Why are believers anti-science?

(Q) said:
Exactly, giving us no reason whatsoever to speculate such a thing outside of our own imaginations and philosophical musings. Stirring, yet pointless.

No1
Its clearly not ouside of our imaginations, other wise we wouldn't now be discussing it?

No 2
Science is constantly discussing things it has no proof for..black holes? 2000yrs ago the atom?

meanwhile if you want to find a religious fanatic try the 'get out your bibles ' thread, someone just advised there we'll all burn in hell' if we aren't Christian, maybe you should invite them to join this debate and enlighten us to as to why they hold such extreme and wasteful views. Meanwhile if Q would like to explain why science frequently ponders things when we just imagine them, when its pointless I'm waiting..................
 
Last edited:
Dinosaur said:
It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.
And therein lies the reason for the majority of human conflict. I agree, it is quite strage, if not stupid and ignorant, to fear that which one does not understand, rather than trying to understand it.
 
superluminal said:
Well, I'm very cynical on this point. The vast majority of the population never even questions it. They live unexamined lives (again, just my opinion based on general observations).

I agree.

For those who conscientiously hold these beliefs, I suspect that they do indeed ask themselves and find the answer unacceptable. Very quickly they stop asking and it becomes self evident that their belief has to be true in order to maintain their sense of comfort and sanity.

The theistic philosopher Miguel de Unamuno said some interesting things about this. He wrote:


"Those who believe that they believe in God, but without any passion in their heart, without anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God−Idea, not in God Himself."


That quote really caught my attention, simply because I know that if I was a believer that I'd also be questioning it and even if I believed I'd still have my doubts. I'm too skeptical and cynical. Maybe that was Unamuno's problem too, and he simply wrote that to try to console himself. I don't know. But I'm always attracted to thinkers that admit to having this deep-seated despair and who honestly struggle with it and try to find answers.

I too fully understand the wish for there to be a continuation of our consciousness after death. It has become a non-issue with me personally as I truly feel that oblivion is our destiny and I have no problem with that.

Just wondering - do you have kids? For many years the 'oblivion' idea didn't seem to bother me. After I had kids it really bothers the hell out of me. Or maybe it is an issue of getting older and thinking about death more. It is hard not to do as more and more things go wrong with your body.
 
Lerxst said:
Is it? All I know is that the "why" type questions come very naturally for me, and they occupy my mind often, and that this is true for others. I think it's entirely natural and normal to ask these questions and want answers.

I agree, "why" type questions ARE quite natural and normal to ask. I used to ask them myself until I realized "how" type questions reveal answers. And it was those "how" type questions that eventually helped me to understand the "why" type questions were irrelevant.

The problem, imo, is that most people aren't satisfied with "why" type answers, no matter what they are.

Science doesn't help with this stuff. That is why there is a study called philosophy, and why it is a different field from science.

So, how has philosophy helped? What questions has it answered? Better still, what relevant questions has it asked?

I agree. I think it would be foolish to waste this life - I try not to do that myself. My "purpose" is an ever-evolving amalgamtion of ideas I have picked up from disparite sources. And I grant everyone else the right to do that for themselves, as long as they don't fuck up other people in the process.

That part about 'fucking up other people' is exactly where religion steps in, it has fucked us up big time.

Well, for some people it seems to offer quite a bit, I cannot really explain it myself, though. Let's just say the prospect of eternal life, forgiveness, etc.

I don't think the bible has anything to offer other than to propagate ignorance and fear. The prospects of eternal life, forgiveness, etc. have no meaning in reality, other than what science might offer.

Science doesn't inform a scientists' choice of philosophy on questions outside of science. You can be a Platonist scientist, an Aristotelian scientist, a Kantian scientist, etc...

Philosophy will always have to turn to science if it is to get answers to its own questions, don't ya think?

... that the reality which scientific thought is seeking must be expressible in mathematical terms, mathematics being the most precise and definite kind of thinking of which we are capable. The significance of this idea for the development of science from the first beginnings to the present day has been immense. -- Plato

I'm sure that has to do with a lot of it, to be honest. I am sympathetic to certain religious ideas and I know this stems from my desire to not cease to be. I'll admit that up front.

Ok, then I would have to ask if Miller, et al, has answers for that. Has he really looked at the reasons for his need to believe. Perhaps if he came to terms with that, his need to believe might dissapear altogether.

Please remember, religion has been a huge influence over society for centuries. It is engrained into almost every fabric of our society and has only recently been openly dispelled.

I cannot say for certain, but I suspect you are correct in that it has had an influence. The geographical clumpiness of organized religion was one of the first things I noticed about it as a youngster that caused me to reject it.

Exactly, so if Miller, et al, were not born amongst the very people who indoctrinated them at an early age, but were instead forced to recite the Qu'ran everyday, they would probably be Muslims. Was Miller born amongst Christians? How about Dyson? Newton?

I don't "make them up" - they come to me uninvited. If only I could stop thinking about such questions.

Sorry, poor choice of words. There is nothing wrong with those questions coming to univited, it is how you handle them that is important. We can all go off on ethereal tangents with our innate need for immortality and purpose in trying to find answers to those questions, but that is the exact problem which leads one back to religion, the need to believe.

Discard the need to believe, for even a moment. Difficult, isn't it? But, it is absolutely necessary if one is to make any reason of nature.

Not exactly. The Simulation Argument is relatively new, but the basic idea is as old as Plato, or at least as old as Descartes, if you think about it.

Agreed. But I find it interesting that those who might provide for the simulation are allowing us to extend that simulation into space... er... simulated space... and providing simulations of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and their moons in great detail. Quite the feat.

Have you applied philosophy to the simulation argument? Questions of purpose, for example?

I'm fully aware that organized religion has generally had nothing but a bad effect, and I despise it accordingly. But I think that there are ideas that can be extracted from it and entertained in terms of personal private religious views that are not inherently "burdensome" on mankind.

Perhaps, but those ideas came from sociology, not gods. Adversely, we can find those answers and more from sociology and Aesop. ;)

The reason why I personally entertain the ideas, although I don't actually have a belief in any of them, is because it addresses a deep anguish I have about simply being another finite organism in a universe that just IS. But that is just me.

AHA! Now we reveal the truth. I would very much like to discuss in depth your deep anguish, that is, if you don't mind doing so. I think there are enough intelligent minds here that would help you see through that anguish and turn it around such that you would be exhilarated and proud as hell to have become that finite organism in the universe.

In fact, that would make an excellent topic thread on its own. Hopefully, Cris will drop in and add some of his gems on that topic.

What I meant was - if one realizes Hawking's goal and find that the universe has it's properties because of one simple fundamental law or theory, it still leaves open the question "why that law" or "why does the law bother to exist"... etc. Every time science answers a question, it just creates another "why?"[/quote

That is a bit of a fallacy. Science NEVER creates the question, "why" - humans do. That goes back to our own human frailties and our desire for immortality and purpose. Again, I would have to ask you to shed those desires for a moment.

Oh, I think he is, he is just a very liberal one. Folks on this board don't seem to be very well acquainted with that rare breed, the liberal Christian.

A liberal Christian is not so different than any other of the thousands of sects of Christianity. They still define their values based on preconceived notions of the supernatural. They talk about 'liberal critical thinking' but refuse to apply critical thinking to those same preconceived notions. They don't apply critical thinking to the existence of gods, but instead they already confirm the existence of a god and apply critical thinking to that gods attributes.

I don't know why he is Christian, but he is. You think he is a hypocrite, I don't. Okay. But what next? Is it really in the interest of the secular community to try to villify him? He's on our side, you know.

And he's on the other side as well, propagating the very myths we need to discard in order to move forward.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the matter of hypocrisy, for now.

And I would like to instead concentrate more on your own personal angst of purpose and immortality. I think once you come to terms with that, you might see the hypocrisy of it all.
 
Lerxst said:
I'm no theolgian, but my understanding is most of them agree we have free will.

Yes, theists agree on that, as they will tell you in one breath, and in another will tell you how gods control our destinies. Hmmm...

And if not, I don't care what 99% of believers think. I'm talking of personal religious ideas.

Personal religious ideas are exactly that, personal, contrived from the imagination, based on someone elses personal religious ideas.

What about this notion - wouldn't it make more sense that a god would deliver his message equally and unequivocally to all? That should be a pretty simple thing for a god to do, and he could even remain invisible, but his message would be well understood and clear.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
No1
Its clearly not ouside of our imaginations, other wise we wouldn't now be discussing it?

Isn't that what I said?

Science is constantly discussing things it has no proof for..black holes? 2000yrs ago the atom?

Black holes are speculated as a result of General Relativity. From observations, we find many such candidates that fit those speculations.

Meanwhile if Q would like to explain why science frequently ponders things when we just imagine them, when its pointless I'm waiting..................

Imagining gods and purpose, and imagining what we could do with the scientific information we now have at our disposal are two different things, don't ya think?
 
Example of an idiot:

Example of false science: Evolution

Evolution is not a false science. Wether you agree with it or not, we are still evolving. Wether you like it or not, human genes are evolving.

Still evolving.


What about this notion - wouldn't it make more sense that a god would deliver his message equally and unequivocally to all? That should be a pretty simple thing for a god to do, and he could even remain invisible, but his message would be well understood and clear.

Like having today, a one world religion, one world we were born to with only one book, one religion and one god, known throughtout all of human history. ;) But that didn't happened, instead we are born to a world, with conflicting religions, with a human history of thousands of gods, and religions, which have created conflicts, wars, crusades, inquisitions, wich burnings, herectics, etc....

No wonder I'm an atheist. :rolleyes:

Godless
 
(Q) said:
Yes, theists agree on that, as they will tell you in one breath, and in another will tell you how gods control our destinies. Hmmm...

I know, I know. That is a particular facet of religious thought that makes no sense to me. But there is no consensus, and I do not HAVE to accept the idea of predestination.

Personal religious ideas are exactly that, personal, contrived from the imagination, based on someone elses personal religious ideas.

I cannot disagree that that is where they ultimately originate from. Plus our innate sense of wonder. I often wonder if I would ask the same 'why' questions if I grew up on a desert island.

What about this notion - wouldn't it make more sense that a god would deliver his message equally and unequivocally to all? That should be a pretty simple thing for a god to do, and he could even remain invisible, but his message would be well understood and clear.

At face value, yes, that would make more sense. But my hypothetical theist can always find an out, you know. If God makes himself clear via reason/science, then the need for faith evaporates. We would behave quite differently. My theist might instead think that this world is a sort of 'trial by fire' or an opportunity for 'soul-building' - hence it is all in God's plan that we live in an apparently godless world, etc.
 
(Q) said:
I agree, "why" type questions ARE quite natural and normal to ask. I used to ask them myself until I realized "how" type questions reveal answers. And it was those "how" type questions that eventually helped me to understand the "why" type questions were irrelevant.

Well, I ask both kinds of questions. You keep saying the 'why' questions are irrelevant, and this might be true form a purely scientific POV, but that doesn't allow me to just switch them off.

So, how has philosophy helped? What questions has it answered? Better still, what relevant questions has it asked?

I don't know that it definitely answers any of the big questions. It just gives some options to think about.

I like what Stephan Kanfer said:

"Philosophy is concerned with two matters: soluble questions that are trivial, and crucial questions that are insoluble."

To me the big questions are:

Is the reality we experience the ONLY reality?
Are there unknowable truths? (Actually, we can answer that: "yes")
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Could we have been created by some other intelligence?

etc.

That part about 'fucking up other people' is exactly where religion steps in, it has fucked us up big time.

True, but it is not the single root cause. We are a fucked up species, we have evolutionary reasons for conflict. Religion is just fuel on the fire. The fire would still occur. Non-religious fuel in the form of nationalism/communism etc. has worked just as well.

I don't think the bible has anything to offer other than to propagate ignorance and fear. The prospects of eternal life, forgiveness, etc. have no meaning in reality, other than what science might offer.

Fine, but this misses the point that millions of people have and continue to find something of interest in there. I've always been a bit surprised by that, since I think it is mostly poorly written and full of ghastly horrors. There are bits that I think are extremely valuable from a literary POV.

Philosophy will always have to turn to science if it is to get answers to its own questions, don't ya think?

But I don't think some of those questions can be answered by science. The issue then is what to do about them. Apparently you would dismiss them as irrelevant. I don't - I still fret over them.

Ok, then I would have to ask if Miller, et al, has answers for that. Has he really looked at the reasons for his need to believe. Perhaps if he came to terms with that, his need to believe might dissapear altogether.

Perhaps. I don't know.

Exactly, so if Miller, et al, were not born amongst the very people who indoctrinated them at an early age, but were instead forced to recite the Qu'ran everyday, they would probably be Muslims. Was Miller born amongst Christians? How about Dyson? Newton?

We are in agreement here. But I have no idea how the man personally defends his religious ideas.

Discard the need to believe, for even a moment. Difficult, isn't it? But, it is absolutely necessary if one is to make any reason of nature.

I really disagree with this - and we go round and round on it. I totally support the efficacy of science to understand the physical world about us. To echo Einstein, it is the most precious thing we have. But there is no conflict in additionally speculating that there might be a "larger picture" that we are in principle unaware of. That possibility will always hang out there, because it is possible. It doesn't stop me from dissecting nature.

Agreed. But I find it interesting that those who might provide for the simulation are allowing us to extend that simulation into space... er... simulated space... and providing simulations of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and their moons in great detail. Quite the feat.

Those parts of the simulation need only be run when we are looking. Moreover, not every "person" in the sim need be sentient. 99% of the population might be "shadow people."

Have you applied philosophy to the simulation argument? Questions of purpose, for example?

Sure. There are plenty of reasons why future humans (or others) might run such simulations.

AHA! Now we reveal the truth. I would very much like to discuss in depth your deep anguish, that is, if you don't mind doing so. I think there are enough intelligent minds here that would help you see through that anguish and turn it around such that you would be exhilarated and proud as hell to have become that finite organism in the universe.

I don't mind. It's simple. I'm not a solipsist, I know that the world will go on without me after I am gone - but "my everything" is going to be wiped out when I die (barring an afterlife). I do not like this. I am deeply bothered by it. I have a lot I want to do and experience, and just as I'm starting to gain some wisdom it is all going to be cut short. It's horrific, really.

Additionally, I feel this despair for others. I look into my kids eyes and think "well, you are going to die someday and rot in the ground." Oh, joy. It would appear to be the brutal truth, but I have a deep revulsion to it, my mind reels at it. This isn't trivial shit.

And yes, I know all about the things I can do to achieve a "sort of immortality" by leaving something behind. I left my genes behind - I have two kids. I try to be a good person and help others. I've contributed to by science with a handful of papers and a dissertation. I work in a high-tech industry and I contribute to the development of innovative new technologies that benefit everybody. I try not to take any day for granted. I live with the assumption that when I die, that is going to be it. But it still bothers the living fuck out of me.

I've been a nontheist for about 25 years now. I doubt that there is anything you are going to tell me about finding a 'secular purpose in life' that I don't already know about or that I have not already done.

That is a bit of a fallacy. Science NEVER creates the question, "why" - humans do. That goes back to our own human frailties and our desire for immortality and purpose. Again, I would have to ask you to shed those desires for a moment.

That has a Buddhist flavor to it. :) I can try. (I've tried buddhism too, you know)

A liberal Christian is not so different than any other of the thousands of sects of Christianity. They still define their values based on preconceived notions of the supernatural. They talk about 'liberal critical thinking' but refuse to apply critical thinking to those same preconceived notions. They don't apply critical thinking to the existence of gods, but instead they already confirm the existence of a god and apply critical thinking to that gods attributes.

Perhaps that describes some of them. But I do think they are significantly different from other kinds of Christians - that should be obvious. Can you imagine how many problems would be solved if the world's religions consisted of different strains of Unitarianism? These people are not evangelical, they have their beliefs, but they don't fuck with anybody, they want church/state separation as much as we do, they don't want those fucking stickers in biology textbooks, and they don't support idiotic wars.

And he's on the other side as well, propagating the very myths we need to discard in order to move forward.

I agree that we need to jettison 95% of the crap that has come with organized religion, and ASAP, but I don't see a problem with religion evolving into something more personal, humanistic, and innocuous. I think that is the overall trend, with the occasional blip.

I think Miller does way, way, way more good than harm (I dont see that he does any harm, in fact), and I am glad to have his like about. It may be a case of politics and strange bedfellows, but again, he is on our side in the battle against creatio-nuts.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the matter of hypocrisy, for now.

Fair enough.

And I would like to instead concentrate more on your own personal angst of purpose and immortality. I think once you come to terms with that, you might see the hypocrisy of it all.

I'm game.
 
makes me laugh when materialistic scientists wonder why 'others' are philosophical...implying they AINT when, ironically, their whole notion of MATERIALISTIC science is FOUNDEDon materialistic PHILOSOPHY
 
Physics used to be called Natural Philosophy, I think. I don't know when and how this separation between science and philosophy occured, but it seems unnatural. Hah!
 
Lerxst said:
Just wondering - do you have kids? For many years the 'oblivion' idea didn't seem to bother me. After I had kids it really bothers the hell out of me. Or maybe it is an issue of getting older and thinking about death more. It is hard not to do as more and more things go wrong with your body.

Interesting. Yes I do have kids. I think I mentioned going through a fairly terrible stage in my late twenties (after having kids) re the whole death/oblivion/afterlife question. As you say, it bothered the hell out of me. I was what you would call an agnostic. I talked to friends, priests, all sorts of religious believers and non-believers. I had nightmares about it (still do at times, to be honest).

But at some point, a sort of acceptance came over me. I think that when I realized I was a "True Atheist<sup>TM</sup>" I simply stopped worrying about it so much. Maybe it was just mental exhaustion. I dunno.

Nice quote BTW:

"Those who believe that they believe in God, but without any passion in their heart, without anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God−Idea, not in God Himself."
 
superluminal said:
Interesting. Yes I do have kids. I think I mentioned going through a fairly terrible stage in my late twenties (after having kids) re the whole death/oblivion/afterlife question. As you say, it bothered the hell out of me. I was what you would call an agnostic. I talked to friends, priests, all sorts of religious believers and non-believers. I had nightmares about it (still do at times, to be honest).

But at some point, a sort of acceptance came over me. I think that when I realized I was a "True Atheist<sup>TM</sup>" I simply stopped worrying about it so much. Maybe it was just mental exhaustion. I dunno.

Nice quote BTW:

I've always been interested in certain aspects of Buddhism because they seem to have found a kind of acceptance. Maybe that is tied in with the reincarnation idea, though, although that really is not a primary tenet.

In regards to Unamuno and the quote. He is a big hereo of M. Gardner, that is how I found him. Not your typical theist.

Here is another Unamuno quote that I like:


"If it is nothingness that awaits us, let us make an injustice of it; let us fight against destiny, even though without hope of victory"
 
Lerxst said:

"If it is nothingness that awaits us, let us make an injustice of it; let us fight against destiny, even though without hope of victory"
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Dylan Thomas
 
Mythbuster said:
I realy wonder why those theists join a science forum.

To discuss scientific topics, (some theists, like Newton, are scientists).
Also, to try to save some atheists from eternal suffering in that hell they refuse to believe in.
 
Godless said:
Example of an idiot:



Evolution is not a false science. Wether you agree with it or not, we are still evolving. Wether you like it or not, human genes are evolving.

Still evolving.

Godless

Evolution is very evident for a species adapting to its environment, changing into a different breed of the same species.
Evolution to try to explain the origin of the different species is completely false and unproven by the fossils. - That is what is false about evolution. It cannot account for the origin of the different species and it contradicts the fossil record as it is found.
Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293

Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].


Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
 
Lerxst said:
I understand your POV, superluminal. I share it in a personal sense, in that I cannot make myself hold such a belief. When I look at those who can, I really wonder how they do it. Do they ever look in the mirror and ask themselves "am I just fooling myself?" I would. Shit, I ask myself that just for being an agnostic.

Yet, I am sympathetic to the reasons for having a belief.

I have a bachelor's degree in physics and almost had a minor in philosophy. Philosophical arguments for the existence of God did not prove anything. I used the scientific method of experimentation to determine the truth of wheather or not there is a God. My experiment to test for God yielded results. Jesus appeared to me and paraphrased King James version scripture to me as it applied to me. There were also other evidences given to me. I have been a born again fundamentalist Christian ever since.
I know this: God does exist, He is the God of the bible and Christianity from the New Testament is the only true religion on the planet. [King James bible is the real bible. The market is full of fake bible versions with the words changed.]
I believe and know that because of my experiment to test for the existence of God. - Done in 1974-75.
 
Lerxst said:
I know, I know. That is a particular facet of religious thought that makes no sense to me. But there is no consensus, and I do not HAVE to accept the idea of predestination.

But you said it yourself, it makes no sense. One not need seek consensus.

I cannot disagree that that is where they ultimately originate from. Plus our innate sense of wonder. I often wonder if I would ask the same 'why' questions if I grew up on a desert island.

Probably, but would you have access to the same knowledge and tools available from science? Wouldn't that determine the extent and magnitude of your questions?

At face value, yes, that would make more sense. But my hypothetical theist can always find an out, you know. If God makes himself clear via reason/science, then the need for faith evaporates. We would behave quite differently. My theist might instead think that this world is a sort of 'trial by fire' or an opportunity for 'soul-building' - hence it is all in God's plan that we live in an apparently godless world, etc.

Yes, we would behave quite differently, we would all go through life with the same message of how to live with one another.

Currently, we have a mulititude of gods with a variety of best guess messages, some twisted beyond reason and rationale, usually handed down from some self-professed prophet. Clearly, this method isn't working and fails miserably when standing up to scrutiny.

Theists will always look for a way out, but their methods for doing so are all based on the exact concepts that are being questioned. Many of the posts I've made here question theists on their concepts of gods and how they came to find religion. None have yet come up with anything conclusive, mostly vague imagery and occurences they immediately assume are of devine intervention, but are little more than what they've conjured from the imagination. Eventually, most begin arguing amongst themselves as to whose god can beat up anothers. Those who participate usually accuse the others in no uncertain terms that they are the devil incarnate and will burn in hell forever, or some such nonsense. Even as one Christian to another.
 
... and on hypocrisy...

It is clearly going too far in calling those who practice the scientific method hypocrites if they hold religious views.

It does appear that the best scientists are those who apply a strict scientific method to every single facet of their lives. They do, however, generally, tend to function on a less integral level in the general society.

Einstein was a lousy father, lousy husband... Boltzmann killed himself because the scientists of the time just wouldn't accept his entropic relation, which has turned out to be a cornerstone in Physics.

The most dangerous thing - this, a personal view - is to hold science as applicable to every single facet of existence, holding "established" scientific facts as truth, then 100 years down the line the truths are totally overthrown.

Point?

Science isn't life: it is just a part of it.

There's much more to life than science and, as a human who wants to live to the fullest, one cannot blame a scientist for wanting to have a taste of everything life has to offer - including the promise of an absolutely purposeful existence offered by religion.
 
(Q) said:
But you said it yourself, it makes no sense. One not need seek consensus.

What I mean is, the only kind of god-ideas that I can frame in my mind do not have omniscience. I know omniscience is part of the orthodox view of god, but I cannot make much sense of that kind of god, anyway.

Probably, but would you have access to the same knowledge and tools available from science? Wouldn't that determine the extent and magnitude of your questions?

That would certainly be important as well, yes.

Currently, we have a mulititude of gods with a variety of best guess messages, some twisted beyond reason and rationale, usually handed down from some self-professed prophet. Clearly, this method isn't working and fails miserably when standing up to scrutiny.

Theists will always look for a way out, but their methods for doing so are all based on the exact concepts that are being questioned. Many of the posts I've made here question theists on their concepts of gods and how they came to find religion. None have yet come up with anything conclusive, mostly vague imagery and occurences they immediately assume are of devine intervention, but are little more than what they've conjured from the imagination. Eventually, most begin arguing amongst themselves as to whose god can beat up anothers. Those who participate usually accuse the others in no uncertain terms that they are the devil incarnate and will burn in hell forever, or some such nonsense. Even as one Christian to another.

I cannot argue that this doesn't apply to the majority of theists over time. Most people believe what their parents taught them to believe. That is why the specifics of religious beliefs are generally a strong function of geography. But there are always exceptions.

Something else that always bothered me is not only how organized religion varies over space but how it varies over time. If I was born 200 years earlier, in all likelihood I'd be just another believer. Certainly it would have been easier to accept back then, because it would have been seen to explain more.

I'm an agnostic, my wife is an atheist (of the apathetic sort - she literally doesn't give a damn about any of this stuff) and I'm raising my kids to be freethinkers. I want them to question everything. If they grow up and have religious beliefs, it is only going to be because they went out and found them. They are not getting force-fed anything in terms of theism/atheism. They are getting plenty of science, though (my wife also has several science degrees). I'll be rather surprised if they end up religious. It will be interesting to see what happens.
 
Back
Top