World Views - God and Nature

[franktalk]

I would like to have a discussion with anyone who may want to share ideas about world views. I have layed mine out on many threads and will do so again here. We have many new people come to this site and this important subject will of course be repeated many times.

It is my belief that neither science nor religion offer proof of any kind to base a choice of world view. I believe that most people have a world view based on peer pressure, environment, or key people in ones past that made a good argument for one view or another.

I believe that no one can be unbiased in a logical choice of world view. We can not disconnect from our past.

I believe that a world view is a leap of faith whether it is a belief in God or a belief in a natural world only.

[Seasanctuary]

As an Agnostic, that sounds about right to me.

[Doug Shaver]

I believe that a world view is a leap of faith whether it is a belief in God or a belief in a natural world only.

Where are we leaping from? You make it seem like it's possible not to have any world view.

Maybe what you're really trying to say is that changing a world view is a leap of faith?

[franktalk]

Where are we leaping from? You make it seem like it's possible not to have any world view.

Maybe what you're really trying to say is that changing a world view is a leap of faith?

Thank you, you are correct. You made that point well last time we chatted about this. I agree it is not possible to hold no world view.

[ENeGMA]

I agree. As a matter of fact, our beliefs are based on contingent factors not, absolute proof or certainty.

I don't, however, think it's a "leap of faith". I don't think there's much faith involved. I think it's mostly circumstantial.

[franktalk]

Without going into too much detail I will just state that science is excellent in describing things and modeling nature. But when it comes to answering the questions of "why" it does not do well at all. Like why did the universe unfold the way it has? Why do we have quantum states where they are and not another? And the list goes on and on. So from a high level science has been great at allowing us to make machines and understand nature, but from a foundational structure science has more questions than answers.

On the religion side there is no proof as well. Many say they have a personal spiritual experience that to them is proof that God exist. But in this thread I want to stay within universal observation and generally acceptable logic. I am sure that Doug Shaver will correct me when I stray. Bottom line is we do not see supernatural events around us so we can take a step to religion by observation.

[shunyadragon]

I would like to have a discussion with anyone who may want to share ideas about world views. I have layed mine out on many threads and will do so again here. We have many new people come to this site and this important subject will of course be repeated many times.

It is my belief that neither science nor religion offer proof of any kind to base a choice of world view. I believe that most people have a world view based on peer pressure, environment, or key people in ones past that made a good argument for one view or another.

I believe that no one can be unbiased in a logical choice of world view. We can not disconnect from our past.

I believe that a world view is a leap of faith whether it is a belief in God or a belief in a natural world only.

I agree for the most part, but the naturalist view is not totally a leap of faith, it is basically based on the objective knowledge of science. You could possibly conclude that the belief that no God(s) exist as a leap of faith from the theist view, but in contrast the atheist would simply respond that there is no evidence for the existence of God(s). This has been debated volumenous times here and elsewhere, and brought up in a recent thread by JimL. Given the ancient world views for God(s) in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I believe this view is justified, but nonetheless incomplete as far as all the arguments for a 'Source' called God(s).

[Evolutionist]

Tagged for reading ATM.

[franktalk]

shunyadragon ,

I would think that many would argue that a belief in naturalism leads to a belief in no-god. If someone declares that only observed nature is real and everything else is false then they have already made up their mind. I am not sure that nature was the cause of their belief. Now many people tie science with naturalism. But science goes way beyond observation. Some theories of science although very creative are not based on observation but a projection of what might be true. This is all well and good for pushing the boundary of knowledge but it should not be used to form a view of the world. Now the man on the street is constantly bombarded with messages telling him how much science "knows", but in some cases we are far from knowing.

As we study science we can be fooled by a sense of destiny. That one day man will know all of the secrets of life and the universe. If one accepts this then it is a small thing to hold on to man's knowledge and say I will trust science and let it determine what is real. But science deals with a rule set that excludes those things that are real from a religious point of view. Where science may discount supernatural events because they can't be tested or repeated, religion is founded on the supernatural. So from a rule set view religion is all inclusive but science is bounded. I wonder how many people view science and naturalism in this light?

[JimL]

It is my belief that neither science nor religion offer proof of any kind to base a choice of world view. I believe that most people have a world view based on peer pressure, environment, or key people in ones past that made a good argument for one view or another.

It is not the purpose of science to offer proof of a world view or of a God but merely to explain the mysteries of the natural world. If that should lead to knowledge of a creator, fine, but that is not its purpose.

I believe that no one can be unbiased in a logical choice of world view. We can not disconnect from our past.

Au contraire mon frere, though it is difficult, people can and do disconnect, as you say, from their pasts. I myself was raised as a God fearing Christian, and though I have not come to reject the possibility of a creator God I have come to reject completely the Christian beliefs as well as all other human manifestations of particular Gods. It is difficult as you say, because our freedom to think otherwise, I believe, is somewhat diminished when as Shakespeare put it: "the poison is poured into the porches of our vulnerable ears.

I believe that a world view is a leap of faith whether it is a belief in God or a belief in a natural world only.

In the sense above, a world view is not a leap in faith, if the seed is sown and cultivated within the heart of a pure and innocent nature. This is more than evident from the many disparate religions around the world and by how the people raised within those beliefs tend to stick with them.

[franktalk]

It is not the purpose of science to offer proof of a world view or of a God but merely to explain the mysteries of the natural world. If that should lead to knowledge of a creator, fine, but that is not its purpose.

It does not matter what your feelings are about science or the standard rules that the group may make for itself. It's application across time has been many things for many people, Just because you may be a purest does not mean the guy sitting next to you is one also. I am sure that people do not feel that science had anything to do with Hitler but from his own writings and speeches we know that he felt justified in his master race. On the other side religion has been used to slaughter millions of people as well. Although it's slated purpose is love. So man will use any and all ideas for his own agendas.

Au contraire mon frere, though it is difficult, people can and do disconnect, as you say, from their pasts. I myself was raised as a God fearing Christian, and though I have not come to reject the possibility of a creator God I have come to reject completely the Christian beliefs as well as all other human manifestations of particular Gods. It is difficult as you say, because our freedom to think otherwise, I believe, is somewhat diminished when as Shakespeare put it: "the poison is poured into the porches of our vulnerable ears.

Unless you lose your memory you are a sum total of all of your experiences. Even if one were to change (we all do) we still have our memories and feelings about them that guide us. Again the human race is not pure like a logical argument. We are not computers that receive new instructions and dump the old program. Like you say we live in a constant drum beat of ideas that affect us whether we like it or not. We are not masters of our environment, we are slaves to our environment. Each of us as we pass thru this world will experience our own unique combination of ideas and events. Many if not all are outside of our control. Now within that environment we do have free will and can make choices. That is what this thread is all about.

In the sense above, a world view is not a leap in faith, if the seed is sown and cultivated within the heart of a pure and innocent nature. This is more than evident from the many disparate religions around the world and by how the people raised within those beliefs tend to stick with them.

I am trying to stay focused on naturalism and religion without going too far into either of them. They both offer many rabbit holes in which we can lose ourself. But at the base of each idea lays a foundation. This is where I want to spend some time talking about the reasons one would choose one over the other. My statement that neither provides proof that someone can then step by step arrive at one world view is valid. You may not feel that way but the areas of unknown in both camps is obvious. This makes it a leap to believe in either one. Now someone who does not know the limitations of science or feels they are surrounded by miracles may feel that they are not taking a leap. I accept that. But I can't deal with individual feelings. I have to examine a world view from afar and from a society point of view.

If you wish to post your own personal experience dealing with your world view choice I welcome that. But it means little to another that may be struggling with their place in the universe. The picture I wish to present is that there is no default view of the world. And a leap has to be made if one looks at the available knowledge.

[JimL]

It does not matter what your feelings are about science or the standard rules that the group may make for itself. It's application across time has been many things for many people, Just because you may be a purest does not mean the guy sitting next to you is one also. I am sure that people do not feel that science had anything to do with Hitler but from his own writings and speeches we know that he felt justified in his master race. On the other side religion has been used to slaughter millions of people as well. Although it's slated purpose is love. So man will use any and all ideas for his own agendas.

If Hitler felt justified in a master race due to science that is a philosophy of science not science itself. That is the same thing as using science to justify ones belief in God, but it is a philosophy, not a science. If it were proven to be true just as if the idea of God were proven to be true, then it would be science, otherwise it is no less a leap of faith.

Unless you lose your memory you are a sum total of all of your experiences. Even if one were to change (we all do) we still have our memories and feelings about them that guide us. Again the human race is not pure like a logical argument. We are not computers that receive new instructions and dump the old program.

Sure we are, how else do you think we rid ourselves of old ideas unless new information makes obsolete ones past beliefs. We don't necessarily lose the old information from our memory bank, but they no longer guide us. I still have stored in my brain the information of Christianity but I no longer hold to that world view, I simply disregard it.

Like you say we live in a constant drum beat of ideas that affect us whether we like it or not. We are not masters of our environment, we are slaves to our environment. Each of us as we pass thru this world will experience our own unique combination of ideas and events. Many if not all are outside of our control. Now within that environment we do have free will and can make choices. That is what this thread is all about.

And my point is that our free will and therefore our freedom to make choices is limited unless we come to an understanding that we are free to think outside of the box that we are put into by religion. I remember reading once that Stephen Hawking was at a conference where the Pope speaking to scientists told them that it was fine to do your research but not to study the the beginning of the universe because that was the domain of God. That is just one example of how free thought is stifled by religion.
Worse still, is how our minds are stifled at an early age from even contemplating other ideas.

I am trying to stay focused on naturalism and religion without going too far into either of them. They both offer many rabbit holes in which we can lose ourself. But at the base of each idea lays a foundation. This is where I want to spend some time talking about the reasons one would choose one over the other. My statement that neither provides proof that someone can then step by step arrive at one world view is valid. You may not feel that way but the areas of unknown in both camps is obvious. This makes it a leap to believe in either one. Now someone who does not know the limitations of science or feels they are surrounded by miracles may feel that they are not taking a leap. I accept that. But I can't deal with individual feelings. I have to examine a world view from afar and from a society point of view.

We are not taking a leap by merely recognizing the natural world around us, it is apparent to our senses, though a God may exist, unlike the natural world, he, if he exists, is not apparent to our senses. We are only taking a leap of when we go beyond what science tells us. That is not to say the leap is in error but only that, like that of Hitler's leap it could be in error.

If you wish to post your own personal experience dealing with your world view choice I welcome that. But it means little to another that may be struggling with their place in the universe. The picture I wish to present is that there is no default view of the world. And a leap has to be made if one looks at the available knowledge.

I disagree, no leap is necessary, the world that we see is the only world that we know, whether or not there is a God is inconsequential if he is not a part of this world. The reason for our Gods is merely to give explanation to that which is so far beyond our comprehension.

[magellan004]

.

On the religion side there is no proof as well. Bottom line is we do not see supernatural events around us so we can take a step to religion by observation.

But we do see supernatural events around us. The Pope has recently announced that an Australian nun will shortly be canonised because two miracles have been proved beyond doubt.

Your introductory comments on our personal world views assume a passive world where we are like pawns underr the influence of our past, our friends and family , and society. Christians believe that is not how the world is. God cares for us, loves us and guides us. And Christmas time is a reminder of God's willingness to be amongst us.

Magellan

[EvoUK]

I think the first and usually most important factor in choosing ones world view is ones upbringing and the society in qwhich one is raised. This is trivially shown by pointing out that to have a muslim worldview you tend to be born in a muslim country, christian you tend to be born in a christian country etc.

Is it a leap of faith? Yes and no- when its merely the product of your upbringing, you usually don't know much different until much later. IMO, the "leap of faith" comes from changing ones worldview after one is mentally mature enough to properly analyse the facts. Not that IMO many theists actually analyse the fact when they go from non-theist to theist, IMO it's usually for emotional reasons, but that's a seperate discussion.

[franktalk]

If Hitler felt justified in a master race due to science that is a philosophy of science not science itself. That is the same thing as using science to justify ones belief in God, but it is a philosophy, not a science. If it were proven to be true just as if the idea of God were proven to be true, then it would be science, otherwise it is no less a leap of faith.

You can define science anyway you wish. And I am sure that you will follow the standards that have been set by science itself. You are somehow making a wall between science and the effects it has on society or individuals. This is a false defense of an idea. Where you blame religion for the ills it has caused you do not treat science with the same respect. I am not sure that you see this.

Sure we are, how else do you think we rid ourselves of old ideas unless new information makes obsolete ones past beliefs. We don't necessarily lose the old information from our memory bank, but they no longer guide us. I still have stored in my brain the information of Christianity but I no longer hold to that world view, I simply disregard it.

"Sure we are" - What computers? I think you had a bad experience with religion, many do. But is this experience of men or was it from God? I suspect it was from man. But it appears that you now couple that experience with God and not the men. This is very common.

Many are told by men of religion that their world will be better (it will not), that they will receive riches on this earth (no you don't), that all you have to do is give to the church and your money will be multiplied (no it will not). It is men who do these things. It is also men who declare the universe started with a singularity. But fail to say how it got that way. I think you need to look past all of this. Step back and see it for what it is. If you consider yourself part of it then you will never see it for what it is. It is man in his attempt to define what is around him so he can understand his place in the universe. Don't let the argument suck you in. See the argument for what it is. A house of cards built on vapor.

And my point is that our free will and therefore our freedom to make choices is limited unless we come to an understanding that we are free to think outside of the box that we are put into by religion. I remember reading once that Stephen Hawking was at a conference where the Pope speaking to scientists told them that it was fine to do your research but not to study the the beginning of the universe because that was the domain of God. That is just one example of how free thought is stifled by religion.
Worse still, is how our minds are stifled at an early age from even contemplating other ideas.

Man has twisted science and religion into many things. But I wish to talk about naturalism and God. I do not wish to talk about men of science or men of religion. Men have been stifled by dogma from science and religion. If you are a student of science then you already know what I am talking about. You are starting to go down one of those rabbit holes I warned you about.

We are not taking a leap by merely recognizing the natural world around us, it is apparent to our senses, though a God may exist, unlike the natural world, he, if he exists, is not apparent to our senses. We are only taking a leap of when we go beyond what science tells us. That is not to say the leap is in error but only that, like that of Hitler's leap it could be in error.

If you define your world view as only being apparent to our senses then please tell me what a thought is? What is a conscience? What is love? And of course where are the models of these things and the repeatable experiments?

I disagree, no leap is necessary, the world that we see is the only world that we know, whether or not there is a God is inconsequential if he is not a part of this world. The reason for our Gods is merely to give explanation to that which is so far beyond our comprehension.

Within a framework of senses you would be correct. But what a limit that would be. I do not choose to look at the world that way. Do you cast off love because you can't see it? Just how do you sense things? If God is made from what we don't comprehend then as we comprehend more does this shrink God? Have you thought this through?