Are you a believer in god?

mamba80

First Aspect wrote:

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.

carrying a 11 month old up the stairs, at the top of the stairs is a figure (only way to explain it) of the childs dead mother (ah you say Bereavement hallucination?) the child instantly looks up, points and shouts "mama! mama!"
At 11 months, the child has zero idea of death or that its mother was even dead, as it was the same day of her death.

to me that was her spirit and it was recognised by the child, if there is no "God" (whatever that is supposed to be) there can surely be no "spirit" ?

fwiw i am not of "faith" either.

First.Aspect

Okay, so we are clearly treading on some sensitive personal stuff here, which I don't want to do.

Which I think makes this a good time to point out that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs. Mine aren't any more valid that yours or anyone else's. Except I'm right, obviously, but then we all think that don't we?

Happy Christmas!

mrb123

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, so we are clearly treading on some sensitive personal stuff here, which I don't want to do.

Which I think makes this a good time to point out that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs. Mine aren't any more valid that yours or anyone else's. Except I'm right, obviously, but then we all think that don't we?

Happy Christmas!

Yeah, and if anyone tries to suggest that Santa doesn't exist they can fack off.

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

Except I'm right, obviously, but then we all think that don't we?
Happy Christmas!

It is one of the things I like about science - you put your work out there to be proved wrong. Whilst you're not wrong, you might be right...

ballysmate

Following on from Mamba's tale - why do ghosts or spirits appear fully clothed?

Garry H

Ballysmate wrote:

Following on from Mamba's tale - why do ghosts or spirits appear fully clothed?

Pre Victorian era ghosts were always depicted naked.

briantrumpet

Garry H wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Following on from Mamba's tale - why do ghosts or spirits appear fully clothed?

Pre Victorian era ghosts were always depicted naked.

So it was the same Victorian prudes who took out all the naughty bits from Pepys' diaries who also spoilt our fun with ghosts.

DeVlaeminck

mamba80 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

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.

carrying a 11 month old up the stairs, at the top of the stairs is a figure (only way to explain it) of the childs dead mother (ah you say Bereavement hallucination?) the child instantly looks up, points and shouts "mama! mama!"
At 11 months, the child has zero idea of death or that its mother was even dead, as it was the same day of her death.

to me that was her spirit and it was recognised by the child, if there is no "God" (whatever that is supposed to be) there can surely be no "spirit" ?

fwiw i am not of "faith" either.

This is actually a good example - I've got personal experience of a similar event (without the apparition).

Another uestion (the first letter on this keyboard doesn't work) that I'd be interested to hear science's take on though is what is the nature of consciousness ?

cycleclinic

Read roger penrose's books for that one. It is most likely a quantum effect but it is not understood. There are ideas but non proven. The fundemental problem we have little idea how anethetics works and they turn of consciousness. So if we cant explakn how we turn it off how can explain how it arises.

God does not need to exsist to explai the universe. The sum total of energy in the universe is likely to be zero and nothong can come out of nothing in a an infinate number of ways one those ways is our universe. There are many ideas about the origins of everything, quantum loop gravity gives the most insight so does m theory but as these are unproven it is not possible to say how true they are. They give a window as to what reality maybe like.

Religion provides no real answers. It does provide a set of common beleifs that allow people to make desions in there lives and provides a bond that allows large communities to work. It is not surprise that organised religion started to develop around 12000 years ago just at the time farming got going. This lead to the first towns about 10,000 years ago. There for all ots faults and there many religion serves a purpose. However other sets of principles can serve as the glue for society. Today we have law and poltics with stadiums being our temples in which many a beielf message is delivered. Religion used to serve those purposes now it provides people with identity. Its not going away because most people think emotively rather than analytically.

DeVlaeminck

thecycleclinic wrote:

Read roger penrose's books for that one. It is most likely a quantum effect but it is not understood. There are ideas but non proven. The fundemental problem we have little idea how anethetics works and they turn of consciousness. So if we cant explakn how we turn it off how can explain how it arises.

Thanks yes that appears to be an attempt to explain consciousness but it appears to be about as conclusive as Descartes' proof of the existence of God. An interesting discussion between Penrose and a philosopher here http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/PenroseHo ... Bragg.html which whilst I'm not suggesting is Penrose's argument in a nutshell he does seem unable to establish the link between consciousness and the physical world whilst for example maintaining his contention that computers can't have consciousness.

cycleclinic

Thats because noone actually understands consciousness. There are only ideas but not complete ones. it could be our notion consciouness is misguided and we have deluded ourselves into this notion.the first problem with consciouness is trying to define it. Is a cat conscious because if we are a cat is but a cat does not compimplate its own existance because a cat knows thar is a pointless activity and licks it own arse instead.

rjsterry

Just to lob something in, there is also the proposition put forward by Nick Bostram, that we are actually part of a simulation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
If true, this would put quite a different spin on the debate.

chris_bass

rjsterry wrote:

Just to lob something in, there is also the proposition put forward by Nick Bostram, that we are actually part of a simulation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
If true, this would put quite a different spin on the debate.

I don't see how, it's much the same as me playing football manager and the players on that discussing God (which I guess would be me in this case)

I fail to see how anyone can believe in any God in this day and age. If you skim over the "who created god" question for a minute, if there were any creator why would they make the world and people and stuff and then seemingly sod off? What's he/she/it been up to for the past 2000 years or so?

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

Just to lob something in, there is also the proposition put forward by Nick Bostram, that we are actually part of a simulation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
If true, this would put quite a different spin on the debate.

I think that would fail the Occam's Razor test. Probably an interesting exercise for philosophers and scientists (the difficulty of proving something to be impossible, like the existence of gods), but I'm comfortable with my personal hunch that it's not the case.

cycleclinic

The problem with a belief in god it presuposes there some meaning to it all. I suspect there is not and we try to hard to find meaning where there is none to find. Thats not depressing it is liberating. You can crack on with what makes you and others happy.

DeVlaeminck

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Just to lob something in, there is also the proposition put forward by Nick Bostram, that we are actually part of a simulation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
If true, this would put quite a different spin on the debate.

I think that would fail the Occam's Razor test. Probably an interesting exercise for philosophers and scientists (the difficulty of proving something to be impossible, like the existence of gods), but I'm comfortable with my personal hunch that it's not the case.

Occam's Razor is just a convention used to get philosophers over otherwise insurmountable epistemological problems - a perfectly reasonable response to being told a theory fails the test of Occam's Razor is to say "so what".

I don't agree with Cycleclinic about consciousness being a problem of definition - rather they appear to be problems that are unknowable - hence the most sensible approach is to adopt the position of his cat and don't worry about them unless you are paid to work as a philosopher of science.

briantrumpet

DeVlaeminck wrote:

... the most sensible approach is to adopt the position of his cat and don't worry about them unless you are paid to work as a philosopher of science.

Indeedy. I'd be dead before I even got to the foothills of working out what being conscious is - other than not being dead. That being so, I'll carry on riding bikes and playing the trumpet while I can.

cycleclinic

Defining consciousness is one key to the problem the othere is the mathematical treatment. Our jnderstanding of quantum physics is imcomplete.

Does consciousness require information to be processed or can it exsist with no information being processed. It is a tricky problem on many fronts.

For example an experiment done in rats in 86 showed that lithium salts which are used to treat depression have different effects if the isotope (Isotopes have identical chemistry but the nucleus has a different mass)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3019440
This is very odd and points to the brain working more like a quantum computor rather than a neural network as conventional modelled. Maybe it is a network or many quantum computors. The reason being is the only difference in the way li 6 and li 7 behave is in there nuclear spin. Anethetics and drugs would alter the nuclear spin of molecules involved in the qbit and therefore would change our consciousness if consciouness arises this way. anethetics would distrupt the entnaglement process and suspend consciousness. When i came out of surgary earlier this year after my little bump i do remember waking up in some distress, i had no idea who i was or why i was there. I drfoted off and woke up again. My consciousness was definatley altered. Same when i have taken various mind altering substances, very odd things happened.
We have hints at what might be going on but that it. The fact is we have not a clue how the brain works. Religons answer is to say god did it and take that as understanding.

https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default ... af/174.pdf
And
https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/sites/default ... af/174.pdf

It is all very weird.

pblakeney

Six pages?
Jesus! Oh! :twisted:

briantrumpet

PBlakeney wrote:

Six pages?
Jesus! Oh! :twisted:

I think the Bible is a tad longer. Almost as long as the Brexit thread.

First.Aspect

DeVlaeminck wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Just to lob something in, there is also the proposition put forward by Nick Bostram, that we are actually part of a simulation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
If true, this would put quite a different spin on the debate.

I think that would fail the Occam's Razor test. Probably an interesting exercise for philosophers and scientists (the difficulty of proving something to be impossible, like the existence of gods), but I'm comfortable with my personal hunch that it's not the case.

Occam's Razor is just a convention used to get philosophers over otherwise insurmountable epistemological problems - a perfectly reasonable response to being told a theory fails the test of Occam's Razor is to say "so what".

I don't agree with Cycleclinic about consciousness being a problem of definition - rather they appear to be problems that are unknowable - hence the most sensible approach is to adopt the position of his cat and don't worry about them unless you are paid to work as a philosopher of science.

I don't think this is quite right. Occam's razor, at least in the form taught to me, is just a way to select between alternatives. It is more a way of not wasting your time trying to investigate the least likely explanation.

Also the term "unknowable" is a little troubling, in that it tends to be conflated with "unknown".

joelsim

lettingthedaysgoby wrote:

Fully committed atheist here

Religion is nonsense, and responsible for holding back the human race for thousands of years, I loathe it.

I'm with you on that. No supposedly less intelligent animals like dogs or aardvarks believe in god.

As far as I know.

Pross

As a fence sitter the one thing that really does bug me is atheists who consider that anyone who does believe in God is lacking in intelligence or some gullible fool and that therefore the atheist has some kind of intellectual edge when in most cases they seem unable to divorce religion from the possibility there is a god. Just because someone believes there is or could be one it doesn't automatically follow that they worship it. Also, many of the great intellects both living and dead will have believed.

I consider evolution a proven fact. However, I still cannot understand why the evolutionary process would result in humans developing notions such as right and wrong, building legal structures or spending time inventing things purely for enjoyment. Surely the purpose of evolution is to ensure you survive individually and as a species. So can one of the enlightened ones explain this to me please? I'm happy to admit the existence of everything makes no sense to me whether there is or isn't a god, I'm certainly not going to try to claim I know better than others no matter what their belief.

cycleclinic

And some of the anti religion views expressed above are as bigotted as relgious folk who think they have the monoply on the truth. I am not religous but it is the relgious folk who a driven to run many services for thise that really need help where the state fails too. You dont find many atheists running homeless charties and soup kitchens. It is mostly relgious organisations that do that. Religion is not all bad.

Evolution did not create legal structures e.t.c we did in order to live in organised societies. We evolved to live in communties up to 150 people roughly. We had to adapt to live in large communtities. That took time. Religion was the first step.

ballysmate

thecycleclinic wrote:

And some of the anti religion views expressed above are as bigotted as relgious folk who think they have the monoply on the truth. I am not religous but it is the relgious folk who a driven to run many services for thise that really need help where the state fails too. You dont find many atheists running homeless charties and soup kitchens. It is mostly relgious organisations that do that. Religion is not all bad.

Evolution did not create legal structures e.t.c we did in order to live in organised societies. We evolved to live in communties up to 150 people roughly. We had to adapt to live in large communtities. That took time. Religion was the first step.

I don't think you are seriously suggesting that you need to be religious to have compassion are you?
Before you get holier than thou about religious charity, ponder the riches of the Vatican and the poverty that some of its edicts cause around the world.
Likewise the Cof E with the land it owns in Britain.
Charity indeed.

city_boy

Pross wrote:

I consider evolution a proven fact. However, I still cannot understand why the evolutionary process would result in humans developing notions such as right and wrong, building legal structures or spending time inventing things purely for enjoyment. Surely the purpose of evolution is to ensure you survive individually and as a species. So can one of the enlightened ones explain this to me please? I'm happy to admit the existence of everything makes no sense to me whether there is or isn't a god, I'm certainly not going to try to claim I know better than others no matter what their belief.

I think there is some reasonably sound explanations as to why developing morality (sense of right and wrong), compassion and altruistic behaviour would be good from an evolutionary perspective and we can see examples of these things within other animal species.

I mentioned it earlier but I would highly recommend 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari which will give you answers to many of the questions posed.

DeVlaeminck

First Aspect wrote:

I don't think this is quite right. Occam's razor, at least in the form taught to me, is just a way to select between alternatives. It is more a way of not wasting your time trying to investigate the least likely explanation.

Also the term "unknowable" is a little troubling, in that it tends to be conflated with "unknown".

"So what " in the sense that Occam's Razor isn't a reason for supposing one explanation to be false - it may be a valid reason to test one hypothesis before another.

Unknowable or unknown despite a huge amount if human thought having gone into it - yes I guess to suggest something is unknowable is presumptious. Better to say I've not seen anything that convinces me we are any closer to solving the problem though I admit it's not something I've really studied in a couple of decades.

bianchimoon

Ballysmate wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

And some of the anti religion views expressed above are as bigotted as relgious folk who think they have the monoply on the truth. I am not religous but it is the relgious folk who a driven to run many services for thise that really need help where the state fails too. You dont find many atheists running homeless charties and soup kitchens. It is mostly relgious organisations that do that. Religion is not all bad.

Evolution did not create legal structures e.t.c we did in order to live in organised societies. We evolved to live in communties up to 150 people roughly. We had to adapt to live in large communtities. That took time. Religion was the first step.

I don't think you are seriously suggesting that you need to be religious to have compassion are you?
Before you get holier than thou about religious charity, ponder the riches of the Vatican and the poverty that some of its edicts cause around the world.
Likewise the Cof E with the land it owns in Britain.
Charity indeed.

Well said ballsymate, it's an incredibly bigoted view to think that only people who 'answer' to religion can do charity, religious charity is sometimes less likely to be done for the right reasons, think mother Teresa and the harm and suffering she caused many poor people in Calcutta in the name of religious charity. An atheist person doing charity on the other hand, has no higher power to answer to, or isn't looking for future reward at the pearly gates, so is being purely empathetic

meanredspider

City Boy wrote:

Pross wrote:

I consider evolution a proven fact. However, I still cannot understand why the evolutionary process would result in humans developing notions such as right and wrong, building legal structures or spending time inventing things purely for enjoyment. Surely the purpose of evolution is to ensure you survive individually and as a species. So can one of the enlightened ones explain this to me please? I'm happy to admit the existence of everything makes no sense to me whether there is or isn't a god, I'm certainly not going to try to claim I know better than others no matter what their belief.

I think there is some reasonably sound explanations as to why developing morality (sense of right and wrong), compassion and altruistic behaviour would be good from an evolutionary perspective and we can see examples of these things within other animal species.

I mentioned it earlier but I would highly recommend 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari which will give you answers to many of the questions posed.

Yup - reading Dawkins will help too. Evolution tends to favour behaviours that ensure the passing on of genes for that behaviour. Dawkins explains (often using game theory) how and why altruistic behaviour (for example) could benefit the passing on of genes.

city_boy

Ballysmate wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

And some of the anti religion views expressed above are as bigotted as relgious folk who think they have the monoply on the truth. I am not religous but it is the relgious folk who a driven to run many services for thise that really need help where the state fails too. You dont find many atheists running homeless charties and soup kitchens. It is mostly relgious organisations that do that. Religion is not all bad.

Evolution did not create legal structures e.t.c we did in order to live in organised societies. We evolved to live in communties up to 150 people roughly. We had to adapt to live in large communtities. That took time. Religion was the first step.

I don't think you are seriously suggesting that you need to be religious to have compassion are you?
Before you get holier than thou about religious charity, ponder the riches of the Vatican and the poverty that some of its edicts cause around the world.
Likewise the Cof E with the land it owns in Britain.
Charity indeed.

Hitchens regularly laid down the following challenge (and claimed it was never successfully answered)...

"Name a morally good action or statement made that can only have been done/said by a person of religious faith that could not equally be done/said by a non-believer?"

His corollary question was "Name an immoral act or statement that can only be carried out as a result of religious belief?"

His view was that the likes of genital mutiliation and suicide bombing was almost exclusively devinely warranted.