Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Yep...which is why the clever people of this world AVOID these topics/threads with a PASSION ....
And yet, here we are.
And yet they are so much fun!!!! The "high road" is just boring....so I say throw yourself into the fray!
It is just as much a choice as most things are. Even the Bible says that. People may be born into a certain religion however we all have the choice at some point in our lives to decide whether to put our faith in those that taught that religion or to put our faith elsewhere and move on to some other religion or no religion at all. Your life experiences are the results of choices you make. You may have very little control as a child but I assure you the choices we have as adults are boundless and heavily influence what one's life experiences will be.
You are not understanding what I am saying, but that is okay...my point has nothing to do with what religion you are brought up and is not by any means comparable to "people are the product of the environment"...
This is exactly what I said (in the post you are quoting)...now let's look at what you have to say...
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a meaningful difference between the two...I don't know if you just read only that one sentence of my post but I clearly indicated choice can be relevant to one's belief system...
With that said...
A commonly used argument against God is the existence of pain and suffering...logically, there are only two possibilities: either God willing allows suffering, or God does not exist. Which type of universe would you rather live in? One where the God allows suffering, or one without a God? Ultimately, we must "pick" which belief we are most comfortable living with...at this point, one's "decision" is based upon feeling...how do you feel about a God who allows suffering vs. how you feel about a universe with no God?
And it is here where we no longer are making the same type of "choice" we do with other things in our life...you cannot control how something makes you feel...though that statement is supported by psychological research, I think it is also something we can all relate to...some things simply make you angry, or happy, or sad...you don't choose how you feel, you simply don't...you can choose how you react, and previous life experiences can condition certain feelings to arise, but it is not a choice...
Stealing is a choice, but feeling guilty (or not) afterwards is not a choice, it simply happens...of course, one who chooses to steal frequently will have less feelings of guilt as subsequent actions or exposals tend to desensitize us to consequent feelings....it is in this way that a choice (choosing to steal) leads us to have certain feelings (of which we do not have direct control over) that influence our belief system (is stealing right or wrong?)...
I'd be careful with that...even in the world of Christendom where the bible is sometimes acceptable evidence, that statement is extremely contentious...predestination (and all the varying forms of it) has historically been a contention point for the various sects of Christianity, with large parts of Christendom being on both sides of the issue...
Since belief in God is not uniquely Christian, I'm wary of using the Bible (or any religious text) as "evidence" or "support" when discussing just one's belief in God (a belief that can be independent of religion)...that being said, predestination is accepted to varying degrees in other religions as well (Islam being a prime example)...though for any given religion one opinion may represent a majority, there is nothing close to a consensus on the issue of predestination and certainly not within Christianity...
So while you (and perhaps your respective church/sect/community) may believe in choice and free will, the same thing cannot be said about Christianity or religion as a whole...
I totally understand what you stated. You stated that believing in any particular religion is not a choice and I strongly disagree. Of course it is something that is is a product of one's environment and life experiences but it is a choice.
Total BS. Logically if there was a God it could allow or disallow pain and suffering. So there are three and maybe more possibilities. The belief in a God is one of faith since the existence of such a supernatural being cannot be proven. You have faith that the people who taught you such things are revealing some truth.
There is nothing contentious in my statement. The bible states that people are given free will and are given the ability to choose to believe or not to believe and to sin or not to sin. Different religions use different ways of trying to steer their followers in a certain direction however people do have the ability to make choices.
I just realized something. A while back, Boobz claimed that religion was magic, I'm guessing he said that because when God or gods do things, they bend the natural order of things. In that case, this thread is asking:
"Science and magic (One and the same?)
And I believe we all know what Thor said, "Where I come from, (science and magic) are both one and the same. I believe the person who started this thread has trolled us all.
The focus of my argument is believing in God, not in adopting a particular religion...though I may have seemingly used "God" and "religion" interchangeably (and quite mistakenly if it seems that way), let's be very clear on this before we progress further...
Semantics is key here (hence why I have put many words in quotes)...I am in no way making an argument in regards to free will or predestination (which is how it seems you have interpreted my points)...I am merely classifying the "choice" to believe in God as a different type of "choice" than the trivial decisions we typically make...my distinction is not based on the importance of the "choice" as much as the nature of the choice...the conscious decision making we generally attribute to most choices simply is not the same in regards to God and the existence thereof...faith based decisions are different types of "choices" that are grounded in feelings, intuition, and psychological phenomenon...faith based decisions are driven primarily by past experiences and reactionary feelings while trivial decisions are the products of decision trees that utilize logic, reasoning, and some intuition...
You seem to have recognized this difference though have taken my statements to be affirmations of predestination which is just not the case...
You are looking at hypothetical universes that are irrelevant...pain and suffering do exist, and analyzing imaginary universes where they do not exist is not going to accomplish anything...on a slight tangent, even if that was relevant, we'd be left with four universes as we have two dualities compounded with each other (a universe with both God and suffering, a universe with God but not suffering, a universe with suffering but not God, and a universe with neither)...
Since pain and suffering exist, the only other variable (in this simple argument) is the existence of God...that clearly leaves us with two possibilities: 1) God exists and suffering exists or 2) God doesn't exist but suffering exists...
It follows then that either 1) God creates or at least allows suffering or 2) God does not exist...I have simply extracted the parts of each possibility that are the most discomforting or problematic...from there, I still stand by my statement that how one feels about each of these possibilities is a huge contributing factor to their belief or disbelief in God...and I would again stress that feelings are not choices, they simply happen (creating an indirect relationship between decision-making and faith)...
You may believe this, and your church/community may believe this, but that does not make it a fact...the bible does not just state "people are given free will", it just doesn't...the concept of free will is highly contentious in general and your statement is 100% opinion...there are specific scriptures that can and have been used to argue for or against the allowance of free will in a given religion, but using evidence to support a conclusion doesn't make the conclusion fact, just a very informed opinion...
Different religions acknowledge varying degrees of free will, and in some cases salvation is clearly and explicitly dissociated from choice (as in the case of Lutheranism)...that is just one example, though if you really believe free will is a universal consensus I encourage you to do research...you will find many instances of loopholes or tweaked semantics that help coalesce free will with omnipotence...likewise, both sides of the issue rely heavily on "informed" or "unique" interpretations of scriptures, some of which on the surface seem to contradict each other....
I am by no means arguing in favor of predestination or against the notion of free will, and I will stress again that the main point of my argument is a distinction between a faith based "choice" and a trivial choice...
Not necessarily...deistic thinking holds that God does not actively interact with the world, but rather provided the initial conditions for a dynamic system that follows specific natural laws to guide its evolution...
With our present understanding of the universe and science, it is hard to coalesce all aspects of theology with science...for example, if we grant that Jesus actually walked on water, how do we explain it scientifically? An inability to provide an explanation would suggest that God actively interacts with the universe, though a scientific optimist would put faith in science and argue that a scientific explanation does exist, we just haven't found it yet...
Science is promising in its ability to "crack all the answers", but I think the jury is still out on whether science will actually accomplish that goal...we have yet to solidly prove whether the universe is deterministic or not, and without that, science requires just as much faith as religion in answering fundamental philosophical questions...
However you specifically stated religion and you cannot use the two interchangeably since many religions do not include a belief in God(s).
What don't you understand about free will? Which force of nature keeps you or anyone else from exercising free will and making choices? There certainly are constraints to what people choose depending on the real or contrived consequences,however we still have have the ability to make those choices. Use your own head. It should be obvious you have free will. You may think the pursuit of salvation takes away one's free will however it doesn't, you can still choose the other path even if you believe salvation exists can you not? There is no physical barrier to making such a choice.
How can you be so sure? My disbelief in God has absolutely nothing to do with pain and suffering or in thinking that a god couldn't exist because pain and suffering does. My personal disbelief is mainly based on the history of theistic religions throughout history and the level of hypocrisy revealed through the study of that history.
Science certainly does requires faith however it provides tangible evidence and reasoned explanations which allows the individual to further reason, not a simple "because some authoritative figure says so" answer.
That's funny you say that considering I just said the same thing...
I specifically stated that the two terms cannot be used interchangeably, and I specifically made a point to clarify my argument in light of my error that I already admitted and have corrected...I don't know if you just read the first sentence of each paragraph or what's going on but it can't get any more clear than that...
My argument has nothing to do with free will...I am not advocating any particular theistic view or arguing against the idea of free will...if anything my argument implies free will...
This example suggests how the consequences of a chosen action affect one's beliefs...that inherently implies actions are choices and therefore products of free will...
Pain and suffering is simply one example...certainly there are countless other things that one can be exposed to that will arose feelings that affect how one thinks, and I have in no way implied pain and suffering is the only life experience that affects one's thinking...I simply picked a very specific example to work with as specificity helps demonstrate certain points better than abstractness...that, and I also have no desire to construct a "proof by exhaustion"...
Well that certainly makes sense in terms of how you would view religion, though that has very little to do with God....of course, it's your life experiences and if the abundant hypocrisy of religion has affected your belief (or lack thereof) of God well then so be it...your anecdote I think is quite typical, as it seems many (though not all) atheists have come to reject the notion of God due to the questionable history of religion...
I would argue though that this conclusion of yours is based on a non sequitor, because God certainly can exist even if religion is completely fallacious...you have even contributed this statement:
Yours is a statement that clearly expresses God and religion to be independent of each other (ie you can have one without the other)...just as you can have a religion without a God, you can have a God without the "correct" religion...if the validity of religion is not necessary for the existence of God, then the invalidity of religion certainly should have no bearing on the issue...I am not criticizing your premise regarding the hypocrisy of religion, but rather I am questioning the logic used to make your conclusion...even if your premise regarding religion is absolutely correct, it does not follow from that premise that God doesn't exist, pointing to my statements earlier regarding faith-based decisions and the human mind...
Moving on to the overall discussion of the thread...
Tangible evidence certainly is a huge advantage science has over religion...that being said, science has failed to answer fundamental questions....
For example, science has failed to decidedly determine whether the universe is deterministic or not...just because you think you have free will doesn't mean you actually do, especially when you consider that the linearity of time is merely a human construct...
Science also has yet to indicate why the universe exists (though there is a great deal of evidence suggesting how)...
Science also has failed to point to a universal moral code...in other words, we have yet to discover a physical basis or set of natural laws that would allows us to determine a moral code...not that psychology, economics, or biology don't have theories related to morality, but they are certainly not complete nor are they foolproof...
Religion arguably has answers for these...different interpretations of different scriptures lend to varying views regarding free will, why the universe exists, and what moral codes to follow...
Just because religion has answers doesn't mean they are right...and just because science doesn't have answers yet doesn't mean it won't in the future...that being said, at this current moment religion provides answers for people (at least for some) while science does not...
I'd also add that tangible or empirical evidence is usually thought to be exclusive to science, though the proponents of naturalism and intelligent design have put an interesting twist on that...
Science essentially can not determine anything that has happened without leaving some form of evidence humans are capable of observing.
It's more than likely (in fact, probable certainty) that there is more we are not capable of observing than there are things we have already observed even the mere effects of.
Which science fiction world are you living in?
I don't expect science to answer such a philosophical question. Nor do I need to create a supernatural being to explain away such things.
A universal moral code would be just for some and unjust for others depending on the differing situations it is applied to. Once again I do not need to create a supernatural being to enforce such a moral code which may benefit some and injure others.
It certainly does and that is why I have no problem with people living their own lives religiously. The problem I have is when they try to impose those beliefs on others. In particular ones that contradict current science.
Intelligent design puts a 180 degree twist on science. It starts with a conclusion and forms an argument based on the conclusion. Intelligent design is not based on empirical evidence and is not science. It is another scheme to try to dumb down the population.
Its funny when I hear people say that the government should not legislate morality when it comes to things like seat belts and cellphone use yet when it comes to their religious beliefs they are willing to vote away every right they currently enjoy.
Damn and blast....sucked in...
Seatbelt use and cellphone use [while driving, I assume] has nothing to do with morality.
It's social responsibility. The cost to the general community of people dying whilst [and because they were] unrestrained, and the reckless endangerment of other people while text-driving, etc.
It has everything to do with God since God is a concept that is mainly rooted in religion. I don't believe God exists for the same reason I don't believe unicorns exists. I have never been convinced that God is more than simply a man-made concept. It is simply a word used by various religions and governments in different ways. In some cases to assign authority to some institution, sometimes to attempt to validate folklore, and in others used as propaganda to make something unjust appear to be just. Overall I think religion could be a good thing and my study of various religions and their traditions and culture is the basis for a lot of my own morality, however most religions do not adapt as time passes by and there are too many instances in present day where it is used unjustly.
I don't know about you however my morals are based on how my actions might affect others. Is that not the same as social responsibility?
No.
It's like this: If you are an adult and even if you only have a middle school education than you have the tools to do the right thing. After that it's up to you.
All this other talk about science and God and abortion and all that is just a waste of time to me.
DO THE RIGHT THING AND EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FALL INTO PLACE.
I hope this meets the sites TOS. If not, at least find and read a copy of this mans excellent book, He has others as well. Great reading.
Just Google Robert Fulghum:
All I Really Need To KnowI Learned In Kindergarten by Robert Fulghum- an excerpt from the book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the sandpile at Sunday School. These are the things I learned: Share everything. Play fair. Don't hit people. Put things back where you found them. Clean up your own mess. Don't take things that aren't yours. Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody. Wash your hands before you eat. Flush. Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you. Live a balanced life - learn some and think someand draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some. Take a nap every afternoon. When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together. Be aware of wonder.Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that. Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we. And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggestword of all - LOOK. Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation.Ecology and politics and equality and sane living. Take any of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or your government oryour world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if all - the whole world - had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down withour blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had a basic policy to always put thing back where they found them and to clean up their own mess. And it is still true, no matter how old youare - when you go out into the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together. © Robert Fulghum, 1990. Found in Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten, Villard Books: New York, 1990, page 6-7.
All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the sandpile at Sunday School. These are the things I learned:
Nice post, Wiz.
It's never a waste of time to discuss issues that affect society. People do not learn how to solve problems, or understand and tolerate others if they put up a fence and refuse to discuss things.
None...I for one believe in free will, but just because I believe I make my own choices doesn't mean I actually do...I'm not analyzing "free will" on a psychological basis, but on a physical basis...there is no scientific proof yet that the universe is or is not deterministic...if science came to prove that the universe is deterministic, then free will would be nothing more than a human construct...
Fortunately (at least I feel so), science has yet to decidedly label the universe as deterministic...
First, I misspoke...I meant natural theology, not naturalism...
In a way I think natural theology is a better perspective to look at because, unlike intelligent design, it doesn't have quite the "baggage" and abundant connotations associated with it...in truth though, they are essentially based off the same logical argument...
Intelligent design really does start with empirical evidence...the classic "watchmaker" analogy is an excellent example of how empirical evidence can suggest a "creator" and thus intelligent design (as opposed to random happen chance)...so in principle, intelligent design is a logical argument that draws a conclusion from empirical evidence...in practice though, it seems many of its proponents did in fact start with a preconceived notion (that God created the universe) and then went out to find evidence for their conclusion...
In their defense though, a lot of science has progressed that way...the Big Bang Theory, James Hutton's ideas of deep time and uniformitarianism, the list goes on...many scientific theories and ideas we take for granted and accept today were in fact the result of someone going out to confirm their own whimsical ideas and preconceived notions...the history of science is not quite as logical and secular as it is often made out to be...
Intelligent design's greatest weakness is the argument of economy...if science manages to explain evolution without the need for divine intervention, then intelligent design really has nothing to stand on...at the present moment though, the theory of evolution has a lot of questions it still needs to answer...I think in time biological science will eventually be able to adequately complete the theory, but until then intelligent design cannot be entirely dismissed...
Responsibility suggests necessary actions and implies a sense of duty...I think you'll have a hard time separating duty from morality...in fact in Kantian ethics, they are one and the same...
Certainly there is an important distinction between the law and morality, but many laws clearly reflect morality to some degree...a great example is the Miller Test that arose from a supreme court case regarding pornography, in which the moral feelings of the community can be used to establish legal standards...
I certainly can understand your belief that "God" is entirely a human construct...nevertheless, I would still say that God can exist in light of human created religions being filled with err and lacking any "divine inspiration"...one can believe in God without any need for religion what so ever, which seems to suggest the two are philosophically independent...certainly they are related in society and our cultures, but from a philosophical standpoint I think God can be completely dissociated from religion...
Tell me then, what is the right thing? I mean, is abortion right or not? I think it's a little naive to assume such moral problems are so simple and obvious...morality as well as knowledge are needed to evaluate complex issues, and I hardly think everyone has the scientific knowledge as well as the appropriate morality (whatever that may be) to "just know" whether abortion is acceptable or not...
I agree completely...whatever may arise from discussions like these, it is not the content that is problematic, but the attitudes of certain parties...
That is exactly my point. The history of the intelligent design concept and movement shows exactly what the intent of it is. The "father" of intelligent design is a born again christian with a BS in English Literature and no formal education in biology. Go figure.
Current science already explains evolution without the need for divine intervention.
It depends how you view the issue. If I were to believe in God independent from religion it would most likely be because science proved it, That is why I stated earlier I don't believe for the same reason reason I don't believe in the existence of unicorns. As far as religion goes I believe the concept of God is used so men can make others conform to a certain set of "rules" that are conceived by men who do not want that authority questioned so they assign the credit to "God". It wasn't always that way however it looks to me like many religions simply took older traditions and changed them to suit their own needs. History tells a great story about the origin of religious concepts and how they have been used and abused throughout the centuries.
Seems fair enough. Even the Big Bang has been modified by the enthusiasts to the possibility of a "primordial soup" rather than nothing.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
