Is rational theistic belief possible?

[Jachin]

Quote by: Isherwood Theists have proposed gods. Theists have offered no evidence to support their supposition. They say the concept must be accepted by faith alone.

There are those who accept the existence of a god by faith alone. But there are also those who look at the evidence categorized and examined by science and draw the conclusion that at some level there must be something more than can be analyzed and quantified.

Quote by: Isherwood Some of us prefer to not blindly believe everything that humans come up with. We ask for evidence, something that can be falsified and supports the contention of gods. As long as theists fail to provide that evidence, we continue to withhold belief.

Humans came up with science, too. It didn't just magically appear.

I guess my bottom line is that I believe attempting to use science to understand things like faith, God, the supernatural, etc., is like expecting your VCR to play a CD. The two are not compatible, and never will be. Science is for understanding the temporal, while religion and philosophy are for understanding the ethereal.

[Jack]

The two are not compatible, and never will be. Science is for understanding the temporal, while religion and philosophy are for understanding the ethereal.

I can buy that.

Humans came up with science, too. It didn't just magically appear.

Absolutely. Every bit of knowledge we have was, at some point in history, created by a human being, not divinely inspired.

But there are also those who look at the evidence categorized and examined by science and draw the conclusion that at some level there must be something more than can be analyzed and quantified.

While I still wouldn't agree with the conclusions reached, at least that attitude allows for some knowledge beyond the narrow confines of Biblical literalism. At least until it reaches the extreme of ID. Religions frequently confuse perception with absolute truth.

I don't understand the theist who attempts to deny the findings of science while at the very same time consumes the products and enjoys the benefits of science. At least the Mennonites make an effort to live a religious life like they really mean it. So do monks and contemplatives. I often envy their lifestyles. Simple, honest, consistent with their beliefs. I can admire that regardless of their philosophies.

I also don't see why theists can't accept that disproving the existence of gods will only ever be a secondary byproduct of scientific inquiry. Science just reports what tests out to be there. We philosophical atheists are the ones who get to take those findings and apply them as evidence that there are better explanations for observed phenomena in nature than there are in religion. Science does not attempt, nor does it intend, to disprove the idea of gods.

[rez]

Quote by: Dirty Name Wrong. Theists point to evidence all the time - (the Big Bang theory is a classic example where atheists formed new theories when existing scientific evidence pointed obviously toward the Biblical account of creation).

Your bible conflicts with all scientific theories.

You simply have chosen to reject the evidence, which is your prerogative, but your claim that Theists have offered "no evidence" is utterly false.

Suggesting something designed the universe conflicts with every scientific theory because it suggests unnatural mechanisms are behind the natural ones.

Trust me, you'll never figure it out through science alone, because, as science tells us, there's only so far we can peer into space - thus there is only so much we can ever know about our origins.

To understand and investigate the power of nature does not require one to jump to conclusions. The purpose of science is to dig deeper and try to figure out the mechanisms behind it. The mechanisms behind nature are indeed natural.

Your blind faith in science to answer life's mysteries is going to be a major letdown for you one day.

The explanations are good enough for me. Unlike you, I do not need to jump to conclusions to understand the purpose of life. Life, to me, can be just as meaningful without any external purpose.

[Jachin]

Quote by: Isherwood While I still wouldn't agree with the conclusions reached, at least that attitude allows for some knowledge beyond the narrow confines of Biblical literalism. At least until it reaches the extreme of ID. Religions frequently confuse perception with absolute truth.

True. And the word "truth" is problematic. Seems like people confuse "truth" with "fact." As I, the liberal arts major, understand it, science seeks fact, whereas religion and philosophy seek truth. Once again, its apples and oranges.

Quote by: Isherwood I don't understand the theist who attempts to deny the findings of science while at the very same time consumes the products and enjoys the benefits of science. At least the Mennonites make an effort to live a religious life like they really mean it. So do monks and contemplatives. I often envy their lifestyles. Simple, honest, consistent with their beliefs. I can admire that regardless of their philosophies.

People are hypocrites. What can I say?

Quote by: Isherwood I also don't see why theists can't accept that disproving the existence of gods will only ever be a secondary byproduct of scientific inquiry. Science just reports what tests out to be there. We philosophical atheists are the ones who get to take those findings and apply them as evidence that there are better explanations for observed phenomena in nature than there are in religion. Science does not attempt, nor does it intend, to disprove the idea of gods.

You're preaching to the converted on this one. As I understand it, science is about proving ideas, not disproving them, as it is impossible to prove a negative.

I view science as the "how," and religion as the "who" and the "why." When one asks science who or why, or religion how, a rational person will always come away with an unsatisfactory answer.

[arielmessenger]

"The argument against theism is logic, not science. We have no reason to believe in God, so therefor we do not assume He exists."

As Godel's Proof shows, every "logic" system is a pre-determined game. Logic can't be a base line for judging reality because it's contaminated by the observer. Science does hold the key to finding out patterns in the way things work but as we all know what science knew yesterday isn't what science knows today or tomorrow. Those who accept a lack of evidence for spiritual phenomena using "science" are asking us to "believe" in science when science doesn't know how to even address spiritual phenomena, e.g the gross attempt to demythologize near-death-experiences which have profound impacts on those who have them by making silly claims that one can reach the same result with ketamine or spinning astronauts around and around.

I have yet to hear one single "scientific" explanation of how a flat-line brain can produce any sort of phenomena that registers in the human mind, much less the complicated visuals that accompany hallucinations. And nowhere is the commonality of n.d.e. experiences addressed by those claiming these are just hallucinations. Ask your '60's hallucinogen partakers if they saw the same visual hallucinations and you will discover everyone is different--no commonality whatsoever except "colors" and "geometric patterns" for those who have never experienced the grand visions LSD and mescaline can produce. There is great commonality in n.d.e. while there is hardly any in drug induced hallucinations.

N.d.e's are one of the two places where material reality can be seen to be subject to laws unknown to science. The other place is synchronicity events which defy statistical probability. I'd like atheists here to address these phenomena with their science yardstick. I am not knocking science at all but when it is elevated to the point of replacing God as the "answer" to everything, I think it's time to do a reality check.

[Jack]

I am not knocking science at all but when it is elevated to the point of replacing God as the "answer" to everything, I think it's time to do a reality check.

The concept of gods isn't well enough supported by evidence to use it as an explanation for anything, let alone everything. Reality check, indeed. Where in reality do I find these gods?

Those who accept a lack of evidence for spiritual phenomena using "science" are asking us to "believe" in science when science doesn't know how to even address spiritual phenomena

The lack of evidence for spiritual phenomena stands alone. Whether science is considered or not, religion still cannot support its contentions beyond demanding faith.

[arielmessenger]

It is utterly amazing that you atheists can actually "believe" your own rant. No "evidence of gods".."no evidence of supernatural events", as if world civilizations created on religious perceptions never happened. As if great minds guiding civilization's advancement all were atheists!

I have plenty of proof of supernatural or scientifically unexplainable phenomena in my religious life to satisfy my need for verification of real phenomena going on. Utterly astonishing events have happened that have no explanation otherwise than spiritual reality being infused within the world of the senses. But I could list my claims from here to eternity and you atheists will never credit them because your belief system says they don't exist. Figments of overworked imaginations..that's all religion is..all what fired Jesus, fired Gandhi, fired MLK, to go their extra miles--just using myths to fool the people with..

Ok, let's get down to a test of supernatural reality vs. the atheist mindset that claims no such thing exists.

I want you, Isherwood, and any other atheists who want to see up front and personal where the supernatural butts into our world, to do this experiment:

Within your circle of friends and close relatives, assuming you have such, ask them if they've ever had a synchronicity experience, one where a dream, or some event triggered a small series of "coincidences", the same name appearing in different contexts within a day, something like that, some event that was so unexpected and startling that it became memorable.

See how many of your close friends or relatives have had such experiences and report back to us.

Must be honest: