Biochem nothing short of divine?

[LadyJubilee8_18]

(1) Sorry- not that easy. You disregard a number of crucial points in your simplistic view of Pascal's wager.

Pascal lived in a simple religious environment- you either believed in the Judeo Christian (J-C) God (specifically Roman Catholicism) or you didn't. If that was the way life really is, his logic would work just fine. Unfortunately, there are over 2500 different Gods/supernatural beings believed in by people on this earth. Even if we assume that one of these 2500 is correct (which is in NO way guaranteed), our absolute best shot at selecting the "right" God is is 1 in 2500. We can also introduce the infinite number of conceivable deities that people don't (yet) worship. For example, there could be a God that rewards people who most often step on sidewalk cracks. After all, God is incomprehensible... he can do what he wants.

This is what Pascal proposes:

(Option 1) God exists
a. you believe- hooray!
b. you don't- eternal pain, etc.

(Option 2) God doesn't exist
a. you believe- eh, whoops
b. you don't- eh, i was right


Real choices:

(Option 1) J-C God exists
a. you believe in J-C God- hooray!
b. you believe in God X- eternal pain, etc.
c. you believe in God Y- eternal pain
...
(on to infinity)
z. you don't believe in anything- eternal pain

(Option 2) God X exists
a. you believe in God X- hooray!
b. you believe in J-C God- eternal pain
c. you believe in God Y- eternal pain
...
(on to infinity)

There are infinitely many such options- you coudl makea box for every conceivable state of God-truth. Each such option has infinitely many beleif states, only one of which results in eternal happiness. All others (most atleast) result in eternal pain.

For a great number of these Gods, believing in other, false deities results in eternal damnation- like Christianity does for example. "Put no other Gods before me" and such. Thus, 2499 times out of 2500 (EVEN if you assume God exists as one of the religions we already practice on Earth) you suffer eternal damnation. (see chart above) It becomes clear that blindly believing is NOT a good bet.

There is also the oft-suggested theory of a creator who "rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists!" (Gale, On the Nature and Existence of God: p345-354)

(2) I am truly glad that you were unsuccesful in your suicide attempt. It's tragic that so many young people looking forward to full lives feel forced to end their lives- I'm happy that you consider life worth living again.

However, I have to disgree with your interpretation of the events. You suggest that the odds of your mom returning when she did were so slim as to suggest that God played a role in saving your life. I am forced to ask, then, what this means for the many young people who DO succesfully commit suicide. Did God want them to die? He apparently wanted you to live, and therefore did something about it. Must I conclude that God wanted others to kill themselves? Don't you think it a tad arrogant to presume that you are SO much more special than the thousands of suicide victims each year that God himself elected to intervene?

I understand that it isn't proper to use personal experiences to prove or disprove God. All I know is that I lived, and I thank God that I did. I understand that you are a cynical individual, but it is inappropriate for you to make light of such a moving event in my life. Is my belief faith based? Yes, it sure is. Could my experience make sense to you? No, probably not. I am not being arrogant at all; I am just being thankful and hopeful. My belief in God gives me the privilege to have hope and I know that this is truly a privilege because I spent many days without hope. If you think that I will allow your "logic" to take that away from me, you are sadly mistaken. I feel sorry for you if you can not see why I would be moved by this occurrence.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jhugti]

I understand that it isn't proper to use personal experiences to prove or disprove God. All I know is that I lived, and I thank God that I did. I understand that you are a cynical individual, but it is inappropriate for you to make light of such a moving event in my life. Is my belief faith based? Yes, it sure is. Could my experience make sense to you? No, probably not. I am not being arrogant at all; I am just being thankful and hopeful. My belief in God gives me the privilege to have hope and I know that this is truly a privilege because I spent many days without hope. If you think that I will allow your "logic" to take that away from me, you are sadly mistaken. I feel sorry for you if you can not see why I would be moved by this occurrence.

My aim in including an introductory blurb in my response was specifically to reiterate that I absolutely do not make light of what was as important an event in your life as any. I wasn't being cynical when I said I was glad that you are alive- a tragic death is a tragic death and I would never wish suicide upon anyone. Further, I am not so emotionally cold as not to understand how important a life changing experience can be to a person's entire world-view. My cynicism means little to me in the face of life or death questions, and I would of course rather a person live through a crisis than die, however they were able to deal with it.

That said, the reason I brought it up is because you stated earler that events like that one help to maintain your faith in God. My point was that it is (in my opinion) indeed arrogant to suggest that a supernatural being directly intervened in your plans and brought your mom home that day. This is not an emotional arrogance, but rather an arrogance of paradigm. To illustrate, one of my major beefs with the J-C belief system is that we humans are supposed to be "in the image of God" and that we are meant to rule the Earth, dominate its resources, etc. This too (in my opinion) is arrogance, albeit on a species-wide level. I don't suggest that people who think this way are waving their guns around as they lord over their territory, but a world view like this is fundamentally at odds with humility.

To use a less emotionally charged example, how do you feel about sports players who thank God for touchdowns scored and home runs hit? I would ask them the same question- what makes you think that God is on your side, rather than on the opponents'? Did God favor Michael Jordan and disfavor Patrick Ewing? Athletes who thank God are being arrogant- do they really think God could possible care who wins the penant? And why should he be a Yankees fan? (or perhaps Sox...) To think that God is on your side and not on another's- I cannot see any way in which this could be anything but arrogant.

An athiest in your position would have been no less able to emerge hopeful from such a close call. Near death experiences serve to make life all the more sweet to anyone lucky enough to emerge relatively unscathed. One need not attribute the the experience to a supernatural being in order for it to be sublimely significant.

I don't expect to convince you to my side, and I suspect you hold out little hope of the converse. Even so, its an interesting argument and I'm glad you are as willing to defend your beliefs as I am.

 

[jhugti]

Again, with a little effort, you could have read the posts and seen that I allowed for the possibility that existence always was. There is no evidence that the Universe at one time did not exist just as there is no evidence that the Universe was always in existence. I freely acknowledged this concept

Really? Perhaps you can understand how I might have been misled by your remark:

I feel sorry for those who do not believe in God because Atheism does not make sense to me (how could something come from nothing while obeying the laws of physics?)

Sounds to me like you are criticizing atheism because it requires believing that "something" (the universe) arose from "nothing" (not the universe?) This seems at odds with your contention that you don't have an issue with a universe that has always existed.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Really? Perhaps you can understand how I might have been misled by your remark:



Sounds to me like you are criticizing atheism because it requires believing that "something" (the universe) arose from "nothing" (not the universe?) This seems at odds with your contention that you don't have an issue with a universe that has always existed.

the “first cause” or the creator had to be beyond the physical unless there is no such thing as nothing (i.e. there was never a state when nothing was in existence). Based on this assumption, there was no start and time must just be an infinite circle so that everyone and every thing is both the creator and the creation. This idea requires the assumption that there is no variation at any given point in the cycle because in order for a circle to be consistent, each point must lead to an unvarying product. If there is any variation what so ever, the path is helical instead of circular and helices have a beginning. This again brings up questions of fate and other such “religious” questions. I guess every theory requires some leap of faith so Atheism is just as likely as Theism. Maybe they are just two different ways of perceiving the same thing.

specifically said that it is not necessarily true that God plays an active role in sustaining the system. I only believe that God at least set up the system (it is possible that (s)he has an active role, but that’s a different issue).

Please forgive the personification of God, I can't conceive of a better way to refer to the concept.

I guess it all depends on three things:
1) Is there such thing as nothing (if so, something beyond the physical had to create mater first)?
2) If there is no such thing as nothing, what is the nature of time? (Linear, circular, helical, oscillatory etc).
3) Does "infinity" presuppose some sort of interconnectedness?

If everything cycles in some way (i.e. no start or end) then time must be the regenerating force and is the ultimate creator. But there is still a question about why all matter is subject to certain physical properties.

...but perhaps you missed these two arguments.

I also find it interesting to argue the two views (Atheism VS Theism) and I have little hope of changing anyone's mind. I think debate keeps you sharp and will either strengthen your beliefs or open your eyes to a belief system that is a better fit. These are both very healthy reasons to participate in religious debate.

I also have many qualms with Christianity (some of the same ones that you brought up actually) since I grew up Catholic and, as you may know, Catholicism produces many Atheists. The examples of “God being on one’s side” are difficult to actualize logically I’ll admit. I doubt that God is on anyone’s side in a sport’s arena since whether one team wins or loses is so based on the free wills of multiple individuals. I think sports stars are prone to this sort of judgment because to them the game is so emotionally charged that they can’t help but to tie it to some other emotionally charged feeling (i.e. belief in God).

I also have problems with the way religions are supposed to be mutually exclusive. Christians believe Jesus is the only way to God and any people of other religions do not have the rights to eternal life. They justify this by saying, “everyone has the chance to know Jesus.” Well hell, everyone has the chance to know Buddha, but if a Buddhist person told me I was going to hell unless I changed my religion, I’d give him the finger and continue praying the Rosary. Wouldn’t it suck if you dedicated your life to Christ and lived by Christian laws only to get to heaven and be told, “Oh we’re sorry, the Mormons got it right.” I believe that each religion is a path for people to reach the divine. The variations are due to cultural differences; no religion is inherently better than the other. I also think that we use organized religion as a tool because we can not understand God without personifying him or her to some extent.

I guess the bottom line is that both arguments (Atheism and Theism) have many logistical short fallings so neither can be proven with simple logic. Because of this, I have to look at the issue from a less rational (faith based) prospective. When you show me a person who has been able to depend on his profound disbelief to get him through some of the most tragic periods in life or as a way to maintain hope when all seems to be lost, I’ll believe what you believe. When you can show me how to be so moved and uplifted by Atheism, I’ll believe what you believe. Until then, my faith is with God.

 

[kylahs]

That is the problem I have with religion! How can you feel your life is meaningless because of a lack of the existence of god? I am certain there is no such deity, but there is a reason for you to be here, and that is to make the most of your life and help people, be happy, love, and perhaps procreate. I hate that religion teaches people that their whole lives are about this "god" fellow.

You destroy your argument when you say that my reason for being here is "to make the most of your life and help people, be happy, love, and perhaps procreate." How do you know that this is my life's purpose?

Furthermore, you claim that you are "certain" that God does not exist. How can I argue against you?

 

[MedRower]

When you show me a person who has been able to depend on his profound disbelief to get him through some of the most tragic periods in life or as a way to maintain hope when all seems to be lost, I’ll believe what you believe.

This argumemt is great! Just replace disbelief with sobreity, and it's an equally valid justification for drugs.

...

Throw down the crutches people! (Whether they are drugs or religion.) You'll be a better person for it.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

This argumemt is great! Just replace disbelief with sobreity, and it's an equally valid justification for drugs.

...

Throw down the crutches people! (Whether they are drugs or religion.) You'll be a better person for it.

No, sobriety can get you through some of the most tragic periods in your life since being hooked on drugs is the tragedy. Why do you think people go to rehab? Just as Theism can be a crutch, Atheism can be a crutch. If you deny the existence of God, you never have to admit that some things are beyond your scope of reason. It is courageous to allow for the possibility that some things are beyond the physical.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

You destroy your argument when you say that my reason for being here is "to make the most of your life and help people, be happy, love, and perhaps procreate." How do you know that this is my life's purpose?

Furthermore, you claim that you are "certain" that God does not exist. How can I argue against you?

I don't think the argument is necessarily destroyed by suggesting possible life purposes. You could say that there is no God, and that the purpose to life is the biological goal of continuing the species. All the things mentioned would be conducive to furthering this goal.

 

[kylahs]

There was a similar thread in which QofQuimica introduced the idea of an agnostic atheist or theist. Such an atheist or theist is agnostic in the sense that he/she acknowledges that the existence of God is not provable or disprovable through scientific or philosophical arguments, though the person is inclined (for whatever reason) towards one direction. Ultimately, I argued, the inclination is really a manifestation of faith. It takes faith to be either an atheist or theist.

I have no (strong) arguments against agnostic atheism.
Nor do I have (strong) arguments against agnostic theism.

 

[kylahs]

I don't think the argument is necessarily destroyed by suggesting possible life purposes. You could say that there is no God, and that the purpose to life is the biological goal of continuing the species. All the things mentioned would be conducive to furthering this goal.

Still I ask, how do we know that the purpose of life is the "biological goal of continuing the species" ? By observing the fact that biological species reproduce continuously, and that all or most aspects of their behavior seem to be conducive to furthering this goal? I can make a similar argument about waste production. All animals produce waste, most aspects of their behavior seem to be conducive to furthering this production; could waste production not be the purpose of life?

George Carlin made a comment about plastic. It kinda seems that the only reason why the earth has let us live and has not completely annihilated us with it's arsenal of earthquakes, volcano eruptions, etc., is because it wants plastic. We have the ability to produce plastic, our behavior is conducive to furthering this goal; therefore human kind's purpose in life is to produce plastic. Of course, the way he said it made the comment much funnier.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Still I ask, how do we know that the purpose of life is the "biological goal of continuing the species" ? By observing the fact that biological species reproduce continuously, and that all or most aspects of their behavior seem to be conducive to furthering this goal? I can make a similar argument about waste production. All animals produce waste, most aspects of their behavior seem to be conducive to furthering this production; could waste production not be the purpose of life?

George Carlin made a comment about plastic. It kinda seems that the only reason why the earth has let us live and has not completely annihilated us with it's arsenal of earthquakes, volcano eruptions, etc., is because it wants plastic. We have the ability to produce plastic, our behavior is conducive to furthering this goal; therefore human kind's purpose in life is to produce plastic. Of course, the way he said it made the comment much funnier.

I think it is a little easier to make the argument that our purpose is to continue on the species. For instance, look at the basic human needs: air, water, food, sleep, and sex. All of these needs allow humans to live on and then to procreate. The byproduct of carrying out physiological functions is that you have to get rid of waste, but it is clear that producing waste is not an end unto itself. There does not seem to be a basic "****" drive (thank God) because if there was, grocery stores would never be able to keep fiber supplements and laxatives in stock. lol

 

[MedRower]

No, sobriety can get you through some of the most tragic periods in your life since being hooked on drugs is the tragedy. Why do you think people go to rehab? Just as Theism can be a crutch, Atheism can be a crutch. If you deny the existence of God, you never have to admit that some things are beyond your scope of reason. It is courageous to allow for the possibility that some things are beyond the physical.

I was simply saying that your argument sounds exactly like what a drug user might say. Rehab doesn't get someone through a tough period in their life, it is imposed on someone when they've hit rock bottom; it is to forced.

Also, how would you say sobreity can offer someone hope? To me, it could only be in the same way atheism does, in knowing that one is getting by on ones' own, not relying on a crutch, etc.

Let me try again. the last response in your post is equivalent to: "why not have to courage to believe in immatterial invisible pink elephants which are residing in your room at this very moment. Not believing in them is a crutch; if you deny them, you never have to admit that some things exist, like these pink elephants, which you can't detect in any way and will never be able to conclude either way if they exist or not"

So, keep on believing in your pink elephants. Just don't ask me to prove to you that my disbelief in these pink elephants has helped me through a tough time or provided hope in my life.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I was simply saying that your argument sounds exactly like what a drug user might say. Rehab doesn't get someone through a tough period in their life, it is imposed on someone when they've hit rock bottom; it is to forced.

Also, how would you say sobreity can offer someone hope? To me, it could only be in the same way atheism does, in knowing that one is getting by on ones' own, not relying on a crutch, etc.

Let me try again. the last response in your post is equivalent to: "why not have to courage to believe in immatterial invisible pink elephants which are residing in your room at this very moment. Not believing in them is a crutch; if you deny them, you never have to admit that some things exist, like these pink elephants, which you can't detect in any way and will never be able to conclude either way if they exist or not"

So, keep on believing in your pink elephants. Just don't ask me to prove to you that my disbelief in these pink elephants has helped me through a tough time or provided hope in my life.

Have you ever known a drug addict? Drugs tend to destroy people's lives and put them in very compromising situations. I have known people who went to rehab without being forced because they realized that their lives were falling apart because of the drugs. To these people sobriety serves as a beckon of hope. When you say that the statement:

When you show me a person who has been able to depend on his profound disbelief to get him through some of the most tragic periods in life or as a way to maintain hope when all seems to be lost, I’ll believe what you believe.

Is equivalent to the statement:

When you show me a person who has been able to depend on his profound sobriety to get him through some of the most tragic periods in life or as a way to maintain hope when all seems to be lost, I’ll believe what you believe.

You are clearly mistaken. This argument does not make logical sense because drugs are physically, emotionally, and socially harmful while faith in God is none of those things.

Also, there is evidence that God does exist as many people will attest. Though you seem to think belief in God is illogical, to so many and for so long the concept of God has intuitively made sense. Comparing God to imaginary pink elephants is disrespectful and illogical. People are often moved by things that can not be explained physically (emotions, love, faith, etc). It is courageous to look at these things from a spiritual standpoint and to allow for the possibility that sometimes, things can not be explained through physical laws. When you say that those who believe in God are using a "crutch" you imply that believers are crippled in some way. But crippled by what? It is plain to see that neither Theism or Atheism make perfect logistical sense, so don't assume that you are somehow more enlightened than those who believe in God simply because you are a cynic.

 

[MedRower]

Have you ever known a drug addict? Drugs tend to destroy people's lives and put them in very compromising situations. I have known people who went to rehab without being forced because they realized that their lives were falling apart because of the drugs. To these people sobriety serves as a beckon of hope.

and to atheists, atheism is a beacon of hope.

When you say that the statement:

When you show me a person who has been able to depend on his profound disbelief to get him through some of the most tragic periods in life or as a way to maintain hope when all seems to be lost, I’ll believe what you believe.

Is equivalent to the statement:

When you show me a person who has been able to depend on his profound sobriety to get him through some of the most tragic periods in life or as a way to maintain hope when all seems to be lost, I’ll believe what you believe.

You are clearly mistaken. This argument does not make logical sense because drugs are physically, emotionally, and socially harmful while faith in God is none of those things.

This is clear? Religion has not been harmful in any ways? How about the inquisition, crusades... in fact, I'd say religious persecution is right up there with race as one of the things the use of which has caused the most harm.

I'm simply comparing two vices and two lacks of vices.

Also, there is evidence that God does exist as many people will attest. Though you seem to think belief in God is illogical, to so many and for so long the concept of God has intuitively made sense. Comparing God to imaginary pink elephants is disrespectful and illogical. People are often moved by things that can not be explained physically (emotions, love, faith, etc). It is courageous to look at these things from a spiritual standpoint and to allow for the possibility that sometimes, things can not be explained through physical laws. When you say that those who believe in God are using a "crutch" you imply that believers are crippled in some way. But crippled by what?

People intuitively believe that the earth stands still while the sun moves around it - so I don't give any credit to that sort of a priori intuition. the fact that people have believed in something a long time has exactly zero impact on whether it is true or not. And who says emotions can't be explained physically?!

It's unfortunate that you think I'm being disrespectful. But, I'm sure schizos think doctors are being disrespectful when they are told they are out of touch with reality. we hold them to an objective reality which we see as true. "Won't you please respect my point of view," I'm sure they cry. but we don't, and that's because they are insane, so we medicate these people....

As far as being couragous in the belief of god, I hope that when you're a doctor you don't have the courage to think that it is god's will whenever one of your patients dies, because you're going to be overlooking a hell of a lot. Gee, I wonder why Fred inexplicably died. no, I don't think i'll look into it, some things can't be explained by physical laws.

You may say, hey, medicine isn't a field where we take those sorts of assumptions. I say, why do it in any other field of science. Sure, perhaps literally an invisible immaterial grim reaper came and took Fred's life because it was his time (or caused his body to have a bad reaction to the drugs you gave him, or caused a blockage in his arteries, etc). but I'm pretty sure you don't believe this, and its for the same reason I don't believe God has anything to do with the universe.

Anyway, the word crutch gets the point across, but opiate is equally valid in my view. These people do not want to deal with reality, much like the substance abusers (whom you claim to be familiar with). That's what they are crippled by.

It is plain to see that neither Theism or Atheism make perfect logistical sense, so don't assume that you are somehow more enlightened than those who believe in God simply because you are a cynic.

Isn't it better to have a paradigm that acknowledges its gaps in knowledge and tries to fill them in rather than to say they aren't explainable and to 'have faith' in an answer? Come on! We'd still think angels push the planets around the sun if religion had its way.

If you think I'm exaggerating, I'm only bringing your thoughts to their logical conclusions.

 

[hdu]

Thanks to the lady that originated these discussions and to everybody that is participating in it. I really appreciate to learn from your posts and to know and understand other points of view. Thanks again. Continue with the "good interchange".

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

and to atheists, atheism is a beacon of hope.



This is clear? Religion has not been harmful in any ways? How about the inquisition, crusades... in fact, I'd say religious persecution is right up there with race as one of the things the use of which has caused the most harm.

I'm simply comparing two vices and two lacks of vices.



People intuitively believe that the earth stands still while the sun moves around it - so I don't give any credit to that sort of a priori intuition. the fact that people have believed in something a long time has exactly zero impact on whether it is true or not. And who says emotions can't be explained physically?!

It's unfortunate that you think I'm being disrespectful. But, I'm sure schizos think doctors are being disrespectful when they are told they are out of touch with reality. we hold them to an objective reality which we see as true. "Won't you please respect my point of view," I'm sure they cry. but we don't, and that's because they are insane, so we medicate these people....

As far as being couragous in the belief of god, I hope that when you're a doctor you don't have the courage to think that it is god's will whenever one of your patients dies, because you're going to be overlooking a hell of a lot. Gee, I wonder why Fred inexplicably died. no, I don't think i'll look into it, some things can't be explained by physical laws.

You may say, hey, medicine isn't a field where we take those sorts of assumptions. I say, why do it in any other field of science. Sure, perhaps literally an invisible immaterial grim reaper came and took Fred's life because it was his time (or caused his body to have a bad reaction to the drugs you gave him, or caused a blockage in his arteries, etc). but I'm pretty sure you don't believe this, and its for the same reason I don't believe God has anything to do with the universe.

Anyway, the word crutch gets the point across, but opiate is equally valid in my view. These people do not want to deal with reality, much like the substance abusers (whom you claim to be familiar with). That's what they are crippled by.



Isn't it better to have a paradigm that acknowledges its gaps in knowledge and tries to fill them in rather than to say they aren't explainable and to 'have faith' in an answer? Come on! We'd still think angels push the planets around the sun if religion had its way.

If you think I'm exaggerating, I'm only bringing your thoughts to their logical conclusions.

I don't understand why you pretend that those who believe in God some how can not deal with reality. You are not bringing my thoughts to their logical conclusions; in fact I doubt that you even understand my thoughts. I deal with reality just as much as you do. Belief in God is not some sort of pain killer or hallucinogen that completely distracts you from the outside world. I am not suggesting that science should come to a halt for the sake of religion or that people die because it is just "their time". Obviously, I am interested in science (as are the other Theist on this thread). Both science and religion were products of philosophy, so to say that they are mutually exclusive is a bit (dare I say it) illogical. Your comments should be in the context of the responses given on this thread, not based the random presumptions you have about those who believe in God. Next time you respond to my posts, I want you to make sense.

PS. Religious beliefs are not the same thing as persecution because of those religious beliefs. Just believing does not cause people to kill others, ignorance causes tragedy.

PS.S. The way you keep comparing Theists to schizoids or other such mentally ill individuals is disrespectful. We are not delusional, mentally ill, or in need of medication. I have tried to respect your beliefs, so I would appreciate if you would respect mine. Now I have to go get ready for church.

 

[leechy]

Yeah, science and religion (not organized religion, just the study of God, first creator, first cause whatever you want to call it) seem to be inexorably tied. It’s like how people study an artist’s work in order to find out more about that artist. One can get to know the creator by studying the creation. And it’s really interesting to think about.

Lady, I wish you lived next door to me. You sound like a fascinating person with genuine intellectual curiosity, and this world needs more of that.

I just wanted to remark on this idea of knowing the creator through his creation... Have you ever wondered at the incredible amount of cruelty that goes on in the natural world? At this very moment millions of animals are running for their lives, being eaten alive by parasites, dying slow deaths due to disease. If nature says something about the nature of the creator, I imagine it's not something very nice.

 

[Stitch626]

You mentioned that freewill is used to account for evil in the world, but why stop there? Freewill can also be the source of our physical imperfections. We can choose to stay in the sun for hours each day. But we'd likely to get DNA damage. Or we can choose to take certain drugs (like alcohol or cocaine) that lead to birth defects. Birth defects can arise from negligence or ignorance, which are both tied to freewill. Three women in FL recently gave birth to babies with severe defects. All three women worked in a farm where a highly toxic and known teratogenic pesticide is used.

If you accept the idea that freewill accounts for evil in the world, you should have no problem accepting that it can also account for our physical imperfections. This is not unreasonable, since clearly our day to day choices can affect our health.

Haha...I love this. So I suppose it was my mother's CHOICES (i.e. freewill)that led her to give birth to a Autistic child. I'll be sure to let her know next time I see her for dinner.

 

[Stitch626]

(1) you keep shifting on what it is you actually believe regarding the existence of a creator. First, you claim you are noncomittal about the "nature" of God, and now this "God" is not even omnipotent. Describing the being you are proposing created this universe is NOT an inconsequential detail- if you don't lay down a solidly formed theory you give others no way to logically counter your claims. This is common among ID proponents- skeptics suggest reasons why ID is completely illogical and ID people counter by slightly twisting their vision of "God" so that the objections are rendered moot. You can go on doing this as long as you wish, since your theory doesn't have to make sense, doesn't need to be logically consistent, and doesn't need to have empirical evidence. After all, God works in "mysterious" ways...

Its fine to believe in anything you want- we live in a free country. But if you believe in an irrational being because it is comforting to you in times of need, admit that you are doing so. The reason people get frustrated and pissed off about this debate is that it eventually boils down to "faith", which is by nature irrational. (If it was rational, we wouldn't have to call it faith.) Admit it, and stop trying to use God as mechanistic explanation for natural phenomena. There is no evidence, and doing so only makes religion look trite and foolish.

(2) nobody is doubting that you can conceive of ways in which God COULD be involved in the natural world. God COULD be pushing along evolution, mutating genes, answering prayers, healing loved ones, and generally keeping an eye out for us.

Fine, but fairies COULD be the reason socks get lost in the wash too. Prove to me they are not. My point is that lots of things COULD be- just demonstrating that you could conceive in your mind of a supernatural being consistent with life as we know it (not that you, or anyone else has convincingly done so) does nothing to strengthen your case. What I, you, or anyone else thinks is completely immaterial to the truth. Until creationists have evidence for their beliefs that is neither childishly ignorant (2nd law), logically fallacious (Pascal's wager), nor deliberately misleading (too many to name- visit talkorigins.org) they have no business passing off such ideas as remotely scientific or logically defensible.

Again, believe what you want to believe, but don't muddy the waters of science with irrationality and blind adherence to doctrine.

(3) Your "critique" of atheism is weak. You say that since energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, the Universe could not have arisen spontaneously. So far so good. Then you make the gigantic leap to offering this as proof of God- as though the existence of a pre-Universe state was a nonissue somehow. Demonstrate to me that there is ANY evidence that the Universe at one time did not exist. Why would you assume that?


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus

This is the most logical and convincing post I have read on this thread thus far.

 

[leechy]

This is the most logical and convincing post I have read on this thread thus far.

Agreed. Jhugti's posts kick butt. Rock on, kid.

 

[leechy]

I understand that there are genetic diseases and that many of them lead to a lot of pain and suffering. But the previous poster wanted to use this as proof that God does not exist, or if He does exist, He is a bad designer. First, genetic diseases are relatively rare. They are rare in virtue of either the mechanism of evolution, or because God did a good job in the initial design of the mechanism. (or both)

To say that a defect in the mechanism (especially when the defect is rare) is proof God does not exist or that He is a bad designer is nonsense. We do not know where these defects came from. There are a myriad of environmental factors that could have contributed (e.g. drugs, alcohol, radiation, random mutations, a fall during pregnancy, something grandma was exposed to when she was 12, etc.).

This pretty much summarizes why discussions on intelligent design - or heck, natural theology - runs in circles. The conversation essentially goes like this:

Believer: This world is so awesome, the human body is so perfect, nature works so well and is so beautiful, that there has to be a God out there!

Nonbeliever: But the human body has so many imperfections, nature is cruel and inefficient, etc, so it doesn't seem like the natural world or the things in it could be held up as evidence of a benevolent creator.

Believer: BUT, those imperfections arise because of [insert scientific reason here] or because of original sin / free will / assorted other theodicy etc etc.

Nonbeliever: Yeah, but God could have designed us better, endowed us with better judgment, made us immune to radiation, etc etc.

So basically, it comes down to the fact that no amount of worldly imperfections could convince someone that there isn't a perfect creator. Now that's fine - it's called faith, and it's unfalsifiable, in the sense that nothing could happen to negate your belief. But, I don't think it's fair to then turn around and again start using the characteristics of the world as evidence of God. If you believe based on faith, then no 'reasons' should be necessary. Of course, the irony is that religious people, as much as nonreligious people, would leap at some evidential confirmation of their faith. In that sense, many people's faith is really more of a 'holding out until further information arrives' (theoretically after death, supposing an afterlife) combined with 'what the heck, it makes me feel better' - so it becomes much more like agnosticism. And I don't think that's such a bad position to have, as long as people of faith don't become too certain or try to push their views on others. This is a tough world, and sometimes I can only envy people who are able to set aside their rational hesitation and adopt a worldview that helps them through rough times.

As for Pascal's wager, as jhugti noted, it only holds if the god in mind is one who actually cares to punish those who don't believe in him. Many religions / religious people don't hold to this view of the deity. Anyway, to paraphrase Haldane, God really digs leeches (they were part of his plan, after all) so I'm not too concerned about Pascal's wager!

 

[kylahs]

Haha...I love this. So I suppose it was my mother's CHOICES (i.e. freewill)that led her to give birth to a Autistic child. I'll be sure to let her know next time I see her for dinner.

There is mounting evidence that autism is caused by some environmental factor(s) such as mercury poisoning. If this environmental factor is not a direct result of your mother's free choices, it certainly can be a result of other people's free choices, made months or decades ago (e.g. industrial contamination of our environment).

And please reread my previous post. I did not say all our imperfections are a result of our choices. I just said that our choices can lead to disease. This is not a controversial claim.

 

[kylahs]

Believer: BUT, those imperfections arise because of [insert scientific reason here] or because of original sin / free will / assorted other theodicy etc etc.

Nonbeliever: Yeah, but God could have designed us better, endowed us with better judgment, made us immune to radiation, etc etc.

So basically, it comes down to the fact that no amount of worldly imperfections could convince someone that there isn't a perfect creator.

You're right, this line of arguing takes us nowhere. But what about Babooshka's response:

If there is a God and he is perfect, that which isn’t God is by implication not perfect. Ergo, if there is creation it must be flawed by its very nature. Your complaint that so many things go wrong in nature is a veiled complaint that existence isn’t perfect. But a perfect existence is impossible in a world of finitudes. So whether 1/5 or 1/1000000000 chromosomes fail to segregate is a matter of degree, imperfection being constant, there must be a variance of it. To me, your argument could be paraphrased, “We can’t draw perfect circles, how’s that for design?”

If you believe based on faith, then no 'reasons' should be necessary. Of course, the irony is that religious people, as much as nonreligious people, would leap at some evidential confirmation of their faith.
In that sense, many people's faith is really more of a 'holding out until further information arrives' (theoretically after death, supposing an afterlife) combined with 'what the heck, it makes me feel better' - so it becomes much more like agnosticism. And I don't think that's such a bad position to have, as long as people of faith don't become too certain or try to push their views on others. This is a tough world, and sometimes I can only envy people who are able to set aside their rational hesitation and adopt a worldview that helps them through rough times.

(good post )

As for agnosticism, I mentioned in one of my previous posts the two positions I believe can withstand all arguments I've come across thus far -- agnostic theism and agnostic atheism.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

why must science and religion be mutually exclusive? I have never understood the atheist notion that science is all there is, and that the existence of the universe is all simply science, straight from the origin of the big-bang.

Maybe, just possibly maybe, there is some Greater Force out there, somewhere, that gave the big-bang that very first spark and let everything play out. Evolution does not disprove God. Evolution can still be within a grand design.

The fallacy of religion is rooted in the fanatical reliance on the Bible, and other fallable written scripts. False prophets, false visions, humans seeking to speak and read the language of God, this is where religion is prone to its faults.

Atheists really piss me off, I'm sorry but some of the atheists I know are JUST AS bad as the crazy missionaries that go out seeking to convert people. Atheists can be just as oppressive in spreading their belief - and it is a belief, just as any religious perspective (even the perspective that there is no God/Heavan/etc.) is a belief.

As for me, I still believe in some Greater Force. I'm not foolish enough to adhere to a text in such a vehement, fanatical manner - anything written by or read by human eyes is prone to imperfection. Anyway, my main point here is that science does not disprove religion on the whole - it just illustrates the fallacies of the Bible and it removes the foundations of certain branches of religion that are built on these claims. But on the whole, I think a "God" could still certainly exist.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

There is mounting evidence that autism is caused by some environmental factor(s) such as mercury poisoning. If this environmental factor is not a direct result of your mother's free choices, it certainly can be a result of other people's free choices, made months or decades ago (e.g. industrial contamination of our environment).

And please reread my previous post. I did not say all our imperfections are a result of our choices. I just said that our choices can lead to disease. This is not a controversial claim.

there's also a theory that autism has a genetic component. evidence for this theory shows that siblings of an autistic child typically also have autistic qualities, and that many autistic children are born to parents who have many traits in common. these common traits i speak of are a propensity to mathematics / science / engineering, with much left-brain activity - that's why autism is sometimes thought of as "the geek syndrome." I believe there is a time magazine article about this if you are interested...

 

[kylahs]

I think I might have read that article, or one similar to it in Wired. It mentioned an alarming growth of autism in areas such as Silicon Valley, areas where both parents are usually employed in the computer industry (and would thus share some of the traits you mentioned above). If Silicon Valley as a whole has industrial contamination of some chemical that promotes autism, that would explain the observation that autism is more likely to occur in a child whose parents share the specific traits you mention above. If the child stays in the area and also procreates, the same environmental contamination would affect his/her children.

Now because autism does not occur in all children in that area, and because all children would likely be exposed to the same environmental contamination (if any) there is probably some other factor that makes them more prone to autism's development. It could be diet, or it might very well be genetics.

Please post if you have a link to that Time article.

 

[rpm]

Here's a question for those of you who believe in God, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, or whatever. Would you still believe in whatever you do even if you weren't raised up to. In other words, how would you know what to believe in if someone else hadn't told you.

BTW I respect all religions as long as you don't try to shove your belief down my throat.

 

[derzornhistolog]

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who are trying to prove God's existance, not those that believe God doesn't exist. In other words, the default is that God does not exist...now prove that he does. All the things that happen in the universe can be explained by either God, some other mythical creature, or by pure coincidence. So we never really know that God is the one that is doing things around here until we physically hear or see him/her. I have nothing against those who believe in God...but there's a reason why religion and spirituality are based on faith...you must believe in something that is physically not here.
P.S.: I do not consider myself an atheist. I have a hard time believing that the complexities of our world resulted from an accident.

This is not strictly true. The burden of proof lies on the person promulgating the more 'complex' explanation. This is by employ of Occam's razor. Yet, those who deign to call either religion or evolution the 'simpler' of the two explanations often hold mutually exculusive sets of cultural prejudices.

The questions being asked by Darwin/Wallace and those being asked by people who believe god can coexist with evolution are fundamentally different. Darwin, as was mentioned previously, was asking a 'how' question. 1858's 'Origin' describes a plausible way in which life may have arisen on Earth. The theory therein permits for empirical tests which may then corroborate, modify or disprove it. As a theory, evolution has been quite robust, although some gaps in the fossil record exist (possibly due to exaptations???)

Tacit in this mode of verifying theories is the idea that human sensation and perception are reliable and valid arbiters of truth. Francis Bacon deals with the need for 'aids' to sensation and perception in his Novum Organum of 1620. As early as 1665, Robert Hooke describes such empirical 'aids' in the fashion of Bacon (i.e. the microscope) in his book 'Micrographia'. Clearly, since the 17th century, many more 'aids' have been produced which apparently bolster our trust that human sensations/perceptions can tell us about the world. Nevertheless, there are those who would still maintain that all the technology in the world isn't going to change the fact that sensory experience cannot suggest causal relationships (Hume, Enquiry IV, VII). In other words, perhaps no quantity of empirical aids will really help us.

On the other side of things, people who believe god coexists with evolution (in a more defensible form than has hitherto been presented in this forum) do not commonly argue that their position is a scientific one. Rather, they suggest that evolution took place because god wanted it to happen - an empirically untestable idea (by me, for now...). To justify their beliefs, they may choose to employ an a priori argument - such as Hume's mode of trashing the principle of uniformity (something science codifies in its conventions, but cannot justify - see Popper). Rather than repeating that here, I'll refer you to Hume's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'. They key point is that they CAN provide quite logical and consistent reasons for suggesting that evolution is NOT proof positive of the corpus of anybody's beliefs (atheists, Christians, Cree Natives etc..). It is not even suggestive of one set of beliefs or another - unless you come at it with some prejudices. The view is essentially fideistic in character, and I think it follows in the religious, teleologist tradition of the likes of Stephen Hales and Sir William Osler. These were men who believed in god, but did not try to explain away natural phenomena with supernatural fiat. In other words, it would appear to be a common ground, upon which people can maintain religious beliefs while simultaneously participating in earnest in scientific enquiry. It goes without saying, though, that the intellectually honest among these (as among atheists), must not shrink from enquiries which might ostensibly 'negate' their beliefs.

It was mentioned previously that nature is not perfect. I believe this is a dogmatic assertion. When I ask you, "What is the criterion for perfection?", can you give a rock solid answer? Is it going to be devoid of prejudice? Being that the answer to this question has just about always slipped back into an infinite regress or tautology (Pyrrhonian Paradox of the Criterion...), the claims that the world is imperfect or perfect are equipollent.

___________

SPQR

 

[jhugti]

I guess the bottom line is that both arguments (Atheism and Theism) have many logistical short fallings so neither can be proven with simple logic. Because of this, I have to look at the issue from a less rational (faith based) prospective. When you show me a person who has been able to depend on his profound disbelief to get him through some of the most tragic periods in life or as a way to maintain hope when all seems to be lost, I’ll believe what you believe. When you can show me how to be so moved and uplifted by Atheism, I’ll believe what you believe. Until then, my faith is with God.

Hi again

I've given your posts some thought and realized a major issue I have with your stance is that belief and disbelief in God are considered equally defensible since we have little in the way of direct proof. I can be convinced that it is fundamentally impossible (barring a divine revelation) to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is, I can think of no simple way in which to prove that a supernatural being is not responsible for the natural phenomena we see on Earth.

In the absence of direct evidence, however, belief and disbelief do not (in my opinion) become equally justifiable viewpoints. Belief in God requires an overturning of some of the most fundamental scientific laws. These laws and their infallibility are the reason science can continue to build upon itself and more accurately describe the world around is. To believe in a supernatural being, is to take the legs out from under science by circumventing a number of its core ideas- it breaks all the rules.

Further, I feel we emerge on a VERY slippery slope once we consider belief in the illogical and the supernatural acceptable. Why should it be ok for someone to believe in God, but not in fairies? Should we consider belief in any manner of supernatural phenomena acceptable- ie. homeopathic remedies dependent on millions of serial dilutions to attain their "powers"?

Thus, I cannot consider belief and disbelief in God equally justifiable conclusions, given that there is no direct evidence either way. One conclusion (theism) requires a bucking of some of the most central of scientific laws, casting them aside in the absence of evidence to do so. Further, it opens the door to myriad possible abuses of science in the name of faith. On the other hand, atheism simply assumes that the laws we know to be true thus far should continue to be so, as relevant to this particular issue. Is it 100% certain that these laws have to hold up just becasuse they have done so for millenia? No- but I think it much more likely than the possibility that they will suddenly crumble.

If anything, overturning such central scientific dogma should require especially good evidence. If one were to suggest that children are actually the result of random genetic recombination of parental genes (rather than pairing of homologous chromosomes), I would expect some damn convincing proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



I suspect you will want to respond to this argument by pointing out that belief in God need not exist independently of physical laws. That is, the God one posits could have set in place such laws and decided that those laws and those laws alone would determine the functioning of the universe. In this way, belief in God would in no way compromise total belief in science. I would ask then why it matters at all if God exists. If God has set in motion natural laws that control every aspect of life on Earth, praying to/being humble before/caring about God would be useless since He couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it anyway. Another way of putting this is that if the universe with the God you believe in is COMPLETELY indistinguishable from the world without it, then why does it matter anyway? Conversely, if you assume He does intervene in ANY way not predicted by science then we re-arrive at the argument I have already stated above.

 

[derzornhistolog]

Hi again
I suspect you will want to respond to this argument by pointing out that belief in God need not exist independently of physical laws. That is, the God one posits could have set in place such laws and decided that those laws and those laws alone would determine the functioning of the universe. In this way, belief in God would in no way compromise total belief in science. I would ask then why it matters at all if God exists. If God has set in motion natural laws that control every aspect of life on Earth, praying to/being humble before/caring about God would be useless since He couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it anyway. Another way of putting this is that if the universe with the God you believe in is COMPLETELY indistinguishable from the world without it, then why does it matter anyway? Conversely, if you assume He does intervene in ANY way not predicted by science then we re-arrive at the argument I have already stated above.

Not being the particular interlocutor you have addressed the above remarks to, I will gladly mind my own business should you decide to ask that of me. In the interim, however, I will attempt to deal with some of the concerns you have put forth.

Your remarks, first of all, appear to betray a kind of scientism. You have used the word 'infallibility' to describe scientific ideas, which is a kind of slippery-slope in itself. In the first chapters of Logik Der Forschung, Popper describes in detail the problems of induction and demarcation in establishing a method for evaluating scientific information. He concedes forthwith that science must be conventional. Among a number of assumptions that scientists must make to take part in the convention are the ideas that a) there are laws governing the physical phenomena of the universe b) we are capable of discerning these laws from observation c) we are capable of understanding these laws, their concomitants and their interrelations. Note, that these assumptions preclude the active participation of a godhead in worldly affairs. In that event, we would never be able to understand natural science, since our data would be conflated with 'miracles'. It appears that since you are willing to negate the 'interventionist-god's' existence in favour of science - when both rely on assumptions - your dogma is science.

Many people debate whether religion has brought such evil (e.g crusades) or science has brought such evil (e.g. atomic weaponry) into the world - and on the basis of the 'better track record', they make their selection. Not only does this beg the question that utility is the criterion by which to choose 'better' guiding principles, it also presupposes that there exist some things called 'good' and 'evil'. It's a useless to debate to have, since it relies almost totally on pre-existing beliefs and values. Suffice it to say that I think you can have religion and science coexisting - albeit serving different functions.

Moving on, you have likened religion in general to cults or Hahneman's homeopathy. This is an interesting comparison and brings me to the topic of the function of god. Forgetting for the moment the fact that religions vary (and some may well be cults), let us speak very particularly about a philosophical god. This is a god who establishes a moral code and gives purpose and meaning to lives. The god has also structured the universe such that the laws of nature need not be violated (a type of Leibnitz or Pope's 'philosophical optimism', which is the topic of Voltaire's 'Candide'). Also, this god does not tell you how the world works, he/she tells you why the world works. Finally, the god tells you what the 'right thing' to do is.

You have asked what the purpose of a 'non-interventionist' god is, and the answer is really to give meaning to things. Assigning meaning is decidedly not the purview of science (just ask Popper). As such, deciding on the existence of god isn't going to make a lick of difference in how most of science is done. You need not worry about religious moderates (I emphasize moderates) deracinating of our understanding of gametogenesis, enterohepatic cycling of bile salts, or perilympathic fistulae etcetera. Cults which employ mendacious brainwashing, or classical homeopathy and Mesmerism - which profess to be something they are not, differ in form and function from the philosophical god. Firstly, by misrepresenting facts, they defy our cultural disdain for dishonesty. Secondly, Koreshian or Raelian cults are less about meaning than about egomaniacal figureheads (or power). Homeopathy and Mesmerism also do not provide meaning, and so do not fall into the same rubric of belief systems as that of the generalized god I have described.

In your concluding paragraph you make an interesting point about determinism, although not an original one. Sadly, Baron D'Holbach and John Hospers have beaten you to the punch. They ask, 'why care about a god if you can't get him/her to perform miracles for you? If he/she won't provide supernal aid or deus ex machinas?'

One answer is as follows: Because without god, human behaviour should probably be driven by will-to-power. In other words, you prostrate yourself to a god (or do not) depending on the world you WANT to live in. If your personal prejudices direct you to a certain type of morality (or lack thereof), you will choose to believe or not believe in a god. Given that the evidence is equally scarce for both sides, there seems to be equal rational merit for the religious or irreligious viewpoints. It so happens that a religious weltanshauung does not necessitate being a luddite, so I must protest to your categorical rejection of the aforementioned isosthenia/equipollence.

Of course, all of my remarks presuppose that reason is the arbiter of what is correct, true and best in the world...

____________________________________

Ceterum Censeo Carthaginem Delenda Est

University of Western Ontario '05

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Hi again

I've given your posts some thought and realized a major issue I have with your stance is that belief and disbelief in God are considered equally defensible since we have little in the way of direct proof. I can be convinced that it is fundamentally impossible (barring a divine revelation) to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is, I can think of no simple way in which to prove that a supernatural being is not responsible for the natural phenomena we see on Earth.

In the absence of direct evidence, however, belief and disbelief do not (in my opinion) become equally justifiable viewpoints. Belief in God requires an overturning of some of the most fundamental scientific laws. These laws and their infallibility are the reason science can continue to build upon itself and more accurately describe the world around is. To believe in a supernatural being, is to take the legs out from under science by circumventing a number of its core ideas- it breaks all the rules.

Further, I feel we emerge on a VERY slippery slope once we consider belief in the illogical and the supernatural acceptable. Why should it be ok for someone to believe in God, but not in fairies? Should we consider belief in any manner of supernatural phenomena acceptable- ie. homeopathic remedies dependent on millions of serial dilutions to attain their "powers"?

Thus, I cannot consider belief and disbelief in God equally justifiable conclusions, given that there is no direct evidence either way. One conclusion (theism) requires a bucking of some of the most central of scientific laws, casting them aside in the absence of evidence to do so. Further, it opens the door to myriad possible abuses of science in the name of faith. On the other hand, atheism simply assumes that the laws we know to be true thus far should continue to be so, as relevant to this particular issue. Is it 100% certain that these laws have to hold up just becasuse they have done so for millenia? No- but I think it much more likely than the possibility that they will suddenly crumble.

If anything, overturning such central scientific dogma should require especially good evidence. If one were to suggest that children are actually the result of random genetic recombination of parental genes (rather than pairing of homologous chromosomes), I would expect some damn convincing proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



I suspect you will want to respond to this argument by pointing out that belief in God need not exist independently of physical laws. That is, the God one posits could have set in place such laws and decided that those laws and those laws alone would determine the functioning of the universe. In this way, belief in God would in no way compromise total belief in science. I would ask then why it matters at all if God exists. If God has set in motion natural laws that control every aspect of life on Earth, praying to/being humble before/caring about God would be useless since He couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it anyway. Another way of putting this is that if the universe with the God you believe in is COMPLETELY indistinguishable from the world without it, then why does it matter anyway? Conversely, if you assume He does intervene in ANY way not predicted by science then we re-arrive at the argument I have already stated above.

You are correct in predicting my response to your post and you bring up some very good points. It is very possible that the existence of God does not really matter on a scientific level. I just feel that the Naturalist (Atheist) worldview robs human existence and interactions of a key dimension. For instance, consider this quote made by B.F. Skinner a known Naturalist,

“What is being abolished is autonomous man--the man defended by the literature of freedom and dignity. His abolition has been long overdue. Autonomous man has been constructed from our ignorance, as our understanding increases, the very stuff of which he is composed vanishes. To man qua man we readily say good riddance.”

Couple this with a second quote by British Naturalist philosopher, A.J. Ayer

“We can now see why it is impossible to find a criterion for determining the validity of ethical judgments. It is not because they have an absolute validity which is mysteriously independent of ordinary sense experience, but because they have no objective validity whatsoever. If a sentence makes no statement at all, there is obviously no sense in asking whether what is says is true or false”

I think this is the reason why the two world views differ so much, even though the world could be construed the same way by both schools of thought. If there is no God then there is no real morality, no meaning, and no reason to believe that any aspect of man transcends the physical. Consequently, our thoughts, actions, relationships, and feelings become devoid of meaning. When I hug my Dad after not seeing him for a semester, I think I feel love; I sense some sort of bond, but by the naturalist view all that happens is a series of physiological reactions. I am not satisfied with a worldview that robs me of both my best and my worst moments. I think this is a very important stipulation to the belief in Naturalism or Atheism.

 

[hopefulneuro]

god=dog...this solves the whole debate!

 

[Stitch626]

Remember when Homer Simpson presented to Flanders a mathematical theory that proved God didn't exist? Too bad cartoons aren't real.

 

[MedRower]

I don't understand why you pretend that those who believe in God some how can not deal with reality. You are not bringing my thoughts to their logical conclusions; in fact I doubt that you even understand my thoughts. I deal with reality just as much as you do. Belief in God is not some sort of pain killer or hallucinogen that completely distracts you from the outside world. I am not suggesting that science should come to a halt for the sake of religion or that people die because it is just "their time". Obviously, I am interested in science (as are the other Theist on this thread). Both science and religion were products of philosophy, so to say that they are mutually exclusive is a bit (dare I say it) illogical. Your comments should be in the context of the responses given on this thread, not based the random presumptions you have about those who believe in God. Next time you respond to my posts, I want you to make sense.

PS. Religious beliefs are not the same thing as persecution because of those religious beliefs. Just believing does not cause people to kill others, ignorance causes tragedy.

PS.S. The way you keep comparing Theists to schizoids or other such mentally ill individuals is disrespectful. We are not delusional, mentally ill, or in need of medication. I have tried to respect your beliefs, so I would appreciate if you would respect mine. Now I have to go get ready for church.

Who said they were mutually exclusive? god has the same relationship to science as do our now detested pink elephants - whether they exist or not has nothing to do with science and can never be proven or disproven. What I am saying, is why do you believe in God while you don't believe in pink elephants.

just because you don't suggest a stop of science doesn't mean that your church doesn't. unfortunately, the church has ALWAYS seen scientific advancement as a threat to them. what intelligent design people are claiming.. this is what leads to a dark age. the enlightenment was a great achievement, and science won.

furthermore, "just" believing DOES cause people to kill each others. the belief that one will be rewarded for enacting jihad on america has caused a great deal of physical and emotional harm (virgins in heaven will feed them grapes, don't you know) .

finally, pain killers don't distract you from the outside world. they give you relief. many have said in this post that without religion, life would be meaningless, and they could not accept this. I assumed you held the same belief, and if this is incorrect, that I apologize for. this is what i had judged to be the reason most people latch on to religion, as experienced in this thread. this is why i see religion as a crutch for many people, who cannot deal with (unanswerable) questions such as what will happen after death. now, if you think that you know for certain what will happen when you die because of what a book and dogma tell you, that is an entirely different discussion.

 

[kylahs]

just because you don't suggest a stop of science doesn't mean that your church doesn't. unfortunately, the church has ALWAYS seen scientific advancement as a threat to them.

Not true. The Catholic Church's official stance on evolution is positive: "...some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

Stem cell research: they are all for it. As long as it does not come from embryos. As a scientist, I think that is fine. There are plenty of places to harvest stem cells. Just recently a researcher was able to obtain stem cells from a person's nose.

Second, you keep making arguments against the Church. We're only talking about the existence of God here.

many have said in this post that without religion, life would be meaningless, and they could not accept this.

No one said they could not accept a meaningless life. My argument in particular simply stopped at "no God=no meaning."

this is what i had judged to be the reason most people latch on to religion, as experienced in this thread. this is why i see religion as a crutch for many people, who cannot deal with (unanswerable) questions such as what will happen after death.

There are not many Theists on this thread; again I'm not sure whom you are referring to.

 

[derzornhistolog]

Who said they were mutually exclusive? god has the same relationship to science as do our now detested pink elephants - whether they exist or not has nothing to do with science and can never be proven or disproven. What I am saying, is why do you believe in God while you don't believe in pink elephants.

just because you don't suggest a stop of science doesn't mean that your church doesn't. unfortunately, the church has ALWAYS seen scientific advancement as a threat to them. what intelligent design people are claiming.. this is what leads to a dark age. the enlightenment was a great achievement, and science won.

furthermore, "just" believing DOES cause people to kill each others. the belief that one will be rewarded for enacting jihad on america has caused a great deal of physical and emotional harm (virgins in heaven will feed them grapes, don't you know) .

finally, pain killers don't distract you from the outside world. they give you relief. many have said in this post that without religion, life would be meaningless, and they could not accept this. I assumed you held the same belief, and if this is incorrect, that I apologize for. this is what i had judged to be the reason most people latch on to religion, as experienced in this thread. this is why i see religion as a crutch for many people, who cannot deal with (unanswerable) questions such as what will happen after death. now, if you think that you know for certain what will happen when you die because of what a book and dogma tell you, that is an entirely different discussion.

The reasons for believing in god (or not) as opposed to 'pink elephants' has already been treated in this thread.

As for fideism being murderous...is murder a necessary byproduct of 'religious belief'? Or is it rather often a byproduct of any sort of fundamentalism (including the secular, political kind)? Are religious moderates necessarily murderers?

Next, is our information age truly 'enlightened', or are we in fact in a dark age? Can you determine the answer without making callous assumptions about what's important in life - for others as well as yourself? If so, I'm quite interested to know how you do it.

Finally, just as you see religion as a crutch for people, others may see your perspective as indicative of failing to comprehend the implications of a world without god. Life after death is the least of your worries. What about day-to-day conduct? Why should you bother trying to advance society as a whole (why not cheat and steal if you can get away with it)? Why not just advance yourself? Why should anything restrict your will-to-power? Can you answer any of these questions without introducing some bias about how right and proper existing Western cultural mores happen to be? If you can, I really want to know the answer. If not, maybe you will want the 'crutch' too...

In the latter case, the behaviour of Nazis, 9/11 terrorists, Janjaweed fighters in Sudan, Khmer Rouge, David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer etcetera stands as nothing more than an expression of will-to-power. After all, what aspect of the natural world suggests that the 'correct' course of human action is to get along and have 'the right to swing my [fist end] where the other man's nose begins?' Oliver Wendell Holmes said it, and it's the product of ideas that have been cultivated in our society over time. That doesn't make those ideas true, valid or accepted throughout the globe. So when a pugnacious lot comes by trying to destroy your culture, you have to ask yourself, "Are they wrong for trying to kill us?" After all, there are limited resources in this world, and maybe they're just trying to get on in life... Also, the question arises, "What's really wrong with the notion of 'might-makes-right'?" If you really and truly have come to grips with all this and don't need the 'crutch', I expect that you were totally unfazed by 9/11 - as you might have been upon learning about the Armenian holocaust, ethnic-cleansing in Rwanda, Sudan, and Bosnia. After all, people were just expressing will-to-power.

________

SPQR

 

[kylahs]

Agreed. Jhugti's posts kick butt. Rock on, kid.

Yep.
His posts along with those of derzornhistolog's and LadyJubile's and some others' on this thread are among the most impressive and eloquent I've seen on all of SDN. Most threads I've seen concerning the existence of God are full of silly and weak arguments from both sides of the debate. It's quite the opposite here.

 

[dl2dp2]

I'm an MSII studying for the boards right now.

Biochem is not even CLOSE to "divine".

THere are like A MILLION genetic disorders we need to memorize. Anything that could be wrong has been wrong sometime in the past. That's not particularly "intelligent" to me.

I dare you to explain that. And don't tell me "Satan caused 21-alpha-hydroxlyase defeciency or Krabbe's disease".

 

[jhugti]

Not being the particular interlocutor you have addressed the above remarks to, I will gladly mind my own business should you decide to ask that of me. In the interim, however, I will attempt to deal with some of the concerns you have put forth.

Your remarks, first of all, appear to betray a kind of scientism. You have used the word 'infallibility' to describe scientific ideas, which is a kind of slippery-slope in itself. In the first chapters of Logik Der Forschung, Popper describes in detail the problems of induction and demarcation in establishing a method for evaluating scientific information. He concedes forthwith that science must be conventional. Among a number of assumptions that scientists must make to take part in the convention are the ideas that a) there are laws governing the physical phenomena of the universe b) we are capable of discerning these laws from observation c) we are capable of understanding these laws, their concomitants and their interrelations. Note, that these assumptions preclude the active participation of a godhead in worldly affairs. In that event, we would never be able to understand natural science, since our data would be conflated with 'miracles'. It appears that since you are willing to negate the 'interventionist-god's' existence in favour of science - when both rely on assumptions - your dogma is science.

I freely admit that I believe/assume that there are physical laws in the universe that we can discern through observation and experimentation. However, this is NOT logically equivalent to assuming there are not. This is the same fallacy that I have already addressed in the post above. ALL the empirical evidence suggests that there are in fact such laws. The fact that we have technological innovation reliably demonstrates that we can describe and use these laws with increasing precision using scientific inquiry. If your contention is that there are NOT physical laws that govern the natural phenomena on this planet, you have far bigger fish to fry. The entire scientific establishment should stop dead in their tracks before proceeding onward with such "assumptions."

You cannot defend a position unless you are willing to put forth evidence for its accuracy- simply voicing doubts does nothing to weaken the case for science. Further, science as a process IS infallible. I say this not because I dogmatically feel it to be so, but becase science by its very definition is self-correcting. Is any given scientific theory 100% accurate? Of course not, and I think everyone realizes that. But as a process, science proceeds by offering better and better explanations for natural phenomena- contradicting its own previous ideas if necessary. Science is anything but dogmatic.

Forgetting for the moment the fact that religions vary (and some may well be cults), let us speak very particularly about a philosophical god. This is a god who establishes a moral code and gives purpose and meaning to lives. The god has also structured the universe such that the laws of nature need not be violated (a type of Leibnitz or Pope's 'philosophical optimism', which is the topic of Voltaire's 'Candide'). Also, this god does not tell you how the world works, he/she tells you why the world works. Finally, the god tells you what the 'right thing' to do is.

You have asked what the purpose of a 'non-interventionist' god is, and the answer is really to give meaning to things. Assigning meaning is decidedly not the purview of science (just ask Popper).

In your concluding paragraph you make an interesting point about determinism, although not an original one. Sadly, Baron D'Holbach and John Hospers have beaten you to the punch. They ask, 'why care about a god if you can't get him/her to perform miracles for you? If he/she won't provide supernal aid or deus ex machinas?'

One answer is as follows: Because without god, human behaviour should probably be driven by will-to-power. In other words, you prostrate yourself to a god (or do not) depending on the world you WANT to live in. If your personal prejudices direct you to a certain type of morality (or lack thereof), you will choose to believe or not believe in a god. Given that the evidence is equally scarce for both sides, there seems to be equal rational merit for the religious or irreligious viewpoints. It so happens that a religious weltanshauung does not necessitate being a luddite, so I must protest to your categorical rejection of the aforementioned isosthenia/equipollence.

Of course, all of my remarks presuppose that reason is the arbiter of what is correct, true and best in the world...

Using big words, you have voiced an essentially simple complaint about a Godless world- that morality would cease to exist in the absence of divine laws of conduct. Basically, you are saying "if God didn't tell you what to do, how would you tell right apart from wrong?"

Before I get into that question, I want to point out that you take as an assumption that there is a "why" of life, which is a completely circular argument given that only belief in God requires there to be a "why" at all. Similarly, you repeatedly voice the argument that GOd gives meaning to life- again presupposing that there must be some higher meaning to human existence.

Anyway, I truly hope that theists don't live moral lives ONLY because God has decreed certain actions to be right and other wrong. If God were to come down tomorrow and tell everyone that murdering babies was ok, would this action suddenly become morally defensible? I hope not- human beings can do much better than such simple dogma. Humanism and morality absolutely do not require belief in God- nor do especially religious people have a historically better track record of moral behavior than less religious ones and athiests. I don't think we have to look very hard to demonstrate that.

 

[jhugti]

If there is no God then there is no real morality, no meaning, and no reason to believe that any aspect of man transcends the physical. Consequently, our thoughts, actions, relationships, and feelings become devoid of meaning. When I hug my Dad after not seeing him for a semester, I think I feel love; I sense some sort of bond, but by the naturalist view all that happens is a series of physiological reactions. I am not satisfied with a worldview that robs me of both my best and my worst moments. I think this is a very important stipulation to the belief in Naturalism or Atheism.

This is a common and (in my opinion) weak argument against atheism. Perhaps you do not know many atheists, but let me assure you that we are not cold, robot-men devoid of feeling and "robbed" of our best and worst moments. Hardly.

When you say "all that happens is a series of physiological" reactions you make it sound like physiology can't give rise to deep emotional feeling. Do Prozac and Valium tap into God to exert their effects? How can a drug, demonstrably affecting physiology possibly do that? It seems far more plausible to me that human emotion is the pinnacle of physiology- the highest form of consciousness that has derived from eons of adaptive selection. It has been demonstrated time and time again that consciousness and emotion would be reproductively advantageous (for an easy to read review, see Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). Emotion doesn't require God- many religions don't attribute any type of soul to animals, but it is clear that many animals experience vivid emotion. Where is the evidence that emotion requires spirituality in any form, or that this spirituality (if it is required) actually indicates the existence of a supernatural being?

See the post above for a simple rebuttal to the idea that God is responsible for morality. Is the only reason theists lead moral lives to escape punishment from a supernatural being who has decreed some actions good and other evil? That is a truly frightening prospect. Where is the fundamental human desire to help a fellow man, to ease others' suffering, and to aid in the preferment of one's companions? I strongly hold all those convictions and I feel no relationship to a supernatural being.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I freely admit that I believe/assume that there are physical laws in the universe that we can discern through observation and experimentation. However, this is NOT logically equivalent to assuming there are not. This is the same fallacy that I have already addressed in the post above. ALL the empirical evidence suggests that there are in fact such laws. The fact that we have technological innovation reliably demonstrates that we can describe and use these laws with increasing precision using scientific inquiry. If your contention is that there are NOT physical laws that govern the natural phenomena on this planet, you have far bigger fish to fry. The entire scientific establishment should stop dead in their tracks before proceeding onward with such "assumptions."

You cannot defend a position unless you are willing to put forth evidence for its accuracy- simply voicing doubts does nothing to weaken the case for science. Further, science as a process IS infallible. I say this not because I dogmatically feel it to be so, but becase science by its very definition is self-correcting. Is any given scientific theory 100% accurate? Of course not, and I think everyone realizes that. But as a process, science proceeds by offering better and better explanations for natural phenomena- contradicting its own previous ideas if necessary. Science is anything but dogmatic.




Using big words, you have voiced an essentially simple complaint about a Godless world- that morality would cease to exist in the absence of divine laws of conduct. Basically, you are saying "if God didn't tell you what to do, how would you tell right apart from wrong?"

Before I get into that question, I want to point out that you take as an assumption that there is a "why" of life, which is a completely circular argument given that only belief in God requires there to be a "why" at all. Similarly, you repeatedly voice the argument that GOd gives meaning to life- again presupposing that there must be some higher meaning to human existence.

Anyway, I truly hope that theists don't live moral lives ONLY because God has decreed certain actions to be right and other wrong. If God were to come down tomorrow and tell everyone that murdering babies was ok, would this action suddenly become morally defensible? I hope not- human beings can do much better than such simple dogma. Humanism and morality absolutely do not require belief in God- nor do especially religious people have a historically better track record of moral behavior than less religious ones and athiests. I don't think we have to look very hard to demonstrate that.

I think you are taking the idea of a moral code to the extreme here. What derzornhistolog is trying to say is that for morality to exist, you have to assume that there is something beyond just the physical (i.e. the philosophical concept of God). The idea of God, when separated from all the religious beliefs people attach to God, serves a very different purpose than science does. If you say that only things with a defined physical component are “real” then every concept without a physical component is necessarily false. This leaves us with no direction and no morality. In a purely physical world, morality does not exist- it is simply a figment of our imaginations. This worldview also robs us of our primary motivation: happiness. We say that we are motivated to achieve in our lives and to form meaningful relationships so that we can be happy. But what is the physical component of happiness? When we say that we want to be happy, do we mean we want to induce a cascade of physiological events so that we get certain sensations? In a Naturalist world, what it means to be happy is very different than how we experience happiness. Other concepts fall along with the concept of happiness such as intelligence, reasoning, and a number of other abstract terms. The function of God (spirituality or transcendence however you want to think of it) is to provide an objective component to the abstract. With this concept in place I can say that happiness is “real” or that morality is “real”. This makes more sense to so many people because this explains our motivations so much better. If we were purely physical beings, our only motivation would be to carry out physiological functions so that we could persist and reproduce. Our emotions would only be incentives or disincentives for us to perform certain actions based on whether or not that action would be conducive to our biological purpose. Things that help us live make us “happy” and things that are detrimental to our health make us “sad”. But is life really that cut and dry? Under this model, why do we even study science? How can you explain all of your behavior (or human behavior for that mater) only with regard to the physical world? Naturalism seems to fall flat IMO.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

This is a common and (in my opinion) weak argument against atheism. Perhaps you do not know many atheists, but let me assure you that we are not cold, robot-men devoid of feeling and "robbed" of our best and worst moments. Hardly.

When you say "all that happens is a series of physiological" reactions you make it sound like physiology can't give rise to deep emotional feeling. Do Prozac and Valium tap into God to exert their effects? How can a drug, demonstrably affecting physiology possibly do that? It seems far more plausible to me that human emotion is the pinnacle of physiology- the highest form of consciousness that has derived from eons of adaptive selection. It has been demonstrated time and time again that consciousness and emotion would be reproductively advantageous (for an easy to read review, see Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). Emotion doesn't require God- many religions don't attribute any type of soul to animals, but it is clear that many animals experience vivid emotion. Where is the evidence that emotion requires spirituality in any form, or that this spirituality (if it is required) actually indicates the existence of a supernatural being?

See the post above for a simple rebuttal to the idea that God is responsible for morality. Is the only reason theists lead moral lives to escape punishment from a supernatural being who has decreed some actions good and other evil? That is a truly frightening prospect. Where is the fundamental human desire to help a fellow man, to ease others' suffering, and to aid in the preferment of one's companions? I strongly hold all those convictions and I feel no relationship to a supernatural being.

I am not suggesting that Atheists do not experience life the same way Theists do, I'm just saying that this world view has no real way of accounting for all of human experience. If only the natural world exists, how do you account for the component of our emotions that lies just outside the physiological world? Without spirituality, this component does not exist.
Try to think of God without organized religion, I guess in a more objective way. Many religious people do not feel that God punishes or rewards anyone for anything. I think you would be interested in the Unitarian Universalist Church just to read up on their ideas. They believe in more of an abstract God. (I am not trying to convert you, I just think you would be interested in reading up on their beliefs)

 

[stoic]

I am not suggesting that Atheists do not experience life the same way Theists do, I'm just saying that this world view has no real way of accounting for all of human experience. If only the natural world exists, how do you account for the component of our emotions that lies just outside the physiological world? Without spirituality, this component does not exist.

i don't know how you can say this with any form of seriousness. what we know about the brain and conciousness is that we don't know very much about them. how is it more likely that some divinely created "soul" gives us conciousness than conciousness being a product of neurology we don't yet understand.

the argument you present amounts to yet another case of "we don't know what's going on here, so it must be god."

 

[derzornhistolog]

I freely admit that I believe/assume that there are physical laws in the universe that we can discern through observation and experimentation. However, this is NOT logically equivalent to assuming there are not. This is the same fallacy that I have already addressed in the post above. ALL the empirical evidence suggests that there are in fact such laws. The fact that we have technological innovation reliably demonstrates that we can describe and use these laws with increasing precision using scientific inquiry. If your contention is that there are NOT physical laws that govern the natural phenomena on this planet, you have far bigger fish to fry. The entire scientific establishment should stop dead in their tracks before proceeding onward with such "assumptions."

You cannot defend a position unless you are willing to put forth evidence for its accuracy- simply voicing doubts does nothing to weaken the case for science. Further, science as a process IS infallible. I say this not because I dogmatically feel it to be so, but becase science by its very definition is self-correcting. Is any given scientific theory 100% accurate? Of course not, and I think everyone realizes that. But as a process, science proceeds by offering better and better explanations for natural phenomena- contradicting its own previous ideas if necessary. Science is anything but dogmatic.




Using big words, you have voiced an essentially simple complaint about a Godless world- that morality would cease to exist in the absence of divine laws of conduct. Basically, you are saying "if God didn't tell you what to do, how would you tell right apart from wrong?"

Before I get into that question, I want to point out that you take as an assumption that there is a "why" of life, which is a completely circular argument given that only belief in God requires there to be a "why" at all. Similarly, you repeatedly voice the argument that GOd gives meaning to life- again presupposing that there must be some higher meaning to human existence.

Anyway, I truly hope that theists don't live moral lives ONLY because God has decreed certain actions to be right and other wrong. If God were to come down tomorrow and tell everyone that murdering babies was ok, would this action suddenly become morally defensible? I hope not- human beings can do much better than such simple dogma. Humanism and morality absolutely do not require belief in God- nor do especially religious people have a historically better track record of moral behavior than less religious ones and athiests. I don't think we have to look very hard to demonstrate that.

You have at once contradicted yourself - starting off by saying you 'assume' that there are physical laws, and then by saying that 'all empirical evidence supports such laws'. When you start with an assumption to provide a method of proving that assumption, that is called 'begging the question'. Contrariwise, I have employed skeptical tropes (like the paradox of the criterion) to introduce doubt - since many scientists have not read their philosophy of science and are as yet unaware of the assumptions it makes.

The fact that technology is improving our precision MAY not be indicative of the accuracy or even existence of our natural laws so much as the consistency of the convention we have employed. My contention is not that there are no physical laws. I simply wished to point out that there is doubt about whether they are 'infallible'. As human beings, perhaps our sensibilities are limited. Perhaps we have evolved both biologically and socially with certain ways of understanding the world that is suited to life on earth. Perhaps we seek order where there is chaos, and instinctively want to throw inductive blankets all over things. In other words, perhaps science - and the entire body of scientific knowledge - is nothing more than an elegant (and practical) human construction. Being a human construction, it is fallible. So, while science does self-correct - on grounds of INTERNAL CONSISTENCY - this is to say nothing about its INFALLIBILITY. It's possible that, as you say, no scientific theory is 100% accurate, but the way we address improvements has nothing to do with accuracy (I do not claim to know how accurate our theories are to date). We improve our theories by tweaking the logical consistency across ever expanding numbers of observations. All of this is immaterial though, since doubt is implicit in modern scientific conventions. Why would we have to stop 'doing science' just because we finally realize doubt has been there all along (please just read Kuhn's Structures of Scientific Revolutions)?


I have not provided a posteriori or a priori proofs for god because I do not wish to, nor do I think it possible to do so. I am not trying to prove god or a lack thereof, I am trying to show how the choice in belief or disbelief depends on prejudices about metaphysics - which are not the subject of science anyway. Thus, science does not intersect with religion at a first-principles level.

Also, you have mistakenly inferred an assumption on my part about the existence of metaphysics (your 'why' questions of life). I have simply said that based on your particular prejudices - you will choose whether you WANT to have metaphysics. I have argued that if there are no 'why questions', then self-aggrandizement served up with any measure of wanton slaughter, chicanery, and stealing is fully logical and equipollent to any argument that one ought to 'help his/her fellow man'. You are right that you CAN CHOOSE to be a humanist and have some form of morality in a godless world. But my argument never claimed that that was untrue, it simply stated that humanism is nothing more than a cultural prejudice in that case. Qua prejudice, it doesn't really mean anything. In fact, it's something of a lie. At once, you're telling people there are no 'why questions', and then you scream bloody murder when somebody gets murdered in a bloody fashion. How can you do so when the question 'why is murder right/wrong' does not exist? I want to stress again - god gives the meaning if you WANT to have that meaning, not because it exists a priori.

I think an appeal to the masses stands as no evidence at all about which ideas are correct. As I said in a previous post, the question of which side has done more 'evil' is loaded. It's in the eye of the beholder.

I am left with three more questions for you: What is(are) the rational basis(es) for morality/humanism without god? Why are you seeking morality/humanism without god? And supposing that you find basis, how do you explain to the irrational man/woman using reason that he/she ought to be rational? If you can provide answers to these questions that you'd stake your life on - something I'm not intellectually capable of doing - then you will, by Occam's razor at least, have shown that the idea of god is extraneous.

______________________________
SPQR

University of Western Ontario '05

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

i don't know how you can say this with any form of seriousness. what we know about the brain and conciousness is that we don't know very much about them. how is it more likely that some divinely created "soul" gives us conciousness than conciousness being a product of neurology we don't yet understand.

the argument you present amounts to yet another case of "we don't know what's going on here, so it must be god."

No, I know that there is some scientific reason why we feel certain things. The study of neurology probably will uncover these reasons at some point. I'm saying that without some idea of transcendence, these emotions or our morals can only be considered physiological processes and nothing else. Emotions just happen but no meaning can be tied to those occurrences. Moral implications must also be ignored with the atheist worldview. For example:

Imagine if you and I both had infants and were locked in a basement with our babies and a limited supply of baby formula. Biologically, my goal is either for me to survive or for my offspring to survive. The best plan of action would be for me to murder your baby (and probably you too) so that my baby will survive. There should be no physiological disincentive associated with this action (like remorse or sadness) because this is how I would best satisfy my physical/biological needs.

The murder of an infant is just another occurrence that lacks any sort of meaning. In reality, I would probably not approach a situation in this way, but the naturalist worldview does not offer an explanation for any other plan of action. Human life is not intrinsically valued if we are only physical beings. We are not subject to a "moral code" we are only subject to a series of actions and reactions.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

Just one more thing to throw in:

From a naturalist world view, by becoming doctors we are doing a huge disservice to our species. Remember, there is no such thing as the autonomous man and human life is not inherently meaningful (no spirituality, no transcending element). Given the fact that we are merely physical beings, the only way that our species can be perfected is through natural selection. We should consider ourselves lucky that some genetic diseases manifest themselves early in life and cause death before those afflicted can reproduce. By treating these patients, we are allowing them to reproduce so that the diseased allele can persist in the human population. Because of doctors and medicine, we are decreasing the fitness of our species. Natural selection can not ensure that only the fittest individuals survive.

Why do this? What if some other species evolves and becomes superior to humans?

Furthermore, why do we take care of the older individuals in the population? Once they are too old to reproduce, they are only using up resources that could nourish the rest of the population. They should be left to die, not treated so that they can live.

Medicine also increases the likelihood that individuals will be born with Down syndrome. We know that after age 40, the probability that a woman will have a child with Down syndrome increases exponentially. Before modern medicine, people rarely lived to age 40, let alone had kids that old. We are crippling ourselves by furthering medicine.

 

[stoic]

No, I know that there is some scientific reason why we feel certain things. The study of neurology probably will uncover these reasons at some point. I'm saying that without some idea of transcendence, these emotions or our morals can only be considered physiological processes and nothing else. Emotions just happen but no meaning can be tied to those occurrences. Moral implications must also be ignored with the atheist worldview. For example:

Imagine if you and I both had infants and were locked in a basement with our babies and a limited supply of baby formula. Biologically, my goal is either for me to survive or for my offspring to survive. The best plan of action would be for me to murder your baby (and probably you too) so that my baby will survive. There should be no physiological disincentive associated with this action (like remorse or sadness) because this is how I would best satisfy my physical/biological needs.

The murder of an infant is just another occurrence that lacks any sort of meaning. In reality, I would probably not approach a situation in this way, but the naturalist worldview does not offer an explanation for any other plan of action. Human life is not intrinsically valued if we are only physical beings. We are not subject to a "moral code" we are only subject to a series of actions and reactions.

that's your take on it. but there are a lot of people (myself included) who disagree strongly and see morals/religion as social constructs that place boundries on the behaviors of a population to allow them to live together.

from a naturalist standpoint, you should only kill me if you know for sure that the act of killing me and my child will not bring harm to you or your child.

your senario is further complicated by the inclusion of human reasoning in this situation. what if by thinking and working together we could acutally get out of the box?

practically, your argument has problems to. put two litters of mice in a cage together and take their food away. guess what? they don't kill each other. do mice share in our divine morality?

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

that's your take on it. but there are a lot of people (myself included) who disagree strongly and see morals/religion as social constructs that place boundries on the behaviors of a population to allow them to live together.

from a naturalist standpoint, you should only kill me if you know for sure that the act of killing me and my child will not bring harm to you or your child.

your senario is further complicated by the inclusion of human reasoning in this situation. what if by thinking and working together we could acutally get out of the box?

practically, your argument has problems to. put two litters of mice in a cage together and take their food away. guess what? they don't kill each other. do mice share in our divine morality?

Assume that we can not get out of the basement. Also, why would killing you or your child harm me or my child? If the two of you are dead, how would you harm me? And if human life is not inherantly meaningful, why should I even attempt to work with you?

In the complete absence of food, what would be the point to the mice killing each other? Would mice have the means of eating the dead mice? Is rodent flesh even a good source of food for mice? Apparently mice eat plant bits more than anything else, they are not big on meat though they will sometimes eat small insects if they have to. This would explain the reason why they did not eat each other in the experiment you suggested.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/zoo00/zoo00573.htm

Now assume that we are locked in the basement with our respective children (with no possibility of getting out) and we are to be let out in one year's time. We are given a one year long supply of baby formula though we have two babies. Say babies can survive if they eat every other day, but they will be malnourished and the odds that they will survive to later reproduce are substantially diminished.

With the absence of a moral code, explain to me why I should share the baby formula with you instead of killing you and your child so that my child can eat every day.

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

bump

 

[automaton]

"god" is a meaningless term in itself. various people have given the term meaning, assigning attributes. philosophers traditionally attribute traits such as first cause, omnipotence, or omnipresense to this term. ladyjubilee defines it in part as something that gives meaning.

so let me ask you this, suppose god exists. what possible meaning does this entity add to your emotions? does hugging your dad have more meaning with god around? and if so, what meaning does it have?

suppose god exists. what does it add to morality? you claim that there must be something "philosophical" as a ground for morality. what is the basis of this claim? if you claim there is a such a requirement, you should explain why. why must there be some metaphysical justification, and what can the nature of this possibly be? suppose god told me not to pray to lucifer. what is the moral status of this commandment? is the action bad because god said so, or because it is bad in itself? if it is bad in itself then you can obviously see how god would be quite irrelevant in this matter. if it is bad because god said so, why would god just make up stuff for you to follow without justification? and as a corollary, why are society's laws of less stature than god's commandments? shouldn't they be at the same moral level?

it is my opinion that the term "god" is used as a variable that people assign attributes to, as they see fit. it is also my opinion that "god" adds nothing to justification of such things as morality, emotion, purpose of life, or anything else for that matter.