I don't know. I haven't read the comic.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I don't know. I haven't read the comic.
I have not read the lengthy work you cite, however the fundamental points of D. Hume's essay are surely regarding confirmation bias and unreliable eye witness testimony? These are hardly controversial positions. I wouldn't agree with D. Hume's general position that societies move increasingly towards a less superstitious state and we could argue for all time about definitions of miracles.
From the perspective of the scientific mind, it is, at best, an abject failure against the null hypothesis and Ockham's razor to suggest that "miracles", even if they occur as described which is hardly irrefutable, are divine in origin.
Are you able to paraphrase Earman's arguments?
That's not the definition of a creator, I have no idea where that's come from. As for your options for how the universe came into being, you're making some very strong assumptions there. For one thing you're assuming there are no other options (which ignores some pretty obvious ones such as that there IS no start or end, and that the universe could simply be one vast infinite cycle).
They aren't making an argument, they're making a statement of fact. If you claim an incredible thing (which by any measure religion has to be considered) then the logical requirement is that you must have some startlingly good evidence to support your position. If I claim that I can throw a rock faster than the speed of light, then people are going to want to see me do that before they listen to me because such a claim is apparently nonsensical. What religion claims is considerably MORE wild and fantastical than my FTL rock throwing skills, and so the burden of evidence is naturally even higher.
I don't know why you'd think that perfectly rational position was in any way a caricature.
As good a time as any to post this:
I'm not married. I have faith, if you want to call it that, my girlfriend won't cheat on me based on lots of things. Based on the fact that she says she won't cheat on me, based on the fact that, to the best of my knowledge she hasn't cheated on me before. I don't think she will cheat on me because I think she loves me.
But, of course, I could be wrong and she could currently be in bed with another fella.
I think it's an awful analogy though, because it's not comparable in the slightest.
I trust my girlfriend as opposed to having faith. However, she could be breaking that trust at any time and I might never find out. However, I at least have some tangible evidence. I have her word. I have her past behaviour in so far as I know it. I have evidence that at least while I was present, she hasn't fecked anyone else
With faith in a god, there is no tangible evidence for his/her/its existence. You believe in a being, that created the whole universe, almost 14 billion years ago, with billions upon billions of stars in it, each with planets orbiting it. He did this all for a species of ape that has only appeared on one planet out of these billions upon billions and has only appeared in the last few hundred thousand years. Well that's a bold claim. It's a claim that would require substantial evidence if it were to be taken seriously. However, the only evidence for this is anecdotal evidence from a few thousand years ago, written at a time when most of the people in the area were illiterate. This god created the whole universe and decided to only show himself to a few people in the arabian desert a couple of thousand years ago?
What if I was to suggest that 'God' is essentially the universe itself, but what we perceive the universe to be is like a hologram, compared the reality.
Also, when you say at odds with science, it's at odds with science as we know it. We have much to learn, and know relatively little about the the workings of the universe, much less if there's anything beyond it.
Why would you use the term “God” and not just “universe”? Why introduce a very ambiguous term, that doesn’t add anything to the discussion? Science is a method. A way of solving problems. A way of answering questions. A way of finding stuff out about the universe. It is not perfect, but it is better than the method “religion”. If you equate god and universe, you’d still need to embrace scientific methods to study it.
Last edited:
Just to be clear, on this post.
You said everything that begins to exist has a cause.
If god exists then it follows by the terms of your own logic that god must be brought into existence by something else.
If there are exeptions to your own starting point then why not make the universe that exeption and make redundant the need for a creator.
Stating your unsubstantiated ideas about the nature of god which you don't know any more about than any one else doesn't advance your argument at all.
No. I don't gave faith in anything ever.
However, the evidence suggests this is unlikely.
If you weren't taught about god there is no way you would even think of it on your own now that we have scientific explanations for everything.
My son was accudentally forced to attend an RE lesson at school when he was about 10 and got screamed at by the teacher (actually not a real teacher) when he quite genuinely asked him "If god created everything then who created god". My second god related visit to the school to express that I was a tad unhappy with their victimisation of my son based on the fact that he wasn't religious.
"1) Because a Creator is, by definition, uncreated. Either the universe created itself, or was created by an uncreated Creator. The buck has to stop somewhere."
The universe could have been created by a creator who was also created. That has to be added to the list of possible starting points for your universe starting theory.
A creator by definition creates, the term does not describe or prohibit any method of arrival.
If the creator can be uncreated then no logical conclusion can be drawn about the how the universe came into being from your starting point that all things that exist are created. Your argument becomes inherently self-defeating when you have to invalidate your first assumption.
The universe could have been created by a creator who was also created. That has to be added to the list of possible starting points for your universe starting theory.
A creator by definition creates, the term does not describe or prohibit any method of arrival.
If the creator can be uncreated then no logical conclusion can be drawn about the how the universe came into being from your starting point that all things that exist are created. Your argument becomes inherently self-defeating when you have to invalidate your first assumption.
Yes, exactly.
Thanks, it was such a weird comment I was completely lost about what to reply to.
Btw:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7
Well my argument against him was exactly that. Putting everything we don't know do to 'God' is basically a cop out. It shouldn't be the be all and end all of arguments and hopefully it should never stop us from looking for answers. The problem of existence will never be black and white, albeit our transition from existence to death certainly is. As long as your beliefs don't stop you from continuing to ask then it's not the worst thing we can think in the meantime.
The only thing I don't mind about that is if it helps you to rationalise a person's death or rationalise something else that happens to negatively impact your life and you can keep going based on the comfort of 'knowing' then I don't think it's too awful for someone to believe in a God. Certainly having a bit of comfort in knowing my Grandad had gone to a better place and I might see him again in the afterlife would've been nice. I wasn't able to contemplate it though.
We should have a poll to see if god exists or not.
That would solve it once and for all
Ah, what I wanted to ask: What is that smiley laughing at, the survey or the unflattering results for religious morality? I guess the latter but still wanted to ask.
The results in general, but one specific part I found funny: parents of religious kids rated them much higher on altruism while results put them lower.
Late reply, but yeah, that's a bit tragic.
I can't say much about the study's methodology, but I think the linkage of religiosity to 'moral licensing' it makes is quite convincing. A self-proclaimed noble cause is often the pretext for selfish or aggressive behaviour, and religious morality has always played a major social role in that regard.
But in all fairness, some of my most important life lessons on morality I received from the example of people who were deeply religious in their childhood or their entire life. Their religious upbringing certainly contributed vitally to a sound and mature view on what's right and wrong. I figure that these conflicting experiences are a result of the dual, contradictory nature of religion that Marx wrote about in the passage you quoted. But for sure the authoritarian, repressive side of religion was the much more powerful force throughout history.
I've taught in both religious and non-religious schools. The kids at the religious schools were far more selfish on average.
I was part of a discussion this morning with a colleague (fellow history teacher) which revolved around incest in the bible. Her claim is that divine intervention allowed Adam and Eve and their offspring to populate the earth via incest without any negative genetic consequences since their genes were "perfect".
So why don't we have these perfect genes?
Aha! I asked that. The response:
That's because of nephilem (sp)... Angels cast down to Earth that interbred with humans and contaminated the gene pool. When Noah's flood wiped out the rest of mankind, one of his son's wives was carrying the tainted genes from them, and therefore it was perpetuated when they repopulated the earth after the flood.
Wow. No other response possible. I guess asking for evidence of the human-angel interbreeding evidence is too much? (We actually did breed with Neanderthals during a few of the migrations from Africa to Europe, so maybe Neanderthals are angels?)
Yeah I was kinda speechless at that point.
In fairness, this is a person who was castigating me about my "Have a Buddhaful day" coffee mug a few days ago. She said I was "laughing in the face of God". I asked her if she realized that Buddha was just a person, to which she said she thought he was considered their God. I asked if she had ever studied the religion, to which she responded with a resounding NO! To which I said one shouldn't criticize things they're ignorant about.
She then mounted a defense against my calling her ignorant by saying "it is not ignorance to not know about that religion, it is a choice!" To which I was also speechless.
Innit though!
An inability to concede seems to be prevalent in the land of the free.
Tbf Buddha is quite similar to Jesus. While there are more concrete historical evidence of his existence, it's also obscured by myths, exaggerations and untruths (as evidenced by the story of his birth told by most of the scriptures). Among the followers, I'd say only a minority think of him as a great sage and try to emulate his life and principles, whereas the majority worship him as a deity, particularly in the Far East.
So your colleague wasn't entirely wrong. Ignorant regardless, yes.
So your colleague wasn't entirely wrong. Ignorant regardless, yes.
Aren't there obvious problems with her being a history teacher? I mean, she's deeply convinced of things that contradict every legitimate curriculum and seems to have no problems with propagating them. Is she somehow capable of taking up a neutral standpoint when teaching? Because if not, she probably shouldn't be anywhere near any student.
The way our curriculum is written, we don't cover ancient history in high school, however, I still frequently ask myself that question.
That being said, we have a couple of creationists in the science department as well.
Spin doctor
Ignorance is one of those words that people get too easily offended about. I am fully capable of admitting I am ignorant about many things (Buddhism, Brain Surgery, 17th Century Painters, Pornographic Egyptian Poetry, to just to name 4 of the thousands of topics I am ignorant about). Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity never seems to go away.