Aethism and Religion duke it out on Nightline tonight. The wildcard = Kirk Cameron

jughead

jughead

CAGiversary!
Feedback
203 (99%)
Heres the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3148940


So... I am actually going to watch this. I have a feeling i'm gonna laugh my ass off. Apparently, Kirk says that he can scientifically prove that god exists. I'm not going to endorse either side of this argument because I think you are a fucking attention grub if you go on TV and try to debate this issue. Maybe not a grub, but you are definately there to influence the opinions of others. These people need to get over themselves. Neither side is going to try to give an unbiased and unmotivated opinion. Science, is built on laws not on Kirk's claims. As for the atheist representatives... why even engage in this debate? You know you can't win the debate and you also know that you won't take anything Kirk and his chronies have to say serious. What do you guys think?
 
[quote name='jughead']Heres the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3148940


So... I am actually going to watch this. I have a feeling i'm gonna laugh my ass off. Apparently, Kirk says that he can scientifically prove that god exists. I'm not going to endorse either side of this argument because I think you are a fucking attention grub if you go on TV and try to debate this issue. Maybe not a grub, but you are definately there to influence the opinions of others. These people need to get over themselves. Neither side is going to try to give an unbiased and unmotivated opinion. Science, is built on laws not on Kirk's claims. As for the atheist representatives... why even engage in this debate? You know you can't win the debate and you also know that you won't take anything Kirk and his chronies have to say serious. What do you guys think?[/quote]Thanks for the link. I'll have to watch it.
 
There was thirty minutes of clips on that link I provided.


Oh my... leave it to the The Third Law of Thermodynamics to stump the believers! I actually did see a bit of logic in the non-Kirk Cameron believer. However; I don't believe it.

To be honest, I believe the higher power is the universe itself. It may sound radical, but IMO, not nearly as radical as religous dogma.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Not watching. They aren't going to have reasonable people on either side of the debate here.[/QUOTE]

Actually, both sides behaved extremely well. I was very surprised. The argument was arranged so that the believers could state why they could scientifically prove that God exists. Therefore, the atheists did all the finger pointing in response. What I would have liked to have seen is how the atheists could scientifically explain atheism. Haha.
 
I think that Atheism has become a religion.

Also, using science to prove religion (or God, in this case), is a joke; using science to disprove religion (or God, in this case), is a joke.
 
[quote name='jughead']Apparently, Kirk says that he can scientifically prove that god exists.[/QUOTE]

Not that I think anyone should be looking to Mike Seever for theological insight, but doesn't this kinda miss the entire point of ... you know ... faith?
 
[quote name='trq']Not that I think anyone should be looking to Mike Seever for theological insight, but doesn't this kinda miss the entire point of ... you know ... faith?[/QUOTE]

From what I saw, Kirk Cameron was the only person who talked about faith. The other believer did not. Kirk said he was driving his car one day and he pulled over and he asked if god was there, he said Jesus wasn't on his windshield, the holy spirit didn't come out of the vent and blow his hair in the wind, but a voice DID speak to him. So, basically he tried to dispell the supernatural and just claim himself as a crazy man who hears voices. That is my interpretation. If hearing a voice in your head isn't schizophrenia , then it has to be considered faith. Therefore Kirk + Chronies did not prove the existence of God without the use of faith in their argument.
 
[quote name='trq']Not that I think anyone should be looking to Mike Seever for theological insight, but doesn't this kinda miss the entire point of ... you know ... faith?[/quote]

What is the point of faith?

Noone has ever given me an answer I found adequate.

BTW - I believe that some pretty freaky things (by conventional standards) could be true, I'm not one of the run-of-the-mill athiest / strict rational-materialist types.
 
The little clip I just saw turned me off to the whole thing. It was the question of "Who created God?" "Isn't our religion a product of the culture we are brought up in?" Just more 'faith' based explanations.

This seems like just another debate that incites people but doesn't really go anywhere.
 
[quote name='camoor']What is the point of faith?

Noone has ever given me an answer I found adequate.

BTW - I believe that some pretty freaky things (by conventional standards) could be true, I'm not one of the run-of-the-mill athiest / strict rational-materialist types.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'd say that by definition, "faith" is believing in something when you have no reason to, so attempting to prove that you've decided there is a God because you reasoned it out seems somewhat silly. In a way, the "believer" answer probably should have been something like "Of course I can't prove there's a God. Duh."

This really just proves to me that people can't distinguish between "belief" and "reason." They're not the same thing, they don't work the same way, and they don't answer the same questions. Science is no more going to disprove God than it's going to disprove Love or Beauty ... just like how religion has no business directly contradicting observable phenomena.

So the point, I'd guess, would be the point of other abstracts -- Hope, Joy, etc -- whatever you consider that to be.
 
[quote name='trq']Well, I'd say that by definition, "faith" is believing in something when you have no reason to, so attempting to prove that you've decided there is a God because you reasoned it out seems somewhat silly. In a way, the "believer" answer probably should have been something like "Of course I can't prove there's a God. Duh."

This really just proves to me that people can't distinguish between "belief" and "reason." They're not the same thing, they don't work the same way, and they don't answer the same questions. Science is no more going to disprove God than it's going to disprove Love or Beauty ... just like how religion has no business directly contradicting observable phenomena.

So the point, I'd guess, would be the point of other abstracts -- Hope, Joy, etc -- whatever you consider that to be.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, this argument about how science and religion occupy two different spheres (I forget the technical name right now), is kind of a shitty one. They both seek to provide answers about the universe and existance. The problem, though, is that one provides explanations without evidence, or in direct contradiction of evidence, while the other seeks evidence to explain, or disprove hypothises about, phenomena.

Richard Dawkins lays out his argument about this issue and how science/reason could be used to prove or disprove god's existance in his book, The God Delusion. It's written with a very scientific, but still general on some level, style.
 
[quote name='evanft']Honestly, this argument about how science and religion occupy two different spheres (I forget the technical name right now), is kind of a shitty one. They both seek to provide answers about the universe and existance. The problem, though, is that one provides explanations without evidence, or in direct contradiction of evidence, while the other seeks evidence to explain, or disprove hypothises about, phenomena.

Richard Dawkins lays out his argument about this issue and how science/reason could be used to prove or disprove god's existance in his book, The God Delusion. It's written with a very scientific, but still general on some level, style.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm pretty much an aethiest, so this is a weird position for me to be taking, but religion is more than just an origin story. While the holy books I've read have had their fill of "technical" details -- God created this or that, this miracle happened to whomever begat whom -- that's not the point of the story, so to speak. Hell, the Bible gives creation ... a chapter? So getting all caught up in "But the Earth is six thousand years old!" misses the forest for the trees. So yes, they both seek to provide answers, but not to the same questions. It sounds like a Dianetics commercial, I know, but science won't tell you how to lead a full and worthwhile life -- WHY we're here, beyond procreating the species -- any more than religion will tell you about covalent bonds or mitochondrial DNA.
 
I think Dawkins is emblematic of the strand of atheism that hates religion too much to attempt to understand its worth to society. Dawkins himself cannot seem to differentiate between the religion that brought about the Enlightenment and the one that would cast us back to pre-Enlightenment days, so I don't exactly consider his musings on religion to be that of an unbiased source.
 
I read half of "The Selfish Gene". Let me say that Dawkins simplified so much that he made it confusing for a biology student to even understand. Rollingskull, I agree. Don't hate religion, even if it does cause conflict.
 
[quote name='trq']but science won't tell you how to lead a full and worthwhile life -- WHY we're here, beyond procreating the species -- any more than religion will tell you about covalent bonds or mitochondrial DNA.[/QUOTE]

Why do people insist on finding meaning? I don't really care. I think its selfishness in its purest form for one to constantly search for the meaning of their own life. Instead of just do it, I say, Just fucking live it!
 
[quote name='jughead']Why do people insist on finding meaning? I don't really care. I think its selfishness in its purest form for one to constantly search for the meaning of their own life. Instead of just do it, I say, Just fucking live it![/QUOTE]

That's well and good, but "just fucking live it" is meaning, just as much as "leave the world a better place than you found it" or "he who dies with the most shit wins" is. Maybe you found a purpose that works for you, but don't mistake that for not coming up with an answer at all.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brak
I think that Atheism has become a religion.

Huh?[/quote]

A religion is anything you believe in based on faith alone, and in that sense Atheism is a religion. You have people who are atheist who look down upon others who aren't just like with Christians. Nobody really knows if there is a God or gods or not. Or what happens when we die. Just like a religion if you are a atheist you probably believe in the fact that there is no God and we're just all here randomly and when we die nothing happen. That seems as far out there as any religion to me.
 
[quote name='trq']Well, I'm pretty much an aethiest, so this is a weird position for me to be taking, but religion is more than just an origin story. While the holy books I've read have had their fill of "technical" details -- God created this or that, this miracle happened to whomever begat whom -- that's not the point of the story, so to speak. Hell, the Bible gives creation ... a chapter? So getting all caught up in "But the Earth is six thousand years old!" misses the forest for the trees. So yes, they both seek to provide answers, but not to the same questions. It sounds like a Dianetics commercial, I know, but science won't tell you how to lead a full and worthwhile life -- WHY we're here, beyond procreating the species -- any more than religion will tell you about covalent bonds or mitochondrial DNA.[/QUOTE]

The problem, though, is that the lessons and morality contained within the holy books (I'm not gonna bother going over misinterpretation of the books and violence, hate, etc. present within them, as that's pretty much common knowledge at this point) are almost solely dependent on the existance of some supernatural element to the universe. Why follow the ten commandents? Cause god says so and you'll get into heaven if you do. This isn't morality, however. This is merely cosmic bribery. A moral structure without true reason or logical purpose cannot provide humanity with the tools it needs to continue to develop in a positive direction.

Science and reason do offer a way to form some sort of morality. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a moral structure's general goal is to limit suffering. I know morals often deal with things not related to suffering, but it's a decent starting point and works for most thought experiments. Using reason and logic, one can easily reach the sound conclusion that murder, theft, racism, etc. are all wrong because they cause human suffering. This conlusion is reached without the existance of god or any supernatural qualifier.
 
[quote name='evanft']The problem, though, is that the lessons and morality contained within the holy books (I'm not gonna bother going over misinterpretation of the books and violence, hate, etc. present within them, as that's pretty much common knowledge at this point) are almost solely dependent on the existance of some supernatural element to the universe. Why follow the ten commandents? Cause god says so and you'll get into heaven if you do. This isn't morality, however. This is merely cosmic bribery. A moral structure without true reason or logical purpose cannot provide humanity with the tools it needs to continue to develop in a positive direction.

Science and reason do offer a way to form some sort of morality. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a moral structure's general goal is to limit suffering. I know morals often deal with things not related to suffering, but it's a decent starting point and works for most thought experiments. Using reason and logic, one can easily reach the sound conclusion that murder, theft, racism, etc. are all wrong because they cause human suffering. This conlusion is reached without the existance of god or any supernatural qualifier.[/QUOTE]

I'd thought of this myself, considering it's not like I go to the Old Testament to resolve sticky ethical issues. But I went ahead with it because if you follow that train of thought through, I don't know that I can come up with a satisfying reason as to why human suffering is a bad thing, exactly. Nobody likes it when they're suffering, but why should they give two shits about someone else's suffering? Ultimately, it comes down to empathy, which has its origins in complex brain chemistry and so on and so forth, and yes, probably serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's in the same category as the abstracts I mentioned before: it's something you feel, rather than something you know.

It goes beyond The Golden Rule; "Love thy neighbor" isn't about "tolerate him so we can have an orderly society" or "don't go looking for vengeance, because it's counter-productive" -- it's "Love somebody who you have no reason to, who is different from you, and who may not even like you in return, simply because." I think that's not such a bad lesson, and in some ways, works precisely because it's such totally unreasonable behavior.

So you don't reason out who you're going to fall in love with; you don't solve how to be a good friend; you don't look up the formula for how to live a full life. Science can tell us the mechanisms behind these things, but it doesn't even particularly try to address the "why" of it all.

Now, to be fair, I'm using my terms pretty broadly, since I think the supernatural elements are about as important to religion as talking animals were the point of "Animal Farm," and "God" is such a nebulous concept that depending on who you ask, it's going to encompass everything from the invisible old man in the sky to a kind of Emersonian sense that you're a part of something larger than just yourself.

So no, religion isn't the sole method of trying to answer these questions -- philosophy and art get at the same truths, I think -- but it serves a profound, legitimate purpose for a lot of people, and I can appreciate that, even if I'm not one of them.
 
Crotch, I have no idea what that meant... I didn't say it to sound smart. I think I was trying to be funny.


trq, I beg to differ. Mean (Meaning) - to have in mind as one's purpose or intention. To "Just live it" implies to not worry about one's intent. My intent, would be to have no intent or purpose. On the other hand, I do see what you are saying in regards to both philosophies do seek to provide their followers with answers. All I really wish for people is that they realize what they believe on their own. If religion is a human delusion, as some people claim, I would prefer it originate in my own mind rather than someone else's in which I subsequently adopt. Since there is no proof of any of this, why not take the knowledge you have, and make your own assumption?


Thongsy, our bodies decay and return to the earth. That happens. Thermodynamics baby! Wooh!
 
[quote name='trq']Well, I'd say that by definition, "faith" is believing in something when you have no reason to, so attempting to prove that you've decided there is a God because you reasoned it out seems somewhat silly. In a way, the "believer" answer probably should have been something like "Of course I can't prove there's a God. Duh."

This really just proves to me that people can't distinguish between "belief" and "reason." They're not the same thing, they don't work the same way, and they don't answer the same questions. Science is no more going to disprove God than it's going to disprove Love or Beauty ... just like how religion has no business directly contradicting observable phenomena.

So the point, I'd guess, would be the point of other abstracts -- Hope, Joy, etc -- whatever you consider that to be.[/quote]

I don't get it though.

If you have no reason to believe something, then you wouldn't believe it.

There is a reason that most mainstreamers believe in their religion - they were taught to believe it from a young age. Personally I don't think it's a particularly good reason - but people who live by their priest, pastor, or pappy's word will swear by it.

Most of the conversions I hear about conversions (in USA this is invariably going to involve christianity) involve the participants finding Jesus in the midst of tough times and then feeling better - again constituting a reason to believe (IE stuff is bad - think of Jesus - hey I feel alright).
 
[quote name='trq']I'd thought of this myself, considering it's not like I go to the Old Testament to resolve sticky ethical issues. But I went ahead with it because if you follow that train of thought through, I don't know that I can come up with a satisfying reason as to why human suffering is a bad thing, exactly. Nobody likes it when they're suffering, but why should they give two shits about someone else's suffering? Ultimately, it comes down to empathy, which has its origins in complex brain chemistry and so on and so forth, and yes, probably serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's in the same category as the abstracts I mentioned before: it's something you feel, rather than something you know. [/quote]

If it's an explainable phenomenom, then it is not an abstract concept. It only seems like an abstract concept because we as human beings wish to assign special meaning to things that are merely evolutionary adaptations.

[quote name='trq']It goes beyond The Golden Rule; "Love thy neighbor" isn't about "tolerate him so we can have an orderly society" or "don't go looking for vengeance, because it's counter-productive" -- it's "Love somebody who you have no reason to, who is different from you, and who may not even like you in return, simply because." I think that's not such a bad lesson, and in some ways, works precisely because it's such totally unreasonable behavior.[/quote]

If you can't reason out justification for why human suffering is bad, then you must not have tried hard enough. It's actually very simple; it's benficial to ensure less human suffering because a large amount of human suffering would cause society to break down, hinder the advancement of science, and make it difficult to acquire the resources one needs to survive. Clearly, a safe society that allows for the advancement of science (especially medical) and easily available food and supplies would make it easier for my genes to be passed on. See? Simple.


[quote name='trq']So you don't reason out who you're going to fall in love with; you don't solve how to be a good friend; you don't look up the formula for how to live a full life. Science can tell us the mechanisms behind these things, but it doesn't even particularly try to address the "why" of it all.[/quote]

There doesn't need to be a why, other than the purely evolutionary explanation that these traits are beneficial to our survival and the passing on of our genes.

[quote name='trq']So no, religion isn't the sole method of trying to answer these questions -- philosophy and art get at the same truths, I think -- but it serves a profound, legitimate purpose for a lot of people, and I can appreciate that, even if I'm not one of them.[/QUOTE]

How is hindering progress, causing death and suffering, and stunting the intellectual growth of children legitimate?

[quote name='The Crotch']Why do I get the feeling that I had this conversation about two months ago in the Off Topic board?

Oh, yeah. 'Cause I did. Multiple times. Once more into the breach!

First off: there are two types of atheism (no capitalization needed). Weak (or negative) atheists make up the majority (don't ask me for sources, as I have non). Strong (or positive) are the minority. Weak atheists do not believe in any sort of god. Strong atheists believe there are no gods. On requires faith, the other requires the lack there-of.[/QUOTE]

One can reach the conclusion that there is no god(s) based on evidence, logic, reason, probability, etc. There's no more "faith" involved than with any other scientific hypothesis.

But good job taking care of thongsy. This whol "Atheism is TEH RELIGIOIN!" meme that's been spreading among apologists is one of the biggest loads of bullshit I've ever seen.
 
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/

funniest shit I've ever seen. Their method for proving evolution was false was by finding random douchebags on the street an quizzing them about evolution as if they were experts on the subject.

This kind of shit is pathetic and it's sad that you can tell some people might fall for this scam religion shit.
Actually that's a pretty good parallel to these guys. They're just like the Self-Help Scam artists of the already deceptive myth that is religion.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Correct for most gods, including the Christian versions with which we're all familiar. Thing is, a lot of people define their gods into some sort of logic-proof zone, where its actual influence on the world is effectively nil. While there's still dick all for evidence, it's a bitch argue against.[/QUOTE]

In all honesty, that's just a bunch of whooie invented by people who are desperately trying to cling on to their theist tendencies.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']http://www.wayofthemaster.com/

funniest shit I've ever seen. Their method for proving evolution was false was by finding random douchebags on the street an quizzing them about evolution as if they were experts on the subject.

This kind of shit is pathetic and it's sad that you can tell some people might fall for this scam religion shit.
Actually that's a pretty good parallel to these guys. They're just like the Self-Help Scam artists of the already deceptive myth that is religion.[/QUOTE]

The same "scientific method" could be used to prove Washington didn't exist, we don't have 9 Supreme Court Justices, and the stars and Sun revolve around the Earth.

In other words, ignorance proves "intelligent design."
 
From an article by Kirk Cameron:
"If Einstein says that rocks are made of stuff so complicated that it proves there must be a God, then human beings make it even more obvious because they are much more complicated than rocks!"
 
[quote name='jughead']Ok, I lost all respect for the non-Kirk Cameron guy[/quote]
I know there's a longer version where cameron goes on to agree with him and add more stupid stuff, but I can't find it on youtube, I saw it years ago...

Found it! (Sorry, there was time between what I wrote before and this...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878

The whole way of the master episode - the banana incident is from the 3:30 to 4:35, but the whole episode is classic non-thinking.

(taken from a link on crooksandliars.com)
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The same "scientific method" could be used to prove Washington didn't exist, we don't have 9 Supreme Court Justices, and the stars and Sun revolve around the Earth.

In other words, ignorance proves "intelligent design."[/QUOTE]

wow, you sure don't know anything about the scientific method do you? First off science doesn't go out to disprove or prove God's existence, because you can't simply because you can't prove or disprove anything of that magnitude. Hence the Flying spaghetti monster example, which has about as much validity as people's image of God.... the creator... Commander guy? The fact is, why waste your time on something that's about as plausible as the boogieman?

Anyway as for Washington there are records that he did exist, drawings, documents, u know.... evidence....
These are not laws that are formed and the scientific method always allows for change. If stronger evidence turns up that Washington didn't exist (no not the crazy homeless guy yelling on the street) then we'd be able to re-evaluate. Religion however is absolute and based on doctrine written by Corrupt motherfuckers to keep bitches in check.

As far as I see it, the bible is only there for lazy people who don't have the will to be moral according to the laws and customs of society and need an eternal foreman to watch over them and their children. Not surprising that more religious marriages end up in divorce than atheist marriages.

I'm all for religious tolerance and letting people believe in what they want. However time after time politicians, lobbyists, and institutionalized religion always stick their damn head into the Government and policy. Separation of Church and state is there for a reason but people don't seem to obey it very well. "In God we Trust" on our money? Federal money and use of public facilities for free for the Mormon organization of the boy scouts that discriminates against gays and atheists? How about funding for abstinence programs? And just the general ignorance that religion houses that leads people to ignore scientists claims of global warming?

Religion is not bad, it's just something our society should be beyond at this point to allow true knowledge to continue. I do acknowledge to positive effects of religion. Quakers are the only motherfuckers willing to goto Laos to clean up unexploded cluster bombs that our government has dropped and refused to clear up since the Vietnam War.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Huh?[/QUOTE]
As opposed to not being religious / not practicing religion, a lot of Atheists align themselves with Atheists -- a mass who shares their "belief" (if you will).
 
[quote name='Zoglog']wow, you sure don't know anything about the scientific method do you? First off science doesn't go out to disprove or prove God's existence, because you can't simply because you can't prove or disprove anything of that magnitude. Hence the Flying spaghetti monster example, which has about as much validity as people's image of God.... the creator... Commander guy? The fact is, why waste your time on something that's about as plausible as the boogieman?

Anyway as for Washington there are records that he did exist, drawings, documents, u know.... evidence....
These are not laws that are formed and the scientific method always allows for change. If stronger evidence turns up that Washington didn't exist (no not the crazy homeless guy yelling on the street) then we'd be able to re-evaluate. Religion however is absolute and based on doctrine written by Corrupt motherfuckers to keep bitches in check.

As far as I see it, the bible is only there for lazy people who don't have the will to be moral according to the laws and customs of society and need an eternal foreman to watch over them and their children. Not surprising that more religious marriages end up in divorce than atheist marriages.

I'm all for religious tolerance and letting people believe in what they want. However time after time politicians, lobbyists, and institutionalized religion always stick their damn head into the Government and policy. Separation of Church and state is there for a reason but people don't seem to obey it very well. "In God we Trust" on our money? Federal money and use of public facilities for free for the Mormon organization of the boy scouts that discriminates against gays and atheists? How about funding for abstinence programs? And just the general ignorance that religion houses that leads people to ignore scientists claims of global warming?

Religion is not bad, it's just something our society should be beyond at this point to allow true knowledge to continue. I do acknowledge to positive effects of religion. Quakers are the only motherfuckers willing to goto Laos to clean up unexploded cluster bombs that our government has dropped and refused to clear up since the Vietnam War.[/QUOTE]

You know, I'm sitting here trying to figure out if somewhere among your diarhea of knowledge that perhaps you just wanted anyone to quote in this thread for your little tirade but I'm really thinking you just don't understand sarcasm. You know, the "old book smart vs. common sense" thing.

Believe me, I know what the scientific method is and I realize that it more or less can't be applied to religion in general. The point I was trying to make with my post was that merely polling people on the street isn't a valid way to disprove a theory as big as the theory of evolution. Hence the reason I made the point that there's plenty of people out there who don't know these other fact such as Washington and the 9 Supreme Court Justices. Ever see the "Jaywalking" segments on The Tonight Show. Religion and science in general are basically the old oil and water thing. They don't mix, ever.

Now of course you'll shoot back with a nice little "oh but I knew you were being sarcastic, SO WAS I!" but the simple fact is that you wouldn't have gone through my post point by point unless you thought I was being serious in some way. I'm still not sure how you would have gathered that but whatever the case, keep up the great work.
 
[quote name='SpazX']So, nobody saw the banana argument? It's a classic.[/quote]
"The banana, the atheists' nightmare..."

The coconut pretty much rebukes their entire arguement.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']"The banana, the atheists' nightmare..."

The coconut pretty much rebukes their entire arguement.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and God was being a real asshole the day he designed the pineapple, too.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Yeah, and God was being a real asshole the day he designed the pineapple, too.[/QUOTE]


Macadamia nuts require strength no human can manage to open.

/The more you know
 
[quote name='camoor']If you have no reason to believe something, then you wouldn't believe it.[/QUOTE]

I think you're confusing simply having a reason with arriving at your conclusion with reason. My point -- and I admit I wasn't very clear -- is not that there's no motivation to believe in something larger; it's that it's not something that logic usually plays a part in. That said, as long as you're aware of that fact, I'm not sure that's the worst thing in the world. There are plenty of things that we're motivated to do (and often actually do) that we don't use logic to decide upon, no matter how explainable the base phenomena is.

[quote name='evanft']If it's an explainable phenomenom, then it is not an abstract concept. It only seems like an abstract concept because we as human beings wish to assign special meaning to things that are merely evolutionary adaptations.[/QUOTE]

Not untrue, but see my second paragraph down.

[quote name='evanft']If you can't reason out justification for why human suffering is bad, then you must not have tried hard enough. It's actually very simple; it's benficial to ensure less human suffering because a large amount of human suffering would cause society to break down, hinder the advancement of science, and make it difficult to acquire the resources one needs to survive. Clearly, a safe society that allows for the advancement of science (especially medical) and easily available food and supplies would make it easier for my genes to be passed on. See? Simple.[/QUOTE]

I'm not so sure. For one, that suggests that only the suffering of people who contribute to society is what's important; what about the old, the infirm, the developmentally challenged? Why do we care about their suffering? And even should we do that, why don't we just euthanize them? Remove that suffering from the equation, as it were? And wouldn't certain types of suffering actually lead to more and greater advances in science (again, especially medical) anyway? Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.

[quote name='evanft']There doesn't need to be a why, other than the purely evolutionary explanation that these traits are beneficial to our survival and the passing on of our genes.[/QUOTE]

Is that what you tell yourself when you listen to music or enjoy a sunset? "Boy, this is gonna be a big help in passing that genetic code along." Of course not. Humans don't have a frame of reference -- and may be incapable of ever having it -- that would allow "genetic propagation" to be the sole motivating factor that gets us up in the morning and gets us to the end of our lives. People have to feel that there's something more, even if that feeling serves a biologically important role, in and of itself. Life is like a hotdog: you probably don't want to look at the process behind it too closely, lest it lose some the mystique that lets you enjoy it.

[quote name='evanft']How is hindering progress, causing death and suffering, and stunting the intellectual growth of children legitimate?[/QUOTE]

I think we're both aware of the dangers of "excess" religion. But the excesses don't define the average. We can eat without making ourselves obese, drink without becoming alcoholic, drive without running over everything we see. So those dangers have little to do with religion itself, and more to do with human nature, sadly.
 
[quote name='trq']I think you're confusing simply having a reason with arriving at your conclusion with reason. My point -- and I admit I wasn't very clear -- is not that there's no motivation to believe in something larger; it's that it's not something that logic usually plays a part in. That said, as long as you're aware of that fact, I'm not sure that's the worst thing in the world. There are plenty of things that we're motivated to do (and often actually do) that we don't use logic to decide upon, no matter how explainable the base phenomena is.[/quote]

I think that logic in it's current state can't explain everything.

So at some point almost everyone dabbles in making perceptions based on their imagination and/or emotion (you could also add a spiritual dimension here if you're so inclined). Even conventional scientists do this - for example when they are trying to imagine new theories to explain phenomena.

IMO the concept of pure faith is odd - to me it is the spiritual equivelent of putting one's fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALALALA" instead of evaluating different religions on their merits and failings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top