It sounds far-fetched.
But then - so is the big bang theory to my mind.
And the question still remains - how did the universe begin? Science cannot answer that.
Coming to this thread so late, I am sure this has been addressed already. But there are loads and loads of scientific sites discussing it. I do have this book: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X - and found it rather hard going. But it is indisputably about how science can address your question.
No that's not what I'm saying ( for myself). I'm saying that it makes more sense to me that the universe was designed, than that it wasn't. It's not just faith, it's an intuitive sense, as well.
Yes (and I take my hat off to you btw for your posts in the thread.) An intuitive sense is absolutely fine when there is no over-riding of empirically demonstrated facts. It does not mean 'something I have plucked out of the air'. It means 'something that my intelligence, education and life experiences have led to.' The world of hard science is FULL of intuitive feelings that have paid off; we only have to make sure we are not so attached to intuitive feelings that we start to screen out newly revealed facts.
So how does your intuition manage the anomaly of the precariously low mass of the Higgs? Why would a competent designer choose to make a universe which "may - at some indeterminate point - be destroyed."?
No one has ever suggested that the universe is eternal, have they?
So science is to provide accurate details of how the universe came to be the way we observe it, even during the first moments of its beginning, but religions need provide nothing to explain their claims? A bit one sided isn't it?
On the contrary, the power is all with the scientists. Religion must always give way to science or it becomes idiotic. In the absence of any 'accurate details' (and 'first moments' doesn't seem the right phrase; there is a ton of scientific work around the first moments; it is only moment zero that is under debate), intuitive feelings are a good and creative way of addressing the issue.
thats why i believe the sun goes round the earth. it just feels right.
Well for most of us, there is an element of faith of course, as there is with every scientific fact we have not proved ourselves from first principles. But we would be idiotic to discount the universal agreement of everyone in any position of public respect. It's like news items: we have not seen ISIS in action, but trust our sources.
Atheists are likely to be much more concerned about life after their death than you. We have not allocated the job of concern for the continuation of the species to some unknowable entity, or resident supernatural force, or all pervading mentality. We do not put our trust in Jesus, or any other prophet, to have provided guidance valid for as long as there are humans. We accept what seems to be unacceptable to believers - that the future is our responsibility.
In a generally intelligent and thoughtful thread, that is a really shocking lapse into the kind of 'flying spaghetti monster' nonsense that normally infests DS threads about religion. You may have read about some religious fundamentalists who deny things like climate change because God will provide. I really doubt whether you have ever met one. I haven't, not once, in all my years of mixing with people belonging to different religions. I absolutely challenge you to find any evidence that atheists are over-represented in any organisation dedicated to the protection of the earth.
It's obvious to me you haven't thought about the implications of "eternal life". You used the phrase "over active imagination", which implies you limit your own imagination. Through my imagination, I see that religious people accept a contract, with their conscious mind, for which they hope to gain immortality. They do not question it. They simply accept it, hook line and sinker.
And again. To lower the tone of the thread, wtf? What religious people have you met? Westboro Baptists?
Perhaps the biggest problem religious people have is that they have no imagination, or have restricted it very much, so that they can accept the dogma they've chosen.
But I'm sure you'll dismiss all that in your usual way.
Yes, you are perfectly right. No religious people have any imagination. If only they had, they could have contributed something to the world's store of music, art, literature and architecture.
Yes - that's it exactly. There is an argument that magical thinking is wrong and maybe that's what this kind of debate boils down to for most people. But, if you accept different strokes for different folks then I think there is still a discussion to be had about whether belief in God is necessarily a bad thing.
There is, after all, a discussion to be had about whether any kind of attitude to life is delusional.
It seems to follow on to me. If I believe being positive is a good thing, if I believe believing good things will happen helps them happen, believing in a God that will help me love a good life. They all just seem different points on the same continuum to me.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Many use organised religion as a crutch/tool to help get them through life and troubled times, or as a way of not having to deal with the possibility that one day they will just cease to exist.
Others use food/drugs/alcohol for the same purpose. 'We' sometimes do what we have to do to survive - and for some (most organised religions) this means having a belief that they will survive for eternity if they follow certain earth bound rules.
Religion is probably a more physically healthy crutch than some of the others we use, and as you suggest, if religion is what it takes for some people to lead a good life then it can be seen as a positive thing.
What I object to and see as unhealthy is teaching others how to walk with a crutch when they still have good use of both of their legs.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Many use organised religion as a crutch/tool to help get them through life and troubled times, or as a way of not having to deal with the possibility that one day they will just cease to exist.
Others use food/drugs/alcohol for the same purpose. 'We' sometimes do what we have to do to survive - and for some (most organised religions) this means having a belief that they will survive for eternity if they follow certain earth bound rules.
Religion is probably a more physically healthy crutch than some of the others we use, and as you suggest, if religion is what it takes for some people to lead a good life then it can be seen as a positive thing.
What I object to and see as unhealthy is teaching others how to walk with a crutch when they still have good use of both of their legs.
Well I don't think it is a crutch any more than scepticism or materialism is.
NO. Like monarchy and the jury system, religious beliefs are centuries out of date in my view! I attended a Methodist Sunday school as a child, was confirmed into the C of E when a teenager, was received into the Catholic church many years ago, and have read a considerable about Buddhism and the Quakers, so I am not a lifelong atheist and mine is a reasonably informed opinion, I hope you will agree.
NO. Like monarchy and the jury system, religious beliefs are centuries out of date in my view! I attended a Methodist Sunday school as a child, was confirmed into the C of E when a teenager, was received into the Catholic church many years ago, and have read a considerable about Buddhism and the Quakers, so I am not a lifelong atheist and mine is a reasonably informed opinion, I hope you will agree.
I think the founding of new religions is probably on the decrease - maybe politics too - we can only hope...
I agree it is a conviction, as you would know from Dawkin's belief scale.
That doesn't translate that all, or even most believers today, have a conviction about the specific details of how the universe emerged.
I don't see anything wrong with having a belief ( in God or a higher intelligence) and not having to wait for science to give us a final answer. If indeed science can even give a final answer to a religious and philosophical question.
We can't logically change our minds each time science changes its mind. Years ago Vitamin C supplements were good, then they probably weren't doing much, and today if you ignored that and took your supplement, you may have been preventing cancer.
To some extent we have to rely on our intuitive knowledge. Sometimes we are waiting for science to catch up with us.
You appeared to be suggesting that scepticism in itself was a crutch.
Scepticism alone would not necessarily provide one with a consistent world view and a stable sense of self.
I imagine most sceptics use food/alcohol/drugs etc as a crutch in times of turmoil.
Or perhaps I don't mix with the right sceptics.
That's a good one.
I observe that being a sceptic, or a materialist, is a form of identity. There is a comfort zone with science ( and also the brain) as the boundary. There is a certain consistent reaction to anything dubious or even possible if science hasn't endorsed it.
In times of turmoil there might be cynicism employed. " if there is a God he messed this one up." Or " that's all there is, I have to rely on me to get through this."
It is comforting to have set boundaries. I see sceptics as thinking that believers have too loose boundaries ( will believe anything, their brains will fall out), Some believers have rigid boundaries, try to live Biblically. That is comforting for them.
So in a certain way Sartre is right in that we do choose our own meaning, and that meaning is comforting.
NO. Like monarchy and the jury system, religious beliefs are centuries out of date in my view! I attended a Methodist Sunday school as a child, was confirmed into the C of E when a teenager, was received into the Catholic church many years ago, and have read a considerable about Buddhism and the Quakers, so I am not a lifelong atheist and mine is a reasonably informed opinion, I hope you will agree.
doesnt chow mein religion give you spiritual indigestion ? i think i would prefer gnostic tapas .......
From what I understand he saw the world as meaningless due to the absence of God, as I said. The meaningless is an outcome of God not being there.
This is different from Dawkins.
To add, Sartre spoke of the missing God
existence precedes essence. in the absence of an imposed moral code we are forced to chose one. the point of Nausea ......as iris murdoch said, there may be lots wrong with existentialism, but its something you might try to live by unlike linguistic philosophy ......
NO. Like monarchy and the jury system, religious beliefs are centuries out of date in my view! I attended a Methodist Sunday school as a child, was confirmed into the C of E when a teenager, was received into the Catholic church many years ago, and have read a considerable about Buddhism and the Quakers, so I am not a lifelong atheist and mine is a reasonably informed opinion, I hope you will agree.
What beliefs of the quakers do you see as being centuries out of date? Their theological statements are carefully phrased to include Christians, agnostics and atheists, and their core values are truth, equality, simplicity and peace.
(The core values of the Unitarians, btw, are freedom, reason and tolerance. I find it interesting that two organisations who are in many ways so alike settled on a completely different set of words to describe their ideals.)
The theists have broken me and proved their case; only a divine power could create a thread that just. Won't. Die.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Two hundred and thirty five pages it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved God.
existence precedes essence. in the absence of an imposed moral code we are forced to chose one. the point of Nausea ......as iris murdoch said, there may be lots wrong with existentialism, but its something you might try to live by unlike linguistic philosophy ......
I don't think you live by existentialism though do you. It would be tedious to wake up every day and remind yourself life has no meaning. After the realization you have to create your meaning and you live by that meaning. Of course for believers the meaning or essence is seen as there already. So it's different.
The theists have broken me and proved their case; only a divine power could create a thread that just. Won't. Die.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Two hundred and thirty five pages it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved God.
god says "the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" .......
Comments
Yes (and I take my hat off to you btw for your posts in the thread.) An intuitive sense is absolutely fine when there is no over-riding of empirically demonstrated facts. It does not mean 'something I have plucked out of the air'. It means 'something that my intelligence, education and life experiences have led to.' The world of hard science is FULL of intuitive feelings that have paid off; we only have to make sure we are not so attached to intuitive feelings that we start to screen out newly revealed facts.
No one has ever suggested that the universe is eternal, have they?
On the contrary, the power is all with the scientists. Religion must always give way to science or it becomes idiotic. In the absence of any 'accurate details' (and 'first moments' doesn't seem the right phrase; there is a ton of scientific work around the first moments; it is only moment zero that is under debate), intuitive feelings are a good and creative way of addressing the issue. Well for most of us, there is an element of faith of course, as there is with every scientific fact we have not proved ourselves from first principles. But we would be idiotic to discount the universal agreement of everyone in any position of public respect. It's like news items: we have not seen ISIS in action, but trust our sources. In a generally intelligent and thoughtful thread, that is a really shocking lapse into the kind of 'flying spaghetti monster' nonsense that normally infests DS threads about religion. You may have read about some religious fundamentalists who deny things like climate change because God will provide. I really doubt whether you have ever met one. I haven't, not once, in all my years of mixing with people belonging to different religions. I absolutely challenge you to find any evidence that atheists are over-represented in any organisation dedicated to the protection of the earth.
And again. To lower the tone of the thread, wtf? What religious people have you met? Westboro Baptists?
Yes, you are perfectly right. No religious people have any imagination. If only they had, they could have contributed something to the world's store of music, art, literature and architecture.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Many use organised religion as a crutch/tool to help get them through life and troubled times, or as a way of not having to deal with the possibility that one day they will just cease to exist.
Others use food/drugs/alcohol for the same purpose. 'We' sometimes do what we have to do to survive - and for some (most organised religions) this means having a belief that they will survive for eternity if they follow certain earth bound rules.
Religion is probably a more physically healthy crutch than some of the others we use, and as you suggest, if religion is what it takes for some people to lead a good life then it can be seen as a positive thing.
What I object to and see as unhealthy is teaching others how to walk with a crutch when they still have good use of both of their legs.
Well I don't think it is a crutch any more than scepticism or materialism is.
If you call one a crutch, then both are.
How would scepticism offer one emotional support in times of turmoil?
You should ask this of the sceptics. How do they cope with turmoil. They mostly indicate they do as well or better than believers.
I think it consists of having a consistent world view and a stable sense of self that helps them get through situations.
I could be wrong.
You appeared to be suggesting that scepticism in itself was a crutch.
Scepticism alone would not necessarily provide one with a consistent world view and a stable sense of self.
I imagine most sceptics use food/alcohol/drugs etc as a crutch in times of turmoil.
Or perhaps I don't mix with the right sceptics.
I agree and the BIB, I believe, is spot on.
I use all of those as a crutch on good days.
A brilliant song with a brilliant message.
Although suffering unnecessarily isn't kind to oneself, if that were the case.:(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNNxeovdN5U
My kind of sceptic :kitty:
I think the founding of new religions is probably on the decrease - maybe politics too - we can only hope...
There's quite a few here...:D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements
The Sun going around the Earth and the Earth going around the Sun are equally correct.
And both wrong.
That's a good one.
I observe that being a sceptic, or a materialist, is a form of identity. There is a comfort zone with science ( and also the brain) as the boundary. There is a certain consistent reaction to anything dubious or even possible if science hasn't endorsed it.
In times of turmoil there might be cynicism employed. " if there is a God he messed this one up." Or " that's all there is, I have to rely on me to get through this."
It is comforting to have set boundaries. I see sceptics as thinking that believers have too loose boundaries ( will believe anything, their brains will fall out), Some believers have rigid boundaries, try to live Biblically. That is comforting for them.
So in a certain way Sartre is right in that we do choose our own meaning, and that meaning is comforting.
ah ! you have discovered whereabouts of the fixed point in the universe .........
Archimedes "give me a fixed point and i can move the earth ........" (then he fell out of his bath)
doesnt chow mein religion give you spiritual indigestion ? i think i would prefer gnostic tapas .......
put a hand up if u think jesus getting a crippled man to walk is "symbolic" .......
existence precedes essence. in the absence of an imposed moral code we are forced to chose one. the point of Nausea ......as iris murdoch said, there may be lots wrong with existentialism, but its something you might try to live by unlike linguistic philosophy ......
hands up....
What beliefs of the quakers do you see as being centuries out of date? Their theological statements are carefully phrased to include Christians, agnostics and atheists, and their core values are truth, equality, simplicity and peace.
(The core values of the Unitarians, btw, are freedom, reason and tolerance. I find it interesting that two organisations who are in many ways so alike settled on a completely different set of words to describe their ideals.)
Done. No longer a sceptic.
The theists have broken me and proved their case; only a divine power could create a thread that just. Won't. Die.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Two hundred and thirty five pages it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved God.
I don't think you live by existentialism though do you. It would be tedious to wake up every day and remind yourself life has no meaning. After the realization you have to create your meaning and you live by that meaning. Of course for believers the meaning or essence is seen as there already. So it's different.
I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not any worldview could be seen as a crutch by a person who doesn't endorse it.
god says "the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" .......