What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)

by whateverist , Thursday, August 04, 2011, 20:45 (4838 days ago) @ dhw

[That's weird. I thought that this forum was shutting down in favor of the Agnostics International forums. Oops.]-"But there are other answers to whateverist's question. I don't think there is any doubt that belief in God brings enormous comfort to people in times of need, and it brings hope to people who have no other source for hope."-This rational sounds like a consolation prize. Perhaps the wheel of life has plunked you into less than optimal circumstances but you can still imagine you "shall inherit the earth". I would hate to need religion or belief in god for this reason.-
"I would look again at the context of science and religion and say that not only are they perfectly compatible, but that there are things that science can't explain and MAYBE ... just maybe ... religion can."-Here we are in complete agreement. Our subjective experience may resist inter-personal agreement more than the physical world, but it is not so easily ignored. While I don't think religion offers the most promising approach to understanding intra-personal phenomena I do think that this is where religion gets its start. At the very least this intra-personal dimension is where we must turn to make sense of such important things as values, meaning and fulfillment. Assuming that these have an existence which is more stable and less arbitrary than our consciously formulated opinions, it does make sense to think of an intra-personal world as having a reality that needs to be taken into account. And there are consequences for getting it wrong. Anyone who has experienced the frustration of writer's block or the flatness of depression knows how important it is to maintain a proper relationship with the muse. -
"Science cannot explain the origin of life (see "Abiogenesis") or the origin of those physical mechanisms that have enabled the earliest forms of life to evolve as they have done."-Perhaps science cannot lay out exactly how life came to be with perfect finality but there certainly are a many good pieces in place for a scientific explanation for the origins of the natural world. There is no reason to put science on the clock to come up with the rest of the pieces. -Even if we should decide that the exact answer is ultimately beyond the scope of science that does not automatically imply that magic/deism must hold the answer. While it may be true to call my confidence that there will be a natural explanation for the natural world an unfounded belief, I'm unwilling to concede that it is a matter of faith. That word is too loaded with religious overtones to serve here. A hunch about something too murky to allow proper conclusions doesn't seem to qualify as faith.-Now if someone is harboring a desire for faith in a deity, then they may take the failure of science to already adequately explain the origins of the natural world as permitting a return to religious faith. But that shouldn't be confused with requiring a turn to religious faith or a deity. -
"the question still arises as to whether we can be sure that all the unsolved mysteries of life and the universe are solvable in material terms. If not, then we must allow for the possibility of a form of life completely beyond the range of our cognition."-Exactly. The possibility of a deity is still there but that not address the necessity for believing that any such thing exists. Of course, even if one opts for an extra-natural explanation the question of which explanation would be daunting.