Go ahead and ask the relgious person if its reasonable to talk about what color God is, or what his spatial location is. Any person who really believes and thinks about it I doubt would be willing to go there. God isn't a physical object, much like Happiness, or Democracy, or the number 2.
Indeed, and if you pressed them you would find their concept of God was totally indistinguishable from an object that didn't exist at all (as far as observations of it go). At which point you're left asking them what the reason for their belief is, and they can't give you a good answer.
I just find the whole affair slightly embarrassing >.<
Except that they might talk about how this object has affected them. How it has made them feel, how it has changed their lives. Much like someone might talk about Happiness if it wasn't something so commonplace. Perhaps how someone living for years under an oppressive system might talk about Democracy. You can certainly notice the effects.
Also, I would love it if this discussion turned toward scientific anti-realism. That would be fun.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I have no problem saying that "God" is some abstract idea, a byproduct of human mind, just like "happiness", a result of the biological processes of our brain and the effect of the environment on us combining into a state of mind. Sadly no religious person believes this. They belive that God is an actual being that exists and can affect the universe, that has existed before humans.
It always amuses me the way that people construct God to get around all the common objections and end up with something completely different than what is believed by the vast majority of theists.
I assume you mean me....
I think that I've captured the thrust of the reasonable theist better than many. What, praytell, is the complaint? Specifically?
I think the vast majority of Christians believe in a personal deity, which doesn't seem to fit with the definition you've put forth.
How so? I mean, I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personal deity." I'm not trying to be a shithead either. My mom is Catholic, believes in God, and I doubt that she would have any issue with what I've put forward here. However, I think that she would say that she believes in a personal God.
Do you mean, a God that's a person?
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I have no problem saying that "God" is some abstract idea, a byproduct of human mind, just like "happiness", a result of the biological processes of our brain and the effect of the environment on us combining into a state of mind. Sadly no religious person believes this. They belive that God is an actual being that exists and can affect the universe, that has existed before humans.
Happiness certainly exists and has a massive impact on the world.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I didn't think that Democracy and Happiness were the kinds of things that reflected light. So, since I've never seen Happiness or Democracy, what does it look like?
Of course, I've seen people who were Happy, but that's the effect of Happiness in a person, not Happiness itself. I mean, Happiness would still exist if for like 30 seconds no one in the world was Happy, right?
:?
Happiness is an emotion, probably caused by outside influences acting on the hormone levels in the brain and whatnot. But even if you discounted the brain stuff, it's still an emotion.
It still exists in some way.
God is... what?
Not an emotion, I would hope.
A person?
An idea?
Throw me a bone here.
As for the Fucktarded stuff. Nice how you picked something that wasn't in the list I quoted. St. Thomas Aquinas fixed the "God is the source of all morality" problem back in the middle ages. Pretty much every reasonable form of Christianity doesn't accept the literal truth of "God made the world in six days." Those are fucking silly, and using them to attack reasonable religious people is silly as well.
The list I made did, indeed, include some of the wacky fundamentalist stuff. I'll admit that.
It also included: "Jesus died for [Original] sin.
Heaven exists."
These too are tenets of fucktarded fundamentalist Christianity now?
WotanAnubis on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Well, if you really get down to it, "Christianity" these days is just a giant religious buffet. You pick and choose the parts of it you like, ignore the parts that are outdated, silly, or would just plain inconvenience your life, and bam, that's your faith.
This is what bugs me about people who think atheists have no source of morality (my own mom, for one). So atheists have no basis for morality, and religious people (Christians, in her case) do - the Church and the Bible.
Except no Christian follows exactly what the Bible says (except for that guy that wrote the book on trying), or what the Church says. Like Raiden says, each person picks and chooses which tenets they're going to take seriously, which rules about morality they're going to follow and which ones they aren't. They're using some sort of personal internal mechanism to determine the morality of the church rules.
That internal mechanism is what atheists have to define their morality. They just get rid of the middleman.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Except that they might talk about how this object has affected them. How it has made them feel, how it has changed their lives. Much like someone might talk about Happiness if it wasn't something so commonplace. Perhaps how someone living for years under an oppressive system might talk about Democracy. You can certainly notice the effects.
I'm sure you well know the inevitable follow-up arguments to an argument from personal revelation/experience :P
EDIT:
Do you mean, a God that's a person?
A god that is angry, jealous, wrathful, etc. A God that has a mind, makes decisions, manifests its will in various different ways.
Short story by Asimov. Considering your theory, you might find it very interesting, it's one of my favorite stories.
Holy crap.
I read a ton of Asimov when I was younger, did that form my opinion on the divine and I just not remember it? Eerie, considering my memory is usually pretty good!
I have no problem saying that "God" is some abstract idea, a byproduct of human mind, just like "happiness", a result of the biological processes of our brain and the effect of the environment on us combining into a state of mind. Sadly no religious person believes this. They belive that God is an actual being that exists and can affect the universe, that has existed before humans.
Happiness certainly exists and has a massive impact on the world.
Not in the same way religious people believe God exists and has a massive impact on the world.
Well, if you really get down to it, "Christianity" these days is just a giant religious buffet. You pick and choose the parts of it you like, ignore the parts that are outdated, silly, or would just plain inconvenience your life, and bam, that's your faith.
This is what bugs me about people who think atheists have no source of morality (my own mom, for one). So atheists have no basis for morality, and religious people (Christians, in her case) do - the Church and the Bible.
Except no Christian follows exactly what the Bible says (except for that guy that wrote the book on trying), or what the Church says. Like Raiden says, each person picks and chooses which tenets they're going to take seriously, which rules about morality they're going to follow and which ones they aren't. They're using some sort of personal internal mechanism to determine the morality of the church rules.
That internal mechanism is what atheists have to define their morality. They just get rid of the middleman.
Exactly.
Even if God exists and outlined a moral law, why does the Christian you're talking to follow it?
Because of punishment? No, they'll say, not just because of punishment.
Because of reward? No, they'll say, not just because of reward.
Because God is your father who loves you? Yes, they'll say, because God loves you.
But why does that matter? Why should God loving you make you want to follow him? You'll probably get a blank stare, upon which you can respond:
Because it's the right thing to do? Because a child should love his loving Father back? Yes. Because it's the right thing to do.
And you're back at square one with them. I find it's a helpful illustration to get at the fact that our reasons for doing good things come from something other than a divine lawgiver. There are better explanations and they lie outside of religion.
It always amuses me the way that people construct God to get around all the common objections and end up with something completely different than what is believed by the vast majority of theists.
I assume you mean me....
I think that I've captured the thrust of the reasonable theist better than many. What, praytell, is the complaint? Specifically?
I think the vast majority of Christians believe in a personal deity, which doesn't seem to fit with the definition you've put forth.
How so? I mean, I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personal deity." I'm not trying to be a shithead either. My mom is Catholic, believes in God, and I doubt that she would have any issue with what I've put forward here. However, I think that she would say that she believes in a personal God.
Do you mean, a God that's a person?
That's the general idea of a personal god or deity: an entity with the attributes of personhood, or at least one that can be related to as such.
Edith_Bagot-Dix on
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
It always amuses me the way that people construct God to get around all the common objections and end up with something completely different than what is believed by the vast majority of theists.
I assume you mean me....
I think that I've captured the thrust of the reasonable theist better than many. What, praytell, is the complaint? Specifically?
I think the vast majority of Christians believe in a personal deity, which doesn't seem to fit with the definition you've put forth.
How so? I mean, I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personal deity." I'm not trying to be a shithead either. My mom is Catholic, believes in God, and I doubt that she would have any issue with what I've put forward here. However, I think that she would say that she believes in a personal God.
Do you mean, a God that's a person?
That's the general idea of a personal god or deity: an entity with the attributes of personhood, or at least one that can be related to as such.
God is the personification of absurdity in the universe.
Who said that?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
He's the guy who talks in nothing but incoherent philosophy jargon right?
Look, it's pretty simple.
The being of the being is the Being of the not-Being. Therefore, it is better to have been in your Being than to never have Been at all.
I think that ought to do it.
Melkster on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
I swear I was in the process of reading the thread before someone said something about being.
Since all the science duders are here, perhaps you can answer my question. I've been reading a lot of rationalist mechanics lately (Copernicus, Descartes, Leibniz) and they all talk about "activity" as an essential characteristic of anything extant; i.e., and physical being "acts" upon other physical beings, and no physical being is completely passive because it thus could not exist -- it could not be extant via extension. Could is be that dark matter is, in some way, completely passive? That it we only know its existence (whatever it may be, given that it might not even be a "thing" per se) is completely passive? Dark matter is sort of a function of gravity, correct?
Something I've been wondering, recently, but never gotten around to ask.
Even if we observed 100% of the universe, understood everything, knew for a fact the big bang happened, and knew for a fact the Universe was still expanding etc etc all that jazz, religion isn't discounted.
Just the parts everybody cares about.
How so?
Let's see...
God made the world in six days.
Mankind sinned by eating the fruit.
Jesus died for that sin.
Heaven exists.
Hell exists.
God interferes personally in wordly affairs.
God is the source of morality.
And so on.
Science forces you to give up on all of that, except maybe the concepts of Heaven and Hell (and even those are starting to get doubtful. Souls have a mind how, exactly?).
If this keeps up, if "God can still have said bang" is your last resort, then Christianity just becomes another version of deism, so why call it Christianity?
Perhaps I'm just not very studious on scientific matters (I have no problem admitting that), but I don't see how "science" forces me to give up any of that.
First off, I don't take the Bible as literally as some Christians do. The Bible says the world was created in six days. Does that literally mean it happened in six days? Maybe using days was just the way the writers of the Bible chose to explain it. Maybe it actually took millions of years and evolution of some kind was involved in God's creative process (oh no, religion and science together). I don't personally know the answer to these questions. Part of the reason why is I generally boil down my faith to the stuff that actually matters. Does it really affect what I believe if God literally made the earth in six days or if it took two trillion years? No it doesn't. So I don't care.
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
So, again: Why is religion discounted in this situation?
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I see others covered it while I was driving home -yea, a personal deity is one who can be related to, or who functions in a similar way, as a person.
You seem to want to make it some nebulous idea and I'm not totally understanding where you're going with it. As was mentioned previously, democracy and happiness both have observable traits and can be shown not to exist in a given situation (monarchy, decreased serotonin levels, what have you).
Bama on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Bama, the classic response would be that we do in fact have observable traits of an all-powerful God. For instance, that we are not a simple substance, we are an aggregate of some simpler substance, that we can not will our existence and are thus not subsistent, etc.
To have a religious debate, you actually need someone who believes in God and has an opposing belief, opinion, or standard. You won't find that here.
Even religious types understand this isn't true. Also, if you think that nobody on this board is a practitioner of a theistic faith, or that we are uniform in our opinions and beliefs, then I can only assume you've not paid attention during your stay.
Even if we observed 100% of the universe, understood everything, knew for a fact the big bang happened, and knew for a fact the Universe was still expanding etc etc all that jazz, religion isn't discounted.
Just the parts everybody cares about.
How so?
Let's see...
God made the world in six days.
Mankind sinned by eating the fruit.
Jesus died for that sin.
Heaven exists.
Hell exists.
God interferes personally in wordly affairs.
God is the source of morality.
And so on.
Science forces you to give up on all of that, except maybe the concepts of Heaven and Hell (and even those are starting to get doubtful. Souls have a mind how, exactly?).
If this keeps up, if "God can still have said bang" is your last resort, then Christianity just becomes another version of deism, so why call it Christianity?
Perhaps I'm just not very studious on scientific matters (I have no problem admitting that), but I don't see how "science" forces me to give up any of that.
First off, I don't take the Bible as literally as some Christians do. The Bible says the world was created in six days. Does that literally mean it happened in six days? Maybe using days was just the way the writers of the Bible chose to explain it. Maybe it actually took millions of years and evolution of some kind was involved in God's creative process (oh no, religion and science together). I don't personally know the answer to these questions. Part of the reason why is I generally boil down my faith to the stuff that actually matters. Does it really affect what I believe if God literally made the earth in six days or if it took two trillion years? No it doesn't. So I don't care.
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
So, again: Why is religion discounted in this situation?
Science and religion are at odds because for thousands of years religion has given us explanations for many phenomena that can now be explained through rational, nonsupernatural means. Everything from thunderstorms to earthquakes to the rising of the sun to mental illness to the development of complex life used to have only a religious explanation, and that definitely served as a very important part of religion. It gave explanation to things that no other explanation fit.
Scientific developments have effectively removed religion's role as an "explainer." That seriously weakens it.
Besides, why do you believe in God then? Do you believe just because? Or perhaps because of your parents? Or do you rather believe because you find the arguments and evidence persuasive?
Bama, the classic response would be that we do in fact have observable traits of an all-powerful God. For instance, that we are not a simple substance, we are an aggregate of some simpler substance, that we can not will our existence and are thus not subsistent, etc.
Again, this line of argument quickly drifts away from common definitions of God. I don't think many Christians would appreciate being told they believe in some form of cosmic glue.
Why do people keep thinking Science and Religion are mutually exclusive? They're not. At all.
I can allow some leeway for a nonpersonal unified force, but it seems that this argument only gets trotted out by Christian apologist scientists. Sure, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, but science and Christianity falls apart pretty fast.
Preposition 1: God is omnipotent
Preposition 2: God sent his son to die for our sins
This implies an exchange. Something, possibly a universal law about sin and righteousness, requires a transaction meant to uphold some sort of balance. If God is beholden to the requirements of a transaction, he isn't omnipotent.
Delzhand on
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
God sent his only begotten son to be minorly inconvenienced for an act he could have performed anonymously.
Could is be that dark matter is, in some way, completely passive? That it we only know its existence (whatever it may be, given that it might not even be a "thing" per se) is completely passive? Dark matter is sort of a function of gravity, correct?
Something I've been wondering, recently, but never gotten around to ask.
Dark matter is inferred to be a form of matter that is invisible to electromagnetic radiation but exerts gravitational forces on "normal" (baryonic) matter.
So, no, it cannot be said to be completely passive.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Bama, the classic response would be that we do in fact have observable traits of an all-powerful God. For instance, that we are not a simple substance, we are an aggregate of some simpler substance, that we can not will our existence and are thus not subsistent, etc.
Again, this line of argument quickly drifts away from common definitions of God. I don't think many Christians would appreciate being told they believe in some form of cosmic glue.
Well that's why i prefer existential christianity. (It's a thing, and it's quite popular. I had to read Dynamics of Faith, by paul tillich, in both High School and College.) You basically start out in a first naïveté, where you just accept religion's explanations. Then you develop logical and reasonable faculties, and the explanations of religion seem to be at odds with science. However, if existentialist christians will argue that if you are able to cultivate a truly introspective and speculative faculty, you can find that your original belief had some merit. (It's a double motion of Hegel's aufhebung (synthesis, sublimation, negation of negation) and Heideggerian existential resolution.) So you say "ok, the bible might be largely metaphorical, but I believe that it expresses an essential truth and I will resolve to keep that conviction" So you believe the scientific answers and the faculty of reason, but you also think that there is something essential about religious truths, and that they are not necessarily at odds.
Oh, and by the way, there ARE reasonable explanations for why human beings are moral that are quite interesting. We may not have a 100% foolproof total understanding of it (but we don't really have that for anything), but there are explanations. Anyone interested should start with the Radio Lab podcast on Morality for a total mindfuck.
Is the question of why people are moral a big deal for creationists? I wouldn't have thought so, since Christianity is all about how we aren't moral.
It is a big deal to them.
To the Creatonist (and probably also to some non-Creationists) God is the source of all morality. You are an immoral sinner and you can only reach some kind of righteousness through Jesus.
Except it doesn't work that way, does it?
Atheists might be assholes (case in point: Hitchens), but their non-belief does not make them any more inclined to rape, pillage and murder.
If God Is The Source Of All Morality, as they so sincerely believe, then atheists cannot be decent people.
But they are.
And so another core belief (that people are fundamentally sinners who need Jesus) is attacked and possibly destroyed by cruel, uncaring reality.
Still... maybe... maybe God really is helping those who reject Him be not totally evil. Maybe the Holy Spirit is working in the unbeliever to make sure they're not raping and murdering all the time.
And then science comes along and says that, no, that's not the case either.
Goddammit.
I'm not sure what kind of Christians you've been talking to, but this is all very wrong in my eyes.
I don't believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is somehow devoid of all morals. In fact, some of my atheist/agnostic friends are better people at their core than some Christians I know. If you've talked to anyone who's a Christian and they've said that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus runs around raping people in their spare time, then they're idiots.
Also, I feel the need to point out that even if people are saved by Christian standards, they don't suddenly become perfect. Anyone who thinks that is very much missing the point.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
Nah, just scientific thought, and that's ONLY if science deals with purely quantifiable entities. They can totally be rational.
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
Nah, just scientific thought, and that's ONLY if science deals with purely quantifiable entities. They can totally be rational.
Religious people can be rational. Not concerning their religious belief, though.
It's simple, believing something without any proof whatsoever is not rational. You can apply that belief in rational way (keeping it private, not preaching or trying to convert people, not burning witches at the stake, stuff like that), but the belief itself stays completely and utterly irrational.
I don't think religion is harmful, and I don't have anything against it. I myself hold some beliefs that could perhaps be constituted as irrational if you go by the strictest definition (I'm 100% sure there is extraterrestial life out there).
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
Not compatible with scientific thought, sure.
The fact that you're throwing "rational thought" in there just make me think you have a grudge against theistic beliefs in general. It's insulting and has nothing to do with the discussion.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Since all the science duders are here, perhaps you can answer my question. I've been reading a lot of rationalist mechanics lately (Copernicus, Descartes, Leibniz) and they all talk about "activity" as an essential characteristic of anything extant; i.e., and physical being "acts" upon other physical beings, and no physical being is completely passive because it thus could not exist -- it could not be extant via extension. Could is be that dark matter is, in some way, completely passive? That it we only know its existence (whatever it may be, given that it might not even be a "thing" per se) is completely passive? Dark matter is sort of a function of gravity, correct?
Well, the idea would be that dark matter is passive in every sense but the gravitational, eg that it is made of WIMPs (weakly interactive massive particles) or similar. Assuming that gravity has a gauge vector boson (putatively the graviton), then dark matter would be active in the sense that it is sending those to and fro.
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
Not compatible with scientific thought, sure.
The fact that you're throwing "rational thought" in there just make me think you have a grudge against theistic beliefs in general. It's insulting and has nothing to do with the discussion.
I don't think rational or irrational are in itself good or harmful things. It's not an insult. If everything was purely rational we would be cold, emotionless robots. If everything was purely irrational, we would do nothing but rape and kill eachother. Love is a positive aspect that is, when you get down to it, highly irrational behaviour, but without it world would be pretty bleak place.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
Nah, just scientific thought, and that's ONLY if science deals with purely quantifiable entities. They can totally be rational.
Religious people can be rational. Not concerning their religious belief, though.
It's simple, believing something without any proof whatsoever is not rational. You can apply that belief in rational way (keeping it private, not preaching or trying to convert people, not burning witches at the stake, stuff like that), but the belief itself stays completely and utterly irrational.
I don't think religion is harmful, and I don't have anything against it. I myself hold some beliefs that could perhaps be constituted as irrational if you go by the strictest definition (I'm 100% sure there is extraterrestial life out there).
Sure they can. "Q: How can something come from nothing A: There is an unmoved mover" is a rational answer. It might not be the most well-founded or preferable answer, but it is certainly a rational answer nevertheless. Your belief in extraterrestrial life is not irrational, either. They both have explanatory and predicative power with are not contradictory with other beliefs and have a (albeit) slight chance for success.
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
Not compatible with scientific thought, sure.
The fact that you're throwing "rational thought" in there just make me think you have a grudge against theistic beliefs in general. It's insulting and has nothing to do with the discussion.
I don't think rational or irrational are in itself good or harmful things. It's not an insult. If everything was purely rational we would be cold, emotionless robots. If everything was purely irrational, we would do nothing but rape and kill eachother. Love is a positive aspect that is, when you get down to it, highly irrational behaviour, but without it world would be pretty bleak place.
Beg your pardon, then. I read too much into the word.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Bama, the classic response would be that we do in fact have observable traits of an all-powerful God. For instance, that we are not a simple substance, we are an aggregate of some simpler substance, that we can not will our existence and are thus not subsistent, etc.
Again, this line of argument quickly drifts away from common definitions of God. I don't think many Christians would appreciate being told they believe in some form of cosmic glue.
Well that's why i prefer existential christianity. (It's a thing, and it's quite popular. I had to read Dynamics of Faith, by paul tillich, in both High School and College.) You basically start out in a first naïveté, where you just accept religion's explanations. Then you develop logical and reasonable faculties, and the explanations of religion seem to be at odds with science. However, if existentialist christians will argue that if you are able to cultivate a truly introspective and speculative faculty, you can find that your original belief had some merit. (It's a double motion of Hegel's aufhebung (synthesis, sublimation, negation of negation) and Heideggerian existential resolution.) So you say "ok, the bible might be largely metaphorical, but I believe that it expresses an essential truth and I will resolve to keep that conviction" So you believe the scientific answers and the faculty of reason, but you also think that there is something essential about religious truths, and that they are not necessarily at odds.
I am not overly familiar with the works of Paul Tillich (having only had some readings from his works as an undergrad student), but my understanding was that he was critical of and rejected the idea of a theistic God, which seems to be the sort being discussed here.
Posts
Except that they might talk about how this object has affected them. How it has made them feel, how it has changed their lives. Much like someone might talk about Happiness if it wasn't something so commonplace. Perhaps how someone living for years under an oppressive system might talk about Democracy. You can certainly notice the effects.
Also, I would love it if this discussion turned toward scientific anti-realism. That would be fun.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
How so? I mean, I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personal deity." I'm not trying to be a shithead either. My mom is Catholic, believes in God, and I doubt that she would have any issue with what I've put forward here. However, I think that she would say that she believes in a personal God.
Do you mean, a God that's a person?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Happiness certainly exists and has a massive impact on the world.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Happiness is an emotion, probably caused by outside influences acting on the hormone levels in the brain and whatnot. But even if you discounted the brain stuff, it's still an emotion.
It still exists in some way.
God is... what?
Not an emotion, I would hope.
A person?
An idea?
Throw me a bone here.
The list I made did, indeed, include some of the wacky fundamentalist stuff. I'll admit that.
It also included:
"Jesus died for [Original] sin.
Heaven exists."
These too are tenets of fucktarded fundamentalist Christianity now?
This is what bugs me about people who think atheists have no source of morality (my own mom, for one). So atheists have no basis for morality, and religious people (Christians, in her case) do - the Church and the Bible.
Except no Christian follows exactly what the Bible says (except for that guy that wrote the book on trying), or what the Church says. Like Raiden says, each person picks and chooses which tenets they're going to take seriously, which rules about morality they're going to follow and which ones they aren't. They're using some sort of personal internal mechanism to determine the morality of the church rules.
That internal mechanism is what atheists have to define their morality. They just get rid of the middleman.
I'm sure you well know the inevitable follow-up arguments to an argument from personal revelation/experience :P
EDIT:
A god that is angry, jealous, wrathful, etc. A God that has a mind, makes decisions, manifests its will in various different ways.
Holy crap.
I read a ton of Asimov when I was younger, did that form my opinion on the divine and I just not remember it? Eerie, considering my memory is usually pretty good!
Not in the same way religious people believe God exists and has a massive impact on the world.
The greatest conceivable being. Duh.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Exactly.
Even if God exists and outlined a moral law, why does the Christian you're talking to follow it?
Because of punishment? No, they'll say, not just because of punishment.
Because of reward? No, they'll say, not just because of reward.
Because God is your father who loves you? Yes, they'll say, because God loves you.
But why does that matter? Why should God loving you make you want to follow him? You'll probably get a blank stare, upon which you can respond:
Because it's the right thing to do? Because a child should love his loving Father back? Yes. Because it's the right thing to do.
And you're back at square one with them. I find it's a helpful illustration to get at the fact that our reasons for doing good things come from something other than a divine lawgiver. There are better explanations and they lie outside of religion.
That's the general idea of a personal god or deity: an entity with the attributes of personhood, or at least one that can be related to as such.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
You have just lit the Podly-signal
God is the personification of absurdity in the universe.
Who said that?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Oh god no.
He's the guy who talks in nothing but incoherent philosophy jargon right?
Look, it's pretty simple.
The being of the being is the Being of the not-Being. Therefore, it is better to have been in your Being than to never have Been at all.
Please see:
I think that ought to do it.
Since all the science duders are here, perhaps you can answer my question. I've been reading a lot of rationalist mechanics lately (Copernicus, Descartes, Leibniz) and they all talk about "activity" as an essential characteristic of anything extant; i.e., and physical being "acts" upon other physical beings, and no physical being is completely passive because it thus could not exist -- it could not be extant via extension. Could is be that dark matter is, in some way, completely passive? That it we only know its existence (whatever it may be, given that it might not even be a "thing" per se) is completely passive? Dark matter is sort of a function of gravity, correct?
Something I've been wondering, recently, but never gotten around to ask.
Perhaps I'm just not very studious on scientific matters (I have no problem admitting that), but I don't see how "science" forces me to give up any of that.
First off, I don't take the Bible as literally as some Christians do. The Bible says the world was created in six days. Does that literally mean it happened in six days? Maybe using days was just the way the writers of the Bible chose to explain it. Maybe it actually took millions of years and evolution of some kind was involved in God's creative process (oh no, religion and science together). I don't personally know the answer to these questions. Part of the reason why is I generally boil down my faith to the stuff that actually matters. Does it really affect what I believe if God literally made the earth in six days or if it took two trillion years? No it doesn't. So I don't care.
And honestly, the rest of those answers have nothing to do with anything that can be measure scientifically. You either believe that we are sinners that need saving or you don't. You can't measure someone's faith or their sin using tests. You can't prove or disprove heaven and hell with tests. You also can't measure how much God interferes in the world (or if He even does) nor if He's the only source of morality in the world. "Faith", "sin", "religious beliefs", etc are not quantifiable, measurable things.
So, again: Why is religion discounted in this situation?
You seem to want to make it some nebulous idea and I'm not totally understanding where you're going with it. As was mentioned previously, democracy and happiness both have observable traits and can be shown not to exist in a given situation (monarchy, decreased serotonin levels, what have you).
Science and religion are at odds because for thousands of years religion has given us explanations for many phenomena that can now be explained through rational, nonsupernatural means. Everything from thunderstorms to earthquakes to the rising of the sun to mental illness to the development of complex life used to have only a religious explanation, and that definitely served as a very important part of religion. It gave explanation to things that no other explanation fit.
Scientific developments have effectively removed religion's role as an "explainer." That seriously weakens it.
Besides, why do you believe in God then? Do you believe just because? Or perhaps because of your parents? Or do you rather believe because you find the arguments and evidence persuasive?
I can allow some leeway for a nonpersonal unified force, but it seems that this argument only gets trotted out by Christian apologist scientists. Sure, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, but science and Christianity falls apart pretty fast.
Preposition 1: God is omnipotent
Preposition 2: God sent his son to die for our sins
This implies an exchange. Something, possibly a universal law about sin and righteousness, requires a transaction meant to uphold some sort of balance. If God is beholden to the requirements of a transaction, he isn't omnipotent.
Dark matter is inferred to be a form of matter that is invisible to electromagnetic radiation but exerts gravitational forces on "normal" (baryonic) matter.
So, no, it cannot be said to be completely passive.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well that's why i prefer existential christianity. (It's a thing, and it's quite popular. I had to read Dynamics of Faith, by paul tillich, in both High School and College.) You basically start out in a first naïveté, where you just accept religion's explanations. Then you develop logical and reasonable faculties, and the explanations of religion seem to be at odds with science. However, if existentialist christians will argue that if you are able to cultivate a truly introspective and speculative faculty, you can find that your original belief had some merit. (It's a double motion of Hegel's aufhebung (synthesis, sublimation, negation of negation) and Heideggerian existential resolution.) So you say "ok, the bible might be largely metaphorical, but I believe that it expresses an essential truth and I will resolve to keep that conviction" So you believe the scientific answers and the faculty of reason, but you also think that there is something essential about religious truths, and that they are not necessarily at odds.
I'm not sure what kind of Christians you've been talking to, but this is all very wrong in my eyes.
I don't believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is somehow devoid of all morals. In fact, some of my atheist/agnostic friends are better people at their core than some Christians I know. If you've talked to anyone who's a Christian and they've said that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus runs around raping people in their spare time, then they're idiots.
Also, I feel the need to point out that even if people are saved by Christian standards, they don't suddenly become perfect. Anyone who thinks that is very much missing the point.
And thus, incompatible with science or rational thought.
Nah, just scientific thought, and that's ONLY if science deals with purely quantifiable entities. They can totally be rational.
Religious people can be rational. Not concerning their religious belief, though.
It's simple, believing something without any proof whatsoever is not rational. You can apply that belief in rational way (keeping it private, not preaching or trying to convert people, not burning witches at the stake, stuff like that), but the belief itself stays completely and utterly irrational.
I don't think religion is harmful, and I don't have anything against it. I myself hold some beliefs that could perhaps be constituted as irrational if you go by the strictest definition (I'm 100% sure there is extraterrestial life out there).
Not compatible with scientific thought, sure.
The fact that you're throwing "rational thought" in there just make me think you have a grudge against theistic beliefs in general. It's insulting and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Well, the idea would be that dark matter is passive in every sense but the gravitational, eg that it is made of WIMPs (weakly interactive massive particles) or similar. Assuming that gravity has a gauge vector boson (putatively the graviton), then dark matter would be active in the sense that it is sending those to and fro.
I don't think rational or irrational are in itself good or harmful things. It's not an insult. If everything was purely rational we would be cold, emotionless robots. If everything was purely irrational, we would do nothing but rape and kill eachother. Love is a positive aspect that is, when you get down to it, highly irrational behaviour, but without it world would be pretty bleak place.
Sure they can. "Q: How can something come from nothing A: There is an unmoved mover" is a rational answer. It might not be the most well-founded or preferable answer, but it is certainly a rational answer nevertheless. Your belief in extraterrestrial life is not irrational, either. They both have explanatory and predicative power with are not contradictory with other beliefs and have a (albeit) slight chance for success.
Beg your pardon, then. I read too much into the word.
I am not overly familiar with the works of Paul Tillich (having only had some readings from his works as an undergrad student), but my understanding was that he was critical of and rejected the idea of a theistic God, which seems to be the sort being discussed here.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats