Does God exist?

[InfiniteNow]

So, back on the topic of god's existence or lack thereof...

 

 

Is there any reason for any of us to think that god is anything more than a delusion? While I can see some benefits to religion, I find the beliefs and approaches they engender to be troubling and dangerous to a mature society. However, I don't see how a delusion in god has any such benefit.

 

Is there any evidence suggesting that this delusion is beneficial? If so, does that evidence indicate that a delusional belief is the ONLY way to obtain said benefit? (the point being that there may be benefit, but there probably exist better sources actually grounded in reality to achieve it). :)

[modest]

While I can see some benefits to religion, I find the beliefs and approaches they engender to be troubling and dangerous to a mature society.

 

I wonder if you have considered the need for humans to have structured morality. (This is not bait, I should mention for anyone who doesn't well know me)

 

I see as both an asset and detriment theism's ability to deliver morality tales with authority. I believe morality is mostly learned. I would argue it is beneficial to have a structured system of ethical beliefs. There seems to be a vacuum of such a thing outside religion.

 

For completely different reasons: I'm uncomfortable with both the ideas of theism and science deriving such a system of morality. Religion is based on a false hypothesis from which it draws firm conclusions that are often way off the mark. Killing homosexuals or blowing yourself up in a crowded market are obvious examples. Science has not yet developed such a structured morality nor do I think that would really work or even be possible. I believe it would hurt science to even try to do so.

 

In light of your quote above, INow - I'm curious what you think of this (or anyone else for that matter). Do you think humans need structured morality and where is this going to come from without theism?

 

~modest

[C1ay]

I see as both an asset and detriment theism's ability to deliver morality tales with authority. I believe morality is mostly learned. I would argue it is beneficial to have a structured system of ethical beliefs. There seems to be a vacuum of such a thing outside religion.

 

Humanism fills the role for me....

[Thunderbird]

I wonder if you have considered the need for humans to have structured morality. (This is not bait, I should mention for anyone who doesn't well know me)

 

I see as both an asset and detriment theism's ability to deliver morality tales with authority. I believe morality is mostly learned. I would argue it is beneficial to have a structured system of ethical beliefs. There seems to be a vacuum of such a thing outside religion.

 

For completely different reasons: I'm uncomfortable with both the ideas of theism and science deriving such a system of morality. Religion is based on a false hypothesis from which it draws firm conclusions that are often way off the mark. Killing homosexuals or blowing yourself up in a crowded market are obvious examples. Science has not yet developed such a structured morality nor do I think that would really work or even be possible. I believe it would hurt science to even try to do so.

 

In light of your quote above, INow - I'm curious what you think of this (or anyone else for that matter). Do you think humans need structured morality and where is this going to come from without theism?

 

~modest

The idea of the supernatural as being something over and above the natural is a killing idea. In the Middle Ages this was the idea that finally turned that world into something like a wasteland, a land where people were living inauthentic lives, never doing a thing they truly wanted to because the supernatural laws required them to live as directed by their clergy. In a wasteland, people are fulfilling purposes that are not properly theirs but have been put upon them as inescapable laws. This is a killer. The twelfth-century troubadour poetry of courtly love was a protest against this supernaturally justified violation of life's joy in truth. So too the Tristan legend and at least one of the great versions of the legend of the Grail, that of Wolfram von Eschenbach. The spirit is really the bouquet of life. It is not something breathed into life, it comes out of life. This is one of the glorious things about the mother-goddess religions, where the world is the body of the Goddess, divine in itself, and divinity isn't something ruling over and above a fallen nature. There was something of this spirit in the medieval cult of the Virgin, out of which all the beautiful thirteenth-century French cathedrals arose.However, our story of the Fall in the Garden sees nature as corrupt; and that myth corrupts the whole world for us. Because nature is thought of as corrupt, every spontaneous act is sinful and must not be yielded to. You get a totally different civilization and a totally different way of living according to whether your myth presents nature as fallen or whether nature is in itself a manifestation of divinity, and the spirit is the revelation of the divinity that is inherent in nature.Joseph Campbell

[InfiniteNow]

Do you think humans need structured morality and where is this going to come from without theism?

I basically reject the premise of the question, since theism is a very poor source of morality. All we need to do is examine it critically for a few moments.

 

You've already referenced some astrocities, but let's also look at calls to stone your wife if she's not a virgin on your wedding night, or the vast tribal massacres not only sactioned by god, but downright demanded by him. Even in the new testament the treatment of slaves indicates clearly how these texts should not be used by any sane person as a source of morality. They mention how it's not only okay to have slaves, but it's also okay to beat them as long as you don't hurt their eyes or teeth. Well, I sure am glad they handed us THAT pearl of ancient wisdom.

 

These guidelines are based on Iron age tribal nonsense, and we can do far better. In other religions, it takes the opinion of two women to equal that of one man. A woman cannot leave the house without her husband unless she is fully covered up, and she must stick to dark alleys so as not to be seen or interact with others. She cannot look anyone in the eye, nor speak, even if the intent of her words is to find help for someone who is in need. However could we survive without such wisdom, I can't say.

 

All one must do is look to books like Leviticus or Romans to see the pettiness and unpallatable instructions being provided. People, however, choose to reject these teachings. They know that those instructions are not moral, and that they should be rejected. Well, it sure would appear that their sense of morality is coming from somewhere else if it's not coming from the book from which they are picking and choosing stories to live by.

 

I ask... name one moral action performed or one moral statement made by a religious person which could not equally be performed or stated by a non-believer, or an athiest. Just one. Take your time. No rush.

 

All I am asking for is one example.

 

 

Now, name one immoral action performed or one immoral comment made by a religious person expressly on the basis of their religion, stemming directly from the beliefs into which they've been indoctrinated. You've already thought of 3 or 4, and will have thought of more by the end of the day.

 

 

Morality does not come from religion, it is innate and simply sculpted by culture. Even 3 year olds have been shown trying to comfort other children who were sad or in tears. Monkeys and other apes understand concepts of fairness and equality, as demonstrated time and again in experiment after experiment.

 

Morality doesn't need rigid structures. It stems from our evolved condition being pack animals. The dominant animal in the group sets the behaviors and those that choose not to follow them get ostracized from the group. This decreases their likelihood of survival, and also drastically decreases their reproductive potential. This logic even applies to wolf packs.

 

Morality comes from something far more profound than some fear of punishment from a trite, petty cosmic dictator, something much more beautiful. I find it much more inspiring to think that one would help the poor, or feed the hungry, or vaccinate the children of the 3rd world, or help the elderly or a young child because they want to, because it's the right thing to do. It limits the potency of those acts if someone is doing it on the basis of some fear of punishment based on codes written in some book from which they've picked and choosed which to follow and which to ignore.

 

Religion and belief makes people feel justified in committing disgusting acts, and that's no morality at all. If we need to describe morality, there is no better way to do so than with logic, reason, and critical thinking, and that's what I advocate.

[modest]

INow,

 

I was expecting you to say structured religious morality can force people to do things they would otherwise know are unethical. That would be my main objection. I would also add that religious doctrine is not very susceptible to change. This is often viewed as a good thing in religious eyes - but I believe that has been the very cause of tragic social consequences time and again (as I point toward the middle east). Clay mentions Humanism which I think is less rigid and better in the long run in this regard.

 

I have other thinking on the subject of why religious morality is so corruptible, but I don’t want to drag this thread off topic too far. The temporary change of subject I thought would be welcome :)

 

~modest

[Reaper]

I have other thinking on the subject of why religious morality is so corruptible,

 

Probably because it's all about the supernatural deity, not about the well being of the human being (or planet, or universe, etc). After all, if you believe that you will be promised eternal glory and afterlife, why not follow through with the deity's so-called will, even at the expense of others?

[Overdog]

I'm curious what you think of this (or anyone else for that matter). Do you think humans need structured morality and where is this going to come from without theism?

 

I think that while some form of institutional structure may not be necessary for everyone, I believe it is highly beneficial to society that such institutions exist. And Humanism would also be my choice of institution.

[InfiniteNow]

INow,

 

I was expecting you to say structured religious morality can force people to do things they would otherwise know are unethical. That would be my main objection. I would also add that religious doctrine is not very susceptible to change. This is often viewed as a good thing in religious eyes - but I believe that has been the very cause of tragic social consequences time and again (as I point toward the middle east).

 

Well yeah. I agree with that, too. My response wasn't so much directed at you, but more at the aether through which diatribes flow. :)

 

 

You know the worst part? My first response was better, but when I hit submit it got lost and I had to start over again. Maybe god is mad at me for being honest with people and he forced me to try typing again to ensure I meant what I said. :)

 

:)

 

 

:)

[nutronjon]

I say God is the organizing force of the universe. Now what do I have to prove? That we can think of God in this way? That universe is organized?

[nutronjon]

I think that while some form of institutional structure may not be necessary for everyone, I believe it is highly beneficial to society that such institutions exist. And Humanism would also be my choice of institution.

 

What institution? Culture is not an institution, but it sure can provide social pressure based on concepts of morality and that is what democracy was originally about, and it is why I keep arguing for acceptence of the existence of God. When a culture fails to do this, you get anarchy and since anachy can not be tolerated, you get a police state, and terrible social and economic policies that destroy a nation.

 

Democracy begins with the idea that everything happens for a reason, and when we understand that reasoning, we are capable of self government. Democracy is an ideology of relationships and that is necessarily an understanding of morals.

 

The new sciences, the study of animals and studies of the human brain, make this democratic opportunity to determine morality, very exciting. Today we can support our moral concepts with science. As we can know of God with science.:D

[Overdog]

What institution? Culture is not an institution, but it sure can provide social pressure based on concepts of morality and that is what democracy was originally about, and it is why I keep arguing for acceptence of the existence of God. When a culture fails to do this, you get anarchy and since anachy can not be tolerated, you get a police state, and terrible social and economic policies that destroy a nation.

 

Democracy begins with the idea that everything happens for a reason, and when we understand that reasoning, we are capable of self government. Democracy is an ideology of relationships and that is necessarily an understanding of morals.

 

The new sciences, the study of animals and studies of the human brain, make this democratic opportunity to determine morality, very exciting. Today we can support our moral concepts with science. As we can know of God with science.:D

 

Nutron, good to hear from you! I know the difficulties you have faced on this site, but I am really glad you haven't abandoned us. I do enjoy your posts, and while I may not always agree with them, they are valuable and I appreciate them.

 

But to answer your question, the kind of institution I was referring to was one, such as a church, for example, which supports formal training in morals and ethics in society.

[nutronjon]

The idea of the supernatural as being something over and above the natural is a killing idea. In the Middle Ages this was the idea that finally turned that world into something like a wasteland, a land where people were living inauthentic lives, never doing a thing they truly wanted to because the supernatural laws required them to live as directed by their clergy. In a wasteland, people are fulfilling purposes that are not properly theirs but have been put upon them as inescapable laws. This is a killer. The twelfth-century troubadour poetry of courtly love was a protest against this supernaturally justified violation of life's joy in truth. So too the Tristan legend and at least one of the great versions of the legend of the Grail, that of Wolfram von Eschenbach. The spirit is really the bouquet of life. It is not something breathed into life, it comes out of life. This is one of the glorious things about the mother-goddess religions, where the world is the body of the Goddess, divine in itself, and divinity isn't something ruling over and above a fallen nature. There was something of this spirit in the medieval cult of the Virgin, out of which all the beautiful thirteenth-century French cathedrals arose.However, our story of the Fall in the Garden sees nature as corrupt; and that myth corrupts the whole world for us. Because nature is thought of as corrupt, every spontaneous act is sinful and must not be yielded to. You get a totally different civilization and a totally different way of living according to whether your myth presents nature as fallen or whether nature is in itself a manifestation of divinity, and the spirit is the revelation of the divinity that is inherent in nature.Joseph Campbell

 

Thank goodness something was said, besides the stupid, go no where argument, that prevents discussion from progressing. May I add to this, the trinity of Eygptian theology internalized our spirituality, whereas Christianity externalizes spirituality.

 

According to ancient Egyptian theology, the trinity is a trinity of individuals. There is the body which dies. A second part of the individual is judged by Isis, and may our may not be allowed to enter the good after life. A third part returns to the source. The Christian trinity is all external, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Actually I find Christianity to be confusing and paradoxical, because it insist on opposing superstitution, but then believes there are supernatural beings of good and evil. That is superstition. And how is one to know if he is being punished by God or is a victim of the devil or a witch?

[nutronjon]

Nutron, good to hear from you! I know the difficulties you have faced on this site, but I am really glad you haven't abandoned us. I do enjoy your posts, and while I may not always agree with them, they are valuable and I appreciate them.

 

But to answer your question, the kind of institution I was referring to was one, such as a church, for example, which supports formal training in morals and ethics in society.

 

Oh love, I am suppose to be at a birthday party, but I can't resist your question.

 

I perfer liberal education as formal, moral training. Liberal education; training in logic and abstract thinking; plus the modern sciences that are supportive of morality, would make an awesome combination! I have a huge heap of problems with the bible. It would really be nice if we could discuss these things, without irritating discussion blockers, preventing discussions from progressing.

[REASON]

It would really be nice if we could discuss these things, without irritating discussion blockers, preventing discussions from progressing.

 

Maybe you guys could exchange addresses and start writing each other.

 

Meanwhile, nutron, these are public fora, and your efforts to dictate the conversation with your "irritating" backhanded comments will only incite the kind of replies that you don't like. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.

 

For someone who speaks so highly of Democracy, you sure seem to have a problem with Freedom of Speech. But maybe Freedom of Speech isn't part of the Democracy you advocate.

[Boerseun]

...based on concepts of morality and that is what democracy was originally about, and it is why I keep arguing for acceptence of the existence of God.

Democracy begins with the idea that everything happens for a reason, and when we understand that reasoning, we are capable of self government. Democracy is an ideology of relationships and that is necessarily an understanding of morals.

The new sciences, the study of animals and studies of the human brain, make this democratic opportunity to determine morality, very exciting. Today we can support our moral concepts with science. As we can know of God with science.;)

Howdy.

 

Can you maybe open a new thread (lest we be accused of threade-jacking) and once and for all define "democracy" as you see it?

 

Because when we discuss topics in which you raise the concept of "democracy", you're definitely talking about another "democracy" than the one I know.

 

And once we've determined what it is you understand under that term, we might have a better idea of what you're on about. But I don't think we're talking about the same concept, here.

[Overdog]

Maybe you guys could exchange addresses and start writing each other.

 

Thanks, but no thanks...:)

 

Sorry all, I apologize for being selfish.

 

Since I joined this site a month or so ago, I have been watching Nutron poking a hornets nest with the same stick, again and again, and getting stung again and again.

 

It has provided me with hours of amusement...but it is selfish of me to encourage nutron.

 

Nutron! Stop messin with them Hornets!:)

 

Or at least find a different stick!