Why we can't agree

[Xaxyx]

(Forgive any crudities of the analogy, but that's the best I could explain it.)

I found that to be an excellent analogy; thank you.

What is it about logic and reason that makes you value it above all else?

I for one do not value logic and reason above all else. I find them valuable, and I rely upon them when appropriate. But there is much more to me than rationality. I am a human being, and human beings are emotional creatures. I feel love, passion, devotion. I experience desire, lust, craving. I encounter anger, hatred, fury. I am glad for all of these things. I need all of these things. They, too, are a part of me. Without them, I would not be human.

And I possess faith as well. I'm fully capable of assuming things about the world that I cannot rationally demonstrate. I have faith that those who I love do indeed love me in return. I have faith that I am of sound mind and principle and can trust my own instincts and beliefs. I have faith that I will be capable of keeping my promises, that others will keep their promises to me. This, too, is part of who and what I am.

What's most important to me, what's most valuable to me, is to be capable of distinguishing between these various ideas, and having the wisdom to know when to apply which. I would never, for example, attempt to logically demonstrate, using available scientific evidence, that my significant other is in love with me. The concept is absurd. Sure, I can take a pulse, measure a temperature. But I cannot read minds -- or hearts. I must simply trust; I must simply have faith. No other tool avails me.

Conversely, I would not attempt to hold faith in any scientific analysis. You claim that two times three is six? Demonstrate this for me. I won't just take your word for it. I won't just have faith in your powers of mathematics. You will present your evidence; and I will draw a rational, reasonable, logical conclusion from this evidence, if I can. And nothing more.

And I would expect the same in kind. I would hope that my significant other has faith in my love. And I would hope that my significant other would double-check my math with a calculator. And I'd expect you to do the same, in any scientific discussions we might have.

This is the defining distinction, for me, between the applicability of faith and reason. And that distinction is of paramount importance. Weigh faith with the heart; science with the mind. And never mix the two.

[nebula]

I am grateful to know the analogy made sense.

Bless the Lord!

And thanks for the affirmation, guys!

~~~~~~~

And I possess faith as well. I'm fully capable of assuming things about the world that I cannot rationally demonstrate. I have faith that those who I love do indeed love me in return. I have faith that I am of sound mind and principle and can trust my own instincts and beliefs. I have faith that I will be capable of keeping my promises, that others will keep their promises to me. This, too, is part of who and what I am.

Wow - you're the first atheist/agnostic I've talked with who admits that faith is not an exclusive "religous" term and that it is something we all possess.

Wow! I'm impressed.

What's most important to me, what's most valuable to me, is to be capable of distinguishing between these various ideas, and having the wisdom to know when to apply which. I would never, for example, attempt to logically demonstrate, using available scientific evidence, that my significant other is in love with me. The concept is absurd. Sure, I can take a pulse, measure a temperature. But I cannot read minds -- or hearts. I must simply trust; I must simply have faith. No other tool avails me.

Conversely, I would not attempt to hold faith in any scientific analysis. You claim that two times three is six? Demonstrate this for me. I won't just take your word for it. I won't just have faith in your powers of mathematics. You will present your evidence; and I will draw a rational, reasonable, logical conclusion from this evidence, if I can. And nothing more.

And I would expect the same in kind. I would hope that my significant other has faith in my love. And I would hope that my significant other would double-check my math with a calculator. And I'd expect you to do the same, in any scientific discussions we might have.

This is the defining distinction, for me, between the applicability of faith and reason. And that distinction is of paramount importance. Weigh faith with the heart; science with the mind. And never mix the two.

Good analogies!

It gets tricky, though, when we start talking about the things of God. For atheists and such keep asking us for concrete evidence (something you can calculate or see or hear), yet the only answer we can give is more along the lines of how you know your significant other loves you.

The god I know is a personal God and He interacts with us personally. (Well, He is corporate as well, but a corporate following doesn't lead to a whole lot of dedicated individuals - but that's another topic.) Thus my "evidence" for God is through His interaction with me and I with Him. But to get to that point of fellowship I have to seek Him and be willing to do what pleases Him (translation: obey). And that's what "science" can't understand.

Then there's the infamous evolution-Creation debate. While because I work in the science field (I teach Anatomy & Physiology labs at a community college, among other things), I find it easier to challenge the traditional interpretations of the Earth's origins, there's that place where it becomes clear standard science has discounted the concept of a Creator in its interpretation of the evidence. Thus I find a conflict with faith (religion) and science. I can't hold onto evolution as-is and religion as-is when one eliminates the other from the equation. Something has to give . . . and so sorry science, but I can't follow you there. I'll meet you to a point, as far as I can, but that's it.

Now, most other Christians don't see the value of even trying to meet science to a certain point. They just see the end result and decide it's not worth the effort. But I can't fault them for not being nerds . (Think about it, if you went to a social gathering of mixed people as far as college majors or careers or employment - how many would go out of their way to discuss the things of science? Versus how many people would find someone else to talk to?)

So from this, why is it that "to be capable of distinguishing between these various ideas, and having the wisdom to know when to apply which" is what is most important to you?

[nebula]

My most physically painful experience was a ruptured appendix.

My most emotionally painful experience was the demise of my marriage. To date I have never been through anything worse than that.

I don't know how to compare that with going through parents divorcing, but I can imagine how that likewise would be worse than physical pain.

We have had different life experiences and so have had to deal differently. It took quite a few years to get over my marriage break-up, but it never occurred to me so seek comfort in God. I'd lost all sense of this particular reality years before.

What did you seek comfort in? And what was the result of having sought that as comfort?

Science is all about the mind. But it is far removed from life, from the human experience. Science can boast all it wants about intellectual superiority and rationality. But what can science do for a broken heart?

It can't do much, at the moment. Science might find a way to circumvent even that in the future. We can't rule out the possibility.

Then you have more faith in science than I do!

How can it bring comfort, calm and peace in the midst of "the storms of life"? Through science, will you ever feel like you are unconditionally loved?

No, not likely. Science is impersonal, but many people of science are believers. This is a point I make repeatedly. A person can accept belief in God and yet fully accept science at the same time. Many have done so. My frustration is more with those who equate evolution with atheism.

Well, as I explained in my previous post to Xax, not everyone is nerdy enough to place science in a seat of importance in their lives. [insert a particular Weird Al song here ] (The only reason Christians like to talk about evolution is because of how it intersects into our religious beliefs . . . that's why Christians who aren't much into science for science' sake can't talk the science lingo and don't get the science concepts.

And likewise, where science removes the Creator out of Creation . . . Christians don't like that. I know you don't agree, but you have to understand that for us, to do so is like taking Roush out of the Roush engines, taking the Jorn Utzon (architect) out of the Sydney Opera House, taking DaVinci out of the Mona Lisa, . . . .

**Continued below due to "quote" limits**

By the way, I truly do appreciate your opening up like this.

[nebula]

You all here who are not Christians, you can't understand why so many of us refuse to look at anything that might challenge our understanding of Scripture or of our faith in God? You wonder why we don't put reason on the same pedestal as you?

I have wondered that. I can't help it. I only ever wanted to know the truth. If God was truth then I wanted to know it, if not then I wanted to know that as well. I don't think one needs to reject science to accept God. Many conservative Christians are afraid of science; liberal Christians are not. Individuals like Francis Collins see no contradiction is accepting evolution and believing in God. It is not just evolution that is under attack. As you know Nebula, conservative Christians find much to disagree with regarding astronomy as well.

I know. But I'm nerdy enough to want to explore.

But I can't forget how I found myself not having the heart to interact on the astronomy board after the founder declared anyone who believed in God period to be a "wo-woo" (his term for pseudo-psychics, Moon-hoaxers, and the like).

It didn't matter how far "people of faith" like me reached for scientific understanding nor how far we embraced science; because we believed in that which is "unseen", because we held God above science, he basically declared war on us.

So, I'm not asking you to agree - but can you at least to some degree understand what I am saying?

I have heard some people say that if they ever learned there was no God they would have nothing more to live for. Perhaps for a few that may be true. Most of us, once we learn there is no God say, "Oh." and move on. Maybe for those for whom religion has been an important crutch in time of great need, there becomes a greater need to hang on -- just a guess.

Crutch - no. Lifeline - - - no. My very life? Yes.

OK, I can't answer for everyone, but you have to understand that I have lived with clinical chronic depression since I was . . . 10? At least that is when I first noticed what I know now were the symptoms. I also had several Major Depressive Episodes (if you know anything about psychology you should know a MDE on top of chronic depression is bad news). Yet I had MDE's that lasted for stretches that lasted longer than a year, or two years, or three years.

I would have drowned without that "life jacket".

Likewise, there is no, "Oh," and moving on from someone you love.

Do you believe me when I say that I have interacted with God? That I have "heard" Him speak to me? (I put heard in quotes because He interacts with my mind more with pictures and impressions than words, though sometimes the words come.)

I do understand the desire to mostly read literature that supports our beliefs and I do understand that congregations may serve to reinforce beliefs among members.

Humans are social creatures.

That's why "bandwagon" advertising works so well.

You asked elsewhere why we can't agree. I think the answer is Genesis. There is no contradiction to believing in God and accepting all modern scientific views, many have made that leap. However, there is a contradiction between parts of Genesis and modern science. This is where the conflict lies. There is no getting around that. It is still possible to hold Christian views regarding Jesus, while at the same time seeing much of Genesis as myth.

Eeeks! Do you realize you just threw up a barrier with the word "myth"?

If your desire is to reach out to Christians and draw them in, you truly do need to find a word that doesn't smell like skunk, if you know what I mean.

Many have done that as well. I do understand why you accept most of the New Testament. I don't understand how you could reject science in favour of a six day creation, the Garden of Eden, or a world wide flood. Did I miss your point?

I read Genesis 1-3 the way I read prophetic literature. Both speak in the language of the spiritual rather than the physical - only one describes the past while the other describes the future.

So, I personally don't restrict my understanding of Gen. 1 to 6 24-hour consecutive time spans. Besides, I notice things like God separating the land from the water, but it is never recorded as His having said, "Let there be water," nor "Let there be land" before this. Why is that?

Genesis, I believe, is knowing about God, not knowing about the Earth.

But again, I'll walk with science so far as they don't chuck God from the equation. Where they do that - that's where I leave.

I understand the importance of God in your life. You've explained that well. I see no advantage in you abandoning faith. I do question your need to tie Genesis to your belief in God. Have you read Collins' book, The Language of God? Would you read it?

Well, I've got 10 books on the bookshelf I intend to read when I have some time. I can always add an 11th....

As for Genesis - well, what kind of believer would I be if I picked and chose what Scriptures to believe in and which ones to not? That's like deciding I don't like the first few pages of the car manual, so I'll just cut out what it says there and pretend it doesn't exist. Would that be wise?

But it goes back to values. As much as I love and value science, Jesus means more to me than science does.

[Xaxyx]

Wow - you're the first atheist/agnostic I've talked with who admits that faith is not an exclusive "religous" term and that it is something we all possess.

Wow! I'm impressed.

Thank you. I'm hardly unique, though. I know plenty of my ilk who'll readily make the same admission. Not every atheist is an extremist.

It gets tricky, though, when we start talking about the things of God. For atheists and such keep asking us for concrete evidence (something you can calculate or see or hear), yet the only answer we can give is more along the lines of how you know your significant other loves you.

That seems perfectly plausible to me. Your God is defined as a living, thinking and feeling being. Like any other living, thinking and feeling being, God's thoughts would be God's own. I could not discover them using logic or reason.

The god I know is a personal God and He interacts with us personally. (Well, He is corporate as well, but a corporate following doesn't lead to a whole lot of dedicated individuals - but that's another topic.) Thus my "evidence" for God is through His interaction with me and I with Him. But to get to that point of fellowship I have to seek Him and be willing to do what pleases Him (translation: obey). And that's what "science" can't understand.

Again, this is no different than how anyone might describe their relationship with one's spouse. Or one's best friend. Or one's pet cat. I would have no place questioning how you feel about each of these beings. And I would have no place questioning how you acquire a faith in how they feel about you.

Then there's the infamous evolution-Creation debate. While because I work in the science field (I teach Anatomy & Physiology labs at a community college, among other things), I find it easier to challenge the traditional interpretations of the Earth's origins, there's that place where it becomes clear standard science has discounted the concept of a Creator in its interpretation of the evidence. Thus I find a conflict with faith (religion) and science. I can't hold onto evolution as-is and religion as-is when one eliminates the other from the equation. Something has to give . . . and so sorry science, but I can't follow you there. I'll meet you to a point, as far as I can, but that's it.

Whereas, whenever I discover a conflict between science and my heart, I find myself compelled to follow the science. To do otherwise, for me, would be to deny reality. It would feel as though I were discarding sanity, embracing pure and unadulturated compulsion. Indeed: it is not even a choice, for me. I lack the capacity to ignore science in favor of my own preferences and desires. My faith, however passionate and devout, must always bend to the winds of science.

Now, most other Christians don't see the value of even trying to meet science to a certain point. They just see the end result and decide it's not worth the effort. But I can't fault them for not being nerds . (Think about it, if you went to a social gathering of mixed people as far as college majors or careers or employment - how many would go out of their way to discuss the things of science? Versus how many people would find someone else to talk to?)

Yet here I am, implanting myself in a social gathering of mixed people, explicitly going out of my way to discuss science. Hmm!

So from this, why is it that "to be capable of distinguishing between these various ideas, and having the wisdom to know when to apply which" is what is most important to you?

As aforementioned, it's necessary for me to be capable of knowing when faith is appropriate and when science must win out. It's an intrinsic part of my worldview to be able, at all times, to know if my faith-based opinions must be set aside for my science-based conclusions. Science always wins, in my eyes. To do any less would unravel me.

As much as I would like to trust in my fellow man, for instance, if there's ten dollars missing from my wallet, and that person over there was the only person within ten feet of my wallet in the last hour and a half, and there's a video tape of him opening my wallet and looking inside, and he just bought himself a hot dog with a ten dollar bill that looks suspiciously like the one I had in my wallet, then I am compelled by the evidence to draw the rational, reasonable conclusion that he stole my ten bucks. This rational, reasonable conclusion, based solely on demonstrable, sufficiently conclusive evidence, supersedes my desire to retain a faith in this person's honesty and integrity. I cannot ignore the evidence. I cannot forget the evidence. I cannot bent and contort the significance of the evidence in my mind until I've rationalized away what would otherwise be an inexorable conclusion. My desires in this matter are irrelevant; the facts at hand win out.

This same thought process applies when speaking of gods in general, even your God in particular. You make the claim that your God loves me. Okay. I can't reasonably deny that claim, of its own accord, just as I couldn't deny if you said that your cat loves me, no matter how friendly your may claim your cat to be. But before I could consider adopting a faith in the love for me of either your cat or your God, I would first need it demonstrated to me that these beings actually exist. Imaginary cats can't love; but receiving emails of pictures of your cat would do much to put those concerns to rest. Actually meeting your cat in person would dismiss them entirely. Then, and only then, could I begin entertaining the notion of holding a faith in your cat's love for me. Nice kitty.

Thus, having a faith of any sort in the feelings of other beings, gods or not, must always, for me, be preceded by a demonstration of the existence of such beings. That's not the sort of thing I'm capable of taking "on faith", as it were. I have faith that my significant other loves me. I can't demonstrate it; but I'm comfortable with that. I can, however, demonstrate that my significant other actually exists, just by poking with my finger. Those two concepts are worlds apart, for me. And I am careful to never, ever cross them.

[nebula]

I would have no place questioning how you feel about each of these beings. And I would have no place questioning how you acquire a faith in how they feel about you. . . .

Thus, having a faith of any sort in the feelings of other beings, gods or not, must always, for me, be preceded by a demonstration of the existence of such beings.

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but it is sounding to me like you have relegated God down to my feelings and nothing more.

I don't believe in the existence of God because I have feelings for Him. I have feelings for Him because I know He is real - just as I know my parents are real. I may not be able to send you God's picture like I can my parents (aka. provide you with physical evidence), but what I have has convinced me.

Whereas, whenever I discover a conflict between science and my heart, I find myself compelled to follow the science. To do otherwise, for me, would be to deny reality. It would feel as though I were discarding sanity, embracing pure and unadulturated compulsion. Indeed: it is not even a choice, for me. I lack the capacity to ignore science in favor of my own preferences and desires. My faith, however passionate and devout, must always bend to the winds of science.

But what if you had something that made you believe God was real?

Take for instance the movie Contact. The main character knew her travel was real, but to everyone else nothing happened. The science went against everything her senses and memory told her.

What would you do then?

As aforementioned, it's necessary for me to be capable of knowing when faith is appropriate and when science must win out. It's an intrinsic part of my worldview to be able, at all times, to know if my faith-based opinions must be set aside for my science-based conclusions. Science always wins, in my eyes. To do any less would unravel me.

But why is science that which is most important to you?

[Xaxyx]

I would have no place questioning how you feel about each of these beings. And I would have no place questioning how you acquire a faith in how they feel about you. . . .

Thus, having a faith of any sort in the feelings of other beings, gods or not, must always, for me, be preceded by a demonstration of the existence of such beings.

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but it is sounding to me like you have relegated God down to my feelings and nothing more.

I was speaking about your God's feelings, actually. Sorry to confuse the point.

I don't believe in the existence of God because I have feelings for Him. I have feelings for Him because I know He is real - just as I know my parents are real. I may not be able to send you God's picture like I can my parents (aka. provide you with physical evidence), but what I have has convinced me.

And my response, as I'm sure you're expecting, is to note that this form of argumentation does not avail me. Just as I would never deign to attempt to draw you into a conclusion for which I was unable to share my evidence.

Whereas, whenever I discover a conflict between science and my heart, I find myself compelled to follow the science. To do otherwise, for me, would be to deny reality. It would feel as though I were discarding sanity, embracing pure and unadulturated compulsion. Indeed: it is not even a choice, for me. I lack the capacity to ignore science in favor of my own preferences and desires. My faith, however passionate and devout, must always bend to the winds of science.

But what if you had something that made you believe God was real?

That's my point entirely. Nothing can "make me believe" that an object exists -- or does not exist. I draw conclusions based on evidence. Only a conclusion based on evidence will result in my adopting a belief in the existence of anything -- from gods to cats to jelly beans.

Mind you, I'm not especially stubborn about it, for the most part. I'm willing to go out on a limb now and again. If you mail me a picture of your cat, I tend to feel confident enough in that evidence to adopt a belief in the existence of your cat. I have no reason to suspect that the evidence in hand is falsified, or tainted. But when it comes to life-altering topics like gods, I'll tend to be a bit more reserved in my judgment, until all the facts are on the table.

Take for instance the movie Contact. The main character knew her travel was real, but to everyone else nothing happened. The science went against everything her senses and memory told her.

What would you do then?

It's interesting to me that you chose that example. I often cite that movie as an excellent demonstration of the genuine devotion to objectivity that a true scientist wields. When the main character found herself sitting before the Senate inquiry, she was asked, bluntly, if it was possible that she imagined the whole thing. Her reply? Yes!

Yes, it was possible that she imagined it. Yes, she lacked any evidence whatsoever to substantiate her claim. Objectivity compelled her to admit that she's got no leg to stand on. So, no, if I were in that position, I would not make a knowledge claim. I would not claim to know that the events actually occurred. Knowledge claims require evidence. I have none.

But why is science that which is most important to you?

Science is the tool I use to distinguish between reality and fantasy, between the actual and the imagined. Science grounds me. It gives me a frame of reference. Without science, the world would exist only in my mind's eye. Without that foundation, I wouldn't be able to form any sort of meaningful worldview for myself. My capacity to form opinions, to weigh ethics, to philosophize, all ultimately rely upon my fundamental capacity to distinguish between what I can know, and what I can only believe.

[nebula]

I was speaking about your God's feelings, actually. Sorry to confuse the point.

Oh, OK - thanks for clarifying that.

And my response, as I'm sure you're expecting, is to note that this form of argumentation does not avail me. Just as I would never deign to attempt to draw you into a conclusion for which I was unable to share my evidence.

I know - I just wanted you to be sure you understood where I'm coming from.

That's my point entirely. Nothing can "make me believe" that an object exists -- or does not exist. I draw conclusions based on evidence. Only a conclusion based on evidence will result in my adopting a belief in the existence of anything -- from gods to cats to jelly beans.

Mind you, I'm not especially stubborn about it, for the most part. I'm willing to go out on a limb now and again. If you mail me a picture of your cat, I tend to feel confident enough in that evidence to adopt a belief in the existence of your cat. I have no reason to suspect that the evidence in hand is falsified, or tainted. But when it comes to life-altering topics like gods, I'll tend to be a bit more reserved in my judgment, until all the facts are on the table.

Hmmm . . . let me try a different angle.

Do you trust nutrition science?

It seems like every year the advanced scientific studies are telling us that last years advanced scientific studies were all wrong.

With your faith in science - and your reliance on science to lead you and guide you into all truth - how do you know what you should and should not be eating? (Assuming a correct healthy diet was either important or essential to you.)

Take for instance the movie Contact. The main character knew her travel was real, but to everyone else nothing happened. The science went against everything her senses and memory told her.

What would you do then?

It's interesting to me that you chose that example. I often cite that movie as an excellent demonstration of the genuine devotion to objectivity that a true scientist wields. When the main character found herself sitting before the Senate inquiry, she was asked, bluntly, if it was possible that she imagined the whole thing. Her reply? Yes!

Yes, it was possible that she imagined it. Yes, she lacked any evidence whatsoever to substantiate her claim. Objectivity compelled her to admit that she's got no leg to stand on.

Actually, that's not the way it happened. Here is the discourse IMDB website :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Panel member: Doctor Arroway, you come to us with no evidence, no record, no artifacts. Only a story that to put it mildly strains credibility. Over half a trillion dollars was spent, dozens of lives were lost. Are you really going to sit there and tell us we should just take this all... on faith?

[pause, Ellie looks at Palmer]

Michael Kitz: Please answer the question, doctor.

Ellie Arroway: Is it possible that it didn't happen? Yes. As a scientist, I must concede that, I must volunteer that.

Michael Kitz: Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You admit that you have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your story.

Ellie Arroway: Yes.

Michael Kitz: You admit that you very well may have hallucinated this whole thing.

Ellie Arroway: Yes.

Michael Kitz: You admit that if you were in our position, you would respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism!

Ellie Arroway: Yes!

Michael Kitz: [standing, angrily] Then why don't you simply withdraw your testimony, and concede that this "journey to the center of the galaxy," in fact, never took place!

Ellie Arroway: Because I can't. I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And her last statement echoes how I feel, how I think, how I believe.

I can't explain it, I can't prove it, but everything I know tells me the Father is real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever . . . . I wish I could share that with everyone, if only you could feel that awe, that humility, and hope. . . .

But why is science that which is most important to you?

Science is the tool I use to distinguish between reality and fantasy, between the actual and the imagined. Science grounds me. It gives me a frame of reference. Without science, the world would exist only in my mind's eye. Without that foundation, I wouldn't be able to form any sort of meaningful worldview for myself. My capacity to form opinions, to weigh ethics, to philosophize, all ultimately rely upon my fundamental capacity to distinguish between what I can know, and what I can only believe.

Would Edison have invented the light bulb if he held so tightly to "what was reality and what is fantasy"? Was it not the fantasy of reality and belief in the unbelievable that pushed him beyond the failures and gave him hope in the possibility of the invention?

[Gauntlet]

Excellent post!

I admire how you think. Making/seeing connections where others do not is a very valuable trait.