Laborious religious arguments thread

[Saxon]

This thread comes with a health warning. If you hold spiritual beliefs that you are emotionally reliant on, other users may still challenge these ideas.
Users who find these disputes uncomfortable read on of their own volition.

 

 

[Hux]

I believe that humans are naturally prone to religious thinking and behavior. I'm an apatheist. I'll argue laboriously to defend my religion, or my lack thereof.

Islam is poop.

[FlynnCoyote]

I think people are only religious as a result of either Cognitive Dissonance or some emotional need instilled by childhood indoctrination. I cannot understand why people of scientific careers would still harbour faith for any other reasons.

Faith is an assumption. Faith is unscientific. The only basis for faith is emotional, there is no rational reason for that kind of belief.

I do not advocate the eradication of Religious institutions. I think we should vastly improve our education systems, instill children with a love of learning rather than just a drive to get good grades. In this manner religions will eventually fade into obscurity under the weight of their own shortcomings.

Religion is not necessary in the modern age. The benefits it can provide to a society are minimal at best, with all practical contributions easily achievable by secular organizations and even government agencies. If churches disappear, other avenues for their charity based services will open up.

The benefits of religion can be kept without the religion itself. The drawbacks will not be missed.

 

[Jtrekkie]

/r/atheism?

Our scientific tradition is founded on a faith no different than any religion, and this was a major topic for our serious thinkers for centuries. For the most part (but not entirely), it was dropped when people realized that the repeated questioning leads to a dead end (on a side note, this trend has led some of our popular modern thought to become "hollow" at the bottom, new atheism included, because people stopped questioning entirely. That must be sorted eventually.) So don't get stuck on the idea that faith is irrational or a crutch for the weak minded; as a human if you are to think you must have beliefs to think about. That is your fate, along with every other person living. You have nothing to brag about.


If you are going to have a serious discussion of religion, even in the abstract sense, you need to have introspective, respective people with a deep desire to learn and devoid of the desire to dominate or otherwise bash their peers heads in. We simply have none of those things here.

[Falaffel]

why though

[Fossa]

I think until we know with certainty the question of 'What happens after we die?", and come to terms with how capricious, even cruel fate can be, and why what happens to us in our lives happens to us, we'll have religion.

To the extent to which we are in many ways these relatively weak, seemingly finite creatures, there will be religion. And as long as there is sadness, pain, suffering, violence and war.

Perhaps science will one day create a magic pill or society will find a way to stop violence and suffering, but I'm highly doubtful that will ever happen. 

I'm not of any particular religion, but I have many friends where I've seen it play a helpful role in their lives, and one that is prosocial, positive and nonjudgmental. (Also hypoallergenic, and gluten free)

 

[FlynnCoyote]

19 minutes ago, Fossa-Boy said:

I think until we know with certainty the question of 'What happens after we die?", and come to terms with how capricious, even cruel fate can be, and why what happens to us in our lives happens to us, we'll have religion.

To the extent to which we are in many ways these relatively weak, seemingly finite creatures, there will be religion. And as long as there is sadness, pain, suffering, violence and war.

Because people love easy answers. And yet many will tell us religion is not for the weak minded. Amazing.

1 hour ago, Jtrekkie said:

So don't get stuck on the idea that faith is irrational or a crutch for the weak minded; as a human if you are to think you must have beliefs to think about. That is your fate, along with every other person living. You have nothing to brag about.

I can accept that. In fact I do. I'm not advocating any particular mindset despite what impression people might have gleaned. I mostly just think it's disappointing that so few people seem to have critical thinking skills anymore, and even fewer are willing to apply those skills to their beliefs. If something you'd devoted yourself to was a lie, wouldn't you rather know and move forward?

What I believe is just as subject to scrutiny as any other belief. And I believe that long term improving education is the best way forward.

[Strongbob]

We all have such big egos that we can't stand the idea of not being, so we made up a religious construct to distract us from the harsh realities of life and death.  It may make us feel better about our place in the universe, but it also warps our perception of humanity in unhealthy ways imho. 

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

/r/atheism?

Our scientific tradition is founded on a faith no different than any religion, and this was a major topic for our serious thinkers for centuries. For the most part (but not entirely), it was dropped when people realized that the repeated questioning leads to a dead end (on a side note, this trend has led some of our popular modern thought to become "hollow" at the bottom, new atheism included, because people stopped questioning entirely. That must be sorted eventually.) So don't get stuck on the idea that faith is irrational or a crutch for the weak minded; as a human if you are to think you must have beliefs to think about. That is your fate, along with every other person living. You have nothing to brag about.


If you are going to have a serious discussion of religion, even in the abstract sense, you need to have introspective, respective people with a deep desire to learn and devoid of the desire to dominate or otherwise bash their peers heads in. We simply have none of those things here.

What do you mean by this? To my understanding scientific inquiries are based on refining hypotheses based on what's observed, whereas faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

 

 

 

[Vallium]

Hello darkness my old friend

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

Hello darkness my old friend

why though

This thread was created at your implicit request because you didn't want to discuss this sort of content.

You are among the people who like the post which recommended the thread's creation.

You are not being forced to read it.

[Hux]

I honestly believe that no one should publicly discuss things that I find either distasteful or controversial.

It's easy to take the high ground when all you do is shit on everybody else without ever making any positive contributions, hence my popufurity. 

Somebody plz fite me. I'm super petulant and edgy and cool. *HURR DURR Everybody except for me is retarded! Look how cool I am, everybody!!!2!@!@!1!1!1!

That's my religion, baby. I'm ready for a mass debate.

[Falaffel]

1 minute ago, Hux said:

I honestly believe that no one should publicly discuss things that I find either distasteful or controversial.

It's easy to take the high ground when all you do is shit on everybody else without ever making any positive contributions, hence my popufurity. 

Somebody plz fite me. I'm super petulant and edgy and cool. *HURR DURR Everybody except for me is retarded! Look how cool I am, everybody!!!2!@!@!1!1!1!

That's my religion, baby. I'm ready for a mass debate.

same

[Saxon]

Just now, Falaffel said:

same

You didn't want this discussion clogging other threads, so now the staff have insisted that the conversation is contained here.
If you want to come into the topic you apparently weren't interested in, in order to whine that you're not interested in it, then I'll just report it as spam, okay?

It's your turn to take your discussion else where.

 

[Falaffel]

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

You didn't want this discussion clogging other threads, so now the staff have insisted that the conversation is contained here.
If you want to come into the topic you apparently weren't interested in, in order to whine that you're not interested in it, then I'll just report it as spam, okay?

It's your turn to take your discussion else where.

ok

[Saxon]

3 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I think people are only religious as a result of either Cognitive Dissonance or some emotional need instilled by childhood indoctrination. I cannot understand why people of scientific careers would still harbour faith for any other reasons.

Faith is an assumption. Faith is unscientific. The only basis for faith is emotional, there is no rational reason for that kind of belief.

I do not advocate the eradication of Religious institutions. I think we should vastly improve our education systems, instill children with a love of learning rather than just a drive to get good grades. In this manner religions will eventually fade into obscurity under the weight of their own shortcomings.

Religion is not necessary in the modern age. The benefits it can provide to a society are minimal at best, with all practical contributions easily achievable by secular organizations and even government agencies. If churches disappear, other avenues for their charity based services will open up.

The benefits of religion can be kept without the religion itself. The drawbacks will not be missed.

 

Overall scientists are much less likely to hold religious beliefs than normal people, but I think that in general people put scientists on a pedestal too much and idealise them as logical and routine creatures when most of them are just smarter-than-average people, with all the same cognitive biases and eccentricities. 

A significant minority of scientists believe vehemently in their own pet hypotheses, for example.

I think that scientists' opinions only become really meaningful when they are considered in aggregate, so that the odd individual quirks are averaged out and scientists from all sorts of backgrounds can only get a consensus if they are able to convince each other of their ideas rather than just themselves,

...and when this is done, science makes no use of any religion or spirituality in its methods, which says it all, really.

 

[ZorroValdez]

No. Just, no.

[Vae]

The only acceptable doctrine is that of our Ludwig and Saviour.
All other belief systems or lack thereof are trash for the degenerate and the unenlightened, and shall be purged in His Righteous Flame.

This is the only acceptable religious argument, because it is the only one that supports the Divine Truth.
All other arguments are pointless and invalid.
Thus this thread can be considered unnecessary in the face of fact.

[Falaffel]

6 minutes ago, Vae said:

The only acceptable doctrine is that of our Ludwig and Saviour.
All other belief systems or lack thereof are trash for the degenerate and the unenlightened, and shall be purged in His Righteous Flame.

This is the only acceptable religious argument, because it is the only one that supports the Divine Truth.
All other arguments are pointless and invalid.
Thus this thread can be considered unnecessary in the face of fact.

When will the book of Ludwig be read aloud in Ludwig chat? I pray to each and every one of the daily Ludwigs provided to us, but I still want to become closer to our lord.

[Vae]

4 minutes ago, Falaffel said:

When will the book of Ludwig be read aloud in Ludwig chat? I pray to each and every one of the daily Ludwigs provided to us, but I still want to become closer to our lord.

One of these days, I will be able to channel His Voice well enough to tell His Divine Tale.

Until then, I do not feel as if my storytelling would do Him service.

[WileyWarWeasel]

There is only one way to resolve religious arguments:

[Fantasma]

I believe that when the faith or expectence of something after this life is not present, a greater recognition of the importance of this life is given.

It is my wish this was more present.

[willow]

I honestly have no real context for this thread...

I don't really care if people are religious if it means they're a better person because of it. I myself don't really practice any religion anymore, but I'm a bit spiritual I guess. That being said, I'm pretty critical of (organised) religion for many of the obvious reasons and I think even the people who follow it should be too

4 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Religion is not necessary in the modern age.

How so?

4 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

The benefits it can provide to a society are minimal at best, with all practical contributions easily achievable by secular organizations and even government agencies.

I dunno, if being a good person because some deity told you to is enough reason for someone to not be a shitty person, then that's a pretty great contribution.

The problem comes when people you know, try to force their beliefs onto others. But that's not limited to just religion either

[FlynnCoyote]

1 hour ago, willow said:

How so?

I've already said how.

1 hour ago, willow said:

I dunno, if being a good person because some deity told you to is enough reason for someone to not be a shitty person, then that's a pretty great contribution.

This is true. And I don't have a problem with these people beyond their wilful ignorance. And even that doesn't bother me in daily life, it's just a point of discussion in topics like these.

1 hour ago, willow said:

The problem comes when people you know, try to force their beliefs onto others. But that's not limited to just religion either

These are the people that bother me, and admittedly I was guilty of this in my early days of embracing nonbelief as well.

[Revates]

I believe in god because he believes in me, we're eachother's support network <3

[Saxon]

6 hours ago, willow said:

I dunno, if being a good person because some deity told you to is enough reason for someone to not be a shitty person, then that's a pretty great contribution.

The problem comes when people you know, try to force their beliefs onto others. But that's not limited to just religion either

I'm not sure I can agree with this, because if 'my god says' is the only means by which somebody's behaviour is controlled, then that suggests they have other more serious problems, and raises the unsettling suggestion that if they found instructions to perform nasty behaviour in their religious doctrine, that they wouldn't be able to reject those instructions because of their own inherent moral compulsion.

Unfortunately it seems that this suggestion is born out in real life, because 'my god  says' is viewed as a justification for some really rather awful behaviours the world over, so I am unconvinced that a morality based on following scriptures is a useful contribution, rather than a big problem.
What we can see from this is that, if you are open to be convinced of ideas without any good evidence, then the ideas you are about to accept could be immoral and you have no way of checking.

That clarifies the difference for me, between debate and proselytisation.

 

 

[Vallium]

12 hours ago, Saxon said:

This thread was created at your implicit request because you didn't want to discuss this sort of content.

You are among the people who like the post which recommended the thread's creation.

You are not being forced to read it.

Shhhh, I never said I hadnt wanted people to discuss this stuff

Just these controversy/debate thread always become chaotic, Im not here to stop anyone just watch the world burn :V

Besides I always check out in time anyways, religion and politics bore me

[Zeke]

18 hours ago, Saxon said:

Have it your way then.

 

 

Good. Keep it in there.

The only thing I ask is to try to keep it civil. You don't have to like each other's opinions, but no need to be assholes about it.

[Saxon]

10 hours ago, willow said:

I honestly have no real context for this thread...

 

So this all ballooned from a post in which I said I didn't like female genital cutting, and made no mention of religion.
Female genital cutting has religious connotations, and when somebody pointed this out it caused the discussion to explode with defenses of religion.

35 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Good. Keep it in there.

The only thing I ask is to try to keep it civil. You don't have to like each other's opinions, but no need to be assholes about it.

I won't be able to persuade other users to redirect all of their discussions here if they come here and all they see is a thread full of spam and troll posts (45% of the posts so far are spam) , so you'll have to keep those out of here if this is what you want.

[Red Lion]

8 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Female genital cutting has religious connotations, and when somebody pointed this out it caused the discussion to explode with defenses of religion.

 

This reminds me of something I was discussing with someone earlier. People doing things that are objectively harmful getting a pass because of religion.

Even on a smaller scale I get tired of people making exceptions for religion. I feel that if average joe has to take out his nose ring because dress code dictates he do so or lose his job, then the same should apply to the joe who claims to wear his because it's part of his religion. Rules should be rules, no exceptions made to cater to individual beliefs. 

One jewelry place around here is really adamant about "no hats, no hoods, no face masks" citing that a person's head must be uncovered at all times for identification reasons, you can even be FIRED for walking onto the floor with a baseball cap on. Turns out they make exceptions for religious headscarves.  

[GarthTheWereWolf]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

So this all ballooned from a post in which I said I didn't like female genital cutting, and made no mention of religion.
Female genital cutting has religious connotations, and when somebody pointed this out it caused the discussion to explode with defenses of religion.

Not always, its also simply cultural for a lot of regions of Africa. One of my coworker's is a first generation immigrant from Nigeria. She had female genital cutting performed on her. Her grandmother did it to her as an initiation into womanhood and it was believed that it "increased fertility" for the woman.

Although Islam is the primary culprit people think of when they think of female genital mutilation, there's no actual religious text stating that its something women need to do. Its a regional cultural practice more than anything and its given publicity as religious because the spiritual leaders in Islamic areas are the community leaders that end up enforcing the local cultural norms.

And yea, I agree with you that its a horrible barbaric practice. V:

[Vallium]

^^^^Garth is correct, it isnt always religious

I read somewhere else another reason they do it is its actually an act to inhibit feminine attributes, anything from heatpressing young girls with budding breasts or mutilating genitals is something done by older women to deter rape, as they believe it protects young girls from males

[Saxon]

1 hour ago, GarthTheWereWolf said:

Not always, its also simply cultural for a lot of regions of Africa. One of my coworker's is a first generation immigrant from Nigeria. She had female genital cutting performed on her. Her grandmother did it to her as an initiation into womanhood and it was believed that it "increased fertility" for the woman.

Although Islam is the primary culprit people think of when they think of female genital mutilation, there's no actual religious text stating that its something women need to do. Its a regional cultural practice more than anything and its given publicity as religious because the spiritual leaders in Islamic areas are the community leaders that end up enforcing the local cultural norms.

And yea, I agree with you that its a horrible barbaric practice. V:

Yeah, I'm aware genital cutting is sometimes religious and sometimes not. I didn't bring up he religious or cultural connotations when I first posted about it because it's not as though those associations make the practice any worse or any better.

Regrettably lots of Muslim cultures practice genital cutting of both men and women, and all the Abrahamic religions instruct their followers to cut men's genitals, so I cannot really defend Islam, because it's not exactly challenging genital cutting as one would expect any cogent moral authority to.

2 hours ago, Red Lion said:

This reminds me of something I was discussing with someone earlier. People doing things that are objectively harmful getting a pass because of religion.

Even on a smaller scale I get tired of people making exceptions for religion. I feel that if average joe has to take out his nose ring because dress code dictates he do so or lose his job, then the same should apply to the joe who claims to wear his because it's part of his religion. Rules should be rules, no exceptions made to cater to individual beliefs. 

One jewelry place around here is really adamant about "no hats, no hoods, no face masks" citing that a person's head must be uncovered at all times for identification reasons, you can even be FIRED for walking onto the floor with a baseball cap on. Turns out they make exceptions for religious headscarves.  

I also get tired of exceptions being made for religious reasoning. In some instances I am content to let people be exceptions if they will only harm themselves, for example there is Sihk construction worker at the new physics department who doesn't wear a hard hat. That's a terrible choice and anybody else who did it would be sacked immediately, but it's his own life that he is risking.

I think that we commonly also assume that if an opinion is held because of religious convictions then it is beyond reproach: If somebody thinks that Long-John-Silver was a real pirate, then nobody would find any issue if we pointed out that he was a fictional character.
But if somebody believes the Garden of Eden is a real place, then challenging that is uncouth.

^^^^Garth is correct, it isnt always religious

I read somewhere else another reason they do it is its actually an act to inhibit feminine attributes, anything from heatpressing young girls with budding breasts or mutilating genitals is something done by older women to deter rape, as they believe it protects young girls from males

I must say that I am a little doubtful that FGM is done to prevent child abuse, because many of those cultures have socially sanctioned or ritual child abuse.

For example some families in AEgypt and the Arabian peninsula sell their young daughters as brides. There is no age of consent or minimum age of marriage in some of these countries, given that some influential Muslim scholars argue that any girl over the age of 6 is old enough for sex.

Some countries that practice FGM, like Malawi, hire men to have sex with their pubescent daughters as part of heir rite of passage into adulthood: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36843769

 

[Red Lion]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

Yeah, I'm aware genital cutting is sometimes religious and sometimes not. I didn't bring up he religious or cultural connotations when I first posted about it because it's not as though those associations make the practice any worse or any better.

Regrettably lots of Muslim cultures practice genital cutting of both men and women, and all the Abrahamic religions instruct their followers to cut men's genitals, so I cannot really defend Islam, because it's not exactly challenging genital cutting as one would expect any cogent moral authority to.

I also get tired of exceptions being made for religious reasoning. In some instances I am content to let people be exceptions if they will only harm themselves, for example there is Sihk construction worker at the new physics department who doesn't wear a hard hat. That's a terrible choice and anybody else who did it would be sacked immediately, but it's his own life that he is risking.

I think that we commonly also assume that if an opinion is held because of religious convictions then it is beyond reproach: If somebody thinks that Long-John-Silver was a real pirate, then nobody would find any issue if we pointed out that he was a fictional character.
But if somebody believes the Garden of Eden is a real place, then challenging that is uncouth.

There are a few businesses down here who won't make exceptions to their safety rules and they've come under fire for discrimination. They won't hire people who don't follow the rules, anyone who outright refuses to wear safety gear will not be hired because the company is responsible for the safety of their employees and it could put the company in a legal bind if they don't enforce safety for all workers. In most situations the simple solution would be "take off your head wear and put on a damn hard hat or you're not working here". But when the reason for not wearing a hard hat is culture/religion suddenly your rules are oppressive and racist. 

 

Quote

I must say that I am a little doubtful that FGM is done to prevent child abuse, because many of those cultures have socially sanctioned or ritual child abuse.

For example some families in AEgypt and the Arabian peninsula sell their young daughters as brides. There is no age of consent or minimum age of marriage in some of these countries, given that some influential Muslim scholars argue that any girl over the age of 6 is old enough for sex.

Some countries that practice FGM, like Malawi, hire men to have sex with their pubescent daughters as part of heir rite of passage into adulthood: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36843769

 

That is absolutely disgusting. 

[willow]

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

I'm not sure I can agree with this, because if 'my god says' is the only means by which somebody's behaviour is controlled, then that suggests they have other more serious problems, and raises the unsettling suggestion that if they found instructions to perform nasty behaviour in their religious doctrine, that they wouldn't be able to reject those instructions because of their own inherent moral compulsion.

Unfortunately it seems that this suggestion is born out in real life, because 'my god  says' is viewed as a justification for some really rather awful behaviours the world over, so I am unconvinced that a morality based on following scriptures is a useful contribution, rather than a big problem.
What we can see from this is that, if you are open to be convinced of ideas without any good evidence, then the ideas you are about to accept could be immoral and you have no way of checking.

That clarifies the difference for me, between debate and proselytisation.

 

 

even the most devout religious people tend to reject the radical parts of their religion because it doesn't fit with their teachings

but this is also why I said if it makes them a better person. basing your morals on some form of text isn't really unique to religion either 

just sayin

[Saxon]

15 minutes ago, willow said:

even the most devout religious people tend to reject the radical parts of their religion because it doesn't fit with their teachings

but this is also why I said if it makes them a better person. basing your morals on some form of text isn't really unique to religion either 

just sayin

If somebody is cogent enough to reject the nasty parts of their religious doctrine, then are you sure that their moral compulsion is coming from religious inspiration, rather than their abstract reasoning?

Anyway, I do agree that other faith based ideologies based on following doctrines exist, such as people who are fanatical about the works of Karl Marx, and I'd probably say some people's veneration of their national constitution is similar, because they are only preoccupied with what their constitution says, rather than whether what it says is well justified.

The idea that complex moral choices could ever be wholly answered by one book, author or ideology should strike people as much too simple to be correct a priori, but alas, this is the most popular method of moral inspiration in the world today.

 

That is absolutely disgusting. 

 

There is a silver lining. After the news article was published the government of Malawi, which is battling to stamp out indigenous child abuse rituals, tracked the 'Hyena man' down and arrested him for having sex with underage women and knowingly spreading HIV.

 

[FlynnCoyote]

1 hour ago, willow said:

even the most devout religious people tend to reject the radical parts of their religion because it doesn't fit with their teachings

It's almost as if their morality is actually coming from empathy, fancy that.

[Xaende]

21 hours ago, Saxon said:

What do you mean by this? To my understanding scientific inquiries are based on refining hypotheses based on what's observed, whereas faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

 

 

 

Ah, but faith isn't the denial of observation. It's the trust and acceptance of things unseen. The difference may seem negligible at first glance, but it's actually quite large. To deny what one observes isn't faith. It's called being mistaken, and it happens to the religious and the irreligious alike. Although one can certainly have faith *and* be mistaken, they aren't one in the same. Not all who are mistaken have faith, and not all who have faith are mistaken.

Many people like to pit science against religion, in the hopes that one will win out over the other. I think that's unfortunate, as it can turn individuals away from both. Injecting religion or anti-religion into scientific literature is basically editorializing, and editorializing doesn't belong with the serious nuts-and-bolts science of how things work. In other words, I think science should be "Just the facts, ma'am", and let people draw their own conclusions.

That being said, I don't think "personal truths" belong in science. While I can appreciate leaving God out of the lab as some kind of incredible claim, however, to say the universe doesn't have a designer is a similarly incredible claim. Especially considering how everything else humans encounter in life has a designer (product designers, for instance). However much that might be anthropomorphizing the idea of a deity, there isn't much of an observable precedent for functional things being made that aren't the product of some kind of intelligence.

Lest you think I'm overlooking evidence for evolution, which seems to be a popular thing for religious people to reject, I'm not. Let's say you have two robotics experts. One makes a robot that can reproduce itself. Pretty neat, huh? Well, the other robotics expert has made a robot that will not only reproduce itself, but morphologically adapt to its surroundings. Sometimes, increasing in complexity over successive generations. If these two experts were to somehow create worlds, which would you say has more "God-like" abilities? And even if such systems seemingly arose from nothing, would having "faith" in such a god necessarily be misplaced?

I'm not pushing any particular belief system. I just think science and religion can get along if we just focus on the facts and leave out the editorializing. Hey, you wanted laborious religious arguments. Hopefully, this one is sufficiently laborious.

 

[Crazy Lee]

18 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

There is only one way to resolve religious arguments:

Don't you mean

 

[FlynnCoyote]

7 minutes ago, Xaende said:

Let's say you have two robotics experts. One makes a robot that can reproduce itself. Pretty neat, huh? Well, the other robotics expert has made a robot that will not only reproduce itself, but morphologically adapt to its surroundings. Sometimes, increasing in complexity over successive generations. If these two experts were to somehow create worlds, which would you say has more "God-like" abilities? And even if such systems seemingly arose from nothing, would having "faith" in such a god necessarily be misplaced?

This analogy doesn't quite work, as these robots would have the ability to interact with their creators and have direct evidence of their existence. In the real world we have nothing but anecdotes written in a time where people didn't know what made it rain. The robots have the means to verify their builders. We do not.

Further, even if such a cosmic deity did exist, it would be a far cry from the tyrannical and jealous war god as depicted in the scriptures. Most theists these days do not worship the scriptural god, but rather their own ideal of it based on their own moral compass.

[Xaende]

16 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

This analogy doesn't quite work, as these robots would have the ability to interact with their creators and have direct evidence of their existence. In the real world we have nothing but anecdotes written in a time where people didn't know what made it rain. The robots have the means to verify their builders. We do not.

Further, even if such a cosmic deity did exist, it would be a far cry from the tyrannical and jealous war god as depicted in the scriptures. Most theists these days do not worship the scriptural god, but rather their own ideal of it based on their own moral compass.

No analogy is perfect, but you're assuming that the robots would be able to interact with their creators in a meaningful way. Eventually, perhaps the adaptable ones might evolve that ability, but that's beyond the scope of what I was getting at. A more sophisticated understanding of reality might instead suggest a more sophisticated creator.

[FlynnCoyote]

3 minutes ago, Xaende said:

No analogy is perfect, but you're assuming that the robots would be able to interact with their creators in a meaningful way. Eventually, perhaps the adaptable ones might evolve that ability, but that's beyond the scope of what I was getting at. A more sophisticated understanding of reality might instead suggest a more sophisticated creator.

This I could accept if it were ever proven, but this is still nothing like the majority of deities in present day religions. This is more of an ideal creator invented as a result of our scientific understanding getting greater by the year.

The need to keep some form of belief in God alive has placed him on a much higher pedestal than the original scripture writers would have been able to envisage, to the point where so many have blindly accepted that we will never be able to understand him. Special Pleading at its finest.

[Saxon]

1 hour ago, Xaende said:

Ah, but faith isn't the denial of observation. It's the trust and acceptance of things unseen. The difference may seem negligible at first glance, but it's actually quite large. To deny what one observes isn't faith. It's called being mistaken, and it happens to the religious and the irreligious alike. Although one can certainly have faith *and* be mistaken, they aren't one in the same. Not all who are mistaken have faith, and not all who have faith are mistaken.

Many people like to pit science against religion, in the hopes that one will win out over the other. I think that's unfortunate, as it can turn individuals away from both. Injecting religion or anti-religion into scientific literature is basically editorializing, and editorializing doesn't belong with the serious nuts-and-bolts science of how things work. In other words, I think science should be "Just the facts, ma'am", and let people draw their own conclusions.

That being said, I don't think "personal truths" belong in science. While I can appreciate leaving God out of the lab as some kind of incredible claim, however, to say the universe doesn't have a designer is a similarly incredible claim. Especially considering how everything else humans encounter in life has a designer (product designers, for instance). However much that might be anthropomorphizing the idea of a deity, there isn't much of an observable precedent for functional things being made that aren't the product of some kind of intelligence.

Lest you think I'm overlooking evidence for evolution, which seems to be a popular thing for religious people to reject, I'm not. Let's say you have two robotics experts. One makes a robot that can reproduce itself. Pretty neat, huh? Well, the other robotics expert has made a robot that will not only reproduce itself, but morphologically adapt to its surroundings. Sometimes, increasing in complexity over successive generations. If these two experts were to somehow create worlds, which would you say has more "God-like" abilities? And even if such systems seemingly arose from nothing, would having "faith" in such a god necessarily be misplaced?

I'm not pushing any particular belief system. I just think science and religion can get along if we just focus on the facts and leave out the editorializing. Hey, you wanted laborious religious arguments. Hopefully, this one is sufficiently laborious.

 

If you don't think faith requires denying observation, ask yourself what would happen if evidence emerges that shows an idea held in faith is wrong.

This is the best answer to the reason that 'god did it' is not a helpful answer to assume in science. If human knowledge is an expanding puzzle, 'god did it' is an edge-piece, because it curtails further questions.

This analogy doesn't quite work, /snip/

There is a simpler reason that his idea was wrong. 

A self-replicating organism that never made any mistakes would disobey physical law. Hence an imperfect replicator is the *only* option available, and natural selection is a process that will operate on that imperfect replicator whether or not it was created by a god, or created as a result of natural chemistry.

Life adapting to its environment is hence no more evidence of God-like design in biology than water adapting to fill the shape of its container is.

[Saxon]

For people who are interested, the question of how live originated is addressed by the science of Abiogenesis.

The current favoured theory is that chemicals called nucleotides, which likely existed on the Early Earth because their precursors have been observed in nebulae in space, were able to link together on the surface of Montmorilinite clay, due to its special chemical properties.

Montmorillinite clay is a common mineral that would have been abundant on the Early volcanic earth, because it forms from the degraded break-down products of volcanic minerals.

The nucletodies would have joined together to form chains analogous to RNA. Crucially, macro-molecules like RNA can make copies of themselves.

Lipids, which would also have been present on the Early Earth, spontaneously arrange themselves into hollow spherical shells when they are in contact with Montmorillinite clay. Hollow lipid spheres are essentially what cell membranes are.

So it is quite likely that the first life, which may have been free-living RNA chains, or may have been lipid cells containing RNA, probably originated due to known and spontaneous chemical reactions that would have been occurring all over the Early Earth for many millions of years.

It is possible that life may have even originated *more than once* on Earth, but it is likely that all existing Earth life today is ultimately only descended from one origin.
 

[Xaende]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

If you don't think faith requires denying observation, ask yourself what would happen if evidence emerges that shows an idea held in faith is wrong.

This is the best answer to the reason that 'god did it' is not a helpful answer to assume in science. If human knowledge is an expanding puzzle, 'god did it' is an edge-piece, because it curtails further questions.

What happens when something held in faith is proven wrong? People learn and grow. If something is demonstrably wrong, then it's wrong and should be accepted as such.

That being said, the idea of "God did it" isn't necessarily meant to fill in that kind of blank. It can be more of a perspective. When presented with unambiguously conflicting data, a reasonable person realizes that they were mistaken. As such, a reasonable theist likely concludes that they were wrong... about how God did it. See how that works? Theist or not, one should be able get on with the business of finding the piece that fits the puzzle. If that piece is abiogenesis, then it's abiogenesis. The atheist might just see it as a satisfying answer, whereas the theist might see it as how God did it, but there's room for both perspectives. Ideally, we should be able to agree on whatever is demonstrable and repeatable. Empirical science is agnostic, after all.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'd like to think that more people could agree on the facts if greater emphasis was placed on those facts in and of themselves.

 

2 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

This I could accept if it were ever proven, but this is still nothing like the majority of deities in present day religions. This is more of an ideal creator invented as a result of our scientific understanding getting greater by the year.

The need to keep some form of belief in God alive has placed him on a much higher pedestal than the original scripture writers would have been able to envisage, to the point where so many have blindly accepted that we will never be able to understand him. Special Pleading at its finest.

Perhaps that's why many religious texts portray their gods as mysterious and beyond human comprehension. The writers were aware of their limitations.

[Saxon]

14 minutes ago, Xaende said:

What happens when something held in faith is proven wrong? People learn and grow. If something is demonstrably wrong, then it's wrong and should be accepted as such.

That being said, the idea of "God did it" isn't necessarily meant to fill in that kind of blank. It can be more of a perspective. When presented with unambiguously conflicting data, a reasonable person realizes that they were mistaken. As such, a reasonable theist likely concludes that they were wrong... about how God did it. See how that works? Theist or not, one should be able get on with the business of finding the piece that fits the puzzle. If that piece is abiogenesis, then it's abiogenesis. The atheist might just see it as a satisfying answer, whereas the theist might see it as how God did it, but there's room for both perspectives. Ideally, we should be able to agree on whatever is demonstrable and repeatable. Empirical science is agnostic, after all.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'd like to think that more people could agree on the facts if greater emphasis was placed on those facts in and of themselves.

 

Perhaps that's why many religious texts portray their gods as mysterious and beyond human comprehension. The writers were aware of their limitations.

In my experience most people don't learn and grow; they usually ignore or repudiate ideas that challenge their faith.
That's why Galileo was locked up, after making discoveries that challenged the catholic faith.

Unfortunately the history of science is so full of that sort of thing that such tales are clichéd and people routinely are satisfied to use religion to place limits on what knowledge should be considered forbidden.

'God did it' isn't a reasonable claim to introduce to questions with unknown answers, because it's an unqualified hypothesis.
One may as well claim that fairies exist and make snow flakes, and when shown that snow flakes form naturally by way of crystalisation, just argue that this is the method by which fairies manufacture the snow flakes.

Do you see the problem with that sort of reasoning? You can smuggle in whatever assumptions about reality you please.
 

[LadyRadarEars]

There are sects of certain faiths that hold that science is the means by which we are supposed to understand the world created, and that thus it invalidating something in the scriptures is seen as natural and expected, as 'what was known a generation before changes with the next', etc.

 

Naturally those sects are hunted, but that's true of all sects separate from the mainstream. Even political, nonreligious ones.

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, LadyRadarEars said:

There are sects of certain faiths that hold that science is the means by which we are supposed to understand the world created, and that thus it invalidating something in the scriptures is seen as natural and expected, as 'what was known a generation before changes with the next', etc.

 

Naturally those sects are hunted, but that's true of all sects separate from the mainstream. Even political, nonreligious ones.

The Science of Geology (my science) actually started as an attempt by the clergy to prove that genesis happened and to 'read the mind of the creator'.
They ended up collecting the body of evidence which proved genesis didn't happen.

The actual story has comic elements. For example there are fossil trees submerged by a drape of mud in Nova Scotia, which Clergyman originally interpreted as having been submerged by Noah's flood.
But after looking in more detail they discovered there were two mud drape events...and they scratched their heads and decided that there must have been a second flood they didn't know about...maybe Noah's flood wasn't the first time that God had wiped the Earth clean.
..and then so many mud drapes were discovered that the clergy were eventually arguing that there had been tens if not hundreds of world-destroying floods before they decided that things were getting silly.

To this day though, I still come across religious people who think that the fossil trees in Joggins Nova Scotia prove that Noah's flood happened.

 

 

[Feelwell]

About to start praying to the god of sleep.

Tomorrow, the god of not making a fool out of myself/and or hating myself.

Monday, the god of getting shit done correctly.

After that, the god of waiting it out.

Many gods.

[Xaende]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

In my experience most people don't learn and grow; they usually ignore or repudiate ideas that challenge their faith.
That's why Galileo was locked up, after making discoveries that challenged the catholic faith.

Unfortunately the history of science is so full of that sort of thing that such tales are clichéd and people routinely are satisfied to use religion to place limits on what knowledge should be considered forbidden.

'God did it' isn't a reasonable claim to introduce to questions with unknown answers, because it's an unqualified hypothesis.
One may as well claim that fairies exist and make snow flakes, and when shown that snow flakes form naturally by way of crystalisation, just argue that this is the method by which fairies manufacture the snow flakes.

Do you see the problem with that sort of reasoning? You can smuggle in whatever assumptions about reality you please.
 

Galileo was an admirable man. He stood up to the establishment, including other scientists, for what he knew to be true. The political situation of his day was deeply intertwined with science and religion, so the law came down pretty hard on him. He was not only brilliant, but demonstrated great courage. If I'm not mistaken, he was also a Catholic himself. Just one who happened to know that the planets revolve around the sun, and more important things to do than keep the Pope happy.

I don't condone the use of "God did it" in the manner you describe. I'm merely saying that no matter what is found, someone who believes God is responsible for everything, will still believe in their heart of hearts that "God did it". Not as an answer or an end piece, but the lens through which they look.

The relation of fairies to what most people consider "god" is tenuous at best. You are comparing a mythical entity to the idea that there's some kind of intelligence behind the creation of the universe.

I understand what you're getting at, but none of it is relevant to the actual science. Empirical data should be what matters.