Here's one for the religious..

[onewheeldave]

To nick a quote from Dawkins:

 

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

 

I'm willing to accept evidence to contradict that statement, but the more evidence science digs up the more it seems to confirm it. What's more, I'm quite comfortable with that fact and need no comfort blanket.

 

I realise that short excert from Dawkins would likely be in a larger context, but, as it stands on it's own, it's rubbish.

 

Given that, currently, a Creators existence has been neither definitively proved or disproved, how can anyone actually say what a world with no design would be like, or, what a world with design would be like?

 

To claim that a world without design would look like our actual world is, in the absence of some reasoning/evidence to back it up, pure speculation.

 

It reminds me of the reason that used to be given as to why people thought the sun went round the Earth- 'because it looked that way'

 

Now it's obvious that that was actually no valid reason at all, because, all the time, the earth was actually going round the sun- the 2 scenarios 'look', from the viewpoint of a person on the earth's surface, identical i.e. how it 'looked' was totally invalid as evidence.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 15:03 ----------

 

If there is a god it cannot be completely immaterial and must have material manifestations or else it could not have created the universe, and certainly could not interfere.

 

If god exists then it is a physical thing that actually exists, otherwise it doesn't exist.

It's worth pointing out that, when most believers refer to 'God', they consider God to be exactly that, i.e. completely immaterial with no physical aspects. And that God can 'manifest'/bring into being physical matter, without being of physical matter Himself.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 15:07 ----------

 

 

It almost certainly can tell us why some people love painting A yet others love painting B, we just don't understand those systems well enough yet.

 

Unlikely actually. Chaos theory goes into detail as to why, even in principal, many fully deterministic systems behaviours can't be accurately predicted (e.g. weather).

 

Why people love A and others love B, from a purely scientific viewpoint, is a consequence of the interactions of billions of neurons, hormones, chemicals, electrical firings, etc, etc.

 

I think that those systems would be exactly the type to fall under chaos theory, and thus be fundamentally unpredictable/understandable.

[quisquose]

I realise that short excert from Dawkins would likely be in a larger context, but, as it stands on it's own, it's rubbish.

 

Richard Dawkins, in The River Out of Eden wrote:

 

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

 

It's worth pointing out that, when most believers refer to 'God', they consider God to be exactly that, i.e. completely immaterial with no physical aspects. And that God can 'manifest'/bring into being physical matter, without being of physical matter Himself.

 

Which could be measured.

[PaliRichard]

I think this view is as old as science itself[/Quote]

 

What view?

 

Science didn't begin in opposition to religion, the earliest scientists were trying to find the rational principles of the Universe because the Christian god was a rational creator, they believed that by defining these principles they were coming closer to understanding god's design[/Quote]

 

I know, especially the early Biblical archaeologists, they were largely trying to find evidence for the Biblical accounts.

 

A good example of their thinking is shown in Herman Melville's Moby Dick (written in 1851). The main character describes himself as a strong Presbyterian- a sect that believes strongly in the authority of the scriptures- and the whole novel is based upon a Bible story, but still half way through the book the main character takes time out for a scientific classification of different whale species, he saw it as his religious duty to add to scientific knowledge[/Quote]

 

I've never read Moby Dick, I may look it up, thank you.

 

Only when Nietzsche, Marx and Freud came along did science and religion really begin to split, because each applied their own form of science to critique religion itself. Their reductionist interpretations of religion as either a method of control (Marx) or as a form of insanity (Freud) followed by the 'death of god' movement (Nietzsche) eventually turned science against religion[/Quote]

 

I don't think science and religion were ever 'together'. Going back to your earlier point those earlier scientists were using the method to investigate, at the time, legitimate Biblical stories. We can still use the method to investigate religious claims to varying degrees. I don't think science and religion are two sides of the same coin but I do think the claims made by some religious people can be investigated with science, in the same way that religion as always been investigated by science.

 

The scientific method is the scientific method, whether it's looking at those early claims or more subtle religious aspects it's still employed in the same way - the method is neither for nor against religion, regardless of the beliefs of those employing it.

 

Still, the belief that science, in providing rational principles of the Universe proves the existence of god still holds strong for many Christians who naturally disregard the reductionist arguments and philosophies[/Quote]

 

Just Christianity?

 

This is why particle physics has been so interesting over the past few decades. The Higgs boson was nicknamed the 'God Particle' because if it could be proved to exist it would offer scientists the ability to rationally explain some seemingly irrational behaviour of certain other particles. In turn it would offer Christians more proof that God exists[/Quote]

 

How would the discovery of the Higgs Boson offer Christians proof that God exists?

 

I thought it was interesting PaliRichard how on another thread you didn't like my reductionist argument that the Abrahamic God was designed by people for a political purpose, I take quite a Marxist view on these things[/Quote]

 

Why do you take a Marxist view? Why don't you take your own?

 

I didn't agree with your argument, it has nothing to do with whether I liked it or not. I like whiskey, I like young mixed race women, it doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for me to indulge in them.

 

I like you, I really do, I think you're very intelligent, but I think you're a bit like the cook who has all the ingredients and the knowledge to make a fabulous dish but wont do so without a cook book to guide you in case your measurements aren't perfectly precise. Many of your posts come across as too black and white. I don't disagree that partially God and religion was adapted by some as a political tool. What I disagreed with was the idea that this was the only reason that Gods and religion developed. I think that is too black and white and a very simplistic idea.

 

This is because (I think) Buddhism applies a more pluralist perspective of religion (as you said, for you Gods evolve for many reasons) in that people should be true to themselves and, as long as that is the case[/Quote]

 

I try to keep my philosophical musings and religious leanings as separate as possible. I certainly don't look at other religions from the perspective of Buddhism. I look at all religions, including my own, with the same critical lense - and yes that provides problems with Buddhism, but I wont lie to try to somehow 'prove' my religion is perfect.

 

When I look at the world I look at it from the Richard perspective, not the Buddhist (or the Marxist) one. Buddhism is a tool I employ because I believe it will have a certain outcome - and that's exactly what the Buddha said his teachings were for.

 

The teachings of Buddhism don't answer all the questions of the universe, or all the questions presented to us in life - but then again they have never pretended to.

 

there is room for many faiths alongside lack of religious faith in the world[/Quote]

 

Don't you agree with this?

 

Your pluralist perspective is a very similar position to those who argue that science can prove religion in that it dismisses, sorry not dismisses, but in a sense suggests that reductionist arguments aren't valid on their own[/Quote]

 

How so?

 

My disagreement with your idea of a reductionist argument is that it is too black and white and doesn't consider real life. It's too text book - like the man who has learnt the entire theory of music but has never picked up an instrument.

 

No matter how much theory he has he wont be able to pick up a guitar and play it straight away - because in real life there are more factors than the theory of music, your have to learn exactly how hard to press on the strings of each different instrument you pick up, you need to harden the ends of your fingers to the pressure of pressing on the fret and so on and so forth.

 

In real life such arguments are handy but useless on their own. My idea of understanding the world comes from playing the guitar - not just reading a music theory book written by Freud or the Buddha or Einstein.

 

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just trying to show how we all come from different positions.

 

Of course we do. And this post isn't about criticising anyone's religious beliefs or trying to prove they are wrong from any religion.

 

It's about taking those claims made specifically by those who do claim they can prove their religion with science and looking at those claims.

 

It interests me because on every occasion I have come across one of these people and tried to go into their claims they run off - that's it. They are happy to try to convince people of their own - the one and only according to them - truth but when the very tool they claim to have used - the scientific method - to come to that truth is employed by someone outside their special circle to cast an objective glance using the same tool they mysteriously disappear. borderline is the classic example on this forum (but there are others).

 

I'm a firm believer that if I make a claim I have to defend that claim using the same criteria it is made from.

 

I once attended an Islamic talk at Sheffield University where the speaker spent the whole talk making philosophical points about the 'proof' for God - he offered questions at the end but said if they were objecting to the points he'd raised they had to be backed up by scientific proof. That's rubbish - if you make a claim defend it using the same criteria - that's what this thread is about, those who make specific claims then try to shift the goalposts when it comes to discussing and backing them up.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 16:22 ----------

 

"lying toe rag who has 0% faith and more than likely belongs to some cultish off shoot of a mainstream religion"

 

 

Hang on didnt YOU tell me YOU were part of a OFF SHOT of Mainstream Buddhism,

 

just asking

 

No.

 

You assumed because you've only heard of the Dalai Lama that his particular brand of Buddhism is the mainstream one.

 

There certainly are cult like offshoots of Buddhism but the schools I alluded to in the other thread were all accepted schools, all equally as valid as each other.

 

Now before you trip yourself up again like you did by showing us homosexuality is accepted in Buddhism when you were trying to prove the opposite why don't you try answering the questions I put to you?

[Islam4me2]

No.

 

You assumed because you've only heard of the Dalai Lama that his particular brand of Buddhism is the mainstream one.

 

There certainly are cult like offshoots of Buddhism but the schools I alluded to in the other thread were all accepted schools, all equally as valid as each other.

 

Now before you trip yourself up again like you did by showing us homosexuality is accepted in Buddhism when you were trying to prove the opposite why don't you try answering the questions I put to you?

 

 

can you please prove to me your homosexual buddist sect of Buddism is NOT a offshot of mainstream buddism, i wish to learn more.

 

 

if you claim you are NOT a off shot , please tell me or point me towards a real off shot branch of Buddism.

[janie48]

What is "fundamental atheism"?

 

Is that really really lacking belief in gods, rather than just lacking belief in gods?

It is a rather blurred description I suppose.

In religion fundamentalism it is a term used to describe dogmatic believers but now is more associated with the Christian fundamentalists in the USA to use one example.

 

I think the reason it is now used to describe some atheists and members of atheists movements is because there is a similarity in the approach they use when in discussion with believers, producing the same kind of radical attitude and methods in communication.

 

The "fundamentalist" label has been applied to Richard Dawkins for those reasons, and not because he is an atheist.

[Vague_Boy]

But faith and religion exists..that's undeniable, and not to be denied.

 

Belief in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus exists (at least amongst small children) and is not to be denied.

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

 

I can believe that God created the Universe and everything thing in it by initiating the Big Bang if I want to.

 

I can believe that the world is flat and carried about the heavens on the back of a giant tortoise. If I want to.

 

Doesn't make it true.

 

 

Maybe if you didn't take the Bible literally you could believe in both evolution and God?

 

But isn't the Bible supposed to be the literal word of god?

 

Which bits are you supposed to take literally? Are we all free to pick and choose?

 

So the bible is literally true, except when it is poetic, symbolic, or whatever else the apologist decides best fits his current bull**** explanation of the “word of God”. For some reason, the all-powerful, all-knowing god, although he writes quite persuasively, can’t seem to write very clearly. You would think that a deity the likes of which Christians describe would be able to get his message across clearly and succinctly. I’ve known 9th graders who were able to write much more lucidly and get their point across with infinitely more clarity that this all knowing, all add-your-grandiose-trait here, ne plus ultra deity (I used to teach high school English so I’ve seen plenty of 9th grade writings so I know that of which I speak.)

LINK

 

I know a few good copy editors with experience of biblical texts if it's not too late. God, feel free to PM me.

[onewheeldave]

Richard Dawkins, in The River Out of Eden wrote:

 

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

 

I've put a bit in bold. In Dawkins own words, if there is a time of plenty, serious overpopulation occurs. In a world with no predation/death/misery, the perceived pleasantness would be short lived- such a world could clearly not work.

 

So to conclude that the world we observe has the properties we would expect if there is no designer, seems, even from Dawkins own argument, totally wrong.

 

As far as we're concerned, this world we live in, is the world. The only world we've ever experienced, and, really, the only one we can meaningfully comment on. And, we currently do not know one way or the other whether it was designed or not. Finally, and most important to this issue, we do not know what a designed world looks like in comparison to a non-designed world.

 

 

 

 

Which could be measured.

And...? If the world was physically manifested by an non-phyisical being, clearly it can be 'measured' (i.e. by looking at the light it's constituent parts give off, the mass of those parts etc); but I'm not seeing what your point is.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 16:32 ----------

 

can you please prove to me your homosexual buddist sect of Buddism is NOT a offshot of mainstream buddism, i wish to learn more.

 

 

if you claim you are NOT a off shot , please tell me or point me towards a real off shot branch of Buddism.

 

Your offensive post has been reported. Hopefully the whole thread won't, as so many religious threads here tend to do, get pulled as a result of one posters inability to discuss without resorting to gross insult.

[PaliRichard]

can you please prove to me your homosexual buddist sect of Buddism[/Quote]

 

I don't belong to a homosexual sect of Buddhism.

 

I said that Buddhism accepts homosexuality. You tried to show evidence that it didn't by linking to a site that mentioned the Vinaya rules for monks and nuns. As I explained to you, and the site you linked to explained there are no rules that say laymen and women cannot be gay in Buddhism.

 

The very fact that your own link disproved what you were trying to suggest shows just how poor your argument was.

 

is NOT a offshot of mainstream buddism, i wish to learn more[/Quote]

 

I already have. Buddhism is split into two main schools, in those schools are various sub schools. They are all accepted as 'mainstream Buddhism, each equally as accepted as the other. The Dalai Lama belongs to one of those schools (The Tibetan school), I belong to another (The Thai Forest Tradition). My school is a sub school of the Theravada, his a sub school of the Mahayana, we have slightly different outlooks on things but are both recognised as official schools of Buddhism. Anything else I can help you with?

 

 

if you claim you are NOT a off shot , please tell me or point me towards a real off shot branch of Buddism.

 

If you are referring to what I said were 'cults' I would rather not name the ones I was thinking about. I would only voice my concerns in the event that I thought someone was getting caught up in one and it would be detrimental to them, and even in those circumstances only to the individual involved.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 18:02 ----------

 

 

Your offensive post has been reported. Hopefully the whole thread won't, as so many religious threads here tend to do, get pulled as a result of one posters inability to discuss without resorting to gross insult.

 

I'm not offended by it.

 

I am not offended by his lack of knowledge of Buddhism and I'm certainly not offended if he calls me gay.

[onewheeldave]

 

I am not offended by his lack of knowledge of Buddhism and I'm certainly not offended if he calls me gay.

Whether you're offended, or whether I'm offended, doesn't really matter. It's unecessary and, as I'm sure you're aware by now, most threads covering any religious issue on this board tend to get pulled, however long they are. People posting on religious threads here need to have some self-control and keep the posting reasonably civil, polite and non-offensive, IMO

can you please prove to me your homosexual buddist sect of Buddism is NOT a offshot of mainstream buddism, i wish to learn more.

 

doesn't do that.

[PaliRichard]

Whether you're offended, or whether I'm offended, doesn't really matter. It's unecessary and, as I'm sure you're aware by now, most threads covering any religious issue on this board tend to get pulled, however long they are. People posting on religious threads here need to have some self-control and keep the posting reasonably civil, polite and non-offensive, IMOdoesn't do that.

 

Fair enough, a good point.