Is it okay to believe in God?

[Amy Sweet]

At the risk of siding with amicus a bit, I think the quality of that information is entirely relavent--and not all informations, or beliefs, are necessarily equal. Beliefs based on poor information, reasoning, or results are fairly poor beliefs (to say nothing of the higher chance of them being violently inaccurate).

Sure, I can agree with that.

But a poor or a 'good quality' belief is still a belief. Even if it's based on good string facts and tested information and backed by personal experience- it's still a belief. A belief based on good facts is not a fact, it's a belief. And there's nothing wrong with that. But no matter how strongly one's belief is supported by existing evidence, it is still wise and prudent not to confuse fact with oppinion. Too many are convinced that there opinions are fact and there beliefs are not beliefs, but truths. (and I'm sure that you would agree that this occurs on both sides of most issues)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Sure, I can agree with that.

But a poor or a 'good quality' belief is still a belief. Even if it's based on good string facts and tested information and backed by personal experience- it's still a belief. A belief based on good facts is not a fact, it's a belief. And there's nothing wrong with that. But no matter how strongly one's belief is supported by existing evidence, it is still wise and prudent not to confuse fact with oppinion. Too many are convinced that there opinions are fact and there beliefs are not beliefs, but truths. (and I'm sure that you would agree that this occurs on both sides of most issues)

The agnostic has a belief. If would be based on good facts, I think. His belief would be fact. I don't see how the two cannot be the same thing, in some circumstances.

 

[Kassiana]

Do you have any kind of 'screening procedure'
--For my own religious beliefs? Of course. I was raised by two intellectual feminists with master’s degrees. I overanalyze EVERYTHING. (And you must admit, it makes me the perfect UU, no?)

If someone says, "Take this water, washed over a page of the Koran; it will heal." Do you believe, not believe, flip a coin, or what?
--I don’t see any reason why I should believe him or her. I believe in my own personal subjective spiritual experiences, not those of others. That’s why I don’t take any books written by humans as perfectly authoritative. Doesn’t matter if it’s the UU Pocket Guide, the Bible, the Gitas, or the silly rantings of Silver RavenWiccan. What about my post implied I’ll believe whatever anyone else tells me? The part where I said I was a UU? The part where I said I was a Pagan? Call me crazy but I don’t see that anywhere in what I wrote…

you opt out of any serious discussion
--Yeah, pretty much. I’m not into proselytizing, I don’t mind if you believe whatever silliness you like as long as you acting on it doesn’t harm others who aren’t consenting adults, and so on.

In a word, I'd rather meet up with you than Torquemada, Rev Moon, or Jerry Falwell, but I don't know if I want you in charge of my kids medical regime.
--Why not? I accept the findings of medical science and was raised in a natural foods household. Of course, you’d have to ask me first to find out what impact, if any, my beliefs have on my actions. I find it odd that you think a UU Pagan would act like a Christian Science practitioner. In my experience, no UUs or Pagans ignore medical science.

I once knew someone who called me a Wiccan. When I mentioned that I’d never said I was one, he muttered that it was so hard to tell what path a Pagan practiced. I said, “Well, you could have ASKED, you know.” Ask. Don’t presume.

 

[Pure]

Joe //The agnostic has a belief.//

on God, she's decided to suspend belief, i.e, say she doesn't know.

so what is her belief *about God*?

as to miscellaneous related beliefs--some of which are knowledge--the agnostic has lots of them, e.g., she believes "I once had a thought about the alleged 'God.' " She believes, "The alleged 'God' is alleged to be all powerful." She believes, " The proper English noun referring to the alleged one-and-only Christian deity has three letters: G-O-D."

so what? what's your point?

It's likely she's accurate in most of such beliefs.

 

[Pure]

Hi Kassiana,

Pure: Do you have any kind of 'screening procedure'

K--For my own religious beliefs? Of course. I was raised by two intellectual feminists with master’s degrees. I overanalyze EVERYTHING. (And you must admit, it makes me the perfect UU, no?)

what is your procedure? does it enable you to accept or reject or leave aside belief in the Great Pumpkin?


P: If someone says, "Take this water, washed over a page of the Koran; it will heal." Do you believe, not believe, flip a coin, or what?

K --I don’t see any reason why I should believe him or her.

Well, he says he's seen it work.

K: I believe in my own personal subjective spiritual experiences, not those of others. That’s why I don’t take any books written by humans as perfectly authoritative. Doesn’t matter if it’s the UU Pocket Guide, the Bible, the Gitas, or the silly rantings of Silver RavenWiccan. What about my post implied I’ll believe whatever anyone else tells me? The part where I said I was a UU? The part where I said I was a Pagan? Call me crazy but I don’t see that anywhere in what I wrote…

-----

you didn't say it, but you made no mention of standards, and you essentially placed all beliefs--or all religious beliefs-- on the same footing (fine for the holder, so long as it suits them, absent any harm to your kids).

P: you opt out of any serious discussion

K --Yeah, pretty much. I’m not into proselytizing, I don’t mind if you believe whatever silliness you like as long as you acting on it doesn’t harm others who aren’t consenting adults, and so on.

Odd that you link discussion and proselytizing. I can see why a Jehovah's Witness might, but a UU?

P: In a word, I'd rather meet up with you than Torquemada, Rev Moon, or Jerry Falwell, but I don't know if I want you in charge of my kids medical regime.

K: --Why not? I accept the findings of medical science and was raised in a natural foods household. Of course, you’d have to ask me first to find out what impact, if any, my beliefs have on my actions. I find it odd that you think a UU Pagan would act like a Christian Science practitioner. In my experience, no UUs or Pagans ignore medical science.

Well, I'd expect you to act like a good liberal, well educated. But what I was suggesting in that the position every belief is as good as any other (to the holder, at least) might lead to some odd medical choices.

As far as asking, I believe my posting had several questions, most of which you answered. But here's two more. You meet St Paul and he says he encountered the Risen Christ, and you meet Dr. Manydegrees, and he says he's seen the virus that causes AIDS. Do you treat their claims any differently? (BTW I assume you are aware that certain scientists deny that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.)

Why (if so) don't you say to the latter, along the lines you said above: _I believe in my own personal subjective experiences related to medicine and diseases, not those of others. So at best I remain agnostic about your claims, as far as *I'm* concerned. But if they work for you, and you leave my kids alone, hey, that's fine._

Cheers. Happy Pagan Winter Solstice!

 

[Kassiana]

You meet St Paul and he says he encountered the Risen Christ, and you meet Dr. Manydegrees, and he says he's seen the virus that causes AIDS. Do you treat their claims any differently? (BTW I assume you are aware that certain scientists deny that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.)

I don't know precisely what you're asking here. If you're asking if I'd deny that St. Paul had an experience with what he believed to be the "risen Christ," of course not. I believe the Gods reach out to us by whatever means will best suit us. If Mr. P's a Christian, of course only the "risen Christ" will reach out to him.

Why (if so) don't you say to the latter, along the lines you said above: _I believe in my own personal subjective experiences related to medicine and diseases, not those of others. So at best I remain agnostic about your claims, as far as *I'm* concerned. But if they work for you, and you leave my kids alone, hey, that's fine._

Well, let's see here. Because I'm smart enough to see that belief in Gods is personal and subjective, but that facts about the world are not. How's that?

 

[Pure]

Hi Kassiana,
Thanks for your concise response;, yes, no doubt you're quite smart and your postings may function as traps for the unwary critic, who underestimates what they're up against.

As to:

pure said, "Why (if so) don't you say to the latter, along the lines you said above: _I believe in my own personal subjective experiences related to medicine and diseases, not those of others. So at best I remain agnostic about your claims, as far as *I'm* concerned. But if they work for you, and you leave my kids alone, hey, that's fine._"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kassiana: "Well, let's see here. Because I'm smart enough to see that belief in Gods is personal and subjective, but that facts about the world are not. How's that?"

Sounds simple, but there are loads of difficulties, which I'm sure you're familiar with: Which of the following are 'facts about the world" and deserve to be treated like a medical researcher's claim about a virus.

1.There is a God/ (OK, that's easy, personal and subjective; not to be so treated.)

2. Belief in God/gods is personal and subjective. (I.e. is this a fact about the world, or another belief that is itself personal and subjective?)

3.There is a non-natural (outside the realm of physics, astronomy, etc.) 'first cause' to our universe.

4.There are forces/beings that humans can interact with, in nature, which will--indeed can--never be understood by sciences.

5. Our universe began with a 'big bang' several billion years ago.

6. The 'mind' can sometimes influence some generally-thought-to-be 'chance' outcomes, e.g., the throw of dice. (Telekinesis.)

7. There are spirits of the dead actually in this world who occasionally have been seen or heard (simultaneously) by two or more of the living (through their usual 'five senses').

8. Prayer to God/gods, for a third party (who is unaware of that prayer), can help their recovery (E.g., A believer prays to [their] God, or one of their gods, for you to get better, unbeknownst to you.).

----
Even if you choose not to engage any of the above, perhaps you will concede that determining what is a 'fact about the world' can be a bit tricky. Indeed would you agree that it's going to be purely subjective where one draws the line around 'facts about the world' ?

 

[cantdog]

It is a matter of the mental furniture. I too, am concerned, as Pure knows, with the divisions between the subjective and objective 'realms.'

For me, though, there is no great gulf fixed. I admit the utility of subjective tools to investigate all, and objective ones ditto. It's just that, in really objective things, subjective investigation becomes useless, and conversely.

But at the place where Kassiana's Line is drawn, likely enough, both can be used to effect. As with human behavior, animal behavior: experience with animals can be translated into conclusions both ways. You can use measurement and statistical math quite usefully. Setting Sherman traps in a grid to estimate the density of small-mammal populations, for instance. You can also use your very own emotional, limbic, mammalian brain and come to a shrewd idea of what the animal is doing and why. Agriculturalists and dog breeders do this all the time, and their conclusions are useful to them.

 

[Kassiana]

there are loads of difficulties, which I'm sure you're familiar with

Which is why I restricted my response to "belief in Gods." To me, belief in Gods is much like my personal preferences in movies and books; not in relative importance, but in their essence. It's a subjective belief of mine, based in subjective spiritual experiences. Similarly, it is my subjective belief that The English Patient is an immoral, disgusting, boring, irritating waste of time. Do I have objective evidence that it is? Of course not...though I wish I did. Neither does my father, who liked the movie (I have forgiven him, but did question whether or not we were really related at the time).

I also restricted my answers, you will remember, to those beliefs which do not result in harm to anyone not a consenting adult. IMO, you can believe whatever you like. Believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe. Believe that your current partner is the world's best lover. Believe that Richard Gere speaks to you every night from his invisible spaceship. But if you try to foist those beliefs off on others who cannot consent or harm them on the basis of those beliefs, you should be restrained from acting on them. Simple as that.

 

[shereads]

Is it okay to believe in God?

"Maybe, maybe not."

~ Agnostic Jesus (introduced last night on Late Night with Conan O'Brian)

 

[Pure]

OK, Kassiana, so you've more or less arbitrarily decided that certain beliefs like "There is a God" and "The English Patient is boring" are 'subjective.'

But of course that decision has a purely subjective basis, as well.

I also restricted my answers, you will remember, to those beliefs which do not result in harm to anyone not a consenting adult.

Belief in God/gods has often resulted in harm, esp. to those of differing beliefs, but hey that's a purely subjective opinion too; you think there's no harm regarding belief in God and that's fine and true in your world.

Easy.

 

[Kassiana]

::shrug:: Another addition to my ignore list. Well, you can't say you haven't worked for it, Pure. Bye.

 

[Pure]

Hey, Kass, if I thought your statements/actions reflected any objective situation (fact, as it were), rather than just subjective whimsy, I'd be worried. Maybe you'll feel differently in an hour. Maybe not. (Shrug.)

Maybe some day your self-said tolerance will extend to being questioned about your beliefs.

 

[cantdog]

Kass has the duck's-back going, and Joe's ducked or gone elsewhere, Pure. I hope she (Kass) is just not in the mood to be pestered today. I hate driving people off.

Mostly

 

[Guest]

Similarly, it is my subjective belief that The English Patient is an immoral, disgusting, boring, irritating waste of time.

Dear Kassiana, you're only the second person that I know of, besides myself, to think this. I could explain why well if I saw the film again but I can't bear to do that and not that many people would care. (I also don't think Kristen S-T is much of an actress though she has great eyelids.)

Thanks, Perdita

(Not meant to be a threadjack, just had to respond to Kass. I only lurk here.)

 

[Kassiana]

Dear Kassiana, you're only the second person that I know of, besides myself, to think this. I could explain why well if I saw the film again but I can't bear to do that and not that many people would care. (I also don't think Kristen S-T is much of an actress though she has great eyelids.)

Third. One of my law professors agreed with me and said he thought Ralph Fiennes' performance was ridiculous and mawkish.

My husband tried to watch it once. He found it too boring to pay attention to.

 

[cantdog]

I had to watch it, even though Fiennes' expression hardly changed throughout, because of one scene.

The Sikh at the pool, washing his hair.

My daughter emitted this whimper when he let the hair free and a deep-in-the-chest grunt when he flung the hair back.

Didn't redeem the movie for me, but she seemed really to like it very well indeed.

 

[Pure]

Cant said,

It is a matter of the mental furniture. I too, am concerned, as Pure knows, with the divisions between the subjective and objective 'realms.'

For me, though, there is no great gulf fixed. I admit the utility of subjective tools to investigate all, and objective ones ditto. It's just that, in really objective things, subjective investigation becomes useless, and conversely.

I think there is no great gulf, or it's very hard to specify. The examples of "There is a God" and "X movie is boring" on one side, and "HIV virus causes AIDS" on the other, make it all sound so simple.

Let's take a couple examples outside the usual realms of imps, faeries, demons, souls, ghosts.

Let's leave aside alleged 'miracles.'

Are these things 'facts about the world'?

1.There is an upward trend in evolution.

2.A.There is a 'force' or tendency toward 'good' embedded in the universe.

2B. There is a 'balancing tendency' in the realm of moral acts, as reflected in saying suchs as 'you reap what you sow' 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.' I.e., some sort of 'justice' is 'built in' to the human condition.

And even trickier,

3)There [are] 'runs of luck.'

4) There occur extraordinarliy improbable 'synchronistic' (pairs of) events; 'meaningful coincidences' that defy scientific explanation.

5) There are cases where a substance believed to be a medicine (placebo), helps or cures a condition. Such cases are not accountable by science.

 

[cantdog]

You want to draw Kassiana's line?

I don't think you have objective support anywhere for your 1's and 2's, Pure.

The 'built-in justice' idea is believed by people, but people believe in the full-moon thing (it 'brings out the crazies). Whereas, you know, it depends what you want to see on that stuff. I worked ambulance for ten years. I never saw the full moon do what they said, but there were pros working in those fields who always saw confirmation of the idea.

It's selective filtering of reality that makes that sort of thing line up with one's expectations.

Ideologues see confirmation of their pet ideas in the march of events all the time. They see the hand of the International Jewish Conspiracy or the Pernicious United Nations in ordinary events that others don't connect up like that.

"Runs of luck" in a statistical sense are undeniable. They mean nothing, but they happen.

Also, placebos work. Faith in your particular cancer treatment works to make it more effective. The emotions have clearly measurable and demonstrable and reproducible effects on the health of the body.

Synchronicity is the only line straddler I see in your list. I class it, personally, with the runs of luck. Coincidences occur constantly. Anyone who says, "How can it possibly just be coincidence?" is very young or has not been paying attention.

It's attaching meaning to them which is the iffy part, for me, and I discount it. For others, though, that sort of thing is the very foundation of their faith.

I don't say, "for them it's true." It ain't. But I do say, "they believe it."

That's my rundown on it, but I try to keep my eyes open.

 

[Pure]

Hi Cant,
Your proposals sound reasonable (i assume they apply to my *second* list-- care to consider the first?)

As you can see, the 1's and 2's are watered down versions of theism--something, somewhere, somehow is 'working for the good, for justice, etc.

you say,
//I don't think you have objective support anywhere for your 1's and 2's, Pure.//

Do you allow for 'subjective support', i.e., someone saying 'in my experience it's true that justice is done eventually.' Is that any more sensible that the claim, "in my experience, the full moon brings about--or signals--lots of weird events, esp. involving insanity and bloodshed." {Added; I see your second last paragraph may have dealt with this.}

I suspect your conclusion is like mine: The only tenable theism is one that has a NON intervening God/gods. (I.e., 'deism' as described by Jefferson, and A. Flew). As the Jewish writers put it, 'God hides his face.' Presumably any 'pagan theists' of this thread do NOT agree with the conclusion (i.e., they are not 'pagan deists'!).

on the 'runs of luck' problem, it's not just a question of finding, as I once did, a string of seven 9's in the first million digits of Pi. The link with theism is a sort of "Lady Luck" is-with-me-today, idea. That one can identify an emerging 'run of luck' and capitalize on it.

"Synchronicity" has always been a bit ambiguous for me, but seems to be a watered down version of 'the universe cares,' ie 'the universe does things--not accountable by science--which are meaningful to me.'




Pure's second list:
Are these things 'facts about the world'?

1.There is an upward trend in evolution.

2.A.There is a 'force' or tendency toward 'good' embedded in the universe.

2B. There is a 'balancing tendency' in the realm of moral acts, as reflected in saying suchs as 'you reap what you sow' 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.' I.e., some sort of 'justice' is 'built in' to the human condition.

And even trickier,

3)There [are] 'runs of luck.'

4) There occur extraordinarliy improbable 'synchronistic' (pairs of) events; 'meaningful coincidences' that defy scientific explanation.

5) There are cases where a substance believed to be a medicine (placebo), helps or cures a condition. Such cases are not accountable by science.

 

[cantdog]

So now I gotta go find the first fuckin list all by myself... hang on.

 

[Pure]

the first fuckin list,
phrased in terms of 'which are statements of fact about the world?'

Pure list 1: Which of the following are 'facts about the world" and deserve to be treated like a medical researcher's claim about a virus.

1.There is a God/ (OK, that's easy, personal and subjective; not to be treated [as a fact].)

2. Belief in God/gods is personal and subjective. (I.e. is this a fact about the world, or another belief that is itself personal and subjective?)

3.There is a non-natural (outside the realm of physics, astronomy, etc.) 'first cause' to our universe.

4.There are forces/beings that humans can interact with, in nature, which will--indeed can--never be understood by sciences.

5. Our universe began with a 'big bang' several billion years ago.

6. The 'mind' can sometimes influence some generally-thought-to-be 'chance' outcomes, e.g., the throw of dice. (Telekinesis.)

7. There are spirits of the dead actually in this world who occasionally have been seen or heard (simultaneously) by two or more of the living (through their usual 'five senses').

8. Prayer to God/gods, for a third party (who is unaware of that prayer), can help their recovery (E.g., A believer prays to [their] God, or one of their gods, for you to get better, unbeknownst to you.).

 

[fifty5]

Cant said,

It is a matter of the mental furniture. I too, am concerned, as Pure knows, with the divisions between the subjective and objective 'realms.'

For me, though, there is no great gulf fixed. I admit the utility of subjective tools to investigate all, and objective ones ditto. It's just that, in really objective things, subjective investigation becomes useless, and conversely.

I think there is no great gulf, or it's very hard to specify. The examples of "There is a God" and "X movie is boring" on one side, and "HIV virus causes AIDS" on the other, make it all sound so simple.

Let's take a couple examples outside the usual realms of imps, faeries, demons, souls, ghosts.

Let's leave aside alleged 'miracles.'

Are these things 'facts about the world'?

1.There is an upward trend in evolution.

2.A.There is a 'force' or tendency toward 'good' embedded in the universe.

2B. There is a 'balancing tendency' in the realm of moral acts, as reflected in saying suchs as 'you reap what you sow' 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.' I.e., some sort of 'justice' is 'built in' to the human condition.

And even trickier,

3)There [are] 'runs of luck.'

4) There occur extraordinarliy improbable 'synchronistic' (pairs of) events; 'meaningful coincidences' that defy scientific explanation.

5) There are cases where a substance believed to be a medicine (placebo), helps or cures a condition. Such cases are not accountable by science.

Hi Pure,

Trying to take this on it's merits (by which I mean my answer is directed at your post, not at you), I'd say that all of those are not "facts about the world", because they are all false.

1.There is an upward trend in evolution.

No. There are many evolutionary trends towards survival. Different species survive by reinforcing different traits that have survival value in each of their niches. Algae and ants are more successful evolutionary products than humans (there are more of them).

2.A.There is a 'force' or tendency toward 'good' embedded in the universe.

No. "Good" is simply a better long term survival trait for humans, despite it sometimes being less good in the short term. "Bad" people tend to have more enemies than "good" people, so over time, more of the latter reproduce successfully.

2B. There is a 'balancing tendency' in the realm of moral acts, as reflected in sayings such as 'you reap what you sow' 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.' I.e., some sort of 'justice' is 'built in' to the human condition.

No. Or, at least, not as anything beyond and above the conditioned behaviour of Pavlov's dogs. The survival trait is not to make other humans want to kill you before you breed.

3)There [are] 'runs of luck.'
4) There occur extraordinarliy improbable 'synchronistic' (pairs of) events; 'meaningful coincidences' that defy scientific explanation.

No to both.

To 3 - that's a truism, rather than having any significance - study the science of probability and you'll find that no run of heads from tossing a single, fair coin is impossible. It's simply that the longer the run, the less frequently it happens (in a ratio that is far more than directly proportional).

To 4 - see the scientific explanation of point 3.

Some things are impossible: a single coin showing both heads and tails on a single throw. Others are merely very unlikely, such as the coin landing balanced on its edge, to show neither head nor tail.

5) There are cases where a substance believed to be a medicine (placebo), helps or cures a condition. Such cases are not accountable by science.

No. The exact mechanism has yet to be discovered by science, but living organisms are inherently self-repairing to an amazing extent. Given that, the fact that a belief in a medicine enhances that tendency (even if that medecine has no direct biochemical effect) is far less amazing.

-------------------------------------------------------

Chaos theory explains, scientifically, why effects are sometimes necessarily unpredictable from their causes.

For an 'intelligent' species like homo sapiens, pattern recognition has great survival value (every time a wolf jumps out at us, someone dies - so let's stop wolves jumping out at us, etc.). Given that trait to recognise patterns, patterns will be recognised, even when they are falacious. Following the appearance of a comet, things will go wrong (there are always things going wrong). 'Intelligence' 'recognises' that as a pattern and labels comets as harbingers of doom. Applying intelligence over years, centuries, and so on, allows a more subtle pattern to be recognised - statistics - and then the simple pattern can be rejected.

Intelligence is (despite the algae and the ants) one pretty good survival trait - and it's product is cumulative: successive generations can build upon the discoveries of earlier ones; and reject earlier, falacious patterns in favour of more accurate ones. Stonehenge was built for superstitious reasons - relating the apparent motion of the sun to natural events in a 'religious' way. Discoveries made later allow a rational explanation instead: relating the seasons to the inclination of the earth's rotational axis to the plane of its orbit around the sun.

That is the real systematic trend: rational explanations of natural events have progressively replaced supernatural explanations.

The ants and the algae still survive in greater numbers than mankind.

 

[fifty5]

the first fuckin list,
phrased in terms of 'which are statements of fact about the world?'

Pure list 1: Which of the following are 'facts about the world" and deserve to be treated like a medical researcher's claim about a virus.

1.There is a God/ (OK, that's easy, personal and subjective; not to be treated [as a fact].)

2. Belief in God/gods is personal and subjective. (I.e. is this a fact about the world, or another belief that is itself personal and subjective?)

3.There is a non-natural (outside the realm of physics, astronomy, etc.) 'first cause' to our universe.

4.There are forces/beings that humans can interact with, in nature, which will--indeed can--never be understood by sciences.

5. Our universe began with a 'big bang' several billion years ago.

6. The 'mind' can sometimes influence some generally-thought-to-be 'chance' outcomes, e.g., the throw of dice. (Telekinesis.)

7. There are spirits of the dead actually in this world who occasionally have been seen or heard (simultaneously) by two or more of the living (through their usual 'five senses').

8. Prayer to God/gods, for a third party (who is unaware of that prayer), can help their recovery (E.g., A believer prays to [their] God, or one of their gods, for you to get better, unbeknownst to you.).

Intention as above: to address the message, not the messenger...

"Which of the following are 'facts about the world" and deserve to be treated like a medical researcher's claim about a virus."

It seems necessary to point out that medical research is often statistical - a matter of probabilities, rather than a description of a mechanism of causality...

1.There is a God/ (OK, that's easy, personal and subjective; not to be treated [as a fact].)

Before that conclusion, it is essential to define the meaning of "God" - different definitions (including circular ones) require different analyses.

2. Belief in God/gods is personal and subjective. (I.e. is this a fact about the world, or another belief that is itself personal and subjective?)

Such beliefs have survival value when 'scientific' knowledge is unavailable. If the relationship between seasons and crop growth cannot be explained, a supernatural pseudo-explanation has utility.

Depending upon the definition of "God/gods", this issue may be merely linguistic.

3.There is a non-natural (outside the realm of physics, astronomy, etc.) 'first cause' to our universe.

Again, it becomes necessary to define exactly what one means by "non-natural". I'm afraid that "outside the realm of physics, astronomy, etc." isn't quite good enough. There are scientists (curses lousy memory for names) who find a natural cause sufficiently ineffable to call that "God".

The scientific explanation, as such, is as yet incomplete. Hypothetically, it may remain so for all time - indeed, in a similar way to chaos theory, it may be scientifically proved that this is a necessary and entirely logical consequence of the case.

Whether one calls that "God" (adopting an appropriate definition) or not, does seem to me to be "personal and subjective" - but once the definition is tied down, that can then be treated in a purely rationalistic manner.

4.There are forces/beings that humans can interact with, in nature, which will--indeed can--never be understood by sciences.

Science has already proved that to be the case (chaos theory), depending on just what is meant by "understood". There is understanding of chaos theory which explains exactly why the relationship between cause and effect is sometimes unpredictable.

Similarly, Bertrand Russel; proved rigorously that some hypotheses are unprovable...

5. Our universe began with a 'big bang' several billion years ago.

That's currently the best explanation that scientific investigation can assign to observable facts. Since Science is the process of rejecting inadequate explanations, it may (at least hypothetically) come up with a disproof of that theory - or merely (compare Einstein's and Newton's theories of gravity) refine the old theory.

6. The 'mind' can sometimes influence some generally-thought-to-be 'chance' outcomes, e.g., the throw of dice. (Telekinesis.)

See chaos theory and statistics. Sometimes the outcome is beyond prediction. Sometimes an unlikely outcome will happen.

Finally, when it is discovered, a Unified Field Theory may discover some physical process that has not yet been identified.

7. There are spirits of the dead actually in this world who occasionally have been seen or heard (simultaneously) by two or more of the living (through their usual 'five senses').

Define 'dead'. Then remember that perception is 'merely' pattern recognition, which isn't always accurate. Finally add in statistics; and thus the recognition that unlikely events do happen. Unless some mechanical process also recorded the events perceived by people with senses, the evidence is not unquestionable.

8. Prayer to God/gods, for a third party (who is unaware of that prayer), can help their recovery (E.g., A believer prays to [their] God, or one of their gods, for you to get better, unbeknownst to you.)

Statistics again: 'coincidence' is the occurence of rare events - which are statistically likely, if sufficient 'trials' take place.

Every event has some probability. If some trial - such as a lottery drawing - takes place, then it is inevitable that there is an outcome. However unlikely any particular winning combination may be, it is (depending on the exact setup) no more or less unlikely than any other. With 2 dice, a score of 7 occurs more frequently than any other. A double 1, a double 2, ..., a double 6, are all exactly equally likely, and unlikely.

If groups of people keep praying for outcomes, some of those cases will be likely to turn out favourably. This is simply Russian Roulette in reverse - except that there are enormously more variables; and the outcome is far less rigorously defined.

--------------------------------------------------

The human brain has evolved to recognise simple patterns. Its intelligence allows not just extrapolation from those patterns, but also the appreciation of rational consequences (the other side of the same coin, so to speak). Logical, 'scientific' knowledge adds new perceptions to the evidence available, tests existing theories against observed evidence, and gradually, in steps, refines those theories. To question those theories rigorously and rationally requires understanding of both evidence and theories.

My own belief in that statement may be personal and subjective, but the statement itself is verifiable against objectively measured facts - if one has the time and intelligence to do so.

 

[Pure]

Hi fifty; interesting comments. For now, I'll just look at a couple.

Pure's example statement 7. There are spirits of the dead actually in this world who occasionally have been seen or heard (simultaneously) by two or more of the living (through their usual 'five senses').

fifty Define 'dead'. Then remember that perception is 'merely' pattern recognition, which isn't always accurate. Finally add in statistics; and thus the recognition that unlikely events do happen. Unless some mechanical process also recorded the events perceived by people with senses, the evidence is not unquestionable.

Dead-- no brain waves. In the present case, likely buried in the ground or a bunch of ashes.

So, hypothethically, can John and Sally, at a given moment, see the spirit of their dead mother and both hear her saying the same thing, "don't you two get on that airplane, it's going to be hijacked and flown into the WTC." ("See" as in "I see a monitor" in front of me, not as in Macbeth "Is this a dagger I see before me.")

I don't find the 'unlikely events happen to be very much to the point. I do agree it's likely an almost unique event, so it's probability is hard to figure.



You apply the same statistical approach to two other cases.
fifty //Sometimes an unlikely outcome will happen.// applied to both 6. telekinesis(thoughts affecting a dice throw) and 8. prayer affecting a third party.

Focussing on 6. and 8. We are talking 'affect', i.e., cause and effect, or, more skeptically, a replicable pattern of conjunctions. I.e., NOT just that I thought of 'snake eyes' and then rolled it, but that my thought of (and will for) that, on more than one occasion, and over a period of say 1000 throws (apparently) affected the frequency of 'snake eyes' in the outcomes.