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.
Ah, nothing but baits and switches going on here....
I don't think eather side is hearing the other.... and i don't think it really matters. those who wish to stay blind, cannot see.
The Bible doesn't need to be proven, that has already been done if one simply looks for the proof.
And Catholicism is not Christianity. There is a difference.
The OP title is Science and God, not science and religion...
Roughly 5-10 years ago. The Bible is the most accurately transcribed, protected and historical text that we have. If you simply dismiss it as false, you MUST dismiss almost ALL historical texts as false. If you want details, I can get you details over the weekend.
Is that so ... care to explicate a bit on this ... I don't think there can be a logical or even reasonable separation, so I would like to hear this one?
I'll offer an explanation just for the sake of thoroughness.
Catholicism is a religious system.
Being a Christian (outside of a religious system) is simply having a personal experience that one sees also presented within the bible and that one identifies with as as relating to the bible's claims of Christ.
Religion requires a submission to human authority and understanding and accepting that it has the right to speak and act authoritatively on behalf of a God. It requires acceptance of an organizational set of doctrines written by men for practitioners of their system as absolute essentials--whether they are directly described in scripture or not and regardless of whether they are personally experienced or not. So if the Pope wakes up and says, "All true believers must eat toast on Tuesdays!", practioners of that religion are obliged to obey and accept it as if from God.
Personal belief requires a personal conclusion based on one's own experience and that is guided by one's conscience. There is no requirement or necessity at all to be part of a large organization to be a Christian. All that is required is an experience that can be validated within the bible so that it is recognizable as "Christ" and "Christian" by the one who experienced it.
That's the part you won't understand--the experience. So all that is left for you in this state is to repetitiously turn to arguments about religion and/or to dismiss any claims of a personal experience without a real attempt at examination (and going back to arguing about religious systems or sardonically dismissing personal beliefs or showing the time-worn prominent atheist video isn't a "real attempt").
You're too busy trying to prove what you feel you know to look at something you don't.
The situation isn't automatically reversed because even as believers we have the experience of knowing about and having experience with science and nature just as you do. That's not the same experience we've had with what we know as God.
"Requires a submission to human authority". You should have said that a long time ago because that is the key to all of it and stating it earlier would have saved you a lot of grief. Basically the same thing I quoted as Hitchens saying, and very much something I understood many moons ago. Maybe you should think twice before you again and again accuse others who you know very little about of not making any "real attempt of examination". Religion is so pervasive in society that it is being examined either consciously or subconsciously much of the time in any case.
If I was you I wouldn't be so sure of that. You have no clue about how much people who you don't even know have looked into matters of religion.
Looking into religion isn't the same as having an experience with God. So the submission to men isn't relevant in that respect--nice troll of a quote though. There are lots of devout people who never have had an experience yet are quite involved in religion--just as you are with yours which has no more substance than philosophy propped up with claims of science.
One of Hitchens publicly stated ideas was to make "the state" pre-eminent in order to trump religious tendencies. An officialy sanctioned panel would work out what sort of ideas and values were "universal" and acknowledge them appropriately. Established religious beliefs weren't on the list.
Hitchens also acknowledged that satisfying or compensating for people's natural tendencies to look for religious meaning and value in society would be difficult to quell and some solution would have to be found. One he didn't prefer but was the easiest to envision was the idea of celbrating with ceremony or holiday shared ideals and the like.
In Hitchens--and your--world, we will all submit to your ideas and put those of our own aside that conflict with them. Considering that genuine atheists arguably average less than 10% of the population (I'm being generous there) that sounds pretty old-school communistic to me. A small, intellectual, etlite group will decide and control the values of the masses...for the good of society. Da, Commissar!
I don't think Hitchen's would have agreed to any such extreme measures himself in actuality had they been legislated onto people by a minority. I have no doubt however that it wouldn't trouble you in the least.
Hitchens wasn't the problem. It's arrogant idealistic followers like yourself who are.
It's totally relevant. It is the foundation of all the major religions as well as being a major reason for many people who turn away from religion.
Hitchen's world is very different from mine. There are many things he has stated with which I do not agree. Possibly more things that I disagree with than agree...simply not worth my time to tally them up.
I simply follow my own path so what you're talking about here is really just nonsense.
Occam's razor, people. Use it.
Occam's razor is actually an apt fit for how I came to believe what I do. The issue is over , "What's observable?".
A Christian will tell you, "Observation is possible."
There is little possibility of having a meaningful discussion on this as Boobz and Smoothseas have completely slid into the, "Bored atheist bait game."
People like myself post on here out of interest in the possibility someone might come to see a reason to investigate further for themselves. Then there are those who are here just to let people know they think that's stupid and to waste time.
And again, they drag it back to, "religion".
As to your last question Boobz--you're simply following your own ideas and rejecting any reason to do otherwise. That's actually a near textbook definition of arrogant.
There are those who see a symbiotic relationship between science and faith. So don't be discouraged. I am one of those people.
Join a missionary or teach at Sunday school. You're best to use the same time tested methods the institutions use. You are not going to get many people who learned to think for themselves many years ago to accept ceding their decision making process to others. Better yet be fruitful and multiply. Best to indoctrinate your own kids since they are not only reliant but have a clean slate to fill with the word God everytime they ask why.
Read a dictionary. Arrogance is something very different. You seem to be the one who thinks your "experience" should somehow be more important to others than their own set of life experiences and circumstances. What word does Webster's use to describe that?
@Smoothseas I thought one thing you brought up was actually worth responding to. I have three children. I raised all of them to be respectful of my own and other's personal convictions but let them know that they were not "what I was" just because they were my children. From a young age I explained to them that they would have to examine for themselves and make their own decision about what to believe and that "just wanting to be" didn't make them a Christian--or anything else. It had to come from a real experience and personal conviction.
Two of my children approached me independently a couple of years apart and told me they firmly believed in God and wanted to know what the next step was for themselves.
My oldest son had a traumatic experience and for several years completely rejected any concept of God as valid. I heard all the regurgitated arguments from the internet from him just as from you, saw the same smug "my friends and I know the truth" attitude from him that he picked up from more of his "internet enlightened" friends and I always had one response when he said, "All you Christians are like this or always do that!"
I'd simply look him in the eye and say, "Tell me when I did that to you?". He would immediately answer, "Well, not you--but all the other ones. You know what I mean." When he felt like expounding on his disbelief and would challenge me to respond, I'd give him the same answer each time, "Believe what you think is right--it's your life and on you. I don't expect you to believe what I believe because you haven't had the experience I've had and couldn't".
I never preached at him or slipped him bible verses and this past year he came home in tears and apologized for how he had acted regarding those times. He's also concluded there must be a God--despite years of being sure there wasn't and having all the answers--because of his own experience.
My new daughter-in-law was an attempted murder victim at the age of 13 and as she puts it, "Saw no value in anything to do with a made-up God" and had rejected him from that time on firmly--including mocking angrily anyone who talked to her about the topic. She's lived here a year now and after a month of barely talking with me got into late one night. She attends church now and simply says, "I've changed my mind." She just started considering it where she refused before. I had nothing more to do with it.
You want to argue people into or out of their points of view--or at least firmly dismiss the ones you don't like. I think people need to make their own minds up and pseudo-intellectual bullying isn't necessary.
So believe what you want--it's your life and on you. You just haven't had an experience. You can insist there isn't one--but since you don't know what it is or what it must mean that seems a bit stretched. How can you know what you don't klnow or understand?
You are better stated in saying , "I reject" as opposed to "I know" when it comes to any possible reality of a God and people's experiences and observations of it because the simple fact is you don't actually know yourself.
There's one big difference between you and I too--you're so sure you are right that you would tell someone something is not true or not worth investigating when you don't even know yourself. I wouldn't.
If you say something I haven't experienced and can't relate to, I'll happily let you know and ask you to expound. So far you sound pretty much like every other troll on the net who gets his kicks "pushing buttons".
I'm answering not so much for you because that's a waste of time at present but for others who might come along with real questions. They're worth the effort.
If you think I am trying to push my views on anybody you are sadly mistaken. You are not being bullied and I think you know it. You either have a case of chronic offendedness or you are being insincere. The grievance game does not work in open forums. That game plan has been exposed a long time ago. Your constant insistence that you are somehow being victimized is ridiculous. You have cried wolf over and over. The villagers are now potentially less likely to listen.
I don't care what you think I should say and how you think I should say it. Maybe you should look at how many times you have claimed to know things before you preach what others should say. We live in a country that puts freedom of speech in front of many things. Deal with it. There are many things I have seen stated by atheists and theists alike that I tend to disagree with but that is simply one of the costs of freedom. I don't play the grievance game in response because it solves nothing.
The belief in God has nothing to do with like or dislike. I am not an atheist because I dislike the idea or concept of God or because I like or dislike others who believe or don't believe. I am an atheist simply because I am and would be lying to myself and others if I was to claim otherwise. Neither do I doubt that theists believe what they believe. Peoples religious beliefs are based on what they have been exposed to over their lifetimes. It is as simple as that. If you can get that concept through your thick skull then maybe you will realize that nobody is rejecting your "experience" for the sake of rejection. What is being rejected is your belief that your life experience should mean more to others than their own life experiences.
Some people push buttons for other reasons. It exposes many things about others. When people get their emotional juices flowing they often reveal things that they might not otherwise expose. I do not deny that I am a "button pusher". But my motives are not what you think.
So in short, you don't know.
Atheism is the absence of belief of dieties. I do not believe in God as a creator or controller of the universe or as a supernatural immortal being. That is why I call myself an atheist. God to me is simply a man made concept. A figment of peoples imagination and/or conscience which each individual defines and uses on his or her own terms in light of their own life experiences. Nobody knows yet everybody knows, because God is as unique to each individual as each individual is as unique from one another.
I certainly know what God is. It is something some individuals use to seek comfort or meaning in life, and sometimes used to gain advantage over others. It is something parents use to teach and/or control their kids, it is something religious institutions use to teach and/or control society, it is something politicians use to buy votes, and something governments use to rule over individuals and achieve political goals.
Funny, how I see Sinperiium offer a very calm explanation of his views... and Smoothseas simply resorts to name calling and defensive retorts.
You atheists pride yourselves on your reason, yet you simply can not listen to it... It's tragically humorous.
I admit...this did amuse me.
Amusing if you take it out of context from what was actually stated.
The word God obviously exists and has been given to mean various things throughout history. To me it is a 100% man made concept no matter what context is is being used in, and no matter how others decide to slice and dice it. If it amuses you then you simply do not understand what atheist means. You have your own preconceived definition that appears to be quite incorrect. There are many religious folk who admit to being atheists, including Christians. They obviously have some meaning they have put to their personal God yet do not believe their God is a creator, controller, or immortal being.There are also many who choose not to reveal that they are atheist because of the intolerance found in many societies.
Agree - I just found myself reading Sin's post, your post, and completely skipping Smooth. Not worth my time to even look at. Same for Boobz.
I've made that very point and the point I'm making that you keep skipping over is that if you "just decide" that "X" or "Y" must not be true and refuse to consider otherwise you'll never be able to form an objective opinion and know anything outside of what you already believe.
You can say, "I don't understand" and "I don't care to" but that isn't any sort of argument for suggesting other people do the same--it's just "you".
Maybe one day you'll have a child or young family member who faces the death of a loved one and they ask, "What will happen to them now?". You can dodge the issue or explain the process of the shortness of life and go on to "that's all there is". But if they then ask you, "Does everyone believe that? Are you absolutely sure?" you're going to have to decide whether to encourage them to look for answers themselves or else direct them to only yours. What will you do if they decide to look into faith? Would you talk to them like you have to people here?
The simple question a child will ask is, "How do you know?"
If faced with the same question, I'd tell my child (and have) that not everyone believes as I do but this is my own experience and because of it I do believe. If they then asked me, "Are you sure?" I could answer, "Yes" without equivocation and without having to sling clever sounding slogans and show them videos from Hawkings, Dawkins and Hitchens. I could actually show them from my life--not from a philosophical argument.
You guys couldn't have this conversation face to face--it only works when you can hide behind a computer screen and terminate a line of thought or misdirect it at will. The fact that you're incapable of actually carrying a real conversation here with any seriousness is a real indicator of how serious your own beliefs really aren't.
The only thing I have advocated here is that you consider that other experiences outside of your own could have some validity and be willing to really look at them without an automatic rejection of them. That's it.
You're not hearing me say, "Have an open mind" all you hear is, "You must be wrong". I can't help you there.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
