Do religious people get it backwards?

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I mean is, lets assume you believe in God of the bible. So here we have a book talking about God, you believe it. But how did you verify that what is written in the book is true, which then made you jump to the conclusion that this belief is sound?

We can only determine what is most likely true by relying on evidence, and the better we are at verifying these.

Could you please stop assuming that your version of truth is the only one?!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But in that case we have no common ground to even start discussing anything. Because if we can even remotely agree on what defines reality or anything else for that matter, then its rather pointless as we would be constantly talk past each other using different definitions.

Then let us try to find common ground.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Lets assume we are in an old house together at night. And suddenly we hear a glass in one of the other rooms fall to the ground and smash. Instantly I jump to the conclusion that it must have been a ghost, because we are the only ones in the house and was nowhere near the glass. Now would you agree that it is the only possible explanation for the glass breaking?

So is it rational of me to jump to such conclusion based on what we experienced?

From an objective perspective, no. If we weren't raised with associating things we can't explain with supernaturally caused phenomena, than I would say I agree, that's not a rational conclusion.

However, wouldn't you understand the logic of how you'd jump to that conclusion?

Also, this supposes that the "critic to supernatural claims" holds the criteria of truth (what he or she believes should be rational) rather than understand what's rational to the believer and where he base his conclusions on even when we disagree. Something can make sense and be beneficial even though it's not objectively rational.

The problem is to assume that the believer has some sort of mental fault because criteria of rational is based on experience and not by objective facts. I was looking up rational and it said according to reason and logic. We can find the logic and reason behind something fact or fiction. We can understand why you'd think there is a ghost even though the logical explanation does not need to have barring in whether your conclusions were fact or fiction.

Maybe it's mixing the two up. Does logic and rational need to be based on facts or can one come to a logical conclusion of whether, say, ghosts exist despite it may not be true? (Also. Many believers say they believe and have faith not knowledge-so, wouldn't even asking for factual evidence be inappropriate to someone who says to you directly their beliefs aren't based on that criteria?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can science be used in a positive sense on all aspects of the everyday world?

Science is a tool. Any tool can be abused. Any tool can be used for good or evil. So no not in "all" aspects. But just because a tool is misused that does not make it good or evil itself. A hammer can be used to bash someone's head in just as it can be used to build a house for the needy. Is one hammer evil and the other good? In fact the same hammer can be used for both.

The tool itself is neutral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets assume we are in an old house together at night. And suddenly we hear a glass in one of the other rooms fall to the ground and smash. Instantly I jump to the conclusion that it must have been a ghost, because we are the only ones in the house and was nowhere near the glass. Now would you agree that it is the only possible explanation for the glass breaking?

So is it rational of me to jump to such conclusion based on what we experienced?

That would not be a rational conclusion by any means since there could be multiple natural explanations and we do not even know if it is possible for ghosts to exist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Might a nice, lofty goal be trying to put aside such personal prejudice and individual subjectivity?

Isn't your claim that this is just inherent and unavoidable sort of an excuse to just claim whatever you want and try to ward off challengers?

Does stating that "everything is subject to personal prejudice and individual subjectivity" excuse you from making claims for which you have no compelling, shareable, foundational evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very difficult, or impossible within the rules of what we call the scientific method?

It is very possible using the scientific method. The problem is individual prejudice. Part of the scientific method is publishing one's work. That means that even if the author is biased others are likely to see through that bias and correct him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I perfectly understood what you meant. But I can't explain myself apparently...
Sometimes comments may seem a bit snappy, but I meant no hostility. It's hard to read peoples emotions and intentions sometimes when not in person.

Thanks. I do believe there is evidence for what people call god if talking about a force, spiritual essence, emotion (like love), and so forth (I wouldn't call it the 'right' pair of glasses, just maybe a blue pair). I also believe there is no evidence for a god if spoken of as an entity or deity (such as Zues and Athena) of some sorts (red pair of glasses).

I get confused when some believers speak of one and others speak of god as an distinct entity. But what bothers me more is thinking people have some sort of default for not seeing what "they" see whether it's people who ask for evidence or people who think evidence "is right in front of them."

Also, talking with people who agree is defeating the purpose of actually understanding (if one is interested) why others see it the way they do. So far, I "got it" to an extent. Though, like evidence-people, no one really wants to give credit for the other for actually understanding each other's point of view. On one side because they feel everything should be objective. The other side spiritual ego.

 

[Nimos]

Does logic and rational need to be based on facts or can one come to a logical conclusion of whether, say, ghosts exist despite it may not be true?

I don't see how one would be able to claim to reach a logical conclusion without evidence at least, doesn't necessarily have to be facts as I see it.

But the glass falling to the ground is not evidence for ghosts and clearly not a fact. It is evidence that something made the glass fall. So I don't see how we would be able to rationalize that ghosts are a logical explanation, if that make sense?

(Also. Many believers say they believe and have faith not knowledge-so, wouldn't even asking for factual evidence be inappropriate to someone who says to you directly their beliefs aren't based on that criteria?)

I don't think so, because in many cases people's faith is being treated as if it were fact or truth. Just look at what is going on in France at the moment. Obviously this is not the case or claim for all believers, but one can't deny that, people convinced of a particular religious view, will have an impact on how they believe society ought to work. Meaning if you are a muslim of the type we see going nuts in France at the moment, clearly you act as you do, due to your religious view. But this hold equally true, when a fundamentalist Christian support political ideas which favors their religious views towards for instance, homoseksuality, abortions and so forth.

So as I see it, our societies are being influenced by the same type of reasoning as that of someone jumping to the conclusion that ghost is a viable explanation, despite there being no logical reason for doing so. I don't think any religious person, would think that we ought to make laws are rules regarding ghosts?

 

[Nimos]

Could you please stop assuming that your version of truth is the only one?!!

In case you miss it, could you please answer the following then, because it is not my intention to assume that "my" version of truth, whatever that means, is the only one:

Present all the forms of truth you talk about and what methods you use to verify these as being truth? Just so I know what you are talking about and so we have a common understanding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Present all the forms of truth you talk about and what methods you use to verify these as being truth? Just so I know what you are talking about and so we have a common understanding.

Okay, here are 5 different forms of truth.

1. Observational.
2. Logical.
3. Inter-subjective as politics and all that, including some claims of morality and ethics.
4. First person making sense of what matters personally.
5. What reality really is as independent of the mind.

You confuse for some versions of God the 1st, 4th and 5th one.

Gravity is real as observational.
The law of non-contradiction is real as logic.
I have voting rights is real as politics.
I make sense of what matters to me, is real as subjective to me.
What I believe reality really is, is subjective to me and only real is that sense.

The standards are:

1. Observational.
2. Abstract objectively cognitive.
3. Power.
4. Psychology.
5. Fundamental beliefs about what the world really is and thus also psychology in a sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Might a nice, lofty goal be trying to put aside such personal prejudice and individual subjectivity?

Isn't your claim that this is just inherent and unavoidable sort of an excuse to just claim whatever you want and try to ward off challengers?

Does stating that "everything is subject to personal prejudice and individual subjectivity" excuse you from making claims for which you have no compelling, shareable, foundational evidence?

Everything is a combination of the objective, intersubjective and subjective. I have tried and I can't do it without all 3.

That the world is natural and real, is personal prejudice and individual subjectivity, because it is possible to believe otherwise and be a part of the everyday world without believing that the world is natural and real.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe I had a tendency to believe everything I was taught as a child until I had evidence to the contrary like Santa Claus bringing gifts. I didn't find any evidence contrary to God so I continued to believe in Him until the day when I did get evidence of Him. Now with solid evidence there isn't possibly any contrary evidence.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe I take people at face value until I learn differently. At least you don't seem as robotic as some people.

 

[Muffled]

I do the latter... I have evidence for God..... therefore I believe in God.

I believe you should say how you got evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe you should say how you got evidence.

My evidence that God exists is the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Nimos]

Inter-subjective as politics and all that, including some claims of morality and ethics.

But how does that make it true rather than simply an agreement?

I have voting rights is real as politics.

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate or rephrase it?

First person making sense of what matters personally.

I don't understand what you mean by this?

I make sense of what matters to me, is real as subjective to me.

Your example doesn't make it any easier. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying, is that if something seems true to you, then it is true in your mind or what?

What reality really is as independent of the mind.

No, that would not be a reflection of reality and definitely not a truth either. Some people are mentally ill and therefore have a completely different version of what reality is. Other people believing in astrology or palm reading etc. which is not an expression of truth, unless they could demonstrate their relationship with reality. Meaning demonstrate how the position of the planets etc. can interact with a person's life for instance.

 

[Nimos]

I didn't find any evidence contrary to God so I continued to believe in Him until the day when I did get evidence of Him. Now with solid evidence there isn't possibly any contrary evidence.

So how do you know that this was God? And how do you know that it was the Christian God?

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you listed out all the evidence you have in detail anywhere? Who cares if people mock it, but I'd like to see at least.

I will post that evidence on that thread you started so as not to derail this thread.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
No, that would not be a reflection of reality and definitely not a truth either. Some people are mentally ill and therefore have a completely different version of what reality is. Other people believing in astrology or palm reading etc. which is not an expression of truth, unless they could demonstrate their relationship with reality. Meaning demonstrate how the position of the planets etc. can interact with a person's life for instance.

I can't help that you don't understand what it means to say, that, what the world is as independent of the mind, is unknown. This is why you apparently don't get this:

...
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46] ...
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Try reading it and understand how it is, that it says this:
Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts.

That it appears, that you haven't studied philosophy of science and aren't aware that science is based on a set of unprovable assumptions, is not my problem.

What reality is as independent of your mind is unknown and unprovable. It goes back to Rene Descartes and the problem of whether the world is fair or tricking you. You can't know, which is the case, but apparently you believe the world is natural and real.
I believe the world is from God and not natural. Real I leave to God.

Here is an example from cosmology by a scientist:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.

William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3