Agnosticism and Me

[Elfy]

In terms of my history and religion there isn't all that much to say... I went to church with my mum up until I reached the age where one day I just said "I don't want to" and mum stopped taking me, stopped going herself in fact.

I don't think I ever believed any of what I was told, I think I was just bored by the whole thing, I certainly didn't like going. When I stopped going nothing else in my life changed... I never had any second thoughts growing up, even now I have absolutely no desire to go to any church for any reason.

I've never drifted close to any religion since. I've never looked at any "miracles" and thought there isn't a rational explanation or that it is simply a hoax or "fake news" as it were. I've only ever seen it as a way of controlling people and throughout history it has been a tool to direct hate at each other. So organised religion is a MAJOR turn-off to me. I would go more into it but I don't want to cross the line of bashing any religions but suffice to say I am not into anything organised.

However... I don't know if this is something that all people do or whether it is just me but when I am really hoping for a certain result I will sometimes, I guess pray? I'll just hope for the event I want and speak to anyone who might be up there. If someone is up there I must be a terrible friend because I ask for things but never give anything back

Anyway, I'm a really rational and scientifically minded person... I don't believe in mysticism, fantasy, fables or anything else that can't be proven by science. But I do still find myself trying to make deals with anything that might be out there. I guess you could say I'm hedging my bets!

At the end of it all I think the keyword is "rational"... I don't think there is a rational reason to have belief in a god except to protect yourself against the harshness of life. It's a lot easier to live with a lot of what happens in the world when you belief it's all "part of a plan" or something like that. I think, at the moment, that belief in any deity is irrational.

And I think the above is the reason for my agnosticism (and maybe really what the word means), I don't have religious feelings because I don't find it rational but I'm open to it if proof could actually be found, not that I think there ever will be proof... And I guess that's the difference between me and religious folk.

[Firefly 35]

I agree.  What I don't understand is why there are so many discrepancies in different religions.  Muslims say they believe in the same God as Christians, but Christians say the Islamic God is different than their own.  Also, from what I understand, Islam is a very peaceful religion with the exception of a few terrorist groups.  Despite all the horror stories in the media about Islam and terrorism, it's actually like pedophiles and the abdl community.  I do not understand why people would be willing to waste so many lives and so much money and resources on trying to 'fight' terrorism, when the threat is not very high to begin with.

[rusty pins]

I think part of it could be the media.  I do get news from the TV and paper, but I am careful of what stations I watch as some do seem to slant the news a bit.  Not "Fake news" as someone in Washington is always saying, but I have watched someone being interviewed on the street after witnessing a car accident, then in the studio the news anchor tries to paraphrase things and put it in his own words.  often when they do that it is NOT what the person who witnessed the accident just said in his interview!

You don't hear as much positive about people as you do negative.  Negative sells papers and draws viewers.  As Firefly said, many religions are peaceful, just as people are.  You get a few that terrorize and that puts the whole group in a bad light and media helps fan the flames.  Next thing you know, you have a nut job shooting someone because they are Muslim.  We see a pedofile on TV news, but does that mean every 40 year old white guy needs to be shot because they are the same age and race as the pedofile you saw on the TV news?  That is the difference.  People don't assume just because one 40 year old white man molested a child that all the other 40 year old white men do the same thing. 

With Muslims, TV shows the terrorists and some of them making threats against the United States and everyone assumes all Muslims are the same way.  We do have to keep our guard up because some religions do preach against our way of life and there are people out there who believe they have to wipe us out because of our lifestyles rather than letting us live our lives and they live theirs.  There are fanatics in every religion.  Jim Jones, David Koresh and others.  It's true, some people come into this country with terrorist intentions and we have to keep our guard up, but you can say that of other people who are already living here including white supremacists, die hard gun nuts and people who are survivalists who disregard the laws of the land and feel they can do as they please and defend their property with their guns, no matter mow much they break the law.  Timothy McVey!  In general, many Muslims live in this country peacefully because they choose to!  Don't keep them out because of their religion, keep people out because of their intentions against us no matter what race or faith they are.  It can be like that with any religion. They may have different religious beliefs that I may not agree with, but as long as they abide by the laws of this country, it's fine with me.   Catholic, Protistant, Lutheran, Baptist Methodist, Jewish, Jahovah's, Seventh Day Adventists and others.  All have differences and that doesn't make them right or wrong on how they worship.  Only God knows.  I disagree with the teachings of many religions but that doesn't make me right or wrong.     

   

[dyperbole]

God(s) may exist, God(s) may not exist.  We are apparently not supposed to know.  An all-powerful God likely has the power to show him/herself to the world and end the speculation, but doesn't for whatever reason(s).    Thus for me, agnosticism (or weak atheism) is my default position.

31% of the world's population is Christian and 24% is Muslim.  Add Jewish (less than 1%), and around 56% of the population believes in the Abrahamic God.  That leaves around 44% of the world's population that doesn't.  It's not like the rest of these people haven't heard of Christianity -- most Secular people (16%) , Hindus (15%) and Buddhists (7%) likely have access to the Internet.  For whatever reason, the Abrahamic God has not had success convincing more that 4 out of every 10 people of its existence.  

The vast majority of people believe in the religion of their parents and/or the majority religion of where they are born.  This even applies to me -- my father is pretty much an agnostic as much as I can tell, and he never went to church when I was growing up.  Changing religions can cause significant problems in ones life --  ostracized from one's family and community, and even becoming a likely target of bodily harm depending on where the person is.  Imagine being a woman living in Saudi Arabia and having a religious experience that results in becoming a born-again Christian.  Could one then go preach the gospel to their friends and neighbors without fear of violence?  Hardly.  Heck, imagine going door to door in Alabama and trying to convince people to become Muslims. 

I have no idea how the universe started -- it could have been created by a deity.  I have no idea where that deity came from, etc.  But it wouldn't surprise me if such a deity did so; that almost makes me a Deist, I guess.  

However, I see little evidence of an all-powerful deity in my daily life.  I have no doubt that people believe that their God has cured their illnesses including cancer.  It'd be nice to see their God replace someone's amputated leg.  I have no doubt that tragedy survivors believe that their God saved them.  It'd be nice to see their God prevent the tragedy in the first place and save everybody.  I have no doubt that religious people find comfort in their relationship with their God.  It'd be nice to see their God silence the men and women that use religion to repress people and further their agendas.

Questions I ask myself often include "How would the world be different if God(s) exists" and "How would the world be different if God(s) doesn't exist?"  And my answer is always the same:  it wouldn't be different.

 

[Bettypooh]

Religion or the lack of it is a personal thing. I don't judge people by their beliefs complicity or completely but when they do something as a means to put their religions in other people's faces unwantedly I can be very against that  All the agnostics I've known seem to have similar feelings in this regard. They also seem to understand that you can be for something without being against something (or everything) else. I see these qualities as a higher form of thinking than the norm and I admire that It sure does seem that many people 'need' a religion to insulate them from a sometimes harsh reality. My approach to my own religion is done in a similar way- I can see what's going on with my own eyes and think it through with my own brain. I neither want or need someone else telling me what or how to think. In this regard every organized religion I've come across shoots themselves in the foot repeatedly and continuously yet they can't seem to see that Something I came across brought me a smile and which might explain that. It went something like: "Faith is the belief in the unproven and the rejection of any unwanted reality- which is also the definition of delusion"

It's your choice to decide what you want to believe, but if it doesn't coincide with reality you should be asking yourself why that is and what you've been doing wrong that took you there  If your beliefs do coincide with reality without needing external support then you just might be onto something

Bettypooh

[rosalie.bent]

My religious belief is based on a personal relationship with God. I know that sounds rather 'super spiritual' to many, if not most, but it remains true. I talk to God and he speaks back. I pray and He answers. I've seen more unexplained miracles than can possibly allow me to disbelieve. Do I understand God? Not as well as I wish, but I've learned enough of His character to trust Him implicitly and He has never failed me. He doesnt do what I WANT, but He does do what I NEED.

Betty, regarding your 'definition' of faith... Faith IS the belief in the unproven, but truth remains truth, proven or not. Given that God Himself exists outside of the created universe, PROOF of His existence is absolutely impossible. But, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

There is however one absolute truth that I can guarantee to anyone. If you seek God with all your heart, you WILL find Him. That is a promise. 

[DL4LIFE]

So of it were scientifically proven that God didn't exist would the believers stop believing in God? People believe God created the universe and all that exists in that universe, if it was scientifically proven that multiple universes exists does that mean there's more than one God or is there only one God the "All Almighty"? 

Things just seem too complicated to be created. Too intricate and too vast. 

I was raised Roman Catholic, but from a very early age I  saw the hypocrisy of that religion.  I was force to go to church and Sunday school every Sunday. When I  was 13 I  told my mother I had had enough. We fought over but I stood my ground and that was that. Other than weddings, baptisms, and funerals I hadn't been in church for a Sunday service since. 

I feel for one to believe one doesn't have to interrupt there lives to do so. Why to I need to go to a church to believe in a higher power when I can do in the comfort of myself?

I guess I  kinda straddle the fence on this. I'm neither a believer or a nonbeliever. Maybe I'm just keeping my options open.

[Elfy]

On 12/04/2018 at 12:56 AM, rosalie.bent said:

If you seek God with all your heart, you WILL find Him. That is a promise. 

If you seek anything to that extent you will find it whether it's true or not.

[Bettypooh]

12 hours ago, DL4LIFE said:

So of it were scientifically proven that God didn't exist would the believers stop believing in God?

Likely not. It's about human nature- some people feel a need to have something or someone who they can hand some of the burdens of life onto. And there are many who become so wrapped up in their beliefs that they cannot see anything else. For those kinds it would destroy everything about them to have their beliefs forcibly disproven, so instead of letting that happen they will cling to whatever shred of their beliefs that they can conjure up.

It's like Elfy says above- if you want to see it that badly then that is what you're going to see whether it's true or not. This is known as delusion and is why I question everything as a means of avoiding being delusional my own self. I do have a religious faith even with that, though I can see where others might not reach the same conclusions I have 

It's a personal thing and as long as you're not delusional about it then I have no problems with your beliefs or lack thereof as long as you don't try forcing them onto others, or judging others because of that If you are delusional then there's no hope for you until you get that problem fixed first 

Bettypooh

[rosalie.bent]

On 4/18/2018 at 7:47 PM, Elfy said:

If you seek anything to that extent you will find it whether it's true or not.

That's abject nonsense. 

On 4/18/2018 at 8:10 PM, Bettypooh said:

Likely not. It's about human nature- some people feel a need to have something or someone who they can hand some of the burdens of life onto. And there are many who become so wrapped up in their beliefs that they cannot see anything else. For those kinds it would destroy everything about them to have their beliefs forcibly disproven, so instead of letting that happen they will cling to whatever shred of their beliefs that they can conjure up.

It's like Elfy says above- if you want to see it that badly then that is what you're going to see whether it's true or not. This is known as delusion and is why I question everything as a means of avoiding being delusional my own self. I do have a religious faith even with that, though I can see where others might not reach the same conclusions I have 

It's a personal thing and as long as you're not delusional about it then I have no problems with your beliefs or lack thereof as long as you don't try forcing them onto others, or judging others because of that If you are delusional then there's no hope for you until you get that problem fixed first 

Bettypooh

In the world of science, disproving anything is rather hard because you need to have an exceptionally wide array of data and even then, the proof might exist outside your data. When examining the existence of God who exists outside of the physical universe, then disproving it actually becomes impossible.

Proving Gods existence however is quite possible, but only on an individual level. When you seek God with all your heart He most certainly does reveal Himself to you.

And the 'delusion' argument can be considered quite insulting. When someone can explain the existence of provable miracles by some other way then you might have a point, but when you ask God for a miracle and He gives one exactly as you asked, it is rather hard to support the delusion argument.

BTW, Truth does not need your belief or support to remain truth.

[Bettypooh]

If you feel insulted by what someone says when it's done without malice, it's definitely time for you to reconsider your position, even only if to re-affirm it. It never hurts to re-ask questions to yourself to be sure you haven't erred If your position is indeed valid, then you've lost nothing, but if the new questions reveal errors, it's foolish to continue with your current position

Anything provable to an individual must also be provable to a group of individuals, and indeed to all individuals before such proof can be deemed truly sufficient to verify your claim. Otherwise your proof, even to a single individual, becomes questionable in it's veracity. This is why I honestly understand why a person may be agnostic, as my own beliefs and those of anyone else cannot be unquestionably proven beyond even just a reasonable level of doubt, much less any more exacting standards, whether it be on an individual or world-wide basis

Bettypooh

[rosalie.bent]

On 4/20/2018 at 8:57 PM, Bettypooh said:

If you feel insulted by what someone says when it's done without malice, it's definitely time for you to reconsider your position, even only if to re-affirm it. It never hurts to re-ask questions to yourself to be sure you haven't erred If your position is indeed valid, then you've lost nothing, but if the new questions reveal errors, it's foolish to continue with your current position

Anything provable to an individual must also be provable to a group of individuals, and indeed to all individuals before such proof can be deemed truly sufficient to verify your claim. Otherwise your proof, even to a single individual, becomes questionable in it's veracity. This is why I honestly understand why a person may be agnostic, as my own beliefs and those of anyone else cannot be unquestionably proven beyond even just a reasonable level of doubt, much less any more exacting standards, whether it be on an individual or world-wide basis

Bettypooh

Hence the very nature of 'faith'. For me, I already have all the proof of God's existence that I could ever need, or anyone needs, but it was appropriated personally and therefore I cannot i've you faith or explain it to you. At the same time however, my proof of God is absolute.

You could try and prove Einsteins General relativity using maths as long as you want and you will fail because I do not understand the physics nor math involved. I can (and do) take this theory on faith, but I cannot prove it and you cannot prove it to me. Faith in God is similar in a way, I have 100% proof of God and yet without a similar frame of reference (cue Einsteinian physics!) I cannot prove it to you at all. it does not mean it cannot be proven.

[Bettypooh]

Then who CAN prove it pray tell? Nobody- not you, not me, not anyone. Which is my whole point, and the reason I understand Agnosticism even when my beliefs differ. It is for each to determine and decide for themselves and I fully support that process and all people - not just those who share my beliefs.

Bettypooh

[PP Rebel]

When I was young I was pressurized by my parents into attending Church of England Sunday School but rebelled against it as an adolescent. For a number of years, I professed to be an atheist & rejected religion entirely.

As I grew older I found my life wasn't working too well & felt the need to understand myself better & be in touch with my inner feelings. In doing so I discovered there was a lot happening 'under the radar' & realized I'm something greater than my conscious self which is a bit like the tip of an iceberg.

Based on certain experiences, I strongly suspect there's some sort of afterlife & I've also had a pre-existence. I think there's a spiritual element to our lives, regardless of whether we are prepared to consciously acknowledge it or not & we might even conceivably be all be part of one big soul. But I don't experience the presence of an almighty controlling personification called God & I don't claim to understand how it all works, or believe any particular religion has a monopoly on truth & all the answers.

This makes me Agnostic & a bit of a doubting Thomas who doesn't accept anything I haven't seen & experienced with my own eyes. I feel significant elements of most organized religions are about controlling, manipulating & deceiving people but this doesn't mean some of their followers down the ages haven't been sincere & remarkable people. 
 

In general, I feel a closer affinity to some Eastern traditions & Gnosticism than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic mainstream. I recognize the benefits of meditation, finding ways of getting in touch with your inner feeling, cultivating empathy towards others & creative expression. Also having means of getting rid of frustration & built-up tensions without setting out to deliberately harm or take it out on others. 

[Bettypooh]

On 6/4/2018 at 7:20 PM, PP Rebel said:

I feel significant elements of most organised religions are about controlling, manipulating & deceiving people 

To me, this is the main failing of organized religions and the main reason they cannot connect with Agnostics and people with differing beliefs from their own. In every religion I've studied there is an inherent element of doctrine which tells you to believe without questioning, yet without questioning you cannot know, and without knowing what you profess to believe in means your beliefs are equally likely to be wrong as right. And you won't know which is which.

Agnostics see this point clearly. They have questioned but not received adequate answers because very few religious sorts have questioned their own beliefs to that depth. And for those like me who have done the deep questioning, we see clearly what the Agnostics see too. I embrace all good people regardless of what drives them to goodness, and TBH I've found as many good people outside of religion as I have within it. 

Like Elfy pointed out, you will see what you are looking for if you look for it hard enough, even when that thing doesn't exist. One of the hardest of achievements in my life has been to develop my ability to see whatever is really there without prejudice or focusing on finding any particular thing. Being human prevents me from perfecting that skill but I try with all my heart. There is nothing here which can unequivocally prove or disprove the existence of a diety of any sort. To me, Agnosticism is a better choice than having a misplaced, erroneous, or shallow faith. Agnostics often have a goodness far beyond those kinds of people and I value that greatly.

Bettypooh

[Mars.inDiapers]

On 5/29/2018 at 8:17 AM, rosalie.bent said:

Hence the very nature of 'faith'. For me, I already have all the proof of God's existence that I could ever need, or anyone needs, but it was appropriated personally and therefore I cannot i've you faith or explain it to you. At the same time however, my proof of God is absolute.

 You could try and prove Einsteins General relativity using maths as long as you want and you will fail because I do not understand the physics nor math involved. I can (and do) take this theory on faith, but I cannot prove it and you cannot prove it to me. Faith in God is similar in a way, I have 100% proof of God and yet without a similar frame of reference (cue Einsteinian physics!) I cannot prove it to you at all. it does not mean it cannot be proven.

Your view is entirely subjective, which is evident from your statement that you have all the proof of God's existence you need. The "or anyone needs" is debatable. Is this "personal appropriation" basically personal revelation? If so, by that method you or "anyone" may personally and genuinely believe God has revelaed himself to you or them, but that does not in any way prove the objective existence of God. Same applies for the opening one's heart to God. I could make myself believe that I'm an aeroplane or that Pokémons exist through strong and continuous autosuggestion, but that doesn't actually make me an aeroplane or make Pokémons exist.

If we take the existence of God as a hypothesis, it would need to be tested by an unbiased party, and the test would have to be conducted by methods of natural sciences, because we have no tools to test the supernatural. In fact we CAN'T have a tools to test the supernatural - it would be a logical contradiction. If we did have tools to test supernatural, it would by definition cease being supernatural and instead be natural. So we have no option but to let go that hypothesis, because no amount of scientific tests have so far proven it true. You may still take it on faith, which is belief without evidence. You may say you have "personal evidence", but that's not really evidence, if it has no proving value outside of your own mind.

Our minds have the power to imagine things, and very often take things that are actually real and spice them up with own imagination. I could see a news coverage of a murder where they show footage of the person while still alive, and I could then have a dream where I see the killer. But what I saw in my dream is not objective evidence of what the killer actually looked like, or who he was. Fingerprints and victim's blood on the murder weapon, bloodstains and killer's DNA on the killer's clothes are objective evidence. They withstand scientific testing.

Your comparison to Theory of relativity is fallacious. First of all, theory of relativity is about the natural, which, by being natural, can be naturally verified, while religion is about supernatural, which, as stated above, can't be naturally verified, because then it would be natural, not supernatural.

 I (well not I personally, I'm not the right man for that particular job, an actual scientist would be better fit for that) could try and explain it to you and evidence of it to you, but you not understanding it, or the evidence presented, doesn't make it a) false, or b) something that you just then have to take on faith. 
That puts it at the same level as religion, which you shouldn't, because scientific theories are backed up with objective evidence (that's why they are theories, not mere hypotheses), while religions don't. Holy texts are claims, and claim itself can not be evidence. Personal revelation is, from an outsider's perspective, indistinguishable from a delusion. A person may have own perception of reality and sincerely believe it to be a reality, but that doesn't actually make it a reality. Miracles are not evidence either, because even a phenomenon that is observed and not understood does not automatically imply supernatural - in order to conclude a supernatural causation, every single possible natural causation would have to be tested and disproved first. If that's not done and just left at "we don't understand it", that does not logically lead to "therefore it's a miracle", let alone "therefore God came down from Heaven and did whatever" (and that God happens to be the God I believe in, conveniently). It just means "not understood", and if something is not understood, it requires more research in order to be understood. If God is presented as the explanation, then God needs to be explained, otherwise in the matter of actual knowledge we're getting nowhere. By being explained, I mean scientific testing, which concludes a data telling us reliably at which circumstances God supposedly works. So far, all we have concluded is that the amount of prayer has no correlation with the desired results becoming reality, and all we have learned from those who supposedly have a personal relationship with this God is that he quote, "works in mysterious ways", which is a covert way of saying "we have no idea", or in some cases, "we'll do the dirty work for this God and force you to believe".

The difficulty with science is, there's a wide plethora of sciences, and as we get progressively further and further, more and more information is discoverd, and with those discoveries emerge more things to yet be discovered, and the amount of knowledge is unbearable for one person. So forgetting all that complexity and just replacing it with "God" may seem like the easy way out, but it's not the right thing to do. Just like looking at an extremely complicated equation, and multiplying both sides with an infinity and presenting: infinity = infinity as a solution, is no proper way to solve and equation.

So, how to trust science then if it's too complicated to comprehend?

Just understand the basics. They are not complicated. Take technology as an example. All the technology we have today is a result of science. A simple power source, switch and a lightbulb is easy to understand, while a computer, with billions of transistors (which work in a binary mode, so they work just the same as switches in principle) is a very difficult to understand, and while almost anyone can make a simple electric circuit with a battery, wires, switch and lightbulb, today's computers take armies of engineers, educated in sciences such as physics, chemistry, metallurgy and whatnot. We may not understand the whole thing with all its details, but if we understand the basics (lightswitch), it's more rational to accept that computers are billions and billions of light switches that we already know and understand and can describe, scaled down to microscopic sizes, working together to do the job we want it to do, rather than think that they work because of witchcraft (supernatural).

 

On 4/20/2018 at 3:45 AM, rosalie.bent said:

In the world of science, disproving anything is rather hard because you need to have an exceptionally wide array of data and even then, the proof might exist outside your data. When examining the existence of God who exists outside of the physical universe, then disproving it actually becomes impossible.

The first sentence is wrong, disproving anything in physical world doesn't require exceptionally wide array of data; it requires minimal amount of the contradicting data (but it has to be proven to be real, it can't be just anything). Einstein's quote: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". 

As for the anything outside physical world, If God exists outside of physical universe, he's impossible to distinguish from one that doesn't exist at all, in which case it's pointless wasting our time with him, since we exist in a physical world and he doesn't. If God intervenes/manifests in the physical world, than he's not completely outside of physical world, and there should be a detectable, observable pattern that could be used as evidence that the pattern is indeed the result of a divine intervention and not something else. And there isn't one.

[Britnee]

I think this thread can use a few one-liners from probably the king of quotes--Oscar Wilde

"Religion is the fashionable substitute for belief."

 "Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there, and finding it."

"Truth in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived."

"People fashion their god after their own understanding. They make their god first and worship him afterwords"

 

welp, the above plus Monty Python's Life of Brian pretty much sums my thoughts on religion and has for a very long time.  Well, okay, not really.  I mean I do have my own thoughts but I'd rather not insult people on this board. I wouldn't hesitate on others but I'm purposely less confrontational here which means no politics and no religion despite my background in both.

 

P.S.  BTW, rosalie, you might not want to use Einstein's GR theory as your proof/non-proof strawman anymore because the GR theory was recently, again, verified as accurate not only within our solar system (sine 1919) but now much farther and as technology gets better it'll become a law eventually.  https://www.newsweek.com/einstein-proven-right-after-theory-general-relativity-confirmed-work-distant-990584

[Mars.inDiapers]

Britnee, I think you slightly missed a point there, Rosalie was saying that she would not understand GR no matter how much you tried to explain it to her, but not implying that GR is incorrect.
Nevertheless, comparing a faith in a deity with trusting a scientific theory is a fallacious comparison.

From wiki:
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A body of descriptions of knowledge can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).

It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.

It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

...


Simply put, whether you understand a theory or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is that when a valid theory is put into practical use, a prediction based on it has to be consistently reliable.

On the other hand, God meets none of the criteria; if praying to God were to be on the same level as a scientific theory (in order for the comparison not to be completely fallacious), we would need to know exactly how to pray to God in order for it to be answerer (testability, repeatability), which is where the problem is, because one, every single (religious) person has a slightly different idea of how to pray, and two, from outsiders perspective, the results are so inconsistent that the conclusion is, it does not pass as a valid theory.

...

I'll take the liberty to make a little analogy.
Let's say you have a TV set and your reception is bad. There are many ways to approach the issue, based on your theoretical knowledge, practical experience, personality and other traits. Here are some (but not all) of the possible approaches:

- layman troubleshooting: Read the manual, try its advice and if nothing helps, call the customer service.

- angry layman troubleshooting: Shout at the TV, kick it in frustration, make it worse and then call the customer service, or be extremely lucky that it was just an oxidized RF connector and the mechanical shock not only didn't damage anything, but restored the connection and reception.

- religious layman troubleshooting: Pray to God he will grant your wish of good reception. Then call the customer service and pray to God they will actually help you.

- far-right religious layman troubleshooting: Literally shoot the TV, then get in a pick up truck and go buy a new one, while praying to God that he damn those fucking communist bastard c**** who made the piece of shit TV in the first place.

- rational, scientific approach troubleshooting: Forget the manual, because chances are you already tried everything it says to no avail. Don't bother with customer service, because chances are they will tell you the same thing the manual says; instead have someone who actually knows what to do fix it, whether it is yourself or someone else; progressively eliminate possible sources of the problem until you find out what's wrong. Examine the source of the problem, make a hypothesis of what caused it, and in the event it happens again, use the past experience to test the hypothesis and gain theoretical knowledge of what causes the specific behavior and exactly how to counter or prevent it.

...

Only one of these methods will reliably resolve the given issue in a desirable way. Guess which one it is.



Odesláno z mého F8331 pomocí Tapatalk