Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[lunamoth]

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.


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.

So, overall, its possible that something outside the system could interact with the system and yet remain untestable from within the system.

 

[Engyo]

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.

I'm not sure we have that complete a grasp on "nature" yet, to be starting in on "supernature". Just my opinion, though.

 

[Dan4reason]

So, overall, its possible that something outside the system could interact with the system and yet remain untestable from within the system.

It is possible, but that does not make it true or believable. The existence of horses with long horn on their foreheads is also possible. That does not mean that they actually exist.

 

[A-MissMandy99]

I don't think certain religions can challenge your 'book smarts' An intellectual compromise is something you do to yourself, KNOWING something like the Ark or the resurrection does not make logical sense, but you find ways for it to work for you. Or you just choose to down right ignore parts of your book. ... Do you get it now?

 

[lunamoth]

Regarding this statement: So, overall, its possible that something outside the system could interact with the system and yet remain untestable from within the system.

It is possible,

OK.

but that does not make it true or believable.

How do you know? Why is it not within the realm of reason that something outside the system could interact with the system and yet remain untestable from within the system?

Added: I see I might have taken the incorrect emphasis from your statement. I agree it does not make it true (I never claimed it would), but I am still wondering why it could not be true, or would not be believable.

The existence of horses with long horn on their foreheads is also possible. That does not mean that they actually exist.

No argument from this corner about this. (However, don't most horses have long hair on their foreheads? )

 

[PolyHedral]

So, overall, its possible that something outside the system could interact with the system and yet remain untestable from within the system.

Not entirely. Once it interacts with the system, it can be proven to exist from within the system.

 

[lunamoth]

Not entirely. Once it interacts with the system, it can be proven to exist from within the system.

Proven? Are you sure about this? Just because you can enter the factor "Or Goddidit" into your model, how can you ever prove or disprove "Goddidit?"

 

[Erebus]

When I was a Christian (I was brought up Christian) I used to believe in Yahweh despite a complete lack of intervention in my life from him/it. I also believed god was all powerful and all loving despite the evidence to the contrary.

Now I'm not sure that I do make intellectual compromises, since I only believe in deities that appear to interact on some level. I also accept that I could be completely wrong. I'm fairly pragmatic though and I don't see a reason to stop believing since atheism has no real benefit to me.

 

[PolyHedral]

Proven? Are you sure about this? Just because you can enter the factor "Or Goddidit" into your model, how can you ever prove or disprove "Goddidit?"

Define God and come back to me.

 

[lunamoth]

Define God and come back to me.

For this conversation, God = Supernatural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

When we're talking about determining the truth or falsehood of claims about objective reality, and if we take "science" to mean rational inquiry generally and not just repeatable lab experiments, then yes.

However, you alluded to other foundations for knowledge; what are they? Could you give some examples?

What are 'good beliefs?

I didn't say "good beliefs"; I talked about good reasons for beliefs.

We're getting into epistemology: how do we know that we know what we know?

Greater minds than mine have debated the issue forever, so I doubt that we'll come to a resolution on it here, but the question remains: if you're making knowledge claims, even to yourself, how do you know that they're correct?

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 ),

She doesn't need to ask, because in behaving lovingly toward her, I already provide her with all the evidence she could ever want.

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.

I don't think that all aspects of God are necessarily testable, but if we're talking about a God whose concept is based on actual knowledge of him, then we're talking about a God that's testable to some degree.

If a God-concept is the product of actual knowledge of God, then we can trace this concept back to its source. If a God-concept isn't the product of actual knowledge of God, then we're really just talking about something that was made up. If you're okay with having a fabricated God, that's up to you, but I personally wouldn't call such a thing a "God" at all.

Anyhow, it seems like we might be using different definitions for the term "God". When you say "God", what do you mean?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For this conversation, God = Supernatural.

To me, "supernatural" means either "natural things we don't understand" or "non-existent things".

I assume that you're using the word differently, however. What do you mean by "supernatural"?

 

[lunamoth]

To me, "supernatural" means either "natural things we don't understand" or "non-existent things".

I assume that you're using the word differently, however. What do you mean by "supernatural"?

Supernatural means above the natural, and not part of the natural world/universe.

 

[PolyHedral]

But we can simply expand what we think of as "natural" until we have explained everything we have encountered so far. If someone were to actually demonstrate psychic powers, they show that it is part of the world, and so should be considered natural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Supernatural means above the natural, and not part of the natural world/universe.

Hmm.

To me, this makes "supernatural" an oxymoron, since IMO "natural" means something like "that which exists in actuality", and the natural world/universe would include anything that actually exists, even if it's not visible to us.

IOW, I think that, by definition, there is no such place as "above the natural", and everything is part of the natural universe.

 

[Willamena]

But we can simply expand what we think of as "natural" until we have explained everything we have encountered so far. If someone were to actually demonstrate psychic powers, they show that it is part of the world, and so should be considered natural.

Can we expand light, until it illuminates dark?

 

[PolyHedral]

In non-flowerly language, please?

 

[lunamoth]

When we're talking about determining the truth or falsehood of claims about objective reality, and if we take "science" to mean rational inquiry generally and not just repeatable lab experiments, then yes.

However, you alluded to other foundations for knowledge; what are they? Could you give some examples?

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. 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.

I didn't say "good beliefs"; I talked about good reasons for beliefs.

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.

We're getting into epistemology: how do we know that we know what we know?

Greater minds than mine have debated the issue forever, so I doubt that we'll come to a resolution on it here, but the question remains: if you're making knowledge claims, even to yourself, how do you know that they're correct?

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.

She doesn't need to ask, because in behaving lovingly toward her, I already provide her with all the evidence she could ever want.

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?

I don't think that all aspects of God are necessarily testable, but if we're talking about a God whose concept is based on actual knowledge of him, then we're talking about a God that's testable to some degree.

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

What if God is but God is not testable?

If a God-concept is the product of actual knowledge of God, then we can trace this concept back to its source. If a God-concept isn't the product of actual knowledge of God, then we're really just talking about something that was made up. If you're okay with having a fabricated God, that's up to you, but I personally wouldn't call such a thing a "God" at all.

We can trace our God-concept (and various other God-concepts) back to its source. That's what the Bible is, the story of a people's relationship with God. It is subjective and experiential and has developed over time.

Anyhow, it seems like we might be using different definitions for the term "God". When you say "God", what do you mean?

Anything I say will just lead us on a merry chase, because it is subjective. God is the Ground of Being, Creator and Sustainer, Love, More...

 

[lunamoth]

Hmm.

To me, this makes "supernatural" an oxymoron, since IMO "natural" means something like "that which exists in actuality", and the natural world/universe would include anything that actually exists, even if it's not visible to us.

IOW, I think that, by definition, there is no such place as "above the natural", and everything is part of the natural universe.

OK then!

 

[lunamoth]

But we can simply expand what we think of as "natural" until we have explained everything we have encountered so far. If someone were to actually demonstrate psychic powers, they show that it is part of the world, and so should be considered natural.

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