Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[MoonWater]

Lets see. Do you have any evidence to back up your supernatural claims.

The way I see it, the supernatural is the natural not understood, that is, if something exists it is natural(This is not to say that things like ghosts and magic actually exist, just that if they did I would consider them a natural aspect of the universe, not supernatural). However with that in mind I don't make any claims that anything I believe in actually exists precisely because I have no evidence to prove it. I have personal experiences that have led me to believe but am well aware that these experiences may simply be "mental tricks" or "placebo". Indeed my views on magic pretty much equate it TO a placebo. As such I don't expect anyone to believe me or my experiences and despite my faith and ritual practices I am still very agnostic about the whole subject. I don't believe I have ever claimed that the "supernatural" exists, only that I believe many of the things that are called supernatural exist; and there is a difference between making a claim and stating a belief.

Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong

Most certainly, in fact I know there's a very good chance I'm wrong, hence why I remain agnostic. But then to me religion and faith aren't about "getting it right" but about finding something that fulfills you and you find worthwhile. Many people don't find any religion does any of that for them just as many people do find religion to be of great benefit to them. It doesn't matter either way, it's simply a matter of finding what works. If a few years from now I suddenly realized that religion in general no longer worked for me or was of any benefit then I would leave it behind and become an atheist. Though I'd likely still follow a philosophical, spiritual path like Taoism or Buddhism.

and have you considered the evidence?

yes. Which is why I would never believe in things like a 5,000 year old earth and creationism(even when I was Christian I didn't believe those things) and why I don't see the myths in my tradition as anything more than great stories that are meant to impart some spiritual, ethical, and/or moral message. I don't believe the myths are meant to be historical accounts. I see religion as something very personal and subjective and feel it should remain as such, so religion is not meant to cross paths with science. If I find myself in a conflict between my faith and science then I will see if there is a reasonable way to reconcile them, if not then I will go with science over faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are getting into epistemology, and so I would ask how you are using 'knowledge.' If you define knowledge as only what is observable or testable, then only scientific knowledge will do.

How about for a start, we establish the criteria that knowledge must be rational?

Relationships, appreciation of art, any sort of value or ethical system are based upon reason or logic with no 'objective' reality at the bottom, with perhaps the exception of 'utility.' However, 'it works' seems to fall a bit short of the whole human experience of what we think about and know.

The relationship or the appreciation of art itself may not be objective, but it's predicated on objective things: having a relationship assumes that the object of the relationship exists; you cannot appreciate a piece of art that does not exist.

OK, and you also appear to be saying that the only reasons you accept as good grounds for belief are those with a basis in the scientific method.

Kinda. I'm not saying that any basis of knowledge has to be repeatable or subjected to peer review, but I do think that good reasons for belief must be rational, and therefore capable of being subjected to rational inquiry. You believe ____ to be true? Okay - why do you believe it to be true? Why do you consider these reasons to be good ones?

The fact that these sorts of questions can lead to all sorts of discussions themselves doesn't mean that they're not worth asking.

It still depends on what you mean by 'knowledge claims'.

As in relationships, the only 'knowledge claims' made by faith are subjective and experiential. Other than that, faith is trust and it incorporates the element of doubt.

At this point, I'm only asking for consistency in approach. If a given believer says "I know ____ about God", then they are implicitly stating that some aspect of God can be investigated rationally in some way.

I'm sure she does know. She experiences your behavior toward her. But, from another person's POV, your loving actions might not be sufficient evidence of love. Some parents spank their kids out of love. Do they love their kids, or not?

Maybe - maybe not. It's the sort of thing that would probably warrant a fair bit more investigation. But investigation of that question is possible - it's not quite the same situation as what you're suggesting, if you really are suggesting that God is beyond investigation altogether.

You are using circular reasoning here, 9/10ths. God is if God is testable God is ...

What if God is but God is not testable?

If God is not testable in any way whatsoever, then you don't know God in any way whatsoever and neither does anybody else.

We can trace our God-concept (and various other God-concepts) back to its source.

You can? Is that source God?

Can you show me?

 

[PolyHedral]

I think of supernatural as above and outside of the natural world, yet able to impinge upon the natural world.

But it impinging means that we need to extend what we think of as "natural" to include it.

 

[Engyo]

But it impinging means that we need to extend what we think of as "natural" to include it.

Actually, I don't think your paradigm and LM's paradigm are compatible.

She's talking about something like a lab tech viewing what's happening in a closed test chamber, with the ability to alter the conditions in the chamber. You are talking about the paramecium in the chamber being able to reach out and interact with the wider laboratory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, I see what you are saying. Much like 9/10ths is saying, I think. You define supernatural as "natural plus."

That's a fair enough way of putting it for me as well.

That is not how I think of supernatural, nor how I think of God for that matter. I think of supernatural as above and outside of the natural world, yet able to impinge upon the natural world.

Let me know if I have your view straight:

- there is another realm that actually exists, and is occupied by things that actually exist.
- this realm and its occupants are capable of affecting the visible universe and do affect it, however, it is impossible to actually demonstrate that they are affecting the visible universe.
- this realm and its occupants are not only beyond the current scope of human observation, measurement and study, they will always be beyond this scope, regardless of the method used.

Is that all a fair assessment?

If so, then I would say that belief in such a realm is an intellectual compromise. However, I think it's one that's shared fairly widely.

 

[ChristineES]

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?

One thing is that my prayers are answered (I certainly know that you would say this was just a coincidence). Another thing, when I have questions in my mind and I pray, an answer will almost certainly come to me. I don't try to convince an atheist with these kinds of arguments, but they do convince me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think their needs to be a "intellectual compromise" for my faith? There isn't one, that I am aware of. I got all As and Bs in my college courses when I went back to school a few years ago, included 2 science courses (I got an A in both of them).
My faith does not cause me to be less intelligent or less intellectual.

The stronger my intellect becomes, my faith only becomes deeper.

 

[lunamoth]

I am running out of time for this discussion, but I agree with you that it is reasonable to expect internal consistency in whatever belief system a person holds. I would also say that in practice, no one is 100% internally consistent in their beliefs or actions.

How about for a start, we establish the criteria that knowledge must be rational?

How do you define rational? How do you know when knowledge is rational?

The relationship or the appreciation of art itself may not be objective, but it's predicated on objective things: having a relationship assumes that the object of the relationship exists; you cannot appreciate a piece of art that does not exist.

It's an analogy and not perfect. It only illustrates that there are different forms of rational, reasonable thought that do not require scientific evidence.

Kinda. I'm not saying that any basis of knowledge has to be repeatable or subjected to peer review, but I do think that good reasons for belief must be rational, and therefore capable of being subjected to rational inquiry. You believe ____ to be true? Okay - why do you believe it to be true? Why do you consider these reasons to be good ones?

The fact that these sorts of questions can lead to all sorts of discussions themselves doesn't mean that they're not worth asking.

I agree with all this.

At this point, I'm only asking for consistency in approach. If a given believer says "I know ____ about God", then they are implicitly stating that some aspect of God can be investigated rationally in some way.

I agree that this is reasonable, although in practice I don't think anyone is 100% consistent in their beliefs and behavior. I, personally, would not use that statement.

Maybe - maybe not. It's the sort of thing that would probably warrant a fair bit more investigation. But investigation of that question is possible - it's not quite the same situation as what you're suggesting, if you really are suggesting that God is beyond investigation altogether.

We can investigate God, but not in the scientific sense. You are throwing out the window the approach that incorporates our personal experience of what we believe to be God, the stories of experience by other people, and reasonable personal investigation into values and the meaning of life.

Sure, you can answer "there is no meaning to life" and be done with it. Does that also necessitate that it is irrational to take the other view, the one that fits our experience of life better, that our choices matter and life is meaningful?

If God is not testable in any way whatsoever, then you don't know God in any way whatsoever and neither does anybody else.

Wow. If a mystic says they have had an experience of union with God, which is not testable, then you can unequivocally say that they know nothing about God? That you are right and they are wrong?

You can? Is that source God?

Can you show me?

You asked about God-concepts, the development of which can be traced through study of the Bible, along with various other writings throughout history. Or you can trace God-concepts in Islam, or Buddhism, or any other religion. What is the problem with that?

 

[lunamoth]

Let me know if I have your view straight:

- there is another realm that actually exists, and is occupied by things that actually exist.
- this realm and its occupants are capable of affecting the visible universe and do affect it, however, it is impossible to actually demonstrate that they are affecting the visible universe.
- this realm and its occupants are not only beyond the current scope of human observation, measurement and study, they will always be beyond this scope, regardless of the method used.

I

I'm not sure the words 'exist' and 'things' and 'occupants' really apply, but I guess they are as good as any for carrying on a conversation.

 

[lunamoth]

But it impinging means that we need to extend what we think of as "natural" to include it.

I don't think so.

Take the example of the Virgin birth. Even 2000 years ago you did not need a science degree to know that babies are not born without sexual intercourse. Let's say the story of the virgin birth happened today.

A woman claims she did not have sexual intercourse, but a physical exam makes it appear that she did.

No one admits to being the father, but the DNA matches the boy next door.

The baby is in the womb, following a completely normal course of development, and a completely ordinary infant is born.

But, the mother still claims she did not have sexual intercourse.

All the evidence suggests that the baby is the boy next door's, and everyone is lying or otherwise confused/mentally ill.

But, you still can't rule out the possibility that God impinged on the physiology of the woman in a supernatural way, and all the downstream events then followed the normal course.

Is this compelling evidence for a virgin birth and/or God? No, of course not.

If you allow for the supernatural in your model of how babies can be conceived is it logically possible? Yes.

That is my point. Simply to explore your statement that "the scientific method can examine anything that interacts with the physical universe."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am running out of time for this discussion, but I agree with you that it is reasonable to expect internal consistency in whatever belief system a person holds. I would also say that in practice, no one is 100% internally consistent in their beliefs or actions.

I'd agree. However, I think it's a good idea for us to try to make our beliefs as consistent as they can be, and to resolve any inconsistencies when they become apparent.

How do you define rational? How do you know when knowledge is rational?

IMO, one piece of knowledge is rational when it is consistent with itself and with other pieces of knowledge.

I realize that this ends up being a self-referential system, but I think that's the way that we build knowledge: we construct mental models of how the world works. When new information presents itself to us, this either serves as support for the model (if the information agrees with the model) or as the basis for a change in the model (if it doesn't).

It's an analogy and not perfect. It only illustrates that there are different forms of rational, reasonable thought that do not require scientific evidence.

But is it right to include religion with them? IMO, anything that makes claims about objective reality can potentially be tested. While I acknowledge that some people hold god-concepts that they don't believe have any effects on objective reality, but these are by far in the slim minority.

I agree that this is reasonable, although in practice I don't think anyone is 100% consistent in their beliefs and behavior. I, personally, would not use that statement.

Okay, but do you know anything about God? If you do, it can be tested; if you don't, why do you believe?

We can investigate God, but not in the scientific sense. You are throwing out the window the approach that incorporates our personal experience of what we believe to be God, the stories of experience by other people, and reasonable personal investigation into values and the meaning of life.

Sure, you can answer "there is no meaning to life" and be done with it. Does that also necessitate that it is irrational to take the other view, the one that fits our experience of life better, that our choices matter and life is meaningful?

I think that we're getting into an issue of terminology again. If the term "God" is meant to refer to things like a divine creator of the universe or to the judge who will assign people to Heaven or Hell, then IMO this is the sort of belief that is conceivably testable.

Things like folklore and stories might be handy to point the way to ideas for examination, but they're not the end of the story. As an analogy, it's like folk medicine: it could be that you would never have thought of a particular remedy any other way, but the remedy itself still either works or doesn't, and this can still be determined with double-blind trials or the like.

Wow. If a mystic says they have had an experience of union with God, which is not testable, then you can unequivocally say that they know nothing about God? That you are right and they are wrong?

Wait one minute: by "testable", I didn't mean "testable by me". It's entirely possible for someone to gain knowledge that I don't have the means to gain for myself. Remember that this whole discussion started with the idea of having one high standard for belief when given to others and a lower standard for belief for ourselves. If I have an experience, it's likely testable for me, even if it's not testable for anyone else.

That being said, the specific case you describe is problematic. The experience itself, fine - I have no way to see what some mystic sees or feel what he feels. However, there's an extra step that you didn't really address: attribution.

Say, hypothetically, someone comes to me and says "I felt God!" I can respond by saying "all right, I'll have to take your word for it that you felt something that felt like God (though what is God supposed to 'feel like'?), but how do you know it actually was God?"

If the mystic can't offer anything other than "well, I just know it was God", then my thought would probably be "if that's all you've got, then you actually don't know that at all."

You asked about God-concepts, the development of which can be traced through study of the Bible, along with various other writings throughout history. Or you can trace God-concepts in Islam, or Buddhism, or any other religion. What is the problem with that?

None at all, if we're just talking about them in the context of cultural anthropology. If we're talking about them as a source of actual knowledge about God, then I question how relevant they are unless they are actually the product of knowledge of God in some way.

 

[lunamoth]

OK, one more, but then I have to stop.

IMO, one piece of knowledge is rational when it is consistent with itself and with other pieces of knowledge.

OK, but if a person includes a supernatural, untestable God in their worldview, and maintains an internally consistent system of belief and ethics around this, this would then fit your definition of rational. Right?

I realize that this ends up being a self-referential system, but I think that's the way that we build knowledge: we construct mental models of how the world works. When new information presents itself to us, this either serves as support for the model (if the information agrees with the model) or as the basis for a change in the model (if it doesn't).

I agree.

But is it right to include religion with them? IMO, anything that makes claims about objective reality can potentially be tested. While I acknowledge that some people hold god-concepts that they don't believe have any effects on objective reality, but these are by far in the slim minority.

Are you sure that anything that makes a claim about objective reality can potentially be tested? How about: A supernatual God Created and Sustains the universe. See also my example about the Virgin conception to PH. You would say yes because you reject the supernatural out of hand. But, if someone accepts the supernatural (outside the scope of even theoretical testing), is it really intellectually dishonest or irrational to hold these beliefs?

Is it simply intellectually dishonest to accept the possibility of the supernatural?

Is it intellectually honest to say that you know that there is nothing in addition to the natural universe that we can (potentially or theoretically) test?

Okay, but do you know anything about God? If you do, it can be tested; if you don't, why do you believe?

I'll get back to this below. You are hung up on the word know, as in 'certain knowledge.' To know can also be a personal, non-transferable experience.

I think that we're getting into an issue of terminology again. If the term "God" is meant to refer to things like a divine creator of the universe or to the judge who will assign people to Heaven or Hell, then IMO this is the sort of belief that is conceivably testable.

Really? How can this be tested?

Wait one minute: by "testable", I didn't mean "testable by me".

I did not mean that either. Exactly what conceivable test would measure the mystic's union with God in a way that would support or refute that what he experienced really was God? Even if all the brain-chemistry could be artificially reproduced, and sociological, psychological, and evolutionary factors could be 100% defined, how could you still rule out that it was an authentic experience of God, as 'real' as any other objective reality we experience?

It's entirely possible for someone to gain knowledge that I don't have the means to gain for myself. Remember that this whole discussion started with the idea of having one high standard for belief when given to others and a lower standard for belief for ourselves. If I have an experience, it's likely testable for me, even if it's not testable for anyone else.

So, you accept subjective knowledge from your own personal experience for yourself, but others must show a higher standard, some kind of objective evidence, to be considered rational or reasonable.

That being said, the specific case you describe is problematic. The experience itself, fine - I have no way to see what some mystic sees or feel what he feels. However, there's an extra step that you didn't really address: attribution.

Say, hypothetically, someone comes to me and says "I felt God!" I can respond by saying "all right, I'll have to take your word for it that you felt something that felt like God (though what is God supposed to 'feel like'?), but how do you know it actually was God?"

If the mystic can't offer anything other than "well, I just know it was God", then my thought would probably be "if that's all you've got, then you actually don't know that at all."

I understand your stance. Frankly, I would react in the same way, with a healthy dose of skepticism. However, I think it would be rather arrogant and presumptive, and intellectually dishonest, if I were to add that last remark about the other person not knowing that it was God. How do I know it was not God? As I said above, personal experience is not transferable. But, I do not see how that makes it either irrational or intellectually dishonest for the mystic to believe that he has experienced God.

None at all, if we're just talking about them in the context of cultural anthropology. If we're talking about them as a source of actual knowledge about God, then I question how relevant they are unless they are actually the product of knowledge of God in some way.

You approach it from the view that God does not exist and can't influence humans. If God 'exists' and can influence humans, and those humans wrote the story of how this played out over time, then you would gain some knowledge about God. Testable? No. Rational? Yes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, one more, but then I have to stop.

I've gotta go myself, so I can only address the first part of your post right now. I'll get back to the rest later.

OK, but if a person includes a supernatural, untestable God in their worldview, and maintains an internally consistent system of belief and ethics around this, this would then fit your definition of rational. Right?

Kinda. It might not be irrational, but I'd be hesitant to call it rational.

I'm going to use a land surveying metaphor now - hopefully nobody's eyes glaze over. This Wiki article may help visualizing things.

Surveyors are big into precision. They're also big into measuring and verifying their precision.

One of the ways that they can do this is with what's called a closed traverse: you make measurements all around a big circle, and then at the end, you take a measurement of your starting point. In a perfect world, you'll measure your starting point to be exactly where you thought it would be. In the real world, there'll be some degree of error, which can be used to quantify how good all your measurements along the circle were.

In contrast, there's also something called an open traverse. It starts at a known point (or at least a point you think you know) and heads off without ever referring back to check on itself. The issue with this is that you have no way to measure your error. You may have a very high opinion of your equipment and your abilities, but if you don't actually measure your error, you could be completely wrong and you'd never know.

The more our beliefs touch each other, the more opportunities we have to "check error", like in an open traverse: each time we make a prediction about the world and see whether or not it was correct, we effectively take a measurement of the "error" in our model of the world. In contrast, if our mental model, or some aspect of it, is never subjected to any sort of test, then we can't really know whether it's any good or not.

IMO, we can think of a belief as rational when it stands up to the tests it's subjected to. When we're talking about a belief that will never be subjected to any tests whatsoever, then we have a sort of logical divide-by-zero. Yes, it will never actually fail any tests, but it won't pass any either.

 

[lunamoth]

IMO, we can think of a belief as rational when it stands up to the tests it's subjected to. When we're talking about a belief that will never be subjected to any tests whatsoever, then we have a sort of logical divide-by-zero. Yes, it will never actually fail any tests, but it won't pass any either.

If one is using God or the supernatural to explain the operations and laws of the physical world, I agree with everything you say. However, there are legitimate aspects of human life and experience that are not about survival and understanding of the physical world. The 'tests' are not empirical, scientific tests, but subjective, mostly internal tests. Aesthetics, love, and faith in God all fall into this category. Sure, other people's beliefs fail your tests, but they pass the tests the person is using. Just like all your beliefs have passed the tests you consider valid.

Thank you for the conversation.

 

[YmirGF]

Absolutely no compromises required in my camp.

 

[Tathagata]

I'm first and foremost, a freethinker at heart, so sometimes I struggle trying not getting sucked into the religious mindset. I would simply consider myself a philosophical Buddhist in that I believe the Buddhist explanation of reality is true, but I reject the monastic rules, and other things that tell me how to live. I think that the mindset of Buddha himself was a freethinker not subject to religious rules, so I'm basically following his example and not the example of the religion and monasticism itself.



.

 

[Scuba Pete]

what is the biggest intellectual compromise you have made or are currently making to keep believing your faith?"

None. My faith has evolved to be consistent with my understanding.

 

[Blackdog22]

if I were to accept a lesser standard for my own beliefs than I would consider appropriate for others, then I would consider this an intellectual compromise.

So few words. So much meaning. The responses to this statement don't seem to fully understand the statement. This seriously lays it all on the line. If this were American Idol I would put you through. Bravo.

 

[Kathryn]

I haven't read thru all these posts, but I'm not into ANY gymnastics, including mental ones, and I haven't compromised any intellectual musings or principles for my faith.

 

[Beaudreaux]

One thing is that my prayers are answered (I certainly know that you would say this was just a coincidence). Another thing, when I have questions in my mind and I pray, an answer will almost certainly come to me. I don't try to convince an atheist with these kinds of arguments, but they do convince me.

What do you think is the ratio of your answered prayers to your unanswered prayers? Not sure if you keep stats.