What will it take to squash religion?

[SteveS]

If it was proved 100% that evolution was fact with irrefutable evidence then religion would just evolve, the same way it did when we proved that the Earth was round rather than flat.

Ah - cheers!    A point very near and dear to my own heart.  I can't count the number of times I've likened the current evolution debate to the good old historical flat/round earth or heliocentric debates of the past.  And we know how those worked out  :wink:  .  Honestly, I think evolution is proved, beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, by irrefutable evidence.  I think most people who "don't believe evolution" are either just blind to the facts, suffering from misinformation, or confusing evolution with abiogenesis.  Not that I'm saying not to continue studying evolution - I can't think of a field that suffers when it's subjected to valid scientific skepticism.

McQ - solid points in the above discussion, especially:

The mathematics and physics of the very very large and the very very small aren't intuitive or "logical" in the common sense of cause and effect or in many other ways.

jcm - the problem with the "origin of existence" is that it is very hard to understand, and even very hard to think about.  It is counterintuitive.  It does not make normal sense by human standards because it is so exotically removed from our everyday experience.

One of the "crux" issues you are facing is "how did anything come to exist at all?".  I would propose the thought "why do you think there ever was a nothing?".  Point of fact - we have no evidence or knowledge suggesting that there ever was a nothing.  In fact, the limit of our knowledge and our physics currently (or so it seems to me) is the big bang singularity.

So, what was the "cause" of the singularity?  The word "cause" doesn't even make sense to me in this regard, so it's hard for me to even know what this question means.  But, let's go with it anyway - we are now beyond knowledge and into belief.  Did god do it?  Was it natural?  Is there physical existence "outside" the singularity?  This is all philosophical speculation.  So how do you choose between one explanation and another?  Well, presumably, we all have our reasons.  One thing that I (and most of the other atheists) have in common is that the reasons for believing "god did it" are unsatisfactory --- they seems insufficiently justified based on what we do know.  The god answer just doesn't seem likely to me - and it doesn't seem to be a complete answer - it raises as many questions as it allegedly answers.  For it to work a person requires faith.  And I don't have any faith  :wink:  .

Some more comments:

What is outside of it? Nothing?

I remember trying to puzzle this one out myself.  Here's my way of looking at it: what does "nothing" mean?  There is a big difference between nothing and empty space.  Nothing has come to me to mean that the statement "outside the universe" is meaningless - as in there is no "outside" to the universe.  What is inside a Klein bottle?  What is on the other side of a Mobius strip?  These, to me, are on par with asking "what's outside the universe", or "what happened before the big bang".

Most atheists believe that the universe was created by nothing or it has always been there. Where is the logic in that?

First off, I don't think "created by nothing" is logically possible.  But, why is god exempt from this same problem?  Was god created from nothing, or did he always exist?  If this doesn't bother your logic, why does applying this question to the universe bother your logic?  This is one thing about theistic thought, that there is a distinction here when it comes to god, that I just flat-out don't get.

[thejanitor]

I don't know if you will see the day religion (Christianity particularly) gets squashed like the fly on my monitor is about to be. (Ah... there... much better). But my best bet is that it will continue to evolve much like it has ever since the man Jesus died. I mean, it evolved to except the correct understanding of the moon. And last I checked 78 percent of evangelicals believe that the earth is round now even. Next Evolution, then the big bang? I don't know. Maybe.

Smart people, who were at birth snatched and taught (brainwashed?) by religious parents and societies, will learn to depend on God and Divine Path for security and immortality. So when the time comes when they realize that there is conclusive evidence that seemingly erases God from the whole shebang, they will find some new way to mix science and religion instead of putting the two at war within their mind and letting the more logical choice win.

They will find verses that will make Darwin seem alright.  They will use those verses and some big "God led me to believe" act to move their concept from being liberal Christian theology to conservative Christian theology in a matter of decades. (but I am sure they will find sciences other than biology and geology to disagree with by that time).

Mostly Christians will just continue to use John Calvin's famous "baby talk" quote on every scientifically proven fact that goes against the Bibles literal meaning.

But I am not saying that that is how it will happen. Maybe they will go against each other head on in till an obvious winner arises. Uniting and setting humanity on a definite track. So don't let my little rant keep you from oiling your guns.

Edit: I am sorry If I repeated anything anyone else has said. I was more intending to reply to the author than keep the conversation going. Sorry... late comers are such a pain huh?

[skeptigirl]

It's going to be a long time before humankind outgrows religion. But I'm happy to be in the advanced group.

[thejanitor]

It's going to be a long time before humankind outgrows religion. But I'm happy to be in the advanced group.

Exactly. Why don't we just let everyone evolve out of the need for "spiritual" comfort? We seemed to evolve into needing answers to things we couldn't understand. So thousands of conflicting mythologys were created. If the answers we created are false, then I suppose we will evolve right back out of them when they becomes useless and obviously false to everyone.

Maybe the religious people are so guilty, and have such low self esteem that they couldn't make it a day without believing God had a plan for them? Or maybe they just don't want to carry any weight? They want God to take the blame. Maybe they don't believe in themselves, like agnostics and atheists are forced to, so they create a God to believe in?

Almost makes ya feel sorry for the little guys...

[jcm]

jcm - the problem with the "origin of existence" is that it is very hard to understand, and even very hard to think about.  It is counterintuitive.  It does not make normal sense by human standards because it is so exotically removed from our everyday experience.

That is the same argument for god. There is nothing counterintuitive about wondering what happened before the universe. I’m sorry that mathematics fall apart when dealing with that point, but that does not suggest that there is nothing beyond the measurable universe and that there is no creating force.  

One of the "crux" issues you are facing is "how did anything come to exist at all?".  I would propose the thought "why do you think there ever was a nothing?".  Point of fact - we have no evidence or knowledge suggesting that there ever was a nothing.  In fact, the limit of our knowledge and our physics currently (or so it seems to me) is the big bang singularity.

Another argument for god. You have too much “faith” in science. The universe is finite, not infinite, so how can something that is finite in extent, be infinite? The universe is some 15 billion light years across. Well there is a lot more zeros that can be added to that figure. There is nothing south of the south pole, so with that analogy am I trying to say that there is nothing beyond the earth?

First off, I don't think "created by nothing" is logically possible.  But, why is god exempt from this same problem?  Was god created from nothing, or did he always exist?  If this doesn't bother your logic, why does applying this question to the universe bother your logic?  This is one thing about theistic thought, that there is a distinction here when it comes to god, that I just flat-out don't get.

God and the universe are not exempt? I never said what created the universe has no creator. Everything is created. Don’t you want to know how the universe came in to existence? Don’t you want to dig deeper and not just accept that the universe has always been here with no creator? Shouldn’t you be open to the idea that science may be in its infancy at this point in human history? Science at one point believed that atoms were the smallest units of matter so maybe it is the limitations science that leads us to believe that there is no creator of the universe.

[McQ]

It's going to be a long time before humankind outgrows religion. But I'm happy to be in the advanced group.

Me too! I loved that aspect of Arthur C. Clarke's "3001". No theology. I hope we don't have to wait 1000 years though.

[SteveS]

jcm (I love your avatar by the way), a few things to continue this discussion,

That is the same argument for god. There is nothing counterintuitive about wondering what happened before the universe. I’m sorry that mathematics fall apart when dealing with that point, but that does not suggest that there is nothing beyond the measurable universe and that there is no creating force.

If it suggests anything at all, then what it does suggest is that we have no knowledge of an existence beyond the universe or of a creating force.  You are completely correct to say that it doesn't prove these things are impossible, but why believe in them without a reason to?  If all our knowledge falls apart, then all it means is that we have no knowledge.  We're shooting in the dark.  Sure, we can conceptualize a "creating force", but why believe it's real without any knowledge of it?

Another argument for god.

These are only arguments for god if you take god as the null hypothesis, which I can see no reason for doing.  Please see the bottom of my post for all these "arguments for god" response.

You have too much “faith” in science.

Fine, be that way - you have too much "faith" in god (blows raspberry)  :wink:  

There is nothing south of the south pole, so with that analogy am I trying to say that there is nothing beyond the earth?

Of course not, but consider what you've done with this statement.  You've taken one dimension and applied to a multi-dimensional answer.  In other words, there is something outside of the earth.  But there is still nothing south of the south pole.  To consider how this applies to the universe, wouldn't you have to take all the dimensions at once?

God and the universe are not exempt? I never said what created the universe has no creator. Everything is created.

Okay - you did not.  Which is interesting because it appears to me, personally, that the "ultimate origin" or whatever we want to call it, is currently a paradox.  If everyting is created, even god, then we end up with an infinite regress.  So, at some level, either something must be eternal, or something must arise from nothing.  I agree, neither answer seems very good.  So why jam god in there?  What does he solve?  That was my point in this section.  Used this way, god seems to be an irrelevant concept.

Don’t you want to know how the universe came in to existence? Don’t you want to dig deeper and not just accept that the universe has always been here with no creator? Shouldn’t you be open to the idea that science may be in its infancy at this point in human history?

To answer all your questions, "yes".  I don't propose halting all science because the answer we've got now are good enough for me.

Science at one point believed that atoms were the smallest units of matter so maybe it is the limitations science that leads us to believe that there is no creator of the universe.

Well, this is certainly possible.  But look - science has always had limitations.  There is nothing new about this.  One thing I think it's really hard for people to do is to realize that the mysteries that confront us now are fundamentally no different than the mysteries that have confronted us in the past.  In other words, they're equally mysterious.  How could ancient people understand lightning?  Could they even have conceptualized the answer?  What we're dealing with now is a different mystery, but it's the same from a human perspective.  We can't imagine the answer.

I propose to you that over history people have been quick to fill in these unknowns with gods.  Then, as the mysteries have been solved, these gods vanish and new gods are created.  And so on and so on.  My point is that gods are human ideas, created when we have a lack of knowledge.  They aren't proposed as solutions because of evidence, but rather because of lack of evidence.  So what's the chance these thoughts are correct?  Seems really, really minimal to me.

I'm not arguing that god is impossible, or has been demonstrated to be a false concept.  I am, however, arguing that the reason for believing in god is not factual, not empirical, not based on any evidence.  It is, if anything, what I regard as a flawed human thought process.  When we're stuck, we seem to invoke gods.

It seems to me that us trying to understand the origin of the universe (beyond the big bang), is like ancient people trying to understand the lightning.  They couldn't understand lightning, so they came up with a thunder god.  We can't understand the "cause of the big bang" (if there is/was such a thing), so we come up with a creator god.  What the heck is the difference?  In neither case is the idea of god arrived at from any evidence.

Since you felt that all my arguments about lack of knowledge constitute arguments in favor of god, do mind explaining to me why?  Is god really the null hypothesis?  If so, how did you determine that to be true?  Is there any evidence in favor of a god besides simple lack of knowledge?

[jcm]

jcm (I love your avatar by the way)

Thanks…your avatar makes me hungry for steak and potatoes.

Fine, be that way - you have too much "faith" in god (blows raspberry)  :wink:  

Now you have hurt my feelings…I don’t wanna play anymore.

Of course not, but consider what you've done with this statement.  You've taken one dimension and applied to a multi-dimensional answer.  In other words, there is something outside of the earth.  But there is still nothing south of the south pole.  To consider how this applies to the universe, wouldn't you have to take all the dimensions at once?

2-shay…but I think what you are saying is that a four dimensional space-time is all that there is. This may be true, however would you consider that a four dimensional space-time may be only a part of a bigger equation? It is also too convenient that gravity is so weak and always attractive. The speed of light is also fixed. It seems a little too much like rules to me. If anything could exist, then why doesn’t anything exist? Why would there need to be rules and constants at all. Wouldn’t a force outside a closed system need to govern what is possible and what is not for it to even exist?

Okay - you did not.  Which is interesting because it appears to me, personally, that the "ultimate origin" or whatever we want to call it, is currently a paradox.  If everyting is created, even god, then we end up with an infinite regress.  So, at some level, either something must be eternal, or something must arise from nothing.  I agree, neither answer seems very good.  So why jam god in there?  What does he solve?  That was my point in this section.  Used this way, god seems to be an irrelevant concept.

The chicken or the egg. Which one came first? Well I have the answer for you. It was the egg and the egg was not laid by a chicken. The egg was laid by some other animal. We could continue this idea backwards forever like you said, but who’s to say that our universe is even a large part of the equation. As insignificant as our planet is, our universe may be just as insignificant. And yes I have no evidence for this, but why do you think the universe just happened? It could just as easily been created.

To answer all your questions, "yes".  I don't propose halting all science because the answer we've got now are good enough for me.

I never said to halt science at all. We should use science as a tool to confirm the existence of god.

I propose to you that over history people have been quick to fill in these unknowns with gods.  Then, as the mysteries have been solved, these gods vanish and new gods are created.  And so on and so on.  My point is that gods are human ideas, created when we have a lack of knowledge.  They aren't proposed as solutions because of evidence, but rather because of lack of evidence.  So what's the chance these thoughts are correct?  Seems really, really minimal to me.

Have you ever seen a graviton? No? That term is used for something that can not be directly detected. Why is god exempt from this way of thinking? The universe exists and what ever is first cause we call god.

I'm not arguing that god is impossible, or has been demonstrated to be a false concept.  I am, however, arguing that the reason for believing in god is not factual, not empirical, not based on any evidence.  It is, if anything, what I regard as a flawed human thought process.  When we're stuck, we seem to invoke gods.

The evidence is that we exist. What more do you want? What evidence do you have to the contrary?  

Since you felt that all my arguments about lack of knowledge constitute arguments in favor of god, do mind explaining to me why?  Is god really the null hypothesis?  If so, how did you determine that to be true?  Is there any evidence in favor of a god besides simple lack of knowledge?

God is real your jerk    Honestly, I enjoy talking about this stuff so much because it is truly the most important problem mankind has ever hoped to answer. Religion does not have all the answers and neither does science. As an agnostic, I believe that there is a chance that god may be real. I do not believe that either side is 100% correct. However, science may be able to come up with many more real answers over religion. One of the best quotes I have ever heard was by Carl Sagan: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." I believe that says a lot about who we are and what the universe has become through us. That being said, I am not convinced us simple humans will ever be able to grasp the complexity of what we truly are and where we came from. Sagan’s quote shows that there is no true self. We are simply a micro evolution of the universe. I believe the answer to where we came from will always be out of our reach, because we will never be able to see further than ourselves. However, if there is no god and no purpose, then one can dream can’t they?

[SteveS]

Thanks for the response jcm.  My thoughts,

2-shay…but I think what you are saying is that a four dimensional space-time is all that there is. This may be true, however would you consider that a four dimensional space-time may be only a part of a bigger equation?

Yes, I would definitely consider this.  If the string theory guys are right, I think there's supposed to be 11 dimensions, and possibly an infinite number of universes.  But it seems that some of their conclusions are subject to some reasonable doubts right now, and this theory appears far from established.   But it is definitely worthy of consideration --- the other side of this is there are plenty of good reasons to believe string theory may be correct.

It is also too convenient that gravity is so weak and always attractive. The speed of light is also fixed. It seems a little too much like rules to me. If anything could exist, then why doesn’t anything exist? Why would there need to be rules and constants at all. Wouldn’t a force outside a closed system need to govern what is possible and what is not for it to even exist?

Eh, you call 'em rules, I call 'em natural law.  A lot of natural laws are the way they are for good reasons -- the nature of things constrains their properties and determines their behavior.

I can't make logical sense out of appealing to an outside force, though.  It seems to me like we end up with our infinite regress again --- wouldn't some force have to govern what the other force is doing?  Otherwise same question: if the "governing force" could have done anything, why didn't it do anything?

Ultimately, there is an excellent point in here, which is that to completely understand this problem we will need to find an explanation for exactly why things are the way they are (the constants of the universe, for example).

The chicken or the egg. Which one came first? Well I have the answer for you. It was the egg and the egg was not laid by a chicken. The egg was laid by some other animal. We could continue this idea backwards forever like you said, but who’s to say that our universe is even a large part of the equation. As insignificant as our planet is, our universe may be just as insignificant.

I don't know that our universe is a large part of the equation.  It would actually help understand a lot of cosmological puzzles if it weren't.  Again, if the string guys are right and there's an infinite number of universes, then ours is an immeasurably small part.  If they have different constants and laws of physics, we can explain our particular universe through the anthropic principle.  But at this time I don't find the evidence for an infinite number of universes to be terribly compelling (although I'm sure a string guy would take me to task for saying this).

And yes I have no evidence for this, but why do you think the universe just happened? It could just as easily been created.

I don't really think the universe "just happened".  All I claim is that I don't know why it's here if you go beyond the big bang.  Could it just as easily have been created?  I don't know, nothing within it appears to have been created.  So we don't seem to have any evidence so far of things being created, any more than we have of things "just happening".  If it could just as easily have been created, could it not just as easily be eternal - without a beginning?

I never said to halt science at all. We should use science as a tool to confirm the existence of god.

I know you didn't, I was being facetious.  As for using science to find god, I agree that if there is a god I think science should eventually be able to determine that.  That puts the two of us in a serious minority --- the vast majority of people are theists, and the vast majority of theists define god as "outside of science".

Have you ever seen a graviton? No? That term is used for something that can not be directly detected. Why is god exempt from this way of thinking?

I think gravitons are still considered hypothetical, and are used as a "modeling" concept right now --- I think they are steeped in controversy.  But putting that aside for now, the idea of a graviton has a very specific meaning, and a very precise definition.  If we can infer the presence of a graviton without directly observing it, we can do so because of non-ambiguous effects that are observable.  Contrast this with the idea of god --- what are the specific properties of god?  What effects are unambiguously caused by god?  Nobody knows, nobody agrees.  That is why I think god is exempt from this way of thinking.

The universe exists and what ever is first cause we call god.

Thank you Mr. Aquinas  :wink:  But, why not just call it "first cause"?  If god is the first cause, is the first cause god?  Or is god more than just the first cause?  How can anyone claim to have an answer to this question?

The evidence is that we exist. What more do you want? What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I don't understand why existence, in and of itself, constitutes evidence of a god.  That would only seem to make sense if you define god as existence.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me with the "evidence to the contrary" bit; are you asking me what evidence I have that there is not a god?  If so, I also don't claim to have any evidence that god does not exist.  What I do claim to have is no evidence that he/she/it does.  So I'm stuck with a puzzle -- there seems to be no evidence of a god, but people believe there is a god.  Examining their reasons, I find them unfounded and unconvincing.

If this is what you were asking, this line of thought is treading very close to claiming that I must prove god doesn't exist in order to not believe in him/her/it.  But, then you would have to do the same for every type of god you don't believe in.  Believing an idea solely on the grounds that the idea cannot be shown to be false opens us up to all sorts of ridiculous things that we must then take seriously, like the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn - I have no evidence that they don't exist either.

God is real your jerk    Honestly, I enjoy talking about this stuff so much because it is truly the most important problem mankind has ever hoped to answer. Religion does not have all the answers and neither does science. As an agnostic, I believe that there is a chance that god may be real. I do not believe that either side is 100% correct. However, science may be able to come up with many more real answers over religion. One of the best quotes I have ever heard was by Carl Sagan: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." I believe that says a lot about who we are and what the universe has become through us. That being said, I am not convinced us simple humans will ever be able to grasp the complexity of what we truly are and where we came from. Sagan’s quote shows that there is no true self. We are simply a micro evolution of the universe. I believe the answer to where we came from will always be out of our reach, because we will never be able to see further than ourselves.

This was a good paragraph (except for the 'jerk' part --- I stick my tongue out at you in retaliation    !).  I too love that Carl Sagan quote.  My problem is that while I think religion can claim credit for inspiring philosophical thought, I don't think it has any of the answers.

I term myself an "agnostic atheist", or "weak atheist", so I'm really saying I don't believe in god because I can't find a reason too -- I do not claim to "know" that god is not real.  I think there are plenty of god concepts that can be argued to be impossible (self contradictory or nonsensical), and I don't find it very likely that a religious-type god is real.  But something god-like?  Maybe - we just have no evidence for that right now, so how can I believe it?

I don't know if the answers will always be out of our reach, but I hope not!

Finally,

However, if there is no god and no purpose, then one can dream can’t they?

We get the ultimate opportunity --- we can choose our own purpose.  What could be better than that?  And of course you can dream.  Besides being a happy atheist, I also have a strong libertarian streak.  I'd say you can do whatever you want.  Cheers!

[rdm]

I hope I remain alive to see the day evolution and natural selection is widely accepted as "the answer" for "where do we come from?"

Evolution has been widely accepted by believers since before Darwin. Darwin himself was a believer, as are loads of evolutionary biologists now. Evolution does not discount creation.

[myleviathan]

It seems like the world is getting more religious and not less for some reason. During the enlightenment we were moving in the right direction, with freethinking becoming quite popular. Now it seems like there are more religious fundamentalists than ever. I wonder if it's because science is getting so specialized that people don't feel they have any connection to it unless they hold a doctorate. So they turn to something that thinks for them. I dunno.

[donkeyhoty]

Evolution has been widely accepted by believers since before Darwin

Really?

[McQ]

I hope I remain alive to see the day evolution and natural selection is widely accepted as "the answer" for "where do we come from?"

Evolution has been widely accepted by believers since before Darwin. Darwin himself was a believer, as are loads of evolutionary biologists now. Evolution does not discount creation.

Please feel free to elaborate, with references.

[shoruke]

To squash religion? Hmm... I think that if we could answer a) the definition of life b) how the universe started (e.g., point zero of time) and/or c) make sure that ALL schools teach people to be objective about everything they know.