Article, Can a Skeptic believe in God?

by Beans 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  rem

  Little Toe,
  
  I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous. ;)
  
  rem
• 

  LittleToe

  ROFL
  

  Maybe, maybe not... who's asking?
  
• 

  SixofNine

  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?

  Speaking for myself, saying "you admitted you want to believe the universe is entirely naturalistic" is really just a way of saying I "want to understand things". At this point in the discussion, "supernatural" would really only mean entities outside of nature that play arbitrarily (at least from our perspective) with nature (and lets be honest, the part of nature we're primarilly concerned with is "humans").

  That would be dissappointing.
• 

  Satanus

  Logan

  what if science [Science?] did in fact point to the supernatural.

  I wouldn't have a problem w that, although as now, then also, i wouldn't put my total trust in science.

  SS
• 

  logansrun

  Sixo,

  Speaking for myself, saying "you admitted you want to believe the universe is entirely naturalistic" is really just a way of saying I "want to understand things".

  I disagree. If there is a "supernatural" world inherent with our own, that would be part of the "things" in which you wish to understand. People who have had mystical experiences, such as those who genuinely practice Zen Buddhism, describe understanding things in an entirely different, almost indescribable, way. Speaking as a person who has not had any type of mystical experience, all I can do is acknoweldge that such a subjective experience is possible.

  At this point in the discussion, "supernatural" would really only mean entities outside of nature that play arbitrarily (at least from our perspective) with nature (and lets be honest, the part of nature we're primarilly concerned with is "humans").

  There are people who believe in spirituality who do not believe in spiritual "entities" (I assume you mean God, angels, demons and disembodied souls).

  That would be dissappointing.

  Even if there were spiritual "entities" out there, why would their existence be dissappointing?

  Bradley
• 

  gumby

  Faith is belief without good reason. Skepticism is refusal to believe without good reason. They're not compatible.

  Derek,

  True...they are different, yet to me it's understadable how someone can have both.......the confusion lies in word definitions. I think basically it's an agnostic view. I am a skeptic of the bible to the point of being so skeptical, I truely do not believe it is from god.......yet a part of me does not dismiss a higher power.....or god who created things.

  I'm even a bit skeptical, or doubtfull, or torn both ways, or whatever you want to call it, about a creator at all. I believe evolution is a possibility especially if I knew more about it and it being a possibility, but for now I cannot concieve of it. I feel I can have faith and be skeptical at the same time........it's another way of saying "I don't know what the hell I believe because I'm confused and simply do not know".

  If you can correct me......I'm willin to take a spankin

  BTW....nice to see you post

  Gumfused
• 

  SixofNine

  Speaking for myself, saying "you admitted you want to believe the universe is entirely naturalistic" is really just a way of saying I "want to understand things".

  I disagree. If there is a "supernatural" world inherent with our own, that would be part of the "things" in which you wish to understand.

  Personally, I don't see this as incongruent. Of course I want to understand it if it exist. However, if it exist, it throws a big spanner in the works in terms of things I do understand. Like for instance, the love caring and compassion we animals with the highest known intellects here on earth regularly practice. It make my chances, our chances, at really understanding things seem much further away, hence my preference for naturalistic explainations.

  Speaking as a person who has not had any type of mystical experience, all I can do is acknoweldge that such a subjective experience is possible.

  Same here, for the most part. I did experience hints of things I attributed to the mystical as a witness however.

  There are people who believe in spirituality who do not believe in spiritual "entities" (I assume you mean God, angels, demons and disembodied souls).

  Sure, though not too many. And just what they mean by "spirituality" is usually ill defined. There is also strong cultural and even biological (lol) proddings to keep the word "spiritual" hanging on our personal shingle.

  Even if there were spiritual "entities" out there, why would their existence be dissappointing?

  Because their arbitraryness and illogical way of dealing with nature is disturbing. Even people of faith notice this, and work their beliefs, in the most torturous twist of logic, around it.

  People who have had mystical experiences, such as those who genuinely practice Zen Buddhism, describe understanding things in an entirely different, almost indescribable, way.

  They should babel less, and describe more. Actually, I've recently described myself, somewhat jokingly, as an "accidental" Budhhist, because while I've never sought out any Buddhist teachings, when I hear bits and pieces of it, I recognize much of it in my own personal doctrine.
• 

  dolphman

  Six of Nine said: They should babel less, and describe more. Have you ever thought that they are trying to describe things that are ABOVE the mind? Things that our intellectual abilities simply can't comprehend? Imagine that a flashlight is shining against a wall. Imagine that your mind is that light on the wall. Now, you are not the source of the light, but simply a reflection of it. The flashlight generating the light is the true source. How would that light on the wall be able to shine back onto it's source and "see" it? It's impossible. It's a lot like our intellect in that case. Useful for seeing our way through the dark but not fulling understanding the source it came from, the spiritual universe. This is the best way to explain it. That is why these Buhddist have to go BEYOND THE MIND to see what they see, our intellect cannot process spiritual equations. They can dumb them down for our intellects to begin to grasp, and begin inquiring. But it's simply too difficult for a mind to wrap itself around mystic formulas. It wasn't built for it. But there is an aspect to our brains, to ourselves as spiritual beings that can allow us to access those hidden ways. Science and Spirituality or not mutually exclusive. It's things like the Spanish Inquisition that have given such a bad taste in people's mouths when it comes to religion. I don't blame them. But the two can compliment each other.