Religion: The views of an agnostic

[Dancing_Queen]

Buckeye is talking about the creation of your existence. Science, as you said, has "alternative explanations", not proof.
'

I never said science had proof. There's the difference. I acknowledge that my beliefs are beliefs, not necessarily fact. What I did say, though, is that science has alternative explanations; this means that both theological and atheistic beliefs are exactly that -- beliefs. Neither can be said to be factual.

Facts are the only things that exist without other (conceivable) explanations. At this point that means Olm's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. That's what the word "law" means in science. They've been proven (not just accepted) with no statistical probability that any chance was involved. Everything else is a work in progress even if there's only a .001 percent statistical probability that the result could have occurred by chance. Laws can be amended, however, such as when Newton's Laws were amended to hold true for large objects as opposed to everything; at this point we now have quantum mechanics.

Because I have neither proof (100% statistical probability) nor an accepted hypothesis (no more than .5% statistical probability of chance), I accept the fact that I can be wrong. That's also how science works. Gather the data and run the statistics and keep doing it many times in many ways, something that's impossible when looking at the existence or non-existence of god.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

Thank you for your reply! (and all of the "hard work" you had to do going through this thread)

And I thank you for starting it and giving me that mental work.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

Part of the problem is that in most people's minds, "God" equates with a heavenly Father, similar to a loving parent, or sometimes a cruel tyrant, who is very human in "his" thinking and actions. And usually, not even a nice human being. More someone to be feared. And if you pray hard enough, maybe he'll listen to you and grant you your wishes.

But what if God is a mathematical equation or a scientific principle? Something so obscure and beyond human comprehension that it is pointless to even discuss it?

As an atheist, I'd find that kind of explanation a little easier to accept than the "fatherly" description found in most religions. Look at the size of the universe. We can't even conceive of it. The number of stars (or is it the number of galaxies?) is on the order of the number of grains of sand on all the beaches on earth. Trillions and trillions. We can't imagine such a number.

So, to me it makes no sense to suggest that the "ruler" of that indescribably enormous universe is particularly interested in us, the little microbes crawling around on a very small, ordinary planet (among billions of planets). It just comes across to me as human egotism, nothing more.

And the fact that people living thousands of years ago made up a lot of fairy tales about it, and then demanded that we believe them and live our lives accordingly, just proves how easily people can be frightened into believing nonsense. Many religions believe that if a child is indoctrinated early enough with the tenets of that religion, they will be under its control for life.

According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Director of the Hayden Planetarium):

“There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on any beach, more stars than seconds have passed since Earth formed, more stars than words and sounds ever uttered by all the humans who ever lived.”

http://www.marietta.com/neil-degrasse-tysons-the-cosmic-perspective

I just picked the first example that came up of the many with this quote. I've been binging on his videos. He's brilliant, funny, and a fantastic science communicator.

 

[Mitch86]

I believe in Jesus because His music makes me feel good as shown in this playlist:

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXlEVp8uHTXWQWfqT5eInJUe3C2TgrB6v&feature=share

However, I am also pretty sure that we are created by the merger of a sperm cell and an egg cell and, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST. Thus, I use BOTH belief systems for how the one can make me feel better and the other assures me that all pain and suffering will also cease to exist when we die.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

Still, no one can elicit undeniable proof of a deity's existence. The fact that we exist only proves that we exist.

 

[Irwin]

The disasters and the evil going on in the world today are part of "God's Plan" or "God's Will". That's their reply. It is not a proof that God does not exist.

While it may not be "proof," it certainly is evidence that there is no God.

If we accept the premise that supernatural beings exist, the disasters and the evil perpetrated in the world could be used as convincing evidence that there is a devil and if there is also a God, that the devil is more powerful.

 

[Alligatorob]

I have enjoyed reading this thread, very interesting. We (or many of us) have been using the agnostic and atheist labels so I decided to look up definitions:

Atheism - The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist, and that personal subjective religious experiences say something about the human experience rather than the nature of reality itself; therefore, one has no reason to believe that a god exists.

• Positive atheism (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.
• Negative atheism (also called "weak atheism" and "soft atheism") is any type of atheism other than positive, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods; agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.

• Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.
• Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

I think I am either a strong agnostic or a weak atheist.

 

[Warrigal]

I'm still not sure about black holes. I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that they are a bit leaky with respect to the sum of the matter and energy equation. A black hole is a singularity and singularities don't always stick to what we know about thermodynamics. The equation start to get a bit haywire. Most of this is beyond y understanding so I'm throwing this up without endorsing it. Does it make sense to you, and if it does, could you explain it in very simple language?

Black Hole Information Paradox​

The black hole information paradox is a puzzle resulting from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Calculations suggest that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a core precept of modern physics—that, in principle, the value of a wave function of a physical system at one point in time should determine its value at any other time. A fundamental postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function up to when the wave function collapses. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense.

Civil Engineering and Computer Science, eh? Mine was Mathematics and Chemistry with a smidgen of Geology and introductory Computer Science and Programming. I'll come to you when I want to pick your brains on the subject of quantum computing.

This isn't what he meant by "selfish gene:"

"MR. DAWKINS: The phrase "the selfish gene" only means that genes are selfish. It doesn't mean that individual organisms are. On the contrary, one of the main messages of the selfish gene is that selfish genes can program altruistic behavior in organisms. Organisms can behave altruistically towards other organisms -- the better to forward the propagation of their own selfish genes. What you cannot have is a gene that sacrifices itself for the benefit of other genes. What you can have is a gene that makes organisms sacrifice themselves for other organisms under the influence of selfish genes."

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html

He never said that there's a particular "selfish gene."

Yes, I did read his book years ago and I thought it very speculative at the time. In terms of the scientific method it was just an hypothesis without a lot of rigour behind it. I thought it to be on a par with The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris - pop science IMO. Unlike Rachel Carson's book, The Silent Spring, neither of the former works seems to have gone anywhere to date.

 

[Warrigal]

I say this to people:

"If I suddenly developed a belief in god, I wouldn't go around raping and pillaging.

"If you suddenly lost your belief in god, that means you'll go around raping and pillaging since you'll also have lost your moral code. Correct?"

Reductio ad absurdum. Well done

I have been both atheist and practising Christian and my moral code hasn't changed much. What change that has occurred is due mostly to maturity. I have grown more tolerant and less judgemental over time.

 

[grahamg]

Why? Why does god need to exist for me to exist? Science has perfectly good alternative explanations.

I stood in a church twenty years ago to hear an ordained minister state: "If we say there is a god, there is a god. If we say there is no god there is no god"!

It sounded sacrilegious, (if I heard him correctly), and suggests man creates god rather than the other way around, but there is perhaps an alternative possibility to consider(?).

In the act of people believing in something outside of themselves, and joining together, a process is put in place whereby the world changes, (at the very least changes from a world where no one believes in anything outside themselves).

Is that profound or foolish, (you decide!)?

Whilst doing so it may be worth pondering this: "I'm sure even the most atheistic person on the planet has probably experienced love, and can't fully explain it."

 

[Dancing_Queen]

I'm still not sure about black holes. I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that they are a bit leaky with respect to the sum of the matter and energy equation. A black hole is a singularity and singularities don't always stick to what we know about thermodynamics. The equation start to get a bit haywire. Most of this is beyond y understanding so I'm throwing this up without endorsing it. Does it make sense to you, and if it does, could you explain it in very simple language?




Yes, I did read his book years ago and I thought it very speculative at the time. In terms of the scientific method it was just an hypothesis without a lot of rigour behind it. I thought it to be on a par with The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris - pop science IMO. Unlike Rachel Carson's book, The Silent Spring, neither of the former works seems to have gone anywhere to date.

To be clear -- I have absolutely no love of Richard Dawkins.

Just an aside -- "Silent Spring" didn't go anywhere until "Moonrise," which is a misnomer, was published. That picture of what the astronauts saw when they came around from the back side of the moon spawned the environmental movement as the Earth was seen in a completely new light. At least this is what Neil DeGrasse Tyson had to say on the subject.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

I stood in a church twenty years ago to hear an ordained minister state: "If we say there is a god, there is a god. If we say there is no god there is no god"!

It sounded sacrilegious, (if I heard him correctly), and suggests man creates god rather than the other way around, but there is perhaps an alternative possibility to consider(?).

In the act of people believing in something outside of themselves, and joining together, a process is put in place whereby the world changes, (at the very least changes from a world where no one believes in anything outside themselves).

Is that profound or foolish, (you decide!)?

Whilst doing so it may be worth pondering this: "I'm sure even the most atheistic person on the planet has probably experienced love, and can't fully explain it."

I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not there's a god, Graham. Can you please explain? If nothing else, love is a physiological condition; the state of the neurochemicals in our bodies can be measured although I don't see what this has to do with whether or not there's a god. If the question is, "Why does a person love one person or pet or whatever and not another?" That's a different question. But that, too, doesn't seem to me to fit your statement.

 

[Gardenlover]

I'd absolutely debate it and am doing so along with others.

Debate away on the device that was designed and created by humans, which is, by the way, part of the universe. Simple I know, but proves without a doubt that there is design and creation within the universe.

 

[Warrigal]

To be clear -- I have absolutely no love of Richard Dawkins.

Just an aside -- "Silent Spring" didn't go anywhere until "Moonrise," which is a misnomer, was published. That picture of what the astronauts saw when they came around from the back side of the moon spawned the environmental movement as the Earth was seen in a completely new light. At least this is what Neil DeGrasse Tyson had to say on the subject.

I first heard of Rachel Carson when I was a chemistry student in the mid 1980s (I was a mature age student) The topic was DDT and other organochlorines like dieldrin and aldrin. By that time her work had been vindicated. I had to submit a library research assignment on the effects of organochlorines on non target species. My subject was DDT and chickens. Riveting stuff.

 

[CAKCy]

I believe in Jesus because His music makes me feel good as shown in this playlist:

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXlEVp8uHTXWQWfqT5eInJUe3C2TgrB6v&feature=share

However, I am also pretty sure that we are created by the merger of a sperm cell and an egg cell and, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST. Thus, I use BOTH belief systems for how the one can make me feel better and the other assures me that all pain and suffering will also cease to exist when we die.

That's the important part! Keep enjoying your music and let it brighten your day! One could take valuable lessons from your life!

 

[CAKCy]

I'm still not sure about black holes. I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that they are a bit leaky with respect to the sum of the matter and energy equation. A black hole is a singularity and singularities don't always stick to what we know about thermodynamics. The equation start to get a bit haywire. Most of this is beyond y understanding so I'm throwing this up without endorsing it. Does it make sense to you, and if it does, could you explain it in very simple language?

Nobody is sure about black holes. Yet. Our knowledge of physics, when it comes to black holes, is, to this point, not complete. From my understanding and after the discovery of Hawking's radiation (black holes emitting radiation despite previous theories that wanted black holes to be perfect absorbers) they seem to obey the laws of thermodynamics as we know them. In simple terms: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy (in its original form or in a changed form or in matter) cannot be destroyed or created. The problem with black holes until Hawking's discovery was that the hypothesis that they were perfect absorbers were a reason for a "leak" (as you said) i.e. matter and energy would go in and be destroyed. Hawking's discovery of his radiation showed that a black hole is actually emitting a form of energy (radiation) that obeys the first law.

I don't feel very comfortable with astrophysics but you can give it a go yourself here:

The Thermodynamics of Black Holes (nih.gov)

and here

Towards Gravitational Wave Astronomy (ox.ac.uk)

Civil Engineering and Computer Science, eh? Mine was Mathematics and Chemistry with a smidgen of Geology and introductory Computer Science and Programming. I'll come to you when I want to pick your brains on the subject of quantum computing.

I'll do my best to understand what is available and help, if I can!

 

[CAKCy]

While it may not be "proof," it certainly is evidence that there is no God.

If we accept the premise that supernatural beings exist, the disasters and the evil perpetrated in the world could be used as convincing evidence that there is a devil and if there is also a God, that the devil is more powerful.

I have many questions re God and Religion myself but I don't want to bring them out in the open. As I said: Taking away from someone their support system with nothing given back is inhumane.

 

[grahamg]

Grahamg wrote:
"Saying there's a god, means there's a god, saying there's no god means there's no god", (according to minister twenty years ago),.., do you agree?

I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not there's a god, Graham. Can you please explain? If nothing else, love is a physiological condition; the state of the neurochemicals in our bodies can be measured although I don't see what this has to do with whether or not there's a god. If the question is, "Why does a person love one person or pet or whatever and not another?" That's a different question. But that, too, doesn't seem to me to fit your statement.

Should I be surprised you did not choose to respond to the possibly more profound question?

 

[CAKCy]

Grahamg wrote:
"Saying there's a god, means there's a god, saying there's no god means there's no god", (according to minister twenty years ago),.., do you agree?

Should I be surprised you did not choose to respond to the possibly more profound question?

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I understand the process of people joining together believing in the existence of God as you explained it below:

In the act of people believing in something outside of themselves, and joining together, a process is put in place whereby the world changes, (at the very least changes from a world where no one believes in anything outside themselves).

Has truth no role at all in this? Meaning is it OK to believe in something even if it's not a fact? Doesn't this lead to mass hysteria and evil actions e.g. 9/11)?

 

[grahamg]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I understand the process of people joining together believing in the existence of God as you explained it below:
Has truth no role at all in this? Meaning is it OK to believe in something even if it's not a fact? Doesn't this lead to mass hysteria and evil actions e.g. 9/11)?

Let's try to consider truth certainly, and using the "love means/is biochemical changes in the brain" thinking posted above, I believe you've added an insight into those words I quoted, spoken by an ordained minister, twenty years ago.
People "saying there is a god", etc.,etc.,etc., the act of people saying that there is something outside of themselves, (asserting a position no complete atheist can assert), changes those people, the way they interact with one another, "what happens in their brains", and arguably the whole world, (strange as it might seem!).

 

[CAKCy]

Let's try to consider truth certainly, and using the "love means/is biochemical changes in the brain" thinking posted above, I believe you've added an insight into those words I quoted, spoken by an ordained minister, twenty years ago.
People "saying there is a god", etc.,etc.,etc., the act of people saying that there is something outside of themselves, (asserting a position no complete atheist can assert), changes those people, the way they interact with one another, "what happens in their brains", and arguably the whole world, (strange as it might seem!).

Agreed! The problem I see is that the same thing exactly can happen with any piece of information, no matter whether it's true or not, with unknown consequences e.g. Fake news...

 

[grahamg]

Agreed! The problem I see is that the same thing exactly can happen with any piece of information, no matter whether it's true or not, with unknown consequences e.g. Fake news...

That may not be a good comparison, (not entirely sure?).
The simple difference between an avowed atheist, and some one who says they are a believer in god, (be they devote or wavering), is that one is absolutely certain there is nothing outside of themselves, whilst the other side believes there is or may be.
This "buy in" to their being something to consider we dont control, or may indeed something knowing us and understand our thoughts and ultimate fate, and how this may "change our brains", to keep coming back to the phrase, isn't the same is it as your comparison(?).
Is anyone going to worship "Fake News", (no matter how taken in they may be)?

 

[CAKCy]

That may not be a good comparison, (not entirely sure?).
The simple difference between an avowed atheist, and some one who says they are a believer in god, (be they devote or wavering), is that one is absolutely certain there is nothing outside of themselves, whilst the other side believes there is or may be.
This "buy in" to their being something to consider we dont control, or may indeed something knowing us and understand our thoughts and ultimate fate, and how this may "change our brains", to keep coming back to the phrase, isn't the same is it as your comparison(?).
Is anyone going to worship "Fake News", (no matter how taken in they may be)?

I'm not afraid of "worshipping" fake news. I'm afraid of the mass acting because of fake news believed to be true e.g. January 6 incursion. At the end of the date the "change in their brains" you see (and factually occurs) because of a religion is very similar to the one occurring because of any piece of information, be it good or evil.

 

[grahamg]

I'm not afraid of "worshipping" fake news. I'm afraid of the mass acting because of fake news believed to be true e.g. January 6 incursion. At the end of the date the "change in their brains" you see (and factually occurs) because of a religion is very similar to the one occurring because of any piece of information, be it good or evil.

I dont think you are looking deeply enough if you compare just about anything to a religion, (changing brains or not!).
The other things can certainly be worrying, no question there, but religions are different aren't they, intended to be guides for us all to live by etc., as well as the concept of a "presence" of some kind.

 

[CAKCy]

I dont think you are looking deeply enough if you compare just about anything to a religion, (changing brains or not!).
The other things can certainly be worrying, no question there, but religions are different aren't they, intended to be guides for us all to live by etc., as well as the concept of a "presence" of some kind.

Maybe you are right. I think I shouldn't continue debating this.
I respect your beliefs and your right to have them for as long as you do not try to impose them on anybody else or try to have personal gains from them.
You are a good person, Sir, and any further debate would be violating my principles.