Topic: theism and skepticism compatible?

[mjtolsma]

I agree with Johnny. To put it in a question: can you call yourself a skeptic if you exempt your religious believes from the skeptical mindset?

[JD Holwick]

the only point i am trying to make is that it is inconsistent to believe in a magical god while trying to be skeptical everywhere else, hence the "leprechaun" example.  ---  jdh

[seaotter]

Ok, but I totally know when my mom is going to call.

[jomike]

the only point i am trying to make is that it is inconsistent to believe in a magical god while trying to be skeptical everywhere else, hence the "leprechaun" example.  ---  jdh

Sam Harris agrees, so you're in pretty good company there.  But then we have people like biology professor Ken Miller, a devout Roman Catholic who, as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, utterly destroyed the claims of intelligent design advocates regarding irreducible complexity.  He would say there's no inherent conflict, that the magisteria don't overlap.  It strikes me as one hell of a trick of compartmentalization, but maybe that merely indicates a lack of imagination and an overly-literal world view on my part.

[JD Holwick]

It strikes me as one hell of a trick of compartmentalization...

this statement is what i was getting at.  i admire kenneth miller, but compartmentalization is clearly at play in his reasoning.  ---  jdh

[jomike]

It strikes me as one hell of a trick of compartmentalization...

this statement is what i was getting at.  i admire kenneth miller, but compartmentalization is clearly at play in his reasoning.  ---  jdh

Some thoughts that you might dig from philosopher Russell Blackford: NOMA no more - the great accommodationism debate

[nsfwjonathan]

There are theisms that exist outside of most of our experiences, so I don't see why these things can't be compatible.  Why does all theism get judge on the standard of the loud kooks that exploit them?

[JD Holwick]

i think theism is judged harshly because it is absolutely unnecessary to inject a god into our understanding of the world.  i do not know of one good reason to believe in a god.  theism needs to be judged harshly for this reason; the very concept brings this judgment upon itself.  ---  jdh

[nsfwjonathan]

i think theism is judged harshly because it is absolutely unnecessary to inject a god into our understanding of the world.  i do not know of one good reason to believe in a god.  theism needs to be judged harshly for this reason; the very concept brings this judgment upon itself.  ---  jdh

I think my point was more this: there are theists that exist that don't see god as a explanation for our world, rather that further understanding the natural world is more an explanation of god.

Admittedly this isn't a very vocal group, but they still exist - and I'd imagine in larger numbers than we might imagine.  Maybe what I'm purposing is more along the lines of a deist than a theist?

[Plastique]

there are theists that exist that don't see god as a explanation for our world, rather that further understanding the natural world is more an explanation of god.

What does that even mean?

[nsfwjonathan]

Example of the idea that I mean: Early Islamic scholars studied mathematics and science in order to better understand what 'god' had created.  They didn't seek to understand the world by saying 'god did it with magic,' instead it seems it was 'how did god make this happen naturally.' 

Admittedly, that's a big general statement - but my point is that I know theists that believe that the world works in a scientific way; objective and observable.  They also believe that god created the universe via the big bang.  Apologetics from many believers, but from some it's a basic part of their faith.  Understanding how nature works gives them 'insight' in to how god my work. 

These aren't my beliefs, to be clear!  And I'm probably mangling the message.  If so, i'm terribly sorry i'm not making much sense XD

[mjtolsma]

When Einstein spoke of "god", he referred to the laws of nature. Do you mean this, do you mean that god might also be some undiscovered law of nature, or some presence which actually (has) set(s) things in motion and/or can (con)troll events?

[seaotter]

There are theisms that exist outside of most of our experiences, so I don't see why these things can't be compatible.  Why does all theism get judge on the standard of the loud kooks that exploit them?

Is not the skeptical stance to withhold judgement until there is adequate evidence?

[seaotter]

Example of the idea that I mean: Early Islamic scholars studied mathematics and science in order to better understand what 'god' had created.  They didn't seek to understand the world by saying 'god did it with magic,' instead it seems it was 'how did god make this happen naturally.' 

Admittedly, that's a big general statement - but my point is that I know theists that believe that the world works in a scientific way; objective and observable.  They also believe that god created the universe via the big bang.  Apologetics from many believers, but from some it's a basic part of their faith.  Understanding how nature works gives them 'insight' in to how god my work. 

These aren't my beliefs, to be clear!  And I'm probably mangling the message.  If so, i'm terribly sorry i'm not making much sense XD

You don't have to pick out Islamic scholars the Christians studied nature to reveal the glory of god too. Boy was that a fuck up.

[JD Holwick]

in some of these responses i see a recurring pattern: the natural workings of the universe become god's hands.  doesn't the "god concept" become superfluous at this point?  ---  jdh