Guest Xtech Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 http://www.wvtf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1108:why-gods&catid=48:wvtf-news&Itemid=119 Religious people often argue that science cannot disprove the existence of God – that the spiritual and scientific worlds are entirely separate, but that hasn’t stopped scientists from trying. In his new book, Charlottesville psychiatrist Andy Thomson draws from biology, neurology and psychology to explain why all societies have believed in higher powers.... (edited to avoid DMCA issues) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 One of the big issues I have with the whole thing is that "science" used a bait and switch. Originally way back in the day, scientists decided they were going to observe the natural world and leave matters of spirituality (the "why" of it all) to the mystics and theologians. Then they started to encroach a little at a time until they decided that no, they were fully prepared to define the WHOLE of reality for us and those who resisted their encroachment on areas they'd previously promised to stay out of (as it wasn't their domain to begin with), were just irrational or acting on some evolutionary impulse we can't help but which has no basis in reality. I don't think science is qualified to make those judgments. They need to stick to calculating and observing, not dictating the why or ultimate complete truth of our existence. They are overshooting and behaving like a god in their own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 One of the big issues I have with the whole thing is that "science" used a bait and switch. Originally way back in the day, scientists decided they were going to observe the natural world and leave matters of spirituality (the "why" of it all) to the mystics and theologians. Then they started to encroach a little at a time until they decided that no, they were fully prepared to define the WHOLE of reality for us and those who resisted their encroachment on areas they'd previously promised to stay out of (as it wasn't their domain to begin with), were just irrational or acting on some evolutionary impulse we can't help but which has no basis in reality. I don't think science is qualified to make those judgments. They need to stick to calculating and observing, not dictating the why or ultimate complete truth of our existence. They are overshooting and behaving like a god in their own right. I don't think you're qualified to make those judgments about scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 One of the big issues I have with the whole thing is that "science" used a bait and switch. Originally way back in the day, scientists decided they were going to observe the natural world and leave matters of spirituality (the "why" of it all) to the mystics and theologians. Then they started to encroach a little at a time until they decided that no, they were fully prepared to define the WHOLE of reality for us and those who resisted their encroachment on areas they'd previously promised to stay out of (as it wasn't their domain to begin with), were just irrational or acting on some evolutionary impulse we can't help but which has no basis in reality. I don't think science is qualified to make those judgments. They need to stick to calculating and observing, not dictating the why or ultimate complete truth of our existence. They are overshooting and behaving like a god in their own right. I don't think you're qualified to make those judgments about scientists. You have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that Science is the wrong tool to answer the questions of "why". Science is about "how". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted January 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 27, 2012 I totally enjoyed watching this one night. Explains why god is built into the brain......For anyone interested.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I totally enjoyed watching this one night. Explains why god is built into the brain......For anyone interested.... I'm aware of the "God Helmet" thing. I don't find it convincing, personally, but debating it irritates me too much so I'll leave it and respect other people's right to be where they are and think what they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 *yawn* Another unqualified hack like Dawkins speculating wildly about religion trying to sell books. And look! Dawkins himself endorses it! Oh brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 You have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that Science is the wrong tool to answer the questions of "why". Science is about "how". Is science actually trying to answer "why" questions or simply presenting evidence that there is no "why" and that "why" is the wrong question? Personally I believe that "why" is a question that generates most human suffering. There is no point in asking "why" unless there is a meaningfully in-control "who" imposing its will via the "what", if you catch my drift. One of Stephen King's novels -- Insomnia, I think -- posited the existence of two opposing forces, The Random and The Purpose. This reflects the terror that humanity lives in, that it's all The Random. Personally I have come to think they should be living in terror of the idea of The Purpose, because nothing says any Purpose that would exist would be benign and/or loving. That is simply the wan hope of the helpless child. The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 In my hospice training, the swami that is associated with the organization came in to talk to us about spirituality (and death, of course). I'll never forget what she said ; " 'Why' is a question from the Christian tradition." Now I am not at all familiar with Eastern thought but it would not surprise me if accepting the way the world is is an important part of it, and that wanting to know 'why' would be a vain ambition of the 'self.' I have not yet read this book but I have read many scientific views from psychology and neuroscience and anthropology; they all have insights to contribute to the complex phenomenon of spirituality and religion. Group behavior (group celebration, ritual, in-group and out-group identification), and the way our brains have evolved (pattern detection, theory of mind) are a couple of ideas that make a lot of sense to me in explaining the reasons we are attracted to religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 In my hospice training, the swami that is associated with the organization came in to talk to us about spirituality (and death, of course). I'll never forget what she said ; " 'Why' is a question from the Christian tradition." I'm not so sure it's solely from the Christian tradition -- that other religions never ask this question. But it's probably fair to say that Christianity fosters the "whys" by placing the believer in a me-centric situation, promising them the moon, and yet not really delivering. The way it was presented to me in my college years was that Eastern thought is "fatalistic" and Western thought tends towards "deterministic", the idea that we have a free will. Christianity was generally credited with the idea that we could "think God's thoughts after Him" and thus discover the rules by which the universe operates (despite the fact that the church has had a strong tendency throughout history to not allow such investigation to lead where they may, should they interfere with church dogma). My teachers actually credit the church with laying the foundation for the Enlightenment, if you can believe that! I now see this as simplistic. "Fatalistic" is a relatively modern reaction to / misunderstanding of the Eastern mindset. It's misinterpreting acceptance of What Is as passive capitulation to What Is Inevitable. An understandable mistake; I struggle constantly with how to shed expectations and attachment to outcomes without jettisoning the will to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 You have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that Science is the wrong tool to answer the questions of "why". Science is about "how". Hate to break it to you, but the "why" is a part of finding out the "how" of anything. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? You say science is the wrong tool to answer that, so I must ask what? Religion? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of. I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it. Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 You have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that Science is the wrong tool to answer the questions of "why". Science is about "how". Hate to break it to you, but the "why" is a part of finding out the "how" of anything. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? You say science is the wrong tool to answer that, so I must ask what? Religion? Isn't this the spirituality forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of. I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it. Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism. I am not a strict materialist. That I don't see a creator or a prefabricated purpose to life handed to us on a silver platter does not at all mean that I do not see ways for there to be legitimate and useful personal subjective / spiritual experiences or even that there isn't a possibility for consciousness to transcend physicality in some way. And it certainly doesn't mean I don't believe in all sorts of subjective things like love. I have purpose, it is simply not purpose that was assigned to me by someone else. It is purpose I've discovered (and, yes, in some cases, created) for myself. Although that purpose could arguably be somewhat illusory, it is no more illusory than the pre-made purpose that Christianity tried to tell me I had. Nor do I find it entirely satisfying, but at least it lacks the complete pointlessness of the imaginary purpose I used to have. Even if strict materialists are wrong, you should ask yourself why you feel contempt for them. Why not compassion, or at least pity? Contempt usually indicates you are threatened and trying to avoid contact with something you're not ready to accept. Why are you so insecure in your purpose, if it's so non-illusory? If I tell you something so ridiculous as you think it is, your reaction would be one of amusement, not anger, if in fact you are confident and secure in your belief ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Hate to break it to you, but the "why" is a part of finding out the "how" of anything. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? You say science is the wrong tool to answer that, so I must ask what? Religion? I don't think that's a "why" question in the sense that badpuppy meant "why". We are talking here about existential questions, questions of purpose and meaning, not re-framed "what" questions such that "what causes the earth to travel in a circle around the sun" becomes "why doesn't the earth fly off in a straight line instead of circling the sun". We're talking about why anyone should bother to give a fig that it does one or the other, if life has no more meaning than to eat, poop, age and die. Science is an elegant tool for discovering objective facts about the physical world to the extent they are comprehensible to our limited intellects, but not for creating love, joy, purpose or meaning. Religion is a not-so-elegant tool for classifying subjective ideas about existential questions. Spirituality is, for some at least, an elegant tool for exploring existential questions and having a personal subjective experience of existence that can be transcendent and ineffable and increase one's sense of well-being. I submit that for most people life does not make adequate sense simply because you know a lot of facts about the physical world. The quest for such facts can be enjoyable, but enjoyment itself is not really quantifiable by science. Science can gum around the edges of it by describing biochemical reactions that are associated with enjoyment, but cannot explain how any specific individual can find personal happiness, or escape personal unhappiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I don't think science is qualified to make those judgments. They need to stick to calculating and observing, not dictating the why or ultimate complete truth of our existence. They are overshooting and behaving like a god in their own right. I don't get why you say that "science is [not] qualified to make those judgement." Can you explain why you say this? Can you give an example of a scientist "dictating the why or ultimate complete truth of our existence?" I've never really heard a scientist say anything like that in their capacity as a scientist. A link to an article or video lecture, or a citation of a line from a book might be very helpful. Where do you think statements of ultimate complete truth of our existence should come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of. I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it. Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism. Is Naturalism the same as Materialism to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of. I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it. Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism. Is Naturalism the same as Materialism to you? Strict materialism does NOT require strict determinism. Materialism requires following the laws of physics. Which is NOT strict determinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny49 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The good news is that we can create purpose for ourselves and work to build purposeful modes of existence into our society and culture. That is what we are actually in control of. I disagree. If there is no higher reality and everything is a bunch of mechanistic randomness or whatever then there is NO purpose and "creating one" is merely an illusion. You wouldn't even be able to really create one, since strict materialism requires strict determinism... meaning free will would be an illusion. It's a completely nihilistic way to go about life, and I refuse to have any part of it. Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism. Yes, but who knows the real purpose? Nobody. Evan those who claim they know the purpose are actually creating an illusion. It's only their opinion (in my opinion ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Yes, but who knows the real purpose? Nobody. Evan those who claim they know the purpose are actually creating an illusion. It's only their opinion (in my opinion ) Or you could say that those who claim to have / know "real purpose" are accepting an illusory purpose as their own. Whether you adopt one or create one, all purposes (purpi??) are manufactured thought-structures, it's only a question of whether or not they are entirely self-manufactured. "Purpose" is a concept, not a concrete thing. No concept has any reality for a person unless they subscribe or assent to it. In that sense, if you demand that "purpose" be an objective discoverable thing that would therefore be the same for everyone who discovered it, then I'm afraid that all purpose is "illusory". I think we are misguided when we speak of "discovering" our purpose. "Making" or "creating" are perhaps better words. More accurate still in my view is "deciding". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 So what about Religious Naturalism? What's the opinion about that here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Strict materialism does NOT require strict determinism. Materialism requires following the laws of physics. Which is NOT strict determinism. I suspect many people kind of assume determinism is the same as pre-determinism, as if there is a set of actions put into motion that rules our lives, thoughts, etc, like robots, and that we are completely powerless to our fates. That does seem nihilistic if it causes one to in a sense give up to this destiny. To me, that mindset seems more like that of the ancient Greeks (The Fates). Determinism in the sense of materialistic, naturalistic and non-supernatural, means that everything has a cause, as Noggy says, in the real world, according to laws of physics and nothing supernatural. It is easy to get caught up in the weeds of labels and definitions and semantics here, but in my view everything about us is explainable (one day!) according to nature. We are not outside of nature, not even consciousness. I remember realizing this, and feeling that angst or despair, that nothing about me 'mattered.' I now feel strongly that some things do matter, that are at least seemingly within my control, and they are making the world a better place, and improving the lives of those around me, in my small way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Many people here have stated that if Christianity turned out to be true they still wouldn't follow it because hell is immoral. I have just as much contempt for nihilistic attitudes like strict materialism. Consider Christians who believe that people are condemned, no matter how good they are, no matter how much they contribute to making the world a better place, because nothing matters except jumping through some hoops to get saved. It seems very nihilistic: why try? just sign on to ___ doctrine and you're in. By contrast I find materialists to be compassionate because the view is people basically are the way they are because they have very little choice about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 So what about Religious Naturalism? What's the opinion about that here? First time I've heard the term but it sounds like it describes my spiritual tendencies perfectly!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 So what about Religious Naturalism? What's the opinion about that here? First time I've heard the term but it sounds like it describes my spiritual tendencies perfectly!! I discovered it today, and I agree, I feel that it might be describing me as well--just need to read up on it more to make sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts