A fading belief
Offline So i have been thinking about all of the dumb crap we as humans have at one point believed in. in doing this I would like to ask the theist out there, seeing how all of the following statements have been proven wrong how can you be so sure that your beliefs are accurate?
so let's start with the belief that the sun is god. dating back more then three thousand years people believed that the "sund god" was the lord of the universe. this is because the ancients could not explain the sun of how it effected the earth. Now we know that through nuclear fusion the sun exists and because of photosynthesis our planed is the way that it is. proving that the sun was not a god.
people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. This belief was so predominate that Giordiano Bruno was burned at the stake because he believed that every star was like the sun and very planet harbored life. Galileo was tried as a heretic because of his observations of the sky and supporting Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the sun. back in those days's the earth was the canter of the universe. Now we know that not only is the earth not the the center of the universe it is not the center of our galaxy cluster or our galaxy or our solar system. IT IS NOT THE CENTER OF ANYTHING!
So what i really want to know is if science can prove every other belief through out history wrong why is it so hard to believe that you are wrong? The belief in god is fading, and it is fading fast. It is already proven through the laws of physice that god can't change how the universe works. what more proof do you need?
- Login to post comments
I stil believe because I think that science is compatiable with the belief.
Science has proven a lot of god concepts are silly, but science hasn't absolutely proven that there is no god-like figure whatsoever in the universe, though I think it has given us a lot of confidence that no god exists. (Traditional Christianity, however, is right out the window).
Technically, anywhere that science still lacks a solid answer for something (which will probably always be the case for at least one thing), you will be able to insert a god figure of some kind. I don't think any of the traditional religions will work, but if you really wanted to, you could put some kind of unrevealed god there.
But I also like what the OP implies by pointing out that science has continually found explanations for things that were previously considered unexplainable or to be the exact opposite. Just because there is a blank page in science now doesn't mean those blank pages will be there forever. And even if we accept that it's likely that science will never explain everything (though we also don't know that it won't), this still doesn't necessitate a god.
And for me that's a really compelling realization. God is not necessary.
My thoughts echo Pat Condell's where he says, "The only reason you have to believe is that you want to believe."
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
No it is not. Theists are capable of seeing scientific fact, that much is true. But science will never support ghosts knocking up girls or zombie gods comming back after 3 days of death.
Two different issues.
1. Theists can buy the scientific fact of evolution.
2. But they cannot support an "omni-deity" through the falsification process of scientific method.
Ultimately "God did it" is all the theist has with no way of replication or falsification. They are left with an unsubstantiated claim.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think you are right. A lot of people seem to turn to a god as answer because they fear the unknown. We have such a thirst for being able to explain everything. I have spoken to more than one theist who demands explanations for everything from the creation of the Earth to so-called paranormal phenomena. As soon as I can't come up with a decent explanation (which really doesn't take that long because I am not a scientist and spent quite a bit of time daydreaming in science classes) they go "Aha, see there is a God because you can't explain X. God did that." Or they find some hole in my rather rough explanation and say "See, that isn't possible therefore God did it."
Recently, I have started simply telling people that I don't know, because really I don't. It drives them nuts. They start proclaiming the world couldn't be designed without a god etc. The bottom line is I don't pretend to have all the answers and am perfectly comfortable living with "I don't know". Heck, I can't even explain half of the things I know can be explained by science, how can I explain things that are now cutting edge studies? Some people simply fear the unknown so they cling to a god as a life preserver to explain anything they don't understand.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I forgot the sceintist who I saw in a lecture talked about the "God roof". In history when a noted scientist hit a ceiling they stoped and said, "There cant be anything beyond this except god". But he rightly noted that future scientists would break that ceiling of knowlege and it no longer was atributed to a deity."
So not only is "god/God" not nessasary, it intelectually retards future discoveries that may give us natural answers. To be happy with a deity being the final answer is to give up on thinking. "God" is the answer people give because they are too lazy to search for reality.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If you guys haven't watched Dan Dennet's acceptance speach from AAI, you really should. He spends most of his talk discussing why he thinks people believe in god, even when they know they shouldn't. (I'm sure it's something he discusses in his book Breaking The Spell, but I haven't grabbed a copy as of yet).
He makes a good point when he talks about the "Brights" and the "Supers"---which are people who reject the supernatural and people who insist on believing the supernatural, respectively.
But he says that people don't get divided so easily into these two groups. There is another group, whom he dubs "the murkies", who don't accept supernatural explanations, preferring to see the world more scientifically, but when things become personal (e.g. the nature of consciousness, cosmology, etc) they are not satisfied with perfectly natural answers. They feel uncomfortable unless the answer is somehow veiled in mystery and wonder.
I know a few murkies.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I said it was compatiable, not that it proves it.
In what way is it compatible? is it compatible in the way that one can justify to oneself holding a belief that science has not yet proven false?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Pretty much. In the sense that I can maintain both a scientific mindset and the belief simultaneously.
This goes back to what I've said earlier: such a position provides no reason to believe other than the fact that the believer wants to believe.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Yes, but you've yet to disqualify that as a valid justification for personal belief.
The reason I believe is because I wonder why the universe and everything exists.
Yes, I know it begs the question blah blah blah.
I just can't get around it.
Well, I never said that it wasn't a reason to believe. I said it was the only reason you had left to believe. I just don't think it's a good reason.
You'll scoff at the trademark atheist trick of invoking Santa Claus, but does wanting to believe in Santa Claus make him any more true? I mean, if that's really all you've got, then so what?
I don't disqualify it as a reason; it's just a really lousy reason when it stands alone.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Alright then. As long as we're both aware.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
"I stil believe because I think that science is compatiable with the belief."
ahhh but that is so vague. which belief is science compatible with. that the earth was made in 7 days? that through the laws of physics there is a way to turn water instantly into wine? you say that it is compatible but you need to be more specific, how is it and what evidence do you have.
My main point with this was to simply find out how you are so sure, with out any doubt and With no evidence to support any holy book how can you for one second believe it is true.
i just do and because the bible says it is true is a bullshit answer!
Not 7 days or water to wine. I'm not even Christian.
My beliefs stem from information theory. Which is demostrated in the universe and everything, including Big Bang cosmology and evolution.
The justification of information theory is the subject of math/physics books.
Ahh, but I don't say because the bible says so.I don't believe in any holy book.
As for the sureness of the existance of God, I am not. I'm agnostic, but I lean towards a belief.
Pineapple, have you put together an essay or anything that outlines your worldview? Curious to find out what's all in this non-religious, scientific, maybe/maybe-not god thing. Seems like we see the catchphrases a lot, just curious what else is in there or behind it.
Link
To be honest it seems that theists will still believe in things for which we already have scientific answers just as a matter of brutish self-willed ignorence.
Take the American drive against the theory of evolution. Evolution is fact! It happens. How it happens i.e. Darwinian Natural Selection is a theory (but a very good theory which it is almost impossible not to accept) but the fact remains that evolution happens. Many Xians, Muslims, Jews and other faiths still refuse to see evolution and in fact deliberately try and push America back into the dark ages yet at the same time they're perfectly willing to admit that the earth goes round the sun (well actually they go round each other technically but the earth moves more), that the earth is round, that Mars and Venus are planets just like our own (although without life) and will accept inventions like TVs and computers as not being devilish forms of witch-craft but complex man-made machines that do nothing supernatural. So what makes evolution different? It is an observed fact!
But of course there are still theists today who deny these other long-established facts such as heliocentricity and the round earth. While most theists will accept new advances in science there are always those who don't and those who pick and choose the scientific advances that suit them. For example if you watch Westboro Baptist Church videos, you will see a globe in the title sequence, so they clearly admit the world is round, but won't accept things like evolution or a natural account of homosexuality.
In conclusion theists are either consistently wrong or wholly inconsistent.
Atheist Books
Reading your stuff, which isn't exactly what I was asking about when asking about a worldview. I was curious more about how this quasi-theism/agnosticism shapes your perspective morally, politcally, etc. Like what does believing in this do for you, I guess is another way to put it.
It seems what you wrote was an interesting take on data and how it's processed in various forms, but I'm not seeing a link to a universal consciousness.
Also, you want the word 'alphabet', Alpha-Bits are the cereal.
It gives another purpose to life. That purpose is well, to live life.
[edit]
As for it being applied to morality, politics etc.. I don't really see it any different from an atheist's perspective of such things. We all have a right to believe, treat others as you would be treated etc...
The bonus is not in the views themselfs, but on the interputation of the views.
That is it gives a more I don't want to say spirtual per se, but a different view on life.
It is essentially pantheism.
The bonus of an ultimate purpose to life.
I hope that makes sense.
[/edit]
We are the link.
>_>
7 separations of 'light' from 'darkness' previously established in the same text as 'is' from 'void'. The book actually says 'God was looking at the void and said let light be and light is, and then he separated light (is) and void and called that day and night. According to genesis a "day" and "night" are yes/no bits, and earths creation required six yes's.
It's our world view that is incompatible with genesis, our confirmation bias leads us to believe when genesis says day, it means day in our terms. But genesis soundly refutes that in the next paragraph by saying the sun traversing the sky is a sign not a day.
Genesis is consistent with it's own definition of day, not with ours, and it establishes a definition most soundly.
Is seven yes's incompatible with science? That's the question.
Actually it is laws of physics which surprisingly demonstrate remote and absurd possibilities can happen instantly. It remains to be seen whether or not it is within human reach to tap into the extreme results of a probabilistic universe in such ways as theology suggests.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "…in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When…Bruno…was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology.
If you have a conflicting storie...I guess it is upto you to deside who is lying. Just remember that brutish self-willed ignorance will always be the claim from the other side.
As for the matter of brutish self-willed ignorance… Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of "profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II.
The Galileo case for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view is thought to prove that the Church abhors science refuses to abandon outdated teachings. This is as off base as believing Galileo proved heliocentricity. The truth was is the theory of heliocentricity was being taught in the Church run universities long before Galileo’s” Dialogue on the Two World Systems”. Also from a completely scientific view, he was unable to answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. The reality:At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. Galileo received permission from his longtime friend, the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, to write a work on heliocentric. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of a foolish character named Simplicio. Galileo writing style of the book insulted and made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers(yes , the church had scientist within). The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the separation of science and religion. Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time.
Jacob Cordingley wrote:
Am I to believe that it is acceptable to condone good theory as truth?I thought the scientific world would required truth to be proveable.
To answer letitworknow's question: If science can prove every other belief through out history wrong why is it so hard to believe that you are wrong?
Make sure the history you believe isn't what is wrong.
I'm always open to being wrong. Belief is not an accurate venture.
Some of your assertions are pretty out there and presumably ill-researched and off the cuff ("It is already proven through the laws of physice that god can't change how the universe works."
, but I'm sorry to report that my belief in God is not fading. It's certainly forevermore changing, morphing, and evolving, but not fading.
Believe me, I wish it would fade. I really mean that. I've tried to forget about the whole idea, just scrap it. But it's always just kind of there.
I know I'm going to catch hell for quoting this guy, but Christian author Donald Miller really knocked the bottom out of it for me. He said it something like this: You don't choose to believe in God anymore than you choose to fall in love. It just kind of happens.
Now I know that falling in love with someone is different than believing in God, I'm not trying to argue that, but the mechanics of the two phenomena are very similar. It doesn't matter what reason or logic say, if you believe, then you just believe. If you love someone, even if it isn't the best idea, you just love them. Period.
I resisted Miller and everything he represented for the longest time, and I still disagree with much of what he says, but Blue Like Jazz really did it for me in a certain respect. It's a brilliant little book in its own way.
So I don't know. Science, particularly Darwinism, does not account for the beginning, and will never account for the beginning.
That's not true at all. There is nothing in modern science that circumvents, contradicts, or undermines anything held in a theistic worldview and cosmology. In fact, modern scientific discoveries have vindicated our beliefs, and demonstrated the absdurdity of atheism. For example, the big bang proves what our Scriptures said thousands of years ago: God created the cosmos (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3, etc).
True, because they can't. God's existance cannot be disproven. It is impossible to prove a universal negative.
Actually, that's not true either. Science is only one branch of philosophy (the west severed science from philosophy) that has vindicated a theistic worldview. And Christianity is growing today like crazy. Even in countries where Christianity has been illegal (China, etc), it is the fastest growing religion. There is estimated to be around 100 million believers in China alone. This is a real miracle considering the Communistic fabric of historical China. And 95-98% of the worlds population is theistic. Atheism is the minority and a lost cause.
See above.
Big Bang cosmology does necessitate a God. And God is the only logical, metaphysical and scientific possible explanation for the origin of the universe. When atheists invoke "theories" as to the origin of the universe, they have left science at this point and invoked faith. They deny the existance of miracles, yet they expect us to believe in the greatest miracle of all:
THE UNIVERSE CAM FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
This is scientifically, metaphysically and logically impossible. From nothing nothing comes. This is a scientific fact and a metaphysical truth.
Actually, God IS a necessay being. He is the ground of all being. Being cannot come from non-being. Nothing in an effect (the universe) can NOT be found in its efficient causal agent. The source behind the universe has to be BEING (He/it does not have being, He/it IS the very definition of being). That which is found in a finite effect (the universe) must have its antecendent ontologically reality in its cause. A cause can't give what it doesn't have.
The desire or wish for something to be or exist, does not logically prove that the thing desired or wished, does not exist. For example, if I wish or desire the sun to rise in the morning due to the fact I am having a rough night in pain, does not logically prove the sun will not rise because it is wished or desired. Your argument is logically fallacious.
Conclusion
Actually, there is a certain truth to atheism that a lot of zealous theists seem to ignore. If existance is defined as that which is material, then atheists are right. God does not exist. God is pure spirit and does not have parts extended in the time/space manifold. God is defined as perfectly simple. He is not composite nor does He have parts. Something with parts is finite. God is not material. He is transcendent to existance itself --if existance is defined as materiality. God is not material. He took on material/human nature in the incarnation of Christ, but what He has/took on, is not what He is in reality. He is spirit. He is not a human. He took ON a human nature in Christ.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
I said: "Nothing in an effect (the universe) can NOT be found in its efficient causal agent."
I meant to say that nothing in an effect cannot NOT be found in is efficient causal agent. BEING is the ontological antecendent preconditioned metaphysical necessity and reality for fininte being in contingent finite cause (the universe). A cause cannot give what it doesn't have. Being exists in the universe. Therefore, BEING existed in its antecedent causal agent.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
And though a cause cannot give what it doesn't have, I am not implying God has materality because the universe is material. God created matter from nothing (ex nihilo). But being cannot exist in a finite effect (the universe) unless it first existed in its cause. Being cannot come from nothing. A non-being cannot create being, because creation implies a Creator. If a Creator, then a being. A Creator is being.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur