Are you a believer in god?

FocusZing

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

mr_goo

FocusZing wrote:

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

I'll clarify that. Organised religion was used to control the masses.

FocusZing

Religion would have evolved like everything else, you are fixating on recent religions. Small groups of people would have discussed their ideas of a creator and formulated a vision. Then groups connected with groups...

briantrumpet

No.

Though it is impressive that such massive physical and philosophical edifices have been built on not a single shred of verifiable evidence.

First.Aspect

FocusZing wrote:

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

All of those things are explicable.

briantrumpet

First Aspect wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

All of those things are explicable.

Not at the time though. And there are still things we can't explain, but science is comfortable with that.

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

All of those things are explicable.

As explanations for things that people couldn't understand become known, what interests me is why anybody would believe in god today - save for the question of what happens to "you" after death. That, to me, seems to be the area that religion has really manipulated people: "by doing X or Y you will have a better afterlife". And it is such transparent manipulation too - no different to believing that buying a certain brand of car will bring you a more active life or make you more attractive to the opposite sex.

FocusZing

Brian^ I agree completely. The great thing about science though, is if an idea is more factual than another with evidence, it supercedes it. Religion!? Your back believing in heaven an hell and other ridiculous stories which seemed plausible relative to the time.

pblakeney

meanredspider wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

All of those things are explicable.

As explanations for things that people couldn't understand become known, what interests me is why anybody would believe in god today - save for the question of what happens to "you" after death. That, to me, seems to be the area that religion has really manipulated people: "by doing X or Y you will have a better afterlife". And it is such transparent manipulation too - no different to believing that buying a certain brand of car will bring you a more active life or make you more attractive to the opposite sex.

Are you suggesting that it doesn't? :shock: Try the Vtech test. Show up for a first date with a DB10. Show up with a 6 year old base Fiesta. Which presents the best first impression?



Yes, I disapprove of vacuous materialism too.

briantrumpet

meanredspider wrote:

As explanations for things that people couldn't understand become known, what interests me is why anybody would believe in god today

It seems to be that a part of the human brain has a need to 'believe in fairies' whatever the evidence says - think UFOs, conspiracy theories, Trump's lies. Not everyone has 'faith' in science and logic.

meanredspider

PBlakeney wrote:

Are you suggesting that it doesn't? :shock: Try the Vtech test. Show up for a first date with a DB10. Show up with a 6 year old base Fiesta. Which presents the best first impression?

Ha - the results of that test would be confounded by my razor-sharp wit, rugged good looks and magnetic charm.....




(OK - I'll buy the Aston... )

meanredspider

briantrumpet wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

As explanations for things that people couldn't understand become known, what interests me is why anybody would believe in god today

It seems to be that a part of the human brain has a need to 'believe in fairies' whatever the evidence says - think UFOs, conspiracy theories, Trump's lies. Not everyone has 'faith' in science and logic.

And I think there's a place for some irrationality - some guilty pleasures and decisions of the heart over the head. But don't let it get in the way of the important stuff.

bianchimoon

Joelsim wrote:

NeXXus wrote:

No but I often came top in RE exams somehow

One year I got 97% in Maths and 6% in RE.

That possibly indicates my level of belief/interest.

One test i got 100% in maths and 0% in religion... it over indicates my belief/interest

FocusZing

One year I got 110% in maths and infinity percent in religion. I telll thee it's true!

First.Aspect

briantrumpet wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

All of those things are explicable.

Not at the time though. And there are still things we can't explain, but science is comfortable with that.

It depends what you mean by "can't explain". Science has a very precise and conservative language that the layperson is wont to misinterpret.

Religion tends to hang on to terms such as "scientific theory" and suggest that somehow its only an idea, leaving room for other ideas. Rather, a theory is a model supported by robust observations, such as gravity, or the conservation of energy. A hypothesis is the idea that one sets out to (dis)prove. Scientific models get updated and refined when new data become available. This does not mean that some wholesale revision of our fundamental understanding of matter or energy is wrong - just some small facet.

A great deal of what scientists say they "don't understand" are things they don't understand to their satisfaction, or "fully". The things that science doesn't provide any insight into at all, doesn't leave room in my view for any supernatural influence in our lives. There is no space in our understanding for the role played by the god of our traditional major religions. Yet humanity still seeks to carve a place for a god's influence in matters that have long since been rationally explained, and this creates an inherent friction between inconvenient truth and what people want to believe.

Belief in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is just part of human nature and we see it elsewhere, for example a belief that climate change isn't happening, that there are ghosts, or in homeopathy.

There's no contradiction in my experience between a scientific training and being religious. However, I have found that a religious scientist's concept of their religion is far more subtle than most. When pressed, you would be hard to find anyone with a scientific training who still believed that fossils were put there by god, or that Jesus truly was resurrected, or the vast majority of the old testament, frankly. Instead, religion might be regarded as a moral or sociological code, and the bible allegorical. Any private place for higher entities is left to more fundamental questions of the origins of everything. I've met a few scientists who believe in the afterlife, but they've tended to be a bit coy about it - and my feeling is that these are vestiges of childhood indoctrination and that the unwillingness to rule it out is a doomed attempt to square a circle. Ask a scientist what evidence there is for an afterlife and they could only say that they believe. Ask them for any suggestion as to where it could be, what form it would take, and how it could be consistent with the observable consequences of death, and there are none. Its just a belief.

And that's it for me, really. Religion is just another form of conditioning that we are exposed to when young and impressionable. No different from irrationally supporting a football team, or being a socialist.

briantrumpet

First Aspect wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^No. It has always been there since the conciseness of humans, to explain the inexplicable. The planets, stars, extreme weather, natural disasters...life...

All of those things are explicable.

Not at the time though. And there are still things we can't explain, but science is comfortable with that.

It depends what you mean by "can't explain". Science has a very precise and conservative language that the layperson is wont to misinterpret.

Indeed - too often science's central stance of "that's our best explanation at this time" is taken by those whose belief runs counter to a theory as a reason for saying "science doesn't know", whereas, of course, that's exactly how science works.

FocusZing

Science evolves. The original religious story can't, when the appointed try to, it just becomes more farcical.

Back to the original argument. From which of the thousands on this planet do you choose from. Then which solar system, galaxy...

First.Aspect

mamba80 wrote:

i really dont know, science certainly doesnt have the answers and i d not put my faith in Hawkin et el thats its like a grain of sand telling you how the beach got there.

What answers are you looking for? Are you sure its not just that you don't like the answers that science has given you?

bianchimoon

As someone once said “Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”

super_davo

First Aspect wrote:

Religion is just another form of conditioning that we are exposed to when young and impressionable. No different from irrationally supporting a football team, or being a socialist.

Spot on. Which is exactly why I think we should keep it out of schools. 1 - it's unfair on atheists like me where there is zero choice for our kids. 2 - is there anything that fosters cultural segregation and racism more than whole communities going into their own different faith schools, with no exposure to people from other backgrounds?

motogull

On the off chance any on here aren't aware of Jim Jefferies' views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fh72BHcatk

mamba80

First Aspect wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i really dont know, science certainly doesnt have the answers and i d not put my faith in Hawkin et el thats its like a grain of sand telling you how the beach got there.

What answers are you looking for? Are you sure its not just that you don't like the answers that science has given you?

i just dont put all my faith in science, i think there are many things we dont understand at all (Scientists would be the first to agree too) and the easy option is to blame religion for our ills, yet despite all the harm many would say it has caused, it is man all on his very own, with no excuse that is destroying the world or more accurately his own species, through climate change and potentially the planet via Nuclear weapons.

FocusZing

That's another problem with many religions it forgets about women. If a woman makes a discovery in science she is recognised.

Probably because in the beginning of humanity physical strength was important in getting your own way.

rjsterry

FocusZing wrote:

That's another problem with religion it forgets about women. If a woman makes a discovery in science she is recognised.

Pfft. The history of science is littered with examples of uncredited women, not to mention that it was pretty much a male only subject until the 20th century. I don't think either science or the major religions can claim the moral high ground.

FocusZing

Now? Science evolves. Religion can't the story is written.

rjsterry

FocusZing wrote:

Now? Science evolves. Religion can't the story is written.

Of course religion evolves. In Christianity, even the core religious text has lots of different official versions in most languages. Scholars have spent a great deal time debating the correct English equivalent for the original Greek or Hebrew. On top of that, the interpretation of that text has changed continually since it was first written. Various religious and secular leaders have of course sought to fix a version of the text, largely as a means of political control, but sooner or later ideas move on. Even in Islam, where the text of the Koran is fixed, interpretation will have evolved to fit the context of a particular period.

kirkee

After reading the 'A number of warning' thread in road buying advise, I don't know what to believe.

FocusZing

^^

FocusZing wrote:

Science evolves. The original religious story can't, when the appointed try to, it just becomes more farcical.

Back to the original argument. From which of the thousands on this planet do you choose from. Then which solar system, galaxy...

briantrumpet

I always find it amusing that the originator of Occam's Razor was a theologian. I wonder if he would be a Richard Dawkins if he were alive today, or whether he would argue that an omnipotent god is the solution with the fewest assumptions (just one).

First.Aspect

mamba80 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i really dont know, science certainly doesnt have the answers and i d not put my faith in Hawkin et el thats its like a grain of sand telling you how the beach got there.

What answers are you looking for? Are you sure its not just that you don't like the answers that science has given you?

i just dont put all my faith in science, i think there are many things we dont understand at all (Scientists would be the first to agree too) and the easy option is to blame religion for our ills, yet despite all the harm many would say it has caused, it is man all on his very own, with no excuse that is destroying the world or more accurately his own species, through climate change and potentially the planet via Nuclear weapons.

You don't have to have any faith in science, that's kinda the point. Of course, science doesn't have the answers to everything, but it is a way of finding out answers systematically and it does allow for "I don't know". Religion, or rather faith, makes up stories to fill the uncomfortable void.

Can you give an example of an issue that you feel science doesn't have an answer for? As an over educated lapsed scientist, I've often found that what people think is "unknown" is actually rather well understood and that the unknown stuff isn't quite as significant as they thought. I've also often found that when I explain something specific to people of faith, which they might regard as the hand of god, it makes no difference. Such is the nature of faith.