Theists aren't Theists To Explain Nature

[ChristineES]

(I didn't know whether to put this here or in the one of the science and religion areas, so I just put it here)

Today while we were driving home from grocery shopping I saw a bumper sticker that said "Religion was invented by cavemen who wanted to explain thunder". While I was thinking the usual things: "Boy, I bet atheists find that hilarious" and stuff (Don't worry, I was chuckling and not offended) and then thought of this:

Are there some atheists who think that people follow religion just so we can have nature explained? If so, that is just so sad, because that isn't the reason. Oh, it may the reason for a few folks, but it isn't the reason for the majority of us.

Do you really believe that theists believe in God so they can explain the natural world? If so, why would you think something like that? Do we give that impression? I know that I never did, I love science.

PS. Off-topic- I heard on the news this morning that a earth like planet was maybe discovered in another solar system. What they said that it was the perfect position to have liquid H2O, not that it had or didn't have life. But that is still pretty exciting.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Theists use naturalism up to the point where it becomes inconvenient.

 

[bowingtoGod]

I heard about that new planet too! Masha'Allah I wonder what it is like
And I don't think I ever read anything about explaining nature, but rather, it tries to explain the heart. Our holy books do not focus on how God created us, but why.

 

[Penumbra]

(I didn't know whether to put this here or in the one of the science and religion areas, so I just put it here)

Today while we were driving home from grocery shopping I saw a bumper sticker that said "Religion was invented by cavemen who wanted to explain thunder". While I was thinking the usual things: "Boy, I bet atheists find that hilarious" and stuff (Don't worry, I was chuckling and not offended) and then thought of this:

Are there some atheists who think that people follow religion just so we can have nature explained? If so, that is just so sad, because that isn't the reason. Oh, it may the reason for a few folks, but it isn't the reason for the majority of us.

Do you really believe that theists believe in God so they can explain the natural world? If so, why would you think something like that? Do we give that impression? I know that I never did, I love science.

PS. Off-topic- I heard on the news this morning that a earth like planet was maybe discovered in another solar system. What they said that it was the perfect position to have liquid H2O, not that it had or didn't have life. But that is still pretty exciting.

Point 1- Bumper stickers are aesthetically displeasing and virtually never hilarious. It takes a lot for a witty one-liner to be hilarious, and that one just doesn't cut it.

Point 2- Yes, I think many theists give the impression that one of their largest reasons for believing in their gods is that they believe their worldview can provide explanations. Many, many theists I've discussed religions with bring up questions of how atheists explain things, or how science explain things, and state that their religion can explain things.

 

[Dunemeister]

On point 2: That may be so, but that's different from people coming to believe in order to explain the natural world. I think God does explain a lot of things, e.g., why this universe supports life rather than otherwise, but I don't think God explains why objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s. I also didn't become a believer because I thought God answered scientific questions, and I'm willing to bet almost all believers (regardless of religion) would say the same.

 

[Smoke]

While I was thinking the usual things: "Boy, I bet atheists find that hilarious" and stuff

I don't. I'm pretty easily amused, but not that easily.

I don't think very many believers believe in God because they think God explains nature. For one thing, God doesn't really explain much very well.

However a lot of theists do try to use that as an argument when explaining why one should be a theist. I'm not sure why; I doubt that was what persuaded them.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

ANYTHING can be toted out as something that "explains a lot of things." This in no way means that the explanation given is the CORRECT one. Religion is just imho the most prominent of those cases.

 

[Amill]

While I don't really like the idea of how

"theists believe in god to explain the natural world"

if I change a few terms and word it a little better I can agree with it

"theists believe in god because it best explains the Universe they see and experience."

Are the claims really that much different? Not really in my opinion. I think all of our beliefs are what we feel explain the "natural world". The first claim just tries to be demeaning about it.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

While I don't really like the idea of how

"theists believe in god to explain the natural world"

if I change a few terms and word it a little better I can agree with it

"theists believe in god because it best explains the Universe they see and experience."

Are the claims really that much different? Not really in my opinion. I think all of our beliefs are what we feel explain the "natural world". The first claim just tries to be demeaning about it.

A potential issue of tact and or eloquence. This however does not in any way shape or form remove the ultimate issue. Having a FEELING that your mental construct is the "best explanation." does not, by itself, stand as evidence that it is in FACT the correct explanation.

if a person, religious or otherwise. Cannot understand the distinction, that is their problem.

 

[HonestJoe]

Isn't the question you're referring to shifting significantly in your OP? The bumper sticker was about why religion was invented but you're talking about why people follow a religion and why people believe in God (two additional distinct questions).

I think the bumper sticker is making a legitimate point, albeit flippantly. It seems perfectly likely that a major factor behind the development of religious-type activity among early man would be the vast amount of unexplained things which would directly influence their daily life. After all, a lot of early recorded religion is based on deities related to natural features like thunder.

Why people today follow religions is an entirely different question. Why people believe in gods is yet another one. I'm not convinced either actually have very much to do with cavemen wondering what makes that loud crashing noise in the sky.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Isn't the question you're referring to shifting significantly in your OP? The bumper sticker was about why religion was invented but you're talking about why people follow a religion and why people believe in God (two additional distinct questions).

I think the bumper sticker is making a legitimate point, albeit flippantly. It seems perfectly likely that a major factor behind the development of religious-type activity among early man would be the vast amount of unexplained things which would directly influence their daily life. After all, a lot of early recorded religion is based on deities related to natural features like thunder.

Why people today follow religions is an entirely different question. Why people believe in gods is yet another one. I'm not convinced either actually have very much to do with cavemen wondering what makes that loud crashing noise in the sky.

I think it does in that the goalposts merely shift. While the language is more sophisticated and certain aspects of the natural world that were given supernatural explanation have fallen to the way side due to science. It still remains that religions attempts to interject it's supernaturalism into any area a theist feels the necessity to do so. The degree of social ridicule can vary(Creationism vs so called Theistic Evolution) but the reasoning remains the same.

 

[Dunemeister]

A potential issue of tact and or eloquence. This however does not in any way shape or form remove the ultimate issue. Having a FEELING that your mental construct is the "best explanation." does not, by itself, stand as evidence that it is in FACT the correct explanation.

if a person, religious or otherwise. Cannot understand the distinction, that is their problem.

Actually, that feeling is all anyone really has to go on. I believe in Christianity because of its truthy feel. Atheism and other ~isms just don't feel all that truthy to me. And I just gotta have that truthiness. Another way of putting it is that Christianity "rings true to me," whereas it doesn't to you. If it doesn't ring true to people, I can't very well blame them for not believing it. (What would I expect, that people believe what seems false to them? Weird.) OTOH, if it rings true to people (and the contrary positions don't), I can't blame them for believing it.

 

[Walkntune]

To me it just promotes a negative image of the person with the sticker. I would rather see a positive sticker that promotes science or atheism if they are against religion.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Actually, that feeling is all anyone really has to go on. I believe in Christianity because of its truthy feel. Atheism and other ~isms just don't feel all that truthy to me. And I just gotta have that truthiness. Another way of putting it is that Christianity "rings true to me," whereas it doesn't to you. If it doesn't ring true to people, I can't very well blame them for not believing it. (What would I expect, that people believe what seems false to them? Weird.) OTOH, if it rings true to people (and the contrary positions don't), I can't blame them for believing it.

Ok I'm to break up a few things to address specific parts.

Actually, that feeling is all anyone really has to go on.

No it's not. What a ridiculous notion. The Laws of Thermodynamics or the correct answer to "Where did I leave my keys?" does not boil down to..well see the facts are what you FEEL.

. I believe in Christianity because of its truthy feel. Atheism and other ~isms just don't feel all that truthy to me.

Which is irrelevant to whether it's actually factual or not. Your emotions, my emotions, everyone's emotions are monumentally irrelevant.

 

[Noaidi]

Today while we were driving home from grocery shopping I saw a bumper sticker that said "Religion was invented by cavemen who wanted to explain thunder". While I was thinking the usual things: "Boy, I bet atheists find that hilarious" and stuff (Don't worry, I was chuckling and not offended) and then thought of this:

Are there some atheists who think that people follow religion just so we can have nature explained? If so, that is just so sad, because that isn't the reason. Oh, it may the reason for a few folks, but it isn't the reason for the majority of us.

Do you really believe that theists believe in God so they can explain the natural world? If so, why would you think something like that? Do we give that impression? I know that I never did, I love science.

Perhaps the bumper sticker alludes to the origins of supernatural belief. As humans, it seems natural for us to attribute meaning and pattern to what we see, so if an explanation isn't obvious, then perhaps we make one up. Maybe 'religion' originated as a method of explaining the as-yet unexplained? Over time, its function changed and developed into what we know it as today.

Theists today hopefully don't look to gods for explanations for thunderstorms - although IDers do look to a 'designer' for explanations for certain aspects of life. Is that any different from the caveman situation? Same idea but in a modern setting?

 

[CarlinKnew]

I saw a bumper sticker that said "The internet was invented by scientists to share research information."

Are there some people who think that we use the internet just so we can share information on our scientific research? If so, that is just so sad, because that isn't the reason. Oh, it may the reason for a few folks, but it isn't the reason for the majority of us.

Catch my drift?

 

[Noaidi]

I saw a bumper sticker that said "The internet was invented by scientists to share research information."

Are there some people who think that we use the internet just so we can share information on our scientific research? If so, that is just so sad, because that isn't the reason. Oh, it may the reason for a few folks, but it isn't the reason for the majority of us.

Catch my drift?

No, we don't use the internet solely for that purpose, but that was the reason for its conception and invention.

 

[CarlinKnew]

No, we don't use the internet solely for that purpose, but that was the reason for its conception and invention.

:yes:

 

[Noaidi]

:yes:

Ha! Sorry - I'm very slow today! I just realised what your earlier post was saying.

 

[Twig pentagram]

There are some theist that don't believe in god.