Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Will said: "Religion is no longer needed? Somewhere between half and three quarters of the world's population would probably disagree with you..."Brainwashed.
No doubt about it I would chose science any time. Who wants to live in the dark ages?
Will wrote: "That's why I call it a "sort of religion" - a set of moral codes that don't need a god. It sounds like you've got one already.Religion is no longer needed? Somewhere between half and three quarte..."
Not true by my definition of a religion, my definition of "religion" is a belief in "GOD". It is not a "sort of religion". Not a sort of god! A set of moral codes is not a religion. It is a way of life or lifestyle. A code of conduct, not a religion!
Yes, I disagree with the rest of the world that believe in a god. Also the majority is not always right.
Mickey wrote: This is a false statement. One does not need religion to have a code of conduct to live by. One does not need to have religion to have standards of good behavior.You may be correct but I doubt it. Take, for example, Christian Religions... this is where morals as we know them have originated from.
Past generations have altered, replaced or got rid of some and the morals we have today, together with the law of the land is our code.
cHriS wrote: "Mickey wrote: This is a false statement. One does not need religion to have a code of conduct to live by. One does not need to have religion to have standards of good behavior.You may be correct ..."
That's right. But I think the discussion is that you do not need a religion to reach a moral code. If we have an ancient world without religion and groups of people begin to live in societies at some point rules will be made for the good of that society. Order from chaos. People are clever and will always find a way to make things work.
Those morals may not always be nice.
Rob wrote: That's right. But I think the discussion is that you do not need a religion to reach a moral code. If we have an ancient world without religion and groups of people begin to live in societies at some point rules will be made for the good of that society. Order from chaos. People are clever and will always find a way to make things work..."
'If' if is not happening so we are just guessing what could have happened.
And if there were no religion eventually someone would wonder how we got here and what ever answer they came up with, they would worship 'it' and religion would come into being and set the standards.
cHriS wrote: "Rob wrote: That's right. But I think the discussion is that you do not need a religion to reach a moral code. If we have an ancient world without religion and groups of people begin to live in soci..."Are you suggesting that humans are predetermined to come up with religion if they don't know 'how we got here'? It sounds like you think people need to worship something.
I'm not sure I buy into that. I agree that it is what happened. There's no denying it and my suggestionwas only a thought experiment at best.
But in the modern world do we really need people that believe in (the god of their choice) informing the rest of us of how things should be. Giving out opions to the masses as if theyhave some special right to do so?
For me those days are long gone. Organised religionshould keep it's own house in order but leave the rest of us to get on with our lives. After all, it's the only life we have. Not theirs.
Rob wrote: Organised religionshould keep it's own house in order but leave the rest of us to get on with our lives. After all, it's the only life we have. Not theirs. "
I agree all religions should do what you said and some do, but that does not alter where our morals originated from.
You say that your suggestion was only a thought experiment, ok, but you could have the same experiment regarding science.
Since neither religions or science know if there is a god. Religions 'believing' there is and science needing proof before it can say there is.......that leaves the god question open.
cHriS wrote: "Rob wrote: Organised religionshould keep it's own house in order but leave the rest of us to get on with our lives. After all, it's the only life we have. Not theirs. "
I agree all religions shou..."
If God doesn't exist you can never prove it. Therefore proof is required.
cHriS wrote: "Rob wrote: Organised religionshould keep it's own house in order but leave the rest of us to get on with our lives. After all, it's the only life we have. Not theirs. "
I agree all religions shou..."
There being no proof of god and the fact that the his believers refuse to provide any proof does not make it an open question.
the lack of proof serves as proof. belief can exists but all it proves is that there is belief, not proof.
cHriS wrote: "Since neither religions or science know if there is a god. Religions 'believing' there is and science needing proof before it can say there is.......that leaves the god question open"From a pure philosophical view one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a god.
However, all written text stating they come from a god cannot be proven, all religious text came from the human race and all such books have errors and contradictions in them. Therefore, I will not trust any such flawed books to follow as way of life.
This is becoming again a very contemporary discussion certainly for many U.K. members of goodreads in light of the 'post-Christian' discussion in 'merry ol' England'.Several prominent leaders have weighed in on the topic including Rowan Williams the former(retired) Archbishop of Canterbury.
->http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-2...
This article also contain other hyper-links to the full interview from this past Sundays interview with Williams and to the current Archbishops comments on the topic. There are links to David Camerons Christian nation avowal and rebuttals thereof.
With that cannon fodder now laid out and available there are a couple of points in this discussion that appear to be glossed over in the current (past 200-300 comments) entries.
- post-Christian does not mean non-religious, just evolved from a narrow sectarian view that is not even representative of all of Christianity.
- the problem many people have in the modern world with religion is two fold:
a. modern recognition of no need to resort to the supernatural and thus an aversion to the same by anybody who seeks that type of solution.
b. the confusion of intellectual corruption with inherent flaws in religious thought.
While the first regarding the supernatural is pretty straight forward as a dividing line for the opposing sides on this topic, the second is far more complicated.
The corruption of various religious philosophies and theologies has caused a wholesale rejection of them as being meaningful. But like centuries in the past they are being immediately replaced by another religion. To reject the Christian ethos of the U.K. isn't entirely possible as the article links above point out no matter how deeply certain groups are offended or don't wish to accept the historical reality.
Morality and even the law don't always get along terribly well is another thematic problem on the religious side of this debate. Morals and moral behavior are principles (and thus highly susceptible to the corruption hinted at previously) and not in and of themselves law. Laws as rules (which is how the modern west has encoded them) may be inherently immoral, but practical. Moral behavior may tell me to feed someone who is hungry even though I don't have a food distribution permit. Moral v legal behavior.
Finally for this moment, there is the problem of science with or without the capitalized initial 'S'. Science is by definition amoral. It exists in a self defined realm of fact and rule. Science is not a guideline for behavior and social interaction. I prefer its explanation and lack of ambiguity to religious tractates where it, science, speaks. I cannot live in a world where there is no science, no one can. Otherwise gravity just might not be there and we'd all float away or 'something'.
I'll leave this mini diatribe with this comment that I may have used previously in the over 12 thousand entries so far offered on this topic:
There is only one true science, physics and its language is mathematics. Everything else is left as an exercise for the reader.
Mickey wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Since neither religions or science know if there is a god. Religions 'believing' there is and science needing proof before it can say there is.......that leaves the god question open"..."Right, but those who believe, believe. They are happy to believe, they don't need proof.
Those who do not believe don't need proof.
Rob wrote: If God doesn't exist you can never prove it. Therefore proof is required. ..."
..... well a good start would be if science could tell us what caused the big bang and not just what they think could have caused it.
Travis wrote: There being no proof of god and the fact that the his believers refuse to provide any proof does not make it an open question.the lack of proof serves as proof. belief can exists but all it proves is that there is belief, not proof.
"
....you don't get it. It is only non believers that require proof. Believers don't really care if non believers believe or not.
You not believing in a god does not mean that there is no god. It just means that until you get proof you are not willing to think out of the box.
At least that is how science works.
CD wrote:There is only one true science, physics and its language is mathematics. Everything else is left as an exercise for the reader. ..."Maybe..........I have often thought that many branches of science have lost the plot.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: There being no proof of god and the fact that the his believers refuse to provide any proof does not make it an open question.the lack of proof serves as proof. belief can exists bu..."
No it means you don't understand what an open question is.
Believers can't question god's existence and rational people don't need to question something that doesn't exist.
The only proof needed to prove a negative is that the people claiming a positive have no proof, just their claims.
science works when you can show how your theory works and can repeat it's results.
and besides, if god is everywhere, shouldn't he be inside the box as well as outside it?
cHriS wrote: "Mickey wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Since neither religions or science know if there is a god. Religions 'believing' there is and science needing proof before it can say there is.......that leaves the god..."My definition of "Belief" is believing in something in which all the facts are not there. Religious and non religous can believe in something in which all the facts are not there.
I reject religion from the contradictions with in religion. My mind cannot accept contradictions. If I find a contradiction I will reject the statements. Almost all religous books has contractions with the real world. Like a kind loving god creating beings to burn in hell for eternity. The list goes on. The book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties has numerous contradictions of the bible and I do not accept his explanations for the contradictions.
As for belief in science: I believe objects move through space in a continuous motion. Other scientist believe that objects moves discreetly through space in step motions.
Mickey wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Mickey wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Since neither religions or science know if there is a god. Religions 'believing' there is and science needing proof before it can say there is.......that ..."another problem that I have with religion. Their only piece of 'proof' is a book, which contradicts itself and the believers don't follow or can change as they feel like it, but they want us all to follow their rules...?
Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Rob wrote: Organised religionshould keep it's own house in order but leave the rest of us to get on with our lives. After all, it's the only life we have. Not theirs. "
I agree all ..."
Yes.
Mickey wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Since neither religions or science know if there is a god. Religions 'believing' there is and science needing proof before it can say there is.......that leaves the god question open"..."Yes.
CD wrote: "This is becoming again a very contemporary discussion certainly for many U.K. members of goodreads in light of the 'post-Christian' discussion in 'merry ol' England'.Several prominent leaders hav..."
Yes.
without religion it would be better i think...
Travis wrote: No it means you don't understand what an open question is..."'Why did you join Goodreads? Is an open question.
Is there a God is not open. It can be answered either Yes or No. But we don't yet know the answer.
Travis wrote: another problem that I have with religion. Their only piece of 'proof' is a book, which contradicts itself and the believers don't follow or can change as they feel like it, but they want us all to follow their rules...? ."
You could substitute religion with science and it would read the same.
another problem that I have with science. Their only piece of 'proof' is a theory, which contradicts itself and the non scientists don't follow or can change as they feel like it, but they want us all to follow their rules...?
And that, my friends, is why we should be looking for the common ground - the bits where we can agree with each other.Because we are never going to agree with such polarised viewpoints as these.
I guess my real problem with the god question is that I don't understand why people believe it. What have we got? Some books and historical texts expounding that god exists. This is what I can't get my head around - how do we go from that to believing it to be true.In science as others have mention you can show the validity of a theory by repeating experiments and obtaining the same results. Water under normal atmospheric pressure boils at 100 degrees c. It happens every time you do it. It's a fact and can be shown to be so. So I find science easier to get a handle on.
If someone walked up to me and said, look here, I have proof that a god exists and showe dit me and it was a fact or true I'd believe it. But religions can't do that. So Ifear that I will never believe in any god.
As to people who believe are not bothered about people that don't - well that's not really true. religions are always trying to obtain new converts.
Will wrote: "And that, my friends, is why we should be looking for the common ground - the bits where we can agree with each other.Because we are never going to agree with such polarised viewpoints as these."
I guess you are right there Will. But always has it been thus...
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: another problem that I have with religion. Their only piece of 'proof' is a book, which contradicts itself and the believers don't follow or can change as they feel like it, but they ..."but, if I say 'There is no god', nothing happens.
If I say 'gravity is just a theory', then stuff happens.
Science provides proof for their rules, religions only rule is 'god said so'.
Religion is a theory that never provides proof, but wants to be treated as a law, like it's gravity.
Rob wrote: "I guess my real problem with the god question is that I don't understand why people believe it. What have we got? Some books and historical texts expounding that god exists. This is what I can't ..."I'm not looking for converts, in fact the few times I've changed somebodies mind here it caught me completely by surprise, I just get tired of the idea that science and religion are equal, or two sides of the same coin or whatever quaint sounding BS is popular at the moment.
I enjoy the chat, and occasional heated debate, but doubt I'm going to get anyone to switch sides.
Which is too bad, because I've almost earned enough points on my atheist membership rewards card for a free cup of coffee.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: No it means you don't understand what an open question is..."'Why did you join Goodreads? Is an open question.
Is there a God is not open. It can be answered either Yes or No. But ..."
If believers don't ever question god's existence and rational people don't bother due to the lack of proof, then how is it a question
If nobody is asking?
Rob - the question of proof is tricky. Very tricky.No-one has yet proved to me (or you) that god exists. Miracles, the bible, the power of prayer ... sorry, but I'm unconvinced. You get the same effects from people who believe in alternative religions, luck, destiny, UFOs.
But equally no-one has proved that god doesn't exist. Dawkins certainly didn't. What he argued was that the bible was wrong about some things and that some of the so-called proofs of god's existence were flaky.
But disproving the bible doesn't disprove the existence of god. It just shows that the bible was wrong, at least in parts. Except that we sort of know that, don't we?, because no-one now thinks that the world is flat. And there is the small matter of how to reconcile Christianity with all the other faiths that people still believe in. They can't all be right.
But ... and it's a big but ... the believers will tell you that they have a faith which does not need proof. They just know that their god exists. My wife has this sort of faith and there is absolutely nothing I can do (or would do) to shake it.
We might argue that this is brainwashing. Your parents continually tell you that there is a god, so you believe it. Or wishful thinking - you don't want to go to hell or nothingness when you die, do you?
But the reality is that until and unless you or I experience this sort of faith we have no way of knowing whether it is genuine or not. And even then we have no proof that what we perceive of as faith isn't something else.
In a sense it is almost impossible to disprove the existence of god, because we don't know what we are looking for. Or, to put it another way, if there is a god it is almost certain that we can't come close to understanding him, her or it. What is expressed in the bible and other holy books is our best attempt at understanding something so much bigger than ourselves. Or which might not exist at all.
Scottish law has a useful concept. As well as saying that someone is either guilty or innocent, they have the verdict of "not proven". We really don't know.
Will, I'm totally with you on your points and it's a very reasonable position. I guess deep down that I'm a scientific person and after all these years (of my life) I can't find a reason/or proofs to believe that god/gods are real.So I'm sticking with my atheist position - until something shows up.
I suspect that people of faith may have a similar point of view! Neither side is about to persuade the other to change in a hurry.
I can change from atheism. If that hot super good looking religious women that can and make me "physically" happy on all levels... Yea I can change.Better to live in world of fantasy and happy :) Or someone comes with a sword and say pray or else... Yea I can change.
Travis wrote: If believers don't ever question god's existence and rational people don't bother due to the lack of proof, then how is it a questionIf nobody is asking?
"
Who is god is the 9th most popular question(in the religion section)that is asked on google.
cHriS wrote: "Who is god is the 9th most popular question(in the religion section)that is asked on google."Easy answer, God is a fictional character of human imagination.
Mickey wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Who is god is the 9th most popular question(in the religion section)that is asked on google."Easy answer, God is a being of imagination."
Ok, tell us what he/she imagines
cHriS wrote: "Mickey wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Who is god is the 9th most popular question(in the religion section)that is asked on google."Easy answer, God is a being of imagination."
Ok, tell us what he/she ima..."
Thanks for the correction, original post changed.
Mickey wrote: "Other scientist believe that objects moves discreetly through space in step motions. "Do you have a source for that? I think you are confusing models with real space.
Nope, no sources. Just a discussion of fellow students durring a physics class long ago. They stem from modern set theory in mathematics where where everything is based on integers. Planck length, limit to particle size, space and time are physical concepts. I see space and time as symbolic concepts and mathematically where infinity does exist. I miss the the old school of mathematical proofs.
Well from a quick google search here some discussions on time that is related to movement. http://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_T...
Will wrote: "And that, my friends, is why we should be looking for the common ground - the bits where we can agree with each other.Because we are never going to agree with such polarised viewpoints as these."
I Quite agree
Mickey wrote: "Nope, no sources. Just a discussion of fellow students durring a physics class long ago. They stem from modern set theory in mathematics where where everything is based on integers. Planck length, ..."Thanks for the link to that very interesting discussion. The points made by some of the proponents of discrete time there are well beyond my training. However, it seems to me that planck time is just the smallest unit of time that is meaningful for measuring anything. That does not mean that space-time is discrete. If it was then objects moving from one discrete unit to another would necessarily cease to exist while transitioning. It seems from the discussion that the idea of discrete time is (at least partly) connected to the idea of quantized gravity. But if gravity is just a phenomena of the curvature of space-time then quantized gravity is not possible.
I think time and space are continuous. But I'm just an engineer, not a theoretical physicist. :-)
Mickey wrote: Thanks for the correction, original post changed...."It wasn't meant as a correction, more a bit of fun. :)
Mickey wrote:Easy answer, God is a fictional character of human imagination.
If that is true then can you explain 'everything' because that would be the only way to prove that God is fictional.
I think Mickey is right. All the evidence for (any) god is man made. Hearsay, oral tradition, sagas, song. There's not a shread of real/tangible evidence.
cHriS wrote: "Mickey wrote: Thanks for the correction, original post changed...."It wasn't meant as a correction, more a bit of fun. :)
Mickey wrote:Easy answer, God is a fictional character of human imaginat..."
So, instead of providing a single bit of proof that god is real, the better idea is to explain everything in the universe to disprove him...?
Wow...that is moving the goalposts to suit your argument taken to such an extreme that you almost have to admire it.
David wrote: "I think time and space are continuous. But I'm just an engineer, not a theoretical physicist. :-) ."Same here and I agree.
cHriS wrote: "If that is true then can you explain 'everything' because that would be the only way to prove that God is fictional."Just because something is unknown, is no proof that god exist.
Hmm ... this question of proof again.It is very hard to prove that something doesn't exist, especially if you don't know where it is or what it looks like. So the only real way to disprove the existence of god is to lift every rock in the universe and look under it.
Incidentally, that is "under a rock" metaphorically speaking. I don't really want to claim that God lives under a rock. If you were an omnipotent and omniscient being, I'm sure you could find yourself a more comfortable abode.
So what we generally prove/ disprove are the assertions about what god has done or is doing. Fr'instance Dawkins' argument is largely that evolution is a more credible explanation than creationism, therefore god doesn't exist.
The flaw in his argument is that disproving creationism doesn't disprove the existence of god - it simply disproves (or tries to) a literal six day creation. It leaves open the possibility that God exists but he didn't create the world in six days. The bible is either flat wrong on this or it is meant to be read metaphorically. You could say that the bible is the attempt of its authors to explain/ understand very complicated concepts. In other words, God is a mysterious thing that we barely understand so it's quite understandable that the bible will not get everything right.
At this point the atheists (including me) usually throw up their hands in frustration. That's not fair! How can we prove that god doesn't exist if you keep changing your mind about what he looks like or where he is or what he does?
We prove that the world isn't flat, so the people of faith say that doesn't prove anything. It's a metaphor. We argue that the world wasn't created in six days, so they say that they didn't really mean six earth days. A day to god is much longer than a day to men and women. It's another metaphor, innit?
If God exists you could in theory prove it. Burning bushes, seas parting, water into wine, Morgan Freeman in a white suit, that sort of thing. Some people have seen what they believe to be evidence and they are believers. Others (me included) haven't seen any evidence yet, and we're not.
In the final analysis, the only proof about the existence or non-existence of god is when/if he finally shows up or St. Peter is standing at the pearly gates looking through his book saying "I'm sorry, mate, but if you're names not on the list you're not getting in."
But equally we can't disprove God's existence until and unless that moment happens. It is not provable either way.
Luckily the question of whether god exists or not is fairly irrelevant. If he does exist we don't understand him, her or it because as we've said the bible is almost certainly wrong (flat earth, six day creation, etc). So the best that we can do is to make up our own minds about what is right and wrong and live by our own code of moral standards.
Which is not that far from how many believers think. Do good stuff, be kind to each other and don't covet thy neighbour's ass.
Whether thy neighbour has a nice ass or not.
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...
Yes, religion as a whole evolves it has to to accomodate new understandings of the world.
Morals - although instigated in many cases by religions for the better/safer running of scoiety - codes of conduct are really social things. If religions hadn't been there to 'own' the moral high ground, they would have been invented anyway - people are clever and thye would have seen th eneed for codes of conduct.
As for made-up and right. I totally agree that science uses the methods you describe, but we can say that certainthings are true and others aren't if those scientific tests retrun the same result over and over. And it's probably my fault that we went down this road, but I mixed religion with organised religion when I made my comment. Still, I maintain that there's no evidence what-so-ever for the existence of a god/gods etc. And for organised religions to maintain that there is, is disgraceful. They are run by very educated people and to some extent I don't know how they sleep at night.
Yes, organised religions try to help people but at tthe cost of believing in a ridged docterine that only changes under extenal pressure and slowly at that.
I'm quite happy to have them continue but their influence should be reigned in.
Before the big bang? There was nothing and we can never know anythiong other than that. See chpt 5, Hawking's book. I had to rea dit five times to get what he meant. :-)