AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Is religion insanity (justified)?

379 52620
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Think about it, what is religion? The belief in something that cannot be proven, that has many, many things that as of yet we have found impossible, and in many people, it is unshakeable. Now I am not saying that all religious people are going to go kill someone or end up in an assylum, but think, in every religion, the basis is something that cannot be know, but is only faith. Faith in something that could turn out to be wrong, faith in something that you have absolutely no way of knowing. Also, think how many of these religions started, some person got a message from a "god" that told them what to do. Don't go crazy on me, I just want people to think about it.

  • 379 Replies
magiKKell
offline
magiKKell
34 posts
Nomad

One is a philosophical or theistic theory. The other is a scientific theory. Not the same.


Philosophy talks about proposition, not theories. But still, not the same, you are right. The difference is though, we can know propositions to be true or false, we can only infer/abduct a theory as the best, though always adjustable, explanation.

A scientific theory, something back up by FACTS!

Well, more the other way around. A scientific theory is an hypothesis that is tested and has not accrued a significant number of facts that would threaten it and is therefore accepted. Scientific Theories are never &quotroven." They are only "not falsified." Nevertheless, arguing against a currently accepted scientific theory can only be done on the basis of facts. And not just one, but enough to discredit it, and that in peer reviewed journals. Unfair? Maybe, but we got to deal with that.

However, never ever ever ever start a deductive argument with a scientific theory. The theory has been inferred/abducted from not being falsified. Therefore we say "For all we know, theory x is most likely not false"
You cannot ever argue from there to "Y is contrary to theory x. Therefore, it is not possible that y." That is a logical fallacy. Scientific theories only help us predict what is likely, never establish what is metaphysically, or even logically impossible.

Which, btw, leads me into the question. The proposition "God created the world" and the scientific theories of Big Band Cosmology and Darwinian Evolution are not strictly speaking contradictory. It is perfectly possible that God used all that to create the world. Therefore you can't argue
Evolution is true
Therefore God did not create the world.

Non sequitur.

Anyways, I will always grant evolution for the sake of the argument, regardless of my own position, as it simply doesn't matter in this context.

What is A LOT more interesting is the question:
Is naturalism true? (a.k.a. Only physical matter and energy and that is all we have) Can anyone give an argument for that?
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

However, never ever ever ever start a deductive argument with a scientific theory. The theory has been inferred/abducted from not being falsified. Therefore we say "For all we know, theory x is most likely not false"
You cannot ever argue from there to "Y is contrary to theory x. Therefore, it is not possible that y." That is a logical fallacy. Scientific theories only help us predict what is likely, never establish what is metaphysically, or even logically impossible.

Scientific Theories are proven in certain situations through millions of experiments, Laws are proven in all situations.

Scientific Theories therefore cannot ever contradict one another (ie: if gravity is proven in a vacuum, anti-gravity cannot be proven in a vacuum).
It is perfectly possible that God used all that to create the world.

if that were true, it would be in the bible, so that's not true.
Is naturalism true? (a.k.a. Only physical matter and energy and that is all we have)

In literal sense, yes. Everything is made of matter and has energy, therefore only those things exist. Everything that exists other than matter and energy are made of matter and energy.
That is, everything known to our section of the human race.
magiKKell
offline
magiKKell
34 posts
Nomad

Aha, now we have a debate at hand.

Laws are proven in all situations.


Was Newton's Physics not accepted as "law" before Einstein? The term "law" is actually misleading in the modern context of science. The term was originally introduced by scholastic thinkers who thought that just like God uses moral laws to determine human behavior, he also has "laws" that dictate how the world works. However, that is not how science uses these things anymore. The "law" of gravity does not cause things to fall. The way things behave, with respect to attraction, is best described by gravity, even if we have yet to discover what actually causes this. (Graviton proposed, but we don't really know yet)

Scientific Theories therefore cannot ever contradict one another


Of course they cannot. Scientific theories and laws have the aim to most accurately DESCRIBE and PREDICT how the world operates. However, they can never with 100% certainty say that something is impossible. They only give descriptions of what is really really really really unlikely.
But when you use the term "impossible" you leave science behind and enter the world of logic and metaphysics. And in those terms, the word "impossible" carries a lot of force. And such force can only be produced by a deductive argument, the premises of which CANNOT by the rules of logic come from the conclusion of an inductive argument.

if that were true, it would be in the bible, so that's not true.

Now, of course not if you read it as a literal 7 days. But I am just saying possibility here. And we have creation of earth, universe, sun, stars, plants, animals, people. It never says HOW he does it. It just says "he created" and "let there be stuff." Now, to even turn a popular argument upside down, obviously whoever wrote/edited Genesis 1 and 2 saw the two chapters at the same time, and if to him and was not too important to get the order completely precise, then maybe that isn't about order at all. The point of Genesis 1-3 is that God made it all, but it is not how he made it. Now, I think he could have done it anywhere from 7 day 10.000 year earth to 13.8 billion years big bang and evolution, and everything in between. You CAN read the text either way and still be true to it. All I am saying is, don't get hung up on this one, it's too petty to argue over if you do not believe the Bible anyways.

In literal sense, yes. Everything is made of matter and has energy, therefore only those things exist. Everything that exists other than matter and energy are made of matter and energy.
That is, everything known to our section of the human race.


Ok, you are making two seperate claims here.
1. Everything is made of matter and has energy, therefore only those things exist.
2. We (humans) only know about matter and energy.
Which of course entails
3. We humans know about matter and energy.

What I am wondering then, is if you hold to 2., how do you know that 1. is true?

Also, how do you know that 3 is true? Let me clarify. I am not asking "How do you know we do not know anything else?" I am asking, "how do you know that that statement is true?"

Ok, let me play with open cards here. I am wondering how, as a naturalist (only matter and energy exists) do you know anything? How do you ground your knowledge?
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

True. For thousands of years, the human race has tried to reason how everything works, witch in most cases involved an immortal with great power. Every religion has holes in it, that science dissagrees with. Riligion has caused wars, riots, and murders throught history as well as the good things, so yes, it is insanity

magiKKell
offline
magiKKell
34 posts
Nomad

For thousands of years, the human race has tried to reason how everything works, witch in most cases involved an immortal with great power.


Riligion has caused wars, riots, and murders throught history


Let me get this straight. You are saying:

1. Throughout history, there has usually been religion.
2. Throughout history, there have usually been wars.
And you are concluding:
3. Religion Causes wars.

That doesn't follow. Just because two phenomena coincide does not mean one causes the other. All we can conclude on that evidence is:
1. People are often Religious.
2. People are often warring.

That, and no more.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

The proposition "God created the world" and the scientific theories of Big Band Cosmology and Darwinian Evolution are not strictly speaking contradictory. It is perfectly possible that God used all that to create the world.


Possible? Yes. Probability is the more relevant question. As we don't have real evidence for a god of any kind, and no precedent for such a thing, it seems highly unlikely.

If it were a simpler claim like "I found a new type of fish in the ocean", the claim is unremarkably believable, as we have precedent (the oceans of the world are teeming with life & fish), not all species on the planet have been catalogued, and sufficient proof in the form of video or photographic documentation would be acceptable under such circumstances. On the other hand, the claim that there is a supernatural all-powerful, omnipotent & omnipresent 'being' that created the universe and everything in it which currently is providing no proof and no precedent, would require... proof with a lot of 'kick'.

Is naturalism true?


From a scientific perspective? Yes. We simply don't have any hard (or soft) evidence to support things of a supernatural or spiritual nature.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Well, more the other way around. A scientific theory is an hypothesis that is tested and has not accrued a significant number of facts that would threaten it and is therefore accepted. Scientific Theories are never &quotroven." They are only "not falsified." Nevertheless, arguing against a currently accepted scientific theory can only be done on the basis of facts. And not just one, but enough to discredit it, and that in peer reviewed journals. Unfair? Maybe, but we got to deal with that.


Your only partially right here. Yes a scientific theory is a hypothesis that is tested. The results of those tests are facts. If the facts support the hypothesis then we can say a scientific theory is backed up by facts.

You cannot ever argue from there to "Y is contrary to theory x. Therefore, it is not possible that y." That is a logical fallacy. Scientific theories only help us predict what is likely, never establish what is metaphysically, or even logically impossible.


We can however say what is improbable.

Which, btw, leads me into the question. The proposition "God created the world" and the scientific theories of Big Band Cosmology and Darwinian Evolution are not strictly speaking contradictory. It is perfectly possible that God used all that to create the world. Therefore you can't argue
Evolution is true
Therefore God did not create the world.


For the proposition "God created the world" to be probable you must first provide evidence that God exists in the first place. If you can't provide evidence then it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist.

Another problem with this is the question of at what point was God needed in the process.

Of course non of that disproves God existing or not existing, however it does make it rather unlikely he exists and created the world.
magiKKell
offline
magiKKell
34 posts
Nomad

Thanks for the great answers

Ok, so at this point we at least have concluded that God can possibly exist, right? I understand that you want to assign "unlikely so" to that proposition, but it is nonetheless possible if I understand you guys correctly.

May I then say that at this point we can agree that it is not insane to believe in Religion, but not justified?

I will try to address this probability/justified thing later on today when I get a chance. For now I have to finish writing this final paper...

Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

That doesn't follow. Just because two phenomena coincide does not mean one causes the other. All we can conclude on that evidence is:
1. People are often Religious.
2. People are often warring.
That, and no more.


If you actually look through history you find that many conflicts/wars were started because of religion.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

Religion very often is the excuse to start wars. Religion is used to hide the real purposes (which usually are financial) of many actions.
It's easier to fight when you think that you are fighting for your religion (and your beliefs) than to fight for the financial interests of a group of persons.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Religion very often is the excuse to start wars. Religion is used to hide the real purposes (which usually are financial) of many actions.
It's easier to fight when you think that you are fighting for your religion (and your beliefs) than to fight for the financial interests of a group of persons.


Regardless you still have a number of people going to war because of religion.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

May I then say that at this point we can agree that it is not insane to believe in Religion, but not justified?


Not really. At this point I'm not inclined to agree - one of the synonyms we have for 'insane' is irrational, and I would think that believing in things for which we do not have sufficient evidence for is definitely irrational.

That said, I'm scarcely interested in debating which word fits best.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

May I then say that at this point we can agree that it is not insane to believe in Religion, but not justified?

When you're talking about probability and cosmology, you're addressing more the correctness of theism. I think the most problematic area for those trying to argue that theism is unjustified is the personal experience of the theist. This is often a significant event in a person's life, and it's hard to see how a person with such an experience isn't justified in believing in some "higher force" - whatever that is.
Maybe more specifically, can we say that an individual can be justified in believing in God? I would still argue they are. While I've never had a personal experience like this, it's a hard point to argue against. And if an individual can be justified, doesn't it seem like the set of individuals who believe can also be justified?
SilentQ
offline
SilentQ
601 posts
Nomad

Hm..If you are going to go with probabilities consider this question:

Does God exist?

Since we don't know, and there are only 2 answers, yes and no, there is a 50% chance of the answer being yes and 50% of the answer being no. So that it's 50-50.

And going on about religion causing wars, would you be referring to the Crusades or what? Please give examples. And you can't forget all the good religion has done, such as charity work and the like.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

So that it's 50-50.

I don't think either side of the debate would agree with this probability. But again, debating probability is beside the point. We don't care whether or not God actually does exist, only whether belief in God is justified.
We can be justified in believing false things. It happens all the time. A standard sort of example is as follows:
Bob's plane goes down in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. News reports are claiming that no survivors have been found. Bob's family is justified in believing that he is dead. But Bob survived and is floating in the middle of the ocean, so he believes that he's not dead. While Bob is right and his family isn't, both are justified in their beliefs.

So again, debating probability of God's existence doesn't answer the question. Neither does the history of religion or its being a factor in wars. These have nothing to do with whether or not believing in God is justified.
Having a personal experience of God's love is not something that can be taken lightly. You might argue that it's just an illusion, but again that doesn't address the question. We can't know if God exists, so all we can do is assess whether or not the belief is justified.
Let's say you're walking in the woods with a friend and she (thinks that she) sees a bear. She's terrified. You tell her that this isn't bear country, that there's just no way that it could've been a bear. But she knows what she experienced, and she's reacting to it. Her belief that there's a bear is justified in that she thought she saw one. It's not impossible that there was a bear there, so who knows? Trying to deny a personal experience like that is just forcing a very hard point to argue.
Showing 331-345 of 379