WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

This thread shows, why I like the bit-tech community so much. It's mature enough to have some serious debates over such serious questions.

Elsewhere something like this wouldn't be possible.

Anyways, for people interested in religion - theists or atheists - I can only suggest to study the religions and the criticism of religion, as it explains alot more of what's going on in the world today and why, other then just the religious aspects.
Religion has alot to do with culture and was actually a driving factor for science in the earlier periods of mankind.

 

I don't that there are many that denies the importance of the church through the ages, especially the monasteries were the only place where books, the ability to write and thereby the key to western development were kept alive in the dark ages.

 

There is a view in some religions (Christianity and Islam) that science is a way of honouring and worshipping God's creation. Striving to understand nature is a way of striving to be closer to God.

 

Easy answer - because people keep saying "science disproves God/theism/ID etc." and I respond to it by clearly stating that science cannot prove such a claim, and so the toing and froing begins. And even though the "God shaped hole" postulate is just a belief, it is possible to argue its validity logically and reasonably. Eschewing the proverbial burden of proof (yet another atheist trump card) is not on the agenda of somebody who is not arguing with proofs. But these are matters that we will probably always disagree about anyway. So why do we have debates? Well, the real question is why not? This is way better than the demote thread.

I agree that first principles are arbitrary, but only in an unexamined state. Beyond that, it is precisely because we can rationally examine such things that we are able to assess and possibly even ascertain where they come from, or at the very least ascertain their probability or improbability. For example, you have hinted that religion/theism could reasonably have come from our capacity to construct such a paradigm, a la fifth order of intentionality etc., but you can only protract that inference from the scientific evidence because you rationally examine the arbitrary claim.

If anything, the above line of thinking is merely an excuse not to tackle reasonably and logically the possibility of God - I have encountered the dialogue it spawns many times, as I have mentioned before, and usually even the possibility of God is dismissed on the grounds that it is to be considered irrational.

Yep, and it was also discussed previously in this thread (well, there's not much that hasn't been discussed really, lol).

 

Theism has been disproved, time and time again, hence the phrase "God of the Gaps". Every time religion is cornered it reinvents its position. For centuries people truly believed that Genesis was literal, and when that was disproven - "Oh, well, it's just an allegory".

As for the God-Shaped Hole...It's simply a desire to understand our place in the universe. Theism presents itself as possible solution. It fits the criteria to fill that Curiousity-Shaped Hole on the shallowest of levels, but on closer examination relies on circular logic.

Is it possible that there is a God? Certainly, but given the fact that the fundamental narratives of all relgions have been disproven through progressive understanding of the universe we live in, it is unlikely that those religious explanations are correct. So unlikely, in fact, that I'm happy to confidently call myself an atheist, renounce the holy spirit, and burn in hell eternally as prescribed by your loving god

 

OK, maybe I'm currently too tired for this discussion but what am I missing here?:

If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.

 

Except that the evidence most certainly does not prove exactly that theism is useless. Is evolution a scientific fact? I don't doubt it. But there's more to theism than some people's misunderstandings of the Genesis account (I can, without substituting words make the Genesis account line up correctly with what the known scientific record states is how it happened. It all depends on how much you study the source literature in the historical context it was written.) If one wants to instead place their faith in Jesus, we can confirm that he was a historical figure, whose birth did correspond (roughly, accounting for the issues of the Gregorian calendar and Roman bookkeeping) with the stated time. There was an observable supernova during the generally accepted time of Christ's birth (which had not a bloody thing to do with December-most likely it happened in August, between the shepherds present and the counting of the feast days mentioned in the accounts.) We know that he was put to death under Pontius Pilate, as newer excavations have shown, but it was also recorded under the Antiquity of Josephus, a roman history written by a Jew's Jew, but even he attributes miraculous signs to him and states that he started a movement that in his day had not died out yet-one that persisted well past his death, which establishes that people must have been following him from before his death, and were still doing so. This is bolstered by two things-one is the concept of what an "oral history" really works like, and the other is by actual surviving fragments of what may be the originals to Matthew and Mark, as well as items written by some of the later followers of Christ (for that matter, we have some of the original writings of Baruch, Isaiah's amanuensis extant, but this is NT, as it concerns Christianity.) Oral history is not simply playing "telephone." It is a system in which stories are basically drilled into people until they can tell it forwards and backwards in their sleep. There are still today stonings over mistakes in retelling the oral Qur'an, and many scholars can recite either it or the Torah completely from memory. Part and parcel with the concept of mythologizing is that at the time of the earliest copies of Matthew and Mark (@AD 70, roughly) witnesses to the events would have still been living and would have most certainly spoken up if something had been recorded wrongly. But within the texts themselves, there is an awful lot recorded that the Jews would have never chosen for their own Messiah-he ate with sinners, and treated women as equals-things they would have found completely unthinkable. He went into the temple and physically beat the moneylenders. He made a mockery of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, whereas anyone attempting to come to power in the Jewish state would court one, if not both of these in order to secure their position. Generally speaking, Jewish society considered his acts to be pretty shameful. They wouldn't want a record of someone's actions like that, unless it had actually happened and they couldn't keep people's mouths shut.

Did the Resurrection happen? There's an awful lot of evidence something happened. And this is using really almost all secular sources. As hard as archaeology has tried to disprove, all they tend to do is turn up new and earlier evidence when they try. There is a good reason that any school that focuses on archaeology has a school of Biblical archaeology, and that's because amazing portions of that book line up with events, many that were considered mythical until physical evidence showed up, exactly where it was stated it would be. As a historical document, large parts of it stand up to scrutiny. Many parts we're awaiting confirmation of, but then again how long did we believe there were atoms before we could actually observe them? In that case, and many, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One cannot construct a proper test to prove or disprove a deity, and so the best answer is that one does not know. Some will choose to believe, some will not. But I don't ask the scientist to prove there is a deity, and I don't ask the minister about the use of fire and tool-making as the pivotal moment that began to separate protohumanity from the rest of the apes. Each is there to answer a different question. Science cannot prove there is or is not a God. There are still things to which it must say "I don't really know." In faith, we accept that there are things we will not know, and while I spend a lot of time pondering the indecipherable, I also accept that knowing the answer to some of those questions would not improve how I interact with people on a daily basis. To be perfectly honest, how God created the world isn't a big concern of mine. My concern is with the people that fill it, and trying to help them understand where they fit in it all. And science is ever a tool to me, and not a threat. But then again, I'm not the average Christian, either. Most of them don't like me very much.

If I need to clarify, please let me know, in the hospital again and arguing with the pain meds.

 

Science does not test the untestable. However theists frequently stray onto scientific turf by trying to present proof for their faith (a contradiction in itself); e.g. the Intelligent Design crowd, or even just by saying: "But look at the miracle of creation!" and stuff like that, presenting it as proof rather than a source of inspiration for their faith. People indeed look, and some then come up with scientific explanations that do not involve God and this annoys some theists intensely.

Burden of proof is not a trump card: it is the fundamental principle on which science is based. Don't play the science game and we won't smack you around the head with it.

I think that there is a lot of confusion on both sides. The theory that religion is a (by)product of human psychology that evolved because it has survival advantages is not a first principle. The scientific discipline that developed that theory is. Of course the important bit, which everybody frequently forgets, is that it leaves open the possibility that both viewpoints are true: religion evolved as a functional cognitive construct because God set it up that way. But God cannot be tested so science does not go there --that bit remains a matter of what you choose to believe.

Basically, atheists believe in one God less because they have no compelling reason to believe in Him. Science does not provide an answer, so it comes down to personal reason and appeal. And I'm sorry to say that most religious beliefs do not appeal to me. As a philosophy they have to make rational and ethical sense to me (it's how I roll) and mostly they don't. New Testament Christianity (in its basic form, not the pure crazy that for instance the Latter Day Saints come up with) comes pretty close, although Daoism and Confucianism also appeal to me.

I have enough reasoning and imagination to consider what God would be like if He does exist, based on the available evidence. First, He seems to have gone through an awful lot of trouble to make sure that we can't prove or disprove His existence. I mean, there's not a single solid clue unambiguously pointing one way or the other. So (if He exists), He must have done this deliberately. He doesn't want us to know. Why not? Because with knowing stops questioning. Why does He want us to question? Because with questioning comes understanding, which is much better than knowing.

What does He want us to understand? I think of how Jesus allowed himself to be crucified. He could have fled, but he didn't. The message is clear: "What I'm telling you is so important, that I'm prepared to die for it". The message is more important than the messenger. So it follows that Jesus, in himself, does not matter. Priests and popes don't matter, God does not matter; faith, hope and love (most of all, love) matters. Don't get blinded by the deity, the prophets, the self-proclaimed priests. You know what is good, what is bad, what matters. Pay attention to how you live your own life and how you treat others. God does not care about worship; He is a big boy, been around long before us. He doesn't need us. He cares that you live wisely and well; that in doing so we prosper as a species, evolve and find our own place in the universe. His message is: don't pay attention to me; it's people who matter.

So you can see why I'm comfortable with the scientific position that leaves the existence of God as an unknown. It really doesn't matter, as long as we treat each other decently.

 

Basically. Growing up means being able to look after yourself and not expecting someone else to do it for you.

 

My error, I should have said theistic narratives have been disproven. e.g. Genesis, the flood, etc

Any historical evidence you might cite merely proves that non-magical things happened. It makes sense to ground a fantastic story in reality if you want people to believe it - Also known as a minimally counterintuitive concept. The Bible may have been written in a contemporary setting, but evidence of that contemporary setting does not prove the magical.

 

I think it is important to remember that in those days people did believe what they wrote. In a mostly illiterate time, writing in itself was a form of magic and had power. To name it was to make it real. Hence the notion of magic spells consisting of spoken or written words (especially in Chinese culture spells were a special combination of Kanji characters written on strips of paper). Hence stories were extremely powerful too.

Anyway, just to put our discussions into perspective a bit, visit this site.

 

I read Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov recently and it's basically this thread written from a 19th century perspective. If you fancy a bit of Russian literary greatness it's a good read.

 

Well, Russian literature certainly tends to go on as long as this thread. Kudo's for reading it though.

 

This is just a misrepresentation of what is merely a learning curve: people get things wrong, and learn from their mistakes. Theism, along with any other philosophy, is characterized by people who are mistaken in many of their beliefs, but none of these mistakes wholly undermine the philosophy itself, and often what happens is that what we learn strengthens our philosophy rather than weakens it.

Thankfully, there are Christians who are open-minded enough to accept that science can inform their beliefs rather than threaten them. At any level, Genesis cannot be disproven because it is a story after all.

You mean your example of circular logic that I debunked? Granted, many people think circularly - including atheists - but that doesn't mean that the actual beliefs themselves are inherently circular.

Still not the case. Rather like a debate which sees no resolve, the panorama of science will continue to see hypothesis upon hypothesis as new evidence is uncovered, and the balance will constantly shift from one position to another and may never come to rest. There are (atheistic) scientists who have no problem with a great flood having occurred several thousand years ago... but, as you say, it's not proof of anything "magical", so why are you so eager for such a thing to be disproven? To discredit the Bible?

I'm not playing the science game, but I am being smacked around the head with it - same old!

And you may not regard BoP as an atheist trump card, but it is. Unfortunately not all atheists have your capacity for thinking (or, indeed, the willingness to use it) and they tend to rely on ill-prepared quickfire responses to fortify their position.

Been there many times. Like most other "non-basic" flavours of NT Christianity, the LDS use vastly different scriptures from evangelical Christians which gives rise to all kinds of beliefs. Cults like that often get lumped in with mainstream Christianity, but they most certainly are not mainstream.

You could actually be a pastor. No joke. One of the letters in the New Testament says pretty much the same thing.

This is where you stray a lil bit. The message of the Bible is that people matter, but only because they are created like God, and it is God who matters most, and this is to be recognised. In a purely existential sense, yes, we just need to live selflessly and look after each other, thus improving our quality of life etc; however in a spiritual sense, which is the primary focus of the Bible, we need to be reconciled to God, which can only happen through Jesus.

You appreciate the teachings of Jesus, which I get, but you isolate the non-spiritual side of them and take your application from that standpoint, which is where we differ. Outwardly we're probably pretty similar in how we live life.

Incidentally I was reading New Scientist yesterday and I wanted to quote some of it, but frankly I'm too tired atm and need to get back to my model making.

And on the subject of "scale of the universe," there's a similarly awe-inspiring high res photo of Mt Everest and the Khumbu Icefall which can be studied for hours and never cease to inspire. I'll see if I can dig it up - it's on my FB wall somewhere...

 

Regarding Jesus and religion, without touching the faith in god...

If you believe, then you don't need a church or any kind of institutional religion as god is everywhere you go.

Thomas and Luke in the new testament is an interesting read actually, and it can be condensed into this...

The movie Stigmata was about this stuff aswell, for those interested.

 

On the up-side, you can smack them around the head with burden of proof.

Let's say that this is where we differ.

And how we live our life is the important bit. A man is defined by his actions. What can I say? I'm an existentialist.

 

While granted, church is for some people nothing more than habit and traditionalism etc and there are plenty of people who go to church yet have absolutely no real faith, I would liken it to more of a lan party or comic-con or chess club for those who actually believe...slightly lame comparisons but I have a point. As in, why would you expect people who believe the same thing not to meet up and discuss and further their understanding and socialize? Just because they don't have to they shouldn't? Church is far more than an hour on a sunday morning. Completely aside from the teaching and spiritual nourishment that comes from time spent with other Christians there's plenty else that goes on. I'm going to bowls on friday night for example, mostly frequented by the older generations of our church but myself and a friend have gone a few times, as have a few of the guys from our youth club and it's an awesome evening of fun. It's organised by the church and there's usually a Bible verse read at the end of the evening and someone will say grace before the tea and biscuits but it's an open club, anyone is welcome to come and join in.

Also if you want to quote the Bible;

Apologies if I'm tangential to the main discussion here but I haven't joined in much in this thread yet and this post was crying out for a reply!

 

I don't think its possible to be tangential to this thread its more of a river flowing where it flows.

 

Looks like Douglas Adams was right, if we ever do understand the universe it will be instantly replaced with something even more incomprehensible.

What I find mind bending is this cyclical theorem, all cycles must have a beginning... mustn't they!?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765