My God, Your God, or No God...Oh, God...

[JB]

Change "believe" to "have faith" and I don't have a problem with that. But don't mistake that faith for a religious faith. This is a common, but invalid, argument technique.

Same technique was used by Georgia's Cobb County school disrict. The schools there pput stickers in the science textbooks which said: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

A few years later a judge ruled against the them and they removed the stickers. If the motivation was science education they could have achieved their goals by teaching what a scientific theory is. A general discussion of what a theory is would no be controversial.

 

[wabmester]

But there is a significant difference between religious faith and science.

I don't see why that has to be the case. It's not much of a stretch for me to envision a religion with science as its foundation. Unfortunately, one doesn't exist yet, but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental incompatibility.

I'm sure I'm not the only atheist on the planet that would like to have some of the benefits of a religious heritage without all of the metaphysical baggage.

 

[greg]

I believe in lots of things. Each time I take a step, I believe the ground won't disappear beneath my foot and leave me hurtling toward the center of the earth. Change "believe" to "have faith" and I don't have a problem with that. But don't mistake that faith for a religious faith. . . . Those who have religious faith shouldn't try to reconcile that faith with science. And those that pursue science should not expect to disprove what people hold on faith.

I can't make the distinctions you make. I see faith attached to many different objects and/or ideas. Some of these things may be more important or less important to one observer. And faith may be stronger or weaker, but I don't see the division that you do. OTOH:

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

It seems to me that science often uses instruments to accomplish its ends. For example, scientists use telescopes to assist with their observations. In fact, the eye(s) is an instrument used by the scientist as a tool in his or her work to discover the truth and knowledge. No? Scientists also need to verify that the instrument is used correctly and that the results of its use are correct.

So too, everything that a scientist does and uses passes thru consciousness at some point or many points in time. In a very real sense, consciousness is a tool of the scientist. (e.g. see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as a conundrum of science and a conundrum about tools.) Everything is filtered thru consciousness. So, wouldn't it be a good idea to examine it in that light? Maybe we could improve upon the product of science if we understood the instruments used in the process of discovery-- better. I'm trying to scientifically look at the instrument here, the tool of awareness or consciousness. I'm looking for evidence of how consciousness works. I look for what's in our subjectivity, or heads or minds. I don't believe looking at alpha or beta brain waves is actually looking at the instrument as it needs to be looked at. Consciousness appers to me to be a tool of the scientific method.

So, right now, on this thread, we are examining how consciousness works as a tool. If we happen to find God along the way, so be it. But either way, finding out about the instrument that observes knowledge would be important, wouldn't it? I don't see the distinctions that you see as so important quite so important. In fact, they may be an obstruction to finding knowledge and truth. If 'm wrong, in my thinking, please let me know.

--Greg

 

[Michael]

Perhaps consciousness is the sensations we experience (sight, sound, touch, etc...), plus our thoughts.

 

[sgeeeee]

I don't see why that has to be the case.   It's not much of a stretch for me to envision a religion with science as its foundation.   . .

And what do you think would distinguish that religion from science? Science is nothing more than the knowledge collected from a process. That process involves observation, hypothesis and test . . .

I don't believe that this is incompatible with establishment of personal and social values (one of the important contributions of religion). But I don't see a logical connection between them. You can observe, hypothesize and test certain things (chemical reactions, the paths of colliding objects, . . .). You can prioritize values for others (lying, cheating, stealing, . . .).

As for the existence of a "supreme being", science can neither prove nor disprove this hypothesis without the cooperation of that being. There are always things beyond the collected knowledge of science. Define this as god, and no one can argue scientifically.

What did you have in mind, wab?

 

[sgeeeee]

I can't make the distinctions you make.  I see faith attached to many different objects and/or ideas.  Some of these things may be more important or less important to one observer.  And faith may be stronger or weaker, but I don't see the division that you do.  OTOH:

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

It seems to me that science often uses instruments to accomplish its ends.  For example, scientists use telescopes to assist with their observations.  In fact, the eye(s) is an instrument used by the scientist as a tool in his or her work to discover the truth and knowledge.  No?  Scientists also need to verify that the instrument is used correctly and that the results of its use are correct. 

So too, everything that a scientist does and uses passes thru consciousness at some point or many points in time.  In a very real sense, consciousness is a tool of the scientist.  (e.g. see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as a conundrum of science and a conundrum about tools.)  Everything is filtered thru consciousness.  So, wouldn't it be a good idea to examine it in that light?  Maybe we could improve upon the product of science if we understood the instruments used in the  process of discovery-- better.  I'm trying to scientifically look at the instrument here, the tool of awareness or consciousness.  I'm looking for evidence of how consciousness works.  I look for what's in our subjectivity, or heads or minds.  I don't believe looking at alpha or beta brain waves is actually looking at the instrument as it needs to be looked at.  Consciousness appers to me to be a tool of the scientific method.

So, right now, on this thread, we are examining how consciousness works as a tool.  If we happen to find God along the way, so be it.  But either way, finding out about the instrument that observes knowledge would be important, wouldn't it?  I don't see the distinctions that you see as so important quite so important.  In fact, they may be an obstruction to finding knowledge and truth.  If 'm wrong, in my thinking, please let me know. 

--Greg

I have no idea what you're talking about.

In science, you must assume you may be wrong at all times. Hypotheses are turned to theories by a failure to prove them wrong. They remain accepted theories until they are proven wrong through test.

In religion, you assume all answers flow from the supreme being of your choice. All data is interpreted or ignored in order to conform to the assumption.

That is the difference. The processes are incompatible. You can choose to apply one process (science) to the physical world and one process (religion) to the spiritual world. But regardless of the nature and imperfections of conciousness, the two processes are contradictory.

As for consciousness . . . how can we talk about it if you won't define it?

Descartes went down this path. While he is respected for his contribution to the logic of his own existence, most modern philosophers consider his reasoning faulty when he delved into consciousness and god. The arguments have been analyzed in detail by philosophers and college philosophy classes throughout the world.

 

[azanon]

I think it's mistaken to apply logical reasoning to religion.  Christianity is governed by faith, not logic.  Faith has no place in science.

That's exactly my point.   Faith isn't logical.  So why have it?   (logical is basically synonymous with rational).   

People make every decision in this world using rational, logical thought but make an exception when it comes to God?   Why make that exception?  Because reality suggets that you wont get to live forever?  Well cry me a river!

Even if God exists, what proof exists to show that the God of the bible and the stories therein are definitely true.   The bible itself says faith (which is believing in that which you cannot be for sure is true) is required to believe it.   A couple of you tried to equate the level of faith required for that to the faith i have that my monitor screen wont collapse.    I think its fair to say it takes slightly less faith to believe the latter (sarcasm intended).

Faith to me is nothing more than assuming, or guessing.   God might be alive.  God might even be as described in the bible.  The bottom line is none of us know for sure.   All of us only differ in whether we are willing to admit that or not, as far as i'm concerned.

I am willing to admit we cannot be for sure. Apparently that takes quite a bit of courage because only 1 out of 5 americans (or less) have done so.

 

[greg]

SG--OK, and thank you. I agree that I still haven't defined consciousness to my ability and may never exactly give it as you want it. I've sort of skirted around the edges and suggested various traits of it. I do hope you agree on a few basics though such as its 'invisibility," its super-naturalness (it is not objects, or ideas, or perceptions, or language, etc., or anything that exists in the physical realm. I need to think about an explaination for a few days.

As stated before, I'm a Platonist. Everything mentioned to this point is in his writings. Nothing new from me--just application processes. When I talk about faith, I'm talking about and operating from the 'form of faith' that can be applied to many different objects or groups of objects (e.g. I have faith that the molecules under my feet won't collapse when I step on them--and cause me to fall to the center of the earth.) Belief and faith are words that share a common characteristic. For example, those who share a dis-belief in god also share or participate in the word atheist. Those who are ambivalent in belief about god are usually called agnostitics. I tend to prefer the sorts of cleavages of language that are monistic rather than dualistic or even more broken up, meaning I see essences that are permanent throught time and space (and humans?). Individual stoves come and go, the form of the stove exists for a much longer period, e.g. a fire box is required, etc. etc. I follow the synonyms of faith to their source, which is a Platonic methodology and, I believe, the scientific method also. Later . I would hate to get lost in language problems.

--Greg

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

What's ironic, is i actually consider myself the simpleton.   I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.  It is you that has the answers to life figured out because you know for sure all these things about God and such since you proclaim he is alive.   Me, being the simple and humble man, admits I dont know whether God is alive or not, because neither I nor anyone else has proven it one way or the other yet.

The atheist is just as arrogant as you are, in that he proclaims God doesn't exist when he cannot prove it.  

Right, that's why, in order to avoid being "arrogant," I believe in the possibility of a number of seemingly bizarre and ridiculous things.  For example:

1.   I can't prove that I not simply a brain in a jar in some alien's experiment.  The alien could have such a deep understanding of the human brain that he is able to stimulate my brain in such a way as to make me believe I am a normal, functioning, walking and talking human being, when in reality, I am just a brain in a jar in the alien's experiement. 

Some people (typically those with an atheistic mindset), would say this is so ridiculously implausible that it is not worth entertaining the possibility it is true.  I, however, want to have an open mind, and therefore I consider it a possibility.

2.  It is quite possible that at some point in the very near future, all of the Earth's dolphins will begin speaking flawless English, and explain to us that they have decided their millenium of self-imposed exile to the oceans has now ended.  They will use their superior intellect (which they have intentionally hidden from human scientists) to resurrect the lost city of Atlantis from the bottom of the ocean, which they long ago destroyed for reasons that they will make known to us when they believe we are ready.

You may say this is impossible, but that is just because you have underestimated the dolphins' ability to conceal their powers from us. I, on the other hand, acknowledge that I cannot prove that the dolphins will not one day rise up, and so, because I don't want to take an "arrogant" attitude toward dolphins' intelligence, I hold out the possibility that it could occur.

3.  It is also possible that little gnomes and gremlins live among us without our knowledge by using a sophisticated, undetectable technology to warp the space-time continuum in such a way that renders them invisible.  They have the power to read our minds, and sometimes use their powers of teleportation to hide stuff that we're looking for.  We think we just misplaced our stuff, while in reality, the little gnomes and gremlins are just toying with us.

While you may think this is highly improbable, I challenge you to conclusively prove that it is not true.  And if you can't disprove it, you must continue to hold out the possibility that it might be true.

REALITY CHECK

Of course, all of the above is preposterous.  So preposterous, in fact, that no rational, non-delusional person would readily entertain the possibility that these fantasies could be real.  The mere fact that you can't disprove something does not make it a realistic possibility. 

But even my theory about the little gnomes who have the power to manipulate the time-space continuum is fundamentally no less kooky than the theory that there's an omniscient, omnipotent magician in the sky who created everything and cares deeply about whether you covet your neighbor's wife, and listens to prayers and grants miracles the way genies grant wishes, and "good people" (whatever that means) go to heaven and enjoy in blissful, eternal happiness, while "bad people" (whatever that means) go to hell and suffer agonizing, relentless torture for the rest of eternity.

No matter how religious theories are tweaked (and everybody has their own creative ways of tweaking them to make the theories more palatable or believable for themselves), they're still just fantasies that creative human brains have concocted to try and make sense of our hugely complex natural world.  An atheist isn't being "arrogant" for recognizing that fact.

 

[azanon]

An atheist isn't being "arrogant" for recognizing that fact.

If you think the possiblity that a "God" exists is as equally improbable as those scenarios you listed, I think its safe to say we disagree (for my understatement of the day).  I understood your essential point, but where the "analogy" is not comparable, is that the likelihood that God exists is higher that those fantasy scenarios, though, yes, i would agree the chance of those scenarios being false isnt completely 0.

There is sufficient enough evidence to support at least the hypothesis that "God" exists.   There is also sufficient enough evidence to reject the irrevokeable declaration that God doesn't exist.   I'll let the bible thumpers here give you that evidence as they usually have it ready to go to fight off people like me.

Me?   Its just one of those things i dont have the answers too.   Someone came up with a term to describe us;   the Agnostics.   Yup, I'm one of those really weird humans that doesn't have it all figured out.

Can you imagine me burning in hell? I'd be thinking the whole time, so i'm going to be tormented here because i didn't believe a fairy tale? Well Hells Bells!

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

I understood your essential point, but where the "analogy" is not comparable, is that the likelihood that God exists is higher that those fantasy scenarios . . . .

Yes, of course, this is the point on which we would differ.  Obviously, my three fantasies are intentionally ridiculous for illustrative purposes. 

But if I were so inclined, I'll bet I could create a new fantasy scenario that didn't sound as ridiculous.  I would concoct a story that was highly palatable to people--something that people really WANT to believe in, rather than something goofy.  I would make sure that the story helped explain human existence, gave comfort to the troubled, and served a beneficial social purpose.  My story would have a moral aimed at uplifting the human spirit and giving people hope that their existence and toils were somehow meaningful in the universe. 

I could tell you about the all the unverifiable discoveries I've made and revelations I've had that support the my story.  I could undoubtedly find a very high number of people to agree that they, too, had had the revelations, and believe in the story.  There would eventually be a whole community of people who believed in the story.  The believers would support each other, and spread the word, and, given enough time, the story would take on a life of its own.  There would be groups of learned experts on the story who would share their knowledge with others.  Parents would teach their children about it.  Laws and whole national cultures would eventually be based upon the story.

This is how religions are formed.  The Mormon church is one of the greatest modern examples.  Established less than 200 years ago, it is now one of the fastest growing faiths in the world, with millions of followers.  It's got a lot of catching-up to do with Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, etc., but it's fundamentally no different from all the other religions.  It's a story that a lot of people like to believe in, so they do.

My point is simply this:  I suspect that the reason you believe that the existence of God is somewhat more probable than the existence of invisible gnomes is that (1) you can see a reason for the existence of God, (2) it would be nice if God did exist, and (3) billions of people believe in God (because they've seen miracles, or the koran says so, or the've believed in God since they were kids, etc.), so how can they all be wrong?  In my opinion, however, not one of these reasons really increases the probability that God exists. 

My, isn't it interesting how atheism can breed its own kind of preachiness?  Anyway, I genuinely appreciate everyone else's stimulating posts, and I don't want to take over this thread with my atheistic diatribe. 

I'm hoping someone reading this can make me believe in God (but when you do I'd prefer it to be a just and merciful god, not a cruel and vengeful God, okay?).  At the very least, maybe someone will pray for me.  I'll bet Michael will, right Michael?

 

[Lazarus]

Where there is Beer there must be Heaven.

 

[Kronk]

Can you imagine me burning in hell? I'd be thinking the whole time, so i'm going to be tormented here because i didn't believe a fairy tale? Well Hells Bells!

This touches on something I have been mulling over for a few days. I hope that the Christian (protestant) God doesn't exist. I don't hope that in order to avoid hell. The idea that Faith is the metric by which our eternal reward is determined is aborrent to me.

I mean, honestly, how disgusting an idea is that?

Almost as disgusting an idea as an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-whatever entity wishing to create humans for the purpose of being worshipped.

Of course, the normal argument is that a mere speck of dust like me can't begin to fathom the mind of god, so there might be a wonderful cosmic reason to create a race of beings and filter the "good" ones out based on their capacity to believe. But I for one would be extraordinarily disappointed to learn that the world really works that way.

 

[laurence]

Here are some thoughts on some one who reconciled the notion of a higher power and a love of science:

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

I wonder if this disqualifies him from being considered a real scientist?

 

[wabmester]

I wonder if this disqualifies him from being considered a real scientist? 

Yes.

 

[Michael]

At the very least, maybe someone will pray for me. I'll bet Michael will, right Michael?

Father in heaven, please show SLC how much you really love him. In Jesus' name I pray. To God be all the glory.

 

[Michael]

...create a race of beings and filter the "good" ones out based on their capacity to believe.

Belief is not used as a filter for figuring out which people are good, since no mortal is good.

Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.  Luke 18:19b NIV

Asking Jesus to be my Lord and Saviour (putting my faith in Jesus) is asking Him to forgive me, and transform me.  To save me from my unloving human nature.  Having faith that God alone is good, can save me, and will save me if I ask Him to.  It is God who makes me good, not something that I can do myself.  Love for the brothers inevitably follows true faith in Lord Jesus:

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.  I John 3:14 NIV

This is all to God's glory alone.  God does the transforming.  Human attempts at loving are worthless, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to earn my way into heaven.  Salvation is God's gift.

 

[azanon]

The idea that Faith is the metric by which our eternal reward is determined is aborrent to me.

I mean, honestly, how disgusting an idea is that?

Wow, i'm completely with you on that. Ive pointed that out before, and its like most people dont get that.

See, if God were to come down in a big bang, and make himself known in an unmistakeable way, i'd definitely consider worshipping him a second thought. But the question of christain vs not one, isnt a morality one as the christains would like to believe. Its merely, and only a belief issue. Those that believe a story vs those that arn't convinced. Why cant "that God exists" be a given (or not) for eveyone and the hinge point be the decision to serve him or not serve him? THEN, maybe burning in hell might make some sense because you knew unquestionably that God existed, but rejected him anyway.

 

[azanon]

I wonder if this disqualifies him from being considered a real scientist?

I'm not going to read the article, but modern day scientists learn about their world using the scientific method. Note this is a matter-of-fact statement.

 

[azanon]

My, isn't it interesting how atheism can breed its own kind of preachiness? Anyway, I genuinely appreciate everyone else's stimulating posts, and I don't want to take over this thread with my atheistic diatribe.

Yes, exactly. I already said you're very similar to them in many respects, the main one being that you assume you're definitive answer on the subject (God does not exist) is the correct one, of all the possible 1000s options. So to push that, you have to preach it just like them.

If "they" (those that believe in higher powers) were able to combine all their respective positions as possible choices, i'd say your choice of no God vs alll theirs collectively is a very tight race, 50/50, a toss up. If you've ever had college level philosophy, you know there were many great philosophers that gave intellictually sound arguments for the existence of God. Likewise, there were plenty of great philosophers that argued to the contrary.

You're guessing just like they are, and proclaiming that you're right just like they are. But in fairness to you, if someone forced me to guess, i'd pick your guess.

 

[azanon]

Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. Luke 18:19b NIV

Asking Jesus to be my Lord and Saviour (putting my faith in Jesus) is asking Him to forgive me, and transform me. To save me from my unloving human nature. Having faith that God alone is good, can save me, and will save me if I ask Him to. It is God who makes me good, not something that I can do myself. Love for the brothers inevitably follows true faith in Lord Jesus:

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. I John 3:14 NIV

This is all to God's glory alone. God does the transforming. Human attempts at loving are worthless, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to earn my way into heaven. Salvation is God's gift.

Michael, i get the impression you think we're (atheists/agnostics) are not familiar with what the bible says. Really, the preaching isnt necessary. There's a good chance i know the bible better than you do. I simply reject it as truth, because i do not assume without proof (aka faith) it is true, like you do.

Yes, us humans are not perfect. You owe no one an apology for the way that you were born. If anyone's to blame for that, it would be God if he existed.

And for the record, God is anything but good. Have you ever actually read some of the Old Testament?

 

[azanon]

Father in heaven, please show SLC how much you really love him. In Jesus' name I pray. To God be all the glory.

I think its kinda cool to have these guys praying for us!

 

[Kronk]

> Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19b NIV
> It is God who makes me good, not something that I can do myself.

Well, it doesn't sound like even God can make you good since no one is good except God.


> Belief is not used as a filter for figuring out which people are good, since no mortal is good.


Well, okay, let's get our definitions straight. My "good" was intended to mean those who would be saved. The premise is that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and that one of God's roles is to determine those worthy of eternal reward. Those worthy enough was shortened down to "good", based on God's criterion. The sole criterion is faith.

I believe that the Christian doctrine is simple at its heart: If you truly believe in God/Jesus as Lord and Savior, you will be saved and go to heaven. If you agree with that synopsis, then we're just arguing semantics.

good = those who will be saved
earn way into heaven = accept God's gift of salvation through faith



Actually, this is putting a different spin on the argument. I didn't really want to get into whether or not God exists, but rather whether or not I WANT him to exist. I don't want him to exist because the rationale for going to heaven is ludicrous. Even if you have the truth of it, I don't have to like it.

 

[HFWR]

"Jesus freaks are a friendly bunch,
but the **** they believe has got their minds all shut.
And they don't even mind if the church takes a cut..."

FZ

 

[azanon]

Amen bro Kronk and bro Have Funds, Will Retire! Lets all have a round of applause!

Azanon