All humans are believers

[sun rise]

This thread is about the nature and purpose of belief. I've excerpted All humans are believers There are several points that appealed to me. One is that the nature and importance to people I find accurate. the second is the statement about "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The third and to me most important is that it describes how I see science - as the way of seeing the beauty and magnificence of the universe. (I've only excerpted a bit, for those that are inclined to click on links, the rest was interesting to me as well).

TLDR (aka Key Takeaways):

• Belief is an essential need for all humans. It is not just about God or ghosts.
• Science extends its reach into all aspects of the world, but its reach is not unlimited. We have to choose how to deal with what we cannot know.
• This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose.

The meaning of “supernatural”
Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief.
...
More to the point, they claim that the more they understand the world through their science, the more they admire God. To them, science is a form of religious devotion.
...
In reality, religion and science do overlap. They intersect in people’s minds, in their life choices, and in the difficult moral challenges society faces. To strictly deny the power of religion in the world, with billions following a diversity of faiths while they seek a sense of identity and purpose in difficult lives, is terribly naive, and frankly, cruel.

The difficult question that needs to be asked is why so many people across every culture need to believe. What is religion providing that so many need to embrace?

When Einstein invoked his “cosmic religious feeling” to describe his unorthodox spiritual connection to Nature, he was trying to express this elusive feeling of the mysterious, of our human attraction to the unknown. Perhaps surprisingly to many — especially to those who do not understand what drives people into science — the engagement through science with unknown aspects of Nature is deeply spiritual.

Science is a flirt with the unknown, as is religion. The difference is that science uses tools to expand the domain of the known, while religion is sustained by faith. This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose. Even the secularist scientist, using research to probe beyond the known, is practicing this creed, fulfilling our deep need to understand our origins and make sense of the world, and to extend our grasp of a reality we can never fully comprehend.

 

[Fool]

This thread is about the nature and purpose of belief. I've excerpted All humans are believers There are several points that appealed to me. One is that the nature and importance to people I find accurate. the second is the statement about "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The third and to me most important is that it describes how I see science - as the way of seeing the beauty and magnificence of the universe. (I've only excerpted a bit, for those that are inclined to click on links, the rest was interesting to me as well).

TLDR (aka Key Takeaways):

• Belief is an essential need for all humans. It is not just about God or ghosts.
• Science extends its reach into all aspects of the world, but its reach is not unlimited. We have to choose how to deal with what we cannot know.
• This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose.

The meaning of “supernatural”
Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief.
...
More to the point, they claim that the more they understand the world through their science, the more they admire God. To them, science is a form of religious devotion.
...
In reality, religion and science do overlap. They intersect in people’s minds, in their life choices, and in the difficult moral challenges society faces. To strictly deny the power of religion in the world, with billions following a diversity of faiths while they seek a sense of identity and purpose in difficult lives, is terribly naive, and frankly, cruel.

The difficult question that needs to be asked is why so many people across every culture need to believe. What is religion providing that so many need to embrace?

When Einstein invoked his “cosmic religious feeling” to describe his unorthodox spiritual connection to Nature, he was trying to express this elusive feeling of the mysterious, of our human attraction to the unknown. Perhaps surprisingly to many — especially to those who do not understand what drives people into science — the engagement through science with unknown aspects of Nature is deeply spiritual.

Science is a flirt with the unknown, as is religion. The difference is that science uses tools to expand the domain of the known, while religion is sustained by faith. This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose. Even the secularist scientist, using research to probe beyond the known, is practicing this creed, fulfilling our deep need to understand our origins and make sense of the world, and to extend our grasp of a reality we can never fully comprehend.

some people have political beliefs, some have beliefs about mundane things. some believe that a certain color is better than another. some beliefs are negative. if folks are honest, they know less about most and maybe a some about very little. apart from that we navigate this world, almost like a blind thing. but thats ok, blind tests are used in scientific studies to help determine efficacy in drugs. nothing is absolute.

 

[Audie]

This thread is about the nature and purpose of belief. I've excerpted All humans are believers There are several points that appealed to me. One is that the nature and importance to people I find accurate. the second is the statement about "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The third and to me most important is that it describes how I see science - as the way of seeing the beauty and magnificence of the universe. (I've only excerpted a bit, for those that are inclined to click on links, the rest was interesting to me as well).

TLDR (aka Key Takeaways):

• Belief is an essential need for all humans. It is not just about God or ghosts.
• Science extends its reach into all aspects of the world, but its reach is not unlimited. We have to choose how to deal with what we cannot know.
• This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose.

The meaning of “supernatural”
Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief.
...
More to the point, they claim that the more they understand the world through their science, the more they admire God. To them, science is a form of religious devotion.
...
In reality, religion and science do overlap. They intersect in people’s minds, in their life choices, and in the difficult moral challenges society faces. To strictly deny the power of religion in the world, with billions following a diversity of faiths while they seek a sense of identity and purpose in difficult lives, is terribly naive, and frankly, cruel.

The difficult question that needs to be asked is why so many people across every culture need to believe. What is religion providing that so many need to embrace?

When Einstein invoked his “cosmic religious feeling” to describe his unorthodox spiritual connection to Nature, he was trying to express this elusive feeling of the mysterious, of our human attraction to the unknown. Perhaps surprisingly to many — especially to those who do not understand what drives people into science — the engagement through science with unknown aspects of Nature is deeply spiritual.

Science is a flirt with the unknown, as is religion. The difference is that science uses tools to expand the domain of the known, while religion is sustained by faith. This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose. Even the secularist scientist, using research to probe beyond the known, is practicing this creed, fulfilling our deep need to understand our origins and make sense of the world, and to extend our grasp of a reality we can never fully comprehend.

So just coz T rex is nowhere to be seen
is no proof they no longer exist.

Start a argument that way and no
point reading more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

TGiven that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, ...

^ sloppy hogwash: given by whom?

The absence of evidence of pink and purple striped buzzards, is not evidence of absence. The inference that pink and purple striped buzzards do not exist is, however, the most reasonable inference by far.

On the other hand, the absence of evidence of pink and purple striped Sauropods in my bedroom can be deemed excellent evidence of absence.

Science is a flirt with the unknown, as is religion.

False equivalency is a flirt with fallacy served to the gullible by the thoughtless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is it many theists seem fundamentally incapable of trying to make atheism into a belief and a faith? It's a weak philosophy, poor theology, and can only be described as willingly putting on your blinders and earplugs so you don't have to listen.

"absence of proof is not proof of absence".

That's how Donald Rumsfeld justified the lies, about WMDs that where allegedly there but never found, that lead to the dumpster fire that was Jr's Iraq War. Technically, yes, if you want to split hairs the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but that's the deranged twisting of science and logic that fuels pseudopsychology and cryptozoology, because the next step is nearly always to accept the possibility of that killer gnome stalking you.

 

[King Phenomenon]

This thread is about the nature and purpose of belief. I've excerpted All humans are believers There are several points that appealed to me. One is that the nature and importance to people I find accurate. the second is the statement about "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The third and to me most important is that it describes how I see science - as the way of seeing the beauty and magnificence of the universe. (I've only excerpted a bit, for those that are inclined to click on links, the rest was interesting to me as well).

TLDR (aka Key Takeaways):

• Belief is an essential need for all humans. It is not just about God or ghosts.
• Science extends its reach into all aspects of the world, but its reach is not unlimited. We have to choose how to deal with what we cannot know.
• This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose.

The meaning of “supernatural”
Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief.
...
More to the point, they claim that the more they understand the world through their science, the more they admire God. To them, science is a form of religious devotion.
...
In reality, religion and science do overlap. They intersect in people’s minds, in their life choices, and in the difficult moral challenges society faces. To strictly deny the power of religion in the world, with billions following a diversity of faiths while they seek a sense of identity and purpose in difficult lives, is terribly naive, and frankly, cruel.

The difficult question that needs to be asked is why so many people across every culture need to believe. What is religion providing that so many need to embrace?

When Einstein invoked his “cosmic religious feeling” to describe his unorthodox spiritual connection to Nature, he was trying to express this elusive feeling of the mysterious, of our human attraction to the unknown. Perhaps surprisingly to many — especially to those who do not understand what drives people into science — the engagement through science with unknown aspects of Nature is deeply spiritual.

Science is a flirt with the unknown, as is religion. The difference is that science uses tools to expand the domain of the known, while religion is sustained by faith. This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose. Even the secularist scientist, using research to probe beyond the known, is practicing this creed, fulfilling our deep need to understand our origins and make sense of the world, and to extend our grasp of a reality we can never fully comprehend.

my spiritual beliefs answers questions that science cant and never will.

 

[AlexanderG]

Yes, everyone believes things. At a minimum, everyone believes that they themselves exist. Most people have many more beliefs, depending on their experience, their reasoning skills, and their standards of evidence.

You said: "We have to choose how to deal with what we cannot know." I know it's a crazy idea, but hear me out...I deal with the things I cannot know by saying, "I don't know." Weird, right? And then instead of just making up an indefensible answer, I just continue not knowing until there is good evidence to support a particular explanation. Whoa! \/

Likewise, I don't need to make things up or have faith in unfalsifiable claims, in order to "sustain a sense of purpose." The material things and people around me give me plenty of purpose and motivation, thank you.

 

[sun rise]

^ sloppy hogwash: given by whom?

Looking around, a better way of stating that is "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

For example: Absence of proof is not proof of absence - Everything2.com

Reasonable doubt: I have seen no convincing evidence for a God therefore I conclude it very likely that a God does not exist.

Belief: I have seen no convincing evidence for a God therefore a God does not exist triggers the "absence" statement.

 

[Kenny]

^ sloppy hogwash: given by whom?

The absence of evidence of pink and purple striped buzzards, is not evidence of absence. The inference that pink and purple striped buzzards do not exist is, however, the most reasonable inference by far.

On the other hand, the absence of evidence of pink and purple striped Sauropods in my bedroom can be deemed excellent evidence of absence.


False equivalency is a flirt with fallacy served to the gullible by the thoughtless.

Your point is well taken, but is your point really denying the post's point in context?

If I say, "there is no 'other side of the moon' because the evidence is absent", can we really say there is not "other side of the moon"?

There is no realm of possibility of pink and purple striped buzzards but there is a possibility of a God who started everything. (A plausible theory)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no realm of possibility of pink and purple striped buzzards but there is a possibility of a God who started everything. (A plausible theory)

Good point.

 

[Heyo]

In reality, religion and science do overlap.

Nope. Religion and science are Non Overlapping MAgisteria. The first only begins where the second ends.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god.

I lost confidence in the author as soon as I read that. I'm a vocal atheist, but do no believe that there is no god. Like most atheists, I'm agnostic about gods. He's made the same error that we see so often on RF. He's speaking about a minority of atheists and condemning their leap of faith. I do that, too. Of course, I do the same with faith (unjustified belief) in any form.

Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith.

Yes, most atheists understand that that the absence of evidence when none is expected is not evidence of absence. However, it is when evidence would be expected to exist if something were the case. One claims that he came to work at the factory yesterday and want to be paid, but nobody remembers seeing him, and his time card isn't punched. The absence of expected evidence is evidence of his absence from work yesterday. Not proof, but he's probably not going to get paid, and arbitration would likely uphold that ruling if it came to that.

The difficult question that needs to be asked is why so many people across every culture need to believe. What is religion providing that so many need to embrace?

Comfort.

Another interesting question is why so many don't need religion and find no value there. Why do they not need that comfort? Why do others seem to need it? I have a pretty good idea. We all need some kind of emotional comforting when we are young. If one is told that he doesn't need fear death because God will sustain his consciousness in the afterlife, then that obviates his fear as long as he continues to believe that.

Likewise with the hope of seeing loved ones again and of being protected from above, or of gods interceding when one is vulnerable. But if one isn't told any of that, he grows up not needing those comforts. He learns to accept that his consciousness might be extinguished with death and that he might not be made in the image of a deity or be loved or protected by one. Once that happens, what does religion have to offer him? Maybe for community and social acceptance, but he's probably already met those needs without religion as well.

When Einstein invoked his “cosmic religious feeling” to describe his unorthodox spiritual connection to Nature, he was trying to express this elusive feeling of the mysterious, of our human attraction to the unknown. Perhaps surprisingly to many — especially to those who do not understand what drives people into science — the engagement through science with unknown aspects of Nature is deeply spiritual.

I don't call that a religious feeling. It's a spiritual experience. Religion, by which I mean a worldview including a supernatural deity, is not only not necessary for that, it can interfere with that sense of connection and awe one might have with his world, especially in religions that teach that matter and flesh are base, that the cosmos are scheduled for fiery apocalypse, that faith is more reliable than reason or the evidence of the senses, that the world is not to be engaged with, and that even one's mind is the enemy when it begins to doubt and question such beliefs. In this sense religion can degrade the spiritual experience.

In reality, religion and science do overlap. They intersect in people’s minds, in their life choices, and in the difficult moral challenges society faces.

In my reality, if they overlap, that's coincidence. I happen to consider murder immoral just like the book says, but not because the book says so. Science (empiricism, or the experience of the senses external and bodily senses, more properly) doesn't recommend life choices or offer moral guidance. It tells us how the world works and what to expect it to do, not what one ought to do about that.

To strictly deny the power of religion in the world, with billions following a diversity of faiths while they seek a sense of identity and purpose in difficult lives, is terribly naive, and frankly, cruel.

Who's doing that? Religion is very powerful. But notice how the author shifted from denying the existence of gods to denying the power of religion.

 

[Ella S.]

Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief.

The absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. For instance, if I believe that every time I throw a baseball, I will get struck by lightning. Then, if I throw the baseball and don't get struck by lightning, it's evidence that my belief was wrong. This is actually a form of scientific thinking.

That said, the reason I positively claim that there is no God (rather than claiming that I merely don't believe in God) is because all evidence seems to point to God being either nomologically or metaphysically impossible.

For instance, the universe is composed of spacetime. Causality is a relationship between objects in time. For God to have caused the universe to exist, he would have had to have existed in time before time. This is a contradiction; it is logically impossible. We can say we know, with absolute certainty, that this can't be the case because it's impossible.

And I can't even know with absolute certainty that there is an external reality, despite the fact that I believe it since the logical analysis of my observations make an external reality seem highly probable. So it's more likely that there is no God than that there is a universe.
...

In reality, religion and science do overlap. They intersect in people’s minds, in their life choices, and in the difficult moral challenges society faces. To strictly deny the power of religion in the world, with billions following a diversity of faiths while they seek a sense of identity and purpose in difficult lives, is terribly naive, and frankly, cruel.

I don't deny the impact religion has on the world, but that doesn't mean that I believe in its teachings.

Science is a flirt with the unknown, as is religion. The difference is that science uses tools to expand the domain of the known, while religion is sustained by faith. This is where belief comes in. It fills the space of the unknown so that we can sustain our sense of purpose. Even the secularist scientist, using research to probe beyond the known, is practicing this creed, fulfilling our deep need to understand our origins and make sense of the world, and to extend our grasp of a reality we can never fully comprehend.

I disagree.

I think, if religion is going to have any relevance to humanity, then that relevance is cultural. It gives us values, ceremonies, communities, and art. Science does not give us these things. In fact, there's not even a scientific reason to value science, because science is concerned only with facts.

When religion tries to make factual claims, it's almost always proven wrong. So fact-claims like the existence of a deity or the performance of a miracle aren't another way of knowing about reality, because they don't constitute real knowledge about reality, in my opinion.

While we all have beliefs, I think it's important that we make sure those beliefs are justified. If they turn out not to be, we should change them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Looking around, a better way of stating that is "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

Unless, of course, it is. There are two points to consider:

1. What is being proved? One the one hand, (to paraphrase Popper) the absence of white ravens is not proof of no white ravens. On the other hand, the absence of whales in my bathtub is undeniable proof of no whales in my bathtub.
2. But the more important question is whether "proof" is at issue. So, for example: if, after many decades of effort by many, many thousands of dedicated ornithologist and amateur bird watchers, one finds no evidence of white ravens, this absence of evidence is rather good evidence of absence. Good evidence is different than proof, but only the very foolish or very ignorant discount it.

Should you wish to discuss this further I would request but one thing from you, that being a clear and reasonable explanation as to why you do not believe in fairies, mermaids, and gbomes.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, most atheists understand that that the absence of evidence when none is expected is not evidence of absence. However, it is when evidence would be expected to exist if something were the case. One claims that he came to work at the factory yesterday and want to be paid, but nobody remembers seeing him, and his time card isn't punched. The absence of expected evidence is evidence of his absence from work yesterday. Not proof, but he's probably not going to get paid, and arbitration would likely uphold that ruling if it came to that.

This is a far superior example than mine, and I think I'm going to borrow it for making this same point in the future.

 

[sun rise]

Nope. Religion and science are Non Overlapping MAgisteria. The first only begins where the second ends.

In the article I started with the thread, that led to "God of the gaps" which is provably wrong since gaps diminish over time.

 

[sun rise]

What is being proved? One the one hand, (to paraphrase Popper) the absence of white ravens is not proof of no white ravens. On the other hand, the absence of whales in my bathtub is undeniable proof of no whales in my bathtub.

One part of the article that engendered the OP was that the existence of divinity is not subject to ordinary proof or disproof and to insist that one has either proven or disproven is in the realm of belief since the thesis of the article is that we're all believers of one sort or another.

Should you wish to discuss this further I would request but one thing from you, that being a clear and reasonable explanation as to why you do not believe in fairies, mermaids, and gbomes.

As a counter question, I would ask if you believe or do not believe in angels since they appear in the Tanakh?

 

[Heyo]

In the article I started with the thread, that led to "God of the gaps" which is provably wrong since gaps diminish over time.

Yes, they do. But why is that wrong? It just says that the possible gods also diminish over time - which is congruent with our observations.

 

[rational experiences]

As just a human woman. My memories natural get interfered with daily by humans man's AI technology causes.

You always had in biology and conscious body owned your own man feelings.

The same as I had. Owned my woman human life body type.

By human parents relationship human family it was mutual natural. Were a recorded idylic human memory of perfect love. For our baby human selves.

Which affected everyone as baby to adult human. So we always thought we sought our perfect life partner.

What you cause by machine is fake. Most ideas are just in an evil man's mind.

As I'm not AI as theists infer in forum postings. Whilst I'm still computer AI asserting that their unnatural man studies keep falsifying already false natural men thoughts.

Non stop lying about fakery....science.

As God is earth the rock. Man's science never even existed men egotists.

Exact natural advice. Your rich mean nasty cruel governing to invent new money gain to control or over control everything...is human mans historic AI non stop lying. No machine no BS artist either.

Anything you say is fake.

 

[joelr]

This thread is about the nature and purpose of belief. I've excerpted All humans are believers There are several points that appealed to me. One is that the nature and importance to people I find accurate. the second is the statement about "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The third and to me most important is that it describes how I see science - as the way of seeing the beauty and magnificence of the universe. (I've only excerpted a bit, for those that are inclined to click on links, the rest was interesting to me as well).


Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief.
...
More to the point, they claim that the more they understand the world through their science, the more they admire God. To them, science is a form of religious devotion.
...
.

Atheism generally does not rule out some form of deism or supernatural being or anything supernatural.
It says there currently is no good evidence to believe in anything supernatural. And there is currently no versions of a theistic God that have enough (or any) evidence to sustain belief.
Just like most would say, Inana, Romulus, Mithras, EL, all myth. Atheists extend that to Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, Shiva and so on.