Religion

[Indigo]

Lets play a game: a game called "applying Occam's Razor".

 

Up Quarks, down quarks, electrons, and electromagnetic waves, along with the laws that govern them, are, in my mind, simpler than an infinitely complex trans-dimensional super being.

But where do those laws come from?

Most revered scientists today are not religious. Those in the past are most likely to be religious due to belief in a god being the zeitgeist, much like Abraham Lincoln's racism...

You're right. Most revered scientists are not religious, but then neither are they atheists. They are agnostics.

 

But like I said, all this is irrelevant. Like most of the points we've discussed in this thread - it's beside the point.

[The fish]

But where do those laws come from?

 

I don't know. But if you want to go down that road, where did god come from?

If it comes to either elementary particles + energy vs god in a "which was the original item" contest, god looses once Occam's Razor is applied.

[Indigo]

I don't know. But if you want to go down that road, where did god come from?

 

If it comes to either elementary particles + energy vs god in a "which was the original item" contest, god looses once Occam's Razor is applied.

Your explanation seems to suggest that elementary particles + energy and the laws that govern them exist infinitely and therefore don't require a beginning, but I don't think that can be considered a simpler explanation. Hence I say we can't infer a simpler explanation of equal explanatory power from Ockham's Razor.

[Haden]

I think the tradtional christian idea of the razor thing and god is. And I know your gonna be like how convininant when I say this but its a theological belief in christianty not just for this but other stuff. That god is supernature and therefore is outside nature and doesnt have to be created wheras I really dont understand how anyone can firmly be an atheist becuase you have to say nature spawned itself or its been here for an infinite amount of time. I find that really hard to swallow.

 

As for the scientist thing I mean it kinda doesnt matter really I was just making a point that historically a lot of great scientists have been theists and some today are some arent. My point really was science doesnt mean atheism.

[Jamba]

Can we just come to the conclusion that everyone who makes a solid judgement about anything in life is essentially wrong? For each of us, our circumstances, the information that we hold, the technology at our disposal impacts how we experience and understand the world around us personally. It will constantly change and so our beliefs should as well.

 

Personally, I'm a bit sad that this thread has slipped so easily into the science and religion comparison so quickly. The reason I bumped the thread in the first place was to learn and discuss religion not science. There are many people who are well versed in science in this forum but few in faith, religion and the less materialistic elements of our life.

[M-PG71C]

Poor Fish, learn to read and comprehend what you are reading before you blast away at me. Let me quote myself:

 

Even though I have my faith and my beliefs, I am more than willing to listen to others and respect them for it as long as I recieve the same respect back. I refuse to become what people on both sides of the debate have evolve into.

 

Lets see, allow me to boil it down. I respect people's opinions on both sides of the debate, regardless if you are religious or not. I'm stating because people have this lack of tolerance, it is leading into exactly what we are into now. Religious people calling non-religious bullshitters just as much as the opposite. I don't understand why people just can't give mutual respect. I don't sit here and try to "recruit" people in my religion, hell, I don't even bother lecturing them in it. If they want my opinion, I would be happy to express just as much as I would be willing to listen to an atheist.

 

And the reason why? Because both sides hold a damn good point and to really understand how things work in life, you have to be able to see multiple perspectives.

 

Maybe people are just too damn arrogant for that. I've seen arrogant religious zealots just as much as I've seen arrogant atheists or what have you and IMHO, they are both just as stupid/ignorant as one another. And that is what is ultimately sad.

[Emasher]

Just because there is no evidence that there are Gods doesn't mean there is evidence that their isn't Gods.

 

Believing in a God means that you trust the prophet or other figure that told people on earth about the God.

[Haver]

Indigo:

 

Is there evidence that refutes the claims of every human religion? Yes. So it is rational to not believe.

 

Is there evidence to support the claims of any human religion? No. So it is not rational to believe.

 

If there were evidence for a God, which would certainly not be a Christian God or a Muslim God or any of the others, would it be rational to believe? Yes.

 

Do we have any? No.

 

There are things we do not understand yet, but this does not mean they will never be. It certainly says nothing about God. THAT IS WEAK-MINDED, and an insult to the individual, to the human.

[Oxigen_Waste]

My mais quarrel with religion is the fact that every single thing stated by religion is an infringement on human freedom, many times passed on as rightful trough completely unrealistic bullshit that 100% of times comes from the very core of the human race's greed, AKA, their desire for higher purpose and meaning. I always said that religious = stupid because of that same principle. Anyone who believes in the existance of a meaning of life or higher purpose is obviously someone who overestimates themself. The fact that they can't admit their own uselessness proves my point. You're as meaninfull as an eggshell... nothing.

[Jamba]

Right guys, until this thread turns into something about discussing religion itself, rather than discussing (in this case I use the term losely) whether it is "right" to believe in religion, then I'm off.

 

Most of the posts here that are about religion as a subject (rather than science) are just people chiming in saying "I don't like religion cos of blah...." or "I'm not religious cos of blah...". To all of thos I have to say this: What are you doing on this thread?

[Gizmo]

All too often in these debates we let the prejudices of this matter steer us away from the real philosophical issues, instead focusing our attention on the manufactured 'clash' between science and God. In doing so we distract ourselves from our original questions and any logical pursuit of the reasons and arguments. This is what people such as Dawkins attempt to do - they mischaracterise the question of whether God exists as a battle between faith and science, as if they are mutually-exclusive, incompatible areas. It is then suggested that an affirmation of belief in God somehow constitutes a rejection of science. But this just isn't credible.

 

The reality is that much of our questions about God concern a realm with which science lacks the capacity to explain and inform us. Science may be able to answer what Elliot Sober called 'local-why questions' - questions concerned with a point in the earth's history. However, it lacks the capacity to explain 'global-why questions' - questions concerned with the totality of the universe and its history, eg. why is there something rather than nothing.

 

Materialism (the atheistic philosophy of Dawkins et al) operates on the basis that science has the capacity in principle to explain everything. We can observe the naivety of this simply be asking whether science can explain its own laws. Sure, it can explain the laws of geology with the laws of physics. But what about the fundamental laws? For the materialist the fundamental laws 'just are', they are the stopping place - but as Swinburne says "that sort of stopping place is just where no rational enquirer will stop."

 

Science can't account for the universe. Based on the Materialist principle of causal closure, every physical event must have a complete, sufficient, physical cause. So what about the universe itself? You might point to the Big Bang - but that's part of the universe itself. The universe requires an explanation outside of itself, just like you can't explain why a novel exists just by pointing to the title page. Science does not have the capacity to provide that - and this is why metaphysical explanations are necessary, and it is why it is a mistake to be fooled into thinking the existence of God is an irrational proposition.

 

Right, so if Science can't explain the beginning of the Universe, explain to me this:

 

What created God?

 

And don't say "he just is", according to you everything began somewhere.

 

The beginning of the universe is beyond human comprehension at this moment in time. Science is the most realistic explaination (using this Occams Razor theory) and therefore it's the one I'm going to believe in.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Right guys, until this thread turns into something about discussing religion itself, rather than discussing (in this case I use the term losely) whether it is "right" to believe in religion, then I'm off.

 

Most of the posts here that are about religion as a subject (rather than science) are just people chiming in saying "I don't like religion cos of blah...." or "I'm not religious cos of blah...". To all of thos I have to say this: What are you doing on this thread?

 

This thread is called religion. As long as I have an opinion on the subject, I participate. If this was the "religious thread", I'd stay out.

Plus, the one who created the thread is one od said haters, so... what are you doing in this thread?

[weeyellowbloke]

Been going to church recently with my girlfriend. It's a weird and really shows how people can work themselves up into a state of high emotion (although they feel this state to be some form of higher plane in conciousness or "touching Jesus"). It's just odd I also agree with Oxigen that it does seem to fill some form of human desire to be part of a club and feel like you have a denstiny. Yesterday there was a lot of "The end is near, we are the chosen ones. We will look our Lord in the face and be saved", but I don't know, I just can't see the Christian idea of apolcalypse happening in the same reality as fridge-freezers. Also kind of annoys me how when I talk to people there they seem to treat me with a sort of pity for not feeling the "touch of Jesus" and not being one of the saved.

 

Materialism (the atheistic philosophy of Dawkins et al) operates on the basis that science has the capacity in principle to explain everything. We can observe the naivety of this simply be asking whether science can explain its own laws. Sure, it can explain the laws of geology with the laws of physics. But what about the fundamental laws? For the materialist the fundamental laws 'just are', they are the stopping place - but as Swinburne says "that sort of stopping place is just where no rational enquirer will stop."

 

Say what? You seem very confused about science. The whole point is that science derives itself from observation or makes predictions which can be observed to work. If a scientific proposition lacks these two factors then it is not science. So the laws of geology are not explained by the laws of physics, but be observations of our current world. You see a sandstone rich in Hematite and full of rounded grains with some finer mud based material contianing dessication cracks. This form of rock can be observed in modern desert environments with occassional flash floods from mountain rains. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that the environments of the rock would be the same in both cases. Even the realm of theoretical physics eventually comes down to the principals of mathmatics which are very hard to refute and also makes predictions of about the universe which can be observed (for example the prediction that gravity bends space can be observed in the displacement of stars from our perspective by the sun's gravity). The only place where these things break down is before and at the precise moment of the Big Bang and even here explanations could still be provided at some point by theories such as M-Theory (although it's a highly debatable area with constant adjustments being made). Anyway, strayed way off topic into a whole other place, and need to get to work.

[Haden]

Indigo:

 

Is there evidence that refutes the claims of every human religion? Yes. So it is rational to not believe.

 

Is there evidence to support the claims of any human religion? No. So it is not rational to believe.

 

If there were evidence for a God, which would certainly not be a Christian God or a Muslim God or any of the others, would it be rational to believe? Yes.

 

Do we have any? No.

 

There are things we do not understand yet, but this does not mean they will never be. It certainly says nothing about God. THAT IS WEAK-MINDED, and an insult to the individual, to the human.

 

Archelogical evidence for events in the bible conenciding historically with events is pretty strong not that this proves it but also a load of prophicies from the old testemant went on to be fulfilled like a silly amount.

 

I would argue again first cause the uniqueness of humans morality and logic the insight and revolutionary nature of jesus's outlook give the bible a strong case. Its not a religion that has to hide behind mis or non understandings in my opinion.

 

Christianity in my view and I realise this is gonna sound really contriversal. But historically speaking as thats the shizzle im into is ideologically so far ahead of the game in the way humans treat each other that it is extrodoniary. I mean liberalism which is our current system only goes half way to what christianity ultimetly offers, it preaches dont do anything bad to anyone else wheras christianity asks you to love your enemy.

[Haver]

Love my enemy? Are you kidding me?

 

I hate him. He's my enemy. How could I love him? He's sending women with Down's Syndrome into markets strapped with explosives. He's kidnapping and torturing and raping children. He's kidnapping clueless dogs and putting them to death in dog-fights. He supports the Washington Redskins (!).

 

Love him? That's completely immoral.

 

What bullshit moralityl

 

-- We had morality before (OH SHIT JESUS SAYS WE CAN'T MURDER ANYMORE :( ) and we will have morality after, better morality.

[Guest bluey]

He's sending women with Down's Syndrome into markets strapped with explosives. He's kidnapping and torturing and raping children. He's kidnapping clueless dogs and putting them to death in dog-fights. He supports the Washington Redskins (!).

christ i thought my neighbours were unsociable...

 

i believe... most of the stuff from that savage garden song

[Chris the great]

well, ive shed the last of my belife in a creator god, or counter evolutionary ideals. mrsa, in my eyes proves evolution. bacteria managing to become imune to a substance through genetic change.

 

ive started to take a more buddist approach, i respect all life, and realise that the world has no meaning without interpritation of a concious mind. put simply, if a tree falls in the woods, it makes a movement of air molucules, it isnt a sound untill it is heard.

 

i dont buy into the idea you can live off cosmic energy or that its possible to be, as a buddist would put it, self less.

 

for me, much of religion is to deny the obvious. if the earth is 6000 years old, why have we found dino bones, and even human settlements that are far older? why, if humans have been on earth for 1.000,000 years, have we only known of god for the past 6,000. if god controles everything, knows everything and is utterly good, is there cancer, aids, crime and famine? move in mysterious ways? if i started offing folk for no apparent reason then said i was helping them but moving in mysterious ways then id probebly end up in a padded cell. and why, as a loving creator did god decide that all his wrath was ok, its the equivelant off shooting your kids for not following the rules, like one of the honour killings the papers always go on about.

 

religion isn't 9nherantly bad, it can preach love afterall. its a shame that people twist it too their own ends. but isn't it better if people want to do good rather then do it to get into heaven?

[Indigo]

Right, so if Science can't explain the beginning of the Universe, explain to me this:

 

What created God?

 

And don't say "he just is", according to you everything began somewhere.

 

The beginning of the universe is beyond human comprehension at this moment in time. Science is the most realistic explaination (using this Occams Razor theory) and therefore it's the one I'm going to believe in.

The question of whether science can explain the beginning of the universe is not affected by the question of whether the existence of God can explain it.

 

I believe that God can explain it, but even if you don't accept that opinion, that doesn't then mean that science must therefore have the explanation. You've created a false dilemma. Your problem is that you see 'science' and God as two mutually exclusive concepts, which is not the case. As we see again, you are creating a false dilemma, implying that a choice must be made between the two. This is fallacious.

 

I also don't understand how you say science is the most realistic explanation. What do you mean by 'science'? Because scientists tell us that a millisecond after the Big Bang is as far back as we can empirically observe - all preceding events are purely speculation. It's as if you're putting your faith in the authority of some monolithic entity called 'science' which must surely possess the answers, rather than any substantial answers themselves.

 

If you want the philosophical perspective of 'what made God?' - the answer is that God by definition is a necessary being. Unlike all material things, God therefore depends on nothing else for God's existence - he exists necessarily. God is therefore outside of the causal network of the universe and time itself. Metaphysically it's completely valid. I think we struggle to understand the idea because our concept of God is mistaken - we wrongly conceive of God as an anthropomorphic, physical being.

Say what? You seem very confused about science. The whole point is that science derives itself from observation or makes predictions which can be observed to work. If a scientific proposition lacks these two factors then it is not science. So the laws of geology are not explained by the laws of physics, but be observations of our current world. You see a sandstone rich in Hematite and full of rounded grains with some finer mud based material contianing dessication cracks. This form of rock can be observed in modern desert environments with occassional flash floods from mountain rains.

Yes but how do you fundamentally explain the observations themselves and the causes of them? Ultimately you have to go back to the laws of physics.

There are things we do not understand yet, but this does not mean they will never be. It certainly says nothing about God. THAT IS WEAK-MINDED, and an insult to the individual, to the human.

My whole point was showing the irrationality of atheism, and how it involves a leap of faith. I mean, I could just as easily turn your arguments around against atheism:

 

Is there any evidence that God does not exist? No. Therefore God exists.

 

It's an invalid argument, just like saying 'there is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist' is an invalid argument. It's arguing from ignorance.

-- We had morality before (OH SHIT JESUS SAYS WE CAN'T MURDER ANYMORE :( ) and we will have morality after, better morality.

So where does our morality come from?

[Chris the great]

the way i see it, morality is an evolved social necesity. to work in a large group, we all need to be able to co-operate. if we were constantly killing without a moral cause(which is personal) then we would not live in large groups and not get the benefits of society. peoples morals differ, which means a mental process is involved, the bare bones lying perhaps in some evolutionary instinct.

 

i dont want my morals dictated too me, i want to make my own decision. the problem with many organised religions is that they say "this is the truth and everything else is wrong" my morals come from many influences, but i know im free to belive what i will.

 

incidently, most people today veiw science like a church. blind belife in what ever the white robed wise men say. truth is, science has been as missused as religion. a branch of psychology influenced the haulocaust, even today, we are misslecd. shreadies help kids xtay 70% more focused at school! fine print: compaired to those who skipped breakfast.

 

science or religion, people are no better or worse for following it. some intelegent men are religious, some morons are aithiest. its what you actualy arive at your self that matters. just dont assume your right.

[The fish]

So where does our morality come from?

 

Basic human morals (due to evolution - you should have seen that coming) are infinitely better than those demonstrated by god in the old testament, especially with regards to Moses and Abraham.

[Haden]

Love my enemy? Are you kidding me?

 

I hate him. He's my enemy. How could I love him? He's sending women with Down's Syndrome into markets strapped with explosives. He's kidnapping and torturing and raping children. He's kidnapping clueless dogs and putting them to death in dog-fights. He supports the Washington Redskins (!).

 

Love him? That's completely immoral.

 

What bullshit moralityl

 

-- We had morality before (OH SHIT JESUS SAYS WE CAN'T MURDER ANYMORE :( ) and we will have morality after, better morality.

 

man alive where does the aggression come from atheists haver every other discussion your quite mellow now your like a lion on speed. Interesting mental image.

 

Anyway yep love your neighbour its the good samaritian story and love doesnt mean sit down and take abuse from suicide bombers. It means trying to help people even if they arent your freinds if its someone you hate its against natural morality. But if it were used in say the palestine israel conflict there would be no conflict.

 

And better morality before and after I completley disagree morality before jesus's time thought slavery was ok and afterwards it made it ok.

 

The whole love your enemy thing links directly into this. If you have the political social concept of the "other" say as blacks were viewed in the slave trade. You make them a non human and justify what you are doing to them. Jesus preached dignity to all men and love to everyone.

[Indigo]

the way i see it, morality is an evolved social necesity. to work in a large group, we all need to be able to co-operate. if we were constantly killing without a moral cause(which is personal) then we would not live in large groups and not get the benefits of society. peoples morals differ, which means a mental process is involved, the bare bones lying perhaps in some evolutionary instinct.

If morality is merely a social or cultural construct, then it has no objective value and therefore no authority.

 

The claim that we have evolved with a semi-subconscious acceptance of our culture's morality, which ultimately is of benefit to our self-preservation, may at first seems reasonable. But the implications of such a view is that actions such as sacrificing your own life in order to save others must be considered absurd and stupid.

 

Moral relativism also means that we have no basis for criticising the practices of other cultures. According to relativism, we in the West cannot object to the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands) or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms. We have no basis to object if there is no objective moral standard to appeal to.

 

Without God, all we are confronted with is as Sartre says, the bare, valueless fact of existence. If morals are just expressions of culture or personal taste, or the by-products of socio-biological evolution, then who is to say which values are right and wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to Mother Teresa? Clearly we can and do make such judgements, but this judgement is meaningless without God, since we cannot infer a universal moral value without the notion of a value-giver, an authority. As Richard Taylor, the atheist ethicist points out, “to say that something is wrong because it is forbidden by God, is perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”

 

In a universe without God there is only the valueless fact of existence - there are only our personally relative, subjective judgements. Therefore we cannot condemn war, or torture, or genocide - those evils are merely the product of other people's subjective judgements and should be accepted as such. But of course, something within us, what you might call your conscience, compels us to make such value judgements - to declare war and oppression as evil. And we treat this as objectively the case; yet without God it cannot be the case, it is merely deception, what L.D. Rue called a "noble lie". It is as Dostoyevsky says, "without God, all things are permitted."

[Haden]

If morality is merely a social or cultural construct, then it has no objective value and therefore no authority.

The claim that we have evolved with a semi-subconscious acceptance of our culture's morality, which ultimately is of benefit to our self-preservation, may at first seems reasonable. But the implications of such a view is that actions such as sacrificing your own life in order to save others must be considered absurd and stupid.

 

Moral relativism also means that we have no basis for criticising the practices of other cultures. According to relativism, we in the West cannot object to the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands) or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms. We have no basis to object if there is no objective moral standard to appeal to.

 

Without God, all we are confronted with is as Sartre says, the bare, valueless fact of existence. If morals are just expressions of culture or personal taste, or the by-products of socio-biological evolution, then who is to say which values are right and wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to Mother Teresa? Clearly we can and do make such judgements, but this judgement is meaningless without God, since we cannot infer a universal moral value without the notion of a value-giver, an authority. As Richard Taylor, the atheist ethicist points out, “to say that something is wrong because it is forbidden by God, is perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.â€

 

In a universe without God there is only the valueless fact of existence - there are only our personally relative, subjective judgements. Therefore we cannot condemn war, or torture, or genocide - those evils are merely the product of other people's subjective judgements and should be accepted as such. But of course, something within us, what you might call your conscience, compels us to make such value judgements - to declare war and oppression as evil. And we treat this as objectively the case; yet without God it cannot be the case, it is merely deception, what L.D. Rue called a "noble lie". It is as Dostoyevsky says, "without God, all things are permitted."

 

I completley agree with this it loses any legitimacy it just becomes what people like and dont like. Just because most people dont like slavery now doesnt mean its morally wrong if its a construct.

[Haver]

Ridiculous. Absolute trash.

 

There is/are no objective morality or ethics. Sure. This does not mean we cannot build our own code through reason, through rationality. Using a natural rights framework (the right to life and the right to freedom of choice as the two basics) we can and do employ a code for conduct and we can criticize other codes that do not respect the natural rights framework (Islam being the biggie here).

 

Of course, natural rights are a construction, but if you do not subscribe to them then I do not want to know you. Compassion perhaps cannot be explained. However, it has nothing to do with a selfish desire for eternal life.

[Haden]

Ridiculous. Absolute trash.

 

There is/are no objective morality or ethics. Sure. This does not mean we cannot build our own code through reason, through rationality. Using a natural rights framework (the right to life and the right to freedom of choice as the two basics) we can and do employ a code for conduct and we can criticize other codes that do not respect the natural rights framework (Islam being the biggie here).

 

Of course, natural rights are a construction, but if you do not subscribe to them then I do not want to know you. Compassion perhaps cannot be explained. However, it has nothing to do with a selfish desire for eternal life.

 

But what right do you have if someone disagrees with you? Also theres so many tricky areas right to life so is war bad? Also you have made a big theological error compassion in christian theology doesnt get you eternal life if you mean judaism or islam then maybe your correct.

 

You dont want to know me if I dont agree with you? lol ok