Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[el duerino]

oooh come on now merlin dont be shy exactly what did homo sapiens evolve from?

 

 

[slimfandango]

I object wholeheartedly to MERLIN. I do not think that the need for dinner is an appropriate excuse for curtailining an AB response. I think your answer is pretty awesome though and you should write some more. I did do quite a lot of research on the evolution trees, and we is from da monkeys. Now there is the monkeys and us with the apes, we're way down here at the mo on a branch with mr chimpanzee, we (two) have a common ancestor with mr gorilla, with whom we share a common ancestor with mr orang utan (which is pretty weird since he seems superbright). All of us together (apes) share a common ancestor with them dudes on the other tree (monkeys): them ancestors be monkeys too. So we did come from monkeys.

I hate to be rude, and this will really offend some people: but (rude bit): the stuff we are talking about in this subthread is not a matter of 'faith', it's on its own in a little box of pure scientific debate. Now God, I believe, is the guy who fills in the gaps for many many people who, unlike the rest of us, could not be bothered to actually read a little bit more about how it is proposed that evolution actually worked. Please, for once, can you see the lameness of saying 'well, I read this limited bit of stuff and my opinion now is that there's just no way man, that that could have happened'. Read it all, please. There are some excellent explanations for how and why the complexity could have arisen. A great many people, as Dawkins points out, believe they understand evolution and really do not at all. Please read 'the Selfish Gene' and the 'Blind Watchmaker' and then come back to the debate.

[slimfandango]

Why are we not evolved from monkeys, Cobalt?

[Merlin]

I may join in a new thread on "evolution and God" (Let me know here if you start one, Clanad), but I will restrict my postings in this thread (for the moment) to a response to the design argument.

Bear in mind, peeps, that this cosmos includes stuff that the 'Designists' would prefer to ignore but which fits perfectly with the natural world. Cancer, malformed babies, viruses, diseases etc etc are part of this "designed" world. Do you say that God purposefully included these things in his design?

The design argument does not restrict us to evolution. Is God's design inherent in earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, pestilence  (Ooooh yes, that last one was one of his favourites!)?

It was a dinner worth having, by the way. I do like my grub and it's best, I find, to argue on a fuller rather than emptier stomach.

 

[Merlin]

Just back from a meeting - this is too distracting. I think that the objection to our being descended from monkeys rather than being made as human is the implications that has for biblical genesis. God made humans - not monkeys. There need be no conflict at all, though. The Bible is metaphorical, allegorical, to be interpreted etc, whatever. Now there came a point in the evolution of primates at which a creature appeared that was deemd by God to be worthy of the name 'man'. God then endowed that creature with a soul and thus 'created' man. Of course, God designed evolution with that purpose in mind, so he could be said to have 'created' man when he 'created' the first amoeba - or even before that, when he created the universe in such a way that there would be the chemicals, gases, electrical energy etc necessary to enable the genesis of first life forms. There need be no conflict between a belief in God and acceptance of Darwinian evolution and natural genesis. The only difference between us is what caused the creation of the cosmos; what caused the big bang. I must say that I am a little surprised that there are these days still denials of evolution (and still claims that the Bible is to be read entirely literally). Genesis and evolution themselves are things that theists and atheists can agree on without compromising their beliefs. It's only the cause that is in dispute. 

[slimfandango]

Sorry, would have to disagree with you there Merlin. Theists generally believe in God because they posit him as either the proximate or the distal cause of the order and beings we see around us, based on a mistaken belief that these things must have had a supreme cause either because they are highly complex and tuned (e.g. humans) or appear to have no other cause (e.g. universe ex nihilo). Evolution has shown that highly complex beings can come about from much less complex beings through process of selection (just because it requires very specific circumstances does not mean that it required intervention). As for cosmogeny, the origin and structure of the universe, it was either kick started by some being, or it just happened out of nothing, or it came from some other type of supra-universal event. The common theistic 'reasoning' process states that since we seem not to see anything around us just coming out of nothing, therefore when the universe came out of nothing, there must have been someone behind it? Why?????? Firstly, it could have come out of nothing, we just do not know how things work outside of our universe. Secondly, if you think it did based on your experience, then you are applying rules that exist within space and time (our universe) to something outside space and time ('pre' universe). Spacetime was created at the Bigbang. Thirdly, things do in fact appear to pop into existence out of nothing in our universe, check the facts. Fourthly, in plenty plenty of places in our universe, the common state in which you exist from which you extrapolate a belief in god simply do not apply: for example in the singularity of the Black hole, time and space break down completely and may be the sort of environment which gives birth to universes.

The world we live in is unfortunately stuffed full of ill-informed people who just haven't bothered to check out the facts before telling me that 'there's some big guy in the sky.'

[Merlin]

Well, I think I agree with everything you say. As a generous atheist, though, I concede to theists that the fact of the first cause is as unknown to us as it is to them. They have their theory and we have ours. Ours, I believe, is likely to be the more rational because it will 'fit' with everything else we know and need not extend beyond the issue of being the first cause. The theists theory (God did it) is likely to be far less rational because 'God' as an answer cannot be confined to the 'first cause' question. (BTW, someone didn't come back to me on my question about conservation of energy theory). If anyone says (here I go again) 'God did it', then I shall ask 'what is God'. Then we necessarily get into the realms of eternity, resurrection, omnipotence, GOD'S ANGER (that thread seems to have petered out now), prophecy etc and the definition of God falls apart and loses credence as the answer to anything. And if anyone then says that God by definition is undefinable (!!!), then I shall ask, 'Well what do you understand God to be, then?' - with the same result - an answer that lacks credence. What I was saying is that theists can accept evolution and genesis just as we do and ascribe it all to God being the first cause and instilling design in everything with effect from the big bang. They won't get too much further with that, though. :-).

[montyy]

i believe that the bible is basically all unture. i mean, c'mon!  noah's ark?! some wee dude collected one of every species in exsistence and put them in a boat?!

you may say, well it is just a symbolic story, but, im sorry, theres no evidence that 'jesus' or 'god' exist. yes i know you call it 'faith', but isnt it funny that there is no-one to actually state evidence.

[Merlin]

Even I wouldn't go so far as to say that "the bible is basically all unture". And didn't Noah collect two of everything? (I must read that one again). BTW, what happened to behemoth and leviathon? 

There is evidence that Jesus existed other than in the Bible and behind all the religious paraphernalia, there was the historical figure - no point in denying it. But resurrection and ascension - now that is going too far! And someone has stated evidence. One of the Gospel authors (Mark, I think) was reputedly an eye witness to Jesus' ministry.

How much faith is required to believe that Julius Caesar existed and did what he was supposed to have done?

I go along with Jesus (so to speak), but not with God.

[el duerino]

The Julius Caesar argument does annoy me really (surprised? ;) ). We have clear evidence that Roman civilisation existed, and came here roughly just before B.C.E began. If the history books state that a certain Roman was in charge during that period, why should we doubt it? This is completely at odds with the 'facts' of Jesus' life. The physical reality that there was a human called Jesus around this time is quite likely, I tend to agree with you. Myths are often based on grains of truth. However this is completely detached from other aspects of his life, in the way that Julius cannot be. It is admittedly a slightly fine distinction, but it is one nonetheless. Jesus likely existed and became reknowned for being a cult leader, performing miracles etc - none of which are verifiable. Caesar existed and became famous for acts which we can verify though various means. In short - Jesus need not be the son of god to be recorded, however Caesar must have been the conqueror and imperator of Rome to hold the position he does in history.

 

P.S. why is it that miracles that are recorded in the bible are supposed real, whereas previous pagan/other religious miracles are deemed to be impossible? Is this not double standards as regards texts? And a classic case of assuming your conclusion?

[Merlin]

If we ignore your peripheral rants about the R Empire and the acts of the people, we are actually in agreement.:-)
I was only referring to the fact of those individual persons' existence - not to what they are alleged to have done or been. I have no reason to doubt that Jesus existed, that all the religious hype is actually based on a historical figure. I only used the JC example (Oh look, they've got the same initials!) because I was brainwashed with the 'fact' that most of what we know about  J. Caesar was written or dictated by himself and most of what we know about the historical figure of J Christ was written by others. Maybe this is just a bit of church teaching that has clung in my mind all this time. I am still infected!! Aaaaaaaaarrghhhhh!!!!!!
As for miracles, I think it a modern miracle that God has any intelligent supporters at all � and I know that he does. It seems to be a paradox, but there it is. That is what is ineffable.

[slimfandango]

Firstly, Julius Caesar did exist, I've seen 'Gladiator'.

Nice question, 'How come intelligent people still believe'.

It is my understanding that even though human beings have evolved to have great intelligence, the circuits in the brain, for adaptive reasons, do not allow certain "information" functions to be overridden by what we call 'intelligence'. The main 'information' functions relevant here are 'cultural learning' and 'peer influence'. For adaptive reasons, it is pretty important to the survival of an individual that even though granted with 'autonomous reasoning' that this not always override the information received from parents or peers. There is evidence that, just like other primates, we place a premium on cultural learning (cf Tomasello's "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition") and that we can rescind what we know according to reason to what we 'know' from what others tell us or to conform to their positive expectations (cf Asch). Of course if we are armed with this knowledge then we can arrive at some truths by supplanting them. I will not believe anything unless I can provided reasons for it, otherwise I could easily be the victim of other adaptive forces.

Despite popular belief, we are not creatures designed to 'know', we are creatures designed to survive. To know requires that we be aware of how we work and to make the necessary adjustments. This may explain why you can talk about religion to even the most intelligent, best informed of christians, and they will never ever rescind.

[Clanad]

About the time I resolve to re-enter the fray, a post full of complete blather makes me realize there is only futility in bringing to bear factual information for anyone with an open mind to consider.

Does anyone really presume to understand what slimfandango has just written? Merlin, you have lucid moments, perhaps you could enlighten me...

 

[slimfandango]

Clanad:

Most people think people are designed to 'know' the truth. They are not. They are designed to survive, and you can survive without knowing the truth.

We now want to know the truth, e.g. does God exist? Lots of people around us say 'Yes'. How could so many be wrong? If they think they know, surely if there are enough of them then they are right? How could so many people be wrong?

Well, I think they easily all can be wrong because human beings are not designed to follow paths that lead them to the truth, but that lead them to survive. I use tools. My ancestors for millions of years used tools. I do not invent a tool every time I need to use one. How to build a tool is passed down to me. This is called 'culture'. Human beings that became good at absorbing this culture outsurvived those who were not so good. Similarly, those that listened to what others had to say rather than think for themselves tended to do better too. This is the history that built you. Does this make you good at knowing real truth? Probably not. If you want to get there, then you have to work around the biases that you've been given. You must work with logic and reason and guard against the biases in the process of thinking. 

2 people are important here. One is Tomasello. He has shown forcefully that cultural learning is probably the greatest force in shaping human cognitive skills. Solomon Asch has shown that we are able, in controlled settings, to assent to complete and utter B)*)(s)t (e.g. calling the smaller of two lines the larger) if there are enough people around us saying that it is so.

Thus I give my angle on the previous question 'How can intelligent people still believe in God?'> cos they are vulnerable to what they are taught from their parents and from their peers and these forces are very difficult to break. And any question like 'is there a God' is incomplete without this consideration. Clearer now?

[Clanad]

You begin from the premise that you know that God does not exist.  Please explain how you know that.  You may certainly state you don't believe in god and you don't believe god exists, but that's far removed from knowing God does not exist. To know (love italics) God does not exist requires omniscience on your part.

Your theories on cultural influences does not explain two important facts.  One, if your statement that humans are designed (unique choice of a descriptor, don't you think?) to survive is true, then how does belief in god affect chances for their survivability one way or the other?  Secondly, your references do not explain how men and women who were originally confirmed atheists and agnostics decided, after considering the evidence, to become believers? (I'm discussing the Judaeo/Christian traditions only, however there must be educated, independent thinking converts to other faiths as well). Your assumptions that all believers are such from childhood simply does not square with known facts, nor does your assumptions shed any light on the fact that people from cultures of animistic beliefs are often 'converted" by missionaries...

[slimfandango]

Thanks for your post. Please read my other posts on this board.

Firstly, we must define what it is we talk about when we speak of 'god'. Not to do so leaves him as some big nebulous unreachable and we'll be here forever. I am taking as my definition the same as I said before: the designer of order in the world, the ultimate cause, the creator of our world.

1. Over millenia people have posited 'god' as the 'one who is responsible for the design we see around us'. He is the creator of the world and the spirit responsible for our spiritual dimension. We now have evidence that they did not have access to, which shows us that there is irrefutable evidence that there are other , 'non-god' explanations for those things (see my other posts). If you dispute this, let's discuss it. If you mean something else by 'god' now, define it.
2. I don't 'believe' in anything in the sense in which you seem to be using it. I don't just jump on the subscription to an idea or being without having reasonable grounds for doing so. It is reasonable for me to assert, based on incontrivertable evidence, that the being that you posit as responsible for what is around me is in fact not what is responsible for it. Furthermore, it is most improbable that the 'loving, caring father' figure that so many seem to want to talk to exists either, given the ample suffering he seems to allow and the many mistakes he seems to have made in his creation. It doesn't require 'omniscience' since I can derive knowledge of what I can't see from what I can.
3.  

[slimfandango]

I didn't say that 'belief in god affects survivability'. I said that having traits which make you susceptible to culture and peer influence make you more likely to survive, and that these traits make you vulnerable to accepting what your parents or peers tell you without questioning it.
My very point in the evidence I provided specifically explains why 'atheists and agnostics converted'. That is, because of the cultural and peer vulnerabilities that allow them to accept as truth something which does not submit to rational scrutiny. The same goes for animists. It does not matter whether someone was born into a believing family or came to it through a missionary, I did not say that all believers believed simply because of cultural or peer forces. Look around you. People succumb to 'belief' about things without evidence all the time. I am explaining why those who believe in 'god' or religion hold on to those beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So. Please define your 'god' and read some Dawkins.

[Merlin]

Clever people (1) I think I know where Slimfandango is coming from. I have some similar views but disagree to some extent. I do think, as I have said before, that we are not so far advanced that we have shed our basic animal instincts. They can be seen in everyday behaviour all the time. I do think that our intellect/ consciousness has developed sufficiently that we are able, to a great extent, to override those basic instincts � maybe that�s the exercise of free will! That�s the first point.
Now, I had a posting removed for this next proposition so I may have to skirt around it. I think that the basic instinct for survival combined with man�s consciousness of his own mortality led to the need to believe that there was �something more than this� and that this (along with the gaps) sowed seeds of religion, the hereafter etc. This need for religion exists at a pretty basic, almost instinctive level and it is difficult to overcome �instinctive� needs. It is probably easier to overcome these instinctive needs if you have not had them persistently re-affirmed by adults when you were in your formative years. So maybe adherence to a religion has more to do with one�s upbringing than with one�s intellectual ability. The extent to which an individual can overcome the basic instincts depends on the individual. The most basic instinct is survival but we know that certain iron-willed people have overcome that instinct and sacrificed their lives for various causes.
We are not �designed� for anything (I have to say that) and the basic instinct is for survival but we are capable of incredible mental agility � especially when we get together � look at the Cassini project � that is staggering when you look at all the concepts and calculations involved. We have brains that are capable of sophisticated reasoning and a look at the history of philosophy suggests that our abilities in that field are progressing.

[Merlin]

Clever people (2) A big disagreement � we must know that what we perceive with our senses is true in order to survive. The more reliable our knowledge (i.e. the nearer the truth), the better we are able to function. How could so many people be wrong? � Do we know that they are wrong? On the other hand, just because a majority subscribes to a idea, that doesn�t make it true. And if truth aids survival, then the paths to each are the same one � maybe that�s why we keep looking for the truth. If nobody ever thought for themselves and nobody ever had an original thought and nobody ever struck out on their own, well, what then? All the philosophical, engineering, social reforming etc geniuses would have been ignored and we would still be living in caves using bone tools. It is the ones who gained an advantage over the masses that improved their chances of survival.

But I agree that we must guard against bias and conditioning and use reason, logic, instinct and whatever else is at our disposal to get to the truth. And, amazingly, now that I get to it, I have to agree in principle with Slimfandango�s conclusion: We are vulnerable to conditioning from parents, teachers, peers etc in our formative years and the stronger the conditioning, the harder it is to ignore irrespective of one�s intellectual abilities.

Even clearer now? I�m sure there are some bones you can pick up from that lot to hit me with. Please do. :-)

[Merlin]

BTW

I posted before I had seen Slim's two posts preceding my two.