For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[Responding to a post on the Patheos blog site Godless in Dixie: “Why do Intelligent, Well-educated People Still Believe Nonsense?” – By Neil Carter.]
The following two quotes, seem to me to say very much the same thing.
“Humans aren’t entirely logical beings, which is precisely why we have
things like the scientific method in the first place. We know all too
well how badly we let our own biases cloud our perception and our
judgment. We need science precisely because we know we are prone to
superstition, subjectivity, and cognitive bias.”
“Another thing which is almost impossible to grasp if you were never devout is how deeply we were taught to distrust ourselves.
The notion of sin and human brokenness is bedrock to the Christian
message, and the church drove this home to us before we even learned to
read and write. We learned at an early age that human reasoning cannot
be trusted. “The heart is deceitful above all things,” the Bible
The above echoed situation is central to the Buddhists practice of Vipassana Meditation.
Is the possibility of “seeing things as they really are”, a nonsensical belief?
By alert attention and non-judgement can the brokenness called “sin” be transcended? Is it irrational to think so?
Nofun – “Science unlike religion is never certain.“
The problem with science’s dependence on uncertainty, is that the experience of “enlightenment” (i.e. unimpeachable certainty) remains subjective and is therefore taboo.
Until that glitch is fixed there continues to be a role for religion and the unfortunate compartmentalization that this separation entails.
To nip the usual, and predictably off the mark arguments, in the bud, I want to clarify that by “unimpeachable certainty”, I most definitely do not mean dogma or orthodoxy of belief.
Like the scientific method, religion (in it’s ideal sense), provides technique and a framework for inquiry.
In either discipline, the process is derailed by preconceived certainties.
Max Doubt – “Then you’re not paying attention. Atheism isn’t an affirmative claim that there is no god. It is simply the rejection of claims that any gods exist. There is no objective evidence to support those claims therefore there’s no objective reason to accept them.“
This statement as an idealization, is quite reasonable.
Never seems to hold up long though. Regressing rapidly to aggressive opinion and politics.
Nofun – “The preponderance of evidence tells me so ..“
It would help if people could cite this evidence. And then convince me why it is God the evidence disproves.
“..I would love to be wrong though.“
The part of my original comment about “preconceived certainties” derailing the process for both science and theological inquiry, is relevant to this statement.
As with science, so with the evolution of theological insight, you have to prune away the outdated and outgrown understanding as you go.
Pursuing the journey from the freshened starting point.
It really boils down to a shift in attitude and scrupulous honesty.
Being religious/theologically motivated does not mean being a creationist (especially a young earth creationist), unless it suits your needs at the moment.
If you are inclined to thinking in terms of God, then by all means give yourself permission to do it. You can set the standards as high as you want or can imagine.
This Universe is worthy of that kind of respect.