Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[Dan4reason]

We would only need "good evidence" if we were trying to prove physically there is a God and forcing non-believers to believe in some form of God. As you can see, I don't do this.

You do not have to physically prove anything. You can also intellectually prove things. For example, I can only intellectually prove that the theory of evolution is true. I cannot show you the evolution from ape to man. I use evidence which indicated that what I am saying is true. I can also use non-physical means of showing that the genocide carried out be the Israelites were not decreed by an omnibenevolent being, but by their leaders who were savages.

It is good to convince others of truth, but the first thing to do is to convince yourself. The only way to have a good, rational, solid belief in God is to have evidence for his existence. Providing evidence for God is not "forcing" it is good debate method.

 

[Dan4reason]

What claims are you claiming I have made?

I assumed that you were making supernatural claims. It now seems that I am wrong.

 

[ChristineES]

However, the scientific method can examine anything that interacts with the physical universe. Are you saying that God does not interact with the physical universe?

Truthfully, I wouldn't know. If there were no God or were a God, what difference would there be that we could tell? The questions would have to be of how the universe would have to be if there is a God or what the universe has to be if there wasn't a God. But before we do that, we would have to either prove or disprove God- which can't be done.

 

[lunamoth]

However, the scientific method can examine anything that interacts with the physical universe. Are you saying that God does not interact with the physical universe?

Are you sure that the scientific method can examine anything that interacts with the physical universe?

How are you sure?

 

[Willamena]

Are you sure that the scientific method can examine anything that interacts with the physical universe?

How are you sure?

Because scientism says so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just don't see it as an intellectual compromise. I say this because I know that there is no physical evidence for God. I know that I could not prove that God exists by any scientific method. If I did, then maybe I could say I have some kind of compromise.

Maybe I misinterpreted - do you think that God physically exists?

One does not need to provide, or even think about providing, scientific, testable evidence for everything that is important to human experience. Art, love, relationships, and religion are all areas where I would not apply the same kind of evidential standards as I would for science, economics, or engineering.

I realize that there are different standards in different areas of human endeavour, but they're different in other ways as well. I mean, when I look at a piece of artwork and say, "that's beautiful", I don't mean that the fact of its beauty is true in some objective sense... heck, I'm not even sure that the concept of "beauty" works objectively. What I mean is that for me, the artwork is beautiful. Someone else could think it's the ugliest thing ever and I could acknowledge their opinion as being just as correct and valid as mine, and even completely true... for him.

IMO, the existence or non-existence of God is not a subjective matter. God either exists or doesn't. If someone were to say that God can exist "for him" and not exist "for me", then I would say that whatever definition he's using for the term "God", it's not compatible with the definition I'm using.

 

[PolyHedral]

Are you sure that the scientific method can examine anything that interacts with the physical universe?

How are you sure?

Because if it interacts with the universe, it would produce some measurable effect. Once you have measured the effect, you can hypothesize about what causes it. Once you have a lot of data, you can refine your hypothesis to a theory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you sure that the scientific method can examine anything that interacts with the physical universe?

How are you sure?

If we were to re-phrase Polyhedral's question by replacing "anything that interacts with the physical universe" with "anything that is a valid source of human knowledge", what would your answer be?

 

[lunamoth]

Because if it interacts with the universe, it would produce some measurable effect. Once you have measured the effect, you can hypothesize about what causes it. Once you have a lot of data, you can refine your hypothesis to a theory.

If the cause is outside the system, how can you ever test the cause of the downstream events? Once you have a hypothesis about the source of the events outside the system, how can you test it?

 

[lunamoth]

If we were to re-phrase Polyhedral's question by replacing "anything that interacts with the physical universe" with "anything that is a valid source of human knowledge", what would your answer be?

I'd ask you to define 'valid,' and ask you to explain how you know when knowledge is valid.

 

[PolyHedral]

If the cause is outside the system, how can you ever test the cause of the downstream events? Once you have a hypothesis about the source of the events outside the system, how can you test it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "outside the system" in this context. By interacting with the system, you become part of the system for modeling purposes. And the same way you test any hypothesis: Find what predictions it makes, and test them against reality.

 

[Mister Emu]

Because if it interacts with the universe, it would produce some measurable effect.

The scientific method requires that you be able to determine when and where something is interacting and when and where it is not. Without that base knowledge it can not be applied.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd ask you to define 'valid,' and ask you to explain how you know when knowledge is valid.

Those are very good questions, and I'm not sure I could come up with good answers right off the top of my head.

What I was trying to get at, though, is that typically, religious beliefs aren't just pulled out of the air. IMO, intellectual honesty isn't just a matter of not holding beliefs that have been shown false; it's also a matter of having good reason for the beliefs we do hold... or at the very least, recognizing their uncertain nature when we lack a good foundation for them.

I think that in the broadest sense, "science" is simply rational inquiry. IMO, this puts the question of whether the reasons for our beliefs are good ones, and by extension whether we're acting in accordance with intellectual honesty, within the purview of science.

Edit: the point I was trying to get at is that if a person says that they have good reasons for my beliefs, this implies that those beliefs are within the scope of science. And likewise, if a person says that their beliefs are beyond the scope of science, they're implicitly stating that those beliefs don't have good foundational reasons.

Edit 2:... assuming we're talking about things that are objectively true. As was touched on before, subjective opinions are different beasts than objective truths, but IMO, the term "God" implies something that, if it exists at all, exists in some sort of objective sense.

 

[Engyo]

I assumed that you were making supernatural claims. It now seems that I am wrong.

The only claim I make is that I can see/feel results from my buddhist practice in my daily life. I make better choices and have better insight into my family and coworkers when I keep my practice consistent.

 

[Beaudreaux]

We would only need "good evidence" if we were trying to prove physically there is a God and forcing non-believers to believe in some form of God. As you can see, I don't do this.

Do you believe that God is almighty and all-loving? I did, and yet could not reconcile this with pediatric cancer and smallpox. My intellectual compromise was to claim that pain and suffering were actually good things.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I just don't see it as an intellectual compromise. I say this because I know that there is no physical evidence for God. I know that I could not prove that God exists by any scientific method. If I did, then maybe I could say I have some kind of compromise.

Well, how about this? There are many things I am guessing you do not believe in that have no evidence either. Leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, etc. When presented with these ideas, you probably hold them to intellectual scrutiny and decide that they probably aren't real. Is it a compromise that you give the Christian God special consideration that you don't give the Pegasus?

 

[lunamoth]

I'm not sure what you mean by "outside the system" in this context. By interacting with the system, you become part of the system for modeling purposes. And the same way you test any hypothesis: Find what predictions it makes, and test them against reality.

Supernatural is outside the natural system.

On what basis do you say that "by interacting with the system, you become part of the system for modeling purposes?"

Why would something interacting with our natural system from outside our natural system necessarily be predictable?

 

[Dan4reason]

The only claim I make is that I can see/feel results from my buddhist practice in my daily life. I make better choices and have better insight into my family and coworkers when I keep my practice consistent.

Your ideas sound like more of a therapy or a way of living life than a religion. Maybe I will look more into Buddhism in the future.

 

[PolyHedral]

Supernatural is outside the natural system.
On what basis do you say that "by interacting with the system, you become part of the system for modeling purposes?"

If there is actually a "supernatural", then we must expand our theories to take this into account, i.e. add it into the system we are considering. Otherwise our theory is incomplete.

Why would something interacting with our natural system from outside our natural system necessarily be predictable?

I think we assume it is, and then try from there. We don't necessarily get the right answer, (since there isn't one) but if science doesn't, then nobody can.

 

[lunamoth]

What I was trying to get at, though, is that typically, religious beliefs aren't just pulled out of the air. IMO, intellectual honesty isn't just a matter of not holding beliefs that have been shown false; it's also a matter of having good reason for the beliefs we do hold... or at the very least, recognizing their uncertain nature when we lack a good foundation for them.

What do you mean by "lack a good foundation for them?" Are you still equating good with scientifically testable? Can there be no 'good foundation' that is not testable by science?

Doubt (recognizing the uncertain nature) is part of faith. But, that does not equate with 'lacking a good foundation,' unless the only good foundation you accept is scientific evidence. I think that is taking a pretty limited view of human experience.

I think that in the broadest sense, "science" is simply rational inquiry. IMO, this puts the question of whether the reasons for our beliefs are good ones, and by extension whether we're acting in accordance with intellectual honesty, within the purview of science.

What are 'good beliefs?

Edit: the point I was trying to get at is that if a person says that they have good reasons for my beliefs, this implies that those beliefs are within the scope of science. And likewise, if a person says that their beliefs are beyond the scope of science, they're implicitly stating that those beliefs don't have good foundational reasons.

Edit 2:... assuming we're talking about things that are objectively true. As was touched on before, subjective opinions are different beasts than objective truths, but IMO, the term "God" implies something that, if it exists at all, exists in some sort of objective sense.

Well, it appears that you define the only good evidence to be scientific evidence (and I'm sure your SO asks for scientific evidence when you say that you love her ), and that the only God that matters is a God testable by science. I think that is a very limited concept of God. But, it certainly makes sense that you would not accept God if that is your criteria.