Not necessarily, if you believe yours is the one true god, who can sort all the others out.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Science v Religion
(138 posts) (15 voices)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
Pascal's Wager is not a circular argument and well worth examining with an open mind.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
I refer the right honourable gentleman to my previous statement about leprechauns
I lived in the South West for a number of years and loved to visit the town of Glastonbury. Pagans of all kinds, many wearing colourful homemade clothes, universally friendly and chatty. What struck me was how most conventional people reacted to them. They might tap a finger to the side of their head and mutter ‘what a weirdo’ etc. Believing in a deity who was executed by his father as a demonstration of his love and who, after 2000 years, is expected to make a reappearance any day now, is NORMAL. But dressing up like a wizard and being nice to people is worthy of a policeman’s truncheon. It’s the normalisation of the absurd that amazes atheists.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
Interesting summary Myke but your word 'executed' leaves out the idea of voluntary acceptance of death as a substitute victim, which is pretty important to the idea of redemption. As for absurd, there are loads of people who think the idea humans are just a random collection of atoms and that life and consciousness is ultimately without meaning equally absurd.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
... there are loads of people who think the idea humans are just a random collection of atoms and the life and consciousness is ultimately without meaning equally absurd.
Like me. Life and consciousness are ultimately without meaning and absurd. Doesn't stop that from being a fact (OK OK, a belief, and my belief) though.
The whole of human existence - indeed, the Universe - is absurd and, frankly, ridiculous.
A bit like Hampton Court Maze: fascinating, complicated, puzzling, utterly pointless but enormously enjoyable. So settle down, make yourself comfortable, help the other guys if you can and enjoy it. Douglas Adams and Spike Milligan make more sense to me than Marx, Mao, Plato or even Bertrand Russel.
Or, as that bloke Newton (you know, the bloke wot invented gravity - before that, apples just used to float about when they got detached from the tree) put it:
'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.'
Notice his use of the word playing.
'Silly is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Get over it.'
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
I think it was Stephen Hawking who pointed out that Even people who beleive thet everything is pre-ordained, still look both ways when crossing the road.
I am atheist since my teens after being brought up C of E & Chiorboy etc.
The pursuit of knowledge from Scientific study is surely the ultimate human goal, within the boundaries of what we are capable of understanding.
To say that there definatly is, or is not an ultimate singular Deity is outside of those boundaries. Many people Operate within those boundaries & respect each others religeous or not veiws. It is mainly certain religious groups who are committed to kill or overthrow other beleivers or non beleivers. So I reject all religions.
As an insurance policy though, I keep the door open just a bit, under the heading "we dont know yet".
at the very smallest Microscale, there appears to more simplicity.
At the very lagest scale there appears to be Infinity, which is not knowable,
In between, there is Complexity and Evolution.
Evolution itself is complex, and to an unbiased observer, there might appear to be some evidence of design. Although I think if there is an element of design, there is more than one "deity" involved, due to the competitive nature of organisms.
Maybe its a Commitee, or a Group of DNA coders in the sky, competing for "Front Page" on SpeciesBiscuit.
So I must be an AtheinosticPosted 3 weeks ago # -
Maybe its a Commitee ...
I like the idea of a committee being in charge of Life, the Universe and Everything. Might explain a lot of things; I share the views of Richard Curtis and Paul Mayhew-Archer, the writers (with others) of The Vicar of Dibley regarding committees. I think we've all served on that committee at one time or another.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
"...within the boundaries of what we are capable of understanding."
That is quite important. Maybe the answer is so complex we are incapable of understanding it at our current level of evolution.I firmly believe in evolution over divine design but, but, but. Just how the hell did a woodpecker evolve such that it's tongue wraps around it's brain to protect it when it hammers its head against a tree. Come on Darwin. Explain that!
By the way Al: We both put "No religion" on the census yesterday after I mentioned to Jane that going to Sunday school 50 years ago doesn't make her CofE and that putting that may mean the wrong chapels get built in hospitals.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
There's plenty to discover about evolution, and that's exciting. But imagining a large beardy chap using a heavenly Photoshop to invent stuff - that explanation is rather low on my list of possibles
And another thing. Do theists believe in one god per planet, one god per solar system or what? If each planet has one, how do they communicate with each other, and do they collectively have a mega-god, or a variety of faiths to account for stuff they don't understand ?
Also, if our god is omnipotent, why does he (or she) put up with the devil? If he (or she) isn't omnipotent, then WTF is the point anyway?
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
Do theists believe in one god per planet
Apparently, the earth is only 6000 years old.
Here are some words of wisdom from the holy book:'Happy are the ones who seize your infants and dash them against the rocks.' – Psalms 137:9
'Whoever utters the name of the Lord must be put to death. The whole community must stone him, whether alien or native. If he utters the name, he must be put to death.' Leviticus 24:16
'Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.' Numbers 31:17-18
etc etc etc etc
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
I am always intrigued by 'fundamentalist' Christian denominations/sects who (understandably) reject the 'corruption' of the/an/any 'established' church (Roman Catholic or any other) and instead rely directly on the authority of the text of the bible, holding it to be 'The Word of God'.
What these denominations/sects dislike is being asked 'So - who wrote the Bible? God hasn't got a pencil!'
They try to claim that it was 'divinely inspired' and that humans merely 'transcribed' it, rather ignoring the fact that it (particularly, but not just, the Old Testament) was written by many people, many unknown, many times at different periods over a long period of time.
And that, over the centuries, it has been edited / modified / revised / re-written by various individuals, groups and committees, with bits being added, deleted, reinstated and re-written, quite often many times. There is no 'One True Word', which makes the Bible about as consistent and reliable a source of guidance as the internet! Beware fake scripture, guys.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
I say live and let live. For the record I was raised a Catholic but by late teens decided it wasn't for me. For a long time I decided I was an agnostic - I worked on the concept that there may or may not be a God but I was (and still am) convinced that all religions are man made.
In subsequent years I've moved away from agnostic to atheist. There isn't anything that persuades me to think otherwise. The whole concept that a superior being could insist that you believe in it or face an eternity in hell where you are tormented and punished is a little too over the top for me. Some benevolent God that would be - more like over selling. However I have worked with people who believed in some version of God and I've treated them with respect and tried to understand their point of view. I recall a Muslim colleague who made the lifetime pilgrimage and he was so animated after the trip it was hard not to feel enjoyment for him.
I don't try to force my atheist views on people and certainly don't engage in debates with those who do have a belief - it's their life and their belief. If someone tries to force their beliefs on me and ignoring it is ineffective then I guess I'd have to avoid them, but so far I've found that people of faith accept that those who don't want to be converted should be left to their own non-beliefs
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
I don't like the word "believe" very much. WTF is it for?
~~
I do think there's a commonality of thought & existence among people - whether in the context of geography, thinking, experience, education or other. In a broader sense, there's a symbiosis with other life that's evolved over billenia (word of the day)The relationships we have with the rest of humanity (with a few exceptions) and with the rest of the planet is absolutely "sacrosanct" - though I'd prefer another adjective if there is one
That's why anti-Brexit & CC are so serious in my world-view (and numerous others') - they're so dangerously antithetic to development, progress, survival, etc, and so reactionary
It's not a religion, but it's the closest atheists can get. And it doesn't exclude traditonal religions, which to me are mostly respectable. At best.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
The whole concept that a superior being could insist that you believe in it or face an eternity in hell where you are tormented and punished is a little too over the top for me.
= Protection Racket.
What a load of bollocks.
So, religious types, counter arguments?
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
So, religious types, counter arguments?
erm . . . you might be in the wrong forum, Al!
However, if you have time I can recommend dropping in on one of those American Bible-bashing forums and kicking off the evolution debate. It's simultaneously impressive and depressing that there are people who keep massive blocks of text handy to 'refute' your every argument. They might use 'thee' and 'thou' a little more than seems appropriate outside Yorkshire, for reasons which have never been clear
Still, it's good sport.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
Hell is not a place you get sent to as a punishment but where you put yourself when choosing to reject divine love & forgiveness. Is the move from agnostic to atheist not a conversion from the scientific method to belief? The atom was hypothesised to be unsplitable till Rutherford split it. I believe a good scientist doesn't insist faster than light travel is impossible but says, in the unlikely event of examples being found, the 'laws' of science as presently understood would need to be adjusted. Biologists 'believed' no mammal laid eggs till they found the duck-billed platypus.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
Atheists (or whatever) don't reject divine love - the word "divine" doesn't really have any meaning
Science is full of hypotheses - it's simply a starting point
I've never heard of a scientist saying faster-than-light is impossible - it's always qualified, perhaps implicitly, by known assumptions
Biologists 'believed' no mammal laid eggs till they found the duck-billed platypus
You put that in quotation marks, but I suspect you aren't quoting anythingI'd rather say that scientists didn't expect mammals to lay eggs
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
@Sinick: I agree. Science is about questions, hypotheses and the endless testing of those hypotheses. In other words, doubt: not certainty or once-and-for-eternity, never-to-be-questioned answers.
I had huge respect for a scientist, prominent in the field of astronomy (can't remember his name now) who, some time ago, following a spate of news reports of alleged 'alien abductions', was asked whether he thought such alien visitations were possible.
His personal view might well have been the same as yours or mine: 'Of course not. It's all complete bollosck'. But that's not what he said. He had been questioned in his role as a professional scientist, and he replied in that capacity: he simply said 'I think it is unlikely'. Respect!
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
Thats an interesting point BJ
"I firmly believe in evolution over divine design but, but, but. Just how the hell did a woodpecker evolve such that it's tongue wraps around it's brain to protect it when it hammers its head against a tree. Come on Darwin. Explain that!"One would imagine that amongst a certain religeous group, after centuries of banging heads against a wall, there would have evolved a similar mechanism, but there doesn't seem to be any direct evidence for that. However, there is some tongue twisting, chanting etc, so maybe they are still at the early stages.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
The word divine may be meaningless to an atheist but to a theist can have e clear, precise meaning.
Inverted commas are not restricted to quotation but can be used, as here, to indicate a particular usage of the word different from its usual one. I used the word believe to cover a range of meanings including think, expect, strongly expect, to be totally convinced of something. My sentence spoke of the good scientist, implying the existence of bad 'scientists' - ' ' to indicate someone who calls himself a scientist but who, IMO, doesn't understand or rigorously apply scientific principles.The good scientist would,by definition, remain agnostic, in the sense of keeping an open mind and avoiding preconceived dogmatism.
The argument (a) I am an intelligent rational person. (b) I am an atheist. (c) Therefore ALL intelligent rational persons must be atheists is a classical example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Another would be (a) I have met some theists who are unintelligent and argue illogically. (b) Therefore I am entitled to dismiss ALL theists as idiots who believe in fairy tales.Posted 3 weeks ago # -
This argument could go on for another 2000 years. We should listen to the Word of the Lord. For it is written:
‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.’ Leviticus 19:19
‘Ye shall not round the corners of your heads [hair].’ Leviticus 19:27
‘Would that those who upset you might also castrate themselves!’ Galatians 5:12
‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.’ Ephesians 6:5
‘She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.’ Ezekiel
Sorted
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
@Myke, your selective quotations from the Bible are truly devastating against what for many/most Xtians is a straw man. If you are interested in a 'modern' understanding of how the Bible is the word of God, you could start with Theology of Revelation by Gabriel Moran.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
All around the world, and throughout history, it seems that pretty much all communities / tribes / civilisations have chosen to create myths, gods, religions and other belief systems, with no evidence to justify any of them.
It would be interesting to hear from some anthropologist or psychiatrist why they think humans seem to have this irrational but universal urge.
In the later part of his book The God Delusion Dawkins has a bit of a go at this, but not very thoroughly and not very convincingly. His book seems to be mainly a diatribe against religion rather than 'seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures'.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
Many anthropologists & psychiatrists have concluded long ago that anyone who thinks humans are essentially rational beings is deeply mistaken. Any explanation for the universe which ignores the fact of human emotions is likely to remain 'not very convincing.' And anyone afraid to read anything which might challenge their preconceptions may be left going round in circles, ever decreasing or otherwise.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
The good scientist would, by definition, remain agnostic, in the sense of keeping an open mind and avoiding preconceived dogmatism.
It really depends on what you are being agnostic about. Climate change, for example - lots of "agnostics" out there, funded by fossil fuel companies.
In terms of religious belief, if I understand you correctly, Christians think any "good" scientist should remain agnostic about God, whilst not being agnostic themselves? How does that work?
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
I heard somebody on the radio a couple of days ago (can't remember who) who suggested that religion, or belief in some sort of deity is simply part of the human evolutionary process.
There is zero evidence of any religious activity in any early human species. And even in our own species there is virtually no evidence for the first 100,000 years or so. And even then, it was more about getting the power of an animal by drinking its blood etc.
I suppose there was some sort of belief in an after life for our stone age ancestors as shown by various burial artefacts.
I think the first sort of worship to a deity was probably the sun worshipers but as far as I know that only began to take place about 20k years ago.
As for religion, which I actually differentiate from belief in a supreme deity, this probably didn't appear until the formation of cities about, maybe, 10,000 years ago. Very useful tool for controlling the hoi polloi!
And it seems to me that quite often, these early gods were "specialists" in one area such as the god of war or the god of fertility. The single god religions, such as Christianity and Islam, have literally only appeared in the last couple of thousand years.
It seems inconceivable to me that any deity, in the religious sense, should only be applicable to members of our own species over a tiny proportion of time that we have been on earth.
And presumably, all religion as we know it today will have probably vanished over the next few hundred years, as part of the continuing evolution of the social side of the human species.
PS I am not a theology expert, so don't take my dates as gospel!
Posted 3 weeks ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.