God Vs Science

I don't believe in a Biblical God. I also don't believe in the impersonal versions of god, which are merely intellectualized versions of the anthropomorphic God.

Me neither, edgar.

The question that keeps coming back to me is how our nature on earth could have evolved as a result of our environment and nothing else.

In reply to first post:

The student brings up a very interesting point, but it is easily countered (by any no-brain professor). Which brings me to the fact that this professor is a straw man. Maybe a small proportion of science professors are like this, but I doubt that this is a fair representation of the average science professor. In any case, this science professor should actually be a philosphy or theology professor if he is to put up a fair case for science (ironic, but true).

Anyway, all that is irrelevant. I haven't gone through all the previous posts, but no doubt someone has brought up the point that science does not simply make conclusions based directly on what can be observed. That is a preposterous hypothesis (says the rhymnocerus). It takes but simple logic to deduce that the professor has a brain. The professor can walk, talk, breath, and argue badly, and this can be observed directly by the senses, so is common sense that he has a brain. All functioning human beings have a brain. The science teacher is a functioning human being, as our senses clearly tell us. Ergo, the science teacher has a brain.

Of course, we can go trying to make the situation more complicated. Suppose, perhaps, that the science teacher could be a cyborg. Although no convincing cyborgs have been created yet, he could still be a cyborg. We can then go on to say that maybe that student is not a student, but instead an imposter, being payed by the professor to act as a student, and maybe, just maybe, the professor cyborg is not cyborg professor, but actually an imposter cyborg professor designed to undermine faith in science, and this whole thing a set up. Maybe, maybe, maybe... ad infinitum.

To prevent this senseless speculation, science employs a very useful tool know as Occam's Razor. To paraphrase is, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." One shouldn't try to complicate the situation beyond what is necessary to explain.

As for the evil = abscence of good proposition, I am sure someone else can answer that better than I can. I will have a look once this has been posted.

Yes, when you see an incredible string of coincidences, you begin to suspect that maybe it's not a "coincidence."

To expand on your thesis, I often also wonder why we humans can't conceptualize that "god" that may have created this universe without including the myths and beliefs carried over from centuries past. It still remains a philosophical study, but one would think with all the advance in human knowledge, someone would have addressed this subject for contemporary times and understanding.

Most "religious" people don't want to hear that kind of talk, c.i. Organized religion is, in large part, superstition. Most people cling to their cherished superstitions, no matter what evidence is presented. For me, an organized church, temple or mosque has nothing whatever to do with God. It's just a social organization dedicated to perpetuating and perpetrating the mythology which the priestly hierarchy needs in order to keep their flocks submissive. I often suspect that the well-educated and intelligent clergy -- especially those who are in high places -- themselves don't actually believe very much of what they preach. But it's part of the ritual of keeping the enterpise going. The masses need something , whether it's religion, a political philosophy, or the daily horoscope.

I'm a bit skeptical, Merry. Sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory to me.

I do, however, agree with your proposition that the masses need something. I would prefer it, however, if that something was less destructive to reason. The idea of religion is good, because religion teaches good, but religion is so wild and uncontrolable that it often morphs into something vile and ugly.

Some of us have already concluded that religion is "in large part, superstition." It's not hard to conclude when the good book says this planet is 7,000 years old, but we have evidence it's more like 4.5 billion years old. Those and other facts should be evidence enough for most people who can discern between fiction/myths and facts.

Therein lies the big mystery; why so many people with the ability to think rationally still believe in their religion.

No, aperson, I mean to imply no conspiracy. It's not like a group of preachers get together at secret conclaves and decide what nonsense to preach next. Not at all. A good priest or minister, preaching a sermon, is pretty much like an actor for whom playing a particular role has become second nature. He says his lines with the appropriate emotion because that's the way it's supposed to be done. He doesn't actually think about what he is saying. He is merely delivering the message that his training has taught him to deliver. His personal beliefs don't enter into it for a moment.

Them are the facts. We saw what happened to those tele-evangelists who "sinned, cried, and asked for forgiveness." All a big show for the sheep. Without donations/tithes, they wouldn't exist.

Don't get me started on televangelists. There might be exceptions (I doubt it) but most are Satan's spawn.

Hmmm, possibly. Maybe there is a degree of acting and show in sermons etc, but I still think the majority of church overlords still have faith.

On the other hand, being a preist or whatever would expose them to a lot of Christianity and the Bible which they hadn't seen before.

But if they are loony enough to dedicate their lives to some imaginary big dude in the netherworld in the first place they probably can't see all the crap in the Bible anyway.

I don't know.

On a completely unrelated topic, here's a little story I'd like to share with you. One day in chapel, our guest speaker was the chaplain from our sister school. Her sermon was possibly the most immature and comically idiotic I've ever heard. It was primarily about how her teddy bear, which she'd brought with her to the pulpit, was remarkably comparable to God. She talked to it a lot. Unfortunately it never talked back, but it made her feel better. And also some kerfuffle about unconditional love to the blinking toy. What she somehow didn't realise was that she was undermining herself and the faith she'd dedicated her life to - the obvious reason that God and her teddy bear are the same is that neither of them are real.

To this day I still can't believe that person. I could have used her exact same speech as argument against the existence of God. Of course, she isn't representative of all chaplains, but the point that she made is as valid as ever (even if it was an own goal).

To all who have never taken a logic class...scienctists are the worst and most arrogant...science is based of observable phenomena...it is inductive logic and can only point to the truth...never establish with 100% veracity...

Please Google the problem of induction...or David Hume...

things that are not observable are not in the realm of science...

Furthermore...nearly all posts whether athiest or Christian...function on A priori asssumption...assumption made and not proven that underlie both arguments...

Evil is a moral word...it presume a right and wrong...

No God...No right and wrong...and the only thing wrong with Hitler is that he lost the war...if we won...then the weaker race of jews would be extermintated...no morlly outrage is possible in an atheist world...

Does a shark weep for it's victim...

Lastly all modern science is based of the science of men who were devote beleivers in God...

Science is based on the scientific method...whose begining began with a monk as well as the basis of genetics and nearly all the gas law were discovered by men of devout faith...

Sir Isaac Newton knew more of the bible then science...his discoveries there would have had him killed by the religuos elite...they still lock his studies away...

So this scientist/philosopher wishes to challenge all christians and atheist to pull their head out of thier ass...and realize that both are using faulty logic...

Science and faith are different realms of thinking...rules of deductive logic apply to discussions of beleif...

Thanks all...

To all who have never taken a logic class...scienctists are the worst and most arrogant...science is based of observable phenomena...it is inductive logic and can only point to the truth...never establish with 100% veracity...

Please Google the problem of induction...or David Hume...

things that are not observable are not in the realm of science...

Furthermore...nearly all posts whether athiest or Christian...function on A priori asssumption...assumption made and not proven that underlie both arguments...

Evil is a moral word...it presume a right and wrong...

No God...No right and wrong...and the only thing wrong with Hitler is that he lost the war...if we won...then the weaker race of jews would be extermintated...no morlly outrage is possible in an atheist world...

Does a shark weep for it's victim...

Lastly all modern science is based of the science of men who were devote beleivers in God...

Science is based on the scientific method...whose begining began with a monk as well as the basis of genetics and nearly all the gas law were discovered by men of devout faith...

Sir Isaac Newton knew more of the bible then science...his discoveries there would have had him killed by the religuos elite...they still lock his studies away...

So this scientist/philosopher wishes to challenge all christians and atheist to pull their head out of thier ass...and realize that both are using faulty logic...

Science and faith are different realms of thinking...rules of deductive logic apply to discussions of beleif...

Thanks all...

i'd like to see this fight on pay per view

As much as I'd like to see a robot fight a baby in a cradle.

T
K
O

Maybe what they get from it in other areas 'outweighs' rationalism.

I believe they get some kind of comfort from believing there's a higher power that can answer their prayers. Even if they don't always get positive responses, they are able to feel they are talking to somebody like a big brother who is available 24/7. Many in the Asian cultures visit the graves of their loved ones, and talk to them. They bring offerings of food and drink, and actually leave it there - even in poor countries.

Yeah, I agree.

I think there's more though.
I think it 'plots' them on a map of 'knowledge.'
Also, it gives them a a sense of morality- not in the open sense 'how should I act' but more of a sort of security that they themselves are acting in the 'correct' way.

Lots more things, (sorry I'm really tired)
I did want to go through and make a complete list.