The Obviousness Of The Reality Of God

[Mythra]

Why is it that we seek to be uplifted, ennobled and strengthened? Why do we seek that which is true and higher and better. Could it be that these are the very attributes of the Source whose image we reflect?

 

Evolution. It's inherent in our genetic makeup. All of those who didn't care about being strengthened, uplifted and ennobled went extinct long ago.

[Legion]

I think both sides have been radicalized, frankly -- the fundamentalist creationists and the fundamentalist Darwinists.

I can't help but agree with this. The creationist are absolutely ludicrous in my opinion. Institutionalized denial. But many Darwinist would have you believe that a theory of evolution is sufficient for understanding the natural systems that we recognize as organisms. I vehemently disagree with that extreme assertion.

 

So you have Creationists on one hand busily engaged in denial and on the other you have radical Darwinists trying to convince you that the theory of evolution is all we need.

[currentchristian]

I do think it is important to teach the controversy, as it is important to teach the controversy about abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, presidential elections, war, etc. No harm in bringing the world into the classroom.

 

Well, what is wrong about it is that the "teach the controversy" is false. It is dishonest. ID isn't forthcoming with the fact that it is faith-based. It presents itself as an alternative, legitimate scientific theory. It is, however, based on a disproved hypothesis called "irreducible complexity", among other things.

 

ID has found overwhelming criticism amongst the scientific community.

 

It is the height of immorality to try and convince young minds that something is a fact, when it's not. All it does is perpetuate ignorance.

 

 

I'm not saying teach the tenents of ID in biology class as scientific orthodoxy alongside Darwinism. I'm saying that classrooms do not exist in a vacuum. Therefore, these questions are bound to come up. Talk about them. Respectfully. There is no need to state that ID is a "fact" or is "scientific" or is embraced by the mainstream scientific community. No need at all to lie about anything. But there's is no need to censor classroom discussions, either.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

Why is it that we seek to be uplifted, ennobled and strengthened? Why do we seek that which is true and higher and better. Could it be that these are the very attributes of the Source whose image we reflect?

 

This, just like creationism, is a non-answer. Because it only leads us to the following discussion :

 

How or where did God get those attributes from?

 

He never did. He's always had them.

 

I see. So, he gave these traits to mankind, but God didn't acquire them from anywhere.

 

Yes. That's just Gods nature. and he has always existed, and then he made us in his image.

 

So, has one of the primary aims of mankind always been to find uplifting meaning and purpose in life?

 

Yes.

 

How do you know?

 

Well, in Genesis, we read...........

[currentchristian]

Why is it that we seek to be uplifted, ennobled and strengthened? Why do we seek that which is true and higher and better. Could it be that these are the very attributes of the Source whose image we reflect?

 

Evolution. It's inherent in our genetic makeup. All of those who didn't care about being strengthened, uplifted and ennobled went extinct long ago.

 

Good response, Mr. Dancer! Just as valid a conjecture as mine.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

this is a fun conversation, cc. I enjoy speaking with a christian who doesn't send me to hell in every other post.

[currentchristian]

Why is it that we seek to be uplifted, ennobled and strengthened? Why do we seek that which is true and higher and better. Could it be that these are the very attributes of the Source whose image we reflect?

 

This, just like creationism, is a non-answer. Because it only leads us to the following discussion :

 

How or where did God get those attributes from?

 

He never did. He's always had them.

 

I see. So, he gave these traits to mankind, but God didn't acquire them from anywhere.

 

Yes. That's just Gods nature. and he has always existed, and then he made us in his image.

 

So, has one of the primary aims of mankind always been to find uplifting meaning and purpose in life?

 

Yes.

 

How do you know?

 

Well, in Genesis, we read...........

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

There is no answer to the question: "Where did God come from?" Likewise, there is no answer to the question, "Where did the ingredients of evolution come from?"

 

We have two primal questions. Neither has a satisfying answer.

 

It is easier for me (and more logical, according to my understanding of logic) to accept the existence of a spirit being, from eternity, than that of the material ingredients necessary to jump-start evolution. I opt for the least complex of options: God.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

this is a fun conversation, cc. I enjoy speaking with a christian who doesn't send me to hell in every other post.

 

Yes, it is fun. But I'm getting a headache! Too much time here in front of this screen. And you all are very smart people so you make me think very deeply. (That may not show in my responses.) So I think I'm going to have to take a break for a few hours!!

 

Godforbid I think you or I or anyone else would deserve such a fate. Whatever or wherever heaven is, I hope we all are there together as one.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

It is easier for me (and more logical, according to my understanding of logic) to accept the existence of a spirit being, from eternity, than that of the material ingredients necessary to jump-start evolution. I opt for the least complex of options: God.

 

Well, I understand that. For 27 years that was my answer too.

 

I do think that someday we will have an explanation for how life began. Scientists are already able to demonstrate that amino acids (the building blocks of protein) can form from specific elements in the periodic table.

[Dave]

I do think it is important to teach the controversy, as it is important to teach the controversy about abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, presidential elections, war, etc. No harm in bringing the world into the classroom.

No, but there is a problem bringing religion into the classroom. The ONLY objections to evolution are religious. There is no scientific controversy over evolution. They may have certain pet hypotheses over HOW it happened, but not that it did happen.

I think both sides have been radicalized, frankly -- the fundamentalist creationists and the fundamentalist Darwinists.

There are no "fundamentalist Darwinists," there are only scientists that have studied the science behind evolution and realize that evolution is a fact BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF. Calling someone a "Darwinist" (usually used as a pejorative) is a creationists way of summarily dismissing them.

[Dave]

....I opt for the least complex of options: God.

But that is a non answer. It proves nothing, answers nothing, goes nowhere. Such an answer ends all rational inquiry. It is the least likely option that actually raises more questions than some claim it to answer. "God did it" just doesn't work.

[currentchristian]

I do think it is important to teach the controversy, as it is important to teach the controversy about abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, presidential elections, war, etc. No harm in bringing the world into the classroom.

No, but there is a problem bringing religion into the classroom. The ONLY objections to evolution are religious. There is no scientific controversy over evolution. They may have certain pet hypotheses over HOW it happened, but not that it did happen.

I think both sides have been radicalized, frankly -- the fundamentalist creationists and the fundamentalist Darwinists.

There are no "fundamentalist Darwinists," there are only scientists that have studied the science behind evolution and realize that evolution is a fact BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF. Calling someone a "Darwinist" (usually used as a pejorative) is a creationists way of summarily dismissing them.

 

There is no problem whatsoever with bringing religion into the classroom. Students need a thorough understanding of the various religious movements, if they are to make sense of the world in which they find themselves. Free thought means just that: freedom to think about anything and everything.

 

I did not know that "Darwinist" is a pejorative descriptor. I'm not dismissing anyone, believe me. But there are fanatical evolutionists who are as scarey to me as fanatical creationists might be to you. That's all I'm saying. (I don't like any kind of fanaticism.)

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

....I opt for the least complex of options: God.

But that is a non answer. It proves nothing, answers nothing, goes nowhere. Such an answer ends all rational inquiry. It is the least likely option that actually raises more questions than some claim it to answer. "God did it" just doesn't work.

 

It might be a non-answer to you, but not for me. It's as good as any other in terms of the ultimate why/how questions on origins. For me. We likely will never know, in this life, how it all started.

 

-CC in MA

[Dhampir]

The scientific mind preceded the scientific process. To any inquiring mind, 'Goddidit' is actually a more complex question. It seems to cover everything, but one tends to find oneself asking How did god do it, and why? The how and why of course come with deeper questions of their own, then there's the questions what is the nature of god, what caused god, how did god's maker make god, and why, what was god's maker--was it a natural process or some other intelligence, what laws govern them, and which god is our creator?

 

Among myriad other questions, of course.

[Lycorth]

Thanks for the props, Mythra and CC

 

Why is it that we seek to be uplifted, ennobled and strengthened? Why do we seek that which is true and higher and better. Could it be that these are the very attributes of the Source whose image we reflect?

 

For me, of course, a hearty yes. (I respect that for others there is no connection whatsoever.)

 

But why would said Source only give us divine urges? Why not a clear set of principles, set in clear language, that would help point the way?

 

For me, I was a Deist when I left Xianity. I pretty much believed just that about God - God made us and gave us certain inherent dispositions towards what we'd call "higher yearnings" or such. The concepts of honor, nobility, courage, compassion, etc. But it always nagged at me - why just give us a bunch of instincts rather than clear messages? It surely would've saved a butt-load of time and trouble in human history if we didn't have to keep inventing religions and philosophies in our quest to understand truth and morality. Especially given all the violence, oppression, mistakes, and such that various religious tenets have inspired in humanity - it seems to me absolutely absurd that a god who could make us cannot divine some reliable method of conveying morality and nobility to us.

 

I also entered into traditional Heathen belief for a time, and believed that the gods passed on moral notions to us, but only according to their own limited understanding and limited capabilities (since Heathen religions do not posit all-powerful gods). That made sense to me, but I couldn't rationalize why the gods only did it once, and didn't keep it up.

 

Basically, I quit making excuses for everything and, in my newfound Atheism, finally admitted that humans are the ones behind it all, according to all the evidence.

 

We've done a good job of discerning what that is on our own, but the process could've been made far easier, if you follow me. That's why I must believe that humans alone are responsible for knowing what is uplifting and ennobling (the criteria of which is how beneficial it is for both the individual and society as a whole).

 

And CC, I'm curious as how you rationalize God as the "least complex" explanation? To me, it would be very easy to say "God's behind it all, in some way" (and as you read, I honestly believed it), but the simplest answers aren't always the right ones. Simple is good, but it has to be rational and factual - and I cannot ascribe to a god the things that it seems humans and humans alone are behind. Religions, concepts of deities, moral codes - all of these are written in human hands with human tools, not divine ones. Given that, I cannot let myself believe that any gods are behind human higher yearnings, but I am curious as to why you'd think so?

[currentchristian]

The scientific mind preceded the scientific process. To any inquiring mind, 'Goddidit' is actually a more complex question. It seems to cover everything, but one tends to find oneself asking How did god do it, and why? The how and why of course come with deeper questions of their own, then there's the questions what is the nature of god, what caused god, how did god's maker make god, and why, what was god's maker--was it a natural process or some other intelligence, what laws govern them, and which god is our creator?

 

Among myriad other questions, of course.

 

Yes, there are always many questions. But the non-theistic explanation for where it all started presents just as many questions. Questions, questions, questions -- they're great, but answers are darn fun, too!

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

There is no problem whatsoever with bringing religion into the classroom.

In a public school, there most certainly is. It's against the law. It goes against one of the foundations of this country.

Students need a thorough understanding of the various religious movements, if they are to make sense of the world in which they find themselves. Free thought means just that: freedom to think about anything and everything.

Fine. But leave religion out of public schools.

I did not know that "Darwinist" is a pejorative descriptor. I'm not dismissing anyone, believe me. But there are fanatical evolutionists who are as scarey to me as fanatical creationists might be to you. That's all I'm saying. (I don't like any kind of fanaticism.)

You have used it in the pejorative. And, as I said, there is no such thing as a fanatical evolutionist. That's just another way of dismissing someone that stands with all of science to back them up. The only fanatics are the religious ones trying to push their religion into our public schools.

[Dave]

It might be a non-answer to you, but not for me. It's as good as any other in terms of the ultimate why/how questions on origins. For me. We likely will never know, in this life, how it all started.

By settling for a non answer, religion, you will never know. With science, you can learn and grow.

[Dhampir]

Yes, there are always many questions. But the non-theistic explanation for where it all started presents just as many questions. Questions, questions, questions -- they're great, but answers are darn fun, too!

Uh, yeah, but you just said that you opted for the least complex explanation. I just showed you that an inquiring mind will find at least as many questions with the 'goddidit' explanation, if not more, that cannot even begin to be addressed. At least with the scientific explanations, the questions that arise are based on something observable, and there is at least a hope of finding answers for them.

[currentchristian]

There is no problem whatsoever with bringing religion into the classroom.

In a public school, there most certainly is. It's against the law. It goes against one of the foundations of this country.

Students need a thorough understanding of the various religious movements, if they are to make sense of the world in which they find themselves. Free thought means just that: freedom to think about anything and everything.

Fine. But leave religion out of public schools.

I did not know that "Darwinist" is a pejorative descriptor. I'm not dismissing anyone, believe me. But there are fanatical evolutionists who are as scarey to me as fanatical creationists might be to you. That's all I'm saying. (I don't like any kind of fanaticism.)

You have used it in the pejorative. And, as I said, there is no such thing as a fanatical evolutionist. That's just another way of dismissing someone that stands with all of science to back them up. The only fanatics are the religious ones trying to push their religion into our public schools.

 

Well, Dave, we'll have to agree to disagree again. There is absolutely no constitutional problem with the teaching of religion in public schools. Indoctrination is illegal, as it should be. Enlightenment about the history and influence of religion is both legal and necessary.

 

Do you not want students taught about the Inquisition or witch trials or the Crusades, because these have their origin in religion? How can one speak of these events without teaching about Islam and Catholicism? And how can one teach about Catholicism without mentioning Jesus? And how can one teach about Islam without mentioning Allah and the Qur'an?

 

The only fanatics you may see are the religious ones, but I see fanatics of all kinds: sports fanatics, TV fanatics, drug/alcohol fanatics, political fanatics. And, yes, fanatics for and fanatics against religion.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Yes, there are always many questions. But the non-theistic explanation for where it all started presents just as many questions. Questions, questions, questions -- they're great, but answers are darn fun, too!

Uh, yeah, but you just said that you opted for the least complex explanation. I just showed you that an inquiring mind will find at least as many questions with the 'goddidit' explanation, if not more, that cannot even begin to be addressed. At least with the scientific explanations, the questions that arise are based on something observable, and there is at least a hope of finding answers for them.

 

I'm not dismissing any scientific explanations. Not at all.

 

What I am saying is that when my mind travels back in time to the moment preceding the Big Bang, I find the existence of spirit to be more embraceable than the existence of nothing. Neither answers all (or any of) the questions, but I opt for something rather than nothing. Something from something.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

It might be a non-answer to you, but not for me. It's as good as any other in terms of the ultimate why/how questions on origins. For me. We likely will never know, in this life, how it all started.

By settling for a non answer, religion, you will never know. With science, you can learn and grow.

 

This is not an either-or situation, in my view. One can make use of many means of knowledge to learn and grow in our understanding of the universe/the world/this life. I do not believe that science is the way, the truth and the life -- an exclusive "savior" trumping all others.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

And CC, I'm curious as how you rationalize God as the "least complex" explanation? To me, it would be very easy to say "God's behind it all, in some way" (and as you read, I honestly believed it), but the simplest answers aren't always the right ones. Simple is good, but it has to be rational and factual - and I cannot ascribe to a god the things that it seems humans and humans alone are behind. Religions, concepts of deities, moral codes - all of these are written in human hands with human tools, not divine ones. Given that, I cannot let myself believe that any gods are behind human higher yearnings, but I am curious as to why you'd think so?

 

Ultimate why's are outside the domain of science (Stephen Jay Gould made a similar argument). They are not subject to the scientific method, to observable experimentation. One answer to the ultimate why is just as good as another. My answer is God. Another might answer Nothing. He may be right. I may be right. We cannot know.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

Well, Dave, we'll have to agree to disagree again. There is absolutely no constitutional problem with the teaching of religion in public schools.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Do you not want students taught about the Inquisition or witch trials or the Crusades, because these have their origin in religion?......

Conflating history and religion is not going to work. Teaching about all the myths that humans have come up with is fine as long as the christian mythology is taught as such.

The only fanatics you may see are the religious ones.....

That logical fallacy isn't going to work either.

[Dave]

This is not an either-or situation, in my view.

We understand that. For believers they have to include things to support their beliefs when science doesn't.

One can make use of many means of knowledge to learn and grow in our understanding of the universe/the world/this life. I do not believe that science is the way, the truth and the life -- an exclusive "savior" trumping all others.

The problem with that is that religion is not a source of knowledge, it is an end to knowledge. Religion is not a way of understanding, it gets in the way of understanding. Religion is not a source of truth, it is a way to escape the truth. Science is not a "savior" nor is one needed. Science does not "trump all others," it is a method of uncovering how the Universe works.