For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
aeon.co
aeon.co
I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?
Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover, we'll never be able to get to a root cause of why everything exists and what started it all.
Either the universe is infinite and time has no beginning, or there is a beginning and potentially an end. If there's a beginning, what was before the beginning? If it's infinite, how did it all start? These are the questions that I thought religion tried to answer. Science can (most likely) never answer why. Science is fundamentally based on repeatable experiments, and that's fine. We can use it to build a model of how the universe works, but as of today, we can't use science to answer the fundamental questions about the reason for the universe.
This may be philosophical, but has science ever actually, and by that I mean explicitly, answered how? Is how even possible to answer?
I think probably not, given our current understandings, or probably not just period. Science is about building models of the reality we experience. The models are not reality themselves, so they don’t answer how. They only answer how relative to our own knowledge and experience. Also, it isn’t clear if our experience of reality is objective. I have a feeling that there is such a thing as relative objectivity among the different participants of the universe.
> Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
Religion is more of an organizational collective of power and control, but religion proper, let’s call it, and spiritually are more about consolation, in my view. This is related to why, but I think it also helps to frame religion and spirituality as “what now”? We’re here, there’s this life, this Earth, this Universe, so what are we supposed to do? I think why creeps in there as well.
I’m reminded of A Serious Man and the repetitious “what’s going on?”.
Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief? As in you need to know arithmetic before you can do linear alegbra? How can one understand anything religious without being theistic (buddhism aside). Most of the common atheist questions about faith are easily answered with the prerequisite of theism fulfilled for example.
The fundamental difference between science and religion in my opinion is that science says "I will believe things only if I can understand them" while religion says "The things you can understand and that are beyond human capacity to understand are described this way" religion is based on the acceptance that one cannot understand all things in reality, that things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know are still real and have effect in our reality.
I'd not give a damn about religion if it weren't shoving itself in my face everywhere. For example I don't care whatever religion some people on some remote islands may be practicing because they aren't forcing their religious dogmas on me (and as long as they don't abuse other people). The Big Religion though that we have around is forcing it's tentacles everywhere trying to strangulate everything, and thus even non believers have to deal with it defending themselves.
Clearly I meant atheists that criticize things they don't even believe in.
Especially if, as the parent noted, that thing one doesn't belief in has—through the actions of people that do believe—negative impacts on one's life?
We are talking truth and belief not impact on ones life.
my original comment contains clear answer.
>address what i said
i clearly addressed your stated requirement that one have to meet some your criteria of understanding of religion in order to criticize - as i clearly disagree with such a requirement because my involvement with religion isn't at my will, it is a defense from the religion forcing itself upon me everywhere.
For this reason, I share your bafflement.
You seem to be asserting that religious persons are willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, for example those “things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know,” and that is somehow a good thing?
As for the sufficient evidence, regardless of the personal perspective in the parent comment, you should know that a fundamental (Abrahamic) theological claim is that all humans have sufficient evidence of their creator’s existence. That’s mainly where the dispute is: the religious say what we all have universal access to /is/ sufficient; the non-religious claim what we have is insufficient.
Not accepting an idea if they think it conflicts with their personal interpretation of the Christian Bible can be a crippling inflexibility, and it (IMO) betrays a kind of inverted hubris when it's not accompanied by a strong admonition to not be too cock-sure about one's personal interpretation, because that will evolve as a person changes through growth and experience.
Not being able to do this is the source of a lot of cognitive dissonance that happens when a religious authority (operating from a prophet motive, no doubt) makes a confident prediction that winds up not coming to pass. A really recent example is all of the evangelicals who predicted that Trump would be re-elected after he provably lost the 2020 Presidential election. Some of the "prophetic community" apologized online (which they then retracted under intense pressure); most of the rest of them took refuge in "Satan stole the election!" which helped facilitate the Jan 6 insurrection.
It may seem self-evident that purely materialist axioms are more useful as a basis for starting the discussion, but depending on the end goal, starting the discussion more easily may not be advantageous in reaching the end goal. It's possible that restricting ourselves to purely materialist axioms is a case of looking for our keys under the light post because it's dark in the alley where we dropped them.
There are certain metaphysical assumptions that you have to make before you can start science:
* That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
* That this objective reality is governed by natural laws;
* That reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
* That Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.
See:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid...
Not all world views have those. Take the first one: AFAIK, Buddhism (and Hinduism?) believe that the world is an illusion. Why would do empirical experiments on illusions?
I don't think it was an accident that science took off in Europe. Certainly there were individuals in other parts of the world that were curious about how the cosmos worked, but the overall worldview of their societies wasn't as receptive to such endeavours. There were many scientists in Muslim areas, but Islam generally ended up denying the fourth point above:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism
TL; DR: Science itself cannot prove science is true.
As you point out, we have had many Muslim scientists in our history that pushed the boundaries of discovery and knowledge. We're proud of our history and their achievements.
The great founders of science—Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, etc.—were, without exception, trained in ecclesially sponsored schools and universities. It was under the aegis of the church that they took in their physics, their astronomy, and their mathematics. More specifically, they learned in those institutions two essentially theological truths necessary for the emergence of the experimental sciences—namely, that the universe is not God and that the universe, in every nook and cranny, is marked by intelligibility. If nature were divine—as indeed it is considered to be in many religions, philosophies, and mysticisms—then it could never be an apt subject for observation, analysis, and experimentation. And if nature were simply chaotic, void of form, it would never yield up the harmonies and patterned intelligibilities that scientists readily seek. When these two truths, which are both a function of the doctrine of creation, obtain, the sciences can get underway.
Second, when science and theology are properly understood, they are not in conflict, since they are not competing for primacy on the same playing field, like opposing football teams. Utilizing the scientific method, the physical sciences deal with events, objects, dynamics, and relationships within the empirically verifiable order. Theology, employing an entirely different method, deals with God and the things of God—and God is not an object in the world, not a reality circumscribed within the context of nature. As Thomas Aquinas put it, God is not ens summum (highest being), but rather ipsum esse (the act of being as such)—which is to say, God is not a being among beings, but instead the reason why there is an empirically observable universe at all. In this way, he is like the author of a richly complex novel. Charles Dickens never appears as a character in any of his sprawling narratives, yet he is the reason why any of those characters exist at all. Accordingly, the sciences, as such, can never adjudicate the question of God’s existence nor speak of his activity or attributes. Another type of rationality—not in competition with scientific rationality—is required for the determination of those matters.
And this brings me to my third point: scientism is not science. Sadly rampant today, scientism is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. The undeniable success of the physical sciences and the extraordinary usefulness of the technologies to which they have given rise have produced in the minds of many this conviction, but it represents a tragic impoverishment. A chemist might be able to tell us the chemical makeup of the paints that Michelangelo used on the Sistine Ceiling, but he couldn’t, qua scientist, tell us a thing about what makes that work of art so beautiful. A geologist might be able to tell us the stratification of the earth below the city of Chicago, but he could never, again qua scientist, tell us whether that city is being justly or unjustly governed. There isn’t a trace of the scientific method in Romeo and Juliet, but who would be so stupid as to assert that that play tells us nothing true about the nature of love. In a similar way, the great texts of the Bible and the theological tradition are not “scientific,” but they nevertheless speak the profoundest truths about God, creation, sin, redemption, grace, etc. Both the cause and effect of scientism, sadly, is the attenuation of the liberal arts in our institutions of higher education. Rather than appreciating literature, history, philosophy, and religion as conduits of objective truth, many today relegate these to the arena of subjective feeling or subject them to withering ideological criticism.
And that is … Philosophy?
> A chemist might…
> A geologist might…
Perhaps neuroscience and data science would be more appropriate.
> … nevertheless speak the profoundest truths about God, creation, sin, redemption, grace, etc.
In the eye of the beholder.
Basically Aristotle lays out the framework without getting anywhere near a religious text.
Ha, good one! Certainly would be quite wonderful if, despite death, there is neither a beginning nor end to it.
I can't imagine life being finite, is that even possible given what we're in?
We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science.
It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the individual and rules for life and what comes after it.
I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.
[1]: One example would be Gardnerian Wicca.
In this case the more we know about the how of the stars in the sky the less we can believe the uninformed why astrology is trying to present us.
Similar conflicts happen with religion and one cannot ignore that knowing the how deeply influences the why. Most members of our species can't stand the lack of meaning and the will use what they know to create stories that convey it. This is an understandable mechanism and in itself not a problem, but it can become one if the story is told in a way where it starts to clash with the facts.
In the end these stories, even when they call themselves holy texts are written by humans from their own limited perspectives of the time. That doesn't mean, there can not be wisdom in there, but there can also be wisdom in other texts so that doesn't really cut it..
Any other meaning that might be perceived is only there to deceive you.
Kingdoms fabricate legitimacy by birthright. Democracies by elections (not the people LOL). Etc.
Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. I know lots of Catholic scientists, but no Catholic Buddhists.
From a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction, whatsoever, between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible and there is no contradiction with scripture. The problems are with scientism.
[1]: https://www.ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jes...
[2]: See, for example, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux.
That's not true at all. Religious syncretism is a very old concept, and involves the blending of religions.
There are Catholic Buddhists, for example, and there have been those professing to follow that since around the 1600s. You'll also find many blends of traditional Incan beliefs and Catholicism, despite the surface-level incompatibilities, in South America.
One specific example might be Caodaism, which blends elements of Catholicism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Caodaism has about 2.5Mil followers in Vietnam. One of the core tenants of the religion is that we are now living in a period of time called the Third Amnesty, the end of which will be marked by the syncretism of _all_ religions into one.
And when they conflict?
We can blend oil and vinegar but they'll settle out into oil and vinegar.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_religious_belonging
For instance, the majority of American Catholics believe it's OK to use birth control. So, who represents "Catholicism," the people or the church fathers? It's just my nature to give benefit of the doubt to the people.
Honestly, I think trying to answer why? is a misguided effort. There doesn't need to be a reason why, and moreover inanimate objects don't have motives. Why are we here? Because we're here!
You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all.
Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I
That's why it makes more sense that the universe had a definite beginning and asking about time before that beginning is undefined - time simply doesn't exist before the beginning. Roger Penrose has some interesting ideas on what happened before the Big Bang (the universe "forgets" how to "tell" time and so time doesn't exist between different "epochs" of the universe):
Ain't really sure whence you'd get that impression. It's hard to exist without the universe being aware of it and causing it to be, both in the sense of the universe having been in a state enabling your existence and in the sense of your existence having effects on the universe (and thus producing new states enabling other existences).
God and the universe might not be one and the same, but they're intertwined; for the universe and the contents thereof to exist in any meaningful sense beyond some homogenous blob of cold matter, you need something dictating the interactions of matter and energy to produce something meaningful. Call it God, call it physics, call it whatever, but regardless it's obvious that it exists - the universe would be a rather boring place otherwise.
Secondly, asking "who created God" is similar to seeing a piece of bread, asking who baked it, then asking "who baked the baker"? It's a logical inconsistency and absurdity.
And yet, that "how" is relative to actual knowledge that is shaping with time or even point of view.
None of the atheists I know try to disprove all gods because they're generally collections of unfalsifiable claims. Specific gods as claimed to exist by specific groups, yes, but generally no.
> [to assert that] the secular science that they claim to be doing are value-neutral, apolitical and objective
How strange that science can't be neutral because someone's introduced a god. It couldn't be that person's god making the science non-neutral and political now, could it? I dare say (tongue in cheek) that the proof of that is obvious through mere observation.
Anecdotal and unfamiliar with the literature.
>How strange that science can’t be neutral because someone…
That’s not what the article implies in the slightest. Nor is it why science is unable to be objective.
"New Atheism" as a term, _requires_ it.
It isn't simply atheism, but rather a form that advocates for an intolerance of all religion. Whilst it doesn't require that you advocate for particular disproof against individual gods, as it may make use of all-encompassing arguments, it does requires that the concept of gods being disproved.
The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.
Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.
Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.
The position you can't logically argue to God is JE Schellenberg's non-resistant, non-believer. As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.
Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.
The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.
It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so that we can all skip to the most recent developments and see the history of it like a git changelog, without having to endlessly quiz a Dominican monk about the arguments Aquanis conquered.
>The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.
This is a misunderstanding, I think, because the author was saying Hume and Paley are examples of natural theology, they weren't trying to disprove it. They were embedded in their own cultural and theological context, just as we are, and if they could view us (as we view them) then they'd understand just as little of our context as we do of theirs.
>Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.
Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.
This isn't an attempt to say "Ha atheists are dumb and they suck, god rulezz" it's more of a peace offering - "Hey can we agree to focus on the authoritarian patriarchal evangelical zealots who want to condemn our children to a life of ignorance?"
>Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.
I think you misunderstood Paley here - essentially he's saying the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock. But a watch is intricate, it's mechanical, it clearly has purpose - therefore we can view other things with unclear purposes - like earlobes or mosquitos or geologic processes - as having some kind of purpose, even if we don't understand it. Therefore we shouldn't (I dunno) extinct dodos or something, because clearly there is some purpose in them simply because they exist at all.
I think it's important to note that "purpose" doesn't necessarily imply forethought, as discussed later in the article when they talk about how evolution and such is the most germane and lucid presentation of god's will.
>As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.
Well, by arguing so, you're pushing them in a specific direction. Are you really surprised they end at the polar edge of their reasoning?
>Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.
Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.
>The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.
Yup. Almost as if we share a common enemy.
>It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so that we can all skip to the most recent developments and see the history of it like a git changelog, without having to endlessly quiz a Dominican monk about the arguments Aquanis conquered.
That sounds good to me, but how do you distill it? I think nearly as much effort would be required in administrating and preparing the presentation of the conversation as would be in actually making them. And making arguments is the fun part.
>Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.
I think all the arguments to pull a scientific atheist from their scientific atheism depend on immaterial factors as being unable to be parsed in science. Going as broad as possible in the question about what kinds of evidence one could obtain to be proof of God has to come before the other questions. Most recently those arguments have taken shape in the form of categorical arguments, like where does consciousness, love or human character come from?
There's a weird rabbit hole appeared in our world where science has tried to eat up metaphysics as the ultimate explanation of the natural world. Science can never succeed at that task, but people are happy to live like Sisyphus it appears. Always trying to reduce the visions that are expressed through metaphysics down to scientific rationalism, but being unable to finally pull the light-bulb from the socket, so to speak.
>the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock
The act of the scientific rational atheist of "not presuming" is the same act of J.E. Schellenberg's non-resisting, non-believing atheist. Taking the lesser "ontological cost" in assuming only the world exists and nothing more than that. The argument I make is that God cannot be ruled out in this fashion because the scientific atheist cannot rule out that the Rock has a purpose. I don't have a better argument than that, it's a very difficult argument to overcome in my eyes. I don't know ultimately why someone would be compelled to believing in God's existence, but plenty of arguments that inspire a longing to believe are an easier sell, as logically unsatisfying as it is.
>Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.
I like the argument, it is fun! But I don't think it was presented in that manner, and again I could be wrong, it just appeared to be support for the author's supposed intention rather than comedic relief.
>That sounds good to me, but how do you distill it? I think nearly as much effort would be required in administrating and preparing the presentation of the conversation as would be in actually making them. And making arguments is the fun part.
The Christian scholastic argument always depends on a two-step dialogue and that could be mapped as threads of support For or Against a specific topic, with the Topic usually encapsulated in a single word, logged as written arguments from authors across time. Like a gant chart filled with popular word topics that are each their own timeline of For/Against arguments.
The discussion about said topics need not be more complicated than a hacker-news clone.
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:19 & 1:20
Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the cost of the accuracy of the translation.
Native english speakers often agree the KJV is beautiful in writing and speech.
Not almost, it was deliberately archaic when written.
But also...the “angloworld” as a whole doesn't.
Now, lots of Christian denominations do favor more modern translations, but the KJV refuses to go away.
Fun fact from the church I grew up in (Mormonism): aside from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Mormons have a book of scripture called Doctrine and Covenants, which contains revelations from God directly to Joseph Smith. But what's funny is that this book is also written in faux-Jacobean English. Smith didn't think it through!
The KJV was so dominant in 19th Century America that Smith (like most people probably) just assumed that if God spoke directly to us, he would use language that sounded like the Bible. So when he purported to write down the words of God, that's exactly what he made them sound like. He didn't think about the fact that the the KJV is written in Jacobean English because it was written in the Jacobean era, and that scripture only sounds old to our ears now because that translation has persisted for so long.
So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source!
You could, though! It would probably be comparably controversial to translating the Hebrew Bible into Modern Hebrew:
Now that I work with a bunch of Portuguese speaking people, I find that I have a hard time communicating about anything related to work in an informal manner.
That leads to some awkward (albeit funny) situations in which sometimes I forget non-domain-specific words in Portuguese, and just Google Translate them (back into my own native language!).
In one instance I could not come up with a good enough translation for the word "henceforth", so I translated it and got "doravante", which I obliviously used it when establishing new deploy procedures. I got some laughs from my co-workers because apparently "doravante" is an absolutely archaic word.
It really isn't that archaic. It might not be the best resource for Biblical scholarship, but it's quite readable today. The KJV is so dominant in English culture that English's course of evolution is probably guided by it.
The KJV has probably been more influential on English than Shakespeare on English or Cervantes or Dante on their respective languages. Consider that, until recently (1950s?), the KJV has been read daily by a large portion of English speakers.
(I'm Catholic and native Spanish speaking, I don't have any cultural attachment to KJV)
That being said, I usually go with Young's Literal Translation due to its explicit focus on, well, being a literal translation of the original Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text; whereas even KJV does its share of editorializing, YLT actively avoids it. Unfortunately, the consequence of such a literal translation is that it makes even KJV look modern and comprehensible by comparison ;)
1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11), and we don't possess [proof of] what we hope for (Romans 8:24).
* This means that anything the scripture places in the realm "of faith" is something that we don't have tangible proof of
* For example, we have righteousness "by faith" but no undeniable proof of this righteousness, as in Galatians 5:5: "For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope"
2. The existence of God, and the creation of the world, are placed in the realm of faith by the scripture.
* "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" (Hebrews 11:6)
* "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3)
Therefore the existence of God and the creation of the world are purposefully consigned by God to the realm of unverifiable facts.
This makes sense intuitively, because it makes the gospel appear weak and foolish in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:27, and prevents anyone from approaching the subject based on their own intellectual powers as in Matthew 11:25.
And in light of this, the verse you mentioned in Romans can be taken to be about mankind, who were originally literally shown things by God Himself corporately, rather than about any particular man or all men individually.
In my opinion, this logic precludes apologists from appealing to natural theology as a legitimate way of convincing someone to believe in God or to convert to the Christian faith. According to this line of thinking, submitting evidence to someone that can be verified by observation in order to convince someone that God exists or that Christ is God is actually undermining faith.
He may existed, or will appear under certain circumstances. Or he may have quantum nature: doesn't exist, but manifests himself.
1. What are the statements about what you call "God" that you believe in?
2. Why do you believe just that set of statements and not some other set of statements?
I believe that the answer to 2., if they are honest, would most often be: They believe the set of statements they believe because they WANT to believe just those statements. And why do they want to believe just such a set of statements? Because believing what they believe makes them feel good.
They want to believe those statements, and here's the minor miracle: Just because they want to believe those statements, they also all of a sudden do believe them. At least they claim they do.
There is no evidence that near death experience can change human thinking to the "belief" in any statistically significant numbers. The only people who claim to become "believers" after such experience are probably people already on the verge of believing due to their psyche or education or both.
I think the point that many people refuse to question their "faith" is a clue which tells us that they believe because they want to believe, regardless of any factual basis.
I'm not against faith I believe everybody has the right to believe whatever they choose to believe. And if they do then obviously there are good reasons why they do so, my guess is the reason is it makes them feel better.
the natural generalization of a turing machine to infinity would be a hyper turing machine: an infinitely wide tape and infinitely many heads.
i think language of "god" is mostly expressed in terms of infinities. e.g. pi (most infinite numbers are inexpressible to us, since most infinite numbers are transcendental numbers)
2. The alphabet our math uses is pretty much all finite. What percent of the axioms and theorems that you know are infinitely long? Shouldn't the overwhelming majority of axioms and theorems be infinitely long (and in particular map onto an uncountable set?). It just seems natural given the circumstances.
That is just my guess in most cases, but of course there can be many different reasons.
It is a bit ironic yes. I remember talking to Christians who told me it is basically a sin to NOT believe. So if you don't believe, it is not just that God didn't give you that gift of faith, but that you really have to force yourself to believe, or else you go to Hell. And you have to believe that it is not you who is forcing you to believe but it is God that makes you believe, if and when you do.
But my point was not really about whether to "believe" or not, but how does it come to be that you believe the very specific set of beliefs that you do, which I assume vary from person to person even within the same congregation.