Also reminder: a claim is not evidence. Claiming a god exists and said things, even to the point of writing it down, is not evidence of that god existing.
What you believe matters. Try to believe as many evidently true things as you can.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I would qualify what you mean to say as “religious/spiritual belief.” We believe all kinds of other rational things based on verifiable evidence, after all.
Sure. Spiritual belief isn’t much different than secular belief, they’re both based on limited evidence. They should be considered largely based on how well they fit with established facts, and how they explain problematic evidence.
I don’t have any issue with secular or religious beliefs, as long as they don’t throw out established fact (attacking whether facts are actually facts is completely valid, provided they prove it with science).
As an example, here’s a core problem with Christianity, even for the people who trust the science (like climate science, for example):
If you sincerely believe there’s some promise of a better life after this one, that everything gets wiped away, and you essentially get a do-over, what motivation would you have to improve this life?
I used to be a Christian who believed this way. I believed what science said about things like climate change, and I just blindly trusted that everything would work out in the end. “God’s in control.” And you’d better believe there were at least thousands of people who thought like me in the church I went to.
It’s very different from the paradigm, “There’s nobody coming to save us and to fix our mess. We have to save ourselves.” Both examples believe there is good evidence to trust the scholars and scientists, but they each have a fundamental difference in what to do with that belief.
It’s not enough to simply trust in established facts.
(Also, I hope it doesn’t feel like I’m attacking you. I’m sincerely enjoying your responses.)
what motivation would you have to improve this life?
Jesus often taught being a good steward (parable of the vineyard, talents, etc), and his disciples continued that (body is a temple, etc).
Or if we look at it logically, if you believe God created the world for you and you love God, surely you’d want to take care of it, no? That should be true for every religion. So if you don’t take care of the earth, to me that says you’re not grateful for God’s gift of a world, and that could impact your eternal future, no?
As for “God is in control,” most Christians (and many other religions) believe God acts through people (“God moved me to…”), so taking care of the planet means you’re letting God work through you to improve things for others.
You can look at it from a secular perspective. If the planet is a genuine marvel of randomness, we can either take care of it (preservationist perspective), or exploit it for our benefit (selfish, i.e. I’m only here for 90 years, I might as well enjoy it).
Whether the justification is from a secular or religious perspective doesn’t matter, what matters is whether your justifying a selfish or responsible attitude.
Also reminder: a claim is not evidence. Claiming a god exists and said things, even to the point of writing it down, is not evidence of that god existing.
What you believe matters. Try to believe as many evidently true things as you can.
Exactly. Belief should lie at the edges of science, as in it should merely provide a framework for making reasoned arguments about the unknown.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I would qualify what you mean to say as “religious/spiritual belief.” We believe all kinds of other rational things based on verifiable evidence, after all.
Sure. Spiritual belief isn’t much different than secular belief, they’re both based on limited evidence. They should be considered largely based on how well they fit with established facts, and how they explain problematic evidence.
I don’t have any issue with secular or religious beliefs, as long as they don’t throw out established fact (attacking whether facts are actually facts is completely valid, provided they prove it with science).
As an example, here’s a core problem with Christianity, even for the people who trust the science (like climate science, for example):
I used to be a Christian who believed this way. I believed what science said about things like climate change, and I just blindly trusted that everything would work out in the end. “God’s in control.” And you’d better believe there were at least thousands of people who thought like me in the church I went to.
It’s very different from the paradigm, “There’s nobody coming to save us and to fix our mess. We have to save ourselves.” Both examples believe there is good evidence to trust the scholars and scientists, but they each have a fundamental difference in what to do with that belief.
It’s not enough to simply trust in established facts.
(Also, I hope it doesn’t feel like I’m attacking you. I’m sincerely enjoying your responses.)
Jesus often taught being a good steward (parable of the vineyard, talents, etc), and his disciples continued that (body is a temple, etc).
Or if we look at it logically, if you believe God created the world for you and you love God, surely you’d want to take care of it, no? That should be true for every religion. So if you don’t take care of the earth, to me that says you’re not grateful for God’s gift of a world, and that could impact your eternal future, no?
As for “God is in control,” most Christians (and many other religions) believe God acts through people (“God moved me to…”), so taking care of the planet means you’re letting God work through you to improve things for others.
You can look at it from a secular perspective. If the planet is a genuine marvel of randomness, we can either take care of it (preservationist perspective), or exploit it for our benefit (selfish, i.e. I’m only here for 90 years, I might as well enjoy it).
Whether the justification is from a secular or religious perspective doesn’t matter, what matters is whether your justifying a selfish or responsible attitude.