What is your justification for believing in a God?

[Realitycheck]

I would throw in the experiential phenomenon of "kabbalism", or belief that your life is guided by divine messages imparted to you through the people and environment around you as you move through time. This is a biggest support for people who rely on "miracles" throughout everyday life in order to communicate to God, if they only understood their ingrained tendency to habitually look for answers in order to find answers in agreement with their expectations. I understand how this might not be exactly representative of card-carrying familial Judaic kabbalism, where they probably believe(d) that they are the only ones entitled to correct answers. After all, kaballah was based on a foreign language, but I have taken kabbalistic as the same phenomenon in any language. I believe it just stems from peoples' need/desire to communicate with an omniscient deity on an everyday basis. This is one thing that can cause people to overemphasize their belief in guesses. I believe I've seen some peer-reviewed literature here and there supporting this phenomena.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Realitycheck

[iNow]

Religion is faith. Blind faith. You see this as ignorance and narrow-mindedness, if I recall correctly.

I might say it a little differently. I see it as one of the worst possible reasons to accept something, and wonder why you accept faith as justification for one set of beliefs, but not others which are also held based on faith alone.

 

In most of the rest of your life, you reject faith. You don't jump off a cliff with faith you can fly. You don't drive full speed into a brick wall with faith you will survive. You don't go a month without drinking any liquids with faith that you'll survive. You don't accept that 2+2 = cheese on faith, and you don't accept that the best treatment for diabetes is listening to punk rock based on faith.

 

You apply faith to one specific aspect of your life, and reject it elsewhere. Faith is ignorant, and you choose to follow an ideology which demands it of you. You're right. I do feel like I'm better off without that kind of personally imposed enslavement and break from reality.

[Brainteaserfan]

I might say it a little differently. I see it as one of the worst possible reasons to accept something, and wonder why you accept faith as justification for one set of beliefs, but not others which are also held based on faith alone.

 

In most of the rest of your life, you reject faith. You don't jump off a cliff with faith you can fly. You don't drive full speed into a brick wall with faith you will survive. You don't go a month without drinking any liquids with faith that you'll survive. You don't accept that 2+2 = cheese on faith, and you don't accept that the best treatment for diabetes is listening to punk rock based on faith.

 

You apply faith to one specific aspect of your life, and reject it elsewhere. Faith is ignorant, and you choose to follow an ideology which demands it of you. You're right. I do feel like I'm better off without that kind of personally imposed enslavement and break from reality.

Not that I agree with A Tripolation, but one major difference between jumping off a cliff and hoping that you can fly, and religion, is that you hope to get something out of religion.

 

Also, there is a little more evidence for religion than any of your analogies IMO.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Iggy]

Funny thing is...that IS my justification for belief. So. Where do you go from here? Are you going to attempt to tell me that my reason for believing in a deity isn't my reason?

 

You read a story and it appealed to you... this still does not seem to justify belief.

 

And the beauty of his moral code seems questionable to me... but that is for another thread.

 

I don't really care what you think is justifiable and isn't. It is my reason. No more, no less.

If you trust beauty of moral code in morality tales then read Dr. Seuss' story of the Yooks and Zooks who had an arms race over the issue of which side of the bread should be buttered. Or Gulliver's Travels and the tiny island nation of Lilliput who suffered generations of bloody internal strife over the question of which end of the egg should be broken before it is eaten.

 

Everyone has reasons for anything no matter how silly or substantial the reason is, but a reason that isn't justifiable isn't worth having.

[A Tripolation]

but a reason that isn't justifiable isn't worth having.

 

Justification is a purely subjective term. It justifies my belief, in my opinion. And that's all that matters. It's really not that hard a concept.

 

In most of the rest of your life, you reject faith. You don't jump off a cliff with faith you can fly. You don't drive full speed into a brick wall with faith you will survive. You don't go a month without drinking any liquids with faith that you'll survive. You don't accept that 2+2 = cheese on faith, and you don't accept that the best treatment for diabetes is listening to punk rock based on faith.

 

You apply faith to one specific aspect of your life, and reject it elsewhere. Faith is ignorant, and you choose to follow an ideology which demands it of you. You're right. I do feel like I'm better off without that kind of personally imposed enslavement and break from reality.

 

I do not think that the comparisons you made are very fair. At all.

 

It seems wholly plausible to me that out there there exists an entity that is so far beyond us that "God" would be an applicable term. Very plausible, given the size of the universe.

[iNow]

I do not think that the comparisons you made are very fair. At all.

They weren't comparisons. They were examples. My argument is that you reject faith in 99.9999% of the rest of your life, yet with this ONE thing... this sole aspect of your entire consciousness... you treat faith as "good enough." I used some extreme examples to make my point more easily accessible. The examples are not the focus. The point is that... just like me... in pretty much every single aspect of your entire existence you tend to reject faith... except one. All this shows is that you are consciously choosing to be inconsistent, and to live your life with double standards. That's fine if it works for you. It doesn't work for me.

 

 

It seems wholly plausible to me that out there there exists an entity that is so far beyond us that "God" would be an applicable term. Very plausible, given the size of the universe.

I accept the possibility as plausible, too. We are no different there. Possibility is plausible, but that's not really what we're discussing. We're discussing more than your belief in the possible. We're discussing your belief in existence. I just don't see any reason to accept the existence argument as plausible as there is no evidence suggesting I should.

 

In much the same way, it's wholly plausible and possible that there exists a pink unicorn riding black leprechaun out there somewhere... given the size of the universe, eh? I accept that it's a possibility. I just don't live my life as if it's true, and won't until I have valid reason to think it is.

 

That's just me, though (actually, it's you too... in nearly every other aspect of your life... except this one).

Edited August 29, 2011 by iNow

[Realitycheck]

Many people think of God as not being "somewhere", but everwhere, as everything. Considering how the universe is thought of as space that is expanding, being pushed, with no matter in it, kind of supports that, in an eerie sort of way. And that concept, growing space, is actually the only reason why I COULD believe in a string theory.

[Brainteaserfan]

Justification is a purely subjective term. It justifies my belief, in my opinion. And that's all that matters. It's really not that hard a concept.

Not always. Should my justification for 2+2=4 be, "it looks beautiful," or "it sounds right?"

 

Sure, I agree with you that God's moral code is beautiful, but don't you think we should believe for more than that? I cannot comprehend following not telling a lie when it would benefit me, if I just believed in not telling a lie, "because it sounds beautiful."

 

Many people think of God as not being "somewhere", but everwhere, as everything.

Do you have a statistic to show this? And by the same token, I'm sure many believe that Mr. Obama should be jailed for life too. There are almost 7000000000 opinions on earth, so if your "many" is .000001 of them, there are still, "many."

[Iggy]

Justification is a purely subjective term. It justifies my belief, in my opinion.

 

If your justification for believing in God is that you would be "terribly sad if this is all there was" then the term 'justification' must be very subjective indeed.

[Realitycheck]

To: Brainteaserfan, I was talking to a Moslem one time who said that, which leads me to believe that a considerable amount of people believe that.

 

To expound upon what I said, the original Kaballah incorporated numerology, which is very similar to what many people experience today with their simple everyday interaction with the world - miracles, God talking to them, and all. This I know just from conversing with people.

[Brainteaserfan]

To: Brainteaserfan, I was talking to a Moslem one time who said that, which leads me to believe that a considerable amount of people believe that.

 

To expound upon what I said, the original Kaballah incorporated numerology, which is very similar to what many people experience today with their simple everyday interaction with the world - miracles, God talking to them, and all. This I know just from conversing with people.

Maybe we should start a new poll here.

[Kturbo]

Even out side of religious reasons,the existence of God is certain.One of the unique qualities humans have is self awareness, to the point where

 

we start looking outside of ourselves for answers about things.This trait I believe was given to us by a much higher level of intelligence than

 

ourselves.It's also this trait that have enabled us to completely dominate the earth and rule over every other living thing.This is exactly what the

 

bible tells us in Genesis.There won't be a time when a dog will look up at the sky and wonder what and who is out there,we humans do it

 

because we are connected spiritually to someone way more powerful than our selves out there and we are drawn to him.

[iNow]

Even out side of religious reasons,the existence of God is certain.

Except no, it's not. The existence of the god concept is certain, but not the existence of god itself.

Edited August 29, 2011 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

Not always. Should my justification for 2+2=4 be, "it looks beautiful," or "it sounds right?"

 

No, because that is a purely empirical problem. The algorithm used to solve it should be empirical as well. Are you going to sit there and tell me the "God" concept is an empirical one? It is not. It is emotional, pandering to our base fears and curiosities.

 

Sure, I agree with you that God's moral code is beautiful, but don't you think we should believe for more than that?

 

Nope. In a world where immorality is excused so long as the ends justify the means, it's nice to have a consistent moral compass.

 

If your justification for believing in God is that you would be "terribly sad if this is all there was" then the term 'justification' must be very subjective indeed.

 

...it is. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

It doesn't work for me.

 

So, by definition of context within the Bible, your heart would be hardened and you refuse to accept God based on faith. Simple concept.

 

 

In much the same way, it's wholly plausible and possible that there exists a pink unicorn riding black leprechaun out there somewhere...

 

It is. But given the fact that Jesus existed historically, the Judeo-Christian God seems a tad more plausible than that.

 

 

I accept that it's a possibility. I just don't live my life as if it's true, and won't until I have valid reason to think it is.

 

That is a manifestation of your autonomy. I do not claim that your choice is not justifiable, so why do you insist on imposing the same standards on me?

[Brainteaserfan]

Except no, it's not. The existence of the god concept is certain, but not the existence of god itself.

Evidently though, people are drawn at least to the concept of a God. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#cite_note-27

 

No, because that is a purely empirical problem. The algorithm used to solve it should be empirical as well. Are you going to sit there and tell me the "God" concept is an empirical one? It is not. It is emotional, pandering to our base fears and curiosities.

 

 

 

Nope. In a world where immorality is excused so long as the ends justify the means, it's nice to have a consistent moral compass.

 

 

 

...it is. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

 

 

So, by definition of context within the Bible, your heart would be hardened and you refuse to accept God based on faith. Simple concept.

 

 

 

 

It is. But given the fact that Jesus existed historically, the Judeo-Christian God seems a tad more plausible than that.

 

 

 

 

That is a manifestation of your autonomy. I do not claim that your choice is not justifiable, so why do you insist on imposing the same standards on me?

Okay. To what extent would your follow His commandments?

[iNow]

That is a manifestation of your autonomy. I do not claim that your choice is not justifiable, so why do you insist on imposing the same standards on me?

I impose nothing on you. I have no such power. I am, however, attempting to find consistency in these positions, and I regularly ask people to logically support their positions. I do the same in every forum, and I don't apply double standards to religion or religious belief.

 

All I'm doing is asking questions, exposing the inconsistencies and flaws in your logic, and sharing a bit about why I personally chose to reject the various human myths out there, including the abrahamic god myths.

 

If as a result of these exchanges you should happen to look inward, question your beliefs, and realize that they're quite silly, then that's great, but it's not my concern what you do or don't believe. However, when you share those beliefs openly, you cannot expect others to accept them without question and not challenge them.

 

Further, if you were to claim that my choice not to believe is unjustifiable, I could (and rather often do) quite easily defend it. However, when others claim that your beliefs are unjustifiable, you pivot immediately to the fallacy of special pleading, and you also ask that faith be "good enough" to accept these claims. As I mentioned, faith is ridiculous, especially since you don't use it in any other part of your life, and also since even you reject the claims of others who use faith in exactly the same way you do, except they use it in defense of a completely different system of beliefs which you (like me) also reject.

Edited August 29, 2011 by iNow

[Iggy]

Not always. Should my justification for 2+2=4 be, "it looks beautiful," or "it sounds right?"

No, because that is a purely empirical problem. The algorithm used to solve it should be empirical as well. Are you going to sit there and tell me the "God" concept is an empirical one? It is not. It is emotional, pandering to our base fears and curiosities.

It's funny, Paul Erdos said the same thing: "You don't have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book."

 

The book was his idea of the universe's master copy of arithmetic and mathematical proofs which mathematicians apparently do not solve with deduction... they discover with empiricism.

 

Of course, he was being eccentric. Einstein more seriously said "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality". Pure mathematics is about as far from "purely empirical" as you can get.

 

But, I suppose "empirical" is a subjective term

[Phi for All]

Sure, I can give you one. A man at our church was diaganosed with cancer. They held an anointing service and when the doctors went in, no cancer.

It depends on the type of cancer involved, but many tumors regress naturally on their own. One study of mammography showed that 22% of all breast cancer cases underwent spontaneous regression (Per-Henrik Zahl; Jan Mæhlen; H. Gilbert Welch: The Natural History of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography, Arch. Intern Med., Vol 168 (NO. 21), Nov 24, 2008). Even if the type of cancer the man at your church had was more like 1 in 1000, that still means spontaneous regression is a probable event. No need for anything miraculous.

 

Ready for another? Our pastor (he wasn't our pastor then), was involved in a severe accident. After several weeks of recovery, he could still not lift more than 25 lbs. Again, the church held an anointing service. The next day, he could lift >100 lbs. You can choose to believe in an alternate explanation, but it seems likely to me that they were miracles. These are not the only examples of modern miracles in our <50 person church.

Depression can cause physical weakness. Lifting that depression through a show of friendship and support can lend strength and determination to just about anyone. A combination of physical and psychological stimuli can easily be the answer here. Again, no need to jump from rational explanations to individual divine intervention.

 

Part of what I can't comprehend about stuff like this is how you can rationalize Christian doctrine that gives mankind free will and yet you accept that God would intervene in matters like these. Why would He break His own rule to heal one person while millions suffer elsewhere even though people prayed for them too? Please don't tell me that your church is special because you believe in the true way....

[chilehed]

Chilehed,...you say

"you've given a good explanation of why physical sciences can provide no arguments either for or against the existance of God. I'm glad that we can agree on that."

and

"There are no physical science reasons for believing he does not."

 

Please make up your mind.

Those two statements are in no way contradictory.

 

If we're talking about the Abrahamic god, He makes a choice to remain outside the observable universe. He no longer appears in any form to mankind. This makes him supernatural as far as science is concerned. Also, the Abrahamic god is supposedly omnipotent, implying that he can supersede His own physical laws. This is also something that makes Him supernatural, and therefore outside of the purview of science.

As a Catholic I disagree with some of this. In general he isn't visible, but he can be, which after all is part of the claim of Christianity. His presence can be demonstrated by objective evidence to the extent he's made that possible, and proving that Jesus existed isn't any different in principle than proving that Sophocles existed.

 

Other than that, the use of logic can provide convincing reason to think that he exists:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

 

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm

 

You define miracles as something only God can provide, and then you say there is evidence that miracles have happened, so God must exist. That is circular logic.

You have a very odd understanding of what circular logic is. Everyone else calls that 'deductive reasoning'.

 

You need to give some examples of what you call miracles, and then we can see if science can explain them

You can find a few here: http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=405&id_rubrique=405

 

One in particular that caught my eye, apparently it's a case currently under investigation:

The opinion of recognition of an exceptional character of one cure in the present state of scientific knowledge: an observation: that of an attack of an illness in 1992. a malignant non-Hodgkinson’s Lymphoma type-B diffused from the pleura complicated one year later by acute myeloblasty leukaemia with suspected meningitis and optical neuritis treated by chemotherapy, but with unfavourable progression and cured without after effects or further relapse for 13 years coinciding with a faith journey to Our Lady of Lourdes.

 

Please share. And I would never condescend by responding that you haven't thought hard enough. That would be rude and there's no need for that in a friendly discussion.

Quite the contrary, it happens all the time. You're quite likely to say something that means just that before very long, it won't necessarily be offensive and I'm likely to take no offense at all.

Edited August 30, 2011 by chilehed

[losfomot]

Funny thing is...that IS my justification for belief. So. Where do you go from here? Are you going to attempt to tell me that my reason for believing in a deity isn't my reason?

 

I will try not to attempt to tell you that.

 

 

I don't really care what you think is justifiable and isn't. It is my reason. No more, no less.

 

Please don't take offense. I am just trying to understand. If you really feel that way, then don't reply.

 

Justification is a purely subjective term. It justifies my belief, in my opinion. And that's all that matters. It's really not that hard a concept.

 

I wouldn't say it is purely subjective.

 

Can you expand on it a little for me?... The fact that you would be 'terribly sad if this is all there was' is simply not a justification for believing in a God... never mind a particular one. There must be more to it. Were you raised as a christian? Did someone influential to you introduce you to the bible? Or did you just come across it one day and decide, all on your own, 'wow! this is such an amazing story, it must be true!'

 

 

It seems wholly plausible to me that out there there exists an entity that is so far beyond us that "God" would be an applicable term. Very plausible, given the size of the universe.

 

Plausible is a long stretch from belief... a long stretch. And your belief is specific to Jesus Christ, not "an entity that is so far beyond us that "God" would be an applicable term".

 

Perhaps it is the word 'belief' that is subjective to you. What does it mean to you?

[A Tripolation]

If as a result of these exchanges you should happen to look inward, question your beliefs, and realize that they're quite silly, then that's great, but it's not my concern what you do or don't believe. However, when you share those beliefs openly, you cannot expect others to accept them without question and not challenge them.

 

I openly admit on this forum that belief in any deity is irrational all the time. But rationalizing religious beliefs is NOT the focus of this thread. It is to state what your justification is. I stated mine as being a hope for some sort of afterlife/permanence and a guide to morality, and how I should act on this Earth.

 

Pure mathematics is about as far from "purely empirical" as you can get.

 

Yes. A mistake of mine. Mathematics is inherently abstract. But still, an answer to a math question needs math. An answer to a religious question needs religious beliefs.

 

Can you expand on it a little for me?... The fact that you would be 'terribly sad if this is all there was' is simply not a justification for believing in a God... never mind a particular one. There must be more to it. Were you raised as a christian? Did someone influential to you introduce you to the bible? Or did you just come across it one day and decide, all on your own, 'wow! this is such an amazing story, it must be true!'

 

Yes. I did. As a matter of fact, I went to such a horrid church one time (around 12 or so) that I was actually poisoned against Christianity. But I found religion later, and of my own volition.

 

 

Plausible is a long stretch from belief... a long stretch. And your belief is specific to Jesus Christ, not "an entity that is so far beyond us that "God" would be an applicable term".

 

Jesus existed historically. It's not a stretch to me.

 

Perhaps it is the word 'belief' that is subjective to you. What does it mean to you?

 

Something that you hold to be true, regardless of the evidence for, or against, said belief.

[iNow]

I openly admit on this forum that belief in any deity is irrational all the time. But rationalizing religious beliefs is NOT the focus of this thread. It is to state what your justification is. I stated mine as being a hope for some sort of afterlife/permanence and a guide to morality, and how I should act on this Earth.

I did not intend offense. You're quite right. People asked what was your reason for believing in god, and you shared it. Everything else is off-topic, including attempts to make you defend that reason. My apologies.

[Brainteaserfan]

It depends on the type of cancer involved, but many tumors regress naturally on their own. One study of mammography showed that 22% of all breast cancer cases underwent spontaneous regression (Per-Henrik Zahl; Jan Mæhlen; H. Gilbert Welch: The Natural History of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography, Arch. Intern Med., Vol 168 (NO. 21), Nov 24, 2008). Even if the type of cancer the man at your church had was more like 1 in 1000, that still means spontaneous regression is a probable event. No need for anything miraculous.

 

 

Depression can cause physical weakness. Lifting that depression through a show of friendship and support can lend strength and determination to just about anyone. A combination of physical and psychological stimuli can easily be the answer here. Again, no need to jump from rational explanations to individual divine intervention.

 

Part of what I can't comprehend about stuff like this is how you can rationalize Christian doctrine that gives mankind free will and yet you accept that God would intervene in matters like these. Why would He break His own rule to heal one person while millions suffer elsewhere even though people prayed for them too? Please don't tell me that your church is special because you believe in the true way....

That is interesting. If these were the only incidents, perhaps I could settle for your explaination.

 

"Why would He break His own rule" How is healing someone have anything to do with free will??? I do believe that God allows people to suffer for a higher purpose. For instance, if there was no pain, why would we fear hell? I realize that many think God is cruel for that. Yet it is our own sin that caused the suffering in the first place. When He chooses to heal, He is taking away our own earthly punishment!

[Phi for All]

As a Catholic I disagree with some of this. In general he isn't visible, but he can be, which after all is part of the claim of Christianity.

Remember, this is the religion section of Science Forums. You can't make a claim like "God can be visible" without a testable, repeatable experiment to provide evidence. I have no problem with your faith in His existence, but when you say He is part of the natural universe, then science can say there has never been a testable, repeatable observation of Him.

 

His presence can be demonstrated by objective evidence to the extent he's made that possible,

So when can I see Him? To be visible in science, you must be able to predict when I'll be able to see Him.

 

and proving that Jesus existed isn't any different in principle than proving that Sophocles existed.

Prove that Jesus was a deity; I believe that's the hard part. Sophocles was just a playwright and I have no cause to doubt that.

 

Other than that, the use of logic can provide convincing reason to think that he exists:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

 

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm

And yet I remain unconvinced. The natural reasoning is simpler and doesn't require all the hoop-jumping and paradoxical contortions required for an omnipotent Abrahamic god.

 

You have a very odd understanding of what circular logic is. Everyone else calls that 'deductive reasoning'.

No they don't. You claimed, "There is good evidence that miracles have occurred, and miracles are possible only if he exists." Your conclusion doesn't follow your hypothesis as it should in deductive reasoning. Instead, your argument (that miracles have occurred) relies on its own proposition, making it circular reasoning. Miracles CAN have other explanations, so it doesn't follow that God exists because of them.

 

You can find a few here: http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=405&id_rubrique=405

 

One in particular that caught my eye, apparently it's a case currently under investigation:

The opinion of recognition of an exceptional character of one cure in the present state of scientific knowledge: an observation: that of an attack of an illness in 1992. a malignant non-Hodgkinson’s Lymphoma type-B diffused from the pleura complicated one year later by acute myeloblasty leukaemia with suspected meningitis and optical neuritis treated by chemotherapy, but with unfavourable progression and cured without after effects or further relapse for 13 years coinciding with a faith journey to Our Lady of Lourdes.

None of them can't be explained by natural means. And your example is from a site that has ample reason to lean heavily towards miraculous cures.

 

That is interesting. If these were the only incidents, perhaps I could settle for your explaination.

We're talking about a world with billions of people with a modern recording of events going back at least a couple of hundred years. Bizarre things are going to occur with those kinds of numbers behind them. How many times do you hear about people in perfect health suddenly keel over at the age of 22? Do you attribute those to God as well?

 

How is healing someone have anything to do with free will???

It can be argued that all experiences teach us something. To reach down with a heavenly finger and save/cure/curse/kill some guy is a denial of the process of free will. God would be changing the course of what the man experienced, making all his choices worthless. I thought God said He wasn't going to do that kind of thing anymore.

 

I do believe that God allows people to suffer for a higher purpose. For instance, if there was no pain, why would we fear hell? I realize that many think God is cruel for that. Yet it is our own sin that caused the suffering in the first place. When He chooses to heal, He is taking away our own earthly punishment!

So illness and suffering is an earthly punishment that God gives us, but He can cure us of the illness He gave us if it serves a higher purpose? OK, thanks for sharing.

 

I have a problem with the idea that a god would bother with us individually. I could see a higher power deciding to start the chemical process of life on at least one planet that was cooling after the hot, dense universe suddenly expanded. Such a god would be patient enough to let evolution and free will take its course.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Unfortunately, as I see it, these discussions about religion always end the same way. The agnostics/atheists using science to back up their perspective and the religious people using faith, the bible, and other such religious texts to back up their perspective.

 

Through all of it, nobody ever seems to realize or accept that these two things are simply not compatible. That isn't to say that religious people cannot be scientists, but rather that you cannot (at least at this time) use science to justify or disprove the question "is there a god".

 

People also fall into the trap of negative evidence, and causation vs. correlation.

 

It is hard to deny that specific events listed in the christian bible have been debunked - now I have a friend who is a devout catholic and also a physicist - and simply compartmentalizes religion and science. When I ask him as a man what he thinks about the age of the earth, the bible, and carbon dating he will simply say - "the things that happen in the bible as they are explained are not for him to question or debate and perhaps we have misinterpreted them", and when I ask him as a scientist what he thinks about the age of the earth the bible, and carbon dating he will simply say - "There is no way the earth is as young as has been suggested in the bible and other religious texts"..

 

I always wondered how he was able to reconcile these things in his mind. I personally don't believe in religion at all, but I have to admit that when I view his position with an open mind, his approach to this seemingly paradoxical existence actually makes sense. If he accepts that god cannot be explained by mankind and neither can the claims made about him or his creations in the bible (not my personal view but that is not the point of this discussion) then the fact that we've proven or disproven something that occurs or is said in the bible with manmade technology (that he readily admits holds valid for the world as we observe it - which is where science belongs) is really of no consequence to him - from the perspective of his faith based belief... and honestly, if I am viewing this objectively, I really can't fault him in this and calling him illogical is simply unfair.

 

I have no opinion about religion one way or the other - accept that I personally chose to stay away from it - but then again I don't form opinions about things that I cannot readily observe as a personal policy, but that doesn't really make my manner of thinking superior to anyone else's. Depending on the person, there is value in adopting either position or - in my case - none at all.

 

Cheers

Edited August 30, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei