Is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?
15 June 2011, 12:00 AM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 June 2011, 12:09 AM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 June 2011, 12:33 AM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 June 2011, 08:08 AM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Telford
Posts: 2,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
Respect your father and mother.
You must not kill.
You must not commit adultery.
You must not steal.
You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.
There isnt any mention of rape or violence either.....
15 June 2011, 08:11 AM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny BELFAST
Posts: 19,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You shall have no other Gods but me.
You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
Respect your father and mother.
You must not kill.
You must not commit adultery.
You must not steal.
You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.
There isnt any mention of rape or violence either.....
You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
Respect your father and mother.
You must not kill.
You must not commit adultery.
You must not steal.
You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.
There isnt any mention of rape or violence either.....
15 June 2011, 09:50 AM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference is that if the evidence doesn't fit the "dogma", then science changes, where-as religion makes up excuses as to why something isn't like it says in the various scriptures.
FWIW, I'm an atheist. I believe (
) that all religions are man made, and there certainly is no personal god, that would bother listening to human prayers.
As science/true knowledge has advanced, the space taken up by religion in peoples lives have shrunk. I hope that at some time, humanity can get rid of the scourge of religion.
From scientific observations we know that the universe is really, really old. We also know that there are billions and billions of stars. That there would be some god creature that would take particular interest in what humans did on some little insignificant planet on the outskirts of a plain galaxy is, well, ludicrous.
Evolution can explain the origin of life, and the variety we see on earth. People used to turn to religion to explain what they saw in nature, but with scientific advances this is no longer necessary.
The only thing there might still be room for religion is in my opinion where the universe "came" from, but I think it's just a matter of time before science comes up with a consistent theory for the "start" (if there was such a thing - indeed it might not make sense to ask the question, because we don't fully appreciate what time means). Once the "beginning" (again, there might not even be a beginning) can be explained, there is no longer any need for any God, even to "start" the universe off.
Religions are totally inconsistent in their teachings and most seem *evil* (certainly judaism, christianism and islam) with their jelaous god(s), that I think everyone should reject them. A lot of really, really, bad things have been done in the name of religion, but I still haven't heard of anything bad being done in the name of atheism.
Btw, just as a side note, christianism is certainly polytheistic with the tripartite stuff going on.
FWIW, I'm an atheist. I believe (
) that all religions are man made, and there certainly is no personal god, that would bother listening to human prayers.As science/true knowledge has advanced, the space taken up by religion in peoples lives have shrunk. I hope that at some time, humanity can get rid of the scourge of religion.
From scientific observations we know that the universe is really, really old. We also know that there are billions and billions of stars. That there would be some god creature that would take particular interest in what humans did on some little insignificant planet on the outskirts of a plain galaxy is, well, ludicrous.
Evolution can explain the origin of life, and the variety we see on earth. People used to turn to religion to explain what they saw in nature, but with scientific advances this is no longer necessary.
The only thing there might still be room for religion is in my opinion where the universe "came" from, but I think it's just a matter of time before science comes up with a consistent theory for the "start" (if there was such a thing - indeed it might not make sense to ask the question, because we don't fully appreciate what time means). Once the "beginning" (again, there might not even be a beginning) can be explained, there is no longer any need for any God, even to "start" the universe off.
Religions are totally inconsistent in their teachings and most seem *evil* (certainly judaism, christianism and islam) with their jelaous god(s), that I think everyone should reject them. A lot of really, really, bad things have been done in the name of religion, but I still haven't heard of anything bad being done in the name of atheism.
Btw, just as a side note, christianism is certainly polytheistic with the tripartite stuff going on.
Look at this:
As science/true knowledge
Science doesn't explain the nature of the self....it's not a philosophy, just a system of tools used to develop models and theories. Many scientists would assume a physcalist ontological model but even that has variations.
15 June 2011, 02:13 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 June 2011, 02:34 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, but that doesn't make it "psuedoscience", does it? One may ask why our brains are wired-up to 'seek God', which was my original point. Understanding the mechanics of our quest for spiritual nourishment or how visions manifest does not, in my view, devalue the experience. To suggest it does reminds me of Keats accusing Newton of unweaving the rainbow because the latter was able to explain how prismatic colours occured. I'd argue knowledge takes us closer to God, not further away. Neurotheology explains why some humans are in tune with and able to access the numinous or the spiritual while others are not. Whose experience is the richer?
15 June 2011, 02:49 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, but that doesn't make it "psuedoscience", does it? One may ask why our brains are wired-up to 'seek God', which was my original point. Understanding the mechanics of our quest for spiritual nourishment or how visions manifest does not, in my view, devalue the experience. To suggest it does reminds me of Keats accusing Newton of unweaving the rainbow because the latter was able to explain how prismatic colours occured. I'd argue knowledge takes us closer to God, not further away. Neurotheology explains why some humans are in tune with and able to access the numinous or the spiritual while others are not. Whose experience is the richer?
It's a silly soundbite for popular science people.Anyway of course it devalues spiritual experience since physicalism is a monism.
15 June 2011, 03:22 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Knowledge implies that what is known is true on the basis of solid evidence. You can say that you know there is a god, however, how can you know if this is the case unless you are able to show that this is true?
15 June 2011, 03:54 PM
#106
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
15 June 2011, 04:04 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
15 June 2011, 04:10 PM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saying we're hardwired to search for God is what I meant by pseudo-science 'cos it's a stupid conclusion. We didn't have monothesism in the West until Christianity so are we saying we evolved that much in just a few thousands years? It's a silly soundbite for popular science people.
Anyway of course it devalues spiritual experience since physicalism is a monism.
It's a silly soundbite for popular science people.Anyway of course it devalues spiritual experience since physicalism is a monism.
Second, I was presenting Geezer, an anti-Theist, with a physical explanation of the bio-chemical mechanics that underpin the spiritual experience. Knowing the mechanism does not devalue the output as the latter is greater than the whole. When shamans took peyote to heal their tribes, they entered a spirit world, if I took peyote, I too would enter a spirit world; just because I understood the chemistry wouldn't make the experience anyless worthwhile, on the contrary, it makes it more complete. So St Paul probably had temporal lobe epilepsy - big deal - he wouldn't have had his visions without it!
*ETA - Sorry, just read that you qualified the statement by saying "in the west". My confusion over the evolution comment still stands, though.
Last edited by JTaylor; 15 June 2011 at 08:08 PM.
15 June 2011, 05:15 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take each of these things, and a thousand others, and you have my God. If you feel any of the things I've listed do not exist, I'm happy to listen. If you're unhappy with my use of the word God to describe the whole that each of those parts make, then c'est la vie.
Last edited by JTaylor; 15 June 2011 at 05:23 PM.
15 June 2011, 06:21 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S. Have a look at the differences between a priori and a posteriori knowledge within the broader field of epistemology. Also, the notion of the logos and sophia - knowledge isn't the preserve of science. If one accepts Alhazen as the father of modern science it's been around for a 1000 years, Galileo, Kepler, Bacon - less than 500 years. This Universe has been around for 13.5 billion years. It's arrogance and hubris to assume that science is the only source of knowledge. Facts are different from truth and knowledge?
15 June 2011, 07:52 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Telford
Posts: 2,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, some useful info for you: Im watching a programme from the states called "Through the Wormhole", series 1 episode 1 "Is there a Creator". Its narrated by Morgan Freeman, you'll only get it (for now) via .torrent file (use extratorrent.com), the whole series is on there.
They describe how the whole universe can be broken down mathematically. Although that is a scientific method, if the whole universe can be broken down mathematically - doesnt that indicate some kind of "design" ?
I'll carry on watching this episode and it really is fascinating. Its part of the "discovery channel science". If you torrent stuff, I recommend getting it.
They describe how the whole universe can be broken down mathematically. Although that is a scientific method, if the whole universe can be broken down mathematically - doesnt that indicate some kind of "design" ?
I'll carry on watching this episode and it really is fascinating. Its part of the "discovery channel science". If you torrent stuff, I recommend getting it.
15 June 2011, 09:21 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Because if God is a placemarker for the unknown, I know it exists; if God is the Universe, I Know it exists; if God is the source of all life, I know it exists; if God is the Sun, I know it exists; if God is our collective consciousness, I know it exists; if God is the sum of human knowledge, I know it exists; if God is my conscience, I know it exists; if God gave rise to beauty, love, happiness, wisdom and fidelity after 3.8 billion years of evolution, I know it exists and if God is abiogenesis, I know it exists. If God is a bird singing, an act of true altruism, a baby's first breath, Mozart, sunset from Vesuvius, sunrise from Table Mountain, the eyes of a chimpanzee or my Mother's unconditional love, I know God exists. If God is my desire to find truth and my sense of self beyond the atoms that make up my body, I know it exists.
Take each of these things, and a thousand others, and you have my God. If you feel any of the things I've listed do not exist, I'm happy to listen. If you're unhappy with my use of the word God to describe the whole that each of those parts make, then c'est la vie.
Take each of these things, and a thousand others, and you have my God. If you feel any of the things I've listed do not exist, I'm happy to listen. If you're unhappy with my use of the word God to describe the whole that each of those parts make, then c'est la vie.
15 June 2011, 09:29 PM
#113
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 June 2011, 11:06 PM
#114
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Your interpretation for God, that this enity manifests itself everywhere and is everything and all that "we" think, all that we feel, all that perceive and all that we are. If this is so, then you would not be able to comprehend that what you write is not of your free will but the will of God, a force beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature.
15 June 2011, 11:42 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because if God is a placemarker for the unknown, I know it exists; if God is the Universe, I Know it exists; if God is the source of all life, I know it exists; if God is the Sun, I know it exists; if God is our collective consciousness, I know it exists; if God is the sum of human knowledge, I know it exists; if God is my conscience, I know it exists; if God gave rise to beauty, love, happiness, wisdom and fidelity after 3.8 billion years of evolution, I know it exists and if God is abiogenesis, I know it exists. If God is a bird singing, an act of true altruism, a baby's first breath, Mozart, sunset from Vesuvius, sunrise from Table Mountain, the eyes of a chimpanzee or my Mother's unconditional love, I know God exists. If God is my desire to find truth and my sense of self beyond the atoms that make up my body, I know it exists.
Take each of these things, and a thousand others, and you have my God. If you feel any of the things I've listed do not exist, I'm happy to listen. If you're unhappy with my use of the word God to describe the whole that each of those parts make, then c'est la vie.
Take each of these things, and a thousand others, and you have my God. If you feel any of the things I've listed do not exist, I'm happy to listen. If you're unhappy with my use of the word God to describe the whole that each of those parts make, then c'est la vie.
15 June 2011, 11:50 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your interpretation for God, that this enity manifests itself everywhere and is everything and all that "we" think, all that we feel, all that perceive and all that we are. If this is so, then you would not be able to comprehend that what you write is not of your free will but the will of God, a force beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature.
15 June 2011, 11:51 PM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all. Mathematics is a discipline which attempts to demonstrate how the universe fits together. Your proposal is kind of like stating that as you can strip and rebuild your car with a box of spanners and a Haynes manual, Cugnot built the first self propelled vehicle with a mind to later producing Haynes manuals.
15 June 2011, 11:54 PM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 June 2011, 12:44 AM
#119
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - it is just a fancy for the imagination of those who can't accept that while we are alive, we have the opportunity to be in control. Once we are dead it is game over. I know people who pray that they will get lucky....... ffs - sort it out. Is there a notation for irrational belief squared?
16 June 2011, 06:36 AM
#120
You stress science and by implication objectivity, yet you make the most subjective and biased statements like religion is a 'scourge'?
Look at this:
Hubris?
Science doesn't explain the nature of the self....it's not a philosophy, just a system of tools used to develop models and theories. Many scientists would assume a physcalist ontological model but even that has variations.
Look at this:
Hubris?
Science doesn't explain the nature of the self....it's not a philosophy, just a system of tools used to develop models and theories. Many scientists would assume a physcalist ontological model but even that has variations.
Religion is a scourge, at least the Abrahamic ones. The believers are "forced" to believe and behave in certain ways, NOT because it's humane behaviour, but because they fear hell and want to end up in heaven. This might have changed for "christianism" over the last half century, but up until then it was very much fear based.
Unbelievers should be killed (it says so in the 1st testament (re the golden calf, etc)), witches should be burnt (this lead to mass persecutions in europe, where innocent people were tortured in the most disgusting ways and then burnt alive on the stake (unless of course they confessed and repented, in which case they were strangled and then burnt!).
Then we have the crusades, which again killed masses of people. Jihad likewise.
Oh, and I almost forgot about all the wars and genocide that has gone with them. For example, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Sudan, Afghanistan etc etc, and these are only examples from our own time.
The abrahamic religions breed fear and intolerance. God is a jelaous type, and he will not allow any other gods beside him, and every other temple should be destroyed, and also the believers in other religions should either be converted or killed. *this* breeds intolerance.
So, to qualify my "scourge" comment, then: Something that makes people kill/massmurder people and makes the believers live in fear is a scourge.
Compare this to science. As far as I know, there are few instances of scientist killing other scientist because they came up with a rival theory.
To comment on the "nature of the self", the self is a product of your brain, which is a product of evolution. In the past, it seems that for humans it was beneficial to have a relatively big brain. The self might be a by product of this (or indeed it might even be a by product of all brains in mammals, or even vertebrates).