The real poll: religion

[Walden]

Hilarious post, herbivore12 I was laughing my posterior off at the pink dinosaur!

Pink dinosaurs, unicycling or not, are in fact funny.

But wasn't it a red one? Anyhow, PBS has hit paydirt with one for the past decade or so.

[desert_whistler]

Ok. The thrust of what you're saying is that if I look around me, and I decide that, based on the evidence I see, there is no God, I am not making a leap of faith. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I am making a judgement based on evidence, not faith. Even though my logic may be flawed, and the evidence is really not good, I am still basing my belief on what I think is good evidence. So no faith.

OK. Fair enough. I'll buy that.

Yes, one CAN use those laws to either prove or disprove god's existence (pretty easily, in fact); and it CAN be done.

Now you go too far. That I would really like to see. Give me a reference. If you can offer PROOF of God existence (or not) using the laws of physics, biology or any science you can think of, don't waste it on the Chiff and Fipple forum. Submit it to Harvard, they will grant you a Ph.D in philosophy. Force = mass * acceleration is pretty established. Newton's first law has been demonstrated over and over again and I would bet my entire life savings that, if I tried an experiment right now, that law would still apply.

But to say that one can use science to provide an equally compelling PROOF that God exists?? That I absolutely do not buy. I know creationists who like to say that Genesis is a blow by blow account of the world's creation, and they strongly assert that the Big Bang is bunk. Modern physicists have pretty compelling evidence that the Big Bang really occured, and they can trace the origins of the universe down to the first second. But what caused the Big Bang? What made all that energy start expanding?? How did it get there in the first place? That they have NO answer for. Physicists can offer strong evidence that the folks who believe there was no Big Bang are mistaken. They cannot offer evidence that there is or isn't a God.

Science is a way of modeling the universe we see around us and predicting it's behavior. It's very good at that. But proving how the universe and everything in it got here in the first place is beyond the bounds of science as we know it.

Cheers

[herbivore12]

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I am making a judgement based on evidence, not faith. Even though my logic may be flawed, and the evidence is really not good, I am still basing my belief on what I think is good evidence. So no faith.

OK. Fair enough. I'll buy that.

Hey, maybe my recent employment woes are over; used cars, large appliances . . .if I can sell this faith thing, I gotta be able to sell someone a new TV!

Yes, one CAN use those laws to either prove or disprove god's existence (pretty easily, in fact); and it CAN be done.

Now you go too far. That I would really like to see. Give me a reference. If you can offer PROOF of God existence (or not) using the laws of physics, biology or any science you can think of, don't waste it on the Chiff and Fipple forum. Submit it to Harvard, they will grant you a Ph.D in philosophy.

That's not how it works, trust me. Oral exams, comps, dissertation, political maneuvering . . . Academia is an interesting place.

Anyhow, I think you missed the point (more likely, I failed to make it clear): I mean that it is easy for someone to use scientific methods to believe that they have proven the existence or nonexistence of god. Whether anyone has conclusively done so, or ever will, is certainly in question. What I was doing, in truth, was giving a facile answer to the too-easy remark you made, about the impossibility of proving or disproving god. You baldly stated that it is impossible, and so I baldly replied with the opposite easy answer to show the insufficiency of simply making such a statement. (See, you stated that it couldn't be done, but gave no reason to believe that it cannot be done. So I stated that it can be done, in answer, mostly to make the point that making a statement doesn't make that statement true.)

It would be easy to prove scientifically that God -- or a very extraordinary being, anyway -- exists, if god's hand showed up to pluck our riverman from the water and that hand was recorded on radar, seen and measured and examined by others, and so forth. But he's presumably too busy with other matters to be kowtowing to anyone's wish for solid proof. The nerve. . .

It would also be perfectly feasible not to believe in god -- and certainly in particular type or conceptss of god -- based on current scientific knowledge and the observed universe. It is even possible to hold that no god exists even if there are unanswered questions that others may think imply the possibility of a god (such as your Big Bang example). I hold that evolutionary theory is true, even though we don't yet understand every mechanism involved in evolution. That we are still studying the subject doesn't make me believe that it's any more likely that God is somewhere in there tinkering with the genome.

I think the point is that people of faith are doing something hard; really believing a thing despite the lack of, or in the face of, evidence. And some folks believe that having that faith is precisely what's required for salvation, or happiness, and so forth. It's hard to maintain on a day-to-day basis, what with misery and pain and sadness and contradictory scientific opinion, etc., in ready supply. Any use of the word "faith" to describe something as simple as a disagreement -- that if one person holds a particular view, that any other person's well-founded belief means that both parties are acting on faith -- cheapens that difficult thing, and confuses its definition so much that the word doesn't come to mean much.

I'm not a believer (could you guess?), don't believe there is a god, but respect the difficult task believers have in remaining faithful in a world that causes them to question that faith all the time. I also respect those who look at the world as it is, conclude that there is no god based on solid evidence, and choose to live without the solace of what they see as a false belief. So I just don't like to see the word "faith" misused; it cheapens its meaning in the first case, and is misapplied in the second. That's all.

Science is a way of modeling the universe we see around us and predicting it's behavior. It's very good at that. But proving how the universe and everything in it got here in the first place is beyond the bounds of science as we know it.

Different debate, but I'm not sure your last sentence is true. We haven't done it yet, is all. It may be done, someday. It's certainly fun, and highly interesting, to try!

Off to bed, where I will try not to think of Dancing Shatners (great name for a band, wot?).

[Marko]

not sure if this has been said or is relevent, but assuming there is a god,and it is outside the universe, either
1. it interacts with the universe physically, and is therefore detectible, or
2. it does not interact with the universe, and is therefore irrelevent

if 1, then it is provable. however this hits a snag if you believe in a non-physical spirit, or soul. but if you believe that you could argue anything..

[Ridseard]

not sure if this has been said or is relevent, but assuming there is a god,and it is outside the universe, either
1. it interacts with the universe physically, and is therefore detectible, or
2. it does not interact with the universe, and is therefore irrelevent

if 1, then it is provable. however this hits a snag if you believe in a non-physical spirit, or soul. but if you believe that you could argue anything..

That reminds me of Anthony Flew's brilliant challenge to theological assertions -
http://www.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Paper%20Ass ... 20Flew.htm

[Monster]

Finally ... I disbelieve because what I've seen of life has persuaded me that God's existence is improbable,
and because I'm not aware of good reasons to think he exists. There is no leap of faith.

personally, I have faith that there is much more that we *don't* know than that we do, and I have faith that living my life in a manner that makes me feel like I'm doing the right thing, and making the *known* world a better place is the thing to do. That's a choice, based on a faith that good is preferable to evil, no matter what 'authority' may be accepted as in power.

Peace, love, and all that wonderful stuff,
annie

Most of this stuff is blah blah blah, blah blah blah,

I think Annie has hit the mark.

[Lorenzo]

Though it sounds like Aaron is rocking between agnostic and atheist, the reason why he doesn't fit agnostic is not because he's chosen to not believe, but rather I think it's because he knows (not feels) enough to assure himself that there isn't much of a contest. IOW, the evidence on one side outweighs the evidence on the other...if all the known evidence on both sides is brought together and examined in an honest, open manor.

An agnostic says the existence of God can neither be proved or disproved. An atheist does not believe in the existence of God, either as a result of choice, or by yeilding to the overwhelming evidence.

When you yield to the evidence, that's a result of simply being open-minded. By yielding, it's not a choice except you can choose to ignore the evidence and not compare it to the other evidence. It's compelling in a way that evidence to the contrary is not. To yield is to be left without a choice because of an honest acknowledgment of the facts. After acknowledging the facts and evidence, if you choose to go the other way...that would be dishonesty, or ignorance...because it just doesn't seem right, feel right, taste good, or you simply don't want it to be right so you choose to pretend the facts and evidence were, although astonishing and convincing, imagined or not consistent. There's always a way out, but no good way if you acknowledge the facts and evidence.

If a belief in God is based on stories (the Bible, etc.) that's fairly easy to discount. If the belief is based on miracles, or other paranormalities, that is not proof of the existence of God. If it could be demonstrated, it may be proof of something though. Most belief in miracles come from believing someones story, not witnessing and taping the event, or from not understanding how nature works exactly, or the difference between providence and coincidence.

There is no honest use of terms like "conclusive proof." All we can say is that the evidence is irrefutable at this time. Sure, the laws of nature may be subject to change, like magnetic North has been known to change, but the laws are generally stable enough to put some weight in them.

[energy]

Well, I'll finally jump in.

I hold that evolutionary theory is true, even though we don't yet understand every mechanism involved in evolution. That we are still studying the subject doesn't make me believe that it's any more likely that God is somewhere in there tinkering with the genome.

I would like to point out that by the definitions provided in this thread this is a form of faith.

If a belief in God is based on stories (the Bible, etc.) that's fairly easy to discount.

This implies a lot, Lorenzo. Applied, primarily what this means is that God can only be discovered through personal experience. Stated another way, it means that we cannot learn about God from the experience of others. I know of no compelling reason to believe either of these statements.

Either that, or you meant that any writing about or claiming to be about God is inherently untrue by nature, which is a huge statement that I doubt you could back up.

I haven't read the thread thoroughly, but the only evidence I saw cited against the existence of god has been the existence of the pain and suffering in the world. This, however, is based on presupposed beliefs that make assumptions about the nature of god. If god can only exist as a being all loving, caring, etc, then it's safe to say that either he doesn't exist, or is so weak as to be irrelevant.

Finally, I would like to say that if I were to believe what feels good to me, I would be a unitarian. However, I believe the evidence for Biblical Christianity very compelling. It provides a solid basis for origins. It provides an explanation of suffering.

Also, it differs in a very fundamental way from other religions in that it's focus is primarily on glorifying God, instead of saving man from suffering. Saving mankind from it's reprobate state is one of the primary methods of glorification, however, the emphasis still lies on glorification of the Perfect Creator. This whole idea points to divine revelation. It goes against the nature of man to create a god that is concerned primarily with it's own glory.

[Lorenzo]

What I mean by "story" would be the opposite of what I'd mean by personal revelation (convinced by personal experience) or a live demonstration, even with witnesses. Anyone can tell a story, such as the Greatest Story Ever Told. But, believing a story, or the account of someone who has no proof except..."you'll have to take my word for it" because it was either revealed to him from a higher source that CANNOT BE WRONG, or was told to him by someone that we all trust, who has also never been wrong...takes a leap of faith. A demonstration to the world, in a spirit of openness, and with the ability to repeat the demonstration without failure, is something entirely different than a story.

Anything written down and passed on is a story. Any experience, personal or otherwise, verbally passed on to another person is a story. It may be true and may not. The story in the Bible of the age of the earth, based on the generations listed from Adam up throught David and on to Christ, and the ages of these men as listed in scripture, can easily be disproved. Science can demonstrate that the earth is much older than the sum of the ages of these men listed in the Bible, which is approximately 6,000 years, although many churches and denominations have seen the light and completely given up this mathematical equation. Too many errors, gaps, and discord in the accounts.

And if that biblical story is wrong, based on the compelling evidence to the contrary, then the source of all stories within are held in equal suspect. It's a risky way to build beliefs...believing stories.

[herbivore12]

Well, I'll finally jump in.

I hold that evolutionary theory is true, even though we don't yet understand every mechanism involved in evolution. That we are still studying the subject doesn't make me believe that it's any more likely that God is somewhere in there tinkering with the genome.

I would like to point out that by the definitions provided in this thread this is a form of faith.

Not so. Not knowing everything about a subject doesn't mean that a person is taking any part of that subject on faith. We know very little about gravity, but nobody takes its effects on faith. Likewise, not knowing everything about how ecolution works doesn't mean that evolution is invalid, just that it's complex. What is one taking on faith, here?

Unless we're back to cheapening the word by implying that if there is any single unknown mechanism or component of any theory or scientific field, then that field, or parts of it, are faith-based. Which is silly, and an improper use of the word.

[lixnaw]

when god made whistlers, she was only kidding

[energy]

I'm no scientist. However, I think the evidence is not as compelling as is commonly believed. First, two fairly objective sources:

http://www.carbon-dating.net/
http://www.radiometric-dating.com/

And then, a very highly biased page, with some amount of vaguely annoying sensationalism, nonetheless, it makes a lot of valid points which I think should heard.

http://evolution-facts.org/c06a.htm

I find especially amusing the results scientists get when they date rocks of a known age.

[energy]

...Not knowing everything about a subject doesn't mean that a person is taking any part of that subject on faith. We know very little about gravity, but nobody takes its effects on faith. Likewise, not knowing everything about how ecolution works doesn't mean that evolution is invalid, just that it's complex. What is one taking on faith, here?

Evolutions has no effects, so to speak, which are nearly so apparent as that of gravity. The leap which must be taken to believe that upward evolution does indeed take place is magnificent. For examples, there are no transitional fossils, except the eight or ten skulls or whatever, all of which are controversial. If evolution had taken place over billions of years, they should be finding a whole lot of transitional fossils. You have to ignore the law of entropy, which is observed science, in favor of evolution, which has not been observed. Scientists don't know how any of the mechanisms necessary for evolution could work. There are no known instances of new genetic information spontaneously appearing. These are just a few large obstacles which must be ignored to believe in order to believe in evolution.

I'd also like to point out that in the case of entropy, this is not just a lack of knowledge of how evolution works, this is evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, stick a fork in me, I'm done. No more posting in intellectual threads for me today.

[anniemcu]

I'm no scientist. However, I think the evidence is not as compelling as is commonly believed. First, two fairly objective sources:

I'm glad you said "fairly" objective... although I also question the acceptance of carbon dating as irrefuable, likewise I am suspicious of an information source that takes an opposite and just as questionable stance on *faith* that *they* have the truth and answers you seek. It is a relgious site, in all actuallity. I do believe in questioning - both sides.

And then, a very highly biased page, with some amount of vaguely annoying sensationalism, nonetheless, it makes a lot of valid points which I think should heard.

I find especially amusing the results scientists get when they date rocks of a known age.

The idea that impresses me most is that we can continue to look for answers and continue to learn, but *only* if we are willing to accept that our answers may be wrong. Theories should continue to be presented as such, not arbitrarily converted to "proofs".

[Sunnywindo]

Science is interesting in that respect. It's not always permanent cut and dry. As we learn more, scientific views change. Once, mankind would have sworn on their lives that the earth was flat. As humans grew in knowledge, this proved to be incorrect.

Some things we can look at with solid assurance scientifically. Add chemical X to chemical Y and you get Z. Apple falls off a tree and lands on the ground below because of the effects of gravity. But not all is so certain as of yet that in the scientific world. There is still so much that we don't know. I was just reading an article about what shape the universe is... I have read serveral articles regarding the same topic over the past few years and each said a different thing. Science has said before that XYZ can't be true because of ABC... and then down the road they stumble across new evidence showing that XYZ was true all along. We have our theories, our assumptions, our educated best guesses... but we still have yet to know for certain with a great many things. Today's scientific "fact" could just as well be disproven with tomorrow's new scientific "discovery".

And a quote from the article that Ridseard called "Anthony Flew's brilliant challenge to theological assertions."

‘Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?’

Basically in the story given, the writer compared the mysterious gardener within to God.

Sorry, but not everyone who believes in God views God as some elusive, intangible, invisible, spirit like, everywhere but no where type being.

Sara