Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
So, if I can't prove to you that "my imaginary friend does exist" and you can't prove that he doesn't (which I do respect, everyone has their own beliefs), then this whole subject is moot. We can spin circles all day long and neither one is going to change the minds of anything or anyone. Wow what a waste of time and energy.
If you can't prove that he exists, that suggests there is no evidence that you can produce that he does, so the rational thing to do is reject the claim that he exists. You will give yourself more time to do things that actually matter, like helping people who need it, visiting with loved ones, getting out and doing some hill walking, and taking in the beauty of the world (which you can't see inside a church, you can only see the beauty of the church... unless you go to one of those hideous modern affairs) rather than wasting it worshipping something you can't even prove is real. If you can't prove your gods existence, or you can't bring yourself to accept the rationality of that point, then no, don't bother getting involved in conversations like this.
Sarah wrote: "Wow what a waste of time and energy..."A "road to Damascus" moment?
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "But only when it refers to their particular deity. This does not apply to any other deity...in those cases they are dismissed out of hand. "
If there has to be a god, I'm backing Ceiling Cat... :P
Hazel -- I agree with you regarding trust and faith. You made a very logical and respectful argument.
Travis -- I don't think you need to respect the argument. No. Personally, I think it would be great and very evolved if we could respect the person who is making the argument. There is a difference. Yes?
Old Barbarossa -- Regarding ...
If someone of faith was presented with the same proof I still contend that unless it was refering to their deity of choice they would ignore the evidence in the vast majority of cases. I note that this point has been made previously on this thread but that no one of faith has responded to it. Maybe I hit a nerve.
As I've said, I don't go to church, etc.... So, I'm not "religious" but am a person of faith. So ....
I think you're right ... in part. There are likely A LOT of people who, in the face of evidence of different gods, would turn their backs on such evidence. Having been raised as a Christian, I can say I know several Christians who would say such evidence wasn't real and that people should be wary of "false prophets" ... etc....
Having said that, generalizations tend to make me itchy. I think there are some people of faith who could be convinced to worship another deity. Look at the people throughout history who have converted to a different religion. In some cases, that conversion was through coercion. Yes. One could also argue that those people didn't convert because of evidence but for other reasons. Okay. I do believe, though, that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Not always ... but often. Since so many people have left one religion for another throughout history (or left religion altogether), I think it's safe to say that, if evidence of a deity (regardless of which deity) presented itself, some would convert. It would really depend on the individuals involved.
Sarah -- I was interested in one of your comments ... the one about changing one another's minds and this being a waste of time. That's the thing, isn't it. I wonder if that's why discussions about religion or religion and science become so heated.
Personally, I haven't engaged in this thread in order to change the minds of other people. (Though, to be truthful, I have hoped that some of my posts would get people to consider being more respectful.) I shared my opinion. I've also tried to be open-minded. Even though I was a total and complete believer in free will, after reading some of the posts, I sat and read different philosophies on free will for hours. The exercise just about gave me a migraine. And, as uncomfortable as it was, when I read Hazel's post last night, I sat down and started to really think about it. Why didn't I pick different things from different religions, like ... do unto others, but leave God out of it? I sat down and said to myself ... Shannon, why do you believe in God? Really, truly ... why are you a person of faith? Those were scary questions. They made me twitch a bit.
For me, it's not about my being right and needing to convince people of my arguments. Though, I think it's very easy for us, very human, to slip into that.
While taking part in these posts for the past week, I've argued over and over that one of our problems, as humans, is that we don't accept and respect differences. We could do away with science; we could abolish religion. We'd still be left fighting and going to war with one another due to our refusal to accept and respect differences.
For me, the point is sharing my views, listening to the views of others, and going on a quest of sorts. Learning. Dedicating myself to learning is one of the most important things to me. I don't learn much when I go into something "knowing" I'm right and attempting to change others. There are definitely people on both sides, religious and scientific, who are in that place. That's okay, if that's their choice. For me, it's about learning.
Travis -- I don't think you need to respect the argument. No. Personally, I think it would be great and very evolved if we could respect the person who is making the argument. There is a difference. Yes?
Old Barbarossa -- Regarding ...
If someone of faith was presented with the same proof I still contend that unless it was refering to their deity of choice they would ignore the evidence in the vast majority of cases. I note that this point has been made previously on this thread but that no one of faith has responded to it. Maybe I hit a nerve.
As I've said, I don't go to church, etc.... So, I'm not "religious" but am a person of faith. So ....
I think you're right ... in part. There are likely A LOT of people who, in the face of evidence of different gods, would turn their backs on such evidence. Having been raised as a Christian, I can say I know several Christians who would say such evidence wasn't real and that people should be wary of "false prophets" ... etc....
Having said that, generalizations tend to make me itchy. I think there are some people of faith who could be convinced to worship another deity. Look at the people throughout history who have converted to a different religion. In some cases, that conversion was through coercion. Yes. One could also argue that those people didn't convert because of evidence but for other reasons. Okay. I do believe, though, that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Not always ... but often. Since so many people have left one religion for another throughout history (or left religion altogether), I think it's safe to say that, if evidence of a deity (regardless of which deity) presented itself, some would convert. It would really depend on the individuals involved.
Sarah -- I was interested in one of your comments ... the one about changing one another's minds and this being a waste of time. That's the thing, isn't it. I wonder if that's why discussions about religion or religion and science become so heated.
Personally, I haven't engaged in this thread in order to change the minds of other people. (Though, to be truthful, I have hoped that some of my posts would get people to consider being more respectful.) I shared my opinion. I've also tried to be open-minded. Even though I was a total and complete believer in free will, after reading some of the posts, I sat and read different philosophies on free will for hours. The exercise just about gave me a migraine. And, as uncomfortable as it was, when I read Hazel's post last night, I sat down and started to really think about it. Why didn't I pick different things from different religions, like ... do unto others, but leave God out of it? I sat down and said to myself ... Shannon, why do you believe in God? Really, truly ... why are you a person of faith? Those were scary questions. They made me twitch a bit.
For me, it's not about my being right and needing to convince people of my arguments. Though, I think it's very easy for us, very human, to slip into that.
While taking part in these posts for the past week, I've argued over and over that one of our problems, as humans, is that we don't accept and respect differences. We could do away with science; we could abolish religion. We'd still be left fighting and going to war with one another due to our refusal to accept and respect differences.
For me, the point is sharing my views, listening to the views of others, and going on a quest of sorts. Learning. Dedicating myself to learning is one of the most important things to me. I don't learn much when I go into something "knowing" I'm right and attempting to change others. There are definitely people on both sides, religious and scientific, who are in that place. That's okay, if that's their choice. For me, it's about learning.
Danica said: "Clearly we've reached an impasse. "Hardly.
Danica said: "And I'm tired of shouldering the burden of proof. If you can prove that there is no God, that's fine, but why is it that religious people are always asked to prove there is a God?"
Because, as many others have pointed out, the burden of proof always falls on the one making the claim, in your case, that there is a god. Reading back through the thread you will see that the atheists, myself included, have never said we can prove there is no god, we have said that in the abscence of any evidence there is no reason to believe in one. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity, and it is worth pointing out again that you are 99% the same atheist that I am as you don't believe in any of those other gods other than the christian one...presumably without having done a rigourous proof that, for example, Shiva does not exist?
I'm not going to argue my side any more because you don't understand my arguments.
I understand them just as well as you understand mine, I just disagree with them. It is not the same thing. If you leave aside the sanctimonious pratonising for a minute, you should see that.
Danica said: "I'm sorry, but David Hume's light switch example is an easy one."
All you need to do is treat each situation you describe as an individual instance. If I run a red light and kill someone crossing the road, my running the red light is the cause of that person's death. Does that mean every time I run a red light I kill someone? Of course not. So running a red light (flicking a switch) is the cause of the effect of killing someone (turning a light on) in one instance, not in another. (Even if I run the *same* red light, before you attempt to claim that my example would mean different switches). Scientifically speaking, when I flick a switch and a light turns on, flicking the switch is a cause, the light turning on is an effect, in that instance. In another instance with similar, but not identical initial conditions, the effect can easily be different without invalidating the earlier instance.
Danica said: "I'm tired of repeating and dumbing down my ideas and then getting ridiculed for thinking differently. "
And I'm tired of having to point out your arrogant attitude, but I'll keep doing it as long as is necessary.
You are not being ridiculed for thinking differently....this debate has included many believers before (and since) you, who are able to make their points perfectly clearly and without trying to talk down to those they are talking to.
As for "dumbing down" your arguments, I haven't seen you do that, you just restate the same point again and again in pretty much the same way, and ignore many of the points other people make.
Danica said: "I appologize for "flashing my credentials." I didn't realize a Bachelor's degree is so prestigious."
It isn't. It's irrelevant. It was another sign of a fallacious argument, the appeal to authority, amusingly in this case, your own. Your qualifications are irrelevant, you should make your points on their own merit, rather than making a point and when it is debated shout "But I have a degree in philosophy!"...so what? It doesn't make your point any more (or less) valid.
Danica said: "And lastly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your beloved elephant..."
Well let me 'dumb it down' for you then. The point is the one you raised yourself at the start of this post I'm replying to....burden of proof. If I claim there is an elephant in your fridge, a real, live, African elephant, then does the burden of proof lie with you to prove that there isn't (Ah, but when you open the fridge, he hides behind the butter! Yes, the butter is smaller than an elephant, but didn't I tell you this elephant shrinks when the fridge light comes on?), or with me to prove that there is? If you open the fridge and don't see an elephant, do you accept my (honestly held belief) that he is actually there? No, of course not....you rightly say that I, as the person making the claim, need to provide evidence that he is there. In the abscence of that proof, and without you having to prove that he isn't there, you become a FEA (Fridge Elephant Atheist).
Danica said: "However, if YOU are telling me, I'm sure it's a prank or lie of some kind."
Congratulations on becoming the most offensive person on this thread. How do you know I'm telling a lie? Because you don't believe me? Because you don't see an elephant in the fridge? How do you know that it is not an honestly held belief?
I know, there *is* an elephant in your fridge, and I know because god told me. If you don't believe me, on what do you base that disbelief? Do you also disbelieve the people in the bible who say god spoke to them? Based on the evidence of you having given 'The Book of Mormon' 5 stars I am going to propose the theory that you are a Mormon, so if I say I have been spoken to by god and told of the Fridge Elephant, why do you believe that any less than the writings of Joseph Smith?
Btw, as it is a theory, based on only one piece of evidence, I am perfectly happy to be shown to be wrong in Mormon assumption :)
Danica said: "Ok, I'm done. If you want to actually discuss things, that's fine, but I don't appreciate you nitpicking and not actually discussing my arguments."
I am discussing, and as you fail to address most of the other questions/points that I have raised I would suggest that it is you not "actually discussing things".
Danica said: "I leave the burden of proof to you."
No, you don't get to do that, for all the reasons that have been pointed out. You are the one making the claim.
Danica said: "Prove there isn't a God."
I have never said that there isn't a god, so why would I attempt to prove it? Tell you what, I'll give it a go when you prove there is no elephant in your fridge, or if you prefer, that Ganesha doesn't exist.
If you feel the need to leave the discussion (much as you joined it, midway) then that is your choice, but it would be a pity, because you do have a contribution to make, all that I would ask is you are less condescending when making those contributions.
Shannon wrote: "Personally, I haven't engaged in this thread in order to change the minds of other people. (Though, to be truthful, I have hoped that some of my posts would get people to consider being more respectful.)"I would agree with you here Shannon....despite appearances, I am not trying to change anybody's mind, but simply the importance of thinking. Another motivation is that in my experience many people of faith have misconceptions about atheism, so I was hoping to inform.
I agree with your points on being respectful, although I would say I've probably fallen down on that a few times...I'll try harder in future :)
Shannon said: "And, as uncomfortable as it was, when I read Hazel's post last night, I sat down and started to really think about it. Why didn't I pick different things from different religions, like ... do unto others, but leave God out of it? I sat down and said to myself ... Shannon, why do you believe in God? Really, truly ... why are you a person of faith? Those were scary questions. They made me twitch a bit."
They are scary questions...as I think I have mentioned before I did believe in a god for much of my life, but it was someone highlighting the importance of thinking to me that led me to become an atheist...there was no crisis of faith, no unpleasant experience, just actually thinking (and reading, researching etc) about these things, rather than relying on some vague concept of faith. If through thinking about these questions Shannon you either have the same beliefs, or maybe even stronger, that's great, none of us are trying to make you change or thinking you are 'dumb' for those beliefs....to me the only 'dumb' thing people can do is not think for themselves.
In fact I think you perfectly summed up the point of this discussion for me in just one word. "Learning."
Cerebus wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "Someone famous once said, "When the tools of science meet the power of faith, hope is born." I would never want to live in a world without hope. I guess that means I couldn't cho..."I'm not "suggesting" anything. And certainly not "suggesting" it for you. I wrote that I (note the "I") couldn't choose between the two. For me, there is no hope without both religion and science. By the way, I think you mean "As a person of no religious faith" not "As a person of no faith." Everyone has faith. Could be faith in man, faith in Jesus, faith in Satan, faith in evil, faith in money, faith in medicine, faith in science, faith in Democrats. At the very least, faith in themselves.
Hazel wrote: "No, no grandchildren, I'm 30, so though its technically possible to have grandchildren at this age, I managed to avoid it. I also didn't have the most exemplary grandparents, so I don't have much o..."This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I wanted to tell you I liked this post. The "...technically possible to have grandchildren..." sentence? Laughed right when I was taking a drink, and got coffee in my nose. :)
Sarah wrote: "faith is what you trust upon"I like this.
A world without prejudice would suit me fine.
Kathleen wrote: " Laughed right when I was taking a drink, and got coffee in my nose..."We need more laughter in this discussion.
But maybe less coffee in noses...not too comfy is it?
Shannon wrote: "Since so many people have left one religion for another throughout history (or left religion altogether), I think it's safe to say that, if evidence of a deity (regardless of which deity) presented itself, some would convert. It would really depend on the individuals involved..."I can only speak about the reformation, can't think of any other mass conversion at the miniute, but the vast majority of "converts" seemed to have done so for reasons of politics or survival...and many continued their previous religion in secret. Some though took on the newer religion with such zeal they went around hunting and killing those that kept their old religion.
But I agree it is a generalisation.
I agree with you Nadir. I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in a sort of god or in moral values. We don't need religion to teach that. We have stories and experiences to share.
However I don't think science would last long without religion, because one have to have faith and see things in different perspectives.
However I don't think science would last long without religion, because one have to have faith and see things in different perspectives.
By definition, being atheist means you reject the the belief in a god. BUt yes,we don't need a deity to have morals, but I think science would get on fine and dandy without religion. IN fact science would be more advanced without religion.Edit... I also seem to be having a capitalisation problem.. stupid keyboard.
Hazel, for me god isn't a deity or anything like that. God, in my opinion are the elements that made Big Bang possible and still lives with us. ;)
Can you explain me why science would be more advanced without religion?
Can you explain me why science would be more advanced without religion?
Because the church has held back scientific advance throughout the history of scientific endeavour, they are still doing it, without religion, and the churches created by it, science would have been more free, and thus would not have been held back, and we'd be further along than we are (money notwithstanding, if the church hadn't funded some scientists, someone else would have). I suppose you could claim that religion and church are different, but I'd say otherwise, I'd say faith and church are different, but churches are what happens when we get religions.
Well, of course religion and church are 2 different things. Who thought otherwise? When speaking of "The Church" we are talking about the collective of believers. 'A' church, as we know, is the building in which that body of faithful believers goes to worship.
Faith is the trust that you may have in that religion which they've spelled out for the followers.
I don't really get your point, Hazel. Religion being the harmful thing that it is, has of course stood in the way of science as it has many other things, but I don't think it has slowed down progress. In fact, I think that religion has done us a lot of good by opposing scientific research--they continue to demonstrate how silly it is to put your money on the supernatural as opposed to reality and new discovery.
I really can't rebut that last point :)
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Kathleen wrote: " Laughed right when I was taking a drink, and got coffee in my nose..."We need more laughter in this discussion.
But maybe less coffee in noses...not too comfy is it?"
Hahaha! Goodness, no! This is just one of those really heavy subjects... someone should post something political. That'd be sure to get things heated. ;)
Whirlwind you said exactly what I was thinking.
Why do we have both religion and science in our society? Because we need them both. Hazel you're saying that religion hold science back, but what you really mean is Christianity.
However, science always fought about its beliefs and some people even died in name of it.
We are spiritual people so I think religion will never fade away. Not everyone could be an atheist. And if I had to choose a religion I would go for Budhism.
Why do we have both religion and science in our society? Because we need them both. Hazel you're saying that religion hold science back, but what you really mean is Christianity.
However, science always fought about its beliefs and some people even died in name of it.
We are spiritual people so I think religion will never fade away. Not everyone could be an atheist. And if I had to choose a religion I would go for Budhism.
It seems to me that you think that the human species is incapable of living without erroneous belief systems (correct me if I'm wrong). I personally feel that the species can, and would do well without erroneous belief systems clogging up our minds and our time. We have but one life, and its short in the grand scheme of things (to each person its the longest thing they'll do), so why waste it with things that aren't true.I don't think we're a spiritual species, I think that we're a species that wants to understand, and in wanting to understand people make things up to explain things they have no other way of understanding yet (the important word here is yet, I don't get why people can't just wait for an answer from people more qualified than themselves to search for it, or get a degree and start looking themselves if they have the wherewithal), its a basic argument from ignorance, "I don't understand this, but it was probably down to X", and then build belief structures around their pseudo-explanations. They then get so convinced of these beliefs (usually by indoctrination from a young age, after the first people who came up with these beliefs) that they build them into their model of the world, and start seeing it around them, and experience religious moments, our brains are powerful and once the brain includes a model that tells it that angels exist, and that there is a god, it will start creating those experiences. Faith is the belief in this model without any evidence for the model being correct. But religion, and faith, is not understanding, its avoiding the question, unless of course, proof can be produced to show that at least one religion is the answer, or that any deity does exist that is responsible for all we see, but as yet none has been forthcoming.
Religion is a human construct made to explain a world before the species had the knowledge we have now, and continue to gain; knowledge which consistently reveals spiritual and religious beliefs to be explainable as natural and psychological phenomena. People used to believe the thunder was god getting angry, or a number of other reasons depending on which religion you look at, now we can explain thunder, and that belief has been dropped. As we explain things using science more and more of what people used to believe has been dropped, and it will continue to happen this way. If we remove irrational beliefs then we free people to pursue their lives without being subservient to a non-existent entity. Its a pipe dream I know, and religion won't hang around because we are a spiritual species, it will hang around because people allow themselves to be credulous when it comes to religion, which is weird, because generally in every other aspect of life people are rational, or at least not as willing to put aside logic and reason. But then, that's indoctrination for you. Spiritual experience is your brain playing tricks on you because you've convinced it that that's how the world should be.
However, if I were to choose a deity, like I said before, I'd go for Ceiling Cat, all I'd have to do is make sure "teh nomz is reddy", and I don't have a basement, so I'm safe from that side of things... :P
I understand your point. And I really can't understand why people believe in god like it was a real person. I can't accept it. It feels dumb to me. But you know what, sometimes I wish to believe on those kind of things, because, that way, death doesn't seem so ugly or like a big full stop in our lives.
I remember when I was 13 years old and I started to think by myself. I was so angry with all the lies people had been told me about god and the teachings of the bible. I was angry with all those people that believe in such a non-sense!
We have to ask ourselves why do they believe now in such a thing. Ok, some time ago it was a way of explaining things they were uncertain about. But now it's a bit different.
We know we're imperfect beings and we hate that. We always seek for perfection, for the believers god is that perfection and there's something they can aim for. It's easier.
There are still things we don't understand, like premonitions, dejá vu, miracles, etc. And when they need support, who to ask? God.
Have you ever seen the BBC documentary "The Question of God"? It's interesting because it show us two different persons, with different backgrounds and different perspectives of life and god. And at one point they ask themselves the same question: Why am I a (non-)believer?
I'm having a great time talking with you Hazel. :)
I remember when I was 13 years old and I started to think by myself. I was so angry with all the lies people had been told me about god and the teachings of the bible. I was angry with all those people that believe in such a non-sense!
We have to ask ourselves why do they believe now in such a thing. Ok, some time ago it was a way of explaining things they were uncertain about. But now it's a bit different.
We know we're imperfect beings and we hate that. We always seek for perfection, for the believers god is that perfection and there's something they can aim for. It's easier.
There are still things we don't understand, like premonitions, dejá vu, miracles, etc. And when they need support, who to ask? God.
Have you ever seen the BBC documentary "The Question of God"? It's interesting because it show us two different persons, with different backgrounds and different perspectives of life and god. And at one point they ask themselves the same question: Why am I a (non-)believer?
I'm having a great time talking with you Hazel. :)
I personally think that death isn't ugly, its simply another part of life, and without it there would be no cycle of nutrients within nature. I think its a beautiful thought that my death and disposal of my remains means that something else can grow. But I know what you mean about wishing it were true sometimes, it would make life easier if I could just allow myself to think something like "oh, Ceiling Cat/FSM/the cosmic purple alligator did it all". Unfortunately I reached a point where I realised that wanting something is neither here nor there, if its not true.Many of the things you listed as not understood yet have several working theories. Deja vu has several theories, and they're still investigating it (google produces a lot of hits, so I'll leave it to others to actually find articles on it). Miracles tend to have a rational explanation, but even if you can't find it, the miracles that seem to make the news are all things like a jesus shaped cheeto :S Premonitions, the one most people have is thinking about someone and then that person calling, now there's a whole chapter on that sort of thing in Unweaving the Rainbow, if you haven't read it, I recommend it, even if some of the science in parts of it is somewhat behind the times now.
I don't recall seeing that documentary, but I'm sure I could manage to get hold of a copy somehow. I remember watching the story of god though, and I have the book, but that's just me digressing.
I think its a shame we seek perfection, but I know that we do. I do it myself, I'm never happy with any artwork I produce, and I have had to train myself to just stop and declare it done, or I'll ruin it. And that's a pretty good analogy for most things really, we need to know when to declare it enough, and for me the word as it is, in all its magnificence and beauty is enough without needing a god. Like Douglas Adams says "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
I'm enjoying talking to you too, however, its now gone 11, my OH is away with the TA, so I don't have a recourse to sleep in in the morning when my toddler descends on me (and I mean literally, its quite painful some mornings) at rubbish o'clock in the morning. So I must hit the sack. Nighty night.
Hazel wrote: "Religion is a human construct made to explain a world before the species had the knowledge we have now, and continue to gain; knowledge which consistently reveals spiritual and religious beliefs to be explainable as natural and psychological phenomena."I think you're treating the matter too superficially here. The role of spirituality and religion changed in time. These matters evolved along with all others aspects of humanity.What you wrote was indeed true in more primitive societies and of course religion as a means of explaining natural phenomena, even those we still cannot fully explain scientifically, is completely obsolete in civilized communities but there are still questions, for which science cannot give you even a hint of an answer.
I think Stephen Hawking said something along the lines: "I can tell you how the universe probably came to be but I will never be able to tell you why."
Ok, but when you come back we can talk a little about the meaning of life. That I think it's behind the nature of this question, science versus religion.
I think faith and religion are two different things. Religion is the organization of people of similar faith. Faith is a personal beleif system. Science is something that is still being explored in a way. I think we need both faith and science, and they can co-exsist. Religion on the other hand is not really necessary but it does seem almost every civilization that has exsisted on earth has also had some form of religion. Maybe mankind needed it to evolve? But do we need organized religion now? With religion being organized by mankind, it is intrinsically flawed too. We are imperfect. Faith and science both rely on truths, or the truth as we know it in the present. The truth is constant, but our perception of it is always in flux. So I say we need both.
On a slight aside...Not all religions have been actively "anti-science"...
The religions of classical Greece for instance, they had little in the way of dogma (loads of irrational - and sometimes beautiful/sometimes terrifying rituals though), and they gave us democracy, philosophy, science.
Also look at pre-Reconquista Portugal/Spain...one of the most tolerant societies we've seen in Europe, almost the exact opposite of post-Reconquista Spain. The Islamic states tended on the whole to be very civilised, with little in the way of persecution. And the origin of our words algebra and alcohol (to name just 2 obvious ones) are Arabic.
Now these are obviously broad generalisations, but it shows that religion and science can tolerate each other, and in the Iberian instance that religions can tolerate each other.
Having said that I personaly still see no reason, or need, to believe in any deity or be part of any religion.
Giansar wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Religion is a human construct made to explain a world before the species had the knowledge we have now, and continue to gain; knowledge which consistently reveals spiritual and religi..."Yes, what I was describing was how religions came about (and being able to recognise and accept that idea should be enough to make anyone question the validity of their faith), but then please note that I mentioned after that, and in modern times, its about indoctrination. Children are credulous, its a good thing that children are credulous, we want them to believe what we say to them, its evolutionarily sound for children to believe what an adult tells them. Its good for a child to believe an adult when the adult tells them not to touch snakes because they're dangerous, rather than for them to disbelieve it and find out for themselves in what could be a lethal encounter. So we have evolved to be credulous in our early formative years, and that's when indoctrination starts too, so a child will accept what an adult tells them, they won't question the validity of the religious information they're given just as they won't question the validity of the live saving survival information they are given.
But that credulity dies away as we get older, but by then the indoctrination has taken hold, and the persons model of the world includes a god of some sort, and whatever other aspects there are of their religion as they've been taught. In most things however, we become rational, and able to pick the true from the fantasy. We stop believing in Santa Claus, we stop believing in fairies, and this happens because parents/adults stop reinforcing the belief. The belief in god would die away as easily if it stopped being reinforced by the adults a child trusts. We start to learn to think logically and rationally, but people are actively encouraged to not think rationally about their religion (phrases like "there's more to life than evidence" and the assertion that faith is a virtue, which, to me, is the same as saying ignorance is a virtue, which some fundies do actually assert). Generations of indoctrination produce what we have now, and have had for the last couple of millennia or so.
And so what if Stephen Hawkings said "I can tell you how the universe probably came to be but I will never be able to tell you why." All that means is that HE won't ever be able to tell us, it doesn't mean it will never be known. He also said
"My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all".
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”
“I regard the afterlife to be a fairy story for people that are afraid of the dark”
“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.”
In fact, the quote you attribute to him, I can't find anywhere...
Just because there are things science can't explain YET doesn't mean a) that it will never explain it, and b)that makes it ok to fill in the gaps with stories of god (little g, meaning any deity). And even the modern religions were created as a way to explain the world in the absence of the scientific knowledge, or the ability to gain it that came later, its just that they're a far simpler answer than the ancient religions.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "On a slight aside..."
Talking of asides, I just ran into this, and thought you'd be amused...
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/9muC83/...
Hazel wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "On a slight aside..."
Talking of asides, I just ran into this, and thought you'd be amused...
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/9muC83/......"
Alas, there is a big corporate firewall at my current location and it won't let me access this...probably best as it may open a gateway of strange geometries and allow eldritch tentacled abominations through...
I'm against teaching a child about religion in an early age without explaining to her what religion really is and showing her that there isn't just one religion (or churches).
Even atheists or agnostics lives by the rules of religion, even if it is unconscious. We still see bad and good by the way it was taught to us. And many of that moral values are already outdated. We're not afraid of hell but what society will say.
An talking about society. No one wants that regular persons like us to be intelligent, religion and false belief systems are better accepted when we have little information, or when we don't care to search for it (and that's the most of the cases).
We all need to find a meaning to our lives. Religion seems the best option right now, because science didn't reach that point yet. But maybe there are no meaning in life. Or we just make that meaning.
Even atheists or agnostics lives by the rules of religion, even if it is unconscious. We still see bad and good by the way it was taught to us. And many of that moral values are already outdated. We're not afraid of hell but what society will say.
An talking about society. No one wants that regular persons like us to be intelligent, religion and false belief systems are better accepted when we have little information, or when we don't care to search for it (and that's the most of the cases).
We all need to find a meaning to our lives. Religion seems the best option right now, because science didn't reach that point yet. But maybe there are no meaning in life. Or we just make that meaning.
I think we provide our own meaning for our lives. I also feel kinda sorry for anyone who has to look beyond what there actually is for meaning, its like saying that what you have isn't enough. And by feel sorry for, I don't mean in a patronising way, I mean I have an honest wish that people could be happy with the world and the universe as it actually is, and be happy with the answers that science reveals without expecting it to give them meaning. Having a belief in some sort of comforting afterlife ideal means that someone who doesn't have to struggle, who has all the comforts of life, who can travel and afford a decent lifestyle still thinks they don't have enough. Personal meaning should come from both internal and external sources, but those sources should be real.And what do you mean science didn't reach that point yet? Science isn't there to provide meaning to peoples lives (unless you're a scientist, and you feel your lifes purpose is to learn about the world/universe etc, but that's not quite the same thing), its there to search for answers and facts, not to make life have meaning. In fact if science tells us one thing, its that life doesn't have direction and meaning beyond surviving to reproduce. Anything above and beyond that is a bonus.
An talking about society. No one wants that regular persons like us to be intelligent, religion and false belief systems are better accepted when we have little information, or when we don't care to search for it (and that's the most of the cases).
I spent a while trying to work out this sentence, I'm gussing you mean that people in general, and those in charge of religions (and politics, ideologies other than religion can be brought into this) in particular would prefer for us to remain ignorant, so that they can continue in their positions? And that few people would even consider looking beyond what those people, or the books they base their teachings on, tell us? If that is the case, and that's what you mean, then yes, I completely agree, those with power would prefer we stayed ignorant to let them get on with whatever they want, and most people don't think about learning beyond what we're spoon fed by mass media/churches/politicians etc etc, or consider it too much bother to think about it. I know people who are happy to just bimble along in blissful ignorance, worse are the conspiracy theorists (I know some of them too) who claim that all the important people in the world are actually lizards, and that we have our minds controlled by fluorine in the water. Its better to be ignorant than to believe falsehoods, at least from ignorance, you can learn without having to unlearn something first.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Alas, there is a big corporate firewall at my current location and it won't let me access this...probably best as it may open a gateway of strange geometries and allow eldritch tentacled abominations through..."that's not always a bad thing...
I think people started thinking about the universe with this simple questions: Where do we come from? Why are we here? And where do we go when we die?
The second question is about the meaning of life. Philosophers tried to answer this question. And science do followed the path of philosophy in that matter. Science even investigates about the soul (have you heard about noetics? Lost Symbol by Dan Brown talks about it).
However I still don't know if they prove that humans have a sould it means that life has a purpose. And what would be the purpose of a soul?
There is a quote by Umberto Eco in his book "The name of the rose" that says that we only understand the past when we are far distant from it. For example, we only know why dinosaurs existed and died now that we are million and million years away from it.
The second question is about the meaning of life. Philosophers tried to answer this question. And science do followed the path of philosophy in that matter. Science even investigates about the soul (have you heard about noetics? Lost Symbol by Dan Brown talks about it).
However I still don't know if they prove that humans have a sould it means that life has a purpose. And what would be the purpose of a soul?
There is a quote by Umberto Eco in his book "The name of the rose" that says that we only understand the past when we are far distant from it. For example, we only know why dinosaurs existed and died now that we are million and million years away from it.
I'll look up noetics properly later, after my daughter is asleep.The Umberto Eco stuff though, I haven't actually read any of his work, I keep meaning to, but other books get found first (I have to use a library, I can't afford books). Though that seems like pure sophistry to me, though perspective is useful, it doesn't have to be time that provides it. Dinosaurs existed for the same reason anything living thing exists, because it evolved from earlier life forms, that's the only "why they existed" that is needed. Though, tangentially, there is now contention as to whether birds evolved from them, or that birds came first, and dinosaurs were an offshoot, which is why science is so much fun.
Personally, I don't believe in souls. But if we assume there is one, that still doesn't point to a deity, science would eventually explain it and how and why it evolved. I also don't think having a soul creates meaning in someone's life, it wouldn't prove meaning at all, as like I said, it could easily be an evolved characteristic, and thus does not indicate the existence of anything that provides a supernatural meaning to everything.
When it comes down to it, this universe is huge, the observable universe is nearly 14 billion light years across, we are an insignificant mote of dust within it, it is pure hubris and egotism to believe that it was created by a being, for us, and as such any religious explanation of the big questions you mention can be rejected based on the pure anthrocentric view that it expounds.
Actually, when it comes down to it, we're still back to the point of evidence. If there is no evidence for a soul, until evidence is found, its most rational to reject the idea, just like with a deity, just like with fairies, just like with the FSM.
Hazel wrote: "...just like with fairies..."I heard an old story (possibly apocryphal) of a farmer who was asked, by an anthropologist in the old days, if he believed in faeries...the reply was, "No...and I don't think they believe in me either..."
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote: "...just like with fairies..."
I heard an old story (possibly apocryphal) of a farmer who was asked, by an anthropologist in the old days, if he believed in faeries...the reply was,..."
Ha! If I didn't wake up with a nasty cold this morning, I'd be laughing even louder. Love the wisdom of old farmers!
I heard an old story (possibly apocryphal) of a farmer who was asked, by an anthropologist in the old days, if he believed in faeries...the reply was,..."
Ha! If I didn't wake up with a nasty cold this morning, I'd be laughing even louder. Love the wisdom of old farmers!
neotics, thus far, the Quackometer has rated the institute of noetic sciences with 3 canards, and the Uk site is also registering 3 canards. True, this isn't as bad as the 10 canards that Chopra's website elicits, but we're really wanting no canards at all to completely take a website seriously. I suspect that the neotic sites are only scoring so few canards though, because there are people who understand science debunking the site in the comments sections.Anyway, I had a look, specifically at the experiments carried out. Theres one called web bot that makes predictions. According to the site, a prediction of the events of 9/11 was made by this bot, the prediction read thusly:
"in June 2001 Web Bot predicted that a catastrophic event would occur within the next 60–90 days."
http://www.noeticsciences.co.uk/noeti...
What?! Come on, there's a high chance of a catastrophe somewhere in the world in any given 3 month period. What utter rot. A quick web search reveals at least 20 other disasters they could have attributed the prediction to if the planes had never hit the twin towers, I'm even reasonably sure they would have claimed it was the explosion at one of France's largest petrochemical plants on the 21st sept, which left 29 people dead, at least 10 missing, and more than 2,500 injured. The blast caused earth tremors measuring 3.4 in magnitude and damaged an estimated 20,000 buildings, some as far as 3 mi away. Or perhaps one of the typhoons, and when you tend to get typhoons between may and november, its not a huge leap of the imagination that something catastrophic will happen in the months of june to sept. With the hurricane season happening august through october as well, we start to see how amazing this prediction really is...
This is also a form of "science" that is fuelling the 2012 predictions.
And this is another of their experiments, linked from the first page I put a link to:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/million-d...
That anyone actually falls for this shit is astounding. If such things were possible, there would be no poverty, except that money would have no value.
There not even using controls, its not science.
As such, I think I'm filing neotics into the file marked q for quackery.
Well, more good news: the world was supposed to end yesterday (october 21st) and it all looks to still be here.I gotta say, this makes my (rough estimate) seventh end of the world and I'm finding them pretty disappointing.
bad news: I was really looking forward to looting the homes of the recently raptured in my neighborhood.
Personally, I would double check my math before I announced the end of the world.
Has noetics been on "Penn And Teller's Bullshit" yet?I recently discovered this program by 2 of my favorite imps.
I always thought that so called noetic science is to science what homeopathy is to medicine, that is to say the only ones who regard it as science are noetic scientists.
Giansar wrote: "I always thought that so called noetic science is to science what homeopathy is to medicine, that is to say the only ones who regard it as science are noetic scientists."That sounds like a reasonable analogy to me.
I went to their research institute (noetic.org) but don't seem to find how they carry their experiments. Some websites claim they follow a scientific method, but I can't find the proof anywhere. So, for now, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
But 3 canards nicia, 3 CANARDS!!!! :P
Theres a site called the Quackometer, that analyses webpages, and places them on a scale of 0-10 canards (the french for duck). Its based on the use of words and whether they're used in the correct context. For example a site that uses the word quantum a lot, but not in relation to quantum mechanics, instead using it when talking about healing etc, it ranks high ont he quackometer. The more canards a site gets the more quackery is involved.http://www.quackometer.net/?page=quac...
Try it, its pretty damn good, if you find a page that discusses a quack subject properly, with comparitive opinions and skepticism, it even recognises that even though a quack subject is being discussed, its being discussed in a non-quack way.
For example, the site you just linked got 3 canards just for its home page, whereas its page on intuition got 7 canards.
Ok, thank you for the explanation. :)
I wonder what the quack experts have to say about religion? Hmmm. I must go back and pay them a visit. But, they probably don't "go there". LOL
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
and that's considered a reasonable argument that we must respect?"
Yes.
But only when it refers to their particular deity.
This does not apply to any other deity...in those cases they are dismissed out of hand.