Here's one for the religious..

[Obelix]

Can you name one thing that has been proven to not exist?

 

The aether.

 

Phlogiston.

[Dromedary]

The aether.

 

The aether has never been 100% proven not to exist and there are plenty of scientists that are looking again at the idea.

 

Phlogiston.

 

Have to admit I have never heard of that one.

[Halibut]

Have to admit I have never heard of that one.

 

Read up on it a little, it's interesting.

[Obelix]

The aether has never been 100% proven not to exist and there are plenty of scientists that are looking again at the idea.

 

And they would be...?

 

Last I heard it was confirmed to be true down to about 10^-18 or so. If there had been a hole, or even the possibility of a hole being poked through special relativity it'd be everywhere....

[RootsBooster]

The aether.

 

Phlogiston.

 

Okay and now can you provide the proof that they don't exist?

[Ryedo40]

Phlogiston was an hypothetical or something that was claimed to exist - and like any claim that something exists, you can rationalise all of sorts scenarios - even to the extent where they can't be falsified - to continue justifying the claim. This is something we see today with the abrahamic Gods.

 

While we may be 100%(99.9% to be politically correct) certain they don't exist, we can't really prove they don't.

[Obelix]

Okay and now can you provide the proof that they don't exist?

 

The Michaelson-Morely experiment.

 

Dioxygen gas.

[Cavegirl]

If there faith was strong enough that they didn't need to legitimise Bible stories surely it would also be strong enough that they didn't have to try to prove God existed by looking for patterns or a rational design in nature. That doesn't make sense.

 

Anyway we know that they did look for patterns in nature as proof of God, we know that they did view the Biblical stories as historic fact and look for physical evidence to verify it. This is well documented. I'm just confused as to why you think strong faith would lead them to do one and not the other.

 

I'm afraid that's just not my understanding of it. From the decline of the Roman Empire onwards Medieval scholars perceived nature “as a coherent system functioning under divinely established laws that could be comprehended in the light of reason.” By the 13th century scientists were starting to try to cut superstitious belief out of their studies. From the 18th century onwards scientists aimed to cut all false theories from their body of work and focus solely upon purely scientific fact.

 

So that's 1300 years of scientists examining divine laws in nature as a means of bringing order to chaos and therefore better understanding God's plan- you're right it's not about proving god's existence exactly though hopefully you can see how the one leads to the other, but you were also wrong in claiming that science and religion were never together- they very much were. Most early science, including the universities, were funded by the Catholic church. Bacon actually wrote to the Pope to ask him to encourage more research into natural science.

 

Biblical archaeology began after the Enlightenment, so it's only about 200 years old and early antiquarians didn't actively search for Biblical sites or artefacts they were just discovered and were interpreted using the Bible. They couldn't have been attributed to the Bible periods before we began to classify artefacts by cultures and had some understanding of geological stratigraphic relationships which all happened around the late 18th century.

 

What you're calling the underlying principle here is what I would call the scientific method. I think you're confusing the scientific method with methods for experimenting, which of course evolve and change as the object of that experiment changes. The scientific method however, the underlying principle, remains one of the cornerstones (and constants) of the thing we call 'science'.

 

I'm not confusing it, I know what the scientific method is, I just think it's an outdated concept and I explained why.

 

But western science itself has been influenced by middle and far eastern ideas, and the Philosophy of religion is in no way restricted to Christianity (even if we limited it to the Abrahamic God it would still include Islam and Judaism). So just choosing Christianity (which, I have to say is a particularly easy 'target' anyway) seems a little odd. It's a little like discussing horses as a species and limiting your conversation to the grand national, it cuts a lot of important information out.

 

I'm not writing a thesis on every religions relationship to science on Sheffield Forum, even for you Richard, life's just too short

 

Why would it? Why would it offer 'Christians' proof that God existed specifically? My particle physics is reasonable but by no means expert, however understanding the little I do I am baffled by how it could offer proof of God. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm lost as to how the Higgs Boson could provide proof of God (what I lack for in particle physics I make up for in religious philosophy and I still don't understand how you connect the two) - you really are going to have to expand with an 'idiots guide to the higgs boson' step by step guide for me I'm afraid.

 

Again I go back to the 'divine law' in nature idea. You prove that rational laws exist you can at least infer the god exists- that type of thing. I'm pretty sure it stems from Plato originally, though I'm trying not to mention too many philosophers names

 

But I'm not talking to Marx, I'm talking to Cavegirl, and in this instance it is the form and reasoning and fluidity of her life experiences that I'm trying to understand and have a conversation with, not Marx.

 

I like to give credit where it's due too - and I really credit Cavegirl with being an intelligent poster and fun to spar with on SF. The problem is I'm never sure who I'm talking to because she has a list of celebrity Philosophical masks she masquerades in and it's a bit like pass the parcel sometimes. The wrapping is lovely but I'd much rather get to the present inside.

 

Lol nice way with words, would you mind me pm'ing you about this? Nothing particularly mysterious, I just can't discuss this on a public forum- you'll understand why.

 

I think you misunderstand me and misunderstand my relationship with Buddhism. Let's take a wonderful cruise ship filled with delights (the sacred). The object of Buddhism is not only to see that the cruise ship is nothing more than a boat serving a purpose (which would be the mundane) - but to get rid of the boat altogether! If my faith was turned upside down to the point that I was shown the simple truth of things, in Buddhist terms I would be enlightened.

 

The reductionist view is too simplistic because it is too simplistic. When I started out in my Zen training I had the benefit of an intense introduction to Buddhism. I have since left the Zen school of Buddhism but still see students of Zen falling into the same trap I did - they 'think' they have the answers to things because they have grasped the 'simple' truth. The difficulty is that what they have actually done is grabbed hold of the 'idea' of the truth and missed it altogether.

 

When you're looking for a destination you're far better off understanding the whole map than just the direction the compass points in. Reducing things to their simplest forms can be tremendously helpful, but taking them out of context can lead you down the wrong road altogether.

 

I understand what you're saying but I'm afraid I don't see how the pluralist approach is any better. Take the recent troubles in Burma and Sri Lanka between Buddhists and Muslims. How has following a pluralist approach to religion aided the situation there? The Buddhists there believe their peaceable morality is superior to that of others and this, in a twisted way, justifies their violence in suppressing Islam. Increasing things to their most complex forms can be tremendously helpful, but taking them out of context can lead you down the wrong road altogether. Do you see what I mean? All boats or lack of boats are the same, it's your instinctive reaction when the storm hits at sea that determines how enlightened or not you are I think. (Hope you liked that one hehe)

 

As I have said before being true to myself is not being true to my faith - it is, as the name suggests, a faith in a particular thing. I believe in many things, no single one defines life on the whole. I'm not the same as a Christian (for example), I don't believe (and my religion doesn't claim) to be the one and only absolute truth - so its collapse (which is actually its aim) doesn't mean I 'lose' a vital part of myself.

 

The 'but's' are often because I partially agree with you but many times I think you stop short because (to use yesterdays analogy) haven't got your cookery book. I find it frustrating because you often make interesting points then spoiling it by sticking the quantification of Marx or Hume into it. Which from my perspective is like you sticking a hand over a candle, it dulls the flame.

 

I'm not religious, I have no personal account to give if I take away my learning from others and my own understanding of it.

 

Not when they come from within myself. I know myself, I know when the truth is present and when lies are present.

 

I disagree. I think once deities were believed in, once they were manifest and accepted, however that manifestation came into being then there will have been some, as the tribal structure or the society developed that would seek to employ their positions as figures of authority within that structure who will have used the idea of God to further their own political ends.

 

We still see this, in all religions, today. What we don't see today is someone just coming up with the idea of God and then turning that into a political tool. Even the dodgiest of religious cults has already had a certain ideal that they abide by, or accept which they then turn into a way of making gains for themselves.

 

The problem with your idea is that it would rely on taking what would essentially be nothing and using it to garner power for yourself. Any advertiser will tell you that you need a product to before you can sell it, but the easiest to sell are those that already exist. That's exactly why new products are so hard to get off the ground and why existing products are constantly rebranded as 'bigger and better' - because taking a name you trust is easier to sell.

 

Let's look at God like this. I'm a priest and my God is YHWH from the religion of Christianity. I'm going up against another priest who represents the religion of Tum Tum. Already I'm onto a winner, because my product has already got followers, to get my own political idealogy going I just 'piggy back' on a legitimate idea, and once they're hooked subtley change the product - I don't rebrand, I just change the product - that way I get my way.

 

That's how religious 'extremists' get their following (and it works so well even those on the outside confuse it for the real thing much of the time) they already have a product. How many listners do you think Abu Hamza would get if he represented the Tum Tum religion?

 

Okay, so scientists have theorised that our ability to create animisms or deities could be an evolutionary spandrel (that is a by-product rather than a direct product of reproductive selection) like our ability to create art, poetry, music or even male nipples.

 

Hunter gatherers had an egalitarian social structure and an egalitarian approach to ritual. All had direct access to the spirit world and they invoked spirits or animisms to aid them in the hunt or with fertility etc.

 

During the Neolithic/ Bronze Age with the advent of farming the social structure changed. People worked collectively and created a food surplus, this in turn was used to feed specialist craftsmen. Their religion also became collective, they created large tombs and all group members were buried together within them and because they were now engaged in work most of the time they used some of their food surplus to feed 'priests'. They now employed intermediaries to access the spirit world for them (and to do all the learning and teaching etc that goes along with religion).

 

During the Iron Age we see the rise of chiefs, of greater social hierarchy probably due to requiring leaders to provide tactics during warfare and to organise group protection. In the Near East these chiefdoms were usually theocracies- the pharoah for example, was also the spiritual leader and came to be deified him or herself. Pharoah would use the priests to administer the religion- a new tier of hierarchy came into play. Many deities arose within the Bronze/ Iron Age and the pantheons consisted of gods and goddesses that served a practical role (of war or of hunting) a more abstract role (of poetry or of the underworld) or they assisted in the mental map of largely illiterate peoples- they were associated with places. As social complexity arose so more deities were required to serve the needs of new groups or new ideas.

 

We know the creation of gods has occurred through political action because during the New Kingdom period we've found evidence that the pharoah Amenhotep IV attempted to destroy the Egyptian pantheon of gods and sack the established priests at Karnak so that he could set up his own personal monotheistic religion (the first attempt at this) based upon worship of the Aten. The pharoah was the god so this move was entirely political, an attempt to wrench power back from the priests at Karnak who'd become very wealthy. When he died his religion died with him and everything reverted back to the way it had been. His son Tutankhamun was too young to keep the new religion going.

 

This is the backdrop to the creation of the Abrahamic god. The Canaanites, Phoenicians, Aramaean and Philistine peoples all inhabited the area of modern day Israel and they faced the threat of incursion from Egypt in the south and the Persians in the north. We know that the pharoah Thutmose III waged war on the Israeli site at Tel Megiddo (known now as Armageddon) in 1478 BC and that Ramesses II invaded Jerusalem in the 13th century BC. Now consider the Bible stories, 12 tribes escape slavery in nasty Egypt and make it to the Promised Land- a mythologised past aimed at unifying disparate peoples against invasion. I believe a revolutionary and radical new god and a whole new religion were born out of this background of conflict and politics.

 

I have to split my post here as I'm over the word count- first time that's ever happened!

[Cavegirl]

Real life can be applied to the past. Because we are dealing with human beings, and that's what we are, and we're animals, and our basic behaviours and longings are still the same as they were. To look at a history text book removes longings and desires and life and reduces it to a linear that was then this is now irrelevance. Terry Jones once said of history (I'm paraphrasing as I can't remember the exact quote) that when we look at the history books we see kings and queens and knights and a real romantic idea arises in us of the past - but the reality is that most of the people of those times had rotting teeth and were covered in s**t.

 

The interpretation of texts that we have no idea about is one thing, but when I look at the texts of Buddhism, the oldest of which are some 2000 years old they make much more sense when I look at them as a human being than when I just look at them as a scholar - because they deal with human issues. History is alive, it's in each one of us, because each one of those people from the past were alive, and had the same emotions and feelings and pain as we do. Ewan McGregor said that once he'd been around the world he realised that we were all just the same, regardless of whether we were rich or poor or whatever our circumstance - I truly believe we'd gain much more from history if we kept this in mind - whether we are looking at recent or ancient history we are looking at our history.

 

I remember during some research in a dusty old library once coming across an early modern diary of a parson from Norfolk. He was describing his awful neighbour who he'd bet wouldn't eat a frog from his back garden and of course the neighbour did and was forever after known as 'Willem the Frogeater'. Rarely do we deal with kings, queens or knights in archaeology or history, that's just what gets disseminated to the public. At the same time however, nothing in my 'real life' experience could prepare me for my neighbour popping over with frogs legs dangling out of his mouth

 

 

 

And what about the feelings and love and loss that Cavegirl has been through? Why take Freud's argument or Marx's? Why don't you just see it in the context of you're own experience?

 

It is part of the context of my own experience.

 

I agree, but the point you've missed is that they are not saying they don't understand where their ideas come from, they are making a specific claim and putting forward the opinion that not only do they understand it, but they understand it enough to say it constitutes 'proof'. You're above quote works for many religious people, but not those this thread is aimed at.

 

These things tend to be aimed at people who already believe the proposition and so such 'pulling up' usually does nothing more than reinforce those being indoctrinated's belief. That is why this thread was started, I know there are such people on this forum and I wanted to see if they could put their money where their mouth is. As we're still waiting for a response I'm guessing they wont, but trust me, when they go back to their 'Bible study groups' or whatever they'll still be spouting the same old rubbish loud from the rooftops where they can do so in a nice safe and unchallenged environment.

 

Okay well this is your mission, good luck with it, I was just trying to show that a softly softly approach may pay dividends.

[Ryedo40]

This is the backdrop to the creation of the Abrahamic god. The Canaanites, Phoenicians, Aramaean and Philistine peoples all inhabited the area of modern day Israel and they faced the threat of incursion from Egypt in the south and the Persians in the north. We know that the pharoah Thutmose III waged war on the Israeli site at Tel Megiddo (known now as Armageddon) in 1478 BC and that Ramesses II invaded Jerusalem in the 13th century BC. Now consider the Bible stories, 12 tribes escape slavery in nasty Egypt and make it to the Promised Land- a mythologised past aimed at unifying disparate peoples against invasion. I believe a revolutionary and radical new god and a whole new religion were born out of this background of conflict and politics.

 

I have to split my post here as I'm over the word count- first time that's ever happened!

 

That's probably correct. I think it was the Deuteronomic purist isolationists (around 620 BCE) who really pushed the idea of the one god Yahweh. Before then there were various manifestations of Yahweh with each supporting faction fighting and killing each other - so it wasn't all that unifying really.