Spiritually speaking, is this scientific evidence that religious people KNOW for a fact there is no god?

I don't know what cognitive dissonance means :( (I just looked it up on wikipedia- and it's a very interesting theory!)

Their excuse for this rationalisation, is that god is above all logic- and so they have to try and explain it in mortal terms... Like, to them, facts are merely physical barriers that God easily overcomes, as he is... almighty and much higher than any scientific proof/ theory. And, it is not like they are justifying him consciously- they just "know" the idea of a god is right and so it must be explained in another way.

Also, to them, it is not like they are rationalising their beliefs- it is just automatic to them to "know" that God is real, or whatever, and so any contradictory ideas are just immediately ignored- it is not like they are "changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, or justifying or rationalising their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours" because they never were OF that contradictory attitude/belief in the first place. (E.g. these "observed things" are not internalised, and kept at a safe distance in that one can continue to believe in God. They are ignorant so much to them that they cannot be seen as real proper counter-arguments)

Though, there are many different types of religious people, and some are more open minded and critical about their own current beliefs, and so they would have to experience cognitive dissonance, and decide to justify themselves. But often, people like this obviously don't fully believe that their position is correct- but just WANT to believe it, as a comforting and purpose- giving idea. So for those people, what you're saying is right.

Wow I even confused myself with all that! :)

I hope you can understand what I'm talking about... haha (It might not make much sense- but it's a hard idea to put into words).

Oh well

Greetings,

I am a physics teacher (and former research scientist), as well as a Buddhist practitioner. My response will be formed from the basis of the experience of both disciplines.

A person should first realize that historically speaking, religion was created in the past, far before we had a strong understanding of physics and mathematics. Thus, the basis of explanation for what we observed was formed on religious belief - and that's okay. We took the information that we had available and applied it to our observations. That's what we still do to this day.

However, the scientific revolution happened, and there is no way to back track history. Great discoveries were made, and formulas were derived to explain what we observed - it turned out these formulas tied into both the macroscopic and microscopic world. Quite marvelous! There has always existed a tendency to break the bonds of the past knowledge - defeating the knowledge of the Ancients (i.e., the Greeks) took much effort. It took rigorous experimentation and observation, such as the fall of the geocentric model of the solar system. People found out that for thousands of years, they were flat out incorrect.

What happened? Initially there was a resistance, but over time acceptance occurred. I'm not sure that there's any human being around now that will disagree in saying that the sun is the center of our solar system. Religion, then, had to adjust and reinterpret scripture and advice from past holy men. It evolved to fit our current understanding.

There are many myths about astronomy in Buddhism, many which are flat out wrong. However, my practice is not disturbed by new findings, rather, I'd like to believe fellow practitioners thrive on new discoveries. We as Buddhists much adapt to scientific discoveries, and reconsider our interpretations.

But the heart-essence of Buddhism still remains beating as strong as it did 2,500 years ago - that there is something special about sitting with your mind and developing mindfulness, awareness, and compassion for other beings. That's the foundation of our practice, and in my humble opinion, the foundation of every religion. Unless a scientific discovery shows that it is not beneficial to work towards the benefit of all sentient beings, I will continue onwards on this path.

I hope this helped. Take care.

I think you suffer from being locked into ideas that some might share, but not all.

E.g., things being older than 6000 years. Few thinking Christians think that the Earth is 6000 years old. They know that "myth" in the Theological sense is a story that gives Truth, but not necessarily "the truth." E.g., Genesis - it tells us God made the world, which is fine, but the actual details might vary, just a bit, from reality. That does not negate the importance of the story though - it is not meant to be a history.

Finding dinosaur bones does not negate God - if anything, it shows the God's creative imagination is even greater than we once thought.

You are speaking a bit about "blind faith." Blind faith, IMHO, is silly. We need evidence and understanding - we are only human, afterall! But, do not assume because some cannot conceive of things older than 6000 years, that the rest of us have the same difficulties.

The more I learn about both Cosmology, and sub-atomic Physics, the greater I am finding that God is.

Eh, there hasn't actually been evidence shown that gods don't exist at all, there's just evidence that proves that a lot of religions have it wrong. Granted, there is also no evidence that any gods do exist, so there's no reason to believe in them anyway.

As for the rest of your post, regarding the rationalizing and stuff; yeah, I've seen them do this. Blame the apostle Paul; he gave them a LOT of lines to use. Paul liked to throw around a lot of that "mysteries of faith" crap. The part about it revealing that deep down, they don't believe either...not sure if that's case. Not sure that it's not the case, either; I'd say it's yet to be determined. It's quite possible, I'll grant you that.

Picking on the slow kids again, I see. I assume you're using the term "subconscious" for their benefit, as most of them don't share your background. How profoundly generous of you. And sneaky. You think no one notices these things, but I'm on to you.

Oh, and please do not give me best answer because I was kind enough to grace you with my presence. You have some thoughtful, if inadequate, answers here.

Ms. Hublub made a valiant effort.

Mr. Zipmac seems to be intelligent enough to agree with you without thought or hesitation.

You should consider them, as well as some others.

See you soon.

xxxooo

The thing is though, I experience no cognitive dissonance. I believe in divinity. I also believe the universe is very old, much older than the Earth, and that the Earth is much older than the human race. I also believe that the Bible is mythology, and not an original one either. There has never been any contradiction for me here.

Very interesting and a nice presentation.

I could go along with that.

I will add that while I accept your theory as highly probable, it may very well be that it is their fears of losing hope and having to stand up on their own rather than a personal position issue...hell, it may be all three.

Any time people believe something for a long period of time, which is totally shattered by a scientific viewpoint, the first response is to be defensive. So your idea is rational.

That's a good hypothesis. Religious people don't believe their own words. That's why they are so hypocritical. They are simply members of a social club. And, like any club, they have to put on airs to retain their membership.

Someone other than a human knew the germ theory in order to write the hygiene laws for the human race to follow in the book of Leviticus. Why not a human? Because 3500 years ago without a microscope no human on Earth knew the germ theory to have written these hygiene laws. Mankind not knowing the germ theory until the late 1800's gave these hygiene laws the unscientific religious translations that still stand today to scripture God wrote in scientific text from day one. How's that for an intelligent, scientific response?