This is topic Religion | Science | Big Rocks | Suffering in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=012665
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Many people have it. Not everyone's religion is the same. Not everyone's theology in any given religion is the same.

But when religion comes up, it's usually because of one specific group of similar religions, isn't it? That group would be the monotheism that can be lumped, in general terms, under "Christianity". And any given denomination, group within, or divergence, can be scrutinized separately at any given time-- and usually are. It's usually one of these separate groups at a time under scrutiny, though it is often enough anything that falls under the worship of the various definitions of "God"... the one with the son, Jesus.

To say the least, the debates can get rather heated.

Anyhoo, the largest piece of contention in religion seems to be faith vs. science. Or, rather, the fact that those who disagree with religion cannot resign to needing faith. Usually, those who can't resolve the idea of faith will use the concept of modern science as their reason for not believing. And it usually boils down to believing something that is not "provable" by scientific standards, even though religion and science are two different things. And yes, I know the roots of science lie in religion, but modern science and old religions cannot be measured with the same scale-- to assume so is utter logical folly.

Of course, oddly enough, the idea of science vs. religion remains incredibly popular as a debating point, depite the fact that each are measured in different ways. It's as if both the theist and the atheist actually think that both religion and science are that simple. I mean, yes-- both attempt to explain things, but from different angles. The two could talk about the same relative issue, and the issue would still remain relative to either science or religion. Once again, using one do discount or disprove the other (both ways) is fallacy. They don't have to peacefully coexist in every aspect, but the existence of one does not negate the possibility (or probability) of existence in the other.

Now, that's not the only point of contention... not by far. It's just the one that usually becomes the loudest. It's often a banner carried by those with faith in one way, and those without in another. I'm not sure I've ever seen a religious debate where it didn't become the main issue. I've heard many of the others, but I've rarely seen them hold the longevity in a discussion that the whole "science card" has gotten.

Is it going to play out again? Are we going to hear more "rock so big" attempts, as well? I'm curious to see some people "prove religion wrong." As an agnostic, perhaps you may just sway me enough to commit to atheism. Or, one of you theists may open the door to me gaining some faith.
 
Posted by ^Saudade^ (Member # 175) on :
 
I always call my dad a sissy because he is an agnostic, funny thing is, he finally admitted than indeed he is.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
What can I say? I just can't seem to make up my mind about it.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
<smiles> I'm a student of theology, I don't advocate any one belief system over another, rather, I'm here to understand what motivates people to believe as they do and to discuss that belief with them. And religion and science have their differences, but are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Each takes on some issues that the other doesn't, but their overlap lies in the area of offering people an explanation for those things that aren't easily understood just by looking at them.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
The Happy Heretic

Here's a website that I found particularly helpful (actually, I read the book format of her work first) in helping me w/ my agnosticism. i'm now an Atheist. I reccommend reading her columns and the FAQ.

She makes some very good points.


 

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Oh yeah? Well, I think it's pretty obvious that science is just the religion of SATAN. Scientists are no more than evil priests, and their false doctrine is meant to destroy your faith!

Or something like that.
 

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
I think the debate is foolish, too, so you won't see me joining a side. The problem is that both sides misunderstand the place and purpose of religion. They think that the grand purpose of religion is to explain the physical world, and if there is an alternate explanation to the one written millenia ago in the Bible, then any religion associated with the Bible has outlived its usefulness. Some atheists are fanatical about this idea, and some religious folk are intimidated by it because they, themselves, have no idea what their religion is supposed to be about.

In truth, the grand explanation of the physical world occupies on a tiny fraction of the space and purpose of the Bible and of religion. Religion is the medium of human interaction with the moral world. Morality is a force that exists for mankind, but seems completely absent from that which can be tested and observed through scientific means. Religion attempts to answer the questions, "What is moral truth?" "What causes me to care about such things?" and "What ultimate purpose should there be to my life?" Religion is also still in its infancy, relative to science. Lacking the ability to find much hard data, religious folk have spent centuries arguing about the answers to these questions, and not coming to many consensuses.

It's much like the early Greek philosophers arguing about the properties of the universe based entirely on the beauty and simplicity of their ideas, but without the tools to obtain the facts. Science then was inadequate to reliably fulfill its purpose, and religion is in a similar state today. Individuals may find peace and a sense of moral fulfillment, but as a group, we are largely ignorant, confused, and divided. But I believe that religion will one day find the tools to obtain the concrete answers it lacks. We simply must not lose faith in the meantime.

My main point, though, is the fact that religion is not supposed to explain how the current species of animals came into being, or tell the history of the world. Scriptures tell the story of man's interaction with deity or with the moral world, and give us examples of right and wrong choices. Sometimes these stories take place in the misunderstood history of very ancient people, but we must not lose sight of what we are really trying to learn here. The point of Genesis is not to tell us how many days it took to create hte earth. The point is to show us Man's spiritual heritage and the results of our first parents' choices. Lose sight of that, and you can have as much faith in creationism as you want — you won't truly learn a thing.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
I read a good book about Satan once. Actually, it was a trilogy by Anne Bishop. Pretty good books, and you get a free "e" with your Satan, so he's Saetan instead. I'm trying to remember the titles of the books...I think they were called, Daughter of the Blood, Heir of the Shadows, and Queen of Darkness.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Hello Geoffrey,

I don't think a person has to be religious in order to have a good ethical or moral foundation. In fact, I do not follow any religion, and yet I'm a moral person.
 

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I was just kidding, in case anyone thought I was being serious. I really agree with what Geoff said.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Like Geoff, I won't be joining the debate. I've learned that no matter how well-intentioned the debaters are, it always results in someone getting either angry, insulted or hurt.

Since I have no desire either to be insulted or hurt or to be the cause of someone elses' anger and hurt - I'll bow out.
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Just a note to Jacare: I miss some of the "good ole' talk."

Oh, and I still maintain- much to David's dismay, I'll bet- that the atheist requires the same kind of "faith" in the non-existence of the divine as the theist does for the existence.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Oh, and like I said in my first post-- the topic of "religion" seems to be a misnomer, in most cases (and certainly the recent ones). People aren't talking about religion. They're talking about Cristianity, and the validity of one doctrine to another (or the lack of), and the believability of such.

This is why it becomes insulting to one person or another, and why tensions run high.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Thats one kind of atheist-- there are two kinds, though. There are the atheists who do not believe in God, and the atheists who believe there is no god. The first don't take the stance that there is no god, they just don't see it themselves.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
No, fugu. Having no belief is one thing, but when asked directly if there is no god, then saying "no, there isn't" requires a direct faith that one does, in fact, not exist. Otherwise, the person is really an agnostic, by definition.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Or, alternatively, you can argue that it's natural not to believe in something until proof is offered - like the allegory of the cave.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Prove it. Prove how it is natural to not believe, in a world that primarily believes in something.

Folly. Utter folly.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Ever read the allegory of the cave? Plato seemed to think that it was human nature not to believe until shown.

The fact that the majority of people believe in something can equally be said to stem from the fact that they believe that *something* is adequate proof for them.

[This message has been edited by Cianwn (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
But many atheists, when asked if there is no god, will merely reply "I don't think so." Totally honest, requires no belief in, or in the nonexistence of god, and is not an agnostic opinion.

An agnostic answers maybe, an atheist answers I don't see why. Thats a big, big difference.
 

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
My belief is that the gods presented to me thus-far (Brahma, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, Jupiter) are mutually exclusive and do not, in fact, exist. If my belief is that it is *possible* that there is a god out there, but that I have not been given sufficient evidence to support that, how am I still an agnostic?
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
The fact that the majority of people believe in something can equally be said to stem from the fact that they believe that *something* is adequate proof for them.
Children will believe lots of stuff without any proof. I don't see how you can really prove that it's human nature to disbelieve everything.

[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Maybe not "to disbelief" something, but to have no beliefs. There is a difference.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Giving me "what if" scenarios is not proving how it takes a decision to say that the divine does, indeed, not exist. The plain truth is that the majority of the world today believes in something, and this belief is passed on to the next generation. The giving up or changing of those beliefs require a choice, and that choice cannot be made on concretes, as there are no concretes that such a decision can be made from.

fugu, can you really show me where the majority of those who claim atheism actually say "I don't think so"? I find that a bit hard to swallow, unless you're disagreeing just to disagree. Do children who grow up in atheist homes always stay atheist? I can think of an (anecdotal) example or two that would disagree.

Atheism is the belief of the absence of that which theism believes. Agnosticism is either the questioning, or having not made up one's mind on the matter.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
One can't prove that, since its obviously false for many people. However, there do seem to be people for which it is true (perhaps related to the kind of kid that keeps asking why? over and over again).

Also, the debate over the definitions of agnosticism and atheism is just that, definitional. I like a nice parallel construction, where agnostics include those who think there may be a god and those who think there is a god but aren't sure of its characteristics, and atheists include those who think there isn't a god and those who don't think there is a god. Its just such a pretty pairing up
 

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
quote:
you can argue that it's natural not to believe in something until proof is offered

So, like I wouldn't believe in a God until someone or something made me think there might be one. Just like I wouldn't naturally believe that snow falls out of the sky until I had some reason to; someone told me it did, I saw it on TV, or snow started falling on me one day.

Makes sense to me. The suggestion has to be there, the proof offered, before it will even occur to someone to believe.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Children believe basically what they're told. In the phase of mental development they're in, being told something by a person in a position of authority *is* proof. For many adults, that's still adequate proof (see the Stanley Milgram experiment if you disagree).
 
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
 
Debate is to faith as watching sports on TV is to playing sports.

Religions (including Rationality/Logic) are the various organized sports.
Debators are the fans.

The players play.
Fans debate. Wear Tshirts, Win and Lose.
Players play.

Simple.

Complexity is part of the organized sport of systemic rationality.

Faith. If you walk around with a baseball glove, you might find a game in some lot.

You can't debate the throw.

 

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
If you haven't heard of the Milgram study before.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Majority? No, just a good number. I know a good half dozen. Do recall that I said there were two kinds, and that many atheists identify themselves as the kind that says "I don't think so." I do think the majority (especially of the outspoken ones) actively disbelieve in god.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
"For many adults, it is still proof" applies just as much to the non-belief of a thing as it does to the belief of a thing. Otherwise, whole peoples wouldn't feel the need to continue killing over slight theological differences (think IRA).
 
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
 
Why do you believe you can know what someone else believes or feels (i.e. X people believe in Y) ? This, itself, is a 'belief'...
 
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
There is a statement by Joseph Smith, I think, to the effect that he doesn't care where truth comes from. (Other religions, science, etc) He said words to the effect, if it's true, then it's part of out religion.

Even something as trivial as 'normal dogs have four legs' is under his religious belief system.

This gives mormons a peculiar challenge, in that we don't have a free pass to say that religion and science are different things. For us, science and religion will have to marry perfectly in the end.

For now, I agree that it is impossible to say exactly how this marriage happens. Science is continually disproving itself (hopefully getting closer and closer to the truth each time). It has many challenges to overcome and many things it can't yet explain. (even in evolution, there have been massive shake-ups in the fossil record, as I understand it. They recently found a modern man in the same time period of the very early man, I hear) There are some flexibilities in religion, too. At the very least, we have the opportunity to say that some of Gods descriptions to us may be a bit vague. (The creation, for example)

The responsible mormon, the one who really believes, does not view the religion as simply a definition of morality. But as some sort of fact of the Universe that perhaps science might, in very advanced stages, find evidence of. (Mormons say that god lives on a planet near a star called Kolob- maybe we could find that) (We don't believe in God as a little gray man in UFO's though, very clearly not that)

[This message has been edited by popatr (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The milgram study is quite interesting, telling us that people will do pretty much what someone in a lab coat says (though they are given ample reason to believe that what the lab coat guy says is true is true, so its not exactly belief without evidence), and that most people (or at least, most college students ) will with little to no encouragement will inflict great pain on others. Says wonders about the natural state of humanity.
 
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
To respond to John and Geoff's posts:

I have to points of contention with things you have both said.

Contrary to what you have mentioned, there are a host of issues that relate directly between faith and science, particularly the debate over what came first and how the universe came into being. I've been in discussions like this, and i assure you that there is a foundation for both groups to inquire after it.

The other problems reside in cross over between the groups. I get pissed when religious groups try to legally assert their metaphysics over other theory and over reality. The problem is that things like this do happen, and when someone's tagging metaphysical baggage to scientific theory which contradicts it, then there is conflict.

What i do agree with Geoff on, is the purpose of religion. Obviously this is going to be more obvious in social religions like the Church of Latter Day Saints, but regardless of this fact, religions tend to be social institutions, prescribing behavior which leads to happiness/salvation/eternal peace/understanding whatever.

Science is not supposed to be prescriptive. The goal of the scientific method is to describe the states/relationships/behavior of the universe around us.

The conflict then arises from scientific theory/hypothesis (which is vital to science), coming into conflict (usually on a metaphysical level again) with religions (usually monotheistic, deriving from judeism), who have conflicting beliefs of how the universe works.

Anyway, my point is that there are conflicts between religion and science, but only because their premisses undercut each other. Religion is a social institution, science is not. Science is a method for information and paradigm shifts about the universe, religion is not.
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
*sigh*

No natural reason for religion, yet it's constantly questioned as to why it naturally happened.

Kant-Freisian ideas on religious value.

Why does god allow suffering?
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Ted, I agree, and those differences between the two are precisely why I say that it's foolish to use one to "prove" the other wrong or right. Despite the origins, they are two different things now.

And I really don't want to turn this into a Battle of Links™... I keep a whole list here, but while I use them for personal study, I don't use any of them as the end-all of why or what I believe.
 
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
Just a few thoughts:

First of all, while I mean no disrespect to those of you out there who are atheists, I have to say that I see atheism as a belief system - a faith, if you will - just as much as any form of belief in a deity or deities is. The only difference is that the atheist is professing the faith that there is no God or gods, as opposed to those who profess a faith that there is a God or gods.

On the subject of science and religion: Personally, I have never had a problem accepting both religious belief and science. I think science and religion each address issues unique to them, but I also think that there are issues in which they can be complimentary to each other and indeed enrich each other. I think Stephen Jay Gould expressed some valid points in his writings on the two as "nonoverlapping magisteria", but I do not completely buy his arguments. I would recommend the books of Sir John Polkinghorne (a British physicist who is also an Anglican priest) to anyone who is interested in how science and religion can interact. While his denomination is different than mine, I have found his writings quite interesting, enlightening, and valuable. Of course, I have never believed that I must agree with everything someone writes or says in order to gain from their work.

On the subject of agnosticism: I don't really see the position of agnostics as a simple matter of not being able to make up their minds. While I do not share it, I think the position they take that they do not and cannot know whether or not there is a God or gods is as intellectually honest as belief in a God or gods or nonbelief in a God or gods.
 

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Heh, well all i was saying was my beef with religious institutions is that they be steppin' on my turf, y'all.

So they don't beat me with their metaphysical baggage, and i won't bitch about their metaphysical baggage and how it doesn't conform to reality in any way shape or form
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Well, LMA, that's almost precisely what agnosticism is. Those who accept it basically make it clear that they don't know, can't know, and if there is some way of knowing, they would like to be shown.
 
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
I also have a problem with people decreeing Atheism a faith.

While there are reactionary atheists out in the world, they're just embittered disillusioned former-theists. This does not somehow make atheism incoherent, or make atheists not exist.

So i'm sorry, i find it preposterious and arrogant to claim that Atheism is a faith, cause i'd argue that it usually isn't, and those who do display faith like qualities are just succumbing to hubris.
 

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Just as a note, i do not concider myself an atheist.

Also, there is a distinction between having religious faith and having general faith. Theists tend to straw man atheists by trying to dance atheists down the slippery slope to claiming that it's bad to have any sort of faith. But then you're in a Russeau like situation, wondering whether its all the same whether you exit out the window or the door.

The question is what sorts of faith do people have, and what sorts of faith do people cling to even when it flies in the face of everything they believe in (even in some cases the tenets of their own belief!).
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Ted, to not hold a belief as an adult means that you actively disagreed with the vast majority of society that holds a belief. If you don't see how that requires an active choice, I don't know how to explain it any better. In a vaccum-- no, atheism is not, at its core, a "faith." However, in the real world, to hold ideals that are different than the world around you takes a choice, and with that choice comes a decision.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Atheism can be considered a kind of faith if you look at this quotation: "Faith is the action of deciding the question's answer before even asking the question."
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
I always call my dad a sissy because he is an agnostic, funny thing is, he finally admitted than indeed he is.

Funny, I've always found admitting that I don't know to be very difficult. I don't like not knowing.
 

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
mm, no i disagree.

i wasn't particularly taken to church ever, i grew up in this culture, and i wouldn't say i made a particular choice at some point to say "no i don't believe god exists"

The conclusion i eventually came to was that regardless of god's existance, i live my life in a way that is consistent with my conscience. But thats not deciding against the majority. Thats just what made sense.

Also, in the bizarre multi-cultural conglomerate that exists in the USA i think it would be quite easy to grow up in a localized culture where belief in god is not necessary (just perhaps not likely in certain areas of the US).

The fact you disagree with someone isn't an active choice if you're coming from a fundamentally different background... Its possible just to see things differently and not just see things differently because you don't want to agree with someone.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Twinky,

You're right that not knowing is uncomfortable, and that's why religion is important for many people since it helps to take away the sting of the unknown.
 

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Cianwn, i don't think you want to adhere to that definition of faith if you are a theist

And i'm certainly not going to stick with it for atheism either.

(i'd also like to know how you would decide an answer to a question that hasn't been asked )
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
I think it's good for pointing out that belief systems that operate on faith have offered up something for you to accept without reservation. Questions are irrelevant at that point. You can ask them, but the only purpose in doing so would be to reaffirm what you already "know." For an athiest, that is that there's no god, for a Christian its the doctrine s/he believes in, and so on.

[This message has been edited by Cianwn (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Ted, you said that you aren't atheist, right? So, growing up in an environment that did not require you to make a decision of belief didn't "natually" cause you to believe that atheism was correct. You made a choice that you are not an atheist, at the very least.
 
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
I would certainly rather say that I don't know something than make something up just to look like I know something.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Too bad more people don't feel that way, LMA.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
quote:
I would certainly rather say that I don't know something than make something up just to look like I know something.

At its heart, that's what religion is. Something people have made up to give them knowledge they wouldn't otherwise have. Is this a value judgment? No, but anytime a person has created a religion, the desire for a divine source of knowledge has been a factor.
 

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
Well, Leto II, I have worked as a tutor for a long time. It just doesn't work to make something up in answer to a student's question; they repeat what you have said in class, find out that you don't know what you were talking about, and then get really mad at you. I just figure that this extends into the rest of life, as well.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
At its heart, that's what religion is. Something people have made up to give them knowledge they wouldn't otherwise have.
So you don't leave open the possibility that there is a God and that He has revealed various things over the course of history?
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
At its heart, that's what religion is. Something people have made up to give them knowledge they wouldn't otherwise have

Wow. Theologians, sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers of religion have worked and debated for years to come up with a good definition of what religion is "at it's heart," and you've managed to solve it, just like that.
 

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
Cianwn - I think religion may be something of a special case. Due to the nature of religion, if someone just makes something up it is less readily obvious than if I make something up while I am tutoring history or anthropology. My own personal belief is that, in the case of religion, you have to look at what is out there and figure out what, if anything, resonates with you as an individual. And, I think it is important when dealing with religions not to have a knee-jerk reaction to something that doesn't resonate with your feelings by automatically saying, "Oh, you just made that up." That may be true, but it is very difficult to know for sure without a great deal of study and reflection. In fact, in many cases it is impossible to know for sure. I think it is just better to say, "Well, I don't think I agree with that." The wonderful thing about reasonable human beings is that they can agree to disagree. If I limited my friendships to people I completely agreed with, I wouldn't have any friends.
 
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
ARGH

i had this response all typed up and was about to hit submit when my bloody computer froze.

you will have a breif synopsis of what i wrote in a minute
 

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
dkw - I took a psychology of religion class a couple of semesters ago. We took the first couple weeks of the semester trying to come up with a definition of religion, and the only conclusion we came to is that there is no definition that everyone can agree with.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Something people have made up to give them knowledge they wouldn't otherwise have. Is this a value judgment?

Geepers, sounds like a value judgement to me, and I'm barely a theist.

And you wonder why people get offended by your questions
 

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Cianwn:

I believe (heh) that what you refer to is a problem with a scope much broader than strictly atheism, or even religion (which is what religious critics of various branches of science tend to level at their targets). Why i find this point relevent, is that by doing this, you are either decreeing -everything- (and i do mean everything) a faith, or you need to give up your position that atheism is a faith.

Since i think its unlikely that you'll decree practical faith on par with religious faith, i do hope you'll surrender the claim that Atheism is a faith.

Leto's reply in a minute
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Pod, I never said I believed atheism is a faith. I said it might be considered one in light of the quote I posted. But I never said my personal position was that atheism is a faith. I have never thought that it was.

Rakeesh, whatever might or might not be "the truth" with regard to god etc, religion is a creation of mankind because at some point, someone sat down and thought about what beliefs are at the core of their system, what rules there are, what rituals they have. All of those things are a human response to whatever kind of "higher power" they believe in and what kind of inspiration they believe they possess.
 

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
littlemissattitude, that was my point, although you put it a lot nicer than I did. I'm afraid I gave way to the overwhelming temptation to be sarcastic. Shame on me.

 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Rakeesh, whatever might or might not be "the truth" with regard to god etc, religion is a creation of mankind because at some point, someone sat down and thought about what beliefs are at the core of their system, what rules there are, what rituals they have. All of those things are a human response to whatever kind of "higher power" they believe in and what kind of inspiration they believe they possess.

There is another possibility. You know what it is, Cianwn. And yet you don't even mention it, state as though it were fact YOUR opinion on religion, and seem oblivious to people's reasons for being reactionary.

Either you're doing this deliberately or you just haven't used a little empathy and considered, not just someone else's PoV, but how they would FEEL about your questions, and then think.
 

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Leto:

I think this descends into definition.

Because of the dichotic vision of religious belief that exists in the US i think there is a sort of question begging that goes on when theists (or former, but no-longer theists) discuss the existance of a supreme being.

What you asking is whether it is possible to grow up in this culture with out this dichotic view.

I say it depends on what you mean. ::Grins:: My thoughts on the subject are as such:

God's existance is irrelevent (and here's where Cianwn's non-asked question comes up). It's not that i believe in a god, nor is it the case that don't believe in a god either. The question then becomes what does atheism rely upon? The fact that i won't make the positive claim that there is a god?

If so, yes, i am an Atheist.

On the other hand, if atheism relies upon my willingness to make the claim that there is no god, then i am an Agnostic, because i will not make such a claim. This sort of Strong vs. Weak Atheism/Strong Agnosticism is a distinction that many theists do not draw, which is what inclines me to not use the label "atheist" when refering to myself (particularly since it often garners such interesting assumptions from theists).

So, using my definition of atheism, yes, i think it is very possible to grow up being a weak atheist/strong agnostic. Growing up being a contrary hard athiest, i think would be more difficult, but possible, however that would rest upon its own set of premisses that would need to be evaluated. But in that case, imo, it would be possible to reject the existance of a supreme deity on non-religious beliefs about the universe (again sidestepping Cianwn's claim that atheism is a faith).

[This message has been edited by Pod (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
Cianwn:

Oh, i apologize then.

I reject the hypothetical claim that a atheism is faith, on the grounds that it's premiss leads to silliness.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Rakeesh, you dispute that in order to produce an organized religion a *person* had to record somewhere the core beliefs, rituals, and rules? Even if that person believed his actions to be divinely inspired, they are still his actions. The only time I've heard a religion claim that a god waved its hand and by some miracle there appeared a written version of that religion's beliefs is when Moshe received the stone tablets with the basis of the Law on Mt. Sinai. I know that if I were an all-powerful deity, I would have done a little thinking beforehand and instead of employing human prophets to write something down, I'd just sit down a roomful of believers, wave my hand, and produce the final, perfect version of my religious text.

[This message has been edited by Cianwn (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand, if atheism relies upon my willingness to make the claim that there is no god, then i am an Agnostic, because i will not make such a claim.


Ted, that's exactly what atheism is. Yes, if you want to play the definition game, it can change from person to person. Ten different people will give you ten different definitions as to the particulars of what it means. This is why we, as communicating beings, choose definers as universally as possible to be able to discourse. The very nature of atheism is the absence of theism. "God" doesn't have to play into that, except that the Christian faith is the predominate one in the world, and the easiest theism to use as an example (why don't we see more threads questioning the veracity of buddhism?).
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I have seen threads discussing whether or not Buddhism is a theism.

Oh wait, I don't think that was at Hatrack. Never mind.

[This message has been edited by dkw (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
My personal experience with Atheists would lead me to believe that Atheism is as much an organized belief system as Christianity.
"Christian" beliefs are extremely diverse, the only universally held tenents being IME, that there is a God and his son Jesus came to Earth as a man.

The Atheists that I've known have all believed these things: there is no supreme deity; the physical world is a product of mechanical, scientifically explainable events; the history/reputation and offspring a person creates is his ONLY legacy/afterlife.

To me, this sounds like a fairly organized and faith based set of beliefs.

Though I respect these beliefs, the one thing that prevents me from accepting them is the evidence of the physical world. I just can't accept that the many different lifeforms on Earth are the product of happy coincidences. It seems so much more logical that life as we know it is the product of intelligent design. And if there is a design, then there must be a designer.

The second reason why I can't accept Atheism (and I'm sure this is purley non-logical)
is that I require someone to express my gratitude to.
Again, I don't believe in coincidences, so when so many "right" things happen for no logical reason, I need to say "Thanks", and I say it to God.

John, your story of surviving your crash is a great example of a set of those happy "coincidences" that I just can't accept using an Atheists logic.
 

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Why i find this point relevent, is that by doing this, you are either decreeing -everything- (and i do mean everything) a faith, or you need to give up your position that atheism is a faith.

Since i think its unlikely that you'll decree practical faith on par with religious faith, i do hope you'll surrender the claim that Atheism is a faith.

Cianwn may not, but I would at least like to argue that everything is in fact a faith, and that religious faith is on par with practical faith. I think it's been philosophically proven, at least sufficiently for me to believe it, that we cannot be truly certain of anything and that many of things we take for granted are no so proven as we tend to think. Yet, I make hundreds of beliefs every day, ranging from believing in the weather forecasts to believing the things I read in my school textbooks. There's a gap there, between what I believe and what I have proven. That gap is faith - trusting in something unproven. My question is, what exactly is different about "religious faith" that would make it any different from this practical faith?

I think the difference has been invented over time to try and separate religion from everyday life, both by atheists who want to portray religion as something by definition mistake, and (probably more so) by theists who want an excuse to not challenge religion in the way all "practical faiths" are challenged by reason. But the truth is, I think, that the reason people trust their religion is not different than the reasons people trust other beliefs of theirs: Because everybody else believes it, because mommy told me it was true, because I "feel" it's true, because the Bible documents it, because it only makes sense, and so on. Yes, these things are not deductive proofs, but in practical life, nothing is deductively proven. I believe pizza is unhealthy largely because everybody else does. I believe it will snow today because the internet said so. Heck, a sizeable number of students at this school are confident enough that the basketball team will beat Duke this year that they'll be camping out for a week to see it - this belief is based on little more than high hopes.

This is not to say, of course, that all beliefs require an equal degree faith or that all beliefs are equally justified. Obviously, it takes less faith to believe that 1+1=2 than it does to believe in God. But they are both degrees of the same thing. There is not fundamentally different category called "religious faith" that is entitled to it's own rules.

And I think that if this is true then one thing very clearly follows: The religious cannot abandon their responsiblity to choose reasonable beliefs in the name of some special faith that God wants them to have.
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Well, Tres, just so your statement and my own don't get put into some causal equation of some sort, I would like to emphasize that I feel that atheism- were it contained in a vaccuum- has no core faith. The trick is when it is applied in s primarily theist world.

LadyDove, I wouldn't exactly call atheism as organized as modern theism. At least, I wouldn't venture that far. There are no "atheist" places to congregate (though coffee shops and college student centers come close), nor any that advertise specifically atheist ideals. There is quite a lot of secular orginization, but one need not be an atheist to be part of something secular.

There is a general dogma there, and there is a point where a decision based on faith from inconclusive evidence comes in, but I wouldn't call that "organized" in any fashion. It doesn't mean it may not eventually come to that, but I don't see it in the present day.
 
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
LadyDove:

It's quite easy to be a buddhist atheist, who doesn't believe most of what you have just contended.

Just because alot of the atheists you've encountered are material reductionsist, doesn't mean that they'are all that way.

And also, i personally hypothesized that self-organizational systems can probably give rise to amazing complexity in physical systems as well as biological ones.

Read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"

(and why not be grateful to the people around you?)
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
1+1=2 takes zero faith to believe. Mathematics is a purely definitional theory, and faith does not enter into it at all. In mathematics, certain things are taken as true (though there is considerable debate over what needs to be taken as true), and then other things are extrapolated from them, always assuming that the other things are true. There is no faith that these things are true, merely the definition. When discussing mathematics, if someone says 1+1=3, they are wrong. No matter how much they believe otherwise. That is because mathematics has defined itself in such a way that 1+1=2.

However, if you take some empirical prediction as a minor example of a similar faith I'll most likely agree.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Unless you're in outcome based education fugu. 1+1 CAN equal 3 if that makes you feel good about yourself.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
1+1=2 does not prove nor disprove the validity of any religion, fugu. I don't see where you're going with such a statement, unless you're doing exactly what I said gets done in my first post, which was trying to prove religion as invalid or "wrong" by pointing out science.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No it can't, if you accept the definitions math uses. And if you don't accept those definitions, you're not doing math. Math is wholly definitional; faith does not apply.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
quote:
Math is wholly definitional; faith does not apply.


Um, that's exactly why I said that using science to disprove religion is stupid, fugu. Expecting one to work by the other's rules is ridiculous.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Leto: I was responding to Tres's comment about 1+1=2 requiring faith. And the next one was referrring to Cianwn's response. Stupid forum posting order .

I don't think mathematics relates to faith at all (unless we want to talk about the bible saying pi is 3 )
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
fugu, it's not just math, but all science, that doesn't relate to religion. If anything, sociology and/or anthropology would be the closest, but those are primarily just to observe, and not really to measure in any capacity that would prove anything along the lines of "rightness."

[This message has been edited by Leto II (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
I was being sarcastic since we're in the era of political correctness and all. That whatever you want to believe is ok, no matter how outlandish it is, like 1+1 = 3 or that "ebonics" is a language, or that it's ok to legislate morality, etc.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Leto, John Haught has a book you might enjoy called Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. He lays out four ways that science and religion can be seen to relate (or not) to each other. It’s not really a great book in terms of science or religion, but the system he has for classifying the ways people have tried to relate them is interesting.

quote:
  1. Conflict – the conviction that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable;
  2. Contrast – the claim that there can be no genuine conflict since religion and science are each responding to radically different questions.
  3. Contact – an approach that looks for dialogue, interaction, and possible “consonance” between science and religion, and especially for ways in which science shapes theological and religious understanding
  4. Confirmation – a somewhat quieter, but extremely important perspective that highlights the ways in which, at a very deep level, religion supports and nourishes the scientific enterprise.

Pick it up at a library if you get a chance.

Edit: I also second whoever reccommended Polkinghorne (was that on this thread?) and, of course, Ian Barbour's Religion in an Age of Science (recently expanded as Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary issues) is a classic.

[/reference librarian]

[This message has been edited by dkw (edited January 26, 2003).]
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Thanks, dkw.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There are a large number of people who disagree with you, Leto. For instance, those who believe in a literal account of the bible.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily say that science relates to religion, but that in some small way it relates to faith; ie faith in a consistency of occurence in the universe, or even faith in there being a universe and not just a massive illusion.
 

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Well, I don't know about you, but I believe all life is really just a figment of bigfoot's imagination.
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
fugu, within those who believe creationist theory, there are at least three official groups of thought, and more than that when you get down to the particulars. However, the average (theist) Joe will say that they believe both creationism and "The Big Bang" (or something similar), yet will not be able to adequately resolve the two for empirical debate (believe me... I've tried). Yeah, you'll also get those who believe that Satan created dinosaur bones in the attempt to trick us silly humans, but that's hardly a scientific statement. If you want to debunk that statement with evidence to the contrary, then that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate religion in general, nor even that person's religion in specific.

You can argue particular points of doctrine with different techniques, but why is it when doctrine needs altering, religion is somehow invalidated? Can you give me a practical reason why this is so? (I warn you, this is a trick question, so be careful about your answer)
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Bah forget altering doctrine, just toss the silly gods out on their arses in mortal form just like Ao did in the FR.
 
Posted by Chuckles (Member # 2865) on :
 
I personally believe in the complete harmony of science and religion. I've never really understood why the two should have to be mutually exclusive...

Take care
-Justin-
 

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Well, Tres, just so your statement and my own don't get put into some causal equation of some sort, I would like to emphasize that I feel that atheism- were it contained in a vaccuum- has no core faith. The trick is when it is applied in s primarily theist world.

In that case, Leto, it seems to me that the faith you're talking about is faith in your own powers of reason and judgment, which is certainly required in order to take on an opinion in defiance of the majority.
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm not arguing that science invalidates religion at all, merely that there are people who think that religion and science conflict (know what you mean about those who attempt to believe in mutual exclusives), and that science has some small degree of faith involved.
 
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
 
Don't you get an empty feeling somewhere after the 34th post, a kind of anxious feeling that somehow, in spite of good intentions, something is 'wrong' with the whole approach ? The sterile mechanics of information mixed with a sort of hyper-consciousness - everybody getting their arguements sort of right - sort of wrong - like a poor echo or something (a feeling that you have heard, read or misread these points before somewhere...)- a sort of rational 'white-noise' building up - but no music ? I sure do -

How come ? Or is it just me ?
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
I think it's just you, monti
 
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
quote:
In that case, Leto, it seems to me that the faith you're talking about is faith in your own powers of reason and judgment, which is certainly required in order to take on an opinion in defiance of the majority.


And faith in one's self that their judgement and reason is more accurate than the majority is different than the faith in something greater than one's self exactly how, Dest?
 
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Tresopax summed up exactly what I think is faith:

quote:
There's a gap there, between what I believe and what I have proven. That gap is faith - trusting in something unproven.

And by that definition, even what POD reacts to is faith: he believes that it doesn't matter if God is there or not, he will still follow his own conscience. He has faith, under Tresopax's definition, that this is enough.

The problem, I think, is that faith has become a heresy in the secular worldview. To say that you bridged the gap with faith is to say you've abandoned reason. But that is not the case. Faith is not a substitute for reason, it is a necessary supplement, for without it we could not act.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Why wouldn't the human conscience be enough? It's all we've got anyway. It's part of what leads us to believe or not believe as we choose.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The point of Genesis is not to tell us how many days it took to create hte earth. The point is to show us Man's spiritual heritage and the results of our first parents' choices."

Geoff, the problem that I have with this is that I don't trust a person who gets something as important as the age of the Earth wrong to tell me about my spiritual heritage.

--------

"My personal experience with Atheists would lead me to believe that Atheism is as much an organized belief system as Christianity."

LadyDove, I disagree. Atheism is primarily distinguished by its LACK of tenets; despite one or two clubs, there are no "sects" of atheists, no regular meetings, no stated beliefs to which atheists must adhere. You can identify atheists BECAUSE they believe in the absence of a god; that's pretty much it. It would be like saying that the ONLY thing that makes a Christian a Christian is believing that a guy named Jesus Christ existed.

It's rather like saying that a fence with no paint on it is still a painted fence, because it has been painted with no paint. That's a bit too abstract and useless a definition for my liking.

(As a side note, I don't like using John's anecdotal survival as evidence of God's existence. My aunt died in a plane crash, and I'm not comfortable thinking that God somehow had it in for her.)

 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
"The problem, I think, is that faith has become a heresy in the secular worldview. To say that you bridged the gap with faith is to say you've abandoned reason."

ZING!

Well put, Amka.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The thing is, it's not a zinger. It's literally correct. To say that you have faith in a belief despite a complete lack of evidence IS to abandon reason.

I suspect that most people do NOT have faith for this reason. Most people rationalize their faith, like LadyDove, or have experienced something that causes them to believe.

 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
In most areas of life, the application of faith is not regarded as a respectable way of reaching a conclusion...Because most of those areas are ones where people take the time to do research, find supporting details, and make a step-by-step construction toward their ultimate goal or decision. There are a few, like religion, that aren't subject to the same stringent guidelines, but usually, it is considered bad form to try to back up something with "because I have faith in it."
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
To say that you have faith in a belief despite a complete lack of evidence IS to abandon reason.

But IS there a complete lack of evidence? What qualifies as evidence, anyway? I would argue that faith is not abandoning reason, but rather making conclusions based on something beyond reason.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Jon Boy, ask yourself this, would you be willing to use the same kind of decision-making in an area outside of religion? As in the example I gave earlier, would you hire a stockbroker on faith that he does a good job, or would you want to hear from current and former customers about the results of his investing advice? The wise consumer would not go on faith unless he is prepared to lose his money.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I would argue that faith is not abandoning reason, but rather making conclusions based on something beyond reason."

No, I wouldn't even accept that definition, at least not based on people who identify themselves as faithful. Most faithful I know are, as I said earlier, faithful for a reason; they believe that they've had some experience that verifies their theories, or that it's somehow "worth" believing for a short list of reasons despite the lack of hard evidence. There are very few people whose faith is so unexamined, in my experience, that they haven't at least looked at the evidence and the alternatives out there.

The key here, though, is that THEIR evidence -- like personal communication with God, gut feelings, and the like -- is not scientific evidence. You can't measure it. You can't really test it. There's no way to create a control group. It's evidence, but it's the kind of evidence that one person abducted by aliens might have; HE believes in aliens now, but what can he say to persuade anyone else?

Is it UNREASONABLE for someone who clearly remembers an alien abduction to believe in aliens? Should he believe himself to be deluded? Was it a hallucination? How can he tell?

He has to make a conscious decision to come down on one side or the other -- and, to me, THIS is faith.

 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
I saw a great T-shirt once...It bore the statement, "When you talk to god, it's called praying, but when god talks to you, it's called schizophrenia."
 
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
You abandon reason only when it becomes clear that it is not merely a gap in logic or knowledge, but an actual contradiction between evidence and belief.


 

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"You abandon reason only when it becomes clear that it is not merely a gap in logic or knowledge, but an actual contradiction between evidence and belief."

See, this is the hard part for me: believing so much in some other personal, unscientific experience that I'm willing to discount TRULY scientific evidence in order to cling to my belief. Perhaps this IS a workable definition of true faith -- but it just kind of distresses me, because I'm hard-pressed to distinguish it from self-delusion once it goes this far.

 

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I'm a little confused as to why you don't accept that definition, Tom. If we're saying that spiritual experiences are irrational, then isn't that the same as saying that they're beyond reason? I certainly wouldn't say that I abandoned reason when I gained faith. I think faith is something apart from reason, so you don't need to abandon reason to have faith. Like several people have said earlier, science and faith are not mutually exclusive.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If we're saying that spiritual experiences are irrational, then isn't that the same as saying that they're beyond reason?"

The thing is, I'm NOT saying they're irrational. People who believe they've had a spiritual experience have had a perfectly rational experience; they felt a stimulus, interpreted it in some way, and drew a conclusion. That it's not scientifically reproducible is a completely different issue.

 

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
"See, this is the hard part for me: believing so much in some other personal, unscientific experience that I'm willing to discount TRULY scientific evidence in order to cling to my belief."

Thats an extreme, Tom. Like Lust and lust.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Lots of people cling to irrational beliefs in the face of scientific evidence. It's fact that the earth is several billion years old, yet many people still cling to the idea that it was created 6k-10k years ago because of a holy text whose account of creation has no external verification.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
"Its fact" is actually more philosophically problematic than you make it. You cannot prove false, or even provide evidence which suggests otherwise, that the reality we perceive in our brains is a total illusion, generated by a sophisticated "computer" system that connects us all together. The reason is that any attempt to disprove the account can be absorbed by the account. If you say, but there's nothing to suggest it, thats merely because its a perfect simulacrum. If you say that nothing could process that fast, I submit that obviously our collective brains are.

Now, if you mean its a fact in the scientific sense, you are right. But science doesn't deal in Truth, which are things which are true, it deals in observable phenomenon, and what we observe tells us that if what we observe is true, the earth is billions of years old.

However, until you come up with a way to test against perfect simulacra theories and their ilk (a test which is definitionally impossible), you can't assert a claim to hold the Truth.
 

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I would just like to say that religious debates at 1:30 a.m. are, in fact, dichotymous proof of man's insanity and reason.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Fugu, there's no logically sound argument that can be made that the earth is younger than several billion years. Since we are beings of reason and intelligence, those are the best tools we have for investigation, and they are the ones which have yielded the evidence I speak of. Science may not come out and say "it's 100% universal truth" but when something becomes part of the foundation of scientific thought, it is considered to be so probable it might as well be truth. In light of what we've been able to discover, it's just silly to say that the earth isn't that old. It's rather like saying the different "races" of humanity are separate species...the argument just holds no water.

[This message has been edited by Cianwn (edited January 27, 2003).]
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You misunderstand science. Science says absolutely nothing about Truth (the big, absolute, no holds barred type). The only thing science discusses are conclusions that may be drawn from observed phenomena (and not even all of those). I cannot provide evidence that there is no earth in Reality (similar to Truth), but you can't provide any evidence there is, and not just a collective perfect hallucination. However, you can provide evidence that we observe something with certain characteristics, call this phenomenon the earth, and say that if certain other ideas we have about time are true, then if the earth is consistent with our observations (which it should be), it is x years old.

However, that does not preclude the possibility that this is all a perfect simulacrum that started yesterday, or that you are not experiencing a perfect hallucination, and anything you're talking about (including the earth) is similarly unreal.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Arguing about hallucinations, while it's certainly a possibility, isn't really all that probable. In that vein, start with the idea that we exist somewhere, and what we can record with our senses in the physical world has some significance. Apply Occam's Razor. It's obviously much simpler to say that if the evidence shows the earth to be 4+ billion years old, than it is to say, well some things would lead us to conclude that but really it's all a big cosmic hoax...
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
There's no way to create a control group. It's evidence, but it's the kind of evidence that one person abducted by aliens might have; HE believes in aliens now, but what can he say to persuade anyone else?

I don't think we should base the rationality of our beliefs on our capacity to convince others of it, though. You have to base your reasoning on everything you know - you can't throw out anything subjective, that only you know about. That's some of the most important evidence, and I don't think it would surprise anyone if throwing out such evidence would skew your conclusions. We live a subjective existence and, though it makes for difficulty in convincing other people, that is nevertheless just the way it is.

We know nothing with surety, yet have to make beliefs and opinions to survive and go about our lives. That's the life we are stuck. It's kind of sad on one hand, but on the other hand, it means nothing is impossible.
 

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
quote:
He has to make a conscious decision to come down on one side or the other -- and, to me, THIS is faith.

Tom-
I like your definition.

Believing that a mathematical improbability created life, in all it's variety, doesn't feel rational to me. It leaves too much to chance.

I've lived through many painful years in my life. I tried to reject my belief in God: "If there is a God, and if I'm His creation, why would He let this happen to me. Does He not care? Is He a sadist? Does He enjoy watching me suffer? Watching my brothers suffer? Is He placing bets with the angels to see which of us crumbles first?"

I went through all these thoughts many times, but my heart said that creating life is the antithesis of destroying. If there is a God, He doesn't thrive on destruction. So, there must not be a God or He wouldn't allow all the pain in the world.

This conclusion had nothing to back it up accept for the anger and frustration of feeling helpless. There was no proof that God did not exist.

At some point I made the decision to accept that I didn't "know" if there was a supreme being, but I "knew" I didn't believe in that a chance combination of chemicals and energy created the vast variety of lifeforms.

I stopped fighting to prove to myself that God didn't exist, and suddenly I "knew" He does. My evidence: I never feel alone.

As far as why people suffer and die. I don't know.

My suffering has made me who I am and it equipped me to help the people I care for. It has also made me cynical and robbed me of that blind, playful trust I so envy in those who had a "childhood".

I can see no reason why your Aunt died. In fact, I don't know why lifeforms are created with an expiration date at all. But my lack of knowledge doesn't mean that there was no reason, nor does it mean that EVERY action is directed by an unseen hand.

These are things I don't know, but they are not PROOF that God isn't there or doesn't care.

BTW all-Sorry if this rambled.
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
One question for you, LadyDove, if you will. What do you say to people who conclude there is no god based on the fact that they feel alone all the time?
 
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
quote:
stopped fighting to prove to myself that God didn't exist, and suddenly I "knew" He does.

Funny. A little over a year ago I stopped fighting to prove to myself that God did exist.

I'm one of those not-so-hypothetical people Cianwn describes.


ae
 

Posted by Leto (Member # 3400) on :
 
But, ae, while it's not necessarily the straw-breaker for existance, it would also be ridiculous to use it as a proof of non-existence. It means you don't see (or feel) things the way some certain others would. Would you tell a person who is colorblind that they are just fooling themselves, since you can see colors different than they? (and this is only an analogy of perception, not one of doctrine, theology, dogma, or what-have-you)
 
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
I admit it- I read the first few and last few posts and skipped the rest simply because I like this thread and would like to participate without spending all day. So if what I am about to say has already been said.. <shrug>

With that disclaimer-

To my mind there need be no contention between science and religion (in the general philosophical sense) because the two do not generally speak to the same thing. Science can pretty much speak only to processes and not motivations. For example, science can help explain how the earth was formed but not why it was formed. When scientists make the leap from processes to ultimate motivations then their opinions are not to be considered science. If, for example, a scientist states that their is no purpose to the universe and that everything came about by chance then he has left the realm of science and entered that of religion.

By the same token, it never ceases to amaze me what Christians (and I include Mormons in that list) insist on reading into the scriptures. For example, many, many christians will fight tooth and nail against the idea of evolution. Why? Because the Bible says that God created the animals.

But here is the kicker... where exactly does it say how he did it? I get the feeling that many people think that in order for the creation to be sufficiently miraculous it had to invlove nothing more than God saying a word and *poof* it occurred like in a David Copperfield show. In my own theology it makes sense that since God is God precisely because he knows all of the laws that govern the universe he would act in accordance with those laws.
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Occam was a devout christian, and if you read his work you will find that according to him, the simplest explanation was always God did it. Which is quite true. Assuming someone all powerful to be in charge resolves all difficulties, theories, etc, especially if you assume him to be active, as Occam did.

Pick a different razor.

For Ladydove (she may very well already realize this), I'd like to point out that once there was even the most primitive of life on earth, things were no longer truly random (not that they were before, but there's no reason to believe they were beneficial) because of regulating pressures that worked towards improved survival on the part of this primitive life. This evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how life began, merely about how it changes, so its perfectly possible to believe God is the creator of all life without disbelieving in evolution one iota.

[This message has been edited by fugu13 (edited January 27, 2003).]
 

Posted by Aelysium (Member # 2940) on :
 
I never said it was, Leto. What you're saying in your post was really my point to begin with. Well, not my point [iper se[/i], but my reasoning behind the point.


ae
 

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Occam was a devout christian, and if you read his work you will find that according to him, the simplest explanation was always God did it."

Except that Occam failed to consider that the existence of an omnipotent being was ITSELF a complicating factor.

 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Quite true, but not of the explanation. It simplifies all explanations, but complicates the universe.
 
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 
JonBoy asked: "What qualifies as evidence, anyway?"

I think this is the crux of the problem here, or at least a main problem whenever people argue/discuss religion and connected issues. This includes philosophy, politics, law and science, too. People have always argued over what sort of evidence is really evidence. Attorneys do this every day in court. We're hearing the same sort of thing every day on the news in relation to the Iraq situation. Skeptics of every stripe are very fond of the saying (Carl Sagan may have used it first, but I'm not sure) that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Nearly anyone who believes in anything strongly is apt to go easier on evidence that tends to prove what they believe as opposed to evidence that tends to disprove what they believe. I don't personally believe that any of this is going to change any time soon. This means that discussions like this, while illuminating, interesting, and a whole lot of fun, probably won't lead to any mutually acceptable conclusions. Which is okay; I've always believed that the journey is more important than the destination.

Also, to dkw - I just began reading Ian Barbour's book which you recommended. Good stuff.
 

Posted by Leto (Member # 3400) on :
 
quote:
I never said it was, Leto. What you're saying in your post was really my point to begin with.

Well, in that case, I can say that I agree.
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
quote:
What do you say to people who conclude there is no god based on the fact that they feel alone all the time?

I think that rather than proving the existence of God, many people are actually trying to prove the character of God.

For me, life created by design made more sense than life created by chance. I made a decision; since I couldn't prove either, I chose to believe the the second answer. For me, this is truth.

Yet I don't KNOW who this creator is, or even if He still exists. I think that the rest of my beliefs about God are a projection of what I believe a good father/mother would be to it's creation. I admit that this projection is what I think of when I think of God and this is the unexamined portion of my faith.

Since I believe in God, really believe, I turn to Him when I need help. I accept the possibility that someday, someone may prove that I've only been using prayer to channel that stronger more resourceful portion of my own character. In the meantime, until PROVEN otherwise, I feel the comfort of God when I seek it.


fugu-
Of course I believe in evolution- I've raised plants and animals all my life. But don't you need to combine many different variants to create the wealth of lifeforms on this planet?

[This message has been edited by LadyDove (edited January 27, 2003).]
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No. Thats the simple answer, at least. Basically, there is significant evidence that life started out with a few, extremely simple life forms, that gradually evolved. We even have very good ideas as to how the rise in complexity occurred, hints coming from such things as mitochondria, the fossil record, bone structure, and DNA. The further back we go, the harder it is to make guesses, but we can make some pretty good ones. For instance, there is strong evidence that amphibians evolved from fish, that reptiles evolved from amphibians, and that mammals evolved from reptiles. There is good evidence that more complex sea life evolved from simpler sea life, which evolved from simpler sea life, presumably back to single celled organisms (we have much less evidence for this assumption, but good reasons for why it wouldn't exist). Evolutionary theorists have spent a lot of time studying the phenomenon, both in real life, in the lab, and in computer simulations, and the basic result is that once there is even a simple instance of something that may recombine in many combinations, such as RNA or DNA, anything can happen.
 
Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
LadyDove,

I applaud you for your honestly and sincerity in posting what you did. I think your concept of god and the purpose of god/prayer/belief reflect a very carefully thought out approach - and a result that works well for you while acknowledging that there might yet be more that none of us know. To me, it seems that self-defined beliefs like yours hold more meaning to the believer in the long run, than a person who has adopted, but not personalized a system of belief.

Having read your latest post, what kind of comfort is there for a person who has searched for a god and honestly concludes that there isn't one?

[This message has been edited by Cianwn (edited January 27, 2003).]
 

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"what kind of comfort is there for a person who has searched for a god and honestly concludes that there isn't one?"

After nearly two decades of asking myself this question, I've come up with an answer: learn to like people.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited January 27, 2003).]
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
Don't forget "like yourself" too, Tom. Together, they do add a bit of peacefulness to an otherwise shaky spiritual outlook.
 
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
quote:
what kind of comfort is there for a person who has searched for a god and honestly concludes that there isn't one?

This baffles me about myself and people in general. Why is it so important to believe that there is someone greater than ourselves?

I don't know why I needed to find an answer I could live with. But I was uncomfortable even when I wasn't searching, like a persistent itch that couldn't be scratched.

I don't know that that particular void can be filled with anything other that a heartfelt decision to believe or not to believe.

But as a practical guide to contentment, Tom and Leto have it on the nose. Enjoy the people around you and be a friend to yourself.

I would add one more thing-Acknowledge to yourself all that is good and valuable in yourself and others.

[This message has been edited by LadyDove (edited January 28, 2003).]
 

Posted by Cianwn (Member # 4472) on :
 
Interesting take on secular humanism, LadyDove. So, then, you're saying the key is to find something that gives you a positive outlook on your own condition and place within the world?
 
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Do you know why it's important for me that there be a God?

Because then I can go worship him and not blink out of existence so that it will be as if I had never lived.

As for evidence, hell. I'll make do with anything, because I'd honestly rather be mistaken and secure than right and adrift in a godless world. Without faith, I am forced to go through life with my eyes open, with nothing but other people for company, waiting for my world to end with a whimper.

Russell was right: the only sensible attitude to life in a godless universe is despair. Sadly, I have yet to find a way to get rid of my sense, or fool it into a different conclusion.


ae

[This message has been edited by ae (edited January 28, 2003).]
 

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I disagree about possible attitudes in a godless universe. It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all to think that when I die, I will no longer exist in any form. I just have no investment in a need to exist forever. And if when I die, I become as nought, so what, I won't be around to notice. I think that its perfectly possible to find joy in this world without assuming an afterlife to reward one for good deeds, or punish one for bad ones.

[This message has been edited by fugu13 (edited January 28, 2003).]
 

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Well it certainly makes me uncomfortable to think that I won't exist in any form.


ae
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
In a godless universe, the need to spread one's seed would naturally be greater, due to the desire of the species to "survive."

In a universe with a god (or gods), the need to spread the seed of the faithful stems from the desire to continue the faith to the next generation (or, in some cases, to increase the ratio of the faithful).
 
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
 
Is faith more important than the object of faith ? i.e. 'faithful' behaviour towards a 'false' god better than casual 'faith' in the right one ?
 
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
I think that is a different definition of faith, monteverdi. The way you seem to be using it, I would define it as loyalty and obedience. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

I believe God will honor the loyalty and obedience you show to your perception of Him, even if it is not accurate. Every major religion outlines ways of thinking and behavior which is good and righteous, and you will be counted if you follow them. So my answer is, true and faithful actions towards an inaccurate visualization of God is far better than lip service to the 'real' God.
 

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Couple of things:

1) I begrudge no one their faith as long as it doesn't negatively impact those around them. If believing in a God despite a lack of evidence makes someone happy and good, I have no major quibble. Faith is very likely a positive part of the human experience, which leads me to

2) I am an atheist. While I pretty much reject the silly view that atheism is a "faith" (in the sense that it is an organized belief structure: something it patently isn't), I have finally come to admit that atheism does require faith (in the trusting of something you can't prove sense... they are frankly two different words). It was hard for me to admit this, it took a long time, but I feel comfortable with the idea now. Yes, it does take a leap of faith to say flatly that no gods exist, but for me (and, I would argue, objectively) that leap is shorter than the chasm-crossing jump required to believe that gods exist, because to be honest, there is nothing solid to back up such existence while there are explanations for nearly all phenomena in the universe that don't require a god.
 

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
DB- it's that "nearly" part that is the kicker.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I wrote this whole long thing about the misconceptions of science and religion, but it was really boring. Here's what I thought was most important or interesting.

In the psychology of personality, there's a important distinction between what is called nomothetic versus idiographic descriptions of personality. I think that this division is very applicable to the ideas of science and religion.

Nomothetic is a fancy way of saying that we take common elements from a collection of individual experiences and form general rules out of them and that we then use these rules to predict the behavior of individuals. Using nomothetic methods, we reduce people to objects in order to gain some handle on predicting their behacior. In this, we use analysis to cut apart the unity of a person and say that this part means that they will do this and this part means that they will do that.

Idiographic is pretty much the exact opposite. The main idea of this way of looking at things is the gestalt idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. An idiographic view of a person is that to understand them, you have to see them as a unique, unified individual.

Both views are valid. However, if we're going to be doing something in a scienctific vein, we're going to need to use the nomothetic methods. The idiographic ones, although they yield greater understanding of that one person, don't give us any way to transfer this learning to any other situation.

In my view, this is a good explanation of the different roles of science and religion. Science is great for taking the world apart and trying to figure out what's going to happen if things are like this or like that, whereas religion is the way of seeing the unity of the world and of exploring the questions that can only be understood if you don't cut everything up.
 

Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
 
The problem with one of those types of thinking without the other, Squick, is that they would always be incomplete if addressing human behavior in general, or sociological (or anthropological) patterns-- there are no given "A + B = C" patterns in human emotion, and even the slightest difference could change the overall picture greatly.

So, if you were implying that one should be only for sciences, and the other only for religion, then I'll have to disagree on both counts.
 
Posted by Tieko (Member # 5594) on :
 
TomDavidson, Ryan Hart (and anyone else who read my original post on this thread)...

Consider this my "newbie" inrto to Hatrack...I posted on the wrong thread... oops, ::shrugs with a slight smile:: Please forgive my abundant lack of attention. Leason learned and, hopefully, will not be repeated. (although I bet I'm not the only one who's done that)

I moved the original post to the correct thread - "Does a Perfect God Eliminate non-Deist Religions?"

Once again, sorry for the mix-up and Greetings! from an obvious new comer!!

-Tieko

[ September 18, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Tieko ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It would have helped if you had read the entire thread, perhaps, but welcome. [Smile]
 
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
It seems to me he has good opinons Tom. Don't be too quick to dismiss him.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2