Think [the box] ing discussion
Theological Musings
>
Is the need for God obsolete?
hmmmm... maybe we should also first establish our religion, before offering comments.anyway, i'm a freethinker- no religion.. yet
for all the advances in science, it still hasnt been able to fulful the study of the spiritual aspect of a human being.. the soul..
OR, is there even a soul? rather, was it a term out from a religion, say, the bible, that grew into something seemingly realistic, real?? that many come to belief in the concept of a soul.. or not. who here beliefs in the human soul?? or human spirit?
anyway, you get what i mean, a soul/ spirit, is something.. spiritual(for lack of a better word), i guess. if you belief that there is a spiritual aspect in a part of your life, then, the need for god may not be obsolute; as science have not yet an answer for any of these questions on the soul/ spirit?
what makes each of our spirit different? what comes after death?
how would we know?
all these questions, science have not an absolute answer for, and even if there are assumptions- for eg, when we are dead, our brain juices dries up, our body rot, and thus we will never be able to regain any or our own consciousness, that is what happens in death-what proof do we have? how do we validify it? it's not as if we have been dead before to know about it.. and even then, the question of a soul comes in- yes, with souls, our bodies will rot, but our souls will preserve, and thus with it, our consciousness, and individuality..
that, is also another presumption too, the other side of the coin, that which we never will know of, 'til death. the religious aspect.
therefore, as science is all based on reality, logic, experiments, and experience, whereas "god" is not- it is the unseen, undiscovered, un-understandable.. the need for god is not obsolute for those who (just my opinion!) wants to place their belief, in the comforting thought (Or fact) of an eternal life/ heaven, on the unknowable. because its unknown, it offers hope. unlike science, which is all logic, and where an afterlife can never be proven.. yet.
unless someday human and their ingenuity discover a machine or device able to follow and track a human mind into death- and what lies after..
yet, many still, have made a choice of not placing hope on the unknownst.
i say, it is to each individual to define the need for god
hmm, i've been wondering why there were so few- actually no responses towards such a topic..
come on dear thinking group, i would like to read other views too..
Singer's post #2 is a good one. My position is, that I see no conflict in the scientific method, and the belief in a creator...right down to evolution. I see no conflict in there being a "creator" and the well established theory of evolution. Many scientists scoff at the idea of God. Many others...find that their discipline only reinforces their faith. It is truly, an individual journey.
Mod
http://templeton.org/belief/
This all depends upon what you believe God actually does (and correspondingly what God is) ...
Science is a wonderful methodology for explaining the how of our observable world; so if you believe God is simply a convenient go to myth to explain that which we do not understand, then science would indeed appear to have made a belief in God unnecessary ... Which is a bit different then obsolete. IOW you don't NEED to believe in God in order to understand the physical world around you in so much as you can observe it and 'reverse engineer' the rules for it. Such ability does NOT, as Dawkins apologists typically promote, demand a disbelief in God. In short ... The scientific method upon which science is based upon is constrained within specific limitations making it impossible to actually prove or disprove the existence of God. Such a thesis is not 'falsifiable' and therefore it is simply not testable.
“Science cannot adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature”.
- Stephen J Gould
Okay ... So God might be unnecessary to explain how our universe works; what about explaining why it is here at all? Simply put, humans have traditionally had a psychological need for some defined purpose behind things ... Most specifically behind our very existence. God is the transcendent human experience ... And is needed now as much as ever.
"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him."
- Voltaire.
Your reaction is a common, perhaps nearly universal, and certainly understandable one. We are a very small part of a large universe, and it certainly helps most people to hope that a benevolent God exists, cares for us, and helps in ways that go beyond science. One can look at that almost universal yearning, especially in times of stress (the no-atheists-in-foxholes view) as a survival element that evolved or as a divinely imprinted reaction. The evidence permits both views. Of course it's possible for a scientist to believe in God (see, for example, the 40%-of-scientists-believe-in-God quote at the Templeton site, although this obscures the fact that the more accomplished the scientist, the less likely he or she is to believe in a personal God). It's also true that in some ways science and religion (or science and a belief in a God) are non-overlapping magisteria. It's also true, though, that there are real conflicts not only in the implications of the two worldviews but also in their approaches--faith in authority vs. trust in data. I know that that's a simplification and that faith is involved to some extent in science as well as religion. It's the degree to which evidence is required to buttress faith. As Carl Sagan famously wrote, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
therefore, did human invent "God" as an answer for all unanswerable questions??...yes, and its so true- how did we come about?..
but then, another aspect i thought of was- how far, really, does a believer put his faith in god? i know it's individual. the extent that they devout their faith in surely also shows the extent of the need for god.
if a believer of God was told that (the wildest example): God opposes all scientific studies and logic that he has believed his whole life, would he still have faith in God, or would he instead, give up his faith..
therefore, it is also the extent of faith in god that makes God obsolute or not- surely, if everybody would rather lose faith than say, giving up their life for god's cause- as read in the bible- wouldnt God be obsolute then, for such weak faith is not fit for something thus unknown.
am i digressing??.. or expanding..
Singer...you're neither digressing nor expanding...you're circling - endlessly. Still I must ask...to all here: where is it that it is stated that science and God are at odds? The question is thrown out, much like a limp-wristed knuckle-ball, but is there really any substance to the question? I'd argue the reverse...that "God" and science are inescapably interwoven. And please....no "intelligent design" garbage.
Not Bill- I somewhat agree with your original post, that it's a truly individual journey, and that peoples' reactions to this will be formed through their own experiences. Thus, I don't think that any statement or argument that science and God are at odds would really make any difference. This is not something that can be established as true or false, that science does or does not render the need for God obsolete. Everybody's reaction to it will be different, and based on their own experiences of science and spirituality.
I say spirituality rather than religion, as I personally have come to understand religion as something pursued or affiliated with due to some sort of faith or gut instinct/feeling/belief that there is a God, or something out there. This is a belief and feeling that I am, and have always been, totally devoid of. I don't feel a need for a God, and view the subject of religion and God with a distant curiosity and incomprehension, I guess. To me, believing in God is akin to believing in the tooth fairy. This is not meant to be disrespectful. But I don't get it- as a teenager I wished I believed in God, because I felt that it would make life easier and that having such a feeling would be reassuring. Alas, I never have, and I remain a content non-believer.
The point being, I guess, that God is what God means to people, and religion is a factor of life for many people. If it's there, it's there, and science doesn't have to work against that. Personally, I cannot understand how it doesn't, and I find science, nature and evolution fascinating, beautiful and inspiring without wanting or needing to attribute it to a higher being. But, having come across religious folk all over the place, it's clear that the majority of people don't share my understanding, or draw the same things from it. God's obsolete for me, but not everyone else :)
Voltaire is of course suggesting we did invent him. Of course, we missed that HE is The Flying Spaghetti Monster...whose noodly existence cannot be disproved nor can the teapot that circles the earth .The Templeton foundation supports "science" that purports to posit and then prove things like power of prayer etc and is pro reconciling science with myth essentially. Recently, was it not Templeton which funded the largest study on the power of prayer to heal (distant recipients of strangers's prayers) and (surprse), the study showed NO positive impact of prayer..much to the chagrin of those who sought to use science to show otherwise.? I am not suggesting its uh starting with the conclusion it desires and then supporting trying to prove it...exactly. It is actually helpful to exposing false assumptions inadvertantly.
Is the Easter Bunny obsolete? I do not think so.(I am making an analogy. I am also suggesting that needing a belief or belief-tradition is different from wanting one or finding it good ..for other people (children in this case).
not bill- really, isnt this whole thing all about "circling endlessly", since there are no absolute answers??We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the secret sits in the middle an knows.
-Robert Frost
Mod
Naturally (he was an atheist IIRC) ... but he is also quite sincere in his statement of need as well; he believed this was important in establishing a moral framework in society.
Is the Easter Bunny obsolete? I do not think so.(I am making an analogy. I am also suggesting that needing a belief or belief-tradition is different from wanting one or finding it good .. for other people (children in this case).
This is not a valid analogy for a number of reasons. The most basic is the near universality of a belief in [a] God as a prime mover or first cause within our universe which provide a completely different function for the associated myths. The implication you draw here is that this universality is more a factor of wanting and not needing ... which I would disagree with. I find God myths extremely important in establishing social boundaries that define specific human groups ... so much so that these same groups frequently will react very aggressively to preserve them. This has not been illustrated with any belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or any other classic folk myth.
The Templeton foundation supports "science" that purports to posit and then prove things like power of prayer etc and is pro reconciling science with myth essentially.That's true, Wendy, and I'm glad you drew attention to it. I certainly don't mind people putting forth that point of view as long as they're explicit about whom they're working for.
The implication you draw here is that this universality is more a factor of wanting and not needing ... which I would disagree with. I find God myths extremely important in establishing social boundaries that define specific human groups ... so much so that these same groups frequently will react very aggressively to preserve them.I think it is a matter of the needs of each person's psychological makeup. It seems that the importance of establishing boundaries between group has an emotional basis. That people will react aggressively to preserve those boundaries surely demonstrates the that it's a want, rather than a need.
Mod
I disagree ... we are much more aggressive in obtaining and protecting our needs over our wants. If I merely want something, that would imply that I will evaluate the cost (or risk) in satisfying that want. If I need something, cost is irrelevant. If I want something ... That implies some reason or motive behind that want. If I need something ... That is in fact THE motive. There are numerous examples where a belief (or even a disbelief) in God has been significantly detrimental to the individual, illustrating that cost was not considered. The fact that such belief is so universal despite obvious fluctuations in cost is more supportive of a need then a want (or nice to have).
I believe "The Singer of All Songs" has a valid request when asking us to Identify our religious background.I am LDS, which in my way of thinking (because I am quite liberal in my way of being) makes me not only a christian, but open to many doctrines of other faiths.
Because I am a Reiki Master, I also embrace some truths taught by Budda.
I believe we all have the same creator and he is not offended by our separate views of what he looks like.
What does offend God is us fighting over Him.
I consider myself a spiritual healer which I get to utilize both God and Science. For me everything is spiritual.
I finally took the time to read all your comments.I can see where ones live experience would equate God with the "Toothfairy" or the "Easter bunny", because the two concepts were introduced at the same time. When one starts realize that some of the "believes" we were asked to accept were myths and make believe, it is a nature reaction to feel that God is include. And in fact, for some children (who's parents have no real religious convictions) the same energy may will have been attached to God.
My experience of God is unique in that aspect.
Though I had fun with Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, there was no mentioned of God in my household.
The interesting thing about that, is I have never (except one day of my life) questioned whether or not He existed. Much like the wind that we can feel but can not see, I have felt His presence around me.
It is a challenge for me to believe the uniqueness of that experience for me.
With my whole heart and soul,
Colleen
Kristjan said " I find God myths extremely important in establishing social boundaries that define specific human groups ... so much so that these same groups frequently will react very aggressively to preserve them. This has not been illustrated with any belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or any other classic folk myth." Never seen kids fight over whether Santa Claus exists or not??!!!!! Pretty aggressive and emotional.
I also disagree that Voltaire thought that belief in God was necessary to establish a moral framework for society. As has been discussed under other topic headings, one can have ethics and clear sense of right and wrong (as I do) without having to fear/love one or more of the various gods or goddesses that have been believed in at various times and places.
One can read the Bible and decide independently that the God-character's actions described were bad at times...Personally, I cant see it moral to order or effectuate the slaughter of all men, women and children including babes in arms and all their innocent animals ...in a fit of annoyance, for example. It is of course, a human failing and a want, Kristjan, to justify ruthless murderous treatment of humans who are not in one's tribe or social group to take what one wants (land, women, food, gold etc) as ok and have a different set of rules for one's kinsmen or tribe or religious group. Having a god to define this as ok is convenient but not a necessity...and its an amusing framework for a defective morality.
The whole concept of sacrificing animals or one's son to a god to make that god happy with one is primitive and barbaric as well. Its preferable to create a god myth that reinforces a better treatment of the earth,and of fellow beings but in my view, its a means to an end..like Santa Claus,it can suggest rewards for good behavior for those who might otherwise be less well-behaved.
Mod
Are you actually equating this with the brutality of the inquisition? Or the crusades? It certainly appears to be the case. The fact remains that given severe enough consequences, it has never been demonstrated that any human will retain a belief in Santa Claus et. al. That you would even imply such is a mystery to me.
I also disagree that Voltaire thought that belief in God was necessary to establish a moral framework for society.
This has nothing to do with whether or not Voltaire was correct; In 1768, Voltaire wrote an "Epistle to the Author of the book, 'The Three Imposters'" where he very clearly indicates that he believed that denial of the existence of God was dangerous specifically because it calls into question the punishment of criminals in an afterlife. He appears to have thought that the belief in God was an important concept that helped to establish social order.
It is of course, a human failing and a want, Kristjan, to justify ruthless murderous treatment of humans who are not in one's tribe or social group to take what one wants (land, women, food, gold etc) as ok and have a different set of rules for one's kinsmen or tribe or religious group.
As I indicated before ... this is NOT a want or nice to have. It is a psychological component of human socialization. We evolved this way ... And I would wager there was a specific reason or advantage in said development. It is a part of our nature and not something we invented because it was convenient. This social theory very succinctly describes the cause of a significant number of urban problems such a gang violence, etc. that are clearly detrimental to very large social groupings (such as cities, states, nations, etc.). In that regard, it is a failing which will take a very long time to correct ... If ever.
The whole concept of sacrificing animals or one's son to a god to make that god happy with one is primitive and barbaric as well. Its preferable to create a god myth that reinforces a better treatment of the earth,and of fellow beings but in my view, its a means to an end..like Santa Claus,it can suggest rewards for good behavior for those who might otherwise be less well-behaved.
I believe that the question was framed in terms of current events ... Unless this behavior is currently prevalent in modern society, it doesn't do much to address the question. In addition, we don't really have that much control over which myths a given society will find compelling ... Mostly because these myths will not be all that effective unless that society finds them to be 'true' (reflective of how things actually are) on some level ... Most likely subconsciously or metaphysically.
My humor was obviously lost in print here. Of course the brutality, murder, and incredible destruction inspired by and rationalized by religious belief in adults is not being equated to little kids argueing and fighting when others attempt to disabuse them of that belief in Santa Claus .My point was that to some extent, we cling to myths that we like to believe in that suggest rewards in our future for good behavior and that we do not like to be deprived of them...and do resist having them taken away. I do not equate that with adult religious wars. I do think Santa Claus is a happier and less harmful myth in terms of treatment of others by believers!
By referencing the brutality of True Believers like in the inquisition etc., You help make my case.
The evolutionary survival value..which any unifying belief system might provide which might underpin tendencies to form a cooperative group and reduce interpersonal violence within a tribe and reinforced the legitimacy of tribal leadership in an environment where human bands roamed among multiple threats and with minimal protection has likely been served. Unfortunately, religious mythology of the paternalistic religions, the mythology of a tribal,jealous,my-way-or-death God has also meant hostility and dehumanizing attitudes toward others who are not in the tribe, in the religious group and has been divisive. It has also reinforced primitive ideas and more authoritarian thinking..Religion has long been used for social control...From the "divine right of kings" subtext to many others, it has not been a friend to democracy..
The behavior "prevalent in modern society" does not, I assume include "prevalent" in many contemporary (one can argue about "modern" vs contemporary) societies outside the US,....such as in the middle East..or still going on in some groups within the US.
I would agree with Kristjan that there were evolutionary benefits thousands and thousands of years ago, as I menion above but.. Now as we see, it has been a divisive force in a heavily populated world and has been demonstrably so for a long long time. This is not necessarily suggestive that the shaping of the unifying or self -justifying myths was not done by man and is predicated on projections of man....to the point of creating a personal God who is fashioned in man's image...and in Christianity, even fathers a human son who can be sacrificed ..buying immortality or forgiveness with blood.
There are numerous examples where a belief (or even a disbelief) in God has been significantly detrimental to the individual, illustrating that cost was not considered. The fact that such belief is so universal despite obvious fluctuations in cost is more supportive of a need then a wantKristjan, can you give an example of lack of belief being detrimental to someone?
Belief is not "so universal." Many places are largely secular. Your mention of disbelief seems to show that you understand that that's the case. So distinguishing wants and needs remains important.
As a small point, I'd mention that the number of people who are believers of one kind or another doesn't prove, in itself, whether belief is a need or a want. It seems a need would have to apply to all humans, not some portion of them.
Kristjan to Wendy[Voltaire] appears to have thought that the belief in God was an important concept that helped to establish social order.
Although it seemed intuitive, and it seems intuitive too to think that religion evolved of necessity, there isn't any actual proof of it.
The best research today indicates that criminal behavior is strongly associated with childhood development. Many things that seemed "obvious" in the past have proven resistant to validation by current sociological research.
Mod
In fact ... they are not. Most estimates place positive non-belief at less then 15% world-wide with some countries as high as 23%. The only way they get any higher is to include agnostics ... those that actually believe in God or some form of spirit or force etc. with those expressing a positive non-belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograp...
As a small point, I'd mention that the number of people who are believers of one kind or another doesn't prove, in itself, whether belief is a need or a want. It seems a need would have to apply to all humans, not some portion of them.
This is a false dichotomy. The only way to determine need is whether or not we can do with out something. In this case, the number of believers absolutely supports the theory that such beliefs are hard-wired into the human psyche. The does not mean that we cannot extinguish such habits ... only that it is very difficult to do so.
To insist that any social theory requires 100% compliance within a population verses a simple concensus would invalidate nearly all of our social science to date.
"Kristjan to Wendy[Voltaire] appears to have thought that the belief in God was an important concept that helped to establish social order."
Although it seemed intuitive, and it seems intuitive too to think that religion evolved of necessity, there isn't any actual proof of it.
Depends upon your definition of proof. There is certainly a concensus supporting this opinion ... Just like there is a concensus about biological evolution. For a brief introduction to these I recommend: Seven Theories of Religion (Paperback)
That fact that a belief in God is demonstrated in isolated populations indicates that such is a common human activity that does not require intergroup socialization ... in fact, the frequent exclusivity of said beliefs often preclude such.
The best research today indicates that criminal behavior is strongly associated with childhood development.
It is actually a lot more complicated then that, although childhood development is certainly ONE factor ... at the risk of continually repeating myself ... this IS what Voltaire believed. I make no effort to defend HIS belief.
Hi Kristjan --I didn't say Voltaire never said it -- only that what he said was based on intuition in the absence of any effort to investigate criminal behavior scientifically.
In fact ... they are not. Most estimates place positive non-belief at less then 15% world-wide with some countries as high as 23%. The only way they get any higher is to include agnostics ... those that actually believe in God or some form of spirit or force etc. with those expressing a positive non-belief.
That proves my point: many places are largely secular.
But even accepting a low percent of non-believers, a statistic I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for, the majority opinion does not prove that something is a "need." If that were the case, 19th-Century slavery would have been a need, not a want.
If distinguishing a need from a want is a false dichotomy, what's the middle ground? As I defined it, a "need" is something humans can't do without. Do you disagree with that definition? If so, how? A false dichotomy cannot be shown on the bare assertion that one exists.
Depends upon your definition of proof.
Proof means a correspondence with reality to the extent that we currently understand that reality.
A consensus can be proof under that definition, but I don't think enough is known about human prehistory to prove anything about what people then actually thought about. So our knowledge of prehistory is simply too deficient to support that claim.
Even if it were the case, that still wouldn't show how that applies to modern belief systems, whose ideologies have much profounder implications for the future of humanity.
The original statement is I believe being connected with God serves the people of today more than ever. So I'm questioning whether a connection with God, far from being a need, is actually a danger, given the invidious claims of different religions and the development of modern weapons.
Mod
Funny how people love to pick on Wikipedia ... despite the fact that every single one of those numbers has a legitimately cited reference ... which you are more then welcome to verify.
Again you offer a fallacious choice. I am not equating a majority of opinion with need. That is just plain silly. I am equating common, unsolicited behaviors as illustrative of a need as well as the demonstrable [mostly social-psychological with some physiological] benefits associated with such behaviors. I am equating the fact that some individuals retain these behaviors despite the level personal cost or sacrifice as evidence of a need where humans always evaluate cost or worth for anything they merely want and will abandon those wants that until cost falls below a specific threshold.
If distinguishing a need from a want is a false dichotomy, what's the middle ground? As I defined it, a "need" is something humans can't do without. Do you disagree with that definition?
No ... in fact I said it first :) The dichotomy that you presented was that either 100% of a population must display it as a need or it is a want. That is incorrect.
A consensus can be proof under that definition, but I don't think enough is known about human prehistory to prove anything about what people then actually thought about. So our knowledge of prehistory is simply too deficient to support that claim.
So you are rejecting the consensus anyway?
Even if it were the case, that still wouldn't show how that applies to modern belief systems, whose ideologies have much profounder implications for the future of humanity.
Sure it does ... because it is fairly consistently demonstrated to be so into this modern age. And if such can be show to have evolved in humans, you must then present evidence that humans have now evolved away from it ... which you have not.
The original statement is I believe being connected with God serves the people of today more than ever. So I'm questioning whether a connection with God, far from being a need, is actually a danger, given the invidious claims of different religions and the development of modern weapons.
Well ... that would require a more nuanced answer. On the face of it, religious fanaticism is clearly a danger, the more so with modern weapons. My position is simply that such aggression is based more upon human tribalism then upon specific doctrines or belief in God (since it is also clear that such fanatics have warped their foundational doctrines as a rationalisation). The fact that they ALSO believe in God at least gives us a common language with which we can have a productive dialogue and hopefully redirect their aggression ... because I believe that we as humans are only united based upon our commonalities.
There are a number of sites which reveal a significant population of "nonbelievers" in traditional gods. Much of the fuzziness I think comes down to defining "god". A god in western tradition tended to be a personal god who had a bit of a personality and had emotions like jealousy, rage and compassion... It is clear that many who now say they believe in a spirit or life force...a vague something that they call God..do not believe in a traditional god or a personal god...and would not be classified as Christians in a religious sense. Many may in fact be "hopeful agnostics", but devoting little time or energy or thought to religion, it playing little or no part in their lives. Church attendence is often indicative of this...In New Zealand,less than 8% of the population attends any church service once a week or more..and 34% do not believe in God according to a poll..
Wendy,I am currently reading "Love Without Condition".
One thing that I love about this book is the Author's preface which can be summed up with his comment "Belief separate. Loving thoughts unite."
This is what my company is all about. It is inviting people to stop defining themselves in terms of beliefs long enough to feel the connection.
With my whole heart,
Colleen
Chewie,The poem seems so depressing to me.
Yet as I read it, I realize how blessed I truly am. For I realize that I am clear who I am and the direction that I am going. Sometimes I question if I am living up to all that I am, but it is in the knowing that assist me to keep on going in joy and peace.
I submit that it is in the believe that we don't know who we are that is the illusion. Deep inside us we all know our potential, it is the fear that we can not live up to that potential that stops us from acknowledging it.
Take the time to center yourself by simply breathing. Notice your breath and give yourself the gift of live. What makes your heart sing?
That is who you are!
With my whole heart,
Colleen
That's strange....I never saw this whole theological musings board until today.My pov, God is not obsolete for me.
Anyone ever read "the God Delusion"? Oh gosh,I'm appalled at the horrific arguments of mr. Dawkins, I mean if your gonna challenge God, stick with God ...not religion! Makes me angrier with each page I read (had to read it for a philosophy module)! Cheers, Nicole :)
CHEWIE,Love the morose poem Chewie. Very thought provoking & interesting, kind of reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe .... ".As anti-matter sucks and pulses periodically" Thanks for sharing it with us :)
Nicole, Actually, I liked The God Delusion by Dawkins but I know some felt patronized because of his tone.I did not but then, I was predisposed to his arguments and did not feel "dissed". I liked his organization which meant a methodical addressing of arguments for Gods.
You might also read Sam Harris's book, The End of Faith...just to compare their approaches.
I am puzzled at your suggestion that Dawkins should stick with challenging God not religion as well. How would one do that since religion is the man-made structural underpinning, the magical rituals and myths that accompany each particular depiction of God and God's relationship to mankind? What is Allah without Islam? How could one challenge one without discussing the other?
Care to disprove Zeus without tackling the myths and all from Greek culture ?
There have been at least 2,500 gods and goddesses worshipped in the world. Comparative religions courses, and cultural anthropology courses are quite helpful in understanding how religions and cultures frame the issues of life/death and how peoples relate to the cosmos thru beliefs in gods, magic, etc. It is important to look at these things with intelligence, logic and objectivity ..dificult though that may be to step "outside our cultural box".
Though the myths and stories and descriptions of about gods often derive from earlier or competing religions...Dawkins is correct at focussing on the most contemporaneous and popular version of God in our western culture and so tackles arguments advanced within it purporting to justify belief. It would do little good for him to expend a lot of time disposing of arguments for Zeus or Mithra or the rest.
In the 10 Commandments, oft quoted but not really analyzed is the commandment not to worship other gods before Yahweh so its clear that even in Moses's time, it was acknowledged that other, rival gods were worshipped and presumably were thought to exist! It was important that the god of Moses be distinguished from them and allegiance pledged to Him...and that was by the specific religion. Otherwise, these could have been thought of as different names for one deity as opposed to rival gods with religious practices and beliefs attached and "no harm done". Of course the God of Israel was originally "a jealous tribal god" and only later explained as a single God for all tribes and peoples who would sign on as believers...and "the One and Only" . The
religious mythology justifying this new version of deity had to reconcile the new with the old God of Israel with the Christian mythology of the sacrifice of God's son..similar to mythologies of risen gods of the past..connected with Spring returning etc..
I am glad that reading the God Delusion is part of a philosophy module and that you read it. The more one reads,ievitably, the more one exercises critical thinking skills.....whether you agree or disagree with the writer. Its important to ascertain whether you dislike it because it offends you emotionally or insults your beliefs, is heretical or because the arguments he makes are somehow faulty in terms of logic or reason.
If its the former, then you may wish to ponder that. If it is the latter, you may wish to share your criticisms in reviewing the book and enlighten fellow readers as to what you find horrendous.
Hey Wendy, Thanks a mill for the reply! I'm glad I read the book too, & I neither felt dissed or patronized by Dawkins tone & arguments. First and foremost, I have a love/hate relationship with Mr.Dawkins. He is a fantastic natural scientist who really tries so hard to think harder & as you said "more critically". He tries to get us to examine a bleak but REAL world and to ask the question " isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?".
I'm sorry if I sounded extremely bitter in my previous review of the book but I have good reason too & think your argument is truly great and you make very valid points. You replied that you were puzzled at my suggestion that Dawkins should stick with challenging God not religion as well.My answer to this is not a simple one. God is not a simple answer. The main point I feel is necessary here is that Dawkins is trying to distinguish rationalism from superstition(mainly what he calls religion). I just don't feel that this is the only way to go when trying to understand and explore the existence of God.
Why does rationalism have to be DIVIDED and put into a seperate category to belief and faith? The idea of God is seperated from rationality( And this is what I meant when I said that he is taking on religion without taking on God!) What about a relationship with GOD which is build upon a rational foundation? For example in Spinoza's ethics, he uses proofs, propositions and axioms to explain the existence of God.
Dawkins does not argue more intimately with one's personal relationship and personal dependancy of religion. Dawkins dismisses, with contemptuous flippancy the traditional a priori arguments for the existence of God offered by Aquinas and Anselm.
I believe that by appealing to our consciousness of the disasterous nature of religion and as you stated "the most contemporaneous and popular version of God in our western culture", Dawkins is appealing to our sensitivity and not our logic. He is trying to raise the worlds level of consciousness and therefore highlight the divide between rationalism and superstition. It is not as easy as that, and as a great Darwinian scientist that he is, he should know this.
Why doesn't he focus on the whole realm of personal reflection? Why hasn't he looked into a priori reasoning? There are so many unanswered questions alongside his many attrocious attemps to philosophise. So in answer to your question, his book the GOD delusion is faulty in terms of it's reasoning and logic.
Sorry about my attrocious spelling by the way! And thanks again for taking the time to reply to me! Toodles! :)
I don't mind when someone shares their believe about reality. What is a challenge to me is reading or hearing someone that is trying to convince everyone that their reality is 100% what is for everyone else.My experiences with God, are just that, my experiences. For someone to state that they are delusional in my opinion is 100% ego-driven. For someone to hold the believe that they can speak for all humanity is a delusion. The only thing that I can be sure of is my experiences and even that is subjective, especially if my point of reference is from the past.
Dawkins has responded to a priori arguments for God's existence, the most common arguments used by theologians and metaphysicians in ancient and medieval times. I assume you have read Hume who pointed out that all a priori truths are such that the predicate is in the definition of the subject ..and thus reliance on a priori proofs fails if there is no agreed upon acceptance of the first principles from which all conclusions are derived. One has to have faith in the first principles and accept those as absolutely true.
One could argue that hanging your argument on such is like argueing from authority (the Pope says such and such so, taking THAT as absolute truth, this must be deduced from THAT) or from one's opinion based on one's assumptions which others might not agree with and then going on to conclusions..ultimately only anchored in that opinion and self-defining, essentially.
You might enjoy the following video taken from Dawkins in which he summarizes his criticism/rejection of a priori arguments for the existence of God: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdtLVT...
Colleen..Everyone can believe their own private subjective experiences but certainly cannot expect that will convince anyone of it. Ask anyone who has interacted with the mentally ill whose visions and experiences (their "truths", their reality) do not jibe with common sense or external evidence, the laws of nature, science or anything else. Thus reality can be defined as about 6 billion versions of the cosmos. A bit of a strain on consensus building, communication or the old social fabric but ...
Anyone can choose to define reality as if it were the same as the world they choose to believe in, untethered to what may be verified or shared...and in fact in contradiction to it ..but "situational personal reality" is a bit like "situational ethics"...based on what one wants and rationalizes to feel comfy, not much else. Certainly, each of us has personal experiences which shape us and our views but we actually benefit, I believe, in arriving at some distinctions between fantasy,wishful thinking, faith/beliefs, opinion on the one hand and some common understanding of external reality, nature, the way things actually work and facts of our existence on the other hand, so that we might make rational decisions and choices that affect us and others. Dawkins is an atheist and is presenting his reasons for disbelief and does so cogently and well, I think.
He presents his arguments based on logic and uses facts and objective evidence and is methodical and
reasoned.
If you had read Dawkins, you would understand that he is not saying that you have not had your personal experiences which you interpret as an experience of God. Yes, your subjective experiences are your subjective experiences and as such are real for you. I have had my own experiences which have impacted me and spurred me to try to understand them and am sure that such kinds of experiences could lead one to believe in
supernatural phenomena and extrapolate from them but what belief system I might construct would be different from yours. However that is not the subject of this book. A delusion is a "false belief or impression" . It is not a subjective experience or aesthetic response to beauty or a feeling of love for one's fellow men.
It is , for example, a belief that this life on Earth is a mere prelude to a much better afterlife and if one does the right things to please God (whether going thru certain rituals, killing infidels or whatever), it will be rewarded then. This kind of delusion can lead to murder or war.
I have not read, nor wish to read Dawkins.I do believe in his premise that whenever we detach the reality of the here and now from religion it leads to delusion. For me, God is Love and as such wants us to experience Joy on this Earth by creating love for all around us.
It is a wonderful test for me of how true my experience with God is. Is it created by love or is it created by fear. An atheist by it very defination is coming from the theather of fear.
(Skepticism = fear)
Wendy, you stated: "I have had my own experiences which have impacted me and spurred me to try to understand them and am sure that such kinds of experiences could lead one to believe in supernatural phenomena and extrapolate from them but what belief system I might construct would be different from yours. However that is not the subject of this book."
Wendy, I couldn't help but notice that you contradicted what you said in your previous statement : "How would one do that since religion is the man-made structural underpinning, the magical rituals and myths that accompany each particular depiction of God and God's relationship to mankind?".... If religion is purely a man made structure, how can one's own experiences be dismissed when exploring the delusions of god and religion? How can individual beliefs of people not be looked into when Dawkins is illustrating the delusion that is God?
And in relation to his response to the priori arguments for the existence of God, his argument against Aquinas's 5 ways is although sometimes witty, horrific. St. Thomas summarises the parallel relations of implication between God and the multiplicity of creatures, both on the level of participation in being and of attribution.We are given an expression of the balanced realism of Aquinas’ theism: God is known and named through creatures, albeit in an imperfect manner. Aquinas is expressing the perfection of God and creatures according to their distinct manner of presence. Therefore Aquinas makes the point that the object of knowledge, insofar as it is to be known, must be proportioned to the cognitive capacity of the knower. Knowledge, reflection & A PRIORI arguments are VITAL in understanding religion and God and Mr. Dawkins throws away Aquinas' arguments because of the idea of regress without regarding the other imlications of his arguments. Knowledge and reality go hand in hand & Mr.Dawkins does not answer any question about God that we have not already asked.
hey colleen, Love your discussion group! Very thought provoking! I like the way you think about God as being who you want him to be. God is as you know him to be. The here and now is vital to our relationship with existence. Reflection and meditation is a crucial part in understanding our relationship with the world. :)
"For someone to hold the believe that they can speak for all humanity is a delusion"I agree.
And for one person to believe that he has the correct idea when it comes to God being unreal and that the majority of living beings are wrong in believing differently is also delusional.
I believe in God and I don't care if my neighbor does not. I would not try to convince anyone that the God they believe in is wrong and that they should share my own belief or lack thereof. What does it matter when in the end, when we all die, it will be clear who was correct? There is absolutely no way to prove the existence or non-existence of God in the here and now.
It is futile to mock, debase, or tease people simply for the fact that they believe differently than you do. In fact, the rudeness and name calling of some atheists is the same to me as that of religious fanatics.
Idealistic as it may be, I think the only way for us to live together in peace is to respect each other's beliefs and opinions. Respect as in not resorting to name-calling, accusations, or belittling anyone else's belief.
Though I believe in a Christian God, I am absolutely fascinated by Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, and etc. religious practices. And I firmly feel that the world would be a terribly boring pace if we were all atheists, christians, or whatever. Religious variety is to me as spicy as food variety.
I can only wish that everyone else would be as interested in an anthropological sense in what makes us different from one another as I (and I'm sure many others) am. Yes there are bad things in religion, but there are bad things in human culture in general. It does not detract from the good for me.
Colleen: You said you "have not read, nor wish to read Dawkins." so basically, you are commenting on what you believe he might have meant when he wrote what you have not read. Oddly unconvincing as relevant to a discussion of the book.
I suppose if God is whom you want him to be, Dawkins can also be whom you want him to be and what he has written can also be what you imagine.
Nicole: If religion is purely a man made structure, how can one's own experiences be dismissed when exploring the delusions of god and religion? There is no conflict between noting that religion is a man-made structure etc.. and acknowleging that people's experiences shape their ideas of the world including their beliefs and superstitions. In fact,cultural anthropologists theorize that religion itself has its origins in primitive man's attempt to explain things that they saw in Nature from the weather to physical elements of the landscape to the mysteries of birth, death, etc.
Man strains to explain and understand things novel or mysterious to him. If that were not so, perhaps,there would have been no impetus to knowledge, to explore, to study and understand nature, for example. No science! No religion! Both are ways for mankind to explain what they encounter in Nature, certainly. Religion provides for many an acceptable, comforting explanation of that which they yearn to have knowledge of ...such as what happens after you die? Is there any justice in the Universe? Why must people suffer? Why are we here? Experiences people have do not provide those answers but are interpreted to reinforce, often, a religious belief, which does.
Example: A religion may describe God as someone who communicates to man thru dreams and may also describe Heaven. A person has a dream about a Heaven with winged angels and light etc, and wakes up, interpreting that as proof of the existence of a Heaven that matches what he has been told in Sunday school and believes that he has received a communication from God).
A person may have escaped death in a fire and believe he was saved by God. A person in the same fire who died obviously had a different experience.
However, the first person may be more devout after this experience.
What I am saying is, that peoples' experiences, subjective though they may be , or or more explicitly, their experiences coupled with their desires to EXPLAIN their experiences, to place the experience in a context ..can lead to a man-made explanation that can either reinforce a religious belief, seemingly validate it or become part of a mythology, a story that is told as if true that can ultimately be used to develop a religious story or reality, created out of the poetry of the description.
Example: "suddenly, the sky darkened as if something cast a great shadow over the Earth" ...so there must be something huge that can do that.....a giant!An invisible Giant!!!" Later this may be incorporated into a description of a God and the analogy becomes instead a literal description : "God cast his shadow over the land and hid the moon" ;
Again, it is a man-made story, poetic and moving, but can indeed have roots in an experience.
Similarly, a feeling may be a real experience that gives comfort and then given a religious explanation and later that feeling is offered as "proof" of connection to a deity.
My mother had died years before but I suddenly felt very happy and safe just like I did as a child embraced by my mother;
"so it must have been a giant invisible goddess who wrapt me in her protection..."
The experience may lead to a explanation based on one's prior experience...or be so baffling that one ascribes it to something miraculous, outside of one's world, not natural or supernatural.. This
one can suggest has led to superstitions, to beliefs in fairies, goblins, gods etc . However, the construction of such things or fitting of such experiences into the language and specifics of religions is common. Beliefs become codified and considered important to believe in as a virtue, with rewards and punishment meted out by Gods/God, which involve worship and reverence,and which by accretion involve more specific beliefs,dogma holy objects or practices,rules etc
I was saying that experiences that seem to involve strange unexplained things yet are convincingly real and can make one wonder if one has met the supernatural...such as a vision can lead to creating a religion based on such visions.(But do not have to!One can simply chalk them off to an "unknown natural cause"...and seek to find that! ) Having had such experiences, notably one incredible one in Greece, I would never denigrate them or call them inauthentic but by themselves, such experiences ..even a vivid vision, leave it to the subject to explain them and interpret them.
Such experiences could, I am sure, be described variously by skeptical psychologists but on this one, I would agree with Colleen in that if one has had one, it is hard to be convinced that they were not "real" and assign them a meaning.
"If you "werent there" how could YOU know what I saw/felt/heard? ." one would likely say to the skeptic.
Dawkins did not as I recall, specifically dismiss such experience nor get into the subjective benefits or importance of such personal, emotional , subjective, reflective or inspirational private emotional experiences or insights born of meditation etc.. but obviously such individual idiosyncratic experiences are not in and of themselves proof of a particular religion and the God/gods described in them and may be considered apart from a discussion of disputation on logical grounds for a God . Dawkins stuck to exposing what he suggests is the failure of arguments meant to prove Theism. That the arguments fail to convince him, means he is an atheist. He did not, contrary to what you appeared to suggest, present a philosophy. Nor, did he suggest nor provide that only his idea of reality and no others is correct.
A final note: Believing in a God who loves and protects one and a happy Heaven awaiting one is surely comforting but NOT certainly an act of courage. Perhaps I misunderstood Colleen's last post in which she suggested that Skepticism or Atheism equated with FEAR to be contrasted with Theism. If such beliefs were not a way for many not to fear death for example, they would, I believe, not be so popular.
I've spent about an hour reading this and feel much worse for the experience. What is this God thing that people are arguing isn't 'obsolete'? Does it have any attributes at all other than other vague terms like 'love'? I always thought He was an old man with a grey beard, but when people compared Him with Santa Claus earlier other people seemed to get very upset. Well, if He is not some old bloke with a grey beard, what is He? A nice feeling? An itch? Something that gives the kids nightmares?
Whatever this God thing is it seems a bit over-the-top to say that He is 'love'. Few of us would argue He was love when he called for the sacrifice of children so as to ensure the sun rose every morning - or when the Incas did such things was that not a real manifestation of God?
And as for Kristjan saying He is programmed into our genetic code - Thank God I'm one of the luckily 'more highly evolved' humans (it appears we make up some 15 - 23% of the population) who can live peacefully in society and not need this genetic dysfunction. Given Northern Ireland (where two communities that both believed in the God child Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour and who went about killing each other gleefully for over three decades) I find it a little insulting to suggest a belief in god is necessary to bring communities together - all contemporary evidence suggests the very opposite. Unless you are suggesting that flying planes into buildings is a way of bringing communities together?
A belief in God is not obsolete, it is positively dangerous. We need to move away from such fairytales if the world is to have any future at all. Irrational beliefs which need no more support than vague assertions - God is love, God is great, God wants me to kill you, He told me so himself - are DANGEROUS. We non-believers need to remind you believers that IT IS NOT OKAY FOR YOU TO KILL PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. All we are trying to do is stop you from killing people over your imaginary friend - trust me, it is for your own good.
So, to sum up - if you are going to argue that God is necessary you ought to start by saying what this God thing is - what does He smell like would be as good a place to begin as any. And don't tell me God is love, because in saying that you are saying nothing.
That’s right Trevor, no one ever did anything positive in the name of God, and no atheist ever hurt anybody.
Mod
Obviously not as highly 'evolved' as you seem to think ... since you completely missed the point of my argument :) Let me know when you are ready to swim in the deep end ...
Carlie, I think we can respect individuals who may differ from us in beliefs or culture or habits etc but I do not think that respectfully equating all religious belief is warrented... any more than respecting beliefs of any kind automatically is warrented. I would make a distinction between ones which do not present dangers to others and the world and those which appear harmless or have beneficent effects on believers. Torturing a child to death because of a belief the poor victim was inhabited by a demon, (for example) isn't something we should tiptoe around and tolerate because the deadly result was due to a religious belief rather than simple maliciousness. I just read a CNN news story on a small child whose body was found in a suitcase. He had been tortured and starved to death because as his mother said, "he would not say amen" and was thought, therefore to be so inhabited. OF course, you and I would agree that the behavior inspired by religious belief is horrible. You cannot separate the belief from the behavior rationalizes or further, motivate andleads to. Yet the belief, honestly held, that demons or "the devil" may inhabit/possess a living person and the belief that driving the evil being out is what a good believer should do at all costs cannot be held without these kinds of behaviors foreseeably resulting in these horrors. Can you respect that belief? I cannot. Can you not draw the line somewhere around what is OK in a belief system and not harmful? I am using a real-life extreme and obvious example but it does illustrate the problem.
Yet the belief, honestly held, that demons or "the devil" may inhabit/possess a living person and the belief that driving the evil being out is what a good believer should do at all costs cannot be held without these kinds of behaviors foreseeably resulting in these horrors. Can you respect that belief? I cannot.Neither can I. This is why belief in God should be obsolete, even though it isn't. As someone said earlier, the technology we have today means that today the entire planet will bear the burden of some idiot's fanaticism, not just the fanatic's neighbors.
It's perplexing how God's advocates too often wrap the mantle of Godly virtue around themselves while tossing the evils of their beliefs off upon other people. The mere proclamation of one's belief in God, disguised as a priori knowledge, strikes me as an unearned claim upon some vague moral virtue.
About "honestly" and "sincerely" held beliefs, the fact remains that one can be honestly and sincerely mistaken. People must first come clean about the negative implications of supernatural beliefs before the mantle of virtue they claim will fit properly.
I've spent about an hour reading this and feel much worse for the experience. What is this God thing that people are arguing isn't 'obsolete'? Does it have any attributes at all other than other vague terms like 'love'?
During the thread I've read assiduously to see if anyone actually offers a definition of God that stands on its own without being reducible to some other concept. If God is love or if He is the universe, then we don't need a separate concept for God in the first place.
A belief in God is not obsolete, it is positively dangerous.
I'm afraid this is what people are not getting. People want the social approval that comes with believing in God, but they don't want the moral responsiblilty for the consequences. In other words, they want something for nothing.
Kristjan we are talking about a non-existent being. There is no deep end.
WENDY: "Dawkins did not as I recall, specifically dismiss such experience nor get into the subjective benefits or importance of such personal, emotional , subjective, reflective or inspirational private emotional experiences or insights born of meditation etc.. but obviously such individual idiosyncratic experiences are not in and of themselves proof of a particular religion and the God/gods described in them and may be considered apart from a discussion of disputation on logical grounds for a God".Why does Dawkins equate religion to God? And why can the God be then considered apart from his particular argument? This does not seem logical to me?The book is called THE GOD DELUSION, yet it's pure focus is on the catastrophy of religion and moral responsibility.I find this facsinating. I understand that people do want to create desires and reasons help them to comprehend their particular subjective experiences. Can reason not be the method of attaining and realising one's particular experiences?
WENDY:"There is no conflict between noting that religion is a man-made structure etc.. and acknowleging that people's experiences shape their ideas of the world including their beliefs and superstitions. In fact,cultural anthropologists theorize that religion itself has its origins in primitive man's attempt to explain things that they saw in Nature from the weather to physical elements of the landscape to the mysteries of birth, death, etc."
But why can't peoples experiences be shaped by reason and logic? I understand where you're coming from Wendy when you say that people are influenced by their experience, for example if a child was reared by someone who practiced voodoo, they would be more prone to lead a more superstitious life. But this seems to be a case of CULTURE and RELIGION more than it explains the reasoning and existences behind GOD'S existence.
Mod
Strike two :) I am not arguing about the existence of G-d ... merely whether or not a belief in him is obsolete. IMHO this belief serves an important social function that evolved because it helps a given gene pool to survive by keeping group definition small ... your attempts to apply this globally miss the mark.
relyt said: What is this God thing that people are arguing isn't 'obsolete'? Does it have any attributes at all other than other vague terms like 'love'?
During the thread I've read assiduously to see if anyone actually offers a definition of God that stands on its own without being reducible to some other concept. If God is love or if He is the universe, then we don't need a separate concept for God in the first place.
Simply put ... the definition and concept of G-d is different for each person. The basic idea is that G-d is a transcendent image of self that enables us to establish a social synergism and potentially obtain some higher level of control over our environment. This multi-valued definition is not easily contained within typical human language constructs, so we use overloaded symbols to help us create the required paradox for the 'sacred' experience.
relyt said: "A belief in God is not obsolete, it is positively dangerous."
I'm afraid this is what people are not getting. People want the social approval that comes with believing in God, but they don't want the moral responsiblilty for the consequences. In other words, they want something for nothing.
That is patently absurd.
If you truly wish to demonstrate that a belief in G-d is dangerous, then you need to clearly define behaviors for which the PRIMARY causal factor is said belief. Using asocial behaviors displayed by a clear minority of believers doesn't work ...
I am starting this decision to see what you all think about this question.
I believe being connected with God serves the people of today more than ever. While some people seem to believe that with all the advances of science God is obsolete.
How do you feel about this subject?
With Joy, Colleen