Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's my dilemna, I do not really have much belief in the teachings of the organized religions because they are all different, and who is to say which one is right, if any? To answer your question, though, I have hard time believing there is any after life and that those who have faith and follow a particular religion are going to heaven and live with God.
But on the other hand, as a scientific person - how in the heck did atoms, molecules, this world, solar system, galaxy, universe -- come from nothing? Something from nothing is as hard, if not harder, to believe than God the Creator........
If it helps to put what you believe (as related to what you can know) into perspective, your position is very close to my own - and I'm atheist.
I do not believe in the organized religions or their teachings. I think that their gods are made up myths. I am certainly atheist about about them, though technically agnostic since I cannot be 100% certain that Thoth and Zeus don't exist and cannot totally disprove their existence and the fact that nobody else believes in them is not to going to make them NOT exist. I simply see no reason whatsoever to believe in them.
Neither do I see any good evidence for an afterlife and reincarnation, though they might be true. But it doesn't matter. Since no one religion or god (nor their men in funny hats) hold the keys and can decide who gets in or who doesn't, and the idea of heaven and hell seems untenable, despite its popularity in various religions, it is best to live your life to the full as though there wasn't another one to come. If there is, fine, if not, you haven't lost anything. What I call the 'reversed Pascal's wager'.
On the other hand, I am with you as regards the doubts about cosmic origins. While I am aware that Prof. Hawkins has finally cracked something from nothing, thus rendering God unnecessary, I am not quite convinced. Even if that was the case, Something must have started the process off - pure Will as Mystic Phd has argued. And that is as close to an invisible Cosmic Mind as I can think of.
While I can't believe at all in the anthropomorphic creative deity, though invisible and cosmos - sized, having never needed to be created or emerged but was always there, yes, I can imagine nature as having some kind of desire to be and to do. And I don't mind. I don't disbelieve in it because I fear for my atheism, but simply because neither theory seems very much proven, though nothing from nothing looks more feasible than it did and 'God' looks less.
There is still the Has Always Existed theory, too. That is not much heard of these days, but I am waiting for some smart prof with a string of degrees to finally catch up with me and say 'Hey, what if the Big Bang' wasn't the start of Everything but was just a cosmic event like many others in a much larger potential - matter Cosmos that had always existed and was full of various Big Bangs and universes entropically winding down and vanishing into the wider cosmic soup?'
And he will publish and his mates will say 'Cor, blimey. Why didn't WE think of that?' And the answer will be they don't browse CD.
The upshot of this is we really Don't Know and have to be agnostic in knowledge and indeed in belief too -we really don't know whether to believe in that 'God' or 'something from nothing' or indeed what the difference is (I narrowed it down to 'forward planning') but with time looping back on itself, even random chance can already know what it randomly did.
What I would say is that none of that adds up to anything that wants to be worshiped or which dictated any particular Holy Books or pops into anyone's head to make them feel better when they get upset. Let's say that I am atheist because there is no compelling reason to believe in a god of any kind and many compelling reasons to Disbelieve in any particular religion or its personal gods.
There are still matters left undiscussed, such as the idea that this postulated possible Cosmic creative Mind might be able to get into our heads, advise us how to live, and even cure a few cancers. The Leap of faith - but there is a case for it. I don't find that any more convincing than the case for Alien abduction (which it rather resembles in its argument) but is still an argument.
Also there is the argument for religion as needed even if it wasn't true. We would lose too much of our social fabric, we would have no moral guidance, we would simply be without guidance or meaning in our lives without it. I don't believe that necessarily has to be true. We atheists can live without it and are undistinguishable from the true believers and census -Christians in the street, if we leave the baby -griller at home and cover up the littill red horns with a bobble-hat.
So what I am saying is that you sound just like me, except that I do have more expectation of a non - supernatural explanation of 'Who made everything then?' and you might incline more to a 'god' oriented one. Unless you buy the Leap of faith argument, which would make you an agnostic deist (which is still a theist) and that technically requires -if not belief -at least assigning a high degree of probability to the cosmic mind theory.
We can agree to politely differ about such abstruse cosmic speculations. We agree on the important issues, which is irreligion and a rejection of personal gods and the authority to tell us how to run our affairs that the men in funny hats (or in front of microphones at evangelist rallies) derive from them.
It must be said that arguments that noted ancient scientists believed in God, that nobody imagined that mater was mostly empty space, that there was a principle of divergency at quantum level or that evolution led to eugenics, Pol Pot and evey kind of social ill imaginable, are logical red herrings and are neither here nor there as regards what it actually true.
I do hope that clarifies issues a bit. If not feel free to discuss further.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-18-2012 at 01:34 AM..
That's my dilemna, I do not really have much belief in the teachings of the organized religions because they are all different, and who is to say which one is right, if any? To answer your question, though, I have hard time believing there is any after life and that those who have faith and follow a particular religion are going to heaven and live with God.
But on the other hand, as a scientific person - how in the heck did atoms, molecules, this world, solar system, galaxy, universe -- come from nothing? Something from nothing is as hard, if not harder, to believe than God the Creator........
But if you believe in a god, you already believe that something came from nothing. So when addressing origins, why complicate things by adding in an unproven something-from-nothing god into the mix? What is wrong with saying "I don't know"?
But on the other hand, as a scientific person - how in the heck did atoms, molecules, this world, solar system, galaxy, universe -- come from nothing?
I can't even begin to understand how the Universe works.
The scientists claim that matter can be converted into pure energy, and the blast at Hiroshima and the power of the sun are examples of this matter-energy conversion. In a physics class 40 years ago, I was told that you apply force to a particle moving close to the speed of light, you will increase the mass of that particle.
In summary, matter can be used to create energy, and energy can be used to create matter.
I don't understand how this process works, but it doesn't bother me. Instead, I concentrate on how to improve my golf game.
There is still the Has Always Existed theory, too. That is not much heard of these days, but I am waiting for some smart prof with a string of degrees to finally catch up with me and say 'Hey, what if the Big Bang' wasn't the start of Everything but was just a cosmic event like many others in a much larger potential - matter Cosmos that had always existed and was full of various Big Bangs and universes entropically winding down and vanishing into the wider cosmic soup?'
This is a possibility that has been explored and is currently an accepted possibility: that our Universe has expanded and contracted numerous times (or, for infinity, if you will). Yet, if this was the case, and if the Big Bang has continuously happened, then we go back to square one: the pre-Universe as it existed prior to the Big Bang was in a state of "nothingness" until that something that was required to start the Big Bang occurred. As the case, if our Universe has existed X times in the past, those past existences becomes irrelevant as it still will not answer how our Universe, let alone the previous Universes, came into existence.
Then there is the idea of multiple universes existing, such as with string theory, and the Big Bang occurred when two near universes collided (which is not necessarily a part of string theory, but string theory says that the tenth dimension is a single point that encompasses every single possible universe that could ever exist at once, whether they exist or not).
The topic should be focused on our Universe. Whether there are multiple universes or if our own Universe exists multiple times should be irrelevant as it is enough to try and wrap our heads around this one Universe. Obviously something created our Universe. There was a definite why and how. In my opinion both science and Religion are just as valid here. But in my opinion I cannot accept the concept of a creator God, Religion aside.
This is a possibility that has been explored and is currently an accepted possibility: that our Universe has expanded and contracted numerous times (or, for infinity, if you will). Yet, if this was the case, and if the Big Bang has continuously happened, then we go back to square one: the pre-Universe as it existed prior to the Big Bang was in a state of "nothingness" until that something that was required to start the Big Bang occurred. As the case, if our Universe has existed X times in the past, those past existences becomes irrelevant as it still will not answer how our Universe, let alone the previous Universes, came into existence.
Then there is the idea of multiple universes existing, such as with string theory, and the Big Bang occurred when two near universes collided (which is not necessarily a part of string theory, but string theory says that the tenth dimension is a single point that encompasses every single possible universe that could ever exist at once, whether they exist or not).
The topic should be focused on our Universe. Whether there are multiple universes or if our own Universe exists multiple times should be irrelevant as it is enough to try and wrap our heads around this one Universe. Obviously something created our Universe. There was a definite why and how. In my opinion both science and Religion are just as valid here. But in my opinion I cannot accept the concept of a creator God, Religion aside.
While there is a lot of room for hypothesizing (we didn't even mention the idea that the whole shebang is a two dimensional hologram projected in from outside the Universe) it is clear to me that we know so little about the cosmos beyond what we can see, let alone its origins, that the debate is futile and the first cause debate is little more than theist (using the 'who made everything, then?' package) trying to fiddle some sorta god onto the 'feasible theory' table so as to use that as a springboard for the leap of faith to Biblegod.
That is not just kicking the theist' best point into the long grass. I really see it as irrelevant. What is relevant is really the 'which god' argument. That is the one the theist try to kick into the long grass with 'it's all the same god'. Which just restates the same question. 'Sure, but which one?'
I have been though the ..ah, you don't want my memoirs... just that the Deist/Pantheist god of Einstein or the computer that runs the universe or just say the inherent laws of physical matter is really irrelevant and atheists, deists and agnostics can all share the same flat (provided we limit bathroom visits to ten minutes, tops), because cosmic origins is no more than academic and they all agree that religion and its gods and Holy Books are man - made mythologies.
What is the real problem, as you are clearly aware, is organized religion and the way believers are constantly trying to shove their man made myths down our throats and tell us how to run our lives, societies and even politics on the basis of their holy Books and it has got to stop. I believe that you and I, atheists, agnostics, humanists, pantheists and even theists who believe in a god, but not in religion as such, are all on the same page, here.
As far as what "started" the Big Bang and all that...
Consider this:
I think it's safe to say that everyone, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof, will eventually have to accept that there is something that has been around forever... there simply has to be.
I, for one, think it's four things: time, space, matter, and energy
Think about it.
Without time or space, creation can't happen because action can't happen. Without matter and energy, there's nothing to create with. And so, all four of these things have to have existed forever... even beyond God. Because without them, there can be nothing else.
That's probably as far as we can get. First Cause tries to cut the Gordian knot of infinite recession with an entity that can originate without itself needing to be originated. In some ways it appeals to reason (in the way you argued, Nate) and in another way it doesn't. (with the idea of a god that already be so present and correct that it can arrange for a sin - removing crucifixion, which moreover argues that the sin - acquiring Adam story is true, which seems nonsense...more of this later).
It seems that Prof Hawkins something from nothing idea has to be something like the answer. At the same time something next best thing to nothing had to already be there and the debate gets down to a potential to become out of nothing, which is rather where we ended up in the Philosophical discussion with Gaylen and Mystic.
All very fascinating and really just brings it home that we really know very little about all this stuff. What we do know about is the Bible- claims for a being that imposes sin so that it can arrange to remove it again. The more one thinks about it, the more I have to conclude that this postulated deity is nothing to do with any potential to create in a first cause, Big bang or steady -state scenario.
First cause and cosmic origins are a red herring in the Religion debate just as evolution is a red herring. What the debate is really about is whether the Bible and its claims are reliable and believable. They are not, even if a God exists. Genesis is not what happened, even if there is a Intelligent designer.
I suggest that we should understand that the two arguments -First Cause and Bible are two different arguments, just as evolution theory and Genesis are two different arguments. There are connections, true, as in if evolution is true, then Genesis is factually false. but we have got to get away from this idea that, if there is an Intelligent designer, that proves the Bible just as if Genesis is false that does NOT prove evolution. And if evolution was false that would not prove Genesis, though believers would see it as the only feasible explanation - a view which they do not allow evolution theory, which has a load more evidence.
So we have got to see that this presupposition that, in arguing for First cause, we are arguing for Biblegod. This is a trick. A rhetorical swindle, and it is seen time and time again in the argumen..
'Something must have started it off...so if something made everything it's it reasonable that He would want to talk to us?' So easy to slip from something to a 'He' who is able to engage in intelligible communication with us. The leap is imperceptible, but it is huge leap from this potential for something out of nothing to this Zeus with a sexual hang -up.
The link is, of course, factual evidence that a creative entity can and does interact with us. Miracles, unexplained healings, the funny feelings we get when we meditate or pray and of course the evidence of NDE's and OOB's.
That is really where the debate is and it's actually as irrelevant as the evolution debate, but it seen as so much evidence for a walking, talking blackboard- chalking Living God just as the evolution debate is seen as a trial of Bible- belief, that we have to focus on that, because the miracle - stuff is the rhetorical bridge from First cause to Biblegod, and without it is is a leap of Faith into a factual chasm.
neuroscience continues to debunk religions
sorry folks it is all in your head. religion and belief in god is a neurological experience
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I know you somehow think what you have said here is significant. But to help you to see how unremarkable what you said actually is . . . try this. You tell me WHAT about our experience of reality is NOT "all in our head" the result of "neurological experiences." Now REALLY think about it . . . before you start typing and make a fool of yourself in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meester-Chung
I am not making generalizations i am stating facts
religions and belief in gods are based on emotional appeal, circular logic and wisful thinking. this is why they are called faith.
You did NOT answer my question . . . WHAT about our experience of reality is NOT "all in our head" the result of "neurological experiences?" Since EVERYTHING we experience in this life is the result of "neurological experiences" . . . why are you separating out the religious experiences for special attention? How are they ANY different from all the other "neurological experiences" that define our human existence and reality?
You don't know whether or not you have a belief in something?
I would think that a person would know whether or not they hold a particular belief! The question is not "is there a god" , but rather "do you believe in god".
Yep.
I don't think you read my post. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance? Again, I think many people have this dilemma.
Yep.
I don't think you read my post. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance? Again, I think many people have this dilemma.
I rather think cognitive dissonance is a rather healthy mental state. I won't go into the details, but I'd say that it is the conflict between what makes sense to us and what reliable science has shown (or so it says).
Also of course, between what makes sense to us (that dead people don't get up and walk) or what science has shown (that we didn't get created in one week) and what religious claims we hear.
There is also the force of the arguments on both sides that we don't know who to believe.
I think that a logical approach clears up a lot of the problem. The stress of cognitive dissonance is dealt with by objective disconnect - if you don't know, you say you don't know.
The logical stance on that is that you don't believe until you do -but you leave the mind open to evidence that it is true. I do this on Bigfoot, UFOs and the Ark claims (though I knew that whatever was found, the Flood story didn't work). This is agnostic atheism in practice - not flat denial, unless the evidence against is so strong, but disbelief until proven.
Bear in mind also that this applies to science, too. The talk of Dark matter, cosmic holograms string theory and the Higgs - Boson is all on the cognitive disconnect cusp and objective suspension of disbelief is correct until the evidence is found. Though one can find the circumstantial evidence, as for dark matter, compelling, but until it is found or proven, scientific reservation of belief (agnosticism -in the way it is often used - not technically correctly) is the logical and scientifically correct attitude. Cognitive dissonance in nothing to be regarded as somehow disreputable.
Belief in the unproven as factual by Faith, is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
