Deism

[bright eyed]

my daughter asked me what god was - i told her "if you take all the love in the whole world and put it together that is what god is"

she seemed to understand that...

one basic idea that makes sense to me is that energy doesn't disappear, it just changes, so when one dies, why would we assume our energy just ends? it must transform/transfer? - to what is up for debate...

 

[twaddle]

one basic idea that makes sense to me is that energy doesn't disappear, it just changes, so when one dies, why would we assume our energy just ends? it must transform/transfer? - to what is up for debate...

Fertilizer isn't good enough for you?

I admit that I put a little reincarnation spin on it for my kid since most of us don't aspire to become fertilizer. I tell her she might become part of a plant, a bird, a cat, etc. She seems to like the idea....

 

[bright eyed]

yes, that's a good one - but perhaps only explains the exchange of energy for our physical bodies - but the rest of the "energy" we have gotsta to somewhere... since stars are big balls of energy, i like to think one day i could become one - or part of one!

 

[haha]

The "good news" (gospel!) is that humanity is inexorably moving away from theology and that we, as a species, now largely agree that there are natural explanations for most things (fire, gravity, weather, etc) and that we are in charge of our individual and collective welfare. .

Are you kidding? The biggest news of the past half century has been the unexpected rise of fundamentalism of all stripes. Even Europe is getting a good taste of it thanks to immigration.

Also, inexorable is a boomerang word. Few things appear to be inexorable other than maybe a rock falling to lower ground once it has been dislodged.

Ha

 

[RetireeRobert]

Love, greed, hate are "forces" only in the figurative sense. They are emotions. I believe that if there were no animals, there would be nothing that we call "love" in the universe (and I say "animals" rather than "humans" because it's possible that many of the things higher animals feel may come very close to human emotions. Elephants cry, and chimps murder each other in rages that look an awful lot like human hate).

I believe in lots of things that cannot be adequately defined or described. Beauty, pornography, the taste of a potato chip--none of these things could be described adequately to an individual who had never experienced them directly. But, I don't think these things are physical forces, and I don't believe they created the universe...........

So, we have some common ground. We both believe in things unseen. From the above I take it you *do* believe love, hate, etc, exist. They are *real*. I also do not think of love as a physical force, but I do think of it as a force that can effect changes to those it operates on, and through them can change the world we live in, as well as the way we interact with each other. Another way of putting my understanding: love affects what we do, and what we do not do, for and to each other. This is how I understand love as a "force".

Where we may disagree is on "where" or "how" we think this thing called love came to exist.

Various alternatives have been proferred to try to answer "where did matter come from, where did we come from, and where did love come from". I personally was stumped by "where did the *first* matter come from, and how did that matter *first* become life, and why is that life affected by *love*. Not having been raised in a religious household, I had no preconceived explanations.

To make a long-story short, after searching, I myself found Christianity answered those questions more satisfyingly than other explanations.

But I am no theologian, and it is all a Great Mystery.

 

[haha]

Various alternatives have been proferred to try to answer "where did matter come from, where did we come from, and where did love come from". I personally was stumped by "where did the *first* matter come from,

My best guess would be China.

Ha

 

[twaddle]

To make a long-story short, after searching, I myself found Christianity answered those questions more satisfyingly than other explanations.

What I find intriguing is that all of us seem to search for an answer. We *need* to make sense of the world.

Which makes a lot of sense if you believe that we are preprogrammed pattern-matching/prediction engines, like I do.

 

[ERD50]

To make a long-story short, after searching, I myself found Christianity answered those questions more satisfyingly than other explanations.

What I find intriguing is that all of us seem to search for an answer. We *need* to make sense of the world.

Interesting. Despite the fact that I'll debate just about anything at the drop of a hat, I decided long ago that I would not 'debate' anyone on their spiritual beliefs (unless they wanted to, or tried to convert me ). So I agree with Twaddle - we all seem to need something to make sense out of this mystery. So whatever works for an individual is what works.

I think 'love' is just evolution. If a mammalian mother did not 'love' her offspring enough to share her milk, and keep them warm, they would die. So DNA w/o enough 'love' in it didn't get passed on as often. Pretty romantic stuff, huh?

More of a mystery to me is my 'love' of music, and how moved I can be by it. Another recent Science Friday interview discussed this. The guy said that music is universal to all human cultures, yet scientists can't really pin down what it's purpose is.


-ERD50

 

[twaddle]

More of a mystery to me is my 'love' of music, and how moved I can be by it.

Music has been the most interesting mystery to me, too. There's a pretty good theory here:

Amazon.com: The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body: Books: Steven Mithen

 

[bright eyed]

More of a mystery to me is my 'love' of music, and how moved I can be by it. Another recent Science Friday interview discussed this. The guy said that music is universal to all human cultures, yet scientists can't really pin down what it's purpose is.


-ERD50

Aren't the happy feelings purpose enough? Or does it help the scientist in you to say, the purpose of music is to "produce endorphins" which reduce stress, relieve anxiety and relax the heart rate? causes you to smile? Life can be challenging, the music, beautiful sunsets, etc help make it balanced.

 

[RetireeRobert]

I think 'love' is just evolution. If a mammalian mother did not 'love' her offspring enough to share her milk, and keep them warm, they would die. So DNA w/o enough 'love' in it didn't get passed on as often. Pretty romantic stuff, huh?
-ERD50

One thing that leaves this type of explanation lacking for me is that it does not answer satisfyingly my question, "where did the *first* mammal come from". It had no "love" from its mother to get pased on to it.

 

[RetireeRobert]

More of a mystery to me is my 'love' of music, and how moved I can be by it. Another recent Science Friday interview discussed this. The guy said that music is universal to all human cultures, yet scientists can't really pin down what it's purpose is.-ERD50

Music Produces A Kind Of Pleasure Which Human Nature Cannot Do Without---Confucious

 

[twaddle]

Aren't the happy feelings purpose enough? Or does it help the scientist in you to say, the purpose of music is to "produce endorphins" which reduce stress, relieve anxiety and relax the heart rate? causes you to smile? Life can be challenging, the music, beautiful sunsets, etc help make it balanced.

Here's where I get a bit elitist.

Everybody can enjoy music or a film based on the emotions you experience.

Some people can also enjoy it by thinking about the artistic techniques or influences.

And I can enjoy it on another level: how my evolutionary strings are being plucked. To me, that may be the most satisfying enjoyment of all.

 

[ERD50]

Aren't the happy feelings purpose enough?

For the most part - yes. But then I get thinking about the 'why' - not to the exclusion of the enjoyment, sometimes as part of it.

Yesterday I was XC skiing in the forest preserve. I found myself with those 'happy feelings' as I paused and looked at the sun shining through the snow and ice covered trees and looking at the frozen lake and the deer. Then I wondered, 'why would some frozen water on a tree branch evoke emotion in me?'. But I spent a lot more time just 'feeling happy'.

I also realized, that if I was back at work, I'd be stuck in some boring counter-productive meeting, ingesting as much caffeine as I could and propping up my eyelids with toothpicks to make it through the power point presentation. More 'happy feelings'. But no doubt as to the 'why'!

One thing that leaves this type of explanation lacking for me is that it does not answer satisfyingly my question, "where did the *first* mammal come from". It had no "love" from its mother to get pased on to it.

There is much to evolution that I don't understand. Maybe someday I'll try to bone up on it. Maybe the first mammals survived w/o love, but just a few of them. Those *with* love flourished, and became dominant?

-ERD50

 

[twaddle]

One thing that leaves this type of explanation lacking for me is that it does not answer satisfyingly my question, "where did the *first* mammal come from". It had no "love" from its mother to get pased on to it.

You've noticed that all mammals are made from cells, so to me the more interesting question is how was the first cellular animal created and how did they get together to make more complex systems.

There are theories, but I won't spoil it for you since I get a big kick just thinking about such things.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

both god belief and big bang acknowledge human endeavor but incapacity to comprehend infinity.

YouTube - Hedwig - Origin of Love

 

[samclem]

You've noticed that all mammals are made from cells, so to me the more interesting question is how was the first cellular animal created and how did they get together to make more complex systems.

There are theories, but I won't spoil it for you since I get a big kick just thinking about such things.

Not a scientific tome, but a good layman's book on the origin of things (and how we came to know them, which is even more interesting to me) is Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything." Bryson is not a scientist and it shows, but he is a good writer, and that shows. too.

Amazon.com: A Short History of Nearly Everything: Books: Bill Bryson

 

[RetireeRobert]

There is much to evolution that I don't understand. Maybe someday I'll try to bone up on it. Maybe the first mammals survived w/o love, but just a few of them. Those *with* love flourished, and became dominant?-ERD50

Your last sentence with the question mark------in other words, one has to make a "leap of faith" to do away with the question mark and accept that explanation.

Confronted with "leaps of faith", I find the leap of faith in Christianity both more intellectually and emotionally satisfying than other "answers". At times I even find it raising the questions for me and then giving me the answers, all in one fell swoop. In short, it makes sense to me, on multiple levels.

Or, in the face of uncertainty, one can always consider Pascal's (no intellectual slouch by any means) thoughts on how to make a decision on what to believe. His proposition: If he believes in God and is wrong, what does he lose? Or if he does not believe in God and is right, what does he gain? If one finds no compelling reasons to believe one way or the other, the odds in this wager make it easier to decide.

 

[Cantuar]

Your last sentence with the question mark------in other words, one has to make a "leap of faith" to do away with the question mark and accept that explanation.

Confronted with "leaps of faith", I find the leap of faith in Christianity both more intellectually and emotionally satisfying than other "answers". At times I even find it raising the questions for me and then giving me the answers, all in one fell swoop. In short, it makes sense to me, on multiple levels.

Are you saying that answers based on natural processes are incompatible with answers based on the Christian faith?

Or, in the face of uncertainty, one can always consider Pascal's (no intellectual slouch by any means) thoughts on how to make a decision on what to believe. His proposition: If he believes in God and is wrong, what does he lose?

Depends if he picks the wrong god to believe in. Some of these gods are pretty unforgiving.

Or if he does not believe in God and is right, what does he gain? If one finds no compelling reasons to believe one way or the other, the odds in this wager make it easier to decide.

God the insurance policy? Doesn't sound all that appealing. And from hearing some people's accounts of their deconversions, it seemed that they felt, looking back on their lives as Christians, that they'd lost a great deal by following that lifestyle.

 

[Cantuar]

One thing that leaves this type of explanation lacking for me is that it does not answer satisfyingly my question, "where did the *first* mammal come from". It had no "love" from its mother to get pased on to it.

And "Goddidit" is a satisfying answer?

 

[ERD50]

Your last sentence with the question mark------in other words, one has to make a "leap of faith" to do away with the question mark and accept that explanation.

Ummm, no. You took my reply way too literally.

Since I opened it by essentially saying 'I'm no expert', I just casually offered that up as a possible scenario. The definitive answer may be available with some googling, or maybe not. At the present time, I'm not motivated to research it, I've got enough on my plate for an old retired guy

LG4NB made a valid observation:

both god belief and big bang acknowledge human endeavor but incapacity to comprehend infinity.

I don't think we can comprehend all of it at the present time, maybe never - like the song lyrics above - it is a mystery. So there will be a leap of faith somewhere along the line for all of us. Right now, scientists and the Big Bang story sounds better to me than the creator story, but as I said earlier - no debate from me, whatever works for you in dealing with this mystery is fine by me.

I will comment on the Pascal argument - I find it tough to accept that any creator with such powers would accept someone that said 'I believe', only because they thought it was a 'slam-dunk' over 'not believing'. That does not sound like 'true belief' to me, only fear.

If a slave is afraid of the consequences of killing his cruel master, because he might get 'caught', is it fair to say he 'loves' his master?

If there is a creator, I suspect they'd be able to see through that one. I also suspect that they would be 'proud' that I am trying to use the brain they gave me to contemplate this stuff.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Your last sentence with the question mark------in other words, one has to make a "leap of faith" to do away with the question mark and accept that explanation.

Confronted with "leaps of faith", I find the leap of faith in Christianity both more intellectually and emotionally satisfying than other "answers".

I'll give you a much simpler example. When my wife turns on the TV, she has absolutely no clue how or why it works. She could not begin to explain electromagnetic wave energy, frequency spectrums, High-Q circuits, phosphorescence, digital comb filters etc.

So therefore, the most satisfying answer is 'genies make my TV work'?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I'll give another simple example:

200 years ago, there were many, many things that humans did not understand (germs for example). So we could say the effects of these things are due to some 'force', 'creator', or whatever.

So later, as we learn, the 'force' and 'creator' theories fall by the wayside. They just were not correct. They get replaced with knowledge.

So how do we know that the things we don't understand today, that some people want to attribute to 'faith' are not simply... things we don't understand today?

ooooops, am I 'debating'? -ERD50

 

[samclem]

FWIW, I never have the type of discussion we are having here in person, with people I know. It's because it isn't possible, and because I feel I shouldn't.

"Not Possible" because of the heat generated in an in-person discussion. It gets 'warm" here on the board, but things soon get emotional across a kitchen table or elsewhere.

"I shouldn't" because:
1) The schism in the relationship that can result from a discussion of this type can cut across other aspects of the relationship. My friendships are too important to put at risk for this one thing. Yes, I think it's very important, it impacts everything else in one's life, but it certainly is possible t just ignore this "thing" and have a wonderful friendship.

2) No one's mind gets changed. World views are so deeply rooted in adults that virtually no one re-examines the faith, even (or especially) if they just inherited from their parents.

3) Some people really lean on their faith a lot, and seem to get comfort from it. I'm not sure how they'd react to losing that faith, and I'm not sure it would be totally healthy. Okay, so I think it's delusional, what of it? Lots of people have delusions about lots of things, and it doesn't hurt anybody.

As long as they don't start proselytizing--if they do, then the gloves come off.

So, while I believe my friends would probably be happier if they were superstition-free, and I'm virtually certain that the world would be better off without the "certainty" and strife that spirit-belief brings, as a practical matter I don't have these discussions in person. It's nice that we have a board like this where even religion can be discussed as long as we all play nicely with each other.

 

[twaddle]

Obviously, nobody will change their beliefs based on this thread, but I'm always curious about how others try to understand the universe.

I really have no idea what RR means what he talks about god. The love force, maybe?

So, let's assume that religions have good intentions. The idea is to create a framework that encourages us to get along better with our fellow man. Clearly that hasn't worked out perfectly, but the idea of brotherly love has helped some people in need.

What's sort of interesting to me is that science doesn't require one to accept anything as gospel. It's just a framework for understanding the universe, and scientific theories are constantly revised and improved.

But a side-effect of some of these theories is an understanding of human behavior and a deep appreciation for how connected we are to each other and to the rest of the universe. For me, the idea that we're all very similar is a powerful motivation to love my fellow man. He is motiviated by the same things I am, like providing for family. He shares the same fears and joys. That means I can largely understand him, regardless of cultural differences, and I certainly wouldn't want to harm him and will naturally treat him as I myself would want to be treated.

I've often said that the atheists I know are some of the most moral people I know. I don't think that's an accident.