose and meaning in life. To deny the existence of a creator God denies them this -- it reduces them to robots. Science has yet to come up with a satisfactory answer to questions about the nature of love or the meaning of life.
grūposis: http://www.grupthink.com/answer/109977
@:[I've posted it before and I'll post it again:
"The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."
~Richard Dawkins]
read it before, and now I have to read it again, like somehow this time it's going to change my life like some religious epiphany. so what?
it is not on me to say why about any belief I hold, because I acknowledge the futility of answering with a reason that itself will require a reason, ad infinitum. I don't have to qualify my belief to you or the scientific community or the public or anyone. why do I like crunchy peanut butter better than creamy? I have no compelling reason, and it doesn't matter.
furthermore, I don't adhere to any religion, I'm just not an empiricist. not all people interested in the "supernatural" are enemies of science or wackos. I love reading Whitley Strieber, and, yes, I do "believe in" alien abduction, but I'm not asking politicians to consider my fringe ideas when crafting public policy.
So long as you don't impose this belief on anyone else, I say have at.
But I do reserve the right to ridicule you. :)
well, good, it's good to feel good about yourself. give yourself a nice pat on the back. aren't you cool, king of the grupthink mountain. wow.
Way to take a joke there, serious guy.
I fully respect the right of anyone to hold any crazy ass belief they choose; However, if you feel strongly enough about it to post it on the internet, be prepared to defend it, or at the very least accept any criticism that may come your way.
If this is beyond your means, I would suggest that you keep your thoughts to yourself.
http://grupthink.com/answer/102570
this happens on grupthink all the time. you're making a joke at my expense. it's not hard to see that you feel superior to me. the language is blatant. then, I dish it back out, but, suddenly, "oh, no, that's out of bounds." I'm just playing along, I'm just ridiculing right back. I can't make a joke at the expense of your feelings in the same way as what is being targeting at me?
your suggestion has been noted, but really why should I take your advice? I'll be modded down and disrespected on almost everything I post anyway. I may as well make it more interesting and take a few shots of my own.
"you're making a joke at my expense."
What joke did I make at your expense?
"it's not hard to see that you feel superior to me. the language is blatant."
I can assure you that I do not feel I am an any way superior to you.
"then, I dish it back out, but, suddenly, "oh, no, that's out of bounds." "
I never suggested that you shouldn't "dish it back"; In fact, I absolutely encourage it - What gave you the impression I didn't?
"I can't make a joke at the expense of your feelings in the same way as what is being targeting at me?"
Again, when did I make a joke at the expense of your feelings?
"your suggestion has been noted, but really why should I take your advice?"
My advice (if you don't like people critiquing your opinions, sharing them on the internet probably isn't for you) is sorta obvious, isn't it?
"I may as well make it more interesting and take a few shots of my own."
Again, what are these "shots" that you're referring to?
okay, okay. I'm calming down. in all fairness, yes, I'm prone to think that everyone is out to get me; I do suffer from slight social paranoia, and this can turn into a nightmare over the internet, because I have no reference as to how people are "saying" what they say.
now. your advice IS obvious. I felt like you were telling me to "lie down and take it," and I already feel like most grupies dislike me, so I got defensive. I don't mind people critiquing my opinions, but you said "ridicule you"âas in ME, the person holding the opinions. I took that too literally.
as far as intimidation. again, the internet is devoid of inflection, so it's easy to misread, but, yes, I sensed an air of superiority, because your first response to me was a quote that you had posted as a comment to this very topic! as if I hadn't already read that. you're not a mind reader, but I had already said "I've read Dawkins, and I agree," and tried to make it obvious that I'd already read the comments "out there" for this overall topic. that you would post it with the (quite frankly) condescending "I've posted it before and I'll post it again" made me feel like you were making fun of me. everything that followed sounded more and more chiding.
finally, I'll say that being constantly modded down based on content and not quality really just adds fuel to the fire when you're feeling abused on grupthink. it's not just this topic or answer. I thought that modding a comment down because you disagree with the content was an abuse of the system. but if it's not, then it's not. if I don't fit in, then I don't fit it; it is what it is. there's always the real world.
Fair enough, man; Intertubular communication is easily hijacked by the lack of nuance it's so kind to share with us.
"I thought that modding a comment down because you disagree with the content was an abuse of the system."
The inclusion of qualitative adverbs like Boring, Funny, and Helpful leads me to believe that the intention is for these to be used as an just another way to quantify the "quality" of what you're throwing out there, as decided by the random collection of oddball people that the Grupthink experience selects for.
I think all that lifeisthemeaningoflife is suggesting is that even though he can't necessarily prove there is a God, he can't (or anyone else for that matter) prove there isn't one either. Maybe if we start calling it the theory of God, y'all will stop bitching about it.
the positive existential claim bears the onus of proof. if one cannot prove a god exists, the default position should be that of the negative.
That's ridiculous. One hundred years ago, scientist agreed that it wasn't possible for an aircraft to travel faster than the speed of sound, boy, that sure held true over the next century.
thus demonstrating that the positive existential claim was capable of overcoming the onus of proof. exactly what is ridiculous about that statement?
It's ridiculous that you'd need more proof than a rainbow.
in b4 banana