The existence of a higher power: fact or fiction?

[James81]

Might as well start at the beginning, right?

Do you believe in a god? Which god do you believe in and why?

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there?

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?

[Bartholomew]

I believe in a God of sorts; I think it is an impartial creature, much like we might be to an ant hill, but that we're ultimately the by-product of something greater. I believe this because I see a natural organizing power in the world. Cells and organelles, bodies and organs, planets and stars -- to me, these are all the same basic formation of smaller life (?) forms serving larger ones. Additionally, I see a correlation between the way the cells of a life form organize themselves and the way life forms organize themselves - it is easy to compare blood cells to postal workers, white blood cells to police and soldiers, and muscle cells to a consumer market. That single cells living in complex life forms organize themselves is amazing to me, and in my mind, is indicative of some phenomena or entity just beyond the veil of our perceptions, causing everything.

I don't think I can prove this, and I don't think there is any pressing reason for me to prove it, or to even defend it, should someone call it bullcrap.

I think that, if any sort of god exists, that we'll eventually be able to conclusively prove it. If, however, he does not, I don't think we'll ever be able to disprove it.

[Reilly616]

No. There probably isn't a god. There's no evidence for the existence of a god and there never has been. 93% of the world's leading scientists are atheists, so I think it's a pretty safe bet :D

[Reilly616]

I think that, if any sort of god exists, that we'll eventually be able to conclusively prove it. If, however, he does not, I don't think we'll ever be able to disprove it.


This is entirely true. It is impossible to prove a negative. We can't prove there are no Unicorns, only that we have never found any evidence for Unicorns. Still... it'd be stupid to believe in them :)

[James81]

93% of the world's leading scientists are atheists,

Link?

[Bartholomew]

This is entirely true. It is impossible to prove a negative. We can't prove there are no Unicorns, only that we have never found any evidence for Unicorns. Still... it'd be stupid to believe in them :)

Oh, I dunno. If I was a traveler in the ancient world, and I saw this (http://www.perlgurl.org/archives/blogpics/AfricaFieldNotes/WebRhino04.jpg), I might have trouble describing it. After the fifth or sixth person had related my story, it is feasible that they would be seeing this (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UwDaS_xc5g8/SDTGUo4bZLI/AAAAAAAAAA0/1VWRiTSAFMA/S390/real%2Bunicorn.bmp) in their minds.

That said, I do not think believing in fairies, unicorns, or God is stupid. The thought that, somewhere, a fairy is tending a garden gives me great joy. The thought, "Magic doesn't exist. Thinking magical things is stupid." makes me pretty damn sad.

Real Fairies Tending a Garden (http://www.huahininthailand.com/images/panee-butterfly-garden.jpg). :)

[Reilly616]

Oh, I dunno. If I was a traveler in the ancient world, and I saw this (http://www.perlgurl.org/archives/blogpics/AfricaFieldNotes/WebRhino04.jpg), I might have trouble describing it. After the fifth or sixth person had related my story, it is feasible that they would be seeing this (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UwDaS_xc5g8/SDTGUo4bZLI/AAAAAAAAAA0/1VWRiTSAFMA/S390/real%2Bunicorn.bmp) in their minds.

That said, I do not think believing in fairies, unicorns, or God is stupid. The thought that, somewhere, a fairy is tending a garden gives me great joy. The thought, "Magic doesn't exist. Thinking magical things is stupid." makes me pretty damn sad.

Real Fairies Tending a Garden (http://www.huahininthailand.com/images/panee-butterfly-garden.jpg). :)

Good point in the first paragraph. I'd have to disagree with the second though :D I find science to be "magical" enough. :D

[leontay]

'Unicorn' found in Tuscany wildlife park (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/11/italy1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)

Many legends have a base in reality. (Or bronze age prophets getting high. Or drunken dreams. :p)

As for a higher power, my biology degree tells me religion is evolution's way of passing cultural values and restrictions down the generations to protect ourselves and our habitat. If there is something bigger, I'd need evidence.

I think it is an impartial creature, much like we might be to an ant hill, but that we're ultimately the by-product of something greater. I believe this because I see a natural organizing power in the world.

Makes you wonder if the billion+ stars that make up our galaxy that is part of the billion+ galaxies that make up our universe are just all some pseudo-electron/neutrino hurtling through another, infinitely bigger universe that's organised in a similar manner.

[Bartholomew]

Makes you wonder if the billion+ stars that make up our galaxy that is part of the billion+ galaxies that make up our universe are just all some pseudo-electron/neutrino hurtling through another, infinitely bigger universe that's organised in a similar manner.

That's where my logic has led me, at any rate. :)

[StephanieFox]

Why does this have to be an either/or answer. Perhaps it's a paradox. Perhaps it's a Zen Cohen.

I figure that god is moot. He or she or it is not going to fix the troubles in the world. That's up to us.

[Ruv Draba]

Humans don't all agree on what a god is, but notable among the characteristics of divinity are supernatural agency and absolute moral authority. 'Supernatural agency' I understand to mean stuff that's not understandable by investigation, only (if at all) by myth; 'absolute moral authority' I understand to mean having the final authority to say how people should behave, think, feel, relate.

I'm an atheist because I reject both supernatural agency and external moral authority -- though I think either one would make an atheist of me.

The only arguments I've seen for supernatural agency are based on myth -- i.e, received and unquestioned lore. I've never found a definition of godhood that resides outside some mythic foundation, and outside mythic arguments for godhood there seem to be no arguments at all.

Regardless though, for humanitarian reasons I think that it's very important that adults retain final responsibility for their decisions. I support being inspired and advised by others we respect, and even being inspired by myth; I don't support submitting to an external final authority (mythic or otherwise) on matters of morality. Our history is full of exploitation, regression, xenophobia and humanitarian abuses conducted under just such submission; I don't believe that it's conducive to human development.

All that said, I know people who gain great comfort from belief in supernatural agency and the idea of ultimate moral submission. That comfort is very important to them. I don't know that morally, the value of comfort outweighs the importance of truth or self-responsibility, but given how cruel our world can sometimes be and how powerless we sometimes are, I'm not entirely confident that it doesn't either.

[callalily61]

I knew this would happen. At least it's sooner rather than later. :D

Is there a God? I say unequivocally Yes.

Can I show anyone quantitative proof? No.

And that's why I usually avoid religion discussions. Yet I can bring together half-a-dozen of my friends and we can tell each other our first-hand encounters with one or more of the faces of God.

[stormie]

Okay. I'm game.

My older sister was very ill a few years ago. She was the type of person who was well-grounded, not fanciful, and prayed. She was more of a liberal Catholic, if there is such a group.

The crash cart was brought in to her hospital room twice. Some know it as Code Blue. Some as First Response. She was dying/dead.

The first time she had what she called an "interesting experience." She found herself in a brilliantly lit area of hills with buildings in the distance. She was scared at first. Several "people" came over to her and told her "It's not your time, and what we're going to tell you, you won't remember."

The second time, a week later, she found herself there again, but not scared. She felt she went deeper into this "area." She said she saw the stars and planets and then heard, "I am God. There is a God."

I said, "Of course you knew that!"

She shrugged her shoulders. (Remember, she was very ill, being poked and prodded in the hospital for weeks, so she probably was questioning.)

She never wavered in the retelling of those two experiences.

Yes. I believe there is a Supreme Being some of us call God.

[Plot Device]

Of course.

[Fade]

Do you believe in a god? Which god do you believe in and why?

Yes, I do. I really just do because my parents did (they took me to church when I was a little kid), so it's kind of ingrained in my brain. I've never really questioned His existence because I've always felt that there had to be something more, and that this wasn't it. As in, is your life all that you get? I think that human beings have always hoped for more as in terms of eternal life in paradise or a purpose to their life. This has been going back before there were even monotheistic religions, to the beginning of civilization. Humans need to believe in higher power(s).

Also, I do not believe that any technology could prove or disprove the existence, and some people will always tell stories that they consider miracles but others consider easily explainable by science. You just believe, or you don't.

[stormie]

You just believe, or you don't.
Not necessarily. My sister was a firm believer, but when put to the test, she questioned (and I paraphrase), where are you God? Is there a God? Her experience strengthened her faith that there is a Supreme Being.

As a child, we'll believe what we're told. As an adult, we question as well as seek answers.

[Samantha's_Song]

Yes.
Do you believe in a god?


There can be only one God, each religion might call him a different name, but it's still one and the same.
Which god do you believe in and why?


Why should anyone need proof? If I said I loved someone, I couldn't show you proof of that either, it's just something I know, something I feel deep within my own being.

I don't actually belong to any religion, I never have done, but I've always felt something going on that is far removed from this world. I have a few stories that makes me know there is more to life than just living on this earth.
When I was 15, my 7 yr old sister died of leukaemia. I cried and cried for 6 weeks, then out of the blue I had a dream about her... Our back garden wasn't there anymore, it was an old dusty track. All of a sudden these Hindu ladies, all dressed in red and gold, came down the track and they had my sister with them, she was sitting atop of an Elephant. The strange thing is, she was in her hospital gown, although she actually died at home. I got her down from the Elephant, took her indoors and sat her atop of the dining table. She told me not to cry for her anymore, that she was happy where she was. I knew this to be true and never did cry over her again.
To me, I was dreaming of Hindu ladies. Why? I didn't actually know anything about Hinduism at the time, but it made me start reading into it and it was a philosophy I could believe in. Remember, a rebelious teenager isn't going to start going to church all of a sudden, so I saw it as a message from god; he knew I could take some solace out of something that would interest me and make me stronger at the same time.

Also, ever since I was 7 yrs old, I knew I had lived on this earth before, in the Orient. I always used to laugh and tell everyone that I was related to Ghengis Khan. The strange thing to that is, years later I was to find out that GK invaded Poland, and since my paternal side of the family came from there, it was like another sig. As I believe we come back through our family blood lines.

When I was in my 20', I had a memory, it wasn't a dream, I was wide awake and watching Coronation street lol. But I remembered dying of a gunshot wound in France, in the first world war; this is why the first world war and France is so dear to my heart. I could picture the scene vividly, I still can, I can still smell the fresh grass and the rosehips from the field where I lay dying.

No one can ever take these things away from me, and through these things, and others that I could tell, but it's so late here, I know there is something out there that is much higher than us, and the sscientists.
Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there?


Why do we need to, or is it just to prove to the disbelievers that there is?
And as for scientists trying to disprove god at every chance, some of their theories can be explained in the Biblical sense too. For instance, the scientists tell us about the ice age and everything dying, like the dinosaurs. In the Biblical term, the ice age would have been the forty days and nights of rain. The scientists tell us we come from monkeys, the Bible tells us that god made us all out of the earth, so of course we'd all have dna that was more or less the same.
Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?

[Fade]

Not necessarily. My sister was a firm believer, but when put to the test, she questioned (and I paraphrase), where are you God? Is there a God? Her experience strengthened her faith that there is a Supreme Being.

As a child, we'll believe what we're told. As an adult, we question as well as seek answers.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't mean that you always believe what you did as a child; I believe that can change. What I meant is that when people who believe in any higher power are asked to prove the existence of it, they normally can't. They just believe, even though there's no proof. And people who don't believe don't because even though there's no proof that higher powers don't exist.

[Bartholomew]

There can be only one God, each religion might call him a different name, but it's still one and the same.


Why can there be only one god? Why can't there be many? The ancient Greeks saw gods behind almost everything, and they were all distinct in personality-- many of them even warred. Athena and Poseidon, for instance, were always at odds. Zeus openly voiced his distaste for Ares.

Why was this view wrong?

[AMCrenshaw]

There can be only one God, each religion might call him a different name, but it's still one and the same.

I would be careful not to speak for other people's religions-- not all the gods are alike, even now, and we shouldn't assume they are.

AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

Why should anyone need proof? If I said I loved someone, I couldn't show you proof of that either, it's just something I know, something I feel deep within my own being.

It is quite hard to test sincerity, but I wonder if it isn't impossible. Isn't it possible, though, to observe what we call "love" whereas it's literally impossible to observe gods? By that I mean we might have a clear definition of what phenomena constitute as "love", and then be able observe effects which are unique to our definition of "love". Then consider "gods"...



AMC

[poetinahat]

Not to be argumentative (especially as a blow-in to this conversation), but the thread title implies two options: Fact and Fiction.

The premise of my professed religion is neither of those: it's Faith.

[Bartholomew]

Not to be argumentative (especially as a blow-in to this conversation), but the thread title implies two options: Fact and Fiction.

The premise of my professed religion is neither of those: it's Faith.

Define faith.

The mystic faith of Christianity is different from the faith one develops in a good mechanic, right?

I can say, "God exists, that's Fact" or "God exists, that's Fiction," -- but if I say, "God exists, that's Faith," the idea I'm expressing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

##

[AMCrenshaw]

The premise of my professed religion is neither of those: it's Faith.

The conviction of things unseen.

Which of course lends itself to other discussions, such as, but how did these things unseen enter into our hearts? Fact or fiction?

AMC


ETA Buddhists have a word that often transliterates to "faith", but refers more to "devotion" or "discipline".

[poetinahat]

Define faith.

The mystic faith of Christianity is different from the faith one develops in a good mechanic, right?

I can say, "God exists, that's Fact" or "God exists, that's Fiction," -- but if I say, "God exists, that's Faith," the idea I'm expressing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

##
This, my friend, is a semantic conundrum. A statement of Faith is *not* a statement of Fact, nor of Fiction; hence, it wouldn't make sense to say, "God exists, that's Faith".

The act of having Faith doesn't cause Facts to happen. People may argue that the power of Faith influences events, but that in itself is a matter of Fact, Fiction, or Faith, depending on whom you ask. It seems a bit recursive, and therefore possibly unanswerable.

ETA Buddhists have a word that often transliterates to "faith", but refers more to "devotion" or "discipline".

Very interesting - I hadn't heard that!

[AMCrenshaw]

This, my friend, is a semantic conundrum.

No, it's OK. You can

Define faith.

Or allow me to cite a dictionary, or...neither


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

OH I'll do it anyway (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)



AMC

[poetinahat]

Whoops... I was responding to Bart's post - sorry for the miscommunication, AM! I didn't have a reply for the question you posed.

[AMCrenshaw]

No, it's OK. Bart had said "Define faith," which is good for you since defining faith should in itself provide no semantic conundrum.



AMC

[CatSlave]

As I get older, my ideas of reality seem to be heading in the Buddhist direction.

I believe that a Higher Power created and organized the universe, and I also believe this "energy" that holds us all together is eternal; something like an ocean, where waves appear and disappear, only to come back as a new and different wave. If you were a fish, you probably would not be aware that you live in the ocean that surrounds you.

I do not subscribe to any particular religion, but believe that although there are many different paths to the mountain, they are all trying to reach the same Goal.

And that Goal is ineffable, incomprehensible, beyond understanding and unknowable to the everyday human mind. A very few people seem to have broken that barrier and experienced things beyond the scope of our normal five senses. I suspect we have inherent abilities beyond those senses of which we are not aware, or will develop them through the natural process of evolution.

Given the great advances in medicine and physics of late, science and philosophy seem to be coming closer and closer to agreement on many levels.

Life itself is a miracle, if you stop to think about it.

[Samantha's_Song]

I don't know, maybe there are many gods, but I am free to believe what I want to, just as everyone else is. We can't please everyone all of the time.
I used to spend the late part of my childhood reading mythology, yes, including Greek, my favourite, and I class the Bible in the mythology genre too.
All religions are men's way of keeping all other men in their place, it's just a higher form of politics. I do believe in (a) god, but I don't follow any religion, as I don't need it. I like some of the eastern philosophies because they match what I've always believed in; as I said earlier, I read into Hinduism at 15, then I went onto to reading into Zen Buddhism.


Why can there be only one god? Why can't there be many? The ancient Greeks saw gods behind almost everything, and they were all distinct in personality-- many of them even warred. Athena and Poseidon, for instance, were always at odds. Zeus openly voiced his distaste for Ares.

Why was this view wrong?

[poetinahat]

All religions are men's way of keeping all other men in their place, it's just a higher form of politics.

Er...

before anyone starts placing judgments on others' beliefs, a quick reminder of why this forum was built:

I think questioning is healthy. And I think a reasonable, calm comparison of religious differences - and similarities - contributes to better understanding of each other, and of our world.

[Alvah]

Do you believe in a god?


Yes, I believe God exists, but it is a Reality so exalted
above our capacity to understand that we can never grasp
what God is. Therefore any description or picture a person has of God,
is inaccurate and incomplete.

I believe we can have no direct connection with God; but we can
know a little about that Reality through knowledge of the
Manifestations of God such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad,
and most recently, Baha'u'llah.


Which god do you believe in and why?


I believe in the one God as described in the writings of Baha'u'llah.

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence

I don't think there are any proofs comparable to mathematical
or scientific proofs, and I doubt there will ever be that sort of proof.
Lack of an irrefutable, logical proof is not a problem, for me.

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?

Not in the sense that a mathematical theorem can be proven.
On the other hand, the sun is its own proof.

[Samantha's_Song]

Apologies if that's how it seemed.

Er...

before anyone starts placing judgments on others' beliefs, a quick reminder of why this forum was built:

[Reilly616]

Er...

before anyone starts placing judgments on others' beliefs, a quick reminder of why this forum was built:

Everyone else is expressing their opinions on the matter, why shouldn't she? It was a fairly accurate comment anyway, as Senecs said: "Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful".

[Diana Hignutt]

Humans don't all agree on what a god is, but notable among the characteristics of divinity are supernatural agency and absolute moral authority. 'Supernatural agency' I understand to mean stuff that's not understandable by investigation, only (if at all) by myth; .

Actually, there are those who believe that 'supernatural agency' is only understandable by mystical investigation, and not at all by myth.

[Jean Marie]

No. There probably isn't a god. There's no evidence for the existence of a god and there never has been. 93% of the world's leading scientists are atheists, so I think it's a pretty safe bet :D

Link?
Yeah, never did come back w/ one. Oh well.

Not to be argumentative (especially as a blow-in to this conversation), but the thread title implies two options: Fact and Fiction.

The premise of my professed religion is neither of those: it's Faith.
Mine, too.

Events can either shake one's faith or shape it.

Er...

before anyone starts placing judgments on others' beliefs, a quick reminder of why this forum was built:
Thank you.

Everyone else is expressing their opinions on the matter, why shouldn't she? It was a fairly accurate comment anyway, as Senecs said: "Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful".
Difference between opinion and judgment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judgement

[Guffy]

So much to talk about already. First to the original question, yes I believe in God, but no I do not think there are any proofs, evidence yes proof no.

No. There probably isn't a god. There's no evidence for the existence of a god and there never has been. 93% of the world's leading scientists are atheists, so I think it's a pretty safe bet.

Reilly, 50 years ago 93% of the world’s leading scientists (and I’m not really trying to be accurate with my numbers, just trying to make a point) all believed that dinosaurs were cold blooded. 100 years ago they didn’t think that continents moved or that radiation existed. Scientists have a very poor track record on the proof thing.

For example, evidence suggests that animal evolution and natural selection are responsible for the diversification of Earth animal species, and that one animal is capable of evolving into a different species, but there is no proof. Proof being the ability to watch it happen, measure it and control for other factors. Just as there is no proof that all of those billions and billons of stars we see at night exist. The only evidence we have is the light energy we are able to detect. Our belief in such things is contingent on the amount of weight we give to the evidence we have. Human kind has proof that the moon exists, we went there and brought back rocks, but for the stars there is no proof, only evidence.

This is where faith comes in. The amount of weight we give to the evidence is the amount of faith we have in it. If we believe in scientists then we have faith in their theories, the ones we can’t see or measure. If we believe the evidence of a spiritual reality, we have faith in that reality without the need for proof. Faith in a mechanic is just as real as having faith that if I drop a ball it will fall, I probably have more faith in the ball dropping because I have more evidence yet it is still faith.

I believe in God because of the evidence I see not because I can prove it

[Jean Marie]

I believe in God because of the evidence I see not because I can prove it
That's a nice, neat definition of faith.

Thanks, Guffy. I like it.

[AMCrenshaw]

If we believe in scientists then we have faith in their theories, the ones we can’t see or measure.

Except that someone could, and we could guess that their theories are based on repeatable tests, etc. whereas with belief in gods one can only look at effects which they presume to have a specific cause (which they then call god). Since creation is what God does, and here we live in "a creation" (also arguable), then our evidence (the effects) points to a coincidence in our concept-- not in the nature.


The only evidence we have is the light energy we are able to detect

Are you sure about that?

Human kind has proof that the moon exists, we went there and brought back rocks, but for the stars there is no proof, only evidence.

Let's assume there's no proof for the, ehm, existence of stars, as you say. What do you think the probability for their existence is based on the evidence we have?

AMC


ETA: It might be helpful, then, to ask: Are there degrees of faith? Whereas it doesn't take me much faith to believe in the existence of stars, it might take me a helluva lot to belief in God.

[kuwisdelu]

I neither believe nor disbelieve.

I'm pretty agnostic. Sometimes I'd like to believe. Sometimes I think I believe in something. Sometimes I don't.

I do think the burden of proof is on the positive (that there is a god or gods).

Which means to me it's pointless to try to "disprove" god.

However, I will point out flaws in anyone's attempted "proof" of god when I see them.




But I do believe in Bigfoot.

[Reilly616]

So much to talk about already. First to the original question, yes I believe in God, but no I do not think there are any proofs, evidence yes proof no.



Reilly, 50 years ago 93% of the world’s leading scientists (and I’m not really trying to be accurate with my numbers, just trying to make a point) all believed that dinosaurs were cold blooded. 100 years ago they didn’t think that continents moved or that radiation existed. Scientists have a very poor track record on the proof thing.

For example, evidence suggests that animal evolution and natural selection are responsible for the diversification of Earth animal species, and that one animal is capable of evolving into a different species, but there is no proof. Proof being the ability to watch it happen, measure it and control for other factors. Just as there is no proof that all of those billions and billons of stars we see at night exist. The only evidence we have is the light energy we are able to detect. Our belief in such things is contingent on the amount of weight we give to the evidence we have. Human kind has proof that the moon exists, we went there and brought back rocks, but for the stars there is no proof, only evidence.

This is where faith comes in. The amount of weight we give to the evidence is the amount of faith we have in it. If we believe in scientists then we have faith in their theories, the ones we can’t see or measure. If we believe the evidence of a spiritual reality, we have faith in that reality without the need for proof. Faith in a mechanic is just as real as having faith that if I drop a ball it will fall, I probably have more faith in the ball dropping because I have more evidence yet it is still faith.

I believe in God because of the evidence I see not because I can prove it

Okay, I'm don't care enough to keep posting here (I've got exams and I'm tired) but come on, the worlds leading scientists deserve more respect! Your flippant remarks show you don't know much about the scientific methods. And look at your definition of proof; if it's true, then we have no proof of Napoleon.

Oh and to whoever posted above; sorry, didn't see the request for a link. I'll post it here if I come by it. I'll have a look when I get back on the computer tonight. Shouldn't be too hard for you to find yourself though, or if not that then some similar study. There's been alot and they all show the clear correlation between atheism and intelligence/education level.

[AMCrenshaw]

There's been a lot :) and they all show the clear correlation between atheism and intelligence/education level.

Good word, correlation. But at any rate, it's probably a bad place to start with the comparison of intellects.

AMC

[RainyDayNinja]

I believe in God because from what I understand about the workings of biochemical systems, I don't think naturalism is sufficient to explain the origin of life. I was raised in the Christian church, but if I was basing my religious beliefs simply on what I felt was true, I would have given it up a long time ago. But feelings are unreliable, so I have to rely on what I know to be true, which has caused me to still believe in God.

As far as a majority of scientists being atheists, you have to keep in mind that people tend to study what they believe in and care about. People who believe in Christianity will study Christianity. People who believe in Buddhism will study Buddhism. And people who only believe in science will be inclined to study science and become scientists. It would be a mistake to think that scientists are the pinnacle of educated, rational people. Knowing about science doesn't make someone especially qualified to make judgments about the spiritual realm. It would probably be more useful to look to philosophers and theologians, and I'm sure they tend to give religion a much better evaluation.

[aruna]

Why can there be only one god? Why can't there be many? The ancient Greeks saw gods behind almost everything, and they were all distinct in personality-- many of them even warred. Athena and Poseidon, for instance, were always at odds. Zeus openly voiced his distaste for Ares.

Why was this view wrong?

Hinduism too has many gods... but only one God, one ultimate reality. The idea of "many" does not appeal to me...because for me the many, too, must have a source, like all phenomena. But the idea of many gods, and one God, can and do exist side by side. But the Many are dependent on the One. At least, in that religion.

[kuwisdelu]

I'd like to see some links on the atheist scientist claim, too. It sounds pretty spurious to me. If you'd said agnostic or indifferent, I wouldn't doubt it as much, but 93% doesn't sound right.

[veinglory]

I think the fact that scientist chage their mind is a very, very good record. The whole point of the scientific beleif system is for belief to change as evidence is more collected. It is based not on being faithful and correct, but being doubtful and fallible.

[Roger J Carlson]

There's been alot and they all show the clear correlation between atheism and intelligence/education level.There are also a lot of studies that show a positive correlation between religion and generosity. Are you willing to follow this to its logical conclusion as well?

[Guffy]

Actually there is proof of Napoleon, his body is in a a big museum in Paris, Ive seen his tomb, though I have no proof he is really in there. I'm not trying to be flippant, just trying to point out that many theories have come and gone over the years, and those that believed in theories that have been proven false where very smart and talented scientist. Lord Kelvin, yes the one the temperature scale is named after, once told a group of Oxford freshman back in the late 1800s that they should all go into biology because they had already discovered all of the significant discoveries in physics. The point here is to understand that what we know to day may not be what we know tomorrow. (see Men In Black) (sorry that's flippant again) But really just look at everything we've learned in just the last fifty years (I'm fifty-ish and actually I do know quite a bit about the scientific theory, and its limitations). I watched when they installed in-door plumbing in my house. I was alive when sputnik was launched. (I don't remember it) I watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon, (I do remember it) and heard people say it was impossible that it didn't really happen. It is almost unimaginable the gains astronomy has made in just the last ten years. Science moves on.

AM, yes you are right some things require more faith than others. It does not take a lot of faith to believe that gravity will work if I drop a ball (though I do have a cat that is continuing to experiment with it). I also don't need a lot of faith to believe the stars are there. But all we have is evidence (a lot of evidence) not proof. The scientific Method is great for things you can put in a test tube but it has limitation when it comes to non-tangible things. Seeing the creation is evidence of a higher being, or is it evidence of chance happening, that can go either way can't it? A lot of it will depend on your world view. There is a certain amount of uniformity in our world that could point to an over-all strategy but there is an awful lot of chaos too, most of which seems to be caused by people. However you look at it, it is still just evidence. Faith isn't really mystical, though sometimes most of us wish it were. We can't live without a certain amount faith, and what we choose to put our faith in has a lot to do with what kind of person we are and what we will grow into. We use our faith to try and get control over our lives and our environment. Faith in science is one of the things that give us comfort. With science we believe we have some control over the things that plague us in this world, and we have evidence that that is true. (in-door plumbing, a wonderful thing) But the first time we find a giant planet killing comet headed our way will see that science has limits as well. Religion has limits too. People embrace religion as a means of controlling the same things that others would seek science for, have you ever prayed for rain, I have. Sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn't. How much weight I give that evidence depends on my world view. Some people pray for comfort, some get it even though it seems their circumstance doesn't improve, and some receive no comfort from any good that happens in their life. All evidence but for what?

Back to the original question, can we prove that God exist, no I don't think so. Do I have evidence that he exist, yes I do. Do I doubt sometimes, yes I do. The Christian bible calls on its believers to question and to study and to seek for evidence of God. Some well meaning Christians have tried to say that its wrong to question, wrong to wonder, and wrong to doubt, but that's not what the bible says.

I'll keep believing but I'll never stop seeking.

[Guffy]

veinglory, the fact is that most scientist have a very poor track record for change. Huge verbal fights, name calling and calls for sanctioning have followed the introduction of several modern theories that called into question long held beliefs, such as Pangea and the movement of continents, warm blooded dinosaurs, and the idea that the universe had a beginning.

[Ruv Draba]

There are also a lot of studies that show a positive correlation between religion and generosity. Are you willing to follow this to its logical conclusion as well?Recognising that you probably mean material generosity Roger, I think you're right. I raised the same comment over in the N-T Spirituality forum once and had a fellow atheist bite me for it. Her argument (based on her treatement by her Christian family) is that material generosity isn't always the most important sort.

There are indeed some interesting conjectures we can draw from such studies, but who is brave enough to draw them? Not many, I'd suggest, unless the study favours one's own tribe. How about the survey which showed that more female sex-workers are Roman Catholic than any other faith?

[Bartholomew]

Recognising that you probably mean material generosity Roger, I think you're right. I raised the same comment over in the N-T Spirituality forum once and had a fellow atheist bite me for it. :)

There are indeed some interesting conjectures we can draw from such studies, but who is brave enough to draw them? Not many, I'd suggest, unless the study favours one's own tribe. How about the survey which showed that more female sex-workers are Roman Catholic than any other faith?

On that note, I am *very* interested in starting a church. The Unified Chuch of Athiestic Ideas, or something like that. It'd be nice to have a venue for church activity without bringing God into it. He's a touchy subject.

[AMCrenshaw]

The Unified Church of Athiestic Ideas, or something like that.

Really?

[CatSlave]

On that note, I am *very* interested in starting a church. The Unified Chuch of Athiestic Ideas, or something like that. It'd be nice to have a venue for church activity without bringing God into it. He's a touchy subject.
Google "atheist church" for plenty of interesting links.
You are not alone.

Here's one for the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago:

http://www.ethicalhuman.org/twentyfive.html

[AMCrenshaw]

I could be ordained as a Minister of the First Church.


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

On that note, I am *very* interested in starting a church. The Unified Chuch of Athiestic Ideas, or something like that. It'd be nice to have a venue for church activity without bringing God into it. He's a touchy subject.John Shelby Spong (http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/), retired Episcopal bishop of Newark and self-appointed bshop of 'Christians in Exile' is quoted as saying that he'd love to see a sign over the door of every church in the US, saying "Your God is not big enough". As an atheist I think I'd have no trouble attending one of his services. Unlike my interactions with many theists, the only substantive thing he and I disagree over is the existence of God -- which to my mind is an unimportant disagreement if people no longer feel that they have the right to say what God wants and what God will tolerate.

Which links back into my response to Roger's comment earlier... it is always easy to be generous to one's own tribe. Generosity toward the tribes of others is where I think our humanity really gets tested. I don't see religion being terribly good at teaching that -- though clearly the existence of clergy like Spong show that it could be.

[Zoombie]

No and if there is a way to prove God, we haven't found it and the instant we do, I'll be the first to shout, "Hallelujah!"

Then it'll be time to start recanting most of my life. Like...fast.

[AMCrenshaw]

Why Christianity Must Change or Die and A New Christianity for a New World are quite good books, for those wondering about his work.



Which links back into my response to Roger's comment earlier... it is always easy to be generous to one's own tribe. Generosity toward the tribes of others is where I think our humanity really gets tested. I don't see religion being terribly good at teaching that -- though clearly the existence of clergy like Spong show that it could be.

Certainly. I had this thought when I first encountered ecumenical discussion groups in my hometown. A group of people from varying faiths talked about all sorts. Since, we've brought in skeptics, agnostics, philosophers, and atheists into the discussions, and I think it shows signs that we are capable of bridging different tribes. I say that because the discussions aren't weekly, like a church service, and the scheduling is sometimes erratic. The idea is that people visit with other tribes at a place of mutual design to speak freely and sincerely and without the concern for intolerance. ETA: As for every day practice, I can only speculate from here, but it seems that in these cases the at-first-surface communication gives way to deeper understandings, understandings that don't stay at the discussions.

AMC

[Alpha Echo]

As a child, we'll believe what we're told. As an adult, we question as well as seek answers.

In fact if you believe in the Bible, God tells us there to question Him. He does not want us acting on blind faith.

Not to be argumentative (especially as a blow-in to this conversation), but the thread title implies two options: Fact and Fiction.

The premise of my professed religion is neither of those: it's Faith.

Beautifully said.

Life itself is a miracle, if you stop to think about it.

Yes, it is, which is one reason I believe in God. How else could explain the complicated, miracle of life?

Yes, I believe God exists, but it is a Reality so exalted
above our capacity to understand that we can never grasp
what God is. Therefore any description or picture a person has of God,
is inaccurate and incomplete.

I believe we can have no direct connection with God; but we can
know a little about that Reality through knowledge of the
Manifestations of God such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad,
and most recently, Baha'u'llah.



Then why would you want to believe in a God that you cannot speak to, that is so inexcessible? I suppose you don't believe that Jesus and God are son and father and two in one? (Well, three in one if you count the Holy Spirit...the trinity)

I believe in God because of the evidence I see not because I can prove it

I agree. There is evidence all around us.

I believe in God. THE God - I am just stating what I believe. I believe this because I have seen that evidence. I have seen Him work miracles in my own life. I would not be in one peice if it were not for the things He has done for me. I have seen Him work in people...it's just amazing to me.

I am not good at arguing, using the Bible or science, though I am studying and learning so that I can. But science does proof He exists (from the little bit I've read).

But thing with proof is this - God wants us to have faith. If He wanted us to see the proof, see it all in black and white...then what would be the point of faith? If He wanted us to see all the scientific evidence pointing to Him, I promise you, He would let it be known. We can go looking for it, but we're not going to find anythign conclusive until He is ready to reveal Himself.

And when that time comes, you don't wanna be around.

[Reilly616]

I'd like to see some links on the atheist scientist claim, too. It sounds pretty spurious to me. If you'd said agnostic or indifferent, I wouldn't doubt it as much, but 93% doesn't sound right.

The 93% is atheist and agnostic, consideing that's pretty much semantics to a scientist :D It would be foolish to ever say you 100% know something doesn't exist. I'm sure they wouldn't say it about fairies.

[Reilly616]

veinglory, the fact is that most scientist have a very poor track record for change.


Not a good statement to make on a religion board. That's the reason science is so great. It DOES chance. They admit their mistakes. Unlike some organisations that think bronze age writings are the be all and end all...

[Reilly616]

There are also a lot of studies that show a positive correlation between religion and generosity. Are you willing to follow this to its logical conclusion as well?

That's a very probable outcome of religiosity, yes. It bears nothing towards its validity though.


Still can't find that specific blasted page, but I came across this. A bit dated, but still funny... if slightly off topic; http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=664

[MacAllister]

Not a good statement to make on a religion board. That's the reason science is so great. It DOES chance. They admit their mistakes. Unlike some organisations that think bronze age writings are the be all and end all...
You know what?

This "my way is better than other peoples' way" attitude isn't EVER going to wash in here. Knock it off.

[Reilly616]

Here we go :D http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It's a bit dated now, so the figure's probable risen a bit, if the general figures are anything to go by.

[Reilly616]

You know what?

This "my way is better than other people's way" attitude isn't EVER going to wash in here. Knock it off.

I don't think the mocking of the scientific method should "wash it here" either.

[MacAllister]

No one mocked the scientific method, though. Another poster pointed out, quite reasonably, that what science believes today is very different than what science believed a hundred years ago. That's true and verifiable...unless you're actually going to argue otherwise?

That's not mocking. And your post was fine, right up until that contemptuous one-liner at the end, "Unlike some organisations that think bronze age writings are the be all and end all..."

This is not a debate, by the way, Reilly. I'm telling you politely and firmly that you WILL observe basic courtesy and respect in here, or you won't be in here very long.

[AMCrenshaw]

If He wanted us to see the proof, see it all in black and white...then what would be the point of faith?

The duty of fulfilling that trust, might be the point.


I believe this because I have seen that evidence. I have seen Him work miracles in my own life. I would not be in one peice if it were not for the things He has done for me. I have seen Him work in people...it's just amazing to me.

Have you seen him work the way a carpenter or mechanic works? Could you explain more what you mean by that?

And for the purposes of discussion I want people to think about the difference between what belief in God has done and what God has "done for us".

For example, life is amazing to me, as well. But recently we've seen scientific discovery about consciousness (and a plethora of phenomenon) grow pretty rapidly-- what's interesting is that knowing how a phenomenon exists doesn't make it any less amazing to me; it might make it more so. Understanding the unlikelihood of human life on a planet, for example, reveals what I call natural miracles-- those things we understand to be true and still have a hard time "believing them", still marvel at their existence.

AMC

[Reilly616]

No one mocked the scientific method, though. Another poster pointed out, quite reasonably, that what science believes today is very different than what science believed a hundred years ago.


We have a misunderstanding. What you wrote there is WHY the scientific method works and is, in my opinion, great. What the other poster said was "the fact is that most scientist have a very poor track record for change," which I consider to me a mockery of the scientific method, especially due to the use of the word "most". It belittles science, in my opinion. But I guess my opinion doesn't matter here.

[AMCrenshaw]

But I guess my opinion doesn't matter here.

Sure it does. But consider what you contribute to the conversation at hand when you're arguing with people's opinions rather than sharing knowledge about your traditions.

AMC

[Medievalist]

Some basic principles for me:

Sturgeon's Law: Nothing is always absolutely so

Sturgeon's Revelation: Ninety percent of everything is crap.

Arthur C. Clarke three "laws" of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy (Hamlet I.v).

I don't know if there is a higher power(s). I do know that we have more questions than answers, that we live in a profoundly wondrous and well-designed universe, and that I've never found an organized religion with a view of deity that I felt was "big" enough.

We are too small to understand the divine.

[Reilly616]

Sure it does. But consider what you contribute to the conversation at hand when you're arguing with people's opinions rather than sharing knowledge about your traditions.

AMC

I did share actually... that's what started all this. They didn't seem to like my reasoning for what I believe (or, more acurately, don't believe).

[Reilly616]

Some basic principles for me:

Sturgeon's Law: Nothing is always absolutely so

Sturgeon's Revelation: Ninety percent of everything is crap.

Arthur C. Clarke three "laws" of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy (Hamlet I.v).

I don't know if there is a higher power(s). I do know that we have more questions than answers, that we live in a profoundly wondrous and well-designed universe, and that I've never found an organized religion with a view of deity that I felt was "big" enough.

We are too small to understand the divine.

Well said!

[AMCrenshaw]

You wrote: Not a good statement to make on a religion board.

A value statement as opposed to:

That's the reason science is so great. It DOES change. They admit their mistakes.

which is a valuable point.
compared to:

Unlike some organisations that think bronze age writings are the be all and end all...

You mean that this is meaningful contribution? If I believed in God and followed the Bible I might be inclined to think that this is a comment which hasn't been thought through, hasn't considered other people who might read it.


AMC

[MacAllister]

Reilly - why are you here? If you're genuinely interested in learning about how other people believe, and the hows and whys of those beliefs, then great.

If you're interested in arguing because you're pretty sure you're right and religious people are all misguided whack-jobs, then just go away now.

In the meantime, I actually don't want to see you post anything else until you've read the Introduction (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132489&page=2) thread and posted your own introduction there.

[Reilly616]

You mean that this is meaningful contribution? If I believed in God and followed the Bible I might be inclined to think that this is a comment which hasn't been thought through, hasn't considered other people who might read it.


AMC

I was under the impression that alot of religious texts were first written or compiled in the bronze age. Apologies if I was mistaken.

[Reilly616]

Reilly - why are you here? If you're genuinely interested in learning about how other people believe, and the hows and whys of those beliefs, then great.

If you're interested in arguing because you're pretty sure you're right and religious people are all misguided whack-jobs, then just go away now.

In the meantime, I actually don't want to see you post anything else until you've read the Introduction (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132489&page=2) thread and posted your own introduction there.

I was simply posting my own answer to the original question. When challenged I found it necessary to defend my beliefs, especially considering noone else was singled out. That's my reason, but if you disagree with it that's fine, it's your right. Good idea by the way. I've been posting here for years so I never really considered it :D

[Guffy]

We have a misunderstanding. What you wrote there is WHY the scientific method works and is, in my opinion, great. What the other poster said was "the fact is that most scientist have a very poor track record for change," which I consider to me a mockery of the scientific method, especially due to the use of the word "most". It belittles science, in my opinion. But I guess my opinion doesn't matter here.

I'm not trying to belittle science or scientist, only trying to point out some of its weaknesses, and there are weaknesses. This is a good discussion and you've made some good points, but scientist aren't above reproach anymore than any religious person.

But scientific opinion (theories) do not change easily or without confrontation. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. New or contradicting theories most be able to stand up to a little criticism.

But that said, have you ever read any of the transcripts from some of the debates concerning whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded. Some of these where not scientific debates but name calling brawls. The arguments about String Theory have also at times degenerated along the same lines. But as you have pointed out the preponderance of evidence does usually leads to change. Which also happens within religious circles. I was once in a bible class being taught by an inexperienced teacher that was also being attended by one of our fellowships greatest authors. He has a commentary on every book of the bible including the subject we were studying in this class. When the teacher quoted him he interrupted him to say that he had changed his opinion. Change is not limited to science.

My point is not that science was sometimes wrong in the past but that much of what we believe now could also be wrong.

[Guffy]

Ive got to learn to type faster. I'm missing half the discussion

[Medievalist]

My point is not that science was sometimes wrong in the past but that much of what we believe now could also be wrong.

Yes, absolutely.

I change my mind fairly often because of new information, because I'm wrong, or because someone offers me a new way of thinking about something.

[Reilly616]

I'm not trying to belittle science or scientist, only trying to point out some of its weaknesses, and there are weaknesses. This is a good discussion and you've made some good points, but scientist aren't above reproach anymore than any religious person.

But scientific opinion (theories) do not change easily or without confrontation. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. New or contradicting theories most be able to stand up to a little criticism.

But that said, have you ever read any of the transcripts from some of the debates concerning whether dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded. Some of these where not scientific debates but name calling brawls. The arguments about String Theory have also at times degenerated along the same lines. But as you have pointed out the preponderance of evidence does usually leads to change. Which also happens within religious circles. I was once in a bible class being taught by an inexperienced teacher that was also being attended by one of our fellowships greatest authors. He has a commentary on every book of the bible including the subject we were studying in this class. When the teacher quoted him he interrupted him to say that he had changed his opinion. Change is not limited to science.

My point is not that science was sometimes wrong in the past but that much of what we believe now could also be wrong.

Thank you very much for clarifying your meaning. That was very helpful. Yes, I know that some scientists are a little too fond of their own heories, but they are, after all, only human :D

Also, I know religious opinion changes. I'm very grateful that it does.

My point was simply that science changes faster. It is one of the great merits of modern science that if something is wrong there is always someone (usually a whole group of someones) to point it out. Are you familiar with Stephen Hawkings opinions on Black Holes? He gave a speech one day and anounced that for the past 15 years he had been wrong. And he was very happy to say it, too.

I'm glad there's some more understanding here now. Thanks again for clarifying. I think we should leave this topic alone now though.

[Guffy]

And that applies to some of my religious beliefs as well.

Yes, absolutely.

I change my mind fairly often because of new information, because I'm wrong, or because someone offers me a new way of thinking about something.

[poetinahat]

Everyone else is expressing their opinions on the matter, why shouldn't she? It was a fairly accurate comment anyway, as Senecs said: "Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful".

I said nothing about not expressing opinions. What I said - as Jean Marie noted - was that we shouldn't place judgments on others' opinions (or on others for their opinions). In other words, respect your fellow writer. That's all.

I understand that wasn't SS's intention, and I think she and I have shaken hands (virtually) and reconciled on that point now.

I don't necessarily accept the statement you quote as universally true, but I acknowledge that, in your opinion, his statement was accurate.

[Fade]

Not a good statement to make on a religion board. That's the reason science is so great. It DOES chance. They admit their mistakes. Unlike some organisations that think bronze age writings are the be all and end all...

I do agree with you about science. It is great because it is always changing and strengthening.

...

However, I actually find that the second part of your statement ("Unlike some organisationis that think that bronze age writings are the be all and end all...") actually kind of offended me. Who says that anyone from any religious group bases all of their beliefs on holy texts? There are people who do, but I think a majority of religious people find ways to both understand science and keep their beliefs. For example, there are no kids in my church who believe the world was created in six days; they think that the people who wrote the bible didn't actually understand the concept of the billions of years Earth took to form and humans took to evolve.

[Medievalist]

Reilly616 has been blocked from the Religion forum because he wasn't arguing in good faith or adhering to the basic principles MacAllister established.

[Medievalist]

I do agree with you about science. It is great because it is always changing and strengthening.

...

However, I actually find that the second part of your statement ("Unlike some organisationis that think that bronze age writings are the be all and end all...") actually kind of offended me.

It's extremely ironic because there are those, like me, who study bronze age writings from a scientific perspective :D

[RainyDayNinja]

There are people who do, but I think a majority of religious people find ways to both understand science and keep their beliefs. For example, there are no kids in my church who believe the world was created in six days; they think that the people who wrote the bible didn't actually understand the concept of the billions of years Earth took to form and humans took to evolve.

For the record, I do believe that, and I don't think it requires sacrificing the validity of science. I'm a senior in chemistry, and after looking at the structures of proteins, I don't see how anyone can think that they arose naturally. There are still tons of holes in evolutionary theory, like the problem of homochirality. Almost all amino acids used in the body are of the L-form, but there is no known mechanism by which those enantiomers can be isolated. So naturalists end up depending on a great number of unknown, unobserved processes and natural laws to validate their beliefs (or lack thereof).

[MarkR]

On the personal level, God is someone I like a lot and hope to get to know much better. Intuitively, at least to me, the existence of God makes a lot more sense then the existence of the self. His timeless eternal existence is a nice, neat, round, package. His creation of the Universe is what baffles me.

[Fade]

For the record, I do believe that, and I don't think it requires sacrificing the validity of science. I'm a senior in chemistry, and after looking at the structures of proteins, I don't see how anyone can think that they arose naturally. There are still tons of holes in evolutionary theory, like the problem of homochirality. Almost all amino acids used in the body are of the L-form, but there is no known mechanism by which those enantiomers can be isolated. So naturalists end up depending on a great number of unknown, unobserved processes and natural laws to validate their beliefs (or lack thereof).

I'm sorry if I offended you; that was not my intent. I was not saying that the world did come to that way. I was simply stating that as an example to prove that not every religious person interprets their holy text literally.

[RainyDayNinja]

I wasn't really offended; I just wanted to point out that not everyone who believes in a six-day creation does so because they are scientifically illiterate.

[MarkR]

I do interpret the religious texts literally, but I don't believe in a six day creation. There are other literal interpretations of the first few chapters of the Bible other than a six-day Earth creation. In Hebrew, the word for the "land" and the "Earth" are the same. I believe the "land" is the Promised Land of God, so the "creation" is really a local preparation of the Promised Land. It depends how the religious texts are translated.

Are people more interested in discussing religion's relation to science rather than the existence of God?

[Ruv Draba]

Almost all amino acids used in the body are of the L-form, but there is no known mechanism by which those enantiomers can be isolated.Not quite true. There are some known mechanisms for chiral amplification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality#Chiral_amplification) and plenty of mechanisms for chiral transmission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality#Chiral_amplification). The question for how mirror symmetry might break in the first place though seems to be conjectural still, but if transmission and amplification exist then it might only take a very slightly skewed process over a long period of time to produce chiral biology. Such processes have been conjectured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality#Mirror-symmetry_breaking) and are still being investigated.

Scientifically there's a big difference between unanswered questions and contradictions. One can always raise the matter of unanswered questions as an objection to theory (and one can always find such questions), but that doesn't invalidate theory. For a scientifically credible way to invalidate the theory you must either find a contradiction or a falsified prediction, or propose a more consistent, better substantiated and more predictive theory. As far as I know, abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) is not close to suffering any of those calamities at present, and the theory is growing stronger, more consistent and more complete with each passing year.

Picking up on another comment in the science-and-religion discussion, it's true that science doesn't like to change (perhaps because humans don't much like change in general). However historically, science changes faster than many other kinds of human thought -- not as fast as clothing or furniture fashions say, but certainly much faster than our oldest religions.

What's more, its change tends to be progressive -- in the sense that each change improves its power and use. Many other kinds of human thought see regressive changes over time, in the sense that tastes and beliefs that fall from fashion become fashionable again. We can see this in political and religious ideologies, social fashions and areas of the arts.

Finally, while the sciences can get divided on new thought, they tend to unify on mature thought. Unlike (for example) politics or religion, scientific schisms don't seem to last for long. Most major differences are settled in a generation or two at the outside, which by human standards is pretty quick; unlike politicians and clergy say, scientists don't dig in for centuries or take nations to war over their beliefs.

I'm not trying to rekindle Reilly's argument, but I would point out that it can be mistaken to treat scientific thought the same way that we treat politics, religion or hat-fashion -- it behaves quite differently.

[small axe]

As has already been said here, "fact or fiction" may be a pointless distinction, where the answer needs not be either/or.

I suggest that there can be a rational Universe where the existence of "God"
(depending on one's definition and understanding of God, which aren't the same thing)
can be
Fact to me,
Fiction to You,
and Faith to someone else.

And we're all correct.

There can be a rational Universe where "prove God exists" can be seen as an illogical demand (not an invalid spiritual question, but a demanding of illogic, in the sense that it is like demanding "prove the unproveable" or "describe the Undescribable" or "draw us a rounded right angle" all of which seem to be illogical or unreal demands)

(What's it called, Heisenberg Uncertainty? Where quantum energy and position can both be known separately, but never BOTH known tigether?

God might be the secret of Physics that holds the Cosmos together, in ways we cannot even recognize let alone ever understand.
And who can argue that there are secrets we IN FACT do not recognize or understand? We do not know how much we do not know, etc.

There is a logical universe where PROOF is accepted as the fatal Negation of Faith, and so Faith specifically and knowingly REJECTS demands for "proof" just as Jesus refused the Devil's request that Jesus test God by hurling himself off a tower.

Do not hug your child so tightly as to crush the life from her;
do not seek God's serene inner Voice with bloodthirsty bloodhounds;
do not be the monster who tries to force your lover's tenderness, etc ...

Perhaps the "Fact" of God's existence becomes a "Fiction", if you demand God exist only on a microscope slide, and not in your God-created soul.

Was the original question here about how we "prove" that God exists? Then there can be a logical Universe where we can hold this: the only way we can "prove" a thing exists is to be in some way OUTSIDE or SEPARATE from that thing.

In all the universe, there is YOU,
and everything else you can ever "prove" exists is OTHER.

If God exists, and is not "other" but is ALL THAT EXISTS ... then of course you cannot prove "God exists" ... it is a hopeless errand to demand such proof (though I don't mean to insult anyone who respects proof, a regard for proof is not foolish, just ... the proof can be impossible.
The FACT exists and the PROOF is impossible.)

Then we are back to "Cogito ergo Sum" -- (always where questions start and end, it seems) --

You know YOU exist, and perhaps that is the only certain proof of GOD. Because you cannot be certain whether there is anything OTHER, either other than YOU or other than GOD.

In that sense, you can ask
"Does the Universe exist?"
and
"Does God exist?" --
but someone will point out that if you think those are two separate questions, or that one is "valid" and one is not ...
YOU may need to reconsider the questions, and your expectations of possible answers!

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm not trying to rekindle Reilly's argument, but I would point out that it can be mistaken to treat scientific thought the same way that we treat politics, religion or hat-fashion -- it behaves quite differently.

You're right, but this has nothing to do with Reilly's argument as currently argued. To make sweeping generalizations is a lot different than contrasting and sharing specifics-- especially if a value judgment, personalization or a bit of acidic sarcasm is 'vaguely' evident. And we would trust that in Reilly's case, all of these were elements were present. 25% of one post was valuable to this discussion according to its framework, the few rules it has.

AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

ALL THAT EXISTS

In this case, is God really a god in any sense we may have been discussing? Couldn't the universe in its entirety, with its "mysterious phenomenon", be as accurate a word as God?

And really, then, God becomes YOU+"Other" since your logic tells me: "In all the universe, there is YOU, and everything else you can ever "prove" exists is OTHER" since things that are improvable wouldn't be considered part of "us"-- and if not part of "us" then part of Other. And God then must be part of us in order not to be other; I'd need to know how God can be part of us and other (as an improvable phenomenon "outside us" at the same time). Not saying it's wrong. Saying I'd like to understand how that works-- even in theoretical language.


AMC

[small axe]

... but I would point out that it can be mistaken to treat scientific thought the same way that we treat politics, religion or hat-fashion -- it behaves quite differently.

But 'scientific thought' can also be seen as amoral and a tool that has no effect until it is given motivation by exactly those human, social, and cultural things you separate it from, above.

Science acquires knowledge ... and then that knowledge becomes the tool or the instrument or the pawn of Politics, Religion, and ...

Okay, okay: Hat fashion did not drop the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, so let's hold Hat Fashion blameless.

Neither was the A-Bombing of Hiroshima "religious" imo ...

Oppenheimer knew he was building a BOMB though, just like Von Braun knew his rockets weren't going off to explore the Sea of Tranquility on the moon ... they were going to blow up schoolchildren in London.

That's "scientific thought" being amoral, and weaponized ... and I'll give both the idealists of politics and religion credit for not being devoid of moral concern.

... unlike politicians and clergy say, scientists don't dig in for centuries or take nations to war over their beliefs.


No, but I'm not sure "Science" can pursue Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and then be blameless if it uses Knowledge to allow others to wage War and Holocaust.

I'm NOT wishing to ARGUE with you, I'm just pointing out that Science is not that different or separate: ALL forms of thought can be distorted by the human stain.

Science too is accountable and open to blame, throughout human history. (NOT "all" Science, but in the general form you yourself used already)

In the few centuries that SOME Science has offered to outweigh Religion as a cultural force ... far more humans have been slaughtered by the fruits of Science than by the fruits of Religion, for example.

PEOPLE may be the problem in both cases.

Religion (SOME religions, let me not over-generalize) would teach people "don't kill each other, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" etc. Religion would guide People to better behaviour, because Religion per se often has a MORAL position. It is a moral position (though we can DISAGREE on whether we accept its morality, it is a position of morality, a guide etc)

(I can certainly include MANY segments of
Christianity,
Judaism,
Buddhism,
Hinduism,
Islam etc
in my suggestion.)

Can you say that about "scientific thought" ?

That there is a "morality" that springs INHERENTLY from the goal of acquiring knowledge?

Were the Nazi "scientists" of the Holocaust or of developing germ-warfare ... any LESS "scientists" than those engaged in peaceful goals?

I happily agree that 99.9999% of scientists are BETTER HUMAN BEINGS than the Nazi monsters conducting experiments on deathcamp inmates.

Sadly, fearfully, the monsters might have conducted more exact "science" however (if only in theory; I cannot think of any good results from their evil experiments)

But "scientific thought" doesn't explain the difference between scientist monster and scientifist saint ... does it?

I'm just saying imo "scientific thought" is like other HUMAN thought: no one thinking is superior to another. The Heart and Soul are not secondary poor relatives to Knowledge.

[MacAllister]

Are we positing, then, that science is in and of itself religious in nature, in certain ways?

[Pilot]

No. There probably isn't a god. There's no evidence for the existence of a god and there never has been. 93% of the world's leading scientists are atheists, so I think it's a pretty safe bet :D

Having been a scientist in my earlier years and worked with many of the good ones, I take issue with your stat. saying 93%. My personal experience while working with NASA and Aeronutronic in Cal. showed me that most scientists did believe in a higher being, or power, or whatever you choose to call it. Descartes said it best: There are three types of lie; the Lie, the Damned Lie, and the Statistic.
:)

[MacAllister]

Reilly actually has been blocked from this forum, Pilot, because he pretty flatly expressed an unwillingness to discuss beliefs without criticism/challenge.

[CatSlave]

Are we positing, then, that science is in and of itself religious in nature, in certain ways?
I think that is a valid supposition.

The more sophisticated science becomes which furthers our limited knowledge of reality, the more questions arise concerning the morality of our uses for science. With knowledge comes responsibility.

If you want to confound your thinking and lose some sleep, read some textbooks or other literature that discusses current medical ethics.

Some questions don't seem to have any "right" answers; for example, the tragic case of Terri Schiavo in Florida.
Was she or wasn't she technically brain dead?
If you have enough equipment to keep the body systems functioning after a person has died, are they considered "alive" or not?

These are not just science questions, they are morality issues that doctors/scientists/religious leaders and relatives are faced with daily.
If you agree that religion is "in charge" of morality, then science could be considered a religion in many respects.

[small axe]

In this case, is God really a god in any sense we may have been discussing? Couldn't the universe in its entirety, with its "mysterious phenomenon", be as accurate a word as God?

Well, I'm purposefully trying to avoid any partisan definitions of "God" :)

Some concepts of GOD have the Divine being both Transcendent of the Universe and
Immanent in-dwelling within the Universe.

Where does Awareness dwell? Where can it not?

When some say that God is merely all that exists, sometimes they limit that to a sum of unaware materialist parts. As if God can be nothing more than all they can put on a microscope or see in a telescope.

We could be sparks of the Divine, little amnesiac souls going through the Universe on our long spiritual journey Homewards to Oneness. The classic illustration is: each of us a raindrop, that falls to form a river, that runs down to become the sea. We go home and tell wonderful stories about how beautiful the mountain tops were, and share that with the sea who lays dreaming in its sea bed. "Tell me the story about flying again!" the sea begs us. "Await evaporation and you will fly too. And then you can tell us all the stories we've forgotten while we experienced being the sea"

It's a pretty story: but here is something we cannot imagine -- a universe without Awareness (because we ARE imagining it from inside our Awareness. Can a ROCK imagine a Universe without rocks existing, is the valid question)

And really, then, God becomes YOU+"Other" since your logic tells me: "In all the universe, there is YOU, and everything else you can ever "prove" exists is OTHER" since things that are improvable wouldn't be considered part of "us"-- and if not part of "us" then part of Other. And God then must be part of us in order not to be other; I'd need to know how God can be part of us and other (as an improvable phenomenon "outside us" at the same time). Not saying it's wrong. Saying I'd like to understand how that works-- even in theoretical language. AMC

Well, the image of us being amnesiac souls might be one model there. The Parts of the puzzle who know their own shapes, but cannot know the image printed on them or what that images will depict ... until they've all joined all back together with all the other lost and lonely puzzle pieces?

Some philosophies suggest God wants to experience Being each part, since the Whole is already Known and beyond knowing further. So God separates into distinct souls and experiences it All from both inside and Outside, free will shuffles the cards to make the game even more fun!

This isn't to say that GOD is nothing but a sum of parts, something waiting to be built (the old Asimov story where Mankind links a billion computers on a billion worlds and asks the computer "Is there a God?" and the computer says "There is NOW!" and disappears into Heaven.)

But I've heard preachers on TV argue that God cannot be Transcendent AND Immanent ... and I always think: So ... you just through Omnipresence and Omniscient out the window? Please ...

What's the scene by JD Salinger? A little boy looks at his sister drinking milk and realizes he's God watching God pour God into God?

I dunno. On such questions, when people demand "proof" that God "exists" I wonder:
Who's asking?
What shabby mundane sort of proof will satisfy you? (Because if God walked in the room ... you'd still consult a shrink, right? And if the shrink told you HE was god, that wouldn't work either. NO "proof" could outweigh the cliche "I've gone crazy" or 'it's just a dream' cop out)
Would you recognize it (either your proof or the God it proved) if you saw it?

[Pilot]

Reilly actually has been blocked from this forum, Pilot, because he pretty flatly expressed an unwillingness to discuss beliefs without criticism/challenge.

It is always a misfortune when someone closes their mind to new or different ideas. Sad, really.

[Lyra Jean]

I believe in God.
I believe in scientific facts.
I don't think God can be proven to exist.

[Pilot]

I believe in God.
I believe in scientific facts.
I don't think God can be proven to exist.

I agree. And for what it's worth, I find no problem reconciling science and the Bible. In fact, in my mind, they're quite compatible.

[Ruv Draba]

But 'scientific thought' can also be seen as amoral and a tool that has no effect until it is given motivation by exactly those human, social, and cultural things you separate it from, above.The argument that 'science is a tool' makes it sound like it's somehow separate from our humanity. Not just amoral but somehow inhuman. Relentless, remorseless.

I think that it's not; it's every bit as integral to us being human as our superstition is. Humans are curious, organised and disciplined (more or less). Scientific enquiry derives from being human. The curious, organised, disciplined piece inside our minds that creates scientia also creates our crafts, our writing, our arithmetic. It keeps making us rebuild civilisations even after they collapse and we lose what we knew.

Yes, science is very objecty, and so it has a tool-like character, but if it's an outgrowth of human mind then it's no more separate from human morality than language or parenting are. Where humans have a strong sense of morality, that will be reflected in their science -- in what they investigate and how they investigate it. When they don't then their science will reflect that too. But this is also true for their language, their arts, their customs and their religion.

As further evidence that science is not amoral, consider that our scientific knowledge feeds directly into our moral awareness and compassion. For instance, fewer people today believe that disease is a sign of evil than believed it in the Middle Ages. Was it religious reform that drove this change, or a practical germ theory of disease? And how much more compassionate are we about differences in gender or age or psyche the more we understand these things?

Are we positing, then, that science is in and of itself religious in nature, in certain ways?
I'd say that science is spiritual in nature because I think that all human activity is, in some way or another. I suspect that three major religious traditions at least would agree with me on this: Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. In Islam, science has always been considered a holy endeavour -- to explore the face of God is itself an act of worship. In Buddhism, rational enquiry is seen as either useful or necessary to enlightenment, depending on whom you talk to. Hindus as far as I can tell, have never separated learning from spirituality. And here in the West, iconic scientists like Einstein believed that enquiry was spiritual -- even though he abandoned belief in a personal god at puberty.

But spirituality is not religion. I'm an atheist and a humanist. My notion of spirituality includes morality, enlightenment, compassion and I can see science contributing to all of these in very visible and effective ways. My notion of spirituality doesn't include superstition though -- I just recognise that a lot of spiritual people are also superstitious. Science and superstition don't play at all well together, but science and spirituality do, and science co-exists happily with myth as long as people accept that myth can be inspirational even if it gets knocked about factually.

To the extent that religion stakes its spiritual claims in superstition, science keeps eroding those claims -- this despite the fact that many religious claims don't actually need superstition to support them. One doesn't need literal miracles to believe in love, or literal resurrections to embrace forgiveness, or literal levitation to seek enlightenment. Despite what some religions say, one doesn't need literal threats of damnation to make people behave either -- their own compassion will do so if it's nurtured well, along with the active involvement of a society committed to decency. But there's no reason one has to abandon myth just because it's not literal.

Science has known how to co-exist with religion for a goodly while. Galileo knew (or learned very quickly) to present truth and then back away to give people time to digest it. Religion however (or some parts of it), is still learning how to accommodate science.

The answer though is very simple, and it's the same lesson that Galileo and Copernicus had to learn:

Don't be arrogant in what you claim you know.

[AMCrenshaw]

I'd say that science is spiritual in nature because I think that all human activity is, in some way or another. I suspect that three major religious traditions at least would agree with me on this: Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. In Islam, science has always been considered a holy endeavour -- to explore the face of God is itself an act of worship. In Buddhism, rational enquiry is seen as either useful or necessary to enlightenment. Hindus as far as I can tell, have never separated learning from spirituality. And here in the West, iconic scientists such as Einstein believed that enquiry was spiritual -- even though he abandoned belief in a personal god at puberty.

But not all spirituality is religion. I'm an atheist and a humanist. My notion of spirituality includes morality, enlightenment, compassion and I can see science contributing to all of these in very visible and effective ways.


Precisely articulated my thoughts on that matter; I'd tried to say as much earlier, but this is much clearer. :)

AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

But I've heard preachers on TV argue that God cannot be Transcendent AND Immanent ... and I always think: So ... you just through Omnipresence and Omniscient out the window? Please ...

Panentheism-ish?

http://frimmin.com/faith/godinall.php


For me, I suppose it is hard to believe in things completely outside of immediate perception or perceptibility (though I admit I shouldn't; there is much I've heard of in nature that is completely alien to me), for all too often I think of how many things of my imagination don't exist, and that the god-in-all and yet outside-of-all sounds sometimes so perfect I doubt it that much more thoroughly. And as far as my spirituality goes, I guess it's often besides the point, since I concern myself so much with what is here, now, and before me, working my understanding out the best (most reasonably and ethically) I can.

AMC

[Samantha's_Song]

Yes, no problem, I say things too bluntly most of the time :)

I understand that wasn't SS's intention, and I think she and I have shaken hands (virtually) and reconciled on that point now.

[small axe]

By replying point by point, I don't mean to sound argumentative!

I simply mean to address points specifically and with the due respect.

As always, if I'm quoted by name, I feel that's an invitation to reply.

So please take this in the spirit it's intended: as friendly give-and-take!


Originally Posted by small axe http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3336344#post3336344)
But 'scientific thought' can also be seen as amoral and a tool that has no effect until it is given motivation by exactly those human, social, and cultural things you separate it from, above.


The argument that 'science is a tool' makes it sound like it's somehow separate from our humanity. Not just amoral but somehow inhuman. Relentless, remorseless.

You quote me, and then you seem to draw your conclusion from what I wrote. If that was your interpretation, fine ... But it's not what I wrote or meant.

My actual point was: science is knowledge, and knowledge in and of itself is amoral -- without moral content. (Not immoral, just amoral)

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that more knowledge makes a man or woman more moral. That cannot be demonstrated, imo (again, the example of Nazi scientists and a-bomb builders or germ-war weaponeers may apply)

Science is a 'tool' in that it needs human motivation to use it (for good or for ill); the mere gaining of Knowledge doesn't guide us in how to use that Knowledge.

Both Religion and Politics offer that guidance.


I think that it's not; it's every bit as integral to us being human as our superstition is. Humans are curious, organised and disciplined (more or less). Scientific enquiry derives from being human. The curious, organised, disciplined piece inside our minds that creates scientia also creates our crafts, our writing, our arithmetic. It keeps making us rebuild civilisations even after they collapse and we lose what we knew.


Well, I'd suggest you're giving "science" an undue historical role in human advancement. A chimp that learns to use a twig to dig out termites isn't practicing any institutionalized Science or any philosophy of Science (not as we mean it in the past centuries) imo

Intelligence and Invention precede any codified "scientific process" as we know it today by tens of thousands of years.

If superstition offers the same results as Science (explaining the world via gods and magics rather than science) then those aren't the things of Science imo.

I respect Science. But we probably shouldn't shoe horn it in where it had no place in human history.

Yes, science is very objecty, and so it has a tool-like character, but if it's an outgrowth of human mind then it's no more separate from human morality than language or parenting are.

I think you over-reach there.

BIRDS practice "parenting" (even Dinosaurs probably did) ... Do you suggest that Bird parenting and nest behaviour flows from Bird 'morality?' That T-Rex hunted and nested according to T-rex morality?

Parenting and language is basic inherent human behaviour, and we did them before we had "Science" ... before we were even "human"


Where humans have a strong sense of morality, that will be reflected in their science -- in what they investigate and how they investigate it. When they don't then their science will reflect that too. But this is also true for their language, their arts, their customs and their religion.


With that, I agree totally. But that suggests MY point, that "morality" may be a more fundamental human trait than science, and is a foundation upon which Science only grew far later.

As further evidence that science is not amoral, consider that our scientific knowledge feeds directly into our moral awareness and compassion. For instance, fewer people today believe that disease is a sign of evil than believed it in the Middle Ages.

I'd see that as an example suggesting that science IS in fact 'amoral' ... in that it separated disease from being considered a 'moral' issue.


Was it religious reform that drove this change, or a practical germ theory of disease? And how much more compassionate are we about differences in gender or age or psyche the more we understand these things?


I don't know how (or if) germ theory makes us MORE 'compassionate'

I might have more 'compassion' for someone I thought was unfairly beset by evil spirits, rather than knowing they're sick because the unwashed idiot failed to practice basic human hygene. :)

Beset by demons is "noble" and "heroic" ...

Didn't wipe his hands after he pooped ... it's no Shakespearean tragedy there!

For the first, I might pour out my heart, for the second I'll throw a bar of soap at them!

I'd say that science is spiritual in nature because I think that all human activity is, in some way or another. I suspect that three major religious traditions at least would agree with me on this: Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. In Islam, science has always been considered a holy endeavour -- to explore the face of God is itself an act of worship. In Buddhism, rational enquiry is seen as either useful or necessary to enlightenment, depending on whom you talk to. Hindus as far as I can tell, have never separated learning from spirituality. And here in the West, iconic scientists like Einstein believed that enquiry was spiritual -- even though he abandoned belief in a personal god at puberty.

Okay. You cast a wide net, to say all human behaviour is spiritual (Bigotry is spiritual?) But I don't mean to argue ...

But spirituality is not religion. I'm an atheist and a humanist. My notion of spirituality includes morality, enlightenment, compassion and I can see science contributing to all of these in very visible and effective ways.

'But spirituality is not religion' ??? hmmmmm. Very broad claim there.

Some might understand that Science may 'contribute' to those ... but still not be their source or foundation, though.


My notion of spirituality doesn't include superstition though -- I just recognise that a lot of spiritual people are also superstitious.


As others recognize that science offers no guidence or wisdom about how to morally USE science.

I can salute your dedication to humane and ethical goals ... and salute how science can be tools to attain those goals ... but still recognize that those goals come from someplace other than mere Knowledge.


Science and superstition don't play at all well together, but science and spirituality do, and science co-exists happily with myth as long as people accept that myth can be inspirational even if it gets knocked about factually.


So ... you're saying they can play nice only as long as they 'accept' to play in YOUR way?

Everything is okay as long as the spiritual people accept your facts as facts, and everything else as myth?

I don't mean to argue, but I do want to point out that obvious bias.

To the extent that religion stakes its spiritual claims in superstition, science keeps eroding those claims -- this despite the fact that many religious claims don't actually need superstition to support them.

That's quite over-generalizing.
Unless you mean ALL religions.

In which case ... you cannot possibly be making a valid statement that correctly addresses ALL religious belief, given the variety of religious belief.

So, invalid statement, imo.

One doesn't need literal miracles to believe in love, or literal resurrections to embrace forgiveness, or literal levitation to seek enlightenment.

If that's your belief, I respect it.

But for billions of humans, they'd say with the same belief that you DO need a 'literal' Resurrection (of Christ) to BE Forgiven.

You saying your thing, them saying their thing ... neither one makes it fact.
And you can no more prove your position than they can prove theirs.
Your position probably NEEDS the support of proof, I'd guess.
Theirs doesn't. Their position requires Faith.
So ... if you've both expressed a claim of Faith, and YOUR Faith needs proof and you cannot provide it ... but their Faith fulfills their requirement of Faith ...

Who is in the better position?

Despite what some religions say, one doesn't need literal threats of damnation to make people behave either -- their own compassion will do so if it's nurtured well, along with the active involvement of a society committed to decency. But there's no reason one has to abandon myth just because it's not literal.

Despite what some psychologists say, Man is as shaped by Nature perhaps as he is shaped by Nurture.

Different people embrace different "myths" ... Perhaps you are speaking from your myths too?

Myself (imo) I don't believe Society can cure all the wrongs of human nature, no.

I don't believe Knowledge can either, because Knowledge alone doesn't contain any DNA to encode Man on how to USE Knowledge for Good or Evil.

Science has known how to co-exist with religion for a goodly while. Galileo knew (or learned very quickly) to present truth and then back away to give people time to digest it. Religion however (or some parts of it), is still learning how to accommodate science.

I suggest that Scientists have made mis-steps in dealing well with people's religious sensitivity.

BOTH Science and Religion have made mis-steps, because BOTH manifest themselves via HUMANS. And humans make mistakes, both scientific mistakes and religious ones.


The answer though is very simple, and it's the same lesson that Galileo and Copernicus had to learn:

Don't be arrogant in what you claim you know.


I couldn't agree with you more there. :)

BOTH science and religion point to countless lessons about why we should all remain HUMBLE in our approach to Truth!

I am happy to close on a note of Agreement!

[Ruv Draba]

I don't believe that this topic is the place to argue these matters in detail, Small Axe. Since you have issue with nearly everything I've written, there's simply too much to discuss. Please start a new topic if you want a comprehensive response. An appropriate forum for that topic might be Non-theistic Spirituality since I think you've just claimed that either N-T spirituality doesn't exist, or that it only exists in the places you think it does. :)

[RobJ]

Do you believe in a god?
No.

Which god do you believe in and why?
Not applicable

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there?
Not applicable

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?
No.

Cheers,
Bob

[Alpha Echo]

The duty of fulfilling that trust, might be the point.


Hmm, interesting thought.



Have you seen him work the way a carpenter or mechanic works? Could you explain more what you mean by that?

And for the purposes of discussion I want people to think about the difference between what belief in God has done and what God has "done for us".

For example, life is amazing to me, as well. But recently we've seen scientific discovery about consciousness (and a plethora of phenomenon) grow pretty rapidly-- what's interesting is that knowing how a phenomenon exists doesn't make it any less amazing to me; it might make it more so. Understanding the unlikelihood of human life on a planet, for example, reveals what I call natural miracles-- those things we understand to be true and still have a hard time "believing them", still marvel at their existence.

AMC

I see what you're saying. No, I certainly haven't seen God in person, physically working to make things in my life happen or to build things. But he's worked through the people in my life in amazing ways, and I personally can't understand how this could be anything but God's work.

When my husband first left, and I was forced to find an apartment, my husband also decided to pull the financial support that he had previously agreed to give me. Out of nowhere, two of my friends sent me checks - for small amounts but nonetheless - and told me not to even consider paying them back.

My mother gave me a check to retain my lawyer.

And throughout this, there have been times when, though I'm stressed and worried, scared and depressed, I've had this inexplicable happiness. Just filled with happiness for no reason at all. Absolutely no reason. I live alone. The man I dedicated my life to decided to have an affair and abandoned me. I don't know how I'm going to pay my bills each month. Yet, somehow, I have peace.

The way I see it - how could this be from anyone other than God?

[James81]

This is what I base my belief in God on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

That arguement of itself (while the wiki link talks of a few arguements against it) is almost impossible (at least to me) to debunk entirely.

That puts the idea that there IS a higher power pretty solid in my head.

The rest...all the rest that I believe about God is based and rooted in faith and my own experiences. And I think that's how God designed it. And I think that's why so many people fail to believe in a God. Because one person can look at a situation and see divine providence, and another can look and see amazing coincidence.

[RobJ]

That puts the idea that there IS a higher power pretty solid in my head.
What caused the higher power?

Cheers,
Rob

[James81]

What caused the higher power?

Cheers,
Rob

That's the whole point of the arguement.

That in order for a finite universe (which is what we live in) to exist, there has to be something that is not an effect. An unmoved mover, is the common term for it.

[AMCrenshaw]

Spinoza uses the cosmological argument as well, but he calls the phenomenon God or Nature. You might be interested in that, James. Try Ethics.

I've come to think that the argument particularly coincides with a scientific phrase (is it outdated?): energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

AMC

[Smiling Ted]

That's the whole point of the arguement.

That in order for a finite universe (which is what we live in) to exist, there has to be something that is not an effect. An unmoved mover, is the common term for it.

But that "something" could as easily be the Universe itself as it could be a Creator God.

[Jean Marie]

It is always a misfortune when someone closes their mind to new or different ideas. Sad, really.
Yeah, the day I stop learning is the day I hope someone takes me out back and shoots me.

Tunnel vision is a bad thing; I've watched it in my own family. Fortunately for me, I'm away from that individual, now.

As to science vs. religion/spirituality, I don't know enough to say w/ absolute certainty that they can go hand in hand. However, they've influenced one another enough to have enhanced the other, if that makes sense.

[James81]

But that "something" could as easily be the Universe itself as it could be a Creator God.

Like I said, I don't pretend to know WHAT that first cause is.

The rest of my beliefs I take by faith.

But to comment on that, though, what part of the universe has not been a result of an effect?

The universe itself is a finite creation of itself...an unmoved mover would have to exist outside of the finite in order to effect a cause from no causes.

[AMCrenshaw]

But that "something" could as easily be the Universe itself as it could be a Creator God.

To be fair, you only quoted half his explanation. But I'm more on that level, if any, about that "something" than with Creator God with will, intellect, perfect good, etc.



AMC


The universe itself is a finite creation of itself...an unmoved mover would have to exist outside of the finite in order to effect a cause from no causes.

ETA: I don't know that Higgins would mind my quoting him:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2581734&postcount=24

Or it is possible the AI was produced by a dispersed, unconscious AI-producing program that cannot be localized or identified as a single entity. IE, the AI has no creator.

[Alpha Echo]

I've come to think that the argument particularly coincides with a scientific phrase (is it outdated?): energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

AMC

That's true about energy - for us humans. But don't you think that an all-powerful God can both create and destroy any energy He wanted? IMO, He created all the laws of science we've discovered or believe or follow. Since he created them, I think he can break them anytime he wanted.

But that "something" could as easily be the Universe itself as it could be a Creator God.

To me, I just can't wrap my mind around something so...vague as the Universe creating itself...or did I misunderstand?

[Medievalist]

It might be worth googling the phrase "divine watchmaker."

C. S. Lewis wrote a fairly interesting discussion re: the concept of the Watchmaker, and who 'winds the universe," so to speak.

[MarkR]

Science and religion both demand honesty to be authentic.

[James81]

To be fair, you only quoted half his explanation. But I'm more on that level, if any, about that "something" than with Creator God with will, intellect, perfect good, etc.



AMC



ETA: I don't know that Higgins would mind my quoting him:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2581734&postcount=24

lol, but then the program would be the "creator."

It's an endless loop. You keep going back until there is NOTHING but a lifeless lump of mass sitting somewhere, and then CRACK! It's set into motion.

Who makes the crack? That is "God." And you can call it what you want...karma, the universe, anti-matter, Zorro the Magnificent, but God by any other name is still God.

Is he still alive? Does he give a shit about us? Those are the matters you take by faith.

[Seaclusion]

Might as well start at the beginning, right?

Do you believe in a god? Which god do you believe in and why?

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there?

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?

Do you believe in a god? No.


Do you think there are any proofs to his existence? No


Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god? Yes, it is, but it has not been done so far.

Richard

[AMCrenshaw]

lol, but then the program would be the "creator."

There's a very interesting exercise I'd like to you try with your friends. I found this in Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett (pages 9-10).

The game is simple: A group of say six people decide to play a game in which one person (from now on called a dupe) will exit the room while the other five people "discuss a dream" that one of them had. The dupe can't hear what they're saying because when the dupe is asked to return to the room, the dupe has an objective: figure out, using yes or no questions, what the content of the dream was, and using that content, figure out whose dream it was. Now, we call them a dupe because the answers to the yes or no questions are arbitrary. Each of the five people answers the questions this way:

"If the last letter of the last word is in the first half of the alphabet, the question is to be answered in the affirmative, and all other questions are to be answered in the negative, with one proviso: a non-contradiction override rule to the effect that later questions are not to be given answers that contradict earlier answers."

I leave it to you to find out who becomes the dreamer...


AMC

[James81]

I leave it to you to find out who becomes the dreamer...


AMC

I assume that exercise is a way to essentially say it's impossible to figure out the first cause?

Doesn't matter who or what it was, just know that there HAD TO BE ONE. That's the most important part.

[AMCrenshaw]

If I say that this dream has no dreamer, is that saying the same as it has no cause? And if there is no centralized cause?


AMC

[Pilot]

The universe itself is a finite creation of itself...an unmoved mover would have to exist outside of the finite in order to effect a cause from no causes.

That's pretty much what the Bible says - that God existed prior to the universe, then created it. His method, we think these days, was by causing the "Big Bang" to occur. There's all kinds of good info in the Book. Man was busy running around trying to decide if the world was flat or round, or whatever the latest guess was, when all he had to do was read Isaiah. Way back when that was written, the world was described as round. Amazing what people can learn when they listen.

[James81]

If I say that this dream has no dreamer, is that saying the same as it has no cause? And if there is no centralized cause?


AMC

Can a dream exist without a dreamer?

[Seaclusion]

That's pretty much what the Bible says - that God existed prior to the universe, then created it. His method, we think these days, was by causing the "Big Bang" to occur. .


And that coincides with science theory that we cannot know what came before the big bang because the rules the universe lives by now were not in existance at the time. The rules the universe lives by now were caused by the big bang.

Richard

[Seaclusion]

Can a dream exist without a dreamer?

Can a dreamer exist without a dream?

Richard

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm telling you, try the exercise! :)

I think there can be a dream without a dreamer. An effect without a cause-- the game (which is extremely fun!) sort of shows that.

AMC

[Roger J Carlson]

I'm telling you, try the exercise! :)

I think there can be a dream without a dreamer. An effect without a cause-- the game (which is extremely fun!) sort of shows that.

AMCWhere this breaks down is that all six people exist outside of the collective dream. Does it still make sense if it was about a dream where six people create the dream they are in?

[Pilot]

Yes, science is very objecty, and so it has a tool-like character, but if it's an outgrowth of human mind then it's no more separate from human morality than language or parenting are. Where humans have a strong sense of morality, that will be reflected in their science -- in what they investigate and how they investigate it. When they don't then their science will reflect that too. But this is also true for their language, their arts, their customs and their religion.

As further evidence that science is not amoral, consider that our scientific knowledge feeds directly into our moral awareness and compassion. For instance, fewer people today believe that disease is a sign of evil than believed it in the Middle Ages. Was it religious reform that drove this change, or a practical germ theory of disease? And how much more compassionate are we about differences in gender or age or psyche the more we understand these things?

Pursuit of pure science is like pursuit of a trail through the forest. It takes you where it goes. Morality or ethics don't enter the picture unless the scientist on the pursuit determines he will give up the pursuit or change the discovered facts.

Knowledge determines our awareness and, in some cases, our compassion. The simple example is the child that sticks his finger in the fire. It burns, therefore the child logs that knowledge and modifies his behavior based on that knowledge. The same is true of all knowledge. How we modify our behavior based on fact is what determines our morality.

I would add we must remember that morality changes with time and location.

[AMCrenshaw]

Where this breaks down is that all six people exist outside of the collective dream. Does it still make sense if it was about a dream where six people create the dream they are in?

The people are the components of the dream. But, let's say that they did create the dream and it was the job of the dupe to figure it out (and the Q/A was still yes/no), the result would be the same.


You brought up the other allegorical lesson: Who is the dupe? How does the dupe interact with the people? They ask the questions and get "logical", i.e., non-paradoxical answers, answers that "make sense," and from that the dupe creates a narrative (a dream) based on these "logical" answers. But they don't interact with one person, but many (though this exercise would work with just one dupe and one person), so that even if universal laws exist (yes to the first half of the alphabet, no to the rest, there are no paradoxes), the dupe creates the narrative and gives it significance.


AMC

[DMarie84]

I believe in God. I'm a Christian and I know He's an active part of my life, even if I ignore Him.

It's hard to explain it...I just know. There are too many things in my life that I've seen as being guided by Him.

I haven't been as faithful as I should've been and I can feel the lack of purpose in my life because of it.

Anyway, there are too many things in this world and universe that I cannot see happening by chance. The complex strands of DNA, to me, are not by coincidence. The fact that the Earth is at just the right distance from the sun to sustain life could not have been chance--the probability of chance bringing it about is more astronomical, in my opinion, than believing in a Creator who purposely orchestrated it that way.

When I read the Bible, even though it has been translated numerous times over thousands of years, I feel as if it is speaking to me today in the 21st century.

Anyway, I can't really give tangible evidence (only that I believe the evidence is all around us but we are blinded by our own selves to see it). I suppose my thought is that you will truly believe if you want to believe. Otherwise, it will seem like nonsense.

My two cents :)

[Lyv]

I don't believe in any god. And it's not because I want to or want not to. For me, belief doesn't work that way. It's just what my mind and heart and education and experiences have led me to believe. I used to believe in God, but that's because I was raised to. Actually reading the Bible was probably the first step on my road to atheism, but there were many, many more. I'm a happy, moral atheist.

[Medievalist]

Pursuit of pure science is like pursuit of a trail through the forest. It takes you where it goes. Morality or ethics don't enter the picture unless the scientist on the pursuit determines he will give up the pursuit or change the discovered facts.

Well, no. There are problems with that as an assertion. There are reasons that we aren't wildly engaging in human cloning, stem cell research, and why there are research groups on ethics and investigating committees.

And why there are very very stringent laws--and social governance from peers--around human subjects, and yes, animal research as well.

There's also the reason behind the "control group" approach to experimentation; there's a tendency for expectations and desires to warp data collection, otherwise.

[Pilot]

Well, no. There are problems with that as an assertion. There are reasons that we aren't wildly engaging in human cloning, stem cell research, and why there are research groups on ethics and investigating committees.

Doesn't this make the case I illustrated? We aren't wildly engaging in various matters because we choose to stop the pursuit of knowledge or alter the facts?

And why there are very very stringent laws--and social governance from peers--around human subjects, and yes, animal research as well.

There's also the reason behind the "control group" approach to experimentation; there's a tendency for expectations and desires to warp data collection, otherwise.

I see this as more of the same: we are not pursuing "pure science" in these cases, pure science being what I specified. I'm not speaking metaphorically here, but from experience. Pure science is nothing more than the discovery of unknown facts. What we, as human beings, do with those facts falls into another realm. At least, such is my belief.

[ColoradoGuy]

I spent two decades as a medical research scientist doing cellular and molecular biology. I also consider myself a religious person, although not of the sort who regards the Bible as literal truth. From my perspective this religion/science dichotomy is a false one; it is not epistemologically helpful. As Ruv pointed out upthread somewhere, one can regard scientific inquiry as a religious practice. This is because it tells us more about our world and, especially, about ourselves. The essence of our humanity, the spark within us that we share with all other humans, is God. Seen this way, it isn't surprising that scientists can be mystic believers.

[Pilot]

Well said, Sir.

[Ruv Draba]

Pursuit of pure science is like pursuit of a trail through the forest. It takes you where it goes.It's true that scientists can ask any questions they like, but that's not how it happens in practice. Science is a social activity, and society decides what's important to look at. The highest priority investigations invariably connect somehow to belief in social benefit. Morality (especially, the notion of human good) has a very strong influence on what questions we ask and when we ask them.

To see this, consider: For which species have we the most knowledge of disease, reproduction, ageing, communication, behavioural psychology? At what scale have we the most knowledge of physical events? Who are the biggest employers of geologists?

(Answers: Human, human, and the resources sector. :))

'Pure' science doesn't mean 'values free' science, and that's certainly not how it's funded. It means more 'highly speculative' science. When pure scientists write grant applications, they still (often) write about potential human benefit.

[Pilot]

It's true that scientists can ask any questions they like, but that's not how it happens in practice. Science is a social activity, and society decides what's important to look at. The highest priority investigations invariably connect somehow to belief in social benefit. Morality (especially, the notion of human good) has a very strong influence on what questions we ask and when we ask them.

To see this, consider: For which species have we the most knowledge of disease, reproduction, ageing, communication, behavioural psychology? At what scale have we the most knowledge of physical events? Who are the biggest employers of geologists?

(Answers: Human, human, and the resources sector. :))

'Pure' science doesn't mean 'values free' science, and that's certainly not how it's funded. It means more 'highly speculative' science. When pure scientists write grant applications, they still (often) write about potential human benefit.

Interesting comments, but you must forgive me if I disagree with some of it. When I was a "rocket scientist" (MSEE) with NASA in the 1960s, we were not in the least concerned with human morality. We had a line of pursuit, and we followed it. Those were the heady days when Jack Kennedy asked us to put a man on the moon and then funded the project. I would further question your statement about the species we know the most about and submit that the common rat in the lab, among others, is very well documented, indeed.

When scientists are forced to obtain grants from special interests, pure science goes by the boards and morality, as well as other factors, enter the picture heavily. The pursuit ceases to be pure science, which was the premise for all my comments.

[ColoradoGuy]

My background is in the life sciences, but it seems to me that the moon project, taken as a whole, was applied science -- quite goal-directed -- rather than what I would call pure science.

My own experience in the scientific trenches was that sometimes understanding scientists' behavior required the skills of an anthropologist.

[Pilot]

My background is in the life sciences, but it seems to me that the moon project, taken as a whole, was applied science -- quite goal-directed -- rather than what I would call pure science.

The project was so immense in scope that many parts were what I think of as pure science. Overall goal-directed, yes, but the branches each pursued was knowledge previously undiscovered.

My own experience in the scientific trenches was that sometimes understanding scientists' behavior required the skills of an anthropologist.

Preferably an anthropologist that was slightly nuts. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Roger J Carlson]

I don't believe the pursuit of "pure science" exists. Every human endeavor happens in a moral context. The observer cannot help but affect the observed.

[KikiteNeko]

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?

Sure. When we die. Until then we just argue about it and use religion as an excuse to prejudice the lifestyles of others.

I believe in God, but I have lost all faith in religion. It has failed me monumentally many times. I live and let live. If someone believes in something different than I do, I don't even think they're wrong. I don't even know if I'm right in what I believe. Won't until I croak.

[small axe]

I don't believe that this topic is the place to argue these matters in detail, Small Axe. Since you have issue with nearly everything I've written, there's simply too much to discuss. Please start a new topic if you want a comprehensive response. An appropriate forum for that topic might be Non-theistic Spirituality since I think you've just claimed that either N-T spirituality doesn't exist, or that it only exists in the places you think it does. :)

Like I said, I don't mean to argue or attack, but simply to discuss with the specificity that respect requires. So I'm happy to leave it at what I already said.

I don't, however, see the usefulness of thinking anyone needs to leave a discussion here, simply because there are more than one of two areas of discussion.

(Unless the point of this thread is for everyone to simply list what they believe, and then no one else can discuss points of issue?

If that IS the point of this thread, I stand corrected. If the point is respectful discussion and exploration ... that was my intent)

But that "something" could as easily be the Universe itself as it could be a Creator God.

The issue/problem I see there is, if the materialist (perhaps this doesn't refer to you, I cannot know) posits that there is nothing that exists beyond the material Universe ... then there comes a point back in Time where the "material Universe" he posits simply does not exist, in any form we can imagine.

Where was Space and Time before either even existed? we can ask them.

They say there is nothing beyond the Universe, and yet there is a time when there was no Universe ... so there was something else from which it came.

If they are ignorant (simply in the sense of NOT KNOWING) of what came before, then how can they logically argue against other possibilities?

Do you hold that Everything can come from Nothing?

Even the claim "we can never know what was, before the universe was" is a mere claim of Faith ... countered by the equal claim of faith "We will know when we are One with God, who WAS before the Universe"

We are here to respectfully explore each others' faith and positions, true.

But it seems fair to point out that some joyously embrace Faith for what it is ... while some in the world (but none of us here) seem to disdain others' Faith while refusing to acknowledge that they are grounded only in a "faith of anti-faith" themselves.

No one intellectually knows how the Universe began, not even those who say God created it, simply because then they would have to be able to define the nature of God BEFORE He was Creator.

And imo no one can know that aspect of God.

[Dommo]

I'm agnostic philosophically, because I think the correct philosophy is one where truth is clearly defined, and where everything else is a simple "I don't know, or It's unlikely". Believe it or not, you can reduce truth down to just a few types.

1. Mathematical/Logical truth(The only "provable" kind of truth)
2. Statistical/Experimental Truth(The kind of truth that is true, because experimentally it's been shown so many times that the chances of it not being true, are extremely small)
3. Falsifiability(e.g. we know this isn't true because it's been proven false), which is essentially the inverse of the above two rules.
4. Can't be proved or disproved and is thus irrelevant.

Thus I take the same attitude towards "god". It's not provable, therefore it doesn't meet criteria 1, and it's not experimentally possible to prove it, so it doesn't meet criteria 2 for being true. No one has thought of a way to prove god doesn't exist, there for the only category left is 4. It can't be proved or disproved, and is thus irrelevant until someone figures out a way to meet one of the three criteria listed above. I might say that it's unlikely that god exists(which is mostly an opinion based on the logical inconsistencies most religions have), but I can't say that a god doesn't exist, because I don't have a means a prove the statement.

[Samantha's_Song]

I'm with you, although I never actually had a religion to begin with. But I do believe in God and think I am as religious, in my own right, as anyone who attends a place of worship.

Sure. When we die. Until then we just argue about it and use religion as an excuse to prejudice the lifestyles of others.

I believe in God, but I have lost all faith in religion. It has failed me monumentally many times. I live and let live. If someone believes in something different than I do, I don't even think they're wrong. I don't even know if I'm right in what I believe. Won't until I croak.

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
I assume then you think God is non-contingent, yes? That is unfortunate. Non-contingency (as an attribute of God) is a trap for the unwary, with all sorts of hidden problems and contradictions. For example, a non-contingent being cannot be the cause of any contingent being (a point I would be happy to explicate if you wish), which rather vitiates the whole thrust of the Cosmological Argument.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Why is that?

[Pilot]

I might say that it's unlikely that god exists(which is mostly an opinion based on the logical inconsistencies most religions have)

May I suggest that your first mistake was listening to anything organized religion has to say. My observations have always been that anything organized religion has to say is mostly a bucket of pig slop.

If you would find God, look to the heavens. This vast universe is far too intelligently complex to have been some sort of cosmic accident. Come back to Earth and fly through the skies with me. Could chaos have created the beauty that exists up there? I think not. Now come down to the face of the planet and look at all that exists. An accident? If so, that was some accident! My grandmother always said that all of nature attests to the presence of God. I think she knew what she was talking about.

[AMCrenshaw]

May I suggest that your first mistake was listening to anything organized religion has to say. My observations have always been that anything organized religion has to say is mostly a bucket of pig slop.

You really mean that?

If you would find God, look to the heavens.

A poetic statement?

This vast universe is far too intelligently complex to have been some sort of cosmic accident.


One at some point might consider the difference between lawful and intelligent, chaos and randomness.

Come back to Earth and fly through the skies with me. Could chaos have created the beauty that exists up there? I think not.


Interesting. But I'd like to ask why you think so. Is it because chaos couldn't create beauty? Or something which would be beautiful to us?


Now come down to the face of the planet and look at all that exists. An accident? If so, that was some accident! My grandmother always said that all of nature attests to the presence of God. I think she knew what she was talking about.

It might be that an event is "accidental" due to our lack of knowledge about the context or circumstances behind the occurrence. It is, in my opinion, too early to state factually that we know the circumstances enough to call it completely accidental.

AMC

[Pilot]

You really mean that?



A poetic statement?



One at some point might consider the difference between lawful and intelligent, chaos and randomness.



Interesting. But I'd like to ask why you think so. Is it because chaos couldn't create beauty? Or something which would be beautiful to us?



It might be that an event is "accidental" due to our lack of knowledge about the context or circumstances behind the occurrence. It is, in my opinion, too early to state factually that we know the circumstances enough to call it completely accidental.

AMC

Yes. With rare exceptions, I really believe that.

A sarcastic remark?

Without definitions, this seems almost a non-sequitor.

If you believe that a million monkeys with a million typewriters over a million years could write War and Peace then I suppose chaos could create the beauty we have around us.

Disagree. Our knowledge has increased to the point that many things, DNA for example, cannot be explained as accidents.

[AMCrenshaw]

If you believe that a million monkeys with a million typewriters over a million years could write War and Peace

I think... there is evidence that we've evolved from chimps. Might check up on it. Over a million years? It might have been longer. And the typewriters came eventually. Tolstoy might have used one, I can't be sure.

AMC

ETA:

A sarcastic remark?

Not at all. I just don't know where to look to to find "heavens". You mean the sky?



Our knowledge has increased to the point that many things, DNA for example, cannot be explained as accidents.

And is our knowledge increased enough to be able to judge whether or not the universe had a creator?

[MacAllister]

I assume then you think God is non-contingent, yes? That is unfortunate....
Nope. This is NOT a room to bait, challenge, berate, criticize, or proselytize.

Asking questions is all well and good. Keep the editorializing about how "unfortunate" what anyone else believes strictly to yourself. Not okay, here.

May I suggest that your first mistake was listening to anything organized religion has to say. My observations have always been that anything organized religion has to say is mostly a bucket of pig slop.
See above. This isn't really the place to point out someone's "mistake" as you perceive it, in their own spiritual/religious search or history. If you guys want to have a private discussion, then that's terrific -- but we're going to have to be seriously strict about "Faith, U R Doin' it Rong" or we're going to descend pretty quickly into chaos.

[small axe]

A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

Why is that?

Because no thing in the material universe can be 'infinite' in number ???

I've heard that from Physicists often: Everything in the equation works, except that the result is an infinite value ... and that means something is wrong somewhere.

Now, there are many meanings of 'infinite' I understand. But I'm using it to mean real things and real events, going on in quantities or durations that never end (so nothing merely conceptual like numbers, "where you can always +1")

If any 'causal event' took any time at all to occur, they cannot be 'infinite' because TIME (as we can imagine it) doesn't seem to be infinite anymore itself.

Even if something "loops back upon itself" it is finite or bounded in many senses, I think.

[Pilot]

Nope. This is NOT a room to bait, challenge, berate, criticize, or proselytize.

Asking questions is all well and good. Keep the editorializing about how "unfortunate" what anyone else believes strictly to yourself. Not okay, here.

See above. This isn't really the place to point out someone's "mistake" as you perceive it, in their own spiritual/religious search or history. If you guys want to have a private discussion, then that's terrific -- but we're going to have to be seriously strict about "Faith, U R Doin' it Rong" or we're going to descend pretty quickly into chaos.

Sorry, Mac. It reads differently than I was thinking.

[AMCrenshaw]

If any 'causal event' took any time at all to occur, they cannot be 'infinite' because TIME (as we can imagine it) doesn't seem to be infinite anymore itself.

I'll refer back to the energy cannot be created nor destroyed comment here, only to ask: does that mean it 'always' exists, existed, and will exist?

AMC

[MacAllister]

Thanks, Pilot. We're all still sort of feeling our way through new territory, too, so I'm inclined to be really proactive. :)

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Because no thing in the material universe can be 'infinite' in number ???
Why not?

Now, there are many meanings of 'infinite' I understand.

But I'm using it to mean real things and real events, going on in numbers that never end (so nothing merely conceptual like numbers, "where you can always +1")
Yep, that's pretty much the one I was going for too.

If any 'causal event' took any time at all to occur, they cannot be 'infinite' because TIME (as we can imagine it) doesn't seem to be infinite anymore itself.
I do not understand this sentence. Could you elaborate in more detail?

[small axe]

Originally Posted by small axe http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3340249#post3340249)
Because no thing in the material universe can be 'infinite' in number ???

Why not??

Ok, I'm not stating this as concrete fact, but only offering an explanation:

Because if we accept the idea of a Big Bang origin of the material Universe, then it occurred a finite Time ago, and the Universe has expanded at a finite rate and encloses a finite volume of Space (whatever those unknown quantities are, they are by theory finite)

Because I think current Physics states there is a definite "smallest possible space or distance" called Planck length. So there again can only be a finite amount of matter and energy within the Universe.

Take the littlest quantum-sized finite thing, and jam the biggest finite Space full of them ... and you'd still have a finite number of tiny things (not infinite)

Same goes with cause-and-effect: if that process takes ANY Time, only a finite number of processes can happen in the finite Time the Universe has existed.

That's what current Physics demands, I think.

If anyone can defend any material thing being 'infinite' ... I invite it.

If any 'causal event' took any time at all to occur, they cannot be 'infinite' because TIME (as we can imagine it) doesn't seem to be infinite anymore itself.


I do not understand this sentence. Could you elaborate in more detail


The thing about a finite amount of Time since the Big Bang? See above.

[Ruv Draba]

Interesting comments, but you must forgive me if I disagree with some of it. When I was a "rocket scientist" (MSEE) with NASA in the 1960s, we were not in the least concerned with human morality.So you believe that the money funding 'pure science' for space research had nothing to do with the Cold War? :roll:

A scientist myself (PhD in Pure Math and IT), I used to work with 'Pure' scientists who believed that money fell from trees to fund research independently of human benefit. I was the guy who used to help these poor dear lambs learn how to survive at cocktail parties. They needed me because I knew where the money came from and why it came. ;)

[MarkR]

I love "the Simpsons." I remember one show where Homer got really smart. He wrote out something and gave it to Flanders. Flanders responded to what Homer wrote with a very disapointed expression on his face, "Yep, that's an ironclad proof that God doesn't exist."

[Guffy]

I love "the Simpsons." I remember one show where Homer got really smart. He wrote out something and gave it to Flanders. Flanders responded to what Homer wrote with a very disapointed expression on his face, "Yep, that's an ironclad proof that God doesn't exist."

lol all this fuss for nothing.

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Because if we accept the idea of a Big Bang origin of the material Universe,
I do not. The way I think of the Big Bang is like this: we look around us now and see the universe expanding and getting cooler with each passing moment, which means if we run the clock backwards and extrapolate from current trends then the further back in time you go everything gets hotter and closer together. At a certain point a dozen or so billion years ago we reach a singularity in our extrapolation, a point where everything is infinitely close together and infinitely hot.

Of course, as Disco Stu from the Simpsons would warn you, it is sometimes dangerous to follow extrapolations from current trends too far. And as you yourself said just a few posts ago, scientists are generally somewhat skeptical when their equations start turning up singularities and infinite values -- they start to wonder if perhaps the correlation between their math and the physical reality might not be breaking down. (this is why scientists were initially rather reluctant to believe in the physical reality of black holes -- singularities of infinite spacetime curvature)

Indeed, we know for a fact that the math we use to extrapolate the current trends back to the BB singularity (i.e. General Relativity) is wrong -- it is not consistent with Quantum Mechanics, the equations we use to describe what happens at the very small scale (which a singularity or something approaching a singularity would qualify as). So the only thing we can say with certainty is that we really don't know what happened right at the moment of the BB -- our best physics can only reliably take us to a few tiny fractions of a second after it.

Moreover, while it is popular to label the BB an "origin" event, we really cannot say whether it was 'The Origin' or not. To use an analogy, if we see a pencil falling faster and faster at a certain rate in a certain gravitational field, we can calculate when and where the pencil started falling by extrapolating backwards in time and space until the pencil's rate of acceleration downwards is zero. But beyond that, our equations and the evidence of current trends simply cannot tell us what the pencil was doing before that time. We don't know, for example, whether the pencil was dropped by a person, or if an Earthquake knocked it off a table, or what it was doing before it started falling. Similarly, while we can extrapolate backwards to very close to the BB, our equations and the evidence of current trends simply cannot tell us what was going on before that time.

Now, I said "before" the BB, though some physicists say things like "there was no 'before' the BB, that was when time itself began". But you have to recall that physicists define space and time instrumentally -- in terms of the things that measure space and time. Which is to say, space and time for a physicist is strictly identical to the measuring-stick-like entities and clock-like processes that we ordinary humans would only say 'measure' space and time. (they do this because they think other notions of space and time are too squishy and hard to pin down) If the BB singularity was real, then there could have been no clock-like processes or measuring-stick-like entities at the BB -- when everything is crushed together in a single point you simply don't have the room for such things to exist. That is (basically) the reason why some physicists like to say time and space 'began' at the BB. It's something you have to take with a grain of salt...

then it occurred a finite Time ago, and the Universe has expanded at a finite rate and encloses a finite volume of Space (whatever those unknown quantities are, they are by theory finite)
I think you may be misunderstanding the BB theory. You seem to be thinking of it like a normal sort of explosion, where the cloud of hot gas expands outwards from a starting point and after a finite period of time encompasses a finite volume of space. That intuition doesn't really capture what the theory is going on about.

Imagine a sheet of grid-paper that has no edges -- i.e. it is infinite, where the grids just keep going and going in all directions:
http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/06/14/29/400_F_6142901_z2NGwZMlAhGu2tQjRF2LwPxIrz7Uruth.jpg
Now imagine that on the corner of every square in that grid is a penny. Now imagine that each and every square in that grid is growing uniformly larger at a slow rate. If we watch, every single penny will be getting further and further away from every other single penny. Indeed, pennies that start out far awar from each other will be getting further away from each other much faster than pennies that start out closer togther. However, there is no 'center' point of the expansion -- every single penny is expanding away from every other single penny.

Now let's run it backwards -- the squares of our grid-paper getting smaller and smaller, and pennies getting closer together. Eventually the squares will be so small the pennies will start to smack into each other, so let's take away all the pennies and just focus on the vertices of the grid where the pennies rested (keeping in mind this is idealized grid-paper where the lines are infinitely thin). As the squares get smaller and smaller the vertices will get closer and closer together, until eventually --when all the squares have an area of zero-- all of the vertices will be infinitely close together. Hence does an infinitely large plain (a grid with no borders in any direction) collapse into a single point.

Because I think current Physics states there is a definite "smallest possible space or distance" called Planck length. So there again can only be a finite amount of matter and energy within the Universe.

Take the littlest quantum-sized finite thing, and jam the biggest finite Space full of them ... and you'd still have a finite number of tiny things (not infinite)
This conclusion rests on your assumption that space is finite. which rests on an incorrect understanding of the BB.

Same goes with cause-and-effect: if that process takes ANY Time, only a finite number of processes can happen in the finite Time the Universe has existed.
Again, we simply cannot say whether the BB was in fact the 'true beginning'.

If anyone can defend any material thing being 'infinite' ... I invite it.

If the geometry of the universe is flat then it is open and unbounded (i.e. space is infinite). Our current best evidence (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s124978.htm) strongly suggests that it is indeed flat.

[MarkR]

I can agree with the jist of what you say. I have heard that most scientistist believe in an infinite universe. We could get into a much more complicated discussion of Unified Field Theory, but I guess I missed what this has to do with the existence of God. Does an infinite universe suggest irreducible complexity? That would support the philosophy of many theists.

Of course, as Disco Stu from the Simpsons would warn you, it is sometimes dangerous to follow extrapolations from current trends too far.

Darn, I missed that episode.

[Ruv Draba]

I don't see that the origin of the universe, infinitude or the existence of things more powerful than humanity mandate the compulsion to worship them. The sun is more powerful than anything humanity has produced; I don't worship it. Einstein was a better physicist than me; I don't worship him. I'm fairly convinced that people arose from plankton, but I don't worship plankton. The real numbers are not only infinite but dense; I don't worship them.

So how do origins, sizes and higher powers have anything to do with arguments about religion?

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Does an infinite universe suggest irreducible complexity?
It doesn't suggest anything of the sort to me.

[AMCrenshaw]

So how do origins, sizes and higher powers have anything to do with arguments about religion?

Well, if the origins, sizes, and higher powers absolutely were in control of your salvation or what-have-you, maybe it'd be different.

But you answered your own question: since you don't believe in gods as ultimate authorities, as some do, there is no reason for you to worship origins, sizes, or higher powers.

The other thing is that the God-concept entails a god who is much more powerful than the sun, all-knowing (In comparison, Einstein was great, but not omniscient), and not only the origin, but the destination of ... souls...

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Well, if the origins, sizes, and higher powers absolutely were in control of your salvation or what-have-you, maybe it'd be different.In history are many monarchs who have held the power of life and death over their subjects. If they demanded to be worshipped (and many did) then those who wanted to survive complied. But of course the monarchs themselves got drowned with insincere flattery by the self-interested and the fearful.

So if scale, smarts and genesis don't themselves mandate worship and absolute power doesn't mandate sincerity, then I think that my question stands.

Perhaps the answer might be awesome, overwhelming goodness. But I'd suggest that this is not demonstrated by scale, smarts, genesis or absolute power -- but rather by behaviour. Which makes me wonder whether other arguments are more than distraction.

Of the 'abundant good' arguments the one I like most I see least: The universe is actually a really good place. The presence of so much good is unaccountable; its sustenance is miraculous. Let's attribute that to a higher power and be thankful.

The one I like least, I see most: The universe is terrible! It's a literal wonder that it hasn't destroyed itself long ago. There must be some hidden good keeping it running. Let's attribute that to a higher power and be thankful.

I like the second one less than the first because it's an indirect argument, and indirect arguments always admit many explanations. For example, incompetent bad sometimes yields good (http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/824217/raw_handcuffed_robbers_run_into_a_pole). Just as this clip is an indictment not just of the robbers but the cops who let them run, you have to wonder about the competence of any good that lets a universe get terrible in the first place.

What is the popular parenting slogan nowadays? 'There are no bad children; only bad parents'. I don't actually believe that -- parents don't design their children; they work with whatever they get as best they can. But if you happen to believe that existence is designed but not terribly good, then what are you saying about the designer?

[James81]

So how do origins, sizes and higher powers have anything to do with arguments about religion?

I don't know about what others in this thread are arguing (I've only been half reading this thread lately), but that was certainly not at all the implication or the discussion I originally intended for in the start of the thread.

My interest was purely...do you believe in a God and why?

Matters of religion and how we relate to that higher power are matters of PURE FAITH, which is all based on the individual.

[Ruv Draba]

My interest was purely...do you believe in a God and why?Posters are responding to the 'why' part. My replies are asking 'why this argument and not some other'? It's the same question, really.
Matters of religion and how we relate to that higher power are matters of PURE FAITH, which is all based on the individual.Ow. Caps.

If you think that it doesn't matter why people believe then why did you ask?

I think that why you believe (or don't) in something foundational like life or your existence does matter. It will at the very least, affect how you perceive yourself and other people. I suspect that all our moral and ethical questions are influenced by why we believe certain things and not others. So inasmuch as we want to get along compassionately with one another, the why may be even more important than the what. Or so I feel anyway.

[MarkR]

My interest was purely...do you believe in a God and why?

I believe in God because God has miraculously revealed Himself to me.

[James81]

Posters are responding to the 'why' part. My replies are asking 'why this argument and not some other'? It's the same question, really.
Ow. Caps.

If you think that it doesn't matter why people believe then why did you ask?

I think that why you believe (or don't) in something foundational like life or your existence does matter. It will at the very least, affect how you perceive yourself and other people. I suspect that all our moral and ethical questions are influenced by why we believe certain things and not others. So inasmuch as we want to get along compassionately with one another, the why may be even more important than the what. Or so I feel anyway.

"Why" has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Well, unless people say "I believe in God because I am a christian."

To me, that's not really a "why" because it begs the next questions....

Why are you a christian?

To me, you can't really appropriately and thoroughly answer a "why" question until you can no longer respond to that answer with another "why" question.

To me, a good answer to "why" do you believe in a higher power would be something like:

"Well, there is a theory put forth by Aristotle called the [i]Cosmological Arguement[i] which states that all finite beings ultimately revert back to a prime mover (or a first cause). I also notice within my life that the frequency of "coincidences" seem so frequent, that I cannot attribute them to random acts, but moreso towards providence."

There is nothing religious about that answer. I makes no presuppostions toward any particular religion. For all you, the reader of said question, know, I could be a Buddhist Hinduist Discordian Monk.

So, in that vein, the "why" was more along the lines of "Ok, you believe in God, give me concrete, logical, or philosophical reasons for that belief."

And that has nothing to do with religion itself, as your post (that I initially replied to) suggested.

[MarkR]

So, in that vein, the "why" was more along the lines of "Ok, you believe in God, give me concrete, logical, or philosophical reasons for that belief."

Without a miraculous encounter with God, I wouldn't believe anything. There are way too many choices. I have no idea how someone comes to faith without a "Damascus Road" experience.

[James81]

Without a miraculous encounter with God, I wouldn't believe anything. There are way too many choices. I have no idea how someone comes to faith without a "Damascus Road" experience.

I wouldn't define that as "faith" per se.

While I don't consider myself a christian (or follow any real organized religion for that matter), I DO believe that the bible makes one of the best definitions of faith the book of Hebrews chapter 11 (verse 1):

"Now faith is the subtance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen."

Faith is a strong belief in something without having any real "experience" to back it. Having faith is believing in something so strongly that you know that the evidence of that thing will come to you at a LATER point. You don't NEED proof, or a life-changing experience, to know what you believe to be true. You just do because something inside of you moves you to do so.

So in that vein, faith, to me, would be serving God NOW, knowing that at some point down the road I will have a "Damascus Road" type of experience.

[MarkR]

I think Augustine once said something like, "I assent so that I can believe."

I guess there was an element of faith in my "Damascus Road" experience. Maybe other people have had a similar experience. I read through the Bible the summer between my freshman and sophomore years in college. I was telling someone, "I think there is more to life than science. I think there is a God." It was at that moment that I was flooded with God.

Jesus Christ does say, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

[AMCrenshaw]

It was at that moment that I was flooded with God.

This reminds me of those times I used to go looking for ghosts, clunking around in haunted houses and such. We used to psyche each other up, tell stories we heard, read website testimonials, the like. We believed it was real before we got there, and when we got there...

Every sourceless sound we heard was a ghost.

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

"Why" has absolutely nothing to do with religion.I'm interested in religion as it applies to people, society and myth. "Why" connects very well to those for me.

For example, my mind has an INTP (http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html) architecture, which gives me no respect for authority, rules or tradition, a slavish worship of efficiency, a meticulous fascination with definitions, cause, consequence and structure, a dispassionate, impersonal but generally benign view of everything, smothers me in dollops of artfully concealed self-doubt and subjects me to invidious comparisons with Sheldon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFS1F-3XVtk&feature=related) from The Big Bang Theory. :tongue

Statistically, thoughts of higher powers don't take well in INTP minds, especially thoughts of personal deities. Our eternal self-doubt makes absolute statements about ambiguous propositions very uncomfortable; our relentless scrutiny of detail makes aesthetic or emotional arguments look flimsy to us; and the moment you postulate a cosmic designer we're can't help but critique the design. :D

So, in that vein, the "why" was more along the lines of "Ok, you believe in God, give me concrete, logical, or philosophical reasons for that belief."Okay, but why do you want them, especially if you feel that religion isn't chiefly about reason?

[heyjude]

I believe in God. Why? Because He saved me when I couldn't save myself.

[MarkR]

This reminds me of those times I used to go looking for ghosts, clunking around in haunted houses and such. We used to psyche each other up, tell stories we heard, read website testimonials, the like. We believed it was real before we got there, and when we got there...

Every sourceless sound we heard was a ghost.

AMC

It isn't really like that. It is a presence completely unlike myself that is always with me. We sometimes carry on conversations. He tells me things that I would never think by myself--things that shift my perspective 180 degrees.

One time I was on the 37th day of a 40-day water-only fast while I was working a physically taxing job, sometimes for 18-hour days. I am feeling very weak. I walk up to my coworkers. I tell myself, "I am not going to let them know how weak I feel," so I walk up with some spring in my step. I feel a supernatural strength come upon me. I know God did something.

I had been praying a prayer, "God, take away my image of me, and give to me Your image of me."

He says to me, "You say you are weak, but you are strong."

Yes, there are a lot of ways you can explain something like that. For me, I just accept that I am experiencing things just like people experienced in the Bible.

[AMCrenshaw]

For me, I just accept that I am experiencing things just like people experienced in the Bible.

And I guess that's what I was saying...


AMC

[Shadow_Ferret]

Do you believe in a god? No

Which god do you believe in and why? See Above.

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there?No, there are no proofs.

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god? No, it is not possible to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist.

[James81]

Okay, but why do you want them, especially if you feel that religion isn't chiefly about reason?

Because this is a discussion forum and that makes for great discussion.

[AMCrenshaw]

Graham Swift wrote that the being who is no longer curious (asking whywhywhy) is no longer alive...


Because this is a discussion forum and that makes for great discussion.

But only unreasonable discussion? If that's the case, why did you supply the cosmological "proof" for God? Are you saying that "proofs" have nothing to do with reason?

AMC

[Guffy]

I don't consider my faith to be without reason or evidence. I have never had a Damascus road experience or even a mountain top experience but I just believe that the Christian bible offers the best evidence for the things I see going on in the world around me. I don't think that I will ever find any proof that there is a God out there somewhere but to me, it just makes the most sense. I will never stop examining the evidence, I will never stop asking questions. Conviction can be a good thing but it can also be dangerous if I don't put it to the test.

[AMCrenshaw]

the Christian bible offers the best evidence for the things I see going on in the world around me.


I don't think that I will ever find any proof that there is a God out there somewhere but to me, it just makes the most sense.

This is a personal question: If something (a new spiritual vision, another tradition or lack of, another way of life, etc) with more sense appealed to you, would you be inclined to go with or explore that other tradition or way of life? I had an experience in which I saw a few interesting complementary elements in Christian and Zen Buddhist mysticism-- that when I did not mix the two (abandoning certain aspects of each), I found each lacking. The spiritual vision that culminated from the experience was one which, indeed, made more sense to me.

Or do you feel well-rooted in your tradition? That you'll remain rooted and growing in the same tradition?

In my self-conscious way, I wonder if I'll ever convert to Catholicism (though, according to a certain statistic, if I felt Catholic at 18, it's probable I still will at 81, and now I wonder about now!), so at to restore my roots, start "growing" way late in life.

Right now, compared to a tree, I'm a cob web. Still grow.

AMC

[Guffy]

This is a personal question: If something (a new spiritual vision, another tradition or lack of, another way of life, etc) with more sense appealed to you, would you be inclined to go with or explore that other tradition or way of life? I had an experience in which I saw a few interesting complementary elements in Christian and Zen Buddhist mysticism-- that when I did not mix the two (abandoning certain aspects of each), I found each lacking. The spiritual vision that culminated from the experience was one which, indeed, made more sense to me.

Or do you feel well-rooted in your tradition? That you'll remain rooted and growing in the same tradition?

In my self-conscious way, I wonder if I'll ever convert to Catholicism (though, according to a certain statistic, if I felt Catholic at 18, it's probable I still will at 81, and now I wonder about now!), so at to restore my roots, start "growing" way late in life.

Right now, compared to a tree, I'm a cob web. Still grow.

AMC

I would and do, quite often, explore other traditions and other ways of life. During a particularly hard time in my life I discovered yoga and meditation. I found that these fit in very well with my Christianity, and added a lift to my spirituality. I do have a bias--I compare everything to the bible, and use it as an authoritative standard. For instance, in yoga when the practitioner is pulling strength from being grounded to the Earth I center my focus on God, and when I meditate I am not looking inward for enlightenment I look to God.

I have found however that in almost all of the recorded instances of God’s communication with us in the bible we ended up getting confused. Jesus was misunderstood from the beginning of his ministry through his ascension. Most of what Paul wrote was intended to correct misconceptions. IMO most of Christianity's worst mistakes stem from a perceived “perfect” understanding of what God wants, which I don’t think we have or could achieve. It would be somewhat arrogant of me (opposite of humble) to believe that I, after two thousand years of misconception suddenly had it all figured out. Fortunately this is not one of Christianity’s requirements. IMO one of things the US Christian heritage of the 1950’s did was try to minimize spirituality, and this is one of the things that led to some of the changes shown in the survey we talked about on changes in American religious life that established Christian tradition are having. Milinials tend to be much more spiritual than their parents. (broad generalization)

So I keep looking and searching for a better understanding of God, sometimes I go forward and sometimes I go backwards, but I know that God accepts me as I am. I always feel like I’m growing but I know I don’t have to worry because his acceptance isn’t dependent on me figuring it out or reaching some preset level of understanding--I believe it’s dependent on his love for me.

[AMCrenshaw]

IMO most of Christianity's worst mistakes stem from a perceived “perfect” understanding of what God wants, which I don’t think we have or could achieve.

Of course. Perfect understanding of anything in particular is quite unlikely. I'd ask of you, since you are honest and willing to this point, to try to explain why your spiritual ...advances, for a lack of a better word, are weighed against what's in the Bible. To you, does God refer to an ultimate reality, an ultimate ethics, or an ultimate justice? Why God and not the universe? At this point, I am asking, given that you have exhibited a sense of rationality (almost in your own words), what retains the faith? Is it the "coincidence" of God's way with what you experience? What separates the fiction or mythology of "God's way" from the way the universe operates from a somewhat objective (i.e., repeatable, verifiable) or scientific way? All this to ask, does the reason, the evidence, etc. really add up to the existence of an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, anthropomorhpic entity? Let us both be clear that I don't mean that in a negative way. What evidence for "God" is there for you to be faithful that couldn't be comprehended without "God"-- why not elements of the universe? Why is God (as described, by your own description) something other than the universe? Why is the "mythical" God nothing other than anthropocentric perception of the universe? Why, besides bias, is the Bible the authority on these matters?

Again, although I am trying to challenge you, I'm not trying to debate you. You've been kind to answer my questions. I really do hope you continue, Guffy.


AMC

[Guffy]

I don't mind talking about this at all, I enjoy it. And I also don't mind that someone else might have a different view of things, as I said earlier I don't believe I have a full understanding of what the bible says and the things that I think I do understand I continue to question. I think these kinds of discussions can be useful and for me enjoyable, but I don't think they're able to change anyone's view of the world. In other words for me this is not evangelical at all, because no matter how reasonable and logical I try to be, my final step must always be one of faith.

You've given me a lot to think about and I want to take some more time to give you a full answer, but I did want to go ahead and get started with my first thoughts. to me it is obvious that humans have and always have had a perception of eternity. And I don't think origin of the species and survival of the fittest can explain that. IMO it is the one thing that makes us unique in this world. When I was younger, current scientific thinking had this huge gap between human and animal intelligence. Humans made tools, had language, and emotion, animals didn't. Science, as always continues to make new discoveries and now the gap between humans and animals is not quite so big. We know now that animals make and use tools, have complex languages and show a great deal of emotion even with species other than their own. And yet they still don't try to make anything that will last forever, the way we do. Orca have been observed teaching their young but their concern seems to be only for the next generation. At one time scientist believed the universe had been around forever, now we know that it had a beginning. Nothing that we can see or observe should lead us to the conclusion that there is a forever. So IMO forever must come from an outside source. From this view point it is reasonable for me to look for the cause. So far I find that most reasonable explanation for the concept of eternity is in the bible.

I want to take a little more time preparing an explanation of why I choose the bible over any other source. I don;t want to be long winded and I find it is harder to be brief and understood than it is to go on and on and still not get my point across.

[Monkey]

Do you believe in a god?
Yes.

Which god do you believe in and why? I call upon the aspects of the Divine that most speak to my heart.

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there? The only proofs are personal.

For instance, I decided to talk to my son about Dyaus and Prithvi, a Hindu pairing of God and Goddess. Dyaus and Prithvi loved each other so intensely that the other gods became jealous and eternally seperated the two, making Dyaus the sky and Prithvi the Earth. But their love was so great that not even this could keep them apart; Dyaus reached down and touched Prithvi in the form of rain. This touch upon her fertile soil made her "pregnant" with life...in this mythos, all plants, animals, and people are the children of an eternally loving God and Goddess.

I often talk to Dyaus and Prithvi about rain. So down here in South Texas, we were in the middle of a drought and there was no rain in the ten-day forcast. I brought my son outside and talked to him about Dyaus and Prithvi, and taught him how to ask for rain (he'd been asking questions about my faith). I told him to ask for rain in a few days...it might take some time, given the circumstances! But while he prayed, I prayed, and asked Dyaus and Prithvi to reveal themselves to him.

As my son prayed, clouds gathered overhead. They were moving fast. The wind picked up, and the temperature dropped. Then, a miracle, at least to my son's eyes: rain! I thanked Dyaus and Prithvi, as did my son.

This sort of thing happens way too often for me to discount, and yet it proves nothing to anyone but me (or, in this case, my son). But adherents to pretty much any religion will tell you of answered prayers, often in highly unlikely circumstances. To my mind, there must be something to it.

And if there's not? Well, a world with magic and mystery and eternal loving sparks something deep within me, and I'd rather live with that belief and be wrong--if indeed, I am--than live without and be right. And who's to say which it is?

My experience leads me to believe that there IS something more than a brief, flash-in-the-pan physical existence going on here.

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god? I would say that it's impossible for a human being to prove the existence of a Higher Power. No matter what kind of argument they make, they can be argued against. No matter what sort of "powers" they manifest, someone will have another explanation. No matter what they can point to, someone will be able to explain it away.

[AMCrenshaw]

We shouldn't mistake eternity for a personal god. We shouldn't mistake truth for a personal god. They may coincide (my skepticism is apparent, I know). If one seeks and loves truth, for example, they do not expect truth and love to seek them. Eternity has been set in the human mind, but none know of its reality. Could it be rationally argued otherwise?

The idea that the universe "never began" is arguable. Something, I speculate, must have existed. Some have posited "God", but I wonder why. The attributes of God can easily be interpreted as being in the universe, up to and including concepts of "cosmic justice" (i.e, karma, golden rule, etc.). All is "known" to the universe because all exists within it. All is "possible" within the universe because "all" has happened or will. All is "good" within the universe because there is probably not another to compare to. Are these not plausible interpretations or reactions to the universe? Could not God stand as a symbolic (not necessarily literal) interpretation of humankind's place in the universe? Might it be more useful, more ethical for us to think of it in these terms?

And there, the leap of faith...


AMC

[Monkey]

Why can't eternity, or truth, or the universe be considered a personal god?

My view is that there is a force out there--and the names, stories, attributes and dogmas are man-made attempts to interpret and understand that force. That force could be just as easily described as "the universe" as "Lord".

ETA:

I've heard people say, "God is Love" and "God is Truth" all my life. If those things are true, then couldn't it be equally true to say, "Love is God" (Hey, I kinda like that) or "Truth is God"?

Great questions, BTW, AMCrenshaw.

[AMCrenshaw]

Why can't eternity, or truth, or the universe be considered a personal god?


And on the side, I'm conversely thinking: why must it be? Are there more sensible answers? Or even more sensible half-answers? Answers, perhaps, not exclusive to a 2000-ish year old text? Does the circuitous relationship between the "validity" of the Bible and faith in the Divine dissuade you (according to your reason, I mean) from holding the Bible's word against another's word, as opposed to holding another's word to the Bible's? Or do you decentralize the authority of the Bible to include other religion's. If, in this light, they are "all equal", "all valid", why not another tradition? Poetic, aesthetic appeal? Intuition? Whose?

Andre Comte-Sponville wrote that it might be too desirable to be real for us to love truth while truth loves us in return (too good to be true argument). The idea to him seems more mythological or superstitious than realistic.

And, anyway, one thing that I point to when I discuss the importance of ecumenism, of any kind: it is sensible we have conversations about our religions, ideologies, cultures, and Whatever, because it might be possible we have been all along interacting with the same universe. Maybe not the same reality-- and that's the fun of it.

AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

This sort of thing happens way too often for me to discount, and yet it proves nothing to anyone but me (or, in this case, my son). But adherents to pretty much any religion will tell you of answered prayers, often in highly unlikely circumstances. To my mind, there must be something to it.

But equally unlikely "accidents" happen all the time. Who orchestrates the four year old child crossing the street? The earthquakes which inspired five centuries of Japanese, truly apocalyptic mythology? Who orchestrates the great suffering? I don't personally believe that beauty or pleasure are truth. I don't see the beauty of the world alone and think that's ultimate truth. Might it just be that according to our perceptions, there is narrative continuity: coincidence seems to exist, when, really, we are the ones imposing the narrative (however useful it may be). Why must coincidence and serendipity be attributes of a personal God? Isn't it important for us, because of our inherent agnosticism, to distinguish between a universe that is lawful (follows certain laws) and a world that is "made by" intelligence-- one is apparent, the other perhaps not so much?

AMC

[Monkey]

Heh. My question was more aimed at you, AMCrenshaw, than at Guffy. I was responding directly to this:

We shouldn't mistake eternity for a personal god. We shouldn't mistake truth for a personal god.

[...]

The attributes of God can easily be interpreted as being in the universe, up to and including concepts of "cosmic justice" (i.e, karma, golden rule, etc.). All is "known" to the universe because all exists within it. All is "possible" within the universe because "all" has happened or will. All is "good" within the universe because there is probably not another to compare to. Are these not plausible interpretations or reactions to the universe?

[Monkey]

This sort of thing happens way too often for me to discount, and yet it proves nothing to anyone but me (or, in this case, my son). But adherents to pretty much any religion will tell you of answered prayers, often in highly unlikely circumstances. To my mind, there must be something to it.

But equally unlikely "accidents" happen all the time. Who orchestrates the four year old child crossing the street? The earthquakes which inspired five centuries of Japanese, truly apocalyptic mythology? Who orchestrates the great suffering? I don't personally believe that beauty or pleasure are truth. I don't see the beauty of the world alone and think that's ultimate truth. Might it just be that according to our perceptions, there is narrative continuity: coincidence seems to exist, when, really, we are the ones imposing the narrative (however useful it may be). Why must coincidence and serendipity be attributes of a personal God? Isn't it important for us, because of our inherent agnosticism, to distinguish between a universe that is lawful (follows certain laws) and a world that is "made by" intelligence-- one is apparent, the other perhaps not so much?


Yes, coincidences happen all the time. Luckily, I don't base my faith on answered prayers...answered prayers bolster my faith. I think it's that way for most people.

As to "see[ing] the beauty of the world alone and think[ing] that's ultimate truth", I don't either. The beauty of the world is part of the truth, IMO, but not The Truth. I think there's more to it than that.

I also never said the universe was "made by" intelligence.

This part of what you said really interests me: Might it just be that according to our perceptions, there is narrative continuity: coincidence seems to exist, when, really, we are the ones imposing the narrative (however useful it may be).

Could you elaborate?

I realize at this point that we're cross-posting and I'm about to have to get to bed...if I don't reply, you'll know what happened to me! :)

[aka eraser]

I watched a program yesterday in which an elderly archeologist, examining a thousands-years-old stone tool, mused, "there's as much God in a grain of sand as there is in us."

I believe she spoke a Truth.

[AMCrenshaw]

I just don't find any insert personal miracle here to be evidence of God. At this point, I see these experiences as experiences of a universe we don't always or ever entirely understand. God is a character among characters. A symbol among symbols. What does "God" signify, though? When we speak of God, do we speak of the universe, reality, or ourselves?


Why can't eternity, or truth, or the universe be considered a personal god?

It could be, of course. But why should I believe that except that I risk final death if I'm all wrong in mind?

My view is that there is a force out there

But not 'in here?'

Anyway who could deny that, really? Gravity, for example, with all its metaphysical implications, is not God, despite how much of our lives it directs.

Remember that I'm referring to a specific deity, namely "God". Arguments of pantheism are generally aesthetic, as aesthetics are generally what separates pantheism from atheism. I personally can't discuss God-as-force since all I care about/see/understand is the force itself and not the name given to it. The same way I discuss love as love and truth as truth, neither as God.

There's nothing more to prayer to me than communication with oneself. I find no wrong in this sort of communication. In fact, a lot of spiritual practices demand inner contemplation for growth. If prayers are being answered in peculiar ways -- say, I pray, beg, wish to win the lottery and lo! I win a million bucks-- what evidence for God have I given? Do I deny there's "something" to it? Hell no. But I would cut the mystery short by attributing it to something I have "faith" in.

The other coincidence I refer to is the kind one might find in an episode of Seinfeld, where things come back to help or harm the characters. "If I hadn't done this very particular thing, and been this very particular way, my fiance would not have died licking envelopes." There is an apparent continuity (we see details relative to the whole picture; we give the details significance; we recall them, hear them echoing) in our lives and that certainly aids in creating the sense of coincidence, sometimes so intense as to feel like Divine Order. But I try not to replace one fiction with another. At some point, I have to figure out if the God-concept is something to be found within us or without. I happen to think at this moment it exists outside, as a construct, a symbol to stand in for the real thing, whatever that is.


"there's as much God in a grain of sand as there is in us."

These statements borderline a fluffy kind of pantheism themselves. God is in this, participates here, here, there, in the trees and leaves, between lovers' lips, etc. When you say that God is in a grain of sand, what's really being said? Is this a description of God or a description of sand? Is the concept of God being imposed upon phenomena, tacked on. "Ah yes, that's what I mean when I say God." "Oh you mean the combined forces love, truth, totality, goodness?" When the God-concept entails these things (or any mixture or degree of other characteristics), isn't it as likely that we've put the puzzle pieces together how we like them in a given moment? Another serious of questions: Do we know God by perceiving nature (and if this is the case, how can we say God is anything other than nature?)? If not by nature, then how, really?

AMC

[Dommo]

God to me is a self fulfilling prophecy for believers. If they want to see god, they'll see god in whatever they look at. This picking and choosing, goes against my agnostic grain, since it isn't logically consistent. This lack of consistency is something that so far no religious person has ever been able to address when I've asked them.

If you're going to define anything, the only way to do so is in a manner that can be shown, proven, or otherwise described in such a way as to be universally accessible otherwise it's undefinable. Like I can define a certain type of love, as an emotional state where I feel a certain way about something or someone(even this might be disagreed upon, but it can be used to generate a statistical "average" for what the definition is). However, there is a strict definition as to what I constitute love to be, which may or may not be the same as someone else, but gives a baseline as to at least generating a decent "guess" as to what a certain type love is if you took a broad enough survey of opinion. With god, I have not seen anyone able to to set a clear solid definition as to what constitutes a god, or gods. Depending on how you set those limits, you can get a whole slew of different definitions that are in all likelihood completely different which makes defining a higher power impossible.

Because you can't really "prove" or "disprove" a god, and you can't even really put down a good hypothesis or estimate as to what a higher power might be(because there's no general definition of what a god is), you're left at a logical black hole. Where you can't really factually prove anything, there's no logical consistency, and there's no "consensus" method to generate an overarching definition.

This might seem sort of like I'm playing word games here, but being able to objectively define something, or prove it, is fundamental. You can be abstract to an extent, however at some point everyone needs to ground yourself in objective reality.

[Monkey]

My view is that there is a force out there

But not 'in here?'


When it's "in here" I tend to view it as personal power. Most Hindus would disagree...

I personally can't discuss God-as-force since all I care about/see/understand is the force itself and not the name given to it.

I don't make a lot of fuss over the names either; hence the pantheism. But I have a feeling that's not what you meant.

While I really like the concept "Love is God", it never occured to me before I typed it a couple of posts back. It's not my belief. No more than I believe "Gravity is God".

My way of coming to religion was through study of religion; perhaps my brain is wired for it and your isn't, as in the thread started by ColoradoGuy. I felt the need to study religion because I wanted answers to certain questions...and those answers are only given in a religious context right now. During my study, I did a lot of, well, "field experiments" and mentally catologued the results. I came to certain conclusions, and my life has been vastly improved.

So even if I'm wrong--and I don't believe I am, but I would never discount the possibility--I now have a working world-view that allows me to make improvements in myself and my situation. It answers some questions that I really feel I need answered. It brings me strength when I feel weak, and comfort when I feel scared. Because of my beliefs, I see the world as a beautiful place, full of magic and everyday miracles, and sometimes I'm so happy just walking the back pasture that tears come to my eyes.

That's my answer to the question I think you're asking, which is why take all these experiences and factoids and ancient texts and put them all together as "the work of God". Why not just call the Rig Veda a book and answered prayers coincidence and personal experiences events that happened, with or without a greater plan?

To put it another way, to me, you seem to be saying, "I can see the puzzle peices; they are real. I don't understand why you insist on focusing on this 'larger picture' that you assume they'll form if put together just so." ;)

[Monkey]

God to me is a self fulfilling prophecy for believers. If they want to see god, they'll see god in whatever they look at. This picking and choosing, goes against my agnostic grain, since it isn't logically consistent. This lack of consistency is something that so far no religious person has ever been able to address when I've asked them.

I think I see what you're saying here. It's like when people win a contest, they'll say, "I want to thank God for this victory..." but if they lose, they never say, "I was all-in, but God wanted the other guy to have it..."

When talking about faith, I pretty much only attribute things to God that I specifically prayed for and were completely out of my hands...and still, I usually don't mention them unless they were also highly unlikely.

Personally, I see the actions of God/Goddess/Higher Power/The Divine in broader ways, but I don't mention them much in religious conversation, because, really, it's no more than a hunch...my personal take on events...and therefore aren't really evidence of anything.

If you're going to define anything, the only way to do so is in a manner that can be shown, proven, or otherwise described in such a way as to be universally accessible otherwise it's undefinable. Like I can define a certain type of love, as an emotional state where I feel a certain way about something or someone(even this might be disagreed upon, but it can be used to generate a statistical "average" for what the definition is). However, there is a strict definition as to what I constitute love to be, which may or may not be the same as someone else, but gives a baseline as to at least generating a decent "guess" as to what a certain type love is if you took a broad enough survey of opinion. With god, I have not seen anyone able to to set a clear solid definition as to what constitutes a god, or gods. Depending on how you set those limits, you can get a whole slew of different definitions that are in all likelihood completely different which makes defining a higher power impossible.
(emphasis mine)

Love is an emotion, and therefore can't be pointed to. It's a feeling. It's a concept.

There is a similar feeling for most religious people when they feel close to their god. Just like you'd have a hard time describing love to someone who had never experienced it, people who have felt this "god presence" would have a hard time describing it to you.

But there are other parameters besides "feeling" that define gods and goddesses, which by your definition would seem to make them more real than love. You talk of establishing a base line--I would say that the Bible gives very widely accepted parameters for the identity of the Christian God. Hinduism has very widely accepted parameters for many, many gods and goddesses. Part of the reason you won't find parameters (other than--possibly--that feeling I was mentioning earlier) for "God" that everyone agrees on is because not everyone worships the same god.

[AMCrenshaw]

When it's "in here" I tend to view it as personal power.


Atman and anatman (http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html)

My way of coming to religion was through study of religion; perhaps my brain is wired for it and your isn't, as in the thread started by ColoradoGuy. I felt the need to study religion because I wanted answers to certain questions...and those answers are only given in a religious context right now.


It's interesting. I tend toward the aesthetics, poetry, and mysticism (used, admittedly, in a very narrow/specific way) of the universe. This is why, as well, I find it easy to converse about gods or God or religion because I guess in my brain they're beautiful works, concepts, ideas, etc. I too am eclectic, and I think that's mainly due to my skepticism-- I don't think all things are true, even if they're inspiring (God is a good example). That said, neither poetry nor art has ever really "explained" something to me, especially not in a factual way. I experience these things as guideposts, signs pointing toward truth. And I think it's in my spirituality not to mistake the finger for the moon.

When you say religious context, do you mean within religious texts, or answers, say, to your religious experiences?

AMC

[Roger J Carlson]

I think I see what you're saying here. It's like when people win a contest, they'll say, "I want to thank God for this victory..." but if they lose, they never say, "I was all-in, but God wanted the other guy to have it..."Actually, that's precisely what I say (or very nearly). Bad things have happened to me and I believe those are also in God's plan for my life. Most of the time, these "bad" things have turned out to be the best thing that could have happened.

[AMCrenshaw]

Love is an emotion, and therefore can't be pointed to. It's a feeling. It's a concept.


Except that one can point to the causes of love, the effects of love. Love, as an emotion, can have a fairly strict definition, and can be observed when those definitions are given. But experiencing the wholeness of love (if such a thing exists) is obviously hard or impossible to communicate: our communication relies so much on difference that communicating wholeness is generally a silent statement.

When "experiencing the presence of a god" I suppose it's difficult for me to understand what that means, entirely. Is it a serene benevolent feeling of being in the world? Of having a deep communication with "something"? Of feeling safe or secure? Purposeful? From what I understand, these experiences give way to names for the phenomenon of "deeply-spiritual" experience. It's my opinion that we shouldn't take such names so seriously. For they differ. I know that they do.

AMC



When talking about faith, I pretty much only attribute things to God that I specifically prayed for and were completely out of my hands...and still, I usually don't mention them unless they were also highly unlikely.


Or how unlikely you perceived the events. It's true, isn't it, that we aren't always aware of all the causes of a specific event? And even when unlikely events do happen, isn't it our 'ego' that gives those events heightened personal significance? (I prayed, I asked. And was given.)

[Monkey]

When you say religious context, do you mean within religious texts, or answers, say, to your religious experiences?

A little of both, I guess, depending on the question in question. :D Mostly, though, my religious questions were born of my own experiences.

Actually, that's precisely what I say (or very nearly). Bad things have happened to me and I believe those are also in God's plan for my life. Most of the time, these "bad" things have turned out to be the best thing that could have happened.

Funnily enough, I tend to do the same thing. I was really envisioning the athletes frequently seen on TV after a game or competition. I've never seen one of them say their loss was due to God. I should have worded it more specifically. :)

[Monkey]

Except that one can point to the causes of love, the effects of love.

Perhaps you can't easily point to the causes of God, but most believers can point to the effects.

The difference is, if I say, "This is an effect of a loving god", you'll come up with a different reason why it could have happened.

If I say, "This is an effect of love", you may accept that it is. But someone who had never experienced love, and therefore didn't believe in it, would be likely to argue that it wasn't some nebulous "love" at all, but instead a drive to preserve the species, or instinct, or a social construct, or whatever. They would have a different reason, another explanation, for what was going on.

And they might be right. A mother nursing her newborn child IS acting on instinct, IS working to preserve the species. But to those of us who have been there, there is also that nebulous feeling, love.

When "experiencing the presence of a god" I suppose it's difficult for me to understand what that means, entirely. Is it a serene benevolent feeling of being in the world? Of having a deep communication with "something"? Of feeling safe or secure? Purposeful? From what I understand, these experiences give way to names for the phenomenon of "deeply-spiritual" experience. It's my opinion that we shouldn't take such names so seriously. For they differ. I know that they do. And love doesn't?

My kids have a Sesame Street video with a song about loving different people different ways.

(This is from memory, a song to baby bear about his new little sister):
"I love her because she's helpless and small
I love you because your helpful and tall
Helpless and small love, helpful and tall love, we all love all of our days--different people, different ways.

"I love her, because she's sugar and spice.
I love you, because you're awfully nice.
Sugar and spice love, awfully nice love, we all love all of our days--different people, different ways."

And Papa bear isn't even going into how he loves Mama bear in a much different way than his children. :D

Ok, so I know that Sesame Street doesn't really prove anything about God. My point is that even my two and four-year-old are ready for the concept that we love different people in different ways, and that love is expressed differently in different relationships. Sesame Street is reinforcing something that they already intuit or have witnessed, putting it into a context they can understand.

So yes, that "God presence" feeling can be different for different people, but no more so than love. Yes, it can be explained away, but no more so than love.

[Higgins]

When "experiencing the presence of a god" I suppose it's difficult for me to understand what that means, entirely.



Perhaps it would be more helpful to consider the "experience" as an encounter with something numinous.
At least "we" have no category for beings that generate numinousity (though such things as nymphs and dryads could go under the same heading as major dieties in ye olde Latin under the term "numi" -- not to be confused with:

numi http://www.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsup.gif (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numi#)http://www.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsdown.gif (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numi#)A young, attractive Asian female who appears to be of Japanese descent. Short for numi umi (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numi%20umi).
Brian: When I was in San Francisco, I saw the hottest numi I've ever seen.
David: Yeah, San Fran is full of numies.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numi

[Guffy]

Of course. Perfect understanding of anything in particular is quite unlikely. I'd ask of you, since you are honest and willing to this point, to try to explain why your spiritual ...advances, for a lack of a better word, are weighed against what's in the Bible. To you, does God refer to an ultimate reality, an ultimate ethics, or an ultimate justice? Why God and not the universe? At this point, I am asking, given that you have exhibited a sense of rationality (almost in your own words), what retains the faith? Is it the "coincidence" of God's way with what you experience? What separates the fiction or mythology of "God's way" from the way the universe operates from a somewhat objective (i.e., repeatable, verifiable) or scientific way? All this to ask, does the reason, the evidence, etc. really add up to the existence of an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, anthropomorhpic entity? Let us both be clear that I don't mean that in a negative way. What evidence for "God" is there for you to be faithful that couldn't be comprehended without "God"-- why not elements of the universe? Why is God (as described, by your own description) something other than the universe? Why is the "mythical" God nothing other than anthropocentric perception of the universe? Why, besides bias, is the Bible the authority on these matters?

Again, although I am trying to challenge you, I'm not trying to debate you. You've been kind to answer my questions. I really do hope you continue, Guffy.


AMC


sorry I'm still working a few post back. I'll try to catch up but this is an answer to the question quoted. sorry it's long

I think I may have been misunderstood; it happens to me often, I’m afraid. Let me try again. I don’t think eternity is God or that it defines God, I think it is an attribute of God that we share. And to me it is illogical that we should have this attribute. Nothing in our finite universe explains this in us. I don’t buy the argument that believing in an afterlife is just a survival instinct left over from our first steps as humans or that it came about as way to help us live in groups or tribes. I do have a bias of believing in God and I am able to look at a tree or a little child and see the hand of God working within them. But I’m not the only one with a bias; it is just as much of an assumption to think that our belief in eternity came from evolution as it is to think it came from God. But this is only a first step, it is an understanding that there is something going on within us that is not explained by what we can see and measure. As an example, scientists say that there is something in our universe called dark energy and dark matter. We can’t see it or measure it but we see its affects. One day we may be able to understand what it is but now we can only speculate. So, to my way of thinking the fact that we believe in eternity says that there is something about us that is not of this universe.

To this point I’m only talking about the fact that as a species we believe in eternity. I’m not calling it God or saying that it proves that there is a God. I’m saying that this causes me to look for an explanation for it. And like looking for dark matter we must be able to expand our search beyond what we can see and measure right now.

As for the tangible, those things we can see; as I have said before I have a biased world view and there are things that I see happening in the universe that I attribute to God, the creation and the workings of his plans for me in this world as examples, but I know that with a different world view I would have a completely different explanation. I’m not trying to find God in the workings of the universe; I don’t try to find God’s hand in everything that happens around me or to me. If I want to find God in the blooming of a flower, I’ll find him there but if I look for something else I’ll find that too. I don’t think God micromanages my life but I do believe he works in my life. I see him there but I don’t think that constitutes evidence of him. There are too many other explanations. If that’s the way God worked then everything I wanted I should get. I would never get sick and nothing bad would happen to me. But for some reason God chose not to reveal himself in this way. So this is not a good place to look.

The first 20 yr. of my life I was indifferent to religion. The Christian world view dominated my life as it did almost everyone raised in the US in the 60’s but I didn’t give it much thought until someone told me to examine the bible, that collection of myths and letters that has been translated and copied and meticulously examined for 1500 yrs. At first I was pretty unimpressed but there was something about it that didn’t make sense to me. I’m not all that well read but I’ve done a bit of study and IMO the bible stories are very different than other historical documents. I don’t really think the bible is a historical document but there is history in it. Take the story of Noah, many cultures all over the world have a flood story but to my knowledge none of them include the hero of the story getting drunk and cursing his son for it. And all this without an ethical voice, there is no judgment of the story. This happens throughout the bible with other heroes. Yet it is just a collection of stories handed down through the millennia with one plot, one story line, one consistent theme. No other religious document or book that I have examined holds up to the kind of scrutiny that the bible has, both by me and many others. I don’t believe that there are many ways to God or that God is in a grain of sand or that we are all God. This is not to say that I think I know it all or you must conform to my way of thinking to please God. That would be like trying to replace God, or stand in his place.

I am not trying to proselytize anyone here, this is not the place, and I don’t think the bible alone is the vehicle by which people are converted anyway, but for me it was a beginning. In me it was the beginning of a transformation of heart and mind, emotion and reason. (reason must go first, emotion is easily duped) It is in this transformation of people, me and others, that provide the bases for my faith.

Now comes the part that I like to call getting out of the boat. (Matt. 14:22) The transformation that I speak of is constant with what the bible calls for, but it hard to quantify, hard to measure, and it can have other causes. The bane of science, too many variables. Especial 2000 yrs removed from the first cause.
But it is the most reasonable explanation for the place that I find myself in.

Long winded again, sorry I tried to be brief but it’s hard. I’m sure that this just generates more questions without really answering any, but remember I’m talking about the faith that is in me and not trying to pass this off to anyone else. I’m also not trying to pass judgment on anyone for their beliefs, but I have made a choice and that is a judgment for me.

Again I’m not proselytizing, just trying to answer AMC’s questions, which I thought were asked very graciously and in good faith. I hope that I have been gracious in my answer and that I have not offended anyone. My views are not consistent with any denomination or branch of Christianity that I am aware of and they are still subject to change, and I would be happy to continue discussing them. There is a lot to get into on this subject and we need to try to be specific about what we’re talking about or we could get even more rambling than I have been in this answer. Maybe we could start a new post with another question

(the font change was unintentional, I don't know why or how it happened)

[Guffy]

Except that one can point to the causes of love, the effects of love. Love, as an emotion, can have a fairly strict definition, and can be observed when those definitions are given. But experiencing the wholeness of love (if such a thing exists) is obviously hard or impossible to communicate: our communication relies so much on difference that communicating wholeness is generally a silent statement.

When "experiencing the presence of a god" I suppose it's difficult for me to understand what that means, entirely. Is it a serene benevolent feeling of being in the world? Of having a deep communication with "something"? Of feeling safe or secure? Purposeful? From what I understand, these experiences give way to names for the phenomenon of "deeply-spiritual" experience. It's my opinion that we shouldn't take such names so seriously. For they differ. I know that they do.

AMC





Or how unlikely you perceived the events. It's true, isn't it, that we aren't always aware of all the causes of a specific event? And even when unlikely events do happen, isn't it our 'ego' that gives those events heightened personal significance? (I prayed, I asked. And was given.)


In the Christian bible there three kinds of love attributed to God and man. The main from of love is not necessarily an emotion it is an action, the action of doing what is best, as you perceive it, for the object of your love. it is possible to love your neighbor as yourself without emotion.

[AMCrenshaw]

Perhaps it would be more helpful to consider the "experience" as an encounter with something numinous.

I think it is more helpful. At the same time, I've never considered those encounters with the numinous to be entirely alien, either, often times the opposite. One thing about my experiences with the numinous is that it is both alien and yet I feel I "belong" (??) in it, that I wasn't resisting something.


To this point I’m only talking about the fact that as a species we believe in eternity

Of course. But we should remember that eternity is a 'measurement' or a 'degree' of time, whose value is infinite. We imagine measurable things to their endless extremes. The hottest temperature, immovable objects, unstoppable forces, thing that know everything knowable (and more!). When I wrote that eternity had been set in our minds, I meant that sincerely. Its vastness should be contemplated; I believe that wholly. The pain of eternity is that 'we' are not eternal. Though I wonder about that, too. At any rate, we don't yet know whether or not eternity exists (others could handle the science better than I), but I imagine it's being debated and studied right now.

No other religious document or book that I have examined holds up to the kind of scrutiny that the bible has, both by me and many others.

I suppose it depends on what kind of scrutiny, doesn't it? Theological scrutiny? If one compares the "god" they see working in the universe to the one they see in the Bible, who can say which has influenced the other? Historical or scientific scrutiny? Can we say that the Bible is a factually accurate representation of either history or science (or maybe history of science) as we know it now?

I don’t believe that there are many ways to God or that God is in a grain of sand or that we are all God.

There is a book you might enjoy: One River, Many Wells (http://www.amazon.com/One-River-Many-Wells-Matthew/dp/1585423262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236968251&sr=8-1).

Even in my more pantheistic moods, I still see us more like a web or chain suit of constantly changing, intermingling particles. :)

It is in this transformation of people, me and others, that provide the bases for my faith.

For me, this is consistent with a lot of literature, and I do hold in high regard the poetic merit of "transformation". Christ tells his followers what to expect if they follow him: "Foxes have holes, birds of the air have nests, the son of man has no place to rest his head..." And I think it's when we have "nothing" that we find we have all we need. When we have nothing, barely our own selves, we come to understand who we are. When we stop seeking to be loved, we love and are truly capable of loving.

Not sure any of it's true, but it's interesting, and could all exist without a personal God--- at least from where I stand.

Again, Guffy, thank you for answering my questions. You've been quite kind to reply.

AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

In the Christian bible there three kinds of love attributed to God and man. The main from of love is not necessarily an emotion it is an action, the action of doing what is best, as you perceive it, for the object of your love. it is possible to love your neighbor as yourself without emotion.

Well, OK, and here if love is an action, it is even more easily observed and weighed against existing definitions...


And love doesn't?

As Guffy said there are different forms of love that form between people, animals, etc. They are different definitions because there are obvious (or even subtle) differences in their causes and effects; we tie them up under a blanket term for a few key similarities. Again, romantic love is different than caring for a child, different than going to the cross, different than that of family or friend, etc. But again, these are quite definable and more importantly describable.

God, as a thing of faith, is hard to describe without some suspension of disbelief.

AMC

[Guffy]

Of course. But we should remember that eternity is a 'measurement' or a 'degree' of time, whose value is infinite. We imagine measurable things to their endless extremes. The hottest temperature, immovable objects, unstoppable forces, thing that know everything knowable (and more!). When I wrote that eternity had been set in our minds, I meant that sincerely. Its vastness should be contemplated; I believe that wholly. The pain of eternity is that 'we' are not eternal. Though I wonder about that, too. At any rate, we don't yet know whether or not eternity exists (others could handle the science better than I), but I imagine it's being debated and studied right now.

I don't look at eternity as a measurement but as a lack of measurement. True we try to make sense of it by saying things like "infinity times infinity" but that doesn't really mena anything. Or the song Amazing Grace where it says "when we've been there 10,000 yrs, we've only just begun" which is still an attempt to quantify what has no quantity. I don't understand eternity but I know it's part of me and my understanding of the me and my place in the universe.

I suppose it depends on what kind of scrutiny, doesn't it? Theological scrutiny? If one compares the "god" they see working in the universe to the one they see in the Bible, who can say which has influenced the other? Historical or scientific scrutiny? Can we say that the Bible is a factually accurate representation of either history or science (or maybe history of science) as we know it now?

The bible is not a history book or a science book but there are some very interesting tidbits of both in it. Perhaps examining that would make a fun new post. I know that some people would not like this but I would.

Thanks for the suggestion on Matthew Fox's book, I looked at some of his ideas a few years back but never read the book. Then I forgot about it completely. I'll take a look.

[deathwizard]

We all walk our own paths of faith or lack of faith, belief or lack of belief, proof or lack of proof, etc.

This is all part of being a human being in a big, wide, diverse world that is swarming with billions of us.

The real problems occur when we attempt to coerce others with our faith, when we claim that our own beliefs are the only correct ones, when we claim to have proof where there really is no proof at all.

I'm not saying this thread has been this way at all. Quite the opposite. I'm just stating yet another opinion.

[Ruv Draba]

The real problems occur when we attempt to coerce others with our faith, when we claim that our own beliefs are the only correct ones, when we claim to have proof where there really is no proof at all.Beliefs alone tend not to coerce people. It's the prescriptions and proscriptions and taboos that come with belief that cause the ructions. It sometimes seems to me that myth is used to justify the taboos just as much as the taboos are used to honour the myth.

In addition to whatever they mean personally, taboos carry political power, y'see. If I can get people outside my tribe to adopt the customs of my tribe, my tribe gains influence. So the more I can propagate my sacred places, my sacred artefacts, my sacred customs, my sacred language, and get people to behave differently around them, the more I can standardise and conform the lives of others to my own way of living.

[MarkR]

The real problems occur when we attempt to coerce others with our faith, when we claim that our own beliefs are the only correct ones, when we claim to have proof where there really is no proof at all.

Nobody likes to feel coerced. On the other hand, this "coercion" may result from what many feel is core aspect of their faith.

What one considers "proof" is based on one's epistemology.

-------------------

First traveler says, "You are heading down a dangerous path. Beyond the next curve is a group of robbers who will surely rob you and may kill you."

Second traveler says, "I will not be coerced by your belief."

-------------------

A Christian evangelical leader once said, "This generation of believers is responsible for this generation of souls."

Ezekiel 3:17-21 says, "Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman for Israel. Whenever you receive a message from me, pass it on to the people immediately. If I warn the wicked, saying, `You are under the penalty of death,' but you fail to deliver the warning, they will die in their sins. And I will hold you responsible, demanding your blood for theirs. If you warn them and they keep on sinning and refuse to repent, they will die in their sins. But you will have saved your life because you did what you were told to do. If good people turn bad and don't listen to my warning, they will die. If you did not warn them of the consequences, then they will die in their sins. Their previous good deeds won't help them, and I will hold you responsible, demanding your blood for theirs. But if you warn them and they repent, they will live, and you will have saved your own life, too."

[Ruv Draba]

First traveler says, "You are heading down a dangerous path. Beyond the next curve is a group of robbers who will surely rob you and may kill you."

Second traveler says, "I will not be coerced by your belief."I don't see warning as coercion. I don't even think that spam is coercive (though it can be vexatious, presumptious and discourteous). When you can ignore the direction, it's not coercion.

I would say that coercion is when we shape community laws according to the mythology of our tribe, or punish others for transgressing our own taboos, or so insulate our children from the thought of other tribes that they cannot actually function in the pluralistic world to which they were born, or try to force the children of other tribes to be educated according to our custom.

[Roger J Carlson]

I would say that coercion is when we shape community laws according to the mythology of our tribe, or punish others for transgressing our own taboos, or so insulate our children from the thought of other tribes that they cannot actually function in the pluralistic world to which they were born, or try to force the children of other tribes to be educated according to our custom.So if the mythology of our tribe calls for protecting natural resources and not polluting the environment, we should not try to educate other tribes about conservation? If the mythology of our tribe believes the universe was created in a Big Bang, then we should not insulate our children from the theory that the universe was created 4000 years ago by a deity? If our taboos say that girls should not be killed at birth because we wanted a son, we should not punish others that do just that?

[benbradley]

I was going to say something about spam, but I think that would veer too far off topic.

But this post (and other recent posts) also goes off topic about the existence or not of a higher power, but perhaps it's still within the spirit of the forum, if not quite the thread:
So if the mythology of our tribe calls for protecting natural resources and not polluting the environment, we should not try to educate other tribes about conservation? If the mythology of our tribe believes the universe was created in a Big Bang, then we should not insulate our children from the theory that the universe was created 4000 years ago by a deity? If our taboos say that girls should not be killed at birth because we wanted a son, we should not punish others that do just that?
You (and other more recent posts) bring up a question I've wrestled with: Where does "education" cross the line into attempts at proselytization or coercion?

It has everything to do with the different beliefs of the two parties (or groups or societies) and each one's expectations of the other. One need only think of a flame-generating religious and/or political keyword to see examples of this.

[deathwizard]

So if the mythology of our tribe calls for protecting natural resources and not polluting the environment, we should not try to educate other tribes about conservation? If the mythology of our tribe believes the universe was created in a Big Bang, then we should not insulate our children from the theory that the universe was created 4000 years ago by a deity? If our taboos say that girls should not be killed at birth because we wanted a son, we should not punish others that do just that?

IMO, faith in a supernatural god is not the same as protecting natural resources or not polluting. Nor is believing the universe was created 4,000 years ago by a deity the same as believing in the Big Bang. So I don't agree with this reasoning. And no one of good conscience, spiritual or otherwise, believes in killing girls at birth.

[StephanieFox]

***Sigh***

[Ziljon]

Imagine if there were absolute proof of the existence of God.

There would be no CONFLICT!

And we all know a truly great story needs CONFLICT.:tongue

[benbradley]

It's never too late for ....

:popcorn:

[Ruv Draba]

So if the mythology of our tribe calls for protecting natural resources and not polluting the environment, we should not try to educate other tribes about conservation?Firstly, not all environmental lore is mythology. Some is objectively verifiable knowledge -- else our weather predictions, crop forecasts, fishing forecasts and animal epidemiology would be extremely unreliable. But let's agree that some environmental lore is myth -- by which I mean, received wisdom that we don't much question. We can offer other tribes education and information about whatever lore we have -- be it myth or objective knowledge. If it's useful they'll probably want to use it. But if we want them to use it and they don't then we can either let them live as they want or take over their resource-management. But the latter approach has a special name, and it's called war. Resource management is an essential feature of tribal sovreignty, and tribes will fight over it. But more than that, history tells us that we don't fight to conserve resources for other cultures; we fight to control them for ourselves. So let's never kid ourselves that we're being humanitarian when we war over resources.
If the mythology of our tribe believes the universe was created in a Big Bang, then we should not insulate our children from the theory that the universe was created 4000 years ago by a deity?Here we agree -- lore about the origin of the universe is all at best speculative. If we don't question that lore then it's myth; if we question it then it's conjecture. Since any story could be true in part (or perhaps none of them are), I reckon that the smart and humane thing to do is to learn a spectrum of thought on the matter -- and not just the thought, but how it originated.

If our taboos say that girls should not be killed at birth because we wanted a son, we should not punish others that do just that?Our culture has a strong taboo against harming infants. You can tell that it's a taboo and not simply a law because of how outraged people get about even the idea of harming an infant.

Perhaps that outrage can lead us to overlook some basic facts: it's a rare mother that doesn't love her baby; a rare father who isn't proud and protective of his progeny. In some parts of the world, malnourished mothers must choose to feed one infant and not another just so that one can survive. In others, they kill infants just because wealth is tied to gender, or skin-colour, or paternity or all manner of things. Infanticide causes grief all over the world, even in places where it's common.

We also know that when adults live in safety, with sufficient food and can plan their families, infanticide virtually disappears; when they can't, even the harshest laws don't stop it. European cultures in their own development had as notable a history of infanticide as we can see in Africa or Asia today. So yes, I think that the better thing to do is not to punish cultures with high levels of infanticide, but to help them deal with the root causes: malnutrition, poor security, poor medicine.

[Roger J Carlson]

IMO, faith in a supernatural god is not the same as protecting natural resources or not polluting. Nor is believing the universe was created 4,000 years ago by a deity the same as believing in the Big Bang. So I don't agree with this reasoning. And no one of good conscience, spiritual or otherwise, believes in killing girls at birth.No two things are ever the same. However, it was not my intention to equate any of these things. I was simply responding to Ruv's suggestion that no tribe should assert its beliefs, its mythology, on another.

Our tribe is increasingly aware that resources are not unlimited and we should conserve. Other tribes (say indigenous people of the rain forest) do not have that mythology. They *know* that in order to survive, they need to clear the forest in order to farm -- to survive. Who's mythology is correct? Should we, out of respect for their mythology, refrain from trying to educate them?

Big Bang vs. Creationism: Again, Ruv's comment was that we should not insulate our children from other tribal mythologies. And yet, there is a great movement to insulate children from learning Creationism. Now, I'm not advocating teaching Creationism in our schools. That's not my point here. I'm just point out where a rationalistic mythology does indeed try to insulate children from other thought.

How do you know people who practice infanticide are not of good conscience? In this society, perhaps. In our rich society, it is unconscionable. However, in poor societies, where the survival of the family is tied to the gender of the child, perhaps it is not. Perhaps it is a necessary evil.

But let's step back to a somewhat less egregious example. There are societies that practice female circumcision. Their mythology believes they are doing this for the ultimate good of the child, to protect her from sinful urges. Western mythology finds this abhorrent. Should we or should we not punish those who practice it?

And another. A certain country for years practiced it's mythology of separating the races -- apartheid. Our mythology found that abhorrent, yet many people, business, and countries from out tribe punished South Africa until it gave it up. Was that wrong?

You may say, "but ours is not mythology, it's science". No one wants to believe their belief system is mythology. But the very idea that things in the universe are verifiable and knowable is itself mythology. The tribal witch doctor who lets blood to drive out spirits *knows* it works. It has been verified by himself and his mentor. A needle with clear liquid, is not. Who's mythology is verified?

My point was to question Ruv's assertion (as I understood it) that no tribe should push its values on another, that we should all learn from one another. But I question whether he meant this to apply to rationalistic thought as well.

[Roger J Carlson]

Firstly, not all environmental lore is mythology. Some is objectively verifiable knowledge -- else our weather predictions, crop forecasts, fishing forecasts and animal epidemiology would be extremely unreliable. As I said in another post, the very idea that the universe is verifiable, that every effect has a discernible cause that we can discover in time, is the mythology of Western culture. Other tribes know just as certainly that we cannot.

I'll give you this, you've followed your own reasoning to include Western thought. However, I wonder if you can really follow it to its logical conclusion.

Tribalism is not limited to nationalities. There are many tribal mythologies present in US culture, in fact, in most countries. Are you willing to say that we should teach Creationism in our schools? That it is wrong to stop people polluting the environment who don't share our belief in limited natural resources? Are you willing to let people of other tribal beliefs here in this country practice infanticide, female circumcision, or pedophilia?

The idea that we can all learn from each other is noble, but at some point, and for somethings, we need to stand and say, "this is right and that is wrong." I don't believe that is necessarily "coercion", nor is it necessarily bad.

[James81]

Are you willing to say that we should teach Creationism in our schools?


I find it odd that you included this in the list with those other things.

I absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, believe we should teach creationism in schools.

Not as a science, but it definately should be taught somewhere. It IS, after all, one of the leading "sides" on the origin of the universe. Whether right, wrong, or indifferent, it definately deserves a slot in our education.

[Roger J Carlson]

I find it odd that you included this in the list with those other things.
I included that only because I thought there was a high probablility it would be a proposition with which a Rationalist would disagree. Its only purpose was to examine the idea of isolating thoughts anathema to our own mythology.

I don't want this thread to veer off into a debate of Creationism. Perhaps its own thread...

[Ruv Draba]

Tribalism is not limited to nationalities. There are many tribal mythologies present in US culture, in fact, in most countries. Are you willing to say that we should teach Creationism in our schools?Yes -- tribal boundaries aren't just geographic.

I think that it is very, very important that our education include an understanding of contemporary human beliefs and their history -- including scientific and mystical beliefs.

I included that only because I thought there was a high probablility it would be a proposition with which a Rationalist would disagree.
Well, not this rationalist. If rationality is to be useful then it ought to be about helping us think better. How can that occur if we apply arbitrary rules on what people are allowed to discuss?

The remainder of your questions are about the domestic governance of a state (as opposed to your early questions about relations between states). They pertain to the division between 'live and let live liberalism', and the necessities of having a state to govern in the first place. You're also asking (e.g. through the questions of environment, pedophilia and female circumcision) whether I think that a state should have any taboos at all, or just some sort of rationalist laws.

Let me go from the general to the specific then, using your conclusion as a launching point.

The idea that we can all learn from each other is noble, but at some point, and for somethings, we need to stand and say, "this is right and that is wrong." I don't believe that is necessarily "coercion", nor is it necessarily bad.I'm in half agreement with you here Roger, but coming from a slightly different direction.

The half I'm in agreement about is that we can't have a state without some foundation of morality. We need some collective notion of what is good, what is bad and what we owe one another. Without that we don't have citizenship; we just have contracts of convenience and cynical, calculated breaches based on self-interest (which is in fact the sort of attitude many of our corporates have at the moment).

I also think that we don't need taboos to shape or cement our morality -- taboos appear anyway, but as a rationalist I see them as rust on the mind, callus over compassion. Ceremonially they're attractive because they make things seem sacred. But they're also pretty atavistic because they say in essence 'You must hate what I hate, fear what I fear or you're not of my tribe'. I don't like the idea of a tribe bound by common hate and fear. I think that there are better ways to frame tribal identity and nationhood, though I'm not saying that they're easy.

In all viable human societies I think that certain propositions emerge as moral givens over time, notably among which are:

All people matter;
All have obligation to the weak;
All have obligation to the young; and
All have obligation to the place in which they live.The details vary, but those propositions appear in every great religion, and every viable social order. There is evidence that our prehistoric ancestors felt the truth of these propositions every bit as strongly as we do. They define our humanity.

So when you ask about environment, pedophilia or circumcision (and here I thought it odd that you confined it just to female circumcision), I'd reply: in managing the morality of your nation, ask first how your customs connect to our core human values, given the knowledge of your tribes.

If we consider it in those terms, we'd probably agree that we know a lot more about environment than we used to, and so our tribe's environmental responsibilities have increased over time. We know much more about the effects of early sexual experiences on pubescents and prebuescents and so the customs of our ancestors can no longer be our own customs (though we needn't get into a froth of taboo about it), and we know what circumcision does to sexual identity and perhaps it's time to review whether we inflict it on children or allow adults to make that decision instead. From such considerations you can set national policy, which translates into laws, customs and education. In any new policy there are winners and losers, but if you keep reaching toward universal human dignity then I think at least you're headed in the right direction.

But those things are discussable within states and between tribes, Roger. We have plenty of material evidence to feed those discussions, and I think that we have a lot of common ground to base those discussions on. What impedes those discussions isn't custom or ideology; it's taboo.

The price of membership in a fair pluralistic society (be it a pluralistic state, or an international forum) I think is this: we can keep our customs and laws but must be willing to constantly justify them in the face of emerging independent evidence; and we must shed our taboos before we can discuss anything sensibly with any other tribe.

For me the issue of humane society doesn't reduce to liberalism vs conservatism; I think that taboo-bound liberalism (e.g. the PC movement) can be far more constrictive and inhumane than conservatism that is not bound by its taboos, say (e.g. fundamentalism that's nevertheless open to frank discussion). For me, the measure of compassion is not about what you believe, but how much what you believe supports some basic tenets of human dignity, and how much you don't fortify it with taboos.

Hope that this helps.

[Roger J Carlson]

Since you obviously include you're own beliefs in your original statement, I can't find anything to disagree with.

ETA: re: female circumcision: perhaps female genital mutilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting)would be a better term as it is generally not analagous to male circumcision.

[Ruv Draba]

re: female circumcision: perhaps female genital mutilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting)would be a better term as it is generally not analagous to male circumcision.I believe that male circumcision also meets any reasonable definition of mutilation. Though I'm aware that the physical effects are not as profound, there are physical, social and psychological effects from the act.

Taboos are strange things. If a parent branded a child with a hot iron it would breach our 'don't harm children' taboo. But disfiguring their genitals only counts as taboo when it's inconsistent with our mythology. How on earth does the Western world hope to negotiate credibly on child rights in this respect until it tends to its own house?

[Roger J Carlson]

I believe that male circumcision also meets any reasonable definition of mutilation. Though I'm aware that the physical effects are not as profound, there are physical, social and psychological effects from the act.

Taboos are strange things. If a parent branded a child with a hot iron for any reason it would breach our 'don't harm children' taboo. But disfiguring their genitals doesn't.Well, I won't pursue this as it is REALLY off topic. ;)

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Might as well start at the beginning, right?

Do you believe in a god? Which god do you believe in and why?

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there?

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?


I believe in a higher power, yes.

I believe in a Goddess and God, who are not so interested in what I call them as they are in how I honor them. I believe they go by many names, each of which is valid depending upon the person using those names.

If there are proofs of my higher powers' existence, I don't know of those proofs. I just know that in my own heart they're there. I have never even considered not believing in some form of God or Goddess or both at any time in my life. But that's just my own heart, and not Science. :Shrug: Maybe someday there will be proof of a higher power, but I don't really think that will happen in my lifetime.

To the final question, I think it's possible to prove the existence of a god, but I don't think we humans necessarily have the tools required to make that a reality, at least not yet.

[Little Earthquake]

I believe in God, but I can't prove his/her existence. She/he has proven him/herself to ME, however!

I thought the whole point of FAITH is that there is no proof. We can only believe...

[semilargeintestine]

I believe in G-d. My proof is the three million Israelites who witnessed the Revelation at Sinai where He proclaimed the Ten Commandments for the entire Nation of Israel to hear, thereby transforming them into Jews. My personal proof is a series of experiences I had while in Israel.

I am a scientific person, and I don't think that goes against my religion. In fact, I have heard lectures as well as done research on my own that shows that many scientific theories can be found in the Torah (relativity, evolution, big bang just to name a few). I made a post (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3515257&highlight=theory+relativity#post3515257) about it in OP. I am currently doing research for a paper I plan on publishing regarding the size of the universe and the Torah.

[AngelRoseDarke]

Do you believe in a god? Which god do you believe in and why?

Do you think there are any proofs to his existence, and if so can you lay them out there?

Is it POSSIBLE to prove the existence of a god?

I believe in several gods. My religion (Paganism) follows multiple deities. I believe in them because that is what my soul tells me is right.

I don't know that there is any hard evidence to prove or disprove the existence of any god. There are many personal accounts, and I believe that is the key to any religion. It's about having faith in something you can't see or touch. It's a feeling that fills your soul.

[STKlingaman]

believing in a god
and having faith, are two different things.
There is only one God to believe in -
- Your God, your belief in God is yours.
My belief is mine, could be similar or different.
So keep God between just the two of you.
I believe God = creation & unconditional love.
You may believe something else, if I'm right
the sun, the moon, the grass the air you breath
are creations of God - so there's proof.?.?
And unconditional Love is in a child or pet's
Love.

God is for each of us to ponder is their
own way, for themselves.
Church is just a country club for religion, which
has little to do with God.
But you may believe something else,
yes you may, and what you believe is
Your God.

[Jerry Cornelius]

Depends what you mean by god.

A specific god, e.g. the Thomist one, interferring in our affairs so forth? No, we can pretty much rule him out altogether.

A pantheistic god? Sure, I could get behind an argument like that. But I try not to get all anthropomorphic about the universe.

A god as a memtic or lingustic entity living in our culture? Absolutely. This is where it gets really interesting to me.

[Roger J Carlson]

Depends what you mean by god.

A specific god, e.g. the Thomist one, interferring in our affairs so forth? No, we can pretty much rule him out altogether.Perhaps you can, but I don't think it's fair to say we can.

[Jerry Cornelius]

No, we can, because Aquinas' god is not consistent with physics, nor biology, and the rational arguments have been defeated.

I suppose we could still accept it by arguing from ignorance, so maybe I am being unfair.

[MacAllister]

Jerry,

Don't post in here again, until you've read this thread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133312), this thread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133033), and the Newbie Guide (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66315).

And don't you ever use such a rhetorically dishonest device anywhere on this board again. That smug, pseudo-voice-of-authority crap doesn't fly here. Believe whatever you want, I don't care -- but don't you EVER presume to speak for anyone but your very own self in this room.

Just don't.

[MacAllister]

Jerry won't be participating in this room. He's clearly unable to parse the differences between discussing calmly and respectfully, and sneering at other people's personal beliefs.

[scarletpeaches]

Jerry won't be participating in this room. He's clearly unable to parse the differences between discussing calmly and respectfully, and sneering at other people's personal beliefs.

That's your higher power right there, folks. :D

[christa]

Excellent thread! The energy here is palpable.

Look how something like a lilt has developed here; passionate response stimulating the desire to open communications about our personal beliefs. Maybe this is where peace begins.

"One must have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing star. Ah, and you still have chaos...." --F. Neitsche

Christa

www.christakolster.com (http://www.christakolster.com)

[AceTachyon]

(I may be out of line with this. Let me know if I am and I will delete the post. Honestly, I am curious at the answer.)

Do you believe in a god?
Must there be a belief in God/god/gods/a god?

[Bartholomew]

(I may be out of line with this. Let me know if I am and I will delete the post. Honestly, I am curious at the answer.)


Must there be a belief in God/god/gods/a god?

Nope. And if it exists, I doubt an atheist would ever be the wiser. If it doesn't, then the atheist's instincts will have proven correct. Yay!

[AceTachyon]

Nope. And if it exists, I doubt an atheist would ever be the wiser. If it doesn't, then the atheist's instincts will have proven correct. Yay!
And we go back to "it exists/it doesn't exist."

By asking "do you believe in a god?" doesn't that presuppose that there is a god to believe in/not believe in? Then based on the response, one is a believer or non-believer?

So I ask. why is belief in a god/supreme power/being/hairy thunderer necessary?

There are those who think inside the box. And those who think outside the box.

Why must there be a box in the first place?

[ColoradoMom]

I find it odd that you included this in the list with those other things.

I absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, believe we should teach creationism in schools.

Not as a science, but it definately should be taught somewhere. It IS, after all, one of the leading "sides" on the origin of the universe. Whether right, wrong, or indifferent, it definately deserves a slot in our education.

Side note - I agree for the simple fact that there is a creation myth for every culture.

I do believe in "a god" or perhaps many, several...that is unclear and I do not need to know that info to know that there is a purpose to my life. I do not believe in religion, probably because I refuse to conform and I am selfish, nonetheless, I do not believe in religion.

I have only anecdotal proof that no one would be interested in.

On the other side of the spectrum - I am a scientist yet I do not believe we have the science of the Big Bang right. In fact I find the whole thing simplistic and absurd. But I am not a physicist or an astronomer so what do I know.

[Ruv Draba]

Must there be a belief in God/god/gods/a god?Historically, there is nothing material that humans do with the assistance of piety that we can't also do without piety. We can love, be compassionate, be inspired, sacrifice, enjoy fellowship with one another, live moral and ethically accountable lives and work toward good beyond ourselves -- and do so abundantly -- without needing to believe in the supernatural.

With that said, I think that some humans find it intolerable to imagine that their birth is accidental, their life ephemeral and not always purposeful, and their suffering unacknowledged. Others find it intolerable that their injustices aren't somehow redressed. Yet others need an unseen moral authority to justify,defend or inspire the lives they'd like to live.

For such people, a deity is a comfort and perhaps a necessity. It's often more useful if others believe the same things too.