Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[edge100]

I do believe this thread just got owned

Just trying to gain an honest appreciation of the thought process that goes into deciding to follow a particular religion and not another. Is this based on any particular thing? The only thing I can imagine is that people, if they really do make that choice at all, make it based on the feeling that a particular religion imparts in them (a sense of community, or a desire to do good, or whatever the case may be).

And that type of thing isn't harmful at all, really, but it IS beside the point of whether there is or isn't a god. I truly think that people should be free to think and feel what they want. But as we all observe, religious belief frequently extends well beyond this, and the way we treat one another is often highly dependent upon what we believe about god. That is what I find unacceptable.

If we accept that what we believe (as opposed to what we know) is often a product of circumstance, and if we consider that the beliefs of others are governed by the same factors, then to me the only logical conclusion is that any one belief is as valid as any other, in the absence of any corroborating evidence to the contrary. We quickly come to the conclusion that while belief may help us deal with the death of our family members, or may inspire us to be charitable, or whatever, it does exactly the same thing for those who believe entirely different things.

[BoimB son of BoB]

did you know that deeply religious people tend to have some malfunction in the brain... or more correct: overreactivity in a certain region of the brain...something to do with dreaming and halucinations ...

seriously... wish i had a reference for that somewhere...

[Machinesworking]

Funny thing about this thread to me is in real life, I for one have no problems avoiding nasty arguments with religious friends. After an initial clash of fundamental beliefs, we tend to spend most of the conversation when religion, or ethics etc. come up on what we have in common, not our differences.
For the record I'll be happy if religion and science can be separated entirely, as well as church and state. Beyond that I don't see a large shift in human intelligence on this matter, people need to believe in things they cannot prove.
I'm not sure if it's a hold over from the childhood concepts of Santa, and unicorns etc. but I personally believe it is. Too many times when debating christians etc. in real life does it come down to lack of faith seeming "empty"....? As if the secular world is devoid of art, creativity and mystery?

[edge100]

did you know that deeply religious people tend to have some malfunction in the brain... or more correct: overreactivity in a certain region of the brain...something to do with dreaming and halucinations ...

seriously... wish i had a reference for that somewhere...

I would be cautious in using the word 'malfunction', since we know very little about the 'normal' function of the brain. Consider a disease like cystic fibrosis or sickle-cell anemia, which is caused by the 'abnormal' function of a specific gene (CFTR and Beta-globin, respectively). With respect to what the protein should be doing, the function is 'abnormal'. However, a defective CFTR protein reduces water loss during cholera infection, resulting in BETTER than normal survival. Similarly, a defective Beta-globin reduces the ability of the malaria parasite to live inside red blood cells, thus providing BETTER than normal survival from malaria (an incredibly lethal, largely preventable disease).

The point is, 'malfunction' and 'abnormal' are relative terms, which should be used sparingly.

[djadonis206]

I read your argument and it's good but your argument like so many other peoples views of faith are based on individual religions - and the rules of those religions

you don't have to be religious to believe in god - meaning you can believe ina greater power than yourself without belonging to any organized religion like catholosim or judaism

which means you can have your own views of homosexuals, women wearing pants and working on sundays (which is more of a union thing than a god thing from my understanding)

I don't belong to any particular religion even though I went to catholic school, my family is southern baptist and I had to attend pentacostal church at times growing up - me and my old lady attended a methodist church for a minute but didn't like it

I don't go to church now because no one church has my belief in god in mind 100%

so where does that leave me? I believe in evolution (the reason as to how not why) and I enjoy good hard facts and proofs (I enjoy studying logic and math - I'm a programming major) but I also believe, especially when I go hiking or to the beach here in washingtton that there's something much much much greater going on that no human being can explain. I've prayed to god and my prayers have been answered. When I see truely talented individuals gove praise to god it just strengthens my faith in a power greater than myself.

do I think there's a heaven or hell, no - you die and you die

do I think abortion and homosexuality are the works of the devil - well of course I do (doh!) <-- who wouldn't...

[djadonis206]

do I think abortion and homosexuality are the works of the devil - well of course I do (doh!) <-- who wouldn't...

You do now that's a joke right...

[edge100]

For the record I'll be happy if religion and science can be separated entirely, as well as church and state. Beyond that I don't see a large shift in human intelligence on this matter, people need to believe in things they cannot prove.

Gould's theory of "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), that science and religion operate in different, mutally independent realms, is, however politically correct it may seem, utter nonsense, when you really break it down.

Whether there is or isn't a god is, strictly speaking, a scientific question: it is either true, or it isn't. We may not currently possess the tools to obtain the data necessary to answer the question, but the question does, in a literal sense, have an answer. This means that science is NOT independent of religion at all.

Moreover, religion very frequently makes specific, literal predictions about the natural world. For instance, one particular religion states, as a basic tenet of its belief system, that human beings can be born spontaneously without the need of paternal DNA (or at least, of DNA from two parents). A sect of this religion expressly states that it is possible to literally turn wine and bread into human blood and flesh. These are, in my opinion, very specific statements about physiology and the natural world. In that sense, religion very clearly protrudes into the domain of science, in that these propositions are clearly testable by empirical means.

NOMA is a myth, developed to allow us all to get along better with one another. That's admirable as a goal, but immensely flawed if we are at all interested in conducting ourselves within THIS universe according to its basic, observable laws. Theology teaches us nothing about the universe that science cannot (the history of religion, if you consider that theology, is the lone exception I can think of), because theology isn't based on anything but belief. It may teach us how to believe, or what to believe, but as I've established, belief in something is relative, and others hold equally powerful, yet mutally incompatible beliefs. THIS universe cannot literally, it would appear, be two (or, more appropriately, infinite) things at once.

[edge100]

I read your argument and it's good but your argument like so many other peoples views of faith are based on individual religions - and the rules of those religions

Absolutely correct. I'm not speaking to all people of faith. Einstein had faith in a higher power, but expressly rejected the idea of a personal god. People that do not do likewise represent my intended audience.

you don't have to be religious to believe in god - meaning you can believe ina greater power than yourself without belonging to any organized religion like catholosim or judaism

Absolutely true. What I have asked for, earlier in this thread, is a precise definition of god, which can be used for a discussion with individuals. Of course people define 'god' in different ways.

which means you can have your own views of homosexuals, women wearing pants and working on sundays (which is more of a union thing than a god thing from my understanding)

Agree, 100%, except the bit about Sunday. Read the 10 commandments, which were written by the hand of god himself (I use the masculin only in accordance with the original text). The debate isn't about whether the Sabbath should be "kept holy", but only what DAY the Sabbath is.

so where does that leave me? I believe in evolution (the reason as to how not why) and I enjoy good hard facts and proofs (I enjoy studying logic and math - I'm a programming major) but I also believe, especially when I go hiking or to the beach here in washingtton that there's something much much much greater going on that no human being can explain.

Fair enough. I have no argument with THIS definition. And your belief in what you can observe (and models that are based on what is observable) is exactly in line with mine.

I've prayed to god and my prayers have been answered. When I see truely talented individuals gove praise to god it just strengthens my faith in a power greater than myself.

People have prayed to god for thousands of years before Yahweh, and had their prayers "answered". Of course, as I pointed out in my post about how human beings TOTALLY misinterpret the idea of "chance", your "answered" prayers were likely just the result of circumstance. There have been double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials that have evaluated the effect of prayer, and the results are unequivocal: praying does not bias your odds of improved health (for example) in any observable way. If it makes YOU feel better, then go for it.

do I think there's a heaven or hell, no - you die and you die

do I think abortion and homosexuality are the works of the devil - well of course I do (doh!) <-- who wouldn't...

I trust that your last two statements are simply sarcasm.

I would still like to hear your definitive definition of god. Then, and only then, will we able to define the real points of contention between us. I don't want to put words in your mouth. So, I'll paraphrase my own question from a few pages ago:

What is god?

[djadonis206]

What is god?

well he's not some black guy sitting on some throne way up in the sky

my definition of god is the spirit behind the wind, the sky, the moon, the stars, blue clovers and all that shit...you know, like the wind blowing thorugh the air <-- neither which we can actaully see but we can feel it, we can hear it and we just know it's there

god is also the answer to why - why man can do this and why man can't do that...

human beings are like the most unique creature in our immedaite universe and it's pretty mind blowing ot me how can we even exist - who put all those things in place for us to evolve - or are we just freak accidents of nature --- seems to much of random universal coincedence to create such a complex creature for no reason -

the spirit behind all that

[edge100]

my definition of god is the spirit behind the wind, the sky, the moon, the stars, blue clovers and all that shit...you know, like the wind blowing thorugh the air <-- neither which we can actaully see but we can feel it, we can hear it and we just know it's there

I agree with the sense of what you're saying. Keep in mind, however, that "seeing" something is not the only way of "detecting" something. Do blind people know that cars exist?

But that notwithstanding, it would appear that your definition of god is completely compatible with what I'm saying, and in that sense, what I've been posting isn't relevant to you. I agree that there is a higher power, which may simply be the laws of nature.

And suddenly, I've got a hankerin' for some Froot Loops!

god is also the answer to why - why man can do this and why man can't do that...

I would say that based on your definition, god is why the universe is what it is. The fact that man can or cannot do things seems to be a consequence of that, rather than a deliberate choice.

human beings are like the most unique creature in our immedaite universe and it's pretty mind blowing ot me how can we even exist

Yes, but are we complex in any absolute way? Complexity is a relative term, and relative to many organisms, we are complex. But where do we rank in terms of absolute complexity? Meaning, is it possible that we rank in the bottom 5% of POSSIBLE complexity? We have no basis for comparison, so we only know we are complex RELATIVE to earthly creatures, but not in any absolute sense. It seems that most people fail to make this distinction.

who put all those things in place for us to evolve - or are we just freak accidents of nature --- seems to much of random universal coincedence to create such a complex creature for no reason -

Evolution isn't based on random chance (or coincidence, to use your word), no matter what you may have heard. It is based on natural selection. The only thing we have to "assume" for evolution to be valid is that there are certain developments in chemical and biological structure that, on average, increase the likelihood of reproducing. If you reduce that to first principles, we can assert that amino acids, which are nothing more than specific arrangements of predominantly carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen atoms, can form proteins, which, when the amino acids are arranged properly, have function. The possibility of forming any specific amino acid chain is as likely as any other, but only those that form "useful" chains increase the utility of the amino acids. When proteins begin to "do" things, life ensues (this discussion is obviously more complex than this, but I only have limited time).

The point is, don't confuse 'evolution' with 'chance'. Natural selection is fueled by OBSERVABLE differences between organisms, some of which make it more likely for one organism to pass on its genes to the next generation, thus increasing the frequency of specific genes relative to another set of specific genes (specific alleles, really). Chance isn't involved; DNA mutations (the ultimate 'prime mover' of evolutionary change) happen all the time. The whole thing follows very specific rules, in fact.

[djadonis206]

The whole thing follows very specific rules, in fact.

Someone or something has to make the rules right?

[Tone Deft]

Question - If pictures if Muhommad are forbidden, how does anyone know what he looks like to make a picture of him?



I read the ableton manual, checked the tips and tricks sticky and couldn't find anything about this.

[djadonis206]

Question - If pictures if Muhommad are forbidden, how does anyone know what he looks like to make a picture of him?



I read the ableton manual, checked the tips and tricks sticky and couldn't find anything about this.

it's about faith

[ethios4]

[quote="edge100"]THIS universe cannot literally, it would appear, be two (or, more appropriately, infinite) things at once.[/qoute]
edge100, I like the way you think. The law of non-contraidction is one of the fundamental laws of logic....A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same way. That law alone is a tremendous guide on the path to truth.

I think you're not being fair to theology to say that it is based on feeling, and has no basis in logic, or that all religions are equally likely to be true. For me, my beliefs are very much based on rational thought and logical process....I wouldn't believe what I do if it had not been tested logically. Religions can be compared on the basis of logic, and honest logical examinations reveals deep flaws in nearly every one. That, to me, would be a good basis for deciding to go with one religion or the other.

Religions can also point to truths that transcend logic - paradoxes that are super-rational, rather than irrational contradictions....when A appears to be non-A. Going back to Gandhi - how could you logically arrive at the conclusion that unearned suffering on a mass scale has the potential to change hearts, and thus effect profound political and social change? Science can also point to paradoxes, such as those brought up by quantum mechanics, but it's interesting the directions scientists go to explain what that means from a human standpoint (consciousness creates the universe? reality doesn't exist? no free will?)

I just think that rationalism can only get you so far...ultimately, no matter what you believe, there is some element of the unknown that directly affects your day-to-day life, and you make choices without knowing everything you'd like to KNOW beforehand, based on what you believe to be true - ie, faith. Before the war in Iraq began, the US government made some claims about things that were going on in Iraq. No one KNEW if those things were true, but I believed they were not true, and I was vocal with everyone I knew about it. It turns out I was probably right - I based my beliefs on good evidence - but I did not KNOW I was right, in the same sense as I would know that tomorrow is Friday. Now we're paying the price collectively because we did not collectively believe the government was wrong. It's not punishment, its just the consequences of collectively turning our backs on the truth.

[Tone Deft]

Question - If pictures if Muhommad are forbidden, how does anyone know what he looks like to make a picture of him?

I read the ableton manual, checked the tips and tricks sticky and couldn't find anything about this.

it's about faith

Faith was so gay, who could be suprised he'd come out of the closet?


I guess if I had listened more I'd understand the world's religions better.