Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
It's been a long process. I'm still discovering beliefs that need examination.
I think the hardest part about losing one's religious beliefs is that the differing belief systems become a barrier the relating to family and friends. And how can one avoid coming across as a know-it-all when talking with folks who are ignorant of science?
I don't see any way that science is incompatible with god. If science shows that something is false (eg. the age of the earth) then it is false. Science cannot disprove the existence of god by the very nature of what god is (outside of this reality). Science can show a need for a god or a multiverse, but it can't prove or disprove it.
You make it sound like people who learn about science automatically abandon a belief in the supernatural. There is some comfort to be had in believing that this physical world is the extent of reality, but that doesn't make it true.
I beg to disagree. It is incompatible with the New World Neo-Protestant Christian (Baptist etc) worldview. Most Old-World Churches (Catholic and the church I was raised in, Eastern Orthodox) fully accept scientific discoveries, including evolution. They do not hold the Bible (especially Genesis) to be literally true. Fundamentalist Christians do, they are defined by this. For example, the story of creation from Genesis is understood as a metaphor: the seven days are not literally days, but epochs etc. The metaphor is undestood to have been created to avoid confusing the ancient people. The Creationism debate in the US is watched with disbelief and smirks - don't they have worthier stuff to debate? - and is believed to stem from bigotry and plain anti-intellectual bias. Of course, we Old Worlders (especially Eastern Europeans) have a strong elitist (in the US sense) intelectual bias, like the US East coast. Calling someone ignorant is a very strong insult.
> a scientific worldview demands evidence and falsifiable claims and a christian one demands the opposite, faith.
Christianity has looked for proof since its inception. The Holy Books are nothing more than written testimonies of witnesses (By today's cynical standards, quite weak evidence). All theologians since have looked for logical proofs. Unfortunately, they have not found one. But it would be hasty to ignore the tradition of Christian theology's search for it.
I agree that some christian sects are more open minded about science than others, but at the end of the day, it's the scientific worldview that doesn't lend itself to the christian worldview, not the other way around.
A very influential book for me: A Common Faith by John Dewey - a pragmatic philosopher with a realistic approach and hope.
The real problem, to me, is one of literalism vs. metaphor. I read the Old and New Testaments for insight but not history or science. Some would find that appalling. Others appealing. The choice is mine and ours to believe what we want.
They spoiled it for us.
But if you're serious^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrational in your inquiry, you'll come to discover that, like Santa Claus, God does not exist, at which point you will also reject the inquiry. All of it.
The simulation argument, linked to recently here, I believe, has much the same features without the religious baggage: there is no experiment you can do which will provide direct evidence that you are, or are not, in a simulation. In the extreme case, the simulators could just stop the sim, back up, and change the outcome of the experiment (or just your perception of the outcome), and continue on.
However, it might still be important to your future survival whether you act as though you are or are not in one, in either case.
Still, there are some definitions you might offer for God that I'd agree with. And your conclusion would be to reject the existence. Mine would be to ask for better a definition.
I think in a way the existence of god would be very depressing, because it would make everything meaningless.
Perhaps this is contained in the definition "God", perhaps this is why religious types are always on about "holiness" (which I have gathered mostly means "internally consistent") .