God v/s Science

[BridgeTroll]

Yes. Very nuanced counterarguments revolving around the teapot itself.  The main idea still stands.  If you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.  Not on someone else to prove it doesn't.

I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

You provided little, if any proof.  Your proof is that a book does exist, and that it is "at least partially historically correct."  There is serious debate over whether a lot of those people listed actually existed (as you even stated).  This is far from "proof", even according to you.  There again we are on the proof of existence.  Pointing back at the "book" is like defining a word with itself. 

You made a specious claim of proof, that even you question, and then claim you've laid more groundwork for pro than con.

I'm just pointing out, it doesn't work that way.

Pretty much what I tried to say with: please decipher between the Bible, The Iliad, and Gore Vidal's Lincoln. Trying to figure out what BT offered as proof beyond "it's a book."

What you are missing is... when you say...

If you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.

The believer doesn't think so.  They have all the proof they need.  Others seem to need more.  The search for more proof is ongoing and it will likely never end.  I myself will keep an open mind on the subject... neither side has made a good argument pro or con and I patiently await enlightenment by any source...

[Dog Walker]

Maybe one has the "god gene" and needs a higher power or one doesn't have the "god gene" and doesn't.  Reason and proof have nothing to do with your feelings then.

[BridgeTroll]

Maybe one has the "god gene" and needs a higher power or one doesn't have the "god gene" and doesn't.  Reason and proof have nothing to do with your feelings then.

In a past life, part of my job was to get people with a alcohol issues introduced to AA and attending AA meetings.  Having personally witnessed the wonders in the belief of a "higher power" there is little doubt in my mind that there is something there.  Few can dispute the efficacy of AA as a program to help addicts get their lives together.  You may see the use of a "higher power" as a crutch... but if it helps them walk... I am all for it...

If belief in a god helps people cope with life... why should it matter to anyone else.  I simply do not understand the need to deride and mock it.

[Bridges]

The believer doesn't think so.  They have all the proof they need.  Others seem to need more.  The search for more proof is ongoing and it will likely never end.  I myself will keep an open mind on the subject... neither side has made a good argument pro or con and I patiently await enlightenment by any source...

Right, and the "belief" argument is fine.  People just "believe" and that's their proof.  If that works for them ok.  But its not empirical data. 

You didn't go that route, and I was pointing out the problem there.  The problem comes in when those who believe start doing the, as Ben put it, "mental gymnastics" to make it seem like there is empirical evidence. 

If someone believes and they have "faith", that's the strongest argument they can make.  I don't understand why a person always feels so threatened by science in the realm of god.  We've already established that that person has faith.  If you have faith you have faith right?

[ben says]

I guess I've just always been fascinated with the notion that people deem faith "OK" with regards to religion, belief, afterlife, etc...

But when it comes to everything else in their life, they want evidence. Seems a tad hypocritical.

[BridgeTroll]

The believer doesn't think so.  They have all the proof they need.  Others seem to need more.  The search for more proof is ongoing and it will likely never end.  I myself will keep an open mind on the subject... neither side has made a good argument pro or con and I patiently await enlightenment by any source...

Right, and the "belief" argument is fine.  People just "believe" and that's their proof.  If that works for them ok.  But its not empirical data. 

You didn't go that route, and I was pointing out the problem there.  The problem comes in when those who believe start doing the, as Ben put it, "mental gymnastics" to make it seem like there is empirical evidence. 

If someone believes and they have "faith", that's the strongest argument they can make.  I don't understand why a person always feels so threatened by science in the realm of god.  We've already established that that person has faith.  If you have faith you have faith right?

I understand what you are saying.  What I am saying is that for believers... they have all the empirical data they need.  There are historical figures... there are quotes from historical figures witnessed and passed down and eventually written.  The "belief" does not occur in a vacuum.  While you and I may dismiss that evidence as flimsy in court or in a philosophical argument... it is evidence nonetheless.  It is up to the person to determine its worthiness.  Very clearly there is a large segment of the words population that has decided that the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran contains more worthy evidence than Bertrand Russel and others.  Archaeologists, historians, physicists are still looking and will continue to look for more evidence both pro and con and I suspect this search will continue for a very long time.

[BridgeTroll]

I guess I've just always been fascinated with the notion that people deem faith "OK" with regards to religion, belief, afterlife, etc...

But when it comes to everything else in their life, they want evidence. Seems a tad hypocritical.

We certainly are a diverse species...

[Tacachale]

BT, if you don't mind, I will get to the brunt of your argument in a moment. In the meantime, I must point out oddity in the following statement.

The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Do you realize how many 'books' this standard would apply to? The Iliad/Odyssey? The Book of Mormon? Quran? Gore Vidal's Lincoln? Dostoevsky's Demons?

My point is: all of the above-referenced books are at least "partially historically correct," with "confirmed individuals and historical events." Moreover, they did say "various things and various events that did in fact happen."

The only thing the Bible has on those books? Time. (Wait, never mind, pretty sure Homer came first, among others).

Not to mention, do we really want to rely on a book that professes subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest, toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, and obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites?

Seems like a risky book to follow.

Not to mention the downright eerie (and too coincidental, I may add) coincidences between Jesus Christ and Mirtha (600 B.C.)...

The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:


1)   Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

   
2)   He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

   
3)   Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

   
4)   The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

   
5)   Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

   
6)   Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

   
7)   Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

   
   In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

   
9)   He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

   
10)   McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

   
11)   Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

   
12)   The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)

Common' people...really?

All right, I have very little interest in this thread, but I'm going to respond to this post. I have a very similar argument every Christmas with a friend of mine, leading to some embarrassingly detailed discussions.

1. Neither Mithra nor Jesus were initially associated with December 25. Both were eventually tied to the date later due to its importance in the Roman Empire, being the festival of Sol Invictus and during the period of winter festivals. Source: Roger Beck, "Merkelbach's Mithras", 1987.

2. In Roman Mithraism, Mithra/Mithras is indeed a great teacher, after the fashion of very many other religious and historical figures. A great traveler, not so much, and he did not have 12 disciples (though he was associated with the 12 Zodiac signs). He is said to perform miracles - again, like very many other figures - but none that are all that similar to Jesus'. Source: Roger Beck, "Beck on Mithras" http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SIYTfTYrs1UC&pg=PA276&dq=ulansey+mithras+sol+luna&ei=IDHPSs-HNJPuygS3xdiGBg#v=onepage&q=ulansey%20mithras%20sol%20luna&f=false

3. Again in Roman Mithraism, Mithras was strongly associated with the lion, as well as various other animals, but not the lamb. And he wasn't called the "good shepherd".

4. This is correct, but again, we're talking about the Roman Mithraic mysteries, not ancient Persian religion. Context is important. See Roger Beck, "Beck on Mithras" http://books.google.com/books?id=SIYTfTYrs1UC&pg=PA83&dq=%22mithras%22%2Bbaptism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0EM1T_yHA4uftweRjbWtAg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22mithras%22%2Bbaptism&f=false

5.As above, this is correct, but talking about Roman Mithraism, not ancient Persian religion. And again, Mithra was not associated with December 25 in Persia.

6. Cumont's statements are largely correct, but his 1903 work is out of date. It somewhat conflates Persian Zoroastrian beliefs about Mithra with the later Roman mystery religion. It is true that both Zoroastrianism and Christianity had a "heaven" and an "underworld", but this construction is so widespread that some scholars believe it may be neurological. Christianity and Zoroastrianism are also alike in indicating that the good can go to heaven while the wicked go to the underworld, and both have a flood myth derived from much earlier middle eastern flood myths.

7. As with Cumont, Charles Biggs' 1886 statements are largely correct, but out of date.

8. I can't find any information about this image. Do you have a source?

9. This is bullshit. Neither the death nor resurrection of Mithras was part of either Zoroastrian or Roman Mithraic religion. The closest parallel is Mithras slaying the bull in a cave (the tauroctony); though he did not die himself. Source: Manfred Clauss, "The Roman Cult of Mithras", p. 74, http://books.google.com/books?id=m9z2e7o9MXUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mithras&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x041T9aUG82JtwegibiBBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=cave&f=false

10. Yes, that does sound like something that would appear in that 19th-century encyclopedia.

11. Mithras may have had a special day in spring (ie for the torch raising ceremonies), but not specifically tied to Easter, which fell on different days depending on the various calculation systems used in early Christianity. Again, there was no "resurrection" motif for Mithras.

12. That statement comes from the 18th century Lutheran writer Johann Lorenz von Mosheim. While the Manicheans did have a good bit to say about both Mithra and Christ, I don't know that this was actually one of them.

So: it is true that Christianity had a number of similarities to Persian and Roman beliefs about Mithras, and it is possible that some practices, dates, symbols, etc. were indeed taken from Mithraism. But many of these "too coincidental coincidences" aren't really coincidences of any kind. I have no interest in the arguments for or against the existence of God, or who's moral and who's not. But if you're going to make a historical argument, do it correctly.

[Garden guy]

And not to beat a dead horse, nor to come across as a cruel person, but the fact humans (the same humans that know how to build A-bombs, span bridges over seas, clone sheep, engineer cars and solar panels) can be swept over by such an immature and unsubstantiated "story" about "faith" is pretty laughable.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Thanks...i needed that..its good to know im not the only one...lol...but we r in the bible belt.

[IamAmerican]

Thanks Tacahale for the breakdown of the outline.

Thinking of faith as illogical and childish demeans all of humanity and negates every act of man, good and bad,  spiritual but especially, other than spiritual. Faith is belief in something/someone or whatever. It makes sense to question what is believed. It does not make sense to challenge the act of believing. We are believing people with lots of faith in many different areas of our life. It takes faith to live in the day to day. It's faith that our traffic laws will be mostly obliged and that powerless white lines, dashed or otherwise, will protect us from many accidents. It's faith that many of us put in another person when we chose to marry them. Faith, just in relation to human interaction and involvement with the the physical world is dynamic and amazing, I whole heartedly BELIEVE we would not be able to exist with out faith. I dare say, much of our technological advancements would cease to exist if teams of people did not have faith in their work.

Faith should be and is mostly evidentially based.

[Purplebike]

Google the first part of that "story" (the one that started this whole thread), and you will find tons of commentary on it around the web, including much analysis of the many fallacies and rhetorical tricks committed therein.

It's nice to see some of the main branches of philosophy being thrown around in this thread:

Epistemology: investigate the nature of knowledge, especially: the difference between mere belief, and knowledge
Metaphysics: investigates the nature of reality, what exists
Logic: investigates correct reasoning
Moral Philosophy: investigates the nature of moral judgments
Aesthetics: investigates the nature of art, beauty

I would be curious to know what any of you thinks is the difference between belief and knowledge?

In other words, is there a difference between believing something and knowing something? If yes, when does a belief truly qualify as knowledge? If you don't think there's a difference, consider this...is it important to you that your doctors, mechanics, and lawyers know things--or is it sufficient if they merely believe things?

Epistemology, baby. We investigate these kinds of questions. In depth. Anyway, if you're interested in philosophy, there are Philosophy slams (put on by JU & UNF), Philosophy departments at both JU & UNF, Philosophy topics at the First Coast Freethought Society about once a month...

Most intro to Philosophy courses will address some of the most enduring and most discussed arguments for and against the existence of God.

And by "argument", I do not mean talking loudly, repeating your points over and over again, or shutting discussions down by proclaiming "faith is enough!" or "That's just the way I feel" or "That's just the way I was raised".

[Purplebike]

I whole heartedly BELIEVE we would not be able to exist with out faith. I dare say, much of our technological advancements would cease to exist if teams of people did not have faith in their work.

Is faith in their work sufficient for you having faith in their work?

Or is something else required, in addition to faith / belief, for giving you (us!) confidence in the work of people who in many cases, hold our very safety and lives in their hands?

What is the difference between a doctor who claims she has faith that your heart will be okay, and a doctor who claims she knows it will be okay? Which gives you more confidence, as her patient? Why? What is the difference, that makes a difference, do you think?

[ben says]

In other words, is there a difference between believing something and knowing something? If yes, when does a belief truly qualify as knowledge? If you don't think there's a difference, consider this...is it important to you that your doctors, mechanics, and lawyers know things--or is it sufficient if they merely believe things?

+1.

[IamAmerican]

@PurpleBike:

"Is there a difference between belief and knowledge?"

My answer, belief is based on knowledge. It's knowledge that is the basis for belief. Without knowledge there is no such thing as faith/belief. So, yes, there is a difference. One is predicated on the development of the other. Or, one is the foundation (knowledge) and the other is the house(faith/belief) that is built upon that knowledge. Individual people(myself included) and societies at large(ours included) go through difficult times when faith/belief is at odds with "new found" knowledge. When "new" knowledge challenges current belief/faith it's difficult to digest and accept. Looking into the New Testament you see exactly that...you see belief structures challenged by "new" knowledge. For example, the need for circumcision as a gentile deciding to follow the very Jewish Jesus. The answer, according to Paul, those who insist on circumcision should go all the way and cut off their own d***s (yes, worded differently, that is literally - pun intended - in the bible).

"What is the difference between a doctor who claims she has faith that your heart will be okay, and a doctor who claims she knows it will be okay? Which gives you more confidence, as her patient? Why? What is the difference, that makes a difference, do you think?"

I see where your going with this and yes my first impulse is to say the doctor that "knows" gets more credibility. However, something like this is really a matter of context. To a high degree, my value on the doctor's assertion of knowing will highly depend on my level of faith in that person - based, of course, on my knowledge of that person. If I have a high level of faith in a doctor that "believes" XYZ prescription will work for me based on their knowledge and experience then it's just as credible.

is it important to you that your doctors, mechanics, and lawyers know things--or is it sufficient if they merely believe things?


Both are important...belief in things is essentially the basis of science and progression. The hypothesis in any scientific experiment is simply and explicitly stating "this is what I believe," Right? As I write about this I may actually  feel uncomfortable with any expert that is unable to bring their various points of knowledge together to fuel a belief and consequently bring about innovation.

[Jason]

Why does Faith (God) have to compete with science?  I feel that my love for one supports my love for the other.

My faith in God gives me a greater appreciation for science, visa versa.  IMO, faith and science go hand-in-hand.