Compartmentalise. It’s a trait of Homo sapien to convice themselves things are true, so they can believe any bullshit, try not to fall for it yourself in otjer areas.
The problem for me arises when they speak from authority on another subject they are expert in, if they’re so naive and easily misled on that, how can i trust their opinion on anything substantive?
A superb example of this is Katherine Hayhoe. I get around it by just reading nothing she writes on climate change because her evangelical christianisim just muddies the waters too much to take her at all seriously. On a side note, my goto is Professor Kevin Andersin.
The end scares most people so much that logic gets thrown out the window.
Tbh I think a lot of people bury that logical side deep down and compartmentalize. The narrative we tell ourselves can be quite powerful.
The way i think about it:
The brain has two halves (hemispheres)
The left hemisphere does rational thinking
the right hemisphere does magical thinking (which probably also covers religion)
Both of these hemispheres developed through evolution, because both of them are useful and beneficial to your life. That is why you should employ both.
Not everyone who is deeply religious is a true believer. Some just see it as a community, and the rigid adherance to the rules as the key to that community. One of the rules is to always say you’re a true believer, though. My sister in law is like this. She just decided one day to join a religion, researched the ones with the perks that best suited her and joined it.
Deep cultural conditioning. When a person approaches something totally new they will use reasonable standards of evidence, but in religious communities there’s a standard present and deeply established that certain things shouldn’t be questioned.
Note that in certain places there basically aren’t atheists, so it’s not like you need to be illogical relative to most to believe.
Yes, I know a guy like this. I’m not aware of his considerations of how he is able to separate science from religion, other than I guess the fact that they are two separate things.
You likely also participate in rituals that were taught to you that are not solely grounded in logic or science. Do you do things in a certain order for no reason other than your parents taught you to do so? Do you avoid eating certain foods because you never ate them growing up?
People who are raised religious may not be fanatic believers, but they may still be “culturally religious” e.g. take part in Ramadan, avoid eating pork, because that’s the way they grew up, and a lot of the time it means they can be included in cultural matters of the community they come from.
As for why some people are proper religious, fully believing and all, I also don’t think all beliefs have to be rational. Some beliefs are comforting. If it helps someone to get through a difficult time by believing there’s a higher power rooting for them, or who has pre-planned their suffering for a greater good, they may choose to believe that because it’s mentally easier. Arguably that is a rational belief anyway because it benefits you and makes your life easier to get through.
I get your sentiment but all the rituals I picked up in life are nowhere near the seriousness of a religion though. You’re talking about choosing something that could potentially affect you for eternity vs me not wanting to eat guinea pigs because I didn’t grow up in Peru.
I understand that people find comfort in religion and a lot do it as a way to calm their existential crises but my question is how someone who is otherwise logical can separate religious beliefs into another folder. They knowingly fool themselves into believing something that may not be true or possibly even being tricked into following a false idol but they don’t apply those rules elsewhere.
If it helps someone to get through a difficult time by believing there’s a higher power rooting for them, or who has pre-planned their suffering for a greater good, they may choose to believe that because it’s mentally easier.
Additionally, it can be a catalyst for seeking novel solutions and developing strengths we never knew we have if we can get over the victim mentality and allow it. I’m not saying that’s always the case. A stroke of fortune is often required.
Historically/anthropologically, conforming to the beliefs of the society you live in is the most logical thing a human can do for their survival.
In the sense that people who aren’t really religious go to church to conform?
In the sense that people who aren’t actually being watched by a higher power will legitimately believe they are because believing anything else can be hazardous to their health.
No, there are no such people.
I’m curious what you mean by “drop their skepticism.”
I believe the universe was created and I also believe that modern science does an incredibly good job describing the way it functions to the best of our ability. I do not believe the idea of religion is 100% at odds with science
By drop their skepticism I mean dropping their scientific mindset of theories are not facts, an experiment needs to be reproduceable, etc. I don’t believe that science disproves religion but I do believe there are too many unproveable aspects of most religions for me to be too skeptical to believe in fully
There is plenty of science with a non-reproducible basis. Richard Dawkins has gone as far to say that evolution is fact. And yet we have never observed one species changing into another - sure, the headlines say we have, but when you drill right down into the source material the best you can find is “these creatures do not normally reproduce with each other”. Note the wording: “do not normally”. Not “cannot”, which is what the headline fundamentally requires in order to be truly accurate.
Evolution in complex organisms takes millions of years so no it’s not something you’ll witness in your life time. The evolutions you do witness are in faster aging, less complex organisms such as microbes which we can practically witness evolving in real time. Evolution isn’t a theory, it is an inevitability, those that survive their surroundings pass on their genes, that is all that evolution is.
Also we can see evolution at work when bacteria develop resistance to medications.
Right, that’s the type of microbial evolution I mean
Gotcha gotcha
It isn’t like religion is incompatible with logic and science.
There are some religions that require rejecting science, and some that require blind faith, but it isn’t all throbs religions, and it isn’t inherent to religion itself.
The only time it takes any mental gymnastics is when the religion does reject science as a methodology (as opposed to rejecting blind faith in science) and/or require that each follower must agree to reject it as well.
Something like neopaganism isn’t as prone to excluding science as methodology, and berry very often supports science as a body of knowledge, but focuses on the parts of life that science doesn’t cover. It happens still, and some of the zealots from those religions can be just as crazy as zealots from something like christianity. But, on average, your typical Wiccans aren’t going to be science haters, they’re just more interested in other things.
Now, you will get a lot of those sorts choosing to reject science based information on specific things, but that’s no more or less than when your average agnostic or atheist buys into pseudoscience. That means it isn’t really a religion thing, it’s a human thing.
You’ll find plenty of monotheists in science even, and they’re not conflicted because science, logic is about the concrete, the physical world. They can freely choose to lol are their holy texts as humanly made, but divinely inspired, and thus a product of its time. So there’s no conflict. The scientific method simply explores the world as it is, seeking a better understanding of what their god created, without worrying about the why.
There doesn’t even have to be a conflict in the Abrahamic sects between evolution and creation. If the specific sect and follower assumes that god is all powerful and all knowing, them evolution is simply the will of god as it expresses itself over time. Or, that god created a universe that is meant to grow and change independently, and thus evolution was part of that creation from the beginning.
As much as religious thought can be a limitation to thinking, it doesn’t have to be. They just have to accept that the religious stuff is about the soul, and that souls aren’t relevant to logic or science. When that way of thinking is in place, it’s possible to logically know that no religion can be proven any more than the existence of the divine can be disproven, so it simply isn’t relevant to science at all.
Fwiw, I’m not religious. The closest I get is an appreciation of Buddhist principles, and taoist outlook on viewing reality. They’re “fun”, they give a platform to work from in dealing with the unpleasant aspects of existence, so they have value. But that’s not the same as being religious, or even “spiritual”. Plus, when the topic of religion comes up, I can throw those out there as shorthand for “I’m not interested in your religion becoming my religion, thank you.”
I used to know this guy who majored in astrophysics or astronomy (can’t remember which).
To paraphrase his reasoning: There is nothing about physics that prohibits the existence of a god. The Bible has many things that clash with modern scientific understanding, but the Bible was an interpretation of things as they stood almost two thousand years ago, and is therefore likely to fail in many of its explanations. Religion is about faith, science is not.
He considered himself a Christian, and didn’t see why that and his field of study would be mutually exclusive. Also, he was pretty open minded about most things and overall a pretty chill guy regarding other people’s view and lifestyles.
I had a colleague a few years ago, who wasn’t dumb. He’d question everything, often discussing things down to excruciating details. Like, you seriously couldn’t shut him up, with how much he was putting everything into question.
Except when it came to the bible. That was what he considered unquestionable truth.
One time, I felt like I kind of got through to him. We were discussing the Big Bang and whatnot, and I told him that I don’t believe that actually started the universe, which really caught him off-guard, because he thought all the science people were a big hivemind and no one’s allowed to disagree. I’m guessing, because that’s how he’s been taught about the bible, so he just assumed the enemy is taught the same way.
And yeah, I explained to him that I don’t believe it started things, that I don’t believe in creation (the fundamental concept as well as the non-evolution thingamabob), because things don’t just randomly start existing. When you produce a chair, that’s just some atoms rearranged from a tree, which is just some atoms rearranged from the ground and the air, which is rearranged from yet another place. That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don’t just pop into existence, ever.What’s also kind of interesting/funny, is that he did not actually have a terribly good understanding of the bible.
One time, I don’t know how we got to that topic, but I was like, wait, isn’t there a commandment that says you shouldn’t be using god’s name in vain? And at first he just said no, there’s not, to then start really heavily thinking when I didn’t back down. But yeah, I had to then look it up to confirm it, because he did not know his commandments.
That was his worst moment by far, but we had many bible debates, where I, with my shitty school knowledge and never having been interested in any of it, was telling him things he didn’t know.That explanation also kind of got to him, because it really is all around us that things don’t just pop into existence, ever.
But they do! Not a classical scale, but on the quantum scale this literally happens all the time.
Hmm, I’m no expert, but I think I looked into this a while ago and it turned out to be pop-sci misinformation. What I’m finding from looking this up right now seems to confirm that it’s not actual empty space, but rather space with electro-magnetic fields or in a “false vacuum”, whatever that is precisely. If you happen to know a specific keyword for this phenomenon, though, I’d look into it some more.
I’d be very surprised if Quantum Fluctuations are pop-sci misinformation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Hmm, but that seems to be again that there’s actually fields there, rather than proper nothing. At the very least, I would still say that the universe already existed before the Big Bang, if there was fields spanning all over the place and they just needed quantum fluctuation to turn into something you can touch. Especially, because “touch” is still just an interaction with a field.
And I’m not trying to say that the phenomenon itself is pop-sci misinformation, but rather how it’s portrayed. They’ll write a title like “How Quantum Fluctuation Creates Something from Nothing”, which is technically something you could say, because “nothing” doesn’t have a sharp definition. But it’s also misleading as people will not think that “nothing” could also mean that there is actually still fields there. Instead, they will interpret it as proper nothing. And pop-sci journalists do that, because it brings in clicks, unfortunately.
I consider myself a very logical person. I consider myself “religish”. Mainly, the idea of death being the end makes me very anxious, so I choose to believe it’s not, which inherently brings one to religion of some sort.
