Religious Question

[wastepanel]

I managed to get into a discussion on another thread in this forum about the possiblity of God/a creator/deity. I personally think that something is out there. I believe in evolution, cosmology, biology, etc. to explain the course our universe has taken to get us to where we are today. I'm not a bible-thumper, and I think science is wonderful and accurate in its portrail of the ever changing universe. But I do believe there is a God.

So I guess my questions to the members of this organization are:

(1) Do you believe in a deity?

(2) If so, why? If not, why?

(3) If there is no litmus test to prove our points of view on this subject, why does one side (either the religious or the scientist) argue so adimately on their position?

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

All my life I've been surrounded by very devout people. Theism has always been the unquestioned norm in the communities where I've lived. I grew up going to church, and still attend with my own family.

I don't have a horror story about my religious background that turned me away from theism -- it just never 'took' with me, despite my complete cultural immersion. I've simply never been compelled to invoke God in answer to any questions I've ever pondered about "Life, the Universe, and Everything."

Even questions about consciousness, emotion, "purpose," and all those intangibles that seem to get people into such a twist -- I'm perfectly satisfied with a naturalist approach to these issues. Do I love my children less because I understand that this emotion may be an inherited trait that encourages the survival of my species?

 

[CurtC]

I believe in evolution, cosmology, biology, etc. to explain the course our universe has taken to get us to where we are today.

So what, exactly, do you think this god does? Most religious people have the view that all those things are the result of god's creation, but since you don't, the role for this god that you think probably exists, is pretty limited, wouldn't you say?

I don't believe in god because:

1. Science has explained how we could get here naturalistically.

2. The question science hasn't explained is why the universe happened - why it exists instead of not existing. Many people use god for this, but then the question just becomes one of where god came from.

3. The religions of the world are obviously incorrect, and just a bunch of old legends told around campfires, until writing was invented, at which point the legends were documented and quit evolving.

There's just no reason to believe in god.

 

[Donks]

(1) Do you believe in a deity?

No.

(2) If so, why? If not, why?

Because I see no evidence for one.

(3) If there is no litmus test to prove our points of view on this subject, why does one side (either the religious or the scientist) argue so adimately on their position?

One note, the sides are not religious versus science. There are plenty of scientists who have religious beliefs. I'm not even sure there are only two sides. And... you'll have to wait for someone who activel argues about that.

 

[wastepanel]

Re: Re: Religious Question

So what, exactly, do you think this god does? Most religious people have the view that all those things are the result of god's creation, but since you don't, the role for this god that you think probably exists, is pretty limited, wouldn't you say?

I believe in God and science. I believe there are rules to nature, and that the universe is set to those rules. Science does explain how everything evolved from a speck of density, but it doesn't explain where that speck came from. And, believe me, I do wonder the answers to questions such as "How has God always been there?" or "What happened to jumpstart the universe expanding into what it is today?". I'm not looking to get into a "I believe in God, why don't you?" argument. I'm just curious. I'm a newbie here and curious about the views of the members here.

EDIT: I am naturalistic in how the universe has progressed. It just amazes me that, without proper guidance, that it could produce all of the stars, planets, dark material, and life. I also question the existance of life in this scenerio because of the vast complications involved to create a free-thinking organism.

 

[Bronze Dog]

(1) I don't believe, pretty much because (2) I don't see the necessity of a deity:

Scientifically, there's nothing I'm aware of that needs a goddidit explanation.

Emotionally, I'm quite fine with not having a giant babysitter. I'm actually emotionally biased against believing in a deity: I'd rather pursue my own goals, rather than some invisible man's. I also dislike one-sided dependence.

Morally, I see no problem with atheism: It's essentially cutting out the middle man: Rather than valuing love and peace because some invisible man does on an arbitrary basis, I value love and peace because I arbitrarily value love and peace. (Yes, it's irrational, but that's how I see all motivations.) Who gives a flying [flip] if they originated from the evolutionary process?

(3) I generally argue against theism because I'm a skeptic: We've got lots of existing explanations for things. If the theist wants to posit his own entity, let him come up with a way to test it while ruling out existing explanations. I tend to be relatively gentle: It's only the most vocal and lazy ones I expend energy on.

 

[wastepanel]

You raise a very good question about a "theist coming up with a test to prove it while ruling out existing possibilties". I look at it this way: Whenever you enter into a scientific experiment, one of your first steps should be to form a hypothesis. It doesn't matter if this hypothesis is correct or incorrect, the experiment should prove something to the effect. If that hypothesis is too broad, you have to narrow it down and look at all your assumptions that led you to that hypothesis, and which ones could have led you astray.

I have looked at the scientific facts regarding the progression of the universe. I have looked at it from a view without bringing theology into the discussion. But, until science answers every question, is there anything wrong to theorize that a creator exists/existed?

If there was sufficient data to prove a creator existed at the start of time, would that change your view on theology, or would it be filed away as another scientific fact. Would the fact that the creator existed change your view on theology? For example, would you lend more credence to the Bible, or begin dissecting it for innacuracies?

 

[ReFLeX]

Refer to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Which evidences for God are stronger? I see none that do not beg the question. God concepts are too diverse and evolutionary for me to accept any one's existence.

 

[phildonnia]

Supposing that
1) a supreme being is necessary for the creation:

It is bizzare to conclude that
2) this supreme being must therefore be identical to a particular modern interpretation of an ancient Hebrew god, rather than any of the thousands of other supposed entities claiming that position.

Since both of these propositions are summarized as "God exists", this is very tricky logical ground.

My own (completely unproven) beliefs:
As to 1): I don't know, and I probably never will.
As to 2): I doubt it very much.

 

[athon]

The force behind an individual's belief in a deity is emotionally based, not rationally or logically based.

For me, I feel more comfortable knowing that there is no intelligence in the universe that potentially holds sway over the events personal to me in my life. I like the fact that my 'fate' is random, that if somebody dies it has no significance other than as an emotional event in a sequence of events called 'living'. I am more comfortable with the non-existance of a personal god.

That is emotional.

In addition to this, I have no reason for this comfort to be challenged. I am never plagued by doubts in this 'faith', and have no need to be fickle in my relationship with nature. For me, decisions have a higher chance of having a predictable outcome if they are supported by evidence. I feel that this is the best way of making decisions. The lack of evidence supporting the existance of some form of divine intelligence means I don't take any form of deity into account when I make any decision.

This is reason.

By the same token, if somebody holds faith in the same way in a personal god for an emotional need, then I respect such a choice. However, should that same deity be included in a decision making process, I feel that they are limiting the predictability of any outcomes of the decision.

Athon

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

So I guess my questions to the members of this organization are:

(1) Do you believe in a deity?

(2) If so, why? If not, why?

(3) If there is no litmus test to prove our points of view on this subject, why does one side (either the religious or the scientist) argue so adimately on their position?

(1) and (2) I did about five years ago. I was a fundamentalist, but I was taken to church so often I was sick of it. That's not why I stopped believing in God though. I stopped because I saw I had no reason to.


(3) The scientist may or may not believe in God, but being scientists they see "God did it." is unacceptable. Even "God did it." as the starting of the universe. How did God do it? Why? How does God exist? Why can't the universe be its own cause if that's an acceptable answer to where God came from? Scientists are kids that grew up and still ask "Why?"

 

[Deetee]

As a person with some fairly minimal background in science, I find comprehension of some phenomena beyond my grasp - multiverses, quantum mechanics, extra dimensions. These things are beyond my day to day experience, so I don't ponder on them very much, and haven't a hope of getting a eureka-type understanding any time in the future.

In the past (and to some extent even today), phenomena that did directly affect a person's existence but seemed inexplicable (because those asking the questions lacked the scientific knowledge to do so) led them to seek supernatural explanations -for example: Why is there a drought? Why did the sun disappear? Why did my child die?

The creation of an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent deity on whom blame or praise could be heaped as appropriate is a perfectly natural response, but you must see that it is fundamentally wrong. Lack of understanding as to how something apparently incomprehensible happens does not mean something magical must have caused it. To paraphrase Dawkins (I think)- "If you don't know how something happened, don't try and work out how it did, just give up and appeal to God."

I too wonder about the big questions such as why are we here and how we got here. One cannot look at miracles like the emergence of a butterfly from its cocoon or a baby turtle struggling out of its egg without marvelling at the wonder of life, or look at a supernaova through a telescope without being stunned by the magic of the universe, and not feel that there should really be an all-embracing answer for it all. But as tempting as it may be, logic must show you it is not a valid conclusion, but merely superstition manifesting as a means to obtain a solution that you can accept. When one's brain receives information that seems inconsistent with the beliefs one holds or with natural logic, but which it consciously or subconsciously knows is true, it copes with the inconsistency by overriding the "dissonant" information. This is termed cognitive dissonance, and is a way to help people overcome these internal contradictions and continue to function and accept situations, even when there is good evidence their preconceptions are incorrect. We all have cognitive dissonane to a degree, for different things. With some it may manifest in the existence of a god, for others it may indicate vaccines cause autism.

The proposition that a deity gave origin to life the universe and everything is a common one, but as we know, popular concepts are not true by reason of their popularity, especially when there is no evidence for their existence. Why do we need to postulate the existence of a creator?

 

[wastepanel]

Supposing that
1) a supreme being is necessary for the creation:

It is bizzare to conclude that
2) this supreme being must therefore be identical to a particular modern interpretation of an ancient Hebrew god, rather than any of the thousands of other supposed entities claiming that position.

Since both of these propositions are summarized as "God exists", this is very tricky logical ground.

My own (completely unproven) beliefs:
As to 1): I don't know, and I probably never will.
As to 2): I doubt it very much.

That is a very good point. I agree that (if there was/is a creator), that the idea of what he/she/it stands for most likely has been lost throughout time. Every church will eventually split when half of its members interprets or theorizes different aspects about God. I am not saying the Christian religion is totally correct. I happen to be Christian, so I am biased in the faith.

But, I do feel that both the theists and the atheists try to convince each other of their positions using one sided argument. A theist will argue God does exist by using only "God exists" arugments. An atheist (skeptic) will try to dispove each of the theist's arguments. What I find funny is that both sides do usually attack each other with "definative answers" when neither side holds these "definative answers".

 

[wastepanel]

I appreciate all of your input on this subject. I hate to kind of do this now, but this thread also has me thinking:

(1) If ghosts were proven as existing, would they still be considered supernatural, or a natural phenomenon?

(2) As a skeptic, do you look forward to being proved wrong that supernatural events can take place, or do you thrive in proving they don't?

 

[CurtC]

I thrive in trying to promote rational thinking. As it is now, belief in these supernatural things is not rational.

To answer (1), if ghosts (i.e., consciousness without a physical brain) were proven to exist, it would be the biggest scientific discovery of this century, maybe of any century, and the study of them would no longer be considered supernatural but just natural science.

 

[Dorfl]

(1) If ghosts were proven as existing, would they still be considered supernatural, or a natural phenomenon?

If they follow some kind of (as yet undiscovered) natural laws I guess they must be considered a natural phenomenon.

(2) As a skeptic, do you look forward to being proved wrong that supernatural events can take place, or do you thrive in proving they don't?

Neither. It would be nice if supernatural things (at least some supernatural things) existed but since it seems unlikely that they do so I can't really "look forward" to seeing them proved. I don't really enjoy proving people wrong either, although it's nice to see the most absurd claims debunked.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I tend to look at the label of "supernatural" as essentially meaningless. If it exists, it'll be natural by some definition. The only use I've ever had for it is to determine whether or not it works in an antimagic field.

If I can be proven wrong about the supernatural/paranormal/whatever, I'll enjoy eating the humble pie mentioned in my sig. It would represent a previously unknown and supremely nifty field of study.

 

[wastepanel]

I tend to look at the label of "supernatural" as essentially meaningless. If it exists, it'll be natural by some definition. The only use I've ever had for it is to determine whether or not it works in an antimagic field.

If I can be proven wrong about the supernatural/paranormal/whatever, I'll enjoy eating the humble pie mentioned in my sig. It would represent a previously unknown and supremely nifty field of study.

Good answer. You see, I'm very new to the world of skepticism, and when I look at being a skeptic, I would like to be disproved. That doesn't mean I'm not going to ignore facts or question assumptions. The thought that something supernatural being proved natural is what makes me research it more. Is that a wrong assumption?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Glad you like my response. You seem to have a decent grip on what it means to be skeptical: Skepticism and the (dis)belief systems that arise from it are supposed to be easy to disprove: We only need evidence of one paranormal ability to change our minds. Contrary to what fundamentalists say, I think that's a strength: Should we bump into a piece of quality evidence that contradicts our earlier conclusions, we're capable of saying, "Oops, we were wrong," and fix any oversights.

 

[Starrman]

I am naturalistic in how the universe has progressed. It just amazes me that, without proper guidance, that it could produce all of the stars, planets, dark material, and life.

Is it any less amazing to think that there would be an intelligence out there capable of guiding such events? I find it much more unlikely and, frankly, scary that an entity might exist that can create and (presumably) destroy a universe at will.

I don't pretend to understand exactly how the electricity from my outlet is translated into the amazing things my computer does - but I don't attribute it to magic simply because of my ignorance in such matters.