Do you believe in God?

[tracilicious]

Why or why not?

[€uroMeinke]

I don't

But to me it's more of a matter of personal integrity. That is, if I'm honest with myself and how I live my life, make the decissions that I make, the existence of God simply doesn't factor in to it. God's existence is irrelevent to me.

I'm also very comfortable with ther notion that there are thisng out there that we will never come to understand, perhaps "God" is one of those things, but to me such a thing is unknowable, and again unecessary for me to continue to live my life.

I also recognize that other's take the contrary position, they live their lives according to their notion of what God is and how he/she gives meaning to their lives. If I were to adopt such a belief, I would feel dishonest, so I don't, but I also feel no need "converting" others to my beliefs, as whatever the reality of the situation is, remains unknowable - and for all I know, they may be right.

[scaeagles]

I do.

Without going into much detail, I have had experiences (one in particular) that there is no scientific explanation for.

Having been raised in a church going nondenominational Christian family, I did what a lot of people raised in that environment do upon going off to college, being that I didn't do it anymore. I've had ups and downs in my faith, but there are things that have happened to me that cannot be explained except by the existance of some higher power. Of course there will be those that will scoff at such at statement, and that's fine. I might as well should I not have directly experienced them.

[Not Afraid]

I believe there is a power greater than myself and I choose to call it "God" because it's the vernacular that best matches what I believe. I believe that "god" as I understand it is unknowable and undefinable to us poor little humans with our pea brains and I don't have an issue with believing in some that is not fully understandable to me.

But, I don't buy into most religious practice or teachings as a whole. I always fine them too limiting and too intolerant. I think religion is a human attempt to define and control what is basicially unknowable. However, there are spiritual practices in many religions that I have incorporated into my life as a way to be more in touch with this higher power.

I've come a long way from my fundie upbringing to the place where I feel comfortable with my spiritual beliefs and comfortable discarding those beliefs and practices that don't work for me and my own spirituality.

[Snowflake]

I do.

Growing up in a non-religious household, I went to church but I never remember seeing my parents attend. It was, surprisingly, somehting that was never really discussed. I do not buy into a lot of organized religion because so much of it seems to be thou shalt not and this is totally wrong and much (western) religion to me seems to be whoever is intepreting ancient text such as the bible, fits into their own filter. Too much dogma for me.

I did harbor a serious search for a personal path and found a path to follow and that it works for me. I believe in prayer and know from my own experience that they are often answered. But I find faith and beliefs of a spiritual nature to be so very personal, I rarely talk about them.

But, I do believe in God, a power that runs the universe and that I'm in school and optimistically think I'm barely ekking by with a D grade :)

[Alex]

No, because there is no reason to do so.

[flippyshark]

I used to be a committed Christian, but over the last ten years, I've slid all the way down the slipppery slope and I'm now firmly in the secular humanist camp. The study of comparative religion, New Testament history and historical research/conjecture about Jesus are subjects that continue to fascinate me, and they occupy a major chunk of my free time. (In fact, pursiung those interests is what eroded my beliefs away, very slowly. I started out on that journey trying to come up with better apologistic defenses of traditional faith, and look where that got me.)

While I am sure that Yahweh the Judeo-Christian God is a human invention, I would concede that it is un-knowable whether there is any higher intelligence or prime mover or uncaused cause behind the universe. I tend to doubt it, but I sure can't disprove it.

I do miss the social aspects of belonging to a church and the music, pageantry and splendor that accompanied it. I also miss the sense of childlike trust and wonderment when I thought I understood life, the universe and everything, and had a name for it. But it's a place I can never return to, however cozy and reassuring I once found it. (whistful sigh)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yes.

I believe someone started the universe ticking, and someone designed the symmetry and balance we see everywhere.

I can't say my Jewish upbringing has held fast in every respect, but the above holds true for me. Used to believe the Torah was direct from God - now believe it was inspired by God but can't be the actual words. At least I hope so! ;)

[Sub la Goon]

No.

I believe in Infinity, which is larger than my brain can fully grasp, but I do not believe that there is any intelligence (benevolent or otherwise) that guides the mechanics of the universe or sets up a moral compass for us all to follow. I believe that spiritualty can be a very strong and positive thing in many people's lives. I see a uniquely human need for spirituality. Organized Religion, on the other hand, lends itself to intolerance and friction. Sometimes with disasterous results.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Somewhere deep inside, there is a part of me that would like to believe that God exists. This makes it hard to consider myself an athiest. And yet, if one exists, I doubt that it resembles the God that Christians describe.

I'm also willing to accept that my feelings are based on a yearning for there to be something more to life that just our time here on this planet. That, if we lead good lives and treat others well, we might be rewarded with another go around or something. And yet, logic tells me that this is truly all that there is and we better make the best of our time here, for we only get one chance to live and then, that is that.

I certainly don't believe that there is a God that is pre-occupied with what gender of person we choose to become intimate with. I think God would be far more concerned with why we seem to have this penchant for killing one another.

In recent years, I have found that aspects of the eastern religions, notably Buddhism, make a lot more sense to me and no belief in a god is demanded.

[mistyisjafo]

Just from reading the above, we have a pretty fascinating group here in the LoT. I think it's cool that we are so widely diverse!

As for myself, I always like to think of myself as an Agnostic. I'm willing to believe in some sort of higher power but I'm not willing to go to a church to learn about it. Mostly because I just never really went to church growing up and when I did it was pretty rare thing. I'd also have to agree with NA that religious practices are very limiting. I just can't get behind all those RULES.

But I do consider myself spiritual. I meditate, believe in holistic health and find things like yoga & tai chi really do make me feel more "centered" in a spiritual way. That's about the extent of my belief.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I don't believe in the "classic" sense.

I think "God" was created as a name to put to something that gives comfort to a person. I doesn't matter if its in a time of pain, need or joy, whatever. Someone had to be "blamed" or "thanked" so I think man came up with this mysterious being that sees all.

My view is that there might be some all powerful being. Maybe not. I think if there was it would be a bigger part of the human experince. Why keep the mystery like the "man behind the curtin?"

To me "god" or the like is the human experiance. It's in what we see, what we feel, what we hear. What touches us, what moves us, what makes us angry and what sets us off. Its the mind, heart, eyes, brain, nerves, hands, skin and feet. Its organic. It's the trees, the sun, the sky, the moon. It is animals, fish, and birds. It's music, its voice, its a beat. Its what makes us the same and different all in one.

Anyway.....I digress....

[Capt Jack]

I do believe in 'something' beyond our grasp and/or comprehension going on around us that controls every last thing in the universe. It may be purely the quantum laws of particle physics or a ebb and flow so vast as to be unfathomable to our current senses of reality. I dont however believe in 'created in his own image' and view that as pure conceit at the species level.

I believe whatever it is that keeps everything related to everything else and holds all things in check and balance holds little specific love for the human race as a whole. At the very least no more so than the pebble at my feet, the stars buring a billion light years away that no naked human eye will ever see or the dirt 5 miles below the surface of some distant unnamed planet.

That to me makes each of us ultimately responsible for whatever it is we feed out into the 'universe' (multiple parallel universe theories not withstanding) and in that respect holds each and every one of us accountable for our own actions.

So for lack of a better term, I suppose that for me defines 'God'.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes and no.

In the end, all I really believe is that some force must have created the universe, the nature of which we can never know.

But I do entertain a murky belief that it's some manner of conscious being with some form of stake in things. But it's mostly a mental exercise. My current model of the universe that I like to ponder is that we're characters in a video game, and God is the programmer. God "controls" what we do in-so-much as he has defined how the system works, but one the game starts running, if it's sufficiently complex, even the programmer can't predict exactly how it will play out. That model gives easy answers to questions like "Can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it?" Can a video game programmer? The answer is...the question doesn't make sense, God is completely outside of this universe.

Then, if I continue the analogy, Jesus (and here I'm really straying from my actual core beliefs...like I said, mental exercise) would be the player character. Still constrainted by the "reality" of the created universe, but posessed with certain knowledge and power beyond the non-player characters (i.e., mere mortals). And a player character is, in some ways, an extension of the creator himself, while not actually being the creator.

Of course, while God would, once the universe was programmed, not have the ability to directly alter the course of things (it's not like programmers can change a game in the middle of playing it), what good programmer doesn't build in a few cheat codes (i.e. miracles)?

So us Jews are just waiting for the day that Elijah finds himself a 1-up mushroom.

[Jughead P. Jones]

Short answer...yes.

But, my belief system is probably unlike any other person's, and that's due to the way I was brought up.

For instance, I haven't been baptized yet. So, technically, I don't really follow any sort of religion at all. Doesn't mean that I am necessarily an atheist. I think there is some form of higher power out there...I just don't really live by a code of guidelines by a specific religion...at least not yet.

See, I was brought up in a family that believes in adult baptism, and choosing whatever religion we want to choose to follow when we're old enough to understand it. Right now, I'm undecided about what belief system to follow, but there are a couple that look like something I would tend to believe in more than other forms.

Personally, I like the idea of choosing whatever religion best suits you, rather than have a belief system forced upon you.

I'm not saying that choosing a religion is like choosing a new pair of shoes...not at all...I just think that people can benefit a lot more by researching different religions and choosing whatever fits them best.

I hope that my points came across okay.

[Capt Jack]

I'm not saying that choosing a religion is like choosing a new pair of shoes

actually, Im thinking it is. whatever fits best and is the most comfortable.
:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

As for organized religion, I believe it can be an excellent tool to provide a moral framework for a child to grow up in. Adults should allow themselves more freedom, however, to make their own choices. For some, remaining within the framework is the right choice. But I think too many get stuck in it when it's not right for them. That's one of the reasons I will continue to call myself Jewish, and feel Jewish, despite my general lack of practicing the faith. Namely that Judaism encourages individuals to find their own path and question everything. I will happily raise my children Jewish as I was raised, with the spirit of, "Here is a system of beliefs, one that has worked for many people for a long time. It provides some basic tools to teach you how to treat people and how to make sense of your own life. Once you've learned those tools, it's up to you to decide how to apply them."

[flippyshark]

This is a fun thread, loaded with interesting and wise responses, but I feel it is fair to ask;

Tracilicious, since you opened the topic, what's your answer?

[Strangler Lewis]

Namely that Judaism encourages individuals to find their own path and question everything.

Some years ago, I received a subscription to a magazine called "Moment." It would have "thoughtful" essays on controversial moral issues. Somehow, the author always managed to conclude that Jewish teaching stated the correct result.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Some years ago, I received a subscription to a magazine called "Moment." It would have "thoughtful" essays on controversial moral issues. Somehow, the author always managed to conclude that Jewish teaching stated the correct result.
What's your point? I never claimed that following Jewish teaching equals complete open-mindedness. It simply encourages questions. Of course, the hope is that those questions lead to answers that remain within the faith, but that's left up to the individual. So you're reading someone who agrees with those conclusions. No surprise that they're going to lead you to those conclusions.

But the fact remains that the first step in a Jewish boy's (and, in modern practice girl's) adult life is defined by the moment they read Torah by themself for the first time. That is the act that defines them as an adult and creates a covenant with God. And it always has. I find that a very powerful statement, especially contrasted with the history of Christianity in which only the priveledged were given the opportunity to read the Bible for themselves. It took acts of rebellion for it to be translated into a form readable by the masses. Self-exploration is mandated by Torah.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Nope. €uroMeinke pretty much covered my own answer.

I believe in chaos, order, Infnity and absence. There is being and there is nothingness.

Dust to dust, but energy is never truly lost. So, in one way or another, our existence is both finite and forever.

Oddly enough, I love writing plays and stories about God, new souls versus old souls, reincarnation, etc., 'cause it all makes for a lovely and fun metaphor.

I've also known some very highly intelligent people who believe in God, so I leave a little room for doubt. I'm so often wrong about other things...why not this, too?

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

My current model of the universe that I like to ponder is that we're characters in a video game, and God is the programmer.

Ah, the Modern retelling of the Watchmaker God. [wink]

If there is a God, I think he's a lover of stories, and we're all (Word breathed into us and all that googly moogly) great storytellers. God as Theater in the Round. God as the greatest listener of all time. You know. Shakespeare kinda stuff.

[Strangler Lewis]

Self-exploration is mandated by Torah.

I'm not sure that the Self had been invented when the Torah was written. To be sure, Jews were exhorted to examine how they had fallen away from the law. However, the Torah as interpreted by the Talmud is supposed to provide the answer to every situation. While this may be an exercise requiring rigorous study, I don't think it remotely equates to open-mindedness, as we understand it. I think that openmindedness, i.e., rejection of tradition, is more a cultural product of numerous beatdowns, emigration and self-interested assimilation.

Perhaps understandably, Jews are reluctant to say that any portion of the law was wrong, the same way that we readily say that American slave owners were wrong. The nasty parts are always dismissed as primitive, tribal or needing to be put in context. Further, while there are Jewish groups that take this position, if you want to see liberal Jews' hair stand on end and their minds snap shut like dominoes, tell them that you think circumcision is wrong.

[Alex]

When I think of the watchmaker god, I like to think he didn't create an old-looking world 6,000 years ago but rather created an old-looking world in 1986. How would we know the difference?

[Prudence]

Yes - because according to my perception of the world I've seen his/her/its work and influence.

The harder question for me is: what next?

I have, at various times in my life, considered converting to just about every organized religion out there. It's difficult to evaluate, because I find myself looking for the one that's the most convenient for what I'm already doing, which doesn't seem proper.

I still from time to time toy with the idea of converting to Judaism, for many of the reasons GD articulated. However, that particular religion is so enmeshed with a cultural and ethnic background I can never share that I feel it would actually be rude to try to follow that path.

I have also considered adding more "pagan"-style practices -- not because I want to go about casting spells and whatnot, but because I don't think contemporary mainstream religion pays enough attention to the wonder that is nature. If (for example) Christians believe that God created the natural world, why don't congregations spend more time in amazement of nature?

Lately I've even been contemplating a more..hmmm....fantastical view of Christianity, complete with vigorous, unseen battles between the forces of good and evil. (Is it heretical if I picture these unseen forces using unseen light sabers?) I've probably been reading too much about manicheans again.

I see myself currently as on a quest for knowledge. And since I seek knowledge of something ultimately unknowable, it's a journey without a destination. To some, this is dangerous thinking - and a further example of immoral rootlessness. I don't think exploring other ideas is dangerous or puts my soul on the fast track to demons and pitchforks. I think the most dangerous thing I face is a tendency to want to shape my beliefs to please others. It's difficult to walk the line between not concocting a convenient faith on the one hand and not blindly following charismatic practitioners on the other.

[Moonliner]

If I may quote myself (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=51038&postcount=45)...

I've always considered myself an Atheist. The idea that the "Universe" (aka God, Allah, Buda, etc...) gives a rats posterior about me, who I am and what I do always struck me as way way too optimistic. The universe just is.

The same with fate and predetermination. If it's predetermined it had to be planned and frankly who has the time for that sort of thing? Some all powerful being is out there working to infinity so that today, for no apparent reason, I choose to put on my left shoe before my right rather than the other way round? I can't buy into that.

However it cannot be denied that many very reasonable people seem to swear by the higher power concept in one form or another. So it does seem a bit rude (not to mention egotistical) to just blow them ALL off as delusional.

So trying to be a "polite" atheist would seem to lead one down the path to being an agnostic but I've always seen agnostics as wishy-washy and frankly a bit on the sissy side. Not able to decide one way or another. I'd never make a good agnostic so I had to pass on that.

Which left me looking for a reasonable universal doctrine that I can practice. One that I can live with inside myself and at the same time not be perceived by the faithful as attacking their beliefs with my beliefs. It took some time, but I finally decided. I'm an Apatheist. God? No God? Fate or just luck? I don't really care. Let's talk about where we'd like to go to lunch instead.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I've always considered myself an Atheist. The idea that the "Universe" (aka God, Allah, Buda, etc...) gives a rats posterior about me, who I am and what I do always struck me as way way too optimistic. The universe just is.


Just wanted to quickly clear up a misconception. Buddha isn't considered a God in the Buddhist religion. He was just an ordinary man who searched for and found enlightenment. Buddhists don't believe that he created the world or anything else for that matter, just that he was able to attain a higher existence through meditation and such and then taught his followers how to do the same. Buddhists also believe that anyone can attain the same enlightenment through devoted practice. So, in a sense, we all have the ability to be a Buddha.

There are sects of Buddhism that do believe in various gods, but generally speaking, it isn't mandatory that one believe in these gods.

[Strangler Lewis]

If I may quote myself (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=51038&postcount=45)...

Let's talk about where we'd like to go to lunch instead.

In our endless explorations, my wife and I attended an Episcopal service in the hills of Sausalito fairly recently after 9/11. The minister's explication of Jesus's message that Sunday was basically that everyone should have brunch. So we did, at the Alta Mira Hotel, which provided a lovely view of creation. Unfortunately, the hotel has turned its brunch operation over to Il Fornaio, which has gone the upscale buffet route. Jesus's message is now more expensive but not as good.

[Ghoulish Delight]

However, the Torah as interpreted by the Talmud is supposed to provide the answer to every situation. That's a rather important qualifier. Talmud is a whole other story, a giant safety net intended to ensure that one comes no where close to crossing the line of the laws of torah. I have major issue with the way that Talmud has been elevated to a point where too many people have lost sight of what it actually is and venerate it more than Torah itself.

But I digress. My point was that organized religion is a tool and nothing more. Other people's use or miss-use of the tool are something I have no control over and are not my concern. All I'm concerned with is how I can make use of a tool that I've felt has helped me in my life.

As for circumcision, we've gone through that discussion before. I'll leave it at the fact that a mohel-performed bris bares little resemblence to radical circumcision performed in many hospitals which involved constriction and tearing.

[Strangler Lewis]

As for circumcision, we've gone through that discussion before. I'll leave it at the fact that a mohel-performed bris bares little resemblence to radical circumcision performed in many hospitals which involved constriction and tearing.

Obviously, I didn't have the pleasure of that discussion. I've been to just one bris. The actual removal was done with just the parents present. The baby howled. The mother wept. I've heard a number of other anecdotes to the effect that "If I'd known it would be like that . . ." I submit that if Jews did not practice circumcision, Jews would have no trouble condemning at as something akin to female genital mutilation.

For some openmindedness: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

[Ghoulish Delight]

I submit that if Jews did not practice circumcision, Jews would have no trouble condemning at as something akin to female genital mutilation.I've seen it all, and I've seen the studies that have not shown that properly performed circumciscion carries any significant risk beyond the risk involved in any surgical procedure or lead to desensitized penis. I've also seen the studies that show that a circumsized penis leads to lower risk of infections (though that evens out with proper hygene).

Geez, I ddin't post to this thread thinking I'd have to defend my religion.

[RStar]

I don't see it as much defending as defining, at least to me reading it. It's very interesting.

I do belive.

There is so much we don't understand, that as science makes discoveries, I find that this universe could not have been just one big accident. And if God did create it, ponder this-

On the first day of creation, he created the first day. So he created time, and is outside of time. He lives forever, because there is no time where he is at. That is outside the realm of my thinking.

The big question everyone brings up. What came first, the Chicken or the egg? If you belive in what the Bible says, that God created the animals, then it is simple. He created the animals and told them to "Be fruitfull and multiply". Therefore, he made the first chicken (and hen) and then they laid eggs. So the chicken came first. At least in my mind.

[Alex]

I was very careful to not go into discussion of what I believe and am definitely trying to avoid discussion of what others say they believe.

But I want to respond to one little thing in Moonliner's post (with which I am much in agreement). Predetermination does not necessarily require pre-intent. If Newtonian mechanics had proven correct in their entirety (rather than just being correct as a subset of mechanics) they would produce an entirely pre-determined universe throughout all time without requiring a "plan" or "intent" for what happened.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I feel something that is bigger than me, bigger than what I can see, bigger than what I think any of us can understand. If god is god, and man is man, how is man to accurately define god? Our frame of reference is tiny, and if god encompasses all, how are we to set about describing god if we have no way of seeing all, ourselves?

I really, really dig what Jesus had to say about... just about everything... but I think sometimes it's misinterpreted in the interest of politics (public and personal.)

I love the strength and the support that one feels when one is part of an organized religion. I love admitting in a group that we are wee bits in an endless spectrum of being. I don't like it when churches abuse the power in numbers, though.

[CoasterMatt]

God is everywhere... praise chocolate cake!

[Frogberto]

I guess that it all depends on your definition of "God". If you accept the definition of God that Einstein, and Spinoza, put out there ... that is the sum total of the laws of the universe, then absolutely, there is a God. Some people, when asked to define God, say "you know - a force that's everywhere in the Universe", -- and gravity is everywhere in the universe, so it would be madness to deny gravity.

But I can't be an atheist - to me, an atheist is someone that has overwhelming evidence that God doesn't exist, and I can't say that I've seen that evidence. God as a concept can always be relegated to those areas that we haven't the means to explore yet, so I keep that option open.

I remember reading about Martin Gardner, the mathemetician, who said that he believed in God, as a vague, but comforting concept, even though he stated that atheists have the better arguments against a God. He called it "Fideistic Theism", and I can see that argument. So I'm "that", or an agnostic, depending on your definition.

As an interview on Salon.com said just a few days ago, there have been thousands of Gods - from Mithra to Gilgamesh, to Zeuss, etc., and yet most people are "agnostic", or even atheistic, as to those 9,999 Gods, but believe in the one God of "their" religion.

So, you could say that most people agree to be atheists as to 9,999 Gods, but there is disagreement as to just one of those Gods.

[Frogberto]

I don't see it as much defending as defining, at least to me reading it. It's very interesting.

I do belive.

There is so much we don't understand, that as science makes discoveries, I find that this universe could not have been just one big accident. And if God did create it, ponder this-

On the first day of creation, he created the first day. So he created time, and is outside of time. He lives forever, because there is no time where he is at. That is outside the realm of my thinking.

The big question everyone brings up. What came first, the Chicken or the egg? If you belive in what the Bible says, that God created the animals, then it is simple. He created the animals and told them to "Be fruitfull and multiply". Therefore, he made the first chicken (and hen) and then they laid eggs. So the chicken came first. At least in my mind.

But if you're going to tie your belief to scientific discoveries, then your belief system is subject to being disproved. Big Bang theory shows how the laws of the universe were created, extrapolating backwards, to include time. As Stephen Hawkings says again and again, since time is linked inseparably with matter, if the Universe slows and begins reversing back to a singularity, time would actually run backwards. Thus, the theory of relativity, which predicts manipulation of time, doesn't require a creator, and even more significantly, if there is an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, there is an infinite universe, and thus nothing for a Creator to "create".

Science has an answer to the chicken and the egg question, and it can be proven - the egg came first. A dinosaur that was one mutation away from a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken -- the first chicken, if you will.

[Moonliner]

I guess that it all depends on your definition of "God".

But I can't be an atheist - to me, an atheist is someone that has overwhelming evidence that God doesn't exist

But as asserted in the null hypothesis (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis), you cannot prove a negative. In theory you could prove God exists by having him pop in and say hi. However it is impossible to prove he (or she if you like) does not exist. You have to have faith. So in some respects the null hypothesis = faith. Interesting.

[wendybeth]

Carl Sagan had a dear friend who was a noted theologian and Reverend. (Her name escapes me). One time, he said to her "You're so smart- why do you still believe in God?" Her reply was "You're so smart- why do you not?"

[Alex]

I don't see atheists (or myself) as a person with overwhelming evidence of god's nonexistence but rather an overwhelming lack of evidence of god's existence.

Based on my observation of the universe there seems to be about as much point in supposing the existence of "god" as there is to suppose the existence of a bottomless tube of Pringles. Both may (personally I don't find the idea of a god to be at all comforting but I recognize that many do) make me happy to imagine but beyond that there is to reason to believe either is real.

The only evidence I have that god doesn't exist is that none has been found. All I can offer are ever more examples that god can't be found lurking in the shadows people have previously claimed for him or in the effects people have pronounced in his honor. But I'll certainly never claim to have proof he doesn't exist. For example, god may have created the universe this morning at 8:34 a.m. Pacific and simply created it as a work in progress and we all have memories of events that happened before then but never did.

If you claim that this is your belief in how god exists and has acted I could never provide evidence that would refute it.

[lashbear]

I believe in God, and I have the feeling God believes in me.

[innerSpaceman]

I was waiting for someone to post something close to what my take on it is ... without me having to do all the inner wrangling to put it into words.

This one is pretty much spot on ... with props to Capt Jack - - -
I do believe in 'something' beyond our grasp and/or comprehension going on around us that controls every last thing in the universe. It may be purely the quantum laws of particle physics or a ebb and flow so vast as to be unfathomable to our current senses of reality. I dont however believe in 'created in his own image' and view that as pure conceit at the species level.

I believe whatever it is that keeps everything related to everything else and holds all things in check and balance holds little specific love for the human race as a whole. At the very least no more so than the pebble at my feet, the stars buring a billion light years away that no naked human eye will ever see or the dirt 5 miles below the surface of some distant unnamed planet.

That to me makes each of us ultimately responsible for whatever it is we feed out into the 'universe' (multiple parallel universe theories not withstanding) and in that respect holds each and every one of us accountable for our own actions.

So for lack of a better term, I suppose that for me defines 'God'.




and who really cares if circumcision is male genital mutilation when cut dicks are obviously so much hotter. It's a fact. My God tells me so.




.

[Gemini Cricket]

My answer: I don't know. But I don't feel lost not knowing. It's just something I'm not sure of and that's fine with me.
:)

[RStar]

But if you're going to tie your belief to scientific discoveries, then your belief system is subject to being disproved. Not necessarily. Take DNA for instance. There is so much information in it in just the right order, that having it form by accident has been compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary. The more I learn about the human body, the more I realize there is a creator. But that's just my take on it. I respect anyone who has other opinions.Big Bang theory shows how Theory shows nothing more than the person who thought up the theory does. What ever is happening in the universe could have easily been the work of God, a god or group there of, or some E.T. out there. The creation of the universe will never be explained because we cannot prove it. Which is why we cling to beliefs, including the Big Bang.

Science has an answer to the chicken and the egg question, and it can be proven - the egg came first. A dinosaur that was one mutation away from a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken -- the first chicken, if you will.Now that's an interesting theory. To my knowledge they have not yet found a "one mutation away from a chicken" dino, but I read today that they believe there are something like 70% of dinosaur species yet to be discovered. Very interesting, but do you know why the chicken crossed the road? :D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

As an interview on Salon.com said just a few days ago, there have been thousands of Gods - from Mithra to Gilgamesh, to Zeuss, etc., and yet most people are "agnostic", or even atheistic, as to those 9,999 Gods, but believe in the one God of "their" religion.I believe in my version of God but feel that all other versions are simply views of the same God. This also reminds me that I don't put absolutes on my beliefs - like others have said here, I could be wrong. But I feel like I'm close...;)

[Tref]

Dominus illuminatio mea.

[wendybeth]

Tori has a book that explains why kids sometimes see someone they love putting money under their pillow instead of the tooth fairy. The answer is that the tooth fairy takes on a guise most familiar and loved to the child, so the child isn't afraid if they see them.

Maybe that is God's M.O. as well.

[tracilicious]

This is a fun thread, loaded with interesting and wise responses, but I feel it is fair to ask;

Tracilicious, since you opened the topic, what's your answer?


This is an easier question to ask than it is to answer, it seems. Therefore, my answer is:

Hmmmmm.....

Ok, so I do have a real answer, but my thoughts on the subject are a swirl and a mesh so trust me when I say that you'll be better off scrolling past then reading my long and rambly post.

I grew up in a very strict Christian religion. I don't want to name it here, because I feel that it's beside the point, and I don't want to muck up the discussion with specifics of this religion.

When I say I grew up as that religion, I don't mean just went to church on Sundays. I went to church multiple times a week. By the time I was three I could expound on all of the religious views and quote scriptures to back them up. At six my goal in life was to be a missionary and I began public speaking in the church. At eight I was baptized. This religion has certain qualifications for baptism, and eight is very young to make that kind of a decision. You are basically handing your life over to God, and renigging on that agreement has consequences according to the bible as they teach it.

As a teen I still practiced, often as the only member of my family, as my mom stopped practicing for a while and various other family members moved away. Much less zealously though. Then at 19 Michael and I got married and moved to an area where we would be going to a new church and just never really went back. We tried a few times, but it never stuck. I did go through some serious withdrawl/depression because what was a huge part of my life wasn't there anymore, but that apparently wasn't enough motivation to go back.

So now it's been almost six years. For a really long time we intended to eventually rejoin, but now I'm not so keen to do so. Yet I'm tired of living in limbo, so to speak, and feel obligated to make some sort of concrete decision. Either I believe all the stuff that I didn't question for most of my life, or I don't. And if I don't, then there are certain restrictions that I'll remove from our lives.

But here is where it gets complicated for me. Two of my brothers have left the religion completely, causing a great deal of grief for the rest of the family when they did so. One sister is like me, but two more sisters and my mom and dad (and his wife) would be fairly crushed if I left completely. The sister that I'm closest to out of all those might even stop talking to me. Any sort of pressure or love withdrawl those family members might impose on me really wouldn't be because they are being sucky, but rather because they would see it as something that might save my life. In addition, our closest friends (who live in another state, so they have no idea that we don't go anymore) would probably cut us off. I doubt that anyone reading this will understand the mentallity behind that, but I would. They would do it in the hopes that we would come to our senses.

But it's sort of an all or nothing thing for me I guess. Like I grew with the example of the ungrateful Israelites who got sick of the manna. But really, why couldn't God have foreseen that and just given them different flavors of manna? And if God is supreme and all knowing, then he must have intended to create evil, as the bible as I was taught says that nothing is here that god didn't design. And giving a choice of God's way or death isn't really a choice at all.

So having such doubts I would feel uncomfortable practicing that religion in any form. Plus I don't really like most of the people that I've met from various churchs. It's hard enough to find other parents that I relate to, I sure as hell am not going to purposefully surround myself with people smacking 2 yr olds for not sitting still for two hours. (Which isn't common, but does happen.) But if I'm definitely not going to be practicing in the foreseeable future, then there are things that I will do that I wouldn't normally do otherwise. And restrictions that would be pointless for my kids to grow up with.

But if I don't believe in what I've always believed in (which maybe I do believe it, I don't know) then what do I believe? Is God the God I grew up with? The God that has answered my prayers occassionally? Did I answer my own prayers like quantum physics says I did? Is god infinity and absence like EH said above? Is the universe constantly expanding and contracting? If I don't believe in the afterlife that I was taught to believe in, then I certainly don't believe in any other afterlife. Then what is the point of any of our time here? Why do we bother saving endangered species or reducing carbon emmissions? Who cares if the species dies out?

Where will I find the sense of community that I grew up with? No ballgames in the park on Sunday after church? I really couldn't go to another church. Church people weird me out for the most part. I've had enough zealoutry for three lives. But nonetheless, something seems absent. Such despondency annoys me.

But yes, I suppose I do feel the presence of God. I believe in that presence even if I'm not sure what its name is right now.

[Alex]

Tori has a book that explains why kids sometimes see someone they love putting money under their pillow instead of the tooth fairy. The answer is that the tooth fairy takes on a guise most familiar and loved to the child, so the child isn't afraid if they see them.

Maybe that is God's M.O. as well.

And when the kid learns that the whole thing about the tooth fairy was an elaborate lie, wouldn't that tend to suggest the same thing for god as well?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

But it isn't a lie, per se. The tooth fairy does take the guise of the most familiar and loved to the child. The parent IS the tooth fairy.

And I find God mostly in the people around me.

[tracilicious]

And when the kid learns that the whole thing about the tooth fairy was an elaborate lie, wouldn't that tend to suggest the same thing for god as well?


I've always wondered about this. Parents that lied to their kids about things like Santa, tooth fairy, etc. were portrayed as mean growing up (by my parents :rolleyes: ). How did any of you feel when you found out there was no tooth fairy?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I was sad momentarily. I cried. But then I was grateful and sort of shocked by how my whole family had rallied around to create magic for me.

[Frogberto]

Carl Sagan had a dear friend who was a noted theologian and Reverend. (Her name escapes me). One time, he said to her "You're so smart- why do you still believe in God?" Her reply was "You're so smart- why do you not?"

That's not completely an accurate quote, but Reverend Joan Gelbein was very much a friend of his. As a member of the Unitarian Universalist Life church, Reverend Gelbein was both involved in her church and also very close to Dr. Sagan, who had active participations in religious conferences, and at one time or another, had personal audiences with both the Dalai Lama and Pope John Paul II.

To give you an idea of Reverend Gelbein's take on what she defines as "God", consider this quote from her, where she also discusses Carl Sagan at length (http://www.uucava.org/sermons/crlsagan.htm):

"I draw a word picture of Humanists, of which I am one, as skeptics -- atheists, non-theists, and agnostics -- who do not find much use in the concept of a traditional God. Some think the idea of the existence of any supernatural being to be little more than superstition. Those are your atheists. They often steer clear of organized religion and decry the negative effects of many dogmatic religions on the human spirit throughout the ages. They vigorously question religious authority."

I can't disagree with that.

[Frogberto]

Not necessarily. Take DNA for instance. There is so much information in it in just the right order, that having it form by accident has been compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary.

I'll take DNA as a great example, and you're creatively assembling two old arguments from creationists that have long ago been explained, but I'm happy to explain away once again. (Note that I fear hijacking this thread, so I'm also happy to discuss this in a separate thread if you prefer).

The very act of reproduction adds information mathematically without the need for a higher intelligence. You just mentioned the letters "DNA", without specifying which type of DNA you mean, but RNA also contains information, as do lower phenotypes such as linked protein chains. The fact that the "information" in all higher lifeforms is linked, i.e., humans share 99% of the DNA in chimpanzees, is proof of evolution, not intelligent design or a creator. And science has showed through observation that levels of information in a genome can increase by natural selection. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population;
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material; and
* novel genetically-regulated abilities

Your "having it form by accident is compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary" is Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747" argument. Although this claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures, order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.

However, it's irresponsible for me not to point out that the general principle behind your example is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. Order arises spontaneously all the time in nature - in rocks or crystals, in clouds, in boiling water, in ocean waves, etc. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can, and does, produce more and more complexity.
The more I learn about the human body, the more I realize there is a creator.

Does that include, also, bad design, the millions of innocent deaths of babies and children from childhood diseases, the fact that humans have a tailbone, and an appendix, whales have leg and foot bones, the fact that our eyes are designed backwards, and the fact that standing on two legs gives humans backaches? You have to learn about both the bad and the good in the design of the human body before you make a decision, no?

The creation of the universe will never be explained because we cannot prove it. Which is why we cling to beliefs, including the Big Bang.

I think that you're confused as to the scientific definition of "theory", but we can certainly prove the creation of the universe - in fact, that is one of the areas of science where proof is overwhelming, and contrary to your statement, the big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

* Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

* The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

* The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

* The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

* The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

* The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

To my knowledge they have not yet found a "one mutation away from a chicken" dino, but I read today that they believe there are something like 70% of dinosaur species yet to be discovered. Very interesting, but do you know why the chicken crossed the road? :D

If you go far enough back, you'll find that all modern birds evolved from dinosaurs of a certain lineage. To be more specific than "dinosaurs", since that term encompasses such a large number of species, chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there could have only been non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

And to answer your other question, the chicken crossed the road either to see a man lay bricks, or to see Gregory Peck. The data is still inconclusive.

[Frogberto]

I believe in my version of God but feel that all other versions are simply views of the same God. This also reminds me that I don't put absolutes on my beliefs - like others have said here, I could be wrong. But I feel like I'm close...;)

I think there's a well intentioned belief that we're all speaking about the same God. But since most religions in world history have been poly-deistic, with more than one equal God, and since there are major conflicts between the religions as to the qualities of "God", or the practice of worshipping God, or even the role of women, or majorly, the direction of the human race, I think this notion falls apart at some point, unfortunately.

[katiesue]

I don't remember being crushed when I found out the tooth fairy/Santa wern't real. In fact at our house if you didn't "believe" then they didn't come. So it was kind of a game to keep up showing that you didn't know the truth, otherwise no gifties for you.

Back to the topic. I do belive there is something greater out there. I'm not particuarlly religious though. I do go to church, but only because my daughter is in Chorristers. I like the ceremony, it's kind of comforting. Although more so if people wouldn't chat, turn off their cell phones, and quit writing checks during quiet moments. And if you can't keep your kid quiet put them in the nursery, that's what it's there for. Geeze.

My family was kind of eclectic with religion. My Dad who knows what he belived but only went to church under duress. His family all went to a more fundamental church, "holy rollers" as he called them. My Mom's family were always Episcopalian. So we went to the Episcopal church. But they had no Sunday school so we went to First Babtist for that. My parents wern't pushy with religion. They taught us that religious beliefs were personal and exposed us to many different churches. We could make up our own minds what worked for us.

[wendybeth]

I was devastated when I found out the truth about the tooth fairy. It ruined my life. That's when I started smoking and drinking and attending monster truck rallies. It's the reason I became a hairdresser instead of a brain surgeon.

Thank goodness there really is a Santa Claus. I love my Santa gifts!*



*Actually, what Katiesue said-in our family, those who express disbelief stop getting the really cool presents.

[Alex]

Wow. I don't really understand the desire parents have to create fictions and trick their children into believing them (and then say it is all about creating "magic") but I don't really care that they do and don't think it is harmful.

But to punish the children for figuring out the reality of the situation. That just seems mean.

I don't really remember learning that Santa Claus wasn't real (I don't believe my family put any effort into maintaining the reality of the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny). But I do know that the year I was six I helped my mom fill the stockings and put out the presents while my sisters slept so I must have figured it out before then.

And then we took up with the Jehovah's Witnesses before my sisters were old enough to figure it out on their own. I have no idea how that was handled, or if it even was explicitly.

[katiesue]

I wouldn't say we were punished, it was just to keep us in the game so to speak. You said you still believed so kept up the illusion for everyone else, like my younger sister. Plus we thought we were oh so sly as we'd figured it out but our parents didn't know we did.

Santa still sends me stuff for my stocking.

[flippyshark]

As long as Santa has crept into the discussion, allow me a quick semi-OT comment.

I can tell you exactly who blew the whistle on the Santa thing for me - it was Dennis the Menace! At age six, I was introduced, by my older brother, to a stack of Dennis the Menace comic books, (ostensibly by Hank Ketchum, though I think the comics were ghosted out to other hands).

Several Christmas issues contained stories which focused on the efforts of Dennis' parents to keep the Santa illusion together for their kid. These stories would seem to have greater appeal to parents than to children, and they certainly spelled a quick end to the Santa charade for me. If I recall, the stories sometimes ended with some kind of "Santa is real after all" coda, but it was too little too late. After endless pages of seeing grown-ups donning Santa suits and parents sneaking gifts out under cover of darkness, I could not go back to a state of willful ignorance. Instead, I asked my folks some tough questions, like, Do you believe in Santa? And they answered me, "We believe in the SPIRIT of Santa Claus." Exactly what the Dennis comics predicted they would say!

Of course, I'll be playing Santa again this year at the Gaylord Palms Resort in Orlando. Hmm.

[Gemini Cricket]

I met the tooth fairy as a child. I gave her a makeover. I also told her to rethink her shoes. You know... when one fairy meets another...
:D

[Prudence]

I don't know what you're all talking about - Santa brings me presents every year. Although Santa's handwriting is eerily like my mother's. And the Tooth Fairy brought me money for each tooth I lost, and if I should happen to lose any more I expect to receive my share of funds. Apparently the Easter Bunny lost my address when I moved out of my parents' home, though. Bummer.

[RStar]

Does that include, also, bad design, the millions of innocent deaths of babies and children from childhood diseases, the fact that humans have a tailbone, and an appendix, whales have leg and foot bones, the fact that our eyes are designed backwards, and the fact that standing on two legs gives humans backaches? You have to learn about both the bad and the good in the design of the human body before you make a decision, no?

Well, as for the disease, the Christian will argue it's the effect of sin on the human race.

As for everything else, I'm not inteligent or schooled enough to argue them. As you pointed out I mixed up two different pieces of information I had heard a long time ago.

You bring up some fasinating points (and perhaps this thread is getting a bit diverted from what the OR meant), but would you consider crystal formation a natural order in the same magnitude as a cell dividing after replicating it's information in the DNA and RNA? I'm not sure what it intails since the crystal is not living, and I didn't study the science of minerals.

Also, in the theory of evolution, the first building blocks of life were said to begain instantaniously from a puddle of ooze. I belive this was the first amino acids. Amino acids form to create protien, and are organic and therefore are the begining of organic life on Earth. Life then created the need to replicate so the information was needed to be passed down and DNA and RNA was born. How did this come to be on it's own? And in an invironment that some scientists say would be too harsh to allow it. And why can't we reproduce it? And why can we put all the ingredients together forming a perfect seed, that will never grow?

[Promo-Man]

Do I believe in God? Yes, and I know the real Santa too!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I get all my religious beliefs from message board discussions

[lashbear]

And the Tooth Fairy brought me money for each tooth I lost, and if I should happen to lose any more I expect to receive my share of funds.

Be VERY careful here..... A friend of mine went to sleep with her head under her pillow, and when she woke up, all her teeth were gone and her mouth was full of quarters !!

[Frogberto]

Well, as for the disease, the Christian will argue it's the effect of sin on the human race.

As for everything else, I'm not inteligent or schooled enough to argue them. As you pointed out I mixed up two different pieces of information I had heard a long time ago.

But if we want to consider the evidence for special design, we should also consider the evidence against special design, especially given our penchant for fooling ourselves. Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, and seasons.

You would expect a designer to create the most efficient machine, to use your term, and yet, looking all arond us, life shows many examples of different forms with the same function (e.g., different structures making up the wings of birds, bats, insects, and pterodactyls; different organs for making webs in spiders, caterpillars, and web spinners; and at least eleven different types of insect ears), the same basic form with different functions (e.g., the same pattern of bones in a human hand, whale flipper, dog paw, and bat wing) and some structures and even entire organisms without apparent function (e.g., some vestigial organs, creatures living isolated in inaccessible caves and deep underground), that actually argue against design, but are explicable by evolution.

Life is wasteful, and much death occurs throughout the natural world, including in humans. Overall, most organisms do not reproduce, and most fertilized zygotes die before growing much. A designed process would be expected to minimize this waste, and "sin" doesn't explain the death of innocents, like animals or the unborn, or destruction in nature outside of life, like supernovae and black holes.

And that's just it -- Life is nasty -- you don't explain why there is so much chaos in the universe versus order, why there is so much darkness instead of light, why there is so much coldness instead of warmth, and why so much "bad stuff", like the above, in design. We have to consider the bad design with the good design, and the inefficient with the efficient, if you want to conclude a designer.

You bring up some fasinating points (and perhaps this thread is getting a bit diverted from what the OR meant), but would you consider crystal formation a natural order in the same magnitude as a cell dividing after replicating it's information in the DNA and RNA? I'm not sure what it intails since the crystal is not living, and I didn't study the science of minerals.
Crystals grow, break off, and continue to grow the same substance as the former origin point in a new place. That's "replication". The "same magnitude"? I'm not even sure what that means -- is a bigger crystal of a larger magnitude than a smaller one? But I'll say no, it's different.

Also, in the theory of evolution, the first building blocks of life were said to begain instantaniously from a puddle of ooze. I belive this was the first amino acids. Amino acids form to create protien, and are organic and therefore are the begining of organic life on Earth. Life then created the need to replicate so the information was needed to be passed down and DNA and RNA was born. How did this come to be on it's own? And in an invironment that some scientists say would be too harsh to allow it. And why can't we reproduce it? And why can we put all the ingredients together forming a perfect seed, that will never grow?

Seeds? Huh? I see you have a misconception about evolution -- it has nothing to do with the first molecules or building blocks of life, or the first self replicating cells. Natural selection has to do with what happens afterwards. For creationists, or intelligent design, or evolutionists, that's a given --- everyone agrees that there once was no life, and now there is life, on the planet. Natural selection has to do with how, mathematically, genes are shuffled by reproduction, and how, mathematically, more survivors are left from more complex results.

But, to veer off evolution for a second, and speak about abiogenesis, I personally feel, as most in science do now, that the "puddle of ooze" theory you mention, which was popular in the 1950s, is almost certainly not entirely correct. One of the best theories, which has been around for over 30 years, and uses crystals, such as quartz, which were around in abundance in the early years of Earth's formation, and, as I mentioned above, because crystals form, grow, break off, and the new portion also grows, they, like life, "replicate". Complex molecules on a crystal substance could then "replicate" without even having to "do anything", or having developed the means to replicate genetically yet.

But there are other theories as well:

* Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. The findings of life in meteorites from Mars, for example, might explain how life got to Earth, but admittedly, this theory, however, does not answer how the first life arose.
* Proteinoid microspheres: This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
* Clay crystals: This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. This is similar to the preferred theory I outlined above.
* Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA or peptide nucleic acid, and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner, only because there's been so much research done in this area, which I'll get to below.

* The iron-sulfur world: It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts. A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world.
* Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces: The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.

Because silicon and crystals were common in the early Earth, and because a chemical reaction occurs at the high temperatures in the ocean vents that "bonds" complex molecules to those substances, my bet is that this theory will become the front runner. Scientists believe that they have already seen life spontaneously originate from molecules in the ocean at ocean vents, but because we haven't even been visiting for 10 years, the replication part of the scientific method will have to wait a little longer.

Regarding the "ooze" theory (your words), the reason that's been favored is that most of those steps can be easily replicated, except for the part of the recipe that says "wait one billion years." Because over 75% of those steps can be proven, that goes further towards proving abiogenesis occurred than just saying "don't look any further - God did it!"

Amino acids, which you mentioned, and other complex molecules form everywhere, even in space.

The steps required are gradual origins through the following stages:

(1) a primordial collection of simple organic compounds and water. This seems to be almost inevitable, and is easily reproduced in the laboratory;

(2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like peptide nucleic acid;

(3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication;

(4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane, or are protected by rocks or water; and

(5) first simple cell.

Both chaos theory and complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable, and most research studies done favor this theory (no matter that it's not my personal favorite, the evidence seems to point this direction).

Note that almost all cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution, except simpler life forms, like viruses, that use RNA. But the earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; just looking at simpler life forms shows that self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex, and protein-building systems can also be very, very, simple, and are replicable in the lab.

Again, saying "well I don't know, so therefore God did it", is not a good argument.

[Prudence]

I don't think that God is actually causing discussions of amino acids and neuropeptides and RNA to stalk me all dam week, but if He/She/It is, they have a sick sense of humor! (Cue the DM).

[Sub la Goon]

Like Frogberto says, it's all about timing.

Give some goopy water several million years and see what happens.

Perhaps one day the "Soooo..." thread will get up and walk right outta this website.

[innerSpaceman]

But what if God is not the designer, but rather the creation designs itself? What if the meaning of man being created in the image of God does not mean the flowing white beard, but rather the power of creation?

Everything in the universe connected by via an intricate web of energy, interacting and influencing ... with the thoughts and words and actions of every living thing having an effect on the universe.

Heheh, if humans are involved in the design of things, can there be any wonder that the design has so much waste and poor craftsmanship?


I'm not saying any of this has to do with the evolution of biology, per se. But the same forces that affect the universe through our thoughts and words and deeds were acting long before humans existed. If "GOD" set things in motion, with the details determined by GOD's "partners" in creation ... every star and atom and rock and creature ... it would account for some of the haphazardness in a design, but not deny the existence of a design.


Frogberto makes some excellent points about considering the downsides and the upsides of the 'design' question. But when RStar made that comment about man's inability to create a seed, I don't think it was to be taken literally as a "seed." Rather, it was the legitimate question of why can't we yet be Frankenstein, creating life in the lab? Perhaps billions of years are necessary for random lifelikeness to arise ... but why should it take that long if purpose is behind it?


There are no good answers, but obviously plenty of really fasctinating questions.

For myself, I am encouraged that man's explorations into quantum physics lean more and more toward evidencing the universe of metaphysics which is the underpinning of my spiritual philosophy. Namely, that we are indeed made in the image of GOD ... we have the power to create, and we are - all of us - doing so, whether consciously or not - with every thought and word and action. The universe is made by us.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Rather, it was the legitimate question of why can't we yet be Frankenstein, creating life in the lab? Perhaps billions of years are necessary for random lifelikeness to arise ... but why should it take that long if purpose is behind it?You ARE aware that you can mail-order synthetic strands of DNA, of any sequence you'd like, right? And that scientists have already created a virus from said synthetic DNA?

[innerSpaceman]

No, I wasn't aware of that.











I'll take a dozen.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Sure, we evolved. But how did the goopy water get there in the first place?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Sure, we evolved. But how did the goopy water get there in the first place?
Thus my assertion that the only firm belief I have is that SOMETHING created this place. No matter how sciency you get, no matter how far back you get, the question remains, "Well, where did that come from?" Even the Big Bang leaves the question of where exactly that dense ball of gasses came from. Even in the multiple bang theory (i.e., the universe alternately expands and contracts forever), there's still no source for all of that expanding and contracting matter/energy.

[CoasterMatt]

Sure, we evolved. But how did the goopy water get there in the first place?
There's always George Carlin's theory of the "Big Handjob" ;)

[Frogberto]

But what if God is not the designer, but rather the creation designs itself? What if the meaning of man being created in the image of God does not mean the flowing white beard, but rather the power of creation?

Everything in the universe connected by via an intricate web of energy, interacting and influencing ... with the thoughts and words and actions of every living thing having an effect on the universe.

Heheh, if humans are involved in the design of things, can there be any wonder that the design has so much waste and poor craftsmanship?


I'm not saying any of this has to do with the evolution of biology, per se. But the same forces that affect the universe through our thoughts and words and deeds were acting long before humans existed. If "GOD" set things in motion, with the details determined by GOD's "partners" in creation ... every star and atom and rock and creature ... it would account for some of the haphazardness in a design, but not deny the existence of a design.


Frogberto makes some excellent points about considering the downsides and the upsides of the 'design' question. But when RStar made that comment about man's inability to create a seed, I don't think it was to be taken literally as a "seed." Rather, it was the legitimate question of why can't we yet be Frankenstein, creating life in the lab? Perhaps billions of years are necessary for random lifelikeness to arise ... but why should it take that long if purpose is behind it?


There are no good answers, but obviously plenty of really fasctinating questions.

For myself, I am encouraged that man's explorations into quantum physics lean more and more toward evidencing the universe of metaphysics which is the underpinning of my spiritual philosophy. Namely, that we are indeed made in the image of GOD ... we have the power to create, and we are - all of us - doing so, whether consciously or not - with every thought and word and action. The universe is made by us.


I'd say, for one thing, to make sure you're not getting all of your science from "What the @$@#% do we know?". If your premise is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality, with a conclusion that we literally create reality with our thoughts, that conclusion is wrong.

Unfortunately the theory of quantum mechanics does not say anything of the sort, and most people are confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Extrapolating to “we literally create reality by out thoughts” is applying reductionism to an absurd level.

David Albert, a professor from the Columbia University physics department, is quoted in Salon.com saying:

"I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. "

And here's the thing: Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with metaphysics, or religion, or mystal thinking on consciousness. I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s famous quote, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

Quantum mechanics is not telling us this is the way the universe necessarily is, and it certainly doesn't allow us to "make our own reality" -- in fact, even with observation as a component, an electron, or quark - or any other piece of matter, only spins, or decays, in accordance with probability. It doesn't "do whatever you like" by creating a new reality, at all.

[Frogberto]

No, I wasn't aware of that. I'll take a dozen.

In fact, all kinds of gene sequences can be made in the lab even RNA strands out of what is the massive amount of "junk dna" in every cell - which you would expect with evolution, but wouldn't be explained by a "designer".

[Frogberto]

Thus my assertion that the only firm belief I have is that SOMETHING created this place. No matter how sciency you get, no matter how far back you get, the question remains, "Well, where did that come from?" Even the Big Bang leaves the question of where exactly that dense ball of gasses came from. Even in the multiple bang theory (i.e., the universe alternately expands and contracts forever), there's still no source for all of that expanding and contracting matter/energy.

By, as Einstein and the theory of relativity shows, energy is always conserved. Either it forms as matter, or it's expressed as energy, but the total amount in the universe always remains the same -- it cannot by definition escape the universe.

So, if we truly have a cyclical universe, with an endless series of expansions and contractions, then you have no need for a creator, because there is nothing there to "create" -- the cycle would continue under the laws of physics backwards and forwards into infinity.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So, if we truly have a cyclical universe, with an endless series of expansions and contractions, then you have no need for a creator, because there is nothing there to "create" -- the cycle would continue under the laws of physics backwards and forwards into infinity.You've misread my question. Where did the expanding and contracting energy come from? For that matter, where did the universe that contains this expanding and contracting energy come from? What's outside of it? More universes? Okay, where did those come from?

[Frogberto]

You've misread my question. Where did the expanding and contracting energy come from?.

That's like asking "where does it go?" In an infinite universe, it's always been there, period. There's no "creation" moment with infinity.

[Alex]

There are theories for that, that so far we haven't the technology to devise observable experiments.

And if no matter how far you go back it requires an answer to the question "how did that get there" I don't see how it ultimately requires a creator because that just moves the question to "how did the creator get there?" So far, every time we've moved "creation" farther back it has been through evidence of another new physical process. I don't see where continuing that chain eventually requires a sentient process of creation.

It took millenia for mankind to realize that time is not a constant and the mathematical basis on which it is relative to perspective. Perhaps it will take another 15 millennia for someone to figure out the process by which the initial conditions of the universe came into existence. I still see no reason to simply assume a non-physical process.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And if no matter how far you go back it requires an answer to the question "how did that get there" I don't see how it ultimately requires a creator because that just moves the question to "how did the creator get there?" So far, every time we've moved "creation" farther back it has been through evidence of another new physical process. I don't see where continuing that chain eventually requires a sentient process of creation.I never claimed any sort of sentience. Like I said, all I believe is that there must be something outside of our universe that originated our universe, the nature of which is unknowable to us.

[Alex]

Ok, but your post above (#14) seems to suggest you do think it was sentient in some way.

But yes, I have no problem agreeing that if there was a state of things in which our universe did not exist then something outside of our universe caused it to exist.

That said, even if purely physical that does not mean it will necessarily be possible to determine the process that happened. Just as if I told you to think of an integer and then tell me the square of it, when you told me your result was 16, I would have no way to objectively determine whether the integer you thought of was 4 or -4. Initial conditions are not always apparent in the resulting condition.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ok, but your post above (#14) seems to suggest you do think it was sentient in some way.I also said it was mostly a mental exercise. A working theory more than a belief.

[Frogberto]

I also said it was mostly a mental exercise. A working theory more than a belief.

Which puts it probably more towards "faith", than being anything related to "science". And that's fine by me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Which puts it probably more towards "faith", than being anything related to "science". And that's fine by me.
I'm glad I have your approval.

[Frogberto]

I'm glad I have your approval. Hey, you don't need my approval for anything! I try to be friendly, though. But I don't know Jack. Look for my new movie "what the @#%^ do I know?" :)

[RStar]

.

That's like asking "where does it go?" In an infinite universe, it's always been there, period. There's no "creation" moment with infinity.To have "creation" you must have a begining (and an end as well), so yes, there is no "creation moment" in infinity because infinity has no begining and no end.

But doesn't saying "it's just always been there" take the same faith as saying "God made it"? (Of course the faith can be placed on various deities, nature, extra terestrial, ect). Just a thought, because if matter was not created then it's exestance makes no since.

This is a very stimulating thread. Wish I could have joined more, but my computer had more connectivity problems which I just resolved (I hope).

[CoasterMatt]

Do you think the same universe that brings us nipples on men, unidentifiable belly button lint and Strawberry Quik is gonna make ANY sense in the grand scheme of things? :D

[Frogberto]

To have "creation" you must have a begining (and an end as well), so yes, there is no "creation moment" in infinity because infinity has no begining and no end.

But doesn't saying "it's just always been there" take the same faith as saying "God made it"? (Of course the faith can be placed on various deities, nature, extra terestrial, ect). Just a thought, because if matter was not created then it's exestance makes no since.

This is a very stimulating thread. Wish I could have joined more, but my computer had more connectivity problems which I just resolved (I hope).

Absolutely. I think the current status of data shows that our universe is not an infinite one, but any questions of what's outside of our universe, whether other universes exist, or have different laws than ours, what came before the big bang, or whether our universe always existed requires data outside of space and time (or our universe), and thus can only be pure speculation, without supporting data, almost by definition.

But it sure is fun to think about.

[Moonliner]

Every time this type of discussion comes up I'm always reminded of a quote from Dr. Carl Sagan discussing the observations of Venus made by Lowell.

Venus shows no surface features at all. It must be covered with clouds. When the earth was covered with clouds there were rain forests and dinosaurs.

Observation: I can't see anything
Conclusion: Dinosaurs.

I think it ties in nicely with the opinion that many present about creation.

Observation: We cannot tell how the universe started.
Conclusion: God.

How about this for a possible alternative? How did the universe get started? What was the spark of creation, that moment where something suddenly existed... What was it? I don't have a clue. Humans don't have a clue. We are basically ignorant hairless apes. Just like our ancestors that created gods to explain everything from lightning to libidos. Sure we now know lightning is not gods fighting (well most of us anyway...) but we are still clueless primates when it comes to cosmology. When will humanity stop creating gods to cover the fact they are ignorant? I guess it will be when we really are gods and god knows how far we are from that....

[Moonliner]

Absolutely. I think the current status of data shows that our universe is not an infinite one, but any questions of what's outside of our universe, whether other universes exist, or have different laws than ours, what came before the big bang, or whether our universe always existed requires data outside of space and time (or our universe), and thus can only be pure speculation, without supporting data, almost by definition.

But it sure is fun to think about.

Just to clarify, by definition there is only one Universe (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=universe). There is nothing outside it, there are no other universes simply because where there to be such things they would, by definition, become part of the universe. Since the universe is defined as being everything there is.

That being said, I do believe that what we observe as "the universe" is not unique. There was not just one big bang. They are going off all over the place like bubbles in a glass of soda. But from our perspective inside our own bubble (that we currently define as "the universe") that's just all we can observe, the inside of our bubble.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

When will humanity stop creating gods to cover the fact they are ignorant?
That being said, I do believe that what we observe as "the universe" is not unique. There was not just one big bang. They are going off all over the place like bubbles in a glass of soda. But from our perspective inside our own bubble (that we currently define as "the universe") that's just all we can observe, the inside of our bubble.When will humanity stop creating unprovable theories to cover the fact they are ignorant?

Personally, I dig unprovable theories, because they are the same as beliefs (as you say above - "I believe"). I have plenty, including irrational ones, as most people do, and I'm cool with it.

This is why I love Alex Stroup - he has no belief beyond what he can prove, and that's cool. If you're going to argue against people having a belief system, you better not have one yourself, and that includes all beliefs.

I've been in and out of this thread so sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

[Moonliner]

When will humanity stop creating unprovable theories to cover the fact they are ignorant?

Personally, I dig unprovable theories, because they are the same as beliefs (as you say above - "I believe"). I have plenty, including irrational ones, as most people do, and I'm cool with it.

This is why I love Alex Stroup - he has no belief beyond what he can prove, and that's cool. If you're going to argue against people having a belief system, you better not have one yourself, and that includes all beliefs.

I've been in and out of this thread so sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

In this case I used the word 'think' as a synonym for "speculate" rather than as a synonym for "believe" which is apparently how you took it.

Creating theories is what we (as a species) do it's how we discover and progress. Wow! When that pot gets hot it seems to create a lot of energy, I bet we could use that. Humm, that mold seems to be killing all the bacteria around it. I bet it could be used as a medicine. We postulate, we test, we make mistakes, we move on. Learning is not a linear process by any means. What's "fact" today, is often laughable tomorrow. That's science.

Also I am not damming all religions/belief systems, I'm just saying that using creation as proof of God is not a good argument, and from a larger point of view, that trying to prove the existence of god in any way shape or form goes against the fundamental tennet of faith.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm bringing Santa and the Tooth Fairy back into this discussion.

Being raised Jewish I was told that Santa didn't visit us, never that he didn't exist. Maybe it would have been better if my parents told me he wasn't real; maybe I wouldn't have spent my entire childhood wishing I was a different religion, but then I probably would have ruined it for the other kids.

The tooth fairy was very real until I caught my mom. I was 9 or 10. I always questioned and my mom always said the answer was what I believed.

After a certain age it's more about the magic behind the "person". Like Disney. Those characters are real. We go to see Mickey Mouse, Tigger, Malificent, Alice, Capt. Hook, not people playing them.

It's all about what you believe.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

In this case I used the word 'think' as a synonym for "speculate" rather than as a synonym for "believe" which is apparently how you took it. Huh?That being said, I do believe that what we observe as "the universe" is not unique.

If you can't prove something but "think" it is true, then it is a belief, isn't it?

You're right - creation as proof of God is not good logic if you want to convince others of it. It is, however, just fine logic to use within one's own belief system.

[Moonliner]

Huh?

If you can't prove something but "think" it is true, then it is a belief, isn't it?

You're right - creation as proof of God is not good logic if you want to convince others of it. It is, however, just fine logic to use within one's own belief system.

OK, bedtime for moonie... :blush:

I theorize it is true. Hows that?

[BarTopDancer]

God is in the T.V.

[Frogberto]

In this case I used the word 'think' as a synonym for "speculate" rather than as a synonym for "believe" which is apparently how you took it.

Creating theories is what we (as a species) do it's how we discover and progress. Wow! When that pot gets hot it seems to create a lot of energy, I bet we could use that. Humm, that mold seems to be killing all the bacteria around it. I bet it could be used as a medicine. We postulate, we test, we make mistakes, we move on. Learning is not a linear process by any means. What's "fact" today, is often laughable tomorrow. That's science.

Also I am not damming all religions/belief systems, I'm just saying that using creation as proof of God is not a good argument, and from a larger point of view, that trying to prove the existence of god in any way shape or form goes against the fundamental tennet of faith.

Yes, isn't that the "argument from ignorance?" If you can't explain it, it must be God. Well, we have a long history of attributing supernatural causes to the movement of flowers in tracking the sun, the fall of every sparrow, the movement of the planets - and with each new discovery, the "God of the Gaps" arguments get relegated to more remote and tiny places where they can't be disproved like all the others...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

OK, bedtime for moonie... :blush:

I theorize it is true. Hows that?Heh, I'd buy it if you said "I theorize it could be true."

[Alex]

This is why I love Alex Stroup - he has no belief beyond what he can prove, and that's cool. If you're going to argue against people having a belief system, you better not have one yourself, and that includes all beliefs.

That's not quite accurate but is well in the direction of what I strive towards.

When it comes to others I really don't care what people believe but when it comes up in the context of discussion there are two things I can't avoid picking at:

1) If there is a claim of real world affects that should be measurable, I'll want to investigate whether they are actually measured.

2) If there is a claim that rational methods suggest belief for something lacking an evidentiary basis I'll want to investigate whether there are gaps in that rational method.

But if someone keeps it completely in the realm of untestable and unknowable then there is nothing to debate. But I saw a lot (not necessarily here) of "I believe god is unknowable and not subject to scientific methods of investigation. I also believe in the healing power of prayer" or "Since science can't explain how the pre-Big Bang state [which, by the way was not a ball of gas; pre Big Bang neither matter, sub atomic particles, nor time as we know it appear to have existed] it seems the only option is a sentient creator."

The former makes claims that should be testable and the former makes logical leaps that I don't think are supported.

But when someone says "God is the love I feel for all mankind" all I can say is "please don't sit on my furniture you stinky hippie."

[Alex]

Heh, I'd buy it if you said "I theorize it could be true."

That's like the people who write in response to my movie reviews at MousePlanet saying "That's just your opinion, you should say so." Just as "in my opinion" is inherent in a movie review, "could be" is inherent to "I theorize."

[Motorboat Cruiser]

But when someone says "God is the love I feel for all mankind" all I can say is "please don't sit on my furniture you stinky hippie."

Priceless. :D

[Tref]

Sept. 8th -- Happy Birthday Mama Mary!

[RStar]

Absolutely. I think the current status of data shows that our universe is not an infinite one, but any questions of what's outside of our universe, whether other universes exist, or have different laws than ours, what came before the big bang, or whether our universe always existed requires data outside of space and time (or our universe), and thus can only be pure speculation, without supporting data, almost by definition.

But it sure is fun to think about.

It sure is! I think that's why I like Science Fiction so much. And as a kid I was facenated by Dinosaurs and time travel stories. The laws that make up our known part of the universe and all the new discoveries are just so facinating.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's like the people who write in response to my movie reviews at MousePlanet saying "That's just your opinion, you should say so." Just as "in my opinion" is inherent in a movie review, "could be" is inherent to "I theorize."Very true, but a lot of people miss that point.

Science is as much of a belief system as anything else. It requires acceptance on faith of certain base assumptions that are not proveable. The basic axioms of mathematics, the basic postulates of geometry. There is no positive proof for the identity axiom, or that a straight line can be drawn between any 2 points. They simple must be accepted because there's no reason not to believe they are true. And yet all of science is based on them.

[Alex]

They simple must be accepted because there's no reason not to believe they are true. And yet all of science is based on them.
This isn't quite true. There is no reason to not believe they are true but there is also a lot of reason to believe that they are true.

Why? Because based on those assumptions we can make predictions about the universe. Predictions that are born out by observation. Unlike simple faith, science includes a method for attempting validation and revision. Simple faith, generally explicitly rejects any such effort ("despite any evidence to the contrary I know the Earth is only 6,000 years old"). And until that process of validation can be performed ideas aren't accepted completely and even then are open to revision and re-examination.

For 200 years the luminiferous ether was accepted as a theoretical necessity because nobody could figure out how light could otherwise move through space. They could think of no experiments to prove its existence but it did a good job of filling a theoretical gap. And yet, even after 200 years of the most educated believing it existed it was still open to examination and by the late 1800s technology was allowing experiments that created paradoxes at odds with the idea of the luminiferous ether and opened the door for relativity.

When Einstein published his paper on the electrodynamics of moving objects (special relativity) there was no objective evidence for it. The technology did not exist to prove it. And yet within a decade it had completely overturned physics because the theory makes sense, makes predictions that matched was was known and also made predictions that could eventually be tested to provide opportunity for validation. Several aspects of relatively were not directly testable for nearly 30 years. Einstein's 1906 prediction of time dilation was not directly measured until the late 1930s (with muon decay) and not to general acceptance until the early 1940s (with direct measurements by cesium clocks on airplanes).

The scienctific method is not simply a different kind of faith. It has a fundamentally different structure.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The scienctific method is not simply a different kind of faith. It has a fundamentally different structure.I disagree. I'm not saying it's the same kind of faith as religious faith, but it still takes a certain level of faith to accept unproveable axioms (I'm talking a=a; if a=b and b=c then a=c, etc.) as, or close enough to, true. Yes, it is clearly different in that those axioms are open to change should evidence otherwise come forward, but the fact remains that to get off the ground, to make any mathematical or scientific progress, one must believe that certain things are true without proof. Experimental evidence, yes, but not proof. I, for one, do believe them to be true.

[Alex]

Mathematical axioms have nothing to do with the axioms of the scientific method (and the example you provide does have proofs, mathematical proofs). You can change mathematical axioms all you want, devise perfectly functional mathematics and it changes nothing. There is no inherent connection between mathematical axioms and the acutal observed universe around us.

The reason we use the mathematical axioms that are most commonly taught is that they have proven best as providing descriptive and predictive power for the universe around us. If it turns out that "parallel lines intersect at Trump Tower but at not other point" is a better geometric axiom for describing our universe it would soon supplant the traditional Euclidean axiom.

If you want to call that faith, I can't stop you but I think it is a perversion of the word that removes all meaning.

There is really only one axiom of the scientific method: that the fundamental properties of the universe are consistent across space and time. Yes, this, I suppose, requires an unprovable faith. But to assume a different axiom is to render all observation of our universe pointless. But again, it is an axiom that is supported by observable evidence.

Of course, pretty much all religious thinking is a rejection of that axiom and that is why I hold religion and scient to be unreconcilable.

[mousepod]

I know that there are things in the universe beyond my comprehension. When I'm talking with religious friends who I don't want to piss off, I call those things "God". Privately, I'm more interested in observable truths. I don't need God to teach me morality. When I first got sober through AA at age 19, I was aware that it was a religious program and that "GOD" played a big role. I balked at the idea until some old-timer in the program told me that many people think of God as "Good, Orderly Direction." Worked for me at that time.

If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share my copy of "A Rough History of Disbelief," a great BBC miniseries written by and starring Jonathan Miller. I've also got Miller's accompanying "Atheism Tapes," unedited interviews that Miller conducted with Colin McGinn, Steven Weinberg, Arthur Miller, Richard Dawkins, Denys Turner, and Daniel Dennett for the "Rough History" series.

[Frogberto]

I disagree. I'm not saying it's the same kind of faith as religious faith, but it still takes a certain level of faith to accept unproveable axioms (I'm talking a=a; if a=b and b=c then a=c, etc.) as, or close enough to, true. Yes, it is clearly different in that those axioms are open to change should evidence otherwise come forward, but the fact remains that to get off the ground, to make any mathematical or scientific progress, one must believe that certain things are true without proof. Experimental evidence, yes, but not proof. I, for one, do believe them to be true.

Well, and this may just be semantics, but I disagree with your disagreement. (I also can't help the double negative).

If you're saying that if you regress enough questions, than the underlying assumption of anything about reality, then that might be true. Nothing is categorically absolute in science, because there may always be additional data that requires the modification or the "throwing out" of an entire theory. So in that sense, it's provisional. But, if I ask you enough questions about anythinng, you have to admit that there are some unknowns at a deep level. We have to act with things consistent not only with our understanding of how reality behaves, but also consistent with everything else we know and have tested. For that reason, no one's ever seen an atom, true, but we have other ways of measurement, and everything is consistent with atomic theory, to the extent that rejection of that theory is madness without overwhelming proof.

I hear again and again that "science is just another type of faith". But science is anything but. Whenever evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for any theory in science is exactly the opposite of the sort of "faith" you've implied by your statement.

In fact, your statement implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in anything on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

Science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Science is a method of thinking, a process, if you will, based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

Faith, on the other hand, is a conclusion, and science is a process. Because scientific results are tested, the results have two very important consequences: First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results. Second, published ideas that the evidence does not support will get rejected, especially in times or places with different cultural biases.

Scientists, as opposed to those of faith, usually welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along. They key problem with your statement is that science is not a position - it's a process.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Look, I'm a scientist, I know all this. But I will always maintain that the whole of science holds true only if our fundamental perception of the universe is true. And that's something that, by definition, simply cannot be proven or disproven by observational science.

Again, all of this is taken, by me, as a purely mental exercise. I don't believe that our base pereceptions are wrong, but I'm fully cognizant that they could be. I do believe it's possible that what I observe is entirely a product of my own dellusional consciousness, that "reality" is something outside of my observational ability. Of course, I also accept that that doesn't particularly matter and that within the limits of what we can observe, everything you say is true. I don't live my life constantly qualifying everyting with, "Yes, but only if you assume the universe actually exists." But that's just as implicit as Alex's "In my opinion" reviews.

[Frogberto]

That sounds like an "argument from authority" to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That sounds like an "argument from authority" to me.
Huh? First of all, this isn't an exercise in logic. I'm simply stating what I believe. Second of all, argument from authority? Huh? What authority am I using? Are you talking about saying I'm a scientist? That was just to stop the scientific method lectures. I've read The New Organon. I'm well aware that science is not religion.

[Alex]

Ok, but my experience is that when most people say things like "science is just another kind of faith" they don't mean what you say you mean, though I still disagree with what you mean as even under those conditions I don't see anything resembling "faith". I don't have "faith" that the base assumptions are true, I only hold to those base assumptions so long as they are seem to better explain observation than other assumptions. That, to me, is pretty much the opposite of faith.

But if god wants to be a liar (and, for example, create a universe that only looks old but was actually created 97 minutes ago), it can't blame me for believing him. Also, it's an ass.

[Not Afraid]

I believe we've moved on from God to semantics.
I think we've moved on from God to semantics.
I have faith that we've moved on from God to semantics.
I theorize we've moved on from God to semantics.
I feel we've moved on from God to semantics.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

But you cannot prove that we've moved on from God to semantics, can ya?

[Not Afraid]

But you cannot prove that we've moved on from God to semantics, can ya?

I probably could, but that would mean I would have to put forth some effort and I don't believe that I actually want to do that. ;)

[RStar]

I probably could, but that would mean I would have to put forth some effort and I don't believe that I actually want to do that. ;)
I'm with you, L!

This is too exausting....


;)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Excellent post, ISM.

Personally. I believe we co-create our universe though I am unclear on the details. I like how Einstein put it, something about that which is out there, we call god.

I'm an animist- I see god in rocks, dirt, and flies. Among other things. Everything to me has a soul. Not like the movie-version of soul as having a personality and a name and a specific existance after death, but an energy signature. Everything has it.

The tooth fairy and Santa and all? I caught my folks bringing the Santa presents in from the car one night and I got it. The Easter bunny scavenger hunt notes were in my dad's very distinctive handwriting. I guess we knew, but we didn't think about it, nor did we care. It was a fun game. I still believe in Santa as the spirit of the winter holidays.

My practice? I'm a pagan. I follow a relatively typical course, if there is such a thing. It informs my universe and is a way it all makes sense to me. More than that, I don't need.

But what if God is not the designer, but rather the creation designs itself? What if the meaning of man being created in the image of God does not mean the flowing white beard, but rather the power of creation?

Everything in the universe connected by via an intricate web of energy, interacting and influencing ... with the thoughts and words and actions of every living thing having an effect on the universe.
...
For myself, I am encouraged that man's explorations into quantum physics lean more and more toward evidencing the universe of metaphysics which is the underpinning of my spiritual philosophy. Namely, that we are indeed made in the image of GOD ... we have the power to create, and we are - all of us - doing so, whether consciously or not - with every thought and word and action. The universe is made by us.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I feel we've moved on from God to semantics.Semantics, from dictionary.com:
The meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

In a thread about whether God exists, which will obviously bleed over into discussions of faith, proof, science, and existence, I'm not too surprised that discussions of meanings of terms gets involved as well. I'm digging reading it, at least. :snap:

[€uroMeinke]

I'm more interested in discovering what people believe in than in challenging or defending any particular belief. I find the former enlightening and the latter futile in most instances.

[Alex]

And I find what people believe about god to be pretty uninteresting (it is pretty much all equally nonsensical to me) but why they believe it and how they differentiate what they consider nonsense from what they don't consider nonsense that I find interesting.

Though I have tried to avoid actually challenging anybody's beliefs or forcing them to defend them. I try to keep things in terms of exploring the specifics of what they believe. But I may have failed at that (I have certainly challenged how certain words are used but then I think any discussion at all, on any topic, is futile if there isn't some agreement on what the words used mean).

[Frogberto]

...Personally. I believe we co-create our universe though I am unclear on the details. I like how Einstein put it, something about that which is out there, we call god.

And yet Einstein was very clear that he followed the beliefs of Baruch Spinoza in defining "God" as the sum total of all the laws of the universe. In his famous 1948 letter to a U.S. Navy serviceman asking for a definition on his spiritual beliefs, he indicated that by all modern definitions, he would be an atheist.

[innerSpaceman]

Frogberto, I am finding your science rants interesting ... but they are indeed, in compendum, amounting to a constant challenging of people's expressed beliefs. Counterpoint is one thing, but it's almost approaching beratement at this point.

While I cannot direct the course of discussion, my opinion is also that it would be nice to discuss the whys of folks' godish beliefs, the nature of them, how they arose, what experiences reinforce them or challenge them, etc. ... and to have less of the anti-god stance of science that has been presented so exhaustively and eloquently.



just a suggestion.

[€uroMeinke]

Well, I don't mean to quash any discussion. It's just that I find the exposition of scientific fact to be not much different than the quoting of scripture. People usually don't come to their beliefs from a point of pure logical reasoning, rather the use such things to bolster and defend beliefs they already hold. So while such arguments may be interesting lesson in logic and a reccounting of the various historical proofs and rebuttles, I find they seldom get to our personal "numinous" experience.

But, you see, I come at this as a way to understand other people, not as an exercise to come to truth or even verisimilitude. Our beliefs make us what we are - or so I believe anyway ;)

Cheers, and keep on posting

:cheers:

[Not Afraid]

Dogma of any ilk isn't fun. Spiritual beliefs are a personal choice and I choose to do what works best for me. There used to be someone floating about on the boards that was a dogmatic atheist. BORING! I'm completely fine wht someone choosing athiesism just as I am ok with someone choosing a particular religion. I just don't want to argue about how my choices and belief differences are "right" or "wrong". I do, however, find it really interesting to find out how others believe and why. Just don't espect me to agree or disagree.

[RStar]

Well, I don't mean to quash any discussion. It's just that I find the exposition of scientific fact to be not much different than the quoting of scripture. People usually don't come to their beliefs from a point of pure logical reasoning, rather the use such things to bolster and defend beliefs they already hold. So while such arguments may be interesting lesson in logic and a reccounting of the various historical proofs and rebuttles, I find they seldom get to our personal "numinous" experience.

But, you see, I come at this as a way to understand other people, not as an exercise to come to truth or even verisimilitude. Our beliefs make us what we are - or so I believe anyway ;)

Cheers, and keep on posting

:cheers: That's excellent!:snap:

And that's what I enjoy about this, and in fact all of these discutions. And it's more than just intertainment (thought it's that as well). It's the same reason I "people watch" at the mall, and at DL. I like to try to figure out where the DL guest came from, and what their home life would be like. If possible I talk with them to see if I'm right.

:cheers: Cheers to you too!

[Frogberto]

Frogberto, I am finding your science rants interesting ... but they are indeed, in compendum, amounting to a constant challenging of people's expressed beliefs. Counterpoint is one thing, but it's almost approaching beratement at this point.

While I cannot direct the course of discussion, my opinion is also that it would be nice to discuss the whys of folks' godish beliefs, the nature of them, how they arose, what experiences reinforce them or challenge them, etc. ... and to have less of the anti-god stance of science that has been presented so exhaustively and eloquently.



just a suggestion.
Understood, and suggestion taken. I'm not here to berate anyone, and I am certainly "pro science", if you want to take that as a position. I find it difficult to stand by when people mis-cite findings, are factually incorrect regarding biology, or misquote Einstein, which are specifics, not a particular belief. I'd say, as a matter of belief, that each person is entitled to his opinion, but if they try to justify it using science, or something that is subject to a specific test of science (which is, by definition, then not faith), then they expose themselves to the results of that specific test, embarassing or not.