Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

there may be similarities in the Golden Rule amongst many cultures, I sure as heck don't know everything. But I do believe it is Godly because that's what a God of Love would do and that is to teach us to Love.

You said christ gave it to us! That would imply origin.

Also he's a hint, if your not sure then don't make out that you do. A far better goal would be to try and find out instead.

 

[Danoff]

Why do you persist in making this kind of rubbish up? Anyone with better than 3rd grade reading comprehension skills can see Scaff said nothing of the sort.

Of course the irony is that you've made up utter rubbish in response to Scaff telling you that making up rubbish isn't acceptable...

Very thorough. I think dxld knows that he re-characterized Scaff's point, but did it to try to make it look like he was being responsive. The beautiful thing about GTPlanet are posts like these - that prevent people from dxld from just confusing away the conversation and muddying every opinion thread. The whole reason that we can have real thoughtful intellectual discourse on this site is because people get called out in exactly the manner quoted above. Just wanted to say 👍 to you and Scaff for the last page or so.

 

[PIP_36]

The single biggest mistake you are making with this is the utterly incorrect assumption that 'nature' tried to make anything look like anything, its not planned.
An insect with a random genetic mutation that made it a bit closer in colour to a stick will not get eaten as much as those that on't have the same mutation (or have a mutation that happens to make it look less like the colour of a stick). As a result it survives and has a great chance of passing on said gene.

I'm not disputing the physical process involved, evolution and mutations etc, it just feels to me that must be something fundamentally 'intelligent' behind it all, like a creator included some super algorithm that will allow for evolution and mutations that would favour life.
In my first post I was using a stick insect as a kind of 'tongue in cheek' way of explaining my wonder for nature and belief in a God(s), however I still feel in awe when looking at all these amazing critters we have on this ball of mud!

Nothing clever about it at all, and human eyes are actually rather poor in comparison to many other species and work better underwater than on land.

Well, it's a little bit clever! I still think its amazing how the eye (human or otherwise) has evolved from a simple organ of detecting light into the complex organ we have now...

Or... they were events with no intentional will. There is no 'accident'. There is no causal 'why' as to how or when these events took place.

Maybe you're right, but I just can't or don't feel comfortable thinking about all the matter in the known universe spontaneously coming into existence by accident or chance. Although I have stated before about the big bang just being a theory, it's most probably the way our physical universe came into being, however this just begs more questions...what did the big bang explode into?
Was it the first big bang or one in a series of many? Will the /big squeeze' pull everything together again, implode than bang again?

Look up what theory actually means.
Wiki

Will do!

Why do you err that way?

I just do. It's a gut feeling that I have had since I can remember. I feel that I have had a few 'experiences' that I could attribute to the 'supernatural' or 'divine' force, but I am aware this could just as easily have been a cool trick my brain was playing on me...anyway, cool tricks!

Yes for the former, the latter is somewhat irrelevant unless you're talking theocracy. And corrupting something fictional is somewhat of a misnomer.

Well, when you put it like that then I have to agree!

I thought you erred on the side of creationism rather than abiogenisis?

I do err on the side of creation and abiogenesis is staring to become accepted by some main stream scientist as probable. However, I don't see creation, evolution or abiogenesis as mutually exclusive or contradictory. I like to think that the way nature has evolved/works is from following rules (that seem random to us) that have been set form the beginning.

You mean people who, at that time, would have been considered scientists have their theories proven true after thousands of years of religion suppressing and torturing those who say otherwise?
Yes, the ancient Greeks did pull some amazing things out of their backsides;

No. I am talking about the Shamans, Gnostics, Kabbalah'ists etc, they have all spoken of other worlds or dimensions, how everything and everyone is connected, describing how the microcosm and macrocosm are reflected, 'as above, so below'.

Churches don't like ignorant marks learning? Now this time, I don't think that can be considered a coincidence.

This is very true, in my opinion religion has for too long sought to control and influence the masses. I think the only church you need is already with you..."know yourself, and you shall know the universe and its Gods"!

I find it interesting that you (and many other people) have this need to pick a side, even if there's no real information either way.
The Big Bang is one of the best theories that fits the current information we have, but it's still chock full of stuff we don't know, and as far as I know the question of "so, why a Big Bang then?" is still largely up in the air.
It's OK for the answer to be "I don't know". There's nothing wrong with not knowing, and there's no requirement to pick sides between a beardy old bloke and cosmic firecrackers.
For me, the question is the important part, not the answer.

I don't find the need to pick a side just for the sake of choosing a side, like I have stated previously, its a 'gut' feeling that I have had since I was very young. I have always been fascinated with space, the Universe and God(s).

I am perfectly fine with the idea that I/we 'just don't know', I am equally fascinated with the big questions as I am with the possible answers.
A scientist (Michio Kaku, one of my faves!) once said;
"The universe is not only as strange as we can imagine, its stranger than we can't imagine".
I agree!

Another one before I go...

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice" Albert Einstein

 

[Imari]

I don't find the need to pick a side just for the sake of choosing a side, like I have stated previously, its a 'gut' feeling that I have had since I was very young.

Which is exactly the point I was making.

When you were very young, you likely knew even less about life and the universe than you do now. While it's good to pay attention to your intuition, you should be somewhat careful about what it tells you. What makes you think that your feelings when you were young were correct?

You picked a side because you're uncomfortable with ignoring an opinion that you formed for no particularly good reason when you were very young. Rational thought would say "well, I sort of feel like there should be a creator, but I really have no reason to think so. I shall hold my opinion in abeyance". You've instead chosen to stick with the creator thing.

And, hey, it seems to work for a lot of people. You'd hardly be the first, in fact it's probably how religions start.

But if you don't fool yourself that you haven't made a completely arbitrary and unsupported decision as to how you believe the universe works, then it leaves your mind a lot more open to comprehend what's really going on, if and when we find out.

Take this advice as you will, but it's very hard to learn anything when you already know the answers.

 

[PIP_36]

Which is exactly the point I was making.


You picked a side because you're uncomfortable with ignoring an opinion that you formed for no particularly good reason when you were very young. Rational thought would say "well, I sort of feel like there should be a creator, but I really have no reason to think so. I shall hold my opinion in abeyance". You've instead chosen to stick with the creator thing.

Well, that's quite an assumption...

I made a lot of decisions and believed a lot of things when I was very young. Of course as I grew older and wiser my world view changed, my ideas about life and the universe changed.

My belief in God(s) had changed over the years too. I went through phases of believing and not believing, always questioning my views/beliefs.

However, as I already stated in a reply above, I had a few 'experiences' that brought back to the belief in a 'higher realm/power/form of nature/God(s). I am not willing to discuss these experiences here as they are very personal, but they were powerful enough for me to believe again and study the subject further, including other religious beliefs, the occult and myself.

I don't subscribe to any particular religion as such, however I am more familiar with Christianity so I use that as a reference when looking at other beliefs and discussing religion/spiritualism.

I have heard it said that;

"All religions are pearls on the golden string of divinity" and

"All different paths lead to the top of the mountain, once you get there the view is just the same"

I like the above quotes, are they true? Who knows...this is something that I am still finding out for myself.

I am open to the possibility of there being no God(s), no 'higher' versions of ourselves, but I just don't feel that we, the universe and nature are a spontaneous, coincidental lucky accident.

What do you think about atheism being a belief system, would you say that being an atheist takes faith?

But if you don't fool yourself that you haven't made a completely arbitrary and unsupported decision as to how you believe the universe works, then it leaves your mind a lot more open to comprehend what's really going on, if and when we find out.

In my humble opinion, I believe that science is back engineering the physical workings of creation, the deeper we get into the physics of the universe, the more we understand how it works and (IMO) how near perfect it is.

FYI, Although I believe in a created physical universe, please don't mistake me for a 'creationist'. I believe in dinosaurs, the earth is round and older than 7000 years, Adam and Eve did not father the physical human race or that two of every animal found refuge on a large wooden ship.

If I was forced to label myself, I suppose I would call myself a Gnostic in my beliefs.

 

[Famine]

What do you think about atheism being a belief system

The etymology of the word precludes it.

 

[PIP_36]

The etymology of the word precludes it.

BRB, just looking up a new word...👍


Edit:
noun: etymology

1. the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
   "the decline of etymology as a linguistic discipline"

I'm still not entirely sure what you mean, are you saying that the history/changed meaning of the word 'atheism' makes it impossible for the belief that there isn't a God requiring faith/belief?

Apologies if I'm just not reading your post correctly.

 

[Imari]

Well, that's quite an assumption...

It wasn't an assumption, you said it in as many words in the sentence I quoted.

You've had this "gut" feeling since you were young.
Gut feelings aren't based on rational thought. They're either your subconscious trying to tell you that it's recognised a pattern that your conscious mind hasn't picked up on yet, or it's random bits of biology messing with you.

You've chosen to stick with this gut feeling, despite not figuring out whether there was something behind the gut feeling or not. If you recognised the pattern, that would then be the discussion point in itself. It's not, so you're still going on the gut feeling.

I am open to the possibility of there being no God(s), no 'higher' versions of ourselves, but I just don't feel that we, the universe and nature are a spontaneous, coincidental lucky accident.

What would convince you that the universe and nature are a spontaneous, conincidental lucky accident? Be as specific as you can. One of the easiest ways to discover if your theory is a good one is to try and prove the opposite. If you can't, it may be a good theory.

What do you think about atheism being a belief system, would you say that being an atheist takes faith?

Being an atheist by definition requires no faith. Nor is it a belief system. There is no system to being an atheist at all.

The difference between an theist and an atheist is this:
A theist makes a definite statement about god/gods, "My god/gods exist!". That is the minimum required to be a theist.
An atheist makes no definite statement about god/gods. If you make a definite statement, you are not an atheist.

In my humble opinion, I believe that science is back engineering the physical workings of creation, the deeper we get into the physics of the universe, the more we understand how it works...

Well, yeah. That's sort of the point of it.

and (IMO) how near perfect it is.

Whatever floats your boat.

FYI, Although I believe in a created physical universe, please don't mistake me for a 'creationist'. I believe in dinosaurs, the earth is round and older than 7000 years, Adam and Eve did not father the physical human race or that two of every animal found refuge on a large wooden ship.

Although a lot of the questions that apply to Young Earth Creationism still apply to creationism at the Big Bang.
Why create at that particular moment, in that state?
Why create a universe with these particular properties?
Why create a universe at all?
Is ours the only universe? The first? The last? A work in progress?

Frankly, I find creationism in general to raise more questions than it answers.

Say the Big Bang is correct, and that's the moment of creation. If it's a purely physical phenomenon, then we just need to understand that. Tricky, but maybe doable.

If there's a creator involved though, on top of all the physical phenomena that still need to be understood, all these additional questions about the creator arise. Motivations, choices, etc. That's without even getting into the "who creates the creator" questions, to which the most satisfactory answer is "it's turtles all the way down*".

*If you haven't heard this one, Google it. It's relevant.

 

[Famine]

BRB, just looking up a new word...👍

Edit:
noun: etymology

1. the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
   "the decline of etymology as a linguistic discipline"

I'm still not entirely sure what you mean, are you saying that the history/changed meaning of the word 'atheism' makes it impossible for the belief that there isn't a God requiring faith/belief?

Apologies if I'm just not reading your post correctly.

The word "atheism" means "absence of belief in deities". It comes from (its etymology is) the Greek "a-" (absence of) and "theos" (belief in deities).

Thus atheism is not a belief. It's an absence of belief.

That doesn't mean atheists can't believe in something - superstition, ghosts, mediums, gold (you've got the power to know you're indestructible) - just that they don't believe in any deities. Atheism is not a belief set.

 

[PIP_36]

The word "atheism" means "absence of belief in deities". It comes from (its etymology is) the Greek "a-" (absence of) and "theos" (belief in deities).

Thus atheism is not a belief. It's an absence of belief.

That doesn't mean atheists can't believe in something - superstition, ghosts, mediums, gold (you've got the power to know you're indestructible) - just that they don't believe in any deities. Atheism is not a belief set.

Although we can clearly see exactly what the word 'Atheism' means (absence of belief), I take it to mean that an atheist firmly believes that there is no God(s) and will not accept the possibility of a God(s).
If an atheist is does not believe in any deity but is willing to accept the possibility, then that would make them Agnostic, so...
Although not strictly a belief set or system, would you say , or not, that to believe firmly that there are no God(s) takes faith?
Some say, (insert Stig fact here) that the evidence is all around us but some refuse to believe.
I, along with many others believe in alien life, science says that the odds alone make it inevitable that the universe is teeming with it...I just haven't seen any evidence that it exists.

It wasn't an assumption, you said it in as many words in the sentence I quoted.

You've had this "gut" feeling since you were young.
Gut feelings aren't based on rational thought. They're either your subconscious trying to tell you that it's recognised a pattern that your conscious mind hasn't picked up on yet, or it's random bits of biology messing with you.

You've chosen to stick with this gut feeling, despite not figuring out whether there was something behind the gut feeling or not. If you recognised the pattern, that would then be the discussion point in itself. It's not, so you're still going on the gut feeling.

Well I suppose you are right with what you say about my 'gut' but I just wanted to make it clear that I have not just blindly followed a belief system that was taught or exposed to me. Like I have said, my belief has changed over the years...its quite possible it will change again.

My current belief in a divine being is based on direct personal experience, although its entirely possible that this experience was completely manifested by my brain and not a divine energy, being or whatever but it seemed real at the time!

We have different views about 'gut' feelings, but I bet that doesn't surprise you!

What would convince you that the universe and nature are a spontaneous, conincidental lucky accident? Be as specific as you can. One of the easiest ways to discover if your theory is a good one is to try and prove the opposite. If you can't, it may be a good theory.

Well I suppose the proof that there is or has never been a God(s).

Even if science reveals all the hidden secrets of the universe, how can that prove that there was no creator?

Being an atheist by definition requires no faith. Nor is it a belief system. There is no system to being an atheist at all.

The difference between an theist and an atheist is this:
A theist makes a definite statement about god/gods, "My god/gods exist!". That is the minimum required to be a theist.
An atheist makes no definite statement about god/gods. If you make a definite statement, you are not an atheist.

Strictly speaking the above is true, but like I asked Famine, do you not think that your belief in no God(s) takes a little faith on your part?

What makes you dismiss a belief in God in the first place?

Well, yeah. That's sort of the point of it.

As in (IMO) revealing the big man's handy work.

Although a lot of the questions that apply to Young Earth Creationism still apply to creationism at the Big Bang.
Why create at that particular moment, in that state?
Why create a universe with these particular properties?
Why create a universe at all?
Is ours the only universe? The first? The last? A work in progress?

Frankly, I find creationism in general to raise more questions than it answers.

Say the Big Bang is correct, and that's the moment of creation. If it's a purely physical phenomenon, then we just need to understand that. Tricky, but maybe doable.

If there's a creator involved though, on top of all the physical phenomena that still need to be understood, all these additional questions about the creator arise. Motivations, choices, etc. That's without even getting into the "who creates the creator" questions, to which the most satisfactory answer is "it's turtles all the way down*".

*If you haven't heard this one, Google it. It's relevant.

There are lots of 'answers' for these questions out there, even if I don't agree/believe some of them I still find the mythology fascinating....yep lots of questions!

 

[Famine]

Although we can clearly see exactly what the word 'Atheism' means (absence of belief), I take it to mean that an atheist firmly believes that there is no God(s) and will not accept the possibility of a God(s).

No. That'd be a nontheist.

Atheists do not believe in deities. This is a completely separate concept from believing in no deities.

If an atheist is does not believe in any deity but is willing to accept the possibility, then that would make them Agnostic, so...

No. Agnosticism ("a-" = absence of; "gnostos" = knowledge) is the belief that we cannot know - specifically about deities when applied to the concept of faith.

Although not strictly a belief set or system, would you say , or not, that to believe firmly that there are no God(s) takes faith

Yes, nontheism is a belief and requires faith. Agnosticism is a belief and requires faith. Atheism is not a belief and requires no faith.

Edit: And they're not necessarily mutually exclusive either. Agnostic atheism exists, though it shouldn't.

A footnote is that atheists are evidence led, so when a deity does eventually prove itself atheists will accept its existence. They'll remain atheists though, because accepting the existence of something that is proven requires absolutely no belief - in fact proof denies belief.

 

[PIP_36]

@Famine and @Imari

Thanks for setting me straight with regards to atheism, I had the idea a little skewed...as you can tell!

Should pay less attention to Ricky Gervais, he goes a little 'atheist fundamentalist' at times!

I am still interested though, why do you 'do not believe in deities'?

 

[Famine]

In general I don't believe in anything.

Outside of Discworld, belief doesn't have any bearing on reality - believing in something makes it no more or less real than not doing so and reality continues on without the slightest heed for the emotional state of my brain. So I just go with the evidence that describes reality - and as yet, no deity has shown any inclination of offering up any evidence despite their apparent interest in the affairs of the most recently evolved lifeforms on this particular rock.

If we visit some of the specific deities, you'll notice that they seem to be designed to evade evidence (every bit as much as Russell's Teapot is) - a quality known as "nonfalsifiability". That means they not only don't register in reality but can't.

This isn't necessarily true of all deities nor even merely higher lifeforms - more advanced species than us could exist but, like their deity colleagues, have not shown any evidence of doing so yet. This is why I don't "believe in aliens" either - though I'm happy to look at the evidence and see that they could exist and, should they show up, I'll accept their existence (compare to a member earlier in the thread who said that Islam denies their existence and he would not accept their existence even if they did show up) - but that requires no belief from me either.

 

[PIP_36]

In general I don't believe in anything....

This seems like a perfectly logical and rational way to look at things, but for me personally I can't help but decide internally whether something 'is' or 'is not', I find that I feel indifferent to things, but to have no inclination, belief or to not fall on one side of the fence quite hard...maybe human nature?

When it comes to this subject though (should have listen to my father, no...my biological father, "son, never discuss money, politics or religion with strangers") I can't help feeling one way or the other and be satisfied to just see what happens.

I described it as a 'gut' feeling before but it feels so much more than that, when looking into certain beliefs I stumbled upon Gnosis and it immediately felt 'right'. All the feelings and personal theories I had about any God(s) was suddenly being expressed in words by people before me.

I like to think that we will all have our questions answered when we leave this physical life, even if they are not the answers we were expecting or looking for...

 

[Famine]

It's natural human behaviour - it's part of our imagination, which is the primary advantage we have over every other lifeform on the planet (and probably several other planets). My imagination is very good, but I don't let it bleed into defining reality.

Wondering what the answers are is normal, but it's crucial to our species' survival to find out what they are - rather than accepting some earlier answers, or even self-generated ones, based in conjecture.

 

[Danoff]

This seems like a perfectly logical and rational way to look at things, but for me personally I can't help but decide internally whether something 'is' or 'is not', I find that I feel indifferent to things, but to have no inclination, belief or to not fall on one side of the fence quite hard...maybe human nature?

Yes. And sometimes human nature is not in our best interests. We have learned to suppress all kinds of human nature with rationality. I'll give you a small example, for most people it is human nature to eat yourself into a giant obese ball of fat (for some peoples' metabolism this is almost literally impossible it seems, but for most people this is true). Yet you stop eating. You know you don't need more food. Your mind tells you to put that last bit down, not your emotions.

Occasionally when you get angry you might want to punch someone in the face, or throw something against a wall. It's your rational mind that steps in and allows you to not follow your emotions. The same is true of religion and God - what is emotionally satisfying is not rational or healthy.

When it comes to this subject though (should have listen to my father, no...my biological father, "son, never discuss money, politics or religion with strangers") I can't help feeling one way or the other and be satisfied to just see what happens.

Yea, I've been told this as well and I try to adhere to it in places where it could do me a lot of disservice to be arguing about those subjects. But those are some of the most important subjects we have, and discussing them is critical to developing an understanding of reality and our civilization. That's why I discuss it here.

 

[PIP_36]

It's natural human behaviour - it's part of our imagination, which is the primary advantage we have over every other lifeform on the planet (and probably several other planets). My imagination is very good, but I don't let it bleed into defining reality.

Wondering what the answers are is normal, but it's crucial to our species' survival to find out what they are - rather than accepting some earlier answers, or even self-generated ones, based in conjecture.

The above is the ideal but takes a lot of self discipline.
I think that the human imagination is a wonderful thing, but like you say, you/we should only allow the imagination go so far, when imagination becomes fantasy is where we can go wrong...

Yes. And sometimes human nature is not in our best interests. We have learned to suppress all kinds of human nature with rationality. I'll give you a small example, for most people it is human nature to eat yourself into a giant obese ball of fat (for some peoples' metabolism this is almost literally impossible it seems, but for most people this is true). Yet you stop eating. You know you don't need more food. Your mind tells you to put that last bit down, not your emotions.

Occasionally when you get angry you might want to punch someone in the face, or throw something against a wall. It's your rational mind that steps in and allows you to not follow your emotions. The same is true of religion and God - what is emotionally satisfying is not rational or healthy.

I agree with what you have stated here, but not so much about a religious or spiritual belief not being rational or healthy. A lot of people find peace and do lead a rich and fulfilling life helping others.

For me, firmly believing (I'm not accusing you of this) that there is no God and that this universe/multiverse came from literally nothing seems no more rational.

I could be very sneaky or very silly (depends on your view) and apply Occam's razor here, did everything we know and not know sprout up from nothing even when nothing and no-thing existed, or did a higher being create it all?

Yea, I've been told this as well and I try to adhere to it in places where it could do me a lot of disservice to be arguing about those subjects. But those are some of the most important subjects we have, and discussing them is critical to developing an understanding of reality and our civilization. That's why I discuss it here.

I agree!

 

[Denur]

When it comes to this subject though (should have listen to my father, no...my biological father, "son, never discuss money, politics or religion with strangers") I can't help feeling one way or the other and be satisfied to just see what happens.

Your father sounds like a wise man, but I don't agree with him. I have seen friendships (or rather: friendships, family relations and colleagues) ruined by these discussions. When it comes to emotional subjects like religion and politics, tread lightly around those you care for, but go all out with those you don't expect to meet in real life anyway (without becoming an ass of course).

 

[PIP_36]

I agree as I would tend to go further into discussions with strangers (especially with these subjects) as I would with friends or family, some of my friends have no idea how I think or feel about religion or politics...but they always know to pay my money back on time if I give them a 'borrow'! lol

 

[Imari]

Well I suppose the proof that there is or has never been a God(s).

Even if science reveals all the hidden secrets of the universe, how can that prove that there was no creator?

And you've hit on the problem. It's not possible to prove non-existence.

Which is why starting from the assumption that something exists is generally considered bad form. If you assume that God (or whatever) doesn't exist, then you can look for proof that he does. The moment you see God's big toe, you know that your theory of God-don't-exist is wrong, and you can change to something more appropriate.

If you assume that God does exist, then there's no way to prove otherwise. You may not be able to find any proof of his existence, but it could always be just around the next corner.

That's why when faced with no evidence, the default position is to assume non-existence. Russell's Teapot, which @Famine has referred to, is generally considered the standard example for this.

Strictly speaking the above is true, but like I asked Famine, do you not think that your belief in no God(s) takes a little faith on your part?

What makes you dismiss a belief in God in the first place?

No, it takes no belief. I don't believe in no God, I believe I don't have enough information to form a sensible opinion, and so I withhold judgement.

This tends to be what people misunderstand, and what I was trying to get at in my original post about choosing sides.

Substitute "God" for anything else, say, "cats". If I have never seen a cat or any evidence of a cat, I have no reason to think that cats exist. They may do, and they may be interesting as an intellectual exercise, but until they actually present themselves in my life then my worldview is missing nothing by excluding cats. Believing in cats adds nothing.

If I live with cats, I don't need to believe in them. They're right there, dragging in mice, getting fur all over my clothes, peeing in the corner and sitting on my face (hopefully not in that order). I can believe all I want, but it doesn't change the reality of the cats.

This is why I do not hold beliefs regarding God. Belief is neither here nor there. Either God exists or he doesn't, and my belief does nothing apart from taint my perceptions. If I believe in God, there's a temptation to see him in all sorts of things, simply to prove myself right. (Everyone loves being right.)

There are lots of 'answers' for these questions out there, even if I don't agree/believe some of them I still find the mythology fascinating....yep lots of questions!

Depends what you class as an answer. There's plenty of people making up stuff to answer every question imaginable about the origin of the universe. That's generally not that useful though, unless the answers actually relate to reality in some fashion I might as well just make up the answers to suit myself rather than take someone else's.

I agree with what you have stated here, but not so much about a religious or spiritual belief not being rational or healthy. A lot of people find peace and do lead a rich and fulfilling life helping others.

Is religion necessary to find peace and lead a rich, fulfilling life helping others?

I would say that people can find peace and lead a rich, fulfilling life helping others despite the hatred that many religions preach.

For me, firmly believing (I'm not accusing you of this) that there is no God and that this universe/multiverse came from literally nothing seems no more rational.

You are correct. What you're describing is non-theism, and it's no more rational than theism is.

I could be very sneaky or very silly (depends on your view) and apply Occam's razor here, did everything we know and not know sprout up from nothing even when nothing and no-thing existed, or did a higher being create it all?

Occam's Razor is a mental shortcut for choosing the more likely of two scenarios. Generally, the simplest scenario that explains all the available evidence is the correct one. Of course, you can get more evidence later that would make another scenario more likely, but at any given point in time it's a good rule of thumb.

If you've got "universe sprang out of nothing" and "universe sprang out of nothing because creator", the second of those is by definition more complex than the first. The second contains everything that the first does, AND a creator. Barring any other information, the assumption is that the first is more likely. It's not necessarily correct, just a better hypothesis.





I agree![/quote]

 

[LeMansAid]

Occasionally when you get angry you might want to punch someone in the face, or throw something against a wall. It's your rational mind that steps in and allows you to not follow your emotions. The same is true of religion and God - what is emotionally satisfying is not rational or healthy.

What is innately unhealthy about religion and God?

 

[Dotini]

What is innately unhealthy about religion and God?

Some may well take the position that religion is not inherently unhealthy. This goes back to the fundamental idea of religion as an organized means to explain and relieve the chaos of human existence, and especially to relieve the pain and suffering of quotidian human existence from birth to (usually early and brutal) death.

In the West, after the Ages of Enlightenment and Industrialization with attendant knowledge, individualism, prosperity and comforts, it has been much easier to abandon religion as a restrictive relic institution of the past. Barbarians and savages in the rest of the world still benefit from religion. To the extent that religion serves as a moral compass, certain selfish debauched Westerners continue to benefit from religion's absolution of sin, hypocrisy and other personal errors.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'd even wonder about "not rational". I know I could handle a bit of Homer's crayon now and then. Is it rational to give up blissful ignorance?

Wisdom>Smarts>Knowledge. Wisdom is not mathematical. It's not logic, but can involve logic. For certain people in certain circumstances though, wisdom may jettison logic with good reason. Why be miserable?

I struggle constantly with the balancing of how aware I should allow myself to be..... how raw is too raw. But then I wonder if true raw goes beyond a horrendous awareness of all things imperfect, and in to some higher state where even imperfection is perfect. And that's the conundrum for me: Is being primal and simplistic only at odds with logic until the commitment to being simplistic and primal reaches a level where it becomes a completely different animal? And is that where God is?

I liken it to a question I posed to myself: If I could choose to be more attractive but feel ugly, or less attractive and feel beautiful... which option would I take?

 

[Imari]

What is innately unhealthy about religion and God?

It's quite a good question.

I don't find it particularly mentally healthy to have a strong belief in God. Children over a certain age are considered mentally unhealthy if they continue to have invisible friends, yet the same criterion are not applied to spiritual matters. It's not terminally unhealthy, but it strikes me a bit like someone who sees hallucinations. It's considered less healthy than people who (supposedly) perceive reality as it is.

As far as religion goes, I suspect it would be possible to have a healthy religion. As an example, you could have a religion whose sole tenet was "Don't be a dick". That would probably be good for everyone. However, a religion could be generalised as a kind of cheat sheet for those unwilling or incapable of reasoning their way to the morally best action in any given situation. Given access to a set of rules that some followers will obey without question, it seems more or less inevitable that eventually someone will pervert them. How long before "Don't be a dick" becomes "Don't be a dick, unless the other guy is Islamic/Jewish/Mormon/whatever because those guys suck"?

It strikes me as one of those good in theory, not so good in practise things. You could have a healthy religion that was good for all involved. It probably would just have to steer well clear of humans, because they tend to **** it up given enough time.

 

[Danoff]

What is innately unhealthy about religion and God?

Anytime you subvert your own capacity to reason for someone else's arbitrary rules (and some of those rules are extreme in their arbitrariness), you're acting in an unhealthy manner. Your ability to reason is one of your greatest strengths, giving it up is detrimental.

Christianity's teachings are often unhealthy as well, in fact I'd be surprised if you could find a major religion in the world today that didn't have unhealthy teachings. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam teach us to hate, and that God devalued human life to the point where he advocated that we kill each other over pettiness. Two of those religions continue to advocate that kind of behavior, one of them recanted. These religions also teach us that our behavior, whatever it is, can be atoned for if we ask for forgiveness. The reality is that our behavior is permanent, and some of it cannot be atoned for - all we can do is try not to hurt others going forward. All of these religions teach us that our own sense of morality and judgement is subordinate to random rules set down by someone who is superior to us - that our minds and bodies are inferior and to be tools to the will of a superior master which we owe our existence and must serve in perpetuity.

Not healthy.

I'd even wonder about "not rational"

Faith is inherently not rational. Rationality demands evidence or proof (not the same thing) as a basis for action. To have faith, to believe that which is not supported by evidence or proof, is precisely an exercise in suspending rationality and replacing it with irrationality. It's what faith is.

You say perhaps it is irrational to give up ignorance, but that presupposes a choice - a conscious rational choice to remain ignorant. Human beings are almost incapable of that. Religious people don't think they are choosing to remain ignorant, they think they are choosing to accept a broader more full view of reality. They believe they are embracing greater understanding.

 

[Scaff]

What is innately unhealthy about religion and God?

I replied to a similar question a while ago (not worded in the exact same way), so please excuse me if I quote myself.

........

However a sizeable percentage of it is dangerous nonsense that allows the organised persecution of various groups and is actively used by many to try and hold back development, particularly scientific) and education.

Certain Christian values were a factor (and I do mean 'a' factor as opposed to your 'the' factor - quite a big difference) in pushing values forward, they have however also been 'a' factor is holding back those self same things. Keep in mind that both side in the first and second world wars were convinced that they were fighting on the side of God, both sides in the Civil Rights movement were doing the exact same thing.

Take equality as an example, Christianity can't even agree within itself on equality for homosexuals and women. So to say it's the major driving force in that area is clearly untrue, rather they are far behind the rest of society and actually a major factor holding back equality in these areas.

As for claims that Christianity is past 'that kind of thing', sorry but I would beg to differ. The Lord's Resistance Army and Breivik are both examples of violent Christian fundamentalism (and they are not alone), now you can argue all you like that they don't represent mainstream religion, but that self same thing applies to Guy Fawkes and the Taliban. When you have any part of any religion that is willing to kill to try and enforce its beliefs then that for me is a problem and a danger.

What is also true above can also be applied to pretty much every religion.

The key difference between secular constitutions and religious credo, is that the former are not 'divine' and as such change is generally far more accepted, the issue of the word of God being unquestionable is exactly why around seven countries in the world have the death penalty for homosexuality and many more will imprison people for it, and they are not all Islamic nations either.

So for me the unhealthy parts of it fall into two broad but rather key areas (however these two points are far from the exhaustive reasons); firstly the fundamental aspect of all religions that can be used to justify the abhorrent and the issue of 'being the word of god' and therefore change is long, slow, drawn out, sometimes almost impossible and frequently very bloody.

 

[LeMansAid]

Anytime you subvert your own capacity to reason for someone else's arbitrary rules (and some of those rules are extreme in their arbitrariness), you're acting in an unhealthy manner. Your ability to reason is one of your greatest strengths, giving it up is detrimental.

Christianity's teachings are often unhealthy as well, in fact I'd be surprised if you could find a major religion in the world today that didn't have unhealthy teachings. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam teach us to hate, and that God devalued human life to the point where he advocated that we kill each other over pettiness. Two of those religions continue to advocate that kind of behavior, one of them recanted. These religions also teach us that our behavior, whatever it is, can be atoned for if we ask for forgiveness. The reality is that our behavior is permanent, and some of it cannot be atoned for - all we can do is try not to hurt others going forward. All of these religions teach us that our own sense of morality and judgement is subordinate to random rules set down by someone who is superior to us - that our minds and bodies are inferior and to be tools to the will of a superior master which we owe our existence and must serve in perpetuity.

Not healthy.



Faith is inherently not rational. Rationality demands evidence or proof (not the same thing) as a basis for action. To have faith, to believe that which is not supported by evidence or proof, is precisely an exercise in suspending rationality and replacing it with irrationality. It's what faith is.

You say perhaps it is irrational to give up ignorance, but that presupposes a choice - a conscious rational choice to remain ignorant. Human beings are almost incapable of that. Religious people don't think they are choosing to remain ignorant, they think they are choosing to accept a broader more full view of reality. They believe they are embracing greater understanding.

Is it a science, or an art?

Artists regularly subvert their talents to produce their brand of "perfection". Maybe controlling that is the art within the art, though maybe it's most effective when the artist truly embodies the subversion as if it's uncontrolled. But I think it comes down to neither art nor science. Setting the massive influence of religion aside, most people seem to find their belief or disbelief in God through what is effectively an artistic (primal, mystical) or scientific method. I'm not convinced that either of those approaches is the correct one, so I don't commit wholly to either one. The person I am, I've never managed to be in that maybe intangible or indeed possibly non-existent other place, but I don't disallow it as a possible reality. Accordingly, I leave an empty space for it.

I don't rest on the linear extrapolation of our forms of science. And I don't believe that what we feel is non-linear scientific discovery, is necessarily non-linear at all. Equally, I don't accept that any person or peoples have explained God in any of their other ways.

You wrote "The same is true of religion and God - what is emotionally satisfying is not rational or healthy." I probably wouldn't have questioned it at all if it wasn't written as an absolute. It's the kind of limit I choose not to put on my world and outer-world view. I know what knowledge is, I think I know what smart is, knowing what wisdom is though, is the mystery I reckon.

btw. There's also a pretty good chance that I'm just totally full of crap (and maybe even smearing it on my face).

 

[Imari]

Is it a science, or an art?

What, religion? You'd have to at least outline your definitions of those two, but I don't see how it's either. It's neither investigative nor creative.

The person I am, I've never managed to be in that maybe intangible or indeed possibly non-existent other place, but I don't disallow it as a possible reality. Accordingly, I leave an empty space for it.

Congratulations on using the scientific method. You do not have enough data, so you suspend judgement pending future information.

You wrote "The same is true of religion and God - what is emotionally satisfying is not rational or healthy." I probably wouldn't have questioned it at all if it wasn't written as an absolute.

To be fair, if you change it to "what is emotionally satisfying is not necessarily rational or healthy", it makes a lot more sense. Simply, our emotions can guide us but they are not infallible, and should be questioned when appropriate.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Congratulations on using the scientific method. You do not have enough data, so you suspend judgement pending future information.

I agree with the bulk of your answer... but aren't you using the "wait and see" method to disprove an afterlife? I'm not sure you have any other way. I don't believe that there is one (as we understand one to be, at least) but nor can I offer any proof for my belief other than the suggestion of proof in the bibles that I've come to believe over the years.

 

[Famine]

I don't believe that there is one (as we understand one to be, at least) but nor can I offer any proof for my belief other than the suggestion of proof in the bibles that I've come to believe over the years.

I don't believe there's an afterlife. This isn't the same thing as believing there isn't an afterlife.

If I were to assert there isn't one, I should be expected to offer up evidence just as much as I should if I were to assert there is one. There is, at present, insufficient evidence to make a determination either way, so both possibilities remain - but as per my earlier answer about belief, I can't really be bothered to come up with the individual leap of faith required to believe in one or the other because it doesn't affect the reality of it.