I believe in God, but I don't claim to know God exists

[mudesi]

The fundamental problem with highly religious people is that they allow their beliefs to take control of their knowledge. I personally believe that God exists, but I hold no illusions that I may be (and probably am) wrong. I suppose that makes me an agnostic, but I don't intend to arbitrarily define terms in this thread.

Rather, I want to express in the most respectful way possible to all the devoutly religious people who happen to read this that, frankly, you have been lied to and are wrapped up in a delusion that I suspect deep down inside, you are all fully aware.

And right there in my previous sentence lies the fundamental problem. There really is no "respectful" way to assert that fact. Accusing someone of being deluded is nothing short of personally insulting, and it is impossible to respectfully say it without said person taking offense. But it is the reality, and I hope I haven't scared any potential fence sitters from reading the rest of this post, simply because I made a "personal attack" to a broad segment of people.

When I was a child, I grew up in a Catholic family. Like any Christian denomination, there were a few things one had to believe as truth if one was to honestly refer to himself as a good Catholic. Among them:

1) Jesus Christ was born through an immaculate conception.
2) Jesus Christ was killed, buried, and then bodily rose from the dead.
3) During every Sunday mass, the Host is literally transformed into the body of Christ.

Now, when I turned 12, I learned that the first one couldn't possibly be true. The age of 12 was when I was taught that in order for humans to reproduce, a man and a woman had to engage in sexual intercourse and the man's sperm had to reach the woman's egg. No sex, no baby.

The second one requires a man not only to somehow be spontaneously revived (which I concede is not at all an impossibility), but also to defy the laws of gravity (which I reject in any and all ways).

The third one is easily refuted as nonsense, given the advances in chemistry and material analysis scientists have at their disposal today.

The point I'm getting at here is this: If you actually have the opinion that either #1, #2, or #3 listed above are in any way, shape or form, true, then I am obligated to seriously question your judgment not only in these matters but in any other matter. This, unfortunately, is inherently insulting to you, and it is impossible for me to respectfully say it. Bluntly, you are irrational.

Your beliefs have been ingrained and indoctrinated into you for such a long time (literally, since childhood) that you allow them to take over your knowledge of reality. In short - You know better.

All that being said, my belief in God remains. My belief in God is the product of my not knowing the reality of whether or not He exists, whatever "He" is. That is the very definition of "belief", after all. But to continue to accept as truth #1, #2, or #3 would be highly illogical and completely irrational, given the knowledge that I have of biology, physics, and chemistry.

To say otherwise would be personally insulting to my intelligence.

[liberal N proud]

1. If we knew for certain, then we wouldn't call it faith n/t

[Dorian Gray]

17. Pretty much what I think

liberal n proud. Succinct and to the point. I like that! :)

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Does the god you believe in have any characteristics? n/t

[trotsky]

3. Actually the "immaculate conception" doctrine applies to Mary, not Jesus.

In order to get past a filthy dirty human female giving birth to a savior god, church leadership decided that they would have to declare her conception "immaculate" so that she wasn't "tainted" with original sin. That way, she can be respected and honored as a woman, but no other woman can consider herself special or due equal rights. Perfect compromise by those old male theocrats.

[MistressOverdone]

4. I am more than well aware that

belief in the holy mysteries, as we call them, defies scientific proof. Does that mean I am deluded? Depends on your perspective. If I am, I sure have had good company over the centuries.

Lately I've been asking questions about things like the multiple universe theory, parallel universes, etc. Personally, I think these theories make the resurrection of Christ look like a yo-yo trick.

You know, the whole damned thing is just inscrutable and bottom line now, then and probably forever is NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE.

[cyborg_jim]

8. And bad company

If I am, I sure have had good company over the centuries.

Not that the company of ideas is relevant.

[MistressOverdone]

15. No, but it is comforting

to some of us.

I'm one of those wild and crazy folks that believes there is something in humans that understands there is more...something else. A yearning, if you will.

And nope, not a bit of scientific evidence. Just intuition.

[cyborg_jim]

16. Intuition is a poor guide to reality.

People really need to start getting with the program when it comes to deciding which reasoning mechanisms are valid and why they are valid and for which situations.

[MistressOverdone]

18. There we will have to agree to disagree

because I think well-tuned intuition sharpens reality. But intuition to me is not esp or magic. It is honed right brain skills... instinctively, for example, understanding body language and other cues. The left brain categorizes, sorts, verbalizes, and reasons. It is sequential and logical and concrete. And the right brain is intuitive, holistic, non-linear, and processes randomly, often using fantasy to work through issues.

The whole right/left thing has some detractors, and I am no neurologist. I can't say for certain whether it is actually brain or some other function, but as a teacher of many years I definitely see, in kids, the patterns of two types of thinking. Taken to extremes, you can have very dysfunctional folks. I have kids who are so left-brained they are really in a rut with little humor and absolutely no ability to read a person. And I have some "squirrels" who spark so randomly they never make progress.

I am naturally rather close to the latter category and it has taken me years to learn some strategies that help me be productive. And for me, faith comes with the package. But don't ask me to defend it; I can't. It's just something I know is true for me.

[cyborg_jim]

19. You do not disagree with me - you simply don't recognise what I said

But intuition to me is not esp or magic. It is honed right brain skills... instinctively, for example, understanding body language and other cues.

You do realise that 'honing' would be 'empirically improving' right?

In what sense does intuition remain valid for things it cannot possibly be honed for - i.e. why do you think that because intuition is a valid way of arriving at some conclusions it must be valid for all - especially for those that cannot have been 'honed'?

he left brain categorizes, sorts, verbalizes, and reasons. It is sequential and logical and concrete. And the right brain is intuitive, holistic, non-linear, and processes randomly, often using fantasy to work through issues.

Your view of the brain is quaint but unrealistic I'm afraid.

The left and right brain have entirely the same mechanisms for computation - the left brain is no more definitively logical and concrete than the right brain is non-linear and random. The differences stem not from an underlying difference in computational ability but merely the configuration.

But don't ask me to defend it; I can't. It's just something I know is true for me.

As such this demonstrates perfectly why personal feelings about truth are unreliable - the feeling of truth has nothing to do with the reality of it. Even you can recognise this from your prison of being unable to cognate otherwise.

[MistressOverdone]

20. Are you a psychologist or neurolgist?

I will bow to your greater knowledge in this. (that sounds snarky, it is not sarcastic) I've read defenses of my original statement and I have read arguments against it. Certainly we DO know what part of the brain controls certain functions such as speech and classification, correct? But I do still stand by my anecdotal evidence. People have different patterns of learning. I don't know what the basis is for that, but it is real and known to anybody who teaches. And here I will REALLY lay myself on the altar of flames and put out there that quite often these patterns run along gender lines.

I think we are poking at each other here and we'll just never connect. I understand that scientists are taught early on that facts and data are paramount and emotion needs to be discounted. I understand that mindset. But I don't think that you will ever be able to see legitimacy in better living through intution. And that's okay. But hey, it has worked extremely well for me. Faith is impossible to explain to a person who doesn't have it. And if you try to explain string theory to me, I seriously doubt I'll understand. I won't quite drool, but close enough.

And I have been perhaps a bit ingenuous because my faith is really not completely unfounded. I have personal evidence of a higher power in my life that I wouldn't bore you with..in fact, I don't remember most of the events, just the most recent. I have a lifetime full of affirmations of my faith. Perhaps because I am open to them?

As for a prison, (a wee nasty dig, but masterfully delivered) we all live in prisons of our own making and most of us get quite comfy in them. Even scientists.

[cyborg_jim]

23. No. My interest is cognition in general.

But I do still stand by my anecdotal evidence. People have different patterns of learning.

I am not arguing otherwise - it is the conclusions that you have built upon this that are in question.

But I don't think that you will ever be able to see legitimacy in better living through intution.

As I have already pointed out the problem is not intuition per se, it is assuming that because you can hammer a nail with a screwdriver that the screwdriver is the best tool for the job.

Faith is impossible to explain to a person who doesn't have it.

No it is not. The problem is that I understand it and reject it because of my understanding of it.

I have personal evidence of a higher power

*Sigh*, and this is exactly what I am talking about.

Perhaps because I am open to them?

Confirmation bias.

You see a god because you expect a god.

Being open is irrelevant.

As for a prison, (a wee nasty dig, but masterfully delivered) we all live in prisons of our own making and most of us get quite comfy in them. Even scientists.

Which is why it is important to recognise this fact and hence recognise the inherent problems with relying on introspection for confirmation of reality.

Scientists are no more infallible than anyone else - which is why science demands *EVERYONE* can get the same results, irrespective of whether or not they are open to the idea, like the idea or whatever.

[Evoman]

25. Word.

This is just perfect.

Especially in responsed to this:

"As for a prison, (a wee nasty dig, but masterfully delivered) we all live in prisons of our own making and most of us get quite comfy in them. Even scientists"

Thats the point...and thats why science is so damn unique. If one scientist has an experience, and no other scientists can replicate it, then it is not a valid experiment/observation. There is NO better way of learning...intuition as a way of knowing does not even come close. There is no failsafe, no way to evaluate your intuition.

Science, in a way, is meant to solve this problem, and its the only system to be able to solve it successfuly. Science overcomes the biases of scientists. And look how far that has gotten us.

[MistressOverdone]

31. hmmm

"There is NO better way of learning...intuition as a way of knowing does not even come close. There is no failsafe, no way to evaluate your intuition."


well, I'm not sure about that. What if you have, for example, an intuition that your child should not spend time at X child's house, and yet there is really no reason. And then you find out eventually that X child's father is a pedophile? What if these things happen to you repeatedly, enough that you begin to trust that hunch, that intuition?

I mean, there are certainly validations for intuition. But you cannot replicate them.

Now, here's my problem. I get that scientists need to validate things within the realm of science because that is the essence of science. But is life science and science life? To me, it is just a paradigm for looking at the world and the things in it.

But do you think there is any merit in approaching the world in a different way at any time? I mean, as an artist, for example, I have been taught to approach the world in a specific way visually. When I am painting I don't see a door or a flower. I see verticals, horizontals, relationships, negative space, tonal values. But I turn that off when I am just looking at the world.

And what would you suggest those with intuition, faith, etc., DO with it? Ignore it? Spend time meditating like Tuvak on Voyager in order to knock it down? (yeah, I'm a Trekkie, oddly enough)

And that's where I have to questions whether the twain ever shall meet between scientists and people of faith. We think we understand, but we haven't lived each other's lives, so how can we, really? Isn't it a tad arrogant to think "Oh, I know all about folks like you" because that's what I'm sensing in this conversation.

[cyborg_jim]

33. Sigh

well, I'm not sure about that. What if you have, for example, an intuition that your child should not spend time at X child's house, and yet there is really no reason. And then you find out eventually that X child's father is a pedophile? What if these things happen to you repeatedly, enough that you begin to trust that hunch, that intuition?

Well let's analyse this shall we?

Firstly what about the counter situation? After all, I did mention confirmation bias did I not? You've got to consider the cases when intuition FAILS as well. The thing is you don't tend to remember those instances, you just tend to remember the times you were right.

Secondly what's to assume there really is no reason? Women in particular are good at picking up subtle hints of body language. You probably assume you should be consciously aware of this sort of thing but your conscious appreciation only manifests itself as an emotional reaction. In other words you'd be judging on appearances - something we all do automatically all the time.

I mean, there are certainly validations for intuition. But you cannot replicate them.

But you MUST - and I mean MUST - also consider the cases that INVALIDATE.

But is life science and science life? To me, it is just a paradigm for looking at the world and the things in it.

Just a paradigm? It's hardly 'just' a paradigm since it is far more successful at actually achieving its aims then any other paradigm with similar aims.

But do you think there is any merit in approaching the world in a different way at any time? I mean, as an artist, for example, I have been taught to approach the world in a specific way visually. When I am painting I don't see a door or a flower. I see verticals, horizontals, relationships, negative space, tonal values. But I turn that off when I am just looking at the world.

The merit is tautological - what humans find aesthetically pleasing is a function of our make-up. As such what is art is not in any sense a fundamental notion of the universe, just a fundamental notion of humans.

And what would you suggest those with intuition, faith, etc., DO with it? Ignore it?

Like I said earlier realise what it CAN and CANNOT do. Realise that it is NOT infallible. Understand WHY we have it, and WHY it is flawed.

And that's where I have to questions whether the twain ever shall meet between scientists and people of faith.

Scientists can have faith but science cannot.

We think we understand, but we haven't lived each other's lives, so how can we, really?

That depends on what your conceptualisation of understanding is.

Isn't it a tad arrogant to think "Oh, I know all about folks like you" because that's what I'm sensing in this conversation.

Despite protests otherwise humans behave and think in more predictable ways then they'd like to admit.

Yes, I am included in that analysis.

[MistressOverdone]

34. Some of this is whizzing over my head

I will first admit that I don't really know what confirmation bias is. It has been a long time since I took research methods.

But I'm struck with the rest of your post that we actually agree on most of this stuff and perhaps you have misinterpretted my defense. I don't think that my intution is infallible. If only! And yes, indeed, I think that women's intuition is a viable concept and that's just what I think intution is...well honed sensory information. I thought I explained that before, but obviously not well enough.

I have high respect for science. I would have been dead a few times over without it. And my dad was a scientist. What I am looking for is balance where we stop and consider the unseen and don't close our minds to it, but where we also have a body of knowledge we can trust because of the strictures of the paradigm of science.

But I also put forth that I believe for the world to have balance there have to be folks like you, and there have to be folks like me.

Obviously, science has brought you satisfaction and I hope worldly rewards.

Faith has brought me comfort, mystery, hope and some damned good music! And I'm fairly harmless with it, although I will admit to praying for people without their permission, which does piss some folks off. Other than that, I keep to myself. (well except for here where my alter ego runs wild at times.)

Thank you for the civil discourse, you have made me think.

[cyborg_jim]

36. Confirmation bias

Simply put it is to only consider the cases which strengthen your hypothesis. We are generally prone to it because of the nature of the way our brains learn.

I thought I explained that before, but obviously not well enough.

That is what you've explained yet you still take intuition further than it is able to take you.

What I am looking for is balance where we stop and consider the unseen and don't close our minds to it,

This is not about closing minds, it's about realising the simple fact that they are fallible. Despite you saying that you agree with this you really don't - you've already said once that you have personal evidence for a god. Within the prison of your own mind that is reality. God is real - but he doesn't seem to be real for me.

This is the very crux of the issue - you have, for one reason or another, a belief in god. Now that you have that belief you will tend to confirm it - other people have the belief, my intuition supports the belief, everything I see supports the belief, etc... This is a product of the very way our minds work.

But I also put forth that I believe for the world to have balance there have to be folks like you, and there have to be folks like me.

This isn't about reaching a balance. Balance is irrelevant. One does not arrive at an objective truth by merely balancing everyone's introspections. That is a very liberal mindset to be sure but it's still fundamentally wrong.

Some people's ideas ARE worse than others. That's just the fact of the matter.

Faith has brought me comfort, mystery, hope and some damned good music!

You say that as if science precludes that. Hell, you say that as if faith were relevant to the product. That's confirmation bias again.

Thank you for the civil discourse, you have made me think.

That would be the objective. My goal is not to balance. Balance is not helpful here. That would be another case of applying one concept valid in another domain to a domain for which it is not valid.

[MistressOverdone]

37. What about the concept

of pluraistic thinking, believing two things at once? Is that not a human trait?

I both believe in the unseen and I believe in science because they both have benefitted me in my life.

I know that as a teacher of gifted kids, I attempt to help them be fluid, flexible and able to elaborate in their thinking. Wouldn't be stuck in one paradigm be more of a prison?

I could jump on your train 100 percent if there were not so many mysteries in the world that even science has not yet begun to solve. And fields like cosmology (I am always afraid I'll write cosmetology) where to get to the answer simply leads to more questions, and wild and wonderful questions they are.

And about balance, why is that irrelevant? Is not balance what the earth is all about? Crazy swings and eventual balance?

My free afternoon has come to an end and I'll have to climb back into the cage of the classroom. My little charge for this PM didn't show because of standardized testing today. She has an IQ of over 160 and often has her clothes on backwards and inside out. She just wrote a 25 page critique (merciless) of Harry Potter. She is 8. I'm glad I've spent my time this PM learning something.

I plead guilty to confirmation bias.


editted for grammar sense

[cyborg_jim]

38. Sure is

of pluraistic thinking, believing two things at once? Is that not a human trait?

Also can be cognitive dissonance - in that the two things being held at once are mutually incompatible.

I both believe in the unseen and I believe in science because they both have benefitted me in my life.

*Sigh* I don't think you're getting the point here. I'm not saying otherwise. The point here is about applying tools outside their appropriate domain - i.e. using a screwdriver as a hammer.

I know that as a teacher of gifted kids, I attempt to help them be fluid, flexible and able to elaborate in their thinking. Wouldn't be stuck in one paradigm be more of a prison?

No, again it is a case of having a toolbox and knowing which tools to use and when and more importantly which tools not to use and when.

I could jump on your train 100 percent if there were not so many mysteries in the world that even science has not yet begun to solve.

The existence of mystery does not imply an automatic benefit to non-scientific paradigms.

And about balance, why is that irrelevant? Is not balance what the earth is all about? Crazy swings and eventual balance?

This is exactly what I am talking about: balance in one thing DOES not mean there must be balance in another.

When it comes to seeking an objective truth one does not seek balance, the objective is competition. Ideas that are weaker are culled, the stronger ideas get to progress. Balance would be counter-productive to this goal.

And of course balance is not a goal on Earth - it's just that stable systems have persistence, so we tend to see stable systems.

I plead guilty to confirmation bias.

I assume this is in reference to you anecdote. I'm not quite sure why you think it confirms things in your direction rather than mine.

[Evoman]

42. And what if you had been wrong?

What if your intuition had led you to believe the man was a pedophile, even if he wasn't. What if his mannerism and such led you to belief something that is false? What if your strong intuition encouraged you to warn your neighbours who have kids? What if your intuition led you to ruin a man's life and reputation based on nothing but your misguided belief?

Thats the problem with intuition. It is wrong, and it is wrong often. Better safe than sorry? Yeah, its not your life thats ruined.

[MistressOverdone]

30. Well, the horse is dead and the flies

are swarming, so it's time to quit. You think you understand me, and that's fine. I rather doubt you do, but hey, who knows? I KNOW I don't understand you, and that's fine, too. Now we'll just have to agree that we are both carbon-based living beings and leave it at that!

[cyborg_jim]

32. So you don't like the conclusion then do you?

[MistressOverdone]

35. see the post I just wrote.

above, I think.

[LiberalFighter]

5. If Mary was a virgin and she conceived Jesus then how...

could Joseph be the father?

Remember the lineages in the NT? And don't forget that the two lineages are different even though they are suppose to be for Jesus.

How could Jesus be the descendant of David?

If Jesus is the son of god then there isn't a connection to David.

If Mary was pregnant by a mortal man how could they know the lineage without the name of Jesus's father?

[MistressOverdone]

21. Mary was from the House of David

wasn't she?

[LiberalFighter]

24. Why thru the line of David, the kings... all males

and then they would switch to female line?

[struggle4progress]

22. Such details cannot have escaped the attention of whoever wrote the gospels

[samq79]

6. Well-written, and well-intentioned!

This is an interesting topic; one that I learned last easter not to have a conversation about with my grandmother. My grandmother is devoutly religious, much to the detriment of logic. I have always been interested in the history of Christianity and the steps the bible took to become the accepted written word of Christianity that we have today.

I've read many historical treatments of the "development" of today's bible, as well as a large number of Historical religious fiction renderings of the stories of subjects, such as the Grail, the elimination of the Templars in the 15th century, and the lost library of Alexandria. Even simply reading the Bible shows MANY inconsistencies. The four gospels alone tells the same stories in 4 VASTLY different ways.

Due to this, I have become more skeptical than the much younger version of me, jumping up and down at a church retreat ready to give my heart to god(to be fair, I was also looking to give my virginity to a girl named Julia, who was truly out of my league). I would probably call myself agnostic, but reserving judgement.

Of course, as far as my grandmother is concerned, I'm still the same god fearing boy I always was. The conversation on Easter was one of the most awe-inspiringly painful in my life. I was asking about the inconsistencies that the Bible presents, and my grandmother kept responding with the concept of faith. You know, "have faith and you will have your answer..." I'm sorry, but that's not an answer. You cannot change my mind about belief in god by telling me to pray for the answer. I'm an analytical person, looking for concrete proof that this makes sense, and telling me that my proof is that it must make sense because god exists isn't going to help me.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. Well

"Rather, I want to express in the most respectful way possible to all the devoutly religious people who happen to read this that, frankly, you have been lied to and are wrapped up in a delusion that I suspect deep down inside, you are all fully aware.

And right there in my previous sentence lies the fundamental problem. There really is no "respectful" way to assert that fact."

The thing is, that's NOT a fact. It's your assertion. It's what you believe to be true.

But when you get into issues of faith, you step away from simple "fact", "not fact". You cannot disprove many aspects of faith anymore than a religious person can prove it. So there it will stay, in the realm of opinion.

What we perceive as reality is probably pretty limited. I believe there is room for a great deal that we cannot objectively grasp -- that cannot be measured, or "proven" to factually exist.

(Of course, I could be wrong. But that's why it comes down to faith -- and part of that is, indeed, a choice to believe.)

[mudesi]

10. It is fact

1) Mary was not a virgin if she gave birth to a child because one cannot conceive a child without sexual intercourse in that time period.
2) Jesus did not ascend into heaven because the gravitational force on his body would have kept him on the ground. Rocketry and man made heavier than air flight did not exist in that time period.
3) After consecrating a host, any chemist can examine its makeup through any number of methods of analysis and conclude that the host was not changed in any way, shape or form.

These are facts, and as such, do undeniably disprove, specifically, three aspects of the Catholic/Christian faith.

Consequently, if you take as truth any of the three aforementioned Christian assertions, with all due "respect", you are deluded. (Again, I don't know of a way to call someone deluded without it being disrespectful, except to tack on "with all due respect" as a qualifier).

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Well, not saying that in my case I necessarily believe any of those

statements...

But that said, you're ignoring what I said of the limitations of your definition of "fact". There is quite likely more to this world than what your senses perceive or science can "prove".

For believers, there is the possibility of miracles -- of God's working in the world to do things thought impossible.

Obviously, non-believers will discount that. Believers don't. And you cannot prove or disprove the possibility, as it exists outside the realm of anything you could use as proof. You cannot measure a miracle with any objective, physical measurement available to us.

So, yes, your position is a pretty plausible "theory" (in the scientific, not colloquial, sense), but it is not "fact".

[MistressOverdone]

39. I have learned today that many of us

live in cognitive prisons of our own making. And the pitiful thing is that we don't recognize it in ourselves, but only in each other.

peace..

jb

[JerseygirlCT]

40. We all cling to something, I suppose

For some, belief in a divine being is comforting.

For some, the idea that the world is essentially rational and measurable provides the same.

Perhaps we're all imprisoned by the limitations of our beliefs?

[cyborg_jim]

41. It is not the limitations of belief I proposed. It is the nature of cognition

and how we arise at beliefs that I was pointing out.

Our comfort, we should all agree, is really entirely irrelevant to reality. I'm not sure I can say my beliefs give me any comfort, but then I am not seeking beliefs that do so for the sake of them doing so.

[varkam]

12. Wanna know my theory?

God gave Jesus a jetpack. That's how he made it up into heaven. I demand that belief be respected.

[kiahzero]

13. OK. (n/t)

[Goblinmonger]

14. God gave Jesus a jetpack.........

to sell falafel.

[varkam]

26. Blasphemer!

He was selling Gyros!

[Goblinmonger]

27. Well, I'm a vegetarian

but if he could set me up with a veggie one with that great cucumber sauce, I'd be a disciple.

[varkam]

28. Are you kidding?

Jesus is the son of GOD! If his dad can get him a jetpack, then surely you can have your veggie Gyro.

[toddaa]

29. Knock it off

You're making me hungry.

[varkam]

9. Bingo.

It's impossible for me not to offend people who "know" god exists. But the fact is, if they really did "know" it, then they wouldn't be offended because they would be quite secure in their "knowledge".

There's a big difference between belief and knowledge, and problems start when people think that they know things that they actually just believe to be true. I believe quite strongly that the Judaeocrislamic god does not exist, and yet I readily admit that I do not have knowledge that is the case. That makes me an agnostic atheist. You can be an agnostic Christian, as well - which shounds to be the case with you.