So... I'm interested to read your disagreement

righto

so i guess your basic argument is that religion gives a immovable bias that restricts open mindedness, right?

Not exactly

I have a problem with "God" being a valid answer for anything.

on what basis is that problem?

If someone accepts "God" as a valid answer for, perhaps, "Why is the sky blue?", then there's no reason for said person to explore further.

The answer has been found, and it is absolute.

so really, your problem is not with God - it's with absolute objectivity?

Nope. It's that God is so bad at it. Science has proofs, evidence, etc. God has... well... the word of God.

You're aware of course that, as a Christian, I don't answer "God" to why is the sky blue. I believe that God made the world in a very logical way, so I say "because God made it that way, and the way he made it is: scientific answer"

Well, that was a trivial example.

yes, of course.

But how about the question of how the universe came to be in the first place?

But I definitely admit that I have an unshakeable bias that prevents me from accepting the idea of multiverse theory, for example

Note that many Christians (including C.S Lewis) believed in the Theory of Evolution, and some even the Big Bang.

The reason for that bias is simple. You're familiar with the three usual branches of epistemology?

Sure. But you can then ask what caused the Big Bang.

@ThomasShields Not entirely. Explain?

Epistemology - the study of belief; the theory of knowledge

the three usual brances are as follows

Rationalism: essentially, logic and reason is superior, we must analyze everything logically, scientifically, etc.

Empiricism: we know things through what we sense; i.e, knowledge comes through input

Existentialism: there is no meaning, nothing is real, you define meaning

...why the heck do I have 6134 rep? anyways...

Ah, of course. I've discussed these with friends :-)

The problem with rationalism is obvious...

you have to start somewhere

every logical syllogism has a premise

The problem with empiricism is obvious too, how do you know you can trust what you see/hear/etc.?

So generally we combine rationalism and empiricism

Sure

So, why the bias? I assume it has something to do with these three branches.

But for me, as a Christian, my epistemology is different. My ultimate source of knowledge is (wait for it) God. God is the only reason I know anything. I know, sounds stupid, right?

Yep :-)

keep that idea of epistemology in the back of your head as I explain the next bit :)

do you believe Jesus existed?

Yes

do you believe he was the son of God? (I know your answer, just bear with me :))

Nope

okay, why not? because your epistemology says otherwise, right?

I suppose so, yes

I have a different epistemology.

Hence the differing belief.

Now, you might say "but your epistemology is stupid"

on what grounds?

on the grounds of reason? of logic?

on the grounds of something you've seen?

observed?

that's your epistemology.

I see where you're going here.

mine doesn't cede reason or observation as an ultimate authority.

:)

Your beliefs make perfect sense in the context of your epistemology. I'm not going to argue that your stupid for not seeing God around you or in creation.

Would you cede the same of my beliefs?

brb

Honestly, no. My epistomology mandates that I question yours.

That I look at it logically, and through observation.

okay, fair enough.

but you understand my position, at least?

I do, definitely.

okay, good. Then we can get back to the initial question of the effect of religion on learning :)

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't be stereotyped here

ever heard of John Piper?

Nope. I completely understand that there are intelligent Christians who subscribe to logic (except, of course, in the existence of God).

No, I haven't.

he wrote a book called "Think"

talking about how Christians should be the best thinkers

As Christians, we have to think clearly - logically. We believe in a historical event that happened in real time and space to a real person (the Crucifixion). In order to defend or accept that belief, we have to accept observation and rational thinking as a part of our epistemology - we have to be good thinkers.

The "problem" of course arises when we run into things that aren't consistent with our worldview. And that, like I said, is where it goes back to a question of authority. God is our authority. When you take it alll the way back, what's yours?

It hasn't yet been figured out, but it's being worked on.

It's possible that there is simply an existent multiverse. It's possible that the universe expands and contracts indefinitely.

It's possible that there is a God, but it seems unlikely.

In the end, I suppose the authority is human knowledge. It's logic itself.

sorry, had to update something

No problem

i mean for you - what's your ultimate authority?

if faced with the ultimate choice (whatever you think of when you think ultimate choice)

what determines it?

Me

Right.

And that is the fundamental difference between Christianity and everything else. (even, i'd argue, 99% of other religions)

Now, if there is a God... wouldn't he be better as an authority? Wouldn't I be better off than you by choosing him as my authority?

I don't think so.

why not?

maybe I should have rephrased that; if there is a Christian God - i.e, an all powerful, all wise God. Wouldn't the all-wise, all-knowing God be a better authority (on anything) than yourself?

And I'm not sure "Me" is an entirely correct answer. I think the trust in the entirety of human knowledge is a factor. My trust depends on my logic, but I can draw upon the accumulated knowledge of the entirety of humanity to determine what is true.

and if so, then wouldn't people who had God as their authority be better off - and better learners - than everyone else?

I have issues with an all-knowing God, though. It's all too similar to Santa Claus - he sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, etc. etc.

Yes, lots of people do. Heck, I have problems with an all knowing God. It's scary. But regardless, if he did exist, wouldn't he be a better authority, even better than all of human history? (Since he'd know everything they know, and more)

I think the idea of accumulated knowledge, over the entirety of humanity, is far more elegant and reasonable. There's someone out there who knows what I need to know, and I can find out. I don't have to know it, I just have to know how determine trustworthyness.

but if an omniscient God existed, wouldn't he know everything all of humanity knows, and more?

I think it's the phrase "if he did exist, wouldn't it be better" is my problem.

Right, okay.

what's your problem with the hypothetical, though?

Isn't that the foundation for 99% of science?

Didn't Edison have to say "what if I did it this way..."

Yes. Absolutely.

However, you then test the hypothesis

And the tests tend to fall short

sure, but before you test, you evaluate, by asking "would this be good" if you should even test, right? I'm asking you to say "what if God existed? would he be a better authority?" and if you say "no" then there's no point in your testing.

I guess I was jumping the gun a little, wasn't I? :-P

:)

argh, brb again

So, if God exists, he would be a better authority (as far as I know right now... I'm in the process of drawing upon the entirety of human knowledge)

okay, so again, we've arrived at an understanding of my position, right?

the problem with debating the original question is the only arguments I can really find in favor of my position are only valid under my epistemology. In your context: yes, religion is stupid.

I have to question your epistemology. And I'd like to do that right now.

go right ahead

I assume your epistemology came from your parents, or some other authority figure. And theirs from their authority figures, etc. etc. etc.

No.

well, that's where I learned it.

But that's not who I accept it from.

Same as I learn Math from a textbook

but that textbook isn't the ultimate authority.

It came, ultimately, from God.

Sure, but the textbook offers some reasoning for the Mathematics it teaches.

naturally.

As did my parents.

Did they? What was it?

But, unlike Math, I don't accept this epistemology because of my parents reasoning.

Hold tight for a second while I type up something potentially long

Okay... just a quick response: Your epistemology seems to tautologically lead to your epistemology.

(cuts current response to answer back) yes. it does.

(pastes back in and continues)

I'll wait for your response to continue :-)

Also, I discuss Philosophy with a few friends every other Wednesday night... I might bring a transcript of this chat some time.

I didn't accept this epistemology based on reasoning. That's the thing. There's a verse in the bible that says "The foolishness of God is wiser than man" Ultimately, my faith (epistemology, note my wording change :) is counter-intuitive. It makes no sense. To anyone who's not a Christian, it's stupid.

But I believe God exists and I believe he has spoken to us in his word and that his Holy Spirit has opened my heart to his word. I know; you're going to say it's stupid or that it's sad that I resolutely stand here saying "i believe, i believe" and not accepting reason. But that's "how we do" That's what Puddleglum said in "The Silver Chair" - all reason and sense was against them, but he believed in Aslan. And his belief was all he had. God is all I have.

I suppose there is no way around it, then.

Right.

I fully accept the ridiculous position I hold.

So, if I understand correctly, you accept God as the highest authority, but you recognize the significance of Rationalism and Empiricism... except when they relate to God itself?

Predictably, I'm going to say "Wow, that's really stupid." and leave it at that.

sort of. Inside of my epistemology, rationalism and empiricism sort of... take on a new light.

That is, I believe in a perfectly logical God.

[does-not-compute]

However, I believe we can't understand God.

Our logic is fallen.

haha

I also believe I can "see" God in nature (the classic "How can you see this and not believe God exists?!" argument)

so once God has made himself known to me (through his Holy Spirit) I can understand him logically and empirically.

I guess, in a sense, you could say that I believe we're all naturally spiritually retarded; true logic is twisted and while we can grasp it, sort of, we don't fully get it , yet.

Oh. I'm sure you understand my problems with that.

Yes :)

I have to say, I'm impressed with your philosophy, though. You're obviously well-read and well-studied.

Thanks. I blame my parents :)

Likewise, too.

lol

I can't blame my parents on this one :-P

I mean, they're by no means devoutly religious, but they still consider themselves Christian (if not traditionally).

which means, at least according to my definition, they're probably not.

(no disrespect or anything)

None taken

On a less weighty note, I'd say you're partially right on religion obstructing learning. Much of religion is just total brainwashing.

But I'd say that a well-taught Christian (and other religions, perhaps) can participate as fully as a non-Christian in just about any academic pursuit.

Agreed

For example, my beliefs preettty much exclude me from believing your simulation theory.

but

your simulation theory isn't exactly "imminent" in the sense that we have either accept or reject it in some life-altering decision

For now, at least ;-)

If (or when) it is imminent, then I think you could legitimately say my religion would be hampering me from participating fully.

Possibly.

Actually, more likely than not.

Heck, I discuss multiverse theory at church with my friends. We automatically don't believe it, but we can still discuss it intelligently and it's not as if we're inhibited from learning about it. However, if we thought we'd found wormholes to other universes, and even thought we'd proved it, then i'd "blindly" stand up and say it wasn't true, even if it appeared to be.

Oof. That pains me to no end.

Mostly because if, somehow, you'd proved the existence of God (which may not be possible given your beliefs), I'd readily accept it.

on the other hand

if I was able to reconcile multiverse theory with my Christianity, I would.

but again, it comes back to the question of authority and epistemology.

Exactly

You'd accept God if he was proved to you because you accept reason as an authority.

I wouldn't accept multiverse theory even if proved to me because it's inconsistent with my ultimate authority.

Right

Wow, I just saw the time. I have a paper due. I'd better get to it. Don't want to seem like i'm skipping out to avoid an argument; and i'd love to continue the discussion. It was great talking; thanks a lot! :)

Absolutely!

Good luck with your paper

And sorry to have distracted you for so long (I'm not really sorry)

Thanks (it's quite alright, my brain is awake now) i'm going to bookmark this conversation for future reference, too :)

Agreed!

chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/538/conversation/… and a good night :)

'night

bonjour

interesting conversation sir