Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

It strikes me as a distinct lack of imagination to state that abiogenesis is "impossible" based on the probabilities of molecules becoming simple replicators (as much of the creationist literature claims). Highly ordered crystals form spontaneously based simply on the geometric properties of the molecules and the forces acting on them. What's so amazing about a molecule that when broken down in the presence of some other molecule, grabs other molecules from the "soup" to reform it's original state? (thats a simple replicator).
 
superluminal said:


Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system


The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
 
superluminal said:
This is a religion subforum in a science forum...

This forum attracts so many theists that its really a great place to experiment with and make observations of 'belief'. I personlly have found their presence very beneficial and would encourage them to be them... aside from the occasional preachy spammer.
 
superluminal said:
Fine. I understand the difference between objective and subjective "truths". Objective truths apply to those that can be demonstrated and proven to others empirically. Like "trees exist and have thus and such properties". "I love my wife" is a subjective truth accessible only to me and ultimately unprovable to anyone else.

So, saying you found a god for yourself is fine. But saying this god exists in the real world (which theists claim) is objectively nonsense.

Why are you haggling over the semantics of subjective vs objective anyway?

God may still exist in "objective" reality (assuming you are not a relativist), however, (as you say) the evidence for his existence is a "subjective truth". For such a person belief is based on evidence and is not irrational. However it is unprovable to anyone else.

Evidentially this is a somewhat special situation. Science is not best equipped for it. The only forms of objective "evidence" are witness statements - either in documents like the Bible, or from other authors (e.g. the author of the Cloud of Unknowing) or from acquaintances etc. Whether you believe their accounts are true or not is where the leap of faith comes in.

As in cutting edge science (e.g. M-theory), belief in God is always a working hypothesis - there is the possibility that it might be wrong. However, there is always the possibility it is true - and more importantly that it does lead to a better life. The evidence accumulates.
 
Diogenes' Dog said:
God may still exist in "objective" reality (assuming you are not a relativist), however, (as you say) the evidence for his existence is a "subjective truth". For such a person belief is based on evidence and is not irrational. However it is unprovable to anyone else.
Ok. No problems there.

Evidentially this is a somewhat special situation. Science is not best equipped for it. The only forms of objective "evidence" are witness statements - either in documents like the Bible, or from other authors (e.g. the author of the Cloud of Unknowing) or from acquaintances etc. Whether you believe their accounts are true or not is where the leap of faith comes in.
Yep.

As in cutting edge science (e.g. M-theory), belief in God is always a working hypothesis - there is the possibility that it might be wrong. However, there is always the possibility it is true - and more importantly that it does lead to a better life. The evidence accumulates.
Ok. Let's qualify this statement a bit.

1) Not a working hypothesis, but an occasional speculation by anyone with a shred of imagination.

2) Not the possibility that it might be wrong, but the probability that it is almost certainy wrong.

3) I see nothing but an accumulation of evidence that supports a cosmos that requires no god to explain it.
 
Ok, I think the point that baumgarten and Diogenes' Dog are trying to make is that discussions of religion are actually discussions of personal experience, not objective truths, and that many atheists in here tend to think that all of the discussions on this message board should be about objective truths. Any discussion of religion in the context of religion cannot be discussed seriously if you are talking about objective, physical truth. I am pretty sure that's the point they are trying to make. In other words, instead of an atheist saying "there is no god", it would be much more reasonable for them to say "I have not experienced any kind of god".
 
Jaster Mereel said:
Ok, I think the point that baumgarten and Diogenes' Dog are trying to make is that discussions of religion are actually discussions of personal experience, not objective truths, and that many atheists in here tend to think that all of the discussions on this message board should be about objective truths. Any discussion of religion in the context of religion cannot be discussed seriously if you are talking about objective, physical truth. I am pretty sure that's the point they are trying to make. In other words, instead of an atheist saying "there is no god", it would be much more reasonable for them to say "I have not experienced any kind of god".
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Fortunately there are a number of religious boards that encourage posters to relate and discuss their personal experiences of a god fully in the context of religion. Now for an atheist, especially one who would love to see superstitious thinking minimized as much as possible, "I have not experienced any kind of god" is a particularly weak response and not actually representative of the typical atheists viepoint anyway.

Atheists generally are highly convinced that, due to a total lack of objective evidence, there is no need whatsoever to postulate a god. In fact, doing so is a complete retreat from reality and any hope of discovering what the cosmos really holds. It's intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

"I have not experienced any kind of god" leaves one thinking that there could easily be one, but you just haven't been fortunate enough to encounter "it". That's not the way atheists think.
 
I realize this, but it doesn't change what I am trying to say. My position is that religion is fully within the mind and that all of the observable instances of religion are the only physical, objectively true parts of religion. All of the myths and rituals, etc... I don't consider them silly or fallacious, because I don't believe that their purpose is to be believed as literal, objective truth, but as personal, subjective truth, i.e, they are true to those who have religious experiences.

Telling someone that "there is no god" is a meaningless statement because they have experienced it for themselves, which is why they believe it. What they don't understand, and many atheists as well, is that the subjective truths within your own mind are not inferior to objective truths which exist externally; they both exist. Subjective truths like religious experiences are there for a reason. I have attempted to postulate what their purpose is, but I have been shot down by Atheists who react emotionally to the concept of religion, which I view as quite shortsighted. As I have said on numerous occasions, religious ideas are mental tools which are used by the people who possess them in order to provide context to their experiences, to give them some kind of structure and order, because some experiences that people have really do not coincide with the physical, objective truths which scientific study explores, simply because you cannot observe another person's experience, only it's causes and it's effects, but not the experience itself. I was simply trying to make the point that atheists, who have not had religious experiences, are not very patient, and often times do not even give a moment's thought to the relation of personal religious experiences of other people because the vast majority of them are materialists, and so they don't believe that the experience within your own mind are "as real" as things which you observe externally from yourself.
 
Jaster Mereel said:
I realize this, but it doesn't change what I am trying to say. My position is that religion is fully within the mind and that all of the observable instances of religion are the only physical, objectively true parts of religion. All of the myths and rituals, etc... I don't consider them silly or fallacious, because I don't believe that their purpose is to be believed as literal, objective truth, but as personal, subjective truth, i.e, they are true to those who have religious experiences.
Purely subjective. Yes.

Telling someone that "there is no god" is a meaningless statement because they have experienced it for themselves, which is why they believe it. What they don't understand, and many atheists as well, is that the subjective truths within your own mind are not inferior to objective truths which exist externally; they both exist.
Of course. No one will disagree with this. The subjective truth of my feelings for my family are real to me. But you cannot give the same weight to subjective feelings as you do to objective reality. They are not "real" in the same way. The subjective religious experience of people is awesomely perfect. But religion does not claim that god is a subjective experience, as you would like it to. It gives god the status of an objective reality. This is the atheists problem with religion.

Subjective truths like religious experiences are there for a reason. I have attempted to postulate what their purpose is, but I have been shot down by Atheists who react emotionally to the concept of religion, which I view as quite shortsighted.
Who? We are generally interested in the evolutionary roots of religious thought. It's interesting.

As I have said on numerous occasions, religious ideas are mental tools which are used by the people who possess them in order to provide context to their experiences, to give them some kind of structure and order, because some experiences that people have really do not coincide with the physical, objective truths which scientific study explores, simply because you cannot observe another person's experience, only it's causes and it's effects, but not the experience itself.
Ok. Fine.

I was simply trying to make the point that atheists, who have not had religious experiences, are not very patient, and often times do not even give a moment's thought to the relation of personal religious experiences of other people because the vast majority of them are materialists, and so they don't believe that the experience within your own mind are "as real" as things which you observe externally from yourself.
Again, this is comparing apples to oranges. My subjective experience of an imaginary flugrumple is unassailable and not up for debate. If I claim the flugrumple is "real" you know exactly what I mean. You will demand to see the flugrumple, touch it, weigh it, etc. Otherwise, if I persist in my assertion of the reality of the flugrumple, you will question my sanity. You would. I guarantee it. Christians, muslims, jews, all would. Consider the significant difference between the flugrumple and the god(s) of any religion. Think about the significant difference. What is it???
 
superluminal said:
Of course. No one will disagree with this. The subjective truth of my feelings for my family are real to me. But you cannot give the same weight to subjective feelings as you do to objective reality. They are not "real" in the same way. The subjective religious experience of people is awesomely perfect. But religion does not claim that god is a subjective experience, as you would like it to. It gives god the status of an objective reality. This is the atheists problem with religion.
Of course you can give them the same weight. To yourself. You just can't give them the same weight when describing them to others and expect others to feel the same about them as you do. This is not just a burden that falls on theists, but on atheists as well. When you make an assertion that "there is no god" you are making a claim based on your lack of the same subjective experience as the other person. It is as perfectly real to them as the chair they are sitting on when they are typing in their angry, frustrated response to that same assertion that claims that their experience is meaningless just because you have not had the same experience.

Again, this is comparing apples to oranges. My subjective experience of an imaginary flugrumple is unassailable and not up for debate. If I claim the flugrumple is "real" you know exactly what I mean. You will demand to see the flugrumple, touch it, weigh it, etc. Otherwise, if I persist in my assertion of the reality of the flugrumple, you will question my sanity. You would. I guarantee it. Christians, muslims, jews, all would. Consider the significant difference between the flugrumple and the god(s) of any religion. Think about the significant difference. What is it???
I think you missed the point by a mile. There is no difference, of course, except to the person who has had the experience. The fact that you can make up some ridiculous thing called a flugrumple and claim with absolute conviction that it is real does not devalue the claims of god by people who have had a religious experience. That is is the nature of subjectivity... it is subjective. It cannot be held to the same scrutiny as something which is objectively true because there is absolutely no way to prove that a person had an experience. You either trust that they have, or you doubt it. It's still a matter of your own, personal feeling whether or not you believe it.
 
JM, I havent missed anything by a mile, I just disagree with your conclusions. I completely agree with your assessment of religious experience being completely subjective. I just disagree that they have any weight whatsoever, subjective or otherwise. I think they are a mental habit left over from our evolutionary past. It can have good or bad subjective consequences for the individual experiencing it, and generally bad consequences for the objective wellbeing of people at large. After all, if people kept their religious experiences completely subjective, we'd have nothing to talk about.
 
superluminal said:
JM, I havent missed anything by a mile, I just disagree with your conclusions. I completely agree with your assessment of religious experience being completely subjective. I just disagree that they have any weight whatsoever, subjective or otherwise.
That's completely silly. Of course they carry weight; they carry weight for the person having the experience! That's the nature of a subjective experience! You don't get to decide what carries subjective weight except when dealing with your own subjective experiences. Blargh!

I think they are a mental habit left over from our evolutionary past. It can have good or bad subjective consequences for the individual experiencing it, and generally bad consequences for the objective wellbeing of people at large. After all, if people kept their religious experiences completely subjective, we'd have nothing to talk about.
Ok, now that you've made an objective claim support it with evidence. Please. (I'm not flaming you. I'm serious. I want you to support it.)
 
Jaster Mereel said:
That's completely silly. Of course they carry weight; they carry weight for the person having the experience! That's the nature of a subjective experience! You don't get to decide what carries subjective weight except when dealing with your own subjective experiences. Blargh!
Ok. That was silly. Subjective experience has subjective reality to the experiencer.

Ok, now that you've made an objective claim support it with evidence. Please. (I'm not flaming you. I'm serious. I want you to support it.)
Ok.

I think they are a mental habit left over from our evolutionary past.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099282763/026-8654080-5746834

http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hunt_19_3

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195149300/102-8489953-7635349?v=glance&n=283155

It can have good or bad subjective consequences for the individual experiencing it, and generally bad consequences for the objective wellbeing of people at large.
This should be self evident. Reference crusades, jihads, religious cultism, witch hunts, inquisitions.

After all, if people kept their religious experiences completely subjective, we'd have nothing to talk about.
This is self evident.
 
The problem with all of those studies, although good, is that they still look at religion impersonally. They don't explain why individuals have religious experiences, only how religion developed socially, from what I have read (Bombarding me with sources, even just four of them, seems like a tactic to get me to give up the debate. I'm sorry if the impression I got was a gross misinterpretation of your intentions, but it would make the debate much more fruitful and interesting if you presented the arguments yourself), and that just falls short of explaining why it persists and how it works in the mind of the believer. Saying that people are stupid and easily manipulated into believing silly things or into having experiences which correspond to what they have been taught is a cop-out, and that seems to be the usual explanation put forth by atheists trying to explain the persistence of religious tendencies in people.
 
Jaster Mereel said:
The problem with all of those studies, although good, is that they still look at religion impersonally. They don't explain why individuals have religious experiences, only how religion developed socially, from what I have read (Bombarding me with sources, even just four of them, seems like a tactic to get me to give up the debate. I'm sorry if the impression I got was a gross misinterpretation of your intentions, but it would make the debate much more fruitful and interesting if you presented the arguments yourself), and that just falls short of explaining why it persists and how it works in the mind of the believer. Saying that people are stupid and easily manipulated into believing silly things or into having experiences which correspond to what they have been taught is a cop-out, and that seems to be the usual explanation put forth by atheists trying to explain the persistence of religious tendencies in people.
Regarding the red, you did ask for evidentiary support. No intention to overwhelm or bombard. I thought you might find some of it interesting. If you read the article "The Belief Engine" it goes a long way to explaining why people believe things without factual evidence or support. It's not a cop-out. It makes sense to me that religious thought persists because of three major facets of human nature:

1) A need to make sense of the world. Mainly this is a survival trait. Given that we are one of the most ill-equipped species for survival without our wits, understanding the natural processes around us (where the food animals will be next spring, how to take advantage of other natural resources, etc.) is key to survival. This tendency to want to understand is not particular. Humans will invent creative explanations for just about anything.

2) A need for order. Another survival trait. Humans who were poor at ordering their world, were overwhelmed by it's complexity and had poorrer reproductive success that their more organized competitors. If your options are complete chaos in understanding vs even a flimsy explanation of how things work, humans will adopt the flimsy option.

3) Fear of the unknown and anticipation of death. This first is a trait shared by many species, while the second is possibly human-specific. Couple the two and you have a strong incentive for death to not be the end of you. If it is not, then what is it? This simple chain of thought seems enough, in my opinion, to be the genesis of religion in all it's forms.

So, religion persists because it is a byproduct of powerful evolutionary survival mechanisms that we may never evolve out of as a species. It serves the purpose, for most humans, of fulfilling the primal need to have some explanation for the goings-on in the world. Science clearly gives a much better objective result, but is hardly accessible to most humans. The daily act of survival for most people (still) is difficult enough without having to grasp biology, physics and basic cosmology to understand the world.

There. Some of my thoughts on the subject.
 
I guess it really does come down to a matter of interpretation. You seem quite satisfied with that explanation, and although I use some of those arguments on a regular basis when explaining religion (not on this forum, but in private conversation), they don't seem quite fully adequate because they still don't give me an explanation of the experience of religion from the standpoint of a person involved in it. I suppose I have a personal tendency to continually attempt to further refine every explanation I present for everything I consider, and since religion is such a pervasive and obviously important subject, it's something I spend a considerable amount of time considering. I'll just have to leave the debate where it stands until I can fully explain my position.
 
Back
Top