Science is naturally skeptical, initially couched in doubt. The goal in science, however, is to leave a state of doubt or ignorance and, through testing and proof, come to know truth.
Science is uncomfortable with doubt.
In law, given limited time, evidence, arguments, testimonies and the right to speedy trials, judges and juries can live with doubt. They draw the line at reasonable doubt.
Law is comfortable with shadows of doubt, but uncomfortable with reasonable doubt.
Dealing with more doubt takes faith.
Cheryl has an irrational fear of opening the refrigerator. She sees a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Her housemate, Angel, has no fear of opening the refrigerator; opening it at will. Which person requires courage to open the refrigerator? Cheryl needs a lot of courage to open the refrigerator. Who fears opening it? Cheryl. Instead of courage being the absence of fear, one redefinition could be that courage is the triumph over fear. Doubt and faith may intermingle similarly.
Doubt might be a stumbling block for science, but it is a stepping stone for faith.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, doubt persists at points of elusive revelation. In the Book of Job, Job loses his family, livestock and health. He struggles with God, crying out for an advocate before God. After 37 chapters, God shows up to give an answer for the misery. What do we find in God's revelation? God simply asks Job questions Job cannot answer: Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Who marked off its dimensions? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food? So we find in revelation God remains concealed.
In Exodus, Moses asks a voice, self-identified as the God of his ancestors, "What is your name?" The answer given is normally translated "I AM THAT I AM." But it's better translated "I WILL BE HOWSOEVER I WILL BE." One understanding is that even in the revelation of God's name, God is still hidden. In other words, God is refusing to be labeled or to be placed in a defining box. God is beyond definition and conception.
Jacob's experience is the same. After camping alone for the night, he meets a stranger with whom he wrestles. The stranger asks Jacob's name and then renames him Israel, meaning "Wrestles with God." Then Jacob asks the stranger the stranger's name. The stranger doesn't answer but instead blesses Jacob. One reading of the story is that the stranger, whom Jacob recognizes as God, answers the question by showing that God is blessing. It matches "I AM WHO I AM." That name and that act of blessing Jacob remind me that God is not best rendered a noun -- a defined person, place or thing. Rather, God is a verb, an action, a blessing. We do not stand and label or name God; rather, we are named by God, just as God named Jacob.
And isn't it strange that of all the names God could have given Jacob, the name that would forever define and label the people of God would be Israel, meaning "wrestles with God"? I find that strange. I would have chosen "holiness" or "love." But the name chosen for God's people is one that tells a story of a God that desires a people who will simply wrestle and engage with him, not fully understand him. The primary problem God had with Job's friends who consoled him with "right theology" is just that: they offered theology. Job, in the middle of the mystery of God, experiencing the presence of God's absence, wrestled with God in doubt. God loves that.
From one perspective, the primary reason that God found David as a man after His own heart was that David always stayed connected to God, not that everything David said was accurate (contrast "Why has thou forsaken me?" with "I've never seen the righteous forsaken or His seed begging bread"). No, David stayed constantly connected with God in this. Even when David felt disconnected from God, he expressed his discontent directly to God and, in that expression of disconnectedness, remained connected. David connected with God even in struggling doubt.
Even in revelation, God remains concealed. We learn that to be fully human means to be comfortable with the discomfort of never fully knowing, the discomfort of doubt.
Such doubt leads us to have varying, sometimes contradictory beliefs even within the same faith. With "competing" theologies of different sects/denominations, I'm always reminded of Donald Miller's words in "Blue Like Jazz": "I doubt that any of us have all our theology correct." The amazing realization is that with faith, it's not necessary. This is because the truth or knowledge in our religion is different than the kind science seeks. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we are not dealing with truth as a set of propositions that describe reality; truth is not "known," but experienced primarily in liberation (Exodus) and transformation (new Genesis). This might help clarify why such doubt functions well in the Judeo-Christian tradition unlike science. You can have doubt about something describing reality while you experience a transformative life.
I used to think that the question "Does God exist?" is both a scientific question and a religious question; both science and religion were after the same truth and hopefully one would prove it. Perhaps there is another way of viewing such a question. Peter Rollins tells a story of a woman who asked a preacher, "Was there really a talking snake in the Garden of Eden?" The preacher responds, "It doesn't matter. What's important is what the snake said." Likewise, maybe "Does God exist?" is a scientific question while "What has God said?" is the religious question. Why? This is because you can experience God, and, in the aftermath of the event of God, still have doubts as to the source of that event, while being transformed by the event. It reminds me of the story of a blind man who was healed by Jesus and whose parents were questioned by the chief priests and elders. Then the elders questioned him asking him to call his healer, Jesus, a sinner. The man said, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I do not know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see" (John 9:25). Faith is like that.
This essay recognizes its debt and gratitude to the philosopher Peter Rollins whose books 'How (Not) To Speak Of God' and 'The Fidelity of Betrayal' contributed to the writing of this piece.
Brook Wilensky-Lanford: Searching for the Forbidden Fruit of the Garden of Eden
Does Doubt Belong to Faith? | First Things
Faith And Doubt At Ground Zero | FRONTLINE | PBS
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
If it is intelligence then why are they not capable of understanding the larger picture instead of just the here and now? Since, they believe that God and eternity does not exist then mankind is living on a finite planet with a finite future. There's no way around that. If all that has been achieved by the human race these thousands of years will be extinguished then to what purpose is it important now? It simply is not!
If morals, justice, beauty, love, emotions, etc. are just the by-products of social evolution then who is in a position to judge whether or not an atheist has a right to even be offended due to the fact that it is simply unimportant due to the inevitable end. They certainly have no "God-Given" rights...so, why act like it. Why invoke the moral high-ground when they don't really believe in morals.
It is not God they hate. It is the belief in God that they hate and despise. They try so hard to align themselves with scientists. Yet, I have never met one scientist who says, "I'm going into the lab today and disprove the existence of God".
Your whole conception of importance is centered around an end result. Not every human sees the world like this - some put importance in the experience of living.
Th
Atheist means without a belief in god/s. You believe in something just not "god/s" you are an agnostic. Agnostic means without knowledge of what you believe in. Please, don't quibble with me about the meaning. I have had six years of Greek and can give you the complete derivation and root meanings of the words.
And, yes a lack of anything is zero or negative. A lack of knowledge or belief is either zero or negative.
The first question you should ask yourself is: "Who are you that God should prove Himself to you in some 'special manner?" The second question you should then ask yourself is "why have you been left out of the loop?"
You believe in something...but, that something is not God. You're admitting that you believe in something outside of yourself. To believe in anything outside of yourself is deemed supernatural. Because, all of nature and the universe which you know is just natural. It naturally is in existence due to no efforts of yours.
So, if you believe in something outside of yourself whatever that something is - is greater than you. Trust me when I say this...anything which you could possibly belief in outside of yourself is far greater than your belief in it. It still boils down to self-autonomy. You want to belief in something but you want to control what it can or can't do on your terms. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way.
I can't repeat this enough, atheists don't believe in god, there is no requirement that atheists don't believe in morals - this is another bigoted view of atheists held by religious extremists.
And, sadly it is self-denial. In that an theist has to deny reality. Wherein, this self-denial robs the theist of his greatest capacity for life. It becomes a mission of incompleteness, and it becomes a life which bears no fruit.
Theist who read this will argue about how wrong those statements are concerning them. But, their very arguments give proof to the facts otherwise. And, since they believe there is eternal life beyond this one they feel like they can do whatever dispicable things they want now, and will just make up for it later. Even "if" they are correct they would have been correct for the wrong reasons...
Since, I am a Atheist I will live my life to the fullest. However, a Theist will waste their only life thinking is just a test they have to past for the real life, the afterlife to begin, and for them to spend it posting replies in seems like its utterly meaningless, as is this life.
And, sadly it is self-denial. In that an atheist has to deny his own soul. Wherein, this self-denial robs the atheist of his greatest capacity for life. It becomes a mission of incompleteness, and it becomes a life which bears no fruit.
Atheist who read this will argue about how wrong those statements are concerning them. But, their very arguments give proof to the facts otherwise. And, since they believe there is no eternal life beyond this one they feel like they must prove themselves now. Even "if" they are correct to what avail is this truth...nothing!
Since, I am a Christian I will have an eternity to learn the answers to all questions. However, an atheist only has a few short years to attempt this feat, and for them to spend it posting replies in seems like to me a waste of their precious time.
God has no intentions of maintaining a large, opulent Heaven...and besides, he needs the cheap labor.
You doubt that? Don't forget your workgloves.
The ends DO NOT justify the means, God or not...
Science posits that 'the human mind can uncover those aspects of reality which may not be immediately apparent', by a proven methodology. Science is the repository of rationality while religion is the repository of irrationality.
Religion posits it knows god. It is religion that is 'closed to the realities beyond the limitations' of its proclamations of truth. Religion provides a recipe for experiencing god (any god), through proclamations of truth, dictated expressly by god himself. Ironic if you think about it: You know god exists, because he told you so.
Religion can only impose a strict view of the universe and a conventional and rigid consciousness.
Belief (with or without a god or gods) can 'provide for an ever-deeper experience of consciousness', but in its own personalized way. There is an abyss between religion and belief. Too many people confuse the two, but religion imposes a set doctrine, a set of rules on how to see and understand the world. Belief is freedom to see the world any way one wants, without restraint. Belief does not “stop at the 'event horizon' where energies and consciousness meet”, but religion does because of its set boundaries. It is a grave mistake to think otherwise.
There can only be conflict between Science and Religion.
James Clovispoint 09/11/2011 07:52 PM also appears intended to suggest that there can only be conflict between science and these understandings, whereas belief - the freedom to see the world any way one wants, without restraint - can offer deep, presumably positive experience.
I would be grateful for your thoughts regarding the concept of there being a defined reality to which a believer must be reconciled.
So if I says God created the universe, then believing in God must be base on logic and reason. i,e. I cannot at the same time believe God have children, since that would mean He has anthropomorphic features and His power would be limited. Also, I cannot say that God said things that are contradictory with established scientific facts, such as the earth is 5000 years old.
So its important not to lump all religion into one basket?
RECAP
First you claimed that sheer numbers of believers proved the existence of god, which I and others have pointed out to you is the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.
Next you claim that:
Cody> "The prevalence of belief in God is a fact. I have not heard anyone contradict this fact. I argue that belief in God is so prevalent because God exists..."
Today young earth creationists argue against evolution, the Association for Biblical Astronomy says the earth is the center of the universe, NOTE that these are prevalent beliefs, Def: widely or commonly occurring, existing, accepted, or practiced.
The remainder of your comments (in that post) are red herrings, the topic under discussion was "prevalence of belief."
Your conclusion "god exists" does not follow from your premises, "prevalence of belief, and no one contradicts this prevalence."
I have demonstrated that beliefs can be wrong, and prevalence of belief is no guarantee of truth claims even if in addition those prevalent beliefs are biblically based.
Anything else you require? Don't be shy.
The question 'Does god exist', should be reformulated. First, the question should be, “Is there such a thing as a god or gods”. Then perhaps, “does He/She exist”? It should not be a foregone conclusion that there is only one and that He need be the one of Abraham.
And, since you bring up theology, Geology studies the Earth, Zoology studies animals, but just what does theology study? You cannot study something that does not exist, for which you have no proof of existence or with which you cannot communicate with. Theology is a misnomer and at best a lie, just like religion is, and all this without a doubt.
SAY: "He is the One God: (1) "God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of All Being. (2) "He begets not, and neither is He begotten; (3) "and there is nothing that could be compared with Him. (4)
(Qur'an 112)
True enough, but it has the method for arriving at explanations.
"physicists are struggling to interpret what we are seeing."
But they are not trying to interpret what we are seeing from a religious point of view.
For starters many people understand the utility of new observations and experiments in validating our understandings. There was a time when experiments were rarely done and understandings were not deliberately challenged by these methods. Many people still adhere to this way of thinking. Especially those who deny science based on their understanding of scripture.
People accept the ideas of molecules and atoms and even electrons and protons and to a lesser extent they are commonly aware of photons and phonons.
They understand bacteria and viruses and other such things.
A few understand that physiognomy is not helpful and genetics is helpful.
A few understand that the common concept of race is trash.
Most people have trouble with algebra and defenseless against the complexities of random events and .probabilities.
I think that you are right that it would be good if more people understood.
But most good would be if they were willing to accept that scientists seek the truth and despise deceit and quibbling and mean pretty much exactly what they saw and not a bit more than that.