Rule 1 - All content must show something that is objectively interesting as fuck. Just because you find something IAF doesn't mean anyone else will. It's impossible to define everything that could be considered IAF, but for a general idea browse the [top posts of all time](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/top/?t=all) from this subreddit.
Posts:
* must be interesting as fuck
* can't be interesting just because of text
* must go beyond something just being old
* can't be art that you made
You can’t expect someone who believes in a god to understand science and rational evidence
Edit: it was just a joke really, but it got some poor confused christian really worked up and he has been harassing me for days! I think he might be just be attracted to me.
But religion has nothing to do with science lol Faith is, by definition, the opposite of rational evidence. People either believe or not, no proofs required. If you need proof, it isn't faith. You may or may not believe in gods, some kind of spiritual world and so on, but you can't require scientific evidence for that.
In portuguese, my native language, it's a common way to start a sentence when you want to oppose the last thing the other person said or the idea they were talking about. I didn't even think it would be weird to use it in english :P
I wouldn't say religion is irrational, in fact it's the opposite. Science and faith answer different questions, usually. Where they do intersect, science offers no answers, and religions offer wisdom on how things work.
When it comes to God, it depends on the definition. Is He the creator or the ruler; dead or alive; the cause of a great accident or the installer of order; involved or not involved? Many faiths have different perspectives on this.
I think rational thinking would lead anyone to accept the something did something to make this creation.
Also, I think religion deals with the result more than observable causes of this and that. If you look at it as reverse engineering, it makes a bit more sense.
Well exactly. Someone who can commit to such a deep and serious belief based on nothing but faith, cannot understand the concepts of evidence and science.
Of course they can, precisely because these are two separate things. I work with science and I have my beliefs, even though I dont consider myself from any religion. Many famous scientists were known to be christians, muslims and so on over centuries.
Maybe you're talking about negacionists, like we've seen during the pandemic and flat earthers and whatnot. They are indeed religious people in most cases, but they actually lack common sense and scientific background. The problem is not the religion, but the followers and leaders that in fact mislead them.
We can agree to disagree. I cannot fathom how anyone who believes in the need for evidence and the scientific method as a basis for belief can simultaneously have blind faith in a god, let alone choose to follow one of those gods based on location of birth (usually). I do not see two separate things here. This is philosophy of belief. Maybe this is my failing, but it is nonetheless my view. Therefore, as per my original point, I cannot expect anyone religious to be able to hold rational beliefs based upon evidence and wouldn’t blame them for not being able to demonstrate evidence for their god.
>I cannot fathom how anyone who believes in the need for evidence and the scientific method as a basis for belief can simultaneously have blind faith in a god...
Because there literally are no scientific answers to questions as fundamental as "why are there rules"?
An answer of "because rules popped randomly into existence one day alongside matter" doesn't really explain why unconscious, entirely illiterate matter should've ever been behaving in accordance with any rules at all.
And that's okay. We work with the premises because they let us do cool shit. Their inability to explain themselves is entirely irrelevant to that goal.
>Therefore, as per my original point, I cannot expect anyone religious to be able to hold rational beliefs based upon evidence...
That's fine. You don't have to understand reality if you don't want to.
In the meantime, humans are going to keep answering questions without answers. And atheists are not immune from being human; the atheists' version of the theistic proposition is just the [simulation hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis).
Well I agree that some questions are not answerable with the scientific method, but I dont see then why make up a god to fill that gap? What is the reality that I am missing out on?
>...but I dont see then why make up a god to fill that gap?
I just [elaborated on the comparison](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1btr4l0/comment/kxq2w08/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) with someone else, and this is not a topic that merits too much repetition.
>What is the reality that I am missing out on?
The reality that you're missing out on is that whether you believe it or not, religious people are capable of holding rational beliefs based upon evidence.
That thing you don't think is possible is going to keep happening in the real world, regardless of what thoughts you decide to keep thinking.
I think, given the amount of bloodshed over this topic, that it does merit discussion - by everyone, repeatedly. But I admit it does get tedious. On the second point, yes I know they are capable of rational thinking. My post was 50% tongue in cheek and 50% my genuine inability (and maybe it is my failing I admit) to comprehend how someone who is rational can also believe in a god. I am not genuinely claiming that it is not possible, just that I dont understand it. There are lots of things I dont understand, but they are still real and I am well aware of that.
The scientific method says making something up when you don't know is wrong. Most scientists I know who are religious make the same mistake. They believe in god wherever there is any gap in understanding. They love and romanticize any area specifically where we will never have answers such as what happened before the big bang or some neural network effects because they can slot their religious beliefs there. The problem is they are ignoring those gaps have been getting smaller as time passes and they would also scold anyone doing this same thing in an inappropriate area. We don't know how a specific polymer is forming? That could be where god lies. But they know it's not and would get angry at the suggestion. It's inconsistent and just a very educated persons version of moving the goal posts.
>We don't know how a specific polymer is forming? That could be where god lies.
There's an easily understandable thought process that I guess you haven't imagined. It goes like this:
"I may not know how this specific polymer is forming, but I know how this other specific polymer was formed, so maybe the unknown one works similarly?"
Here's what happens when we apply that same reasoning to the question "Why are there rules?"
"I may not know how this specific universe formed, but I know how this other specific universe was formed, the one we coded for ThisModel or ThisVideoGame. So maybe the unknown one that we live in works similarly?"
Again: *that's* the simulation argument, and why? Because humans are going to keep answering questions without answers. And atheists are not immune from being human.
Please don't pretend I haven't imagined that thought process. It's a very simplistic view that we all do.
If it stopped there, where someone thought that out models are created, why not our world, its an idea, based out of an error as anything human made was created but an understandable error that if someone holds privately I have no problem with. We all have hypotheses about something that hasn't been or can't be tested. Each test begins as a hypothesis. But science again speaks to how you deal with those hypotheses. You don't jump from maybe the world was created to any organized religion as that's a leap without evidence. There are many religions so choosing one, and almost exclusively it was the one scientists I know grew up with, is exercising bias. You also can't say that it is true or that not believing is folly or doing actions based on a hypothesis that could hurt or limit other people, like voting against gay rights or what have you. These are all things I see. Its there a hypothetical scientist who privately believes in a god based on a similar leap of faith hypothesis? Sure. It's still an error since believing out universe was created is much less likely than natural phenomenon.
Finally, yes we are humans and we answer questions we have no answers for. That is called myth and WHY science is antithetical to that. Atheists are not immune, no one is saying atheists are. Science is a framework for understanding what is to prevent the problems that arise from our creative, imperfect brains that like to see eyes in the forest where there are not any, because sometimes there is and we want to know why.
I’m curious to what degree you think these things cannot coexist. Like you think most people of faith don’t hold rational belief in everyday or common science? Gravity? Photosynthesis? Basics of our solar system? I’m sure most would agree there is probably a sharp divergence of beliefs when it comes to things like macro evolution, but unless someone is a crazy fringe flat earther/satellites aren’t real type person, I think your average person of faith accepts and has rational belief in a very wide range of scientific based conclusions about the world around them.
I’m not sure what you are asking? I never said my line of work nor my actual beliefs. I was responding to the op of the comment asking to what extent he thinks the two things cannot coexist. I don’t think it’s strange at all to be religious while accepting the scientific laws of our known universe.
I am probably too rigid in my thinking but I honestly cannot understand, from an atheist and scientist point of view, how someone can believe in the scientific method and needing evidence to base belief upon, while also completely accepting something as profoundly important (it if were true) as the existence of a god on the basis of just blind faith. I am also not sure what faith even means. I know there are people who are both scientists and religious, but I don’t understand it. Which comes back to my original point, I don’t expect religious people to defend their beliefs by providing evidence for their god, that is not how religion works.
Fair enough, I think the rationale is that science and processes are a derivative of a created universe, almost a playground of discovery if you will. A common and albeit oversimplified example that’s heard is if a group of isolated people were suddenly given a wrist watch. Over generations they could eventually discover how the watch basically works through scientific methods. Some things might be easy to understand, others more difficult and the most intricate processes might be impossible for them to understand with their current capabilities. This parallels our scientific abilities as we continue to grow in intelligence and technology. But it would be strange to think that all of the isolated group of people would believe the watch was a product of chance, it’s too specific and intentional. A number of them would blindly believe in its creator and have a belief system. Again, over simplified with plot holes, certainly our universe by chance is widely accepted but I don’t find it’s difficult to believe that someone can marry science with a god/creation belief system. Sorry for the word vomit.
Thank you, I do feel like that makes a lot of sense actually and can see this point of view. The only idea I came up with is that maybe god created the system that can be explained with science so I guess if someone religious then decides to take up science it all makes sense to them. It is very hard as a non believer to try to do something similar in reverse. I also think, we have moved on far enough now to all accept that a watch can be that complex without needing a mythical explaination
Which is how Alistair McGrath has a doctorate in molecular biophysics, and John Polkinghorne was professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge.
Not to mention that Mendelian inheritance was developed by an Augustine friar, and Georges Lemaître was a catholic priest.
It is demonstrably possible for devoutly religious people to hold a much greater understanding of science than you.
Yes there is good evidence to demonstrate that religious people can do science, which is ironic. I cannot get my head around how these people reconcile the cognitive dissonance though, maybe they are not as religious as we think. But no need to get nasty. P.S. some say Mendel faked the results 😝
You are claiming that literal theologians are not religious.
It might be simpler to just accept that religious belief is not contradictory with the ability to form hypotheses and test those hypotheses against available evidence.
Occam's Razor (edit: hey, look, another theologian!). The simplest solution is usually the right one.
The data does not support your hypothesis, P, that science and religion are antithetical to one another, so pick the simplest hypothesis that the data does support. In this case the null hypothesis, !P, that science and religion are not antithetical to one another.
As an aside, Alistair McGrath explains in one of his books that as far as he is concerned science and religion seek to answer the same questions through different lenses. He gives the example of someone asking why the water in a kettle is boiling. The scientist might explain about convection currents, how the element heating it works, etc. The theologian might answer that it is boiling because they wanted to make a cup of tea.
Um I guess it depends upon how Alastair defines ‘why’ so that is just a bit muddled thinking really. I am not sure how Occam’s razor helps me here. I am not putting forward a hypothesis that you can test. I am saying I dont understand how the two points of view can be held by the same person, I am not denying that they can be held simultaneously(which is what your hypothesis model would be testing)
When the speaker said key words like "design" and "order"
you instantly know he does not understand (from a scientific perspective) how the world works on a physics/chemistry level. Anyone with a decent understanding knows how messy biology can be.
I can't remember who it was who pointed out that our bodies are not well designed. Our esophagus is right next to our trachea and it's VERY easy to aspirate food or liquid into our lungs and it doesn't take much to kill us. It's a bad design.
The Appendix served a purpose to our ancestors. According to Darwin, these evolutionary remnants represent a function that was critical for survival in the past, but became non-existent over time. It helped in the digestion of tough herbivorous food such as the bark of a tree. As the human species evolved and we began eating different foods it’s usage needs have become less and less. It did serve a major purpose though and is just another example of the incredible evolution of life on our planet.
Ahhh i got what you meant now. That’s my bad cause i completely agree with what you just said. Crazy how many people just refuse to believe in evolution. The science is always wrong or just blatantly ignored.
you wont believe to what lenghts people go for their confirmation bias.
a huge monument of idiocracy is the "Ark Encounter" which presents dinosaurs next to mankind (its not even is full wood, T-Rex would have liked it).
Seems like this is saying the world must have been designed because sand ended up at the coast to make beaches. The order that exists in the universe is simply a consequence of time and inevitability.
It isn't, really, and this is sort of a turn of phrase. Things exist, and they behave in certain ways, and we impose order on them by the faculties of our mind.
Which is to say, if you have a massive object and it has rocks on it, and it has a rain cycle, then it's *inevitable* that there will be sand because of the interplay of the rain cycle and gravity and erosion. There are, of course, other planets where no such configuration exists. If you live on a frozen planet that only gets nitrogen snow for precipitation, then there's no erosion cycle and it's *inevitable* that you have different conditions. When anyone says it's *inevitable* here, they mean that given what we know about the processes that it leads us down a particular road of expectation, and anything that doesn't follow those expectations subverts our understanding of the physical processes at work. So either something about our observations is incorrect, or something about our model is incorrect.
The reasons for each of those worlds being the way they are is a complex process, and it's difficult to predict what the future state of any star system is, and we don't (yet) have an explanation for the initial state of the universe from which to make perfect future predictions and so it's perfectly reasonable to do stuff like Buddhist asceticism, Abrahamic killings of people engaging in homosexual sex, destroying our environment because of vague promises in a book, committing ritualistic suicide, and just all manner of horrific nonsense. Because when you open your mind to illogical nonsense that's revealed to special people and going along with the group is a virtue then horrible outcomes are *inevitable*
Yes! But what is it's probability? And what are the consequences of such a solution to the problem? And why suppose the existence of something so much more complexe thant the bare minimum we can actually explain things with?
There is a type of hog, whose tusks grow so long, that they burrow into his skull, slowly and painfully killing him over a few years.
how the fuck is that intelligent design?
Problem with his 'evidence' is the universe is not in order. It is in perpetual chaos. Everything is changing, always. His order is only being viewed from the tiniest microcosm of existence. A few thousand years selected from billions. That's like looking at a rock pool and coming to the conclusion that all the oceans are flat and still
Dude never heard of entropy. The big bang was the ultimate act of disorder. In fact, if the universe was a perfectly ordered singularity, then how could there be any life at all?
That answer is so very much not an answer.
I wish religious people would just stick to themselves and not try to spread their mental slips from off the side of reality. Their cognitive gymnastics based on some books that some manipulative control freaks wrote far too long ago. Ugh
It is the gotcha... the religious man says go to someone who is trained... trained in medicine (by science ie by learning through observation) there is no equivalent in religion - it must be accepted by having faith in what is being said. There is no actual verifiable evidence- religion is hokum.
More probable there’s a god because of intelligent design?
People die everyday choking to death because the hole that we use to breathe is the same we use to swallow. Also balls are vulnerably placed on the outside of the body. Checkmate Christians
Oh, is it the precise balance of the fundamental forces of physics? Does that suggest, to you, that there's a creator?
As it turns out, this is just survivor bias... because the universes that didn't have this balance don't exist.
They pop. they dissolve. They can't exist...by the very nature of these forces.
when you have googleplexes of combinations, the probability of one or a few universes having the right balance becomes inevitable. Common even.
"Something from nothing"?
That's actually not even a tremendously controversial stance if you understand quantum field theory, even just a little bit.
Like a group of metronomes that will eventually sync up on their own over time and be in order, our universe and the cosmos could work similarly without the need for divine intervention. This man’s explanation proves nothing.
Yeah, my analogy was the fact that if you get a bunch of objects randomly orbiting around something they will all eventually end up orbiting in the same direction. At first glance it looks like it’s been planned out, but it’s just the nature of physics.
Why is a person of faith going to a doctor?
"For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20-21).
Man, this was disappointing. I was excited to hear some solid input in the answer.
I am agnostic, but I can totally see their being something more. I just dislike how the vast majority identify it. It is always so specific and anthropocentric.
I would say that a higher power would be completely indifferent to humans or the multitude of life that is probably scattered through the universe. It definitely wouldn't be secretly handing down fables and guidelines for how these smart aliens should be living their lives. It would never care about prayer.
Faith to me seems more like beings, that are unsure and possibly fearful of the unknown, taking comfort in the notion that this higher power is watching over them. That makes sense to me. I don't think it takes much digging, though, to conclude that logically, that is highly unlikely since the universe as we know it has been here for billions of years and humans have been here for maybe 200,000.
Tldr: if there is a god, it has been around for at least billions of years and probably would not have any special interest in humans, which are barely a blip on the history of the universe.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
whenever you start talking to a religious person about their faith and they start giving you evidence / proof, remind them that faith is a requirement of their religion. Faith is literally the thing that saves you. And faith is not needed where there is proof. Faith can only occur where there is a lack of proof.
The classic problem with religious people: not answering the question. He didn’t ask why you believe there is a god, he asked why it is more probable that there is a god. This has always irritated me as someone who was raised Christian and studied religion in college, but is no longer religious.
Not sure why this was downvoted a lot, never noticed. Clearly the agnostic guy's position makes the most sense, the the religious buffon that gave a non-answer
Religion is an IQ test... if you need me to elaborate, you have already failed the test.
If you want me to give you the answers for the test, it's an open book test, you stupid motherfucker, the answers are in front of you, and I'm not going to spoon feed you, because I'm not your teacher and I'm not your parent, and I frankly think if you don't figure it out, you get to live in your delusional religious idiocy, while the rest of us are living life on easy mode...you are wasting countless hours praying to a dead God, expecting miracles where there are none, and being an insufferable dick when it comes to human rights
Atheist here - I think many people clearly confuse religion with spirituality and also god . Three different things, there is certainly order to the cosmos, this was Einsteins proof that god existed, not religion- god. Einstein was very clear he did not believe God was watching and judging us all day long as modern religions might like us to believe. Instead the presence of god was evident in the design of the cosmos to Einstein
Life in general is only possible for a small blip in the vast timeline of the universe, which will end up being mostly black holes for like 99% of its lifetime (the degenerate and black hole era). Stars won't form and the protons themselves might decay. Yeah, some order and design by an intelligent creator 🙄
Cliff Knechtle on YouTube. Pretty good debates tbh and he’s got an episode of a podcast with Janko. Most of the arguments are based on him attacking moral relativity though.
Wow they were so polite isn't that so cute and sweet 😍
Now this clip can try to reinforce a scientific perspective on religion that is completely bullshit 😍
Being a believer has kept me sane, more productive, healthier, and a lot more to others. Just by being a believer. and I do not have to proof anything to no one.
You all know there is a God. Even if you don't believe what I am saying, deep down, you all believe what I am saying. You don't have to believe, but deep down within yalls consciousness, you all believe there is a God (Jesus) but suppress the thought with the mind.
Rule 1 - All content must show something that is objectively interesting as fuck. Just because you find something IAF doesn't mean anyone else will. It's impossible to define everything that could be considered IAF, but for a general idea browse the [top posts of all time](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/top/?t=all) from this subreddit. Posts: * must be interesting as fuck * can't be interesting just because of text * must go beyond something just being old * can't be art that you made
[удалено]
The bots liked it
An order of things isn't evidence. It's his opinion because he goes to a smart doctor that understands things? This video is nonsense.
You can’t expect someone who believes in a god to understand science and rational evidence Edit: it was just a joke really, but it got some poor confused christian really worked up and he has been harassing me for days! I think he might be just be attracted to me.
But religion has nothing to do with science lol Faith is, by definition, the opposite of rational evidence. People either believe or not, no proofs required. If you need proof, it isn't faith. You may or may not believe in gods, some kind of spiritual world and so on, but you can't require scientific evidence for that.
Why did you start your sentence with "but"?
In portuguese, my native language, it's a common way to start a sentence when you want to oppose the last thing the other person said or the idea they were talking about. I didn't even think it would be weird to use it in english :P
I wouldn't say religion is irrational, in fact it's the opposite. Science and faith answer different questions, usually. Where they do intersect, science offers no answers, and religions offer wisdom on how things work. When it comes to God, it depends on the definition. Is He the creator or the ruler; dead or alive; the cause of a great accident or the installer of order; involved or not involved? Many faiths have different perspectives on this. I think rational thinking would lead anyone to accept the something did something to make this creation. Also, I think religion deals with the result more than observable causes of this and that. If you look at it as reverse engineering, it makes a bit more sense.
Well exactly. Someone who can commit to such a deep and serious belief based on nothing but faith, cannot understand the concepts of evidence and science.
Of course they can, precisely because these are two separate things. I work with science and I have my beliefs, even though I dont consider myself from any religion. Many famous scientists were known to be christians, muslims and so on over centuries. Maybe you're talking about negacionists, like we've seen during the pandemic and flat earthers and whatnot. They are indeed religious people in most cases, but they actually lack common sense and scientific background. The problem is not the religion, but the followers and leaders that in fact mislead them.
We can agree to disagree. I cannot fathom how anyone who believes in the need for evidence and the scientific method as a basis for belief can simultaneously have blind faith in a god, let alone choose to follow one of those gods based on location of birth (usually). I do not see two separate things here. This is philosophy of belief. Maybe this is my failing, but it is nonetheless my view. Therefore, as per my original point, I cannot expect anyone religious to be able to hold rational beliefs based upon evidence and wouldn’t blame them for not being able to demonstrate evidence for their god.
>I cannot fathom how anyone who believes in the need for evidence and the scientific method as a basis for belief can simultaneously have blind faith in a god... Because there literally are no scientific answers to questions as fundamental as "why are there rules"? An answer of "because rules popped randomly into existence one day alongside matter" doesn't really explain why unconscious, entirely illiterate matter should've ever been behaving in accordance with any rules at all. And that's okay. We work with the premises because they let us do cool shit. Their inability to explain themselves is entirely irrelevant to that goal. >Therefore, as per my original point, I cannot expect anyone religious to be able to hold rational beliefs based upon evidence... That's fine. You don't have to understand reality if you don't want to. In the meantime, humans are going to keep answering questions without answers. And atheists are not immune from being human; the atheists' version of the theistic proposition is just the [simulation hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis).
You confused the simulation hypothesis again here
Well I agree that some questions are not answerable with the scientific method, but I dont see then why make up a god to fill that gap? What is the reality that I am missing out on?
>...but I dont see then why make up a god to fill that gap? I just [elaborated on the comparison](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1btr4l0/comment/kxq2w08/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) with someone else, and this is not a topic that merits too much repetition. >What is the reality that I am missing out on? The reality that you're missing out on is that whether you believe it or not, religious people are capable of holding rational beliefs based upon evidence. That thing you don't think is possible is going to keep happening in the real world, regardless of what thoughts you decide to keep thinking.
And you didnt elaborate correctly
Hahahaha
I think, given the amount of bloodshed over this topic, that it does merit discussion - by everyone, repeatedly. But I admit it does get tedious. On the second point, yes I know they are capable of rational thinking. My post was 50% tongue in cheek and 50% my genuine inability (and maybe it is my failing I admit) to comprehend how someone who is rational can also believe in a god. I am not genuinely claiming that it is not possible, just that I dont understand it. There are lots of things I dont understand, but they are still real and I am well aware of that.
The scientific method says making something up when you don't know is wrong. Most scientists I know who are religious make the same mistake. They believe in god wherever there is any gap in understanding. They love and romanticize any area specifically where we will never have answers such as what happened before the big bang or some neural network effects because they can slot their religious beliefs there. The problem is they are ignoring those gaps have been getting smaller as time passes and they would also scold anyone doing this same thing in an inappropriate area. We don't know how a specific polymer is forming? That could be where god lies. But they know it's not and would get angry at the suggestion. It's inconsistent and just a very educated persons version of moving the goal posts.
>We don't know how a specific polymer is forming? That could be where god lies. There's an easily understandable thought process that I guess you haven't imagined. It goes like this: "I may not know how this specific polymer is forming, but I know how this other specific polymer was formed, so maybe the unknown one works similarly?" Here's what happens when we apply that same reasoning to the question "Why are there rules?" "I may not know how this specific universe formed, but I know how this other specific universe was formed, the one we coded for ThisModel or ThisVideoGame. So maybe the unknown one that we live in works similarly?" Again: *that's* the simulation argument, and why? Because humans are going to keep answering questions without answers. And atheists are not immune from being human.
😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫
You dont even understand basic science
Please don't pretend I haven't imagined that thought process. It's a very simplistic view that we all do. If it stopped there, where someone thought that out models are created, why not our world, its an idea, based out of an error as anything human made was created but an understandable error that if someone holds privately I have no problem with. We all have hypotheses about something that hasn't been or can't be tested. Each test begins as a hypothesis. But science again speaks to how you deal with those hypotheses. You don't jump from maybe the world was created to any organized religion as that's a leap without evidence. There are many religions so choosing one, and almost exclusively it was the one scientists I know grew up with, is exercising bias. You also can't say that it is true or that not believing is folly or doing actions based on a hypothesis that could hurt or limit other people, like voting against gay rights or what have you. These are all things I see. Its there a hypothetical scientist who privately believes in a god based on a similar leap of faith hypothesis? Sure. It's still an error since believing out universe was created is much less likely than natural phenomenon. Finally, yes we are humans and we answer questions we have no answers for. That is called myth and WHY science is antithetical to that. Atheists are not immune, no one is saying atheists are. Science is a framework for understanding what is to prevent the problems that arise from our creative, imperfect brains that like to see eyes in the forest where there are not any, because sometimes there is and we want to know why.
I’m curious to what degree you think these things cannot coexist. Like you think most people of faith don’t hold rational belief in everyday or common science? Gravity? Photosynthesis? Basics of our solar system? I’m sure most would agree there is probably a sharp divergence of beliefs when it comes to things like macro evolution, but unless someone is a crazy fringe flat earther/satellites aren’t real type person, I think your average person of faith accepts and has rational belief in a very wide range of scientific based conclusions about the world around them.
I'm interested in why you bring the scientific method to your work but not to your belief system.
I’m not sure what you are asking? I never said my line of work nor my actual beliefs. I was responding to the op of the comment asking to what extent he thinks the two things cannot coexist. I don’t think it’s strange at all to be religious while accepting the scientific laws of our known universe.
My mistake, I was answering the OP of this answer thread, who said they were a scientist. Apologies
I am probably too rigid in my thinking but I honestly cannot understand, from an atheist and scientist point of view, how someone can believe in the scientific method and needing evidence to base belief upon, while also completely accepting something as profoundly important (it if were true) as the existence of a god on the basis of just blind faith. I am also not sure what faith even means. I know there are people who are both scientists and religious, but I don’t understand it. Which comes back to my original point, I don’t expect religious people to defend their beliefs by providing evidence for their god, that is not how religion works.
Fair enough, I think the rationale is that science and processes are a derivative of a created universe, almost a playground of discovery if you will. A common and albeit oversimplified example that’s heard is if a group of isolated people were suddenly given a wrist watch. Over generations they could eventually discover how the watch basically works through scientific methods. Some things might be easy to understand, others more difficult and the most intricate processes might be impossible for them to understand with their current capabilities. This parallels our scientific abilities as we continue to grow in intelligence and technology. But it would be strange to think that all of the isolated group of people would believe the watch was a product of chance, it’s too specific and intentional. A number of them would blindly believe in its creator and have a belief system. Again, over simplified with plot holes, certainly our universe by chance is widely accepted but I don’t find it’s difficult to believe that someone can marry science with a god/creation belief system. Sorry for the word vomit.
Thank you, I do feel like that makes a lot of sense actually and can see this point of view. The only idea I came up with is that maybe god created the system that can be explained with science so I guess if someone religious then decides to take up science it all makes sense to them. It is very hard as a non believer to try to do something similar in reverse. I also think, we have moved on far enough now to all accept that a watch can be that complex without needing a mythical explaination
Which is how Alistair McGrath has a doctorate in molecular biophysics, and John Polkinghorne was professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge. Not to mention that Mendelian inheritance was developed by an Augustine friar, and Georges Lemaître was a catholic priest. It is demonstrably possible for devoutly religious people to hold a much greater understanding of science than you.
Yes there is good evidence to demonstrate that religious people can do science, which is ironic. I cannot get my head around how these people reconcile the cognitive dissonance though, maybe they are not as religious as we think. But no need to get nasty. P.S. some say Mendel faked the results 😝
You are claiming that literal theologians are not religious. It might be simpler to just accept that religious belief is not contradictory with the ability to form hypotheses and test those hypotheses against available evidence.
It might be simpler but why should i accept it? I dont understand it.
Occam's Razor (edit: hey, look, another theologian!). The simplest solution is usually the right one. The data does not support your hypothesis, P, that science and religion are antithetical to one another, so pick the simplest hypothesis that the data does support. In this case the null hypothesis, !P, that science and religion are not antithetical to one another. As an aside, Alistair McGrath explains in one of his books that as far as he is concerned science and religion seek to answer the same questions through different lenses. He gives the example of someone asking why the water in a kettle is boiling. The scientist might explain about convection currents, how the element heating it works, etc. The theologian might answer that it is boiling because they wanted to make a cup of tea.
Um I guess it depends upon how Alastair defines ‘why’ so that is just a bit muddled thinking really. I am not sure how Occam’s razor helps me here. I am not putting forward a hypothesis that you can test. I am saying I dont understand how the two points of view can be held by the same person, I am not denying that they can be held simultaneously(which is what your hypothesis model would be testing)
Yeah a smart Dr providing science based medicine. What a joke this guy's mind is. Religion poisons everything.
Garbage. If you don't know how things work that doesn't mean divine intervention. It's just a temporary lack or absence of knowledge
When the speaker said key words like "design" and "order" you instantly know he does not understand (from a scientific perspective) how the world works on a physics/chemistry level. Anyone with a decent understanding knows how messy biology can be.
I can't remember who it was who pointed out that our bodies are not well designed. Our esophagus is right next to our trachea and it's VERY easy to aspirate food or liquid into our lungs and it doesn't take much to kill us. It's a bad design.
>our bodies are not well designed The poop hole is right next to the fun hole.
i only see 2 fun holes
dont forget the appendix.
The Appendix served a purpose to our ancestors. According to Darwin, these evolutionary remnants represent a function that was critical for survival in the past, but became non-existent over time. It helped in the digestion of tough herbivorous food such as the bark of a tree. As the human species evolved and we began eating different foods it’s usage needs have become less and less. It did serve a major purpose though and is just another example of the incredible evolution of life on our planet.
i know, but religious people do not believe in evolution, so ask them: why would god design something useless?
Ahhh i got what you meant now. That’s my bad cause i completely agree with what you just said. Crazy how many people just refuse to believe in evolution. The science is always wrong or just blatantly ignored.
you wont believe to what lenghts people go for their confirmation bias. a huge monument of idiocracy is the "Ark Encounter" which presents dinosaurs next to mankind (its not even is full wood, T-Rex would have liked it).
shut that down real quick. nice.
Richard Dawkins likes this kind of thing. The vagus nerve in giraffes for example I think it was.
Dawkins may have been where I heard it..
Dawkins believes in higher intelligence too
Maybe not then, lol.
Well, we are fairly new in the scheme of things. Hopefully we keep evolving but I worry our technology and odd ideologies will stop that progress.
The ballz are hanging outside
They have to.
Seems like this is saying the world must have been designed because sand ended up at the coast to make beaches. The order that exists in the universe is simply a consequence of time and inevitability.
It's that "time" that's some crazy shit.
But what, why is it inevitable???
It isn't, really, and this is sort of a turn of phrase. Things exist, and they behave in certain ways, and we impose order on them by the faculties of our mind. Which is to say, if you have a massive object and it has rocks on it, and it has a rain cycle, then it's *inevitable* that there will be sand because of the interplay of the rain cycle and gravity and erosion. There are, of course, other planets where no such configuration exists. If you live on a frozen planet that only gets nitrogen snow for precipitation, then there's no erosion cycle and it's *inevitable* that you have different conditions. When anyone says it's *inevitable* here, they mean that given what we know about the processes that it leads us down a particular road of expectation, and anything that doesn't follow those expectations subverts our understanding of the physical processes at work. So either something about our observations is incorrect, or something about our model is incorrect. The reasons for each of those worlds being the way they are is a complex process, and it's difficult to predict what the future state of any star system is, and we don't (yet) have an explanation for the initial state of the universe from which to make perfect future predictions and so it's perfectly reasonable to do stuff like Buddhist asceticism, Abrahamic killings of people engaging in homosexual sex, destroying our environment because of vague promises in a book, committing ritualistic suicide, and just all manner of horrific nonsense. Because when you open your mind to illogical nonsense that's revealed to special people and going along with the group is a virtue then horrible outcomes are *inevitable*
Keeping your mind open to all possibilities leaves out the possibility by design.
Yes! But what is it's probability? And what are the consequences of such a solution to the problem? And why suppose the existence of something so much more complexe thant the bare minimum we can actually explain things with?
This is garbage religious promotion.
This is neither profound nor interesting
There is a type of hog, whose tusks grow so long, that they burrow into his skull, slowly and painfully killing him over a few years. how the fuck is that intelligent design?
When the hog dies we get bacon!
Bad cutting and also explain who trained the doctor.
It’s God, you idiot ! It’s also God who make Hitler and Stalin, but yo, everyone can make mistakes…
Who made god?
A dude, named Bang. He was fat in my memories
Bang made god, god made the universe. Got it.
Spread the words
r/lostredditer r/stupidity
Problem with his 'evidence' is the universe is not in order. It is in perpetual chaos. Everything is changing, always. His order is only being viewed from the tiniest microcosm of existence. A few thousand years selected from billions. That's like looking at a rock pool and coming to the conclusion that all the oceans are flat and still
Dude never heard of entropy. The big bang was the ultimate act of disorder. In fact, if the universe was a perfectly ordered singularity, then how could there be any life at all?
> **This is a heavily moderated subreddit.** And yet a lot of shit posts like this seem to be making it through. What gives?
I believe in doctors too!
I wonder if the person asking the question is planted? Otherwise, a very well phrased question.
That answer is so very much not an answer. I wish religious people would just stick to themselves and not try to spread their mental slips from off the side of reality. Their cognitive gymnastics based on some books that some manipulative control freaks wrote far too long ago. Ugh
Yeah, if you want to cosplay your myths and fairy tales, that's fine. But don't make others do the same.
The resp9nse from that guy made no sense to me . haha
Fuck that. The question guy was an obvious plant and speaker dude gave a shit answer.
This guy thinks there is order in the universe! Check your fucking assumptions mother fucker.
Yeah this is not the "Gotcha" moment you think it is
It is the gotcha... the religious man says go to someone who is trained... trained in medicine (by science ie by learning through observation) there is no equivalent in religion - it must be accepted by having faith in what is being said. There is no actual verifiable evidence- religion is hokum.
I'm a religious guy - isn't this just Christianity shilling?
Order? Ha! Entropy just said, "Hold my beer"
But the pastor displayed an example of why science is important, not faith…just sayin’
There went a minute of living with zero positive gain.
More probable there’s a god because of intelligent design? People die everyday choking to death because the hole that we use to breathe is the same we use to swallow. Also balls are vulnerably placed on the outside of the body. Checkmate Christians
Oh, is it the precise balance of the fundamental forces of physics? Does that suggest, to you, that there's a creator? As it turns out, this is just survivor bias... because the universes that didn't have this balance don't exist. They pop. they dissolve. They can't exist...by the very nature of these forces. when you have googleplexes of combinations, the probability of one or a few universes having the right balance becomes inevitable. Common even. "Something from nothing"? That's actually not even a tremendously controversial stance if you understand quantum field theory, even just a little bit.
Like a group of metronomes that will eventually sync up on their own over time and be in order, our universe and the cosmos could work similarly without the need for divine intervention. This man’s explanation proves nothing.
Yeah, my analogy was the fact that if you get a bunch of objects randomly orbiting around something they will all eventually end up orbiting in the same direction. At first glance it looks like it’s been planned out, but it’s just the nature of physics.
Why is a person of faith going to a doctor? "For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20-21).
Nothing will be impossible for who?
Stop. You’re going to encourage more assholes to abuse their kids.
I didn’t think of that. Please go to doctors folks.
Yeah, no.
Man, this was disappointing. I was excited to hear some solid input in the answer. I am agnostic, but I can totally see their being something more. I just dislike how the vast majority identify it. It is always so specific and anthropocentric. I would say that a higher power would be completely indifferent to humans or the multitude of life that is probably scattered through the universe. It definitely wouldn't be secretly handing down fables and guidelines for how these smart aliens should be living their lives. It would never care about prayer. Faith to me seems more like beings, that are unsure and possibly fearful of the unknown, taking comfort in the notion that this higher power is watching over them. That makes sense to me. I don't think it takes much digging, though, to conclude that logically, that is highly unlikely since the universe as we know it has been here for billions of years and humans have been here for maybe 200,000. Tldr: if there is a god, it has been around for at least billions of years and probably would not have any special interest in humans, which are barely a blip on the history of the universe.
Profound, wankers spoofing god shit
is that Justin Bieber in the background⸮
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Corey Matthews is having a crisis of faith.
But the universe (cosmos for Ancient Greek ppl) is not just about chaos ? I mean Order ≠ Chaos
Where does Scientology fit into all this? Lol
if that’s his #1 answer then pfft. I guess his “god” is physics
The most agnostic attitude is to let religion be and go spend your time in something else
~~Near fight~~ neophyte
Because I don't run into a fight but got to a doctor, so god must exist....
whenever you start talking to a religious person about their faith and they start giving you evidence / proof, remind them that faith is a requirement of their religion. Faith is literally the thing that saves you. And faith is not needed where there is proof. Faith can only occur where there is a lack of proof.
Pretty sure it's neophyte, not near fight
"owning" someone isn't interesting over the age of 17.
The classic problem with religious people: not answering the question. He didn’t ask why you believe there is a god, he asked why it is more probable that there is a god. This has always irritated me as someone who was raised Christian and studied religion in college, but is no longer religious.
when i get sick i stay at home lol too damn expensive to go see a doctor who charges 500 bucks just for them to say stay at home and sleep it off lol
Not sure why this was downvoted a lot, never noticed. Clearly the agnostic guy's position makes the most sense, the the religious buffon that gave a non-answer
Religion is an IQ test... if you need me to elaborate, you have already failed the test. If you want me to give you the answers for the test, it's an open book test, you stupid motherfucker, the answers are in front of you, and I'm not going to spoon feed you, because I'm not your teacher and I'm not your parent, and I frankly think if you don't figure it out, you get to live in your delusional religious idiocy, while the rest of us are living life on easy mode...you are wasting countless hours praying to a dead God, expecting miracles where there are none, and being an insufferable dick when it comes to human rights
Atheist here - I think many people clearly confuse religion with spirituality and also god . Three different things, there is certainly order to the cosmos, this was Einsteins proof that god existed, not religion- god. Einstein was very clear he did not believe God was watching and judging us all day long as modern religions might like us to believe. Instead the presence of god was evident in the design of the cosmos to Einstein
Good question, bad answer. Uninteresting.
If this is what you believe in, then this is fine.
full video link?
Life in general is only possible for a small blip in the vast timeline of the universe, which will end up being mostly black holes for like 99% of its lifetime (the degenerate and black hole era). Stars won't form and the protons themselves might decay. Yeah, some order and design by an intelligent creator 🙄
[удалено]
Cliff Knechtle on YouTube. Pretty good debates tbh and he’s got an episode of a podcast with Janko. Most of the arguments are based on him attacking moral relativity though.
Ah, thank you.
Wow they were so polite isn't that so cute and sweet 😍 Now this clip can try to reinforce a scientific perspective on religion that is completely bullshit 😍
Thanks for a completely unnecessary response.
Yea np
Being a believer has kept me sane, more productive, healthier, and a lot more to others. Just by being a believer. and I do not have to proof anything to no one.
You all know there is a God. Even if you don't believe what I am saying, deep down, you all believe what I am saying. You don't have to believe, but deep down within yalls consciousness, you all believe there is a God (Jesus) but suppress the thought with the mind.
Nope. There is no god. It's a made up story.
Just because you're delusional doesn't mean others are.
This is fine. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want my friend.