Current Poll (Religion)

[Haunted]

Quoting Alistair from 20:24, 10th Aug 2007
As someone who has fairly strong religious beliefs, I feel I must make a comment, purely because most of, if not all, the people above appear to be atheist/agnostic/non-religious. Also because the last paragraph of the previous post really annoyed me. I would just say to the poster, "look around you". The vastness of evidence, I would argue, does point towards the existence of a god.

Can you identify something in the world that cannot be explained by the laws of nature?

To me, atheism, agnosticism and non-religious views are vastly different theological standpoints. Atheism is saying, "There is no god." Agnosticism is saying, "It is impossible for me to say at this point in time whether there is a god." Being non-religious means that person may or may not believe in a god. Although they generally have no specific doctrine, atheism and agnosticism are both religious beliefs, in that they are beliefs not based on scientific evidence. Rather in the mind of the atheist or agnostic person, the non-existence of god does not disagree with scientific evidence.

Atheism = Lack of belief in supernatural
Agnostic = doubting of ultimate certainty about anything
Non-religious = Someone who does not care for religion.

Lots of common ground with them all, though yes I can agree there are small parts of each which are different. Why don't we see groups about Christian agnosticism or islamic agnostics?
Atheism and agnosticism are NOT religious beliefs, they are a lack of them. Bald is not a hair colour, not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

To my mind, therefore, this poll essentially asks, "Do you have one of the following defined beliefs in a god, or, on the other hand, do you not believe at all in a god or have no well known defined beliefs in a god?", which means that it is automatically going to show more people on the top category, as personally I would estimate approximately 10-25% of students are atheist or agnostic, 25% of some well-defined religion, and probably over 50% neither believing in nor not believing in a god. This is irrelevant to this discussion, but it does mean I feel the poll will be biased. Also, this may be just my social grouping, but most of the people I know who believe in a god aren't on the sinner, whereas several people I know who don't believe in a god are.

I can say that these results are quite representative of the public at large (at leats in the UK, yes yes not every sinner is British).
A survey in 2005 showed that only 38% of the UK believe in a God (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/arch ... ort_en.pdf)
Only 16% in estonia

Now to my views on theology. I believe the vastness of evidence does in fact point to the existence of a god. Before I go further, I must explain what my definition of God is.

No, before you go further you must provide any such evidence.

God is not a physical being who exists in one place, God is everywhere. God was not created. He exists outside of time, and therefore there was no time before or after he existed. It is not like, He was not there at the beginning and the end, rather, He created the beginning and the end. This is important.

Ah, the old "God is outside space and time so you can't get him" line of thinking. Not long ago the idea of a physical God was the accepted one, why is not now? Because we know better. The God idea has been backed into a corner and now people say "oh he's not part of time, he doesn't need an explanation". How convenient.

The FSM is a physical being as it must have dimensions to be described as an FSM. Therefore, any belief in an FSM specifically has to be based on physical evidence, of which there is none.

The image of FSM could just be the physical abberation of it. How do you know that the FSM does not exist 'outside of space and time'? Can you prove a negative?

"Hmm, there is no God. Universe randomly exists, appeared from nowhere, everything in it also appeared from nowhere, there is no purpose in my life apart from my mind's own creation."

That reeks of ignorance. No one starts off at "there is no god", thats just where they end up. Look around, there is only the physical, the physical can be explained simply and without a supreme intelligence. It takes a leap of irrationality to then say "oh a supreme being must exist". Of course, there are gaps in the current knowledge, "why doesn't QM work with relativity?", "do protons decay?", "is Cygnus X-1 really a black hole?", "why was there a massive inflation of space-time approximately 13.7Gyrs ago?". No, lets not investigate such things through experiment and observation, lets just say "god did it" and rejoice in our blissful ignorance.

I am not advocating Creationism here. What I am saying is, imagine the Big Bang occurred, as this is what the vast majority of scientists say. Where did the matter come from, where did the space the matter exists inside come from, how did it occur?

I doubt anyone on this board is qualified to answer such things. Even then, there's only a handful of cosmologists who can say anything about it. There are theories floating around (M-theory etc) that try to deal with it, but as yet none of them have any evidence to support them. Shall we just say "god did it" and rejoice?

I see God's effects all around me

Yes you keep saying this, please support it.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Frank from 21:49, 10th Aug 2007
Haunted, I agree with much of your arguments and reasoning, except for your final paragraph.

Thanks, thought that last one would raise some eyebrows.

It seems, to me, that the obvious conclusion is "To make a statement on the existence or non-existance of a God-esque...thing is irrelevent at this stage, given the evidence".

ALL evidence points towards there being no god (and no faires or anything supernatural for that matter either). There is no positive evidence for anything supernatural.
Yes, strictly speaking, we must remain agnostic about it, since we cannot prove a negative.
Should we give both ideas equal weight? The chance of God existing is NOT 50:50. Everytime we explain something without god his odds diminish. Given all that we know, the odds are ridiculous, it takes a leap of irrationality to hang onto a supreme being. Right now, the god idea is hanging onto the big bang, hiding in the last place science has yet to get to.

But to positively believe in the non-existence of a God-esque...thing is as 'bad'* as believing, IMO.

Thats a double negative. Do you postively believe in the non-existence of FSM? Do you answer A-FSMist on forms?
There is belief in God, or there is lack of belief in God. It really is that black and white.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting mhuzzell from 00:30, 11th Aug 2007
But that's exactly my point: there is as much difference between Agnostics and Atheists as there is between Agnostics and religious people.

No I am disagreeing with this. You either beleive or you don't. Find me an agnostic that believes. Also, why can I find numerous atheist/agnostic groups or forums but no christian/agnostic ones?

(...)
-Isaac Asimov

"# It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

-Richard Dawkins,

"People will then often say, 'But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?' This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.)"

-Douglas Adams

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Alistair]

My second post appears to have disappeared. I'll try and briefly say what was in it.

Firstly, I am not trying to say that atheism and agnosticism are irrational. Merely that they are alternative theological standpoints, and thus in my opinion religions without doctrines. Non-religious people on the other hand are people who are neither atheist nor agnostics nor theists if you see what I mean. Atheists have looked at the world and decided that there is no god either because they think that there is no need for a god and see no evidence of a god or because they think a god would be unlikely or both.

Secondly, evidence for God: Big Bang, constants of physics, sound, light, matter, life... I realise they don't require a god in one sense. But on the other hand they must have come from somewhere.

Thirdly, in response to James, creationism is the alternative to evolution. It doesn't mean things were created. It means more specifically that instead of things evolving, they exist as they are now. So I wasn't advocating creationism. Also, I wouldn't recommend "The God Delusion". I've read it, and it hasn't really altered any of my views. Moreover, quite a few atheist friends of mine disagreed with a large chunk of it as well.

Fourthly, in response to Gubbins, I understand your point that many atheists believe in a four dimensional enclosed space, where time is the fourth dimension. This doesn't explain where that four dimensional space comes from. (As it happens I do maths, and have dabbled in theoretical physics). Also, I didn't mean to sound patronising towards atheists with what I said, and I probably said the statements in the wrong order. Obviously, most atheists have thought through their reasons for not believing in God. So, I have not fallen for that misconception, I just didn't make my point clear.

Finally, (sorry I've gone on a bit-I don't normally write much on the sinner but no other religious people appear to be saying anything), in response to Haunted, where did the laws of nature come from? Technically, agnosticism can refer to everything and not just god, but it can just refer to God, and this is definition I believe is being used by most people on this board. I don't want to argue over definitions, but in this and my previous post I am talking about atheism, agnosticism and nonreligious as the ones I have just defined. The important thing is to keep your definition constant and understood. Belief in the nature of god can change, just as views of atheists on the world also change. It is not because God doesn't exist, it is merely through science that my definition had to change, as do definitions used by atheists. On the topic of science, what I am saying is not, "I don't know how something works, God must have done it." What I am saying is that science means looking for the most likely solution given the evidence. It does not mean trying to explain something God has done assuming God does not exist, if you see what I mean. I am completely supportive of people doing scientific experiments. What is important is being able to interpret that evidence.

(edited for spelling and grammar)

[sejanus]

Quoting Haunted from 11:30, 11th Aug 2007

Ah, the old "God is outside space and time so you can't get him" line of thinking. Not long ago the idea of a physical God was the accepted one, why is not now? Because we know better. The God idea has been backed into a corner and now people say "oh he's not part of time, he doesn't need an explanation". How convenient.

I don't really want to get into this, but just a heads up - this isn't *that* new, since Augustine of Hippo (fourth-fifth century AD) wrestles with the concept of God existing outside of human perceived space-time (books 10-13 of the Confessions specifically).

[s]Quoting St Augustine from Confessions XI.xiii(15-16), AD 397-400

You have made time itself. Time could not elapse before you made time...It is not in time that you precede times. Otherwise you would not precede all times. In the sublimity of eternity which is always in the present, you are before all things past and transcend all things future, because they are still to come, and when they have come they are past.

[Alistair]

On the note of definitions, I don't want to sound pedantic, but I've just checked and mine are pretty much the same as the ones on www.dictionary.com.

Oh and can someone else who believes in god please post, I feel I'm awfully outnumbered on this thread [img]littleicons/blush.gif[/img]

[Alistair]

Quoting Alistair from 16:05, 11th Aug 2007
Secondly, evidence for God: Big Bang, constants of physics, sound, light, matter, life... I realise they don't require a god in one sense. But on the other hand they must have come from somewhere.

I probably should make clear what I mean before I get misquoted. In my opinion, God can affect the world we live in, but everyday things happen of their own accord (obviously with God as the ultimate indirect cause). It is God's genius that has created a universe that is "self-sufficient" in that, now that it has been created, it no longer requires God to intervene, unless He wants to.

[novium]

The scientific approach will not get you very far in the humanities...which you might say are all about trying to understand life.

Actually, I'd say science sucks when it comes to "understanding life". I was reading a book the other day on epistemology that put it very well: science seeks exactness, not Truth. Truth is within the remit of history, philosophy, and poetry.

Additionally, I would contend that the argument that the linking of the scientific method and rationalism with atheism is as flawed as linking morality and religion.

Quoting Haunted from 18:29, 10th Aug 2007
It's very easy to compare the two and say they are simply different facets of the same thing.
Though atheism itself offers no truths. Strictly speaking it is simply a lack of belief.
However almost all atheists will claim that science has the ability to tell us what is true. So I suggest that your comparison should be between science and doctrine.
Each claims to tell us how the world works, each has it's leaders and followers.
However, look a little deeper. How does each claim to know the truth?
One uses experiment/observation/rational thought whereas the other relies on 'divine inspiration' (usually in the form of a very old text written in a very old language with a questionable translation).
One accepts new evidence and adapts it's claims. The other maintains strict doctrine.

I'm not sure I need to continue since if someone truly needs to be convinced that a scientific approach is not the best way to understand life, the universe and everything then they are in a sad state indeed.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[novium]

Oh yes, because being harangued and belittled by someone who is a seething cauldron of self-righteousness *always* convinces people to change their minds.

Quoting [James] from 22:08, 10th Aug 2007

I highly recommend 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Ri ... 927&sr=8-1

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Frank]

Quoting Alistair from 16:52, 11th Aug 2007

Quoting Alistair from 16:05, 11th Aug 2007
Secondly, evidence for God: Big Bang, constants of physics, sound, light, matter, life... I realise they don't require a god in one sense. But on the other hand they must have come from somewhere.

I probably should make clear what I mean before I get misquoted. In my opinion, God can affect the world we live in, but everyday things happen of their own accord (obviously with God as the ultimate indirect cause). It is God's genius that has created a universe that is "self-sufficient" in that, now that it has been created, it no longer requires God to intervene, unless He wants to.

The problem, however, is that to explain all this doesn't requite God, His Genius or any other explanation. God might have done it, but it really doesn't matter. To base further beliefs on an initial pointthat doesn't actually matter either way rings alarm bells in me noggin'.

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007
the humanities...which you might say are all about trying to understand life.

Curiously, I was always told the same thing about science, that it's about understanding life.

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007Actually, I'd say science sucks when it comes to "understanding life".

Piffle.

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007 I was reading a book the other day on epistemology that put it very well: science seeks exactness, not Truth. Truth is within the remit of history, philosophy, and poetry.

But the general assumption is that truth and exactness come together quite nicely. Indeed, science tells us we have very distinct limits on exactness, so that can't be quite right either.

No, truth seems to be the heart of it. Or finding what we believe to be the truth, with alot of philosophical polish to make sure our beliefs are coherent and non-contradictory.

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007Additionally, I would contend that the argument that the linking of the scientific method and rationalism with atheism is as flawed as linking morality and religion.

Quite right too. It seems not a two-way link. That is: You can have reason without science and morality without religion. However, it does seem that science is quite reliant upon reason and religion somewhat reliant upon morality.

I do think that God, whatever/wherever/however, seems a bit suspect. I still do believe, but I don't think it's a defining belief anymore. Still, I believe more than anything: God, if he exists or not, has an incredible sense of humour. If he doesn't, then we're all up a gum tree (and he's probably an arsehole...)

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[novium]

Wait until monday and I can get my hands on the book. Truth is not fact. He explains it very well. It's kind of like...hmm..science wants to know the how, it's not concerned with the 'why', because why is not something that science can discover. (why as in, "the meaning of life")

Anyway, my point about science/atheism and religion/morality is that it's wrong to assume that scientific rationality = atheism, or that morality = religion, and that these things are mutually exclusive.



[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[[James]]

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007
Actually, I'd say science sucks when it comes to "understanding life".

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I presume you meant "understanding the meaning of life". What could be more self-indulgent than thinking that we are here for a reason? Some questions are just utterly nonsensical, including the old perennial of the purpose of existence. I know it's our instinct to look for patterns and meaning in everything, but there are some things which simply do not have a pre-assigned role or purpose; get over it.

The second point I'd make is that many of the core beliefs about religion are also core beliefs about the nature of the universe. So, in matters of the nature of the universe, how on earth is a dusty old theologian more qualified than an astronomer to answer questions?

[Haunted]

Quoting Alistair from 16:05, 11th Aug 2007
My second post appears to have disappeared. I'll try and briefly say what was in it.

I hope you had answers to my questions as the following doesn't appear to have any

Firstly, I am not trying to say that atheism and agnosticism are irrational. Merely that they are alternative theological standpoints, and thus in my opinion religions without doctrines.

Is bald a hair colour? Atheism (note the A) is a total lack of theology, not another form of it.

Non-religious people on the other hand are people who are neither atheist nor agnostics nor theists if you see what I mean.

If we are defining non-religious as those that do not care for religion, then they must not believe in the existence of god. Like I said, the overlap between A, A and NR is very high.

Atheists have looked at the world and decided that there is no god either because they think that there is no need for a god and see no evidence of a god or because they think a god would be unlikely or both.

There is no thinking about this one, the laws that explain the universe do so without the need for a supreme intelligence. Atheists also see no evidence for a god because there isn't any!

Secondly, evidence for God: Big Bang, constants of physics, sound, light, matter, life... I realise they don't require a god in one sense. But on the other hand they must have come from somewhere.

Right, so the trouble here is origin of the universe. Physics is homing it on this at a very fast rate and so far, no god. This is the only legimate place where the religious can still 'but aha, explain the origin of universe!', well it's being worked on. Other than this, there is no where else in science that god can hide.

Thirdly, in response to James, creationism is the alternative to evolution. It doesn't mean things were created. It means more specifically that instead of things evolving, they exist as they are now. So I wasn't advocating creationism.

I know your not advocating it, but please reassure me that you don't buy it and indeed condemn it?

Fourthly, in response to Gubbins, I understand your point that many atheists believe in a four dimensional enclosed space, where time is the fourth dimension. This doesn't explain where that four dimensional space comes from. (As it happens I do maths, and have dabbled in theoretical physics)

Bit off topic but, time is not the fourth dimension. Einstein linked time and space together with relativity. There four dimensions of spacetime. The three we experience and the fourth in which our universe curves, think hypersphere.

in response to Haunted, where did the laws of nature come from?

This is your point from before. Though, who says they have to come from anywhere? There are some curious theories that deal with such questions. I strongly recommend reading some of them to see what you think. Try M-Thoery (or brane theory).

Belief in the nature of god can change, just as views of atheists on the world also change. It is not because God doesn't exist, it is merely through science that my definition had to change, as do definitions used by atheists.

How can the nature of something omnipotent change? Did that mean he was previously not perfect? Or do you mean something like, we no longer believe god causes the lightning because science and observation have told us better? Is that an instance of his nature changing?

On the topic of science, what I am saying is not, "I don't know how something works, God must have done it."

You have said you don't know what caused the big bang so therefore god did it.

I am completely supportive of people doing scientific experiments. What is important is being able to interpret that evidence.

And since the evidence (absolutely all of it) shows no sign nor need for a supreme intelligence....?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Alistair from 16:21, 11th Aug 2007
On the note of definitions, I don't want to sound pedantic, but I've just checked and mine are pretty much the same as the ones on www.dictionary.com.

Bearing in mind that dictionary.com sources many sites and returns many results for the same word, often different.

I am defining Atheism as a lack of belief in the supernatural.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Alistair from 16:52, 11th Aug 2007
I probably should make clear what I mean before I get misquoted. In my opinion, God can affect the world we live in, but everyday things happen of their own accord (obviously with God as the ultimate indirect cause). It is God's genius that has created a universe that is "self-sufficient" in that, now that it has been created, it no longer requires God to intervene, unless He wants to.

This is the same point from before. Science has yet to determine the cause (if it has one) of the big bang and so you decree that there lies evidence of god the creator, and set everything in motion from day one. Quantum mechanics that such determinism is impossible. It is impossible to know how the universe would evolve given it's starting conditions. Things happen randomly, nothing can know how events will unfold.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007
The scientific approach will not get you very far in the humanities...which you might say are all about trying to understand life.

The universe (including your brain) is entirely physical, science explains the physical.

Actually, I'd say science sucks when it comes to "understanding life". I was reading a book the other day on epistemology that put it very well: science seeks exactness, not Truth. Truth is within the remit of history, philosophy, and poetry.

What? Gravity is the result of bent spacetime, that is a fact, it is also the truth. Poetry will tell you nothing about the truths of the universe.

Additionally, I would contend that the argument that the linking of the scientific method and rationalism with atheism is as flawed as linking morality and religion.

Science is the applied use of rationality and reason to observation and experimentation.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

Except your perceptions of the universe are completely shaped by your innate (and yes, societal) biases. So it's a bit of a circle, isn't it? What you can detect and attempt to explain is limited to a)those things we are capable of detecting (directly or indirectly) and b)those things our minds are capable of conceiving.

Science does not seek to answer "what does it all mean"... it's foolish to pretend that it does. Gravity may be a fact, but that does not make it a Truth. It's an observable phenomenon, granted. It exists, it can be measured...but it has no meaning, in and of itself.

I really wish I had the book with me, because he put it beautifully. I only have one quote written down, just one example out of his whole argument- although it's put the other way around, talking about why history (etc) cannot be a science:
"History does not repeat itself, and is only the history of variations; men will tell of the 1914 war, but not of the war as a phenomenon. (imagine a physicist who did not seek out the law of falling bodies but talked about falls and their "causes”)".

Quoting Haunted from 22:22, 11th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007
The scientific approach will not get you very far in the humanities...which you might say are all about trying to understand life.

The universe (including your brain) is entirely physical, science explains the physical.

Actually, I'd say science sucks when it comes to "understanding life". I was reading a book the other day on epistemology that put it very well: science seeks exactness, not Truth. Truth is within the remit of history, philosophy, and poetry.

What? Gravity is the result of bent spacetime, that is a fact, it is also the truth. Poetry will tell you nothing about the truths of the universe.

Additionally, I would contend that the argument that the linking of the scientific method and rationalism with atheism is as flawed as linking morality and religion.

Science is the applied use of rationality and reason to observation and experimentation.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

Quoting [James] from 21:43, 11th Aug 2007
I know it's our instinct to look for patterns and meaning in everything, but there are some things which simply do not have a pre-assigned role or purpose; get over it.

No.

[novium]

No, I said just what I mean. Understanding something *is* about meaning...but I said nothing about "the" meaning.

And our lives are all about meaning. we create meaning. That study of that is not something science deals with. It is described and defined by history, literature philosophy...as I already said.

You seem quite obstinate about ignoring the difference between 'the nature of the universe', ie "what does it all mean" and 'the nature of the universe' i.e. "how does the universe physically work"

Quoting [James] from 21:43, 11th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 17:30, 11th Aug 2007
Actually, I'd say science sucks when it comes to "understanding life".

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I presume you meant "understanding the meaning of life". What could be more self-indulgent than thinking that we are here for a reason? Some questions are just utterly nonsensical, including the old perennial of the purpose of existence. I know it's our instinct to look for patterns and meaning in everything, but there are some things which simply do not have a pre-assigned role or purpose; get over it.

The second point I'd make is that many of the core beliefs about religion are also core beliefs about the nature of the universe. So, in matters of the nature of the universe, how on earth is a dusty old theologian more qualified than an astronomer to answer questions?

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[novium]

Quoting [James] from 21:43, 11th Aug 2007
I know it's our instinct to look for patterns and meaning in everything, but there are some things which simply do not have a pre-assigned role or purpose; get over it.

What you don't seem to understand is that stating that the universe doesn't have any meaning is not something that falls into the realm of fact. You are yourself dabbling in creating meaning...you are indulging in the same urge you are lambasting. You are creating meaning.

It's all about...interpretation. You are putting forward an interpretation of the universe. That is not science. That is not fact. Interpretation is what the humanities deal with.
[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.