Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
In my opinion, I think this is a question of what views will I tolerate from other people, what views will I tolerate from other people as they cross into the public domain, and what do I consider to be more accurate representations of reality. One of the problems with many theistic positions is that they aren't purely resigned to the untestable regions of supernatural phenomena and hyperconsciousness, but they make direct claims about physical/scientifically testable subjects that are much more difficult to reconcile with what we can observe than are the corresponding scientific theories. If a theist adopts the position that they must adopt all of the tenets of their religion, or none of them...and they need to see this reflected in governmental or educational policy, for instance...then we've got a problem. I think that's one of the main places this need for "proof" comes in. Age of the universe, evolution, etc.
As to what someone else believes, in terms of creation stories or what happens after they die or whatnot when it doesn't cross over into the public domain...well, who cares? I don't care if they believe in reincarnation, or going up to heaven or Valhalla. Bonny for them.
|
I agree with you here. I don't really have much interest in defending ways of understanding the world or finding meaning that directly contradict more readily verifiable explanations. I firmly believe that spirituality and factual analysis can be complementary, and i acknowledge that this often is not the case.
Quote:
|
Then there's the pure "intellectual" discussion about the "truth." I would have to suppose that the theist values the accounts they have been handed down through family and community more than taking an approach that wipes the slate clean. I think many atheist try to take the perspective that if they were trying to figure it out from scratch, what would be the most logical way to proceed. As I've stated in other threads on this, I think at one point in time, various religious viewpoints probably made as good sense as any other position. However, I just don't see that being the case any more. We've got a better explanation for the rising of the sun or lightning strikes, how babies are made, and so forth - and I think that the tendency to personify (other than for the purposes of analogy) things we don't understand is less credible than it used to be.
|
I see what you're saying. I'm not a theologian, so i don't know exactly how to reconcile theism as a means of explaining natural phenomena with theism as a means of explaining more existential questions. I know that there are christians who take everything in the bible literally, and frankly, i've never understood how. The types of theism i'm interested in are those who take a more macro view concerning what their particular diety seems to be about, and then use this view to make sense of reality. I don't know if you could call it theological rational empiricism or theological post modernism or what.
I feel as though this kind of theism and the sciences might ultimately converge as t -> infinity, so to speak, but it will depend on whether science can satisfy the need for meaning.