8 ms·

I can give one example explanation. My Father is an evangelical Christian (FYI, I am not, I am an atheist and a science enthusiast). I have asked him this exact

I can give one example explanation. My Father is an evangelical Christian (FYI, I am not, I am an atheist and a science enthusiast). I have asked him this exact same question out of curiosity. Here is the answer he gave (albeit just one perspective). He said "God is so powerful that he can do anything including placing all that evidence there to test our faith". That shuts down any reason to continue a conversation (needless to say this is a topic we generally avoid). Someone once said (not sure the attribution) "never try to reason with someone who has irrational beliefs".

apocalypstyx 8y ago
Which, of course, leads to an even better double-bind, in that it creates a situation of functional equivalence, because, if God makes the universe look and operate as if it is X billion years old, all inquiry and prediction based upon evidence of that conclusion will, by definition, be accurate. So it may not be the "truth", but from the perspective of living in it, that doesn't matter in the least. And if it only comes up as a matter in the afterlife, (that is, heaven doesn't like the given individual for acting upon the lie) there's another twist in the bind presented: that is God wants the given individual to live, but to do so requires interfacing with the rules of physical reality, which means accepting the predictive power of the "lie".
- ant6n 8y ago
  True. The real test of faith is actually accepting billions of years of planetary development and evolution, and still believing in god.
rumcajz 8y ago
Bertrand Russell: "But if once such possibilities are admitted, there is no reason to place the creation of the world at one point rather than another. We may have all come into existence five minutes ago, provided with ready-made memories, with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting. But although this is a logical possibility, nobody can believe it."
- wolf550e 8y ago
  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
  - caf 8y ago
    The really neat bit is that the concept of Last Thursdayism itself, along with Bertrand Russell, was also one of those things created entirely last Thursday.
yeukhon 8y ago
I downvoted you because people who have religious faith are not always irrational people. This is a cruel way to judge those who believe in higher beings. Watch your words, seriously. My response is simply that we concept of time in religious text is not what we think it is. I think science exists and God also exists. Plenty of scientisits believe in God and science at the same time. Are you going to quote and say they are also irrational? Sigh. I may be an angry engineer but I don’t think you should imply all of us as irrational. Don’t do that. You are insulting everyone who believe in a religion for having belief in “irrational beliefs”.
- Retra 8y ago
  You think it is rational to feel insulted when you are told you are being irrational? What goal are you optimizing for, and how do your actions facilitate the fastest means to converge on it?
  - yeukhon 8y ago
    Why is it not rational to feel insulted in the first place? Do I need permission and science to feel insulted? Is psychology irrational, then Definition of irrationality: > the quality of being illogical or unreasonable. What part of what I said is irrational? Calling people having faith in religion is holding irrational belief? Irrational is a negative word, not a positive word unless you think we are talking about mathematics.
    - sofal 8y ago
      It is dangerous when your set of beliefs are held as above reproach such that any criticism of them is considered insulting. These are defense mechanisms that act to insulate ideas from scrutiny, and they're used to keep people indoctrinated into whatever their group's ideology happens to be. If you can't handle your beliefs being questioned or called out as irrational without resorting to feeling personally attacked and calling for apologies, then you're not yet prepared to have an honest conversation about whether you're justified in having those beliefs.
    - 8y ago
lisper 8y ago
Your father's beliefs are not necessarily irrational, they are just based on different assumptions. Your assumption is that the order in the universe arises from causality and physical law. His assumption is that the order in the universe arises from purpose, i.e. he believes in teleology. That is not in and of itself irrational.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  This is a little confused. A theist could easily say that the 'universe arises from causality and physical law', but that God set in motion those laws (deism). A popular form of proto-biology in the early nineteenth century, 'natural theology', committed itself to studying the natural world because it believed that God's divine genius was manifest in its splendour, intricacy, and so on. Also, one could say that the 'universe arises from casuality and physical law', and observes a teleological direction. Most Enlightenment philosophers in the eighteenth century believed that both were true.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Sure. I don't see how anything you said is at odds with what I said.
    - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
      Well it is. Your implied opposition was that theology is based upon teleology; atheism upon a belief in physical laws. But a atheist could believe the former, and a theologian the latter. So it hardly works.
      - lisper 8y ago
        > Your implied opposition was that theology is based upon teleology No. Not "is". Could be. Big difference.
        Emma_Goldman 8y ago
posterboy 8y ago
Taking the response in good faith I would assume that it's just showing the way the debate could go. It's rather constructive, whereas asking why repeatedly, seeking to arrive at a contradiction, is a fool's errand that may work both ways. Proof by contradiction is an important tactic to weed out misconceptions, but the strategy for communication is to find common agreement. Faith is a loaded term, so in effect the response opens up the meta level to your believes about faith. Indeed, I wouldn't go there out on a limb, either, if I don't have anything to add.
zw123456 8y ago
I am not sure it is ok to reply to yourself, but I was not sure where to put this. First, I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and would not down vote any of them. Just to level set, when I say that I think my Fathers beliefs are irrational, I don't mean that in a derisive way, I simply mean they are not fact based or not based on logical reasoning. That is sort of the basis for faith I think. But I am not being disrespectful, I simply choose a different path that is science based.
- sofal 8y ago
  I agree with you, but I would also want to clarify that there is an important difference between being respectful to people and being respectful to strongly held beliefs. The former is important for a peaceful society, and the latter gives undue protection to ideas that may not merit it. The two are often conflated because many people are trained to identify very strongly with what they've been taught, and to feel personally insulted and attacked when their beliefs are called into question.
andrewflnr 8y ago
The Bible repeatedly states that God cannot lie. Your father is making God out to be a liar. If it comes up again, if you want to start a fight, that's a direction you could go.
Brockenstein 8y ago
>He said "God is so powerful that he can do anything including placing all that evidence there to test our faith". So his God is a deceiver. It's impossible to know the truth about anything in that universe. Because you don't know, can't know, when God is putting a finger on the scale. That sort of reasoning reminds me of: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once? Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.

apocalypstyx 8y ago

Which, of course, leads to an even better double-bind, in that it creates a situation of functional equivalence, because, if God makes the universe look and operate as if it is X billion years old, all inquiry and prediction based upon evidence of that conclusion will, by definition, be accurate. So it may not be the "truth", but from the perspective of living in it, that doesn't matter in the least. And if it only comes up as a matter in the afterlife, (that is, heaven doesn't like the given individual for acting upon the lie) there's another twist in the bind presented: that is God wants the given individual to live, but to do so requires interfacing with the rules of physical reality, which means accepting the predictive power of the "lie".

ant6n 8y ago
True. The real test of faith is actually accepting billions of years of planetary development and evolution, and still believing in god.

rumcajz 8y ago

Bertrand Russell: "But if once such possibilities are admitted, there is no reason to place the creation of the world at one point rather than another. We may have all come into existence five minutes ago, provided with ready-made memories, with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting. But although this is a logical possibility, nobody can believe it."

wolf550e 8y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
- caf 8y ago
  The really neat bit is that the concept of Last Thursdayism itself, along with Bertrand Russell, was also one of those things created entirely last Thursday.

yeukhon 8y ago

I downvoted you because people who have religious faith are not always irrational people. This is a cruel way to judge those who believe in higher beings. Watch your words, seriously. My response is simply that we concept of time in religious text is not what we think it is. I think science exists and God also exists. Plenty of scientisits believe in God and science at the same time. Are you going to quote and say they are also irrational? Sigh. I may be an angry engineer but I don’t think you should imply all of us as irrational. Don’t do that. You are insulting everyone who believe in a religion for having belief in “irrational beliefs”.

Retra 8y ago
You think it is rational to feel insulted when you are told you are being irrational? What goal are you optimizing for, and how do your actions facilitate the fastest means to converge on it?
- yeukhon 8y ago
  Why is it not rational to feel insulted in the first place? Do I need permission and science to feel insulted? Is psychology irrational, then Definition of irrationality: > the quality of being illogical or unreasonable. What part of what I said is irrational? Calling people having faith in religion is holding irrational belief? Irrational is a negative word, not a positive word unless you think we are talking about mathematics.
  - sofal 8y ago
    It is dangerous when your set of beliefs are held as above reproach such that any criticism of them is considered insulting. These are defense mechanisms that act to insulate ideas from scrutiny, and they're used to keep people indoctrinated into whatever their group's ideology happens to be. If you can't handle your beliefs being questioned or called out as irrational without resorting to feeling personally attacked and calling for apologies, then you're not yet prepared to have an honest conversation about whether you're justified in having those beliefs.
  - 8y ago

lisper 8y ago

Your father's beliefs are not necessarily irrational, they are just based on different assumptions. Your assumption is that the order in the universe arises from causality and physical law. His assumption is that the order in the universe arises from purpose, i.e. he believes in teleology. That is not in and of itself irrational.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago
This is a little confused. A theist could easily say that the 'universe arises from causality and physical law', but that God set in motion those laws (deism). A popular form of proto-biology in the early nineteenth century, 'natural theology', committed itself to studying the natural world because it believed that God's divine genius was manifest in its splendour, intricacy, and so on. Also, one could say that the 'universe arises from casuality and physical law', and observes a teleological direction. Most Enlightenment philosophers in the eighteenth century believed that both were true.
- lisper 8y ago
  Sure. I don't see how anything you said is at odds with what I said.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    Well it is. Your implied opposition was that theology is based upon teleology; atheism upon a belief in physical laws. But a atheist could believe the former, and a theologian the latter. So it hardly works.
    - lisper 8y ago
      > Your implied opposition was that theology is based upon teleology No. Not "is". Could be. Big difference.
      - Emma_Goldman 8y ago

posterboy 8y ago

Taking the response in good faith I would assume that it's just showing the way the debate could go. It's rather constructive, whereas asking why repeatedly, seeking to arrive at a contradiction, is a fool's errand that may work both ways. Proof by contradiction is an important tactic to weed out misconceptions, but the strategy for communication is to find common agreement. Faith is a loaded term, so in effect the response opens up the meta level to your believes about faith. Indeed, I wouldn't go there out on a limb, either, if I don't have anything to add.

zw123456 8y ago

I am not sure it is ok to reply to yourself, but I was not sure where to put this. First, I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and would not down vote any of them. Just to level set, when I say that I think my Fathers beliefs are irrational, I don't mean that in a derisive way, I simply mean they are not fact based or not based on logical reasoning. That is sort of the basis for faith I think. But I am not being disrespectful, I simply choose a different path that is science based.

sofal 8y ago
I agree with you, but I would also want to clarify that there is an important difference between being respectful to people and being respectful to strongly held beliefs. The former is important for a peaceful society, and the latter gives undue protection to ideas that may not merit it. The two are often conflated because many people are trained to identify very strongly with what they've been taught, and to feel personally insulted and attacked when their beliefs are called into question.

andrewflnr 8y ago

The Bible repeatedly states that God cannot lie. Your father is making God out to be a liar. If it comes up again, if you want to start a fight, that's a direction you could go.

Brockenstein 8y ago

>He said "God is so powerful that he can do anything including placing all that evidence there to test our faith". So his God is a deceiver. It's impossible to know the truth about anything in that universe. Because you don't know, can't know, when God is putting a finger on the scale. That sort of reasoning reminds me of: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once? Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.