Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this some branch of Jewish school of thought? I am only curious.
I have heard it espoused much more widely than that. My own mother used to opine that "they" wouldn't let "them" do or say this or that thing if it weren't true. So it extends even to human authority in some people's minds. Whether it is god or the government or church leaders, many have abrogated their thinking to those "in control" and assume that everything is well in hand and they have nothing personally to grapple with. I am convinced that this is much of the appeal of authoritarianism in all of its forms, including the conservative precincts of religion.
I never did find out who "they" were. In fact at some point I heard a comedian take up this exact line in one of his routines, so clearly, my experience wasn't unique.
By "spirituality" I understand mostly two things. First, the opposite of materialism, that is being less attached to the purely material things and putting a greater value on non-material ones: relationships, beauty, nature etc, having a sense of awe towards the world, a recognition of something greater than one's self. Second, a desire to attain greater knowledge and understanding, to grapple with the "big" questions. Do you think religious people are more likely to exhibit these two traits than atheists or agnostics?
The reason I am asking this question is one of the arguments in favor of religion I have come across lately: namely that without religion, without a sense of something greater than himself, man becomes entangled in purely materialistic life, in chasing after the next nice car, or house, or promotion. What are your thoughts on this argument?
I think it's a valid argument -- without God we do tend to become more materialistic.
Having said that, I've known many people that had religion that were believing in false beliefs. I fail to see how belief in a false god or false religious system is any better than being materialistic to a fault.
We don't rationally dismiss possibilities because they don't make sense. That is to fall into Einstein's error on Quantum. We keep it in the pending tray until it resolves - if it ever does. We don't put in stopgap explanations or if we do (like abiogenesis) we keep looking. And the same elates to the First cause argument (and we already did that so can we do without it again?).
Atheist wouldn't work on the level you put it, but that is not actually where it is. Where it is is saying 'we don't know, and we can't rule out an intelligent creator even if the universe doesn't actually look like there was one'.
I don't buy the brain in a vat theory, if that is the solipsism theory, because of unexpectedness. If it is 'alien computer game - it doesn't matter. Even though the universe is an illusion of nothing pretending to be something, it is predictable in many ways, and the reliability is what matters, not what we can bang on a desk.
This is a 'natural' illusion and doesn't require anyone to send it, so even if someone did, it makes no difference. So atheism works and works rationally either way. It is theism that fails ass there is no good reason to make it anything other than a possibility that makes no real difference, and to believe it as a probability, let alone fact, is irrational.
As long as atheism exists on this level, i have no beef with it. Keep looking. Keep your mind open, and I dont mind what you theorize.
What I have a beef with is the sort off "we now know" arrogance that drives some of current thought.
Seriously, i opened a science book it said the following almost literally. "At older eras , it was believed that a life force caused flies and other creatures to suddenly appear near rotting food or other areas where there was a need. This was known as 'spontaneous generation'. However, we now know that no life force exists, and spontaneous generation has been disproven." Aside from the cocky arrogance that humans with all certainty know something, there are couple of things. You disproved spontaneous generation, not life force (which has religious implication than you are trying to sweep out the door with spontaneous generation). Spontaneous generation was disproved insofar as life doesnt pop out of nowhere, but as noted in The Dream & The Lie Of Louis Pasteur, he actually did observe what appeared to be the propagation of life in trash heaps and compost, but chose to suppress this because "nobody but a Creator God can create life". Thgat is, here was a scientist letting ytheir personal beliefs cloud their research. But oh, we dont have to worry about that in this age of "rational" atheism (that was sarcasm). Third, and this is important, spontaneous generation was officially discredited, but if we look at abiogenesis, it is almost identical to spontaneous generation. Either we now know that "nobody but a creator God can make life" or we accept Pasteur was wrong and stop processing all of our food. But more importantly, if abiogenesis could create life in a laboratory, it "proves" absolutely nothing (life created in a lab is not spontaneous, it is planned, making it an argument in favor of design).
We dont know anything without having extensively tested it, and even then, it is a matter of possible bias in results from minute circumstances surrounding the test.
I'm afraid you dont understand something. There is no such thing as a natural illusion. And because something is natural doesnt make it automatically "random" or "not of God". Suppose a forest were to suddenly appear. This would be natural. But is still causal. This is what is mean by having a sender. A letter does not appear on the doorstep, and have the receiver make the conclusion " this has no writer". Everything, including natural things, is causal. It had a writer, designer, etc.
Bottom line.
What we do not know: If what created the universe is a God, worthy of worship.
What we do know: The universe was created either as real or as perceived illusion.
What we also know: Everything, from trees to rainfall to manmade objects is causal.
It is up to you to decide whether it is a deity, or space aliens, or computer program, or even your own mind, that made this world we see. You only get into logically sketchy territory when you decide "natural illusion is one with no sender." No, it had a sender (cause) even if that was decidedly just some man behind a curtain rather than the great and powerful Oz. A perfectly mundane universe still makes sense, as long as you dont defy basic laws of whats real.
What I have a beef with is the sort off "we now know" arrogance that drives some of current thought.
So your beef is with humans becoming slowly and steadily less ignorant?
Because once we did think gods ruined our crops when they were mad. WE NOW KNOW about germination requirements and weather vagaries.
We once did think fits were demonic possession. WE NOW KNOW about epilepsy.
We once did think everything looked designed. WE NOW KNOW about natural selection and the "Blind Watchmaker".
And the list goes on. And on. And on. And. Onnnnnn.
I will grant you one thing, that scientists writing books can be a bit liberal with the word "know" as they assume people will understand what they mean. We do not actually claim to "know" anything in science at all. Not really. And when we use the word we do so as short hand to be concise. But ask most scientists what we mean when we say "know" we mean that the conclusions we currently have are the best current fit for the current data set. Without ignoring data we do have, or inventing data we do not have.
Would that you theists would operate a similar principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Thgat is, here was a scientist letting ytheir personal beliefs cloud their research. But oh, we dont have to worry about that in this age of "rational" atheism (that was sarcasm).
And poor sarcasm it is too because we very much DO worry about that in science. We know damn well that INDIVIDUAL scientists can be blinded by bias and personal agendas and funding and so forth. The entire scientific method is built with the fact in mind. The methodology is designed to counter and weed out such biases and influences, in order to best remove them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Third, and this is important, spontaneous generation was officially discredited, but if we look at abiogenesis, it is almost identical to spontaneous generation.
Except no it is not. It is massively different on quite a few levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
And because something is natural doesnt make it automatically "random" or "not of God".
One would have to question what definition of natural you are using then. Because quite a lot of people take "natural" to mean something occuring without the intervention of an intelligent or intentional agency. Usually specifically humankind, but not necessarily.
So if something is "natural" by that definition.... then it very much DOES automatically mean it is "not of God" given you admitted yourself before that the definition of god you use is, like mine, related to an intelligent and intentional agency. Though you appear frequently willing to hop definitions as it suits.
As for your diatribe on causality, and given that "time" (which is required for causality) was one of the attributes that came into being with the Big Bang.... I can not wait to hear what you mean when you think the universe is caused. Perhaps you should build a model of causality that is independent of time. There would be a Nobel Prize in it for you, I have little doubt.
"alive" describes what we see around us better than any other notion. To dismiss it because of "anti-religious" agendas means there is some underlining reason that observations are dismissed out of hand. Some personal need or broken brain.
To dismiss it because of "omni dude" agendas means there is some underlining reason that observations are twisted to force people to "praise it" and points to something about the brain state also. Some personal need or broken brain too.
Basically (although I am guilty of the above too sometimes) you need to consider all evidence and come to a conclusion. Because a truly spiritual person doesnt turn their back on the evidence they can see, they use it to reinforce things.
It may not be something I would agree with, but if you can show what led you to that point, and I can see how you became a certain type, I can't really argue. A spiritual person has a line of history from the choices they made. A non-spiritual one tends to have areas where its like "and why did you join this group?" and it seemed to be peer pressure vs any real reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
