Does atheism have to be anti-religious?

Does atheism have to be anti-religious? (BBC)

Who is this article talking to? Who are you talking to?

Reading the article, I feel like I've been cornered by one of those evangelists who believe that they have the obvious truth and that if they just tell me this thing I obviously didn't know, I will promptly change my ways. Also the feeling that the author is one of those atheists willing to spout lines that the Christian culture finds palatable and therefore finds his way into print.

One of the factors that drives me towards atheism is the value of truth. I can not support the teaching of falsehoods, and so long as I believe that religion is false, I must oppose it.

Another factor, as a parable: at the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, fissures open in the earth, and several people and the Holy Grail drop into them. Indiana Jones grabs one woman, and tells her "give me your hand"; but the Grail is almost in reach, and in trying to she falls to her death. Then Indiana Jones is in the same situation, and his father says "give me your hand" and Indiana Jones realizes in time and puts his hand in the hand of a fellow human who pulls him to safety. As per said parable, I think people are better off putting their hands in the hands of other people, instead of reaching for the Grail, no matter how close it might seem to be.

There's probably quite a variation on why atheists disapprove of religion, but I think a lot of atheists would come up with similar answers. So instead of acting like we just don't know there's an option, and offering a didactic lecture, why not talk about why we do believe what we believe?

>1 John5918: Or why not talk about how we can get along together, since quite clearly religion and atheism are both going to be around for a long time, which might involve not opposing each other but respecting each other whilst disagreeing?

>2 prosfilaes:

So instead of acting like we just don't know there's an option, and offering a didactic lecture, why not talk about why we do believe what we believe?

I thought that was precisely what the article was talking about. (Thanks >1 John5918:, it was interesting.).

"Leopardi never renounced this uncompromising materialism. But at the same time he defended religion, which he regarded as an illusion that was necessary for human happiness."

"But the alternative to Christianity, in modern times, was what he called "the barbarism of reason" - secular creeds like Jacobinism in revolutionary France, which aimed to remake the world by force. These political religions would be even more intolerant than Christianity"

"Unlike Leopardi, \Powys\ believed humankind would on the whole be better off if it renounced religion. But he didn't deny that religion contained something of value. "Sometimes, of an early Sunday morning," he wrote, "I would enter the old grey church to take the sacrament... And as I knelt with bowed head to partake of the beautiful, antique ritual I would try to conceive what inner secret the wild rumour held… I would feel half-inclined to believe also. Why not?"

"Powys chose to live as a hedonist."

The article is one atheist taking about what two other atheists believed and why.

You also talk about what you believe and why. In contrast to Powys, you "can not support the teaching of falsehoods, and so long as I believe that religion is false, I must oppose it." Why adopt that worldview as opposed to Powys' hedonism? Why give a primary focus on Truth (whatever that is), which is by the way as very religious outlook, rather that the practical question of the best way to live your life? Why do you believe that and why?

The two atheists Gray talks about put living life above Truth, which leads to a more harmonious existence for groups which have different conceptions of the Truth.

To me there are three types of people:

(1) The people I agree with, who feel passionately about the things I believe, and put them into practice.
(2) The people I disagree with, who feel passionately about the things they believe, and put them into practice.
(3) The vast, vast majority of people who don't believe much, or perhaps nominally subscribe to one belief or another, but evince no real love for truth and no passion to put anything into practice.

In my book number two is vastly superior to number three. Obviously there are limits—the passionate Nazi, etc. But overall I prefer the company and trust the motives and even the ends of those with an ear to truth and a passion for justice. I can learn from them and, if they are minded, they can learn from me. We can work together on some things, for surely our goals overlap somewhere. We can disagree passionately and even in our disagreement underscore the importance of getting the right answer. They give me hope. The number threes do not.

Someone posted that link in another group, so here's what I said there:

>1 John5918: spartan: From that article:

The two atheists I've discussed were very different from one another. Where Leopardi accepted a godless universe with tranquil resignation, Powys embraced it with exultant joy. But for both of them, religion was much more than an outdated theory. If Leopardi believed religion of one sort or another was beneficial for human happiness, Powys valued religion as a kind of poetry, which fortified the human spirit in the face of death.

But each of these atheists was also very different from most of the unbelievers of recent years. The predominant strand of contemporary unbelief, which aims to convert the world to a scientific view of things, is only one way of living without an idea of God. It's worth looking back to other kinds of atheism, far richer and subtler than the version we're familiar with, that aren't just evangelical religion turned upside down.

I would argue that the writer misses the point of the more virulent anti-religious atheist thinkers, the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. The driving force does not seem to me to be "to convert the world to a scientific view of things" so much as a horrified reaction to the abuses committed in the name of religion: the way American fundamentalist Christianity seek to suppress thought, mistreat and abuse people they consider immoral. Or the way fundamentalist Islam has manifested itself in terrible, repressive regimes steeped in violence. It's a response to the political life of religion more than the actual faith. One notes, for example, that they have little scorn to offer Buddhists, despite the more obvious anti-scientific aspects of Buddhist belief, or the beliefs of various indigenous peoples, which don't carry any real political weight. Nor do they, as a rule, object to personal expressions of belief that don't seem harmful - saying Grace at table, wearing a cross, lighting candles for Hanukkah, etc.

So I would say that atheism is anti-religious at it's core, in the sense that it thinks religious constructs and faiths are flawed and their founding principles in error. But atheists are not anti-"religious people" -- an atheist mindset values people coming to their own reasoned conclusions, after all -- but they are anti-"religious institutions" when those institutions intrude on public life and the communal good in a harmful way.

ETA: and I'll echo >2 prosfilaes: in that "One of the factors that drives me towards atheism is the value of truth." But go a little further, perhaps, and say that I think a desire for truth is one of the best things about our species, so I'm inclined to give people in search of it a fairly wide latitude

>3 John5918: Or why not talk about how we can get along together,

I would say that starts with accepting that I believe that ultimately all people should know the truth, and the truth as I know it includes atheism. I don't see this article as part of that; it's about how we can get along, if I change what I believe. Getting along together sometimes involves accepting there are points of belief at which we are opposed.

Edit: And sort of going along with >6 southernbooklady:, life's too short to stress about most religion. Really worrying about Unitarian-Universalist pagans is not an effective use of my life. They're like most diets; I can disagree with the diet, but it doesn't really affect me or other people beside the dieter. It's when religion is causing a problem that I worry. Also, note that both of those atheists lived in societies that weren't really accepting of atheists. I'm here, I'm an atheist, and I hope that making more noise then those two on the subject I can {s}make{/s} {edit}reduce the{/edit} opprobrium associated with atheism.

>4 rrp: The article is one atheist taking about what two other atheists believed and why.

Yes, and that's a very obnoxious way of communicating. Most of us know there are atheists who had and have different views and telling me about them is not approaching why I don't believe that way.

>5 timspalding: "I prefer the company and trust the motives and even the ends of those with an ear to truth and a passion for justice."

>7 prosfilaes: "I believe that ultimately all people should know the truth."

You have something in common that derives from a monotheistic culture. You both seem to think that we can know "the Truth", you both believe you yourself knows the truth, but your two truths obviously differ. I believe you both live in wolkenkuckucksheim. I believe I know the truth; that no one can know the truth. The best that we can do is to do our best, muddle along

>2 prosfilaes: "why not talk about why we do believe what we believe?"

comments on an article about what some atheists believe and why. But

>7 prosfilaes: "Yes, and that's a very obnoxious way of communicating. Most of us know there are atheists who had and have different views and telling me about them is not approaching why I don't believe that way."

You have me completely stumped. You ask for someone to talk about what atheists believe and why, but think that talking about what atheists believe and why is "a very obnoxious way of communicating".

Here's another one that had me stumped.

"I don't see this article as part of that; it's about how we can get along, if I change what I believe."

No. It's about how to get along without changing what you believe. As you believe "Getting along together sometimes involves accepting there are points of belief at which we are opposed." you should accept there are points of belief at which we are opposed and get along without changing what you believe.

>6 southernbooklady: "so much as a horrified reaction to the abuses committed in the name of religion"

This is about politics, not religion. We all agree that everyone's worldview, whether it contains religion or atheism, affects their politics. Everyone accepts that there are political bodies that are theistic, and political bodies that are atheistic, that stand for things we personally don't like. This is not news. We will never all have the same worldview, so let's work at the things we can change, the politics of the society we live in.

"One notes, for example, that they have little scorn to offer Buddhists"

http://www.fairobserver.com/region/asia_pacific/is-buddhist-militancy-the-next-w...

Dawkins et al. seem to have missed this one. Maybe there's a new book in it for him. I'd love to have yet another Dawkins book to scorn.

You have something in common that derives from a monotheistic culture. You both seem to think that we can know "the Truth", you both believe you yourself knows the truth

So, blame monotheism for "the truth," as if classical philosophy was not invented in a completely polytheistic society?

If ever I should forget why I am opposed to religion, all I'd have to do to refresh my memory would be to peruse this kind of thread.

_________

"Religion is not the belief there is a god, religion is the belief God tells you what to do." - Christopher Hitchens.

You can play with definitions of 'religion' that exclude supernatural beings as much as you like, the thing I am opposed to has such entities as distinguishing, and damning, features.

As we fumble around through our lives, we find ourselves wanting some idea of how to approach/deal with a variety of situations. Religion proffers advice in the form of "here's what deity X 'tells you what to do'". Knowing something about how religion, and this world, works, I cannot but reject all claims of the existence of any deities, which leaves all such "advice" utterly arbitrary. That deity X is claimed to suggest I lob off my left ear-lobe to show my devotion is for me a gross presumption on my credulity. That she is claimed to suggest I need to bell my daughters so men can hear and avoid them, "otherwise society will fall apart", is something I reject as an inhumane imposition. What is humane, is to gather observable relations between actions & customs and their effects on society, and to draw conclusions from them. Society P manages to get along without deity Y, and society Q manages to get along without deity X - however hard society P struggles against acknowledging this latter fact. And before you get too excited :-), society R has no need for any deitic hypothesis.

_________

What's this you say? Can't we who are without TB get along with those of you who carry it? Sure (sometimes), but here, have this nice vaccine anyway. Your fear of needles is most unbecoming.

>9 timspalding:

Yes. But there's been a lot of water under the bridge since Socrates. Don't you think that the early church was strongly influence by Plato, that Thomas Aquinas and others have had a major influence on modern concepts of truth, by synthesizing Greek philosophy and Christianity? You don't agree with Nietzsche that "the metaphysical faith on which our faith in science rests--that even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is Truth; that Truth is 'Divine'..."?

>10 zangasta:

How can you be certain that it is not you who needs the vaccine? Do you fear needles?

>11 rrp:

Sure. But the continuing importance of ancient, polytheistic philosophy on Christianity is hardly a good demonstration that "truth" is a monotheistic conception. It plainly is not.

Polytheism and monotheism are different, no question. There is certainly a case to be made that polytheism is more tolerant within certain parameters. The ancient Greek or Roman upon meeting a foreigner who worshipped different gods did not generally seek to stamp them out, but accepted them as real, or attempted to fit them into his system. Okay, then.

But the tolerance of polytheism to accepting new gods does not amount to an acceptance of all otherness, to radical relativism or a denial of truth. It just meant that new gods fit within their system. Polytheism wasn't so kind to atheism, which didn't fit within their system, and threatened the cultural and political basis of society. And it has no strong implications for tolerance of other people or other views. Shared polytheism didn't prevent the extermination of the Melians or Alexander's genocide against the (polytheistic) Indians. And it didn't prevent ancient philosophy from arguing passionately about the truth or falsity of this or that philosophical system for hundreds of years before monotheists had any part in it.

As for those who compare the religious people to the diseased, who must be cured, I can only say that dehumanization is repellant. It does your "cause" no good to be associated with it.

>12 rrp:

Yet again, rrp fails. I'm already free of the deitic virus.

>14 timspalding:

How is noting that human beings endure diseases "dehumanising"??? It's one of our distinguishing features, no?

I take it that you have no counter to my actual arguments, then. You both tacitly recognise that there are no good reasons for being theistic.

"Disease" is a pretty common metaphor for describing ideas or practices that run rampant and are deemed by someone to threaten the integrity of the body politic. One of our most common euphemisms when confronted with something we consider extremely morally repugnant is "That's sick!"

In that sense it is dehumanizing in so far as the speaker assumes that they themselves are not "sick" and seeks to draw a line between themselves and those that have aroused their repugnance. It's a way of saying "I am not like you" which is in turn an implication that "I am better than you."

>17 southernbooklady:

So, if one chooses to see it in a certain sense. Why would we choose that, though?

>17 southernbooklady:

What a, frankly, stupid argument, SBL.

Theists have a long history of dehumanising people by calling them atheists, whether they were or not. Socrates, Diagoras of Melos, etc. The theistic "vaccine" has tended to be torture and death. I think you know damn' well that those weren't my suggested vaccines.

>19 zangasta: I think you know damn' well that those weren't my suggested vaccines

I do, so your huffiness is misplaced. Tim's objection is simpler. He doesn't think he has "TB" and thus objects to being cured. I don't think my homosexuality is something that needs to be cured, but there are plenty of people in America who think I'm "sick." Disease is a common and useful metaphor for defining one thing as right, and that which threatens it as wrong. It is not, however, a useful metaphor for effecting change, because usually whoever is part of the disease doesn't think they are sick or need curing at all.

>20 southernbooklady:

Cool, so you're not claiming that it's "dehumanising", but that it isn't effective, quite a different argument.

I am tempted to ask if you have any ideas about what it might be that the theists in this group are ignorant of (and have of course hereby in effect done so), but maybe a better idea would be to take up rrp's question. Do you (any one else is also free to answer) think there might be something important that I am ignorant of along the lines of evidence for the existence of any god/s, or reasons for engaging in religion despite a lack of evidence?

>21 zangasta: Cool, so you're not claiming that it's "dehumanising", but that it isn't effective, quite a different argument.

Well, I think there are gradations of "dehumanizing" and any attempt to categorize a group of people as "less than" falls somewhere on that line. Calling someone sick is a pretty clear indication that they are considered fundamentally flawed as human beings. But I don't know that likening the idea of religious faith to a virus carries the same implications. It's offensive to the believer, surely, but in so far as disease remains an apt metaphor for how ideas spread throughout a population, it has its uses. So I prefer to assume the best, rather than the worst, when it comes to guessing at people's motivations.

Do you (any one else is also free to answer) think there might be something important that I am ignorant of along the lines of evidence for the existence of any god/s, or reasons for engaging in religion despite a lack of evidence?

Religion has a strong and by all accounts useful and rewarding social benefit for many people. That seems like a perfectly good reason to engage in it if you aren't the kind of person who would be bothered by attending Church even though you lacked faith yourself.

>22 southernbooklady:

Thanks.

That is a tricky claim to address.

I suppose that this is going to depend at least in part on what is meant by the word 'social' (in addition to the already mentioned difficulty of defining 'religion'). Does a group of people gathering on a site (which might not be a building) constitute "sociality"? For instance, a... and I'm not sure if this is the right terminology, but does a "betting hall" provide a similar social benefit? I've no idea, but if "No" then I'd like to know what makes the difference, whereas if "Yes" I'd not be terribly impressed with what it takes to provide this benefit.

What is the purpose of religion? No, wait, before that, I'd like to make a note of the fact that religion does not necessarily entail gathering together at all. The various religious thingies found in people's homes, whether shrines in prehistoric times, or crucifixes in our own day. Rosaries carried around and about. Individuals stopping at a roadside shrine to make an offering to Apollo, or to light a candle to Mary. The social aspect is at the very least not an essential part of religion, so what role exactly does it play in religion?

What is the purpose of religion? To socialise? People go to church to socialise? An unknown number undoubtedly do, but many emphatically do not. In what way are mega churches social? Yes, I am bearing in mind your use of the word 'many', which does not mean all, but might mean 10,000 people or it might mean 30% of the religious. What do the remainder go to church for?

Most of the churches I've attended entailed some singing, some hopping up 'n' down (including to my knees), mumbling to the ceiling, sermons involving a frightful abuse of a young and slightly intelligent mind, ... Oh, and bits of baked wheat and sloshes of vineal produce. Some "social" exchanges before and after the official torture, but not really part of the official stuff. I have attended churches which did feature tea (and scones?), but

Something which is quite clear about the tea is that it was not part of the official program. It wasn't even in the same building (and after all, the main building doesn't often suit such purposes.) And "oddly" enough, it wasn't placed before the "main course", but after. Why could that be, I (ironically) wonder? What? Would anyone be afraid that the guests might decide that they'd gotten their social fill and go off to do something a bit useful, if done before? Whereas most people would probably be too embarrassed to turn up "late", at least very often, when it is placed after. With the promise of tea and sociality, some might consider the kneeling worth it.

At least some of my questions are asked unrhetorically. It is, as I said, a tricky claim which I don't have a clear take on. Yet.

>23 zangasta: What is the purpose of religion? To socialise? People go to church to socialise?

You write that as if it were ludicrous or trivial, but there's a long tradition in many cultures of the church, or the religion, being the social center of the community. In effect, to reject the religion is to reject the community.

Here in the American South I'd posit that the social function of religion -- the communal connections that form around its meeting halls and fish frys, its Sunday Schools and BBQs, its outreach programs and food campaigns, not to mention its internal support system for its members -- all these things are as important if not more important than whatever is specifically being preached in the Sunday sermon.

Now obviously it is a communal structure that doesn't work for me in the long run, because ultimately I don't fit into the Southern Baptist, etc, model of what it is to be a good Christian and therefore a good member of the community. But I can certainly understand why somebody else would stay within the church even if they personally had come to disbelieve some, if not all of what was being preached.

In the end I don't think it is useful to regard people's attachment to their faith (or their church, the two not being synonymous) simplistically. If disagreeing with doctrine was enough to make a person lose faith, then every Catholic who uses birth control would give up the church. They don't. So it is clear the church, and their faith, fulfills some more complicated need that make disagreements with official doctrine less important. So that's why when an atheist asks "how can you believe this stuff?" they are asking the wrong question. A more pertinent question might be, "why does this mean so much to you?"

In fact, I'd say that a big part of my (ever-increasing) hostility to organized religion (in the US, at least) comes from my feeling that in many cases the public face of the church is less about fulfilling the spiritual needs of its members, and more about inciting fear and hatred of the people who aren't "in the flock," so to speak. So when I am wondering of my near neighbors and their support for the Amendment that banned same-sex marriage in my state, that's at the center of my thoughts -- "What is it in your anti-gay, or anti-woman, or anti-science stance that is meaningful to you? How can you build a way of life, a community, around something like that?"

>24 southernbooklady:

No, neither 'ludicrous' nor 'trivial' (or synonyms) were on my mind. It's interesting that your answer seems to contain within it a mix of what I am thinking of, and not. I'll try to tease it out, whatever it is, tomorrow.

>24 southernbooklady: the public face of the church is less about fulfilling the spiritual needs of its members, and more about inciting fear and hatred of the people who aren't "in the flock," so to speak

What "church" is that? Not my church, I can tell you that.

>26 jburlinson: I'm sure. You'll note I didn't capitalize the word. But there is a reason why "the church" -- aka, the public and political face of religion -- is increasingly perceived by younger people as "homophobic" "anti-intellectual" at odds with modern understanding on many issues from marriage and sexuality to scientific theories, and in general "mean." Religion has a serious PR problem.

>7 prosfilaes: I believe that ultimately all people should know the truth,

Why is that, I wonder? What's the value of all people knowing the truth. For that matter, what's the value of anybody knowing the truth? That's assuming, of course, that (a) there's a truth to know and (b) a person is capable of knowing it.

>27 southernbooklady: Religion has a serious PR problem.

Perhaps, but only in the sense that everything else has a serious PR problem.

North Carolina, for example. What in the world could be said in favor of people who kept re-electing Jesse Helms? And when he wore out, they traded him in for Richard Burr and Thom Tillis.

Then there's tobacco. OMG.

>29 jburlinson: Perhaps, but only in the sense that everything else has a serious PR problem.

I don't know about that. Baby pandas seem to be doing okay in the PR department.

What in the world could be said in favor of people who kept re-electing Jesse Helms?

Helms was still in office when I first moved to NC. I think he retired about ten years after I came here. I found his political stance appalling, naturally, but his political persona was fascinating. He had the devotion of the voters, such that no opponent ever came close to challenging him in a Senate race. But the loyalty he inspired wasn't just that the state was basically conservative. Helms was what I think of as an "old school" politician -- patriarchal, interested in representing his constituency -- a king in his self-defined kingdom. In a real sense, he got the "public" part of what it meant to be a public servant. And his office was legendary in the speed and notice it gave with the affairs of his constituents. He must have had a crack team, because they apparently responded to, resolved, helped, interceded for, every request or issue that was brought to his office. My ex girlfriend once told me how she had a problem getting a passport because the name on her birth certificate did not match the name on her other forms of identification (it was written in Gaelic, I think). So she wrote Helms' office, and within two weeks they had cut through the obstacles and got her passport to her. She wasn't a donor, wouldn't never have voted for him, wasn't even in his political party. But she was a constituent.

That kind of thing accounted for a huge portion of the fanatical devotion he enjoyed. I basically spent my first decade in NC waiting it out until he finally retired.

>10 zangasta: here, have this nice vaccine anyway. Your fear of needles is most unbecoming.

Is post # 10 your idea of a vaccine? If so, it should be accompanied by a notification of adverse effects, many of which I experienced immediately upon reading it.

>19 zangasta: The theistic "vaccine" has tended to be torture and death. I think you know damn' well that those weren't my suggested vaccines.

What is, though -- writing chatroom posts?

>30 southernbooklady: Very interesting. Thanks for the insight. Helms sounds a little like Jehovah -- if you ask him, he just might help you out; but, sooner or later, he's going to do something to piss you off.

As for baby pandas, they're still facing extinction -- so what does that tell you? Come to think of it, though, I imagine my church (the United Church of Christ) is like the baby panda of christianity -- most lovable when rolling over.

Sure. But the continuing importance of ancient, polytheistic philosophy on Christianity is hardly a good demonstration that "truth" is a monotheistic conception. It plainly is not.

Agreed. But that is not what I said. I said that both your and prosfilaes's conception of the truth derives from a monotheistic culture.

>16 zangasta:

I take it that you have no counter to my actual arguments, then. You both tacitly recognise that there are no good reasons for being theistic.

You have actual arguments? I must have missed them.

>34 rrp: You have actual arguments? I must have missed them.

If calling somebody stupid qualifies as arguing, then there have been arguments.

Atheism evolves from reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow.

Religions arise from mythos which modifies as the story needs to change in face of the increasing weight of the truth derived from evidence, knowledge, and understanding.

Religions, in an organized sense, functioned as a political tool to dominate and control people. As groups became tribes, became clans, and eventually (loosely) nations, those gods changed their identity, evolving into new gods adopted or modified by a conquering or dominant succeeding wave of people.

Monotheism became convenient to nomadic people; carrying around a lot of statues (idols) or altars to a pantheon is impractical when you have to change your "homeland" every few weeks. An invisible god who rejects graven images or portrayals in two-dimensional media is a neat solution to the problem of pantheistic clutter.

Even in the days of the beginnings of monotheism, I imagine many people realized that abandoning the idea of god altogether was a more successful way to go about life. In a temporal sense, the mind was freed from fruitless occupation; in a materialistic sense, increased activity and thought could be devoted to real improvement of the human condition.

Since the beginning of human time, an innate characteristic of our species is to be curious. I suppose the curious in times past quickly grasped that praying to something for which there was no evidence of efficacy was a waste of time when with a little thought and ingenuity applied to the problems prayed about would produce better and more consistent results beneficial to all. And so the Mother of Invention began to usurp the Father in the Sky.

I little doubt the trend will continue. We're a young species in relation to the age of life on Earth. But once we accept the evidence of a heliocentric solar system, our fate is sealed. Once we acknowledge gravity exists and why, we have to acknowledge other truths. Once we understand entropy, we understand why there is no god.

As long as a requirement of reason is, "Prove me wrong," and the tenets of all monotheistic religions that are currently dominant is, "Believe as I do," then the numbers of believers will be reduced and the numbers of nonbelievers will grow. As long as mankind continues to be curious.

None of the above denies that for some, the idea of an all-powerful god is so powerfully comforting it exceeds the power of "cold" reason. Fear (especially of the unknown) is probably the underlying reason religion and god-belief arose in the first place. And reason offers no comfort in the face of cold hard fact.

A great test of our humanity is how we handle this evolution. As for me, I've chosen to adopt "It's no skin off my ass," however any one else faces the inevitable. Both the deaths of self and religion.

>36 Limelite: Cute theory, but it's very holey.

Maybe you should use some of that reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow, to use the evidence that religion is growing worldwide to evolve your theory into something more understandable.

>36 Limelite:, >37 rrp: Cute theory, but it's very holey.

And rather simplistic.

>36 Limelite: Once we understand entropy, we understand why there is no god.

Would you mind explaining this statement? Why does entropy mean there is no god?

>39 jburlinson:

According to all monotheistic religions their god is not only the one true god but also the creator of all that is and the embodiment of what is called perfect. The god head is also eternal.

Quite simply, that's impossible in a universe where chemical reactions take place. Boltzman got us to look at entropy as a measure of disorder, He thought a system with more energy present or one with higher temperature was one that demonstrated more movement taking place inside and had more disorder as a result of all that internal movement (kinetic energy). Because movement produces collisions, more collisions means more heat. Naturally, a lot of energy available for movement producing heat is a more disorderly system than one that approaches -- for instance -- absolute zero which is a highly ordered system in which little movement produces little heat.

One can see that a disorderly moving "hot" system is necessary for chemical reactions. But one highly ordered, approaching absolute zero is approaching "perfect order." Bye-bye chemical reactions. In considering life rather than thinking of "order" think of "diversity." Animals have greater internal diversity than rocks, therefore they have greater entropy. The Universe has more diversity when there a re stars, planets, asteroids, galaxies, dark matter, etc. than when it is a super hot uniform, unformed plasma before the Big Bang.

At this time we refer our memory to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which states that the entropy of the Universe is always increasing. At the beginning, just after the Big Bang there had to be much less entropy than now. Again it is better to think "diversity" rather than "disorder." Since the beginning of time, the Universe has accelerated away from perfection. That is why, with eons of time, the Universe will suffer a "heat death" as diversity dissipates, heat disperses, and reactions no longer take place while the Universe gets inevitably closer to absolute zero.

At this time, in order to have a rational discussion, we must accept that "universe" means the totality of all existence -- all particles with mass and without, all forces, all quanta, all strings, and all dark same and their various "anti-s." Everything. But not a "place."

Therefore, for something to exist as part of the Universe, it must be in the Universe. There is no "outside the Universe." Even if you accept the multiverse theory as rational and acceptable, though unprovable, it is meaningless to say the godhead resides "outside the Universe." Since the Universe is the totality of existence, a godhead that exists outside the Universe is meaningless; the godhead does not exist. And because the 2nd Law is an inescapable fundamental Natural Law, there can not be any such thing as an Eternal Perfect Being as claimed by the three major monotheistic religions.

Because Matt Slick is famous as a Christian apologist who uses entropy and the 2nd Law to falsely argue an outside cause caused the Universe to come into existence, it's important to underscore that he declines to acknowledge the correct definition of (or even defined himself) "universe." In fact, he never reveals what "outside the Universe" is, or could possibly mean.

Oh, BTW, the existence of three Eternal Perfect Beings who are the One True God in the Universe "they created" as each of the aforementioned monotheistic religions insist you believe is theirs, by now, becomes nothing short of laughable.

I've tried to be as straightforward and understandable as I know how to be. I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear.

>40 Limelite: Therefore, for something to exist as part of the Universe, it must be in the Universe. There is no "outside the Universe." Even if you accept the multiverse theory as rational and acceptable, though unprovable, it is meaningless to say the godhead resides "outside the Universe." Since the Universe is the totality of existence, a godhead that exists outside the Universe is meaningless; the godhead does not exist.

This strikes me as a circular argument.

>40 Limelite: Is the second law of thermodynamics eternal? Does it exist necessarily? Is it part of the Universe?

>41 southernbooklady: It does if you think of the Universe as a place. It's really just a restatement of the definition of Universe with the emphasis of the "not placeness" of it -- which, when misunderstood, gives rise to the misconception that there is an "outside."

>42 rrp:

The 2nd Law makes it quite clear that the end of the Universe is inevitable. The Fundamental Laws of the Universe are the underpinnings of existence that let us comprehend why and how things are within the universe. They are restatements of the mathematics that symbolically express the physics of reality.

I'm not sure what "Does it exist necessarily?" means. That sounds like a question of philosophy rather than one asked by science. That things exist the way they do is because they "obey" the 2nd Law (and all the other Fundamental Laws, of course.)

I think it is better to think of the basic laws of physics as unchanging and the simplest explanation to why our Universe is the way it is, rather than introducing nebulous terms like "eternal" and "necessary" into the discussion. Stick with "fundamental."

To discuss the subject of Laws that govern the Universe and the Universe as an exhibition of them, we'd probably have to bring up the subject of "initial conditions." That's something outside (Ha!) our present topic of reasoning why godheads don't exist.

Let me leave by saying that to my mind, in order for the existence of a godhead to be factually true, then we would not have the present Universe that we know. Talking about a Universe in which a godhead could exist is beyond my comprehension and I can only think of it as an amusing philosophical speculation because it is virtually unknowable as per my previous post. We exist because of the way the Universe exists; one of the aspects of an unknowable Universe (strictly in philosophical speculation) that debaters would have to address is "Could we exist within a Universe wherein a godhead exists? Would that Universe's Fundamental Laws "allow" for it?" Good luck settling that one!

>44 Limelite: That sounds like a question of philosophy rather than one asked by science

Religion doesn't attempt to answer the questions of science. Science attempts to answer the questions of science. Religion attempts to answer the questions of religion, and to some extent philosophy, morals and the like.

>40 Limelite: Since the Universe is the totality of existence, a godhead that exists outside the Universe is meaningless; the godhead does not exist.

Wouldn't that be accurate only if the godhead "must" be some sort of specific entity that exists outside the universe? What if the godhead exists inside the universe, or, conversely, the universe exists inside the godhead?

because the 2nd Law is an inescapable fundamental Natural Law, there can not be any such thing as an Eternal Perfect Being as claimed by the three major monotheistic religions.

Why can't the 2nd law be consistent with an entity that entails the universe?

it is better to think "diversity" rather than "disorder."

Have you heard of process theology?

with eons of time, the Universe will suffer a "heat death" as diversity dissipates, heat disperses, and reactions no longer take place while the Universe gets inevitably closer to absolute zero.

Hindus refer to Shiva as the God "in whom the whole creation sleeps after dissolution". Or do we bother with notions that some people might think don't accord with strictures defined by the "three major monotheistic religions"? BTW, those "three major monotheistic religions" might not be quite so simple as they might appear to fundamentalists of all varieties.

>44 Limelite: We exist because of the way the Universe exists

Isn't it also possible that the universe exists (at least to us) because of the way we exist? How else could a universe exist to a sentient, sense-limited being like a human?

in order for the existence of a godhead to be factually true, then we would not have the present Universe that we know

The key phrase here might be "the present universe that we know". How justified are we in assuming that this is all there is -- that "the present universe that we know" is the totality? Actually, based on evidence and inference, it would seem more likely that there is more to the universe than we can "know" -- just as, on the basis of any evidence we can understand, there's more to the universe than what is "known" by mycobacteria, for example.

>45 John5918:

Exactly. that's why I made no attempt to address it as written.

>46 jburlinson:

I believe I addressed your first concern in post # 44.

I'm sorry, but the phrase "an entity that entails the universe" is one of those that I find incomprehensible because the Universe is by definition everything there is and an entity such as I think you suggest makes that entity sound like a stomach wall and the Universe the contents of the stomach. If that's the case we've committed two fallacies: 1) Denied the definition of "universe" and 2) raised the old bugaboo of an entity "outside" the Universe. In addition, to my knowledge, a Creator cannot be the thing it creates -- they are mutually exclusive terms.

I have no argument with your last paragraph which to me sounds reasonable and mostly accurate. We know little to nothing about Dark Energy beyond the fact that it (or some such phenomena we may one day give a different name when we understand it better) exists. Thanks to the LHC, we've discovered the particle that "carries" or "bestows" mass -- the Higgs Boson. We had not seen it but knew because of quantum mechanics and the Standard model that it had to exist. Mankind only last year had the ability to produce acceleration energies sufficiently great to produce the collisions that made the Higgs show itself. And, lo! It's characteristics were well within the range that theory and math predicted it would have to be. An interesting aside that you probably know but that seems appropriate to bring up at this point is that the Higgs Boson has often been called the "God Particle." Not seriously, of course.

The point of the previous paragraph is that there may well be as yet unknowable features of our Universe (let's not say "things"). But those features will not be features that do not obey Fundamental Laws and exist because myths talk about them. True, the physics needed to describe those features may be even stranger than the near-incomprehensible Quantum Mechanics are. Just because the Nature of our physical world is incomprehensible except by the very overly educated few does not mean that what they comprehend is untrue.

And that may be one of the most significant issues of civilization in the future. The next iteration of "modern" physics may be so mathematically advanced (even requiring a new mathematics to symbolize those features), abstract, and incomprehensible that the Common Man will find it easier and more comfortable to consign it to the heap of religion. There are myriad implications in that idea that would make for a great debate. For how would we then distinguish a self proclaimed atheist from a self-declared believer in a godhead?

FYI: Your mycobacteria might be interested to know there is a new science called quantum biology that one day will probably make clear in particular how such creatures are just a living manifestation of quantum mechanics. I was lucky enough to be one of several recipients of and LTER copy of Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology; there are many excellent reviews available at the link. It might appeal to you, too! It will probably make many believers uncomfortable and unhappy, though.

>48 Limelite: the phrase "an entity that entails the universe" is one of those that I find incomprehensible

You and me both; and we're in good company since it's likely that every one of our species is in the same boat. The problem is that just because we find it incomprehensible, does that mean that it's not, or cannot be, true? Doesn't that boil down to saying that if something exists, I must be able to comprehend it and if I cannot comprehend it, it must not, ipso facto, exist?

the Universe is by definition everything there is

What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the universe is a vast collection of all the things, forces, etc. that exist? That if something exists, it is by definition part of the universe? Does this collection of things that constitutes the universe include the universe itself, or, as in your analogy, the universe is the stomach itself and also all of its contents?

the physics needed to describe those features may be even stranger than the near-incomprehensible Quantum Mechanics are. Just because the Nature of our physical world is incomprehensible except by the very overly educated few does not mean that what they comprehend is untrue.

There is something a little unnerving about this and your comment about the "Common Man", which appears to be saying that the really, really smart person can "get it", while the average, or sub-average, or even the above-average person cannot, and will therefore be left wallowing in the mud of fantasy and religion (if there's any difference between those two things). If I understand the implication, you seem to be saying that superior intellects will be "in the know" while the rest of us will just have to be happy getting fitted for our dunce caps.

Defining the Universe as everything that exists and using that to prove there is no God makes about as much sense as defining God as that being greater than which nothing can be imagined and using that to prove that there is a God.

>50 MarthaJeanne:

Spot on.

>44 Limelite:

The 2nd Law makes it quite clear that the end of the Universe is inevitable.

Leaving aside for now that this statement is false, my question was related to the ontological status of physical laws such as the "Second Law of Thermodynamics". Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that something, say God, cannot exist for all time because the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" would rule that out. But clearly, you believe that some things can exist for all time, namely the "Second Law of Thermodynamics". So the key to this is what sort of things can exist for all time and what cannot, and what precisely must we use to categorize things of one type or the other.

>50 MarthaJeanne: using that to prove that there is a God

Are there still people trying to prove that there is a God? Maybe so. But I don't think we have any need to prove it, even if that were possible. I live my life with a narrative that includes God, you live yours with a different narrative that doesn't include God; why should anyone have to prove anything either way?

>53 John5918: why should anyone have to prove anything either way?

It might become an issue if either of us includes "make others believe as we do" as part what it means to live in a universe that includes (or excludes) god.

>53 John5918:

... and are there still people trying to prove there is not a God?

I think we could probably all agree, from experience, that "proofs" one way or another, are not really what changes anyone's beliefs. Reasoned argument may take someone part of the way there, but that last step, the step where a belief is changed, is purely driven by emotion. Being convince required that feeling of being satisfied.

>54 southernbooklady: make others believe as we do

Agreed. I suppose one could ask what we mean by "make". Trying to make anyone follow a religious belief, or an atheistic, political, nationalistic, cultural or any other ideology through force, threats, coercion, manipulation, etc is wrong. Trying to persuade someone that I have something worthwhile which they may freely want to follow (eg a political ideology) is less problematic, but I'm not really sure how effective it is.

Ultimately I can't change other people, only myself. I live my life according to my own beliefs and if anybody likes the look of it and wants to do the same, fine. If not, fine.

>56 John5918: Ultimately I can't change other people, only myself. I live my life according to my own beliefs and if anybody likes the look of it and wants to do the same, fine. If not, fine.

Hence my mantra: the most self determination balanced against the least harm.

>53 John5918: I hope the 'you' there was meant to be impersonal and didn't refer to me.

I may think St. Anselm's proof about as reasonable as Limelite's, but that says nothing about my personal beliefs.

>58 MarthaJeanne: Yes, it is impersonal; apologies if it appeared otherwise.

>49 jburlinson:
"Incomprehensible" as extremely difficult to understand -- not the religious sense of "ineffable." Think difficult, hard, esoteric. Regarding the "elite,' well, yes -- with the exceptions of the talented autodidacts, such knowledge will be increasingly beyond the ken of the Common Man (I do not see that as a pejorative term although I think you do.), barring transfer of knowledge by direct thought implant in some milky future.

Even now the evidence has been mounting that Einstein's theories of general and special relativity are beyond the intellectual grasp of the many; quantum mechanics is beyond the grasp of the even more; string theory/M-theory -- forget about it. The physics of the everyday world is incomprehensible to most without the benefit of instruction in high school. Ask yourself how many of the student body in any high school in America takes experimental classical physics? How many of those pass with "B" or better? Those are they who comprehend the nature of our "everyday" world. And their number is shockingly low.

Modern physics instruction is the purview of upper division college courses; nuclear physics of graduate school. So the comprehending population shrinks with every passing year as new discoveries are made. Specialization is a natural result of being elite, and the sciences have increasingly grown specialized, more elite. Nearly no one other than a specialist or an elite autodidact truly comprehends the Uncertainty Principle necessary to understand the wave-particle duality. There are plenty of physicists who admit they just "believe." And you know how Einstein felt about it.

Develop the Uncertainty Principle's application to quantum tunneling and you have lost the Common Man. I may have an intuitive grasp of QT, but I don't really understand or comprehend all that it implies in describing the physical nature of the Universe. I'm almost at the same state of mind as the Christian godhead believer who accepts the tripartite godhead. The how and why of this concept is impossible to take in beyond a statement of "belief" in it, which many religions require their adherents to attest they do. Unquestioningly. (Something science never does.)

The trail here is leading to that point where those who aver they adhere to a rational world and not a mythical one may one day find themselves at the limits of their comprehension of the nature of the physical world as the elite specialists uncover more of its (now) secrets. I'm probably there already. At that time, their rational orientation becomes one of simple belief and ceases being reasoned because explanation itself is incomprehensible. Then, doesn't the person share the characteristics of the religious -- accepting received opinion only at the level of belief? Won't the New Physics be more religion and less science for them?

I see a "danger" ahead for mankind when common knowledge that unites us still as a people, no longer does as it has less and less to say about the "everyday" world and more and more to say about one that is "seen" mathematically. The day is already here when we examine specialized knowledge and the elites who command it with suspicion and worse, denial. Their intellectual abilities exceed mine, and far exceed the Common Man even now. I find they are godlike in their intelligence. The trend (all things remaining the same via the way we acquire learning) to fewer and fewer having access to that new knowledge will not reverse.

>60 Limelite: barring transfer of knowledge by direct thought implant in some milky future.

Oh -- that's OK then. As long as I and people like me can get to think good, I guess it doesn't matter how.

I find they are godlike in their intelligence.

No comment.

The trend (all things remaining the same via the way we acquire learning) to fewer and fewer having access to that new knowledge will not reverse.

Wealth inequity ain't got nothing on smarts inequity. Do you think there's any correlation between the two inequities?

Seems like Plato had something to say about all this -- but it was over my head.

>61 jburlinson:

Regarding your single question -- only a person who thinks there is a level playing field in America's corrupt capitalistic power base would agree there is a 1:1 correlation. If you know of such, I have a get rich quick scheme I'd like to sell them.

I'm glad that my characterization of the highly educated and super-normally intelligent scientific elite as "godlike" leaves you speechless. Imagine how I feel when what I otherwise think of as rational persons insist that a non-entity is god.

>62 Limelite: Imagine how I feel when what I otherwise think of as rational persons insist that a non-entity is god.

For some reason, that notion doesn't seem so irrational to me. Definition of entity, at least the definition that google provides: "a thing with distinct and independent existence."

It doesn't seem so preposterous to conceive that god is not one of those.

>63 jburlinson:

How do you conceive god?

>62 Limelite:, >63 jburlinson:

cf the apophatic tradition

>65 John5918:

What you said.

"The being of all things is the Divinity above being" -- Pseudo-Dionysius

Of course, "I am that I am" has a lot going for it.

>65 John5918:
>66 jburlinson:

Denial and recursive obfuscation. I guess the Wizard of Oz can stay behind the curtain longer than the fairy can remain in the sky. Both your answers are reminiscent of Peter disowning Jesus when the chips were down.

You've de-godded the godhead.

It all sounds like something I read somewhere to the effect that the denial of the knowledge of a godhead may feel like a defeat of reason but it's actually a victory for irrationality.

>67 Limelite: Denial and recursive obfuscation.

Denial of what -- your notion of a god? I'm just as capable of not believing in such a notion of god as you are.

You've de-godded the godhead.

You mean if god isn't an old man in the sky with a quiver full of lightning bolts, then god isn't god?

Let me ask you -- if god isn't god, would you like god better?

>67 Limelite: Referring to an ancient strand of the religious tradition is hardly a case of me de-godding the godhead.

It's funny how some non-believers have the most rigid theological preconceptions.

>68 jburlinson:
>69 John5918:

New Age theology, no? Where's the Creator? Where's the Law Giver? Where's the Moral Imperator? Where's The Father? Where's the All-Knowing/ Where's the All-Powerful? Where's the Miracle-Worker? Where's the Thing That Must be Obeyed? Where's the Thing That Art in Heaven? Where's the Thing That Must Be Worshiped? Where's the Mercy and Forgiveness Giver? Where's the Blesser?

Without supernatural attributes ascribable to an entity with defining characteristics, there is no god. All you offer me is ephemera. All I get from you is a warm fuzzy feeling. A "notion." In short, we're in agreement that god does not exist. Mankind can live by bliss alone.

We've come full circle in proving that god does not exist, by your own words. BTW, that suits me fine.

>71 Limelite: With all due respect I don't think you know much about the Christian tradition. Most other major faiths also have apophatic, mystical, immanent and similar strands to their tradition, some much older than Christianity. It seems as if you are focussing only on certain elements of Christian tradition such as modern US protestant evangelism, or others such as fundamentalist Islam. There's not much I can do if the religious traditions do not match up to the image of the God that you believe doesn't exist.

>70 paradoxosalpha: Precisely!

>71 Limelite: Without supernatural attributes ascribable to an entity with defining characteristics, there is no god.

Let me get this straight. We can't have god be an entity without defining characteristics and supernatural attributes. And i feel fairly confident that you'd agree that there can't be a god with supernatural attributes and defining characteristics. So where does that leave us. In bliss?

And what, BTW, is bliss? I get the feeling that you think it's something, since apparently mankind can live by it alone. Have you seen bliss? Have you got it? If so, can you share it? If so, how?

>70 paradoxosalpha: >73 John5918:

Couldn't it be said that those within the apophatic tradition are the ultimate non-believers?

It takes quite a bit of effort to believe in the "non". It's much simpler to say it isn't even there.

>75 jburlinson:

Almost anything "could ... be said." (Subjunctive mood + passive voice = wide license!)

But, no. The apophatic mystical praxis has for its precondition the acceptance of an Ultimate that is approached through the process of negating particulars. Like you say, "quite a bit of effort," and not likely to be expended on something you don't credit in the first place.

>76 paradoxosalpha: The apophatic mystical praxis has for its precondition the acceptance of an Ultimate

Using the wide license again -- couldn't "the acceptance of an Ultimate" be considered tantamount to belief?

>77 jburlinson: couldn't "the acceptance of an Ultimate" be considered tantamount to belief?

That's what I'm saying, and why apophatic mystics shouldn't be characterized as "non-believers."

>78 paradoxosalpha: That's what I'm saying too -- I think. They're believers in the "non" -- isn't that what negative theology means?

To repeat: apophatic mystics shouldn't be characterized as "non-believers."

They have a belief that their direct apprehension of the divine can only be realized through the negation of their existing perceptions about non-divine beings.

>80 paradoxosalpha: They have a belief that their direct apprehension of the divine can only be realized through the negation of their existing perceptions about non-divine beings.

How is that different from believing in the "non"?

In other words, it is the belief in a process (negation).

Further, it might mean that the process leads to belief in what one knows is unknown. Which, in turn, might lead to "into thy hands I commend my spirit".

The process of negating isn't nothing. Nor is the desired/anticipated outcome of the process.

>82 paradoxosalpha: The process of negating isn't nothing.

No, the process is not nothing. But the process is not the ultimate.

Nor is the desired/anticipated outcome of the process.

I agree. As you said earlier (# 76) the outcome is the acceptance. But the acceptance is also not the ultimate.

And if "direct apprehension of the divine" is the desired/anticipated outcome, then that's another illusion: not to be dispelled until the dissolution of the apprehender.

I noticed the word truth being tossed about in this thread.
I even saw the word enlightened.

"Atheism evolves from reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow."
I like this statement, because it's a generic atheist stance, yet it's completely false, if you buy into evolution. And an Atheist has no other choice, but evolution.

The knowledge, reason and understanding used to support evolution, is as far-fetched as the disciples finding a coin in the mouth of a fish, or Jesus walking on water. Does anyone really know the truth about how we came to be?

The Christian says we are molded from dust by the hands of God, who breathed life into man. That sounds utterly ridiculous, but what about the atheists version?
The atheist will tell you evolution is a fact and logic dictates that. But which came first, the chicken or the egg?

In order for life to begin and evolve, it had to start from a single cell. In order for a cell to form it needs a membrane and not just any membrane, a microscopic pore in a rock will not do, the membrane must be semipermeable, have the ability to divide and be able to transfer proteins (information). To make such a membrane takes billions of bits of information which is found in DNA, but DNA cannot form outside of a cellular structure.

In short, it takes a cell in order for DNA to form, yet it takes DNA for a cell to form. This is an insurmountable obstacle when it comes to evolution. The worlds top brainiacs will tell you that RNA could have formed the cell, as it can and will form outside of a cell, then the brainiacs will smile and dismiss the problem as answered in full. Krauss, Dawkins and Hitchens (God rest his soul) avoid this fact as if it's a raging, puss filled herpes blister.

RNA cannot form outside of a cell in long enough strands to contain enough information to even replicate itself, if given the task, let alone contain the enormous amount of info it takes to construct a cell's membrane.
So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The dilemma above does not even take into account the astronomical odds against abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). Sir Fredrick Hoyle calculated the odds of a single cell developing on its own at 1 in 10^40,000. Even Carl Sagan put the odds of life developing on its own on another planet at 1 in 10^2,000,000,000!

With numbers like these, Borel's Law comes into play (anything that has only 1 chance in 10^50 is an absolute mathematical impossibility.)

Borel's odds, where mathematical impossibilities start, seem almost possible when you compare them to the Sagan's and Hoyle's.

Hell, even rising from the dead after cipherin' them numbers seems plausible, given the advancements in modern medicine.

It bothers me to hear people use science as a way to discredit theism. Theism and science are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, the discovery that Junk DNA is not junk after all, but non coding DNA fits nicely into the idea of intelligent design. However it flies in the face of evolution, a quick search of the internet will show the majority of evolutionists dismissing the scientific data surrounding it.

An evolutionist will tell you junk DNA is nothing more than genetic remnants of evolution, but according to the theory itself, these "remnants" would have been discarded long ago. A better term for junk DNA, would be regulatory DNA. Tiny switches that flip on and off as we grow from conception to adulthood. Telling our bodies when to grow, when to begin construction on a brain or a liver, when to start puberty, when to stop growing...

The fact that it is shown to be regulatory, doesn't actually point to a creator, but it too, flies in the face of evolution, whose entire premise is based on changes occurring because of outside influence. We now find that the so called junk DNA actually is a form of protection from outside influences.

An atheist once told me that, "You can't pick and choose what science to believe, you have to go where the facts lead." When I presented him with Non coding DNA, he called it "mumbo jumbo" his exact words. He also couldn't come up with any "reasonable" suggestions for the cellular dilemma. He did, however, try to shove the fossil record down my throat.

Did you know that carbon dating is useless when it comes to fossils and sedimentary layers? Too much contamination. Did you also know, that sedimentary layers are dated by the fossils found in them.....and fossils are dated by the sedimentary layers they are found in? WTF?

Before someone can dismiss the Bible as childlike fairy tales or compare a creator with a spaghetti monster, they need to explain why they can paint their belief/evolution with faith and speculation, yet those involved in religion can't.

Here are more shiny words that I abhor: "Could of," "Probably," "Presumably" and "Easily Imagined"....these are not scientific terms, no matter how often they are used to describe evolution.
You will never see them applied to the Scientific Method, nor will you ever see the Scientific Method successfully applied to evolution.

This tiny post got drawn out....I still haven't gotten to Zero Point Energy (ZPE), Irreducible Complexity, The Planck Barrier, The graininess of space or how the two different gravity's, (more pointedly, the weakness of gravity) point to intelligent design, outside our dimension of time and space.

What is the truth?
What has been discovered through understanding, reason and knowledge that make believing in a deity seem any more ridiculous or superstitious, than thinking life came about without help?

Other than the far-fetched account in Genesis, I can't really say how life started, but I can tell you how it didn't.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

If you want to present a convincing case against evolution or for Intelligent Design you'll need to do a little better than "but carbon dating doesn't work on fossils" or "but the chances are so small."

There is a real question in whether or not the atheist perspective allows for a pure or true freedom of choice. But if you accept that your existence can only be understood relative to all of existence, perhaps a qualified freedom of choice is the best we can manage.

>84 BorneWilder: The Christian says we are molded from dust by the hands of God, who breathed life into man

I think most manifestations of Christianity have a rather more nuanced take on it.

I didn't say the chances are so small, I said they are mathematically impossible.

The math against evolution doesn't stop at abiogenesis, we have the cosmological Constant to contend with and everything else that points to intelligent design.
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe 1:10^59
Cosmological Constant 1:10^120
Any deviation in these ratios would either leave the universe without mass, make it unstable, or unsuitable for life.

Math aside, the best argument against evolution remains. A cell cannot form without DNA and DNA cannot form without a cell. I have yet, to see any plausible explanation for this dilemma.

My point is, the truths that Atheists rely on, are not brought about by understanding, knowledge or reason, they require as much faith as any religion to be true.

In order for life to begin and evolve, it had to start from a single cell.

When you start by stating something completely wrong, it is no wonder that you spout nothing but gibberish.

>84 BorneWilder: I have a question about intelligent design. Assuming that there is an intelligent designer, how could that possibly lead to what passes as mainstream American Christianity? Wouldn't Hinduism be the more likely candidate as far as world religions go?

>87 BorneWilder:: Besides the mathematical fail, the simple fact is that this is the least interesting part of my beliefs. Say our universe is in some alien Ikea, with a label "For dining room or living room; each universe is made by natural processes and is unique; natural variation is to be expected. Artificial life seeding was used to enhance the natural colors." What then? It is so easy to come up with a creator or creators that do not care about us, maybe even do not know about us, and so hard to sustain this belief that this whole universe (‎4×10⁸⁰ m³) was created for creatures who can only move around on the surface of one planet (8×10¹⁸ m³). Even if you managed to prove that someone, someones, or something seeded the planet with basic life, that's still not touching on the basic core of my beliefs.

If our universe is in some alien Ikea, that would definitely point to intelligent design. I don’t care to address your core beliefs. My point is that those who look down their noses at people of faith, as superstitious and uneducated, rarely see that their position also comes from one of faith.
Those that claim to be enlightened with reason and knowledge, in my experience, very seldom are from a scientific stand point. Therefore they use words like “gibberish” in short nonsensical rebuttals.

I’m not trying to validate any one religion with my post, and I don’t think I’m in a position to decide on a “world religion,” I’m trying to show the hypocrisy of those who stand on a pedestal of so called “fact”, held together with words like: "Could of," "Probably," "Presumably" and "Easily Imagined.”

As far as my statement of, “In order for life to begin and evolve, it had to start from a single cell.” Is it grammatically wrong? I am chock full of grammatical errors, so you have your work cut out for you if you want to point out all of them.
As far as scientific gibberish goes, I don’t think you can refute anything I posted up there, unless you use some fantastical Ikea scenario.

See M-Theory for all other Ikea departments.

>91 BorneWilder: If our universe is in some alien Ikea, that would definitely point to intelligent design.

No. Intelligent design says that evolution is wrong, and while abiogenesis is still shrouded in mystery, evolution is perfectly clear. Our universe is a little under 14 billion years old, and life on Earth is roughly 3.5 billion years, with a steady course of evolution to our current point.

My point is that those who look down their noses at people of faith, as superstitious and uneducated, rarely see that their position also comes from one of faith.

You don't particularly strike me as understand much epistemology. There is no way to study reality without making some assumptions, but the art of science is in picking simple and useful ones.

It is unfair to tar all people of faith as superstitious and uneducated. Those who persist on holding to Genesis as a literal accounting of facts (ignore the contradictory details) and claim evolution defies the scientific method are, however, uneducated. You are, unfortunately, uneducated in the field you presume to lecture us in.

You ignore that as I said, my beliefs on this subject aren't particularly important to my position. There can be creation without a God, certainly one bearing any relation to the conception of God that most of the people I talk to hold. The interesting question is how we should live our lives, and creation doesn't have much direct impact on that.

Did you know that carbon dating is useless when it comes to fossils and sedimentary layers?

Yes.

Too much contamination.

No. Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years, which means that the oldest things that can be dated by carbon dating are about 50,000 years old. Moreover, carbon 14 can only be used with formerly living things, not rocks or fossils that have had their carbon replaced by heavier elements.

This is a simple test. Anyone who does not know what carbon 14 is and how carbon dating works should not be lecturing on evolution.

I’m trying to show the hypocrisy of those who stand on a pedestal of so called “fact”, held together with words like: "Could of," "Probably," "Presumably" and "Easily Imagined.”

Scientists don't stand on a pedestal of "fact"; they form theories to explain the evidence before them, knowing that anything and everything is vulnerable to new evidence. Your pedestal seems much more shaky, building a large chunk of faith attached with whatever facts you haven't rejected.

you use some fantastical Ikea scenario.

Why does rejecting a scenario as "fantastical" out of hand make your pedestal more stable? Why is the idea that our universe was created for reasons unknown to us and that we are a tiny irrelevancy unknown and unimportant to its creators "fantastical"?

Abiogenesis is not shrouded in mystery, it has been proven wrong and is no longer accepted science. See the Stanley Miller Experiment.

Evolution exists only at the micro level, within species, there is absolutely no evidence to prove macroevolution has ever happened. The fossil record itself shows this. (See the Cambrian Explosion and absolutely no transitional fossils.)

It doesn’t matter to me how I strike you as far as my understanding of anything goes, I’m a humble turd polisher who knows a hypocrite when he sees one. It’s my job.

Fossils were formally alive, but by the way they are formed, they are contaminated from the start. (See squid fossils containing ink.)

I don’t reject any proven science, but I refuse to allow someone to call an unproven theory a fact. Evolution relies heavily on people’s acceptance of what they say is so. I question it. The Scientific Method rejects it.

As far as my math fail goes, I didn’t do the math.

The Cosmological Constant was Einstein.
Ratio of Electrons:Protons was calculated by John Hipple
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force : Gravity, Brandon Carter did the math on that.
Expansion Rate of Universe was just re-measured with the Hubble.
Mass Density of Universe was calculated by Alexander Friedmann, from Einstien’s equations..

>93 BorneWilder: there is absolutely no evidence to prove macroevolution has ever happened

You might be interested in this:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

>93 BorneWilder: Ratio of Electrons:Protons was calculated by John Hipple

The complete failure to understand what he was talking about - but merely copying it from a list you saw someplace - I take it is entirely due to you, then?

The complete failure to understand what he was talking about - but merely copying it from a list you saw someplace - I take it is entirely due to you, then?

Creationists would probably do a better job of supporting their "theories" if they actually studied actual science, as opposed to simply copying arguments and lists that they find on creationist websites. Then again, if they actually studied science, they probably wouldn't be creationists.

>96 StormRaven: I think you're giving them too much credit; my section of the blogosphere was big about the Institute for Creation Research saying "In fact, Jesus quoted from Genesis about as much as all the other books of the Old Testament combined." http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/08/31/when-peer-review-lets-you-down-a-yec-q... is one blog post on the subject; turns out the Gospels have Jesus quoting Psalms most, with Genesis not being that high on the list. A reference-counting question based entirely on the Gospels, requiring little to no interpretation, and they still found the answer they wanted, instead of the real answer.

>87 BorneWilder:
You are employing what is known as the "Fine Tuning Argument" declaimed fallaciously (and famously) by Dr. Hugh Ross, whose shaky credentials include a deliberate mis-translation of the Hebrew "bara"; ignorant and erroneous claims of evidence in the Bible of cosmological 'prediction' that is equivalent to scientific cosmology; egregious misinterpretations of "bronze age" Scripture to fit what is now known by cosmologists; his infamous waving around a "copy" of the Penrose-Hawking paper during a debate with scientists that had been deliberately altered by Creationists to contain a mangled and dishonest *sentence in its last paragraph that, in fact, does not exist in the original paper (archived by the Royal Society) anywhere.

*From the DVD "Reasons to Believe"

"If mass exists in the universe and if general relativity reliably predicts the movement of bodies in the universe then space and time must be created by a causal agent who transcends space and time."

l
This Christian apologist is really a pathological liar.

In another citation of a scientific paper written, according to Dr. Ross, by three Atheist Physicists (whom he refused to name), the not so good doctor prevaricates again. I will name them here: L. Dyson, M. Kleban, and L. Susskind of the Department of Physics at Stanford University. On his CD and immortalized forever are three lies, outright and obfuscatory.

You can read them here: http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.com/2012/12/dr-hugh-ross-lying-for-god.html

The debunking article ends

If you have a claim for Truth, that Truth will stand firm on it's own merit. Truth relishes scrutiny and examination because honest scrutiny can only make Truth stronger. If you have to resort to lies and misrepresentation to promote your claim of Truth, you don't have Truth, you only have an empty claim.

You can substitute the word "Science" for "Truth."

The "Fine Tuning" argument suffers, in the words of Dr. Victor Stenger, from the

. . .claim that the parameters of physics are so finely tuned that if any one of these parameters were just slightly different in value, life — and especially human life — would have not been possible anywhere in the universe.

Of course, like all design arguments this is a God-of-the-gaps argument that they cannot win in principle because they can never prove conclusively that the values of these parameters cannot be natural.

Christian apologists, "intelligent designers," and outright Creationists hold that the Laws of Nature are infinitesimally likely in a "natural" Cosmos. They turn their backs on what is then left. That the odds of God, a Creator, or a Designer of whatever intelligence, or an outside Agent of some kind are equally infinitesimally small. In fact they are gigantically infinitesimally small in the absence of any empirical evidence to support the existence of any godhead, much less a "Christian god."

The problem is, no believer can produce scientific evidence for that non-scientific position. All secularists/atheists can produce bucket loads of evidence for the scientific position. Just because William Craig's or Robin Collins' minds cannot comprehend the fact that we exist because of the mathematically small, delicate, and balanced initial conditions present at the time of the Big Bang doesn't mean they didn't occur.

They did. That's why we're here. That's why math works; that's why space-time exists; that's why the Universe will end in a cold death.

Science, as Tyson tells us more elegantly than I will, doesn't give a damn whether you believe or comprehend, or understand, or not. It remains true regardless. The next time one of these theological snake oil salesmen drips this false emollient into your ear, just confront him with this latest pretty good cosmological research proposal: that there are multiple universes that exist, ours being but one of them.

As the late Dr. Stenger sums it up. . .

If that’s the case, we just happen to live in that universe that is suited for our kind of life. Our particular universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to it.

The multiverse explanation is adequate to refute fine-tuning. Note the multiverse does not need to be proved to exist to refute fine-tuning claims. It just must be plausible. Those who dispute this have the burden of proving otherwise. This they have not done.

No god created any universe for us. The universe exists as it does from initial conditions regardless of mathematical improbability. First life filled a niche by adapting to those initial conditions found on Earth, arising from inanimate matter and thanks to quantum mechanics. Adaptation to niches and the ability to change rapidly enough to keep up with changes in those niches is the basic principle of evolution. Those who can survive; those who can't become extinct, their niches gone are replaced by new niches available to new lifeforms that can survive in them.

The origin of life does not require magic, it just requires initial conditions. Complexity and diversity will result naturally. The latest discussion of those conditions and the scientific solution to life's beginnings are described here: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-li....

As for proof of the Truth of Evolution, I recommend a raft voyage down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. If that's beyond your budget or time constraints, then I recommend Cahill's book, The River That Flows Uphill. Evolution is true because it is occurring as I type. It's true because there is oil in your car's engine. It's true because there are universal and increasingly particular homologies in both plants and animals no matter where they occur in the world. All mammalian fetal stages of development are proof. So are fossils that don't need to be carbon dated to prove their age. (See Cahill.) They prove it's true because of homologous life forms that exist today. Heck, bite marks on fossil remains prove it. Geology proves it. All these examples are scientific for which there is overwhelming supporting evidence.

Therefore, by your own argument, my statement -- "Atheism evolves from reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow." -- is true because Evolution is True.

Don't go looking for truth of any kind from snake oil salesmen, mystics, dispensers of "warm fuzzies," or people who claim it's impossible just because it's beyond their feeble abilities to comprehend; don't go looking for truth in myths, parables, and so-called holy writ, no matter what kind of holy writer does the writing; don't go looking at the feeblest sources, the discredited proponents, yes, the lunatic fringe for truth. It does not reside among them. It will not serve you well.

Don't go looking for truth among those who demand that you simply believe, that you must suspend disbelief in their Whatever Behind the Curtain. Those are elements of fiction, not empiricism, evidence, and mathematical proof on which everyday truth depends. That you don't fly off the Earth's surface due to certain Fundamental Laws of physics is proven using the same reasoning that leads to the possibility of multiverses, which can be described by other Fundamental Laws. The math may be different, but the reasoning is the same.

>98 Limelite: "Atheism evolves from reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow." -- is true because Evolution is True.

Just to get things straight -- it's your contention that evolution is leading somewhere, is that right? Somewhere good, right? In other words, evolution is purposive?

97: I think you're giving them too much credit; my section of the blogosphere was big about the Institute for Creation Research saying "In fact, Jesus quoted from Genesis about as much as all the other books of the Old Testament combined."

Well, the denizens of the Institute for Creation Research would struggle to pour water out of boot with instructions written on the heel.

>99 jburlinson:
Just to set things straight, nothing in my statement even implies such nonsense. Niches, it's all a matter of natural environmental niches. And resulting adaptability by living organisms in them. Or not.

My whole post was meant to refute such nonsense and to lead BorneWilder into a logical trap because of his fallacious assertions to the point where my quote that he states is false is proven true by his own special brand of. . .well, it ain't reasoning.

There is no intimation of intelligent design nor intimation of "purpose" behind or underlying Nature. I thought I was perfectly clear.

>100 StormRaven:
Ah! Or as they prefer around here, "Ha!"

>101 Limelite: There is no intimation of intelligent design nor intimation of "purpose" behind or underlying Nature. I thought I was perfectly clear

You were.

Sorry, but if the majority of your post is a C&P, I will barely skim it. Anyone can and should google, but if you can’t put it into your own words,…well.

Evolution is not true, just because you say it is. To say that it is going on as we speak is ridiculous and unprovable and I seriously doubt that an example of it happening can be found on the Colorado River. Hell, according to Stephen Hawking, evolution stopped 10,000 years ago with the creation of language. We now longer have to rely on DNA to pass along information, we now have language. (I can never type that with a straight face)

As far as John Hipple and the ratio between electrons and protons, it is math, it’s a sum, it’s not a perspective to understand or disagree with, it’s math. 2+2=4, whether you agree with it or not.
Math is an accepted science, actually it's the language of science.

I understand the need for you all to dismiss the math, but to say that I got those ratios from some charlatan or religious bogeyman is just smoke from horseshit to camouflage their true origin, which is science. I have no idea what voo doo man pissed off Limelight, but I can assure you that Einstein was not behind it.

When a doctor tells you to exercise, because it’s good, you listen. When you see a fat guy on a YouTube video, who says exercise is good, is the advice no longer valid?

“My whole post was meant to refute such nonsense and to lead BorneWilder into a logical trap because of his fallacious assertions to the point where my quote that he states is false is proven true by his own special brand of. . .well, it ain't reasoning.”

Kinda like the reasoning behind:

“Did you also know that sedimentary layers are dated by the fossils found in them.....and fossils are dated by the sedimentary layers they are found in?”
Even radiometric dating will give bunk ages. Rocks known to be 50 years old will give readings of millions of years.

Without at a valid explanation of its beginning, and some conclusive proof of one species transforming into another, evolution is not even a scientific theory, it’s less than speculation. The next time you guys argue with a Christian, try doing it without mentioning Genesis. Just accept it as a “given” and go from there.

Please don't assume that your opinions are generally held by Christians. It is quite possible to be a Christian and to accept evolution. Your kind of arguments give Christianity a bad name.

>103 BorneWilder: if you can’t put it into your own words,…well.

You either failed at putting them in your own words, or were pulling from bad sources, then. Again, arguing against the validity of carbon-dating fossils is on the level of questioning the existence of Jesus because we lack a photograph of him.

When a doctor tells you to exercise, because it’s good, you listen. When you see a fat guy on a YouTube video, who says exercise is good, is the advice no longer valid?

If the fat guy tells you that exercise is bad, no, the advice is not valid. The people who know something about the history of life on Earth believe that evolution is true, so why are you listening to someone else?

it’s math. 2+2=4, whether you agree with it or not.

No. 2 + 2 = 4 if those are the axioms you choose. If you pick your axioms differently and work in Z mod 3, 2 + 2 = 1. From a different perspective, 2 cm + 2 m = 2.02 m. If you're moving .2 c and add your velocity to an object moving in the opposite direction at .2 c, the correct result is .38c. Reality is much more complex then you assume.

Probabilities, in particular, can be notoriously tricky. It's rather questionable to speak of the probability of the universe in the first place, since we know of one universe, and that one because it has the properties to support intelligent life; it is a tautology that no universe that can't support intelligent life has generated intelligent life that is wondering about the probability of their universe existing.

The next time you guys argue with a Christian, try doing it without mentioning Genesis.

I do, all the time. There are much more interesting or at least varied subjects to argue about.

Just accept it as a “given” and go from there.

The majority of Christians accept evolution as fact, and don't take Genesis as being literally true.

>87 BorneWilder: I think you mean the Proton-to-electron mass ratio, as the number of electrons and protons is about equal.

Please try at least to get your copying done right.

It's rather questionable to speak of the probability of the universe in the first place, since we know of one universe, and that one because it has the properties to support intelligent life

It is more than questionable to talk about probabilities with respect to something that has already occurred. It is almost a category error. Probabilities are only relevant with respect to future events, not events that have taken place. An event in the past either happened or it didn't, and the "probability" of either can only be expressed as 1 (it happened) or 0 (it didn't).

Evolution is not true, just because you say it is.

Evolution is true because the overwhelming weight of evidence supports it. Here's something that most creationists like you don't seem to understand: These "facts" that you think disprove evolution are known to the scientific community. To the extent they are relevant, they are information that is incorporated into the theory of evolution by natural selection, or the Big Bang theory, or atomic theory, or any number of other explanations of the nature of the universe. Modern science is built upon these "facts" that you think disprove it. Scientists already know this stuff.

Copying and pasting the half-formed thoughts posted on creationist websites that you don't understand is not going to convince anyone. You aren't actually providing anything that comes as a revelation to anyone who has spent any time at all actually studying these scientific theories. All you are doing is showing how little you know.

To say that it is going on as we speak is ridiculous and unprovable and I seriously doubt that an example of it happening can be found on the Colorado River.

Your personal incredulity is of no consequence regarding whether something is true or not. In fact, your lack of knowledge shines through in every post you make. Evolution is going on right now. Links have been provided showing the evidence. Your inability to read them or understand them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Hell, according to Stephen Hawking, evolution stopped 10,000 years ago with the creation of language.

No, he didn't. That you are willing to post this tells me that you either copied an incorrect paraphrase from some creationist website, or you are simply comfortable with lying about what Hawking said. What Hawking actually said was that the rate of information transmission resulted in humans entering a new stage of evolution. He doesn't think evolution stopped. He just thinks it has been affected by our adaptations, most notably writing, which is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict.

Quote mining makes you look very foolish. One would think that in a world in which people can check on the mined quotes, creationists would figure out that quote mining is a losing strategy. On the other hand, creationists seem impervious to learning, so maybe they are a lost cause.

My point is proven by every post made between my posts.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Right out of Saul's pamphlet

.
The same question avoided by all Atheists remains completely ignored.

Instead I get crazy straw man math, Ikea scenarios, reports of evolution in progress along the Colorado River and grammar corrections.

Just because you argue with Christians about other issues you have with their religion, does not extract from the fact, that evolution has no viable beginning.

I would like to see where you can find the numbers to support your claim that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. I'll bet you $14.32 you can't back that up with real statistics. lol

"But with the human race, evolution reached a critical stage, comparable in importance with the development of DNA. This was the development of language, and particularly written language. It meant that information can be passed on, from generation to generation, other than genetically, through DNA." - Stephen Hawking

What is Steve implying by "critical stage?" Here's the rest of it:

"There has been no detectable change in human DNA, brought about by biological evolution, in the ten thousand years of recorded history. But the amount of knowledge handed on from generation to generation has grown enormously." - Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html

"It is more than questionable to talk about probabilities with respect to something that has already occurred. It is almost a category error." - StormRaven

Really? Then why does science continue to search for answers through multiple universe theories?

As I said, My point is that those who look down their noses at people of faith, as superstitious and uneducated, rarely see that their position also comes from one of faith.

If you actually read the link you posted, you would see that what he is saying is not that evolution has stopped, but that it is very slow. Has always been very slow. Your quotes are not there.

I think you will find that people on this website do not look down their noses at anyone because of being a person of faith. But as most of us are intelligent and well-read, we may well find ourselves out of patience with those who insist on proving that they are superstitious and uneducated.

Instead I get crazy straw man math, Ikea scenarios, reports of evolution in progress along the Colorado River and grammar corrections.

I think it is telling that you refer to actual math as "straw man math" when it doesn't confirm your chosen narrative. Your continued inability to actually look at or understand the evidence you are presented with is noted.

What is Steve implying by "critical stage?" Here's the rest of it:

We don't have to guess, since Steven tells us what he means. I'll also note that you didn't give us "the rest of it". You quote-mined again, albeit badly since what you mined doesn't actually support what you're trying to claim Hawking said. Here's where Hawking explains:

This has meant that we have entered a new phase of evolution. At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. But in the last ten thousand years or so, we have been in what might be called, an external transmission phase. In this, the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes. We may be no stronger, or inherently more intelligent, than our cave man ancestors. But what distinguishes us from them, is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, over the last three hundred. I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race.

He doesn't say evolution stopped, and he certainly doesn't say that it didn't happen. He is saying that the rate of information produced via language is greater than changes wrought by mutations and natural selection. The adaptation of language is affecting our evolution, which is exactly what one would expect from the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Then why does science continue to search for answers through multiple universe theories?

That's a non-sequitur. The probability that our universe would happen is 1. It happened. Whether there are multiple universes or not doesn't affect that fact at all. At this point, since you've demonstrated an inability to understand any of the actual science you are trying clumsily to discuss, I don't have any confidence that you actually understand multiple universe theories, but I'll give you a hint: They have nothing to do with the probability of our universe existing.

You really need to do much better than you are. You aren't being ridiculed for being a Christian. You are being criticized for displaying complete ignorance on the subject that you are trying to opine upon. Actually studying the science you are discussing would help you tremendously.

>109 BorneWilder:

God does not exist just because you insist on believing he does. Like every other person who insists the same but has not a scintilla of evidence to stake his claim with an iota of real fact.

Where is the empirical scientific evidence for any god's existence? There is none. There never has been any. Nor will there ever be evidence for a man-made myth. Reasonable discussion of existence can not maintain based on emotion. Saying, "There's a there there," without being able to locate a place just creates a Neverland.

You see, the basic problem with god myths is that there is nothing to support their existence except stories. Stories told by mankind to fellow man. Made up stories by human storytellers.

The basic problem with science is still the basic problem for people who live their lives believing in stories rather than believing in deduction, induction, evidence, repeatable experiment, mathematical proof leading to confirmed theories and Fundamental Laws that rule the Universe. BTW, the theories of science are not the "theories" of everyday language, which just means ideas or speculations unfounded, often, in observation or fact.

The reason you admire, however facetiously, the sentences, arguments, and informed opinions of the posters in this thread is that they are based on facts, common knowledge, provable observation, and scientific theories derived from the Fundamental Laws. You already know that they are true, but they conflict with what you'd prefer to be true. So, you make yourself comfortable rather than wise. You turn to story tellers in order to feel good, and away from un-comforting cold, hard facts.

That posters in this thread don't admire your remarks is severalfold:

1) You refuse to read posts. Reading comprehension not your forte?

2) You sling false accusations of C&P because you neither recognize the need to support your statements with credible expert sources, nor do you offer any citations whatsoever to back up your own received opinions. That makes them not worth much in intelligent debate.

3) You deride others for ridiculing you when you are the first to ridicule. You demand respect when you offer none. (See #2 above.)

4) Finally, in the hierarchy or ladder of reason, faith is on the bottom rung and belief is one rung higher. Why? For the same old same old. Both are grounded in story, word-of-mouth, received opinion (as in, "I heard it on Rush Limbaugh so it's true." Or, "My preacher said so and he's a man of some god's "truth.") and depend on personal prejudice, misconception, and gullibility.

5) You cling to the crumbling rock of Scripture to defend your position. No person of reason would draw on "Snow White" to prove that something is truer than another thing. Heck, a person of reason would at the bare minimum cite "Cinderella." At least the hero in that fairy tale insisted that if the shoe fit, you must acquit -- evidence.

In conclusion, this post isn't really aimed at you in spite of it's header. I choose to believe you when you confess to having no attention span for a lengthy reasoned argument. It's for the reasonable participants in this debate, recognizing that it's futile to attempt to persuade the unreasonable with reason.

I would like to see where you can find the numbers to support your claim that the majority of Christians believe in evolution.

How about a Pope? A quote from Pope Benedict:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such.

Or perhaps the Anglican Catechism which states:

Scientific evidence shows that we live in a universe so enormous that it is difficult for the human mind to grasp. This universe has no “up” or “down,” no center and no edge. It has been expanding for about 14 billion years from an event called the “Big Bang.” From that singular event, space and time and various forms of matter and energy have emerged. Billions of galaxies, each made up of billions of stars and countless numbers of planets, have come into existence. Scientists still seek to understand many mysterious features of the universe.

And more from the Anglican Catechism:

Theories are not mere guesses or hypotheses, as people often suppose. When enough evidence supports a hypothesis that has been created to explain some facts of nature, it becomes a theory. A theory is a well-established concept that is confirmed by further scientific discoveries and is able to predict new discoveries. The Big Bang theory and cosmic evolution are confirmed by discoveries in physics ranging from the smallest known particles of matter to the processes by which galaxies are formed. Biological evolution is a web of theories strongly supported by observations and experiments. It fits in with what we know about the physical evolution of the universe, and has been confirmed by evidence gathered from the remains of extinct species and from the forms and environments of living species.

Or the United Methodist Church:

We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.

There are a lot of Christians who have no trouble accepting the findings of science. This should not be surprising, since the findings of science are actually backed up by evidence. Your inability or unwillingness to read and understand the evidence doesn't make it any less factual. Science is true whether you choose to believe it or not. The theory of evolution by natural selection is science. Geology is science. Astronomy based on Big Bang cosmology is science. I'm sorry it doesn't match what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that they are supported by actual evidence and give an accurate picture of the nature of our universe.

>102 southernbooklady:

Ha! Err. . .I mean, thanks!

>111 StormRaven:

It wasn't until I chose to closely review recent posts in this thread that I laughed out loud.

What could be funnier than a believer erroneously citing the premier atheist who declared "God does not exist," to support a religious position counter to atheism?

Admittedly, my funny bone may be a bit odd.

Religion and religionists fare better when they don't attempt to prove the existence of godheads, or deny evolution (or climate change), or disprove M-theory. Proof and disproof are where no believer should dare to go. It has always turned out badly for them when religious believers attempt to meddle in science.

>101 Limelite: Just to set things straight, nothing in my statement even implies such nonsense.

Really? Here's your statement -- "Atheism evolves from reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow."

This appears to say that "atheism" (the end state, which is characterized as a good thing, a correct thing, in short, enlightenment) is the product of evolution. Actually, it doesn't appear to say it, it does say it. The process of reasoning, which is built on evidence, knowledge and understanding, leads to atheism.

You then go on to fortify the purposive direction of this evolutionary process by saying that it is "is true because Evolution is True."

In other words -- there is a true thing: evolution. In the intellectual history of humanity, recognition of this very true thing is ultimately achieved through evolutionary processes summed up by the word "reason". The whole experience is one of traveling from ignorance to error to truth.

>107 StormRaven: It is more than questionable to talk about probabilities with respect to something that has already occurred. It is almost a category error. Probabilities are only relevant with respect to future events, not events that have taken place. An event in the past either happened or it didn't, and the "probability" of either can only be expressed as 1 (it happened) or 0 (it didn't).

Yesterday, there was a coin toss at the Cowboys/Eagles game. The probability of heads was 50%. Even today, the probability of heads in that same coin toss is 50%. Tomorrow, ditto. Something having already happened doesn't affect its probability.

>113 StormRaven: Thanks, StormRaven. Although we haven't crossed swords for quite a while, its rare when you post exactly what I wanted to say!

>109 BorneWilder: Although it's impossible to know what each individual Christian believes personally, most of the mainstream global Christian denominations accept evolution. The Catholic Church alone accounts for 1.2 billion, the Anglicans around 80 million, I believe, and by the time you add all those Methodists, Lutherans, Orthodox and others I would say that's a pretty clear majority of Christians. And it's not some newfangled thing; St Augustine basically said that the Genesis creation story was not to be taken literally.

>109 BorneWilder: Just because you argue with Christians about other issues you have with their religion, does not extract from the fact, that evolution has no viable beginning.

I see you don't listen, which makes discussion hard. Something happened to start life on Earth. Poking at it isn't really interesting to me; it's certainly God of the Gaps, and not an interesting God at that.

I would like to see where you can find the numbers to support your claim that the majority of Christians believe in evolution. I'll bet you $14.32 you can't back that up with real statistics. lol

Would you like my address so you can send me the check? You're wildly attacking deep science, and you can't be arsed to look up basic statistics. I can't find a global survey, but: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evol... shows that in the US, the majority of Catholics, Orthodox and mainline Protestants believe in evolution; the Christian groups that don't are marginal on the world stage. Fully half of world Christians are Catholics, who generally do believe in evolution, and on a sample of nations, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolut... , Turkey (not a hotbed of Christianity) is the only country that believes less in evolution than the US. The countries with the most Christians after the US are Brazil and Mexico, and http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/chapter-8-religion-and-science/ puts them at 66% and 64% yes to "evolved over time".

I think the ultimate response is Project Steve; the NCSE got way more scientists named Steve to sign a statement of evolution then the Discovery Institute could get of any name. I can either believe in a massive conspiracy theory, or I can believe a small group of people ignore evidence that doesn't fit their religious beliefs.

>116 jburlinson:

No one should misinterpret the use of "evolves" in my sentence to mean the same as it does when discussing the scientific theory of "Evolution."

Please grant English the flexibility that makes it powerful. You must realize that "evolves" was a word in common usage as I have used it long before it was adopted and given the additional specific application and precise definition when associated with the scientific theory.

If you grant that same flexibility to "theory," allowing the difference in meaning in its everyday use vs its scientifically specific one, I think it's reasonable to extend your understanding to "evolves."

Religion did not grow from observation, experiment, or reason (see my post above) but from fear of the inexplicable. Nor does it change in the face of facts, evidence, and logic; on the contrary, it requires unwavering "belief" and unquestioning "faith." Unlike science it demands people to prove their steadfastness to the religious idea, the dogma. It does not tolerate challenge.

Contrarily, science (reason) demands to be proven wrong. It has no dogma; it only has a proven process or method of inquiry -- a correct way to pose questions of reality, a workable approach to explore the workings of the Universe. Answer, come what may. The scientist or reasoner does not serve the answer, he or she serves the Scientific Method and logical reasoning. Quite the opposite of religion.

I like thinking of scientists as explorers. An explorer does not enter a new land and demand it fit his preconceptions; that it match his homeland. He does not direct his discovered environment to fit his expectations. He comes to his discovery with curiosity, questions, and a virgin mind, ready and willing to accept whatever he observes or finds no matter how improbable.

If he discovers the world's first bumblebee and after his country's scientists "reverse engineer" it and determine that it's mathematically impossible for it to fly -- and yet it flies; they don't deny it's aeronautical ability nor attribute it to magic or miracle. They realize that they're not asking the right questions, or they're not using appropriate maths, or they mistook their assumptions regarding flight. In short, they've been proven wrong. From there they fearlessly start over from a clean slate and new premises. Eventually they learn and can explain how it's possible for that bumblebee to fly -- Exotic flight!

Now, if a true believer who disavows the truth of those scientists' conclusions and instead avers that it is only by a miracle that the bumblebee flies, that it does so by defying the Fundamental Laws of physics, then there is no sense in pointing out to that person that the first scientific inquiry defied neither the Scientific Method nor the Fundamental Laws but needed the invention of a new kind of mathematics or science to prove what any observer could see, that true believer will remain unconvinced. His mind is oriented to proving his steadfastness to a belief that says flight is only possible the way common everyday things such as airplanes fly, the math for which a 14-year old can comprehend, no bumblebee can fly according to the laws of those physics. Yet they do. Therefore, it must be a miracle that is evidence of a great and all powerful -- well, Wizard.

The scientist's and the rational person's mind evolve to remain congruent with the new conclusions derived from more acute observations, fresh evidence, and facts. The believer tries to fit the new round peg into the old square hole. As far as he's concerned it fits. That it's not congruent he faults the rational and scientific minds, never his own because he dare not defy the Wizard who isn't even behind the curtain.

>120 Limelite: No one should misinterpret the use of "evolves" in my sentence to mean the same as it does when discussing the scientific theory of "Evolution."

I typically do make this distinction, but your use of "evolves" in particular made me wonder. Here's what you said in >98 Limelite: :
"...my statement -- "Atheism evolves from reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow." -- is true because Evolution is True."

You must admit that someone reading this pronouncement would be tempted to think that your use of the word "evolves" was intended to resonate with "Evolution". You seem to be saying that (a) every smart person knows that the theory of evolution is true, and therefore (b) the attainment of atheism through the process of reason is equally evolutionary, and therefore also true. I'm not the one confusing the two senses of the word -- you are; at least, it's easy to think that you are. If it's just a question of verbal imprecision, I'm willing to accept that. But I still get the sneaking feeling that, deep down, you might see "evolution" as leading somewhere -- in the same way that reasoning leads to atheism.

A few more reactions to your pronouncements:

Religion did not grow from observation, experiment, or reason (see my post above) but from fear of the inexplicable.

What's your evidence for that?

Nor does it change in the face of facts, evidence, and logic

Yes, it does. Read the history of any religion with a track record. Heck, even the Mormons change.

on the contrary, it requires unwavering "belief" and unquestioning "faith." Unlike science it demands people to prove their steadfastness to the religious idea, the dogma. It does not tolerate challenge.\

Demonstrably untrue. Doubt is very common in religious circles. Check this out: Doubt Is the Heart of Belief
There are thousands of articles like this. If you want some more, just let me know. Religious types have been agonizing over doubt for a long, long time.

The scientist's and the rational person's mind evolve to remain congruent with the new conclusions derived from more acute observations, fresh evidence, and facts.

Here we go again with the confusion. Your insistence on using the word "evolve" in this way strongly suggests that you really do think that evolution leads somewhere. I ask myself, why did you choose to insist on saying "evolve", instead of just saying "change" or "develop" or "grow"? I can't seem to shake the notion that you really do believe that "evolution" is "true" because it leads to good things.

The problem, and I see it working in this thread, is that no matter how devoutly someone believes something, it has absolutely nothing to do with the belief being accurate. But humans, being what they are, will act on their belief as if it were true. Question someone's belief and you place them outside their comfort zone, so you're perceived as a threat.

Problem is, we humans are rationalizing animals, not rational animals, and "I wanna," trumps every argument. In trying to argue science vs. religion communication is impossible, because one side is arguing fact while the other is arguing emotion, which has no basis in logic or fact.

In the news, we see people quoting a given biblical verse as justification for gays not marrying—and saying that because the Bible says it we must not permit it. But those same people wouldn't support me stoning merchants and their staff who work on the Sabbath, in spite of it clearly being required by the same Bible. And I know they wouldn't sell me their virgin daughter for "the bride price" after I rape her—in spite of it appearing twice in the Bible—because those things are inconvenient, and therefore not to be obeyed.

People like that can't be reasoned with. Their arguments can't be analyzed and refuted, because in the end, they believe that truth is whatever they choose to believe. They accept what supports their position and dismiss everything else as irrelevant. In their world there's no problem with light being created before the things that will emit it, as it is in Genisis. Four legged talking snakes being accepted as conversational partners are just things that happen, and not to be questioned.

Mention the Bible to such people and the word "Holy" appears on their forehead in flaming letters. And once that happens, you are no longer talking to the person, you are accessing a table-lookup system, with canned answers, dispensed based on stimulus, not logic.

Which is why, when I saw the title of this thread, I knew, before I read the first post, how it was going to go.

>121 jburlinson: "Atheism evolves from reason which modifies as evidence, knowledge, and understanding grow." -- is true because Evolution is True."

"evolves" here might be a way of saying "is deduced." That is, atheism is a logical conclusion based on the evidence before us. But I still don't see how anything in that statement implies that evolution is "leading somewhere" -- that it is a progressive motion towards some best thing. Evolution progresses from this thing to that thing to that next thing. But it is not progressive in the sense that it leads from good to better to best. There's nothing like that implied.

Religion did not grow from observation, experiment, or reason (see my post above) but from fear of the inexplicable.

What's your evidence for that?

fear and awe, maybe. Awe being one of the more palatable manifestations of fear? But if you are asking for evidence in the form of the motives a Cain or Abel had to sacrifice to Jehovah, well it's going to be hard to find a nice objective account. Fear does seem a fairly basic ingredient in the mix, though. So does (interestingly to me, anyway), a sense of self-awareness. One of the primary functions of myth or religion seems to me to be to orient ourselves vis a vis this vast universe/existence/life in which we find ourselves.

Doubt is very common in religious circles

Doubt is common in any circle. It is an attribute of being human. But there is some validity to the claim that it is not admired when it is found amon the flock. "Doubting Thomas" is an object of scorn. "Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe." In fact, the ability to hold fast to one's belief, despite all the apparent evidence to the contrary, is often regarded as an admirable trait--holding true to one's principles, staying faithful to what one believes is true. In fact, in so far as a religion is an expression of the moral consensus of the community, doubt is not only not admired, it is often aggressively repressed as treason. The doubter is a troublemaker who sows discord, not harmony. Doctrines as a rule aren't in favor of discord.

>120 Limelite:

You sound like you have swallowed the Science Religion hook, line and sinker.

Contrarily, science (reason) demands to be proven wrong.

Science does not equate to reason. And science "demands" nothing.

It has no dogma.

True. But then again there are those who think there is such a thing as "The Scientific Method". Those people have a dogma.

it only has a proven process or method of inquiry -- a correct way to pose questions of reality

What method does one use to prove that you have "a proven process or method of inquiry -- a correct way to pose questions of reality"?

BTW. What exactly is "the precise definition \ of Evolution\ when associated with the scientific theory"? I'd bet that for any "precise" definition you come up with, we could find a bone fide scientist who disagrees with it. It's a myth that there is one "Theory of Evolution" like there is one "Theory of Gravity". There are many of both. But the difference is that, say, Newton's Theory of Gravity can be expressed precisely in a mathematical formula. You can do that with "Evolution". Evolution, even in science, can mean many things. It's a framework, a paradigm which serves to ground a lot of other theories. It can mean something as vague as "all living members of the species homo sapiens have ancestors who were not members to the species homo sapiens", to something slightly less vague like "speciation is caused by decent with modification driven by natural selection".

>117 jburlinson:

Probability is one of those words which are difficult to interpret precisely, like "Universe" and "exist". However, I would agree with you and assign 50% to the "probability that \that particular coin toss\ came up heads" because I have no knowledge one way or the other of how it turned out. Others may assign a different probability depending on their knowledge of the event. No one can be absolutely certain, however. Also, as much as I am allergic to agreeing with Stormy, I'd assign the probability that the Universe exists to be 100% (well maybe 99% if I were practicing mindfulness at the time ;-) .)

You may assign it 50% meaning that if that precise event happened again (at the same place and time) a very large number of times, the frequency of it landing with the head side up would approach 0.5. Similarly, it is fair to ask, if the Universe were created a very large number of times, what would be the frequency of the resulting environments that were habitable?

I appreciate the close readers among the posters and wish I could write more clearly and directly such that ambiguity would not cloud my meaning. However, as we all enjoy strong debate, I count on the generosity of spirit debaters grant when the message is a bit muddy but still discernible -- southernbooklady correctly characterized my intended meaning.

When I read your posts I am more interested in what you intend to communicate than I am in parsing every vocabulary choice. Every individual has preferences of language, each of us has a vocabulary we are at home in. Sometimes when words are used or sentences are constructed in ways we seldom encounter there is an awkwardness in communication. I apologize if my word choices and constructions discomfort some readers.

Regarding the roots of religion in fear, we know that long before there was any monotheism there was polytheism. Multitudinous gods were created for natural phenomena that could not then be explained. The world was a much scarier place due to ignorance (not stupidity).

In every instance these several gods had to be supplicated and, more importantly, appeased. Whether it was thunder, alluvial flooding, large trees making dark forests, or gods in charge of love and war, their existences are rooted in peoples' fear. Terrifying noise; life-threatening flood or drought; rain/snow/ thaw too soon or too late for crop and animal yields need to survive; monstrous "faces" delineated in the bark of trees that were capable of evil-doing; shadowy shapes barely seen near fresh pools that could curse you into infertility; the sun itself just because it was present. For their continued existence, mankind was convinced that propitiation of unseen spirits, forces, and objects must occur. Look at the OT god and what he demanded.

The word sacrifice does not imply an offering willingly given; old gods and modern ones constantly demand sacrifices to placate their consistently anti-human interests and behavior. Yes, mainstream religions no longer have gods that demand living beating hearts be ripped out of human chests in order to assure crop growth, or whatever necessity to human existence continuing. But they once did. You could say they've evolved but not changed. While the kind of sacrifice has changed, the demands for sacrifices have not.

The requirement that believers make propitiation has not been set aside even in the face of rational explanations of almost every single fear-inspiring natural phenomenon that once belonged to a god. The root of Christianity is the fear of hell, punishment for the idea of sin; of Islam, it's the fear of hell, punishment for not following a bunch of arbitrary rules and for not believing in Allah; of Judaism, the fear of Jehovah's constant demonstrations of wrath. (It's tough to be one of the Chosen, since it seems to mean singled out for god's unrelenting punishment.) Virtually every monotheistic religion promises damnation or hell on Earth if you don't acknowledge "him" as the one and only true god and worship. "Let us pray," is really, "Pray -- or else!"

Swallowing all that faux fear in the face of facts that dismiss the motivations for it is unreasonable. Atheism arises from the rational acknowledgment of the truth of the previous sentence. It is foolish for the mind, the person, the essence to be crippled by an unceasing state of fear of what will happen to you in life or after death if you cease to cling to that very same irrational fear in the face of what is demonstrably in front of you and --look! -- is totally harmless.

The Scientific Method is not a religion. It is the proven method of thinking about and framing questions in order to learn the true nature of Nature. It is not merely a "true" way to reason, it is also valid. We know this because the much tested scientific theories are proven over and over, and because they are congruent with reality, and perhaps most importantly, they allow us to make accurate predictions about natural phenomena. No amount of sacrifice or prayer has ever done that. Nor will it ever.

There is no longer any use for soothsayers nor Nostradamus whose prophecies were and are designed to be "right" by fearful manipulation of fact, as I posted above. Funny how witch doctors, soothsayers, oracles, omen and dream interpreters have all fallen by the wayside, yet a focus of human fear persists and is distilled into a single godhead.

Religion has NOT changed. Its propitiations are altered, prayer or even more removed, meditation and money, are all that seems to be required; its stars are newer gods, but still fearsome and demanding of sacrifices; and the man-made rules come and go when the people they are meant to control finally rise up and throw of the burden. But the core of all religions remains fear, propitiation, and gods who do not exist and for which there is zero evidence. What's taking so long for the god-afflicted to rise up and throw off that final chain on their freedom to be fully realized natural beings free of fear?

>126 Limelite: Multitudinous gods were created for natural phenomena that could not then be explained. The world was a much scarier place due to ignorance (not stupidity).

I actually think this idea is a little off-base. Religion is not "ancient science" in the sense that it seeks to explain or understand the world. What it seeks to do....at least, what it seems to me it seeks to do, is to elucidate our place in existence, it seeks to explain us, what it means to be us.

I'm reminded of the account Tete Michel Kpomassie (An African in Greenland) gives of the Inuit belief that everything has a soul -- rocks, streams, animals...even important organs in the body, even things we would call abstract concepts, like a person's name -- all of these things have souls. Everything in the universe that is important has a soul, so that a landscape that would look white and barren to me is actually teeming with presence to an Inuit.

That's not exactly "fear" and it is not an "explanation" -- it's more like a relationship. And I'd guess that's one of the primary functions of religion, not to explain the universe, but to give us a relationship with creation.

>126 Limelite: I sacrifice to Tonatiuh and pray to Ra, which allows me to make accurate predictions about a natural phenomena. The Sun will rise today and tomorrow and every day.

> 127

I understand and appreciate your points. I think they are nuanced and carefully considered, and to a great degree correct. I would, from my p.o.v., suggest that this need to relate to the universe, to animate inanimate and dependent parts of a whole is a response to one of mankind's primal fears.

The fear of being alone in the vast and uncaring Universe, which is a natural emotion in an animal imbued with a deep and complex self-awareness existing in an environment that seems not the least aware of him as an entity with significance and needs.

>128 rrp:

Have you tried not sacrificing and not praying? Or is the reason you do those things, as you imply, is that if you did cease the sun will not behave the way it always has? In short, that the Earth will stop spinning on its axis?

To quote a famous non-existent mythological character, "Do not be afraid."

>129 Limelite: The fear of being alone in the vast and uncaring Universe, which is a natural emotion in an animal imbued with a deep and complex self-awareness existing in an environment that seems not the least aware of him as an entity with significance and needs.

I suppose the first question that would follow a revelation of "I exist" is "Am I alone?" But even so, I think there is a distinction between the existential question of whether we are alone in the universe, and the kind of "primordial fear" that you imply is at the foundation of most (all?) religion. The "ignorance" in the face of the mysterious. I think that is more a fear of death. That once we realize we exist, we do not want to stop existing. Religion offers unprovable and sometimes unpalatable answers to such a fear -- everything from hellfire to reincarnation. But on the whole it is focused more on the living than the dead. Even funerary rites are really meant for the living. It is the living that need the consolation.

So while I do think fear -- the kind of fear that has people praying or sacrificing as an attempt to avoid the catastrophes visited upon us by a callous universe -- plays a part in religion, I don't know that you can say it is the thing that gives faith its motivating force or longevity. Or that fear is what attracts people to a faith. I think it is an open question.

As is the question of why, when we discovered we could talk, it became so important to us that we be able to talk to the universe, and have the universe talk back.

>126 Limelite: Regarding the roots of religion in fear, we know that long before there was any monotheism there was polytheism.

I asked you for evidence and your respond with "we know". How do we know? Did someone tell us? Did we guess? Where's the science? By "science", I'm willing to accept your description of "proven method of thinking about and framing questions in order to learn the true nature of Nature". What proven method are you using when you say "we know"?

For example, regarding what you say we know about polytheism, one of the oldest still existent religions is Hinduism, which postulates some 330 million deities. Sounds polytheistic, doesn't it? Yet, in Hinduism, a very, very old concept is Brahman: the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe, "the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe", according to The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism. In other words, one god. This goes all the way back to The Vedas.

The Egyptian god Atum self created from the waters of Nun and generated the other gods via masturbation, being bisexual her/himself.

Trace back the various "polytheistic" religions and what do you find: the many or the one?

You make a lot of very confident pronouncements about religion, but I don't get the feeling that you have much of a scientific grasp of it.

Trace back the various "polytheistic" religions and what do you find: the many or the one?

Often you find multiple conflicting origin myths.

RRP has finally reached me with well reasoned and factual arguments...

I now believe Thor, Ganesh, Ishtar, and Zeus got together and mystically were able conceive and have a child...

Jibbers

Jibbers is the creator of all and I now see the error of my ways. I now spend my days on street corners proclaiming his goodness and how the wrath he will rain down on unbelievers and sinners will be acidic and really really really bad. I also teach my friends, family, and anyone who will listen that science is bad. We should all avoid it. Don't let your doctor treat you... Science is based on false religion and medicine is based on science... So just pray instead.

>123 southernbooklady: atheism is a logical conclusion based on the evidence before us

Atheism is a logical conclusion only if one thinks of god in a certain way. If God is like some grand inventor tinkering away up in a celestial workshop, then the evidence is against Him, for the most part, although not definitively.

What's your evidence for that? -- fear and awe, maybe.

Only if you're willing to accept descriptions of subjective states as evidence. Many scientists do not truck much with such things. I, for one, however, would be happy to accept attempts to describe subjective states as evidence.

Fear does seem a fairly basic ingredient in the mix, though.

Lots of things seem. It seems like the sun rises in the east.

there is some validity to the claim that it is not admired when it is found amon the flock.

True, except that's not what >120 Limelite: had to say, which was that religion "demands people to prove their steadfastness to the religious idea, the dogma. It does not tolerate challenge." Of course, maybe he didn't really mean "demands" (just like he didn't really mean "evolves"). Perhaps he really only meant "suggests" or "nudges". And maybe "does not tolerate" really means "looks askance at".

>132 StormRaven: Often you find multiple conflicting origin myths.

So true. Is that,however, evidence for monotheism arising from polytheism?

>134 jburlinson: Atheism is a logical conclusion only if one thinks of god in a certain way.

Which is why I said it is a logical conclusion, not the only logical conclusion. But we are hard put to say how ancient peoples thought of god if we dismiss the testimonies in such records as are left to us.

Only if you're willing to accept descriptions of subjective states as evidence.

I'm not following your point here. Subjective states are evidence in that they exist. What they are evidence of, however, is the question before us. An experience of awe is not good evidence of the existence god. It is, perhaps, better evidence that we can conceive of something greater than ourselves.

Lots of things seem. It seems like the sun rises in the east.

Cute, but beside the point.

True, except that's not what >120 Limelite: Limelite: had to say, which was that religion "demands people to prove their steadfastness to the religious idea, the dogma. It does not tolerate challenge

We are in the habit, on all sides, of conflating religion-as-faith and religion-as-social-construct. Dogma is indeed intolerant of challenge. In so far as it forms the foundation of a religion, it bequeaths the same intolerance to it. But there is a difference between faith and dogma. It is dogma in the Catholic church that homosexual sex is a sin. But it is a matter of faith that God's love is available to anyone who seeks it.

>129 Limelite:

Have you tried not sacrificing and not praying?

Why would I want to do that? I am making accurate predictions about natural phenomena. That ability is not unique to Science.

>138 rrp:

So is it a matter of dogma or faith that "The Scientific Method ... is the proven method of thinking about and framing questions in order to learn the true nature of Nature." Because, of course you know, it doesn't exist.

>136 southernbooklady: I'm not following your point here. Subjective states are evidence in that they exist. What they are evidence of, however, is the question before us. An experience of awe is not good evidence of the existence god.

But, in >123 southernbooklady: you said they were evidence that "Religion did not grow from observation, experiment, or reason (see my post above) but from fear of the inexplicable."

An experience of fear (and/or awe) is no more evidence of fear being the basis of religion than that experience is evidence of there being a god. Subjective states are inadmissible in the court of science as evidence of anything but themselves. Even then, they constitute eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.

I'm still waiting for >120 Limelite: (or anyone else) to provide evidence for the statement that the basis of religion is "fear of the inexplicable".

Cute, but beside the point.

I'm not so sure. In >123 southernbooklady: you said: "But if you are asking for evidence in the form of the motives a Cain or Abel had to sacrifice to Jehovah, well it's going to be hard to find a nice objective account. Fear does seem a fairly basic ingredient in the mix."

I wasn't really asking for speculations on what emotions animated fictional characters, I was asking for evidence about the origins of religion. So maybe bringing up Cain and Abel was the cute thing. :)

>139 jburlinson: But, in >123 southernbooklady: southernbooklady: you said they were evidence that "Religion did not grow from observation, experiment, or reason (see my post above) but from fear of the inexplicable."

Actually, I suggested fear and awe as a possibility, and hence phrased the response as a question. But I think you are missing the main point of Limelight's original statement -- there is evidence--historical evidence in this case -- that fear and awe are associated with religion. One might say closely, even intimately associated with it, since the religious experience is by all accounts a very personal one.

Whether or not that fear translates into "fear of the inexplicable" requires more investigation, but it is certainly true that we tend to fear what we don't understand. It follows, then, that which is not understood ("inexplicable") would be a cause for fear. Death, here, would be an example of a great unknown, something therefore to be feared.

So it isn't a great leap to see a relationship between that which we fear, and the religions we follow (I almost said "invent"!) to help address that fear.

>131 jburlinson:
>139 jburlinson:

I have learned from reading the posts and the kinds of "show me" expressions in them that expressing what is common knowledge in some circles of the population can be inadequate in others who for various reasons may not have heard of these well known circumstances.

So, instead of citing an authority, I'll give you a menu of citations concerning: a) polytheism precedes monotheism and b) man's first religious impulses arose from fear and inadequacy to explain natural phenomena in his environment (that the unknown is the primary cause of fear is the premise of every Hollywood thriller story, so I don't expect denial of that premise).

You can pick one that suits your tastes.

Consequently, I have to impose some ground rules.
1) I am not recommending one source over the other;
2) By listing them I am not favoring them by order, or disfavoring them so;
3) I am not responsible for your choice of source in terms of credibility for purpose of reasonable future discussion.

Sources for the topic of the evolution of religion:
Hume, The Natural History of Religion;
The Urantia Foundation (book of);
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm a common knowledge site;
NPR summary of Crespi, Summers paper, "Inclusive fitness theory for the evolution of religion," Animal Behavior
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/04/18/304156771/how-do-we-explain-the-evol... ;
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man;
Scott Bidstrup, http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm ;
V. Ramachandran on Neurotheology, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg .

In the interests of fairness, I've included sources that go beyond my contention but that still (IMO) do not refute it, merely look at the subject in a broader way or from a different angle. I don't think I included any sources that are restricted to the opposing idea that religiousness arose from godly endowment alone. There is no evidence for that position, only story.

>137 rrp:
>138 rrp:

Your remark indicates you know nothing about prediction in the context of the discussion. It is facetious to claim sunrise is a prediction; it is an observable phenomenon.

Rather, I predict you would have been unable to make the contextual prediction of the existence of the Higgs Boson prior to 2013. Yet, physicists were able to, due to adhering to the Scientific Method (and being really, really good at high maths) for some years before 2013.

You couldn't be wronger in: a) evaluating my argument; b) in the truth or validity of your statement.

>RRP 124 True. But then again there are those who think there is such a thing as "The Scientific Method". Those people have a dogma.

Most of the people talking about "the scientific method" apparently have no clue as to what it actually is. To clarify: Karl Popper, the man who originated it, said, in essence, the way to prove something is to be unable, in spite of diligent effort, to disprove your hypothesis. This was a break from the accepted method of finding evidence that seemed to support it—what most people today think the scientific method is. When applied, it unfortunately, plays hell with the idea of "faith."

As for the origin of religion it would seem to obvious. We almost all have, beginning at a time when we were extremely pliable and impressionable, and had little knowledge of the world, strong parental figures who rewarded "good" behavior and punished "bad." They demanded that we deny many urges "for our own good," in spite of the fact that we saw no valid reason to do so. This person could, however, be made to cooperate: through submission, through self-sacrifice, through cajoling, and through a demonstration of having embraced the idea of "following the rules" without question.

Is it any surprise that human deities are almost invariably demanding, parental figures, who demand submission, and promise reward to the submissive? Is it any surprise that we indoctrinate our children to follow the same path, and present the tenants of our belief as if they were derived and proven by the scientific method?

>141 Limelite:
You have provided a number of references in response to my request for evidence supporting your claims that (a) religion is based in “fear of the inexplicable” and (b) polytheism predates monotheism. For that I thank you. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your response. I feel that it requires no less effort on my part to react.

I’m afraid I can’t accept your citations as evidence. By the word “evidence” I mean, in general, the standard dictionary definition: “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.” But I also mean the legal definition: “data presented in proof of the facts in issue”.

I’ll take each of your references in turn, if I may:

-- Hume, The Natural History of Religion;

Hume’s work is philosophical speculation, not evidence. Hume was a great philosopher and also a great writer: two things that don’t always go together. But his arguments are not evidence based. His comments on polytheism being older than monotheism, for example, are not even deductively or inductively based. Rather, he assumes that primitive peoples must have been polytheistic; he assumes the inevitability of primitive polytheism and proceeds accordingly. This is in accordance with his general view of proto-evolutionism. Here’s a quote: “It appears to me, that if we consider the improvement of human society, from rude beginnings to a state of greater perfection, polytheism or idolatry was, and necessarily must have been, the first and most ancient religion of mankind.” (emphasis added by me)
In other words, it’s obvious, to Hume, that since we’re getting better and better all the time, we must have started off in a pretty dismal situation, which, of necessity, entails polytheism in matters of religion.

He then says: “It is a matter of fact incontestable, that about 1,700 years ago all mankind were polytheists. “ All I can say to that is that we’ve learned a lot more about religious history since 1757.

As for “fear of the inexplicable” being the motive force of religion, Hume does speculate that “The primary religion of mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events” – but only when “surveyed in one light”. He goes on to survey it in a different light: “if we consider, on the other hand, that spirit of praise and eulogy which necessarily has a place in all religions, and which is the consequence of these very terrors, we must expect a quite contrary system of theology to prevail.” But, again, this is not evidence, it’s speculation.

-- The Urantia Foundation (book of);

I really don’t know how the Urantia Book can be evidence of anything. It certainly doesn’t say that polytheism is older than monotheism. It says the opposite. Ditto “fear of the inexplicable”.

-- http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm a common knowledge site;

This source says: “Nobody knows with accuracy how the first religions evolved.” It goes on to say: “The first organized religions appear to have been based on fertility.” Not “fear of the inexplicable.” It does say, “ there is speculation that the first religions were a response to human fear.” But speculation is not evidence. In other words, it could be fear-based, it could be fertility-based, or it could be something totally different.

NPR summary of Crespi, Summers paper, "Inclusive fitness theory for the evolution of religion," Animal Behavior
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/04/18/304156771/how-do-we-explain-the-evol....

Here’s a direct quote from this NPR summary: “Crespi and Summers' hypothesis is this: ‘Religion and the concept of God originated and are maintained in the context of maximizing inclusive fitness through serving the interests of one's circle of kin and one's larger-scale social and cultural groups.’ In other words, serving God and serving the ‘circle’ of people to whom one is psychologically (and sometimes genetically) tied becomes, in Crespi and Summers' formulation, synonymous.”

Nothing at all about “fear of the inexplicable” or about polytheism/monotheism.

In fact, the NPR summary even notes Crespi & Summers’ affinity for the notion of the primary importance of oxytocin, “the hormone of love”, in the development of religion. This would seem to be the opposite of “fear of the inexplicable”.

--Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man;

Again, Darwin provides speculation, very intelligent speculation, not evidence. Here’s a sample:

“As soon as the important faculties of the imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally crave to understand what was passing around him, and would have vaguely speculated on his own existence. As Mr. M'Lennan has remarked, ‘Some explanation of the phenomena of life, a man must feign for himself, and to judge from the universality of it, the simplest hypothesis, and the first to occur to men, seems to have been that natural phenomena are ascribable to the presence in animals, plants, and things, and in the forces of nature, of such spirits prompting to action as men are conscious they themselves possess.’ It is also probable, as Mr. Tylor has shewn, that dreams may have first given rise to the notion of spirits; for savages do not readily distinguish between subjective and objective impressions. When a savage dreams, the figures which appear before him are believed to have come from a distance, and to stand over him; or ‘the soul of the dreamer goes out on its travels, and comes home with a remembrance of what it has seen.’”

Nothing about “fear of the inexplicable” -- only animism and dreaming. These were "hypotheses" back in Darwin's day; and they haven't changed their status in the intervening decades.

As for polytheism/monotheism, Darwin has only this to say: “The same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to various strange superstitions and customs.” Again, this is hypothesis, not evidence, and it doesn't even really definitively assert a progression from one thing to another. For example, it's entirely likely that there were "strange superstitions and customs" among polytheists and fetishists as well as monotheists. I truly don't believe Darwin was trying to define a fully thought out historical sequence.

-- Scott Bidstrup, http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm ;

This only says that some of the Israelites followed polytheistic cults prior to the Babylonian exile. It does not say that polytheism predates monotheism. As to “fear of the inexplicable” – nothing.

-- V. Ramachandran on Neurotheology, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg .

I’m familiar with Ramachandran’s investigations into temporal lobe seizures and religiosity. Far from ascribing these episodes to “fear of the inexplicable”, he describes his subjects’ feelings of “being one with the cosmos, everything suffused with meaning”. He has nothing to say about polytheism/monotheism.

I don't think I included any sources that are restricted to the opposing idea that religiousness arose from godly endowment alone. There is no evidence for that position, only story.

That's not the opposing idea. The opposing idea is that it's possible that something other than simple "fear of the inexplicable" is the basis of religion. As for your evidence, that, too, turns out to be only story.

>143 jburlinson: I’m afraid I can’t accept your citations as evidence. By the word “evidence” I mean, in general, the standard dictionary definition: “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.” But I also mean the legal definition: “data presented in proof of the facts in issue”.

You've been asking for scientific evidence, haven't you? " Science speaks guardedly about "proof."

>144 southernbooklady: You've been asking for scientific evidence, haven't you?

Scientific evidence would be nice. The closest thing I've seen so far is the reference to Ramachandran, and, as we've seen, he really doesn't support the "fear of the inexpressible" hypothesis.

Historical evidence would also be welcome; but that can only go so far. Hume thought he was being historical, but, sadly, history changes in 250 years.

What would be particularly good is something better than assumptions, assertions, speculations and appeals to "common knowledge".

As for "scientific" evidence, it's not totally absent, although it's only in the very beginning stages. For example, Fred H. Previc's investigations into the emergence of religious capacity as a consequence of an increase in dopaminergic functions in the human brain along with general intellectual expansion around 80 thousand years ago.

You, too, have done good work in picking some cogent points regarding those sources and I think you analyzed them and rejected them all from a point of reasonableness, but also from literalness. I also appreciate your stringent test for scientific evidence (which can be both direct and indirect). For satisfaction of that you will need to go to the primary sources of various archaeologists who have excavated ancient sites for evidence of religious practices. Ramachandran provides evidence of a neurological pleasure response that patients describe as religious because it is otherwise inexplicable by them.

I think the Egyptian tombs provide plenty of evidence for both the contentions. Books abound with depictions of the multitude of gods and surviving manuscripts confirm polytheism, propitiation, and sacrifice -- indirect but verifiable evidence of action out of fear.

Likewise the Delphic site, Mycaenean, and Minoan cultural remains that are on display in various museums indicate polytheism was practiced by those whose gods represent or preside over aspects of the natural world that were inexplicable or unknown to these ancient people of Greece. One sees the distinct influence of polytheistic inheritances from Egypt in their cultural remains.

Likewise, the Etruscans' belief system -- one of the few early religions that was a received one, but from gods (plural) not a single godhead -- was polytheistic and sacrifices were made to gods who supposedly would effect miraculous medical cures. What is more frightening than the threat of serious illness and deformity to life and health in the absence of the science of medicine?

The early Romans blended much of Etruscan belief with Greek mythology and (re-)created their own polytheistic religion. When they encountered Saxons, Teutons, and Vikings, all were polytheistic. Some demanded human sacrifice to propitiate their gods. Only the Jews were monotheistic and any reader of the OT will note the reported voices of their godhead and prophets emphasize "fear me," the concentrated focal point of the "unknowable" and "inexplicable" is the "un-nameable." It's hard to study and learn the facts of your surroundings when you're constantly calming the temper of a wrathful god. Heavy involvement in studying holy writ will only lead to useless parsing of vocabulary -- involving, and enriching as an intellectual exercise, perhaps, to a dedicated believer but absolutely useless in explaining or offering evidence for the Nature of reality and existence of a godhead, respectively.

Finally, as knowledge grew, through global interaction reaching a threshold where it was no longer easy for cultures to remain relatively isolated from interaction, exchange, and shared lore, monotheism gained the dominant foothold in the West but stopped where population concentrations of polytheistic Eastern peoples were much higher in comparison. There "paganism" remained dominant in the face of the rather puny threats mounted mostly by Christian missionaries and Muslim warriors, late in their monotheistic histories.

Another quality of Eastern "religions" is that they are not organized in strict hierarchical structure with set dogma enforced by a priest class. One sees a plethora of varieties of Hinduisms under the umbrella of Hinduism but no set or single dogma-enforcing priest class. While a priest class arose to great power in Egypt, no such powerful ditto arose in China even though both cultures believed their heads of state were divine, incarnations of an unearthly power that must be propitiated out of fear. Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have no god, therefore they are not strictly speaking religions as in god-laden mythical systems, but rather are philosophical guides by which to live a life.

But they are infused with fear and they do derive from earlier pagan beliefs.

>146 Limelite:
You continue to make broad sweeping assertions that, upon consideration, might prove unsatisfactory to nuanced understanding. Here's an example.

Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have no god, therefore they are not strictly speaking religions as in god-laden mythical systems, but rather are philosophical guides by which to live a life.

This is simply not true -- or at least it's not definitively true. Confucianism, for example, includes veneration of Shangdi, the supreme god, the sky deity. Zheng Xuan refers to Shangdi as "another name for Heaven" and Dong Zhongshu, the preeminent Confucian scholar of the Han Dynasty, has written, ""Heaven is the ultimate authority, the king of gods who should be admired by the king". Confucian emperors regularly made sacrifices to T'Len, (heaven -- the supreme power presiding over lesser gods and humans) and Confucius himself was big into ancestor worship.

Taosim does not posit an anthropomorphic god, I'll grant you, but "the way" is very close, perhaps identical, to an apophatic Christian understanding of god. Some relevant quotes from the Tao Te Ching:

-- "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things."

-- "There was something undifferentiated and yet complete, Which existed before Heaven and Earth. Soundless and formless it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger. It may be considered the mother of the universe. I do not know its name; I call it Tao."

This could easily have been written by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and subscribed to by Catholics and Protestant Christians of a certain bent.

As for Buddhism, Siddhārtha Gautama tended to shy away from metaphysical speculation for fear of getting lost in the complex theologizing of the parent religion, Hinduism, which was considered to be unproductive in terms of solving the practical problems of living and overcoming suffering. In Mahayana Buddhism, an important concept is the Dharmakāya: one of the three bodies of the Buddha, the so-called "truth body", what Chogyam Trungpa called, "the basis of the original unbornness." Dharmakaya is the formless body, an undifferentiated state of being which we cannot talk about in any meaningful or accurate terms. The Dharmakaya is something that is always present; it is rediscovered rather than created anew. Because it is atemporal and ahistorical, we cannot attribute change or transformation to it. In other words, Dharmakaya is God.

Books abound with depictions of the multitude of gods and surviving manuscripts confirm polytheism, propitiation, and sacrifice -- indirect but verifiable evidence of action out of fear.

Such books, however, do not establish that polytheism predates monotheism. Sure, there are polytheistic religions. That simple fact alone does not mean that it predates monotheism. Consider Ramachandran’s subjects who describe their religious experiences of "being one with the cosmos". If there's any significance to this phenomenon in terms of trying to find the origins of religion, as you have suggested, then it would seem logical to me that such a feeling points to "the one", the "I Am", the unity, the one god, not the many. As I've said before, behind even the most seemingly polytheistic religions, there lurks the concept of the "supreme god", the primary god, the "great spirit".

The whole notion of polytheism leading to monotheism is an enticing concept to someone who might think in pseudo-evolutionary terms in which simple, unperfected things inexorably lead to more sophisticated and fully realized things. In this way, polytheism leads to monotheism which, in turn, leads to atheism (the obviously much more mature way of thinking). Hume thought this way and so, apparently, in his less reflective moments, did Darwin.

>147 jburlinson: In this way, polytheism leads to monotheism which, in turn, leads to atheism (the obviously much more mature way of thinking).

This is once again confusing "progression" with "progress."

Consider Ramachandran’s subjects who describe their religious experiences of "being one with the cosmos". If there's any significance to this phenomenon in terms of trying to find the origins of religion, as you have suggested, then it would seem logical to me that such a feeling points to "the one", the "I Am", the unity, the one god, not the many. As I've said before, behind even the most seemingly polytheistic religions, there lurks the concept of the "supreme god", the primary god, the "great spirit".

So polytheistic beliefs are really just monotheism in disguise? That strikes me as a weird appropriation. By the same logic, one could call Catholicism polytheism dressed up in monotheistic clothes -- not only is there the Trinity to consider, but all those semi-deified saints, all the hosts of angels, Lucifer stalking around throwing temptations at all and sundry.

As for which came first, I think it is telling that the earliest evidence we have for what might be called a "religious" or "spiritual" sense lies in the paleolithic burial sites, which at least point towards a sense that although a life has ended, something of that life continues. But this is hardly the same thing as belief that we are one with the universe.

Where does animism fall in your idiosyncratic scale of mono- or polytheism, I wonder? Where would Kpomassie's Inuits, with their world teeming with the souls of the seals and the fish, the boulders and the ice, the auroras and the hearts in their bodies and the names of their grandparents -- where would they fit?

>146 Limelite: the reported voices of their godhead and prophets emphasize "fear me," the concentrated focal point of the "unknowable" and "inexplicable" is the "un-nameable." It's hard to study and learn the facts of your surroundings when you're constantly calming the temper of a wrathful god.

Back on fear, again. Yes, there is an element of fear in religion -- in some more than in others. But, speaking logically, that does not mean that all religions are based on fear. We've already considered options that others have offered as the basis of religion -- fertility, "inclusive fitness", love, temporal lobe seizures, enhancement of dopaminergic function, etc. There are others that haven't been mentioned yet. The late Stephen Jay Gould thought religion was just a spandrel, a cognitive byproduct of some other evolutionary adaptation. Stewart E. Guthrie thought religion was a "hyperactive agency detection device", similar to the animism Darwin described in the quote above. David Sloan Wilson thinks religion is a product of evolution acting at group-level, part of his "multi-level selection theory" which posits religion as basically altruistic, essential for community building.

There are a bunch of other theories. So why is "fear of the inexpressible" such a satisfying answer to so many people? Could it be that lurking behind that conclusion is the idea that, again, we've "evolved" beyond fear? Now that we "know" how things work, we don't have to be afraid any more -- and, of course, we have science to thank for that knowledge.

Could it be that the origin of science was "fear of the inexplicable"? I don't see how that's any less likely than fear being the basis of religion. Yet my guess is that many would be irritated, even insulted, if one were to say that science is just a way humans have of trying to overcome their irrational fears. And it's not even a very good way, since people are still afraid. In fact, many are even more afraid than ever of being blown to smithereens or drowned in the rising seas. Perhaps science is fear of the explicable.

>149 jburlinson: Could it be that the origin of science was "fear of the inexplicable"? I don't see how that's any less likely than fear being the basis of religion.

As a rule we tend to avoid the things we fear. The scientific approach, however, is to poke sticks at what it doesn't understand. That's almost the opposite impulse -- an inclination to open the door that is closed. Curiosity, not fear.

>148 southernbooklady: This is once again confusing "progression" with "progress."

I agree. But do you believe we've satisfactorily established this progression? Do you share >126 Limelite: 's certainty that polytheism came before monotheism?

What seems clear, though, is that we do have this sense of "progress". I just think it's very tempting to ascribe this sense to a progression that we can feel comfortable in thinking we understand. It just seems confusing to imagine that there might have been monotheists before there were polytheists. Even more confusing is considering that monotheism might actually underlie polytheism. Yet the evidence of Hinduism is right there before our eyes -- what is Brahman?

By the same logic, one could call Catholicism polytheism dressed up in monotheistic clothes

You said it. And I won't disagree. In many religions there is often (a) the revelation and (b) the tradition. b often is a near total subversion of a.

Where does animism fall in your idiosyncratic scale of mono- or polytheism, I wonder?

I don't have a scheme. What I have is a denial of a scheme. By saying that I don't believe polytheism predates monotheism, I'm not saying the reverse. The subject is both too complicated and too abstruse to concoct a scheme about. If, for example, the first "religious" impulse happened some 80,000 years ago, I have no idea whatsoever whether it pointed to one god or many gods. There appears to be some evidence (very preliminary and very slender) that suggests it may have pointed "up there" at something.

Where would Kpomassie's Inuits, with their world teeming with the souls of the seals and the fish, the boulders and the ice, the auroras and the hearts in their bodies and the names of their grandparents -- where would they fit?

They would not fit with a notion of religion being based on "fear of the inexplicable".

>150 southernbooklady: As a rule we tend to avoid the things we fear.

So when Cain and Abel made their sacrifices, they were reaching out to something that they didn't fear? :)

When people in general pray to god, are they trying to avoid god?

I don't see how this advances your premise.

>152 jburlinson: So when Cain and Abel made their sacrifices, they were reaching out to something that they didn't fear?

Rather trying to avoid the consequences of not sacrificing. The Old Testament God could be a little capricious. As it happens, Cain fucked up ("was not pleasing to God") and apparently he and his descendants are still suffering for it.

>151 jburlinson: I don't have a scheme. What I have is a denial of a scheme. By saying that I don't believe polytheism predates monotheism, I'm not saying the reverse.

Actually, what it sound to me like you are saying is that there's no such thing as (true?) polytheism or monotheism. It's an idiosyncratic position, that might serve for a philosophical discussion on an Internet forum, but I suspect would carry little weight with anyone who actually followed any of the religions under discussion.

>153 southernbooklady: I suspect would carry little weight with anyone who actually followed any of the religions under discussion.

You might be surprised. There are many religious people who relish nuance and ambiguity. It's way too easy to say that the majority of believers are sclerotic troglodytes just waiting for an excuse to build a bonfire.

Rather trying to avoid the consequences of not sacrificing.

Who says? Why wouldn't it be equally possible that they did it because they really loved god and wanted to please god because god had been so good to them? If one wants to make Cain and Abel look like terrified dolts, one can choose door number one. If one wants to make them look like different kinds of dolts, there's door number two. If one doesn't particularly want to make them look like dolts, there's the curtain.

As it happens, Cain fucked up ("was not pleasing to God") and apparently he and his descendants are still suffering for it.

Just staying within the story (remember it's only a story, right?), Cain didn't come to grief because his sacrifice was piss-poor, but because he killed his brother. And the bloodthirsty god of the OT really was "capricious", since he didn't kill Cain (or even give Cain a good thrashing) and told everyone else not to kill Cain. What a weirdo! As for Cain's descendants, who are they -- the polytheists? If you mean people of color, why would anyone take the word of benighted fundamentalists on that subject?

>147 jburlinson:

Isn't it time at this stage in our debate for you to lay out your case? I feel I've made a very strong one and answered your counters satisfactorily for others, despite your dissatisfaction with them. Now I would like to hear your position on what we're discussing (not the loaded question that introduces the thread).

I'll try to refresh our memory of the thesis I've put forward: a) Monotheism arose after polytheism; b) Religious belief arose as a method to deal with fear of the inexplicable within early man.

Please provide the scientific evidence that refutes points "a" and "b"; further, that sacrifice and propitiation are the primary expressions of man's freely given unconditional love to this godhead(s).

Here are generally agreed upon elements common to nearly all religions; this is a necessary and sufficient list. It may not be a full list of all the qualities present in every religion, but it is workable for purposes of our discussion.

1. A god or gods

2. Officiants and servants

3. Moral dogma and qualifying precepts

4. Rituals and/or prayer and/or propitiation

5. A belief in continued existence after real death.

I agree not to deny your entire argument when there is general agreement or acceptance of a stipulation in common understanding. Statements will be confined to the discussion of common and/or main religions rather than esoteric ones, cults, small, or obscure ones, or mysticism.

Fair enough?

Oops! I forget to indicate that I probably won't be able to participate in the discussion until Monday. Swim competitions and horse shows this weekend -- grandsons!

>154 jburlinson: It's way too easy to say that the majority of believers are sclerotic troglodytes just waiting for an excuse to build a bonfire.

yes, that's just what I said. "Trogolodyte" is my second-favorite term for religious believer. But "nuance and ambiguity" are not notable attributes of ritual.

Why wouldn't it be equally possible that they did it because they really loved god and wanted to please god because god had been so good to them?

Isn't this where you are supposed to say "prove it"?

Cain didn't come to grief because his sacrifice was piss-poor, but because he killed his brother.

Heh. I bet I could make a theological case that the murder was proof of the inadequacy of Cain's sacrifice. But then, I tend to like nuance and ambiguity.

As for Cain's descendants, who are they -- the polytheists? If you mean people of color, why would anyone take the word of benighted fundamentalists on that subject?

Metaphorically, I'd suggest that Cain and his descendants represent the Other -- the people not of the tribe, the threat. I don't know why you would go with "people of color".

>157 southernbooklady: But "nuance and ambiguity" are not notable attributes of ritual.

What's your basis for this generalization?

Surely it must depend on the particular ritual. There's enough nuance and ambiguity in the Christian Eucharist (as a not-inconspicuous example) for it to be a major stake in numerous sectarian splits regarding how to interpret it.

>153 southernbooklady: there's no such thing as (true?) polytheism or monotheism

From the apophatic tradition one probably would say that. These are just labels to describe something which surpasses our language, different attempts to visualise the ineffable.

>154 jburlinson: There are many religious people who relish nuance and ambiguity

Very true. Many conversations with atheists tend to emphasise the more fundamentalist, literalist, doctrinal and intellectual aspects of religion.

>155 Limelite: There are religions without 1, 2, 3, 5. There are plenty of nonreligions that are built up on 4 (and, of course 2 and 3).

I find so often when people are arguing against religion that They are arguing against a definition of religion or god that is so different from mine that we can't really communicate on the subject.

>157 southernbooklady:, >158 paradoxosalpha: I would have said that nuance and ambiguity are very important parts of ritual. If you close them out, you have empty ritual.

>155 Limelite: Statements will be confined to the discussion of common and/or main religions rather than esoteric ones, cults, small, or obscure ones, or mysticism.

Why exclude mysticism? It is a significant strand in a number of major world religions. And it doesn't stand alone as a sort of minority sport; it influences the mainstream even when it is not explicit.

>160 MarthaJeanne: I find so often when people are arguing against religion that They are arguing against a definition of religion or god that is so different from mine that we can't really communicate on the subject.

Thank you, and ditto.

In my own spiritual journey I once reached a point where I said, "I don't believe in God". My spiritual director at the time was an elderly, eccentric, eclectic US Catholic nun steeped in mystical, apophatic and inter-faith (and probably many other) traditions, and her response was, "Oh good! Now let's examine who is this God that you don't believe in". We were then able to leave behind a lot of those images of God taught to us in childhood and still so beloved by many atheists (and many religious people) and move on to discover the God whom I experience in my life and in the world.

>158 paradoxosalpha: Surely it must depend on the particular ritual. There's enough nuance and ambiguity in the Christian Eucharist

Okay, I stand corrected. Nuance is certainly there, or can be there. But isn't one of the points of ritual to illustrate and represent meaning? Isn't it basically an acknowledgement of meaning? So isn't an ambiguous ritual a pointless one? A fruitless and useless one? Hollow? Even corrupt? Religion is about meaning, after all.

It's my understanding that while the nuance inherent in the Eucharist is a source of joyful contemplation for a millenia's worth of Christian thinkers, the ambiguity of it is one of the reasons we now have hundreds of different Christian sects. People go to war over things like that.

>159 John5918: These are just labels to describe something which surpasses our language, different attempts to visualise the ineffable.

Hmm. Then it might not be too unreasonable to respond to the terms as Limelight was using them when asking for proof that polytheism precedes monotheism. After all, if you think there's no such thing as either, wouldn't you just say that?

In any case, I find the implications in jburlinson's position -- that the peoples who followed what we historically have called polytheistic religions were worshipping Apollo, or Horus, or Quetzalcoatl, or Yellow Corn Woman, or any of their particular pantheon, as attributes or manifestations of the One --- highly doubtful. I think for such people their pantheon was very real to them. Not some sort of symbolic stand in for a facet of the Great Spirit. In the same way that I think my Catholic grandmother prayed to the Virgin Mary because she was a person, a woman, a mother, and thus someone who could understand her. Not a symbol of the divine feminine in God. I suppose I think all those members of polytheistic religions are sincere in their beliefs.

None of which, by the way, undercuts the suggestion that fear is an integral element in the basis for religion. It's probably an integral element in most of our social institutions. But as far as our continual search for meaning -- I don't know if that's driven by fear or not. We are a curious species, so it doesn't seem like it could be all down to fear.

> 163 But isn't one of the points of ritual to illustrate and represent meaning? Isn't it basically an acknowledgement of meaning? So isn't an ambiguous ritual a pointless one? A fruitless and useless one? Hollow? Even corrupt? Religion is about meaning, after all.

"One of," sure. But most ritual is not primarily didactic. No, ambiguity and ambivalence do not vacate or void the meaning of ritual, they simply multiply it. Participants in ritual don't generally sustain such ambiguities in their own relationship to the ritual. Instead, they work with the meaning that is most significant to them, within the scope of possible interpretations.

>164 paradoxosalpha: Instead, they work with the meaning that is most significant to them, within the scope of possible interpretations.

Not "didactic" so much as an affirmation, I would think. But okay. If each person must come to their own determination of meaning -- which I suppose is inevitable -- then wouldn't "doctrine," insofar as it is a statement of the correct or only possible interpretation, basically invalidate the ritual for the individual?

Religions vary a lot in how seriously they take doctrines and dogmas. But even in relatively doctrinal religions, the doctrine usually only refutes certain interpretations, and is often itself (deliberately) written in such a way that it allows a variety of understandings. Actually this is one of the hazards of trying to translate doctrinal statements. It is nearly impossible to translate ambiguous statements in such a way as to end up with the same ambiguities.

>157 southernbooklady: "Trogolodyte" is my second-favorite term for religious believer.

This seems so out of character. Did I miss the sarcasm smiley? It's hard to be confident that one is detecting sarcasm in an online post. I understand that people are trying to establish :S as the sarcasm emoticon, but I don't get around enough to know if that usage is really widespread or not.

"nuance and ambiguity" are not notable attributes of ritual.

Other people have already responded to that one, but, just for a little extra, I fairly recently came across an interesting book that takes over 300 pages to analyze in great detail the nuances and ambiguities of European funeral apparel (only one aspect of one ritual) -- Mourning Dress, A Costume and Social History.

I don't know why you would go with "people of color".

Because that's an old canard beloved of quite a few 19th century American theologians, especially those who were trying to justify slavery. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it.

>163 southernbooklady: the implications in jburlinson's position -- that the peoples who followed what we historically have called polytheistic religions were worshipping Apollo, or Horus, or Quetzalcoatl, or Yellow Corn Woman, or any of their particular pantheon, as attributes or manifestations of the One --- highly doubtful.

That's not necessarily my position. I was only responding to limelite's emphatic declaration that polytheism definitely predates monotheism and pointing out that there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that authenticates that notion. Sure, one can find authors who state this opinion, Hume being one. That's evidence that this notion is an opinion, not evidence that it's "true". Especially if a person is prejudiced against religion, it's quite a satisfying proposition, because, as I've said, it gives one the sense that humanity is making progress from ignorance to error to true thinking (i.e. polytheism to monotheism to atheism). I'm not saying that I know that monotheism came first. What I'm saying is that nobody knows that polytheism came first. Common sense might lead one to think that polytheism is older, but, then, what does common sense have to do with religion? :S

I can only say, again, that even within so-called polytheistic religions, there lurks a sense of the "supreme deity". Hinduism is one of the most conspicuous examples.

None of which, by the way, undercuts the suggestion that fear is an integral element in the basis for religion. It's probably an integral element in most of our social institutions. But as far as our continual search for meaning -- I don't know if that's driven by fear or not. We are a curious species, so it doesn't seem like it could be all down to fear.

This is a far cry from limelite's flat pronouncement that the origin of religion is "fear of the inexplicable". I agree with you that it doesn't seem like it's all down to fear. Heck, it could be simple curiosity. There are all kinds of things that could be "integral elements" in the basis for religion; I've already mentioned a bunch of them. Why should we be so certain that fear is the first and main integral element? If I were to guess, it could be that it makes religions believers (i.e. troglodytes) seem weaker and more mentally ill than enlightened modern women and men. I mean, what kind of infantile booby need be afraid of the thunder god?

On the other hand, here's a thought. Mind you, I'm not saying that this is what I believe; it's only a thought. Let's suppose that pantheism is true: pantheism being the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Couldn't climate change, with its attendant miseries to erring humanity, be a manifestation of that God's wrath? Now that's really something to be afraid of. But, of course, god isn't really real and neither is climate change. So no worries. :S :) (These emoticons can be kind of addicting.)

>155 Limelite: Isn't it time at this stage in our debate for you to lay out your case?

Sure, I thought I already had laid out my case. But, since you seem to have missed it, here it is again.

I'll try to refresh our memory of the thesis I've put forward: a) Monotheism arose after polytheism; b) Religious belief arose as a method to deal with fear of the inexplicable within early man.

Please provide the scientific evidence that refutes points "a" and "b"; further, that sacrifice and propitiation are the primary expressions of man's freely given unconditional love to this godhead(s).

a) Monotheism arose after polytheism

I have no scientific evidence that refutes this, just has you have no scientific evidence that supports it. There are theories by scientists that place the capacity for religious or spiritual experience as early as 500,000 years ago, around the time of the expansion of the neocortex. Others, like Fred H. Previc, mentioned earlier, invoke evidence pointing to a time around 80,000 years ago. Were the first religious impulses monotheistic or polytheistic? No one knows and there is no evidence that qualifies you or me for making an authoritative pronouncement on the subject. You have chosen to do so; I decline to.

You mention the Egyptians, the Etruscans, the Minoans, etc. These were all long, long after what many scientists and historians have posited as the "dawn of religion". Many researchers posit religious behavior 30,000 years ago at the latest. Some claim that the neanderthals were exhibiting religious practices due to their burying of the dead, although there is dispute about this (it happened a long time ago, after all.) Were these denizens of the middle paleolithic or even the upper paleolithic periods monotheists or polytheists? No idea. Is burying a dead person a religious act? If so, does it signify belief in many gods or one god? Some even suggest that apes exhibit religious behavior, since they too have certain protocols regarding dealing with the dead. Are apes polytheists?

b) Religious belief arose as a method to deal with fear of the inexplicable within early man.

The same comments apply. We don't know what went on 300,000 years ago, or 80,000 years ago or 30,000 years ago.

I've already provided a number of alternative opinions in >143 jburlinson: and >149 jburlinson: above. Here's another one: an extended quote from evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar --

"If you look at the forms of religion (and especially the rituals) that you find in traditional societies, it is very much built around social bonding. Traditional religion typically has a shamanic form, associated with trance states and spirit journeys into the parallel spirit world. In the classic case of Bushman trance dances, they are very much designed to bond everybody to the common project of the group. They are very experiential, of the person. There is no grand theology - it's very much a religion of "doing" and "being". And it's this ecstatic element that I think cues us in to what's going on, because something seems to happen when you engage in these ecstatic activities that makes you feel more part of the community. It gets everyone signed up to the group project once again, especially if relationships within the community have become rather tense and fractured. I put it all down to endorphins myself, but you can argue a case there are other neuro-endocrines such as oxytocins. The rituals of religion seem to be especially good at triggering a cascade of neuro-endocrines, and it is these that are responsible for that "kapow" effect we get in ecstatic experiences. But in my view, what's really underpinning it in the end is the endorphins. It seems to be the endorphins that create this sense of communal belonging, of being a member of the group, when you engage in these activities with others."

Do I agree with Professor Dunbar about social bonding being the basis of religion. No, but I don't disagree either. It seems reasonable enough to me, easily as reasonable as "fear of the inexplicable", maybe more so, since it harmonizes with David Sloan Wilson's multi-selection theories, which also seem cogent enough.

Where I do agree with Dunbar is the business about endorphins. To my way of thinking, religious beliefs are like everything else that happens in a human brain -- they are subjective manifestations of electrochemical processes acting within a very complex nervous system. For that matter, "fear" is the same thing, i.e. a subjective manifestation of electrochemical processes etc. To say that one "causes" the other is way too premature for our current state of understanding of cognitive science.

this is a necessary and sufficient list. It may not be a full list of all the qualities present in every religion, but it is workable for purposes of our discussion.

1. A god or gods

2. Officiants and servants

3. Moral dogma and qualifying precepts

4. Rituals and/or prayer and/or propitiation

5. A belief in continued existence after real death.

I disagree; the list is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is an attempt to define the "true Scotsman" and it just doesn't wash. You've already had other folks in this forum pointing out some of its inadequacies.

Let me ask you this question -- can a single individual have a personal religion that is unique to that one person? If the answer is yes, then your list is irrelevant. If your answer is no, then why not? I would go so far as to say that I believe that every religious person (actually every person) is unique and their religion (or view of religion) is, consequently, unique.

>167 jburlinson: This seems so out of character. Did I miss the sarcasm smiley? It's hard to be confident that one is detecting sarcasm in an online post.

I'll let you come to your own conclusions. I'm not a big fan of emoticons.

Because that's an old canard beloved of quite a few 19th century American theologians, especially those who were trying to justify slavery

None of whom, I'm fairly confident, are posting to this thread.

it gives one the sense that humanity is making progress from ignorance to error to true thinking (i.e. polytheism to monotheism to atheism).

It might be more accurate to say that human beings are good at learning from experience, so that every new manifestation of thought is in some sense a response to what came before (in my college days, my philosophy survey professors used to call this 'the great conversation'). But alas, we are also a species with the life-span of a mayfly in relative terms, so that the far past is quickly lost to us. Indeed, anything further back than a few generations is often lost to us, or takes on a mythic quality.

>168 jburlinson: I'm not saying I know that monotheism came first. What I'm saying is that nobody knows that polytheism came first.

And presumably nobody knows that it didn't. We're back to such evidence as we can guess from the historical and archaeological record, where what most people would call polytheism seems well-represented.

I can only say, again, that even within so-called polytheistic religions, there lurks a sense of the "supreme deity".

Wouldn't this statement require its own evidence?

Why should we be so certain that fear is the first and main integral element?

Possibly, because a capacity for fear is a useful trait from an evolutionary point of view, which could be why many fauna demonstrate it. Far from indicating stupidity, it is an important element in self-preservation...which perhaps brings us back to the reason we fear what we do not understand.

If you've never read him, I think you'd be interested in some of Oliver Sacks's books. He seems to ask the same kinds of questions as you (albeit without any indication of any personal religious belief). In his Oaxaca Journal, for example, about a trip to Mexico he took with a bunch of wacky fern people, he gets into a discussion with a botanical illustrator on the relationship of knowledge to perception:

I tell him of the amazing plant drawings I have seen by autistic savants--drawings based purely on perception, without any botanical knowledge. Dick, however, insists that knowledge and understanding only sharpen his perceptions, do not compromise them, so he now sees plants as more interesting and more beautiful, more miraculous, than ever before, and he can convey this, emphasize one aspect or another in a way which would b impossible in a literal drawing or in a photograph, impossible without knowledge and intention.

Sacks also gets into a discussion with others on the trip about what he calls "our primordial need to catagorize, to organize." They wonder how much of this is hardwired into our brain and how much is learned. Animate/inanimate? The reaction of primates to snakes? And he wonders, as they tour some of the more famous ruins, about the geometric patterns that decorated the doors and walls:

...like the visual "fortification" patterns one may get during a migraine. I am reminded of patterns in Navajo rugs, or Moorish arabesques. Normally one of the more silent members of the group--who am I to speak up in so erudite a group?--I am stimulated by the geometric figures around us to speak of neurological form-constants, the geometrical hallucinations of honeycombs, spiderwebs, latticeworks, spirals, or funnels which can appear in starvation, sensory deprivation, or intoxications, as well as migraine.

In the end Sacks is defeated by the complexities and contradictions of the ancient civilization whose ruins he is walking among. How they could be so advanced astronomically, and yest not have invented the wheel. So clever about architecture, but never discovered the compass even though magnetite was so abundant they polished it into mirrors. he realizes that it is futile to compare Rome or Athens or Babylon or Egypt (or India) to such cultures: "...there is no scale, no linearity in such matters. How can one evaluate such a culture? We can only ask whether there were the relationships and activities, the practices and skills, the beliefs and goals, the ideas and dreams, that make for a fully human life."

>170 southernbooklady: And presumably nobody knows that it didn't.

True, but I'm not trying to say that "it didn't". Limelite is saying "it did" and I'm only saying we don't know.

We're back to such evidence as we can guess from the historical and archaeological record, where what most people would call polytheism seems well-represented.

The historical and archaeological record only goes back so far -- nowhere near the dawn of what evolutionary psychologists posit as being the emergence of religious or spiritual experience.

Or are we trying to say that we can confidently date the origin of religion to the earliest archaeological findings or historical documents?

I can only say, again, that even within so-called polytheistic religions, there lurks a sense of the "supreme deity". Wouldn't this statement require its own evidence?

How about Hinduism, one of the oldest still existent world religions? How much more evidence is required?

>162 John5918: "Oh good! Now let's examine who is this God that you don't believe in".

I like that. She sounds like a person well worth spending time with.

I often find that the god that someone else doesn't believe in is the god that I don't believe in either.

What's especially odd is when someone tells me that the god I do believe in isn't god because that god isn't the god they don't believe in.

I found a contrast here interesting. We have Limelite, who uses ambiguous language (unintentionally) to support a worldview which draws from science the value of disambiguation and certainly and draws a version of atheism which attacks forms of religion which are also seen to value those opposites of ambiguity, dogma and fundamentalism. Whereas those from the religious side claim, for example

>154 jburlinson: "There are many religious people who relish ... ambiguity."

Now I, for one, appreciate the view that ambiguity is a Bad Thing and so have a very hard time in understanding the view of someone who claims to relish it. I can accept that ambiguity exists, that we have to learn to accept it, live with it and deal with it, but to relish it is beyond me. Most scientists, I would think, would also have this view, specifically when related to their scientific work, but also in their wider worldview. If you don't relish ambiguity, you will see religion as dogma and be repelled by the lack of certainty, consistency, clarity and plausibility in the stories it tells.

I have come to suspect that this inability to relish ambiguity is one of the main things that keeps many from embracing religion.

Now people's minds work in different ways and I don't think anyone can say there is a right way to interpret the world, but the mutual misunderstandings that evolve from these different ways of interpreting the world often get us into trouble.

So how would a person whose worldview strongly values clarity and certainty ever come to understand someone whose worldview relishes ambiguity, and vice versa?

>173 rrp: Now I, for one, appreciate the view that ambiguity is a Bad Thing and so have a very hard time in understanding the view of someone who claims to relish it. I can accept that ambiguity exists, that we have to learn to accept it, live with it and deal with it, but to relish it is beyond me.

Perhaps it's considered a "bad thing" because it undermines our sense that (1) there is a clear, straightforward truth out there and (2) that we have the capacity to understand that truth. Why is that "bad"? It's only bad if we're too big for our britches.

>173 rrp:

I, for one, do not relish the thought of heading once again down this particular road.

I will limit myself to reiterating that in profound ways our entire existence is rooted in and grows from ambiguity and our neurological strategies for dealing with it.

Some suggestions for reading:

just about anything by Oliver Sacks

Donald D. Hoffman: Visual intelligence

Joseph LeDoux: The emotional brain

The god idea is just the apotheosis of human self-worship. It is mega-egotism. It is societally-endorsed group narcissism. It is the three-year-old who cries because it wants a pony.

So Fuck it.

Move on, people.

>174 jburlinson:

Your reason's 1 and 2 are not why I think ambiguity is a bad thing although others may do. As I said in >173 rrp:, I can accept that ambiguity exists, that we have to learn to accept it, live with it and deal with it. But I think the same about other phenomena like natural disasters, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tsunami .etc. But I don't think any of those phenomena are to be relished. In fact I think they are bad things, just like ambiguity. If there are ways of avoiding them all, we should all take them.

So you haven't really help me understand why you would say you relish ambiguity.

>175 librorumamans:

Thanks for the reading suggestions; it's one thing I value most about the posts here.

I have read Oliver Sacks, but he didn't teach me to relish ambiguity. I'll try the other two. I have read the reviews, but didn't see where ambiguity was relished.

But my point is not to be persuaded that some people relish ambiguity; I think we know that already. It's to be given some help understanding why. And also to help others understand why some people relish disambiguation and how that difference in worldview leads to some of the conflict we see.

>178 rrp:

I was responding more to your remark in #173 that "ambiguity is a Bad Thing".

What Hoffman and LeDoux outline is that our entire subjective existence is constructed and contingent and can/could be otherwise; our world is not apodictic. I don't recall that either expresses a value judgement about this. It just is.

In Sacks, on the other hand, I think we had someone who deeply relished, implicitly, the ambiguities of life.

>179 librorumamans:

OK. But by a "Bad Thing" I meant I put it in the same category as earthquakes. Sure, ambiguity is inevitable as are earthquakes, but I, and I am sure many others, see it as something undesirable and think we should all develop skills of disambiguation to ensure clear communication. It's one of those personality things, and I think it is one thing which divides some scientific/atheist worldviews represented here (e.g. Limelite) from most of the religious worldviews represented here (e.g. jburlinson), and it prevents clear communication between the groups. I was wondering if there was anything that can be done to fix that.

>178 rrp: It's to be given some help understanding why. And also to help others understand why some people relish disambiguation and how that difference in worldview leads to some of the conflict we see.

Think of what Henry Kissinger has called "constructive ambiguity" -- the deliberate use of ambiguous language on a sensitive issue in order to advance some mutually beneficial purpose. This kind of thing happens all the time, not only in global diplomacy, although it obviously has proved highly effective in that sphere. You don't have to be a fan of Kissinger personally to acknowledge that this kind of thing can be very useful in de-escalating tension that otherwise might result in violence if both sides insist on achieving "clarity" at all costs.

Since you like getting reading suggestions, I'd recommend The Ethics of Ambiguity by Simone de Beauvoir. To sum up her extremely interesting train of thought, she writes of "The Positive Aspect of Ambiguity", in which she considers how can a person remain can true to that person's individual freedom while allowing others their own freedom, even if the others make mistakes? Her solution is that we have to act in particular situations, "inventing an original solution" each time, but remembering that "man is man only through situations whose particularity is precisely a universal fact." (emphasis added) What is to be "relished" is the recognition of that particularity and the freedom and creativity that arise from meeting its challenge.

>181 jburlinson:

"Constructive ambiguity" sounds to me like a euphemism for "we decided would couldn't agree" or perhaps as a useful tool for those who govern to pull the wool over the eyes of the governed. I am sorry, it doesn't sound like a Good Think to me.

Thanks for the reading recommendation. However, I have tried in the past and found existentialists very hard going. That applies even to your summary of "The Positive Aspect of Ambiguity".

she considers how can a person remain can true to that person's individual freedom while allowing others their own freedom, even if the others make mistakes?

I really don't understand what that sentence means. What is a "person's individual freedom"? What does "remaining true" to it mean? "Allowing others their own freedom" I suppose means not enslaving them, but why the qualifier "even if the others make mistakes?" -- with a question mark?

The next sentence is just as opaque to me.

I think the problem here is you may have a whole lot of subsumed knowledge not available to me. I think we would probably have to start at a more basic level where we do have a common understanding to make any progress on this one.

>182 rrp: I really don't understand what that sentence means. What is a "person's individual freedom"? What does "remaining true" to it mean? "Allowing others their own freedom" I suppose means not enslaving them, but why the qualifier "even if the others make mistakes?" -- with a question mark?

Don't try to make this so difficult. It could be very simple. At some level, you and I are separate beings, with thoughts, emotions, desires, intentions, etc. that are unique to us -- that are not necessarily shared, or even understood or recognized, by the other person. Although we have certain tools, verbal and nonverbal, to try to communicate with each other, these are only partially effective, at best. We can never be sure that we have always been completely understood, let alone that our communications have made any difference to the other person. At worst, these tools can do a terrible job, completely misrepresenting, even if unintentionally, whatever inner idea we may be trying to get across.

What do we do about his state of affairs? Despair at ever having useful or entertaining conversation because we can't be sure we get our point across? Refuse to accept that we're ultimately stymied at knowing exactly what's going on in another person's head and keep repeating the same or similar words and gestures over and over again, louder and louder or more violently, in order to achieve clarity?

Or accept that it's a game, of sorts, that probably has no ending, and certainly no winning or losing? This means being interested enough in the other person to persist in imagining what they might be meaning and taking them seriously enough, or at least respectfully enough, to engage accordingly.

We've got to live in this world, so we might as well relish as much of it as we can. The alternative is to be unhappy. Somehow, I think you do not think so differently on this subject as it may appear. After all, we both like to keep posting to this forum.

>183 jburlinson:

I am sorry, I am not trying to make this difficult. It just is difficult for me to understand; it's the way my mind works. I hope you can understand that.

Was what followed after "It could be very simple" an explanation of what "how can a person remain can true to that person's individual freedom ..." means or something else?

>184 rrp: Was what followed after "It could be very simple" an explanation of what "how can a person remain can true to that person's individual freedom ..." means

Yes, pretty much. Although I just noticed that I put too many "can"s into my original post. It should have been "how can a person remain true...".

You see what I mean about my use of tools being terrible.

BTW -- Beauvoir was very interested in freedom. I would probably use a different word to convey what I think she was trying to say. But then, (1) Beauvoir knew what she was trying to say better than I do and (2) Beauvoir is smarter than I am.

It just is difficult for me to understand; it's the way my mind works. I hope you can understand that.

I do believe I understand that. It's why I enjoy talking to you.

>185 jburlinson:

Thank you for explaining it. >183 jburlinson: makes much more sense to me than >181 jburlinson:. And I agree with what you are saying about the innevitable difficulties of communicating. But I see the primary purpose of communicating as the transmission of meaning and can't help but be frustrated by communication channels which are not working as well as they can and should; I always want to fix them. I find it hard to relish miscommunication.

If you mean do all atheist hate religion...then I would have to say no. I would not care what anyone believed as long as they didn't try to change laws to make everyone believe as they do. But I as well as many and if not most atheists believe that the world would be better off without a belief in the god of the bible.

>187 Roundpeg: I as well as many and if not most atheists believe that the world would be better off without a belief in the god of the bible.

Do you really think that? Just imagine what all those vicious, awful Christians would do if they gave up completely on the "God of Love" or the "God of Wrath" or the "God of Vengeance". I mean these atrocious people already do horrendous things now, don't they -- and have done so for thousands of years? What kind of a world would it be if even the risible restraints imposed by the imaginary "god of the bible" were removed? Makes me shudder to consider.

> 1

The simple answer is "no".

A-theism means utter lack of, utterly without, devoid of - theism.

Anti-theism means being actively opposed to theism.

One can be atheist without being anti-theist.

At first blush it is hard to image how one can be anti-theist without being an atheist. But - defining atheist as just being anything other than a theist - then I suppose a deist, who is technically not a theist, is thus technically an atheist, and the same deist can be anti-theist - or not. Ditto a pantheist.

Personally I think it best to both an atheist and an anti-theist - that way one is sound on both logic AND ethics.