The Debate of God.

[A-ManESL]

I am not saying that they give inaccurate results but that their work is often disjointed, often not really advancing in knowledge and in many cases just reformulating of the problem in a new wardrobe. New advances are made in natural science, but very often they are only percieved new because of their outer appearence. (Some exceptional cases do occur but they are not the norm). The general public understands little about the technicalities of their work and it is only a select other few in their specialized area whose approval is required. The system of publishing papers and feedback at the highest levels does have a "I scratch your back and you scratch mine" component built in it. (Some of what I am saying is based on personal experience by the way)

Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread on modern scientists then derail this one. I would really like to hear your thoughts on the article.

 

[Daviso452]

I am not saying that they give inaccurate results but that their work is often disjointed, often not really advancing in knowledge and in many cases just reformulating of the problem in a new wardrobe. New advances are made in natural science, but very often they are only percieved new because of their outer appearence. (Some exceptional cases do occur but they are not the norm). The general public understands little about the technicalities of their work and it is only a select other few in their specialized area whose approval is required. The system of publishing papers and feedback at the highest levels does have a "I scratch your back and you scratch mine" component built in it. (Some of what I am saying is based on personal experience by the way)

Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread on modern scientists then derail this one. I would really like to hear your thoughts on the article.

It's not a derailment if it's my thread.

I'll trust what you say. I myself am not too involved in the scientific community, or at all, so your opinion is likely much more valid than mine.

But let's focus back on the purpose of talking about scientists; from what it seemed you said that the only reason why we have not found evidence for god is because scientists are too wrapped up in themselves and not been focusing enough effort on the subject. Is that true?

 

[A-ManESL]

A better way to say what I mean is that "most" scientists are simply not expanding True knowledge as their efforts are directed cumulatively towards (1) self-gain and (2)superficial advances. The first point is contained in the article about Simone Weil and the second point in the quote by Nasr. (I'll try to expand on the second point a little later, I'm busy today and tomorrow so probably I will reply only on Monday. Perhaps you may have read the article by then as well.)

I think you can substitute the word Reality, for God here, because as I explained previously the term is used in some paths and not in some others.

 

[Daviso452]

A better way to say what I mean is that "most" scientists are simply not expanding True knowledge as their efforts are directed cumulatively towards (1) self-gain and (2)superficial advances. The first point is contained in the article about Simone Weil and the second point in the quote by Nasr. (I'll try to expand on the second point a little later, I'm busy today and tomorrow so probably I will reply only on Monday. Perhaps you may have read the article by then as well.)

I think you can substitute the word Reality, for God here, because as I explained previously the term is used in some paths and not in some others.

No need to expand. I understand. I was just clarifying.

But aren't you pre-supposing that there IS evidence for god out there? I understand there is a possibility, but you seem to take it as fact when there currently is no evidence?

 

[apophenia]

With science you can figure out how to do all of this. The human brain can be incredibly predictable. You just need to know what to look for.

But I don't know what you mean by "support the human heart."

What insecurities are you referring to exactly?

Science can provide inspiration. But different people find different things inspiring. Some find the concept of eternal happiness inspiring. Others find the concept of this being our only chance at happiness inspiring. In the face of inevitable suffering and death, it depends.

Science is a tool for understanding nature. Who will react a certain way. What an object is made of. When things will happen. Where things will happen. Why certain events occur. How things work.

I believe science can address anything. It has shown to explain more and more, with no conceivable limits.

You are dismissing a hugely important aspect of why people believe in god. You are also attempting to put science in the position of providing solace and inspiration and encouragement, which to be honest I think is simply silly.

I am not saying that any of my remarks are a 'proof' of god's existence by the way. Nor am I belittling science. What I am doing is criticising the notion that science can take the place of religious faith in peoples inner lives.

Right now there are around 7 billion humans on this planet. Hundreds of millions of those people wake up every day to horror. Starvation, homelessnes, disease, war; watching their children growing up in misery if they grow up at all. It is easy from the perspective of middle-class members of wealthy societies to forget or just ignore that.

Tell me, what is science offering those hundreds of millions (billions ?) of people for whom life is hellish ?

"The pleasure centre in the brain" ? Psychology ?

FYI - Recent research established an important fact about psychology - You are no doubt aware that when natural disasters or terrible accidents or mass murders occur, teams of psychologists are often sent in to counsel the survivors. Studies have been done to determine the outcomes of counselling vs no counselling, and it turns out that those who receive no counselling generally show better recovery from trauma than those who receive counselling.So much for psychology.

I read a very enlightening book by Peter Lomas called 'Cultivating Intuition'. It is about the bureaurocratisation of psychological counselling in the UK (and elsewhere). Lomas is a psychologist, and has observed the intrusion of government into the process of providing psychological counselling. He (and various professionals I have spoken too) argues that the attempt to systematise and standardise the delivery of counselling services has severely degraded those services. His observation is that it is not the mode of therapy which actually matters, it is in fact the quality of relationship between the counsellor and the client which is the determining factor.

In other words a caring parish priest is likely to be much more beneficial to a human in crisis than a university psychology major, unless that psychologist has innate interpersonal skills which transcend the McTherapy taught in institutions.

Science has no handle on poetry or the subtleties of human feeling. Machines cannot provide grief counselling. Psychologists cannot be trained to engender courage in the human heart. They may write theses which claim they do or can, but the real-world results do not back up such claims.

I should add that I personally do not think that religion is the only way to deal with human suffering either. It does come down to the quality and depth of human relationship.

But to suggest that science is or will be the answer to all the sufferings of the human condition is simply zealotry with nothing to back it up.

You asked "what insecurities exactly ?" . Well, lots. Read poetry and good novels to gain some insight (because you won't find any science with much to say about this). Or go on a journey of discovery - go to a soup kitchen and talk with people who have been psychically disabled by crisis for example. Explore the anatomy of the human heart. Talk with survivors of war, or with women suffering post-partum depression, or with artists who are compelled to express the inexpressible.

The human heart is not a simple logical device like your laptop. You can't just reboot it or update its operating system.

There is no evidence that science can nurture or heal the human heart. Science deserves great respect, but when you assert that it can deal with every aspect of human existence, and that there is no kind of question it can't answer, then you are moving into the realms of fundamentalism.

And statements like 'maybe not yet, but eventually science will explain everything' are statements of belief, not science.

 

[Daviso452]

I see your point. I guess I wasn't realizing what I was saying, and said the wrong thing. Science itself cannot really support someone through a crisis. However, once you find a technique that works, it is very probable that science can explain why it works. Science can look at an individual's nature/nurture aspects, and generally these show patterns. But these patterns, of course, are not a one-size-fits-all type deal.
cri
So yes, I agree science cannot help someone through a crisis. But I don't think that priests are good either, for they spread a belief based on no facts and increase a world-wide lie. It may help a person through a tough time faster, but I would recommend longer routes to recovery if it meant people were not being converted into a faith.

Bottom line, we should find alternatives to faith in order to help some one through a crisis.

 

[Daviso452]

Anyway, this is a question for Look3467. What convinces you that God exists? Do you believe that there is evidence for God's existence? Do you think God needs no evidence?

 

[apophenia]

Bottom line, we should find alternatives to faith in order to help some one through a crisis.

Why ?

If it turns out that faith works better than psychology or psychiatric drugs, wouldn't that be evidence that faith is not irrational ?

And your world view could easily incorporate faith as an evolved response to suffering.

Is love rational ? If it turns out that 'love' is just a biochemical trick to encourage propagation of the species, should we tell everyone who loves someone that they are deluded, and go on a crusade to end this childish belief in love ?

Bear in mind, Daviso452, that your mother doesn't really love you at all. She is just affected by the chemical oxytocin, without which she may have slaughtered you at birth !

If that is the case, are you going to apply this zealous scientific rigour and reject your mother's love because it is an irrational belief ? Will you explain to your children that you don't really love them, because belief in love is as foolish as belief in god ?

How far do you want to take this ?

 

[Tiberius]

Are you actually saying that if emotions are caused by chemicals, then the emotions don't exist?

 

[nnmartin]

Now this is starting to sound weird............

Nothing exists , it's all chemicals.

DNA is God!

Who made DNA though?

I would say God did.

 

[Daviso452]

Why ?

If it turns out that faith works better than psychology or psychiatric drugs, wouldn't that be evidence that faith is not irrational ?

And your world view could easily incorporate faith as an evolved response to suffering.

Is love rational ? If it turns out that 'love' is just a biochemical trick to encourage propagation of the species, should we tell everyone who loves someone that they are deluded, and go on a crusade to end this childish belief in love ?

Bear in mind, Daviso452, that your mother doesn't really love you at all. She is just affected by the chemical oxytocin, without which she may have slaughtered you at birth !

If that is the case, are you going to apply this zealous scientific rigour and reject your mother's love because it is an irrational belief ? Will you explain to your children that you don't really love them, because belief in love is as foolish as belief in god ?

How far do you want to take this ?

Helping someone through grief with religious beliefs is nothing like the love of your mother. The love for your mother establishes happiness with no consequences. Converting someone into a faith is toying with there emotions when they are vulerable. Is there no difference in these?

But Tiberius is right. Even if it is just chemicals does not make it wrong. Happiness creates a better society, but lies destroy it. This is the main problem I have with religion. I don't care what you believe as long as you aren't influencing anyone else based on faith. If you admit what you believe is not entirely rational, and you don't try and convince others otherwise, I don't care. However this forum is a little different (for obvious reasons).

But I hate missions. I hate priests that go to disaster areas and try and convert people when they are in a state of weakness. They may help a person in the here and now, but in the long run for the rest of the person's life they will be living a lie. That is what I have a problem with.

Granted, I am being harsh on other faiths right now by calling them "lies." Please know that I realize they are possible. But when a person tries to convince someone something is true without evidence, I count that as spreading a lie.

 

[apophenia]

Are you actually saying that if emotions are caused by chemicals, then the emotions don't exist?

I am saying that if that is what you believe, embrace it fully.

Instead of a vague mystical notion like 'love', be scientific and say " my mother formed a strong oxytocic bond with me which causes her to value my existence".

And should you be present at the birth of your child, remember it is just a bag of chemicals, no more than a smart mousetrap after all.

As the child grows, don't confuse it with notions of love, which are as vague and meaningless as ideas of god ( in fact many of those mad believers say 'god is love').

Remember that the only reason you want your child to survive is that you have been conditioned by chemical rewards to value the multiplication of certain specific combinations of amino acids. Nothing personal, because ultimately there is no person.

In fact, be aware that you don't really want to survive at all, and that any notion that there is an imperative to survive is actually a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

Aminos did not replicate 'in order to survive'. That is the most common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. It was 'merely an accident' that certain combinations of chemicals replicated. To suggest that those chemicals had a purpose would be to suggest a 'ghost in the machine'.

And since you are nothing but those same chemicals, there is no value to anyone in your survival.

You just think you want to survive. LOL

The 'survival urge' is just an accidental and meaningless epiphenomenon, like consciousness.

 

[Daviso452]

Now this is starting to sound weird............

Nothing exists , it's all chemicals.

DNA is God!

Who made DNA though?

God did.

Um, no?

No one knows how DNA originated on Earth. Not for sure, anyway. No one was there when it happened, and there is no evidence for either side. So it is premature to say how DNA got here.

 

[nnmartin]

It was guided into existence by God/The Force.

Why did DNA even bother to form itself in the first place if there were no reason.

There are plenty of anomalies within evolution and abiogenesis that indicate Design.

 

[Daviso452]

I am saying that if that is what you believe, embrace it fully.

Instead of a vague mystical notion like 'love', be scientific and say " my mother formed a strong oxytocic bond with me which causes her to value my existence".

And should you be present at the birth of your child, remember it is just a bag of chemicals, no more than a smart mousetrap after all.

As the child grows, don't confuse it with notions of love, which are as vague and meaningless as ideas of god ( in fact many of those mad believers say 'god is love').

Remember that the only reason you want your child to survive is that you have been conditioned by chemical rewards to value the multiplication of certain specific combinations of amino acids. Nothing personal, because ultimately there is no person.

In fact, be aware that you don't really want to survive at all, and that any notion that there is an imperative to survive is actually a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

Aminos did not replicate 'in order to survive'. That is the most common misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. It was 'merely an accident' that certain combinations of chemicals replicated. To suggest that those chemicals had a purpose would be to suggest a 'ghost in the machine'.

And since you are nothing but those same chemicals, there is no value to anyone in your survival.

You just think you want to survive. LOL

The 'survival urge' is just an accidental and meaningless epiphenomenon, like consciousness.

So where do we go from there? We admit that it is just chemicals. We admit we are insignificant. We admit that our actions aren't fully controlled. So what do we do? Do we just kill ourselves?

Chemicals or not, I still have feelings. They are caused by chemicals, but the chemicals are real, and so the feelings are real. Do not dismiss them. Accept them. Control them Create your own destiny.

It's not a ball and chain to realize we are just bags of atoms, cells and DNA. I find it liberating, actually. Liberating that my actions are my own. I can do as I wish. I am not being judged by some higher power based on his standards for living. True, what I want to do and what I feel right is based on my upbringing, but I admit that. Does it make it wrong? Of course not! My actions are not negatively effecting others. If they do, I fix it, and I do not do it again.

Basically, I am a humanist. Ever heard of that?

 

[Daviso452]

It was guided into existence by God/The Force.

Why did DNA even bother to form itself in the first place if there were no reason.

There are plenty of anomalies within evolution and abiogenesis that indicate Design.

Why does it need a reason? Why can't it have been a simple reaction that took a different turn?

You have to realize that just because there wasn't a reason does not mean it was chance. The universe is a big place. There are billions of stars and planets. Every thing that can happen does happen, because this is the only place we know of for sure where things do.

Life was bound to arise sometime. The only chance in it was this exact planet. Perhaps life could have been on some other planet billions of light years away. Maybe there is! The concept of aliens is not unlikely; just not proven.

 

[apophenia]

Helping someone through grief with religious beliefs is nothing like the love of your mother. The love for your mother establishes happiness with no consequences. Converting someone into a faith is toying with there emotions when they are vulerable. Is there no difference in these?

But Tiberius is right. Even if it is just chemicals does not make it wrong. Happiness creates a better society, but lies destroy it. This is the main problem I have with religion. I don't care what you believe as long as you aren't influencing anyone else based on faith. If you admit what you believe is not entirely rational, and you don't try and convince others otherwise, I don't care. However this forum is a little different (for obvious reasons).

But I hate missions. I hate priests that go to disaster areas and try and convert people when they are in a state of weakness. They may help a person in the here and now, but in the long run for the rest of the person's life they will be living a lie. That is what I have a problem with.

Granted, I am being harsh on other faiths right now by calling them "lies." Please know that I realize they are possible. But when a person tries to convince someone something is true without evidence, I count that as spreading a lie.

You don't seriously think that the lies and abuse which humanity suffers will be eradicated if we're all atheists, do you ?

You do realise that some of the most dangerous mofos on earth are atheists ?

Are all the political lies told by theists ?

Your point is a non-sequitur.

Human suffering will not be reduced by everyone accepting the notion that they are ultimately meaningless chemical reactions.

 

[apophenia]

So where do we go from there? We admit that it is just chemicals. We admit we are insignificant. We admit that our actions aren't fully controlled. So what do we do? Do we just kill ourselves?

Chemicals or not, I still have feelings. They are caused by chemicals, but the chemicals are real, and so the feelings are real. Do not dismiss them. Accept them. Control them Create your own destiny.

It's not a ball and chain to realize we are just bags of atoms, cells and DNA. I find it liberating, actually. Liberating that my actions are my own. I can do as I wish. I am not being judged by some higher power based on his standards for living. True, what I want to do and what I feel right is based on my upbringing, but I admit that. Does it make it wrong? Of course not! My actions are not negatively effecting others. If they do, I fix it, and I do not do it again.

Basically, I am a humanist. Ever heard of that?

Thing is .... it's a lie.

Science has not proved that we are merely chemical reactions.

Even the language of so many proponents of scientism gives the lie away .. if I had a dollar for every time I heard an evolutionist talking about evolution as though it were a being with a purpose I'd be rich.

i.e. 'evolution created such and such a mutation to improve the possibility of survival'

How could inanimate matter want to survive ?

That is the skeleton in evolution's closet.

 

[Daviso452]

You don't seriously think that the lies and abuse which humanity suffers will be eradicated if we're all atheists, do you ?

You do realise that some of the most dangerous mofos on earth are atheists ?

Are all the political lies told by theists ?

Your point is a non-sequitur.

Human suffering will not be reduced by everyone accepting the notion that they are ultimately meaningless chemical reactions.

I never said it would. I don't fully agree with the statement, but for the sake of discussion I will; why do you think atheists are the most powerful?

Let's look at Religion first. Many religions, especially Christianity in the past, have hindered knowledge. Even today here in America; Evolution is trying to be banned from schools, even though it is a theory, the highest level something can be without fully being proven.

Throughout the past, religion has hindered knowledge and led to ignorance. When you have ignorance, you have fear, and fear can be controlled. In a sense, if you control information, you can control a people. That is often how cults work. They separate people from the outside world, and thus cut them off from the stream of information, creating ignorance.

And that is exactly what has happened. Atheists are not the only ones who crave power; but they see through the deception and use their intelligence to control the masses. Many religious people would as well; but they themselves are being controlled by what is keeping others in power.

If you spread knowledge, you eliminate ignorance, and thus eliminate the extent to which people can have control over you.

 

[Daviso452]

Thing is .... it's a lie.

Science has not proved that we are merely chemical reactions.

Even the language of so many proponents of scientism gives the lie away .. if I had a dollar for every time I heard an evolutionist talking about evolution as though it were a being with a purpose I'd be rich.

i.e. 'evolution created such and such a mutation to improve the possibility of survival'

How could inanimate matter want to survive ?

That is the skeleton in evolution's closet.

It's like you said. It's just a chemical reaction causing a thought. Wanting something is not technically real. It is a real emotion, or feeling, but it is not a thing.

But I do see your point, and it isn't a skeleton. What is the problem with "I don't know"? Just because we don't know does not mean we are wrong. However I agree that it also does not make us right.

Again, from there we must try and figure out what started it. Perhaps it's just the properties of certain chemicals mixing together. Perhaps it was an intelligent being. We do not know, and so neither of us can say.