What are your beliefs on religion, god?

[magnifier661]

You do realize that this is, by definition, a self-fulfilling Biblical prophecy? The Bible contains a prediction that is later found to be true -- IN THE BIBLE. Not exactly convincing to anyone but the already convinced...

There was one that was written that's pretty accurate. That the Gentiles; non Jewish people would adopt and embrace this messiah.

 

[MadeFromDust]

There was one that was written that's pretty accurate. That the Gentiles; non Jewish people would adopt and embrace this messiah.

We have manuscripts of the Old Testament dating hundreds of years before Jesus, the book of Isaiah alone is filled with prophecies about the coming Messiah that Jesus fulfilled in His lifetime.

To assume that there was this big elaborate plan to purposely deceive people over centuries is just a silly conspiracy theory. The Bible was written over the course of 1,600 years in three different languages on three different continents by 40 author, most of whom never met or even lived during the same time as each other. There is more widespread manuscript evidence of the Bible than the 10 next best documents in all of ancient history combined! If you take time to actually study and read the Bible you will see one consistent message from start to finish with literally thousands of fulfilled prophecies along the way. Tell me nonbelievers who was the master craftsman behind this deception?

 

[Further]

Would live your life differently if you became a father? What would happen if you found a wonderful woman? Would you change your lifestyle for them?

I am already working on changing aspects of my life that I'm not happy with. But in real life I am a very nice, helpful, thoughtful, hard working person. I am sure that if I became a father I would make some adjustments, but I really don't think I would really change how I live my life. I have found wonderful women, and I am the same with them as I am without them.

I'm not saying that I would make no changes if I found out there were a god, but aside from accepting god into my heart, and going to church, I would be the same person I am today. I volunteer, I have a job that is meaningful and helps people. I only lie if it's funny. I just really am pleased with who i am from a moral perspective and don't think that finding out there is a god would affect me greatly.
I have failings, but they are not moral failings.

 

[magnifier661]

I am already working on changing aspects of my life that I'm not happy with. But in real life I am a very nice, helpful, thoughtful, hard working person. I am sure that if I became a father I would make some adjustments, but I really don't think I would really change how I live my life. I have found wonderful women, and I am the same with them as I am without them.

I'm not saying that I would make no changes if I found out there were a god, but aside from accepting god into my heart, and going to church, I would be the same person I am today. I volunteer, I have a job that is meaningful and helps people. I only lie if it's funny. I just really am pleased with who i am from a moral perspective and don't think that finding out there is a god would affect me greatly.
I have failings, but they are not moral failings.

I am too!

 

[Further]

I am too!

I think it's only SlyPokerDog that isn't

 

[magnifier661]

I think it's only SlyPokerDog that isn't

Well sly is an alien so...

 

[TripTango]

define important : )

Considered "important" by me.

But moral/aesthetic questions aside, I'm curious how you consider untestable questions like "is there a god" at all scientific. Sure, you can reform it into empirical sub-questions ("Has God written anything in fire on my wall today?"), but of course this can't be considered evidence of nonexistence. As we both know, there is no experiment for testing for God, and there likely never will be. Doesn't this make the question unscientific?

 

[TripTango]

There was one that was written that's pretty accurate. That the Gentiles; non Jewish people would adopt and embrace this messiah.

"Some non-believers will end up believing." As far as prophecies go, that's pretty weak.

 

[magnifier661]

"Some non-believers will end up believing." As far as prophecies go, that's pretty weak.

That is actually not the prophecy brother. And it talked about a religion that didn't even exist at the time. It talked about him being crucified and rejected by the Jews. It also went from zero to the most dominant belief today. It blew up only a couple hundred years after.

 

[TripTango]

That is actually not the prophecy brother. And it talked about a religion that didn't even exist at the time. It talked about him being crucified and rejected by the Jews. It also went from zero to the most dominant belief today. It blew up only a couple hundred years after.

I still fail to see how any of those predictions are extraordinary.

And truth isn't some kind of popularity contest.

 

[magnifier661]

I still fail to see how any of those predictions are extraordinary.

And truth isn't some kind of popularity contest.

Lol

 

[crowTrobot]

Considered "important" by me.

But moral/aesthetic questions aside, I'm curious how you consider untestable questions like "is there a god" at all scientific. Sure, you can reform it into empirical sub-questions ("Has God written anything in fire on my wall today?"), but of course this can't be considered evidence of nonexistence. As we both know, there is no experiment for testing for God, and there likely never will be. Doesn't this make the question unscientific?

what do you mean by god? the origin and evolution of belief in yahweh or other traditional human gods can be traced in mythology of different cultures. the specific claims of empirical effects cause by the gods of different religions can be tested, the cultural and physiological origin of specific belief can be tested etc. there are unlimited scientific tests of this type that can be used to judge probability if the definition of terms in hypothesis are specific enough.

'god' is only untestable when the concept itself is left vague/subjective.

 

[TripTango]

what do you mean by god? the origin and evolution of belief in yahweh or other traditional human gods can be traced in mythology of different cultures. the specific claims of empirical effects cause by the gods of different religions can be tested, the cultural and physiological origin of specific belief can be tested etc. there are unlimited scientific tests of this type that can be used to judge probability if the definition of terms in hypothesis are specific enough.

'god' is only untestable when the concept itself is left vague/subjective.

I'm not talking about the various supernatural stories in religious texts (although even those are often not falsifiable in a strict sense), I'm talking about the simple question that distinguishes theism from atheism:

"Was the universe created by a sentient being?"

Generate a test for that, please. The results, if robust and reproducible, should be good enough for Nature, I'd wager.

 

[crowTrobot]

I'm not talking about the various supernatural stories in religious texts

i am. they are the basis for religious belief, which is what is important to most people.

(although even those are often not falsifiable in a strict sense)

nothing is falsifiable in a strict sense. science deals in probabilities, not absolutes.

I'm talking about the simple question that distinguishes theism from atheism:

"Was the universe created by a sentient being?"

that only distinguishes deism from atheism, and thus is not an important question.

also it's potentially testable in principal if not currently in practice (for example we may at some point in the future determine the universe is eternal and doesn't require creation).

 

[TripTango]

We have manuscripts of the Old Testament dating hundreds of years before Jesus, the book of Isaiah alone is filled with prophecies about the coming Messiah that Jesus fulfilled in His lifetime.

...according to his followers, who were desperate -- DESPERATE -- for their belief to be true. It wasn't an elaborate plan. It was a gigantic game of Telephone played by people who all wanted the same final outcome.

Belief is a powerful thing. It can make someone ignore contradictory evidence and fixate on supporting evidence, and it can become even stronger when that supporting evidence is bolstered by tellings and retellings within a likeminded group. I've witnessed hearsay quickly growing into "fact" even within groups that didn't have a strong reason to believe one way or the other. How much more can stories grow when they are passed around for years (or even decades) within a group that has an incredibly strong vested interest in a particular interpretation?

 

[TripTango]

nothing is falsifiable in a strict sense. science deals in probabilities, not absolutes.

I am well versed in science, and everyone knows that only a Sith deals in absolutes. That said, what the devil do mean "nothing is falsifiable"? If you tell me that "all apples are red", and I produce a green apple, I have falsified your statement. No probabilities involved.

that only distinguishes deism from atheism, and thus is not an important question.

also it's potentially testable in principal if not currently in practice (for example we may at some point in the future determine the universe is eternal and doesn't require creation).

a) I'm not interested in belief system semantics. Please explain to me why it is not an important question, and why this should preclude it from being scientific. Can science only address "important" questions?

b) Even if we could somehow prove that the universe doesn't "require creation", this would be far from proof that it was not created.

 

[Further]

I'm talking about the simple question that distinguishes theism from atheism:

"Was the universe created by a sentient being?"

This question just got me thinking, does the universe being created by a sentient being (if that's the case) necessisarily resolve theism v atheism? Lets look at the fact that right now people are creating tiny little black holes. Is it that far fetched to believe that through further research and learning that people won't be able to replicate tiny little big bangs making tiny little universes? The universes would not be designed by a god or created with ongoing intent, but just little afterthoughts of an experiment being performed by sentient beings.

I have not thought this out, I might wish I didn't post it. Oh well.

 

[crowTrobot]

If you tell me that "all apples are red", and I produce a green apple, I have falsified your statement. No probabilities involved.

how do i know you aren't working a miracle to distort my senses?

a) I'm not interested in belief system semantics.

it's not semantics. you didn't specify a god that intended or cares about humans or humanity or intervenes in/controls their affairs. if you had you would have introduced the possibility of more specific tests.

Please explain to me why it is not an important question

i meant it would have no effect whatsoever on humans. true or false there would be no difference to us.

and why this should preclude it from being scientific. Can science only address "important" questions?

i didn't say that. all specific questions are scientific no matter how you evaluate their importance.

b) Even if we could somehow prove that the universe doesn't "require creation", this would be far from proof that it was not created.

obviously an eternal universe would be pretty strong evidence it wasn't created.

 

[crowTrobot]

This question just got me thinking, does the universe being created by a sentient being (if that's the case) necessisarily resolve theism v atheism? Lets look at the fact that right now people are creating tiny little black holes. Is it that far fetched to believe that through further research and learning that people won't be able to replicate tiny little big bangs making tiny little universes? The universes would not be designed by a god or created with ongoing intent, but just little afterthoughts of an experiment being performed by sentient beings.

i'm personally using universe to mean all that physically exists, not just one component of a multiverse.

 

[TripTango]

how do i know you aren't working a miracle to distort my senses?

Yes, and how do we know we aren't actually in the Matrix? Should we ask Descartes to logic his way out of the box? I really don't think we need to go that deep.

Can we agree that science is built on the testable and measurable? And that that which is neither is unscientific?

it's not semantics. you didn't specify a god that intended or cares about humans or humanity or intervenes in/controls their affairs. if you had you would have introduced the possibility of more specific tests.

Doesn't the answer to the first question potentially lead to the second? If there WAS empirical evidence that the universe was purposefully created, the next question would be WHY, would it not? But I'm happy to jump ahead to your revised theist/atheist distinction: "Is there an all-powerful, sentient being observing and judging humanity?" Test away.

obviously an eternal universe would be pretty strong evidence it wasn't created.

Sorry -- I missed the "eternal" part of your quote, and just saw the "doesn't require creation". Regardless, the simple fact remains that, as a question, it is not testable NOW, and therefore it isn't a scientific question NOW. Whether or not it becomes a scientific question at some point down the road is immaterial.

 

[crowTrobot]

Can we agree that science is built on the testable and measurable? And that that which is neither is unscientific?

sure, but my point was what is effectively the same type of reasoning is involved in parsing the probable color range of apples and the probable truth of ancient miraculous claims.

Doesn't the answer to the first question potentially lead to the second? If there WAS empirical evidence that the universe was purposefully created, the next question would be WHY, would it not? But I'm happy to jump ahead to your revised theist/atheist distinction: "Is there an all-powerful, sentient being observing and judging humanity?" Test away.

all-powerful is pretty vague. judging is vague. but still assuming you mean this in the traditional religious sense i would point to among other things all of cosmology and evolution as evidence the universe including humans and human behavior are cogs in a giant indifferent machine leaving nothing to judge, & neuroscience as evidence the mind is a physical construct.

Sorry -- I missed the "eternal" part of your quote, and just saw the "doesn't require creation". Regardless, the simple fact remains that, as a question, it is not testable NOW, and therefore it isn't a scientific question NOW. Whether or not it becomes a scientific question at some point down the road is immaterial.

this seems like unnecessary semantic wiggling. a question that is in principal testable but currently is not due to limitation of resources or technology isn't answered by philosophy or religious revelation or other means either. it doesn't become another type of question. so why infer that it does by saying it isn't scientific?

 

[TripTango]

sure, but my point was what is effectively the same type of reasoning is involved in parsing the probable color range of apples and the probable truth of ancient miraculous claims.

"Probable" color range? You've lost me. In order to speak of any kind of objectivity, we have to at least accept that our current measurements have meaning. There's a huge difference between disproving stories of the ancient past (however improbable as they may be) and establishing (and being able to repeatedly test) the frequency of light shining from an apple in my hand. But this is all tangential to our original question -- I agree with you that science can evaluate the probability of those kinds of claims, even if it cannot falsify them.

all-powerful is pretty vague. judging is vague. but still assuming you mean this in the traditional religious sense i would point to among other things all of cosmology and evolution as evidence the universe including humans and human behavior are cogs in a giant indifferent machine leaving nothing to judge, & neuroscience as evidence the mind is a physical construct.

Cogs? "Indifferent machine"? I see no empirical test here. I see metaphor and subjective descriptions. Show me the science!

this seems like unnecessary semantic wiggling. a question that is in principal testable but currently is not due to limitation of resources or technology isn't answered by philosophy or religious revelation or other means either. it doesn't become another type of question. so why infer that it does by saying it isn't scientific?

But it is, and it does! You and I may not accept those answers, but that is exactly what philosophy and religion do. Everything may "in principle" be testable, but so what? If a question cannot be tested objectively and empirically, it cannot be called a scientific question. Subjective value judgments ("humans appear to be cogs in an uncaring machine") do not count.

 

[magnifier661]

I just love this debate between trip and crow. I will not interrupt so the subject doesn't change. Very interesting!!!

 

[MadeFromDust]

...according to his followers, who were desperate -- DESPERATE -- for their belief to be true. It wasn't an elaborate plan. It was a gigantic game of Telephone played by people who all wanted the same final outcome.

They were desperate for something they knew to be a lie? I don't understand, I believe all but one of Jesus' apostles wasn't martyred for what they claimed to have seen on the cross and then the days and weeks followed. The book of Acts is a remarkably accurate historical document (written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke) and gives insight on what the Apostles endured in their preaching of the Gospel.

 

[MadeFromDust]

[video=youtube;sTU7MfOgDKM]

^Worth watching this man has quite a story to tell

And his website if you're interested:


http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/

 

[crowTrobot]

"Probable" color range? You've lost me. In order to speak of any kind of objectivity, we have to at least accept that our current measurements have meaning. There's a huge difference between disproving stories of the ancient past (however improbable as they may be) and establishing (and being able to repeatedly test) the frequency of light shining from an apple in my hand. But this is all tangential to our original question -- I agree with you that science can evaluate the probability of those kinds of claims, even if it cannot falsify them.

although details of method may be different, my point was i don't see any effective difference in how we think about the outcome. there's probability involved in any question, and how we judge the probability of ancient miraculous claims comes from measuring the world we see now in the same (if more general) way as how we measure frequency of light waves from apples. not important.

Cogs? "Indifferent machine"? I see no empirical test here. I see metaphor and subjective descriptions. Show me the science!

the evidence from evolution, cosmology, biology is empirical. cogs and indifferent machine are just ways of saying the evidence from these fields (all of science really) strongly indicates that the hypothesis of the existence of an all-powerful being who purposefully designed and created the universe including humanity, intervenes in the lives of and responds to prayers of individual humans, and is concerned with judging humans and directing the dispersal of their souls after death based on details of their behavior, is improbable.

But it is, and it does! You and I may not accept those answers, but that is exactly what philosophy and religion do. Everything may "in principle" be testable, but so what?

whether you mean to specifically or not, you (like Gould) by saying this end up directly implying to/agreeing with religious people that science has a constant fixed domain that constrains it, and that actual knowledge of questions about objective reality that are outside that domain can be obtained by other means. i see this as detrimental pandering, lending respect to and aiding the perpetuation of bad or in some cases blatantly destructive ideas.

in my view it is better to set the example for religious people by saying questions about the nature of objective reality that can't be answered by science can't be answered at all, and there's nothing wrong with saying we simply don't/can't know the answers. when you worry about semantics of what is or isn't a scientific question you end up doing the opposite.

 

[ABM]

....the hypothesis of the existence of an all-powerful being who purposefully designed and created the universe including humanity, intervenes in the lives of and responds to prayers of individual humans, and is concerned with judging humans based on details of their behavior, is improbable.

Well, there's a fine word: improbable. Me? Since receiving Christ, I've never lived a more fulfilling life. As I had mentioned before, I'm not into religion. I'm into a relationship. The existence of that relationship has been proven to me time and time and time again. The closer I get to Christ, the more fulfilling it becomes. I'm not talking about an inward relationship. I'm talking about one that involves others....and the world in which we live/share together. As Dick Vitale might exclaim, "It's awesome, baby!"

whether you mean to specifically or not, you (like Gould) by saying this end up directly implying to/agreeing with religious people that science has a constant fixed domain that constrains it, and that actual knowledge of questions about objective reality that are outside that domain can be obtained by other means. i see this as detrimental pandering, lending respect to and aiding the perpetuation of bad or in some cases blatantly destructive ideas....

You certainly have every right to think and believe the way you believe. If I'm reading you correctly, though, to say that, because I believe the way that I do, I'm potentially involved in "detrimental pandering, lending respect to and aiding the perpetuation of bad or in some cases blatantly destructive ideas..."? Hmmm.....with all due respect, I cry poppycock. I'm really quite surprised that you would make such a seemingly ignorant declaration.

in my view it is better to set the example for religious people by saying questions about the nature of objective reality that can't be answered by science can't be answered at all, and there's nothing wrong with saying we simply don't/can't know the answers. when you worry about semantics of what is or isn't a scientific question you end up doing the opposite.

Setting an example? How about, rather, simply stating your opinion on the matter? To me, that sounds a bit more apt description.

People will share ideas and debate these matters until (fill in the blank here...). It really won't change a thing, though. It is what it is what it is. Relatively speaking, "is" is as is does....or something like that.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well, there's a fine word: improbable. Me? Since receiving Christ, I've never lived a more fulfilling life. As I had mentioned before, I'm not into religion. I'm into a relationship. The existence of that relationship has been proven to me time and time and time again. The closer I get to Christ, the more fulfilling it becomes. I'm not talking about an inward relationship. I'm talking about one that involves others....and the world in which we live/share together. As Dick Vitale might exclaim, "It's awesome, baby!"

there's no shortage of humans that develop strongly emotional personal relationships with a wide variety of unseeable entities, most of them mutually exclusive. that demonstrates that humans are prone to self delusion in this way.

as an outsider i'd ask why you think your relationship with Christ is not a delusion while everyone else's similar relationship that happens to be mutually exclusive with christianity is necessarily delusional. how do you differentiate?

If I'm reading you correctly

you're not in this case, no offsense. that post was meant for someone who would lend authority to science when it is available, which you don't.

 

[ABM]

as an outsider i'd ask why you think your relationship with Christ is not a delusion.....

Because I believe that all of creation began exactly the way the Bible prescribes. That said, if I'm gonna believe part of it, I'm gonna believe "all" of it. Makes no sense to me to simply cherry pick what I want (or don't want) to believe in. All this, coupled with the fact that my life took on meaning, relevance, and personal satisfaction the moment I chose to submit myself to Christ. Up to that point in time, I lived aimlessly, selfishly, and, in some cases, a regretful experience. (this, certainly not to say that everyone would have the same conversion experience as myself. The road to Christ stems from many paths/walks....)

My personal walk with Christ has been proven out, and grown, day-by-day, year-by-year through experiences and results.....amazing results! If you'd like to call that delusional thinking, then knock yourself out. As they say, to each their own.

That all said, I understand the purpose of this thread to be one about the sharing of (and, in some cases, defended) "personal" beliefs. This is exactly what I have done.

 

[magnifier661]

It's pretty simple to explain a relationship is not delusional; just as one would explain their relationship with their daughter, wife or girlfriend. Or you can go even further and see how people like us have a relationship with the blazers.

I think it's a little arrogant for someone to assume that believing in God is a delusion. It would be like me telling you that you don't live your mother.