Question 21
Question: What is the number one thing wrong with organized religion? –Agnöstic
Answer: My major issue, and they’re many little issues, is that religion deprives an individual of his/her ability to think independently. So many people on this planet subscribe to a religion, which is basically a set of beliefs. Most of these "believers" didn’t come in to these beliefs by their own choice. These beliefs were passed to them from their parents much like a virus. Furthermore, many don’t understand why they believe them in the first place; they just do because they were raised that way. Ask a Christian or a Muslim why they don’t like homosexuals and the answers are amusing. Rarely do they offer an attempt at a logical answer. Instead they spew out blind hatred and religious scripture. They aren’t thinking for themselves.
And did you ever notice how many Christians dislike the teachings of Islam and vice versa? Of course they won’t admit that openly but you can see it on their face when the topic of Islam comes up. What I find amusing is that these people would have been Muslims if they were born to Muslim parents. This of course goes for Muslims too. They could just as easily have been Christians.
To summarize, the number one thing wrong with religion is that it keeps people from asking, "why" and "how". They accept things and their beliefs blindly and wholly.
gasmonso
November 17th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
I think the fact that a most people treat religion as “a set of beliefs” is precisely the problem.
But the problem isn’t confined to religion, of course. Science is taught as a set of propositions, too, rather than the process of discovery that it actually is.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
But at the heart of science is the scientific method, which encourages empirical experimentation rather than just taking things at face value.
As all things “taught” in science to students are based on rigorously tested hypotheses which have been shaped by the scientific method, they carry more weight than the simple “the book says so” argument.
They aren’t so much a set of beliefs than a pool of observations supported time and time again by non-partial observations.
In saying that however, any scientist worth his weight should understand that nothing can be proven, only disproven, therefore they should always be questioning. It may be convenient for a time to subscribe to a “scientific belief”, but at any moment they should be ready to adapt to new information.
November 18th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
For the record, I agree with you. What I’m specifically concerned about is the argument that you hear sometimes that “science is just faith, too”. If you understand the word “faith” etymologically, there’s some truth in that, but that’s not what most people understand by it.
Some religious people seem to think there’s a cosmic flowchart. You start at the top, and you follow the arrows through the decision boxes. “Do you believe X?” “What’s your position on Y?” “Have you ever Z?” At the end, you end up in either heaven or hell. “You just have to take it on faith.”
Teaching science as a set of propositions leads to the same trap. Science isn’t like the cosmic flowchart. It’s a process by which we discover things about the world.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:36 am
but it IS like a flowchart. The routes and boxes are just a little blurry, as we’re mostly just using the best guess of how things work.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
“To summarize, the number one thing wrong with religion is that it keeps people from asking, “why” and “how”. They accept things and their beliefs blindly and wholly.”
Nope. People who don’t ask those questions wouldn’t ask them whether or not they were religious. See this is the kind of intellectual arrogance that I find quite often in ahteism. Its’ equally as bad as the moral arrogance that exists among religious folk.
November 20th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
“See this is the kind of intellectual arrogance that I find quite often in ahteism. Its’ equally as bad as the moral arrogance that exists among religious folk.”
Call it what you will, but there’s really no cute way to say “You’re probably wrong, you refuse to think for yourself, and you’re destroying the world”
November 21st, 2006 at 9:44 am
Except that I know plenty of religious folks that do think for themselves and are environmentally concious. I think that you’re mistaking the fringe for the mainstream. Now if the question were “What is the number one thing wrong with evangelical Christianty?” I could see your point. The idea that religious=stupid/destructive is bigoted and small minded.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:17 am
It really doesn’t matter how liberal you are with your beliefs. The second you start applying mythology to the real world, no matter how harmless the application may seem, you are doing the world a disservice.
I never made any generalizations about religious people… just their actions, intelligent people can do stupid things.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:23 am
And before you mention it, they do refuse to think for themselves to a degree by buying into a religion. No one looks at all religions and the real world, in a completely unbiased manner, and comes to the logical conclusion that Christians have it right. There’s a ton of reasons for people to want to believe in Christianity, none of which are the pursuit of truth.
BTW, not thinking for yourself == stupid, but the person doing it may be intelligent.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:32 pm
“No one looks at all religions and the real world, in a completely unbiased manner, and comes to the logical conclusion that Christians have it right.”
The only reason you say that (that I cna think of) is your personal opinion of the religion. Since you are biased against Christianity, that is the conclusion you come to.
“I never made any generalizations about religious people…”
G did.
“just their actions”
so you made generalizations about actions that religious people take, but not about the people themselves? That makes little sense.
Speaking as a religious person I have accepted the beliefs of my religion neither blindly nor wholly.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:48 pm
“The only reason you say that (that I cna think of) is your personal opinion of the religion. Since you are biased against Christianity, that is the conclusion you come to.”
Actually I have a bias against all religions. Everyone has a bias, it is irrelevant.
If you put all your wants an needs aside, and just look at the universe, the evidence, etc… and you haven’t been brainwashed as a child, then what possible reason could you have to believe in christianity? Do you actually believe christian mythology to be valid? Will you at least admit that it’s origins are AT LEAST as likely a complete product of man?
“so you made generalizations about actions that religious people take, but not about the people themselves? That makes little sense.”
No, it makes perfect sense. How do you define being religious? Believing in a religion. I basically said all religious people believe in a religion, it’s a definition, not a generalization. True there is a big scale of religious freakishness, but if you’re religious at all, it is never zero. What I mean by that is, if you believe in something without proof, you are doing something wrong, if by doing nothing more than impeding the search for the truth. Of course, with most people, it isn’t so innocent.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“hey do refuse to think for themselves to a degree by buying into a religion. No one looks at all religions and the real world, in a completely unbiased manner, and comes to the logical conclusion that Christians have it right. There’s a ton of reasons for people to want to believe in Christianity, none of which are the pursuit of truth.
BTW, not thinking for yourself == stupid, but the person doing it may be intelligent.”
I think you are generalizing. I know for a fact that you can’t say ALL christians believe in christianity because they don’t think for themeselves and none of them pursue truth. i think you are confusing objective truth with subjective truth. The question is if Christianity, starting from the bible, christ, and god is true, not whether what some people make it out to be is true.
You are definately generalizing and making all christians out to be the same thing. I will admit that some certainly do “buy” into it without really thinking about but that does not logically make christianity wrong or mean everybody does that.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
He’s not generalizing, ALL Christians beleive in SOMETHING. And as we know, beleive in anything other than yourself or humanity as a whole, is for retards, and freaks. :D
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:01 am
“What I mean by that is, if you believe in something without proof, you are doing something wrong,”
Do you believe in abiogenesis? There’s no proof for it. Now we both believe in it, and we may even believe the same thing, but there’s no proof like you demand of Christianity.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:05 am
“If you put all your wants an needs aside, and just look at the universe, the evidence, etc… and you haven’t been brainwashed as a child, then what possible reason could you have to believe in christianity? Do you actually believe christian mythology to be valid? Will you at least admit that it’s origins are AT LEAST as likely a complete product of man?”
I don’t believe in a literal six day creation and I don’t believe in a global flood so there are parts of Christian mythology I have problems with. But I look at the things that the Bible has to say about the Universe and its grandeur. I look at the things that the Bible says about human nature. Those things line up pretty well.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:52 am
Human nature I’m willing to conceed on, but not the Universe and its grandure. If we go by the biblical accounts of the cosmology, the earth is a flat square, with a few mountains tall enough to let you see every kingdom on it. It is supported by pillars, has a dome over it in the sky, and in this dome there is a window that, if opened, lets the waters in.
Stars? Just things hung on the dome on moving tracks or immovable points. I personally like the Douglas Adams exposition on cosmology and the size of space. Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:57 am
I wouldn’t concede human nature. Some things they got right, “be excellent to each other” etc… Oh wait that’s Bill and Tedism. Well they’re all the same anyways. Anyone can figure out that you should be nice, and do unto others and the like.
Of course, even if christianity got a few things in the natural world right (among the ever-growing list of things they got wrong), why believe in a supernatural god because of it?
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 pm
“If we go by the biblical accounts of the cosmology, the earth is a flat square, with a few mountains tall enough to let you see every kingdom on it. It is supported by pillars, has a dome over it in the sky, and in this dome there is a window that, if opened, lets the waters in.”
Yea the only thing i have to say to this is i think you have been looking at metaphors too literally and the bible was written for the “normal” person and was not supposed to be a science textbook with modern scientific terms. It was written thousands of years ago. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science.
“He’s not generalizing, ALL Christians beleive in SOMETHING. And as we know, beleive in anything other than yourself or humanity as a whole, is for retards, and freaks.”
Like that will get you far. Hopelessness in a box. you live like 70-90 years, could be a lot less, then forgotten. It is a really sad reality. Think of all the people that have died early in wars because of “humanity”.
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:02 am
“i think you have been looking at metaphors too literally”
So where do you draw the line? What parts of the bible should be taken literally and what should be taken as a metaphor?
“Nothing in the Bible contradicts science.”
That statement made me laugh for a good 5 minutes, thanks J.
November 23rd, 2006 at 4:30 am
This is just me being silly, but perhaps you’d care to point out a specific passage or two that is in direct conflict with science.
Now I am fully aware of the popular interpretations, but I challenge you to provide conclusive proof of the Bible itself literally and unquestionably being in conflict with current scientific conclusions.
I feel I should point out yet again that I am agnostic.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:04 am
“i think you have been looking at metaphors too literallyâ€
Where do you draw the line, indeed? Can’t I just as easily say this about the whole concept of christianity. If people took the idea of god and an afterlife as just a metaphor, and only took a few good parts (be nice, turn cheek, etc) then I would have absolutely no problem with christianity. Of course, no one takes it this way.
Why take the things we’ve already proven wrong as metaphors and everything else as literal fact?
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Arktis Says:
November 23rd, 2006 at 4:30 am
“This is just me being silly, but perhaps you’d care to point out a specific passage or two that is in direct conflict with science.”
How bout that we are god’s “only” children; or the stupid notion that we are the ONLY inhabited planet in the universe? Ooo, or how about that we MAGICALLY fucking survived the first few thousand years on earth? Couldn’t have anything to do with primate-driven instincts and evolution, could it?
Bottom Line: Science has more answers to more questions; both spiritual and physical. When I die, I’ll be comforted by the knowledge that I actually did something with my life. Unlike the hords of fearful, repressed sheeple who are too busy worrying about when it’s going to be over.
November 23rd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Your father says and matt,
One can easily tell what are metaphors and what is literal. Metaphors pretty much only occur in Old Testament books like Psalms when the author says phrases like “this is what ___ is like….” It is easily distinguishable as metaphorical and any good reader/historian/linguist can tell what i what. There are different kinds of books in the bible. Some are historical, for example, and some are more poetic.
November 23rd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Shaze,
what are you talking about. How is “God’s chosen possiblity” at all scientific or illogical. Where does the bible say that earth is the only inhabital planet. Even if it did, there is no scientific evidence that biological life exists on other plants. Seriously, do a little research. i have no idea what are you talking about with the magically surviving thing, could you clarify that a little more?
The thing i think you are missing is that science and christianity are not opposites. there have been and are christian scientists that do all the scientific things but believe that God is the answer to the philosophical cosmological problem. You are making science like some sort of god that can solve all man’s problems. I, as a christian, believe it is a tool for further expanded discovery and can help fix some of the problems that happened as a result of the Fall.
November 23rd, 2006 at 2:55 pm
J, thanks for giving us the definition of a metaphor. By the way who made the decision which books are historical and which are “poetic”?
November 23rd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
J
I haven’t read that trashy man-made novel you call “The Bible” in years, so it’s difficult for me to cite any sources.
But do you beleive in Math? I mean, how much of your world can you accuratly define with logic and numbers? Even if you only accept the basics, the sheer VOLUME and EFFORT put into defining our existance within SPACE ALONE (like how many planets, distance etc), more than proves the existance of life elsewhere. In fact, the results are so vast, that the mere thought that BILLIONS of SOLAR SYSTEMS would NOT contain life IDENTICAL to us, is laughable.
That being said, Science and Religion are total opposites. Science doesn’t require beleif for people to understand it. Science CAN solve ALL of man’s problems, both spiritual and physical. I beleive, as a skeptical and open minded person, that people like you are tools for impotent, power-hungry politicians and preachers.
Science replaced Religion a LONG LONG time ago buddy.
November 23rd, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Besides, look where you’re posting. Everyone here beleives in Science in one way or the other, so it’s up to YOU, to show US why you’re right and we’re wrong. (Not the other way around, cause I personally don’t care what people like you think; I only care what people like you do, cause you’re fucking it up for the rest of us)
November 23rd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Shaze, you never actually answered my question. You just took one part of my post out of context and responded to that. Also, I think you’re a bit overly aggressive…
Nobody is doubting the scientific method’s merits. That would be retarded.
November 23rd, 2006 at 6:56 pm
“”i think you are confusing objective truth with subjective truth.”"
WTF is subjective thruth? Here we call that OPINION. The only thruth there is is always objective.
“”The thing I think you are missing is that science and christianity are not opposites.”"
Not in theory no, but once religion starts claiming things like creationism, (no lets not go into it) and global flood, which are just plain untrue, then it does clash. Science has nothing to do with “thou shalt not kill” but it has everything to do with the literal meaning of “let there be light.”
“”You are making science like some sort of god that can solve all man’s problems. I, as a christian, believe it is a tool for further expanded discovery and can help fix some of the problems that happened as a result of the Fall.”"
and you’re using God as some sort of god that can solve your problem, point is, science works. It’s an unmistakeable fact that, given enough time, anything not strictly outruled by the Laws of Physics, can be done with the help of Science. (capitalised for effect, not divinity)
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:03 pm
However bluntly put, I have to agree with Shaze on the fact that Religion does nothing to improve humanity as a whole. Religion is merely a way to hide from the hard, cold, cruel ‘objective’ thruth.
If you don’t want to recognise the Thruth that you are going to die, that “you” are merely the chemical process in your brain which will stop after death. The Thruth that you will have to deal with your own problems and cannot always ask someone to help. The undeniable Thruth that you will have to live with what you’ve done, and cannot ask forgives of someone who is not involved. You’ll have to live with the fact that you’re going to have to look after yourself, because you are alone, there is noone looking over your shoulder to see if everything is going alright.
If you can’t deal with it, go into denia…erm I mean religion. Invent any excuse for yourself you like to cover up the fact that you are hiding from reality, but realise that ignoring reality or the Thruth does not make it go away.
Religion attributes nothing to society or humanity as a whole. In fact i’d have to say that the greatest thing us back IS organised religion.
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Matt,
The nature of who wrote them and how they were written decides. It is obvious that psalms is “poetic” because the author says so and luke is historical because the author says so
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Shaze,
Then don’t make random claims without being able to back it up, that is just foolish.
Shaze, i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am not denying “science” in any way. It’s not like someone can not use both. I don’t think you really have any idea what you’re talking about. That whole thing about the vastness of the universe proving life elsewhere is absolutely ridiculous. If you hold science to that kind of inferential evidence then you cannot hold christianity to any higher standard. If i used the same reasoning you used then i could come to the same conclusion about proving God. Who even said that there wasn’t life elsewhere anyway? im not saying that and im not sure what you are getting at.
Seriously, as i said before, i am not saying science can’t figure out things. But when you have a closed-minded view like yourself about the universe then it is only science that can answer questions. You are doing the exact same thing you say these “religious” people are doing.
Alcari,
Again, you are assuming a naturalistic viewpoint and are assuming the point of debate with it. Creationism in itself is not a logical impossiblity, nor is the flood and there are good reasons to believe both.
Exacly, science can not solve all man’s problems as Shaze wants it to. It cannot answer moral problems.
I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make with the last paragraph in 31. No one is saying science doesn’t “work”.
(post 30)
Touching speech. So do you disbelieve in religious becuase you think it doesn’t help anyone? That wouldn’t make much sense. Are you saying Christianity in its purest form based on the bible hurts humanity?
November 24th, 2006 at 2:51 am
“”and luke is historical because the author says so”"
Wow, please go back and reread that sentence. I just wrote this book about a guy who can jump 50 feet into the air turn water into beer. It’s historical because I say so.
Please go think of a better argument.
“”Creationism in itself is not a logical impossiblity, nor is the flood and there are good reasons to believe both.”"
No they’re not, unfortunatly there is no proof for any either. We say in science that something without proof supporting it is untrue.
“”Exacly, science can not solve all man’s problems as Shaze wants it to. It cannot answer moral problems.”"
True, however it does not claim to. Christianity however, does claim to answer scientific problem and that’s the whole problem here. If i were to publish a book, that said the universe was sneezed out during the Great Green Arklesiesure, because that is what is written in [obscure book] I’d get ridiculed and publically humiliated. However asuming the universe to be created by God is completely normal?????
please explain?
“Touching speech”
Thank you.
“” So do you disbelieve in religious becuase you think it doesn’t help anyone? That wouldn’t make much sense. Are you saying Christianity in its purest form based on the bible hurts humanity?”"
No, I disbelieve the religious because it is absurd.
I’m not saying it hurts humanity, It’s more like one man seeing another burning and not doing anything it. He’s not hurting him, but it’s not working either.
I would like to ask you the question that I ask all serious religious people here. “Why is your religion right and are all the other thousands wrong?”
November 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
First of all, we weren’t discussing the validity of the historical information (though we can if you would like) we were talking about whether something is metaphorically written or not.
both belief in the existence of God and disbelief in the existence of God can be rational provided both appeal to evidence and make claims that are meaningful. Evidence
isn’t always obviously “conclusive.†Sometimes a piece of evidence will “point†in a certain direction without itself necessitating a particular conclusion. So to say that belief in God is rational just means (a) it’s based on evidence that points to the possible existence of God, or the probability of God’s existing, and (b) that belief in God does not contradict any known rule of logic or any other proposition known to be true.
Proof is not always conclusive. God (if he exists) hasn’t chosen to overwhelm us with evidence of himself. he leaves us room. Its truth is self-evident and a part of all our experience. Obviously there is no universally overwhelmingly indisputably conclusive evidence that God exists. You don’t dispute this. And neither do I. We are in fact NOT overwhelmed with indisputably conclusive proof of God’s existence. So you cannot expect me to give conclusive proof that God exists because i cannot. It’s same way with evolution. There is no indisputable, conclusive proof it is true, but everybody assumes it is.
Is all evidence supporting science, direct evidence?
NASA has taken pictures of Mars and announced that water once flowed there.
But they don’t have pictures of water flowing on Mars.
Why do they think it once did?
Cosmologists use particle accelerators to search for elementary particles.
They’ve announced they’ve discovered quarks, photons, etc. but they haven’tactually seen these particles. How do they know they exist? Not all science deals in direct evidence, but only in circumstantial evidence and inference. Another example, they think that some stars have planets not because they can detect the planets directly, visually or otherwise, but because the way the star behaves something else seems to be having an effect on it.
They infer that this something else is a planet orbiting that star. Again, inferential evidence. Some science isn’t even based on inferential evidence, only elegant mathematical theories that haven’t been verified by experiment, string theory, for example.
Why, given that much of science is only supported by circumstantial evidence, inference and elegant, yet unproven theories, would you hold religion to a higher standard of proof?
I agree there’s no direct evidence of a god yet many people believe in a god due to circumstantial evidence and inference.
I would say that Christianity is more truth than other religions because of the stronger it claims it makes that can be backed up historically. The bible makes sense of the human condition that i don’t think other “holy books” do. And of all religions (including atheism/naturalism etc. i believe they are religions in their own way), one of them must be true.
November 24th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
J
The bible is not a historical document.
All EVIDENCE goes to support LOGIC, there is no need for evidence to support something we can’t define.
People who beleive in circumstantial evidence for longer than a year, with change, are certifiable crazy. Like UFO victims or GE food crops; the rest of us aren’t telling you it didn’t happen, just that we don’t beleive in things that will never be proved.
Faith doesn’t need Evidence, it requires only willing, gullible people to exist. And you my friend, fit that bill perfectly.
I’m not “arguing” with you; I am simply telling you how it is. You are wrong, and the whole world is laughing at your stupid, emotionally charged and gullible ass.
November 24th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
J
Also, you’re a moron. Stop reading what you want to see and understand that Science isn’t just assuming shit, they actually know from thousands of years of progress.
There is no middle ground between Science and Religion, there is only room for one.
November 24th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Shaze,
What are you even talking about? I don’t think you even know. Seriously, its like your saying, “i believe religion is wrong and i dont like it so therefore it is untrue” At least try to put some effort and thought into your responses. Seriously, you didn’t even back up your answers with anything. Im not just talking about any religion based on blind faith here like you assume i am.
November 25th, 2006 at 3:37 am
thank you shaze. unfortunately the whole world is not laughing. the “whole” world is on board with the religious nuts. i think we need to go back to the soviet model of religious freedom.
November 25th, 2006 at 3:51 am
J
You’re right; I hear you talking out of your ass regarding Science, and I simply tune out any logical response. I will not debate semantics with you over a forum, but I would love to do so in person. Consider only that I oppose your definitions of Theory, Proof and Evidence; when being applied to farcical subjects like religion.
I mean, come on you just can’t pick both; one supports reason and the other supports repression. It’s people like you who think they can come along and use Science to give proof of God to the millions of on-the-fence bible-nazi’s out there. Ooo, look at us, we need proof that we’re not all complete gullible morons.
Hit me up on Skype if you have it, account name theshaze. I’d love to “discuss” your views on why you think I’m misunderstanding you.
November 25th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Shaze,
only you say i can’t pick both. I hate the word religion and what it has come to mean. And i also hate what people have turned christianity in to. You’re right, there are bible-nazis and people who use religion to oppress, but they misunderstand their own “faith” and probably are not true christians. i think you are not understanding that the reason we “need proof” per se, is that it is YOU and other atheists who are asking for it.
isn’t a forum for debating?
November 25th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
J
Ahh the fun began for me today when you agreed with my troll. The mere fact that you seek proof, or acknowledge the fact that THAT is what seems to be the trend here; makes you no better than anyone else besmirching your chosen answer of Christianity. It also means your faith is weak, and not only in your choices, but yourself as well. I think the smartest Religious people I’ve met have all agreed on one thing, Faith doesn’t need evidence. I mean, that’s the whole purpose of “believing” in something, right; in that it’ll never be true? The moment it becomes true or proven, people will no longer need to have faith in it, because it will be real; like most Science.
On top of that, i imagine you got wind of this whole “middle ground” theory-shit from a religious school/university, no? Education in the majority of the world, is a business, a scam. The 80% drop out rate, and the sheer amount of money and fear being generated from those places is hard to imagine. (Fear of competition and self worth) The worst part is, is that it’s left you seeking answers to questions that should have no relevance to Religious people.
Everyone is looking for something, brother; something to bring their hearts and minds peace. And if you’re still looking for confirmation from Science, maybe Jesus wasn’t the right answer for you after all.
November 25th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Shaze,
You are right, my mistake. What i meant was that we seek evidence because you ask for it. I still don’t think you’re understanding the distinction between evidence and conclusive proof. Faith doesn’t have to be a blind leap but can and should be based on reason/evidence, then we know it can be true. If its not based on some kind of evidence (cosmological, historical, ethical, scientific, logic) then nothing separates it from any other faith. If you are 99 percent sure that something is true then the other 1 percent is called faith.
Actually i got this “middle ground” (not sure what you mean by this, carify) from personal study with some help. I believe Christian people should be involved in every major area of society and influencing it.
you’re right, everybody is looking for something, isn’t this some small evidence that God does exist?
November 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
No.
It’s some small evidence that you sir, along with thousands more, are weak and full of fear.
Fear that you might be wrong; fear that you may be mistaken, and fearful of life most of all. I beleive in people doing things for themselves and others, not for some hidden Agenda.
“Faith doesn’t have to be a blind leap but can and should be based on reason/evidence” I’d like you to go talk to your pastor/reverend about our talk, and mention this sentance explicitly please. Maybe he/she can show you a happier existance, free of doubt and fear? I mean, I think the idea of your beleif is to remove those feelings from your heart.
And remember, you said it best: “If its not based on some kind of evidence (cosmological, historical, ethical, scientific, logic) then nothing separates it from any other faith”
Exactly :)
November 25th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Shaze,
Weak? Full of fear? hidden Agenda? where are you getting these things from? My friend, i fear you have been disillusioned by humanistic naturalism. You’re still not logically making any sense. you’re attacking the wrong things. Since you are so adamently against all non-naturalistic beliefs but havn’t told why, i am asking you to make your case for atheism.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
“You’re right, there are bible-nazis and people who use religion to oppress, but they misunderstand their own “faith†and probably are not true christians.”
I would surmise those you call with names are as certain of their own views as you are. Who is the one who misunderstood that message, you, they, Pope, Mohammed, Jainists, etc, etc?
That is one of the reason I am not big fan of any religion, they are only as true as ‘you’ believe them to be and the mileage does vary greatly even between the people frequenting the same church.
Faith in itself is a good thing but as the slogan says, “Have Faith in Yourself”
November 25th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
“That is one of the reason I am not big fan of any religion, they are only as true as ‘you’ believe them to be and the mileage does vary greatly even between the people frequenting the same church.
Faith in itself is a good thing but as the slogan says, “Have Faith in Yourself†”
I would actually completely agree with this statement. This is what I have been trying to say. That is why one must have a basis for ones belief besides their own reason. Those people I mention do not (1) Understand the Bible, (2) apply it, or (3) choose to think a different way.
November 26th, 2006 at 3:34 am
If its not based on some kind of evidence (cosmological, historical, ethical, scientific, logic) then nothing separates it from any other faith.
The Bible is no more truthful and meaningful than an L Ron Hubbard novel.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Shaze,
we don’t know the bible is true just because it says it is, but we know it is true from those kinds of evidence up there about God and the historical christ and resurrection, and again, i wanted to hear your case for atheism.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:04 am
“”Faith doesn’t have to be a blind leap but can and should be based on reason/evidence, then we know it can be true.”"
So how exactly is your religion based on evidence and logic? I understand how one deduced the excitance of bosons and other non-baryonic particles, but how and from what evidence does one deduce the existance of god?
“”If its not based on some kind of evidence (cosmological, historical, ethical, scientific, logic) then nothing separates it from any other faith. If you are 99 percent sure that something is true then the other 1 percent is called faith.”"
the 99% need not be true though. I might know for sure there’s a pink elephant behind me, even have Faith it is there, but that does not make it true. I would need empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning to deduce if there actually is something there. With God that is imposible by it’s very nature.
So please please stop comparing religion to science, they truly are opposite.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I am not comparing them entirely. I am just saying there are areas of science, such as evolution, big bang theories, string theory, etc. that are based on unconclusive evidence. A theistic argument is based on unconclusive evidence. But you have to do this with any kind of theory based on something that happened that long ago. I am saying we can reasonably be sure that a god exists from logical deduction, more so than any other theory like string theory, expanding universe theory causing the big bang, etc.
As i said above, don’t think there are any “concrete proofs” for or against God’s existence, not in the sense of an absolutely indisputable objective proof. But I do think that both believeing and disbelieving in God can be rational moves in the sense that such moves appeal to evidences (if even inconclusive evidence). God (if he exists) hasn’t chosen to overwhelm us with evidence of himself. He leaves us room. In the end it’s a question of weighing the evidence and choosing, not passively conceding the obvious. On the other hand, the universe and rationality (assuming God doesn’t exist) do not in themselves overwhelm us with evidence for the non-existence of God either. You still weigh evidence and choose.
I’m sorry, but your pink elephant argument is not analogous to the debate between theists and atheists/agnostics. It’s universally acknowledged (because it’s the universal experience of human beings interacting with a world of elephants)and demonstrably the case that pink elephants do not exist. But the non-existence of God is not universally and demonstrably the case. There is no universally acknowledged experience of the non-existence of God that’s analogous to humanity’s universal experience of elehants being pink. There is nothing in human experience that by definition or by way of analogy to your example is incompatible with the notion of God’s existing. I can show you how God is a logical possibily and even a probablility but can you show me that God cannot logically exist?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
“I am not comparing them entirely. I am just saying there are areas of science, such as evolution, big bang theories, string theory, etc.”
You really shouldn’t compare evolution to the big bang theory and string theory. Evolution is a sound science with tons of hard evidence, whereas the big bang is a reasonable concise theory without any hard evidence, and string theory isn’t even a completely sound theory. String theory is more of a step in (possibly) the right direction.
…and for the last time… Even if ALL the evidence for evolution was proven wrong somehow, which I sincerely doubt would ever happen, since it just keeps piling up, it says absolutely nothing about the validity of religious claims.
“I am saying we can reasonably be sure that a god exists from logical deduction, more so than any other theory like string theory, expanding universe theory causing the big bang, etc.”
What logical deduction? Seriously, I’m curious. BTW, It would be best not to mention complexity, because those arguments are so wrong it hurts.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
also… when I say what logical deduction, I mean what logical deduction that leads you to believe in your god specifically, and not a (intelligent or otherwise) creator being/process in general.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
I still don’t think you’re getting what i am saying. the evidence for evolution is not conclusive. i am just going to point out the obvious and mention the lack of transitional fossils. evolution is based on some inferential evidence as well. I’m not sure how it possible to say the big bang is a sound concise theory with no hard evidence and say that the argument for a being like God is not. Explain.
i’m not saying evolution says anything about “religious” claims except that it is based on unconclusive evidence.
i would be rather pointless to go into the logical deductions for my god specifically unless you admitted that there is the the possibility for a intelligent creator/process.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
“”’m not sure how it possible to say the big bang is a sound concise theory with no hard evidence and say that the argument for a being like God is not. Explain.”"
There is no hard evidense for the bigbang in that there is noone who saw it, there’s no picture of it etc. There are one the facts that the universe is expanding, and has been for billions of years, the fact that the universe had to come into being at one point and several others which I won’t go into.
From these we infer that, if the universe has been expanding from a ’short’ time after it’s creation and that it is unlikely (not impossible, but about as likely as you being hit by a meteor before newyear) that the universe came into being as a small patch of matter, instead of an infinitly small point, the universe was created by a bigbang.
“”I am saying we can reasonably be sure that a god exists from logical deduction, more so than any other theory like string theory, expanding universe theory causing the big bang, etc.”"
“”it would be rather pointless to go into the logical deductions for my god specifically unless you admitted that there is the the possibility for a intelligent creator/process.”"
huh? if it’s a logical proces, why do I first need to aknowledge you’re right? I’ve never said that there could not be a god, I just say that there is no need for one in the universe, and that there is no way to prove his existance (or disprove for that matter.) However, if you know how to logically prove God, I would love to hear it.
ps. Expanding universe ‘theory’ is a fact that can be observed through a telescope.
pps. look what i dug up in my archive
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
November 28th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
before you answer, please read these
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
November 28th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
right, it seems my whole post didn’t make it here, luckily i make a habit of copying my stuff:
“”’m not sure how it possible to say the big bang is a sound concise theory with no hard evidence and say that the argument for a being like God is not. Explain.”"
There is no hard evidense for the bigbang in that there is noone who saw it, there’s no picture of it etc. There are one the facts that the universe is expanding, and has been for billions of years, the fact that the universe had to come into being at one point and several others which I won’t go into.
From these we infer that, if the universe has been expanding from a ’short’ time after it’s creation and that it is unlikely (not impossible, but about as likely as you being hit by a meteor before newyear) that the universe came into being as a small patch of matter, instead of an infinitly small point, the universe was created by a bigbang.
“”I am saying we can reasonably be sure that a god exists from logical deduction, more so than any other theory like string theory, expanding universe theory causing the big bang, etc.”"
“”it would be rather pointless to go into the logical deductions for my god specifically unless you admitted that there is the the possibility for a intelligent creator/process.”"
huh? if it’s a logical proces, why do I first need to aknowledge you’re right? I’ve never said that there could not be a god, I just say that there is no need for one in the universe, and that there is no way to prove his existance (or disprove for that matter.) However, if you know how to logically prove God, I would love to hear it.
ps. Expanding universe ‘theory’ is a fact that can be observed through a telescope.
pps. look what i dug up in my archive
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
November 28th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
He’s just a stupid kid with a good vocabulary and no real idea about anything. It’s extremely easy to twist in the wind and counter questions for questions without answering anything, as I was demostarting with him earlier.
J: Everyone here “get’s” what you’re saying, we’re just telling you you’re wrong. About everything.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
*Demon-strating. Stupid brain.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Shaze,
thanks for the productive comments. Now, I am asking you, again, to state your case for atheism.
Alcari,
All that is nice, but the real question is what started the big bang.
“if the universe has been expanding from a ’short’ time after it’s creation”
I would lobby that that the most probable cause of the big bang would be God. What would you say caused the big bang?
You misunderstand. Your Father Says asked me to give the logical deductions for “My God” and not a general process. But it would be pointless to give the deductions for “My God” if you do not accept the possbility of a general god. My arguments for God would apply to both categorize.
As i’ve said, one cannot conclusively prove God, but must weigh the evidence and decide. So i will give my argument for God’s existence and you will give your argument for his non-existence keeping in mind we are talking about evidence and logical possiblity, not conclusive proof. fair?
November 28th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
J, I agree that Atheism is impossible to prove simple because proving something doesn’t exist is damn near impossible. However, simply saying that God exists because we can’t comprehend what started the Big Bang is a stretch. One could just say… Who created God?
That leaves us at a standstill. The only thing we can do is study our surroundings and learn. Will we know the answers in our lifetime? Probably not, but just because we don’t know, doesn’t make the case for God.
In order to make the case for God, you have to show that he exists somehow. Can you believe in God? Of course you can, but you can also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, and Gnomes… but that doesn’t mean they exist.
Seriously, do you really have PROOF that God exists? If you did, you’d be rich. Conversely, if someone had definitive proof that God did exist… they’d be rich.
gasmonso
November 28th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
“As i’ve said, one cannot conclusively prove God, but must weigh the evidence and decide.”
Your exactly right, it’s just that we looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion. Seriously, im not sure how much progress is going to be made, because no matter what youll still think there’s a god. And your sure as hell not gonna convert anyone here.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
It’s not necessarily about “converting” people. It’s about discussing your intimate thought with respects to religion and constantly assessing your beliefs. Some may become more faithful and others might become more skeptic. Either way, it’s a good learning experience and that’s my goal with this site :)
gasmonso
November 28th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
J: Yeah; the Bad the Good and the Ugly. It should help you understand others around you, without expectation for change.
The best thing about my shitty relationships with Religious people, is that I get to understand WHY they choose different from me. You especially, should consider and learn about everyone’s opinion, I mean that’s why you’re here right?
November 29th, 2006 at 1:26 am
gasmonso,
Yes, it is a stretch to say that just because we don’t understand the Big Bang, God created it. But why is that answer any below a naturalistic answer? The thing you said about not knowing answers can be said about God. Just because one doesn’t understand everything about him or prove him doesn’t mean he logically cannot or does not exist.
No rational person believes in the tooth fairy etc. because it is obviously universally and demonstrably the case that she was made up by humans. But it is not universally and demonstrably the case that God does not exist. I know many rational, even some ingenious people, that do believe God exists based on logical evidence (not conclusive proof) and I am sure that you do as well.
I agree. It’s not about converting people here. I am certainly not here to convert anyone but I am here to see what other people in the culture are believe.
Shaze,
You have not given your opinion other than refuting my beliefs so there is no way you can expect me to learn about your opinion.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:28 am
** Just to clarify, i am sure you know people that rationally believe in God, not that you yourself do.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:11 am
You can’t rationally believe in God. You just can’t, sorry. There’s no way to rationally believe in what is essentially an untested hypothesis. I know people are gonna hate that and try to fight it, but it is the simple honest truth.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Arktis,
Untested hypothesis?? This isn’t a science lab. being reasonable just means agreeable to reason or derived from reason, and that is not limited to scientific testing. Logical deductions, philosophy, cosmological, all of these are included in reasoning for a God.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:39 am
“”All that is nice, but the real question is what started the big bang.”"
Well, I’m no quantum theorist and my string theory is sketchy at best, but it has to do with singularities being inherently unstable. Still, suffice to say, there is a good scientific theory on it.
“”i will give my argument for God’s existence and you will give your argument for his non-existence keeping in mind we are talking about evidence and logical possiblity, not conclusive proof. fair?”"
well, it’ll be impossible for me to hold up my end of the deal. I cannot argue that there is no god, merely how there is no need for God to be. Otherwise, I would still love to hear your reasoning.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am
“”No rational person believes in the tooth fairy etc. because it is obviously universally and demonstrably the case that she was made up by humans. But it is not universally and demonstrably the case that God does not exist.”"
Correct me if i’m wrong, but there’s little difference between god and the toothfairy. The way I see it, neither God or the toothfairy can be proven or disproven. Also, the fact that something is made up by humans does not make it inherently non-existant, so even if god/toothfairy was made up, he/she might still exist.
However, the universe has no need for either god or the toothfairy, unlike say, gravity, gluons, electromagnetism.
Explaining why there is no need for a toothfairy (it’s your parents) is a lot easier then explaining why there is no need for a god (evolution, big bang, continental drift etc. etc.)
November 29th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Hello everyone!
I’ve been crazy busy recently and there is no end in sight for at least another month. My posts will be uncharacteristically short and infrequent. My responses will to comments may be greatly delayed at best (I’m still interested in continuing our discussion, J), so bear with me.
“Well, I’m no quantum theorist and my string theory is sketchy at best, but it has to do with singularities being inherently unstable.â€
This explanation only begs the question. Where did the singularities come from? A better way to ask the question is “What explains why there is anything at all as opposed to nothing?†A Creator is a rational answer.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
J:
ra‧tion‧al
–adjective
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
rea‧son‧a‧ble
–adjective
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.
log‧ic
–noun
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Oh, my heavens (pun intended)! It does go back to logic and SCIENCE (or rather the scientific method, which is the basis of science itself and is also a prime example of critical thinking) after all!
Belief in God is illogical, irrational, and unscientific. Bottom line, end of story.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Arktis,
Give your reasoning for God being illogical, irrational, and illogical. Give your reasons why God is illogical. What i meant was naturalistic testing like you implied it to be. I didn’t mean that science cannot be used as in pertaining to any branch of knowledge systematically involved. You are only looking for stricly naturalistic proof, where there is no rule of logic against philosophical, cosmological, etc… evidence.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
If you can’t accept this, then I feel sorry for you. I will say it once again:
There is no proof or disproof in any way imaginable, be it naturalistic or philosophical or otherwise. There is absolutely no method available to test your God theory ON ANY LEVEL, and therefore to believe in it is irrational, illogical and unscientific.
The day that someone comes up with a test for this is the day that you can start to make the claim that one position or the other has a reasonable, logical basis, be it the belief or lack of belief (theist or atheist). Until that day, you (and the atheists) have nothing to stand on whatsoever on any level of rational thought when it comes to the issue of God. Period.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:19 am
You’re really being quite vague in what your definition of “testable” is. Define testable. do you mean in a stricltly naturalistic sense or in any way of logical deduction like philosophy or metaphysics?
November 30th, 2006 at 1:30 am
hi all, i’m new to the forum.
i think the problem with most God-fearing/religious/’spiritual’/blah blah blah people is that they can’t understand the need for answers and certainties that they have. why you realize that God is nothing but the magical answer to all your questions, you then begin to see how advantageous it would be to make up such a thing and believe in it. fuck, God provides comfort from that dizzy feeling you get when you contemplate your finiteness (unless you make your peace with it). humans have a lot of good reasons for fooling themselves into believing in God. that’s another reason why no such thing exists.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:33 am
and by the way on the big bang, there is definite battle-tested evidence supporting the standard big bang theory, with new and exciting things such as inflationary big bang theory also contending for title of ‘best explanation of big bang’. the big bang happened… it is a fact.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:33 am
I’m not being vague, you’re just being difficult. As I’ve said already, you can’t test it on any level.
Again, you just can’t test it IN ANY WAY. At all. Whatsoever. Can you come up with ANY KIND of test at all to prove or disprove it? No. No kind of test can do this. No test of any kind. For the last time, there is no test of any type that you can apply to prove or disprove God, in any area/field at all. Whatever you can come up with, there’s no test you can use in that area. Okay? Now you can’t say I am being vague.
If you’re actually serious and do really require a definition of what it means to test something for validity or invalidity, you’ve got problems that stem from having bad teachers, not paying attention in school, having a learning disability, or being unable to grasp such a simple concept. For your sake, I hope that isn’t the case and I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you’re just trying your hand at semantics in the hopes of getting me to define or redefine away the problem I have presented you with.
Fact is fact, however much you’d like to make it go away by attempting to wiggle out of the issue by redefining it.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:01 am
freigeist, welcome. Theories are great (as long as we understand that until they are proven or dissproven, that’s all that they are), and as far as the big bang goes, I am well aware of that theory and the supporting evidence, such as background radiation. Although I am more inclined to be supportive of possible explanations that fall within accepted and time-honored mathematic principles and physical laws and are not overly simplistic, the big bang theory is based in theoretical mathematics and is an attempt at describing conditions outside of what we know as the set of natural laws that govern the known universe.
Because of this, you cannot really offer it as a viable alternative to faith-based arguments. It falls within the same lines as string theory and M-theory; it’s elegant and wonderfully ingenious math, but still unproven.
It may interest you to know that a test for string theory is still being conducted to this very day, but the only way it will succeed is by getting one desired result that proves string theory. From what I understand, the odds of this result occurring even if string theory is correct are very very low indeed, which is why that particle collision test is still ongoing even after several years. It’s a pretty flawed test, because theoretically, it could go on until the end of time itself without any results, even if string theory is true. I would compare it to the SETI program, which has the same basic problem.
Cheers.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:09 am
hello and thanks for the welcome arktis,
i’m not sure if i would group something like the big bang theory with string/m-theory… afterall, the big bang theory makes testable predictions and has independent evidence corroborating it, like the accidental discovery of the background radiation, ratio of hydrogen to helium, the fact that the time aspect fits in with what we generally know to be true (it would be silly if the big bang required the universe to be only 1 billions years old, which of course it doesn’t). the extrapolated time fits nicely with the time needed for stars and galaxies to evolve and to take the shape they have today. in any event, i really don’t think this argument is about the validity of the big bang because to my knowledge there is no viably competing theory to consider (oh wait, God created everything). and just because no viable alternative exists doesn’t make the big bang right… but the big bang has more reasons to be taken as factual than just being the only explanation. of course there are details we cannot explain (and possibly may never explain), but that doesn’t mean the overall picture is wrong.
thanks to alcari for linking to the guardian article. just because there are ‘gaps in evolution’ or whatever doesn’t mean evolution is wrong, just that we are still understanding it. it is my belief that the consensus among the scientific community (and please correct me if i’m wrong), is that the big bang is as sure as evolution or gravity or relativity.
cheers
November 30th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Hello Arktis, freigeist, and J,
I would be careful about claiming that the only things that you believe are testable hypothesis. Both of science’s parents, religion and philosophy, dealt with non-testable ideas. In fact, we could not function if we didn’t take some things on faith. Here are some off the top of my head:
1. We can trust our senses to some degree. We cannot prove that our senses give us a relatively accurate representation of at least part of reality, yet we trust that they do every waking moment. The modern representation of this problem (traditionally called brain-in-a-vat) is the Matrix movie.
2. Every sentient being has an inner, subjective experience similar to my own. It is possible that every other person is a biological machine that has no subjective experience. We cannot test this.
3. Inductive reasoning is reliable. This is a big one. Most all accepted scientific theories are verified by tests that give consistent results. We use inductive reasoning to state that, given the same conditions, the same result will always occur. Yet we have no way of proving that they will always occur. David Hume wrote a lot about this subject.
4. The past is real. We assume yesterday actually occurred because we have a memory of it. Yet, it is possible that everything was created this morning with memories and evidence of aging. We cannot prove the past is real, yet we accept it on faith.
I take all four of the above as true on faith as do, I’d imagine, most people. Based on this, being testable is not a necessary condition for truth, though it is a sufficient condition. I would agree that the scientific method is the best tool we have a discovering truth but I disagree that it is the only way we have to discover truth.
What does this mean then, relative to the discussion that has been going on? It means that we can use rational (check definition 3 of logic, Arktis, it doesn’t have the word ’science’ anywhere in it) inference that does not rely on the testability of the hypothesis but when such a hypothesis is in conflict with a verified, scientific (testable) hypothesis, it should be rejected in favor of the scientific explanation. This leads me to reject many of the claims of religion. Also, I return to my earlier comment: “What explains why there is anything at all as opposed to nothing? A Creator is a rational answer.â€
November 30th, 2006 at 10:12 am
“why you realize that God is nothing but the magical answer to all your questions, you then begin to see how advantageous it would be to make up such a thing and believe in it.”
Belief in God has never answered all my questions.
“fuck, God provides comfort from that dizzy feeling you get when you contemplate your finiteness (unless you make your peace with it).”
Nope. Even as a Christian I believe that I am a finite being.
“humans have a lot of good reasons for fooling themselves into believing in God. that’s another reason why no such thing exists.”
God doesn’t exist because I have a lot of good reasons for inventing one? Might want to try that one again.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Sid, We have to work under the assumption that all of our senses aren’t being fed to us or are lieing to us, or any other matrix stuff. Simply because by that logic we could hypothesize anything at all, and we have no reason to go on for believing any of it… and the same goes for religion.
What would you say if someone said to you “I believe we live in the matrix.” I imagine you would ask why, and I also imagine they either wouldn’t have an answer or they would provide a bullshit answer, like “I feel like I’m in the matrix” or something.
Now imagine that that same person is basing decisions in his life on arbitrary rules he creates because he thinks he’s in the matrix (maybe he thinks the master machines will recycle his consciousness if he doesn’t waste energy on mondays or something). Imagine enough people believe this and laws begin reflecting it. Starting to sound familiar? and fucking crazy?
Of course this is possible… it’s just as possible as god(s), but it has absolutely no bearing on this life (and neither should a belief in god).
I know you were using it to prove a point about the scientific method, so I suppose I’m just saying this so that no one gets the wrong idea.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:33 am
“Belief in God has never answered all my questions.”
“Nope. Even as a Christian I believe that I am a finite being.”
“God doesn’t exist because I have a lot of good reasons for inventing one? Might want to try that one again.”
OK then, why exactly is it that you believe in god? What is it that you mutter in your head to convince yourself when you question its existence? I just don’t understand it.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Hello Your Father,
I believe you hit the nail on the head. There are definitely different levels of validity for belief based on faith and usually the more complicated, the less valid. Notice that religions are very complicated and based on faith. My point was that while all faith-based beliefs should be considered skeptically, the scientific method is not the only was to determine truth, just the best way we currently have. The four examples I gave are all things I (and most people) believe are true based on faith. They provide counter examples to the claim (which seems to be the claim made by Arktis) that we should only believe in things that are testable. Thanks, though for clarifying my statement.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Well thanks for the repeat of philosophy 101…
I think you focused on Descartes too much and totally missed out Kant. lol.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Aye, Descartes, Leibniz, Barkley, Spinoza, and Hume were my favorites. I always felt that Kant wrote a lot and said very little. For that reason, I never got into his work and my eyes tended to glaze over when his philosophy was discussed. But give me some credit. I did a hell of a lot more than take philosophy 101, including upper division course work, reading original texts, attending conferences, and exhaustively discussing philosophy here and many, many other places.
Also, the fact that the examples I used to counter the claim that science is the only path to truth are taught in basic philosophy speaks to their power. I used basic philosophical principles to demonstrate that there could be a rational basis for believing in a god of sorts. Leibniz’s version of the modal cosmological argument forms my rational basis. Oh, and “this ‘special’ book says so†is not a rational basis. Most religions are at least partially invalid for this reason.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
As for my senses… that’s another story. My senses do not lie; they report whatever is given them as raw data. My brain is what does the interpretation. So the truer thing to say is not that we cannot trust our senses, but that we simply have to make sure we’re interpreting them correctly given the available information that they provide. If all the relevant information is not available or we have incorrect beliefs impacting our judgement (religious dogma, for example), we will get an incorrect interpretation/conclusion. That’s the REAL problem. To say that our senses cannot be trusted is just a poor excuse to take the “faith shortcut”.
I think too many people come away from intro to philosophy with a skewed perspective simply because they’ve only been taught about the basic ideas of the notable figures (like Descartes) without getting the rest of the picture or just using plain good sense to fill in the gaps.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Also, the argument of believing in certain things that are unprovable in order to function is flawed.
All one needs to do is behave in such a way that fits the current working model of understanding on a particular issue. Until a better one comes along, or until we’ve got something in the way of solid proof. Belief never has to enter the picture.
Agnostics FTW.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Sorry for the tripple post, but two more things:
1.) You snuck in a post on me and during that time I managed to characterize you as having only basic knowledge on the subject. Having read your post, I now see I was a bit premature.
2.) Religion is not a requirement for day to day functioning, so it’s certainly not one of those things you are forced to accept on faith (which I ave already pointed out is erroneous; one doesn’t have to believe in something in order to behave as though it were true). So my point in all this is that it’s still most certainly an irrational and unscientific thing to believe in something untestable. There’s no excuse for it other than the simple fact that a person will believe such a thing ONLY IF THEY WANT TO.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Hello Arktis,
“I think too many people come away from intro to philosophy with a skewed perspective simply because they’ve only been taught about the basic ideas of the notable figures (like Descartes) without getting the rest of the picture or just using plain good sense to fill in the gaps.
Again, I think you are selling me short (perhaps you missed my post while you were writing the above quote). I have read Descartes’ original works, the works of his critics, and the historical era (I love Renaissance through Enlightenment European history) and have come away with the conclusion that he was largely wrong about many things, including his argument for God’s existence. What he was right about was that our senses cannot be trusted to give us an accurate account of reality. I do get your point about interpretation vs. raw sensation but feel it is a bit of a fine point. It still doesn’t mean that our interpretation of reality formed through our senses is an accurate representation of reality. Indeed, we know that our mental model of reality is largely incomplete. We can see only a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, we can only hear a small range of vibration wave lengths, can only taste a very small fraction of all the chemicals, etc.
Also, you may have missed the point of the counter examples. I believe our interpretation of our senses gives accurately do represent a portion of reality, that other people have subjective experiences, that inductive reasoning is valid, and that the past is real. But I, like most everyone else, must take these things on faith. These examples don’t provide a ‘short cut to faith’; they demonstrate the nearly universal application of faith to our everyday lives.
I am very interested in one thing you wrote:
“All one needs to do is behave in such a way that fits the current working model of understanding on a particular issue. Until a better one comes along, or until we’ve got something in the way of solid proof. Belief never has to enter the picture.â€
Could you explain this a little more for me? What are the differences between a “working model of understanding†and belief? Are you saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth since our understanding derives from “current working modelsâ€, which are subject to change? I’m asking this because I think you may be on to something important here, but I can’t seem to put my finger on what it is.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
See my above post. Seems like you missed one while you were typing too. :)
My point is that there is a sort of barrier (for lack of a better word) between actual reality and our conception of that reality. We can never truly know reality directly; we are forced to conceptualize it through the interpretation of the raw data that our senses provide through the use of various models. In an ironic twist, our consciousness is rooted in reality yet is forced to struggle to understand that reality through a very gradual process, and though [ideally] progress is continually made, there will never be a breaking through of that barrier because it is the result of the very nature of our the way our consciousness is derived from physical reality.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Upon reading #91, I must say, “Well put, Arktis”. I did miss your post while typing. I purposely waited to post this time so we don’t have that problem again (hopefully).
Going back to #89, as you suggested, I think you are right. “Religion is not a requirement for day to day functioning, so it’s certainly not one of those things you are forced to accept on faith.” Again, this is well stated. Would that suggest that the validity of faith-based beliefs is its utility? If that is your criterion for separating valid from invalid faith-based beliefs, then you are correct; any belief in God or religion is invalid. I don’t see anything wrong with that criterion right off the bat. I’ll have to think on it some more. In the mean time, I’m still interested in your answers the questions I asked in #90.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Hm… #90… Are you talking about the difference between belief and a working model? I thought that was obvious. One is merely an interpretation, the other is something a person choses to accept as the truth itself, something which is already established as being unknowable because of that “barrier” I was talking about.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
“OK then, why exactly is it that you believe in god? What is it that you mutter in your head to convince yourself when you question its existence? I just don’t understand it.”
And I’m not sure that I can explain it in any way that will help you. I’ve never been a big fan of apologetics. There’s really honestly no way you can “convince” someone that there is a God or prove it scientifically. So in a sense Arktis is right, belief in dieties is irrational. Not that believing in one makes you a drooling idiot or some sort of delusional psychotic. I haven’t heard voices or had any sort of mountaintop experience. What I have had is a life that has lead me to believe this way.
Do I know without doubt that god exists? No. But unlike an atheist that chooses not to believe in a God that can’t be proven (and proven in a way that brooks no misunderstanding, I’ve often wondered what that would look like), I choose to believe in God until he’s disproven in a similar fashion. It honestly boggles my mind that an atheist believes that we’re here as a sort of random chance thing, probably as much as it boggles yours that I don’t.
And if I’m wrong at the end of all things, I’m okay with that. If I meet Allah or Vishnu or Thor or just go away into oblivion then I’m satisfied with the life I’ve lead. I won’t have wasted it any more than anyone else.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Arktis,
It is pretty obvious that i disagree with you on what is logical and how to arrive at what is logical. But it makes no difference in my main point. One can reasonably and logically lay out the evidence for God/non-God and then weigh it for himself. It is this simple. I do think that both believeing and disbelieving in God can be rational moves in the sense that such moves appeal to evidences (if even inconclusive evidence).
November 30th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
And that’s all fine; the only time any one of us non-beleivers care, is when someone does someone Asinine or Stupid, in the name of god/whatever.
Like, when you oppose something that croches on someone else’s personal choices. From Stem-Cell research to Abortion, to Sexuality and Drugs; the moment your chosen/supported Religion starts to fuck up Scientific advance or others’ lives, you lose the right to be respected or understood. (That goes for all of you, not just the Religious Nutjobs)
November 30th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
The fact that humans shouldn’t be able to see the actual reality seems weird to me.
There are many realities that are undertood but can’t be imagined or perceived by humans, i’m talking about the “reality” of stuff such as atomic structures and >3 dimentional shapes.
We can still understand these realities through math, ofcourse when we want to predict something in these, we look at the particular math needed, and simply calculates untill we reach a result we are capable of understanding.
Human brains do about the same, when you want to find particular colored block with a specific text on it among many blocks, you look don’t look at the shapes of the block, but the colors, then focus in, and incorporate more and more information, like if the specific text could fit on the blocks, (calculate), to identify the specific block you were looking for (result).
We don’t conciously think much about how we actually locate blocks of a particular color or size, but we understand that the final result is valid, that we find the specific block we were looking for.
I don’t understand how there could be more to reality than that.
Just because we don’t see all of reality at once, doesn’t mean it isn’t reality.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Re:95
J,
first point:
“One can reasonably and logically lay out the evidence for God/non-God and then weigh it for himself”
the evidence has been weighed and your side lost a long, long time ago. i’ll quote an excerpt from The Madman, a section in Nietzsche’s Gay Science (1882 i think or thereabouts). The madman has just told a group of people in the marketplace that “We have killed [God]—you and I. All of us are his murderers”.
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. “I come too early,” he said then; “my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering—it has not yet reached the ears of man. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.”
second point:
“I do think that both believeing and disbelieving in God can be rational moves in the sense that such moves appeal to evidences (if even inconclusive evidence).”
please feel free to use all the inconclusive evidence you would like to make yourself feel better about believing in God. the unfortunate part, and this is an important point to realize, is that you are still unable to let go of things that don’t make sense on their own, but instead make a lot more sense as things humans made up.
what makes your faith in God different from a Muslim’s faith in his God or a Hindu’s belief in her God? don’t you think they believe just as strongly in what they see as the clear truth? don’t you think they have their own set of logically consistent arguments to support whatever they say or do? the trick is you just have to believe in a few things first. well guess what, that’s how religions work. you start out by believing, and then you go out and try to find reasons that make you feel better about believing. the problem is that your bel