How should we deal with the unanswerable?

[niffe9]

Take the possibly unanswerable question of the origin of the universe. An atheist might say, “I don’t know how the universe began, maybe we’ll find out someday. Maybe it has even been here forever. I don’t know”. A Christian would say, “god created the universe (or whatever other faith based conclusion)”. If new evidence of the beginning of the universe turns up, science and reason will follow the evidence while religions will protect their idea of the truth. This process will happen forever as long as you have both people of faith and people of evidence making conclusions about things we can answer. But what if this question is truly unanswerable my mankind? Evolutionary biologist Gould asserts that many such questions that “lie beyond the legitimate scope of the scientific method” exist and presumably we should turn to religion to answer such questions. Is it more useful in life to be agnostic to these questions or to make faith based conclusions? Are we any good at determining if a question is answerable or not? Will there always be shadows of the unknown that religion will lie in? Can an end of faith coincide with the persistence of unanswerable questions?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Take the possibly unanswerable question of the origin of the universe. An atheist might say, “I don’t know how the universe began, maybe we’ll find out someday. Maybe it has even been here forever. I don’t know”. A Christian would say, “god created the universe (or whatever other faith based conclusion)”. If new evidence of the beginning of the universe turns up, science and reason will follow the evidence while religions will protect their idea of the truth. This process will happen forever as long as you have both people of faith and people of evidence making conclusions about things we can answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
People of faith and people of evidence is a false dichotomy, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
But what if this question is truly unanswerable my mankind? Evolutionary biologist Gould asserts that many such questions that “lie beyond the legitimate scope of the scientific method” exist and presumably we should turn to religion to answer such questions. Is it more useful in life to be agnostic to these questions or to make faith based conclusions? Are we any good at determining if a question is answerable or not? Will there always be shadows of the unknown that religion will lie in? Can an end of faith coincide with the persistence of unanswerable questions?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think we should assume there is an answer, just because we can ask a question. I think agnosticism is the only sensible approach in a case without evidence. When there is limited evidence, people adopt beliefs in a complicated way - some will deem x amount "enough" to believe others will need much, much more. I dont think there is an answer to the question of how much evidence is enough to believe a particular claim. It will depend on the consequences of the claim, plus the psychological makeup of the person considering whether to believe it or not.

[cambraceres]

Whenever I happen upon a question I can't answer, I just cmpose the existence of an omnipotent sky deity, and within minutes, I have certainty. It works rather well, and I honestly can;t see a single problem with expounding upon this plan to edify an entire system of life.

Anyone up for it?

Cam

[MidGe]

The OP already shows a prejudice. The "fact" is that whole of sentient life shows that the notion of a benevolent originator is not possible. That is the sufficient answer to definitively refuse any cooperation with or worship of a god. The rest is unimportant unless your sense of values are to cooperate with a tyrant in the manifestly wrong hope, since he isn't benevolent, he may reward you forever. LOL

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
........ But what if this question is truly unanswerable my mankind? Evolutionary biologist Gould asserts that many such questions that “lie beyond the legitimate scope of the scientific method” exist and presumably we should turn to religion to answer such questions. .......

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately Gould was a political correctness supremacist.

[niffe9]

For the record, I am deeply non-religious and am asking these questions mainly to get a viewpoint from theists. It's great that Gould sells out to theists and it's stupid to "edify an entire system of life" around a sky deity who is not benevolent but a "tyrant". I basically agree with these points but am trying to better understand the mind of a theist. To me, religion seems to largely reside in the shadows of uncertainty (afterlife, souls, gaps in evolution, etc). Again, Will there always be shadows of the unknown that religion will lie in? Can an end of faith coincide with the persistence of unanswerable questions?

Bunny,
How are science and faith not polar opposites? Just because religion can be useful and logical does not mean it is evidence based. When the idea of heliocentricity came around, scientists followed the evidence while religious people protected their idea of the truth. Are you saying that atheists have faith that there is no god or they have faith in what scientists tell them? I disagree with these statements. How is it a false dichotomy?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny,
How are science and faith not polar opposites? Just because religion can be useful and logical does not mean it is evidence based. When the idea of heliocentricity came around, scientists followed the evidence while religious people protected their idea of the truth. Are you saying that atheists have faith that there is no god or they have faith in what scientists tell them? I disagree with these statements. How is it a false dichotomy?

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with those statements too. What I believe is that it is possible to have faith and to still be scientific and rational (I think that description applies to me). I agree that it doesnt happen much - many people are irrational in their faith or in their defence of religion. Similarly, there are many examples of people denying scientific validity because the new claims contradict the tenets of their religion. I consider this irrational, but not necessary as a believer. I am comfortable being a believer who doesnt know for sure. I have faith, but accept that in the face of scientific evidence contrary to my religious beliefs I would probably abandon my religious beliefs rather than my belief in rationality.

The short version being I think it is possible to be a rational theist - so I think people of faitheople of reason is a false dichotomy.

[cambraceres]

Bunny, you say that a rational faith is possible, but isn't your conception of faith one which holds it to be the belief in things which cannot be demonstrated?

I believe the sun will come up tomorrow; this belief is reposed on my experiences, and on my faith in the rationality with which I have percieved and analysed the sun's progression through the days and years. This contention, however benign, is still one which is lacking proof, and in that way I can say faith as I did above. But I feel averse to the word in that sense as my beliefs are reposed upon a thing which I can demonstrate, but not define. I mean that I know my mind exists, and that is where my certainty ends. So this bastard form of belief results in which I believe, but not purely upon rational grounds. This is a thorny path to follow, shall we continue?

Cam

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, you say that a rational faith is possible, but isn't your conception of faith one which holds it to be the belief in things which cannot be demonstrated?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt fully follow the second part of your post. In answer to this though, although they may not be demonstrable, I think the things I believe on faith are falsifiable (possibly through science, more likely through reason).

It may be that my faith resolves to a collection of untestable statements which would make it pretty valueless. It doesnt seem like that's the case though - I think there are hard problems which arise in my particular view of spirituality/religion and these hard problems are likely to be the make or break issues.