Faith vs Proof: Religion & Universe Explored

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words it was perfectly acceptable to believe the Earth was flat "in its time," as opposed to speculation by others who believed it was round?

i see your logic here, but you are missing the point. they (those who believe the Earth was flat) failed to take in all the evidence. evidence such as a ship's sail being the last thing to disappear over the horizon.

read the previous definition again and you'll see he said: "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal , the simpler one is to be preferred"

 

[megashawn]

No, that comment was made due to the way you sidestepped my entire argument and said

"Times change. People change. And God should change too but, "not in essence."

And this is your response to my saying the scientific ways have increased life beyond that which the bible ever predicted. Sure we still have problems, but atleast now, at this point in time there is actually someone (a whole lot of someones actually) who are trying to do something about it.

Lets try this again, shall we?

And yet how long has the "formal discipline" of science been around?

Not very long at all, in comparison to how long humans have been around.

Meaning, why should we base everything upon that which has been around for a short while, as opposed to that which has been around for eons?

Because that which has been around for a short while has done more for humanity in that "short while" then any mythological belief that has been around for eons. (how long is an eon anyhow?)

While I think it's entirely unreasonable to cast aside the whole account of existence, just because we may have discovered a "better approach."

Well, if this "better approach" has improved so much in general life, refridgerators, air conditioners, heat, tv, computer, car, train, plain, jets, rockets, etc, What makes you think it doesn't have any improvement to do on the theories of existence?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
i see your logic here, but you are missing the point. they (those who believe the Earth was flat) failed to take in all the evidence. evidence such as a ship's sail being the last thing to disappear over the horizon.

read the previous definition again and you'll see he said: "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal , the simpler one is to be preferred"

Of course the idea that the Earth was round had yet to be fully developed, in which case it could not have been considered the simpler of the two ideas. Meaning the old idea had to be challenged first and ultimately proven wrong.

Now who's to say science isn't in a similar predicament with God? There may indeed be a very simple way of proving this (outside of one's own personal experience that is) but, until that time comes, does that mean it's wrong to believe as such? Or, even speculate on the matter?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words it was perfectly acceptable to believe the Earth was flat "in its time," as opposed to speculation by others who believed it was round?

No that wasn't the reason I mentioned Occamm's Razor. Point being, all things being equal, what seems to be the more plausible explanation, theology or evolution?

And the "flat earth" comparison was to illustrate the point that the oldest beliefs aren't necessarily the correct ones. Much like a child grows into an adult and gains experience, knowledge and understanding, so does humanity evolve on a much grander scale. So you're saying just because it's newer, it can't be useful? Well then then by all means toss out that microwave, 50 inch TV, radio, computer, and all other signs of modernism, because they definitely can't be as useful as a ball of yarn and some sheep.

People are always resistance to change. They fear the unknown.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
And I think that is exactly what is happening. People eventually stop believing in Santa Clause, but he still exists in our minds to serve a purpose. Granted the subject of God is much more complexed than Santa Clause, but the concept of GOD as an entity that will never fade from our society is germane. I believe that even if society were to wholly accept that God did not exist in the face of irrefutable evidence, that people would still pray to him. In a sense, the "name" of God, allah, or a higher being carries more meaning than the actually figure. It's like Elvis making more money dead than when he was a alive. The legend eventually exceeded the person himself.

Weather he exists or not, it's so socially ingrained in us to believe in him, that the "essence" of God will probably never cease.

If there is the reality called God, then it must be contingent upon the fact that there is an afterlife. This is the part which isn't going to change, and it's the part which I mean by the "essence of God."

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If there is the reality called God, then it must be contingent upon the fact that there is an afterlife. This is the part which isn't going to change, and it's the part which I mean by the "essence of God."

Though I do not personally believe in God, I believe in the institution of religion and the moral values that it upholds. I see religion as a base guideline for society to treat each other and how to act. Without it we might very well have descended into anarchy.

Proving the afterlife and God almost becomes paradoxical in nature. If there is a God, eventually we'll be able to look beyond death and see that. But if there is no afterlife, we may never be able to prove that, because if you cease to exist, then you can't prove that, because it would basically just be nothingess. And to religion, the simple lack of seeing an afterlife is not proof it doesn't exist. It's all self-reinforcing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Because that which has been around for a short while has done more for humanity in that "short while" then any mythological belief that has been around for eons. (how long is an eon anyhow?)

And yet it's possible to get "too comfortable" in our complacency don't you think? An eon is anywhere from an immeasurably long period of time, to a period of one billion years (used in geology).

Well, if this "better approach" has improved so much in general life, refridgerators, air conditioners, heat, tv, computer, car, train, plain, jets, rockets, etc, What makes you think it doesn't have any improvement to do on the theories of existence? [/B]

How much of an improvement is it though? And how long will it last? before we find the need to get back to "the essence" of who we are? ... i.e., what some people term as "getting back to the basics."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
No that wasn't the reason I mentioned Occamm's Razor. Point being, all things being equal, what seems to be the more plausible explanation, theology or evolution?

And the "flat earth" comparison was to illustrate the point that the oldest beliefs aren't necessarily the correct ones.

Oh, did you bring this one up (about the Earth being flat), I didn't catch that I don't think?

Much like a child grows into an adult and gains experience, knowledge and understanding, so does humanity evolve on a much grander scale. So you're saying just because it's newer, it can't be useful? Well then then by all means toss out that microwave, 50 inch TV, radio, computer, and all other signs of modernism, because they definitely can't be as useful as a ball of yarn and some sheep.

And yet how many times in one's lifetime does one really need to buy a new TV set? Indeed, there may come a time when all of this junk gets tossed!

People are always resistance to change. They fear the unknown.

And yet quite often the "old ways" are merely shrugged off due to the impetuousness of youth. Which can be unfortunate, once you have grown up and are able to look back.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
Proving the afterlife and God almost becomes paradoxical in nature. If there is a God, eventually we'll be able to look beyond death and see that. But if there is no afterlife, we may never be able to prove that, because if you cease to exist, then you can't prove that, because it would basically just be nothingess. And to religion, the simple lack of seeing an afterlife is not proof it doesn't exist. It's all self-reinforcing.

And yet the idea of it has been ascertained, suggesting that we have the means by which to discuss its plausibility anyway, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh, did you bring this one up, I didn't catch that I don't think?


And yet how many times in one's lifetime does one really need to buy a new TV set? Indeed, there may come a time when all of this junk gets tossed!

Touche!

And yet quite often the "old ways" are merely shrugged off due to the impetuousness of youth. Which can be unfortunate, once you have grown up and are able to look back.

Personally I'm aiming for an impetuous retirement as well as youth

I don't see my views changing that much as time goes on, but then I can't predict the future either (unless determinsm holds true). However, athieism does have it's advantages. A lot of religious people will make all these mistakes and then not worry about them, because they will be forgiven in the afterlife. Especially Catholics. They seem to think they can rape, pillage, and plunder and just say "oops" on their deathbed and be forgiven. (Yes I'm overstating that, but still..). Anyhow, not believing in the afterlife definitely makes one more appreciate the current phase of life, and realize that you only get one chance to get it right

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
Anyhow, not believing in the afterlife definitely makes one more appreciate the current phase of life, and realize that you only get one chance to get it right

But why even bother to worry about it if there were no repercussions, good or bad? Which to me is another way of saying we have no need for morals. In fact I see a lot of people -- including many impetuous young people -- who behave this way.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But why even bother to worry about it if there were no repercussions, good or bad? Which to me is another way of saying we have no need for morals. In fact I see a lot of people -- including many impetuous young people -- who behave this way.

i have responded to these sentements many times, and every time it is the same. morals are superficial (IMO). beyond humans and and human societies, they do not exist. does the lion feel sorry for the gazelle? no. now, don't get me wrong, morals are completely neccassary for human coexistance to take place. but in the cosmic picture, they are meaninless.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But why even bother to worry about it if there were no repercussions, good or bad? Which to me is another way of saying we have no need for morals. In fact I see a lot of people -- including many impetuous young people -- who behave this way.

As maximus says, it's necessary for humans to coexist. I was speaking more of personal sacrifices that people make in the name of the church, such as tithing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Do Standards Exist?

And yet, is there truly a standard by which all things are judged? If so, then where does it come from? Wouldn't that also imply it was inherent with who we are, rather than something which is applied "externally?" (although this may be a means by which to introduce it initially). Which is to say, this is something which always has and always will be?

At the very least though, it seems like a process by which we have to reconcile ourselves to these things "from within" (in order for them to have any meaning).

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
i have responded to these sentements many times, and every time it is the same. morals are superficial (IMO). beyond humans and and human societies, they do not exist. does the lion feel sorry for the gazelle? no. now, don't get me wrong, morals are completely neccassary for human coexistance to take place. but in the cosmic picture, they are meaninless.

If this is so, then why does it only exist with humans? Why are we so unique? Could it be that this is the "crowning achievement" of evolution? Or, perhaps something else?

Would you say that morals result from a "higher state of being?" Or, a lower state of being?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If this is so, then why does it only exist with humans? Why are we so unique? Could it be that this is the "crowning achievement" of evolution? Or, perhaps something else?

Would you say that morals result from a "higher state of being?" Or, a lower state of being?

Morals are a sign of higher reasoning. Empapthy is something that lower life forms are not capable of. I wouldn't say we are the "crowning achievement", because who knows how me might evolve in another millenia? But things such as empathy and morals are definitely attributed to higher reasoning. Are you pledging otherwise ?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
Morals are a sign of higher reasoning. Empapthy is something that lower life forms are not capable of. I wouldn't say we are the "crowning achievement", because who knows how me might evolve in another millenia? But things such as empathy and morals are definitely attributed to higher reasoning. Are you pledging otherwise ?

No, I'm just questioning what gives us the capacity to be moral. Is it merely by-product of the evolutionary process or, is there a bit more to it than that?

 

[Zero]

Let's remember that 'lower' animals also display altruism. It isn't unique to humans, although it tends to exist predominantly in mammals, and more so the more those mammals exist in 'societies'(pack animals, for instance). It isn't a function of intellect or 'being advanced', it is a function of group interaction.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by Zero
Let's remember that 'lower' animals also display altruism. It isn't unique to humans, although it tends to exist predominantly in mammals, and more so the more those mammals exist in 'societies'(pack animals, for instance). It isn't a function of intellect or 'being advanced', it is a function of group interaction.

Absolutely no.

No animals display altruism. There is not a shred of evidence to the claim that altruism has ever been exacted.

No organism will ever committ altruism. This is a scientific fact. There are always gains to any action.

 

[Hurkyl]

The gains are for the pack, possibly at the detriment of the individual, which makes it altruism by definition.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Absolutely no.

No animals display altruism. There is not a shred of evidence to the claim that altruism has ever been exacted.

No organism will ever committ altruism. This is a scientific fact. There are always gains to any action.

Are you saying that 'altruism' is a word which describes nothing? Cracker...

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just questioning what gives us the capacity to be moral. Is it merely by-product of the evolutionary process or, is there a bit more to it than that?

So again steering this into the insuation of God. Morals are something that we, as a society created. It was done to benefit all manking with the intention of benefiting each individual.

I think I went down the wrong path here. morals are a bad example, and too open to specualation. I'm talking higher reasoning in general. Curiousity, learning, discovery. Those are all humnistic traits. And man, we've gotten so far off track I can't remember the original debate. Anyhow, the bottom line is that though lower life forms may show a degree of altruism, it's not as advanced as humans. And it's more of a base instinct of self-preservation. It's why they go in groups. Self-preservation that also benefits the whole pack. It's selfishness masked with good intent, but ultimately not truly altruistic.

 

[metacristi]

maximus

From the standpoint given by logic there is a golden rule which every would be rational person should respect:never believe something without a rational reason.The majority of people apply (unconsciously in many cases) this dicton when dealing with day by day activities but not in the case of God where they resort solely on faith.Some even claim that we cannot extend rationality in God's case but I don't think they're right,a rational belief can still be defended as I will argue further.

Every unbiased person will recognize that we do not have today sufficient objective (scientfic) knowledge to settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence either way:indeed naturalism is still only a conjecture.That's why it suffices [in order to base a rational,stricly personal belief,without making positive claims in exterior] some evidence for which 'God hypothesis' is on equal foot with actual scientific knowledge.There is plenty of such evidence for the moment,practically in all ontological problems.

For example when applied at the problem of how the Universe appeared the 'personal God hypothesis' (God defined merely as the creator of the universe) is in such a position.Indeed we cannot make the difference between the two hypotheses (naturalism vs God) in a sound manner,for the moment at least.If we add here the fact that there is no (natural) good reason for which the laws of nature should remain basically unchanged for huge periods of time...

As a conclusion there is plenty of evidence,on equal foot with scientific hypotheses,that can be interpreted,subjectively,as poiting out toward the existence of a creator.The claim of some people that God is never a solution does not stand a simple logical scrutiny:from the fact that naturalism has always worked so far does not follow that this will always be the case.Indeed tradition is never a proof or a sufficient reason.

We do not have the right to use God hypothesis in our scientific theories if it is not fruitful (making also potentially falsifiable predictions) indeed,still the evidence I've talked about above is enough to base a rational belief.For the moment there is no sufficient objective reason which to compel all would be rational person to disbelieve or to be skeptical,naturalism is still a simple conjecture...

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If this is so, then why does it only exist with humans? Why are we so unique? Could it be that this is the "crowning achievement" of evolution? Or, perhaps something else?

evolution has no goal, so it can have no achievement. we have evolved to have morals so that we may succesfully live in societies together. without some moral standards, this would be impossible.

Would you say that morals result from a "higher state of being?" Or, a lower state of being?

humans are no more evolved than fish. we are no more of a higher state of being than a cockroach. the develoment of morals, has, however, led us to be highly successful as a group society.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just questioning what gives us the capacity to be moral. Is it merely by-product of the evolutionary process or, is there a bit more to it than that?

i believe it is just as you said, the "byproduct" of an evolutionary process. we strive to survive, and we survived best together. to live together without killing each other, we needed morals.

and evolution is constantly weeding out morals that have gone out of control. heroes and martrys are people with a sense of morals that have lead to their death, and thus, an evolutionary cancel of that trait. (see my thread heroes die).

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by metacristi
maximus

From the standpoint given by logic there is a golden rule which every would be rational person should respect:never believe something without a rational reason.The majority of people apply (unconsciously in many cases) this dicton when dealing with day by day activities but not in the case of God where they resort solely on faith.Some even claim that we cannot extend rationality in God's case but I don't think they're right,a rational belief can still be defended as I will argue further.

People accept things as true based on one (or a combination) of three
sources.

Authority, Direct observation, or the logic of ones own reasoning.

Each of these has it's own potential flaws and pitfalls.

Belief in a god is certainly firmly rooted in the authority camp.

Those of us who have no belief in God have a hard time realizing that the experiences of believers gives them a much difference value system when it comes to (certain) authority sources. To them this belief is not only rational, but not believing wouldn't be.

There are other rational reasons why people believe in (a) god(s). Before I get into those directly, it's important to define rational here. I am not speaking of an abstact, informal logic type argument, defendable using traditional rules of logic, but that they percieve (usually subconsciously) it better for them to accept this as true, than not.

For many, the open, or even simply conscious, rejection of a particular set of god beliefs would constitute a threat to them on a number of levels: socially both in family and in community, potentially financially, and in some places to their very life. This doesn't even address the challenge this change in belief would pose to the ego (major issues are extremely difficult for any individual to admit being wrong about). While I may not agree with their views, I can see why it would be a number of rational reasons for them to remain in their beliefs.

It's easy to sit in judgement of others, assuming we would have come to different conclusions, having grown up with the same experience base.

Every unbiased person...

Personally, I don't think there is such.

We do not have the right to use God hypothesis in our scientific theories if it is not fruitful (making also potentially falsifiable predictions)...

Since any hypothesis which contains no falsifiable predictions is inherently outside the domain of science, I would agree with the above.


Just as psycological aspects of theistic belief provide an ego support (i.e. I'm better than they are because I follow Gods law), so does the ego trap of believeing being rational makes one better than those we see as 'not rational'. Years of reading alt.atheism.moderated has shown me that rational, logical atheists can be just as illogical, irrational, and just plain pig headed when it suits their ego, their world view, or just their desire to win a simple argument.

 

[Royce]

Glen, while what you say maybe true in many cases, there are those of us believers that come to our beliefs through years of observation, study and rational thought that leads us to believe in God the Creator.
To say that "Belief is firmly rooted it the authority camp." is an over simplification. There are many reasons to believe in God. Probably as many reasons to believe as not to believe. We each have our own personal reasons for believing or not believing. To place all those reasons into a few simple catagories is not valid or productive.

 

[Mentat]

Let me make this point absolutely clear (and then please read my explanation): Belief in God is, by it's very nature, logical. Allow me to explain. Logic (at least Deductive logic) is the use of two propositions to reach the "logical" third proposition (this is oversimplification, but it will suffice for now). However, Deductive Logic still works when some (or all) of the propositions are Scientifically false. For example: If I say "All people exist, all pigs exist, therefore all people are pigs", I have used Deductive Logic, but I have not arrived at a (scientifically) true conclusion.

So, even if it's not true - that God (or whatever deity you believe in) exists - it is still possible to arrive at that conclusion logically.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
Glenn, while what you say maybe true in many cases, there are those of us believers that come to our beliefs through years of observation, study and rational thought that leads us to believe in God the Creator.
To say that "Belief is firmly rooted it the authority camp." is an over simplification. There are many reasons to believe in God. Probably as many reasons to believe as not to believe. We each have our own personal reasons for believing or not believing. To place all those reasons into a few simple catagories is not valid or productive.

Quite true, I didn't mean to imply that Belief was solely rooted in the authority camp. If it came across as such, my apologies.

I agree that many will find numerous reasons to believe (or not), but I do stand by my statement (an adaptation of one made by Maimoiniedes(sp?)), that rationally held beliefs fail into one (or more) of the following three categories. Accepted due to authority, experience, or deductive logic.

Almost nothing in the real world would fall into only one of those categories, but some originate, predominately, from one of them.

Originally posted by Mentat
Let me make this point absolutely clear (and then please read my explanation): Belief in God is, by it's very nature, logical. Allow me to explain. Logic (at least Deductive logic) is the use of two propositions to reach the "logical" third proposition (this is oversimplification, but it will suffice for now). However, Deductive Logic still works when some (or all) of the propositions are Scientifically false. For example: If I say "All people exist, all pigs exist, therefore all people are pigs", I have used Deductive Logic, but I have not arrived at a (scientifically) true conclusion.

While you may believe you have used deductive logic, you have also made an error in logic - specifically an equivalence fallacy, i.e. just because people and pigs have one characteristic in common doesn't make people and pigs the same. Both your premises were true, it was your logic that was in error.

That said, you are quite true in that a fallacious premise, with proper logic will lead to an erroneous conclusion. I have no idea if semantics would classify the conclusions as logical, though.

 

[megashawn]

Well, it seems to me that if there was some sort of god, we'd have no need for the many religous texts floating around.

Infact, since god designed us, we'd have all the information hard written within us. There would not be any arguements over whose religion was true, cause we'd all know.

But this is not the case. I mean, think about a video game. We have a 3d enviroment, characters, AI, etc. The AI is programmed with the information it needs to get things done. This of course, is a weak example, but if a programmer, who is human, has enough sense to create an artificial being that is smart enough to do what it is supposed to do, why can't a god, which is supposed to be all powerfull, knowledgeable, etc.

Really, if you think about it, the mere fact that every single person on Earth doesn't agree on religous matters, is more then enough reason to believe none of them got it right.

And also the fact that there is no recorded proof of any god, aside from that gods own religous text. With our digital technology, it would be quite easy for a god to come to earth, do a tele-conference and get us all up to date.

This doesn't happen.

I mean, how many years into the future is the argument going to go? I vote go with that which is most productive for mankind. Scientific pursuits far more outweigh any religous matter in this respect.

And as far as having a reason to life. Perhaps our reason is to find a reason. Maybe we have to make a reason. Maybe there is a reason in each of us to spend our short lives worshipping a being we've never met, with which we hope to spend the rest of eternity with.

Or maybe, just maybe, were a mere freak of nature and there is no damn good reason for us to be here. Perhaps then, I'd say it is our goal, as the most advanced species we know of, to ensure life never fades.

 

[radagast]

Megashawn,
While you pose some interesting points, you seem to use religion and religious almost synonymously with theism. This is not the case for certain religions (depending on you definition of religion).

 

[megashawn]

Thanks. More times then not I am referring to christian type beliefs. I usually specify if I'm talking of something else. I'm not a word scientist by no means, so if you guys think I'm sticking the wrong word in somewhere, let me know.

Just for clarity, what is the difference between religion and theism?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by megashawn
Just for clarity, what is the difference between religion and theism?

a theist may believe in a supreme being but not follow the doctrines of a specific religon. if you are religios, you are by definition a theist, but if you are a theist you are not neccesserily religious.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by megashawn
Really, if you think about it, the mere fact that every single person on Earth doesn't agree on religous matters, is more then enough reason to believe none of them got it right.

Or, possibly, all of them got some of it right. In my study of religions I have found a commonality in all religions that a first surprised me. The teachings of Jesus and Buddha are very similar and often identical.
Maybe that is one of our reasons for being here. To come to know God.
Until we do that we are all just guessing. We have some of the words. Others have other words and still others have some of the music. Together we all may some day know all the word and all the music.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by radagast
While you may believe you have used deductive logic, you have also made an error in logic - specifically an equivalence fallacy, i.e. just because people and pigs have one characteristic in common doesn't make people and pigs the same. Both your premises were true, it was your logic that was in error.

Well, the example was off the top of my head, but I respectfully acknowledge your correction.

That said, you are quite true in that a fallacious premise, with proper logic will lead to an erroneous conclusion. I have no idea if semantics would classify the conclusions as logical, though.

Well, now that's another subject altogether. Semantics must play a part, in that - for example - homonymns (sp?) shouldn't be confused in logical deduction (as Dissident Dan showed in a recent thread). Also, semantics should play a role in the deciding of whether something is even possible in principle. Possibility in principle is what people usually call "possible in theory" (though I highly disapprove of this common usage of the word "theory"), but some things are, by their very definitions, impossible even in principle.

For example, it is impossible even in principle for a finite thing to become infinite. It simply cannot happen, and this fact is directly related to the definitions of the terms. You see, putting together the fact that "infinite" means "having no end", and that "finite" means "having a defined end", logically you arrive at "it would take an forever to 'expand' (increase in size) from having an end to having no end at all".

Again, this example is just off the top of my head, but I'm a little more confident about this one .