davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Not about religion, so hope this okay. I'll take the rap on the knuckles if it isn't, though.
Dave, I actually meant to say "latter" rather than "former".
It goes beyond faith in that you might say there are non-rational grounds for a belief in a deity, which is different to "irrational" grounds. Cold logic can't prove anything other than whether an argument is logically correct. But some people might look around and see the wonders of the world in all its beauty, consider all the wealth of human qualities that exist and ponder whether it just makes sense somehow to attribute them to a god. This is usually called "inference to the best explanation". But you're right, you can't test such a view and must to a degree rely on faith to maintain it.
The more logically minded tend to look more at Okham's Razor as a starting point for what we conceive as the "best explanation", which is: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.". Basically: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." In other words, if you have two competing theories, the simpler one is the better theory, merely in virtue of the fact that there are less leaps of faith required to make it fit in with the world as perceived by science.
So, when Bob Smith stands on the moon and is overwhelmed by it all, and suddenly declares himself spiritually aware, we might well think that this is a an issue that a psychologist would be better equipped to deal with than an a theist. The explanation of the former is quite simple: he was overwhelmed due to the experience of the vastness of the universe. The latter has to begin positing supernatural forces in order to satisfactorily provide an answer that he, and people like him, will find acceptable. In other words, he multiplies his entities beyond that which is (logically) necessary.
Obviously that's a very basic look at a very complex question.
Interesting stuff, Neb. Just continuing with the example I gave of the astronauts: the spirituality felt by those men could be argued to be less to do with a connection with a God and more the product of looking at the whole rather than seeing what we see everyday - atomisation in everything, disconnectedness. Seeing our planet in relation to the universe must give a profound sense of how it all 'fits'. In fact, as one of them said (Alan Bean), they had a keen awareness that the physical material every one of us is made of makes up the stars and planets.
I suppose essence could be used to replace the word spirit -something that gives a theological gloss to the emotions felt.
Obviously you dont have to be up there floating 'round in space to make that connection.
