Why we believe

[Rick336]

From Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 2008:

"If you take the word 'normal' as characteristic of the norm or majority, then it is the superstitious and those who believe in ESP, ghosts and psychic phenomena who are normal."

Read the article here-->http://www.newsweek.com/id/165678/page/1


Rick

[Steven E. Webster]

From Newsweek Magazine, November 3, 2008:

"If you take the word 'normal' as characteristic of the norm or majority, then it is the superstitious and those who believe in ESP, ghosts and psychic phenomena who are normal."

Read the article here-->http://www.newsweek.com/id/165678/page/1


Rick

Rick,
Interesting article! What do you make of it? Did you notice, at the end, that they speak of "skepticism" as though it were another form of belief that needs some psychological explanation?

It seems to me that the scientific method, though highly useful and very important, involves what is called "reductionism"--a kind of over-simplification that seems to "suck the life" out of life. We do naturally feel that there is more to life and experience than so many atoms bouncing off one another. "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

People are also just not consistent. One can be a skeptic and a believer at the same time. One can apply the scientific method in certain aspects of one's life, and yet surrender oneself to belief in other aspects of life. It happens all the time.

It is interesting when one applies skepticism to religion. I'm part of a Sunday School class at a progressive congregation in a Univeristy town. We gather to read books influenced by the famous "Jesus Seminar"--scholars who apply skepticism to claims about what Jesus is supposed to have said and done. They sift the literature of the Bible with the evidence of archeology, and other academic disiciplines to try to piece together a plausible picture of who Jesus really was. It's fascinating--but none of us expects to uncover "absolute truth."

Of course, to be a thorough-going skeptic, one must really object to any claim of "absolute truth." Don't you think?

Steven Webster

[Rick336]

Rick,
Interesting article! What do you make of it? Did you notice, at the end, that they speak of "skepticism" as though it were another form of belief that needs some psychological explanation?

It seems to me that the scientific method, though highly useful and very important, involves what is called "reductionism"--a kind of over-simplification that seems to "suck the life" out of life. We do naturally feel that there is more to life and experience than so many atoms bouncing off one another. "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

People are also just not consistent. One can be a skeptic and a believer at the same time. One can apply the scientific method in certain aspects of one's life, and yet surrender oneself to belief in other aspects of life. It happens all the time.

It is interesting when one applies skepticism to religion. I'm part of a Sunday School class at a progressive congregation in a Univeristy town. We gather to read books influenced by the famous "Jesus Seminar"--scholars who apply skepticism to claims about what Jesus is supposed to have said and done. They sift the literature of the Bible with the evidence of archeology, and other academic disiciplines to try to piece together a plausible picture of who Jesus really was. It's fascinating--but none of us expects to uncover "absolute truth."

Of course, to be a thorough-going skeptic, one must really object to any claim of "absolute truth." Don't you think?

Steven Webster

I'm not sure what "absolute truth" means. To me truth is based on evidence. For instance, I think the truth that evolution is more than a theory is from the mountains of evidence that point to it's probability.

As far as the meaning of our existence; all we really know for sure is that there are 6.5 billion of us spinning around on this planet flying through space and not a single one of us knows why. Is there more to us than atoms bouncing off of one another? So far the empirical evidence doesn't show it.

Since nobody knows why we're here, what our ancestors have done over thousands of years is to make up their own reasons. Since they couldn't figure it out, they just made stuff up. That's where all the different religions come from. Religion answers the question of our existence.

People need to believe that there's more to us humans than just a bunch of intelligent life forms existing on a planet. Besides, It makes life more exciting to believe in the supernatural. Magic is more fun than no magic.

After all, what's more exciting; an old house sitting on a hill, or an old house sitting on a hill that has ghosts? For some it's more exciting to believe that an airplane mysteriously disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle than it is to believe that an airplane simply crashed into the Atlantic and sank.

As for me, I don't need the magical stuff. Just the idea that there are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, and that there are billions of other galaxies in the known universe, each with hundreds of billions of stars of their own, and that our brains have hundreds of billions of cells and neurons and that there are trillions and trillions of atoms in a human body; that to me is exciting enough. I don't need to believe that demons possess people or that Jesus is going to move to Missouri.

Scientists are discovering new stuff everyday. One day they just might discover the reason for everything. If that day comes, my bet is that it will have more to do with atoms than with angels.

Rick

[sarahbina]

Here is a video that will really get you thinking outside the box! Truth - what we will find. This video may help change the way you look at things.


Perceiving Reality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0drT_L4G8w8)



Another video is the kabbalah tree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtBnn4KbmM) - The Tree of Life by one of the greatest Kabbalists.