Religion – your views

[Jewish Candy]

I saw dat sneaky deletion...

Agnostic it is then. It is interesting though how it was 'atheism' that got preopted for that kind of viewpoint, as many forms of Buddhism can happily be described as atheistic for example. We're just too godly a society!

Aye. In one way, you could say that those who accept the scientific method and what has been 'proven' through it are siding with the most seemingly accurate and flawless method we've since to date come up with (by far), which would probably be the most logical thing to do when seeking the truth.

Aye aye, and that's why science is the bomb. What I love in most in myths is when gods and heroes don't just magically know something, but do little tests to discover it. That's such an important and democratising principle to have in a cultural system, and it paves the way for acceptance and understanding of more rigorous science.

[Shrooblord]

I don't think most Christians actually have a problem with Harry Potter.

The Pope wanted to ban the HP series because Wizards don't exist.

We find [trees] beautiful for the same reason we find members of the opposite sex to be beautiful, or why we find food tasty

What if you find life beautiful for what it is? For that it is just that: alive? What's the purely egoistical evolutionary benefit (because let's face it, most evo-benefits are) in that? I can think of one, but I'd like to see what you'll think of instead.

To be more specific, I see god as a guarantor of existence, the mind within which everything is percieved...

There is an interesting branch in Philosophy called immaterialism, as coined by its creator, George Berkeley, that discusses just that: what if something only exists if I look at it (i.e. observe, not 'see')? Alright, that accepted, how can you be there behind my back while I do not perceive you, when you wish to surprise me by sneaking up on me, for instance? Well, suppose there is a God (and I'm a devout theologist so I say there is ['me' being Berkeley]) - he observes everything, always. He makes sure that everything is always in existence by perceiving it.

What I love in most in myths is when gods and heroes don't just magically know something, but do little tests to discover it. That's such an important and democratising principle to have in a cultural system, and it paves the way for acceptance and understanding of more rigorous science.

I can do naught but whole-heartedly agree. It's also one of the things I enjoy about Greek mythology the most: the gods aren't 'just knowing because they're, whatever, 'god or something'', but instead, they have a life of their own and move their way through their notion of 'the world' as much as we do.

[Rayfist]

I don't think most Christians actually have a problem with Harry Potter.

Funny story, my girlfriends mom is incredibly religious and claimed that Harry Potter uses witchcraft. Unfortunately because of this, Christine has never seen a Harry Potter movie because of her mother. ;_;

[MrBadGuy]

I just don't have time for people like that

[Jewish Candy]

There is an interesting branch in Philosophy called immaterialism, as coined by its creator, George Berkeley, that discusses just that: what if something only exists if I look at it (i.e. observe, not 'see')? Alright, that accepted, how can you be there behind my back while I do not perceive you, when you wish to surprise me by sneaking up on me, for instance? Well, suppose there is a God (and I'm a devout theologist so I say there is ['me' being Berkeley]) - he observes everything, always. He makes sure that everything is always in existence by perceiving it.

I remember learning about Berkeley back in skule. I think he'd enjoy popular science books on quantum physics, if you catch my drift XD

I'm of the 'here is a hand' school of thought - ie. "this much is certain, nothing is certain - now what shall I have for lunch today" So I'm pretty casual about whether there is a god, whether it is the Great Perciever, etc., though I do like to think about various possibilities. But yeah, I guess for me God is the means by which 'reality' is set in place and thence by which it is possible to operate and get on with stuff, and indeed imagine and discuss the nature of said reality. I might peer back through here to find out more about Shroob's general outlook!
On a slightly unrelated note, I'm interested to start reading more into object-oriented ontology and was wondering if any of the better-read RPC folks had opinions.

I can do naught but whole-heartedly agree. It's also one of the things I enjoy about Greek mythology the most: the gods aren't 'just knowing because they're, whatever, 'god or something'', but instead, they have a life of their own and move their way through their notion of 'the world' as much as we do.

The peoples of the Caucasus, particularly in the North West (who shared a lot of mythology with Greek traders like Prometheus and the Amazons), have a series of folktales known as the Nart Sagas. One of the principal characters is the sage-like mother of 100 Narts, Setenay-gwasche. Something that stood out to me while I was going through them was that, despite her lofty position, a number of her myths are basically romanticised science experiments - in one she takes and replants various flowers in order to see what is needed for life to flourish, and in another she creates and trials a highly effective face cream amongst other serums - and she rarely goes to any elders for advice. She is always discovering for herself. It's a very unique interpretation of a character that is treated as an all-knowing mother goddess. So world mythology is full of this goodness.

[Rayfist]

I guess I may as well share my views while I'm here...
I could care less for religion honestly, but if it's something you do, then great, not gonna downplay you for that.
The big question: Is he real? To answer this, I do consider myself agnostic, I do believe there could be some mighty force looking down on us, maybe it isn't a 'god' maybe it isn't even a person. I use to straight up believe in 'him' when I was young but I thought a little more deeply into it as I grew. I actually lean a little more towards the atheist side if anything now. But for the most part I do consider myself agnostic, like I said, I do believe some force could be looking down upon us, but I'm not going to claim this person is what all the books depict 'it' to be, I don't like to spend my life making assumptions of this, rather just enjoy it.

[Adsolution]

What's the purely egoistical evolutionary benefit (because let's face it, most evo-benefits are) in that?

Loving life -> wanting to live -> survival?

[Shrooblord]

Not my own (though that is certainly true) - that of others. You said we find trees beautiful is because they are useful to us, because they give us our precious breath. What if I find them beautiful just because they are? Because they somehow stand against the tests of time and face the harsh tooth of the eternal sands (one of my favourite Dutch expressions - it's so symbolic - but I admit it looks a bit silly in English; I digress)?

[Adsolution]

I think that relates less to trees themselves and more to the sentiment of admiring steadfastness, the quintessential, most desirable trait of a survivor.

[Maz]

Okay, so this post is not so much about sharing my point of view concerning religion, but rather, there's a few questions I'd really like to have answered. I'm assuming that this will be quite a long post, so it is all the more appreaciated if someone took their time and actually worked his way through all of this. I'll tell you this much though: I'm an atheist who'd really like to know how the minds of religious people work.

A few weeks ago, some religious people were knocking on my door, and when I opened up, they handed me some interesting literature (something along the lines of "science vs. religion", but also attempting to make the religious approach seem more plausible by USING science).

First of all, according to the brochure I was given, there's 2 main theories as to how the universe and everything within was created; one obviously being that of an intelligent being - namely "God" - having created everything, and the other one being the Big-Bang-Theory (and looking at the earth in specific, the theory of evolution, which was a main part of said literature).

One of the texts mentioned that there have been scientific experiments concerning mutants, which led to the conclusion that no new species can be created with mutation alone. Of course, the religious people behind writing this wanted to use this as a proof that the theory of evolution is utter crap, and that it makes more sense for some "intelligent being" to have brought life in all its forms upon the earth. Which brings me to my first question:

While of course some mysteries remain, there's indications for the theory of evolution to be - at least partly - correct. If you take a look at apes and humans for example, you'll see that the genetic materials are pretty similar, which, in my eyes, seems to be an indication for common ancestors (as usually proclaimed by scientists). On the other hand, I don't see how aforementioned mysteries provide any proof for the existance of God; for all we know, everything could have happened in a way which is completely different from our 2 big theories. I'd be interested to know how people actually justify the existence of god with this... refuting evolution does not equal validating god's existance in my eyes. And that would be my question to the religious ones among you: What makes you believe that God is behind all this? Do you believe just because, or is there some kind of proof which I've missed?

Question number 2: The author also stated that our earth having perfect conditions for living beings is too much of a coincidental state to have been acquired randomly. Thus, he came to the conclusion that all of this was part of God's Scheme, and that he made it so that things could live on this planet. To me, it sounds as if people think that life chose this planet because God provided everything to fulfill one's needs, and not the other way round. I don't know whether someone has ever thought about it, but if that's how you justify the theory of "God created everything within 7 days", I'd like to ask: What speaks against the earth just so happening to be one in billions of planets to have an atmosphere etc., and life existing because there's these great conditions? Surely you'd think that with so many planets all over the universe, at least one of them would turn out life-friendly by the laws of probability?

Finally, the Big-Bang-Theory. It looks like many religious people share their point of view in everything just being created out of nothing being completely illogic. Which raises a bunch of questions, so I'll just ask away: If you claim that God "created" everything within 7 days, wouldn't that mean that God had to do the same thing - namely creating something out of nothing? If so, how is this more justified than the scientific explanation?
And more importantly: Many say that universe must have been created by someone or something, and that it couldn't possibly have been "just there" so suddendly. Which left me thinking, how would God exist? Surely, if what I've previously said is a valid argument, one could also say that God as well couldn't have been there from the beginning (On that note, someone said: "The Creator creates themselves" No offense there, but everyone with a bit of intelligence should see that that's a stupid argument, for the same could be applied to the universe.). So, where do you guys think did God come from?

Maybe most of you have never thought about it this way - and I'll admit, neither had I before I was given this brochure - so you'll probably don't have an answer to these questions. It would be awesome if you could answer each of them individually, but in case you can't, I'd like to repeat one of the questions and make it a general one: Why do you believe in God? Just because, or for a reason?

Before finally coming to an end, I thought that I should mention that - even with me being an atheist - I'm one to always respect other people's believes. I don't want to badmouth your religion, and I don't want you to stop believing in God; it's just that I can't quite understand why you would, and I'm unsatisifed because of it.

Thanks for taking your time! Looking forward to other points of views.

[Jewish Candy]

I'm not religious or irreligious enough to answer most of your questions, but I will say that most Christians (I get the impression you're talking about Christians, you didn't specify) do accept the Big Bang theory because it fits so well with the Genesis account of creation, whether they accept evolution or not. I get the feeling that you perhaps live in America, which seems to have a substantial anti-intellectual streak that manifests in its various protestant denominations, as well as in other spheres. This would also explain the bizarre 'creationism vs. Big Bang (combined with evolution)' bent to the pamphlet.

Also, the idea of God being how the universe came into being is also known as the First Cause argument: that is, a) there must be something which all causation, all existence can be traced back to, and b) this First Cause can be called God. In other words, God is the 'first cause' that is intellectually necessary for the universe to exist. There is no need for God to create itself; there is no "What caused the First Cause?", because that is an inherently illogical question - the First Cause was the First Cause, if it has been caused then it wouldn't be the First Cause. Now there are issues with this of course, and it will depend on whether you think the concept of causation used for this argument is adequate to explain reality.

I'm sure I needn't go into all the areas where the 'science' used in that pamphlet was wrong or misguided, you've got a sense of those anyway. I'm sure someone else could detail it if they felt the desire.

[Adsolution]

As someone who once was religious, I'll see if I can provide some answers to these based off of how I used to feel:

What speaks against the earth just so happening to be one in billions of planets to have an atmosphere etc., and life existing because there's these great conditions? Surely you'd think that with so many planets all over the universe, at least one of them would turn out life-friendly by the laws of probability?

When you start out with a bunch of random subatomic particles that hadn't even formed into atoms yet, the idea that a bunch of completely inanimate things could somehow form together to, billions of years later, create galaxies, planets, stars, air, people, conscience and more had to have required some kind of guidance. One of the main issues here is that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, time is finite, so the fact that life was able to take shape is by chance, and we have zero evidence to conclude that it could be present on other planets; just because a world is suitable for life as we know it doesn't mean that life exists on it. No one knows the origin of life, our ideas on how it may have come to be are hardly any more grounded than the idea of God having created it.

A mindset, religious or non-religious, always seeks to connect two things together. A religious mindset however is less willing to subdivide and consider that two random points in our cloud of knowledge cannot simply be connected together by a single line. In short, it has an immediate aversion to puzzles or mazes, it seeks a straight answer.

If you claim that God "created" everything within 7 days, wouldn't that mean that God had to do the same thing - namely creating something out of nothing? If so, how is this more justified than the scientific explanation?

Because the scientific explanation, at least the way most religious people hear it, is that the Universe came out of nothing (which is actually not true by the way, that's not what scientists believe). Christianity states that God created the Universe. He is omnipotent, and therefore can create something out of nothing, the same way Jesus can turn water into wine; it doesn't abide by the laws of physics, but again, physics were created by him. He is the reason that mathematics work, and why anything at all does: someone had to have written the rulebook, no?

So, where do you guys think did God come from?

God is eternal. He has always existed and always will, no one created him, as is the definition of an eternal being.

Which leads back to the very first question:

What makes you believe that God is behind all this? Do you believe just because, or is there some kind of proof which I've missed?

The reason you will never get satisfactory answers to any of these questions is because there are none, at least, not from an atheistic standpoint. It's like asking why 2+2=Fish. The very idea of God exists outside the realm of logic, as is intended. We cannot explain it with numbers and figures, we can't ask questions, we cannot comprehend it. Sound like nonsense? To science, it is.

I'm pretty sure the reason people are so willing to accept religion as an answer is because we're accustomed to knowing things. "Who made that car?" "Toyota." "Who made that tree?" "Another tree." "Who made the first tree?" "God." - When you're young, you don't see those answers as different from one another. Of course, skeptics don't usually think like this as, like with many human instincts, our highly artistic minds are capable of breaking free. But if it's ingrained into you at a young age, it shapes who you are and how you think, just like with language or anything you learn. Those of us who were religious but now aren't were likely never fully convinced in the first place, or picked up certain intellectual techniques in early childhood that later came to fight for us when our brains developed enough to know how to utilise them, which fended off illogicality.

[Ambidextroid]

I really don't get why people don't accept evolution. It's pretty much just a fact. The only reason I could find why creationists wouldn't accept evolution is because they don't understand it and haven't bothered to research it or they don't like it because it has the word "Theory" in its name, and creationists misunderstand this as it being some idea someone had with little proof.

If anyone has any reason why people wouldn't accept evolution after a bit of research then I'd be happy.

Also, I've always thought as life as just a process of something happening, almost like we are the exact same as inanimate objects. I've always thought that humans are no more special than chairs or mountains or bricks. Life is, at it's core, a collection of molecules that cause a reaction in such a way that the cluster of molecules (the cell) can multiply.
If a mountain could make another clone mountain (let's say some chemicals dribble down to a nearby spot and cause the rock to expand or whatnot) through a chemichal process, it would be alive in my eyes, but still just a boring old mountain. If something stopped it from multiplying, like a rainstorm washing away the chemicals that cause the mountain to multiply, then the mountains who just so happened to have their chemicals sheltered by bits of rock would multiply and those without would just stay non multiplying mountains. The mountiains that multiplied would all have this shelter (or whatever other reason the chemicals were not washed away) because the mountains are clones, and would be able to avoid long rainy days from now on: that's a bit of mountain evolution. All the non-evolved mountains would be overrun by the evolving mountains as they multiply and cover the earch, and whenever a problem occurs then the mountains that just so happen to be able to avoid the problems could multiply and that's more evolution.

Obviously mountains can't secrete chemicals that allow them to be cloned, but living things today have got DNA that does hold the informtion to clone and also mix with other DNA to make a living thing with mixed features, another thing that helps natural selection. Even the DNA has an origin, and creationits seem to ignore this because, as I said above, they seem to not understand it or they don't like the word "Theory" so they don't bother to research it.

I was, once, a believer in God. This was because my primary school was religious. I was also a believer in Santa, and probably the tooth fairy. When I stoppd believing in Santa because I learned how it was impossible, I also stopped believing in God for the same reason. Nobody told me to top believing, I just did.

I don't really understand why people don't grow out of a god, and it's probably because a lot of adults believe in him/her/it, and you get to a point where the beliefs are locked in your mind and strengthened by everyone else believing it, and any evidence against it you ignore because you've believed it your whole life.

These are just my thoughts and opinions though, this post was bcause I am genuinely confused at why people don't understand evolution when it's really not that complicated and, if you think about it, is bound to happen if the conditions are right (those conditions being that life cen mutate (proven), children inherit characteristics from their prents through DNA (proven) and animals have competition with other animals (not much to say here, this one's kind of obvious)) and if creationists don't believe in these three basic conditions then... I don't know what to say.

[Maz]

I get the feeling that you perhaps live in America

Germany. I heard that things are pretty crazy over there, but certain regions in Germany may be even worse.

Because the scientific explanation, at least the way most religious people hear it, is that the Universe came out of nothing (which is actually not true by the way, that's not what scientists believe). Christianity states that God created the Universe. He is omnipotent, and therefore can create something out of nothing, the same way Jesus can turn water into wine; it doesn't abide by the laws of physics, but again, physics were created by him. He is the reason that mathematics work, and why anything at all does: someone had to have written the rulebook, no?

I'm aware it's not exactly like that, but you'll get the gist. I think that my point still stands though: People seem to believe that God can create something out of nothing; so why is it so hard to believe that the same could go for our universe, nevermind scientific explanations?

God is eternal. He has always existed and always will, no one created him, as is the definition of an eternal being.

But then again, you could say the same about the universe, couldn't you? What if I just claimed that instead of God, it was universe which was there all along? If you don't trust the Big-Bang-Theory, why wouldn't you come to the conclusion that everything must have existed from the very beginning?

You see, it seems to me as if people who believe in God pretty often do so because they won't accept the (admittedly, sometimes outrageous) theories of science. Then again, I don't see any scientific proof for God himself. Which makes me wonder why people wouldn't believe in those theories without needing solid proof?

I'm pretty sure the reason people are so willing to accept religion as an answer is because we're accustomed to knowing things. "Who made that car?" "Toyota." "Who made that tree?" "Another tree." "Who made the first tree?" "God." - When you're young, you don't see those answers as different from one another. Of course, skeptics don't usually think like this as, like with many human instincts, our highly artistic minds are capable of breaking free. But if it's ingrained into you at a young age, it shapes who you are and how you think, just like with language or anything you learn. Those of us who were religious but now aren't were likely never fully convinced in the first place, or picked up certain intellectual techniques in early childhood that later came to fight for us when our brains developed enough to know how to utilise them, which fended off illogicality.

Following that thought, you could also ask "Who was the first to believe in God?". Sure, if religion is pounded into your head at a young age, you are most likely going to believe in God as well. But someone must've started this; someone who did not have his parents telling him about God, someone who came to that conclusion themselves. Same question here: Why?

No offense intended, but I get the impression that believing in God is a result of, let's call it "being lazy". There's things which you don't really have an explanation for, but instead of trying to figure out a logical reason, an allmighty being is used as a justification - and done!

I really don't get why people don't accept evolution. It's pretty much just a fact. The only reason I could find why creationists wouldn't accept evolution is because they don't understand it and haven't bothered to research it or they don't like it because it has the word "Theory" in its name, and creationists misunderstand this as it being some idea someone had with little proof.

If anyone has any reason why people wouldn't accept evolution after a bit of research then I'd be happy.

As I've said, according to the brochure (I'm not an expert biologist), a bunch of experiments have shown that mutation alone can't bring about some entirely new species. Of course, there's similarities between some living beings (Like Apes and Humans, for example), but it's pretty hard - if not impossible at the moment - to find any connection between, say fish and birds. Which brings me back to my previous thought: Maybe God is just an excuse for things which can't be explained.

Although I'm an atheist, I would be willing to even go as far as to compromise on both being true; some guide existing, but Big-Bang-Theory and evelution playing an important role as well. But up to now, I could not be given a reason to believe in God. (And I consider myself one of the few people who are actually able to NOT be stubborn about their point of view, but instead accept other people's mindsets and work them into my own. Not being able to convince me for 20 years is quite a feat.)

I agree with you on the matter of not at all believing in evolution though; I think it's just plain stubborness in most cases. Above anything else, people hate being in the wrong. Maybe some scientific explanations are bullshit, maybe believing in God is - I don't know. But evolution is a thing for sure, even if not everything can be explained with its help.

[Jewish Candy]

"Who was the first to believe in God" is a strange question unless you define what you mean by God. The evolution of the Abrahamic God is fairly well understood: a fusion of the Canaanite cults of El, the Most High, and a thunder god Yahu (who may have relation to Baal). Monotheism springing out of henotheism is not uncommon. Do you mean belief in spiritual beings? I understand the general consensus is that it arose from self awareness and the ability to recognise agency in others, which we projected onto our environment as we projected it onto each other. A result, and in some ways a proof, of sapience. Our ability to recognise agency is linked to our ability to create narratives - ie. streamline causation. Then there's the cultural aspect where this becomes part of the backround of a society. (If anyone here specialises in this, correct me where I'm wrong.)

@Ambi: People can believe in evolution and still believe in the Judaeo-Christian God, let alone the Abrahamic God. Maz mentions this. Religions that survive have built-in valves to allow for adaptation to new knowledge - think about the Islamic and Catholic contributions to science and philosophy if you want monotheistic examples, or Hinduism, Buddhism, the belief systems of Pre-Colombian societies if you're willing to go further. The backlash against evolution and science in general is part of a larger backlash against what is seen as 'non-traditional' or 'invasive', and it is pitiable.

Additionally, I have to say, 'grow out of a god' is pretty churlish coming from a 15 year old. Are you going to give your local Vaishnavite GP a pat on the head? Are you going to dismiss a muslimah with a PhD in Physics? It demonstrates a very childish understanding of how faith, religion and culture intertwine.

[Ambidextroid]

Hehe, I guess I suck with words.
I was actually making 2 seperate points:

A) I don't understand creationist logic when evolution is apparent. I was not referring to all religion, and I accept that religion and evolution can reside in tandem, I was specifically referring to creationists.

B) People grow out of Santa because people say he isn't real and people explain how it's impossible for a fat jolly fellow who can fly on a reindeer powered sleigh and deliver presents through people's chimneys in one night, but because people who grow up in a religious household are never told that God isn't real and explained the flaws with God such as the lack of proof, people never question god until they're adults when it's drilled into their minds.

I didn't mean "grow out of" in a negative or patronising way, I just couldn't think of a better phrase to describe it.

I just think that every religion is flawed in that there is no proof, and the only reason people accept religion is that they grow up with it. If a Christian grew up in an Islamic household, they would be a Muslim instead of a Christian, full stop. That's a bit of a flaw in every religion right there.

If you are theistic by pure choice and do not follow a religion however, I think that's very sensible and logical. If you think something must have started the universe off, whether it be an energy, a being or an omnipotent something, then good for you, that's perfectly logical as it's questioning something that isn't answered. But if you think that a religious scripture is true, and that other scriptures are false wth no proof, then I can't accept that as a logical decision.

I'm personally an atheist, but I don't know for a fact that there's no God as I can't prove it. I don't know that we're not in a Matrix like situation, or that the sofa I'm sitting on is actually blue and the red is just an illusion that an invisible alien is causing me to believe. If God came down to me and said "hello", and if he proved he was God somehow, then I would believe him. I do not believe in God and do not have faith however, because, unless there is sufficient proof for anything, I am undecided.

[Jewish Candy]

I see what you're saying now, and while I can agree with a lot of it, there are a few points I'd like to make.

First off, as someone who both grew up in a religious household and knows plenty of people who grew up in a religious household, the idea that we don't question the tenets of said religion is entirely false. Heck, even growing up in a religious society doesn't stop you from questioning. Kids ask the most searching questions in church of all, the ones adults find hardest to answer. Questioning and discussion of the Quran is an important part of Islamic education also. This is why global religions end up being so broad - if they were as restricted and dogmatic as, say, the narrative taught in North Korea, society would completely stagnate. The religions themselves would stagnate. Christianity and Islam dominate for a reason, and part of that's because they're permissive enough to allow syncretism and differing views. (The rest is trade, colonialism and empire building to varying degrees... ) It is not religion per se that stifles thought, but how rigidly a worldview is maintained.

Secondly, to say that a flaw of religion is that people can believe different things...? I'm not sure I see your point.

Thirdly, I'd be remiss not to mention spiritual experiences as a reason behind people's beliefs. Have you heard of conversion? Just as people can lose faith, it can be gained. The massive growth of Christianity in China is a particularly large example of religion spreading primarily through spiritual experiences rather than through family or society. I'm not saying that spiritual experiences are necessarily real; I'm just saying that belief isn't simply a case of being raised in a certain tradition.

[Adsolution]

I'm aware it's not exactly like that, but you'll get the gist. I think that my point still stands though: People seem to believe that God can create something out of nothing; so why is it so hard to believe that the same could go for our universe, nevermind scientific explanations?

The issue religious people have with the non-theistic view is not the idea of something physically spawning from nowhere, it's that, in their view, it was created by God, each part having been intelligently designed with a function and purpose in mind. Physics, particles, energy - where did these concepts come from? They were designed by God himself, they couldn't have just sprung into being with no rhyme or reason.

Then again, I don't see any scientific proof for God himself. Which makes me wonder why people wouldn't believe in those theories without needing solid proof?

There's a reason religion is referred to as 'faith'. The whole principle behind it is to have undying faith, to believe that which there is no proof for, as if it's a good thing, the most wonderful thing you could possibly do for yourself, for everyone around you, and for God himself.

Absolute faith is a fascinating concept that breaches all the laws of rationality, which is why it could be so attractive: It's too good to be true, but it is true; how else do you account for so many of my prayers taking effect, and having heard God speak to me himself in my mind, telling me the right thing to do, and it ends up being so?


- I presume you immediately have a trillion flawlessly logical arguments ready to fire at every single one of these reasons I just gave, but they're all useless as the core principles behind religion and science are literal opposites. The only noncorrelation being that whereas science rejects religion in its entirety for its basis in faith, religion only rejects those parts of science that directly contradict its scripture.

Following that thought, you could also ask "Who was the first to believe in God?". Sure, if religion is pounded into your head at a young age, you are most likely going to believe in God as well. But someone must've started this; someone who did not have his parents telling him about God, someone who came to that conclusion themselves. Same question here: Why?

I highly doubt it was one person in particular. Our highly evolved, artistic human brains are capable of many things, one of its greatest developments being the ability to ask questions. Given that it's human instinct to fear the unknown, it seems perfectly reasonable to feel the need to know everything - people lie to others and themselves all the time. Knowledge is comfort, and lying to yourself as a way to feel like you know what's out there, to know what the meaning of life is, can make you very happy if you're willing to let yourself believe it. Atheists believe that nothing has any purpose, yet even we lie to ourselves on a subconscious level by enjoying life, allowing our emotion to take over when it isn't putting anything real at stake.

But evolution is a thing for sure

Three reasons why that doesn't matter:

1) It isn't, in the same way we can't be sure that every time we've ridden the train it hasn't crashed and we've lost all memory of it ever happening each time.

2) In a more extreme but still not horribly uncommon form of the religious mindset, scripture always takes prevalence over even the most confirmable science. The Earth was created only a few thousand years ago, therefore evolution couldn't have possibly taken place.

3) Let's allow our good friend Kevin Ham take it from here:




I suppose having been religious up until... only four years ago helps me better understand the thought process, and being a full-on atheist now helps me to juxtapose it. If anything I've given you isn't satisfying enough, then believe me, you will never be satisfied, because it's as hard to believe as it sounds.

[Maz]

To be perfectly honest, I was expecting at least some kind of logic to be in there, but if there's not... well, point taken. I guess this discussion gets us nowhere as long as neither has some 100% reliable proof for their thinking. It was interesting to see things from a (formerly) religious persons' point of view though, so thanks for that.

[Ambidextroid]

Secondly, to say that a flaw of religion is that people can believe different things...? I'm not sure I see your point.

This was more of an argument to the "my religion is right, your religion is wrong full stop" thing that some religious people believe.
If they were a Christian who holds their religious beliefs very very strongly to their very specific religion, they would probably say that their religion is fact, as is all of the specific detail in their scripture.
The point is is that if the same person grew up in any other upbringing that had a different religion and their parents tought them it, they would believe the other specific religion, be that Hinduism, Islamic belief etc. no matter what, and would say the samething that they did about Christianity being fact to that of their religion now... If you get what I mean...?

That's why I very much disagree with people who have a specific religion being so closed off and unquestioning, because if they did deny God they might get "smitten by The Lord" or something. I'm talking about people with very strong beliefs of ther own faith and against others' faiths here, not all religious people, by the way.

I really don't get why people don't accept evolution. It's pretty much just a fact. The only reason I could find why creationists wouldn't accept evolution is because they don't understand it and haven't bothered to research it or they don't like it because it has the word "Theory" in its name, and creationists misunderstand this as it being some idea someone had with little proof.

If anyone has any reason why people wouldn't accept evolution after a bit of research then I'd be happy.

As I've said, according to the brochure (I'm not an expert biologist), a bunch of experiments have shown that mutation alone can't bring about some entirely new species. Of course, there's similarities between some living beings (Like Apes and Humans, for example), but it's pretty hard - if not impossible at the moment - to find any connection between, say fish and birds. Which brings me back to my previous thought: Maybe God is just an excuse for things which can't be explained.

It was actually me who said this, not Candish, but it gives me a chance to tell a story...

Mutation doesn't bring about an entireley new species at all, it just mutates animals very slightly.
Once upon a time, a long tme ago, the finches ate lots of fruit because there was lots of it around. One day the fruit suitable for their diet ran out, and all that was left were insects and nuts, and a few other things.
Through generations of finches there had been very slight genetic mutation, as in very slightly longer or stronger beaks. There was a lot of competition between the birds to get food, an those with longer beaks could get at insects more easily and those with stronger beaks could break nuts open more easily. Those with neither of these abvantages would die, not mate and not produce offspring.
The finches with long beaks would hang around places with insects, and the finches with strong beaks would hang around places with nuts, so these slightly different finches would generally seperate into different niches and would mate with each other without mixing with the other finches.
So basically they would mate and produce offspring with long/strong beaks depnding on their location, and the offspring would both slightly mutate to have an advantage (like I said above) or they would inherit their parents traits (long/strong beak) and those who had the longest/strongest beaks would have an advantage in competition (survival of the fittest).

This is a very slight change in finches' beak shape over a very long time. Evolution from, say, some kind of proto-ape to a human would take millions and millions of years with very gradual steps, and is not sudden at all.

I just like telling the finch story because I like science and I telling stories