TTF, please don't think that I disrespect you or disregard your arguments. I have a lot of respect for your abilities with philosophy. What I do do however, is disagree with you. I honestly think you're wrong.
I'll explain why.
You use the classic "you can't prove love" argument. Which is fundamentally flawed. The field of neuropsychological science is young indeed, but its advances are amazing. By monitoring the electromagnetic fields and resonance of the brain we can determine such simple things as whether a person is trying to solve a math problem or not. Something we once had to take on faith. Complex patterns such as love are a bit beyond our grasp but there will come a time in the not to distant future that we will be able to detect such things as well.
This brings us on to a related point. It would be nice to think that there are more to our thoughts than chemical patterns in our brain, but it would also be wrong. I'm sorry to be blunt here, but it is quite obvious if one follows a logical process that our brain determines mental processes. It is easy to prove by examing the effects of psychoactive chemicals and brain damage. Were our thoughts, memories and personalities stored in an external device such as a "soul" then such simple influences could not so completely alter them.
Even in classical periods the role of the brain were clear to anyone who had the opportunity to study the effects of brain damage, such as Galen, a roman gladiatorial physician.
Not only is there no reason to suppose a non-physical component to our thoughts, but there is clear and strong evidence against such a thing, which I mentioned above.
The idea that religious experience is in some way unrelated to our brain is demonstrably false. The experiments of Dr Parsinger have shown that temporal lobe radiation artificially induces a divine experience, the relationship of which you speak. The air force and space program have discovered that near death experiences are naturally occuring results of anoxia, which can also be artificially induced by a centrifuge machine.
It is quite clear that religion, much like love, is a process of our brain working normally. The evidence suggests that, and no more. There is no sign in anything I have ever read or heard (and forgive the arrogance of this but I am widely knowledgable in many fields) that suggests the existance of a divine entity.
You're correct that I disagree with "scriptural accounts of creation", but incorrect in assuming that that is the main basis of my disagreement. I do sometimes go on about that point, however it's simply because I believe the mainstream miseducation of the public on evolution is a tragedy that I attempt to correct.
Oddly enough, when you say that my disbelief in God/gods is because of a lack of direct experience you are correct beyond what you most likely suspect, for that is the very origin of my atheism.
Let me paint a picture for you. I never ever learned about religion at a young age, it simply never cropped up in my life. I heard a few things here and there, but in my childish naivety I believed them to be fictional and cultural references. I went along to religious education and school and was told to pray and offer my soul Jesus. I thought "sounds good, I'll do that".
I did. I closed my eyes and sort of tried to open my mind and thought out to the universe at large "Hi there". I felt nothing back, it was kind of weird, sitting there waiting for a reply or even a feeling of contact but there was just nothing.
I know why. That "hit them with a prayer first off" thing works because most people have an experience with religion and know what they're supposed to feel. I didn't know anything about it so my brain had no knowledge from which to create an illusion. I didn't feel any resentment, just a "oh, okay, nothing there" sort of emotion. Still, it meant I didn't find any reason to believe all the stuff they taught me in religious education.
From there I've learned more and now disbelieve for more accurate logical reasons, but had I had an "experience" then I probably would have believed (though I suspect more logically and reasonably than many fanatics).
That's where I'm coming from. Make sense?
Quote:I do think though that the other choice is Hope. Hope for a God even though you have not had an experience.
Why would I hope for a god?
I'm not trying to be funny or argumentative here, I'm serious. I don't know why I would want there to be one.
1) I'm not afraid of death. Honestly and truthfully, knowing that death is just a cesation of biological function means that I don't fear it at all. I want to go on living and having the fun that I have with life, but when it's over I'm just happy for it to stop. I'm kind of scared of the pain I might feel from my cause of death and I'm in no rush to die, but I'm not really scared. An afterlife isn't that appealing to me.
2) I don't need a deep meaning to life, or spiritual validation, or moral guidestick. I enjoy my life and try to live it well. I'm naturally equiped with a moral guidestick, it's a part of normal human functioning. I know it's not perfect or some kind of universal indicator, but it's enough for me to live by.
3) While it would be nice to believe an all-powerful being would help the poor, downtrodden and harmed people around the world, I've got to admit if he were going to, he would have already done so.
Why should I hope for a god?
Quote:(This is merely a statement - not some sort of guilt inducing prescription for your life.)
That's fine. I didn't think you were but you couldn't guilt me anyway, I don't care enough about your opinion of me. (sorry, not trying to be rude but you're a stranger on a chat room. It's not like your opinion is integral to my self-identity and I do have a very strong ego)
Quote:I am not sure evolution directly opposes thesism, but to conclude (as Darwin mused) that if evolution is true that there is no room for God
I didn't know he said that... I've read origin of species from beginning to end and if it ever said that then I must have missed it. Maybe it's from one of his biographies or something.
Quote:However, I am a theist and tend to interpret information I see as being support for my position.
Yeah, I try not to but I do the same. Still, I do put a lot of effort into reading religious advocacy books or articles with an open mind, just in case I'm wrong.
Quote:Love, hate, rage, and any sort of emotions have proven very difficult for science to explain.
Love, hate and rage are created by chemical processes within an area of the brain known as the lymbic system. Primarily centered upon a smallish arched structure in the center of the brain known as the hypocampus (from the latin for sea-horse which it sort of looks like). The hypocampus is responsible for emotional reactions and the processing/storage of short term memory. In short this is the home of the "lower" or "animal" functions of the brain.
There are earlier evolved segments such as the brainstem, medula oblongata, optical nerves etc which form the basis of very simple functioning. The are also later evolved areas mostly in the cortex, cerebellum and cerebrum which handle "higher" or "human" functions like logic, memory and advanced communication. However the basics of emotions seem confined to the lymbic system.
Chemically love appears to be related to the neurotransmiter called dopamine whereas hate and rage are far more related to the adrenal systems of the body.
Please consider that I am an amateur who has read a few books on the topic... actual scientific knowledge is no doubt far more accurate and in depth on this issue.