Do you believe in God?

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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 ). 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]

Originally Posted by 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?"

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:

"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]

Originally Posted by RStar

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.

Originally Posted by RStar

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?

Originally Posted by RStar

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.

Originally Posted by RStar

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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.