• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do religious people get it backwards?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Can personal prejudice and individual subjectivity be fully put aside?

"fully"? Probably not.
The whole point of the scientific method is to try and do exactly that as best as possible.


I remember reading about photons that they can behave as waves as well as particles, but that it depends on how people look at it.

Myeah, that's not at all the same thing.
That's objective reality.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you believe I exist as a separate human entity? Or am I an A.I.? Or maybe I am just a projection of your own subconscious... How do you know what is real? Do you believe you have any choice in the matter?
There are certain things that we feel very sure about BUT we can't demonstrate they're correct BECAUSE we can't present the demonstration without first assuming they're already correct. My own such assumptions are ─

That a world exists external to the self,
The our senses are capable of informing us of that world, and
That reason is a valid tool.​

However, it's clear that anyone who posts here on RF makes the first two, and fingers crossed, the third of these assumptions.

And since we share those assumptions, we can then discuss matters from that common basis.

So 'objectively real' means existing in the world external to the self, and we know of it through our senses, and we can draw inferences and conclusions from that sensory input. That is, if you share those assumptions then you have a basis for determining what is real.

As for you, if you're a biological entity that's from outside Homo sapiens then you're of serious interest. If you're a Turing machine, my congratulations to whoever designed, built and programed you. Meanwhile, I assume with a high but not absolute degree of confidence that you're a human.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
When we take on beliefs, we usually do so, because something convince of it being true and for pretty much all people this comes down to the amount and quality of evidence.

We don't normally prefer to take on beliefs, if we don't thing there is anything to back them up. So for instance, most people will have a very difficult time believing that unicorns exists, because we see no evidence for it being the case.

But to me at least, it seems like when you talk with religious people about their faith in a God or the supernatural, that they take an opposite approach.

Meaning....

God exist... therefore I have to find evidence for it

Rather than doing what they would normally do....

I have evidence for this..... therefore I believe it

Now I doubt a lot of religious people will agree with this, so I would like to hear, how that is not the case for your particular belief?

(When I say evidence, I mean something that can be verified as being true one way or another.)

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion hoax, where the Democrat party, the deep state intelligence agencies and fake news, presented misinformation about President Trump, as evidence of his involvement with the Russians? This turned out to be a coverup of their own crimes. This repetitive brain wash scheme led to most atheists becoming believers in faux evidence. They showed a lot of faith in the wrong things. Many became self proclaimed experts in false things.

The Religious right turned out to be far less likely to be fooled. This result was not what one would expect based on atheists driven topics like this. The question is where was science, to help the atheists make a better judgement? Science is not always the final arbitrator of truth when it come to human nature, games and scams the can misrepresent reality. In this case, many of the scientists, including most who supported the climate change bureaucracy, were fooled by the faux evidence. Even the so called and self proclaimed fact checkers from Google, Twitter and Face Book, were fooled. The wild card was the seedy sides of humans. This is common knowledge to the religious, since they are taught to see and avoid this behavior in oneself.

That was an excellent long term experiment in human nature. It showed us who blindly believes what they want to believe, and who challenges evidence from agenda driven humans, and waits before passing final judgement.

An interesting observation is, I no longer have privileges to particulate in the political section of the forums, even though I aced the collusion delusion hoax test, for critical thinking skills. Why is someone good at truth not allowed? That was a rhetorical question. Is that topic held hostage by left wing propaganda types, whose job is too fool the atheists for the election? Can truth undermines months of brain washing?
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
When we take on beliefs, we usually do so, because something convince of it being true and for pretty much all people this comes down to the amount and quality of evidence.

We don't normally prefer to take on beliefs, if we don't thing there is anything to back them up. So for instance, most people will have a very difficult time believing that unicorns exists, because we see no evidence for it being the case.

But to me at least, it seems like when you talk with religious people about their faith in a God or the supernatural, that they take an opposite approach.

Meaning....

God exist... therefore I have to find evidence for it

Rather than doing what they would normally do....

I have evidence for this..... therefore I believe it

Now I doubt a lot of religious people will agree with this, so I would like to hear, how that is not the case for your particular belief?

(When I say evidence, I mean something that can be verified as being true one way or another.)
Great question/discussion idea.

I on the other hand, do not do that. In other words, not the 'backwards' approach you are proposing for [religious people

[[Further, definition of religious people etc etc
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Can personal prejudice and individual subjectivity be fully put aside? I remember reading about photons that they can behave as waves as well as particles, but that it depends on how people look at it.

More specifically, it depends on the way the experiment is set up. After that, it is an objective thing.

No, prejudice subjectivity cannot be fully put aside. That is why we require repeatability by *other* people, who likely have different biases and viewpoints. It can also clarify our ideas and methods if we try to communicate them to another person, explaining how we got our information and seeing if they can observe the same thing. That greatly helps in attempts to be objective.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Faith is related to the Latin verb fideo which means "to trust".
Theists trust in God's existence without having a tangible evidence. They feel it in their heart.
It is more like a sensation.
Historically, this theistic "trust" didn't refer to trust in God's existence, but to trust in God's promises for the future. The only things that they thought lacked tangible evidence were things that hadn't happened yet. It was only as our understanding of what real evidence is improved that this new definition - the one you gave us - emerged.

It's also worth pointing out that "faith" also used to be more closely associated with the idea of "loyalty." We still see this sense of the term when we talk about a spouse being "faithful."

All that aside, if we're going to say that "feelings in our hearts" and "sensations" should carry weight, then I'm safe rejecting theism as ridiculous right now. To get me to take theism seriously, we need to set aside the idea that what we "feel is true" is meaningful.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The evidence is everywhere when one puts the right glasses on. It always feels words cannot properly describe it, like trying to explain a vague dream.

The thing is, evidence (if tangible and objective) should not depend on what glasses one has on. We are born with one set of glasses, so it would be "cheating" for someone to "try" to take off their default glasses to another and assume the evidence they get from their new set is the same interpretation as they have with their default. If anything, you'd have to take off your special glasses (the "right" glasses) and explain god from that perspective-so All people-regardless their religion and scientific background would see what you see. (Another example: saying there is evidence of god in a language only a group of people know will mean nothing to people who are not native in that language. Since most people who speak this foreign language cannot translate it for themselves, how do non-natives expect to believe you (people who make the claim of evidence) when the language isn't universally known?

As for a vague dream, though, if you experience god is it vague dream or very sharp non-questionable experience?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Historically, this theistic "trust" didn't refer to trust in God's existence, but to trust in God's promises for the future. The only things that they thought lacked tangible evidence were things that hadn't happened yet. It was only as our understanding of what real evidence is improved that this new definition - the one you gave us - emerged.

Exactly. It was also a Quid Pro Quo pact.
Sacrifices and offerings in exchange for God's favors. "Alleged" favors.


All that aside, if we're going to say that "feelings in our hearts" and "sensations" should carry weight, then I'm safe rejecting theism as ridiculous right now. To get me to take theism seriously, we need to set aside the idea that what we "feel is true" is meaningful.

Absolutely. And in fact atheism is not "learnt".
It is very respectable because it is the fruit of rational reasoning and not of inner subjective sensation (which are worth respecting too;))
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Historically, this theistic "trust" didn't refer to trust in God's existence, but to trust in God's promises for the future. The only things that they thought lacked tangible evidence were things that hadn't happened yet. It was only as our understanding of what real evidence is improved that this new definition - the one you gave us - emerged.

It's also worth pointing out that "faith" also used to be more closely associated with the idea of "loyalty." We still see this sense of the term when we talk about a spouse being "faithful."

All that aside, if we're going to say that "feelings in our hearts" and "sensations" should carry weight, then I'm safe rejecting theism as ridiculous right now. To get me to take theism seriously, we need to set aside the idea that what we "feel is true" is meaningful.

In the end the solution to the solipsist problem, is to believe what you feel is true, because there is no evidence what the world is independent of your mind.
So if you believe the world is natural and real, then that is because it subjectively works for you.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...
It is very respectable because it is the fruit of rational reasoning and not of inner subjective sensation (which are worth respecting too;))

As long as you understand that rational reasoning is limited and can't answer everything. Including what the world is independent of your mind.
 

Gargovic Malkav

Well-Known Member
The thing is, evidence (if tangible and objective) should not depend on what glasses one has on. We are born with one set of glasses, so it would be "cheating" for someone to "try" to take off their default glasses to another and assume the evidence they get from their new set is the same interpretation as they have with their default. If anything, you'd have to take off your special glasses (the "right" glasses) and explain god from that perspective-so All people-regardless their religion and scientific background would see what you see. (Another example: saying there is evidence of god in a language only a group of people know will mean nothing to people who are not native in that language. Since most people who speak this foreign language cannot translate it for themselves, how do non-natives expect to believe you (people who make the claim of evidence) when the language isn't universally known?

As for a vague dream, though, if you experience god is it vague dream or very sharp non-questionable experience?

Only God can give such glasses. And I am reminded of that in the discussion I'm having. You apparently see it as "cheating" for wearing them, so you have no reason to acquire them, because that would be "unfair". This is an example of my experiences with God. If you don't get this then I can't do anything about it.

I might not reply in this thread anymore because I don't think there's anything left for me to talk about. It is clear how we see things differently.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
When we take on beliefs, we usually do so, because something convince of it being true and for pretty much all people this comes down to the amount and quality of evidence.

We don't normally prefer to take on beliefs, if we don't thing there is anything to back them up. So for instance, most people will have a very difficult time believing that unicorns exists, because we see no evidence for it being the case.

But to me at least, it seems like when you talk with religious people about their faith in a God or the supernatural, that they take an opposite approach.

Meaning....

God exist... therefore I have to find evidence for it

Rather than doing what they would normally do....

I have evidence for this..... therefore I believe it

Now I doubt a lot of religious people will agree with this, so I would like to hear, how that is not the case for your particular belief?

(When I say evidence, I mean something that can be verified as being true one way or another.)

I think you missing a more common explanation for belief. People except beliefs because it is convenient. You are having a conversation with someone and they bring up that Dolphins have two separate brains. You think it is odd but are enjoying yourself so just accept it. It is a belief whether it is true or not. If you quote it to someone else without verifying it, it is still a belief. This is the way most people get and pass beliefs along. They are not convinced but just not inspired enough to verify it.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Do you believe I exist as a separate human entity?
Obviously you can't be 100% sure of anything. However I do see what I would call human entities around me everyday, so would consider that fairly good evidence that this is indeed the case.

Or am I an A.I.?
How would you demonstrate that, if you were? I haven't encountered such thing in my life and have never heard of anyone else claiming it either, while at the same time being able to present evidence for it being the case. Therefore I see no rational reason to believe it to be true.

Or maybe I am just a projection of your own subconscious... How do you know what is real?
Again, nothing seem to suggest that other people around me are projections, so if I should consider that an viable option, then I might as well wonder, whether or not all other humans ain't in fact smurfs in disguise?

Do you believe you have any choice in the matter?
If I believe I have choice in what matter? What I believe is true or what is real or not?
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Evidence is required in Faith.

In fact I would have no Faith if there was no evidence.

Spiritual Evidence, is not necessarily Scientific evidence, but in the end when we become more clever, they will not clash.

Regards Tony
Yes, but can you verify them as being true?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
When we take on beliefs, we usually do so, because something convince of it being true and for pretty much all people this comes down to the amount and quality of evidence.

We don't normally prefer to take on beliefs, if we don't thing there is anything to back them up. So for instance, most people will have a very difficult time believing that unicorns exists, because we see no evidence for it being the case.

But to me at least, it seems like when you talk with religious people about their faith in a God or the supernatural, that they take an opposite approach.

Meaning....

God exist... therefore I have to find evidence for it

Rather than doing what they would normally do....

I have evidence for this..... therefore I believe it

Now I doubt a lot of religious people will agree with this, so I would like to hear, how that is not the case for your particular belief?

(When I say evidence, I mean something that can be verified as being true one way or another.)

Let me speak from the Islamic point of view. There are two angles of approach to theology in traditional Islamic philosophy. Why Islam? 1. Akal or "Reason". 2. Thakleedh or "conformity/compliance". One side have always approached theology with reason which means they do not believe for the sake of belief like you have asserted. Some others do.

So you are right partially. But not quite right.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Obviously you can't be 100% sure of anything. However I do see what I would call human entities around me everyday, so would consider that fairly good evidence that this is indeed the case.

No, that is a belief, that apparently works. It would be the same, if you were a Boltzmann Brain.


How would you demonstrate, that if you were? I haven't encountered such thing in my life and have never heard of anyone else claiming it either, while being able to present evidence for it being the case. Therefore I see no rational reason to believe it to be true.

That is rational to believe that you are not a Boltzmann Brain, will not decide if you are that or not.

Again, nothing seem to suggest that other people around me are projections, so if I should consider that an viable option, then I might as well wonder, whether or not all other humans ain't in fact smurfs in disguise?

So you don't doubt your beliefs and question what knowledge is?

 
Top