God v/s Science

[David]

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.

When looking at it from a God vs. Science perspective, I've definitely taken the side of science to an extent, asking for more evidence, information than what's been drilled into my head through countless private school chapel sessions and forced church outings.  I've venomously debated my parent's stance on faith and religion over many Sunday lunches, but i've actually had to lay off the debate lately due to my mother being diagnosed with the early stages of dimentia for the same reason in BT's quote. If it helps her cope, who am I to argue her position?

It seems to provide her some comfort.  It's just when people of faith go on the attack against scientific research, facts, etc. It's pretty hard to sit there and not fire back. If everyone could civilly disagree it would be fine, but we all want each other to believe what we believe.

The ultimate book to answer all of life's questions should have one page with 3 letters on it:

IDK

[IamAmerican]

I don't think science and God are in competition. I think that battle comes into play when the people on either side feel threatened by the other. I view science as facts reported and the scientists, themselves, as "news" reporters. It's a very weird game we play when we assume that because there is understanding on a subject it somehow proves God's inexistence. The more I learn. The more I am in awe. So, if anything, thank you scientists and science for continually confirming my belief in God.

I also think it is unreasonable to not challenge belief structures simply because it helps someone "cope" ( with exception of course, such as the situation that David described). Seems silly to me. Part of our modern day society should be the search for veracity, in everything. I don't want to be in a position where I'm willing to let what I think to be erroneous exist in a peers life simply because it helps them cope...maybe.

And, the road goes both ways. I enjoyed watching the Ben Stiller's Expelled (I think that was what it was called). There is a reverse discrimination towards scientists that wish to explore God scientifically or even challenge modern day scientific facts.

[ronchamblin]

The idea of a god is interesting.  One might contemplate the origin of the idea, and wonder who first thought of the idea of a god, and why they did so.  One might wonder if anyone throughout history has ever seen a god, or heard a god speak, or even “felt” the presence of a god.  Seeing?…. Hearing?… Probably not.  However, I suspect that some individuals have felt the presence of something which caused them to wonder if that feeling was a manifestation of a god. 

Forgive me for using the word “god” as I do.  For example, there is a significant difference between stating, “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen a god”, and stating “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen God”.  The latter use seems to be more of a matter of habit, but it also could suggest one’s belief in the existence of a god, whereas the former implies that the speaker does not wish to give weight to the claim that a god actually exists.

A child at first knows nothing of a god, nor would the child think of a god, but only is informed of the idea by some parent, nurse, or babysitter.  How did the babysitter become aware of the idea of a god?  Perhaps by his or her babysitter or grandparent?  The idea of a god is passed from generation to generation by individuals who have never seen or heard a god speak. 

Why does the idea of a god persist?  Current poles indicate that the majority of Americans believe that a god does exist.  Have any of these people seen or heard a god?  Were they too informed of a god by their babysitter, nurse, or a church propagandist?

If there is no clear evidence for the existence of a god, then one’s belief in a god’s existence must come not only from one’s need to believe it, but from the centuries old overwhelming momentum of belief, supported by televangelists, one’s friends and family members who believe, the many churches on the landscape, and the millions of books about a god, written by individuals who have never seen or heard a god.

The need for inner stability and strength is one reason why some individuals find themselves believing in a god.  After all, one can receive inner comfort and strength by one’s belief alone, without regard to the ultimate truth of it.   The actual existence of a god is of little consequence.  Only the belief is.  As one’s need to believe in a god increases, one’s confidence and conviction that a god exists increases. 

Just as one takes more of a drug as needed in order to feel more comfortable or to feel the pleasure of it, one can believe in a god with greater conviction and emotion in order to feel the comfort and pleasure of it.  Whereas the drug affects the physiology, which ultimately affects the mind, the belief in a god affects the mind directly, both having the effect of giving comfort and inner peace to the individual.   

[BridgeTroll]

Karl Marx...

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man â€" state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[

[BridgeTroll]

Incidentally, I am certainly not an athiest, just wanted to weigh in on the silly implication that athiesm is a secret code word for marxism.

There was no implication intended.  My quoting Marx was to illustrate its similarity to Rons posting immediately above mine.  I know you are not an atheist... just as you are well aware that I am not particularly religious.  I do find the discussion regarding the merits of each interesting... especially since there is very little evidence in support of either belief system...

[Debbie Thompson]

What I find so funny is that people on this thread are calling for empirical evidence.  We have it.  People were eyewitnesses to it.  It just didn't happen in the age of TV, so some of us don't believe it.  It happened a couple of millennia ago, so we don't believe the eyewitnesses who recorded it.  These aren't people who were stupid.  By the time Jesus walked the earth, the pyramids had already stood for thousands of years.  Much of the knowledge of the ancient Middle East is lost to us, but that doesn't make what remains worthless.  And let's not forget the empirical evidence Christian believers find in their own lives after we take that leap of faith.  You don't believe in God?  Fine.  Don't.  Your decision.  It doesn't follow you are necessarily right, however, and those of us who do are stupid, blind or misled.  :-) 

[ben says]

Incidentally, I am certainly not an athiest, just wanted to weigh in on the silly implication that athiesm is a secret code word for marxism.

One of the great misconceptions of recent history.

[ben says]

The idea of a god is interesting.  One might contemplate the origin of the idea, and wonder who first thought of the idea of a god, and why they did so.  One might wonder if anyone throughout history has ever seen a god, or heard a god speak, or even “felt” the presence of a god.  Seeing?…. Hearing?… Probably not.  However, I suspect that some individuals have felt the presence of something which caused them to wonder if that feeling was a manifestation of a god. 

Forgive me for using the word “god” as I do.  For example, there is a significant difference between stating, “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen a god”, and stating “I doubt if anyone on this forum has ever seen God”.  The latter use seems to be more of a matter of habit, but it also could suggest one’s belief in the existence of a god, whereas the former implies that the speaker does not wish to give weight to the claim that a god actually exists.

A child at first knows nothing of a god, nor would the child think of a god, but only is informed of the idea by some parent, nurse, or babysitter.  How did the babysitter become aware of the idea of a god?  Perhaps by his or her babysitter or grandparent?  The idea of a god is passed from generation to generation by individuals who have never seen or heard a god speak. 

Why does the idea of a god persist?  Current poles indicate that the majority of Americans believe that a god does exist.  Have any of these people seen or heard a god?  Were they too informed of a god by their babysitter, nurse, or a church propagandist?

If there is no clear evidence for the existence of a god, then one’s belief in a god’s existence must come not only from one’s need to believe it, but from the centuries old overwhelming momentum of belief, supported by televangelists, one’s friends and family members who believe, the many churches on the landscape, and the millions of books about a god, written by individuals who have never seen or heard a god.

The need for inner stability and strength is one reason why some individuals find themselves believing in a god.  After all, one can receive inner comfort and strength by one’s belief alone, without regard to the ultimate truth of it.   The actual existence of a god is of little consequence.  Only the belief is.  As one’s need to believe in a god increases, one’s confidence and conviction that a god exists increases. 

Just as one takes more of a drug as needed in order to feel more comfortable or to feel the pleasure of it, one can believe in a god with greater conviction and emotion in order to feel the comfort and pleasure of it.  Whereas the drug affects the physiology, which ultimately affects the mind, the belief in a god affects the mind directly, both having the effect of giving comfort and inner peace to the individual.   

Couldn't agree more, Ron. Interesting ideas you point out, the psychological basis for believing in a god in the first place. No doubt Native Americans, when hearing thunder or seeing snow, thought it was a sign from 'the gods'. What else would they believe? Who could fault them? I agree with you though that the idea just seems to perpetuate for no other reason besides indoctrination and conditioning. I always pose the question to my Christian friends: what separates you from a Muslim? Answer: different parents.

[ben says]

Karl Marx...

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man â€" state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[

Also, BT, say what you will about Marxism (post-Marx political movements, and their respective "interpretations" of Marx), but if you actually read Marx's words and books, especially on Capital, I find that most people who despise the man would actually find themselves agreeing with most of what he said. Cover up the name "Marx" on the cover of the book, there is some genuinely fantastic material in there. People tend to mix of "what Marx said" with "what Marxists did"....for instance, a lot of people don't realize he didn't say a damn thing about communism or socialism or what it should all look like. His books were analysis, not a method/plan for change.

especially since there is very little evidence in support of either belief system...

Not that you will (no offense, most people don't, they're long books), but try actually reading a Marx book (preferably Capital I) that isn't the Communist Manifesto. I find that republicans and democrats, atheists and zealots can all agree, the man was dead on with a lot of what he said. The problem is getting people to actually investigate, instead of going off anti-Marx(ist) schooling and internet searches. People have a huge problem separating Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin from Marx....

[BridgeTroll]

People tend to mix of "what Marx said" with "what Marxists did"....

No doubt

[ronchamblin]

Quote from Stephen Dare:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Voltaire.
One of the most important philosophers of the Enlightenment Era that produced the Founding Fathers.

I "think" that this statement was first offered by Jean Meslier, the atheist priest, who died in 1733, having left three copies of a manuscript titled "Testament", within which was the quote above.  I do not at the moment have a copy of the "Testament", but will verify it later.  Voltaire of course, about the mid 1700's, extracted from Meslier's original work, and offered it as a version making Meslier seem as a deist.  Of course, he was an firm atheist.     

[ben says]

Very interesting, Ron. Good info.

[amuard]

Belief is something that shouldn't be mixed with science. Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other.  I actually chose not to believe in anything as I grew up which makes you open to more things.

There are some who would choose not to take anything further but personally, I took this as a new challenge to let me be open to a world of more possibilities.

[ronchamblin]

Belief is something that shouldn't be mixed with science. Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other.  I actually chose not to believe in anything as I grew up which makes you open to more things.

There are some who would choose not to take anything further but personally, I took this as a new challenge to let me be open to a world of more possibilities.

"Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other."

I can't make sense of this..... and I'm sober. 

[ben says]

Belief is something that shouldn't be mixed with science. Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other.  I actually chose not to believe in anything as I grew up which makes you open to more things.

There are some who would choose not to take anything further but personally, I took this as a new challenge to let me be open to a world of more possibilities.

"Yes, they have followers on their own but for some, there could be a very thin line that would define one from the other."

I can't make sense of this..... and I'm sober. 

Agreed.