This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Has religion outlived it's usefulness?
I'd like to start this conversation with a quote from Richard Dawkins:
"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"
The Guardian, October 11, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/11/afghanistan.terrorism2
So my question is - assuming religion ever did serve a useful function for humanity, is it perhaps time that we get beyond religion and develop other tools to provide for human needs?
NOTE: To people making comments - I encourage you to not only give a brief response to the main question but also try to respond to one or more of the other comments. Keeping it brief, respectful and perhaps phrased as a question will help generate a true conversation. Thanks. And come back and visit when you can.
Closing Statement from Tim Colgan
Many thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. Upon starting this conversation I was concerned that ted wasn't the right place, fearing it would be dominated by a single mind-set. But the diversity of opinions expressed here is amazing. These threads represent a true mosaic of human opinion. Perhaps not a perfect sampling, but a fascinating cross-sample of personal beliefs. The conversations themselves reveal a bit about humanity - filled with sibling rivalries, with moments of compassion. Highly recommended to anyone to take the time to read.
Although it's probably obvious from the conversation's introduction that my intentions included an agenda, that agenda was soon blown out of the water. We had trouble coming to agreement on the definition of religion. Whether it's called religion or not, humans need institutions to provide it's function. To me religion is most symbolized by it's place - temple, mosque, synagogue, church... A place where people gather to share their humanity and ponder the infinite, and their place in it. Perhaps ted is one of those places.
Thanks again to all who contributed. It has been truly enlightening. That's to say, each of you has shone light into some aspect of our topic.
Mario Tinoco
If you think God is the creator and that you should praise him, at least ask yourself why you are doing this. Is it for your happiness or you are simply doing that because your community or your priest or the pope says to you to do so?
If you think the science has the answer and that you were a point of materia on the beginning, ask yourself if you think that way because it makes you feel better or is it because you think it's stupid to believe in deities.
What do you believe? Ask yourself if that is what you really believe. If it makes you feel good about yourself and your life, keep on walking this way. If it doesn't, search for your light. But remember, doubt everything.
Wayne Busby 30+
Wayne Busby 30+
The Scientist and the Sage are speaking.
I am truly happy to see this topic discussed with (for the most part) humility and mutual respect.
With seven days left, how would you all feel about starting a thread which discusses where there might be a concurance of opinions between the two camps, on issuse like the sciences, morality and any other matter you think might be of merrit?
It should be at least as constructive and interesting no?.
Tim Colgan 50+
Yeh, the number of comments has gotten pretty high, but the number is starting to decrease (was up to 548 last night). Appears that a comment I made about keeping postings short was taken to extreme.
To me the beauty of this discussion is the diversity of voices that are heard ... and the interaction between the voices. I know that it seems to get kind of acrimonious at times, but everyone has their own way of expressing themselves. But in the end you see that everyone does want to communicate.
Your idea sounds great. But did you mean another thread within this conversation or another conversation entirely? Either way you've got my support.
Tim Colgan 50+
I can't reply to the thread where you asked for it, but this should get you to the thread with my links:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/339/has_religion_outlived_it_s_use.html?c=204891
Ibthaj Khilji
Tim Colgan 50+
If you wish me to elaborate, let me know.
E G 10+
And Tim I 've read your posts and I disagree , more details at your post.
Tim Colgan 50+
I'm really just trying to gather as many viewpoints as possible.
E G 10+
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan 50+
Are you referring to the five page post that ends with the question:
"Does this answer your question?"
I have read it several times. I guess I owe you a response. The answer is "yes".
Kathy - once the threads get to be three levels deep and people add long commentary, I find it best to start a new thread, otherwise other people never see new posts.
If your interested in exploring the topic of consciousness, it seems there is another ongoing conversation here:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/670/what_is_the_nature_of_consciou.html
It is an interesting topic in itself, but not the main focus here.
In regards to starting other conversations, I've contributed to other conversations but only started this one. One is enough to manage at a time.
Kathy: If you're interested in exploring a theme within our topic, you should start a new thread (top of this page in box below "What do you think?"). Start with a short statement of your viewpoint and end with a question meant to elicit a meaningful response. Try it.
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan 50+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Did you expect me to be polite after you deemed me a subhuman because I am not "spiritually evolved?"
You are bringing back the 18th century rationalist mentality except you switched the terms and definitions of what it is to be human. In the 18th century the human was defined as the rational animal and that led to justifying many atrocities, from colonalization to slavery, in your eyes the human is the spiritual animal. You are just switching the terms but you are ultimately establishing an elitist philosophy of human nature based on "spirituality." How can you tell me that's not a dangerous way to think?
It's one thing to be spiritual it's another to think you are above others because you are spiritual. In my eyes you are still just an evolved monkey (and I don't mean that as an insult).
Tim Colgan 50+
Dr. Gary Parker. From Evolutionist to Creationist
...
===
Talk about cherry picking Peter. They had to go through a lot of cherries to find that one. Here is some more info on the guy in the video:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry
Thanks for the video though. Helps me to understand the alternate viewpoint.
Peter Law
No Cherries, I have as many as you like, if your interested.
Wiki tends to be ever so slightly biased against creationists; not unlike TED. Thanks for watching.
:-)
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Yet we (as a society) still stick to it.
I invite you to a separate discussion on an idea on how to help people start letting go of it:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/901/atheists_you_need_to_rethink.html
E G 10+
This are tow points about where we shouldn't look after God(the God from christianity):
1. if God exist we can't find out too much about Him from science because science is dealing with what God have created (the science is COMING from He's creation).... How could someone say that I don't belive in the existence of God , because I didn't find anything in science about Him?(of course you didn't)...it isn't the science business to say if God exist or not because science is about He's creation not about Him ...........so all the scientists are talking rubbish about it if they say us that God doesn't exist.
2. Let's turn now to philosophy........ the philosophy is created by the human mind(by our thinking) ok? but the human mind is very limited (I think it's obvious that) while God(if there is one) is perfect , is unlimited and from it results that we can't rely on philosophy to say us if God exist or not........our mind is very limited while God is perfect......how could we understand Him?how could we find out about Him there? .......so from that results that we can't conceive God and all philosophers are talking rubbish if they say us something about the existence of God relying on philosophy then.
And not forget the science isn't against the Bible.
To say something like: "I'm relying on science and on philosophy when I'm saying that God doesn't exist" ........that's the most unscientific thing that you ever could say, because I repeat again isn't the science business to say something about the existence of God .
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I mean everyone can have an idea that isn't backed by anything and that's fine, until you let it actively guide your life in a way that affects others. Evangelicals trying to convert, Creationists using religion to deny science, people denied the simple right of freedom of expression because of so-called blasphemy, homosexuals being condemned (not to mention any of the horrible deeds of the past)...if you have an idea, for which the evidence is void, you should not expect more respect from others than people who believe in ghosts or psychics.
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Equality, God's unprovability is proof of nothing at all. It's completely illogical. Scientific evidence doesn't vary depending on perspective, that's the point of scientific evidence. If you've got some scientific evidence, bring it forward.
Also you never answered my post where I ask you what you mean about the universe being as quantum as it can be...which again...doesn't...make...sense...
Also I've provided backing to my "this is false" statements about the old testament. Please reply to that too. I'm genuinly curious how you fit your old testament literalism with modern science.
E G 10+
ok I'll answer you now, I've said there about the creation of the univers being like the most quantum that could ever be : " And God said, Let there be..........." "And God said, Let there be.." that's the most quatum that could ever be : to say and to appear.(and I know enough about quantum mechanics).
"It says the Moon is a source of light" it don't say that (have you ever read the Bible ar the Genesis at least).
"the Earth being a circle is another simple one" again the Bible have never said that the earth is a circle (this was said by the some churches).
and now man, we have to clarify something, you all the time use evolution as explication (and seems to me that you confuse the evolution with the science , sorry if I'm wrong) for me evolution is another wrong worldview so I please you to explain what you wanna say from a more neutral perspective as I'm doing..........you can praise the evolution theory but from a more neutral state, ok?(thank you).
AS I said the creation was just a matter of days( I'm speaking now from a creationist perspective) and thus don't matter too much who was created first.
"The theory of evolution is also the reason why you cannot have two people, Adam and Eve as progenitors of a whole species." the evolution theory isn't a reasoon for me ,( I thought you noticed that) so please give me another reason for which the Adam an Eve couldn't be our ancestors.(about incest ....was a different situation then and thus it can't be called incest, think at that situation ).
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Saying some gibberish and then saying you understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean you understand quantum mechanics. The world cannot be "quantum" as "quantum" refers to an amount not a state. that's like saying the world is as light-year as it could be. I don't believe one second you understand anything about quantum mechanics.
The passages I refer to are actually in the Bible:
Genesis 1:16-17 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers."
The argument about Adam and Eve remains the same. Incest leads to an increase in lethal pairs of genes. It's a known fact. Unless you also want to deny the field of genetics as you do with evolution.
Now that I know you are a Creationist, I know I've wasted my time. You claim that your God does not deny science and yet you embrace the views of Creationism which go against the well-established theory of evolution (which is not a worldview, it's science). If you're a young Earth Creationist, I'd like to point out that the theory of relativity proposed by Einstein does conflict with your views as this theory sets a limit at which matter can travel (the speed of light). Given that we receive light from stars that are millions of light-years old, how can you fit that with your view that the Universe is a mere 6,000 years old? If that were the case, many star's light would not have reached us yet. how has it reached us already given Einstein's strict laws of relativity? Geology also does not fit into your view. Radioactive decay is also in conflict with your views (I bet you're not a fan of carbon dating and the like).
E G 10+
http://www.reasons.org/.
Tim Colgan 50+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Tim Colgan 50+
E G 10+
And I wasn't talking about a state , I'm really interesting how you understood that.(I was talking about that very less intuitive particles way of taking values , I tried to bring the Bohr principles to extreme.......anyway.. .... ).
Genesis 1:16-17 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.".....but here isn't say anything about the fact that moon is a source of light , it say just that the moon lights govern the night.
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers." how I understand, here it is said about the circular surface of the earth, not about the fact that earth is a circle.(i
Adam and Eve have had a lot of children including daugthers and in Mesopotamia at that time wasn't something unusual to get married with your sister.(look at the archaeological evidence from Ur ,Uruk and others localities) and in the Bible are mentioned and others posibilities.
I never said that I'm a creationist , I've just said that creation is in my opinion more plausible than evolution(with other words of course)...... evolution is a worldview rooted in science , more exatcly it rest upon the scientific facts interpetations.
From creationist perspective it's easy to give an answer to this so called problem with this huge distances between earth and other stars. Look an explication: at the beginning God have created as it is said in the Bible all celestial corps , and it's posible that the light to reach then suddently on the earth withuot traveling all the distance , it's what I call the God-hand ,and from then the light is traveling ( then was the beginning and then when the things was created was set and the natural laws including what say us relativity) ..........this could be an explication .
I accept the carbon dating , what I don't accept is the interpetation of this scientific facts
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Genesis 1:16-17 the light of the Sun (which in both case is what illuminates Earth) is treated as two different lights. The Moon is treated as its own light which it isn't.
Isaiah 40:22, in what way is the surface of the Earth circular? There is nothing circular about the surface of the Earth. The Earth is a spheroid. That much is true. But given that the surface of the Earth wraps around in all directions, there really is nothing circular.
In the case of Adam and Eve, the fact that Adam and Eve had a lot of children or that incest was somehow alright back then (so you accept moral relativism?) doesn't change the fact that genetically, they probably could not make it past 2-3 generations because of genetic similarity and lethal pairs of genes (if we have two copies). Everyone has copies of recessive genes which are lethal. If you aquire a pair of these genes you die. Obviously, if you reproduce with someone who shares the same parents, you will have a very high chance of aquiring lethal pairs and this will increase with following generations. All of Adam and Eve's grandchildren would be either extremely sickly or dead.
Evolution is not a worldview. Opinions don't count with science, only evidence. The theory of evolution follows the rigorous scientific methodology and to go against it is to deny so many known facts in biology.
Your explanation of how light trumped the speed of light at some time before the laws of nature were instaured contradicts so many known facts about the Universe such as the fact that many of the stars that we see in our sky that are millions of years old are 2nd generation stars, that is, stars that were formed from the explosion of the first stars. They were bound by the speed of light and yet we see them.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Carbon dating has been cross-correlated with other methods of dating closed-systems, you cannot just pretend that somehow nature gets its quantities wrong just to fit your idea of a young Earth.
Your understanding of science is extremely poor, but I suspected that already, especially when you said the world is as quantum as can be (which doesn't mean anything in the English language). You cannot go from a fixed conclusion and search out some convenient premise, you start with premises that lead to a conclusion.
E G 10+
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in." I think it's enough clear that here it isn't said anything about the earth having a circular form. ....(and the same for the case with the moon)
"Your understanding of science is extremely poor, but I suspected that already, especially when you said the world is as quantum as can be (which doesn't mean anything in the English language)".....I said the creation is the most quantum that could ever be and who knows something about quantum mechanics will understand what I wanted to say. "You cannot go from a fixed conclusion and search out some convenient premise, you start with premises that lead to a conclusion." .............(lol) ..........according to the God very essence the science begin from Him , He's the source of the science.( it was in my mind all the time and all my arguments rest upon it )...........I won't say anything more because I think that at least this statement provide enough light for understanding what I said.
Tim Colgan 50+
E G 10+
All what I said is that science can't tell us if God exist or not , because its object of research is the creation of God not God Himself (the pantheists say us exact what's opposite)
Tim Colgan 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
Tell me if this agrees with your understanding:
GOD is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. GOD is everywhere and came before all things. GOD is incomprehensible in his entirety by humans since the mind of a human is finite and GOD is infinite. However GOD is manifest in all we see and think. He is the creator of all things.
E G 10+
"GOD is everywhere" he's omnipresent......He's like a spirit............yeah that is what I wanted to say but not that was the central point there.
Tim Colgan 50+
GOD is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. GOD is everywhere and came before all things. GOD is incomprehensible in his entirety by humans since the mind of a human is finite and GOD is infinite. He is the creator of all things.
Peter Law
He also came to earth & introduced himself to us, died to pay for our sins, & resurrected to prove his power over death. He is a real historical character. The only candidate as far as I know. It is true that we cannot be certain he was here scientifically, but that would make Julius Caesar a bit iffy as well. At least we can check the evidence & decide for ourselves.
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
The universe is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The universe is everywhere and came before all things. The universe is incomprehensible in its entirety by humans since the mind of a human is finite and the universe is infinite. It is the creator of all things through the process of evolution (eternal change).
Now I agree that a personification of the universe is a bit easier to think of. But in any case GOD is not a person. And people seem to be drifting away from the conviction that GOD is a "he".
I totally agree with you that it "isn't the science business to say something about the existence of God".
When the word GOD is defined properly (and we must have some definition if we are going to discuss the concept), then "his" existence is a tautology. If GOD is what you define him as then if anything exists then GOD exists. The debate over GOD's existence is immaterial.
What we do need to debate though, is how literally we should be interpreting the bible. Especially since those who claim to know the true meaning seem to exploit that conviction to control others.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Peter Law
"The universe is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The universe is everywhere and came before all things.:
The universe cannot be omniscient as it has no brain.
The universe cannot be omnipotent as it's power is finite.
The universe is only omnipresent within itself. Even I can claim that.
Current science assumes the universe is finite, not infinite.
If the universe arose by itself, then it would be an effect without a cause; not scientific.
"GOD is not a person" If we are talking about the Christian God; yes He is.
This way of looking at things does get a mention as the attitude towards the end of the world.--
Romans 1v5 "Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself,"
I would question that bible believers are more prone to control than the rest of humanity. I don't think Gadaffi, or Mugabe are big bible fans. Surely if the bible is taken literally then the 'true meaning" is plain to all. Isn't exploitation more likely when a Guru is necessary to explain it to you. Aka the Roman Catholic church holding services in latin, & the priests becoming the Gurus ?
Tim Colgan 50+
My use of the word "universe" was unfortunate. What if we use the word "totality" to mean all things, all ideas, all thoughts, all universes and all creators. That would include all knowledge, all power and be everywhere. How does that differ from your conception of god?
Peter Law
That's a very slack set of attributes from someone coming from the 'scientific' camp. We are in territory which is totally unknowable. (Is that a word ?)
God is a spirit, now also incarnate in a man. He is all the 'omnis'. That's as much as He choses to reveal, & it is more than we can understand. As I have said before, "does your goldfish understand your occupation?"
Sometimes we're just out our depth. He loves you & wants to care for you; that's as much as I know. Not enough ? That's your choice.
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
Think of your thought as the current state of your brain. Think of God's thought as "the current state of everything".
Can you change your mind? Or does it change on it's own? Does that make you impotent?
E G 10+
"I totally agree with you that it "isn't the science business to say something about the existence of God"." I'm very glad that you accept it.................and now : What base do you rely on when you say that God doesn't exist?
Tim Colgan 50+
Peter Law
So you agree that God exists, but not as a person ? You see the universe as God ? Also God (being the universe) has no brain ? You're really just calling matter God; I guess that's materialism, which is fair enough.
Consider Mt.Rushmore. We have all the natural resources to carve the presidents heads. We have wind, rain, blown sand, & as much time as you like. Would a materialistic hypothesis stand ? Not likely, it is obvious that there was an intellect behind the formation.
However consider the four presidents themselves; billions of times more complex; & we have a full blown materialistic scientific theory for their manufacture. I find that a bit bizarre, don't you ?
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
If man is so complex he must have a creator, then wouldn't the creator be even more complex and need a creator?
Where does that logic get us?
Glad to see you hadn't given up on me Pete. Had me worried there.
Peter Law
Give up on you ? You seem interested & respectful, you deserve respectful replies.
I suppose the same logic is used by Dawkins with Panspermia. Is it called "Infinite regress"?.
As close as I can understand the logic is this. If God is material then he is created & by default would require a creator. As God (my one) is spirit, He is non material. As he has existed eternally & non-material He is the only candidate for the ultimate creator. Because he has always existed He requires no creator. This is the logic I use to understand the One eternal spirit God of the bible. I am a flawed human, so I'm probably wrong. I'm not going to mention goldfish.
:-)
& Birdia
Certainly didn't mean to give you the creeps. It is a difficult subject to explain, as it does go beyond our understanding. So does building a universe, it is all a bit supernatural. Sorry about that, not meant to be scary.
:-)
Peter Law
The God of the bible has three facets. Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. We too have three facets, Body, Mind, & Spirit. It is our Spirit that is made in God's image. It will survive the death of our body, whether we believe or not.
If & when we ask God to come into our lives, His Holy Spirit joins with ours & guides us. This is the best I can explain it in simple terms.
Holy Spirit & Holy Ghost are just different names for the same thing. The movies take advantage of our sub-conscious knowledge of the fourth (spirit) dimension to scare & entertain us. I don't want to get into whether scary ghosts exist or not. It is an interesting study, but unlikely to raise any enthusiasm among those who don't even acknowledge a spiritual dimension to life. The Holy Ghost however has nothing in common with scary ghosts (if they exist at all).
Tim was making the point about any god needing a more powerful god to create him, who in turn would need a more powerful creator etc.....ad infinitum. This is the infinite regression argument , & of course cannot be true, as eventually we need a creator who was not created.
Dawkins postulates panspermia as a possibility for life's beginnings. However this does suffer from the infinite regression problem. The God of the bible is, as we said, a spirit; ie He has no material being, no atoms. As such He is not affected at all by the passing of time. I believe this agrees with the latest science. So we have a non-created (How can one create something with no atoms ?) being who lives in a timeless eternity. If that being had the power to create our universe, then the bible would make a lot of sense.
I know it's a stretch, but we are hear, we are magnificent, & we've got this book that spells it all out. The only problem we have is we don't realise just how dumb we are. We seem to think that it's all very simple & we've got it all almost worked out. Bad mistake !
I find you just as respectful as Tim.
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
Peter Law
I like that way of putting it. As the song said "The more I find out, the less I know".
Hi Birdia
How wonderful it would be if I could give you concrete evidence. No-one can say how the world came to be with any certainty. The present scientific "Best Shot" is the Big Bang. Think about it. Nothing exploded & produced masses of Hydrogen/Helium that shot off in all directions. Boyles Gas Law states something like 'Gas expands to fill space'. However in direct contradiction of this law we are told that the gas 'clumped together' under gravity to form stars. There is nothing 'scientific' about that.
The DNA in our bodies contains what amounts to a computer program which instructs the cells how to make a person. This program is mind-boggingly complex. With all our knowledge we can only scratch the surface of it. The obvious explanation is that some intelligence greater than ours put it together. The scientific community is telling us otherwise, but of course cannot demonstrate this in the lab. There is nothing 'scientific' about that.
The whole big bang - evolution scenario is a possibility; the god scenario is another possibility. If you go the god route, then there is a choice of gods. If you go the evolution route there are also different choices. I believe that the bible is the key, because it makes sense in the light of history. I am convinced that I am right. Each one of us must decide on the evidence. Not on the opinion of others; no matter how qualified.
:-)
Peter Law
I am not a scientist either; I am a mechanical engineer. I have a great hunger to understand how things work. I have a Harley Davidson motorcycle, & know how that works. It was made in a factory covering many acres by many thousands of skilled workers. there was no other way to make it.
Imagine, if you will, a HD motorcycle with a factory "inside" the motorcycle; which must still be the same size to operate effectively. Now that HD is capable of producing the whole HD range of engines, colors etc. As it is being ridden it collects raw materials from the environment & produces regularly new motorcycles.
With such complication there are bound to be mistakes, so we need fault diagnosis & repair to be built in as well. We now have a product that is far outwith human abilities. Now a HD is a simple machine, could we imagine a self-replicating Space Shuttle ?
You see where this is going. This is called a Von Neumann Machine. This is what you & I are.
I am not afraid of God, or no-God. I am in awe of the engineering I see around me. I know for a fact that such things can never be the result of 'natural forces'; intelligence is required. To me it's just common sense. I have looked for persuading evidence from the evolution lobby, but it's just not there. Everything is an interpretation of the evidence, which could equally well be interpreted in another way. I will continue to look; what convinces you that there is no God ?
:-)
Peter Law
At least we agree on motorbikes :}. I can only speak for the bible, I do agree that there are "Holy" writings which are causing havoc in the world. However it is the people who cause the real havoc; a book is only paper & ink. There is nothing in the bible that would cause me to harm anyone. I am told to love everyone; including those who hate me. That I endeavour to do.
What I understand is this. There are forces for good & forces which are for evil. I can feel these forces within me. Many times it is more convenient to tell a "white" lie to get over a problem. Often I am tempted to break the speed limit when no-one is looking. I often watch movies which are "iffy". We all indulge ourselves, knowing full well that there are children starving in Africa. We all have a constant battle to try and do the "right" thing.
Recently our UK politicians have been caught enlarging their expenses. I can sit in judgement on them, but what would I have done if I had their temptations ? So to me it is no surprise that some people give in to the pressure on them and commit atrocities. It all depends on what influences are on each person.
Jesus said that we would know people "by their fruit". People on the right path would have good fruit, & people on the wrong path would have bad fruit. So if we have people who are following a "Holy" book, we are at liberty to judge the book by the fruit of it's people. Having said that, we are all capable of good or evil, but in general it works.
If God is good, then the good guys have the truth. If God is evil, then the evil guys have the truth. Jesus died & rose again to point us in the right direction.
:-)
Peter Law
:-)
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Your argument necessarily is and thus relies in philosophy. Does that mean that philosophy has permission to argue for a god, but not against?
Then if you are talking about a specific god, such as the Christian god (which you suggest in a semi-unclear way at the beginning of your argument), how do you know that you are talking about the Christian god? What does distinguish this god from any other god? The point is, an undefined god is beyond anybody to test and/or prove/disprove. At the same time, such a god is in the very same category as anything imaginary as long as it is defined in a way that it is beyond our reach. Thus, such a god can easily be dismissed as mere and useless imagination. If you actually define a way to distinguish this god, then you might have to retract your claims of unreachability. For instance, Pete thinks that his version of the Christian god is the author of an infallible book(s), claims that the book convinced him because of its accuracy, yet, when tested, the accuracy most of the time is either read into the text, or the independent data and evidence are dismissed in favour of the text. That makes Pete's god too obviously false regardless of how strongly Pete holds to this belief. (Sorry Pete, and hello after all this while!).
So, which version of a Christian God do you believe, and how do you know this from any other gods? How do you distinguish this god from anything imaginary?
Peter Law
Long time no see. Did you not get saved yet ? I like your style; you apologise for telling me I'm wrong. I appreciate that, some folks give me a hard time you know.
I think you will find Eduard has the same god as me, but doesn't take the 6-days or the worldwide flood literally. That right Eduard ?
I have never come across any other god bothering Dawkins & Co. It's always Jehovah/Jesus of the Old & New Testaments. I wonder if there's a reason for that. Even Allah doesn't attract the same venom.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Well, it might be that there is nothing to be saved from. ;)
Also, well, I saw a few videos where Dawkins was attacking some muslim stuff going on in England. Take it this way Pete, if Christianity if what an atheist sees everyday, which religion would this atheist attack mostly? Since there are lots of muslims moving into England, their turn comes in proportion, I guess. Also, you seem to dismiss the many references to sex-mutilation, most of which happen under religions other than Christianity. Maybe your perception is mainly a combination of two things: (1) of course, Dawkins would choose first to attack the religion he knows best; (2) you notice the references closer to Christianity better than those to other religions because that offends you, or concerns you, more personally.
Best as always!
E G 10+
"but did not say many of the things attributed to him"....you can't be serious (if you know what are you talking about) He said a lot of things about Him , all his life He've done it.
"there's many more options"........if you'll study Him and his life you'll find out that there aren't at all many more options.
"I can dismiss yours because it contradicts itself in its book(s)" He never done it (and of course you can't share me no example).
"...............science to criticize their gods, but their gods are "perfect thinking" and "beyond" you to understand. This is proven "by revelation" in their god's books" man, I ever talked just about a God (read again and try to connect the dots better than you've done) because there is no other god there is just One(maybe I've mentioned the word "god or gods" but just like in in the last part of this last sentence and with the same mean).What do you think that I accept the truth of the Bible and in the same time I'm talking about the existence of other gods?(or you don't know anything basically from the Bible).
"But I bet you think that the popolvuh is subject to philosophical and scientific scrutiny." of course ,you are right , and if you will try to connect the dots better in what I said you'll find out why I'm saying that you are right .
E G 10+
1. they are talking against God , I'm talking about a method .
2. God is the perfect thinking (you could imagine Him like a thinking power) ,He's Himself the perfect philosophy(He couldn't be otherwise, all what is otherwise is a lie I could argue about it) and thus to philosophize against Him it's very absurd , it would be like to cut the branch from beneath your feet.
I'll begin with that:
"At the same time, such a god is in the very same category as anything imaginary as long as it is defined in a way that it is beyond our reach. Thus, such a god can easily be dismissed as mere and useless imagination": the answer is:He can't because it is exatcly the opposite way in reaching to know Him that is to say from Him to you(He's revealed).
I already said two answers at these questions:"how do you know that you are talking about the Christian god? What does distinguish this god from any other god?" an namely:
0.the revelation.(through Bible)
1.I know because as He is described in the Bible can't be imagined by noone......it's something that you(and anyone)never could imagine .
2. He say about Him what no another god, man , philosopher ...anyone could ever say.(how he describe Himself it's something the noone could invent).
3. Others gods in what they say contradict themselves, in fact all other gods do that(you just have to study their books) .
4. He said about Him that He's the perfect thinking.
5. Jesus Christ have said what noone could ever say.(there's just two choices: or He's the craziest man that has ever existed (and will) or He's what he said that is ).
Anothres gods are lies and because they are anothers...........
Gabo Moreno 100+
You kinda missed the point. If your god is beyond imagination, philosophy, and science, then you would not be able to claim that it is the Christian god. You could only claim that there is this incomprehensible thing out there. Once you claim that your god is the Christian one you attach it to something, and it becomes subject to every scrutiny we can think about as per your own method against other gods.
The very same way you dismiss other gods because they "contradict themselves in their books," I can dismiss yours because it contradicts itself in its book(s). Thus, anybody can claim that what happens is that you are using philosophy and science to criticize their gods, but their gods are "perfect thinking" and "beyond" you to understand. This is proven "by revelation" in their god's books. Man, the popolvuh has almost no contradictions compared to the bible. But I bet you think that the popolvuh is subject to philosophical and scientific scrutiny. All you did is produce useless assertions that vanished once you attached your god to its supposed revelation.
In 5 you say: "there's just two choices: or He's the craziest man that has ever existed (and will) or He's what he said that is." Or a person on which these fables are based existed, but did not say many of the things attributed to him, or was well-intentioned, but failed at conveying the ideas properly, or someone else wanted him to be presented and sold as the son of "God," or was a very successful quack as many "religious leaders" of our time, or there was no Jesus whatsoever ... there's many more options ...
Sorry, but you wrote utter nonsense. I don't think this can go anywhere from here, other than, as just happened, showing the inconsistency and inherent contradictions in your main claim.
Peter Law
I saw that program where Dawkins had a go at the muslim guy re the penalty for leaving the 'faith' (ie death). I give him full marks for that, & was right behind him. Political correctness has an iron grip at present, & freedom of speech is a thing of the past. Dawkins showed a lot of courage.
It could be that Christianity is what he knows best. He is obviously concerned; as we all are; about the atrocities committed in the name of Allah. So why are his sights on Christ ? Could it be that he thinks Allah & Jehovah are the same guy ? This is a common misconception among non-christians. It is a mistake to tar all beliefs with the same brush. The fact that there are lots of different religions out there may point to one being true, rather than there being a lot of religions for no particular reason.
I take it you mean circumcision by "sex-mutilation". That is a Jewish command from god, & ensures sincerity if nothing else. It does no harm, some doctors even say it's a good thing. I wouldn't pierce my navel or tattoo "Harley Davidson" on my arm, but lots do & that's ok.
Death is what you; & all of us; need saved from. It's 100% effective.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Remember that there have been atrocities committed in the name of Christ too. I don't think that Dawkins thinks that Jehovah and Allah are the same guy, simply because he does not think any of them exists. But he might think, for very good reasons, that they are both versions of the same fantasy and that yours would be just another version. I don't see why would this be a misconception. If your god existed Pete, why would this god be a different one because the Jews, for instance, or the muslims, did not believe that Christ was this very god incarnate? How would that suddenly transform the first god into something else? How would your acceptance of Christ as a form of your god invalidate the past god? Suppose Christ is not your god incarnate. Would that mean that your basic god is not the same as the basic god of the Jews? People have different ideas of who I am, and some of those ideas might be about what they knew about me when I was in high school. They don't know that now I am a scientist. That might make my image in their minds wrong, but I am still the same person.
In any event, I doubt that such a thing matters to Dawkins, he would be as critical of all of them if they derived from independent religious roots. He opposes religion as inherently irrational, not only because they can be dangerous.
There are other examples of sex mutilation that are not as harmless as the tattoos you are talking about. But I was mentioning them as examples of critiques made by Dawkins to religions other than Christianity. I needed no explanation about them being harmless or not. Also, you decide if you want a tattoo, religious sex mutilation is not decided by the babies.
Best my friend.
Wayne Busby 30+
Here is a wonderful example of what is going on here.
Please all of you Sage and Scientist alike, watch these short videos which illustrate the folly of not collaborating towards some mutually acceptable understanding of ideas. Presented with humility.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJVBQefNXIw&feature=related
Another example of the same type (duplicating the experiment lol):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAeeZ2A3g8U
Morale: "Knowing in part may make a fine tale, but Wisdom comes from knowing the whole."
Enjoy!
E G 10+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE Here he is dispelling a myth.
@ Peter Law
It's impossible for creationists to win in any serious debate. They have no scientific evidence of a creator, by default they fail to provide burden of proof. If creationists really had a case for creationism, you would see publications on it in peer reviewed journals. If the science community is not putting out too many journals on it then it means the scientific community doesn't consider it to be credible science. It's that simple.
E G 10+
Tim Colgan 50+
E G 10+
Let's look at what we can understand better: at the most developed being :the genius. A genius is very intelligent , clever...........and so on.......but besides this what make him to be a genius is his capacity of create (E.g. Newton, Enstien, Kant , Plato,Socrate we look at their creation that have remaind us )...........more exatcly a genius can't be genius if he don't create, his capacity to create gives him the title of genius (look everywhere you want and you'll find it out or better read Schopenhouer.)
So God who is perfect perfect genius can't be so without to create. He's in the nature of God to create.............a true God create, of that the Bible say us about creation.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
As for morality, people need to stop pretending like this is an entirely religious construct that has not undergone decades of serious psychological and biological study. Chimpanzees display quite a complex sense of morality to which we as humans can only boast to have added words to really. Even better, the mirror neurons that play such a crucial part in our sense of empathy (and there's a TEDtalk about it actually) were first discovered in a Capucin monkey. Besides, not all morality is objective, a lot is relative and given that the Catholic church, among many religious institutions, has had to update its morality landscape countless times along with the rest of society (sometimes lagging behind), one can hardly say that religion is the prime deliverer of morality. When the least moral of believers can display more morality than the most moral of non-believers then a case could be made that morality can only flow from religion. Until then, it's another false proof.
E G 10+
"As for morality, people need to stop pretending like this is an entirely religious construct " I never pretend that the morality is a religious construct because isn't.......it is God construct .........and regarding the monkeys, you should make a distinction: morality isn't just an instinct (as you described) it is something like the conscience and no animal have conscience or something like that(morality).The morality is very objective think just at its nature and look in moral philosophy for more details.........but I think that morality in my mind means something and in yours something else so we should described both what we mean by morality if we wanna make any sense..............(I've tried to do that on "How important is religion").
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I would conversely argue that a fair part of our morality is instinctual, especially when it comes to empathy and mirror neurons which we share with many Apes and Monkey (we are related after all). When you see suffering and this suffering affects you, you didn't exactly chose at some previous point to feel bad, you just get that melancholic feeling, a deep rooted instinct that comes from our evolutionary heritage as social animals.
I think that to posit that all animals are somehow 100% instinctual machines while Humans have this added depth of consciousness all to his own is ludicrous given that we come from the same evolutionary process.
E G 10+
Look, that is fully accepted by everyone :"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)"(that's from wikipedia)in other words the morality say to our reason what's good and what's bad , without the reason ,morality would have no sense. And now you say that morality is something instictual , but it isn't because the instincts are good or bad depending on situations, but morality say us what's good or what's bad so it can't be niether good nor bad , it's something above good and bad , it's like a judge.
Suppose you see a man who's going to drown, one of your instinct in that moment will say you to help him(the herd instinct) , another will say you to run away because is dangerous there and you could also drown (the instinct of survival) but morality now will judge between these two instincts and will say you what's the good insitnct (so the morality can't be also an instinct because it judge between instincts)...................the chimps haven't something like that, more than that it haven't reason (and we know now that without reason the morality have no sense)..........and so on.
"..........eliminating the possibility of instinctual behavior. " an possible explication here could be that the chimps react different at the same instinct.
And I repeat you again : don't interest me at all something like "this have been tested...." "I think that ....." please give me reasons.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
For the chimp case I'm talking about behavior adopted by one chimp and mimicked by other members of the same group by example. This behavior is then taught to the younger generations and carried out. Orang-Outangs have also been seen wielding tools to aid themselves. You need to watch more animal documentaries, you underestimate non-human animals so much.
Ever heard of Washoe, the chimpanzee who was taught sign-language and then taught it to her Son? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_%28chimpanzee%29
There's also that Gorilla Michael that painted its dead pet dog and the mother Koko who in this video expresses her sadness at losing her pet kitty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqTUG8MPmGg
How could you seriously think that only humans have consciousness, it makes no sense for us to be the only animals endowed with it!
E G 10+
Matthieu I've just said you : The morality and the consciousness have no sense, are useless without reason and the animals have no reason (that's very well-known by everyone)......so it's obvious the result of what I said.
"there is an instinctual facet to morality" the morality have no instinctual face , it judge between instincts.
very interesting about the chimps but this still don't prove anything about morality ....just maybe it prove that chimps could be tamed more that any animal.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
"The morality and the consciousness have no sense, are useless without reason and the animals have no reason (that's very well-known by everyone)"...so screw my animal psychology lectures from a notoriously good UK university, screw all the biology books I've ever read, screw everything I've learned about animals ever because in your weird worldview, non-human animals are 100% instinctual beings incapable of reasoning. Back your statement up damn it! (you can't by the way, its patently untrue).
E G 10+
Hey do you wanna say that animals have reason?.........And in my turn man , I screw all the philosophy that I ever read and is imposible for animals to have reason (read Kant , Hegel , Nietzsche, Plato.....) and the definition of reason don't let you to say that animals have reason:"The faculty of reason (sometimes also called rationality or the faculty of discursive reason in opposition to "intuitive reason") is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[1] It is closely associated with such human activities as speech, science, art, mathematics and philosophy."
...........and think at least at the consequences of having animals reason....... are too huge too immoral .
THE REASON AND THE MORALITY ARE ARE JUST FOR HUMAN BEINGS CATECORICALLY.More than that there is no scientist (and never was) who say that animals have reason and morality.......they are just for humans , they make us human beings...........and that's a reason for that I'm saying that I'm not an animal.
Tim Colgan 50+
Tim Colgan 50+
From wikipedia:
"Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile. Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation."
and from "Animals can tell right from wrong":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
"Prof Bekoff, who presents his case in a new book Wild Justice, said: "The belief that humans have morality and animals don't is a long-standing assumption, but there is a growing amount of evidence that is showing us that this simply cannot be the case"
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Furthermore, my argument was that many animals are endowed with consciousness and certain forms of morality, you accomodated reason in this and declared that consciousness and morality were redudant without reason thus implying that instict and reason form a dichotomy. Given the definition of reason you adopt, this cannot be true as much of observed animal behavior cannot be categorized as being the product of instinct or (by wikipedia's definition) the product of reason. Congratulations on naming a few famous philosophers, most of whom (if they ever said anything about animals at all) lived prior to the publication of "On the origin of species" and all that followed.
Please back your statements with evidence and argument rather than caps. lock (especially if you're going to make bad spelling mistakes). It's rude and it's strongly discouraged (check the terms and conditions of TEDConversations if you don't believe me).
"More than that there is no scientist (and never was) who say that animals have reason and morality"
That's a bold claim. Not one? How about, Frans De Waal? There you go. The simple power of Google.
If you cannot accept the simple fact that Human are animals then it might be pointless to even continue. It's basic biology.
E G 10+
""The possibility that empathy resides in parts of the brain so ancient that we share them with rats should give pause to anyone comparing politicians with those poor, underestimated creatures."[3]
"I've argued that many of what philosophers call moral sentiments can be seen in other species. In chimpanzees and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules. Dogs are a good example of a species that have and obey social rules; that's why we like them so much, even though they're large carnivores."[4]
"To endow animals with human emotions has long been a scientific taboo. But if we do not, we risk missing something fundamental, about both animals and us." he prove again that I'm right because I was talking about morality not about moral sentiments and not about emotions.(not about emphaty . sympathy.......).
And yes , I cannot accept this very simple so called 'fact' that we are animals.(read again my posts if you still didn't notice the reasons ).
You see, none of my arguments rest upon biology because I don't think that we are animalsa and because I think that ohters sciences are more able to talk about thems like morality , reason , conciousness.......in other words about human beings.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I don't really argue anything about reason, I'm mainly arguing that regardless of whether we consider animals to have reason or not, the way morality and consciousness expresses itself in certain animals cannot be argued to be purely instinctive behavior.
My final reply to any of your posts.
E G 10+
Peter Law
That's an in-house myth. Creationists don't believe we are descended from any other creature.
And the link to the debate won by the Evolutionist is..............?
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
Harvinder Mann 20+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Tim Colgan 50+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Sorry to correct you on this, but evolution did not "win by debate." If it did it would not be science. Evolution won a long time ago, hands down, by evidence. Evidence is what counts. Whatever rhetorical arts displayed by your favourite creationist quacks gain nothing but the approval of their already committed public. Such arts might appeal to you and prevent you from accepting reality, yet, they amount to nothing else.
Peter Law
I like the way you apologise for correcting me.
Many debates are held by neutral venues. Colleges, Atheist societies etc. Both sides give it their best, questions are answered, & a good time is had by all. How can debate be biased ? The debate is won on the presentation of the evidence, not on opinions. Surely that is the fairest way we have to evaluate truth ? Sure, some folks are more charismatic, but that can apply to both sides, & taken into account when it comes to evaluation.
Pity this page is closing down.
:-)
Comment deleted
Mark Meijer 100+
Tim Colgan 50+
==
It sure gets me going.
Tim Colgan 50+
Comment deleted
Mark Meijer 100+
Here's some thoughts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhzgg59bVLU
Tim Colgan 50+
Mark Meijer 100+
Comment deleted
Mark Meijer 100+
Ultimately, if no belief (in the broadest sense of the word) were ever challenged, then no truth could ever be ascertained. Reasoned discourse (with oneself or with others) is the only way to get to any answers and solutions, and understanding between people in many cases. Jesus himself certainly must have known this all too well. And so engaging in such a discourse for that purpose is probably one of the most respectful acts imaginable, provided no hidden motivations.
Comment deleted
Mark Meijer 100+
By the way, I think it's wonderful to be able to see that frustration in oneself in addition to others, because then it can be recognized for what it is. And for every person who recognizes this at any given instant, it makes one less person in the world reinforcing the reactionary game of passing judgement. After all, Gods don't get in the way, people do.
That's also why I posted a link to that video, because obviously "religious people" aren't the only people who are getting too caught up in defending their own position. Less reactionary games, and more reasoned discourse, is the only productive way to address exactly that which triggers the same frustration in everyone involved.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, if you'll pardon the pun, but the choir are not the only ones reading this :).
Comment deleted
Mark Meijer 100+
If anything, I'm just trying to add my 2 cents to the whole debate, not trying to interfere from any sort of authoritative perspective. I don't have one ;)
Tim Colgan 50+
In other threads we have touched on the topic of Holy or Sacred Texts. Hopefully we can delve into this topic a little more deeply.
I've always been a fan of literature. In the last 40 years of my life there has never been a point when I wasn't in the midst of reading a book. All literature has something to teach us.
Can we say that any text that has been around for long enough time and served as a foundation for a society's belief-system probably has something to teach us and should be elevated in some sense?
Is it necessary to elevate it beyond this by saying it has some additional metaphysical property as if it had been sprinkled with magic pixie dust?
Comment deleted
Harvinder Mann 20+
Peter Law
The bible is 66 books written over 1500yrs by 40 authors most of whom never met. It is full of history, prophecy, science, poetry, & explains who we are & where we're headed. It reads as a continuos narrative in spite of it's patchwork authorship. It can be checked factually, & torn to pieces if found wanting. Men have spent entire lifetimes studying it & still had much to learn. It has changed millions of lives for the better, & many claim to have met with our creator in it's pages.
It deserves to be treated with respect; it is different.
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
So perhaps the "holy" books are those that went through an extended process of change and selection. The best stories survived and the lesser ones were eliminated. The stories were many times retold and improved upon. The collection of stories were integrated into the society and became part of the society. Many of these stories may be the distillation of universal truth. They can create an aha moment giving insight and speaking to the heart.
Why do we need any additional metaphysical explanation?
Mind S 30+
« … but why so many are beliving that God truly exist? Are all of them crazy?”
It may be beneficial to take a look on a philosophical fallacy called « Argumentum ad populum”. Also the following quotation from Bertrand Russell has the same theme:
“"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible".
Tim Colgan 50+
Do others feel as I do? If not can you at least understand my reasoning?
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan 50+
I noticed there is a discussion on ted censorship here:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/821/regarding_ted_conversations_mo.html
Let me know if you find out anything.
Am still digesting the holy text posting.
Tim Colgan 50+
On this subject I'll be starting a new thread. Look for one starting with "On ancient texts".
Tim Colgan 50+
What part of my argument (start of thread) do you disagree with:
. that Americans are responsible for the actions of their government?
. that it was an atrocity?
. that there is a correlation between religious fundamentalism and support for the war?
. that there is a causal relationship between religious fundamentalism and support for the war?
Tim Colgan 50+
To me the correlation between religious fundamentalism and support for the war is apparent in what I see around me. For example, in my town there protesters come out almost every weekend. Here are some pictures:
www.flickr.com/photos/tcolgan001/2538401685/sizes/l/in/set-72157605358634821/
www.flickr.com/photos/tcolgan001/2538402955/sizes/z/in/set-72157605358634821/
The building in the background of the first picture is the Courthouse with the plaque of the Ten Commandments that I mentioned in a previous post. Talking to these people it's obvious how much religious fundamentalism plays a role in their thinking. But if my observations are in doubt, there are plenty of polls which quantify the correlation:
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm
Tim Colgan 50+
Is it any coincidence that this war was in the land of the Tigris/Euphrates? No. Recent revelations from the ex-President of France Jacques Chirac reveal that Bush "saw Gog and Magog" at work:
Bush, Gog and Magog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
Moreover, its been long known how Rumsfeld manipulated Bush using religion. The use of biblical references in White House briefings was the most blatant:
Donald Rumsfeld's holy war: How President Bush's Iraq briefings came with quotes from the Bible
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html
Cenk does the best job of summing it all up:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1243897142
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5tWP9ouk6Y
Mind S 30+
This issue of believing in Bronze Age « prophrcies » is really a serious, annoying thing and it tells about one of the most bothering and horrifying aspects of religions. The Middle East conflict over the Palestinian issue is one of the most tragic events of our time, it is a continuous bleeding since the 40's of the last century, which is basically fed by belief in such old Biblical tales/"prophecies". Now your link revealed another tragic event (the Iraq war) that has been triggered by adopting another Biblical “prophecy” . How many people have been killed and suffered from these two prophecy-motivated aggressions? Hundreds of thousands if not millions; and how do religion morals warrant such acts?. What makes one stop and reflect deeply is the ability of blind faith to transform the mentality of contemporary people into savage mentality of desert nomads who lived thousands of years ago…
Tim Colgan 50+
Peter Law
How about; "A worldview which defines one's choices".
In the West it's simpler. "What do we spend our money on".
:-)
Drew Bixby
It is not the same thing as organized religion. Organized religion is a system which seeks to standardize belief systems of multiple individuals.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
So just to repeat one more time. "A truth beyond our ability to observe" does not equal "God".
Until we observe this truth it can only be considered a black box or an unknown.
Comment deleted
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Comment deleted
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Are you talking about him. If so why does he bother you?
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Harvinder Mann 20+
Harvinder Mann 20+
"Look at the pale blue dot of our planet. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of cosmic dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They too cherish the idea of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?"
Comment deleted
E G 10+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
I agree, religion has been such a long tradition especially in Western civilization that it goes unchallenged. Most people accept the existence of God without even asking for a burden of proof. In science such a thing is unheard of so naturally a lot of tension exists even though some scientists accept religion, more out of conventional behavior and norms than anything else.
In my opinion religion offers an easy means to provoke a war. It is alot easier to manipulate people when they are indoctrinated and oblivious to facts, it is alot easier to justify your own actions when you truly believe they are righteous. I find that with philosophy and science the field of study encourages people to look for problems, criticize and be skeptical. Thus such subjects do not encourage complacency
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
But I understand how you might feel about Dawkins and if it weren't for Dawkins I'm sure there would be another atheist to debate creationists. I am glad that Dawkins has made himself a public figure and has dispelled particular myths creationists were trying to push forward not just as an ideology but also onto our schools as well.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Peter Law
I love debates on this, but Dawkins isn't up for debate, he considers it beneath him. He has dispelled few, if any, creationist ideas. I can understand his position. In a straight fight the creationist normally wins. Dig me out one where the evolutionist wins & I will watch it eagerly.
:-)
Tim Colgan 50+
Why Richard Dawkins Doesn't Debate Creationists
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes
Quote: "If you were a professional geologist would you agree to have a debate with a flat-earther?"
Harvinder Mann 20+
Edit: sorry for that last simile, on reflection it's a little violent, but the point stands none the less.
Harvinder Mann 20+
Harvinder Mann 20+
E G 10+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
E G 10+
Peter Emer
Tim Colgan 50+
Respond with links to others that you find helpful from your viewpoint.
USE THIS THREAD ONLY TO POST VIDEOS
If you would like to discuss any, please start a new thread.
Daniel Dennett interviewed by Robert Wright
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5eUnpsJGRk
The Root of All Evil
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316#
Four Horsemen - Discussion with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890#
Bill Moyers on Faith & Reason: Margaret Atwood
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=moyj06sf17q608
10. Evolution, Emotion, and Reason: Evolution and Rationality - part of a Yale Course on Psychology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMsQfgV07vU
The Power of Myth with Joseph Cambell and Bill Moyers
http://www.mevio.com/episode/92858/the-power-of-myth-with-joseph-cambell
For the more humorously inclined (enter at your own risk):
George Carlin on Religion and God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo
Pat Condell - God or nothing
http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u/8/Ovg0eYjM64w
E G 10+
http://www.reasons.org/
Peter Law
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7643068472809350444#docid=2146107539678540143
Alternative geology
http://www.cross.tv/51495 (Part 1)
http://www.cross.tv/51496 (Part 2)
Drew Bixby
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
In the case of spirituality -- organized or no -- we typically see the opposite stance: people seriously considering propositions having little or no supporting evidence. Belief in eternal life, the existence of the soul, and perfect justice, to name a few. In most cases, spiritual propositions cannot even be verified if one wished to.
I suspect what makes organized religion more dangerous than individual spirituality is sheer force of numbers. An individual believing that a certain piece of land has spiritual value and must be taken by force is harmless when only that one person believes it. If a large group of people with the means to employ force believe it, there is a much greater chance of that doctrine turning into violent action.
Drew Bixby
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
Can we really say, though, that personal beliefs not attached to charismatic leaders are innocuous?
E G 10+
Tim Colgan 50+
Thought I knew what religion was. But after reading lot's of comments am not sure. And the dictionary definition doesn't seem to agree with what many people think. So I started a new thread to try to define it amongst ourselves (add your definition!).
In fact, your initial comment uses lots of words that are really fuzzy to me - faith, god, spirituality.
But let's focus on one - what do you mean by spirituality?
Drew Bixby
I added my definition of "religion" to the thread (do search for 'Religion is a belief system held by an individual'). "Spirituality" is similar, but more about the specific connection of an individual to the universe within their belief system.
Harvinder Mann 20+
Now given the irrationality and personal nature of religious belief why is it that people wish to allay themselves with certain doctrines which are usually the result of an accident of birth "I was born in western Europe therefore I am catholic." and not a matter of personal choice. It seems to me that a religious belief is the ultimate in personal choice, constructing your own image of God based on your education and personal experiences is a wonderfully empowering process that I would encourage any seeker of truth to engage in, and one far superior to rigidly adhering to iron age and usually hideously outmoded philosophies (I don't seek to offend this is merely my opinion).
Peter Law
No offence taken, but my faith is firmly planted in evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWawVUZg3Es&feature=related
:-)
Harvinder Mann 20+
E G 10+
Harvinder Mann 20+
E G 10+
Harvinder Mann 20+
E G 10+
"I was once a Sikh, then a dogmatist and finally I moved away from the idea of God entirely"...............I understand ................I don't know why you have the impresion that I'm trying to reconcile something because I'm not................but anyway, thank you for sharing me where you stand.
Wayne Busby 30+
We have become so enraptured by our splendor as to believe with asinine stubbornness that there is no reality outside our existence or experience.
One reason for this, I believe, is that at an animal level we have both willingly and through desperate necessity created civilizations which focus mightily on what our senses help us identify as tangible and how such matter can be turned to satisfying (or in some cases saturating) our physiologic needs.
The ultimate and most relentless (read Omnipotent) goal of this behavior, which is shared by all life forms, is an ecstatic immortality.
This makes sense, however, I truly don't get how most of us can think that because we are unable perceive something - with our scientifically demonstrably and comparatively feeble senses - it does not exist.
This very thought process is pathologically counterintuitive!
Pride comes before the fall.
How can we hope to evolve (read not become extinct) if we refuse to embrace much less acknowledge the infinite outside ourselves?!
Having said that, I must admitted I am wary of approaching such phenomena with our immature, yet curiously classical, modes-operandi (usually akin to rape and pillage for it is better to ask forgiveness than permission)! Brothers and Sisters wake up and however you may, deal with it.
I propose that a more suitable definition for the term supernatural denote a phenomena purely outside the scope of normal human perception, therefor outside the scope of current scientific means to measure or catalogue within our understanding of those laws applying to our nature.
Nuf said.
Peace.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
What we observe may also be false and constructed by the mind, this is elaborated very well in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, with regard to what you are saying induction also has limits when it comes to drawing true conclusions, because there may always be a phenomenon which we failed to observe or it is beyond inference and observation. So all these are valid criticisms against science and most intelligent scientists would acknowledge them.
However the scientist attempts to describe reality with what he knows about it and he can't describe nature accurately with what he doesn't know. Why is that? Well because a negative is not subject to proof. No amount of logic or evidence will prove a negative. One can ask you how do you know you are not stuck in the matrix? And you can only answer by saying I don't know. But then you can pose a question and say how do you know all of us are not living in a cosmic tea cup? With no positive evidence there is no method to verify either claim and that's why the scientific method is fairly rigid when it comes to integrating anything in the theory which is not physically evident.
Wayne Busby 30+
'Yes, but scientists don't tend to deny that something outside of our observation is not true.'
Did you mean deny something outside our observation is true?
If so, is that not exactly what science is saying when it says there is no God?
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Peter Law
"Were they crazy? No, simply content not to challenge the 'collective beliefs' of the time."
Now it's evolution's turn.
:-)
E G 10+
And think that there are (and ever was) scientists that are also beliving , there are very well-educated persons (a lot of that kind) that are beliving (teachers , engineers, doctors.... a lot).Are all of them crazy? I don't think , imagine something like that...........
Another thing that I meant to say is : Could something that is just a fiction (that is inexistent ) to have so great influence upon me or others like me, to resist so many hudreds of years?
Matthieu Miossec 100+
@Peter Law: Please do challenge evolution...with some actual REAL facts. Maybe then. So far all that's coming from the Creationists is white noise.
Peter Law
Layman cell theory.
DNA holds information in language form; 4-letter alphabet, 3-letter words. RNA 'reads' a section at a time, copies it, and carries it to another part of the cell. Here it is 'read' again & the information is used to manufacture a protein; or whatever.
Outside world theory.
My car's bust. I read in my manual that I need a 'sprocket'. I lift the phone, get a wrong number in Mongolia & try & order a sprocket. Why can't I get one ? The guy doesn't speak english. The only reason I would get one in Manchester is that both of us were told what 'sprocket' meant when we were at school.
Both the DNA & the protein maker need an agreement on the language convention, or the cell will not work. Otherwise the DNA , & the protein maker could try 'till doomsday & never get their act together.
This is only a tiny part of the miracle of life. Comment please, don't use long words, I am easily confused.
:-)
Matthieu Miossec 100+
E G 10+
And now look an example: the existence of photons was discoverd as you perhaps know in the end of nineteenth century by Enstien (and maybe and others have had some ideas some decades ago before Enstien about it) but what is the most important is that in Bible had been said it thousands of years before in Isaiah book.........(when I asked my physics professor when I took course of cuantum mechanics about where are coming the photons from? what force generated them? he said to me that he don't know because noone knows , and it's very true noone knows).
The Newton's laws from classical mechanic, the laws from quantum mechanics , the relativity ..........................are supporting the Bible.
Peter Law
There you go with the big words again. You do not address the problem. There is NO scientific explanation for the spontaneous production of language, nor is there ever likely to be. All experience of language is that it requires intelligence to produce it; period.
Rambling on about my gullibility doesn't cut it Matt. The essence of what objects ?
Keep quantum mechanics for another day. Today I want to know your theory of where the DNA language originated. You offered, so cough up.
"@Peter Law: Please do challenge evolution...with some actual REAL facts. Maybe then. So far all that's coming from the Creationists is white noise."
Matthieu Miossec 100+
@Peter Law: That's the name of the fallacy, I'm sorry that you're using it and that my merely pointing it out offends you. But you got to understand that saying something like 'look at this complex system, how did it get there, must be God' cannot substitute natural facts. Getting offended is too easy a way to defect from a debate. Congrats.
What big words are you reffering to? I'm speaking in plain English. I've only lived in the UK forl 3 years. As far as I can tell you've been a resident of the UK most of your life.
I didn't offer to explain but I will say this: The parallel that is drawn between DNA and language is metaphorical. You can see it as a language or you can see it as the sequence of chemical processes it really is. Chemical reactions don't need a conscious creator. It's not much of a stretch of the imagination to see how self-replicating chemical reactions would come about, especially over billions of years. Amino acid chains spontaneously form all the time in nature!
Let's get one thing straight too. Evolution doesn't mean no God. Creationism does mean however no evolution. So if you could prove that DNA had a designer, you're still not making a case for Creationism.
I stick to my words. 'Maybe then' is 'maybe then'. Come up with those arguments.
E G 10+
"This is the tallest tale I've ever heard".......prove that is just a tale , but as you said you don't care too much about it
"I've heard the Bible supposedly 'predict' many things"...... I understand........ you've just heard.
..........ok.................that's it ..................thank you for sharing your ideas with me (as much as you've done it).
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Peter Law
I am not offended but frustrated. Most scientists take the attitude that the DNA information is analogous to language, especially computer programming. It can be printed out & read just like a book. If we can't work on that assumption, then I know nothing about chemical reactions. Although people who do know are quite happy to talk in language terms. I don't think you're on the same page so let's not waste time.
:-)
E G 10+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
@Eduard Ghiur: So what you're saying is the Bible doesn't contradict modern science, therefore it's valid? Couldn't you basically say that about almost any religious text? Besides, I think it really depends how seriously you take the old testament. It does say that all animals came before man which is false. It says the Moon is a source of light which is false. It says two people birthed the human race (Adam and Eve) which just isn't possible. It says disease is simply the devil which is false. It says the Earth is a circle which is false (I've actually heard this one used as evidence that there is science in the Bible as it somehow predicts the Earth is round and I guess it goes to show the people who wrote that don't know the difference between a circle [2D object] and a sphere [3D object]) Ok so you could take a more flexible approach to the old testament and say that it's hugely symbolical and mostly metaphorical. In that case one feels compelled to say of course it's not going to contradict science because it makes absolutely no scientific claims and it can be reshaped over the years to fit our perception. So I don't get what you're really trying to say with that statement.
Wayne Busby 30+
One of the most explicit metaphors I have ever come across, which describes my belief of what God is, is an interactive exercise that goes like this (please have a pencil and a clean sheet of white paper at the ready):
1) Place the sheet of white paper on a flat surface in front of you.
2) Use the sharpened lead of the pencil to draw as perfectly as possible the smallest yet clearly visible dot you can make, dead center of the sheet.
3) Put down the pencil observe your work and open your mind to what I am about to say.
"If all the universe, known and unknown, were to be contained in that dot in the middle of your sheet, God would be all of that dot , all of the white beyond and everything beyond even that."
The rock and the chiseler flesh of his flesh.
How might such a being communicate (interact) with its smaller parts and what type of language would it use? How much might be lost in translation if you were to find a way to communicate all you know to a life form microscopic to an amoeba.
Now imagine for a moment what a being so omnipotent might do if it knew that some infinitesimally small part of itself, willfully acts as a spiteful cancer towards the rest of what is.
E G 10+
"It does say that all animals came before man which is false. It says the Moon is a source of light which is false. It says two people birthed the human race (Adam and Eve) which just isn't possible."...................don't get angry on me but you said just :it is false, you didn't say why it is so.(if we take litarally the Bible , there is just a matter of days, that it's very important) and if you don't give me arguments I can't say you too much.(about the earth the Bible have ever sustained what is corect, what is incorect is someone interpetation about it).
look at the creation .......it is the most 'quantum' that could ever be and of that don't expect too much to can explain you how it come scientifically(science can't explain that it isn't too devepoped to make it), but as much as science can explain it, the science is in the same sense with it.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Wayne Busby 30+
I truly hope your flippant and immature attitude does not carry over into your responsibility as a translator for TED.
Please do not reply until you have something constructive to say.
God bless.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I apologise, but I still don't see what I could possibly answer to that. Maybe somebody else will give it a go.
Tim Colgan 50+
It might take me a while to figure out what it is. But I'm sure there's a lesson.
Wayne Busby 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Ok, so you take the old testament literally and say it doesn't contradict science. This is where things go wrong. The Bible says all animals came before Man. The theory of evolution paints a very different picture, modern animals having appeared more or less around the same time as Human beings. Some species, like dogs, have notably come long after the first Human beings. In fact, in light of evolution it is clear that Humans are in fact animals themselves of the family of Great Apes. The theory of evolution is also the reason why you cannot have two people, Adam and Eve as progenitors of a whole species. Not only does it raise questions of incest which leads to many genetic defects, but also in evolution there is a continuum of species whereby speciation happens for a group of individuals from an archaic species and this transformation can only happen on populations greater than 500. Otherwise that population would collapse. Which species of Homo would you even class Adam and Eve as? Homo Sapiens? Or did they come earlier? Could they have been Australipithecii. The fact is the transitions between species isn't discrete its continuous. From one generation to the next you don't go from one definite non-human to a definite human.
It says the Moon is a source of light. This one is obvious, we know the Moon does not generate its own light but in fact reflects the light of the Sun.
the Earth being a circle is another simple one. The Earth isn't flat, it's a 3D object, called a sphere. A circle does not refer to the 3D object as many like to triumphantly claim.
Now as I said, you can chose to look at the old testament as something symbolical or methaphorical, but in that case, it's way too easy for the Bible to not contradict science in the same way it's easy for poems not to contradict science.
Also I'm not angry at all, you're just projecting.
Tim Colgan 50+
Wayne Busby 30+
Tim Colgan 50+
Damon Pourtahmaseb-Sasi 50+
Religion is, has been, and probably will always be the single most useless label to apply to someone. There are so many differences, not only between different religions, or even different sects of the same religion, but even within the same sects of the same religion, that finding out if someone is a Protestant Christian or a Shiite Muslim or an Orthodox Jew tells me almost nothing about their personality or beliefs.
The main reason for this is that the vast, vast majority of everyone cherry-picks their religion. They choose what they personally agree with or like, and discard or downplay what they don't. I have a great many friends who consider themselves religious, but who would act no different if they were not. They only label what their beliefs are by the tradition they were brought up to think of it as.
That's why I think religion has outlived its usefulness. In the old days, people used religion to tell them how to live and what to believe. But in our modern age, we have the tools to understand the world around us without short-cuts. I don't need God to tell me how to live: I have Reason, Logic, Empathy, and more to help decide what's right and wrong and why.
Religions are so diverse and diluted in general that the only people who really care about religion are the extremists, and those are the ones who show it in its worst light. I doubt anyone who runs an orphanage in the name of their religion would abandon it if they weren't religious, but there are plenty of people who kill for religion only.
If everyone else would give up the label of their religion and simply practice the actions that spread things like peace, love and truth, then I can't help but think the world would be a better place, because we'd lose a superficial distinctions between people that acts as a barrier more often than it does a bridge.
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
Or, phrased differently, "How do we as individuals and as a culture cultivate courage?"
One of the major problems with even raising the question of religion's utility is that it touches on such deep, emotionally sensitive issues. Religious belief is not just a set of values, but rather a defining vision for one's life and identity. This is one reason why debates on religion often turn so nasty, so quickly: critique of religion or of its various claims is often interpreted by the faithful as a critique of them. However we approach this issue, it is vitally important to recognize the reality of the emotional needs that drive convictions. In the end, we are all heir to the same pains, needs, and weaknesses as one another.
Wayne Busby 30+
r/t the Ten Commandments and "Why can't we read these things as metaphorical lessons and not take them as fact?"
Well I believe the answer to this question is the same reason why some cant see science as subjective theory and not take it as fact.
I don't understand your correlating coveting thy neighbors wife and slavery. Can you explain?
What would happen to the respective quality of your lives if you were to go after your neighbors wife or steal her car?
Or does your value system really allow for you to "stop being so damed respectful!"
Tim Colgan 50+
They are correlated by their presence in the same commandment. Which might not be such an issue in itself if it weren't symptomatic of a general thread which runs throughout the bible. That is condoning slavery and treating woman as property. And again when people (as many do) confuse the metaphorical reading by literal interpretation gets to the core problem of religion in the modern world.
I'm attempting to maintain a focus on the issues. The introduction with a quote from Dawkins was not meant to be a statement of my personal dogma, but merely a starting point for discussion. So respect to people - yes. Respect for counter-productive ideas - no. I think they need to be aired. Don't you?
Wayne Busby 30+
"How do we convince others to rely on rational thought for discovering reliable facts?"
And
How do we convince others to use the power of myth and storytelling to give their lives meaning without disregarding these tools just because they are not rational?"
Your comment reminds me of a Russian saying that goes "think with your heart and feel with your mind"
If I may:
How do we convince others as to the futility of solely using theories, equations and formulas produced in a finite mind; to definitively explain the infinite glory of the universe?
and
How do we convince others as to the rewards of having faith in the wisdom inherent to certain belief systems.
E G 10+
Wayne Busby 30+
E G 10+
Charles Schleicher
"But when I talk about religion, I'm referring to a belief system based on a holy scripture and/or a divinely based authority."
As I understand this definition, the question is about a particular form of religion. Furthermore, other posts suggest that an implicit postulate is being proposed that such a belief system excludes any rational thought. Such a postulate is readily falsifiable. There are hundreds of millions of people who believe in a deity or deities and/or scriptures who also engage in rational thought.
All people engage in rationality. All people engage in irrationality.
I believe that bad things which are attributed to religion are more accurately attributed to other pressures some of which have been mentioned here: economics, psychological illness, social and political disenfranchisement, etc. Blaming 9/11 on religion, for example, is like blaming 9/11 on the invention of airplanes.
Even with this narrow focus on revealed, theistic religion, to me asking Is it still useful? is a bit strange. No one sits down and invents a religion in order to perform a use or to accomplish something. Revealed religion in particular starts as the result of an experience and interpretation of that experience. At the same time it's a dedication and a way of life. One can agree with it or not. One can have other religions or other outlooks. But it's a part of the human experience that exists with or without purpose as an expression of our curiosity and desire to know as well as our desire to love, to give, and to have meaning. Whether one believes in M-theory or not: does that serve a purpose? Perhaps not directly, but it's a manifestation of components of humanness that are very useful.
daniel hehir 20+
Tim Colgan 50+
Kind of like life, no?
Peter Law
:-)