6 ms·

> believe in both God and science. You're using the word 'believe' in two different ways here, I hope. 'Belief' in science means 'I have seen the evidence and

by derleth 14y ago

> believe in both God and science. You're using the word 'believe' in two different ways here, I hope. 'Belief' in science means 'I have seen the evidence and it convinces me' or else you don't know how science works. 'Belief' in God means 'I believe because it is absurd' or similar; that's how religion works. I really hate how the same word can have two completely opposite meanings like that.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
This threatens to de-rail the discussion and so I'll keep it short, the confusion here is between "God" and "Religion", in my world view God is a concept and Religion is a system of exploiting that concept for gain. I'll claim that you can believe in the existence of God and not be Religious, and you can be Religious and not believe in the existence of God. The error is inferring one from the other. You need look no further than the example that the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Mormon Religions all have the same 'God' at their center, but very different rules for their members. Christians have Protestant/Catholic schisms, Muslims Shia/Sunni schisms, etc. So it is always risky to conclude that a belief in God conveys a particular religious alignment, it may mean a particular alignment but it may easily not mean that. There is no dependency requirement to be met.
- Alex3917 14y ago
  "I'll claim that you can believe in the existence of God and not be Religious" I would disagree with this, on the grounds that the definition of religion basically pertains to your beliefs about the origins of the universe. That being said, you can believe in god and be an atheist. (E.g. Einstein fell into the category for much of his life.)
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    Er, no, you cannot, by definition. Einstein is a popular example cited by both sides because he's become the very caricature of a scientist, and because he said things which satisfies many religious views. I own a copy of The Quotable Einstein, and that book has several nice qualities: it is short (and easy to browse); it is organized by subject; and within each subject, the quotes are organized chronologically. So it is easy for me to see that Einstein's views on God and religion changed throughout his life, and as he became older, he left his belief in a personal God and moved towards a belief system where "God" merely referred to the intrinsic beauty of what Einstein saw as the laws that govern the universe. For example, in 1915: "Why do you write to me, 'God should punish the English'? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." (In a letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague. Note that here Einstein is not actually claiming a lack of belief in such a deity -- yet.) In 1930: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual who survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." (From "What I believe".) In 1952: "My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as 'laws of nature'." In 1953: "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." In 1955: "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." People who say that Einstein "believed in God" should read more of what he wrote. :-)
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      "Er, no, you cannot, by definition." Theism is belief in a personal god. So if you believe in god but not a personal god then you are an atheist.
      - thaumaturgy 14y ago
        No, that is wrong. "Atheism is the view that there is no God." -- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/. Its definition matches every other one I have ever seen; I challenge you to find any reputable citation for the definition you're trying to use, and I dare you to tell any self-described atheist that they can believe in god and still be an atheist so long as it isn't a "personal" god. You are maybe misunderstanding the definition of atheism due to the difference between theism and deism; however, atheism by definition is a rejection of both.
        Alex3917 14y ago
        From the link you posted: "Atheism is the view that there is no God. Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions–Christianity, Islam, and Judaism." From the Wikipedia article on atheism: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." Now from the Wikipedia article on theism: "Theism [...] conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and some forms of Hinduism." I don't have any a better source than Wikipedia, although you could check the footnotes, of which there are many. My basic claim though is that atheism doesn't just mean that you believe there is no god, it means that you believe there is no theistic god. (Hence the word.) Theism is the belief not that there is a god, but that there is a personal god.
- derleth 14y ago
  To me, religion is a system of dogma. That is, a religion is a group of statements that cannot be challenged through evidence or logic (dogmas) that build on each other to form a worldview. A god is a specific kind of dogma, namely a supernatural being that's worshiped, and it's true that not all religions have gods. All gods are attached to religions, though, by my definitions of the terms. > So it is always risky to conclude that a belief in God conveys a particular religious alignment This I agree with. It's kind of derailing my main point, though, which is: Science does not have dogma. Everything in science is open to be challenged. (Ideally. Sometimes, however, individual scientists don't live up to the ideal, and dealing with them is also part of science.)
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Ok, that helps me understand where we differ. If I understand your statement correctly, you are classifying God as a kind of dogma, which makes the notion of God a sub-concept of religion. Fair enough, I have the opposite relationship which is that God as an independent concept of religion. My claim was that since several religions share the same God, God is an independent variable. One of the nice features of my taxonomy is that you can throw out the entire system of dogma for a given religion and still believe in God. This seems to be the underlying mechanism in a theological conversion as well. I recognize that if you're understanding of God is entirely dictated though the teachings of a particular religion, that it can be difficult to reason about God independently of those teachings. Not unlike trying to reason about how a computer's CPU works if your only exposure is through a single programming language. It is hard to know which constraints or features of the CPU are part of the architecture of the CPU and which are artifacts of the expressive power of the language.

by derleth 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

This threatens to de-rail the discussion and so I'll keep it short, the confusion here is between "God" and "Religion", in my world view God is a concept and Religion is a system of exploiting that concept for gain. I'll claim that you can believe in the existence of God and not be Religious, and you can be Religious and not believe in the existence of God. The error is inferring one from the other. You need look no further than the example that the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Mormon Religions all have the same 'God' at their center, but very different rules for their members. Christians have Protestant/Catholic schisms, Muslims Shia/Sunni schisms, etc. So it is always risky to conclude that a belief in God conveys a particular religious alignment, it may mean a particular alignment but it may easily not mean that. There is no dependency requirement to be met.

Alex3917 14y ago
"I'll claim that you can believe in the existence of God and not be Religious" I would disagree with this, on the grounds that the definition of religion basically pertains to your beliefs about the origins of the universe. That being said, you can believe in god and be an atheist. (E.g. Einstein fell into the category for much of his life.)
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Er, no, you cannot, by definition. Einstein is a popular example cited by both sides because he's become the very caricature of a scientist, and because he said things which satisfies many religious views. I own a copy of The Quotable Einstein, and that book has several nice qualities: it is short (and easy to browse); it is organized by subject; and within each subject, the quotes are organized chronologically. So it is easy for me to see that Einstein's views on God and religion changed throughout his life, and as he became older, he left his belief in a personal God and moved towards a belief system where "God" merely referred to the intrinsic beauty of what Einstein saw as the laws that govern the universe. For example, in 1915: "Why do you write to me, 'God should punish the English'? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." (In a letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague. Note that here Einstein is not actually claiming a lack of belief in such a deity -- yet.) In 1930: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual who survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." (From "What I believe".) In 1952: "My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as 'laws of nature'." In 1953: "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." In 1955: "I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." People who say that Einstein "believed in God" should read more of what he wrote. :-)
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    "Er, no, you cannot, by definition." Theism is belief in a personal god. So if you believe in god but not a personal god then you are an atheist.
    - thaumaturgy 14y ago
      No, that is wrong. "Atheism is the view that there is no God." -- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/. Its definition matches every other one I have ever seen; I challenge you to find any reputable citation for the definition you're trying to use, and I dare you to tell any self-described atheist that they can believe in god and still be an atheist so long as it isn't a "personal" god. You are maybe misunderstanding the definition of atheism due to the difference between theism and deism; however, atheism by definition is a rejection of both.
      - Alex3917 14y ago
        From the link you posted: "Atheism is the view that there is no God. Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions–Christianity, Islam, and Judaism." From the Wikipedia article on atheism: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." Now from the Wikipedia article on theism: "Theism [...] conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and some forms of Hinduism." I don't have any a better source than Wikipedia, although you could check the footnotes, of which there are many. My basic claim though is that atheism doesn't just mean that you believe there is no god, it means that you believe there is no theistic god. (Hence the word.) Theism is the belief not that there is a god, but that there is a personal god.
derleth 14y ago
To me, religion is a system of dogma. That is, a religion is a group of statements that cannot be challenged through evidence or logic (dogmas) that build on each other to form a worldview. A god is a specific kind of dogma, namely a supernatural being that's worshiped, and it's true that not all religions have gods. All gods are attached to religions, though, by my definitions of the terms. > So it is always risky to conclude that a belief in God conveys a particular religious alignment This I agree with. It's kind of derailing my main point, though, which is: Science does not have dogma. Everything in science is open to be challenged. (Ideally. Sometimes, however, individual scientists don't live up to the ideal, and dealing with them is also part of science.)
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Ok, that helps me understand where we differ. If I understand your statement correctly, you are classifying God as a kind of dogma, which makes the notion of God a sub-concept of religion. Fair enough, I have the opposite relationship which is that God as an independent concept of religion. My claim was that since several religions share the same God, God is an independent variable. One of the nice features of my taxonomy is that you can throw out the entire system of dogma for a given religion and still believe in God. This seems to be the underlying mechanism in a theological conversion as well. I recognize that if you're understanding of God is entirely dictated though the teachings of a particular religion, that it can be difficult to reason about God independently of those teachings. Not unlike trying to reason about how a computer's CPU works if your only exposure is through a single programming language. It is hard to know which constraints or features of the CPU are part of the architecture of the CPU and which are artifacts of the expressive power of the language.