for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Do you think God and certain Science can co-exist?

kelsto811 : 12/1/2018 12:36 am
If this topic is one that toes the line on breaking forum rules, I would just ask that a moderator delete it or inform me so I can delete it. My hope is that its actually a topic that brings about healthy and substance filled discussion. Please bear with me here as I'm not even 100% sure where I was going with this. If it seems like a pointless discussion or one unnecessarily extrapolated on and made more difficult than it has to be, please just let it fade into the archives :)

Lately I've been really interested in learning more about Historical and Modern Day Science, more specifically Science related to how the world works and consiousness; Physics and Neuroscience. I've been using Books, Magazines, Videos, Articles, and other Educational Tools to attempt to gain some insight into where the field of Science was a thousand years ago, hundred years ago, etc., and what it has grown to today. Along the way, you naturally get an idea of the Human Culture during those times. For example, Atomic Theory was actually first proposed by Democritus somewhere around 400 B.C (Incredible incredible genius this guy was). He was a "Pre-Socratic" Philosopher and the traditional line of thinking then was that space was synonymous with the Heavens...The late 1600's brought Newton, and even with emerging revelations on how the world worked (his own), he was heavily involved with the Church and Biblical studies.


Why I'm asking? I had given my Mother a list of books I wanted (Yes I still give my Mom a Christmas list) and one was "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. She was noticeably upset when I next saw her and, in so many words, told me she thought it was incensitive of me to ask her to purchase me something that so obviously and easily dismisses God. I didn't really notice the title was so forthcoming, I thought it would be more fact presenting rather than God shaming... and the contents of the book likely are, but still she was right. I know her better than anyone and it was a poor decision to ask her for that, knowing full well how strongly she felt about her faith and how much effort she put in as a Mother to give her son the opportunity to do the same (while not forcing her belief on me, ever). So I've always respected her faith and feel like I kind of put her in a compromising position by forcing her to speak up about that.

Anyway, the title of this thread is a bit vague but the reason I brought it up is that I dug a little and watched Richard Dawkins speak at an event related to getting "something from nothing" and then another video, and another. He seems overly hostile at times towards creationists. He gets agitated and even seems offended if a person even insinuates that a creator exists. So I decided to drop his book from the list because it all just seems condescending now. Hopefully I'm not doing myself a disservice.

Do you personally believe in a God and still agree with the majority of widely accepted Science today (big bang, something from nothing, ever expanding universe, black holes, time dilation, age of the Earth, etc.)? If so, how do you reconcile, if you were asked to, to someone that both of these are part of your core beliefs? If not, do you think that the two can truly co-exist or do you look at someone who says this as contradicting themselves?

I understand many atheists believe that the idea of God was originally created to explain the unknown and continued/continues as more of a comfort than anything. I believe that's how most Atheists would explain that. But I also wonder if the advancement of Science should (or is expected to) negatively correlate with religious faith. If a Theory of Everything becomes universally accepted 500 years from now, what would the World's general view on Religion be?
Pages: 1 2 3 <<Prev | Show All |
Surprisingly, good OP lead  
5BowlsSoon : 12/1/2018 10:45 pm : link
I usually avoid political or religious conversations because most people aren’t listening, they just want to talk, and I don’t come here to talk religion or God but rather sports, but your question seemed genuine enough.

To only answer the OP’s question, yes I believe God created the universe but don’t ask me to explain it, I just believe it....not sure how He did it or by what means. Just believe that He did. I guess you could call it faith but not necessarily blind faith. Of course you could google Intelligent Design answers to the creation of the universe if you need to know such.

I do believe science and God can “work together” but I also don’t believe science has all the answers or that some of the answers they propose are always right for whatever reason.
Kelsto811  
manh george : 12/1/2018 11:36 pm : link
Quote:

But couldn't this also be an argument FOR intelligent design? My thinking is along the lines of, someone could argue that Evolution is a tool of the creator. And/or using my post above that Evolution pre-supposes the cell and therefore wouldn't exist without the cell which is a design from an intelligent source.


Fair question, but with strong answers available, I think.

1) I have no objection to the idea that there was an original creator, an entity that triggered the Big Bang or even the first spark of life on earth. My issue is with an intervening God that is required by organized religion. As I said, no one has been able to link evolution through natural selection with the idea that after 2 billion+ years of evolution and 2 million+ years of proto-humans an intervening God returned to have a relationship with humans that he didn't directly create.

2) ID and evolution through descent by natural selection are irreconcilable. The idea of ID is specifically designed to provide a role for an intervening God that pushed life toward the creation of modern humans, not for a random process.

3) Btw, ID is a gimmick. American Protestant Creationists needed a way around the idea that Creationism is religion, not science, so they edited their texts to call it ID. But they never reconciled any of that with the massive evidence for evolution, especially including the vast fossil record. See the link for a start.

4) But it always returns to the fossil record, and to thousands of PHD-level scientists in close to a dozen disciplines who study this stuff in exquisite detail.


Link - ( New Window )
RE: Surprisingly, good OP lead  
Milton : 12/2/2018 12:35 am : link
In comment 14200238 5BowlsSoon said:
Quote:

To only answer the OP’s question, yes I believe God created the universe but don’t ask me to explain it, I just believe it....not sure how He did it or by what means. Just believe that He did.
Who created God? And where did He exist before He created the Universe?
Quote:
I do believe science and God can “work together” but I also don’t believe science has all the answers or that some of the answers they propose are always right for whatever reason.
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, in fact, it makes that disclaimer right up front. Science openly admits that the Universe poses riddles and mysteries of which some will be forever beyond our grasp. Science is humble. It recognizes its limits and mankind's infinitesimal place in the cosmos. As Dick Feynman once said, "We can never know if we're right, we can only know if we're wrong."
More from Steven Weinberg...  
Milton : 12/2/2018 12:39 am : link
Quote:
"It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning. ... It is very hard to realize that this is all just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.
Milton, I half agree with you--but only half.  
manh george : 12/2/2018 2:07 am : link
To be sure, we will never know with 100% certainty that evolution through natural selection is correct. However, two factors weigh strongly in its favor.
1) As I have been discussing, the combination of a spectacularly detailed fossil record which NEVER comes up with inconsistent evidence that would require the need for an alternate theory. To be sure, there are vast holes in the record about specific species but the aggregate record is remarkably accurate and consistent--even while being examined by well trained scientists with a massive body of knowledge and research data. That puts the odds the odds of an alternate solution at a vanishingly low level--albeit not at zero.

2) Scientists who deal with this kind of material argue strenuously that ID isn't science, because it isn't "falsifiable." Proponents Of ID will never accept evidence that shows their theory to be wrong--so it is no theory. Proponents of evolutionary theory would accede to a single case where the fossil record shows ID-like evidence. There just isn't any. The mathematical odds of 1) and 2) both leaning toward evolution through thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence, but still being incorrect is just tiny.



RE: RE: Surprisingly, good OP lead  
PatersonPlank : 12/2/2018 10:54 am : link
In comment 14200309 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 14200238 5BowlsSoon said:


Quote:



To only answer the OP’s question, yes I believe God created the universe but don’t ask me to explain it, I just believe it....not sure how He did it or by what means. Just believe that He did.

Who created God? And where did He exist before He created the Universe?


Quote:


I do believe science and God can “work together” but I also don’t believe science has all the answers or that some of the answers they propose are always right for whatever reason.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, in fact, it makes that disclaimer right up front. Science openly admits that the Universe poses riddles and mysteries of which some will be forever beyond our grasp. Science is humble. It recognizes its limits and mankind's infinitesimal place in the cosmos. As Dick Feynman once said, "We can never know if we're right, we can only know if we're wrong."


This is a trap question and a never ending wormhole. Only created things have a creator, God always existed and was not created. If there is some back story here we will never know it. Also this question is a trap, because then the next question becomes "Who created God's creator" and so on. Everything will not always come to finite, mathematical conclusion the human species can understand. If there was such an "ending" we would have scientifically found it already
RE: Science cannot prove  
Big Al : 12/2/2018 11:29 am : link
In comment 14199829 EdS56 said:
Quote:
To me science is being used
to deny God again for many who subscribe
once again to moral relativism.
There is something very disturbing to me about this charge of bad motives, but it is hard for me to put into words. It has something to do with what I take as an attack on normal human intellectual curiosity into looking for the truth.
The tone of these discussions here  
Big Al : 12/2/2018 11:36 am : link
have certainly improved from 20 years ago when I was told that me and my whole family were going to Hell and I was a called a Jesus hater for discussing my belief in evolution and the belief that there was more than one path to God. Only old timers here will remember Rocky (who later became Spock).
RE: Science cannot prove  
Mr. Bungle : 12/2/2018 11:37 am : link
In comment 14199829 EdS56 said:
Quote:
How everything put together in such
mathematical precision is able to happen
autonomously.

"God did it" doesn't prove anything, either.
One other thought  
Big Al : 12/2/2018 11:40 am : link
which I have expressed here before. My experience has told me that how religious or nonreligious person is tells me very little about who moral a person is.
George Carlin:  
Pete in MD : 12/2/2018 11:41 am : link
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”
He's right.  
Simpleman in Tx : 12/2/2018 12:43 pm : link
That is organized religion. However, you can believe in God as an intelligent creator and not be involved in man made doctrine. It's now called a relationship, not a religion.
RE: He's right.  
PatersonPlank : 12/2/2018 1:31 pm : link
In comment 14200563 Simpleman in Tx said:
Quote:
That is organized religion. However, you can believe in God as an intelligent creator and not be involved in man made doctrine. It's now called a relationship, not a religion.


Non-denominational churches are about this. A direct relationship with God, not a relationship with religion
RE: RE: RE: Surprisingly, good OP lead  
Milton : 12/2/2018 4:03 pm : link
In comment 14200463 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:

This is a trap question and a never ending wormhole. Only created things have a creator, God always existed and was not created. If there is some back story here we will never know it. Also this question is a trap, because then the next question becomes "Who created God's creator" and so on. Everything will not always come to finite, mathematical conclusion the human species can understand.
But that's the point of the question because the same thing can be said of the Universe: that it always existed in one form or another. If it's possible that there can be existence "before" there was time, then it's fair game for both those who don't pretend to know how the Universe began and those who pretend it began with a creator. You don't get exclusive rights "but what was there before that?"
RE: RE: RE: RE: Surprisingly, good OP lead  
PatersonPlank : 12/2/2018 4:54 pm : link
In comment 14201870 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 14200463 PatersonPlank said:


Quote:



This is a trap question and a never ending wormhole. Only created things have a creator, God always existed and was not created. If there is some back story here we will never know it. Also this question is a trap, because then the next question becomes "Who created God's creator" and so on. Everything will not always come to finite, mathematical conclusion the human species can understand.

But that's the point of the question because the same thing can be said of the Universe: that it always existed in one form or another. If it's possible that there can be existence "before" there was time, then it's fair game for both those who don't pretend to know how the Universe began and those who pretend it began with a creator. You don't get exclusive rights "but what was there before that?"


Well seeing as science can not explain everything, I guess people who demand mathematical or scientific proof for everything have a decision. They can either believe in a higher power, or they can continue to deny God and not have any other explanation.
Some random thoughts  
Lurts : 12/2/2018 6:47 pm : link
1) science has no clue what roughly 2/3 of the mass of the universe is ( "dark matter"). This may be resolved tomorrow or in a century, but I have no doubt the answers will leave us with more humbling questions.

2) the known universe is accelerating outward into... What? (The "known universe" seems to be a good metAphor for scientific knowledge expanding against--but not "into"--something ultimately unknowable.)

3) scientists can identify a fraction of the sources of energy that would be necessary to accelerate this expansion of the universe last the speed of light. If memory serves, that fraction has a numerator of 1 and a denominator of 10 to the 23rd power. In other words, there is vastLy, almost infinitely more energy in our universe than we can comprehend. The product of science is knowledge and humility.

4) While I think it is not productive to try to align science and religion on a point for point basis, the question of what was there before God created the light in Genesis is not unlike what was there before the Big Bang.


5) Man's relationship with God evolves in the Bible. From the demand that the first monotheist, Abraham, sacrifice his son to prove his faith to God's sacrifice of his son, there is a movement from the stern God of the early prophets to a spirit of grace and redemption.

6) I have no sophistication in physics, but the "mysteries" of life-after-death and a Fall into Time, bookended by eternity, does not seem inconsistent with our experience of time even when some physicists contend that directional time is an illusion.

At this point in my life, the desire to wrestle the infinite into the finite seems a parallel-- rather than exclusive--endeavor in science and faith.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Surprisingly, good OP lead  
Milton : 12/2/2018 7:41 pm : link
In comment 14202391 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:

Well seeing as science can not explain everything, I guess people who demand mathematical or scientific proof for everything have a decision. They can either believe in a higher power, or they can continue to deny God and not have any other explanation.
Why are those the only two choices? What about accepting that mankind has not yet discovered or come to understand how the Universe formed and may never truly know? How long must God serve as the default value every time we don't understand a physical phenomenon (like rain, for instance, or my uncle Sasha picking up a check)?

Quote:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious Universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."--Richard Feynman

Richard Feynman--The Uncertainty of Knowledge - ( New Window )
Btw--I'm an agnostic, not an atheist  
Milton : 12/2/2018 7:43 pm : link
Like Feynman, I can live with not having an answer, even if I spend my life searching for one.
Another fun clip from Feynman...  
Milton : 12/2/2018 7:53 pm : link
On the question....
Why - ( New Window )
RE: RE: I will tell you who ar actually two sides of the same coin  
Mike from Ohio : 12/2/2018 10:46 pm : link
In comment 14199337 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 14199296 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


Those who believe blindly in faith to the exclusion of science, and those who believe in science to the exclusion of faith. Both are closed minded people who cling to a belief and shut out rational discourse.

I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.

I equate faith with wishful thinking, what do you equate it with? Explain the "logic" of believing in something that has no basis in fact, but conveniently rids you of your biggest fear: death. Or did I just answer my own question?


Do you believe all facts are now known by humans? If you don’t, then there is plenty of things that are not based on fact which are true. Or do you believe everything that can be known is already known?

And if you think faith means nothing but “I get to go see grandma and mr. whiskers in Heaven when I die, you have no concept of what the word means.
Name one thing  
Mike in Marin : 12/2/2018 11:48 pm : link
that religion has debunked in science in the entire history of the world.

Then consider what science has disproven about religion.

Yes, they can co-exist if one dismisses all doctrine and claims of a known supernatural being, and in the end, chooses a position of agnosticism.

Otherwise, they only exist in people who avoid making a choice by avoiding looking at the evidence.....which is cool and probably accounts for a huge amount of people in this world.

Religion is a complete fraud (spiritualism is not), though there may be evolutionary benefits to it in societies that justify it's importance, at least historically, and maybe currently as well.
This is an interesting thread  
Mike in Marin : 12/3/2018 12:06 am : link
I should actually read it more closely (and focus on God more than religion as the OP obviously did) before responding.

I read The God Delusion about 2 years ago along with God Is Not Great (Hitchens) and several other atheist-oriented books (mostly Sam Harris) and Dawkins' God Delusion, by far, has done the most thorough job of all the ones I have read, explaining the complete scientific lack of evidence for God, complete lack of veracity by the doctrine, including the evidence showing the bogus claims for God's existence by all the major and minor religions. I came away thoroughly convinced that all supernatural claims are bogus and that the best one can believe is that there is no proof either way.

As far as the original question goes, yes they can co-exist, provided one doesn't hold all the fairy tales as evidence of the sham and takes a position of agnosticism. But this is only a general view, individuals often have their own experience that swing things one way or another. And even a scientist would find his own personal God, regardless of all know lack of evidence, should he/she have an experience that germinates some faith, even a tiny bit,

And the short answer to the question is  
Mike in Marin : 12/3/2018 12:39 am : link
"it depends on which/whose God you are asking about."

Science is not compatible with many of them by virtue of the fact that science has destroyed the veracity of the bulk of each book/doctrine that make the claims of God's existence. So it ends up taking some mental gymnastics to cherry pick the articles of faith and still believe in the God of the Old, New Testaments and Quran. But of course, one is free to do that, even if one is a scientist.

Sorry for the multiple responses in a row, but I did read almost the entire thread now and it inspired me to post a more articulate answer to the original, main question.
I haven't had a chance yet to read through most of this thread  
Matt M. : 12/3/2018 12:40 am : link
because the posts are all so involved. Rather than the more academic/intellectual approach, I would offer an interesting take on this topic from the fictional world (although based on a true story of the Scopes Monkey Trial). The book Inherit the Wind, which also has lent itself to some fantastic plays and films, addresses this.

When the character molded after William Jennings Bryant is put on the stand by the defense, the examination forces him to explore his faith in the terms of science, and vice versa. It culminates in the idea that science and the Bible could both be right. Since the Bible doesn't really say how long a day was, it's possible to interpret the days of creation as actually spanning millions of years each and that G-d (or some greater being) put things in motion and creation is really just the natural result of evolution over those millions of years.

I always liked this approach. I believe in G-d and a greater being. But, I also absolutely believe science and the evidence it provides us. This is a topic I really want to broach with my Rabbi. Although Orthodox, he has a very modern approach to many, things. I really want to hear his thoughts. I just haven't found the right way, to ask him yet.
RE: RE: RE: I will tell you who ar actually two sides of the same coin  
Mike in Marin : 12/3/2018 12:55 am : link
In comment 14203075 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
In comment 14199337 Milton said:


Quote:


In comment 14199296 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


Those who believe blindly in faith to the exclusion of science, and those who believe in science to the exclusion of faith. Both are closed minded people who cling to a belief and shut out rational discourse.

I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.

I equate faith with wishful thinking, what do you equate it with? Explain the "logic" of believing in something that has no basis in fact, but conveniently rids you of your biggest fear: death. Or did I just answer my own question?



Do you believe all facts are now known by humans? If you don’t, then there is plenty of things that are not based on fact which are true. Or do you believe everything that can be known is already known?

And if you think faith means nothing but “I get to go see grandma and mr. whiskers in Heaven when I die, you have no concept of what the word means.


Mike-One does not have to avoid acknowledging that there is an unlimited amount of "unknowns" in the world, to know that the scientific evidence for supernatural being(s) is ZERO. Anyone making claims of which there is zero proof, as has been done for thousands of years, to the detriment and slaughter of humans, in the name of the doctrinal claims of religions, in the name of g/God(s), bears the burden of proof.

Religion has been forced to backtrack on claim after claim for hundreds of years, and science, not once.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I will tell you who ar actually two sides of the same coin  
Matt M. : 12/3/2018 1:01 am : link
In comment 14203179 Mike in Marin said:
Quote:
In comment 14203075 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


In comment 14199337 Milton said:


Quote:


In comment 14199296 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


Those who believe blindly in faith to the exclusion of science, and those who believe in science to the exclusion of faith. Both are closed minded people who cling to a belief and shut out rational discourse.

I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.

I equate faith with wishful thinking, what do you equate it with? Explain the "logic" of believing in something that has no basis in fact, but conveniently rids you of your biggest fear: death. Or did I just answer my own question?



Do you believe all facts are now known by humans? If you don’t, then there is plenty of things that are not based on fact which are true. Or do you believe everything that can be known is already known?

And if you think faith means nothing but “I get to go see grandma and mr. whiskers in Heaven when I die, you have no concept of what the word means.



Mike-One does not have to avoid acknowledging that there is an unlimited amount of "unknowns" in the world, to know that the scientific evidence for supernatural being(s) is ZERO. Anyone making claims of which there is zero proof, as has been done for thousands of years, to the detriment and slaughter of humans, in the name of the doctrinal claims of religions, in the name of g/God(s), bears the burden of proof.

Religion has been forced to backtrack on claim after claim for hundreds of years, and science, not once.
I'm not saying that there certainly is a lot in any religion that is hard to explain. But, what "claims" are you referring to that "religion" has had to backtrack on? And what religions? And science, not once? There have not been any mistakes in science that have had to have been corrected by more science over the centuries?
I also think open mindedness is necessary for this discussion  
Matt M. : 12/3/2018 1:04 am : link
from both sides. There are many highly intelligent people, even scientists, that believe in G-d and/or religion. That doesn't make them wrong on either side. If anything, I think Science and religion from an open and honest approach not only can co-exist, but may need each other. Science has proven a lot of religious stories, you know.
What I hate about conversations like this  
Matt M. : 12/3/2018 1:06 am : link
is that there is always a person or persons that takes such an extreme stance, that if you try to engage them it almost makes it seem like you believe in the opposite extreme. That is how I feel after the last two posts. I am not a zealot. I am not necessarily the most observant religious follower. But, it almost seems that way defending religion, which is not my intent.
Matt  
Mike in Marin : 12/3/2018 2:55 am : link
I was referring to scientific claims that have disproven or weakened claims made by religious doctrine and religious leadership, not every and all claims made by science that are later improved by better science.

And I am open-minded to the existence of a superior or even supernatural being, to the extent that it has not been disproven.

I was addressing Mike's claims that since not all things are known, that it proves anything about the existence of such a being. I also think it is only reasonable to expect that extreme claims of things existing-that defy all scientific evidence to the contrary, bear the burden of proof. If this seems unreasonable, please prove to me that Zeus, Neptune and the Isis do not exist, or I may continue to claim they do.

It's worth noting the number of gods that people have believed in over the years....I believe it is about 5000. Atheists just believe in one less than almost everyone else.

When you look at the body of work of believers throughout history, it's fairly clear that the claims and doctrinal requirements and back stories have gotten better and more impervious to criticism, until science and western principles of human rights were able to attenuate those claims, some more successfully than others based on the claims, enforcement, and cultural adoptions.



And as far as examples go  
Mike in Marin : 12/3/2018 3:13 am : link
to what you asked about specific religious claims, these are going to vary greatly, depending on the claims.

Whether it is walking on water, building a ship that housed animals to survive a global flood, turning water into wine, raising the dead, God showing up pretty often to speak to, order, punish, kill people, Mohammed flying on a horse, angels, demons, virgin birth, the list goes on and on as far as claims that defy science and have conveniently stopped occurring since certain books were written.

The entire New Testament and Christianity is based on the re-used mythical themes of virgin birth and resurrection, just had better script writing.

But perhaps you meant something else in your question about the actual existence of God ? If so, the above examples greatly undermine the main claim, which leaves us with-we have zero either way.

RE: I also think open mindedness is necessary for this discussion  
Mike in Marin : 12/3/2018 3:16 am : link
In comment 14203184 Matt M. said:
Quote:
from both sides. There are many highly intelligent people, even scientists, that believe in G-d and/or religion. That doesn't make them wrong on either side. If anything, I think Science and religion from an open and honest approach not only can co-exist, but may need each other. Science has proven a lot of religious stories, you know.


Yes, science has proven some historical generalities claimed in the bible e.g. the existence of certain historical figures, tribes and peoples, geographies. What is lacking is proof or a reasonable explanation for anything super natural. If you know otherwise, please share.
RE: What I hate about conversations like this  
Milton : 12/3/2018 5:09 am : link
In comment 14203185 Matt M. said:
Quote:
is that there is always a person or persons that takes such an extreme stance, that if you try to engage them it almost makes it seem like you believe in the opposite extreme.
I'm not taking an extreme stance, I'm the one who admits that I don't know how it all began. It's those who believe there was a creator without any factual evidence of it (other than the gut feeling they call faith) that are taking an extreme stance. And then they think they're throwing the non-believers a bone by saying they believe in science too. Of course you believe in science!!! That's not a concession! It doesn't show how open-minded you are.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but those who believe in a creator (quite an extraordinary claim, wouldn't you say?) come to the table with no proof whatsoever and then they claim you're condescending if you call them on it. Or that you're not open minded. I'm very open minded, that's why I continue to explore the question.

I find the story of Adam & Eve fascinating in terms of its metaphors and how they relate to the scientific discoveries which followed. If you perceive/accept it as a work of fiction, the "writer" makes some very peculiar choices. Start with the fact that after God created heaven, earth, light, etc, it is written as "one day" instead of "day one" given that the following days are day two, day three, etc (or second day, third day, etc, depending on the translation). As a metaphor, that could be a way of expressing that the Universe was created before time was created (which fits with some science-based theories on time and the Big Bang).

Now consider that Eve is created from the rib of Adam. Another odd choice for a fiction writer. Why not just say God created Eve same as he created everything else out of nothing? This fits with my own theory of the original particle--the Qulon--which splits into a Qulon/anti-Qulon pair (which multiplies exponentially). In other words, the original anti-particle springs from the particle, it doesn't come separately (and batteries are not included).

And most intriguing of all to me is the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" and what the metaphor represents in terms of what separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. Animals may know who to fear and who is safe, but they don't think in terms of good and evil. But man is knowledgable of good and evil because our brains are smarter than the brains of other animals. And what is the price we pay for that added intelligence? Well, it means we have a brain that's too large to fit comfortably through a woman's vaginal canal during delivery. So that whole "in pain shall she bear children" thing because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge connects to women dealing with greater pain during deliver in order to accommodate our larger brains. Metaphorically speaking.

See, I'm open-minded!
Mike in Marin  
Mike from Ohio : 12/3/2018 10:31 am : link
Based on your response, I think you should consider the difference between faith and religion. Like Milton, you seem to be blurring the two.

Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.

Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.
Didn't necessarily want to bump this but...  
kelsto811 : 12/3/2018 9:10 pm : link
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributed. Really enjoyed reading through the comments and was pleasently surprised at the quality and volume of the discussion.

Been reading here since I was at least 14 years old and I'm now 30. Giant fandom is the commonality that brings this community together but the diversity of discussion topics that go beyond that are one of the main reasons this place is so great. Cheers.
Evidence that Demands a Verdict  
5BowlsSoon : 12/3/2018 10:34 pm : link
By Josh McDowell

For those who are interested and want to go deeper into why People of faith believe, this book might answer some questions.

I think just about every seeking Christian has read the book. It lends support to the people of faith by adding muscle (reasons to believe) and know your faith isn’t just blind. Although I don’t recall if it discusses the creation issue...it’s been a while since I read it.

Here is a synopsis of the book....
A classic, authoritative defense of Christianity containing arguments from the best apologetics of the ages. Scholarly, intelligent resposes for those who question or attack the basis of Christian faith. Google Books
RE: Mike in Marin  
Mike in Marin : 12/4/2018 12:17 am : link
In comment 14203598 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Based on your response, I think you should consider the difference between faith and religion. Like Milton, you seem to be blurring the two.

Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.

Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.


Mike- While I am guilty of blending responses of faith and religion, it is important to note that I clearly see the difference. The problem is, that very often "faith" is created by the influence of religion from family upbringing, religious education, religious doctrine and many other influences. So it becomes difficult to separate the two.

To this end, when someone such as yourself claims "faith," I can only assume that some or many of the influences above are what led you to having such faith. The problem with this is that most, if not all of these influences are bogus from the foundation (doctrinal sources) on up, due to claims of authorship directly from God and the like, claims of other supernatural events that are scientifically impossible, repeated attempts to backtrack on the claims of authorship and timing, etc.

So though many people claim "faith" at the end of the day, it seems that they wouldn't have had much to plant the wishful thinking without all the fake back story they've had shoved down their throats individually, and as a species.

How does one separate from the biases of such deep-seated mythology without scrutinizing the historical and scientific realities of such wide-spread trickery?

And to summarize my position  
Mike in Marin : 12/4/2018 1:00 am : link
If I remove all religion (to the best of my ability) from my thoughts about God, I am agnostic.

If I include (my knowledge of) religion in my thoughts about God, I am atheist, because religion has lost all credibility. ("Religion poisons everything" -C. Hitchens).

Religion deserves absolutely no protection from criticism in a free society given it's track record and lack of credibility.

But to the point of the main question of the original post, this leads me to a "yes," because as there is no proof of God, and no proof of no God, they can easily coexist. Once dogma is introduced, this becomes less and less likely. Science can only rule out the CLAIMS that God exists that are based on falsehoods or lack of evidence, as well as make the overall orthodoxy and authorities making such claims look farcical. And this is exactly what has happened and continues to happen.
Some very good work on this thread  
Bill2 : 12/4/2018 7:51 am : link
Including:

Manh as always on this topic

Mike in Marin, I liked the articulation and agreed with much of what you wrote. Thank you
Bill2  
Mike in Marin : 12/4/2018 1:14 pm : link
Thanks !

And to those who are fascinated about this massive topic,
I would highly recommend reading The God Delusion. I have found Dawkins to be pretty arrogant at times on interviews, debates, etc.

But the book is very balanced and cogently argued. And it is so fascinating and he addresses so many topics across science (astronomy, evolution, paleontology, birth of the solar system), history, religious texts, Biblical evidence, morality, philosophy. It's a 7-course meal.

And one of my favorite parts of it is the piece on the Mid (?)Cambrian Burgess Shale fossil discoveries. He takes this f&^%ing worm that lived 500 million years ago and beautifully uses it for an example of evolution. It is mind-blowing. I don't want to say more as there is a bit of a really satisfying treasure he lays out.

The book is a real pleasure to read.
RE: RE: Mike in Marin  
steve in ky : 12/4/2018 1:39 pm : link
In comment 14204803 Mike in Marin said:
Quote:
In comment 14203598 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


Based on your response, I think you should consider the difference between faith and religion. Like Milton, you seem to be blurring the two.

Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.

Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.



Mike- While I am guilty of blending responses of faith and religion, it is important to note that I clearly see the difference. The problem is, that very often "faith" is created by the influence of religion from family upbringing, religious education, religious doctrine and many other influences. So it becomes difficult to separate the two.

To this end, when someone such as yourself claims "faith," I can only assume that some or many of the influences above are what led you to having such faith. The problem with this is that most, if not all of these influences are bogus from the foundation (doctrinal sources) on up, due to claims of authorship directly from God and the like, claims of other supernatural events that are scientifically impossible, repeated attempts to backtrack on the claims of authorship and timing, etc.

So though many people claim "faith" at the end of the day, it seems that they wouldn't have had much to plant the wishful thinking without all the fake back story they've had shoved down their throats individually, and as a species.

How does one separate from the biases of such deep-seated mythology without scrutinizing the historical and scientific realities of such wide-spread trickery?


It is apparent that you don't believe in God or scriptures so this won't make any real difference for you, and I really have no desire to get into a back and forth about it but simply for clarifications sake in the discussion I wanted to make a couple of comments about faith. Genuine biblical faith is not really simply wishful thinking as you describe it but instead faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. Christains also believe faith is a gift from God and not something passed down from family members. I completely understand for someone who has no belief or faith that makes little sense, but it is different than you understand it to be.
RE: RE: RE: Mike in Marin  
Milton : 12/4/2018 2:12 pm : link
In comment 14205417 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Christains also believe faith is a gift from God and not something passed down from family members.
In other words, you have faith that your faith is a gift from God. No surprise there!
p.s.--It's not just Christians who believe their faith is a gift from God. The wording may be different, but that's true of all religions.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Mike in Marin  
steve in ky : 12/4/2018 2:18 pm : link
In comment 14205443 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 14205417 steve in ky said:


Quote:


Christains also believe faith is a gift from God and not something passed down from family members.

In other words, you have faith that your faith is a gift from God. No surprise there!
p.s.--It's not just Christians who believe their faith is a gift from God. The wording may be different, but that's true of all religions.


I wasn't trying to imply that only Christians believe that but instead choosing to speak only for myself and let anyone else speak to what they believe. That's often one of the problems in these types of threads, too often people try and explain and define the very things that they don't believe in.
RE: RE: RE: Mike in Marin  
Mike in Marin : 12/4/2018 2:29 pm : link
In comment 14205417 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 14204803 Mike in Marin said:


Quote:


In comment 14203598 Mike from Ohio said:


Quote:


Based on your response, I think you should consider the difference between faith and religion. Like Milton, you seem to be blurring the two.

Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.

Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.



Mike- While I am guilty of blending responses of faith and religion, it is important to note that I clearly see the difference. The problem is, that very often "faith" is created by the influence of religion from family upbringing, religious education, religious doctrine and many other influences. So it becomes difficult to separate the two.

To this end, when someone such as yourself claims "faith," I can only assume that some or many of the influences above are what led you to having such faith. The problem with this is that most, if not all of these influences are bogus from the foundation (doctrinal sources) on up, due to claims of authorship directly from God and the like, claims of other supernatural events that are scientifically impossible, repeated attempts to backtrack on the claims of authorship and timing, etc.

So though many people claim "faith" at the end of the day, it seems that they wouldn't have had much to plant the wishful thinking without all the fake back story they've had shoved down their throats individually, and as a species.

How does one separate from the biases of such deep-seated mythology without scrutinizing the historical and scientific realities of such wide-spread trickery?




It is apparent that you don't believe in God or scriptures so this won't make any real difference for you, and I really have no desire to get into a back and forth about it but simply for clarifications sake in the discussion I wanted to make a couple of comments about faith. Genuine biblical faith is not really simply wishful thinking as you describe it but instead faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. Christains also believe faith is a gift from God and not something passed down from family members. I completely understand for someone who has no belief or faith that makes little sense, but it is different than you understand it to be.


Steve- Thanks for your response. A few points:

1. I pray to my own idea of God. What that is changes day to day. Spiritually, I have a God. Intellectually, I do not, as I work hard to separate this entity from all I have known growing up. I used to believe in a Christian God until I did my own search that included all arguments and evidence about 5 years ago.

2. "Passed down from family" is a huge oversimplification of and a straw man argument against what I wrote above. You have no simple way of bifurcating your experiences that create your biases, just like the rest of us. I wonder what your faith would be if you were raised in the Jewish faith, where there is no requirement that one believes in God ? Or perhaps if you were never exposed to
Christian church, scriptures, sunday school or the hundreds of other influences both as a child and onward ? Would you have miraculously received this gift from the Christian God then ? Or maybe from another of the 4999 other gods ?

3. And finally, your argument about " it is different than you understand it to be" goes without saying, as I have obviously endeavored to set aside what I was experienced as a child in order to do my own research which has led to where I am. However, I find it telling that this is all anyone in your position can ever get to, considering the complete lack of credibility that religion has earned over the past 6 thousand years.

So unless one has some personal experience and physical evidence of God showing himself to you, that cannot be explained by "wishful thinking," all roads lead to agnosticism, at best.

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mike in Marin  
Milton : 12/4/2018 2:32 pm : link
In comment 14205454 steve in ky said:
Quote:

I wasn't trying to imply that only Christians believe that but instead choosing to speak only for myself and let anyone else speak to what they believe.
But they all rely on faith and they are all different. Doesn't that make you question whether this faith is really a gift from God? Because they all have the same faith and yet all worship different gods with a different set of instructions on how to live their lives. The Muslims who strap bomb belts around their waist have just as much faith as the Christians who blow up abortion clinics. You may question their interpretation of biblical passages, but you can't question their faith.
Oh and I  
Mike in Marin : 12/4/2018 2:36 pm : link
am not trying to sound self-righteous about it. I sometimes envy people who have faith. The problem is that most people with faith (based on virtually all religions) use it to make decisions about how to vote, treat others not like them, raise their children in it, ignore science, imperil human well-being. The examples are endless and also contemporary, unfortunately.
RE: Evidence that Demands a Verdict  
Mr. Bungle : 12/4/2018 2:40 pm : link
In comment 14204750 5BowlsSoon said:
Quote:
By Josh McDowell

For those who are interested and want to go deeper into why People of faith believe, this book might answer some questions.

I think just about every seeking Christian has read the book. It lends support to the people of faith by adding muscle (reasons to believe) and know your faith isn’t just blind. Although I don’t recall if it discusses the creation issue...it’s been a while since I read it.

Here is a synopsis of the book....
A classic, authoritative defense of Christianity containing arguments from the best apologetics of the ages. Scholarly, intelligent resposes for those who question or attack the basis of Christian faith. Google Books

That book may explain why people of faith believe, but it does not provide a strong case for the critically thinking skeptic. It's a very weak case.
If I were relying on faith to believe in the true God...  
Milton : 12/4/2018 2:46 pm : link
I would want to know what distinguishes my faith from those who have faith in false gods.
Mike  
steve in ky : 12/4/2018 3:09 pm : link
Thanks for the reply. To your 2:29 post I'll give a short reply but I try and avoid too much involvement in these types of threads so I'll keep it brief.

To your point about a greater odds of a child growing up with the similar beliefs of their parents. Of course that's the case and it's obvious if someone is more exposed to something they have a greater chance of understanding and accepting it themselves but so what? To dismiss something just because ones parents believed it doesn't make any sense either but regardless of family at some point it always comes down to the individual, what they do or don't believe, and they making their own decision.

Also to that same point there are also countless of examples of people converting to a belief different from that of their parents.

To your last point:

"So unless one has some personal experience and physical evidence of God showing himself to you, that cannot be explained by "wishful thinking," all roads lead to agnosticism, at best."

I believe anyone that has a genuine relationship with God does have a personal experience of some sort. I'm not talking about a burning bush or anything like that, but still something personal none the less.

I don't expect anyone in this day and age sees physical evidence in the way you are talking about it.




RE: Mike  
Mike in Marin : 12/4/2018 3:41 pm : link
In comment 14205525 steve in ky said:
Quote:
]
To your point about a greater odds of a child growing up with the similar beliefs of their parents. Of course that's the case and it's obvious if someone is more exposed to something they have a greater chance of understanding and accepting it themselves but so what? To dismiss something just because ones parents believed it doesn't make any sense either but regardless of family at some point it always comes down to the individual, what they do or don't believe, and they making their own decision.

Also to that same point there are also countless of examples of people converting to a belief different from that of their parents.



A few examples of people picking or changing religions is nice, but is tiny compared to the millions and millions of people threatened with a very real and painful death for leaving religions over the years. Isn't it interesting how that works ?

This is the problem, few people are free enough for it to "come down to the individual." And even in western countries where it is supposed to be free, we have social pressures, family guilt like the OP recounted, etc.

Perhaps we should make The God Delusion required reading for 7th graders and throw creationist educators in prison for child abuse.



RE: Mike  
Mike in Marin : 12/4/2018 3:48 pm : link
In comment 14205525 steve in ky said:
Quote:


I don't expect anyone in this day and age sees physical evidence in the way you are talking about it.



Fascinating and coincidental, how all the miracles stopped when the books got written and the word got spread by the faithful at sword-point !

Video cameras all over the place in phones these days and not once do we see God coming down and asking someone to knife their child or their blaspheming neighbor to death or tell us to stop worshipping the tits and ass of Abella Danger at risk of lightning strike !
Pages: 1 2 3 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner