Originally Posted by MrQuike:
“I have a theory about people who study psychology.”
“I have a theory about people who study psychology.”
I have another about emergents.
Religious people find it harder to understand the world – study
3 of 174
Originally Posted by snukr:
“The latter group don't cause too much bother? Really? Is this an example of an athiests's superior intellect?
”
“The latter group don't cause too much bother? Really? Is this an example of an athiests's superior intellect?
”
It's an example of reality. Stupid people in ordinary life can't hold a candle to the sort of major league mayhem that religion can and does cause, especially when armed to the teeth and yoked to politics.
You may have heard of some of it.
Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“Wasn't part of the reason of the loss of his faith down to the death of his nine year-old daughter?”
“Wasn't part of the reason of the loss of his faith down to the death of his nine year-old daughter?”
That was a major part of it, yes. Annie was clearly his favourite amongst his children and her loss was a blow from which he never recovered. Another was the sheer wastefulness of nature and the cruelty/suffering inherent in life - he famously gave the example of the Ichneumon wasp, which lays its eggs in a living host which then gets eaten alive from the inside out. Trying to square that with a benevolent and loving god ... nobody can do that.
He called himself an agnostic on some occasions, but on others said that his disbelief in a god was 'complete.' So ... who knows.
Originally Posted by snukr:
“Absolute bollocks. Darwin was a Christian.”
“Absolute bollocks. Darwin was a Christian.”
Darwin was only a Christian because at that time it was extremely difficult to be seen as anything other. I don't think he was ever a committed Christian and after the death of his daughter he gave up the pretense and refused to go to church any more.
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“That was a major part of it, yes. Another was the sheer wastefulness of nature and the cruelty/suffering inherent in life - he famously gave the example of the Ichneumon wasp, which lays its eggs in a living host which then gets eaten alive from the inside out. Trying to square that with a benevolent and loving god ... nobody can do that.”
“That was a major part of it, yes. Another was the sheer wastefulness of nature and the cruelty/suffering inherent in life - he famously gave the example of the Ichneumon wasp, which lays its eggs in a living host which then gets eaten alive from the inside out. Trying to square that with a benevolent and loving god ... nobody can do that.”
I wonder how he decided "good" was responsible for "bad".
Originally Posted by barbeler:
“Darwin was only a Christian because at that time it was extremely difficult to be seen as anything other. I don't think he was ever a committed Christian and after the death of his daughter he gave up the pretense and refused to go to church any more.”
“Darwin was only a Christian because at that time it was extremely difficult to be seen as anything other. I don't think he was ever a committed Christian and after the death of his daughter he gave up the pretense and refused to go to church any more.”
Exactly. His wife was intensely pious and it was the done thing to make children go to church, but Darwin sat outside in the graveyard looking at beetles and the like.
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“That was a major part of it, yes. Annie was clearly his favourite amongst his children and her loss was a blow from which he never recovered. Another was the sheer wastefulness of nature and the cruelty/suffering inherent in life - he famously gave the example of the Ichneumon wasp, which lays its eggs in a living host which then gets eaten alive from the inside out. Trying to square that with a benevolent and loving god ... nobody can do that.
.”
“That was a major part of it, yes. Annie was clearly his favourite amongst his children and her loss was a blow from which he never recovered. Another was the sheer wastefulness of nature and the cruelty/suffering inherent in life - he famously gave the example of the Ichneumon wasp, which lays its eggs in a living host which then gets eaten alive from the inside out. Trying to square that with a benevolent and loving god ... nobody can do that.
.”
as a scientist Darwin should just have seen that as evidence for a weak God, that was unable to counter the bad things that happen in nature.
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“I wonder how he decided "good" was responsible for "bad".”
“I wonder how he decided "good" was responsible for "bad".”
Don't follow?
Originally Posted by Mudbox:
“as a scientist Darwin should just have seen that as evidence for a weak God, that was unable to counter the bad things that happen in nature.”
“as a scientist Darwin should just have seen that as evidence for a weak God, that was unable to counter the bad things that happen in nature.”
It's not evidence for a weak god though. Occam's Razor demands that we don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, i.e. that we choose the simplest hypothesis with the smallest number of working parts, so to speak. And the simplest isn't a weak god, it's no god at all
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“Don't follow?”
“Don't follow?”
Why did he think "God" (good) was responsible for the world's negativity(bad)?
Are victims responsible for their assailant?
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“It's not evidence for a weak god though. Occam's Razor demands that we don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, i.e. that we choose the simplest hypothesis with the smallest number of working parts, so to speak. And the simplest isn't a weak god, it's no god at all”
“It's not evidence for a weak god though. Occam's Razor demands that we don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, i.e. that we choose the simplest hypothesis with the smallest number of working parts, so to speak. And the simplest isn't a weak god, it's no god at all”
No it isn't, how is good responsible for bad?
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“It's not evidence for a weak god though. Occam's Razor demands that we don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, i.e. that we choose the simplest hypothesis with the smallest number of working parts, so to speak. And the simplest isn't a weak god, it's no god at all”
“It's not evidence for a weak god though. Occam's Razor demands that we don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily, i.e. that we choose the simplest hypothesis with the smallest number of working parts, so to speak. And the simplest isn't a weak god, it's no god at all”
Occam's razor is just a guide.... it doesn't actually mean anything much. An Amazon tribes person upon seeing a TV might use Occam's razor to deduce that it operates using mirrors that guide an image to the screen. Simple explanation? Correct explanation?
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“Why did he think "God" was responsible for the world's negativity?”
“Why did he think "God" was responsible for the world's negativity?”
He didn't.
However, the god of traditional monotheism, if it existed, would be. We all know the standard attributes - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all that jazz - and that can't be squared with suffering, least of all utterly pointless and gratuitous suffering all around us all the time. The problem of evil is the rock on which many a person's religious belief has foundered and torn itself to pieces.
Originally Posted by Mudbox:
“Occam's razor is just a guide.... it doesn't actually mean anything much.”
“Occam's razor is just a guide.... it doesn't actually mean anything much.”
It's a rather important principle in science.
Quote:
“An Amazon tribes person upon seeing a TV might use Occam's razor to deduce that it operates using mirrors that guide an image to the screen. Simple explanation? Correct explanation?”
“An Amazon tribes person upon seeing a TV might use Occam's razor to deduce that it operates using mirrors that guide an image to the screen. Simple explanation? Correct explanation?”
The even simpler explanation would be that there are very tiny wee people moving about inside a box.
What you're leaving out of the picture here of course is any element of investigation or experimentation to test the hypothesis.
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“He didn't.
However, the god of traditional monotheism, if it existed, would be. We all know the standard attributes - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all that jazz - and that can't be squared with suffering, least of all utterly pointless and gratuitous suffering all around us all the time. The problem of evil is the rock on which many a person's religious belief has foundered and torn itself to pieces.”
“He didn't.
However, the god of traditional monotheism, if it existed, would be. We all know the standard attributes - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all that jazz - and that can't be squared with suffering, least of all utterly pointless and gratuitous suffering all around us all the time. The problem of evil is the rock on which many a person's religious belief has foundered and torn itself to pieces.”
Assume God is good; would the concept of murder still exist? In a paradise with a good God, could a Val Mcdermid book exist?
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“He didn't.
However, the god of traditional monotheism, if it existed, would be. We all know the standard attributes - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all that jazz - and that can't be squared with suffering, least of all utterly pointless and gratuitous suffering all around us all the time. The problem of evil is the rock on which many a person's religious belief has foundered and torn itself to pieces.”
“He didn't.
However, the god of traditional monotheism, if it existed, would be. We all know the standard attributes - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all that jazz - and that can't be squared with suffering, least of all utterly pointless and gratuitous suffering all around us all the time. The problem of evil is the rock on which many a person's religious belief has foundered and torn itself to pieces.”
Of course he did and you've just said why..
Religious belief did not create "evil" either. Man created fantasies about an anthropomorphised father figure.
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“Of course he did and you've just said why..”
“Of course he did and you've just said why..”
Darwin didn't believe in a god past the age of around 40 or so. Have you been following nothing at all in this thread?
Quote:
“Religious belief did not create "evil" either.”
“Religious belief did not create "evil" either.”
No it didn't ...although there is that passage in Isaiah which has the OT god saying that it - he - creates evil as well as good.
But that's for those who believe in such things to puzzle over.
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“Darwin didn't believe in a god past the age of around 40 or so. Have you been following nothing at all in this thread?
No it didn't ...although there is that passage in Isaiah which has the OT god saying that it - he - creates evil as well as good.
But that's for those who believe in such things to puzzle over.”
“Darwin didn't believe in a god past the age of around 40 or so. Have you been following nothing at all in this thread?
No it didn't ...although there is that passage in Isaiah which has the OT god saying that it - he - creates evil as well as good.
But that's for those who believe in such things to puzzle over.”
Can you be civil please? I didn't say anything to the contrary. We've been discussing that loss of faith. As a spiritual guide archaic Biblical text means little more to me than a source of great negativity from untreated psychosis feeding power, money and control craving. The results of most organised religions prove that point admirably.
Originally Posted by nos_nilrub:
“if humanity ceased to exist tomorrow would god still exist”
“if humanity ceased to exist tomorrow would god still exist”
No - not if you hold that all gods are human creations, so the obvious answer would be 'no.'
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“Exactly. His wife was intensely pious and it was the done thing to make children go to church, but Darwin sat outside in the graveyard looking at beetles and the like.”
“Exactly. His wife was intensely pious and it was the done thing to make children go to church, but Darwin sat outside in the graveyard looking at beetles and the like.”
I remember doing the same in school chapel services... Staring out of the window, watching the birds, and thinking "What I wouldn't give to be one of you guys instead of sitting here listening to this boring bollocks".
Originally Posted by LuckyPierre:
“Exactly. His wife was intensely pious and it was the done thing to make children go to church, but Darwin sat outside in the graveyard looking at beetles and the like.”
“Exactly. His wife was intensely pious and it was the done thing to make children go to church, but Darwin sat outside in the graveyard looking at beetles and the like.”
Yes I've read that Darwin used to go for a walk in the nearby woods while his family attended church.
Isaac Newton on the other hand was arguably an even greater intellect than Darwin and his work did more for our understanding of the physical world than almost anyone else in history, and yet he was highly religious from what I understand (even by the normal standards of his era).
So not sure what that proves...?
3 of 174
