Article, Can a Skeptic believe in God?

by Beans 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  logansrun

  rem,

  I'm not sure that I would classify phenomenal world as the same thing as faith. Sure we are trusting our sensory perceptions, but I think that's stretching the definition of the word to call that faith. I choose to reserve the word faith for things in which we don't even have sensory evidence.

  
  I admit that "faith" is a word open to numerous definitions as well as personal bias and inclinations. Perhaps "trust" is a better term for what I was describing. But, for me, faith is trust.
  
  

  As drWatson brought out, it's easy to fall into a self-refuting Pyyrhonistic trap to claim that all knowledge is based on faith. If that is truly your position, then you have to admit that my position that objective understaning is possible (or any other hypothetical claim) is just as correct since you have lost your ability to judge alternative claims of knowledge.

  If all claims are open to being wrong what about the claim that is within this sentence? I admit, it's a conundrum. Actually, I don't put forward my view on this matter as any dogma, therefore it itself is open to refutation. But somehow I don't think anyone will ever be able to do that. B. PS...."This sentence is false."
• 

  drwtsn32

  At one time Newtonian physics was "proven" by the scientific method. It worked. But, alas, it was subsumed by Einsteinian and quantum physics. Newton wasn't -- and isn't -- necessarily "wrong" -- his model is useful but has been subsumed.

  Agreed, but Newtonian physics is still used all the time to describe "every day" scenarios. It only starts to become inaccurate when working with very large gravitational bodies (or when trying to describe the subatomic).

  I agree that science doesn't really ever claim to have the "final" answer, but we can be confident that many current theories are accurate without faith. New theories, as you pointed out, usually subsume current theories... not replace entirely.

  Some day the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics will be subsumed by a single quantum gravity theory. Does that mean believing in general relativity is an act of faith? Not in my mind.
• 

  logansrun

  I think we're pretty much on the same page, Watson. You are simply taking issue with my creative use of the word, "faith."

  In my mind, faith is trust. Faith should never be totalistic, ie, the way most religious believers use the word. The faith needed to believe something can be small (that biological evolution has/does occur) or it can be large (that there is a God). How much "faith" one is willing to put forth seems to be a matter of temperment.

  Yours in the faith,

  B.
• 

  drwtsn32

  I see what you're saying, but I probably would have used the word trust to begin with! Faith doesn't mean the same thing IMO. Plus it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
• 

  logansrun

  I'd like to point out, as well, that most religious believers feel they have a reson for their faith; it's not something that just comes out of nowhere. For example, a believer in a Creator will point to the universe, the amazing "fine-tuning" of the laws of physics, the Big Bang, etc as all being circumstantial evidence for a God. So their faith does have a basis.

  Now, all the things I just mentioned can be looked at in a naturalistic way. And, of course, there is possible negative evidence against the existence of God (evil, bad design, etc.). The point is that people with faith do base it on something. Whether their evidence is good or not is an entirely different matter.

  Bradley

  PS...I would like to add that there does seem to be a certain amount of faith in the idea of a multiverse to account for the fine-tuning of the universe. Many skeptics (sometimes including myself) seem to put forth the idea as if it has already been proven. I'm not sure if it even can be proven. It's human nature to want our worldview to be "whole" so that everything "fits" with it. If one is an atheist (which I may be at this point!) there is a certain way we look at the world so as to make the evidence fit our philosophical stance. The same is true for the theist.
• 

  LittleToe

  Bradley:

  If one is an atheist (which I may be at this point!) there is a certain way we look at the world so as to make the evidence fit our philosophical stance. The same is true for the theist.

  A refreshingly candid post. Thank you!
• 

  logansrun

  Now, before anyone accuses me of philosophical chaos, I do not believe all worldviews are equal. Nor do I think the atheist/skeptic "tweaks" the information they encounter (so as to make sense of it) as much as say, a backwoods Pentacostal snake-handler. On the whole, the scientific worldview is superior to any traditional religious mindset (and quite a number of untraditional ones).

  But that's just the way I see it.
• 

  drwtsn32

  I'm not sure if it even can be proven.

  Theoretical physicists might disagree with you on that.

  It's human nature to want our worldview to be "whole" so that everything "fits" with it. If one is an atheist (which I may be at this point!) there is a certain way we look at the world so as to make the evidence fit our philosophical stance. The same is true for the theist.

  I fully admit that I want everything to have a naturalistic explanation. Just like someone else wants to claim supernatural causes as much as possible.

  That's why we need to be able to eliminate what people "want" and analyze things objectively in order to find the truth. Some beliefs can be confirmed with the scientific method. Others cannot. Some theories are a result of objective mathematics, and others are a result of something subjective like a feeling or desire.

  For example, black holes were predicted by mathematicians studying relativity well before they were known to actually exist. Not because someone "wanted" them to exist. Actually Einstein didn't "want" black holes to exist... he was opposed to the idea.
• 

  logansrun

  Watson,

  Some things simply are not open to scientific investigation. God, the subjective self, mysticism (now don't go apeshit that I mentioned mysticsim) etc.

  Now here's a good question...what if science did in fact point to the supernatural. Since you (and many others, possibly including myself) admitted you want to believe the universe is entirely naturalistic, how would you overcome that prejudice if the data and/or subjective experience pointed otherwise? Would you be dissappointed?

  Bradley
• 

  LittleToe

  Watson:

  I fully admit that I want everything to have a naturalistic explanation. Just like someone else wants to claim supernatural causes as much as possible.

  Whilst I believe in supernatural causes, I'm thrilled when I find out that something has a naturalistic cause, that can be clearly explained by scientific principle.
  It seems that there aren't just the two extremes that you present