What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, August 05, 2011, 21:31 (4859 days ago) @ whateverist

Dhw: 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.-Whateverist: 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.-So would I. But you asked why people need a deity, and I'm only trying to answer your question in general terms. I'm not a believer myself.
 
Dhw: 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.-Whateverist: 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. [...] 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. [...] -
I would go a little further than you. I would include under subjective experience all the mysteries of consciousness, such as the emotions, artistic expression, memory, self-awareness, empathy, ideas etc. Other so far unexplained mysteries include the origin of the mechanisms of life and evolution, mystic and psychic experiences, the nature of the universe...On the other hand, I personally see no need for religion in matters relating to values, meaning and fulfilment. For me it's only our ability to think about values etc. that opens the door to something beyond the natural world as we know it.-Dhw: 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.-Whateverist: 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. -There does indeed have to be a scientific explanation for all material phenomena including the origin of life. We are physical beings, and there has to be a physical combination that brought us into existence. However, the longer it takes to find, and the more complex the processes, the less easy it becomes (for me) to embrace the belief that they are the product of chance. This is one reason why I argue that science and religion are not incompatible.-Whateverist: 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. -I agree 100%. Nor does it imply that chance must hold the answer. Welcome to the world of the agnostic!-Whateverist: 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.-That depends entirely on how strong your atheism is. In my view, anyone who is truly convinced that chance is capable of creating the still unfathomably complex mechanisms of life and evolution has "a strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence" (Collins definition of "faith"). This I would deem to be the atheist equivalent of belief in God. If you have a murky hunch (I love the expression) that there is no designer and that chance is, let us say, a far more likely explanation, I would not dream of using the word "faith". I would only apply it to someone who categorically rejected the theory of design, and dismissed all deities as "utterly ridiculous", because then ... as I see it ... that person would have no alternative other than to believe in the unproven theory of chance.
 
whateverist: 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.-100% agreed. -DHW: "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."-Whateverist: 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.-This is a good summary of the agnostic position.