If a person doesn't want to discuss his beliefs or have them challenged, is it okay to do so an...

Forums Forum If a person doesn't want to discuss his beliefs or have them challenged, is it okay to do so anyway?

  • This topic has 22 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 11 years ago by .
  • Creator
  • #10070


    Here, in the religion section of Answers, we expect to have our ideas challenged. But in the world at large, people often don’t like to defend or explain their beliefs; perhaps because they’re not good at debate or because their faith is based more on visceral rather than logical reasons and is therefor hard to defend with logic. In other word, sometimes one’s faith is personal or private in nature.
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m an agnostic and believe agnosticism is the only truly logical choice; given the more-than-meets-the-eye strangeness of reality revealed by quantum physics. A world defined by quantum probabilities that collapse to a single state UPON OBSERVATION. Human consciousness affects reality at the quantum level. With this element of the mystical revealed by quantum physics, the possibility of a cosmic God (not one of religion) seems more viable.
    Many people seem to think that it’s okay to challenge the beliefs of those who don’t want to be challenged. Do you? And why?
    Movedby . . .
    A cosmic God may simply be an intelligence woven into physical reality. A life-force, if you will. The role of consciousness in quantum physics implies this mystical element.
    A religious God is one defined by a religion; such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam. These religions impute and attribute moral and spiritual qualities and demands of or from God. Most importantly, these religions claim exclusive authority between God and humanity. I have problems with this.
    Perhaps the best way to explain the problems with the God of religions is to use 2 of Albert Einstein’s quotes:
    “My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God.”
    “Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust – we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.”
    Occam’s Pig.
    Your comment about agnostics and atheists is just plain wrong.
    The agnostic position is that there is insufficient direct evidence for OR against God, so making a choice, EITHER way is abandoning logic in favor of faith.
    The atheist position is that the existence of God is a non-question. He simply does NOT exist. Period. They feel it is no more illogical to deny God than the tooth fairy. There is no evidence to suggest a tooth fairy . . . and God, to them, is the same.
    I’d be atheist — if it weren’t for some of the things science points out. Things like:
    1.) Like the interplay of consciousness and physical reality at the quantum level.
    2.) The mathematical odds against biogenesis (life springing from inanimate organic matter).
    Given the scale of time and space manifest in the universe, I can concede that the odds for biogenesis, though great, are not impossible. However, the intrusion of consciousness into quantum physics is mystical indeed!!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.