Wow Nexxo, you are by far the *hardest* person i've ever had the chance to debate with. I know you're far better at debating than me, but i still think you're wrong, even though you're guaranteed to out-debate me (anyone have debate skills for sale? ) i can't help but disagree You keep mentioning religion as story and story as being important to humans... This i agree with, as i think so too. But you're missing the point of: stories = stories religion = stories stories =/= truth religion is invariably implied as truth stories implied as truth would be the exactly the same. stories are no danger because they are stories, metaphors for things, not truth when you try to imply made-up stories as factual evidence, that is where the problems start, and that is the sheer essence of religion some religions may teach the fundamentals of morality, but they are by no means the ONLY way of achieving morality, or depending on views, even a good way of teaching morality. Whilst i understand religion can *possibly* be of some benefit in this regard, i've never seen *any* evidence why this is considered the *best* way to teach this. I short, i'm still waiting for any evidence religion is a good thing overall, because there sure hasn't been any yet...
What you are putting your finger on is the misinterpretation (or misapplication) of religious stories. Religious beliefs are not meant to be taken as a literal interpretation of the physical world. They do not deal with facts; they deal with meaning. When Jesus told the story(!) of the Good Samaritan, he was not giving a factual account; he was conveying an idea. When the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." it is not talking about facts, but about social principles. They were not looking for proof because ethics can't be proved. Meaning is a different animal from fact. It is a matter of opinion, conviction and faith. All beliefs are true, for a given value of "true". But we all know people who can't quite separate story from reality, and meaning from fact. They are the ones who treat soap operas as documentary accounts (and send hate mail to the actors who play the baddie), or dress up in uniform because they want Star Trek to be real; who believe the gossip in Hello Magazine and think that when doe-eyed Britney flutters her eyelashes at the cameras and sings how much she loves them, that she really means it (and thus stalking fixations begin).They are also the ones who take religious scriptures as the literal word of God, personally dictated to his disciples (full stop). Now we all like to suspend disbelief occasionally -- it is what makes films and plays so enjoyable. But we usually know we're doing it (although it can be hard to re-engage disbelief: how many people sleep with the lights on after a really good horror movie?). Moreover, most people can comfortably hold several parallel realities in their head -- believe in a Cosmic Creator on a meaning level and understand the Big Bang on a factual level (and really, is there such a big difference?). That is because we have to function in both those worlds. Amimals have simple brains and therefore simplified internal representations of the outer world. But these are not just fact-based simulations; they are tagged with lots of meaning relevant to survival. What represents a threat, what represents food, what a mating opportunity or a territorial boundary or a member of the same vs another herd. We, for various survival reasons, have developed complex brains with very complex representations of the world, with very complex meaning tags. Its meaningful (rather than factual -- it is more immediately useful for survival to know that a lion is a threat than that a threat is a lion) accuracy in corresponding with the outer would determines our survival. The outer world of facts, the inner world of what (we believe) it all means to us: parallel universes of facts and meaning in which we live simultaneously, and which we usually manage to keep complementary coherent with each other (we have to, to function and survive). The trouble starts when they are not, and we decide to change the outer world of facts because we simply can't or won't adapt our inner one of beliefs and meaning (we've all been there in moments of grief: shock, disbelief, "I cannot accept this!"), or because we've kept them so tightly in step with each other that we don't realise there is actually a difference between the two (it helps if you live in a group that colludes because it shares the same worldview). That's when the persecution and terrorism starts, by the fundamentally religious and the fundamentally scientific, because nothing threatens us so, and therefore pisses us off so, as a confrontation with a world that does not fit our preferred internal perception of it. Because to not understand the world is to be out of control, and that is generally very bad for your survival indeed. Fundamentalists live in their internal world only, and expect the outer world and all other people's inner worlds to fall in line. Dawkins is no different from a religious fundamentalist: his inner world marches tightly to the drum of science, and he expects other people's inner worlds to do the same because to him, it makes utter sense. And it does. To him. Perhaps even to you and me. But not to everybody.
I meant to write a reply last night. But I couldn't be bothered because I was exhibiting the first symptoms of a cold. I meant to write at about 5am when I couldn't get to sleep because the snot was pouring out of my nose and on to my pillow. I meant to write a reply after just getting up, having not slept all night, but I still couldn't be bothered. I can't believe I got friggin' smited!
Fighting back... We believe the Humanists will be in for a big surprise one day, but their program is a great way to get people thinking and interacting. The Bible clearly teaches about Heaven and Hell. Jesus came to point people towards one and away from the other. We're so glad He did! We just wish as many Believers would send us $5 the same way the Humanists have supported their campaign. David Harrison, President Bus Stop Bible Studies I wish you would not use this forum discussion to tout for money. Funny how faith always has to be "proved" with a cheque book. --Nexxo
If there's a hell you're on the bus for it, unless hell is just mythical punishment in attempt to deter those not intelligent enough to do the right thing, such as yourself, David Harrison.
To answer an earlier question - "Do you think my religious terminal cancer patient would have benefited from a scientific expose on death and dying more than from a belief in god and an afterlife?" No, I don't. Obviously. Besides, it's a loaded question. Changing someone's belief system is extremely invasive thought-surgery, and it takes time to perform a successful operation. The last hours of someone's life is not an appropriate timeframe. Appropriate timeframe - Therein lies the seed of the answer to this debate. Underpinning philosophy, science, and everything we do is one core imperative - survival. Although different approaches the ultimate goal of both science and religion is to provide an answer to The Universe, Birth, Death, Life and Everything. You mentioned lions in your previous post. So lets use that farmiliar concept and look at what the frameworks provide us with. Let's imagine a summary for two books, both called "Surviving Lion's" written by a scientist and a prophet. "Surviving Lion's" by Dr. A Scientist In my journey to write this book on Panthera leo I travelled to Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. When here I studied several groups of lions to identify underlying common patterns of behaviour. In each lion pack I examined their group organization, hunting patterns, habitual diet, reproductive behaviour, life-cycles, socialization, commuication and interspecific predatory relationships. From my conclusions I would like to think that no other book will equip you with more appropriate information on how to survive lions. It was a enlightening journey that ended too quickly, so I would like to invite other scientists to continue my work so we might have more insight in to the proud and fascinating animal. "Surviving Lion's" by A Prophet. I didn't do any research. I just imagined what lions might be like by drawing on my own personal experiences. Actually, I saw a lion on TV once...well, actually I didn't but I saw a wilderbeast who saw a lion and, I tell ya, that wilderbeast was FREAKED OUT. Based on my anthropomorphic empathic relationship with that winderbeast I asked myself what would freak me out like that - So my contention is that lions are 8-foot tall, they have 20 insect-like eyes, they have corkscrews for nipples, walk on four of their seventeen legs, have teeth like a broken bottle of buckfast, shoot lasers from their nostrils and have a jet-propulsion system up their arse so nothing can outrun them - wouldn't that freak you out? Yeah, totally. And if anyone tells you anything different they're lying because they are actually agents of the lions sent to decieve you. lying, lions - do you see the similarity? £0.00001 of the proceeds from this book will go towards your salvation. From lions. That was fun. But what happens when you replace "Surviving Lions" with "Surviving Life"? In the grand scheme of things, which is the most appropriate and dynamic framework to teach our children to survive. Survive reality. Both these disciplines attempt to explain the nature of reality on a fundamental level, So which will it be? The one that continually seeks to understand it and improve upon that understanding? Or the one who thinks it had all the answers 2000 years ago and resists all other explanations with potentially deadly force (homicidal or suicidal)? The appropriate timeframe to change fundamental beliefs is one generation. So which should we teach our children is the best way to approach the world?
It is also playing God. For a dying cancer patient faith may be more helpful than hard science (or as helpful as; I don't knock the science of pain relief). There may be other situations where to the individual, faith may offer a more helpful perspective in coping with their particular circumstances. There are areas of human existence where science doesn't reach. The end result of both approaches would be that people would avoid lions. Job done. OK, let's look at that more closely. Suppose you live in Africa, what do you tell the little kids? Do you give them a scientifically accurate and detailed expose on lions, or do you say: "Stay well away from lions. They have big fangs and claws and like eating little boys and girls!"? Remember how your parents told you not to accept sweets from strangers, and to tell them if people touched you in bad places? I'm sure they did not go into explanations of what a paedophile was; their psychological make-up and motivations, and the sexual connotations of the places they might want to touch you. "Lies to children": We tell children very simplified functional representations of the world because they cannot yet understand the full picture. But the simplified picture works well enough for practical purposes, and over time prepares their mind for understanding the more complex one. this tactic is used in school also (Hence on your first day in University your lecturer opens with: "OK, forget everything you learned in secondary school; this is how it really is..."). Science is great. But for immediate survival all you have to observe is that a wildebeest is FREAKED OUT by lions. You run back to your tribe and tell them. They start sharing your fear and awe of lions. Because living with such a constant threat is psychologically stressful, you all try to get some sense of cognitive control over the threat. Perhaps you can appease them, worship them for the gods they appear to be. You give them sacrificial offerings: a gazelle now and then, or a tribal member who really broke the rules badly. It fills their bellies and keeps them at bay --and keeps potential tribal offenders in check. The lions, on their part, stop hunting tribal members and just learn to collect their offerings because it is easier. A sort of domestication begins. Eventually you learn what makes the lion gods tick. Your survival depends on it, after all. You may learn to domesticate them (it worked with dogs and smaller cats). However lions are less amenable so one day a brave chief's son decides to overthrow the dogmatic rule of the lion gods and their tribal high priests (who have way too much power and influence, the corrupt old sods) and kills a lion. The high priests don't like this and cry "blasphemy", but sooner or later people learn that lions are animals that can be outsmarted and defeated, and how; the empirical problem solving approach has replaced superstition. People move another step up the evolutionary ladder. That was fun. And what this story(!) tells you is that religion is a product of superstitious thinking as an attempt to get control of one's environment, and that as people get a better understanding this shifts to empirical scientific reasoning. But you can't skip steps: people need the simplified "lies to children" first, to prepare the mind for a more sophisticated understanding later on. You think of this as an either-or dilemma. The truth is that we start by telling children 'lies to children" ("Grandma's gone to heaven now" to a bereaved four-year old, for instance), and gradually replace these simplified ideas for more sophisticated approximations to scientific facts as their minds are ready to understand and accept them. Of course, for some aspects of human existence there aren't any scientific facts: what is the meaning of life, what is a "good" way to live? Why are we here (as opposed to how), what is humanity all about and what should it strive for? No scientific answers to those. They are subjective, existential questions of meaning for which we tell each other many "lies to children" because we haven't got the adult answers yet. However many people with faith (on this forum, for instance) have moved away from simplified, literal interpretations of religious texts to quite sophisticated personal ideas of faith. For some, it is a process of reflection rather than a story. Like science, it is a discipline, but one that tries to get at a different sort of truth. Like with all developments from child to adult, it is a necessary stage for us to work through -- you can't skip it and you can't rush it. (EDIT: Hope your cold is feeling better, by the way...)
blah blah. religi nutjobs will love it because it promotes discussion. the pro atheist blah blah will love it because it promotes discussion...you see a pattern forming here? Now if they could all just STFU that would be better, I mean what are they trying to tell you it`s all inevitable...... or something?...yawn.
No, discussion is preferable over STFU. Discussion leads to mutual understanding at least (if not agreement) and the exchange and development of ideas. STFU leads to mutual entrenchment and segregation, competition and conflict. It's good to talk. Come and try it.
The cold is a little better. I coughed up a load of crap this morning, but atleast I didn't feel like I did yesterday, when I woke up to the sensation of drowning I had that much mucas in my chest. I agree with what you're saying about simplified explanations. It's why we teach kids newtonian physics before quantum mechanics...and not just to ensure the survival of the family cat (ba-dum-tsh!). However I think organised religion (and I very specifically mean organised religion) jumps the gun somewhat by claiming to have all the answers to all the questions and giving those answers unquestionable authority. I think it's a reasonable contention that 99.9% of good aspects of religion stem from scientific methodology - Experiment, Observe, Conclude. This is why religious communities have working sociological rules for interaction within that community. Common sense - Dont lie, dont kill, dont shag your neighbours wife - It causes fights. It also causes bad sociological rules as it spreads out from that community. For example, in the Old Testament, it explicitly states that it's ok to own human slaves, but only from a neighbouring country. At that time it's a very workable idea - A slave from ones own community has the potential to cause a civil war within that community. A slave from another country full of heathens? It's unlikely that a competing country is going to go to war over a single slave, unless that person is very important. The real sociological danger comes from that which hasn't been observed, but simply been dreamt up by someone - The metaphysical aspect. This is what causes ritual human sacrifice, suicide bombings, genital mutilation, the list goes on...which isn't realy condusive to the genetic imperative, is it? The reason why (specifically) organised religion isn't a good tool for the survival of the race is because it puts foward unproven, dreamt-up ideas as fact, and consequently the practical social and moral ramifications of those ideas as fact also. Decapitating peoples heads to make crops grow. Certainly there is a need to make crops grow for survival, but people died over superstition, and no one was allowed to question it, or guess where they would have ended up
As I said, that's not about spirituality per se, but about (ab)using beliefs as a way to manipulate people. Religion can be useful in keeping people together under difficult circumstances (as Moses found), making them behave civilly towards each other and making them do things that are sensible for one's health in a hot, dirty climate (rules on cleanliness and how to treat food, for instance), but they would otherwise not understand the need for. Religion is a story, and stories inspire. Religious group bonds can also be abused by those who are so inclined. It can justify very uncivilised behaviour (towards outgroups) and societal hierarchy and unfairness (as above, so below; you'll get your reward in the hereafter). But let's face it, any cultural belief will do for that: just read the Daily Mail and listen to a politician's speech. Draw your conclusions. Eastern European/South American immigrants are foreign invaders, all Arabs are terrorists, stick to your social class and would you want your white daughter to come home with a Black/Asian boyfriend? Gays do not get beaten up because the attacker read the Bible and felt a strong need to defend decent Christian values. And we all know Americans' feelings about anything that even faintly smells of socialism. Damn Commie Swedes... And those Celtic supporters better watch out if they come on our Manchester United turf... Politicians know about all that tribalism, and use it to their advantage. All those instances of prejudice, which inspire violence and murder in their own right, have nothing to do with religion but everything with tribalism. We even have fanboys flaming each other on forums over which game consoles they worship prefer, FFS. Metaphysical? You tell me. For some people, football is the centre of their universe. Now you say that organised religion isn't a good tool for survival. I beg to differ, and raise as exhibit A: the Jews. An ethnic group persecuted throughout millenia, and nearly wiped to extinction 50 years ago, it is still a socially very coherent, growing group that now inhabits one of the most powerful countries in the Middle East and is close, influential palls with World Power no.1. Even the likes of Syria and Iran don't dare to **** with it. That's organised religion. Now let me point you to Opus Dei and the Vatican, two of the richest religious organisations in the world, and the Christian lobby in the United States, effectively dictating who gets into the White House (with every Presidential candidate bending over backwards to emphasise that they are true Christian believers, yessirree!). Organised religion: it works, bitches. As a tool to create single-minded group coherence and compliance, as a way to direct them to unquestioningly do anything a leader wants them to, as a way to stick together in the face of persecution and death, it works very well indeed. However do not confuse organised religion with faith. organised religion goes through cycles like that: it starts out as content with which people identify, and over time crystallises into empty ritual and dogma, losing its content along the way. Highjacked by opportunists seeking power and influence, it becomes about rules rather than meaning. Then a prophet comes along (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed) and says: "Look, forget about all those dumb rules. They mean nothing. Hierarchy means nothing. It is about content." and starts the whole cycle again (and usually gets persecuted by the established religious hierarchy for their impertinence). Likewise, there are plenty of faithful who have a personal, meaningful philosophy that has nothing to do with organised dogma. Let's not lump them together with the dogmatic nutters.
For a bit, I thought I was gonna have to come in here and say something. then I read a bit more, and Nexxo pretty much said a lot of it for me. We may quibble on some things, given vocations, but generally, I agree with about 90% of what he's said. Science and religion are not incompatible. Do I know how Genesis happened? No. Do I stop reading science journals because I'm a Christian? No. In some cases, it fills in the gaps for me for each side. In other cases, I just decide maybe I'm not required to know how everything got here to appreciate it. If you need any more evidence that there's room for both, look at some prevailing explanations for quantum instabilities. Might as well say God farted. People may push religion's domain into a box, but that does not mean that it doesn't find a new place to apply. God may not be real. Let me operate under that assumption for a moment (and assumption it is, for it is completely unproveable in an empirical, repeatable manner.) There are four possibilities evident at this juncture of thought. Each has its consequences. 1. There is no God, and I do not believe. I do as I wish throughout life, whether good or bad, and I die. gg /uninstall. 2. There is a God, and I do not believe. I do as I wish, and when I die I am separated from God forever by dint of my inborn sinful nature. Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth, but the worst punishment was that Earth was not only as good as it gets, but chock-full of tickets out of this place I ignored. 3. There is no God, and I believe anyway. My life is spent (as a true believer, not a religious nutjob) in an imitation of the life of Christ, attempting to help those around me both physically and spiritually. I die, but at least I have made a mark on someone's life, and I may have even influenced others to give a rip. 4. There is a God, and I do believe. I live a life as stated in 3, and when I die, I am justified by faith before God and he accepts me into eternal rest. In the above situation (all logically posited) the winning answer is 4, technically, but insofar as human life goes, 3 and 4 win. Tis better to gamble for God than against, according to Pascal (where I borrowed the argument with permission) for at least if you bet for and are wrong you're making every effort you can to be a good person to everyone you meet. As I draw this rambling diatribe to a close (my fever's spiking up again) I'd like to thank Nexxo and the letters F, S, C, and K, and the number sleep.
I think most religions came about much like chinese whispers, some chap saw a bloke wading threw some water, and told his mate, 37 people later and the bloke is now 'walking on water'. To say there is no God is a little harsh, however i cant believe in something i have yet to witness nor can i dis-reguard the matter of 'God'. I simply accept that there can or cant be a god at the same time. What F**Ks me up is the problem of 'Where is the universe?' I mean i am sat here on my chair, in my room, on planet earth, in this solar system, which is in this galaxy, and this galaxy is with in the universe, but what the hell is the universe in, Maybe i am trying to quantify the universe, at which point i get so dam confused i need a few beers to remove the whole question from my brain, until the next time... Can Nexxo answer this one question, after all he solves most problems here..
If there were a God He would surely strike Burnout21 down as an affront to His creation... I know I would. dis-reguard?
Perhaps God is quantum. The problem is that we are like a goldfish in a bowl. Everything we know, and therefore, everything we can imagine, is about being surrounded by water and some seaweed and sand (and perhaps one of those little plastic models of a diver and treasure chest that generates bubbles). The goldfish has absolutely no frame of reference for the larger world outside the fishbowl (dry space, your home, the city, the country, the world, people, art, geo-politics, the internet, quantum physics, mathematics, dimensions to name a few) --and not the senses or brain to even apprehend it. We are a bit like the goldfish: three-dimensional, temporally linear beings with a beginning and end, living in a three-dimensional universe in which everything that we can perceive with our senses and understand with our brain appears to be temporally linear, has a beginning and end and takes place in a three-dimensional space. Asking where the universe is, is like a goldfish asking where the goldfish bowl is, only more so. We have no conception of the frame of reference within which the answer to that question would make any sense. I would go even further and say that the question: "Is there a God?" may fall in the same category as "Where is the universe?". We haven't got the conceptual frame of reference to phrase the question well enough to really understand the answer. So we will always be stuck will very oversimplified analogies. Don't mistake that for the real thing. Our "lie to children" we tell ourselves is just basic groundwork to prepare our minds for a much, much more complex reality.
Try as I might, I'm failing to see what invaluable property that organised religion specifically exhibits that cannot be attained through alternative social organisation systems (which also happen to be free of the unfortunate side effects of religious dogma).
I think a few people in this thread have forgotten the subtle message behind the original slogan which started the thread off. The message that arguing/worrying over the existence of god is futile.
