The choise to believe in God, with no science to help.

[l33telboi]

A few days ago, I was asked by a guy I know (who happens to be a devout christian) a question which has been on my mind ever since.

"If all the facts and sciences that say God doesn't exist wouldn't be available to you, would you still be an atheist?"

At first I said 'of course', I'd never believe something so ridicoulous as the Bible and its description of what God is like. But then I started thinking, the description of that God is made ridiculous in part becase we better know how the universe works now. There are of course things that by pure logic is made stupid in the Bible, but much has been proved wrong first now that we have science to back us up.

So, if you had been born in a time and place where science wasn't as well known as it is now, would you still be the hardcore atheist you are now?

For me, the answer would be no. I would like to say yes, but that just seemes like wishful thinking since it's basically been proven that uneducated people are far more likely to be religious. Why would I be any different?

But I wouldn't be a fundy either, as I think I'm just not that kind of person. Most likely I would be the same way I was before I started thinking about religion. I wouldn't believe in the Christian God, but i would believe there was a God of some sort out there.

So, what about you?

[Keevan_Colton]

Science isnt a collection of facts, it's a method of thinking.

Critical thinking skills are the corner stone of science and unless you fundamentally change who I am, then you're still going to find me going "Bullshit" to the idea of some kind of all loving, all knowing, all powerful being. The fundamental nature of the world runs contrary to the existence of such a being.

You dont need all the accumulated knowledge of science to call bullshit, you just need the mindset.

[l33telboi]

Science isnt a collection of facts, it's a method of thinking.

Critical thinking skills are the corner stone of science and unless you fundamentally change who I am, then you're still going to find me going "Bullshit" to the idea of some kind of all loving, all knowing, all powerful being. The fundamental nature of the world runs contrary to the existence of such a being.

You dont need all the accumulated knowledge of science to call bullshit, you just need the mindset.

Ok, i see where you're going with this.

But consider this. You live in a society that doesn't know the reasons for something so simple as thunder and lightning. Now then, even with your critical mindset, you would be hard pressed to figure out how and why thunder exists with the limited tools you are given.

And this is just one thing among thousands that is considered a simple fact these days. If you had to figure out everything on your own, you would have to be a genious of an unprecidented calibre, and it would take time, longer then your entire lifespan.

So if you lived in this society, i don't think the answer "Because there's a god who does these things." would seem all that ridiculous.

[Zadius]

The "god of the gaps" argument is still fallacious, no matter how many gaps there are.

[l33telboi]

The "god of the gaps" argument is still fallacious, no matter how many gaps there are.

That's not what's being debated here.

Of course it's wrong. But people have been known to err from time to time. And if you lived in a society like the one i described, would you still be better then the larger majority and do the right thing?

[Magnetic]

. . . you just need the mindset.

There you go, that seems to be the key. I wouldn't be all that surprised if, a few millenia ago, people HAD no mindset that would cause them to question. It seems as though just about every culture ended up with some sort of 'the supernatural'. In fact, I believe that the christian religion is seeing it's greatest conversions in more "third world" type countries.

However, WITH a mindset that doesn't just accept something based on faith, I agree that it would be hard to convince them of something that has no proof.

[Count Dooku]

I could almost guarantee I'd be a hardcore Christian. I couldn't imagine living 1000 years ago - life expectancy for the average peasant wasn't great. More than likely, I wouldn't know how to read or write, nor would I have any knowledge of...well...anything. LOL! If someone told me a great tale (no matter how tall that tale is) I'd probably be inclined to take it at face value. I mean, when there is a good chance you won't make it out of your teens, and you have no reason not to believe in a Christian god, than religion looks pretty good.

BUT, I don't really know how you can apply your friends question to the modern day. Without the scientific knowledge of our ancient universe, not as, but still very ancient planet, evolution, and explanations for natural phenoma, how different would we be from someone 1000 years ago? That's why I brought that up.

[l33telboi]

There you go, that seems to be the key. I wouldn't be all that surprised if, a few millenia ago, people HAD no mindset that would cause them to question. It seems as though just about every culture ended up with some sort of 'the supernatural'. In fact, I believe that the christian religion is seeing it's greatest conversions in more "third world" type countries.

However, WITH a mindset that doesn't just accept something based on faith, I agree that it would be hard to convince them of something that has no proof.

Quite possible.

But what about the possiblity that the mindset is born first when introduced to a myriad of previously established facts and examples of how those conclusions were reached through critical thinking?

I mean you would have to be the one to first invent the scientific method, in order to be able to use it. Not everybody is that smart. Are you sure you would be?

It would explain why people in the olden days, as well as people in third world countries, are so much more susceptible to religion.

[l33telboi]

BUT, I don't really know how you can apply your friends question to the modern day. Without the scientific knowledge of our ancient universe, not as, but still very ancient planet, evolution, and explanations for natural phenoma, how different would we be from someone 1000 years ago? That's why I brought that up.

It doesn't have to be the modern day, indeed it couldn't be the modern day, since we reached this level through the scientific thinking that doesn't exist in the envoirment i described.

[Zadius]

The "god of the gaps" argument is still fallacious, no matter how many gaps there are.

That's not what's being debated here.

Of course it's wrong. But people have been known to err from time to time. And if you lived in a society like the one i described, would you still be better then the larger majority and do the right thing?

If, in this hypothetical, all you have taken from me is facts, then yes, I'd still come to the same conclusion because my conclusion is based on the logic that explaining unknowns with god is fallacious. We don't have to have an alternate explanation to dismiss the God hypothesis.

On the other hand, if I was never taught to think critically I might believe all kinds of nonsense, but that's hardly profound.

[l33telboi]

If, in this hypothetical, all you have taken from me is facts, then yes, I'd still come to the same conclusion because my conclusion is based on the logic that explaining unknowns with god is fallacious. We don't have to have an alternate explanation to dismiss the God hypothesis.

On the other hand, if I was never taught to think critically I might believe all kinds of nonsense, but that's hardly profound.

No need to make the question any more complex then it is.

How would you turn out, in a religious respect, if you were born in the society i described. Hardcore fundie, religious but not overly so, atheist?

[Zadius]

If, in this hypothetical, all you have taken from me is facts, then yes, I'd still come to the same conclusion because my conclusion is based on the logic that explaining unknowns with god is fallacious. We don't have to have an alternate explanation to dismiss the God hypothesis.

On the other hand, if I was never taught to think critically I might believe all kinds of nonsense, but that's hardly profound.

No need to make the question any more complex then it is.

How would you turn out, in a religious respect, if you were born in the society i described. Hardcore fundie, religious but not overly so, atheist?

As I just explained, if I was born into a society where I was ignorant of everything, including logical thinking, I'm sure I'd end up believing whatever the local population believed.

[Keevan_Colton]

If, in this hypothetical, all you have taken from me is facts, then yes, I'd still come to the same conclusion because my conclusion is based on the logic that explaining unknowns with god is fallacious. We don't have to have an alternate explanation to dismiss the God hypothesis.

On the other hand, if I was never taught to think critically I might believe all kinds of nonsense, but that's hardly profound.

No need to make the question any more complex then it is.

How would you turn out, in a religious respect, if you were born in the society i described. Hardcore fundie, religious but not overly so, atheist?

As I just explained, if I was born into a society where I was ignorant of everything, including logical thinking, I'm sure I'd end up believing whatever the local population believed.

Though then you can get into the side debate about whether, once you radically alter someones way of thinking, that is indeed the same person.

[l33telboi]

As I just explained, if I was born into a society where I was ignorant of everything, including logical thinking, I'm sure I'd end up believing whatever the local population believed.

Then that was the answer i was looking for.

[Keevan_Colton]

As I just explained, if I was born into a society where I was ignorant of everything, including logical thinking, I'm sure I'd end up believing whatever the local population believed.

Then that was the answer i was looking for.

So, in a world without logic, the illogical thrives.

No shit.

[l33telboi]

As I just explained, if I was born into a society where I was ignorant of everything, including logical thinking, I'm sure I'd end up believing whatever the local population believed.

Then that was the answer i was looking for.

So, in a world without logic, the illogical thrives.

No shit.

There were people who were able to dismiss the illogical for the logical even in those times. Would you be one of them or not?

You have a higher chance of being, seeing as you aren't a fundie right now. But is that enough to ensure you wouldn't turn into a lunatic screaming 'blasphemy' every now and then?

[Keevan_Colton]

If you remove logical thinking then you remove the ability to seperate the logical from the illogical.

Though, without logical thinking skills you dont even get as far as religion, you dont even get to the point of cause and effect.

Basically, you get something slightly dumber than a potatoe that certainly wont figure out that you bang the rocks together to get fire.

[l33telboi]

If you remove logical thinking then you remove the ability to seperate the logical from the illogical.

I haven't removed logical thinking entierly. The question would be kinda pointless if i did. But then, you seem to be quite fond of stating the obvious.

What i did remove was people teaching you and showing you how to do it. I.e, the term 'scientific method' doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that someone isn't using the method.

[Zadius]

When I said earlier that I'd end up believing whatever the locals did, that would have been the result of them 'teaching' me.

If my mind was a "clean slate" free of the teachings of others, I would never have come up with the idea of god in the first place.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Then that was the answer i was looking for.

So, in a world without logic, the illogical thrives.

No shit.

There were people who were able to dismiss the illogical for the logical even in those times. Would you be one of them or not?

You have a higher chance of being, seeing as you aren't a fundie right now. But is that enough to ensure you wouldn't turn into a lunatic screaming 'blasphemy' every now and then?

I don't know, it just seems like you are really altering the responses to fit your view here, and trying to get the answer to morph into what you want it to be rather than what people are saying. He said:

Given:

• A) He has no scientific data
  B) He has no method of logical though
  C) He was raised without any contact with those things

Conclusion:

• He would end up believing whatever the local population believed.

What you are doing is, for instance, defining an animal as small, white, quadrupedal, and of the order Rodentia, then crowing in victory when someone suggests a mouse. It was pointed out that logical thought alone would be more than enough to disprove "God", so you then removed logical thought from any consideration, despite the fact that was not stated in the original argument. But I mean, shit, if you remove logical thought from consideration, then you might as well just assume we are cavemen living off pure instinct. However, given that, what leads you to assume said cavemen can even read the bible, much less comprehend the messages in it?

So, yeah, without any logical thought people would neither be able to grasp the words of the Bible nor it's meaning, and would therefore still be non-religious.

[l33telboi]

[quote="Ar-Adunakhor] -snip- [/quote]

On the logical thought thing. I obviously didn't define it clearly enough in the topic.

The possibility of logical thought exists, this is a biological standard for humans, so why some thought i excluded it baffles me.

The point is, would you be able to use that logical thought to overcome the simpler "There is a God who does it." sentiment given that you've grown up in the envoirment i defined.

That's about as simple as it gets.

[Darth Wong]

I thought the Noah's Ark story was utterly retarded when I was a 10 year old child. I don't see any reason why I need modern science to conclude that it's bullshit; it simply doesn't make any sense. Even a medieval farmer should be intelligent enough to know that you can't build a boat that big, nor can you find penguins in Judea. He just doesn't have time to think about that sort of thing. Philosophers have been poking holes in religion since long before the modern scientific method was developed, never mind space travel.

[l33telboi]

I thought the Noah's Ark story was utterly retarded when I was a 10 year old child. I don't see any reason why I need modern science to conclude that it's bullshit; it simply doesn't make any sense. Even a medieval farmer should be intelligent enough to know that you can't build a boat that big, nor can you find penguins in Judea. He just doesn't have time to think about that sort of thing. Philosophers have been poking holes in religion since long before the modern scientific method was developed, never mind space travel.

Very much like my own train of thought, that led me to believe that while I wouldn't be the atheist I am today, I wouldn't be the fundie type either. But probably saying something like "I believe there is some sort of God, but i have no idea what he wants and what he's like." instead.

[Simplicius]

"If all the facts and sciences that say God doesn't exist wouldn't be available to you, would you still be an atheist?"

The question is, frankly, absurd. Long before I ever heard of Charles Darwin or made any real study of science, I was able to see that things could happen in the real world without outside intervention. I could see myself grow, I could see a plant in a jar of water grow roots, I could see things fall and roll and move in particular ways. So "magic [or God] makes it happen" was never a valid explanation for anything, because it was obvious that no magic was working on that geranium - it was growing of its own accord.

It would be impossible for 'all the facts and sciences that say God doesn't exist' to disappear, because that non-existence is evident in the most basic workings of the natural world, and is easily uncovered by a small child, provided he is not already indoctrinated.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

On the logical thought thing. I obviously didn't define it clearly enough in the topic.

Obviously. Like, not at all.

The possibility of logical thought exists, this is a biological standard for humans, so why some thought i excluded it baffles me.

Because you excluded the equally fundamental concept of observation of the natural world. Once you take that leap, the next one is not that difficult.

The point is, would you be able to use that logical thought to overcome the simpler "There is a God who does it." sentiment given that you've grown up in the envoirment i defined.

Look at Catholic schools if you want an answer to that question. The answer is a resounding "yes."