thoughts on religious/spiritual belief

[firecat]

This was originally posted as a comment in vito_excalibur's journal here; it's slightly expanded here.

Whether or not deity exists, it seems clear that a lot of people have a lot invested in deity's existing (believing or hoping or acting-as-if or...). I'm probably just not looking in the right places, but sometimes I wonder why more attention isn't paid to why so many people invest so much in it. Most of the speculations about that I hear are insults or dismissals from people who don't have the investment and who think that having the investment means you're deluded. That may be so, I suppose, but I also think that throwing away some pretty amazing (and yes, also some pretty horrible) human accomplishments as entirely based on delusion is depressing and reductionistic - kind of like saying oh, thoughts and feelings are nothing but electrical signals in the brain. Yes they are, but they aren't "nothing but."

Can you think of any neutral-to-positive and non-insulting reasons that many humans have a lot invested in believing in the existence of deity? What do we get out of it; why do some of us need or strongly want it?

(Disclosure - I need/strongly want spiritual experience and have had spiritual experiences [that could also be explained in non-supernatural ways, but I choose to experience/remember them as spiritual]. I neither believe nor don't believe in the existence of deity. I usually boil this down to "I believe in deity on alternative thursdays.")

Comments

Re: *ack*, no

[elainegrey.livejournal.com]

people who claim science is just another religion usually don't understand the scientific method.

Well, i think back to Hume's _On Miracles_ often in this context. Hume's injunction is that if the observation cannot be replicated, (and thus you can not use the scientific method to examine and explain it,) the rational man is required to deny it occurred.

In practice this is where one looks at the out-lying data point and says, well, yes, but there was probably some factor that intruded (the sample was prepared incorrectly, a power surge occurred in the equipment, the original diagnosis was incorrect). And I am very happy to accept there may be an explanation along these lines that explains why most out-lier points occur.

What this then leaves is the fact that there are potential areas of reality where the scientific method cannot be applied. Assertions to the actuality of these areas cannot be tested with the scientific method. To me, fidelity to skepticism and science means one must accept that there are potential modes of reality that cannot be described scientifically and be agnostic about those modes. Perhaps we will learn all the complicated relationships and be able to isolate and make repeatable the patterns, thus moving the observation or experience away from the miraculous into the scientifically understood. But if we don't, i don't believe Hume is right in saying we must deny the observation. I think *that* is the mark of faith, not in the scientific method, but that the the extent of what is is completely describable through science. And i've met folks who do hold that faith.

Re: *ack*, no

[firecat]

What this then leaves is the fact that there are potential areas of reality where the scientific method cannot be applied.

Yet.

To me it's entirely rational to hold the theory that new scientific methods will be developed that will allow observations and testing on areas of reality that currently can't be observed and tested. Such new methods have appeared many times already.

(Note, I personally don't think humans will be able to observe and test absolutely everything, but there are a lot of areas of reality that we can't test yet but will be able to eventually, assuming we don't blow ourselves up first.)