Questions for Religious People...

[blueyedpoet]

I know that to understand something we must look at it in a reductionist and empirical fashion. Understanding the facts of it and being able to explain it with logic are far more powerful tools of investigation than comforting assumptions.

The "perfect forms" listed are not a matter of accident, it is a matter of cosmic inevitability. The solar system for instance is a distribution of objects with mass in a state of constant freefall. Now the element distribution with the heavier elements concentrated in the inner solar system and lighter ones furthur out is a direct concequence of gravitational attraction during accreation, now as for why the planets all more or less perfectly operate in orbit firstly they are not all perfect (e.g. Venus and the kuiper belt objects) and secondly the reason that they are all in stable orbits is because if any object was not in a stable orbit then it would have wound up colliding at some point in the past (and what do you know we have evidence for this with the crater scarred planets like Mars, Mercury - The Moon Itself is the product of a collision, it is the reason that the earth has a higher core to mantle ratio than the other terrestrial planets). The theory of gravity as well as nucleosynthesis and stellar physics has only boosted our understandings of why this is the way it is. Things are the way that they are because they conform to fundamental physical laws, it is this principle that moves us away from thinking that we are an exception to the rule to understanding that we are part of and conform to those rules.

Now secondly a completely nontheistic naturalistic worldview does not mean that human beings were instantly formed from raw carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc. It is about random variation in all replicating organisms, all the way back to the first organic molecules, but these variants are put under a tremendous selective pressure and those that reproduce more effectively in the conditions will be at an advantage, that is very non-random. Natural selection is the driving force of evolution, it is what enables certain forms to florish and others to die. It is also what has enabled the formation of higher life. This theory explains a lot of problems from transmission of infectious diseases (strains etc.), the fossil record, the genetic similarities between organism and pretty much all biology. Given what has been accomplished by scientific method I think the burden of explaination rests upon the theistic creationists to justify why they are not wrong. Facts are not faith, evolutionary biology as a framework of knowledge is not just taken as faith, it is tested time and time again and every time the observations conform to it. It is dynamic so when we come across something that we didn't know could exist we may formulate explainations for why (for instance siblicide and why in certain situations parents will not interevene). Science is the antithesis of faith because it starts from the premise that we know nothing and moves forward from there. Organised religion starts from the premise that everything is a known creation of a divine omnipotent being and it can be understood through scripture and uncritical belief.

As far as astronomical chances you are probably right, the odds of sentient life coming into existence are probably infitesimally small. But you have to remember that the universe may be infinitely big . If every possible permutation of particles within the confines of the laws of physics takes place within an infinite set then it is but a cosmic inevitability that not only organic life, but intelligent life will come to be. It can only exist in more or less the best of all possible worlds for life of its type so when we look at the world and how perfect it is for the type of life that we know we can either see it as perfectly designed or that life is brilliantly adapted for its conditions. In the absence of any empirical evidence of an onnicient and omnipitent being I think that we must go with what is observable and known and generate an understanding based on fact and not fiction.

The puzzle/jet engine/watch paradigm is flawed, it assumes that life on earth in it's complexity is a static system and overlooks its dynamic nature. Extinction takes species out the equation at varying rates, speciation adds them, life is a constantly changing system and too place human beings as the be all and end all is very anthropocentric. It also overlooks physical constants that govern our universe producing the optimum conditions for the chemical reactions that life as we know it uses; the anthropic principle / best of all possible worlds is the best philisophical argument that is consistent with what we know. Infinite possibilities means that the world as we know it will turn up every once in a while.

you are a materialist yes? at least, you present the materialist's point of view very well.

 

[coemgen]

it makes emotional sense, perhaps even logical sense, but it makes no more sense than any other explanation for the complexity of nature.

i would argue that there's no love within any creation beyond the love you, the human, who understands love on human terms, chooses to put there.

i suppose i think that things simply are. and there's really no comment, no love, no meaning, no anything beyond what we choose to put there.

But where does love come from? Why is it something we all need? It's not just something we desire out of greed, it's something we need. My 2- and 1-year-old boys need my love. They depend on it. Where does that come from? They're too young to understand the concept of "choosing to put" out love or take it in.

 

[Irvine511]

But where does love come from? Why is it something we all need? It's not just something we desire out of greed, it's something we need. My 2- and 1-year-old boys need my love. They depend on it. Where does that come from? They're too young to understand the concept of "choosing to put" out love or take it in.

might love be insulation -- necessary for survival -- against an amoral, harsh world?

and even if it isn't, why does it follow that love must therefore be from God?

 

[coemgen]

I know that to understand something we must look at it in a reductionist and empirical fashion. Understanding the facts of it and being able to explain it with logic are far more powerful tools of investigation than comforting assumptions.

The "perfect forms" listed are not a matter of accident, it is a matter of cosmic inevitability. The solar system for instance is a distribution of objects with mass in a state of constant freefall. Now the element distribution with the heavier elements concentrated in the inner solar system and lighter ones furthur out is a direct concequence of gravitational attraction during accreation, now as for why the planets all more or less perfectly operate in orbit firstly they are not all perfect (e.g. Venus and the kuiper belt objects) and secondly the reason that they are all in stable orbits is because if any object was not in a stable orbit then it would have wound up colliding at some point in the past (and what do you know we have evidence for this with the crater scarred planets like Mars, Mercury - The Moon Itself is the product of a collision, it is the reason that the earth has a higher core to mantle ratio than the other terrestrial planets). The theory of gravity as well as nucleosynthesis and stellar physics has only boosted our understandings of why this is the way it is. Things are the way that they are because they conform to fundamental physical laws, it is this principle that moves us away from thinking that we are an exception to the rule to understanding that we are part of and conform to those rules.

Now secondly a completely nontheistic naturalistic worldview does not mean that human beings were instantly formed from raw carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc. It is about random variation in all replicating organisms, all the way back to the first organic molecules, but these variants are put under a tremendous selective pressure and those that reproduce more effectively in the conditions will be at an advantage, that is very non-random. Natural selection is the driving force of evolution, it is what enables certain forms to florish and others to die. It is also what has enabled the formation of higher life. This theory explains a lot of problems from transmission of infectious diseases (strains etc.), the fossil record, the genetic similarities between organism and pretty much all biology. Given what has been accomplished by scientific method I think the burden of explaination rests upon the theistic creationists to justify why they are not wrong. Facts are not faith, evolutionary biology as a framework of knowledge is not just taken as faith, it is tested time and time again and every time the observations conform to it. It is dynamic so when we come across something that we didn't know could exist we may formulate explainations for why (for instance siblicide and why in certain situations parents will not interevene). Science is the antithesis of faith because it starts from the premise that we know nothing and moves forward from there. Organised religion starts from the premise that everything is a known creation of a divine omnipotent being and it can be understood through scripture and uncritical belief.

As far as astronomical chances you are probably right, the odds of sentient life coming into existence are probably infitesimally small. But you have to remember that the universe may be infinitely big . If every possible permutation of particles within the confines of the laws of physics takes place within an infinite set then it is but a cosmic inevitability that not only organic life, but intelligent life will come to be. It can only exist in more or less the best of all possible worlds for life of its type so when we look at the world and how perfect it is for the type of life that we know we can either see it as perfectly designed or that life is brilliantly adapted for its conditions. In the absence of any empirical evidence of an onnicient and omnipitent being I think that we must go with what is observable and known and generate an understanding based on fact and not fiction.

The puzzle/jet engine/watch paradigm is flawed, it assumes that life on earth in it's complexity is a static system and overlooks its dynamic nature. Extinction takes species out the equation at varying rates, speciation adds them, life is a constantly changing system and too place human beings as the be all and end all is very anthropocentric. It also overlooks physical constants that govern our universe producing the optimum conditions for the chemical reactions that life as we know it uses; the anthropic principle / best of all possible worlds is the best philisophical argument that is consistent with what we know. Infinite possibilities means that the world as we know it will turn up every once in a while.

A_Wanderer — you're a brilliant person. No doubt you have a great education and intellect. I know very little of what you're talking about here -- it's way over my head. In this thread and in others I've seen you break down existence to the smallest bit. I have to ask though, how is that contradictory to the idea of there being a God? In fact, how is it not evidence of God?

For you personally, from your own heart, when you study the Earth and everything on it, what does it do to you? Why are you drawn to know all this? Where does that come from?

 

[coemgen]

might love be insulation -- necessary for survival -- against an amoral, harsh world?

and even if it isn't, why does it follow that love must therefore be from God?

It is necessary for survival, that's my whole point. Why? This is what I hope you and others will see — if we're just here by accident don't you think it's funny that all this stuff we need to continue existing is available to us? Food. Water. Shelter. Love. etc. A_Wanderer can write a thesis on how we're here, and I'm in awe of his mind power in that area, but why is all the stuff we need to exist here too?

If we're just here by accident, we're talking astromical odds we must've beat for that to happen. A lot of faith is required for me to believe that. Less faith, in fact, than a belief that we were designed. But when you consider that all this stuff we need to survive and continue existing is available to us, is that accident too? What an accident!!!

That's the other part of my point -- if it is here, it's not here out of hate. You know? Love must be from God because why would he create us out of hate? That'd be like my wife and I saying, "You know, I hate kids. Let's have children." The Bible tells us that God IS love.

I hope none of this comes across in a negative manner. I respect where you're coming from, Irvine. I totally understand. I'm just passionate about making God famous and trying to help people along in a relationship with him -- not for my gain, but for there gain.

Can I ask you a question? (and anyone else) If there is any possibility of a loving God -- why not sprint toward it? Why not seek it with all your heart? Isn't it worth the gamble? Why is it a gamble? Wouldn't it be nice to experience that after all the crap we go through down here?

 

[hiphop]

might love be insulation -- necessary for survival -- against an amoral, harsh world?

and even if it isn't, why does it follow that love must therefore be from God?

Love is not "sent from" God.. God is Love.

What kind of love do bumblebees feel? Is it necessary for survival for them?

You are referring to human standards re: amoral, harsh world etc. - God is in all and everything. God is an earthquake, a tsunami.

 

[Irvine511]

Love is not "sent from" God.. God is Love.

What kind of love do bumblebees feel? Is it necessary for survival for them?

You are referring to human standards re: amoral, harsh world etc. - God is in all and everything. God is an earthquake, a tsunami.

but this doesn't make any sense to me -- it seems like mix-and-match metaphysics, that is neither provable or disprovable. it's incoherent, and largely rests upon the subjective definitions of the observer. you can sense and intuit these things, and that's fine, and i have no doubt that they have meaning for you, and i respect that, but it does not then add up to the indepenent existence of a diety, or even proof that there must be something else. all of what you're saying, to me, sounds like a defense mechanism against the fear of death, and saying "i'm not afraid of death" is pretty much admitting that you do have a fear of death, but that you've conquored it. at least to yourself.

and again, i don't mean this at all to attack or deride anyone's beliefs. i'm just trying to explain where i'm at with my thinking, and i speak only for myself.

 

[Irvine511]

It is necessary for survival, that's my whole point. Why? This is what I hope you and others will see — if we're just here by accident don't you think it's funny that all this stuff we need to continue existing is available to us? Food. Water. Shelter. Love. etc. A_Wanderer can write a thesis on how we're here, and I'm in awe of his mind power in that area, but why is all the stuff we need to exist here too?

If we're just here by accident, we're talking astromical odds we must've beat for that to happen. A lot of faith is required for me to believe that. Less faith, in fact, than a belief that we were designed. But when you consider that all this stuff we need to survive and continue existing is available to us, is that accident too? What an accident!!!

That's the other part of my point -- if it is here, it's not here out of hate. You know? Love must be from God because why would he create us out of hate? That'd be like my wife and I saying, "You know, I hate kids. Let's have children." The Bible tells us that God IS love.

I hope none of this comes across in a negative manner. I respect where you're coming from, Irvine. I totally understand. I'm just passionate about making God famous and trying to help people along in a relationship with him -- not for my gain, but for there gain.

Can I ask you a question? (and anyone else) If there is any possibility of a loving God -- why not sprint toward it? Why not seek it with all your heart? Isn't it worth the gamble? Why is it a gamble? Wouldn't it be nice to experience that after all the crap we go through down here?

i suppose i think we're preconditioned -- both socially and genetically -- to believe that we are special, that we were designed, and there's a love and logic and purpose to everything. but i see that as a result of being human and how the human brain works to interpret and make meaning out of random events. i think love serves a purpose, and i think love is a wonderful part of being human, but i can't make the leap that says that the existence of love therefore suggests the existence of a diety. and by saying "God is love" also strikes me as being sort of nonsensical -- i think we need to work out what we mean when we say "God", first of all, and i think it's also fairly clear that while the God of the Bible might love us, i don't think we can fairly say that he is love.

it would be nice to believe in a God, and i find that point compelling -- the whole, well, why not? what have you got to lose? i admit and admire that point.

but, for right now, i see a sort of nobility and honesty in acknowledging what i perceive to be the hard, biological truth of our existence -- that we are animals, that when our hearts explode, when we succumb to cancer, when our necks snap, the lights go out and that's it, and that all explanations and proclomations of an afterlife, of a reuniting with loved ones and being in the presence of God are easily explained by biology as well as real human needs to explain what cannot be explained or understood, which is the fundamental absurdity of existence.

 

[Eliv8]

Great thread.

"Before you embark on any path ask the question: Does this path have a heart? If the answer is no, you will know it, and then you must choose another path. The trouble is nobody asks the question; and when a man finally realizes that he has taken a path without a heart, the path is ready to kill him. At that point very few men can stop to deliberate, and leave the path. A path without a heart is never enjoyable. You have to work hard even to take it. On the other hand, a path with heart is easy; it does not make you work at liking it."
The Teaching of Don Juan.

This is the intro to this book ...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1570625190/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-5732675-2310235#reader-page

Fascinating stuff

 

[hiphop]

but this doesn't make any sense to me -- it seems like mix-and-match metaphysics, that is neither provable or disprovable. it's incoherent, and largely rests upon the subjective definitions of the observer. you can sense and intuit these things, and that's fine, and i have no doubt that they have meaning for you, and i respect that, but it does not then add up to the indepenent existence of a diety, or even proof that there must be something else. all of what you're saying, to me, sounds like a defense mechanism against the fear of death, and saying "i'm not afraid of death" is pretty much admitting that you do have a fear of death, but that you've conquored it. at least to yourself.

and again, i don't mean this at all to attack or deride anyone's beliefs. i'm just trying to explain where i'm at with my thinking, and i speak only for myself.

That´s all good, Irvine

You´d need a proof, but can´t find one. I ´m not thinking in terms of proof, because it doesn´t make sense to me in that case. I have the "proof" if you want to call experience that, and don´t need to prove with a rational argument because this would be an inadequate way. It´s the same when we´re talking about love. What coherent proof do you have that anyone loves you? None. But you can feel it when this is the case. What coherent proof do you have that love exists at all? And still, it exists.

I would like to ask you why you are looking for proof - because apparently you are. Why are these matters of any importance to you? What are you searching for, if anything at all?

 

[coemgen]

i suppose i think we're preconditioned -- both socially and genetically -- to believe that we are special, that we were designed, and there's a love and logic and purpose to everything. but i see that as a result of being human and how the human brain works to interpret and make meaning out of random events. i think love serves a purpose, and i think love is a wonderful part of being human, but i can't make the leap that says that the existence of love therefore suggests the existence of a diety. and by saying "God is love" also strikes me as being sort of nonsensical -- i think we need to work out what we mean when we say "God", first of all, and i think it's also fairly clear that while the God of the Bible might love us, i don't think we can fairly say that he is love.

it would be nice to believe in a God, and i find that point compelling -- the whole, well, why not? what have you got to lose? i admit and admire that point.

but, for right now, i see a sort of nobility and honesty in acknowledging what i perceive to be the hard, biological truth of our existence -- that we are animals, that when our hearts explode, when we succumb to cancer, when our necks snap, the lights go out and that's it, and that all explanations and proclomations of an afterlife, of a reuniting with loved ones and being in the presence of God are easily explained by biology as well as real human needs to explain what cannot be explained or understood, which is the fundamental absurdity of existence.

By sharing the verse about "God is love," I wasn't trying to win an argument, I was just sharing that to let you know what the Bible says because we were talking about that.

How do you know what's on the other side of death? How can you be certain? This is where faith offers way more than science ever will.

Also, I'm not saying this to belittle you or any other negative way, but read back what you said in your last two paragraphs: The idea of God is compelling, however, I'm happy with not believing in anything after death or any God. Are you? (I'm just asking this to challenge you, not put you down in any way).

To me, even the slightest possibility of finding God through faith is worth whatever it takes. It's God. I think that's the problem — people don't understand the concept of God. (Well, he is GOD, so it's impossible totally know everything about him ) I guess why is there a fear of believing in God. What is there to lose?

 

[Irvine511]

That´s all good, Irvine

You´d need a proof, but can´t find one. I ´m not thinking in terms of proof, because it doesn´t make sense to me in that case. I have the "proof" if you want to call experience that, and don´t need to prove with a rational argument because this would be an inadequate way. It´s the same when we´re talking about love. What coherent proof do you have that anyone loves you? None. But you can feel it when this is the case. What coherent proof do you have that love exists at all? And still, it exists.

I would like to ask you why you are looking for proof - because apparently you are. Why are these matters of any importance to you? What are you searching for, if anything at all?

i will definitely get back to you on this one. got to crank through some boring paper work (which is why i'm posting so much these past few days, so much more fun than the task at hand), but i will get back to you.

 

[coemgen]

Irvine, consider this.

Maybe the proof of God you're looking for is up to you -- a relationship with him. God works that way sometimes — he tugs on our hearts and arouses our curiosity just enough to push us to the edge, but we have to jump. He's done his part through Christ, do yours and I promise, you'll have your proof. I'm not saying this to convert you to my club, I'm saying this as part of our little debate/discussion we're having. My relationship with God is my best argument, but I can see it being irrelevant to those who don't know him, because you don't understand and I people like me come across as Star Trek fans at a Star Trek convention. Take the jump though. If you want a visual analogy of what the jump's like, watch the entire video for Glosoli by Sigur Ros.

www.emichrysalis.co.uk/quicktime/sigur_ros/glosoli/index.php?version=7.020&bandwidth=100000

or

www.sigur-ros.is/sirkus.html

Yes, I'm serious.

 

[nathan1977]

People kept asking Jesus to prove that He was the Son of the Father, instead of some conjurer (or worse, a messenger of Satan). His response: "Do what I say, and you will know who sent me."

My father, a biologist by trade and agnostic by nature, finally came to a point where he had met so many Christians -- and found so much pain, anger, and hatred for others in his own soul -- that he couldn't empirically disprove the evidence for God, and in fact found something Christians had that he didn't, so he decided to read the Bible and do what it said until he found a lie.

Thirty-one years later, he's still walking.

 

[nathan1977]

And a perspective on Love from C.S. Lewis:

"Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained."
--Answers to Questions on Christianity

I'd say then that this isn't really possible unless God is with you -- because Love then is the absence of selfishness, and I would hazard a guess that, left to our own devices, humans are the most selfish of all God's creatures... so we need Love in order to love.

 

[coemgen]

Incredible posts there nathan.

And 1977 ruled!!

 

[hiphop]

i will definitely get back to you on this one.

ok I am curious. Good luck with your paperwork!

 

[vervex]

I do find it hard though to accept the 'god is everyone and everything' statement. What makes your statement right, and the whole evolution wrong? Its what i grapple with.

I also think that religion is a catalyst for most of the atrocities that have happened and are happening in our society, and that makes me even warier of religions as a whole.

Well first... Saying God is omnipotent and omipresent doesn't mean there was no evolution. If you read a bit about science, you'll discover everything is made of pure energy. And that energy, I think, could be an answer. So if you concider God was a kind of "soul" or "pure energy" itself, alive and not at the same, absolute and not, well you'll believe that "he" can be everywhere and can do anything. We are all influenced by this energy, so it influces us... But I would be entering into psychic things here

Religion was an excuse for people to make wars. As is science. Atomic bomb is not Christian, but it killed a lot of people on earth already, didn't it ? Religion is like any other excuse when you think about it... It's not fair to point it only.

 

[dazzlingamy]

sorry, i was away on holidays for a few days, but thanks to everyone who replied and discussed things in here, lots to think about, and i feel that i got a good insight into a "religious" thinking persons mind!

thanks again

 

[A_Wanderer]

how is that contradictory to the idea of there being a God? In fact, how is it not evidence of God?

For you personally, from your own heart, when you study the Earth and everything on it, what does it do to you? Why are you drawn to know all this? Where does that come from?

I think that we have to begin from the position that we know absolutely nothing. This includes the possible existence of God, alien life, wormholes etc. From that we may build up a better picture, every step of the way application of rigorous scientific method to understanding the world be it life, the universe or even miracles there has been no compelling evidence hinting towards a guiding intelligence or divine influence. Thats the problem with the supernatural, it simply cannot be proven or disproven objectively and believers cannot be persuaded by objective evidence.

In the complete absence of compelling evidence to suggest the existence of God I do not think that there can be any logical reason to view the universe through that lense. The facts of the matter may proove to be completely what we didn't expect but we just don't know so there is no point in taking a definitive stand other than saying that as far as I am aware there is no God.

I think that the big questions of existence of the universe may lie outside the confines of our own universe, its dimensions and physical laws and if that is the case then literally anything may be possible. That is moot speculation, it could one day be hinted at if we could validate theories involving multiple dimensions.

Just for the record I do think that some theoretical physicists and cosmologists exhibit unwavering belief in their theories however their grandeur is often silenced for a while whenever new data comes in that may show something else.

The question why? seems to place purpose and meaning towards existence, in some respects I may think like an existentialist in not placing any inherent meaning in my existence - simply viewing the world as bodies in space.

 

[coemgen]

The question why? seems to place purpose and meaning towards existence, in some respects I may think like an existentialist in not placing any inherent meaning in my existence - simply viewing the world as bodies in space.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to put you down or belittle where you're coming from, but I have to say, after reading this I just feel saddness.

Are you saying you have no more purpose than a pebble on the ground? Doesn't this make it harder to go through life, thinking there's no purpose to anything? (I'm seriously wondering.) I honestly can't imagine living life like that.
That brings up a question -- can science prove we have no purpose?

 

[Irvine511]

Are you saying you have no more purpose than a pebble on the ground? Doesn't this make it harder to go through life, thinking there's no purpose to anything? (I'm seriously wondering.) I honestly can't imagine living life like that.
That brings up a question -- can science prove we have no purpose?

A_W is doing a great job of explaining where i'm currently at right now. that, and when you examine the structure of religion itself, as well as the needs fulfilled by our notions of God, it just seems to make more sense that God and religion are symptoms of human need. this doesn't meant that how you understand God and it's function in your life isn't real to you, it's just that there's nothing to God beyond yourself.

insofar as we are aware. i like that.

as for the above, no, you don't have any more purpose than a pebble on a ground. science is unconcerned with purpose -- or at least metaphysical purpose, since that's not something that can be quantified, verified or falsified. so, i think that, objectively, our lives have no inherent purpose *until* you begin to create your own meaning, your own purpose, your own life, your own love, your own reasons for being alive. this is a fundamental assertion of existentialism -- once the depression after coming to terms with the belief (i won't say fact) that there is no God has lifted, you should become remarkably aware of your own freedom to create of this life whatever you want (within the constraints of the society to which you were born).

so perhaps taking control of your own life involves the surrendering of your life to notions of God or Christ. that's fine, and that's entirely valid, but it is also entirely your own choice and you are choosing to bring yourself to something rather than rediscovering something from whence you came ... does that make sense? you are giving your life purpose, but that doesn't mean that you've discovered Purpose or Truth or Meaning; you've created your own purpose, truth, and/or meaning.

 

[coemgen]

"when you examine the structure of religion itself, as well as the needs fulfilled by our notions of God, it just seems to make more sense that God and religion are symptoms of human need."

Where does this human need come from? Is there no purpose to it?

I actually agree with you that religion is a human thing. Very much so. God though, no way.

"you should become remarkably aware of your own freedom to create of this life whatever you want (within the constraints of the society to which you were born)."

Actually, believe it or not, you just proved a loving God exists right here. "Within the constraints of the society. . ." Think about this: Back to the whole purpose to everything -- if there's no purpose and there's no value to our lives, we just exist, then why would it be a big deal if I go outside my office here, find a woman and rape her? Well, as you mentioned there's constraints in society and this isn't allowed. Society after society believes this. Aside from the law though, and in fact why our laws are there, is our own hearts. If you were to see a woman being raped right in front of you, you wouldn't go get popcorn and sit and watch. That'd be wrong. Knowing your heart as much as I do, you'd do what you could to stop it. Then you'd help her out. Why? Because you know that's right. So there's a concept of good and bad, right and wrong in your heart, in mine and everyone else here. Where does that come from? Is it just there because we put it there? No. It's part of who we are. God forbid, but if a child were to witness something horrific like that, what would they do? They would sit there and cry, yell and scream. Why? Because they know it's wrong. They know something isn't right here. Is that something a young child can just put there? No. It's there. It's in us. I'm sure someone will say "Well, that's just a survival skill we've adopted over time." Sorry. That sense of right and wrong is there even when it's not a situation that affects our survival. Why is it there? Because there's a larger sense of good to everything. It's funny how we all just "happen" to have emotions to react to these situations too.

 

[Irvine511]

Where does this human need come from? Is there no purpose to it?

i think the human need arises from the dreadful awareness of what might be called the human condition and the fundamental absurdity of life -- we are born to die.

who are we? what do we do while we are here? where did we come from? where are we going?

we can't know the answers to these questions. so we give ourselves explanations, myths, stories, morals, parables, legends, and all sorts of things. these demonstrate how, through language, we make sense of the absurdity and fundamental meaninglessness of life on this rock and make our time here more meaningful. one could say that this is precisely the "purpose" of this very human need -- to love and be loved, to have inherent value. ideally, our parents give us this, and then our life partners (though we earn our partner's love as adults, whereas we are given our parents love at birth ... or at least this is how it should be in an ideal world). if one gets this feeling, of being loved and of having inherent worth, from a diety, then i see nothing wrong with that.

i don't, however, see the existence of these needs as proff of the existence, or even the suggestion of the existence, of a Creator.

i think it's a gorgeous, wonderful idea, and deep down i do hope it's true, it's just that when i'm honest with myself, in my heart of hearts, or, rather, my head of heads, it just seems that the simplest explanation is the best, and the simplest explanation is that there isn't any sort of diety intervening in our lives.





[q]Actually, believe it or not, you just proved a loving God exists right here. "Within the constraints of the society. . ." Think about this: Back to the whole purpose to everything -- if there's no purpose and there's no value to our lives, we just exist, then why would it be a big deal if I go outside my office here, find a woman and rape her? Well, as you mentioned there's constraints in society and this isn't allowed. Society after society believes this. Aside from the law though, and in fact why our laws are there, is our own hearts. If you were to see a woman being raped right in front of you, you wouldn't go get popcorn and sit and watch. That'd be wrong. Knowing your heart as much as I do, you'd do what you could to stop it. Then you'd help her out. Why? Because you know that's right. So there's a concept of good and bad, right and wrong in your heart, in mine and everyone else here. Where does that come from? Is it just there because we put it there? No. It's part of who we are. God forbid, but if a child were to witness something horrific like that, what would they do? They would sit there and cry, yell and scream. Why? Because they know it's wrong. They know something isn't right here. Is that something a young child can just put there? No. It's there. It's in us. I'm sure someone will say "Well, that's just a survival skill we've adopted over time." Sorry. That sense of right and wrong is there even when it's not a situation that affects our survival. Why is it there? Because there's a larger sense of good to everything. It's funny how we all just "happen" to have emotions to react to these situations too. [/B][/q]



i think A_W can explain this better than i do, but i think human empathy -- being able to see ourselves in the shoes of others -- creates a sense of right and wrong. i don't rape people not because God tells me it's wrong; i don't rape people because i could never inflict such pain and humiliation on another human being because i would never want such pain and humiliation inflicted upon myself -- it's essentially the "do unto others rule," which is a piece of brilliance, but it's also a species survival mechanism.

 

[coemgen]

i think A_W can explain this better than i do, but i think human empathy -- being able to see ourselves in the shoes of others -- creates a sense of right and wrong. i don't rape people not because God tells me it's wrong; i don't rape people because i could never inflict such pain and humiliation on another human being because i would never want such pain and humiliation inflicted upon myself -- it's essentially the "do unto others rule," which is a piece of brilliance, but it's also a species survival mechanism.

But I don't rape women because God tells me it's bad either. That's my point. I know it's bad. You could say I never had to learn that it was bad. I've never thought otherwise. You said empathy creates a sense of right and wrong. I think it's the other way around -- a sense of right and wrong creates empathy. And how is the "do unto others" rule a form of a survival mechanism. I totally disagree. I think the instinct of faith in that concept has to override an instinct of survival in order for that concept to work. You have to give of yourself to do unto others...that's not a survival frame of mind. It's total opposite. That's why I don't see how people can say Christianity is man-made. Actually, maybe the denominations are but the teachings and story of Christ's life are in no way man made. No human is brilliant enough to think of a leader who is born into poverty, turns the other cheek and dies for his followers after being tortured and humiliated. It makes no sense. This is why the Jews didn't accept him when he was here, he didn't fit the mold of what they thought he should be, even though he fits all the prophecies of the OT.

i think it's a gorgeous, wonderful idea, and deep down i do hope it's true, it's just that when i'm honest with myself, in my heart of hearts, or, rather, my head of heads, it just seems that the simplest explanation is the best, and the simplest explanation is that there isn't any sort of diety intervening in our lives.

So why settle!? In being honest with yourself, if you hope its true deep down inside, why isn't it good enough? I think your idea of being honest with yourself is finding something you can understand. We're talking about God here. Something we can't understand. We're talking about Grace and Mercy. These concepts go against our human nature.

Seriously, and this questions to you and everyone else who doesn't believe in God -- why not?
What is the danger of you believing in God? Is it a fear of some sort? or do you honestly, wholeheartedly think you have it all figured out?
Why not believe in God? Why don't you put faith in him?

Thanks for your response. And Irvine, I hope I'm not coming across as a know-it-all prick here. I'm sorry if I am. I understand where you're coming from.

 

[darbyZ]

Originally posted by Irvine511



i think A_W can explain this better than i do, but i think human empathy -- being able to see ourselves in the shoes of others -- creates a sense of right and wrong. i don't rape people not because God tells me it's wrong; i don't rape people because i could never inflict such pain and humiliation on another human being because i would never want such pain and humiliation inflicted upon myself -- it's essentially the "do unto others rule," which is a piece of brilliance, but it's also a species survival mechanism. [/B]

Where do you think this comes from?It's not a species survival mechanism,because,if so,you wouldn't give a damn about the victim,since it's an animal instinct ,but you actually feel something,and that feeling bothers you,and if you run away from the scene your conscience will react with a twinge.............Why?/ We cannot materialize God because it's beyond our human capabilities,because then we would be out of the world of five senses and,as fallen,we are not given that power;but we are given the option to choose between good and bad,right and wrong,and a responsibility to live with our choice always asking ourselves and reexamining our decisions. Doubt,suspicion..........that's another big question,but needs more than several philosophical interpretations.Some other time........ PS I perfectly understand your standpoint,it's logic against divine...........that's the biggest contradiction of us ,as humans..........we are given much,but not all to know......is the answer

 

[Irvine511]

But I don't rape women because God tells me it's bad either. That's my point. I know it's bad. You could say I never had to learn that it was bad. I've never thought otherwise. You said empathy creates a sense of right and wrong. I think it's the other way around -- a sense of right and wrong creates empathy.

i see your point -- it does become a little bit chicken-and-egg, though, doesn't it? why, then, do all religions have the same sense of right and wrong for the most part? i.e., no one says it's okay to rape, murder, steal, etc. it clearly can't be because all religions are equal or operate under the same set of rules, as you've said yourself.

only going by my own experience, i respond to the suffering of other people -- notions of right vs. wrong really don't enter my mind when i have a visceral reaction to stories of children abducted or gay people who get bashed or when Iraqi children have their flesh burned off by white phosphorus used by US soldiers. my immediate reaction is to imagine myself in such a situation, feel the pain that i would feel, and then know that i would never want such a thing to happen to me. therefore, it is wrong. it's a combination of an emotional reaction coupled with an intellectual extrapolation. i would never need an external force to let me know that this is right or this is wrong.





[q]And how is the "do unto others" rule a form of a survival mechanism. I totally disagree. I think the instinct of faith in that concept has to override an instinct of survival in order for that concept to work. You have to give of yourself to do unto others...that's not a survival frame of mind. It's total opposite. That's why I don't see how people can say Christianity is man-made.[/q]


it's a form of survial for the reasons i elucidated above -- socializing people not to kill each other is a great way to make sure the species continues and is essential for the survival of specific communites -- i.e., while it might be fine to kill people from other tribes/ethnic groups, you must protect your own. how do you protect your own? through empathy with those who look, act and speak like you.



[q]Actually, maybe the denominations are but the teachings and story of Christ's life are in no way man made. No human is brilliant enough to think of a leader who is born into poverty, turns the other cheek and dies for his followers after being tortured and humiliated. It makes no sense. This is why the Jews didn't accept him when he was here, he didn't fit the mold of what they thought he should be, even though he fits all the prophecies of the OT.[/q]


i agree that the story is poetically brilliant. but i think it's a bit of a leap to say that no one was brilliant enough to think it up. and perhaps, the more fantasical it is, the more emotionally compelling, the more poetic, the greater its power will be to win over both it's subjects and potential converts.

also, keep in mind that Christianity is -- i believe -- the *only* religion to offer life after death. now that is an offer one can hardly refuse.


[q]So why settle!? In being honest with yourself, if you hope its true deep down inside, why isn't it good enough? I think your idea of being honest with yourself is finding something you can understand. We're talking about God here. Something we can't understand. We're talking about Grace and Mercy. These concepts go against our human nature. [/q]

it isn't good enough because i value intellectual honest over emotional need, and i find not comfort but at least integrity in being able to stare into the abyss and simply learn to accept that which is.

and, again, for all your appealing fervor, you're talking about highly subjective things that you don't even have defintions for or even a grasp of an undersatnding of beyond that which a bunch of people wrote down over 2,000 years ago. i don't find that compelling evidence for the existence of a diety, and i don't think that the concepts of Grace and Mercy are against human nature -- in fact, i think they tie directly into human nature and our need for unconditional love, since that's what Grace and Mercy are, that we will always be forgiven, that no matter how bad we mess up Mommy and Daddy will always be there for us and love us and feed and shelter us. beliefs in God do the same thing, only for the spirit and the soul, but it is also about the body -- the body is one day going to be destroyed, to be worm food, or charred remains in Fallujah. how do we deal with the inevitable endpoint of our physical being? by creating a sense of life beyond the body, of life that isn't tied down to the temporeal flesh and will go on forever. we're so bound up by biology, it is terrible -- the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and we must remember that those years have been lived minute-by-minute, in the way that we live minute-by-minute. the incomprehensible vastness of space and time are simply too far beyond our ability, as earthly beings, to handle. and we dread what we don't know. and so we protect ourselves from that terror.

and that, in and of itself, is just as poetically beautiful as the story of Jesus born in the shit and the straw.

Seriously, and this questions to you and everyone else who doesn't believe in God -- why not?
What is the danger of you believing in God? Is it a fear of some sort? or do you honestly, wholeheartedly think you have it all figured out?
Why not believe in God? Why don't you put faith in him?

a few reasons:

1. the intellectual honesty i spoke about earlier
2. the abuse that has been performed in the name of God throughout the centuries
3. the illogicalness and the contradictions of the teachings -- i can't imagine that a grand designer or creator would be remotely interested in who i have sex with, or whether i have sex before marriage, and the fact that so many of his followers are *obsessed* with precisely these inane, inconsequential matters speaks volumes about the human-control blueprint embedded into religion
4. the Occam's Razor theory -- simplest explanation is the best
5. the immense power of the Almighty -- if you can claim that he's on your side and speaking into your left ear (hello, GWB), then who can't you conquor here on earth?

 

[Irvine511]

one more thing to add -- i do want to say that i'm simply trying to explain where i'm' at right now. i am just at a point where i'm pondering the big questions -- happens from time to time, often at the end of the year -- and these are the conclusions i'm arriving at. it probably says more about my state of mind than anything else. i've been living through notions of acceptance of certain things, and part of acceptance is trying to see clearly, to see what is and now what you wish to be, and to see where you might fit in the grand scheme of it all. the acceptance to the non-existence of god plays into all of that, and it provides a little comfort, if i'm honest.

this has been a very interesting discussion, and you've jogged my thinking, always a good thing at times like these.

 

[Irvine511]

...is the answer

agreed. i can think of no better way to fill life with structure, meaning, and purpose, than through the creation of loving relationships with other human beings.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to put you down or belittle where you're coming from, but I have to say, after reading this I just feel saddness.

Are you saying you have no more purpose than a pebble on the ground? Doesn't this make it harder to go through life, thinking there's no purpose to anything? (I'm seriously wondering.) I honestly can't imagine living life like that.
That brings up a question -- can science prove we have no purpose?

I think that the writers of TV's Angel put it best in the shows manifesto "if nothing that we do matters then all that matters is what we do". Thats an existentialist declaration about how in the absence of meaning in this world we can create meaning in deed. We can do the right things not because we need to answer to a higher power at the end of it, but simply because its the right thing to do, that it may make life that little bit better.

It is entirely possible to not only exist but have a content time doing it without faith, absolved from any religious peity and in pursuit of individual goals whatever they may be. To be remembered throughout the ages, to be poweful, to save lives or whatever thing in this world you want.