Do most humans need to believe in God

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Eric H said:

What is the alternative?

It's always existed.

[Eise]

14 hours ago, Ten oz said:

23 hours ago, Eise said:

I do not quite disagree, but my 'antfucking' has an important presupposition: that rationality is broader than logic. 'Rationality' is the underpinning of one's position with arguments. Good arguments are 'true' (accepted by the community in which the discussion takes place), and 'relevant', i.e. they support the position. ('The earth is a sphere' is true, but not very relevant for a discussion about which software a company will use.)

A position being rational and a position being true are not equal. A position being agreed upon or accepted by a community doesn't make it true either. A position being accepted simply makes it accepted. History is full of communities of people rationally (relative to their knowledge) believing things which were not true.

First, I put 'true' between apostrophes, which means that you should not take it too literally (made it bold in my original quote), and even gave an explanation what I meant (in italics). Second, the word 'true' was pointing to the arguments, not the position that is supported by. Argumentation can only ever bring some form of consensus when people share a basic background of what they believe is true, morally good, and worthwhile. So I do not say that such consensi guarantee truth: but they should lead to what a community accepts as true. But of course that is relative to their knowledge. (But there is a can of worms behind that remark: who decides, on what grounds, what knowledge is?). Still I hope that clarifies the issue.

14 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Isn't right and wrong relative to ones values, norms, personal preferences etc?

Yes and no. Right and wrong are relative to values, however, when we are talking about values we can agree upon, they are not just my values anymore: they are the values of the community I belong to. Without such a kind of agreement a rational discussion is impossible. But of course it happens that such agreements do not exist, even in a community. To still keep a rational discourse going, one should 'go meta': work out what the differences in values are, and try to find a possible higher value on which basis we can decide on the correctness of an argument. So a discussion about a moral topic becomes ethics, a discussion about the beauty of a painting becomes aesthetics, a discussion about a scientific topic becomes epistemology, a discussion about the correct interpretation of QM becomes metaphysics, in short, we start philosophising.

That is a way to see what philosophy is: the discipline that keeps the rational discourse going, even under heavy circumstances.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Argumentation can only ever bring some form of consensus when people share a basic background of what they believe is true, morally good, and worthwhile. So I do not say that such consensi guarantee truth: but they should lead to what a community accepts as true. But of course that is relative to their knowledge. (But there is a can of worms behind that remark: who decides, on what grounds, what knowledge is?). Still I hope that clarifies the issue.

I agree. Which is why I don't seethe point in even stating it. All the definitions are relative. 

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Yes and no. Right and wrong are relative to values, however, when we are talking about values we can agree upon, they are not just my values anymore: they are the values of the community I belong to. But of course it happens that such agreements do not exist, even in a community.

The community one belongs to has a direct relationship with the values one holds. Taking a value home and then back out again doesn't change the relative nature it.

4 hours ago, Eise said:

To still keep a rational discourse going, one should 'go meta': work out what the differences in values are, and try to find a possible higher value on which basis we can decide on the correctness of an argument.

The synonyms for rational like logical, reasonable, prudent, wise, and etc all require a modicum on community value judgement to define but the correctness of an argument remains a choice which generally can not be evaluated til a later date. Its hindsight which is 20/20 after all and not communal agreement. Using what one knows the make the best decision one can to achieve an outlined goal is good as most can ever do. Even still what one knows can be rubbish, their decisions can be bias, and there goals may be destructive.

It is possible to rationally go about doing irrational things. One can rationally make an irrational argument. In my opinion attempts to weight a position's value or correctness based on agreement is problematic.  

4 hours ago, Eise said:

That is a way to see what philosophy is: the discipline that keeps the rational discourse going, even under heavy circumstances.

Among an individual community perhaps. There are philosophical ideas being considered by other communities which I think are dangerous boarding on evil. We most often replace philosophy with ideology when discussing things we consider negative like racism, sexism,  religious extremism, and etc but it can often be a fine line. Ideology is often born from philosophy.

[Eric H]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 12:46 AM, Phi for All said:

Since nobody has ever successfully uncovered "the Truth" (as well as too many conflicting Truths everywhere),

It seems to suggest that some of our facts might be incomplete or wrong.

Quote

it might be more rational to focus on facts instead, and rely on the constant advancement of theory as the best currently available explanations for various phenomena.

Facts have to satisfy the mind also. The 'Big Bang' leaves the question of what happened before. To say the universe always existed, lacks the mathematics of how it always existed. We still desire to know the truth of how the universe came to be. "The Truth" keeps us searching.

Just my 2c.

[Eise]

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I agree. Which is why I don't seethe point in even stating it.

Because you asked for it:

On 4/2/2019 at 4:49 PM, Ten oz said:

A position being rational and a position being true are not equal.

Should I also have said: "I agree. Which is why I don't see the point in even stating it."? 

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The community one belongs to has a direct relationship with the values one holds. Taking a value home and then back out again doesn't change the relative nature it.

I agree. Which is why I don't see the point in even stating it.

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

the correctness of an argument remains a choice which generally can not be evaluated til a later date.

You mean when we have discovered more? As in science, where theories improve with time?

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

It is possible to rationally go about doing irrational things.

I think now you have a subtle shift in the meaning meaning of '(ir)rational'. I assume (and if my assumption is false, please explain more and give an example), that you mean that a viewpoint can be rational, in the sense that arguments are given, the speech community accepts these arguments as correct, but in fact these arguments are wrong? So your 'rationality' in above sentence refers to 'argued viewpoint' and your 'irrational' to 'use of invalid arguments'.

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

In my opinion attempts to weight a position's value or correctness based on agreement is problematic.

Yes, it is. But it is the best we have. Just look at established science: it is 'established' because all experts agree on it. 

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are philosophical ideas being considered by other communities which I think are dangerous boarding on evil.

I was referring to 'philosophy' as activity, as 'philosophising'. If people are not interested in underpinning their positions with arguments, and e.g. also exclude (groups of) people from the public discussion, they cannot claim validity of  their viewpoints.

You see, there is an ideal of rationality, which is in very short terms, the eternal, open and free discourse. It is an ideal, which means it does not really exist, but one can approach it, by being (intellectually) open for the better argument.

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

We most often replace philosophy with ideology when discussing things we consider negative like racism, sexism,  religious extremism, and etc but it can often be a fine line.

Ideology is more or less fixed, where philosophy, as philosophising, always develops, similar as science.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

I agree. Which is why I don't see the point in even stating it.

Because you continued on after the part where we agreed and imply a correlation between consensus and truth despite seeming to realize there isn't one.

2 hours ago, Eise said:

I think now you have a subtle shift in the meaning meaning of '(ir)rational'. I assume (and if my assumption is false, please explain more and give an example), that you mean that a viewpoint can be rational, in the sense that arguments are given, the speech community accepts these arguments as correct, but in fact these arguments are wrong? So your 'rationality' in above sentence refers to 'argued viewpoint' and your 'irrational' to 'use of invalid arguments'.

I see no relationship between being a rational thought or belief and something being accurate or true. A person can come to an objectively wrong conclusion while doing their best to be rational. 

Quote

 

Based on or in accordance with reason or logic. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rational

‘I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation’

1.1 Able to think sensibly or logically.

‘Ursula's upset—she's not being very rational’

More example sentences

Synonyms

1.2 Endowed with the capacity to reason.

‘man is a rational being

 

 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

I was referring to 'philosophy' as activity, as 'philosophising'. If people are not interested in underpinning their positions with arguments, and e.g. also exclude (groups of) people from the public discussion, they cannot claim validity of  their viewpoints.

You see, there is an ideal of rationality, which is in very short terms, the eternal, open and free discourse. It is an ideal, which means it does not really exist, but one can approach it, by being (intellectually) open for the better argument.

Every group exists in the exclusion of various other groups. The free discourse you reference only exist within individual groups. What you are describing has never existed among humans on earth. 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Ideology is more or less fixed, where philosophy, as philosophising, always develops, similar as science.

I consider the relation to be intertwine. They (ideology and philosophy) lead 2 and from each other. Sun Tzu was one of the worlds great philosopher after all. The Art of War isn't about free discourse or groups of people being open to better arguments. 

[Eise]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Because you continued on after the part where we agreed and imply a correlation between consensus and truth despite seeming to realize there isn't one.

Of course there is a correlation between consensus and truth. Science is the best example: there the discourse goes on and on and on. Theories are replaced by other theories, that are better, i.e. have a bigger domain, are preciser, etc. And when scientists agree on it, there is a consensus. But in no way consensus is a guarantee that 'truth is found', I think there we agree.

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, Eise said:

Of course there is a correlation between consensus and truth. Science is the best example: there the discourse goes on and on and on. Theories are replaced by other theories, that are better, i.e. have a bigger domain, are preciser, etc. And when scientists agree on it, there is a consensus. But in no way consensus is a guarantee that 'truth is found', I think there we agree.

Agreement and truth are not the same .Science does the best it can but there has been tremendous trial and error. I am an engineer and have worked on numerous projects where the consensus of many failed repeatedly. Any number of scientific discoveries were born from failure. Discourse and agreement does not produce truth. It certainly can but so too can dumb luck or trial and error.

[Eise]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Agreement and truth are not the same

I didn't say they are the same. I said they correlate. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Science does the best it can but there has been tremendous trial and error.

Yep. And how did they found out? Maybe because some scientist said 'hey, I did this experiment, and the result is not according the theory!' And others said: 'We agree with you!'.

I think you missed this:

4 hours ago, Eise said:

You see, there is an ideal of rationality, which is in very short terms, the eternal, open and free discourse. It is an ideal, which means it does not really exist, but one can approach it, by being (intellectually) open for the better argument.

 

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Eise said:

didn't say they are the same. I said they correlate. 

Sure, but no more correlated than anything else. 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Eric H said:

It seems to suggest that some of our facts might be incomplete or wrong.

Well, no. Facts aren't wrong, by definition. It's Truth that is subjective, and seems to change between peoples, cultures, and other arbitrary groups. That's why I say truth isn't what you should be looking for, even though so many people put such store in it. Truth has too much emotion attached to it for it to be very useful in describing the natural world.

6 hours ago, Eric H said:

Facts have to satisfy the mind also. The 'Big Bang' leaves the question of what happened before. To say the universe always existed, lacks the mathematics of how it always existed. We still desire to know the truth of how the universe came to be. "The Truth" keeps us searching.

Here's a fact for you. The Big Bang Theory doesn't leave any questions about what happened before, because the model for it doesn't start until slightly after inflation began. It's not a creation theory. It's a theory about the development and evolution of the universe from a previous extremely hot and dense state.

Also, I'm fairly certain you don't know what it means to "lack the mathematics of how it always existed". How can we know anything about what happened BEFORE the universe was in such a hot, dense state? If you crushed the Empire State Building down to the size of a pea, how would you go about figuring out what it was before it was made so small and dense and hot?

I think you're wrong also about the Truth keeping us searching. Think about it. What do you do when you think you've found an answer to something? You stop looking. That's why theory is more powerful, because we always refine and update our theories to be the best current explanations. I think you have a very emotional, romantic view of the Truth, and it's clouding your reason.

[Eise]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Sure, but no more correlated than anything else. 

So you do not think that the longer one investigates, argues, gets new information, argues again etc will improve the quality of scientific theories? Why do scientists do this so much? I wonder why scientists even exchange arguments... . It doesn't help, according to you.

[beecee]

13 hours ago, Eric H said:

What is the alternative?

The universe is eternal and has always existed. The universe evolved from "nothing" https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Perhaps when we speak of nothing, the quantum foam is that nothing that has always existed.

13 hours ago, Eric H said:

Facts have to satisfy the mind also. The 'Big Bang' leaves the question of what happened before. To say the universe always existed, lacks the mathematics of how it always existed. We still desire to know the truth of how the universe came to be. "The Truth" keeps us searching.

Just my 2c.

 Ahhh, truth, reality, such fine concepts! While admitting that sometimes we all in our quiter moments, think about some underlying reality or truth, the BB itself, does not concern itself with that philosophical question. My own opinion is that while scientific theories enable us to understand the workings and evolution of the universe, it does not necessarily reveal any underlying and fundamental truth. As theories improve, with further and more revealing observational and experimental data, we probably are getting closer to any of this perceived underlying reality and truth, if such a thing exists. Or more accurately, any truth and reality is subjective, as is time and space. Some interesting answers in the following link, although far too philosophical for me.   https://www.quora.com/Reality-is-merely-an-illusion-albeit-a-very-persistent-one-What-did-Albert-Einstein-mean-here

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by beecee

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

So you do not think that the longer one investigates, argues, gets new information, argues again etc will improve the quality of scientific theories? Why do scientists do this so much? I wonder why scientists even exchange arguments... . It doesn't help, according to you.

I never said anything improving scientific theories. You have broadened your position out significantly in your response. 

On 4/2/2019 at 1:46 AM, Eise said:

I do not quite disagree, but my 'antfucking' has an important presupposition: that rationality is broader than logic. 'Rationality' is the underpinning of one's position with arguments. Good arguments are 'true' (accepted by the community in which the discussion takes place), and 'relevant', i.e. they support the position. ('The earth is a sphere' is true, but not very relevant for a discussion about which software a company will use.)

Above is the first post of yours I quoted in this thread. It is a value judgement of an argument based consensus. That is what I have been posting about. Not ways theories can be improved over time. 

[Eise]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I never said anything improving scientific theories. You have broadened your position out significantly in your response. 

Really? Is science not the example 'par excelence' of a rational discourse? So I did not broaden, but gave a particular, extreme case of a rational discourse.

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

It is a value judgement of an argument based consensus.

No idea what you mean.

 

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Really? Is science not the example 'par excelence' of a rational discourse? So I did not broaden, but gave a particular, extreme case of a rational discourse.

No idea what you mean.

 

This thread's topic asks why humans have worshiped some from of god for thousands of years and if it is accurate to from that worship a need within humans for god. In response other posters commented that belief/faith in god(s) wasn't based on logic. In response you asserted:

Quote

 

I think that we are hardwired for religion, and even that it is rational to believe in God(s). But latter is not rational enough.

'Rational' means for me that one bases one's opinion on arguments: these arguments can be bad, or not relevant, but everytime somebody honestly defends his position, he is rational. If one would reduce rationality to 'modelled-after-hard-science-only', whole discussions would become irrational: like in politics, ethics or art. It would lead to scientism, the view that only scientific based facts are worth something.

 

That is the context of our exchange. Please do not broaden this out to a philosophical debate about the purpose of science. That isn't what we are discussing. Lets keep focused on this threads topic. 

 You has stated that it is rational to believe in god and that humans are hardwired to do so. It is a value judgement; "hardwired" and "rational". I have argued that your position is relative. That seemly attempting to be rational or drawing agreement from others that a position is rational doesn't make it correct/true. 

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 You has stated that it is rational to believe in god and that humans are hardwired to do so. It is a value judgement; "hardwired" and "rational". I have argued that your position is relative. That seemly attempting to be rational or drawing agreement from others that a position is rational doesn't make it correct/true. 

2

It is rational to believe a positive action can be repeated.

[Ten oz]

Just now, dimreepr said:

It is rational to believe a positive action can be repeated.

Any number of things can be rational. Believing in god can be rational. I am not arguing otherwise. I am arguing that a rational position isn't necessarily a true position. The example I used here earlier was:

Quote

 If my wife texts me at 1pm that she is heading home for the day and I know her commute is only 15 minutes it would be logical for me to assume come 2pm she is home. However it wouldn't make it true. 

 

[Eise]

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That is the context of our exchange. Please do not broaden this out to a philosophical debate about the purpose of science.

I don't. I introduced a concept of rationality, and showed that it can applied to such different things as science, ethics, religion... It seemed to me that you did not understand my idea, and therefore extended it to non-disputable areas, like science.

48 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You has stated that it is rational to believe in god and that humans are hardwired to do so.

You know I do not defend that there is a god (just to avoid false understanding). But there are some elements of rationality that can apply to religion, and surely apply to science: namely, to look for causes of what we observe (be it a track of a mammoth, the supposed harmony of the world, or the track of an electron in a bubble vat).

52 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a value judgement; "hardwired" and "rational".

I still do not understand why you call this a value judgment. Say more.

53 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That seemly attempting to be rational or drawing agreement from others that a position is rational doesn't make it correct/true. 

No, it doesn't make them true. But the rationality is a common ground in science and some aspects of religion. The huge difference between religion and science is of course that science observes very precisely, and tries to get rid of any bias. But even experiments are discussed among experts, and observations are interpreted etc. Science without rational discourse is nearly non-existent.

But to simplify my point: some aspects of religion and science go back to the same 'thinking-scheme': looking for possible causes. And correctly stating causes and sharing them with peers is possibly the biggest evolutionary advantage humans have.

 

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Any number of things can be rational. Believing in god can be rational. I am not arguing otherwise. I am arguing that a rational position isn't necessarily a true position.

1

But it can be.

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But it can be.

Yes. A broken analog clock is correct twice per day, but it's irrational to suggest that's in any way relevant here

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Eise said:

You know I do not defend that there is a god (just to avoid false understanding). But there are some elements of rationality that can apply to religion, and surely apply to science: namely, to look for causes of what we observe (be it a track of a mammoth, the supposed harmony of the world, or the track of an electron in a bubble vat).

I have not stated belief in god can't be rational. 

8 minutes ago, Eise said:

I still do not understand why you call this a value judgment. Say more.

It is how you feel and not something you can empirical prove is true. You cannot prove people are genetically predisposed to specifically believe in god(s). Belief in god(s) can be rational but it also can be irrational. You are loosely linking religion to science and calling it an evolutionary advantage. Implying religion has been an evolutionary advantage, in my opinion, is a rather high value judgement.  

23 minutes ago, Eise said:

No, it doesn't make them true. But the rationality is a common ground in science and some aspects of religion

I don't think this statement really means anything. Saying "some aspects" doesn't describe to what degree you mean. Taken at face value the statement also fails to act as proof humans are hardwired for religion. 

30 minutes ago, Eise said:

But to simplify my point: some aspects of religion and science go back to the same 'thinking-scheme': looking for possible causes. And correctly stating causes and sharing them with peers is possibly the biggest evolutionary advantage humans have.

I don't see how any type of "thinking-scheme" wouldn't. Some aspects of all human attempts to understand life and its origins or the origins of anything at all can be describe as you are describing this way.

[Eise]

On 4/5/2019 at 4:41 PM, Ten oz said:

You cannot prove people are genetically predisposed to specifically believe in god(s). Belief in god(s) can be rational but it also can be irrational. You are loosely linking religion to science and calling it an evolutionary advantage. Implying religion has been an evolutionary advantage, in my opinion, is a rather high value judgement.  

You do not understand what I am saying. I said that recognising causality is an evolutionary advantage, together with the capability to share ideas. 

Religion, in its metaphysical aspects (now clear which aspects?), can be seen as a side effect of these capabilities. So I did not say that religion in itself is an evolutionary advantage. (Maybe it is, but that would be a completely different discussion.)

On 4/5/2019 at 4:41 PM, Ten oz said:

Some aspects of all human attempts to understand life and its origins or the origins of anything at all can be describe as you are describing this way.

Sure. But asking for origins is the question for the causal history of our present situation.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Eise said:

Sure. But asking for origins is the question for the causal history of our present situation.

And religion has often been a fictional invention. 

12 minutes ago, Eise said:

Religion, in its metaphysical aspects (now clear which aspects?), can be seen as a side effect of these capabilities. So I did not say that religion in itself is an evolutionary advantage. (Maybe it is, but that would be a completely different discussion.)

Connecting causality to religion like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is relative. Religion can be considered a side effect but certainly doesn't have to be. 

[zapatos]

On 4/4/2019 at 1:09 AM, Eric H said:

Facts have to satisfy the mind also.

Well, no, not really. You may wish they satisfied the mind, but they are under no obligation to do so. Some things will probably just remain unsatisfying forever.