Evolution, creation or something else?

[metadigital]

"There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means 'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor. Paul Davies's The Mind of God seems to hover somewhere between Einsteinian pantheism and an obscure form of deism - for which he was rewarded with the Templeton Prize (a very large sum of money given annually by the Templeton Foundation, usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion). . . ."

 

Other than being little more than petty diatribe, the main problem with the passage is that Dawkins is prepared to tell us the best way to interpret what someone else has said rather than letting us read and evaluate the passages for ourselves. Of course, the debate over atheism and theism existed during Einstein’s life as it had existed for thousands of years before him. Atheism, the idea itself, has been the topic of debate since ancient times. One would assume that Einstein could have answered the question definitively for himself, but the debate still remains. In the case of evaluating a particular passage, I'm always leery of trusting the meaning when it's handed down by someone with a vested interest. Dawkins is no better than any other religious zealot when he claims himself to be the best interpreter of the text.

 

Let's boil this down further. Dawkins shouldn't prove the impossibility of God. In fact, such a proof is pointless. It cannot exist. It cannot, as we have heard, even rise to the status of "almost perfect."

 

What Dawkins should have said was, "the onus to disprove God is not my responsibility. It is the onus of religious people to prove the existence of God." That would suffice to take most of us "theist" out of the shouting match. I don't believe the existence of God is provable. For that reason, I'll quit the field and concede the point... a path our more virulent atheist friends have great difficulty following on other matters less felicitous to their point of view.

 

That’s not the end of it, though. Nothing is quite so hateful to our more entrenched atheists as religion, but nothing is despised quite so much as a religious person who’s happy to live peaceably with atheists. It’s all or nothing.

 

Saying, “we can’t prove it either way” is just another way to paint a target on your chest. The spotlight shines into the heavens in the shape of a large atheist and atheist man jumps at the victim, ready to impart real “wisdom.”

 

For the record, I think “we can’t prove it either way” is a poor statement from an argumentative perspective, but it’s a great statement when you’re trying to convey the idea that you’re more than willing to let the matter rest even though you have a different view.

 

This thread has a lot of fun potential.

Actually, as has been said previously, any scientist (atheist by another name in this thread) would purposefully and joyfully adopt WHATEVER hypothesis that answers the questions we ask of it. The problem is that religion doesn't answer questions meaningfully, it just gives a hollow "because God did / said / willed it".

 

And the proof is not much more complex than the fact that explaining the universe with something even more complex, like a creator, is just ADDING to the complexity and improbability, not reducing it. (I'm paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll ask me for more details ... which I will be happy to provide. Or, you could read the book. )

 

Dawkins is passionate and animated against religion for a completely different reason to the one you have cited (I'm assuming you haven't read The God Delusion and are just reacting to some quoted fragments, like the one you have above, otherwise you would know this); rather he is against religion because of the entrenched mental abuse that it fosters and inflicts -- especially on the young. E.g. telling a seven year old girl, who's school friend has just died from some horrific disease like cancer, that her dear friend will be tormented in Hell forever, simply because she wasn't a Catholic. The resultant real and documented trauma that the little girl suffered is a perfect example of this. (This is an actual letter from a woman of our age, who responded to one of his earlier books.)

 

There are good people of faith, I have no doubt, but their faith is placed in the most bizarre of things.

• In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.
  
• The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.
  
• The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.
  
• Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.
  
• If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his 'father' (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.
  
• If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.
  
• The fatherless man's virgin mother never died but was 'assumed' bodily into heaven.
  
• Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), 'become' the body and blood of the fatherless man.
  

 

One might reasonably ask why we have such a complex belief in existence (and some -- I won't say opportunists, let's call them those who are looking for an easy answer -- would see this complexity as some flavour of validity).

 

If we treat ideas as capable of some verisimilitude of a life cycle (which is still somewhat controversial, though as a model it has merit), we can see how some of these seemingly unrelated and odd factors might have come about.

To quote Dawkins again:

... Some religious, like some genes, might survive because of absolute merit. These memes would survive in any meme pool, regardless of the other memes that surround them. (I must repeat the vitally important point that 'merit' in this sense means only 'ability to survive in the pool'. It carries no value judgement apart from that.) Some religious ideas survive because they are compatible with other memes that are already numerous in the meme pool -- as part of a memeplex. The following is a partial list of religious of religious memes that might plausibly have survival value in the meme pool, either because of an absolute 'merit' or because of compatibility with an existing memeplex:

• You will survive your own death.
  
• If you die a martyr, you will go to an especially wonderful part of paradise where you will enjoy seventy-two virgins (spare a thought for the unfortunate virgins).
  
• Heretics, blasphemers and apostates should be killed (or otherwise punished, for example by ostracism from their families).
  
• Belief in God is a supreme virtue. If you find your belief wavering, work hard at restoring it, and beg God to help your unbelief. (In my discussion of Pascal's Wager I mentioned the odd assumption that the one thing God really wants of us is belief. At the time I treated it as an oddity. Now we have an explanation for it.)
  
• Faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. The more your beliefs defy the evidence, the more virtuous you are. Virtuoso believers who can manage to believe something really weird, unsupported and insupportable, in the teeth of evidence and reason, are especially highly rewarded.
  
• Everybody, even those who do not hold religious beliefs, must respect them with a higher level of automatic and unquestioned respect than that accorded to other kinds of belief (we met this in Chapter 1).
  
• There are some weird things (such as the Trinity, transubstantiation, incarnation) that we are not meant to understand. Don't even try to understand one of these, for the attempt might destroy it. Learn how to gain fulfilment in calling it a mystery. Remember Martin Luther's virulent condemnation of reason ['Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.' and 'Whoever wants to be Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.' and again 'Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.'] and think how protective of the meme survival they would be.
  ...
  

Some of the above list probably have absolute survival value and would flourish in any memeplex. But, as with genes, some memes survive only against the right background of other memes, leading to the build-up of alternative memeplexes. Two different religions might be seen as two alternative memeplexes. Perhaps Islam is analogous to a carnivorous gene complex, Buddhism to a herbivorous one. The ideas of one religion are not 'better' than those of the other in any absolute sense, any more than carnivorous genes are 'better' than herbivorous ones. ...

 

Organized religions are organized by people: by priests and bishops, rabbis, imams and ayatollahs. But, to reiterate the point I made with respect to Martin Luther, that doesn't mean they were conceived and designed by people. Even where religions have been exploited and manipulated by powerful individuals, the strong possibility remains that the detailed form of each religion has been largely shaped by unconscious evolution. Not by genetic natural selection, which is too slow to account for the rapid evolution and divergence of religions. The role of genetic natural selection in the story is to provide the brain, with its predilections and biases -- the hardware platform and low-level system software which form the background to memetic natural selection. Given this background, memetic natural selection of some kind seems to me to offer a plausible account of the detailed evolution of particular religions. In the early stages of a religion's evolution, before it becomes organized, simple memes survive by virtue of their universal appeal to human psychology [e.g. the Golden Rule]. ... The later stages, where a religion becomes organized, elaborate and arbitrarily different from other religions, are quite well handled by the theory of memeplexes -- cartels of mutually compatible memes. This doesn't rule out the the additional role of deliberate manipulation by priests and others. Religions probably are, at least in part, intelligently designed, as are schools and fashions in art.

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe an all powerful deity, who could divinely inspire any and all beings, requires us to feel guilty about being made imperfect, and compels us to tell everyone else what has only been revealed to us, and kill/ostracise those who disagree.

[Xard]

It's funny, I and Dawkins seem to share same problems and questions with faith, yet our ways of handling them (and our worldviews) are very different.

[metadigital]

Feel free to elaborate.

[Nick_i_am]

Uncultured yobo that I am, I hadn't heard of this fellow before (not in more than passing anyway). Thanks for the read.

 

It's amusing though, that the passage admits that the people it's really 'talking' to wouldn't listen anyway, such is the nature of their faith.

[Cantousent]

snip

 

ERHHNNNNN

 

Wrong answer. First of all, I've got Wiki. By reading Wiki, I know everything Dawkins has to say anyhow, right?

 

...But there's more! I've also read some of Dawkins' work. I've even got one of his books and *gasp*, I've read it! OMG! Eldar's read the book but hasn't succumbed to Dawkins' mind numbing wisdom. (You want to ask which book, don't you? hahaha)

 

You are the embodiment of someone taking passages to suit his need and then posting them in this forum. ...But that only works from a Wiki article. When I post a quote from a webpage you cite, it's just not fair game. ...But, regardless of whatever else your hero has written, my analysis of the passage would remain the same.

 

Finally (well, there is no finally until the thread closes. OOPS, that would only be final for folks who aren't moderators and can't keep posting in closed threads) aherm. Where was I? Oh, yeah, there was nothing new in your post. Nothing. Hell, you have cited the same arguments before. Hell, why read Dawkins when his apostle is here to lead us on the golden path?

 

I was right. This is going to be a fun thread. :Eldar's happy smile icon:

[Hurlshort]

It seems like this Dawkins fellow is taking out all his problems with religion on the big guy up in the sky. But I haven't read the book, only what Meta keeps quoting.

 

But I separate religion and the belief in God. Religion is man-made, man-run, and suffers from all the problems of man. It's caused great good and great evil. But in the end, it's just a tool used to reach a place of spiritualitiy.

 

I don't need to be religious to believe in God. I don't need to buy into a certain ideology in order to live a spiritual life. I try to live the best life that I can and I have faith that it will turn out well in the end.

[taks]

given that dawkins is an atheist, it is hardly a surprise he takes out issues on the big guy in the sky. an atheist cannot help but think that blind faith causes more problems than it solves.

 

belief in god can also be seen as a construct of man, btw, particularly when viewed from the shoes of an atheist. i mean, realistically, how can you know the people claiming to have spoken with god, oh so many thousands of years ago, weren't just ancient versions of l. ron hubbard? hucksters with a message, and plenty of charisma to boot. all you have is their word, translated, retranslated, and mired in mystery over the times.

 

in fact, pre-god, there were dozens of gods worshiped by many ancient kingdoms. those were all manifestations of their respective populations' inability to understand nature, clearly an invention of man, yet the current god is not, in spite of gaining popularity during the same times?

 

i'm kinda wondering about the "alien" interpretation (i.e., moses followed a UFO around), or even some advanced civilization, with technology grand enough to hide themselves until our little petri dish matures. what the heck, there are indeed lots of oddities we cannot explain in the historical record. perhaps there's a lot of truth to the record, and the interpretation of the primitive peoples is simply flawed. anything significantly advanced w.r.t. your own knowledge seems as magic, which leads one to wonder if these things really happened, and the ancients simply did not have the wherewithal to understand it, hence god.

 

i suppose we'll all find out when we die.

 

taks

[Nick_i_am]

Actually, given the 'dozens of gods', i'm more wondering what it is about humans that drives this need to create the divine.

 

After all, even if one religion WAS right, they can't all be right, unless they're all different manifestations of the same thing, but putting this aside i'd love to read any studies on why people do this and have done this seemingly since time began. I'd like to think that it's more than 'they were lonely and hated their lives'.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Nick_i_am

[Xard]

Maybe meta if I have time (hah, more like I'm not too lazy ) and preferably I've better keyboard by then. Typing on laptop sucks.

 

Also, I noticed a lot talking about how small we're on universal scale and how could God perceive everything, and why should our tiny little spot in reality matter anything. Truly, idea that God made whole (possibly multiverse) universe only to delight we, hairless monkeys, is arrogant beyond words.

 

I could quote whole conversation (I guess I'll do that, sooner or later for some obscure reasons ) from Stephen King's first Dark Tower Book, The Gunslinger, where Roland has finally catched up Man in Black in Golgata, and they talk. It's among my favorite parts what I've read, ever.

 

Anyway, here's excerpt from their talk (more like Man In Black's monologue) on Size.

 

"If you fell outward to the limit of the universe, would you find a board fence and signs reading DEAD END? No. You might find something hard and rounded, as the chick must see the egg from the inside. And if you should peck through the shell (or find a door), what great and torrential light might shine through your opening at the end of space? Might you look through and discover our entire universe is but part of one atom on a blade of grass? Might you be forced to think that by burning a twig you incinerate an eternity of eternities? That existence rises not to one infinite but to an infinity of them?

 

"Perhaps you saw what place our universe plays in the scheme of things - as no more than an atom in a blade of grass. Could it be that everything we can perceive, from the microscopic virus to the distant Horsehead Nebula, is contained in one blade of grass that may have existed for only a single season in an alien time-flow? What if that blade should be cut off by a scythe? When it begins to die, would the rot seep into our universe and our own lives, turning everthing yellow and brown and desiccated? Perhaps it's already begun to happen. We say the world has moved on; maybe we really mean that it has begun to dry up.

 

"Think how small such a concept of things make us, gunslinger! If a God watches over it all, does He actually mete out justice for such a race of gnats? Does His eye see the sparrow fall when the sparrow is less than a speck of hydrogen floating disconnected in the depth of space? And if He does see... what must the nature of such a God be? Where does He live? How is it possible to live beyond infinity?

Edited July 20, 2007 by Xard

[WITHTEETH]

Actually, given the 'dozens of gods', i'm more wondering what it is about humans that drives this need to create the divine.

 

After all, even if one religion WAS right, they can't all be right, unless they're all different manifestations of the same thing, but putting this aside i'd love to read any studies on why people do this and have done this seemingly since time began. I'd like to think that it's more than 'they were lonely and hated their lives'.

Daniel Dennet Just wrote a book named Religion: As a natural Phenomenon. It dives into memes and gives another look at them. He puts forth that its not reproduction that humans do like any other animal. And its not parasites that inter our brains and control us. Its Ideas. Ideas like religion, freedom, Democracy, communism. These ideas attach itself to parts of our brain and competes with other ideas. But are some of these ideas that people die for beneficial? Would we really let an idea dictate our brain? Islam does mean- To Submit.

I like Daniel Dennets explaination, that ideas fight eachother for control of the mind, not parasites like in other animals like mice, fish, grasshoppers etc...

 

These ideas then reproduce from host to host by churches and children etc... Its very resilient, and many of these ideas are not even self interested, these ideas are the ones we have to watch out for. Religion can be a meaning for the masses who cannot, or don't want another meaning to live also. It will help them survive.

 

I believe religion is one way of helping easing of pain and suffering of a loved one. How a child can be relieved by a mentor by saying that her father is alive in the sky still watching over her, and still loves her. But theres a point to which artificial reasoning can be detrimental to society when it comes to stem cell research, abortion and contraceptive issues, global warming, gay rights, and even sometimes the disrespect of science.

[Hurlshort]

Actually, many religions are just manifestations of the same thing. I've never thought that someone who practices Wicca is wrong or right compared to a Christian, they just have different means to reach the same end, which is spiritual fulfillment. I also don't think it's any surprise that man seeks to name the divine. For some, it's reassuring, for others it gives them a place to release their guilt. Life is messy and difficult, and the thought of a higher power eases the way. But yes, that's all man-made constructs.

 

I've said it a few time already and maybe I'm just not explaining it well, but there is a difference between religion and the belief in a higher power (God, Allah, Mother Earth, call it what you will.) You do not need to subscribe to a certain methodology to believe that life is a gift and the human spirit is greater than we can define. There will never be a good enough explanation for love and reason that will stop me from seeing it as supernatural in nature.

[WITHTEETH]

...but there is a difference between religion and the belief in a higher power (God, Allah, Mother Earth, call it what you will.) You do not need to subscribe to a certain methodology to believe that life is a gift and the human spirit is greater than we can define. There will never be a good enough explanation for love and reason that will stop me from seeing it as supernatural in nature.

I believe the major difference between religion and belief, is that religion has an absolute doctrine that is unchanging and cannot be proved upon... unlike science where its beliefs are self correcting, peer reviewed etc... Where as the bible cannot be, but i think the bible could be personally improved by sayings from basic philosophy, even saying something like though should not harm your children.

[Cantousent]

I dunno. I think taks and Gorth have always been the most reasonable among us when it comes to religion. I understand they disagree with me completely, but they've always been willing to hear different views and respond honestly with their opinion.

[metadigital]

Cant, I was actually expecting something a little more serious in reply, though I understand how uncomfortable it must be to have cherished beliefs challenged in such a way, so I will continue to expound some thoughts so that you may digest them and perhaps reply in some meaningful way.

 

If I repeat myself it is only because what I have said seems to have fallen on deaf ears. You can use any terms of denigration you wish, the fact remains that I refuse to base my life on something that someone else SAYS is true, regardless of the source. Like it or not, science is about predicting accurately and precisely what will happen in our world.

 

I have no problem with you quoting and attempting to critique Dawkins; actually I hope you keep doing it ... you're an intelligent guy and I hope that one day you might actually start to question the assumptions you have made (see? I can be an optimist).

 

My personal beef with religion is that it is a system that demands faith without critical thinking.

 

Why is this bad?

 

Why should average people trust authority without question?

 

Well, to answer that in full will take a long time. I am only half-way through The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil so I can't give you a full summary of wisdom from the learned behaviouralists who have spent their lives studying how ordinary people are able to completely override their personal belief systems and act in completely evil (but predictable) ways, but I can give you some quick snippets.

 

The first problem is that (Western) religion promotes evil (intuitively) as Dispositional rather than Situational. Overwhelming research demonstrates the counter-intuitive and uncomfortable truth that there is no such chasm between "good" and "evil" people.

Evil Fixed Within or Mutable and Without?

The idea that an unbridgeable chasm separates good people from bad people is a source of comfort for at least two reasons. First, it creates a binary logic, in which Evil is essentialized. Most of us perceive Evil as an entity, a quality that is inherent in some people and not in others. Bad seeds ultimately produce bad fruits as their destinies unfold. We define evil by pointing to the really bad tyrants in our era, such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and other political leaders who have orchestrated mass murders. ...

 

Upholding the Good-Evil dichotomy also takes "good people" of the responsibility hook. They are freed from even considering their possible role in creating, sustaining, perpetuating, or conceding to the conditions that contribute to delinquency, crime, vandalism, teasing, bullying, rape, torture, terror, and violence. "It's the way of the world, and there's not much that can be done to change it, certainly not by me."

 

The second problem with organized religion is that it is a perfect framework to create a "Them-and-Us" scenario. Sure it isn't the only way, but it is one of the most effective, to dehumanize, morally disengage and intellectualize "Others" (heretics, apostates, infidels and unbelievers in this case). In short, the power to create "The Enemy"; to make others into "animals", or "sub-human".

 

I'm sure you'll respond with some lame comment about the unreproachable piety of religious folks (or some other myth). I'm sure you will continue to refuse to look critically at something that you profess is very important in your life (which I still find incredible). But this is the point: you refuse (in any meaningful way) to challenge your blind obedience to (divine) authority (completely divorced from reality and scientific methods of evidential verification, and as interpreted by a human agent, who is "infallible"). Need I refer you to Milgram's Obedience Paradigm?

 

Again, I hear you try to dissociate you, your family and religion from the evil that men do. "I am a good person, my friends and family are good people of good faith," you retort, reasonably.

 

So, I point out, are the Palestinian Suicide Bombers.

 

Sensationalism? Possibly.

 

True? Undoubtably.

 

Don't take my word for it, do some research.

Suicide Bombers: Mindless Fanatics or Mindful Martyrs?

Amazingly, what holds true for these violence workers is comparable to the transformation of the young Palestinians from students into suicide bombers intent on killing innocent Israeli civilians. Recent media accounts converge on the findings from more systematic analyses of the process of becoming a suicidal killer.*

 

Who adopts this fatalistic role? Is it poor, desperate, socially isolated, illiterate young people with no career and no future? Not at all. According to the results of a recent study of four hundred al-Qaeda members, three quarters of that sample came from the upper or middle class. This study by the forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman also found other evidence of the normality and even superiority of these youths turned suicide bombers. The majority, 90 percent, came from caring, intact families. Two thirds had gone to college; two thirds were married; and most had children and jobs in science and engineering. "These are the best and brightest of their society in many ways," Sageman concludes.**

 

...

 

For his new film, Suicide Killers, the French filmmaker Pierre Rehov interviewed many Palestinians in Israeli jails who were caught before detonating bombs or had abetted would-be attacks. His conclusion about them resonates with the analyses presented here: "Every single one of them tried to convince me it was the right thing to do for moralistic reasons. These aren't kids who want to do evil. These are kids who want to do good. ... The result of the brainwashing was kids who were very good people inside (were) believing so much that they were doing something great."***

 

 

----------------------

* See the body of literature on suicide bombers; among the sources recommended are: Ariel Merari, "Suicide Terrorism in the Context of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Institute of Justice Conference, Washington DC, October 2004; Ariel Merari, "Israel Facing Terrorism," Israel Affairs 11 (2005): 223-37; Ariel Melari, "Suicidal Terrorism," in Assessment, Treatment and Prevention of Suicidal Behavior, eds. RI Yufit and D Lester (New york: Wiley, 2005)

 

** M Sageman, "Understanding Terrorist Networks," November 1, 2004; M Shermer, "Murdercide: Science Unravels the Myth of Suicide Bombers," Scientific American, January 2006, p33; AB Krueger, "Poverty Doesn't Create Terrorists," The New York Times, May 29, 2003

 

*** Jonathan Curiel, "The Mind of a Suicide Bomber," San Francisco Chronicle (October 22, 2006): p.E1, 6; quote on p. E6.

 

Can't happen to me? The recent attempted airport car-bombing in Scotland was perpetrated by a group of medical doctors!

 

To be clear (and head off any temptation you might have to make a glib reply that I am insulting you by comparing you to suicide bombers), my main point in raising this is because organizational religion renders individuals more susceptible to the perils of groupthink and the abuse of roles assigned to them in the system.

 

It is difficult enough to counter the situational and systemic factors that can override the (otherwise good) ethical dispositions of people.

[taks]

I dunno. I think taks and Gorth have always been the most reasonable among us when it comes to religion. I understand they disagree with me completely, but they've always been willing to hear different views and respond honestly with their opinion.

i've always been appalled by the flip-side where the atheists actually attempt to force their beliefs on the rest of the population, while condemning those of religion for (supposedly) doing the same. hypocrisy at its best.

 

taks

[taks]

Actually, given the 'dozens of gods', i'm more wondering what it is about humans that drives this need to create the divine.

 

After all, even if one religion WAS right, they can't all be right, unless they're all different manifestations of the same thing, but putting this aside i'd love to read any studies on why people do this and have done this seemingly since time began. I'd like to think that it's more than 'they were lonely and hated their lives'.

two points... in reverse order.

 

first, most religions are actually not much more than variations on the same theme. christianity, jewish, muslim, et. al. are all simply beliefs in god, and many others have an almighty as well. there are still many pantheistic religions, such as hindu, but even those tend to have one dude in charge (heck, even the early greek and roman religions had zeus and jupiter).

 

second, original religions were contrived as a means of explaining the unknown, and giving their respective worshipers something in common to believe in. there are many intentional side effects as well, such as providing some moral basis for conducting their respective lives, which is not necessarily a bad thing (not to imply that these morals are always adhered to, however, but that's a problem with believers and non-believers alike). as man's knowledge of nature has progressed, many of the things originally attributed to divinity are now known to be natural occurrences, and as such, divine roles are similarly diminished to the point where we are today. i'm guessing that this will continue to the point that most of what is attributed to god is simply the beginning of everything (functionally), along with the moral guidance involved with faith. should it turn out there really is a god, perhaps that was his intention, eh? we are but a petri dish.

 

taks

[Cantousent]

"Cant, I was actually expecting something a little more serious in reply, though I understand how uncomfortable it must be to have cherished beliefs challenged in such a way, so I will continue to expound some thoughts so that you may digest them and perhaps reply in some meaningful way."

 

Give me a break. You've got to produce a challenge if you expect me to respond. This is just another example of your usual sniping. Where's Qwerty to put you in your place? Oh, you'd just lock the thread and then post another volume after the fact. Maybe you'd think about it a week this time instead of a few days.

 

If you wanted to have a serious discussion, maybe you should avoide passages like: "...I understand how uncomfortable it must be to have cherished beliefs challenged in such a way..."

 

You wouldn't have express such a thought if you'd spent more time reading what I've written on this matter and less time trying to figure out the next thing you're going to say.

 

To be clear, not that you'll bother trying to understand this, but I've always said that science is the last word on our physical world. I've even argued against the classic Christian argument, "disprove God exists."

 

Want a meaningful discussion? Stop attributing meanings to my posts that the actual words don't support. Stop trying to score points in every response. Stop acting like this is some sort of ridiculous celbrity grudge match. We have enough common ground that your don't have to resort to these sorts of petty rhetorical tricks to try to come out ahead. You want me to give an honest opinion and listen to yours with respect? Begin your posts with honesty and respect.

 

I doubt it will happen, but I promise I will eat crow and then return to a more respectful debate if you do.

[Istima Loke]

This whole thread being about evolution reminds me of two points (which I have heard) about whether religion is important/crucial to the existence of society. One point is that religion should seize to exist, because it brings division in people, leading to results as the Crusades and the Jihad, because religions (unfortunately) tend to "brainwash" people to stop thinking (while reason is clearly one of the most important human abilities) and just follow "divine orders", and because even if god exists he wouldn't want us to spent our precious time worshipping him but do other stuff (to make the world a better place). Thus we will have a religious-free ideal world, theoretically.

 

Now what has evolution to do with that?

 

Well, the other (point) is that nature doesn't search for the best solution but for the most stable one. That is what evolution is trying to achieve, a solution that has the higher possibility for the continuation of a species and not a solution to create a species with the most capabilities which will eventually extinct. Therefore, maybe, religion is a natural protection for our species, that set us back, but makes the society more solid, and thus gives human race a higher chance of surviving. Or, in other words, religion is a part of our nature. (I got a bit repetitive... )

[Nick_i_am]

Therefore, maybe, religion is a natural protection for our species, that set us back, but makes the society more solid, and thus gives human race a higher chance of surviving. Or, in other words, religion is a part of our nature.

 

I quite like the base thinking of this point, which links into Taks above talking about explaining of the unknown. We evolved tenancies to be 'religious' because we are sentient, and like to question and poke everything around us. However, some things are so unbelievably huge and out of our comprehension that we fabricate explanations, even if they are completely unprovable. Science would call this a hypothesis, but others have called science a religion, and in some ways they'd be right.

 

Frankly, I'm of the belief that the existence or not of god is irrelevant, that if living a good life means I get to go to heaven, great, if not I've lived a good life and not let it bother me. But I don't expect this to matter to anyone but myself.

[Sand]

However in my view there is no heaven to strive for and no hell to fear. Our existence is here and now and after death there is nothing, oblivion, we cease to be.

[Hurlshort]

...but there is a difference between religion and the belief in a higher power (God, Allah, Mother Earth, call it what you will.) You do not need to subscribe to a certain methodology to believe that life is a gift and the human spirit is greater than we can define. There will never be a good enough explanation for love and reason that will stop me from seeing it as supernatural in nature.

I believe the major difference between religion and belief, is that religion has an absolute doctrine that is unchanging and cannot be proved upon... unlike science where its beliefs are self correcting, peer reviewed etc... Where as the bible cannot be, but i think the bible could be personally improved by sayings from basic philosophy, even saying something like though should not harm your children.

 

I think you misunderstood. I mean there is religion, and then there is belief in a higher power, and the two are different things. I suppose the latter is required by the former, but you can believe in a higher power without subscribing to a certain methodology.

[Guest The Architect]

I think you misunderstood. I mean there is religion, and then there is belief in a higher power, and the two are different things. I suppose the latter is required by the former, but you can believe in a higher power without subscribing to a certain methodology.

 

Yep. You certainly don

Edited July 21, 2007 by The Architect

[Oerwinde]

Well, the other (point) is that nature doesn't search for the best solution but for the most stable one. That is what evolution is trying to achieve, a solution that has the higher possibility for the continuation of a species and not a solution to create a species with the most capabilities which will eventually extinct. Therefore, maybe, religion is a natural protection for our species, that set us back, but makes the society more solid, and thus gives human race a higher chance of surviving. Or, in other words, religion is a part of our nature. (I got a bit repetitive... )

 

I read a report once that said that spirituality is influenced by our genes. In the study, they found that something like 90% of those who had this gene were religious, while like 85% of those who didn't were athiest. And the number of people without it are growing.

 

I think the report said something about reaching the point where we're starting to evolve beyond the need for religion, so the gene is going dormant or something. I'll see if I can find it.

 

EDIT: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-725072,00.html

 

Haven't re-read it yet so I dunno how much of what I remembered is accurate.

 

EDIT2: Ha, what I remembered seems to be completely inaccurate.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Oerwinde

[metadigital]

It seems like this Dawkins fellow is taking out all his problems with religion on the big guy up in the sky. But I haven't read the book, only what Meta keeps quoting.

 

But I separate religion and the belief in God. Religion is man-made, man-run, and suffers from all the problems of man. It's caused great good and great evil. But in the end, it's just a tool used to reach a place of spiritualitiy.

 

I don't need to be religious to believe in God. I don't need to buy into a certain ideology in order to live a spiritual life. I try to live the best life that I can and I have faith that it will turn out well in the end.

Just a quick note: it is na

[Musopticon?]

Frankly, I'm of the belief that the existence or not of god is irrelevant, that if living a good life means I get to go to heaven, great, if not I've lived a good life and not let it bother me. But I don't expect this to matter to anyone but myself.

That's pretty brilliant, and I agree.