Modern Society and the Value of our Values

I'm certainly not looking for "conclusive" evidence -- just unambiguous evidence -- evidence that points to one direction or another.

Almost none of the evidence I see points in one direction or the other -- and I can see no reason to say the evidence supporting one side or the other is more persuasive.

You seem to be saying that there is enough evidence to come down on one side or the other.

I'm just asking you for what that evidence is.

Here is the question: Is there a God -- or are there no gods?

What is the evidence you see leading you to guess there are no gods -- other than that the people who guess there is a God can offer no evidence there is a God?

It may be that there is no evidence in either direction -- just evidence that can be used selectively by either side to support their guess.

I truly am not trying to make an argument here -- just looking for information on this issue which you may have. I really don't know if you do or don't.

You mentioned it may take you a while. Let's put this on the back burner until you do have the time.

Ah yes, Frank, "the guess". . . you will have it on your own terms, no matter what anyone says to you. And that is why i compare you to ol' Billy Graham.

You mean it is not a guess?

What is it?

Tell me, if it seems reasonable, I'll use it.

Promise!

If it seems reasonable.

Frank
writes:



Your so full of it Frank.

You may wish that to be true but it is not. You simply don't have the insights or where-with-all to say much other then, "That is a belief.",........ not much of a challenge at all.


What you say on this board is full of holes and generalizations and esoteric beliefs much like many others.

And In the past I had greater respect for you because you had the balls to admit when you were wrong, but now you appear incapable. You evade, change subjects, us innuendo or don't respond .

I must admit you have excellent evasive tactics.

But unfortunately you don't have the integrity to admit that you are prejudging people with all these generalizations of yours and that your personal distinctions between 'beliefs' and 'gueses' is nonense and insulting to others.


Quite sad .

I know of evidence that points one way and evidence that points the other. I didn't mean to imply the evidence was all pointing one way.



Ultimately this is what it comes down to.



Yes, my call is that there is.



Much of the same evidence that you are probably already aware of. Like I said there is no such thing as "real" certainty. Ultimately it's a judgement call and with the evidence at hand each makes their own call.



My opinion is that there are no gods.



Ok, I will do a quicky and focus on the Biblical god.

Well, first of all there is the whole question about what purpose a god serves. I think it's fair to say that gods routinely offer the following benefit's to their followers.

1) Superiority over non-believers
2) Immortality (this has incredible allure)
3) Meaning to life
4) Immortality of loved ones
5) Someone watching over them
6) Explanations for the unknown
7) Explanation about existence (part of #6 but big enough for its own number)
8) A reason to control the behavior of others.

The allure of a god, IMO suggests a motivation for the belief that is less founded in reality than desire. To be fair one can, and theists do, question the motivation of atheists (not wanting to submit to a diety).

Then there is the history of gods. History suggests that many of our gods are created to fill an intellectual vacum. The sun is obviously not a god but when there was no explanation for it it was a god. IMO there is sufficient historical evidence to assert that humans have a tendency to ascribe supernatural powers for quotidian mysteries.

Furthermore there is the willingness humans have in perpetuating folkloric tales and fallacy. We have all seen how many people are fully willing to insist that Aliens have sodomized them. IMO it's about as fair to ask whether there is enough evidence about the "Aliens have landed" theories to make a decision on the matter (just out of curiosity do you straddle the fence on that?).

Compound this with other factors such as the decline in miracles as the capability to document them has increased. The faerther back in Biblical history you go the more present the Biblical god is. As a person well versed in Christian doctrine I am aware that a common explanation is that God became less visible on his own, with some trying to link this to a Old vs. New testament argument. To my mind this is evidence of the fallacious nature of such tales. I think that the decline in the visibility of the hand of god has more to do with camcorders than his nature. God works in mysterious ways but he sure maintains this mystery through being a technophobe. For once I want to see God write on a wall at a party where guests have camcorders.

Then there is also the issue of the many debunked items. The Bible can be used to date the world at between 6,000 and 7,000 years (I can give you the exact amount and the verses that show this). It does so through the begats (so and so live X years and begat so and so...) and is traced to a historic date (Solomon's temple).

There is sufficient scientific evidence to support the contention that the age of the world, as delienated in the Bible is patently false. So much so that creationists started to evolve their beliefs to a less strict adherence with the Bible.

They tried this one: "God created the world through the process of evolution". going on to claim that the 7 days in the Bible were actualy Bible-speak for eons. True the Bible does use some symbolism and yes it's not a strech for me to buy that the days were representative of a greater period.

But someone forgot to tell the guy who wrote the Bible and in it it is stated that plants were created before the sun. Bad move, they couldn't have survived an eon without the sun. Interestingly this is a bit of evidence used by stanch creationists to refute the next evolution of creationism: intelligent design.

As science progressed the anthropomorphic quality of theism declined. Gods became even more mysterious and harder to pin down to obvious fallacies.

This is a relatively recent development and in my opinion it represents a move toward a less assailable belief more so than it represents the reality of gods.

In history our gods were clearly anthropomorphic. They had our frailties and were often like a soap opera. An uncanny resemblence to the way human dealings with celebrity can be noted.

The fact that early gods were either obvious (now) forces of nature or anthropomorphic suggests to me the sorce of their creation. I find it important to try to go to the beginning.

Where did the gods come from? The sun and moon gods obviously came from ignorance about the sun and the moon. But the next gods were in large part anthropomorphic. The Bible preempts this by saying man was made in God's image yet I suspect the converse.

Then there is evolution. It clearly exists whether or not one believes it is the origin of species. Other factors like bi-lateral symmetry are interesting. If the god is human-like then why the repetition? Many say that god made a wide variety of species but I see a small variety of systems. Almost all species depend so heavily on bi-lateral symmetry that I ask whether he was an artist with only one trick. To be fair others see this as evidence of the same author.

Ok, this is the very very short version so I must cut it short but to summarize I see the following as evidence of no god:

1) That there is no evidence of a god
2) that humans have shown a tendency to create gods for things they couldn't explain
3) that gods have evolved to meet the arguments raised against them
4) that no supernatural forces exist (otherwise they'd be "natural" forces)
5) that anthropomorphic qualities suggest human origin rather than the converse
6) that there is sufficient motivation toward the creation of gods that it (the motivation) can justly be questioned as to it being the source
7) that the initial concepts of gods were largely fallacious, the concepts have evolved to meet the rise in quality of the debate but that evolution is clearly human. The origin of gods is still in question.


One way to look at this is:

How did humans find out about their gods? The religions often say that gods have spoken to man.

If so, why do the gods speak less as the ability to document such cases grow? Why do the gods evolve into more ambiguous forms when anthropomorphic gods start losing in arguments?



I agree. But my entire point in this thread has been that there is no such thing as absolute evidence as long as you allow lateral thinking and supernatural elements (which would break all barriers) into an argument. I was born late. Now the supernatural is almost as validated in human minds as concrete things. Before we debate existence of diety I think existence of supernatural elements needs to be proven. I wish I was around when the first guy started saying he had a message from god that I needed to obey. It would be easier to argue than now, after years of, what I consider, ignorance has perpetuated.



I never claimed to have info that you didn't have. Just a different opinion. Again, my point here is that I can render anything to ambiguity. Nothing is certain where the supernatural argument is allowed and as such I do not consider it fair to insist that anyone who does use the evidence at hand to draw a conclusion is in the wrong (in any way).



I'll save the big one for later Frank. This "corporate email" I'm typing is getting kinda long. :-)

Craven

Whew! I cannot tell you how happy I am that you did not have enough time to do a thorough commentary. (smiles)

I will wade through your remarks tomorrow and respond.

First impression: There seems to be an awful lot of "they can't show their god exists so it seems reasonable to say no gods exist."

But like I said, I'll look it over carefully tomorrow. Got a big match tomorrow morning and I need my rest.

It certainly is about whether it is reasonable or not to assert that there is no god. But it is also originally a defence of having an opinion on the subject at all. Whether existing evidence can be reasonably applied toward a decision that there is or is not a god (though in the above post it deals with "no god" arguments).

The above argument is not so much based on the fact that there is no conclusive evidence showing that a god exists (though I broach burden of proof and argue that the supernatural was introduced without validation, exclusive dependence on lack of converse evidence would negate both arguments and strengthen the agnostic position you sneaky fella). The argument above mainly focused on the history of diety and how we have seen fallacious beliefs (such as believing that the sun is a god). It goes on to touch on indications of a human touch with the anthropomorphic qualities and suite of benefits (immortality and such).

It was a sampling of the factors that lead me to my position but hardly the sum. And the lack of emphatic evidence to the contrary is not really the focal point. If it seemed to rely inordinately on that facet I can add other motivational factors that led me to my poosition.

Great comment Craven!

I only would like to add that all those who believe in Gods have SLOWED DOWN the progress of humanity(I wonder why ). Mainly the reason why they did it was because they really didn't believe in God(s), that's why so many ideas were forbidden by churches, & some still deny them. & they evolve to a more complex concept of God because that's the only way to keep themselves in power, (it's like when monarchies said that the king had blue blood).

It is also know that the concept of God is a human invention. Here's a couple on strange yet probable possibilities:

1.- A leader of some country eats a mushroom that modifies his concept of reality for a small period of time, & during that time he thinks he sees a God(s), but really it's just one person of his tribe talking to him, & then he intrpretates this as a divine intervention, as a God talking to him & he doesn't acept another explanation, & then he starts to consume mushroom to talk to his "God(s)", & he starts a religion, & that religion starts to get more complx & introduces concepts like life after death among others, but the mainconcept was product of an absurd event.

2.- There are a couple of brothers, one is insane & the other is sane, they rule together a tribe, the insane one dreams about a God(s) telling him to kill his brother to rule alone & start a cult to that God(s), so as he is inane he does that, & he justifies himself telling that in his dream a God(s) told him to do that, & he says that the God(s) that told him to do that were the God(s) of the sun, & since theythe people of those tribe were ignorant they believe him & start that cult.

My point with this example is to show how the concept of God could have originated, & how ridicule it is to believe in it.

The discussion has well and truly departed from the question of value. The question of atheism vs. agnosticism vs. theism is highly speculative and theoretical. The question of VALUES is deeply practical . NEITHER the atheist or the theist can get away from the question.

Those who do not believe God exists:
There's no AUTHORITATIVE blueprint for life/ divine source of wisdom/ moral compass. How then should I live? What is important? what should I strive to protect and increase personally, socially and politically. This is described as a state of nihilism - but I would argue it is not a blank state of infinite possibilities as suggested by Twyvel.

Those who do believe in God:
Modern society is no theocracy and few would wish to make it so. I live in a secular society that is multicultural. In this society religious values are labelled as 'personal' and 'private'. The theist MAY have something over the atheist is as much as they have a source of fully hatched personal values around which to build their life, but that is as far as it goes. They face the same problem as the atheist/agnostic when it comes to social values - what kind of society do we want to create/ live in? They cannot impose their values as effectively as in an Islamic state - and many would not wish to live in a society governed in this way anyway. Also - such believers live out their lives enbedded in social values they don't share on the basis of any religious commitments. These (call them secular if you wish) values may or may not be good... For these reasons the question remains:

What are the values that presently structure the social, public, political world of modern society? What is their value? Come forward whatever your religious persuasion and put your values in the balance. Because the socio-political arena is NOT value-free. It has values that I would argue are having a destructive effect on our lives and they need to evolve. So all those who care about there society and their world, whatever their religious persuasion, need to join in a constructive debate about the values that move them, motivate them and make life ast its best (with honesty).

I'm looking forward to responding to posts made by Twyvel, Dux, BoGowo, , Setanta and Cecerone Imposter but won't be able to for a littel while...

Excellent Craven;
And I would like to add a couple of very simple "biggee"s;

Religion was the initial itteration of "television".
(And the "masses" are now "controlled" by the real thing!)

and

In no court of law, where the concept of "reasonable doubt" is the guiding criteria, could the existence of god, or any supernatural being of any kind be the finding of a jury of honest, fair, intelligent, and unbiased folk.
(Mind you, on this subject, you could not put together such a jury!)

Everything else that follows this start, Craven, is, in my humble opinion, similar to the arguments I have given dozens upon dozens of times over in Abuzz in who knows how many different threads.

I am in complete agreement with you that there appears to be more than enough evidence for a person to make a reasonable guess about whether or not the god of the Bible is a real entity -- or merely the fictional god of a mythology gone amok. And I have certainly made that guess -- offered that opinion.

It is my opinion (guess, estimate, supposition) that any dispassionate, objective analysis of the Bible, would lead an intelligent, logical person to conclude that the book essentially is a (rather self-serving) history of the early Hebrews -- and that it has a fanciful and not especially sophisticated mythological theology interspersed.

I think enough evidence exists to make a meaningful guess that the god of the Bible has about the same reality as does Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. Just barely!

I also think your construct of the reasoning behind why gods exist - the thought processes that seem to go into the development of "goodness" is right on target - and I think enough evidence exists to make the kinds of guesses or opinions you have made - and with which I concur.

I also think (suppose, guess, conjecture) that the gods of the various other so-called Holy Books -- are of the same composition as the Bible - and have the same genesis of development.

That having been said, however, I am still left with the question:

But what about arguments that gods do not exist?

When are you going to make them?

You wrote: "My opinion is that there are no gods."

It is a far journey, Craven, from: "There is enough evidence to make a meaningful guess that the god of the Bible is a fictional character" to "There are no gods."

I am interested in why you suppose there are no gods, Craven. I am interested in the reasoning that goes into that supposition or opinion.

Can you deal with that question more specifically?

Hey Craven (This should have been posted before my last post, but I screwed up.)

I will respond to your post in my next post, but I wanted to mention a few things outside my response.

It may well be that we will never have a meeting of the minds on whether or not any evidence exists which is sufficient to choose between the two possibilities "There is a God" "There are no gods."

You may see the evidence in a way that allows you to make a choice one way -- and others may see the evidence in a way that allows them to make a choice directly in opposition to yours -- and I may see it in a way that simply prevents me from taking a position in either direction.

Decent, well-intentioned, intelligent, logical people can look at the evidence available and come down on the side of "There is a God." By the same token, decent, well-intentioned, intelligent, logical people can look at the evidence available and come down on the side of "There are no gods."

But make no mistake about this: Decent, well-intentioned, intelligent, logical people can look at the evidence available and come down on the side of "There is not enough evidence for me to make a reasonable choice on this question."

I agree. My initial point (from which I deviated greatly is that if we really wax philosophical there is nothing we can be sure about. Yet that uncertaintly does not inhibit us from making a judgement call.

Sure judgement differs but my whole point is that at some point you have to take the facts at hand and make a decision. Be it yea nay or dunno.



Yup, and my point was that all three are acceptable in and of themselves. I might question the judgement of some positions but do not think the fact that it's not an open and shut case should preclude a yea or nay.



eing a decent intelligent person I agree. :-)

I have been all three. Theist, then agnostic, now atheist.



I agree. I was firmly in that camp for years. It was a gradual thing. From theist to agnostic with a bit of "just in case" theism in between.



I touched on that argument a bit. We seem to agree about fallacious gods like the sun and you seem to have agreed on the Biblical one being fictional.

The wealth of obviously fictional gods (let's use a very nonoffensive sun god here) suggests to me that the evolution to more abstract non-anthropomorphic is due to the increasing knowledge of mankind helping to debunk some of the older, less defensible gods.

In the past gods were largely the kind that is easily debunked and less widespread in belief. Now we see an evolution among theism to more abstract "higher power" type gods and I personally see that as a way to fulfill some of the nicities of having a god (a driving force in the Universe making life meaningful etc) without any of the kind of things that make one's god easily ridiculed as fantasy (e.g. your god's "word" clearly stating an age for the earth that has been emphatically disproven etc etc etc. No need for the ad nauseum).

So to sum it up. I think the No Biblical God to no gods step is easy for me to make as I see the evolution of theism as responding to advancement in human knowledge and to more defensible thesit positions.

Should the advancement of human knowlege persist I think the evolution will shift into less "conscious" and intelligent gods to more abstract "karma" type beliefs though I do not see a great likelihood of the abolition of superstitions altogether.

BGW,

I think the entertainment factor you mention is highly relevant. Very much so.

It is both relevant in history and in my personal life in whcih I encountered many people who saw the prohibition of television (and other "worldly" entertainment) as an impediment to Godliness.

On some level they are right (though not for the reasons they cite). On some level religion has served as a social service or entertainment.

Pumpkinhead,

If you'd like I can split off the discusion about theism to a new topic. Sorry to digress here.

Could you flesh this out a bit, Craven, because I see it to be at the crux of what little disagreement still remains between us on this isse.

Why would one "have to" take the facts at hand and make a decision?

And why must the decision be "yea" or "nay>"

Why can't it be "too close to call?"

In an earlier post, you used the term "fence sitting." I left it be because I really don't want to get into an agument on this -- but why is someone saying "I don't know -- and there is not enough evidence for me to make a meaningful guess (or estimate)" not being decisive?

I think it is very decisive -- and incidentially, I think it is more logical than choosing one way or the other if one truly does not see a reasonable preponderance of evidence in one direction or the other.

I see it as ethical -- I see it as responsive.

So talk to me a bit about this. Maybe you will say something that will change my mind -- and make either "Yes there is a God" or "NO, there are no gods" more reasonable for me than "Beats the Hell out of me!"


More to this same point:



No, it does not preclude one -- and I acknowledge that unconditionally. But because a "yea" or "nay" is not precluded, does not mean choosing one or the other makes more sense than "Too close to call."


ASIDE:

Normally, the atheistic position in this doesn't really bother me one way or the other. I do have lots of problems with guesses, estimates, beliefs that end up the other way on the question -- because those guesses, estimates, beliefs often lead to problems for society as a whole in that, if enough people guess, estimate, believe a certain way, their "beliefs" become a norm that I must follow or be punished in some way. (I mean through laws here, not through Hell!)

The guess/estimate/belief the other way often effects my life in unnecessary and intrusive ways -- so I do everything I can to speak to the dangers of making these kinds of guesses, estimates, beliefs.

Back to the original question, some values are cultural and/or subjective such as individual freedom vs unquestioned obedience, but other values are universal: we value that which maximizes our chances for survival, reproduction, and happiness. All human cultures value family ties and tribal loyalty with rules for distribution of resources and interactions between people (resolution of conflict, permissible sex, distinction between murder and lawful killing, etc.) Children, comfortable homes, good food, wealth/status, and avoidance of pain are valued with very few exceptions.

Thankfully many societies have progressed beyond the Judeo-Christian values of intolerance, slavery, submission of women and fear of a vengeful God.

Nihilism and theism are not our only choices. Atheism, humanism, and agnosticism are meaningful alternatives. A belief in gods or a transcendent self is not necessary for people to have values, value other beings, and find meaning in our own existence here and now.

My life is valuable to me (and, I like to think, to those who know me) both because I enjoy the experiencing of it and because I think that my existence contributes to the progress of the human race.

It doesn't matter that I don't know whether we have any purpose or what it may be, or that the human race may have evolved out of recognition or even be extinct in a few million years. It doesn't matter that the earth will be dead in a few billion years and that the known universe will eventually come to an end.

It doesn't matter that "I" will most likely cease to exist when my brain decays.

What matters is that "I" am a sentient being who has determined that there are two absolute values in life:

1. Do not cause unnecessary pain to any other being.

2. Love and educate your children.

Everything else is optional, but I suspect that if there is a supreme deity and a final judgment or reincarnation of souls, extra points will be given to those who loved unconditionally and voluntarily aided others in their journey through life.

Since we're talking about values, I thought the following to fit very nicely. c.i.
*******************
--- Remember, there is a time and place for everything ...

A married couple is driving along a highway doing a steady forty miles per hour. The wife is behind the wheel. Her husband suddenly looks across at her and speaks in a clear voice.

"Darling," he says. "I know we've been married for twenty years, but I want a divorce." The wife says nothing, keeps looking at the road ahead but slowly increases her speed to 45 mph.

The husband speaks again. "I don't want you to try and talk me out of it" he says, "because I've been having an affair with your best friend, and she's a far better lover than you are."

Again the wife stays quiet, but grips the steering wheel more tightly and slowly increases the speed to 55. He pushes his luck. "I want the house," he says insistently. Up to 60.

I want the car, too," he continues.-65 mph.

"And," he says, "I'll have the bank accounts, all the credit cards and the boat." The car slowly starts veering towards a massive concrete bridge. This makes him a wee bit nervous, so he asks her: "Isn't there anything you want?"

The wife at last replies -- in a quiet and controlled voice. "No, I've
got everything I need." she says.

"Oh, really?" he inquires, "So what have you got?" Just before they
slam into the wall at 65 mph, the wife turns to him and smiles. "The airbag."