• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Debate on the existence of god

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I've heard that too, and I've even repeated it. But now that I think about it, I'm not sure it's really true. Science isn't really just about explaining how -- it's about increasing reliability in what we understand, and both the WHY and the HOW is part of our understanding. So, if you make a claim about the "why," you should ensure that your claim is reliable, just for accuracy's sake. Science is compatible with asking why as long as we're still interested in reliability. If we choose to relinquish reliability, and instead take things on faith, then science becomes irrelevant.

The failure of science to answer questions about why the universe exists isn't really a failure, imo. It's more of a discovery, namely, that there is no reason for existence that people are privy to. I think it's rather illuminating.

Isn't this as ptG said? In the past, the church is our fountain of knowledge... now science is replacing its role. Sometimes based on the stuff I hear from people, science has became the new "religion". Instead of quoting passages from the bible, people are now quoting the current big thing in science as the be all and end all "truth". When science is just the process of discovery.

The failure of science isn't in its methodology... but the public's view of science. The question of why the universe exists, or the meaning of life... you can't answer using science. But the public doesn't see it. They still try to throw science at every darn problem they face. And that's where the failure lies.
 

BerberElla

12 and a half weeks
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
2,725
MBTI Type
infp
The debate might have been raging for many an era, but the people debating change in a shorter amount of time, so whilst some have it out of their system, others are fresh to the battle.

As the old fade out, the new appear, each time with questions of their own.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Isn't this as ptG said?

I don't know. I didn't read her post.

The question of why the universe exists, or the meaning of life... you can't answer using science. But the public doesn't see it. They still try to throw science at every darn problem they face. And that's where the failure lies.

Hm. Here's the thing, and this goes back to your HOW and WHY distinction. You've tried to create a distinction between religion answering the WHY and science answering the HOW, but is it really true that religion doesn't get involved with the HOW? The most fundamental belief in religion is that the universe was created by a entity called god. To me, that's really answering the HOW -- how did this all start? Ideas like those fall squarely within the realm of science, as far as I'm concerned, and should be held to the scientific standard. They're just extensions of the Big Bang theory. If the Big Bang theory is within the realm of science, so the cause of the Big Bang theory should also be subject to scientific scrutiny. If it fails, then we should suspend that belief until new information becomes available.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
You think the point of religion is to have faith? Hrmm. I'm not so convinced.

Without faith, without some sort of doubt, it completely falls apart. Where is the choice if your end point is known. You would be a slave. If god exists, he wouldn't want that, and if he doesn't, it's not an issue.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
I don't either. That's why I made that analogy for Antisocial One. The science education required to make a decision on whether you can reconcile your faith with the natural world is high school level. I don't think that you have to be halfway through a PhD in physics before it dawns on you that most religion isn't particularly scientific. I think that's just a dodge...it's a way to avoid accepting that people can understand how nature works and still be spiritual. It's much easier to act as if atheism is assured once you reach a given (and quite uncommon) threshold of knowedge.

That is not what I am actually saying. Person can be scientific and spiritual in the same time. It is just that when you go deep enough entire perspective changes and if you use common sense in combination with knowledge entire thing falls apart. That is all what I am saying.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Hm. Here's the thing, and this goes back to your HOW and WHY distinction. You've tried to create a distinction between religion answering the WHY and science answering the HOW, but is it really true that religion doesn't get involved with the HOW? The most fundamental belief in religion is that the universe was created by a entity called god. To me, that's really answering the HOW -- how did this all start? Ideas like those fall squarely within the realm of science, as far as I'm concerned, and should be held to the scientific standard. They're just extensions of the Big Bang theory. If the Big Bang theory is within the realm of science, so the cause of the Big Bang theory should also be subject to scientific scrutiny. If it fails, then we should suspend that belief until new information becomes available.
Oh no... I wouldn't say religion answers the "why" question... I would rather trust the philosopher for that. Religion in the past has tried to provide explanations for everything, whys, hows, whats... They've also tried to dictate people's lives based on this "knowledge".

Readdressing the meaning of "how"... What comes before the Big Bang might become apparent if we obtain more data. Science can one day solve this. The "why"... can be debated by the philosophers.

Religion is a different nature of beast all on its own. Religion tries to put a stamp on everything. They say God made it all, big bang and all. Essentially there'll always be unknowns... and religion will push the role of god as the creator further and further back. First people say god created the world... then they say god created the universe... who knows what they'll say 20 years down the line?

Excuse my convoluted arguments (the more I edit, the worse it gets)
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Without faith, without some sort of doubt, it completely falls apart.

I'm not really following your logic. It seems like you're saying that because uncertainty is required to make something work, uncertainty is the goal. I don't really get that.

Where is the choice if your end point is known. You would be a slave. If god exists, he wouldn't want that,

You're making some assumptions about God and his motives. Are you speaking from the perspective of religion? Meaning, are you saying that some religious systems have free will components, and that without free will, the other ideas topple too? I don't really get it.

Even without this issue, though, I don't see why you would say that faith is the PURPOSE of religion. Seems to me that purpose has to do with what something is trying to achieve, rather than how it achieves it.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
The failure of science isn't in its methodology... but the public's view of science. The question of why the universe exists, or the meaning of life... you can't answer using science. But the public doesn't see it. They still try to throw science at every darn problem they face. And that's where the failure lies.

Just to be clear, this works both ways. There is a major failure when religion tries to be science (I think of ID notably here, but history is full of issues like this) too. And I think it works more in that direction than the opposite, although it probably is reaching a crossover point now.

Science, when compared to faith, does things very well in the physical world. It's a system of organizing information. In my view, it sums up type I/II errors on its own... except that the system is meant to constantly increase it's knowledge (sample) in order to drive down error. Faith doesn't operate like this, and so it is a poor system for gaining knowledge. That's inherent in any system that presumes knowledge.

But science, when compared to religion, or a specific form of religion, shows more commonality - and the commonality is people. People are people and have the same wiring... and so the essence of how we express it is very similar. The knowledge is agnostic to its source. We cannot possibly understand and discover everything, and so we filter and record opinions more than form them through any method. Science and religion, for the most part are very similar. Be it a monestary or a university. Granted, they have differences due to the differences in knowledge taught - at least in the modern world - but the concept of learning everything rather than just accepting some at face value... it happens both ways. And just like 'science', in common use, isn't uniform across the population, neither is the belief in religion. Some are really bad at 'science' and take it at face value, and some are very skeptical of religion. This underlies the basic issue: people and how we deal with information and knowledge.

The distinction is important because certain statements are not true under both comparisons. For example, can science answer questions about 'why'? It can, for sure, as a system. If you inherently assume that the only things that exist are natural (ie: if it exists, it's because it has an influence, if it has an influence, then it is tangible, thus natural), then science can increase its knowledge progressing towards increasing reliability of the universe. The only things that are left are things that have no influence or meaning - which science wouldn't touch, but are inherently not spiritual/etc.

That's fine and dandy - as a system. But that isn't the human component. It isn't what bonds societies in common belief, it isn't how we process information or make decisions... And people change science into the human mindset. Science, in that sense, is similar to religion because it requires faith in the knowledge we have accumulated. But the validity of that knowledge is what matters - and titles don't matter. An engineer three thousand+ years ago experimented and worked out math to build the pyramids, arches and so forth... and people built on it. It doesn't matter if they were part of the religious caste, and were passed down their knowledge as if it were 'from God', or from the sacred scrolls... it still exists. And we don't do it differently now - that's exactly what textbooks in universities are.

And I don't see anything wrong with this. It's the most efficient way I can think of having an organic learning system. And the knowledge that comes from the systems is a social good, so to speak. I can generally peer down the history of what allowed my calc derivatives to be 'discovered', but it's only after, when I realise how much of my other courses depended on it (last week, it was realising how chain-management was related, a real shock to me) that I realised I do have to take a lot of what I learn as faith.

And if the knowledge there lets us improve along one dimension - say, technology (ie: standard of living) - it's easy to see how other systems could play into the big picture too, like social coherency.

Just as science is inherently conflictive (if everyone agreed, there would be no 'science' system), religion can be inherently cohesive (if everyone agrees.)

[/rambling]

Just thinking out loud, for most of it.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
I'm not really following your logic. It seems like you're saying that because uncertainty is required to make something work, uncertainty is the goal. I don't really get that.



You're making some assumptions about God and his motives. Are you speaking from the perspective of religion? Meaning, are you saying that some religious systems have free will components, and that without free will, the other ideas topple too? I don't really get it.

Even without this issue, though, I don't see why you would say that faith is the PURPOSE of religion. Seems to me that purpose has to do with what something is trying to achieve, rather than how it achieves it.

Are we talking about the judeo-christian God? I was under the assumption we were. Faith is the difference between worship as free will and worship as a sentence for continued existence. God wants you to love him. God wants you to completely, with all aspects of your Self, invest yourself in him. That needs some Faith. If you knew he existed, with no doubt, would you love him because you wanted to, or would you obey because there wasn't really any alternative.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

Yes, ma'me!

The question concerning the existence of God is unanswerable just like the question concerning the existence of dragons, the spirit of demigod BlueWingoos, and fairies.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
The fact that it's written by an Atheist, doesn't change the validity of the statements. Frankly, I find any affiliation irrelevant. The only point is, that it makes sense.

It's not who writes it as much as what assumptions the author uses. Many atheists assume you can use scientific methods to answer religious questions. I personally would not do this, and furthermore I could explain why doing so is actually unreasonable. However whether or not a person agrees with my argument has less to do with how logical it is and more to do with what they want to believe to begin with.

In other words the reason why it makes sense to you is because you want it to make sense. I do not believe an objective observer (if there is such a thing when discussing faith/religion) would see the arguments as reasonable.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
That is not what I am actually saying. Person can be scientific and spiritual in the same time. It is just that when you go deep enough entire perspective changes and if you use common sense in combination with knowledge entire thing falls apart. That is all what I am saying.

I know what you're saying. I don't want to belabor the discussion, but the perspective you adopt when you go deep is dependent on what your previously held conceptions were. If one were an atheist before becoming a scientist, I think one would find more confirmation of their atheism in science. If one were spiritual before becoming a scientist, I think it's just as likely that one would find a deeper and more holistic beauty to what they see as the work of a sentient consciousness.

I absolutely concede that the more you learn about science, the less and less likely God appears to be, based entirely on logic. The more you know about math, the more you understand how unlikely it is that you will win the lottery. But people win it every day. Unlikely is not the same as false. I think that the perspective shift you describe could be more a function of the type of people that go into science. They're more likely to have complete faith in the scientific method as the arbiter of all that is true. But measuring God with science is like measuring time with a thermometer. I simply don't see the conflict between the two, and I don't believe that spirituality "falls apart" after a certain amount of scientific indoctrination. It may fall apart for some people if they are of a certain mind. But if it really did fall apart objectively, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
Though a lot of scientists don't realise, the aim of science is to provide a tool for problem solving. It doesn't answers truths. In some ways science could be completely abstract, because the thing we care about is that the system models reality. It doesn't have to be reality, except for the fact that understanding "reality" models reality best.

Science is used to predict experiments, it only cares about underlying truths when they help predict the experiment better. If there is a formula to predict something, the only reason scientists search deeper is to improve the formula or predict more. This is why it is so amusing when people come out and make a big deal about scientists being wrong. Most of their formulas won't wrong, they were just superseded by more accurate ones.

There is little room for the black and white of religion at the high end of science. And this is where half the conflict lies. A question has to be left open, and move around in the gray. When people make baseless claims without data, it just undermines scientific integrity. ie. the world is flat and 5000 years old. Science tries to predict nothing about God, because God will never be in a system it can model. You can't watch him, or experiment with him as a variable and see the outcomes. And if you think you can, remember he has free choice and motives you may never understand, so may as well be random noise. Religion should predict nothing about science, but in some places tries to scientifically justify itself. This is basically crap science (and crap religion). And so scientists get annoyed that people are trying to justify that 2+2=5 all the time. And religions for some reason think they care about them as more than an annoyance, and want a debate. With patents and funding and all the other problems in science, the last thing you need is the public being lead in 20 different wrong directions by people who make stuff up. Try to sell half the real science to the public these days and they don't get it anyway.

hmm... that's a long enough rant :)
 

placebo

New member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
492
MBTI Type
INFP
Dunno who might be interested in listening to , or may have already listened to , Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchen's 'blasphemy debate' -- YouTube - Fry and Hitchens Discussion 1/10 (Sound Fixed) [first of ten parts here]. Might be relevant to this topic. Fry makes a particularly nice speech at the very end when someone asks how to enfuse secular society with the 'poetry' of religion to make people care (or a question along those lines).

YouTube - Stephen Fry's beautiful comments on a world without God.
(how do I embed video?)
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
Considering the infinite amount of debates on this subject, what makes one believe this thread will bring anyone closer to the answers? Just throwing that out there.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
It's not who writes it as much as what assumptions the author uses. Many atheists assume you can use scientific methods to answer religious questions. I personally would not do this, and furthermore I could explain why doing so is actually unreasonable. However whether or not a person agrees with my argument has less to do with how logical it is and more to do with what they want to believe to begin with.

In other words the reason why it makes sense to you is because you want it to make sense. I do not believe an objective observer (if there is such a thing when discussing faith/religion) would see the arguments as reasonable.

Given that the fortress of your "reasoning" presupposes that elucidation would be fruitless since I would "choose" not to listen (false, by the way: I accept any argument that is well-supported), I will only challenge you to list a single question that science will never at any point be in a position to answer.

I'm also still rather curious to know what these "assumptions that only atheists make" are. (As evidenced by the fact that you deleted said line from your initial post, you know as well as I do that the statement was tenuous to put it generously.)
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Considering the infinite amount of debates on this subject, what makes one believe this thread will bring anyone closer to the answers? Just throwing that out there.

Well my original intent was a question of "why people will debate on this subject despite the lack of an answer", but somehow the topic has shifted to science vs religion. :rolli:

And I'm still wondering about that. Why?

Berber suggested, "As the old fade out, the new appear, each time with questions of their own."

Is that really true though? I've been exposed to this question for a lot time, and I'm sure many people share my experiences... yet we're still discussing about science vs religion despite numerous threads previously on this topic. I think there's more to the issue then just new participants... :huh:
 

placebo

New member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
492
MBTI Type
INFP
Well my original intent was a question of "why people will debate on this subject despite the lack of an answer", but somehow the topic has shifted to science vs religion. :rolli:

And I'm still wondering about that. Why?

Berber suggested, "As the old fade out, the new appear, each time with questions of their own."

Is that really true though? I've been exposed to this question for a lot time, and I'm sure many people share my experiences... yet we're still discussing about science vs religion despite numerous threads previously on this topic. I think there's more to the issue then just new participants... :huh:

I think it's one of those questions where, if you have to ask it, you'll never understand.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Is that really true though? I've been exposed to this question for a lot time, and I'm sure many people share my experiences... yet we're still discussing about science vs religion despite numerous threads previously on this topic. I think there's more to the issue then just new participants... :huh:

To be fair, I've seen a great many repeats of love advice, what type do you like, what type is manipulative, what type has the highest IQ and so forth (topics that I tend to click on). It's not just religion that brings that up!

(You offer a good reminder on how little it moves forward though... interesting thought.)
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

God exists in peoples minds, at least in any of the forms people on earth worship. I'm perfectly happy stating that as a fact. Look at a crazy religion in scientology and how easily it has taken hold in modern times. Many of the major religions IPO'ed thousands of years ago when supernatural beliefs were the logic of the day. What's the difference between god and santa claus? When kids reach a certain age parents tell their kids this strokey bearded guy is not real, but this other strokey bearded guy is real.

Life is replete with false information that is perpetuated from one generation to the next. Take the financial markets for example. Common "wisdom" (extremely common) has is that the stockmarket leads the economy by about six months, but a look at the data show this to be false. Another example from finance would be that of efficient market theory. This is another extremely prevalent theory that is easy to disprove. Get online at night and place an order for one contract of e-mini gold. You can actually move the price of gold as represented by that contract with just one order. That is essentially an arbitrage opportunity which disproves efficient market theory. These are ideas that can easily be disproven, yet they live on.

Someone make a LOGICAL argument in support of god to counter mine. If you succeed you will be the first.
 
Top