General Discussions
The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 26 of 32
Monday, May 28, 2007 10:03 AM
Quote:If you're using that as 'proof' that Religion, and Science are equivalent in 'faith', then no, sorry.
Originally posted by Casual
But isn't it the case that scientists wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about what will happen unless they assume that in the future (or the far distant past) the laws of nature will remain the same as they are now?
Scientists have to assume that the world exists, and that it's not a figment of their imagination, yet that really doesn't matter. Science comes up with theories and tests them, if it's theories turn out wrong then it changes them.
Religion, on the other hand, comes up with a theory, and expects the universe to conform to it. It's silly to suggest that Science is faith based because it makes certain assumptions about the Universe.
In other words, Science works within the natural laws of the universe, whatever they may be, Religion, to put it crudely, expects the natural laws of the universe to do what the hell they're told. Science works on testability, not necessarily provability, because in most circumstances testing something in every possible circumstance is practically impossible.
Quote:You're point being? Science is here just to test the natural world. Science has nothing to say on the Supernatural.
it seems that the predictive activity of the sciences is strictly bounded within certain norms; namely, natural laws.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 1:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).
Hear, hear!
I really don't want to go too far down this path, personally, I think it is silly to try and prove the 'title' of this thread as true. It is patently false.
While certainly we can refine what is good and evil, I'm willing to wager you will find that of those posting here, once all the 'fireworks are done', we will agree on 90% what constitutes good Vs. evil.
Since the topic is "going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil" I can close this topic down immediately. The answer is no. Sad to say, I'm not perfect. I have committed evil, and said evil is not, and was not, religiously inspired, motivated, intitiated, caused, or any other way tied to religion. I will say I regret such occaisions, and do henceforth intend to reduce my evil and increase my good. However, this is sufficient to prove the point, you really don't need anything more.
I agree and had come to the same conclusion regarding the fact that the original topic of this thread had been resolved with a "no". I know I've done and continue to do evil since having found God and I know I was doing evil before I found God, so I can't blame the fact that I do evil on religion. Also, thanks for posting the secular humanist link -- I haven't had a chance to read it, yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 1:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
It's the demand for worship and obedience, while giving the bogus choice of free will. It causes me to reject theistic religion.
Well, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Plenty of theisims out there, simply reject the Anglo God of Punishment. Sorry, it irritates me that folks assume that if you don't believe in the Christian God, then you don't believe in -any- god. Feel free to suppose a god which is merely 'powerful beyond your imagination' and not omnipotent. god need not be perfect. Anyway...
====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 1:33 PM
Quote:So what? You’re dead at that point. How does that affect how the lives are lived?
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But in one case you face an additional punishment that lasts all eternity. How is there not a difference?
Quote:I’m still not seeing what this has to do with slavery. Like you said, if you can stand the consequences you can do whatever you want regardless of what you believe.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I have no problem with religion as a metaphor. It's the literal interpretation and personification of God as a sentient, judging entity that I have a problem with.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 1:42 PM
Hey FredGiblet -- Regarding the origin of life discussion a bunch of posts back. I appreciate your reasoning and have a response. I agree, however, that this thread is not the place to have an origin of life discussion and will either pm you, start a new thread, or contribute to the old one (if it isn't too long already). Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 1:58 PM
You know, I've commented a couple of times on why I don't like the RWE approach coming into these more calm, congenial threads, And I finally figured out what is was that I didn't like. In the beginning of these threads, people sort of just aired their opinions--and if there was disagreement, that would be raised and talked over. But you're trying to beat me. You're trying to win. You're trying to prove me wrong. And that's not a very enjoyable way of carrying on a discussion. "But have you considered ____________" is the method of argument I prefer, because then it's not about attacking and besting anyone. So at the risk of igniting an RWE-style fight, I'll attempt to respond to your objections.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Scientists have to assume that the world exists, and that it's not a figment of their imagination, yet that really doesn't matter. Science comes up with theories and tests them, if it's theories turn out wrong then it changes them.
Religion, on the other hand, comes up with a theory, and expects the universe to conform to it. It's silly to suggest that Science is faith based because it makes certain assumptions about the Universe.
I'm not claiming that "science is faith." And I'm certainly not suggesting that religious faith can give the same sorts of data about the world and the way it works as science can. What I am saying is that everyone holds beliefs that cannot be conclusively proven, and that religious believers ought not be maligned for the mere fact that they do. Another example might be the rules of logic. One cannot prove the law of contradiction without applying the laws of logic--which is, of course, begging the question. But since the rules of logic are the only way we have to insure accurate thinking, it's difficult to see how non-contradiction could be proven without begging the question.
The basic mistake that people are making with respect to my line of reasoning is, I think, the mistaken assumption that I'm equating religion and science. If people would stop reacting and start trying to understand what I'm trying to assert, they'd realize that that's not my project. My project is to point out that religion ought not be criticized for the mere fact that some of its beliefs are not conclusively proven.
Quote:
In other words, Science works within the natural laws of the universe, whatever they may be, Religion, to put it crudely, expects the natural laws of the universe to do what the hell they're told. Science works on testability, not necessarily provability, because in most circumstances testing something in every possible circumstance is practically impossible.
Yes, and again, this is not at all my point. I'm not making claims about religion being as accurate as science because on my view the two treat completely different subject matter. So your view that religion "expects the natural laws of the universe to do what the hell they're told" is completely irrelevant to the claims I'm trying to make. I'm actually a big fan of science (and not that creation-science junk). I'm well aware of the testability method of science. My point is now, and has always been, that science has foundational assumptions that are not testable and not provable. And I my intent in pointing that out is not to undermine science, as you seem to think. My intent is to point out that the basic criticism of religion as irrational because it accepts unprovable propositions can also be leveled at everyone else. I think the curious thing about our situation on this planent is that we have to decide that we're going to believe things (whatever they turn out to be) that are ultimately beyond proof.
Quote:Quote:You're point being? Science is here just to test the natural world. Science has nothing to say on the Supernatural.
it seems that the predictive activity of the sciences is strictly bounded within certain norms; namely, natural laws.
If you'd left this
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 1:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:So what? You’re dead at that point. How does that affect how the lives are lived?
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But in one case you face an additional punishment that lasts all eternity. How is there not a difference?
Is it really death, though, if you've merely left your earthly vessel and still consciously suffer lots of punishment? If you utterly insist on being overtly literal with my words, we'll consider the after-death period as the one that matters.
Non-existent, thus neutral OR possible existent without punishment, thus neutral OR existent and filled with punishment, thus very much not neutral. Can you consider a difference now?
Quote:Quote:I’m still not seeing what this has to do with slavery. Like you said, if you can stand the consequences you can do whatever you want regardless of what you believe.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I have no problem with religion as a metaphor. It's the literal interpretation and personification of God as a sentient, judging entity that I have a problem with.
The neutral world with its immediate consequences doesn't pretend to love us. And there is always the escape of death.
God tells us he does love us, but we really only exist to do what he tells us to do and the alternative is by definition unbearable, because it would hardly be hell if it was a walk in the park.
That's like telling a slave they are free to run away if they can stand the consequences of being caught (inevitable in the case of after-death judgment) and punished for the attempt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 2:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Well, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Plenty of theisims out there, simply reject the Anglo God of Punishment. Sorry, it irritates me that folks assume that if you don't believe in the Christian God, then you don't believe in -any- god. Feel free to suppose a god which is merely 'powerful beyond your imagination' and not omnipotent. god need not be perfect. Anyway...
I apologize for being unclear.
You're right. I do merely mean the God I have come to know through the Bible, so all non-affiliated theistic believes aren't necessarily part of that rejection.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 2:04 PM
Quote:Ok, I'm trying to beat you, and you're trying to beat, and insult me, but hey, I'm not entitled to an opinion unless its rubber stamped by you first I guess.
Originally posted by Causal:
You know, I've commented a couple of times on why I don't like the RWE approach coming into these more calm, congenial threads, And I finally figured out what is was that I didn't like. In the beginning of these threads, people sort of just aired their opinions--and if there was disagreement, that would be raised and talked over. But you're trying to beat me. You're trying to win. You're trying to prove me wrong. And that's not a very enjoyable way of carrying on a discussion. "But have you considered ____________" is the method of argument I prefer, because then it's not about attacking and besting anyone. So at the risk of igniting an RWE-style fight, I'll attempt to respond to your objection
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 28, 2007 2:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Well, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Plenty of theisims out there, simply reject the Anglo God of Punishment. Sorry, it irritates me that folks assume that if you don't believe in the Christian God, then you don't believe in -any- god. Feel free to suppose a god which is merely 'powerful beyond your imagination' and not omnipotent. god need not be perfect. Anyway...
I apologize for being unclear.
You're right. I do merely mean the God I have come to know through the Bible, so all non-affiliated theistic believes aren't necessarily part of that rejection.
accepted; and I'll concede I got slightly hot under the collar.
Depending on where you live, you can also "shop" the Christian churches in your neighborhood; see if any of the clergy are more of a "those whose life balances toward good" can get to heaven, then check out the rest of their approach. If you get desperate, check out the Unitarian Universalists; if nothing else the... preacher? ... might even have a suggestion on Christian Churches in the area more ameniable to your approach, and whatever you tell him(/her) you will also likely be told you are welcome to join the congregation there.
====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME