How do/don't you rationalize God

[charlatan]

Here's some reactions (I mean all this in a polite way, I really hope to foster constructive discussion, rather than needless insult).

So what if my beliefs are fantasy? So what if they're not? It shouldn't matter to anyone what I believe if it's not what they believe.

Personally, I am not a fan of the type of non-believer that's essentially all about jeering, and not constructive. That said, the same reason seems to make me feel it does matter quite a bit what people believe -- because, ultimately, unless someone's beliefs are only about their fantasy world, their beliefs impact more than that fantasy world -- and it becomes exceedingly tough to have a conversation that's reasonable and fair with someone who doesn't admit honestly the state of realistic knowledge.

By the way, this isn't a view I hold only towards religion: it's anywhere, and it includes things like typology. Willingness to shut out conversation tends to lead to extremely unreasonable situations, which I think the world can do with less of.

But here's how I like to put it: "non-believer's" use a kind of logic, and thinking, that's more... concrete. They base their beliefs on what they can tangibly see, feel, etc. "Believer's" on the other hand, have a more abstract logic, that is very hard to explain to other people because a lot of the "evidence" is based on personal experiences.

Here's the thing: I love the abstract. But, one major difference here is that abstract objects as in mathematics don't have any claims to directly impact the natural world; we use them as a language for describing nature, but that's it.

One of the things I like to express is that some of the reasoning styles for proving a God and so on are similar to the kinds of abstract reasoning used to produce a kind of set with so and so properties, except IMHO mathematics is more precise, but even setting that aside and supposing the two are of the same precision level, the interesting thing is ultimately, just because we can define a mathematical object doesn't mean we know how to relate it to real life events.

When people DO try to relate it to real life events, they appear to invariably disagree to insane degrees, i.e. we run into problems UNLESS they take a view of religion that's purely symbolical, and doesn't make concrete claims. If they don't make concrete claims, I think they'd be exempt from much of my criticism. The moment someone says X concrete event is inextricably connected to Y transcendent fact, that IS basically only intelligible as mysticism. X could be Jesus' self-sacrifice and death on the cross, it could be worshiping an idol, and so on -- those CONCRETE claims are where the conflicts happen mostly.

Proving God exists in some totally logically pure sense in a closed consistent philosophical game of a system built specifically to lay some kind of reasonable foundation for the transcendent, ie that which is outside of space and time as God is generally claimed, doesn't threaten how people conduct their lives in the natural world, so to speak.

So I do find myself feeling it's the right thing to do to criticize the encouragement of walling each other off in our own fantasy worlds, when conversation that is constructive and reasonable can happen.
For example, maybe people who had mystical experiences did experience profound things, and the cultish behaviors which followed don't rule out some of the positives.

Now we ask: what if YOU believed in Jesus' death on the cross being the core of salvation? Why does it matter if you just believe that, and don't tell anyone else to believe that? Let me be honest: first of all, if an event is extremely important for mankind, it makes no sense not to inform mankind of that. In fact, the average Christian apologist is going to advocate anything but keeping quiet, and instead trying to argue vigorously in favor.
Second, I'd say if this "culture" of it being very important to believe a certain thing hadn't come around, there's an incredibly large chance many with this "why can't I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe" insulated believers as I call them would never have heard of said belief, and may very likely not have adopted it.
Point is, I think that it's nearly impossible to view much of religion as stemming from this insulated mentality, and it's instead highly normative, and really if it were true, it SHOULD be.

 

[Hoodie]

I think I agree sort of with a lot of what you said [MENTION=12896]charlatan[/MENTION], but I may come back later and read it again, because I just woke up and you know sometimes things seem different at other parts of the day.

Your last paragraph makes a lot of sense, but then I couldn't help find it a bit funny because that's basically what the Jews do. In fact, they actually discourage people from joining because they believe that once you start doing that, and you "know better" it's bad if you go back, and you need to know that it's not easy by any means.

I kind of envy Christians because a result of forcing so many people into their religion way back when- they now have so many people that it's super easy to connect with anyone like them.

But mostly what I mean by the "just let me believe what I want to believe, and I'll let you believe yours" comes from more talking with non-believers, who generally have encountered religion at least a few times in their life and decided it's not for them. And that's fine, but when a super adamant non-believer and believer get together- it's tiring to watch, to say the least. It goes round and circles. And it just doesn't make sense to me why they even bother, because they're both no doubt very frustrated.

I understand the importance of educating ones self and knowing what other people believe, but arguing doesn't make sense to me. Believe me when I say I've seen more than my share of pointless arguments- each side will hold their ground to the bitter end, and beyond (and I'm not even really talking about believers vs non-believers here, because it happens a LOT with people of two different religions, or ideas).

I'm pretty sure there was something else I wanted to say, but I forgot. Sorry for the rambling, I hope that made some sense.

 

[charlatan]

But mostly what I mean by the "just let me believe what I want to believe, and I'll let you believe yours" comes from more talking with non-believers, who generally have encountered religion at least a few times in their life and decided it's not for them. And that's fine, but when a super adamant non-believer and believer get together- it's tiring to watch, to say the least. It goes round and circles. And it just doesn't make sense to me why they even bother, because they're both no doubt very frustrated.

Basically my approach is that these disagreements would be cut down if BOTH admitted "I don't know" when they really can't explain something.
Ironically I think nonbelievers dig graves for themselves because they try to play on the field laid by believers: in other words, they try to propose answers to questions believers claim they have the answer to, when I think the true answer is neither has a right to say they have an answer.
Often because the questions being attempted aren't necessarily reasonable questions. Now they may be profound, invoke wonder, and maybe one is allowed to hope, to wonder, to intuit...but to start making normative claims based on that state of knowledge is incredibly irritating and irresponsible.

Generally my view is science isn't "objective reality" so much as the space of reasonable answers. Reasonable inherently means to some extent that we can attain a level of collective consensus. Who knows if we were the size of quantum particles, how we'd "describe reality," whatever that even means. Point is, while I don't raise science to some godlike status, I also think it's the best we can do and that claims outside it tend to be far from well-defined, and arguments about such things annoy me....and I don't think each person is entitled to their own opinion, I think BOTH should be forced to admit honestly the state of their knowledge. Why opine when you can admit the facts, and admit what you don't know?

Glad my ideas make some sense! I don't mean to be aggressive, my intentions are actually pretty peaceful, but in some sense I think humility is a better path to peace than tolerance. I find it really strange to bring peace by letting one person more or less remain unchallenged, while they more or less believe the rest are going to burn in hellfire for eternity, just to "keep the peace." I think cutting them to size is better in the long run.

 

[Hoodie]

Point is, while I don't raise science to some godlike status, I also think it's the best we can do and that claims outside it tend to be far from well-defined, and arguments about such things annoy me....and I don't think each person is entitled to their own opinion, I think BOTH should be forced to admit honestly the state of their knowledge. Why opine when you can admit the facts, and admit what you don't know?

Opinions are one thing that I believe should be respected and everyone should be entitled to. My opinions are my opinions, and as long as I don't do anything to harm anyone- say I think everyone should be a foot shorter, as long as I don't go around chopping people's legs off my opinions shouldn't bother anyone too much. Yes, people might question my sanity in that case, but it's really not an issue. A person might try to change my mind, but there's really no point; I'm going to keep on thinking that humanity would be better off if everyone was a foot shorter.

I find it really strange to bring peace by letting one person more or less remain unchallenged, while they more or less believe the rest are going to burn in hellfire for eternity, just to "keep the peace." I think cutting them to size is better in the long run.

Now I agree that that's a disturbing belief. But you're talking about Christianity, and as much as it often seems like Christianity is the only religion out there, it really is not. Also, it's belief- a theory so to speak. It's not like they're going about saying they're going to burn everyone to a crisp, they're saying their god is going to do it, or the devil or something, and if you don't believe in that sort of thing, then what have you got to be afraid/concerned about? And how exactly are you going to "cut them to size"? Have you ever convinced a religious person that their beliefs were wrong?

 

[charlatan]

Opinions are one thing that I believe should be respected and everyone should be entitled to.

Let me put it this way: an opinion is generally considered to be a perspective that is an actual judgment, not resting on full factual grounds, as to produce full certainty. So by what you're saying, do you mean:
(1) people should be allowed to behave as if their judgment is for sure, and/or assign it weight in their life decisions disproportionate to the level of certainty one can ascribe to it based on factual grounds

or

(2) people should provide a reasonable estimate of the level to which one can be certain+what facts are lacking to form a truly certain judgment, and not weight the opinion any higher than the degree of certainty supportable by the facts?

I have no problem with (2); while it apparently allows for opining, in reality it's more or less banishing opining to the level of certainty allowable by facts, and by my views, that's about the same. It is (1) I have a problem with, and it's in that sense I say people shouldn't be entitled much to opinion. If the facts allow reasonable people to differ on subjective preference, due to some level of uncertainty, it's OK for someone (within the allowable level of certainty) to ascribe more or less weight to a specific ideology. The point is most of one's decision-making has to be based on good, solid ideas, and the part that isn't should be called conjecture, something hoped for, nothing certain, but certainly something one can pursue in hope of discovering something new.

It's not like they're going about saying they're going to burn everyone to a crisp, they're saying their god is going to do it, or the devil or something, and if you don't believe in that sort of thing, then what have you got to be afraid/concerned about? And how exactly are you going to "cut them to size"? Have you ever convinced a religious person that their beliefs were wrong?

I don't believe someone circulating disturbing beliefs should be judged solely on whether they're going to commit the destructive acts discussed in those beliefs. Compare: someone says they believe everywhere in America there are killer bacteria sprouting in large numbers (when there's no evidence of it), and unless you subscribe to eating X herb, you'll die a terrible death soon....they don't really say they'll RELEASE toxins into the air themselves.
I think it's safe to say they're causing harm by spreading objectionable beliefs on bad evidence. (Note that there also ARE religious beliefs, that justify direct perpetrating of harm--I only used the example where it's not direct because I happened to.) OTOH if you disagree on whether raspberry or strawberry's antioxidants are better for so and so purpose, and the data allows that, it's OK if one person tries to go with strawberries most of all, and follows their hunch to try to prove that strawberries are better -- but *never* states anything for sure until they're sure.

Note that I'm not saying all Christians are like this, or all religious people are like this -- I don't care myself to identify as a theist or atheist.

I've convinced people of the partial wrongness of their beliefs at least, albeit I agree unreasonable people are hard to convince of anything, whether it be religion or not. I'm just saying it does more harm than good to encourage said unreasonableness and just call for political correctness -- call it what it is, and over the generations I believe slowly it'll decrease.
There are plenty of reasonable people with some religious affiliation who I think just haven't considered various matters that they easily could consider -- i.e. I don't think by any stretch that all of them are dogmatic.

I think another major point here is that religion isn't a subject of casual nature. Casual differences are less ominous. Differences on the ultimate way things are, the way for man's salvation, are BIG things, not small things, and we should punish unsubstantiated opining greater there than in casual matters. There's no accident people disown children, do terrible deeds, and so on in the name of religion. It's not like they'd do it if they thought religion is just a casual thing. It's considered serious business, and I don't think one should ever take strong views on serious business lightly.
It's different on which Episode of Star Wars you consider the worst!

 

[charlatan]

I believe the new and improved version of "entitled to your opinion" is simply to be kind, and realize people are different. I certainly try to do that. That means they have different subjective preferences. I just don't believe in conflating subjective preferences with reason -- that doesn't mean we have to eradicate subjective preferences at all. If anything it just means acknowledging when something is subjective. That means you have no right to demand another's assent to it, but you can hope they want the same, and there you have a companion.

Fact is the only thing you can demand assent to. We should try to accommodate different tastes, of course. But the problem is religions don't fall in this category typically, because they don't make claims of taste, they often make normative or ontological claims, demanding the assent of all: eg X is the only path to salvation, or X is the nature of reality.
That's very different from "I like basketball" or "I like quiet activities".
Heck one of the best ways to accommodate different personalities is to study it systematically, as we're all hopefully interested in doing given we're on this forum.

 

[Hoodie]

[MENTION=12896]charlatan[/MENTION], I didn't realize you were saying you'd rather have people use facts over opinions, but now I understand. And yes, that would be ideal. However, you're proposing fighting a theory that is literally called "faith" with logical facts? Religious people have their own evidence that most people think is baloney- and maybe it is, but it still doesn't really mix well with what you're proposing.

And in a perfect world, it would be great if everyone had to use facts over opinion. I'm certainly sick of people saying that everything they're saying is the absolute, bet your boots, solid proof... "BECAUSE". Yeah, it's really annoying. But there's going to keep being people like that, no matter what. You can't "force" anyone to do anything, and thus, people do as they please.

 

[charlatan]

However, you're proposing fighting a theory that is literally called "faith" with logical facts?

This itself has a story behind it: there are two types of religious claims. One that says their faith is reasonable, and the other which says faith doesn't need reason.

Both are perspectives one can address. If someone is claiming to be reasonable, one can challenge those reasons.
If someone doesn't claim to be reasonable, one can challenge what types of ideas can be interpreted as not reason-based.

With those who proclaim faith, I have quite a lot to say on that. There are two types of faith claims: one based on the literal, the other not based on the literal. Recall I noted a subtlety that the problems all arise when someone makes a connection between a concrete entity and a transcendent thing. If faith is simply a transcendent thing, such as perhaps consciousness (which even some respected physicists would say may never fully enter physics) then maybe it's fine to assert it as is: that I am conscious. If it's a claim that a concrete thing, such as a historical event, or an idol, or such is inextricably tied to a transcendent truth, that is where all the problems happen, and people disagree like crazy in mindless insanity.

And the problem is to me quite obvious: the concrete is the realm where evidence can and must be discussed. I don't think someone who inferred something about the concrete could possibly NOT be reasoning based on evidence. How is that even intelligible?

So basically my point is that either you have faith of an apriori type, that is wholly in regards to the transcendent, that you accept more or less like a postulate, or you aim to connect it to concrete reality. Notice when we say a mathematical equation has something to do with concrete reality, that's when we require a battery of checks based on science. We accept things a priori all the time, like axioms of set theory, etc, because they seem plausible and useful ways of thinking.

I am more or less asking: is it even intelligible to say X abstract truth is implied by Y concrete truth? If it is not intelligible, then we cannot talk of it linguistically and thus we cannot transmit doctrines about it.
Still it may be "true in some sense," but one can only remain silent about it, as some great mystics indeed advocate doing. If someone has nothing to say about faith, then I have no problem. If they make claims, then they must be intelligible, right? Claims like "X person is God", if not intelligible, do more harm than good. If one has faith in God one is silent about of apriori sort, then that's separate.

You can't "force" anyone to do anything, and thus, people do as they please.

Well sure, but the thing is people are feeling justified in holding unjustified strong views because it's become an unwritten rule of political correctness to allow for that. I don't think people WOULD do this as often if it hadn't become the custom to not criticize it.

 

[charlatan]

To give you a typical example, people in favor of Christianity commonly pull the following 2 steps:

(1) They try to show God exists, in general (not the Christian one specifically), using some kind of abstract reasoning about transcendent objects

(2) They rely on the historicity of the Bible to prove Jesus is God

The problem with this is that's EXACTLY where we have problems. When we relate abstract objects to concrete (in space and time) ones, we're forced to assume one is a language, and the other is what we're really describing.
Even if I 100% agreed with every argument in favor of historicity, I'd have troubles determining what is actually being claimed.

 

[Hoodie]

To give you a typical example, people in favor of Christianity commonly pull the following 2 steps:

(1) They try to show God exists, in general (not the Christian one specifically), using some kind of abstract reasoning about transcendent objects

(2) They rely on the historicity of the Bible to prove Jesus is God

The problem with this is that's EXACTLY where we have problems. When we relate abstract objects to concrete (in space and time) ones, we're forced to assume one is a language, and the other is what we're really describing.
Even if I 100% agreed with every argument in favor of historicity, I'd have troubles determining what is actually being claimed.

You just agreed with my previous comment, that the two types of logic don't mix. This is why I think it's absurd to argue points from a abstract concept against points from abstract logic, and vice versa. The person with the abstract logic will never be able to get the person with concrete logic to set aside their logic to see it through an abstract lens, and the person with concrete logic will hardly ever be able to convince the person with abstract logic to set aside their logic and try the other. It's because religion is based off of abstract logic; it will never be seen as concrete logic unless something arises that is actual tangible evidence that can be shared. To religious people, their books of text which in often cases have very old documents of, are part of their proof that a creator exists, so they'll use that text as a way to argue what they believe, and of course this doesn't work with concrete logic. I've seen non-believers try to use people's religious texts in their arguments, as a way to get on the religious person's way of thinking- which is smart, but they don't tend to take what is said in context, so it really doesn't help.

I remain convinced that the common argument "whether a creator exists or not" is pointless.

 

[Skarekrow]

You can’t prove it one way or the other...to say you are rationalizing the existence of God(s), Source, higher-self, etc...sounds like you are trying to convince yourself of something that is abstract, we as humans have no working knowledge of other than very small amounts of subjective questionable context in various religious books.
To have faith that God exists, is the best attempt one can make at rationalizing the abstract, but that will never prove anything.
To question why God is basically an absentee Father opens a pandora’s box of questions regarding free-will and knowledge that could change our choices negating said free-will or at least puts limits on how much individual control you have over the reality you live in.
If you throw science at it you get laughed at by mainstream materialism.
IMHO you can’t rationalize a concept like God with our puny human minds.

 

[charlatan]

You just agreed with my previous comment, that the two types of logic don't mix.

Yes, of course. But there's an important fine distinction (one I'm really hoping to communicate clearly to you) that you might be missing, which I'll try to explain again: you say

It's because religion is based off of abstract logic

I'm not so sure about that -- I'm claiming yes, those two types of logic don't mix, but the problems of controversy among religion all happen when the concrete and abstract ARE mixed by people of doctrinal belief. That is, for example:

- X person is God
- Y place is sacred
- Z event promises the salvation of mankind

And the typical proofs offered invoke the historicity of said events -- a totally concrete thing, by the way, whether something is historical or not. How does that imply ANYTHING about the transcendent? That is where, in my experience, claims get woolly and unintelligible, and people yell at each other and there's basically no conclusion.

I am not arguing there is nothing to those claims, that's not my place -- I AM saying those are mysticism, not abstract reasoning.

Notice that many religions' respective apologists agree on how to prove God exists (because their reasoning is almost wholly abstract), but where they disagree almost bullheadedly, unintelligibly, and so on, is on the CONCRETE IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS. If they made no claims about the concrete (that is, how it is identified with an abstract truth), there might be much, much less of controversy about religion. Note that I am not proposing no right to suggest a link between the concrete and abstract: however, doctrine/dogma is based on the premise of collective consensus, and collective consensus is based on the premise of intelligibility and reasonability, and what's clear to me is these claims mixing the concrete and abstract are not intelligible, however profound or not they may be.

Compare: that rock IS the abstract object, the number 5. Sounds absurd right? We can say there are 5 rocks, where the abstract is used to describe the concrete (which is natural, as the general can subsume the particular in a descriptive fashion). But to claim a concrete event is IDENTIFIED with an abstract idea is to me a woolly claim no matter how you slice it.

 

[charlatan]

I have Skarekrow's view roughly; hence an advocate of humility about these types of topics

 

[Deleted member 10171]

This will probably sound obscure but at some point I just knew that God existed but had adopted a "never the twain shall meet" mindset. Then I had several personal God encounters which I tried to dismiss, rationalise - built up walls to resist/deny but each time I came unstuck.

The part I found hard to rationalise and struggled with the most was that this God of the universe could actually be known - that I personally could know God...that still amazes me to this day.

 

[Eventhorizon]

This is the 21st century folks. Come on, you can do it.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Yes, of course. But there's an important fine distinction (one I'm really hoping to communicate clearly to you) that you might be missing, which I'll try to explain again: you say



I'm not so sure about that -- I'm claiming yes, those two types of logic don't mix, but the problems of controversy among religion all happen when the concrete and abstract ARE mixed by people of doctrinal belief. That is, for example:

- X person is God
- Y place is sacred
- Z event promises the salvation of mankind

And the typical proofs offered invoke the historicity of said events -- a totally concrete thing, by the way, whether something is historical or not. How does that imply ANYTHING about the transcendent? That is where, in my experience, claims get woolly and unintelligible, and people yell at each other and there's basically no conclusion.

I am not arguing there is nothing to those claims, that's not my place -- I AM saying those are mysticism, not abstract reasoning.

Notice that many religions' respective apologists agree on how to prove God exists (because their reasoning is almost wholly abstract), but where they disagree almost bullheadedly, unintelligibly, and so on, is on the CONCRETE IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS. If they made no claims about the concrete (that is, how it is identified with an abstract truth), there might be much, much less of controversy about religion. Note that I am not proposing no right to suggest a link between the concrete and abstract: however, doctrine/dogma is based on the premise of collective consensus, and collective consensus is based on the premise of intelligibility and reasonability, and what's clear to me is these claims mixing the concrete and abstract are not intelligible, however profound or not they may be.

Compare: that rock IS the abstract object, the number 5. Sounds absurd right? We can say there are 5 rocks, where the abstract is used to describe the concrete (which is natural, as the general can subsume the particular in a descriptive fashion). But to claim a concrete event is IDENTIFIED with an abstract idea is to me a woolly claim no matter how you slice it.

I do not think you can use the term reason when speaking about any "god".

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think many people believe in the unbelievable because they feel as if there is no other explanation that can explain existence and consciousness which also still allows them to feel special and unique.

 

[Asa]

What even is god?

 

[Eventhorizon]

You can’t prove it one way or the other...to say you are rationalizing the existence of God(s), Source, higher-self, etc...sounds like you are trying to convince yourself of something that is abstract, we as humans have no working knowledge of other than very small amounts of subjective questionable context in various religious books.
To have faith that God exists, is the best attempt one can make at rationalizing the abstract, but that will never prove anything.
To question why God is basically an absentee Father opens a pandora’s box of questions regarding free-will and knowledge that could change our choices negating said free-will or at least puts limits on how much individual control you have over the reality you live in.
If you throw science at it you get laughed at by mainstream materialism.
IMHO you can’t rationalize a concept like God with our puny human minds.

Not being able to hold a whole image of a Christian or Catholic god in ones mind plays very well into selling it as an all powerful force in the universe. I believe that thought by itself is promoted with great enthusiasm.
Of course I dont agree with the idea.

 

[Eventhorizon]

What even is god?

This is an excellent question. Would you believe in many years of searching not a single person I have ever asked has been able to answer that question in a rational way? If you look at the dictionaries definition almost always the term god is associated with chirstian or Catholic versions. So I changed my question to "what is a god in general. "