Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

[chriscase]

If God does not exist why is it that man, evolutionary man, has searched the heavens for God?

Pretty sure we already discussed this, though you may have missed it. Shamelessly quoting myself:

It isn't hard to imagine the perceptive tendency to ascribe agency as a primitive adaptation to an environment full of predators. Even if it's only one time in a hundred that snapping twig is something about to pounce on you, the immediate perception of agency would be a definite advantage.

From a more abstract perspective, I suspect gods and demons will continue to be with us in some form, as they are powerful, primitive conceptual entities that can form coherent thought when all else fails. If aliens were to invade Earth and exterminate 99.999% of us, I bet the concepts of gods and demons would become quite useful, despite their being inaccurate. When something is happening that is utterly beyond one's comprehension, a primitive concept may be the difference between a wounded mind and a broken one.

This ... is also a proper response to the implied argument that we should accept the existence of a religious impulse as evidence of the truth of religious claims. Why else, the argument goes, would the impulse exist, if God did not put it there? In reply to that argument, we point out a reasonably plausible alternative that has no reliance on a supernatural agency.

[Prodromos]

Sounds like a nice fantasy, Chris. Your naturalism, I mean. Everyone likes a little bedtime story.

[chriscase]

If you want to make an affirmative argument for a supernatural agency, with the claim that there is no other explanation for the human religious impulse, all that's required is a plausible alternative that does not entail the existence of God. It's funny, that's the same slight of hand we dealt with in the previous thread.

[basics]

If you want to make an affirmative argument for a supernatural agency, with the claim that there is no other explanation for the human religious impulse, all that's required is a plausible alternative that does not entail the existence of God. It's funny, that's the same slight of hand we dealt with in the previous thread.

chriscase,

Could you give me one off the top of your head? It would save this ole man a lot of typing.

[Cope]

Pretty sure we already discussed this, though you may have missed it. Shamelessly quoting myself:

Your argument supposes that there exist circumstances under which you would accept a supernatural explanation. If you've determined, a priori, that supernatural explanations cannot be true, then whether or not "plausible alternative explanations" exist is irrelevant. You will always dismiss claims of supernatural occurrences because the standard of evidence you require, by definition, excludes supernaturalistic reasoning.

[chriscase]

chriscase,

Could you give me one off the top of your head? It would save this ole man a lot of typing.

Well I hate repeating the same point too many times, but my earlier point was that the human tendency to ascribe agency to phenomena whose underlying cause is unknown is plausible to understand as an ancient (vestigial) adaptation to an environment where humans were routinely endangered by predators. Of course I don't have proof of this, but since we're asking if there's any other plausible explanation than a supernatural God-Creator, I don't need proof - just a more ordinary, more plausible candidate.

Your argument supposes that there exist circumstances under which you would accept a supernatural explanation. If you've determined, a priori, that supernatural explanations cannot be true, then whether or not "plausible alternative explanations" exist is irrelevant. You will always dismiss claims of supernatural occurrences because the standard of evidence you require, by definition, excludes supernaturalistic reasoning.

Well it's not really about what I am presupposing as it is what the argument I'm responding to presupposes. The argument that human religious impulse provides supporting evidence for the existence of God presupposes precisely this. Since that argument uses the notion of supporting evidence, I am simply bringing in the generally accepted standard that more mundane explanations are more believable than extraordinary (supernatural) ones. This is a standard that the original argument implies as well, by including the "how else?" phasing. This clearly implies that another, more ordinary explanation would contradict the claim. What the supernatural argument claims is extraordinary evidence isn't so extraordinary after all.

[basics]

chriscase,

The thing is that humans are still vulnerable to predators yet unlike the ancients upon which most of educational understanding still abounds, these ancients ascribed just about everything to gods but the moderns ascribe it all to nature. If nature is the answer then why supplant that with the supernatural if it is seen to be unnatural?

[Prodromos]

I'm pretty sure every single culture in human history, to include the vast majority of human beings alive today, believes in the supernatural, so I'm not sure what's extraordinary about it. It's pretty ordinary and normal, actually.

[chriscase]

Well that's a bit of misdirection that really ought to be beneath you.

The belief itself is common. The question raised was why. Some claim the only plausible explanation for the belief is an actual God. Obviously there are more plausible explanations that don't require the existence of the supernatural.

[Prodromos]

I was addressing the common belief that supernatural explanations demand extraordinary evidence. We can talk all day about how erroneous superstition is, but that's not because supernatural explanations are inherently less credible than natural causes. Having one standard of proof for naturalist explanations and another, higher standard for supernatural explanations simply reflects a bias toward naturalism, not rationality. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have the same standard of proof for every explanation? ------ P.S., Marie, I'm still planning on posting a rebuttal to your high church Christianity.

[chriscase]

I was addressing the common belief that supernatural explanations demand extraordinary evidence. We can talk all day about how erroneous superstition is, but that's not because supernatural explanations are inherently less credible than natural causes. Having one standard of proof for naturalist explanations and another, higher standard for supernatural explanations simply reflects a bias toward naturalism, not rationality. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have the same standard of proof for every explanation?

All right. Let's define our terms then.
1) What would you say distinguishes a supernatural explanation from a natural explanation? What's the difference?
2) What makes an explanation good? Why should we prefer one explanation over another?

chriscase,

The thing is that humans are still vulnerable to predators yet unlike the ancients upon which most of educational understanding still abounds, these ancients ascribed just about everything to gods but the moderns ascribe it all to nature. If nature is the answer then why supplant that with the supernatural if it is seen to be unnatural?

If I understand what you are saying, you are suggesting that by now, if all unknown phenomena were due to natural causes, why haven't humans completely abandoned religion? Or why didn't the ancients? I'm not following.

[basics]

chriscase,

That is more or less what I am suggesting.

[Sar1n]

All right. Let's define our terms then.
1) What would you say distinguishes a supernatural explanation from a natural explanation? What's the difference?
2) What makes an explanation good? Why should we prefer one explanation over another?

1. Natural explanation presupposes some kind of order, a logic that can be utilized to make use of the phenomenon, and goes on to figure out the logic. Supernatural explanation presupposes some kind of occassionalism. In essence, it supposes that the phenomenon is linked to entity that can excersise free will over it, whether it be god, some kind of spirit, or a priest.

2. One that can be verified and utilized. Supernatural explanations are inherently unverifiable and totally suck at utilization (oh, your rain dance didn't call rain? You must have done something wrong, totally not because the spirits of rain do not exist). That's why computer you are using now, even the food you eat are result of natural explanations, not supernatural.

If I understand what you are saying, you are suggesting that by now, if all unknown phenomena were due to natural causes, why haven't humans completely abandoned religion? Or why didn't the ancients? I'm not following.

Humans are social animals. Packs can only work if majority of members are happy with being followers, not leaders. Supernatural tend to play on that feeling. God, or the ones who says (s)he speaks for it, is leader. You follow, you share no responsibility...it's out of your hands. It's very underappreciated how the feeling of responsibility can be unsettling for most people.

And for all our knowledge, most of the universe still defies explanation and control, at least for majority of population. Even if there is an explanation available, most people are either unable or unwilling to spend time to understand. For most people, science is hard and quickly becomes, per Clarke's law, magic. Because of that, people often do not see the conceptual difference between flipping a switch to turn on the light and gonig to a medium to speak to their dead grandmother...especially if, due to some unknown cause kilometers away, power is off.

[swabian]

@Thunderballs: You're argumenting as though Berkley had any more validity in our modern day and age as Descartes or the Ptolemaic world view. Maybe you should remove yourself so that an actual discussion can take place. Your musings are boring and largely off-topic.

[basics]

So the natural we can explain but the supernatural we can't or wont? The thing that amazes me most is that the greatest supernatural crime in all history backed up by many more than five hundred witnesses was the death and resurrection of Jesus Who was profesied of long before it ever happened on many occasions by men and women who were put down for doing so by the leaders of their day. For some four thousand years man was told and when He came and died and rose again most still couldn't see it, why? It wasn't natural and yet every natural argument against it having happened was used then and still is used today. And to crown it all the supernatural still happens with the usual denial rather than any acceptance because the natural mind has been blinded to acceptance of anything relating to God never mind His being on the earth at all. Even the family He was placed into did not accept Who He was until long after His death and only because He appeared to some of them particularly James.

[Gigantus]

If I understand what you are saying, you are suggesting that by now, if all unknown phenomena were due to natural causes, why haven't humans completely abandoned religion? Or why didn't the ancients? I'm not following.

That is more or less what I am suggesting.

I haven't read the whole thread but the suggestion is fairly ridiculous as it ignores why religion belief in deities exists. I deleted 'religion' because I am of the personal opinion that it is representation of institutionalized belief and has otherwise very little to do with belief in itself. Coming back to my assertion: I put the blame squarely on humans themselves and their rather unique ability of abstract thinking. Abstract thought without rationalized answers (rational answers are rarely available to abstract questions if at all) generally leads to insecurity and all sorts of malfunctions, enter the 'solve all' of deities to shoulder responsibility to provide answers for questions like 'is there life after death, why did my child get killed, what does the comet's appearance mean'. From there it's a pretty seamless path to what Sar1n suggest with his view on responsibility.

[Cope]

I haven't read the whole thread but the suggestion is fairly ridiculous as it ignores why religion belief in deities exists. I deleted 'religion' because I am of the personal opinion that it is representation of institutionalized belief and has otherwise very little to do with belief in itself. Coming back to my assertion: I put the blame squarely on humans themselves and their rather unique ability of abstract thinking. Abstract thought without rationalized (as opposed to rational) answers generally leads to insecurity and all sorts of malfunctions, enter the 'solve all' of deities to shoulder responsibility to provide answers for questions like 'is there life after death, why did my child get killed'. From there it's a pretty seamless path to what Sar1n suggest with his view on responsibility.

Belief in God exists because God exists. It really is that simple.

[Gigantus]

Belief in God exists because God exists. It really is that simple.

It's simplified, not simple. '...exists because he has to exist' would be a better fit.

[Cope]

It's simplified, not simple. '...exists because he has to exist' would be a better fit.

Not really.

[Sar1n]

Belief in God exists because God exists. It really is that simple.

Which god? Yahweh, Allah, Odin, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or maybe something totally different? Existence of any god is not, despite many futile attempts to the contrary, a logical conclusion. People often believe in things that are not true, I'm sure everyone remembers an instance when (s)he was proven wrong about something...

Your statement makes honestly no sense.