Does God Exist?

[harvey19]

 

While we are on with the subject it is your lot that dictates what we can do on a Sunday, from Ferry crossings to liscencing laws. Get a life

 

Sandie, what is my lot ? Ferry owners who are also licensing magistrates.

By the way I have a good life.

[USUK]

Birdie on the 18th last night. Clear evidence that there is a God.

[sccsux]

Sandie, what is my lot ?

 

Not what, who.

 

Your lot = god botherers.

[Cavegirl]

But there is a difference between believing in something abstract, and abstract thinking. Believing in god because you are told he exists needs no thinking at all, whether abstract or not. The person who came up with god was thinking abstractly, but not those who followed them afterwards.

 

I see what you're saying, I've thought about it and I think that we're both right.

 

You seem to be suggesting that religious people employ concrete thinking- they're given an abstract package and they just accept it without considering it further. I can see that this would be applicable to anyone who was naturally a concrete thinker and I imagine that this type of thinking is often reinforced in fundamentalist religions.

 

I'll add to that though and say that there are other people, just as religious, that are more inclined naturally to abstract thinking- they can see multiple meanings where others see just one. They will interpret God and religious teachings in a way that suits them as individuals, they won't necessarily accept the Bible at face value and they may even change their religion during their lives to something more suitable.

 

I would say that the latter types of people make up the mainstream, but you can feel free to disagree if you like.

 

Apparently young children can't think abstractly so perhaps there's some correlation between how strongly religion was enforced upon a child in their earliest stage of development and how concretely they accept that religion in later life.

 

Still, in terms of my original point I struggle to find a more abstract concept than religion that is as applicable on such a wide scale and over such a long period of history. Hypothetically speaking, if religion had never been invented and reinforced in our consciouness I'm not convinced that scientists would be quite as capable of rationalising things that they cannot actually observe.

 

I do feel sad that people in the past chose to focus on the God part rather than following the astrology and science side of things, who knows where we might have been technology-wise by now if it hadn't been suppressed.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Cavegirl

[flamingjimmy]

Still, in terms of my orignal point I struggle to find a more abstract concept than religion that is as applicable on such a wide scale and over such a long period of history. Hypothetically speaking, if religion had never been invented and reinforced in our consciouness I'm not convinced that scientists would be quite as capable of rationalising things that they cannot actually observe.

 

Why not?

 

You keep repeating that but never offer an explanation other than your hunch.

[Cavegirl]

Why not?

 

You keep repeating that but never offer an explanation other than your hunch.

 

Still, in terms of my orignal point I struggle to find a more abstract concept than religion that is as applicable on such a wide scale and over such a long period of history.

 

The answer's in there Flamingjimmy you just have to look.

[flamingjimmy]

The answer's in there Flamingjimmy you just have to look.

 

If the answer is just 'religion is pretty abstract and has been around a long time' then it's not going to convince anyone though is it. Could you explain it a little better please, I really don't see your reasoning.

[Cavegirl]

If the answer is just 'religion is pretty abstract and has been around a long time' then it's not going to convince anyone though is it. Could you explain it a little better please, I really don't see your reasoning.

 

Fine I'll do my best for you.

 

Let's pretend for one moment that past humans never invented the concept of things existing outside the reality that they see around them except in the most basic toolmaking sense, ie they can think ahead, but they can't think in pure abstract terms, so that means no religion, no fairy tales, no imagination, no sense of anything except themselves, what they can see and what they can create. They are purely rational beasts trapped in a cage of reality.

 

Now rationaliity has led our hypothetical scientists to investigate astronomy. They can see the stars, they can build telescopes to see more stars, but they cannot cannot conceive of anything that lies beyond this and their interest stops at the point at which technology prevents them from seeing anything more.

 

Thankfully scientists in our world can consider things beyond what they can experience. Astrophysicists imagine an abstract idea (something that is not real) or theory based upon what they have experienced but set firmly in the realm of what they have not and then they determine whether there are rational methods of proving this theory. If there are then the experiment is set up.

 

Now what I've been suggesting is that religion may have had an important influence on a modern scientists ability to think in this abstract manner. I said in an earlier post that young children cannot understand pure abstract concepts, it may be that it's something that must be taught or it will be lost. I can't think of any other aspect of human life throughout history that has continued to reinforce and teach the purely abstract concept of things existing beyond what we can experience more than religion has. Perhaps you can?

 

I'd love for science to take over this role, but I'm not sure that young children will respond well to astrophysical or quantum mechanical theoretical explanations.

[redwhine]

>snip<

 

I do feel sad that people in the past chose to focus on the God part rather than following the astrology and science side of things, who knows where we might have been technology-wise by now if it hadn't been suppressed.

(My bold.)

I do hope that's a typo, and you were aiming for astronomy.

 

Yes?

[Karis]

What, are you the spelling Police this week