Religion, what's the point?

[MikeUpNorth]

Hi Mike, I hope you are well! Thanks for the response.

I must admit from the start that I do agree with you. Believe me, I have not fallen for anything! I am still a non-believer, albeit one that takes wonder in the fact that he is existing at this moment in time. I fully accept though that my wonder and amazement at the world, the universe and life is driven more through the fact that it is beyond my Stone Age primate brain to comprehend than a belief in any supernatural deity. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing either.

However, the reason I have posed this question is that it always arises and does need an answer. I don't think that such a debate is possible without this question both arising and needing a response. I tried to avoid the question of 'why we are' and tried to focus on the point 'that we are' (although I admit I may have failed!) I did this simply because as you said the question of 'why' implies causation. I think 'that we are' could be answered without the need for a supernatural cause (in fact, from the little I know of cosmology string theory and M-theory are attempting to answer this question as we speak).

But I also think that asking such a question, or at least studiying it, may actually explain the reason behind much belief on this world, and indeed it does date back a long time (you can look at Augustine for a good example).

I quite like Carl Sagan's response to this question. He simply shifted the degree of regress. If we can postulate that god has been around forever, then why cannot we miss a step and say that the universe has existed forever? Equally, if we say god created everything, why can't we go up a step and say that everything created itself? Such a position is logical, as the Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the creation of anything, only space-time's rapid expansion. We still haven't arrived at time=0 (as far as I know, the Planck epoch hasn't been explained) and so it may be logical to say as you do that there is no 'first' anything. It is as good an answer as I have been able to come up with.

Hey Frosty! I am indeed well thanks. Are you Doctor Frost yet?

I agree with your whole post, and Carl Sagan as well. I don't quite understand your point about 'that we are here'. To me that isn't a question. The question is why and how we are here, which then throws up the previous points.

I am weary of the 'something rather than nothing' phrase as theists now seem to be using it as a question to back up their arguments. But it really just is a different way of phrasing the infinite regress problem, which is traditionally something that they have a lot of trouble with. It's a clever tactic though, I'll give them that.

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

But you want that being (/ force / whatever you want to call it) to have an affect in our universe. By which I mean you want this entity 'not of our universe' to be effecting entities that are in our universe.

Put simply, this means that things would be caused by this 'god' that wouldn't have happened anyway. These changes are in our universe and therefore fall under the remit of science like everything else. If this 'god' figure is to have any effect, it must be interfering in the universe we know. Otherwise, it really is totally outside our universe and therefore, I would argue, it doesn't exist.

The issue of entities 'outside our universe' interfering with our universe throws up a whole load of problems relating to the laws of conservation of mass / energy / momentum. These are the fundamental laws of modern physics upon which all else rests. This 'outside our universe' interfering with our universe would, in effect, falsify these laws and therefore all our scientific knowledge would be incorrect and meaningless.

I've read you posts on this thread and have concluded that you are extremely clever. And that I like you!

 

[Frosty]

I find it interesting that you aver that 99% of what Dawkins writes on the subject is not well thought-out.
I could not disagree more. I don't think I've ever read a more well thought out polemical tract than 'The God Delusion'. Oh I know it has become trendy to knock it, but I strongly suspect that most of those doing the knocking have never, and do not ever intend to, trouble themselves with actually reading it.

Similarly Christopher Hitchens' 'God is Not Great' and Sam Harris's 'The End of Faith' are cogently argued, thorough-going and well-researched works. Do give them a try. The theist or deist positions are interesting (and were the position of many of the Founding Fathers of the USA, in the wake of the Enlightenment, Thomas Paine and so forth) but they were alive at a time before we were privileged to have the benefit of modern discoveries both in the fields of cosmology and genetics.

I have always thought (as a blunt Yorkshireman) that there is too much metaphysical waffle aired when the existence of god is under discussion. The way I see it is that either there is a sentient, cosmic, powerful non-human agency abroad in the universe or there is not. If there is, who made or created it? It's every bit as tricky a question as 'how do you explain the cause of the big bang then?' and in fact a very great deal more so.

So I strongly believe that there is not. I see no evidence for its existence and neither can the believers adduce a single shred of evidence to support their belief in such a thing. It is, however, extremely easy to show how their faiths arose in terms of culture and history, to say nothing of their very inevitability, arising as they did from a fertile mixture of nascent human curiosity on the one hand and growing awareness of individual mortality on the other - the latter creating an underlying and ultimately intolerable insecurity, probably unique to our species.

So many gods, so many faiths. How conceited to maintain that one's own beliefs are valid and all the rest otherwise, purely because (as the little spoof video clip earlier this thread showed) of an accident of one's birth.

Any competent 'god', especially one claiming to love his creation on the one hand, whist insisting on 'correct' behaviour on the other, would surely have ordained matters so that all were given an equal opportunity to accept or spurn his covenant, and thus embrace or reject his eschatological and soteriological ordinances.

Instead of which we have a mish-mash of what are blatantly obviously man-made superstitions, each proclaiming exclusive access to the correct route to becoming acceptable to 'god', and each in vituperative conflict with the rest. Today, for perhaps the first time, we can actually explain away the first of these two causes of religion which I have adumbrated above - that is to say our great and intolerable curiosity. The second factor, I suspect; that of fear and insecurity, is what blinds us to the truth and makes us 'rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of...'

I often think Shakespeare knew thought about this subject than he was able explicitly to state!

Sorry, I have let me own polemic get in the way of logic! I have let my own dislike for the book lead to a quite facetious statement about its veracity or otherwise, so I should state that right now. Whilst I usually agree with much of what Dawkins' says, 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'The Selfish Gene' are seminal works in my opinion, I agree with what Plech said about the book when it came out - there are much better ways to argue against god and it does come about like a bit of a playground argument, especially when relating to the ontological proof of god. Maybe this is just a matter of taste on my part, but I think that other writers dealt with the subject in a much better way.

This is why I much prefer Harris and Hitchens to Dawkins, and Dennett to all three. I really enjoyed 'Breaking the Spell' and agree that religion should be subjected to scientific and logical study and critique.

As for the rest of your statement, I agree with nearly all of it, although I think that the definition of god does not necessarily have to fall in to one where it is a 'sentient, cosmic, powerful non-human agency'. Mind you, whether or not this defintion is true has nothing to do with whether he/she/it exists.

Like Bertrand Russell, if I face god when I die and I am asked: "why didn't you believe in me?" I will give the answer "Not enough evidence".

 

[p_ps_sock]

But you want that being (/ force / whatever you want to call it) to have an affect in our universe.

I don't 'want' that or implied that

By which I mean you want this entity 'not of our universe' to be effecting entities that are in our universe.

Put simply, this means that things would be caused by this 'god' that wouldn't have happened anyway. These changes are in our universe and therefore fall under the remit of science like everything else. If this 'god' figure is to have any effect, it must be interfering in the universe we know. Otherwise, it really is totally outside our universe and therefore, I would argue, it doesn't exist.

I would disagree there

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I don't 'want' that or implied that

See your post below. If this 'something beyond our universe' you mention is to be in anyway relevant, it must interact with our universe. If it doesn't have any effect on our universe, then don't worry about it. It may as well not exist, in fact it doesn't exist to us at all.

If you 'want' to use things 'outside our universe' to explain the properties of things 'in our universe' then there must be an interaction, there's no two ways about it.

Well for me I'm feel fairly certain there is something else beyond our universe for the exact reasons you state, the question of why there is anything here at all leads to the conclusion that there is something beyond the universe as we are able to perceive it. Now whether this something has a god like entity is obviously unknowable but given the perculiarities of the universe that allow matter to exist, stars and planets to form and life to exist, I'm willing to accept that there was some element of design in the universe.

Next...

causality is to do with time, one event, preceeding another, causes it to happen. Time is a property of the universe though and outside it has no meaning. In that sense, from outside the beginning and end of the universe are the same thing and it isn't a question of one thing causing another but why the universe exists at all.

This is the same thing again really. As you state, 'time is a property of our universe' and as such, any interaction with our universe from 'outside' would logically occur at a given time. But we can get into an argument about quantum mechanics here if you want, but I warn you I'll be on the very stretch of my depth.

Good responses from you though mate, making me think hard.

 

[Frosty]

Hey Frosty! I am indeed well thanks. Are you Doctor Frost yet?

I agree with your whole post, and Carl Sagan as well. I don't quite understand your point about 'that we are here'. To me that isn't a question. The question is why and how we are here, which then throws up the previous points.

I am weary of the 'something rather than nothing' phrase as theists now seem to be using it as a question to back up their arguments. But it really just is a different way of phrasing the infinite regress problem, which is traditionally something that they have a lot of trouble with. It's a clever tactic though, I'll give them that.

Afraid not Mike, at least another year left. I'm ask for a name change when I finally pass the viva so you can all celebrate with me

I'm also racing towards a deadline at the moment so I'm a bit stressed!

Anyway, let me explain what I mean by the statement 'that we are here' or 'that there is anything/matter/insert appropriate words'. I think that this is the most important question that has ever faced man. Why? Well, I think that the explaination to this point is what ultimately drives science (look at the theories and advances that have come about because of trying to answer it).

Likewise, I think another explaination to the statement has been 'god' in its various guises. Simply because this question has troubled man since year dot, it keeps cropping up, especially in 'god of the gaps' arguments that are raised, and I think could be the ultimate cause behind people believing in a supreme being (although that is just an assumption on my part).

Because of this search for the reason behind everything (which I think is completely separate from the 'meaning' to life, often attributed to a supreme being as well, erroneously in my view and why I hesitate to ask 'why are we here' which relates to meaning rather than cause) this point is fundamentally important, and as such deserves an answer, even if it is along the lines of the answer that you gave, which I feel is completely valid.

Anyway, those are my reasons for asking it, and I think that yourself and TORM have done a good job at posing a logical response to it.

 

[dumbo]

This will run and run and run....

Anyway, it seems to me that we are in the amazing position where both sides here are completely missing the point, which is some good going.

TheRedFlag; ThatOldRedMagic

Yes. You may think that religion is wrong, and a man made myth. This it probably is. However, your position does very well to avoid the main issue. In fact, thoughtless disbelief often avoid the main issue. That issue is not why we are here, the issue is that we are here at all. That there is something rather than nothing (although nothing again is an interesting term itself open to debate).

It seems to me that this question is the question that affects, well, everything. Also, this question is necessarily theological, as the cause of everything is what people have commonly called god.

Criticising religion does not actually address this question, and so can be countered by the point (as has been made here) that religion is man made and god is separate from it to an extent, at least the question of his/her/its existence is separate from whether religion is true.

All these debates too often focus on religion as opposed to this ultimate question.

Now, before you think I am picking on you:

Escobar;dumbo;topper;WeWonItTwoTimes;Psmith; Im red2;

I disagree with your positions slightly.

Religion, as any man made phenomenon (whether you believe it was influenced/given to us by a higher power, I think that this position is fairly incontrovertable for a theist) should be subject to the same amount of critique and scrutiny as any moral, ethical or political position.

I have no problem whether religion for the individual makes them a better person, gives them a meaning for life etc., but this doesn't mean that we cannot question belief systems as a whole to see their impact on the world, whether it is positive or negative, and mstly whether it is true or not.

Again, this is connected to the main question (why is there anything rather than nothing) but it seems to me that if we are polite and do not criticise religion we end up ignoring this question, which will be to the detriment of us all.

Now, this debate can, and should include the merits and criticisms of any alternatives to religious belief (be it spirituality, moral beliefs whatever). I think that bringing these questions into the open and discussing and debating them is much more healthy than not doing so. Besides, the vast majority of attacks on religion (and indeed atheism or a form of non-belief) aren't actually that well thought out and can be countered quite easily (and yes, that includes 99% of what Professor Dawkins comes out with).

Personally, it seems as though religion is a man made phenomenon, and can be fairly pernicious. As for god, I'm not sure if there is enough evidence to conclude that there is a god. Of course, I would prefer to hear your opinions to the contrary and engage in a debate. Or we could trade insults (but where's the fun in that?) It's a bank holiday, so I'll leave the choice to you

Just to clarify my position. I find the belief in a deity, at the centre of the major religions totally at odds with my ideas of scientific logic. Jehovah is no more a reality to me than Neptune - the god of the oceans.

If forced to, I would say I live roughly by the basic ideas of Sartrean Existentialism. So I don't speak as a religious person when I speak of religion as having helped humanity. Yes true, it has also done harm and divided people.

I'm happy for religion to be criticised, poked fun at and even undermined. But I just don't accept blanket assertions that all religion is 'bad' or damaging. Further more I think it can do good and great things.

The pernicious teachings of Creationism and ID as science in schools and the mutilation of genitals are things that i'm happy to criticise.

Edit: I only got cross with ThatOldRedMagic because of the username coment

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I've read you posts on this thread and have concluded that you are extremely clever. And that I like you!

Wow, cheers. I am prone to posting stupid things which I later regret though, so be warned.

Shame I don't have the way with words that you have though...

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

Sorry, I have let me own polemic get in the way of logic! I have let my own dislike for the book lead to a quite facetious statement about its veracity or otherwise, so I should state that right now. Whilst I usually agree with much of what Dawkins' says, 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'The Selfish Gene' are seminal works in my opinion, I agree with what Plech said about the book when it came out - there are much better ways to argue against god and it does come about like a bit of a playground argument, especially when relating to the ontological proof of god. Maybe this is just a matter of taste on my part, but I think that other writers dealt with the subject in a much better way.

This is why I much prefer Harris and Hitchens to Dawkins, and Dennett to all three. I really enjoyed 'Breaking the Spell' and agree that religion should be subjected to scientific and logical study and critique.

As for the rest of your statement, I agree with nearly all of it, although I think that the definition of god does not necessarily have to fall in to one where it is a 'sentient, cosmic, powerful non-human agency'. Mind you, whether or not this defintion is true has nothing to do with whether he/she/it exists.

Like Bertrand Russell, if I face god when I die and I am asked: "why didn't you believe in me?" I will give the answer "Not enough evidence".

Ah, you're actually ahead of me on that one; you've read Harris and Hitchens and furthermore Dennett, whom I have yet to read. I too have a high regard for much of Dawkins' work, and also thought his manner in 'Delusion'left something to be desired. But it was thorough and persuasive. I don't think I'd like Dawkins very much as a person - but that is of course incidental to the issue. (Have you read the anthology of his writings called 'A Devil's Chaplain'? It was the first book of his I read.)

Was it Russell who said that? I know Dawkins quotes it in 'Delusion' but I thought it was someone else. No matter. I'm fond of Russell's celestial bonechina teapot, however. I can't prove there is no god, but nor can you prove there is no celestial teapot.'

Sound!

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Anyway, let me explain what I mean by the statement 'that we are here' or 'that there is anything/matter/insert appropriate words'. I think that this is the most important question that has ever faced man. Why? Well, I think that the explaination to this point is what ultimately drives science (look at the theories and advances that have come about because of trying to answer it).

Because of this search for the reason behind everything (which I think is completely separate from the 'meaning' to life, often attributed to a supreme being as well, erroneously in my view and why I hasten to ask 'why are we here' which relates to meaning rather than cause) this point is fundamentally important, and as such deserves an answer, even if it is along the lines of the answer that you gave, which I feel is completely valid.

You make a very good point in bold. 'Why are we here' has two different meanings.

1) Why are we here - simply requiring an explanation of the physical causes that brought us (and our universe) into existence.

2) 'Why' are we here - is there a intentionality or will behind us being here? I strongly suspect that there isn't.

We need two different words for 'why' really.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Ah, you're actually ahead of me on that one; you've read Harris and Hitchens and furthermore Dennett, whom I have yet to read.

Read 'Consciousness Explained' by Dan Dennett. I'm sure you'll like the reasoning in that book.

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

Just to clarify my position. I find the belief in a deity, at the centre of the major religions totally at odds with my ideas of scientific logic. Jehovah is no more a reality to me than Neptune - the god of the oceans.

If forced to, I would say I live roughly by the basic ideas of Sartrean Existentialism. So I don't speak as a religious person when I speak of religion as having helped humanity. Yes true, it has also done harm and divided people.

I'm happy for religion to be criticised, poked fun at and even undermined. But I just don't accept blanket assertions that all religion is 'bad' or damaging. Further more I think it can do good and great things.

The pernicious teachings of Creationism and ID as science in schools and the mutilation of genitals are things that i'm happy to criticise.

Edit: I only got cross with ThatOldRedMagic because of the username coment

And you were right to do so; for a fifty-odd year old I can be very immature at times!

Genital mutilation,BTW, is a can of worms. It is the debate we are not allowed to have.

 

[vijay]

Religion is a science...Every relgion has answers to everything but its the manner we try to decipher them creates issues. In the last thousand years or so it was not like an intellectual building on the theories of another intellectual like it happenned before. It is growing in an horizontal manner combined with muppetry rather making a vertical progression.


Its some dumbos that call themselves as the authorities of certain Religions are the root cause of political and economic chaos.

Decrypting a religious manual is like say...trying to give solution to some problems in a Irodov book..

A person in school with basic knowledge in physics can attack some problem and give some solution..its proportional to his experience and exposure

A person with an Undergraduate degree would also try his luck but bit more successful as its also proportional to experience and exposure

A person with a postgraduate degree would also try his luck but bit more successful as its also proportional to experience and exposure

The output would still be errorneous and the variance would be relative.

Deciphering a religious script is similar to that. The output is relative based on your exposure and intelligence. If the parishoner is an idiot with a strong mob backing his claims, the plight of the religions hangs by a thread..Sadly the case that happens to most religions today.

Religions can be realized only through practice not on a two dimensional piece of transcript.

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

Read 'Consciousness Explained' by Dan Dennett. I'm sure you'll like the reasoning in that book.

Thanks for that mate.

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

Religion is a science...Every relgion has answers to everything but its the manner we try to decipher them creates issues. In the last thousand years or so it was not like an intellectual building on the theories of another intellectual like it happenned before. It is growing in an horizontal manner combined with muppetry rather making a vertical progression.


Its some dumbos that call themselves as the authorities of certain Religions are the root cause of political and economic chaos.

Decrypting a religious manual is like say...trying to give solution to some problems in a Irodov book..

A person in school with basic knowledge in physics can attack some problem and give some solution..its proportional to his experience and exposure

A person with an Undergraduate degree would also try his luck but bit more successful as its also proportional to experience and exposure

A person with a postgraduate degree would also try his luck but bit more successful as its also proportional to experience and exposure

The output would still be errorneous but it variance would be relative.

Deciphering a religious script is similar to that. The output is relative based on your exposure and intelligence. If the parishoner is an idiot with a strong mob backing his claims, the plight of the religions hangs by a thread..Sadly the case that happens to most religions today.

Religions can be realized only through practice not on a two dimensional piece of transcript.

Nice try!

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Religion is a science...Every relgion has answers to everything but its the manner we try to decipher them creates issues. In the last thousand years or so it was not like an intellectual building on the theories of another intellectual like it happenned before. It is growing in an horizontal manner combined with muppetry rather making a vertical progression.


Its some dumbos that call themselves as the authorities of certain Religions are the root cause of political and economic chaos.

Decrypting a religious manual is like say...trying to give solution to some problems in a Irodov book..

A person in school with basic knowledge in physics can attack some problem and give some solution..its proportional to his experience and exposure

A person with an Undergraduate degree would also try his luck but bit more successful as its also proportional to experience and exposure

A person with a postgraduate degree would also try his luck but bit more successful as its also proportional to experience and exposure

The output would still be errorneous but it variance would be relative.

Deciphering a religious script is similar to that. The output is relative based on your exposure and intelligence. If the parishoner is an idiot with a strong mob backing his claims, the plight of the religions hangs by a thread..Sadly the case that happens to most religions today.

Religions can be realized only through practice not on a two dimensional piece of transcript.

What makes you think that any religious scripture has any truth value, outside its worth as a piece of literature and historical text in the same way that the writings of the ancient Greeks are?

You can interpret and analyse as much as you want, but if what you're interpreting is complete bollocks then you won't derive anything particularly useful. 'Garbage in, garbage out' is the phrase I think.

This might be relevant:

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

What makes you think that any religious scripture has any truth value, outside its worth as a piece of literature and historical text in the same way that the writings of the ancient Greeks are?

You can interpret and analyse as much as you want, but if what you're interpreting is complete bollocks then you won't derive anything particularly useful. Garbage in, garbage out is the phrase I think.

And as for conceding that scriptures are 'historical' texts. Where does one begin?

Perhaps Luke's version of the nativity? Ch1 v5 'In the days of Herod the King...'and Ch2 v2 'This was when Querinius was governor of Syria..'

We know from proper historical records that Herod died in March in the year 4BCE, and also that Querinius was governor of Syria from no earlier than the year 6CE - ten years after Herod the Great's death. And so it goes on...

 

[vijay]

What makes you think that any religious scripture has any truth value outside its worth as a piece of literature and historical text, in the same way that the writings of the ancient Greeks are?

I don't claim to be an expert in all religions mind. But as per Hinduism, there is electricity, trigonometry, zeros, Algebra, theory of black holes, pyramids, calculs, archimedes principle on the theory of pralaya, Butterfly effect and the modern chaos theory to the thory of Karma, theory of medicine from Ayurveda, Siddha medicines, nanotechnology, genetic engineering etc. were all derived from religion as the building block. I dont think any atheist can ridicule them or write them off completely. Basically this relative coefficient of linking them with a religions comes in to picture when scientists stumbe upon something new. Say in Mahabharath say when some weapons were described in texts it were far from real some thirty years back but in nanotechnology and photon transformations, now many are agreeing it can be implemented.

Basically many westerners base your theory on some umpteenth level interpretation from Nietzsche, Platonism to hypnotism..learn Sufism and Zen Buddism in three days and other benal crap written by professors that sit in their drawing room trying out some circus to market their stupidy and some modern gimps like Deepak chopra as the face of a particular relgion.

For many fat fecks in the relgious forums its the tool they normally used to debate.

You can interpret and analyse as much as you want, but if what you're interpreting is complete bollocks then you won't derive anything particularly useful. Garbage in, garbage out is the phrase I think.

If there is an end product out of a derivation its not complete bollocks. If its tainted to a large degree its relatively bollox...Even if every other religion is tainted to some degree and it would appear as total bollox to the outsiders.

 

[surf]

Religion is a science...Every relgion has answers to everything but its the manner we try to decipher them creates issues.

It's not a science. Perhaps instead it's a branch of philosophy. Science has observation, induction, deduction and the scientific method. Science by its nature is a work in progress and does not have the answers to everything. Also, in science the state of the art belief system (for example from Newton to Einstein) changes over time, whereas many of the eternal truths of religion seem to remain unchanged for thousands of years.

Another thing is that if religion were a science, there would only be one which everyone agreed is essentially correct until someone else makes new discoveries and the belief system eventually adapts accordingly. Admittedly, statistics has had Bayesians and Frequentists, but these are minor differences compared with what they have in common, and they certainly don't fight about it.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

And as for conceding that scriptures are 'historical' texts. Where does one begin?

Perhaps Luke's version of the nativity? Ch1 v5 'In the days of Herod the King...'and Ch2 v2 'This was when Querinius was governor of Syria..'

We know from proper historical records that Herod died in March in the year 4BCE, and also that Querinius was governor of Syria from no earlier than the year 6CE - ten years after Herod the Great's death. And so it goes on...

I merely mean historical texts in terms of telling us about the way of life of the people, their daily concerns, their expectations etc. I'm not meaning to imply religious texts can be treated as an accurate record of factual history.

 

[Frosty]

I don't claim to be an expert in all religions mind. But as per Hinduism, there is electricity, trigonometry, zeros, Algebra, theory of black holes, pyramids, calculs, archimedes principle on the theory of pralaya, Butterfly effect and the modern chaos theory to the thory of Karma, theory of medicine from Ayurveda, Siddha medicines, nanotechnology, genetic engineering etc. were all derived from religion as the building blocks. I dont think any atheist can ridicule them or write them off completely. Basically this relative coefficient of linking them with a religions comes in to picture when scientists stumbe upon something new. Say in Mahabharath say when some weapons were described in texts it were far from real some thirty years back but in nanotechnology and photon transformations, now many are agreeing it can be implemented.

I would like to see Hinduism's theory of black holes and exactly what texts it is based on.

 

[p_ps_sock]

See your post below. If this 'something beyond our universe' you mention is to be in anyway relevant, it must interact with our universe. If it doesn't have any effect on our universe, then don't worry about it. It may as well not exist, in fact it doesn't exist to us at all.

If you 'want' to use things 'outside our universe' to explain the properties of things 'in our universe' then there must be an interaction, there's no two ways about it.

interaction implies (or infers, I never know which effing word to use) an exterior force/being/consciousness observing and changing as it happens, my arguement is that to an exterior force/being/consciousness the before, during and after are the same thing because time only exists within out universe and so interaction isn't, as we understand it, possible.

This is the same thing again really. As you state, 'time is a property of our universe' and as such, any interaction with our universe from 'outside' would logically occur at a given time. But we can get into an argument about quantum mechanics here if you want, but I warn you I'll be on the very stretch of my depth.

Good responses from you though mate, making me think hard.

I can't really get into those arguements as I'm not very well read, my points come from a little knowledge and a lot of time on my hands to think, so to be honest I could be talking a load of shite.

 

[vijay]

It's not a science. Perhaps instead it's a branch of philosophy. Science has observation, induction, deduction and the scientific method. Science by its nature is a work in progress and does not have the answers to everything. Also, in science the state of the art belief system (for example from Newton to Einstein) changes over time, whereas many of the eternal truths of religion seem to remain unchanged for thousands of years.

Another thing is that if religion were a science, there would only be one which everyone agreed is essentially correct until someone else makes new discoveries and the belief system eventually adapts accordingly. Admittedly, statistics has had Bayesians and Frequentists, but these are minor differences compared with what they have in common, and they certainly don't fight about it.

Only individuals who are a complete expert ranging from ancient theories to modern technology is eligible to speak about them out. Many of us just sit on the fence, try our luck with editorials and declare ourselves knowledgable enough to comment about everything. Newtons works about diamond rings appeared obsolete after Einsten came up with a better explanation but now scientists agree Newton was correct.

Fallacies exists everywhere be it science or religions if you choose to treate them as separare entities, only the scale is relative.

But there is also something called as absolute truth...Something related to thoughtless awareness which every individual should strive to work on. Just to make sure they can decipher things in the right perspective.

 

[Tommy1]

I believe there is a god & thats good enough for me

 

[vijay]

I would like to see Hinduism's theory of black holes and exactly what texts it is based on.

Yajur Veda.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I don't claim to be an expert in all religions mind. But as per Hinduism, there is electricity, trigonometry, zeros, Algebra, theory of black holes, pyramids, calculs, archimedes principle on the theory of pralaya, Butterfly effect and the modern chaos theory to the thory of Karma, theory of medicine from Ayurveda, Siddha medicines, nanotechnology, genetic engineering etc. were all derived from religion as the building blocks. I dont think any atheist can ridicule them or write them off completely. Basically this relative coefficient of linking them with a religions comes in to picture when scientists stumbe upon something new. Say in Mahabharath say when some weapons were described in texts it were far from real some thirty years back but in nanotechnology and photon transformations, now many are agreeing it can be implemented.

I have to confess I know embarrassingly little about Hinduism, but I do know enough to say it makes claims about supernatural gods and reincarnation which put it into the same truth problems as the Abrahamic religions.

As for the religious scripture pre-empting black holes, nanotechnology and the like, I am willing to bet that they're vague metaphorical interpretations of selected passages of text. In a similar way as to how after every big event in the world someone digs up an old quote from Nostradamus which supposedly predicted it would happen. You can selectively interpret any text to mean pretty much anything, I think Sam Harris demonstrated this with his metaphysical interpretation of a randomly selected cook book.

 

[vijay]

I have to confess I know embarrassingly little about Hinduism, but I do know enough to say it makes claims about supernatural gods and reincarnation which put it into the same truth problems as the Abrahamic religions.

As for the religious scripture pre-empting black holes, nanotechnology and the like, I am willing to bet that they're vague metaphorical interpretations of selected passages of text. In a similar way as to how after every big event in the world someone digs up an old quote from Nostradamus which supposedly predicted it would happen. You can selectively interpret any text to mean pretty much anything, I think Sam Harris demonstrated this with his metaphysical interpretation of a randomly selected cook book.

Metaphysical implementation from a cook book only suits internet debates and many take a dig at Nostradamus and other incessant ramblings to ridicule the bluff.

There is Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, premiere institution rated a bit higher than Indian Institute of Technologies and they run a special division there on colloboration with Nasa that deals with vedic sacred texts and their relation to astro physics.

In their internal journal that was released seven or eight months back, they had worked on a methodology to to generate electricity and space and concluded it can be implemented as per the principles written in works.

Just cited it out as an example...Not everthing is black is white as many westerners preceive like reincarnation and other stuff. We just sit on the fence and write comments about everthing on a broader sense updating ourselves with some run on the mill works. People who indulge in research work dont generally participate in debate or try to equate their profession with religion or to understand nature.

 

[surf]

Only individuals who are a complete expert ranging from ancient theories to modern technology is eligible to speak about them out. Many of us just sit on the fence, try our luck with editorials and declare ourselves knowledgable enough to comment about everything. Newtons works about diamond rings appeared obsolete after Einsten came up with a better explanation but now scientists agree Newton was correct.

Fallacies exists everywhere be it science or religions if you choose to treate them as separare entities, only the scale is relative.

But there is also something called as absolute truth...Something related to thoughtless awareness which every individual should strive to work on. Just to make sure they can decipher things in the right perspective.

Is there absolute truth? Would you post an argument to prove this - I'd like to see it. Or is it just something that you believe? Not even mathematics deals in absolute truth, and it probably has a higher standard of proof of truths than any other field of thought.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

There is Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, premiere institution rated a bit higher than Indian Institute of Technologies and they run a special division there on colloboration with Nasa that deals with vedic sacred texts and their relation to astro physics.

In their internal journal that was released seven or eight months back, they had worked on a methodology to to generate electricity and space and concluded it can be implemented as per the principles written in works.

Just cited it out as an example...Not everthing is black is white as many westerners preceive like reincarnation and other stuff. We just sit on the fence and write comments about everthing on a broader sense updating ourselves with some run on the mill works. People who indulge in research work dont generally participate in debate or try to equate their profession with religion or to understand nature.

Have you a link to this NASA collaboration? I had a quick google but couldn't find it. I'd be interested to read it.

In my search though I did come across this from the aforementioned Indian Institute of Science: http://www.serc.iisc.ernet.in/broadcast_messages/msg06268.html. Seems like the typical theist bollocks against Darwinian evolution, but this time based on Vedic, which is a new one to me. It doesn't fill me with hope about the academic value of Hindu texts though I have to say...

 

[Spoony]

Why would God talk in metaphors? Good question that.

He's trying his best to screw his people in the head?

 

[vijay]

Mike,

Doubt you would find somethin on internet.

One of my relative heads the research division there and the phd students are funded by Nasa for their thesis. My standpoint through out was as long as the respective governments and research institutions are willing to fund and accept relgion from a rationalist perspective, there can be massive improvement in science and technology. Indian government irrespective of poltical and adminstrative squabbles does that and since we have figured out there is some endproduct from the things that we can understand you cannot write off an entire relgion as bollox.

 

[p_ps_sock]

Why would God talk in metaphors? Good question that.

He's trying his best to screw his people in the head?

why would god create an animal whose only distinguishing feature was its capability to reason then base judgement on their willingness to throw that reason out the window.

Thats either a god with a weird sense of humour or who's a bit of a prick

 

[vijay]

Is there absolute truth? Would you post an argument to prove this - I'd like to see it. Or is it just something that you believe? Not even mathematics deals in absolute truth, and it probably has a higher standard of proof of truths than any other field of thought.

I would suggest this author and his books

Google for J Krishnmurthy, try reading his works...Its not about religion or science only to explore human perspective of grasping facts and truths.

He was the foster son of Anne Besant founder of Theosophical society.

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

I believe there is a god & thats good enough for me

Exactly. You believe (based on little or in fact no evidence) and that is 'good enough' for you .

In a nutshell, why we still have religion.

Canon fodder is the expession which, for reasons I can't quite rationalise, springs to mind.

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

I have to confess I know embarrassingly little about Hinduism, but I do know enough to say it makes claims about supernatural gods and reincarnation which put it into the same truth problems as the Abrahamic religions.

As for the religious scripture pre-empting black holes, nanotechnology and the like, I am willing to bet that they're vague metaphorical interpretations of selected passages of text. In a similar way as to how after every big event in the world someone digs up an old quote from Nostradamus which supposedly predicted it would happen. You can selectively interpret any text to mean pretty much anything, I think Sam Harris demonstrated this with his metaphysical interpretation of a randomly selected cook book.

Quite right. Any belief system or any sacred text which claims prior knowledge to any human discovery is - and here I'm going to abandon what for me has been a lifelong commitment to striving for the Flaubertian mots justes - a pile of shite.

 

[nickm]

Metaphysical implementation from a cook book only suits internet debates and many take a dig at Nostradamus and other incessant ramblings to ridicule the bluff.

There is Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, premiere institution rated a bit higher than Indian Institute of Technologies and they run a special division there on colloboration with Nasa that deals with vedic sacred texts and their relation to astro physics.

In their internal journal that was released seven or eight months back, they had worked on a methodology to to generate electricity and space and concluded it can be implemented as per the principles written in works.

Just cited it out as an example...Not everthing is black is white as many westerners preceive like reincarnation and other stuff. We just sit on the fence and write comments about everthing on a broader sense updating ourselves with some run on the mill works. People who indulge in research work dont generally participate in debate or try to equate their profession with religion or to understand nature.

Weeelllllll... My limited understanding of these things is that yes, there is some sound science and mathematics in some of the Vedic writings, and it's true that some NASA types get interested in that sort of thing because they like maths puzzles. But... I'd be very, very wary of reading too much into it. It's one thing to accept the ancients had a good grasp of maths and astronomy (we know of lots of cultures that did so) - entirely another to pretend these writings have had anything useful to say about black holes, quantum theory, chaos and suchlike. I understand the desires of the religious to proselyise their beliefs over those of rivals, but let's not overreach.

 

[vijay]

Whether is religion or science, like works of Irodov to Nietzsche it the manner every individual tries to interprets them reflects the manner the content would get grasped. It was the point about human psychology I was stressing in my first post.

Say if the Ancient Vedic knowledge hasn't transferred the concept of zeros there would've been not assembly level programming - every top reserach instiutions are crediting Ancient Indian science for teaching them about zeros. Knowingly or unknowingly knowledge from relgion form the building block for civilizations and Science is just a small entity in civilization.

If religion can offer alot to a lifeless entity called Science then they can definitely offer more to human beings with life. Its better that explore that facet of any religion first about human values before trying to question ourselves about god or trying to equate god with religion.

The ultimate aim for any human mind is to attain comfort, for a better way of living and they flex either religion or science to suit their needs. Religious nutcases worship for a better eternal life with Athestic nutters ramble they are very much satisfied with what they say. As for humans its beliefs, pragmatism and hope all sitting on three sides of an isosceles triangle with the human mind osicllation between them with pragmatism sitting on the farthest corner. For religious nutcases, they sit in one side of the fence and ramble that all points would meet some time in the future whilst the so called athestic idiots on the other side would argue they would never meet each other. But neither make an attempt to make them converge...the point of ultimate comfort and knowledge. It can be attained only if human mind reaches a proper level of awareness and once understanding improves everything would fall in place.

 

[surf]

Whether is religion or science, like works of Irodov to Nietzsche it the manner every individual tries to interprets them reflects the manner the content would get grasped. It was the point about human psychology I was stressing in my first post.

Say if the Ancient Vedic knowledge hasn't transferred the concept of zeros there would've been not assembly level programming - every top reserach instiutions are crediting Ancient Indian science for teaching them about zeros. Knowingly or unknowingly knowledge from relgion form the building block for civilizations and Science is just a small entity in civilization.

If religion can offer alot to a lifeless entity called Science then they can definitely offer more to human beings with life. Its better that explore that facet of any religion first about human values before trying to question ourselves about god or trying to equate god with religion.

The ultimate aim for any human mind is to attain comfort, for a better way of living and they flex either religion or science to suit their needs. Religious nutcases worship for a better eternal life with Athestic nutters ramble they are very much satisfied with what they say. As for humans its beliefs, pragmatism and hope all sitting on three sides of an isosceles triangle with the human mind osicllation between them with pragmatism sitting on the farthest corner. For religious nutcases, they sit in one side of the fence and ramble that all points would meet some time in the future whilst the so called athestic idiots on the other side would argue they would never meet each other. But neither make an attempt to make them converge...the point of ultimate comfort and knowledge. It can be attained only if human mind reaches a proper level of awareness and once understanding improves everything would fall in place.

The fact that science has used ideas from religion does not make that religion is science.

And thanks for the information about Krishnmurthy.

 

[ThatOldRedMagic]

Weeelllllll... My limited understanding of these things is that yes, there is some sound science and mathematics in some of the Vedic writings, and it's true that some NASA types get interested in that sort of thing because they like maths puzzles. But... I'd be very, very wary of reading too much into it. It's one thing to accept the ancients had a good grasp of maths and astronomy (we know of lots of cultures that did so) - entirely another to pretend these writings have had anything useful to say about black holes, quantum theory, chaos and suchlike. I understand the desires of the religious to proselyise their beliefs over those of rivals, but let's not overreach.

Absolutely.

And like Nostradamus, who can be shown to have predicted that the Renault Clio would be available with air-conditioning fitted as standard from 2004, the claims that scripture or mystic writings anticipate every amazing discovery of science is not merely crass, not simply a triumph of stygian blind faith over reasoning and enlightenment, but a phenomenon which very regrettably provides a constant reminder to the thinking, intelligent, rational and modern person of the lumpen morass of mindless, bovine bleating which drowns out the all-too faint voice of progress and learning, the smothering blanket of myth and superstition which snuffs out education and free thought, and which leads to a deepening sense of nausea at the fathomless depths of human imbecility...

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The ultimate aim for any human mind is to attain comfort, for a better way of living and they flex either religion or science to suit their needs. Religious nutcases worship for a better eternal life with Athestic nutters ramble they are very much satisfied with what they say. As for humans its beliefs, pragmatism and hope all sitting on three sides of an isosceles triangle with the human mind osicllation between them with pragmatism sitting on the farthest corner. For religious nutcases, they sit in one side of the fence and ramble that all points would meet some time in the future whilst the so called athestic idiots on the other side would argue they would never meet each other. But neither make an attempt to make them converge...the point of ultimate comfort and knowledge. It can be attained only if human mind reaches a proper level of awareness and once understanding improves everything would fall in place.

Why do you say that is the ultimate aim for any human mind? It might be what you have decided is your aim, but why everyone else's?

There is much research going on into brain functionality and the evolution of consciousness. I suggest it is far to early to suggest what the mind is 'for'. Certainly the basic functions of the body, such as motor skill, perception and memory, are key in what the brain/mind is 'for'. But also I suggest that detailed future scenario simulation and planning is the primary role of our relatively large brains.

Personally I tend to get a little queasy when people use language such as 'proper level of awareness' and 'zen' and 'spirituality', as to me it seems clear that these are things we have tacked on to ourselves. I'm sure they are good for us in achieving satisfaction in life, but it's the level of arrogance of people who claim to be in a 'heightened state of being or consciousness or awareness' that get me. It all seems very pretentious and based on very little but introspection.