Why do/don't you believe in God (page 14)

Pole

Damn, LT. You're lucky!

I'll see about the Amsterdam fest, though.

Pole

ellderwho

I have a 100% response rate on prayer...

doncha hate when its no?

LouBelle

I've been so busy @ work I haven't had time to check this thread - wow.

I see that's it's turned into a bit of a debate whether God exists or not, I suppose that is needed in order to answer the question of why?

Some of you guys just get way to technical & caught up in trying to prove this or that. I agree with hmike - some will believe & some will not.

Some on here also debated on whether the bible is clear or not - I reckon if you can read & have a bit of thinking ability most of it makes sense - there are some good guidlines that one use to lead better lives, sure you may lead a better life without the bible (live by your conscience) however there are others that need a manual. You don't one day get into a car and know how to drive (we talking a manual car & not automatic) You got to go for lessons, learn about how to use the gear & clutch.....

To me evolution & the universe is pretty much a mystery - there are also so many unanswered questions about the two. I just look at some of the most amazing pics of the universe & am left in absolute awe. For me God started creation , though when it comes to the universe that seems to evolve, as new stars are born, light gets swallowed into black holes, and it keeps growing, galaxies are created and these happen on their own with no god involved. Perhaps that's the way of the universe, I don't know.

Tetra & LT - when I read your guys comments I have to pull out my dictionary, serious brain fodder.

Spook

Most of us work on that premise already. So tell me, how does the counter-wise deal work, so we can get some equity here?

Not in America they don't!

I'm not sure if there can be any "equity." The only counter-wise point I could offer would be that secular persons would not interfere in the private practice of religion.

However, most religions are, by definition, public. To expect mainstream religion NOT to vote based on metaphysical ideas is foolish.

My assertion could then be stated that material secularism is the neutral middle ground. Any deviation from that is partisanship.

For questions of tolerance, I'd refer you to Herbert Marcuse's masterful essay "Repressive Tolerance." You can google that.

A good example would be sexual education: Will we educate abstinance only, or educate about birth control? The way to handle this from material reality following my statement would be to study and find out what has actually worked. The religious element would say "young, unmarried persons should not have sex. Abstinance only!"

I think you feel me.

LouBelle

God = E

E = mc squared

I = can't do the lil symbol for mc squared.

LittleToe

Spook:
Sounds like you want it all your own way. Didn't you complain about the religionists for doing just that?

When I spoke of "most of us" I was refering to the "believers" on this board.

LouBelle:
Sorry, I just I got carried away attempting to help folks face their assumptions. Many people create a "God" to knock down, and when they are successful doing this they throw out the whole concept of God in it's entirety. I was just attempting to help folks take a second stab at it. Whatever conclusion they come to is theirs' to own, and doesn't get my feathers in a ruffle.

It's fairly similar to the process that bible-detractors you to show up the holes in bible stories. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, yes?

tetrapod.sapien

hmike,

you misread my post about pascal's wager. he was a christian, and his wager is the same as your version. the version that i replied with, was my version, not pascal's. i didn't quote him.

LT,

if there is a heavenly jerusalem, it's amsterdam.

loubelle,

I reckon if you can read & have a bit of thinking ability most of it makes sense

have you not read the bible? what about all the garbage in it? it's morally flawed, in a serious way, and you make it sound like a little more meditation and reflection will get the job done. no thanks!

To me evolution & the universe is pretty much a mystery - there are also so many unanswered questions about the two.

regarding biological evolution, the only reason there are many unanswered questions, is because the main important ones have already been answered, ergo creating yet further questions. such is the nature of science. evolution is not lacking in basic premise and data. it's so well founded, that it's creating newer and harder questions about where we are going in the future, and what we can expect to find. but as far as the basic, over-riding theory, there is no mystery. it's all there in several books.

God = E

so, are you a pantheist then?

Big Dog

Just a quick question after reading the last 7 pages. Tetra, you and LT were sort of going back and forth about science answering most of the fundamental questions of human existence. My question is a little off that vein, it doesn't seem to me that science speaks to a huge part of what makes us human, art, literature, etc. That's one of the things I don't get in the evolutionary model, what purpose does poetry, art, music, etc serve for our survival. Why would nature breed into us the desire to paint masterpieces, write Hamlet, build the Sistine Chapel, etc. How does the scientfic/evolutionary model account for those human needs?

tetrapod.sapien

That's one of the things I don't get in the evolutionary model, what purpose does poetry, art, music, etc serve for our survival. Why would nature breed into us the desire to paint masterpieces, write Hamlet, build the Sistine Chapel, etc. How does the scientfic/evolutionary model account for those human needs?

good question Big Dog,

first of all, art is not a "need", in the same way food is. only the most extreme of modern h.sapiens would not trade his picasso for a bowl of soup before dying of starvation. there are other cultural things that have evolved, that do not aid directly in survival per se, but do bring the tribe together and strengthen it. take for instance, language. other species survive without language, and yet we used language to help us survive, by hunting more efficiently. or religion. it is not required for survival, but it bonded society together for it's own collective benefit. and art too is a cultural phenomenon, not a biological one, that evolved with our biological brains. so the smarter we got as hunters, the more our culture evolved because of things like symbolism that were then possible. we would talk in crude words, at first, to aid in the hunt. communication increases efficiency. we soon found other benefits for audible symbolism, or speech that did not directly aid in survival. then, we learned that we could also communicate even better with visual symbolism, perhaps in planning a hunt, with a stick used to draw in the dirt, the team's plan. what is the symbol for a mammoth, or a bison? and so we learned how to draw. and then too, we found other reasons for carrying that symbolism over to other areas of our budding culture. we found that we could draw symbols to represent the gods/forces of nature.

secondly, biological evolution and cultural evolution are two things that only partially overlap. you're right. biological evolution is all about survival. cultural evolution rides atop biological evolution when survival is not threatened, and relative peace and comfort are sustained, for big brained apes like us. because we already evolved these large brains that could handle symbolism, we continued using them in ways that now started to benefit us culturally, rather than biologically. this in turn created a cultural environment, where those h.sapiens that were the best at processing symbolism, became tribal elders and got first breeding rights with the females (or vise versa in some cultures). they were valued, and so their biological genes were passed on, but so were their cultural memes, or thoughts/ideas/beliefs.

and from here, art evolved, and grew into something that, unlike it's paleolithic roots, had little to do with actual survival. but we kept it, because it stimulated our large brains, that in turn had evolved to require stimulation. and art, for the majority of it's cultural evolutionary history, has mostly served as a vehicle for religious purposes. from pre-history cave paintings to the sistine chapel. it shows a growing sophistication and self awareness. it shows that biology took our brains to a certain point, but that the mind took culture further and into the future.

to look at, for example, the Sistine Chapel, and wonder at how something so complex could have come about by the evolution of our species, is the cultural version of the argument from design, right? the eye, for example, is thought to be so biologically complex by some, that it could not have come about by "mere chance". and yet, the eye, and art, did not just spring into existence in it's current form. but rather, like all things in our universe, they evolved gradually over time from roots that may have originally had little to do with what they have become.

i hope this helps. let me know if i can clarify anything better.

TS

Big Dog

Tetra, I really, really appreciate you taking the time to post such a complex thoughtful reply. I need to process it, I'm sure I'll have some additional questions for you but you've given me plenty to start with. Thanks again! Edited to add: I knew you were going to jump on the word "need", but I think many, especially behavioral specialists would argue that self expression and creativity rise to the level of a need with humans, that not being able to express ourselves through art, music, literature, etc. can be quite destructive. But I definitely get we don't group it with the food, shelter group.

Why do/don't you believe in God

Share this