Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Does science negate the need for a god?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/9/2011 12:05:33 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

I don't understand how believing that something can't come from nothing is a reason to believe in a god. Because you're then left with the question - where did the god come from? If the god has always existed, then that, kind of,  negates your reason for believing.

I agree that there had to be something before singularity. Where did singularity exist? I'm just not satisfied by telling myself that there is a god out there and he is taking care of everything. It's too simple of an answer for an incredibly complex question. It's beyond complex, it boggles the mind. Even if you believe that time isn't linear, everything must have a beginning. How could there always have been something? Yet, there did always have to be something.

But, to answer the question, for me, science does negate the need for a god. The answered and unanswered questions are more wonderful and awe inspiring all on their own.




I think the main reason why people believe there`s a god,ever-lasting life in a heaven,etc., is that we know we are going to die and are we`re afraid to die.

It can`t just end,then nothing.It`s to much to handle, so we find coping methods.Over the millions of years,religion and dogma have helped some people cope.

It`s not an easy thing,death .


We are plagued with the intelligence to know we are going to die but without enough to handle it.


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to lickenforyou)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/9/2011 12:45:49 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		Yes, I think it's really very very good. It certainly knocks Dawkins (who always strikes me as a smug bastard) into a cocked hat (whatever the fuck that means!).

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to LadyAngelika)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/9/2011 12:47:56 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
There is nothing about a belief in God that inherently assures anyone of a continuation of consciousness after physical death. And similarly, there is nothing about not believing in God that inherently rules out such a continuation of consciousness and/or a belief in same. So I don't think there's much of a case to be made for people believing in God only or primarily because they can't "handle" the idea of dying.

K.









< Message edited by Kirata -- 8/9/2011 1:04:50 AM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/9/2011 1:03:21 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		While that may be so,I`m saying religion is just one way that people handle mortality.

No one is sure of anything,ultimately.

I recently watched my dad die.One moment there,the next,gone.

That has to have affected people over the millenia.

IMHO,if there was no god,we`d invent one.



< Message edited by Owner59 -- 8/9/2011 1:04:10 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/9/2011 1:42:01 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`m saying religion is just one way that people handle mortality.

Well, I think this notion that it's down to fear is bogus.

We are born with an innate sense of fairness, and throughout our lives experience distress and anger whenever it is violated. Yes, we learn all too soon that evil often goes unpunished in this world, and good unrewarded. But our nature continues to insist that this should not be, that this is not how things are supposed to be. To believe, therefore, that there must be something more is to take a stand that honors our nature and trusts our deepest intuition about life.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 8/9/2011 2:07:52 AM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/10/2011 3:38:01 PM   
lickenforyou


Posts: 379
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`m saying religion is just one way that people handle mortality.

Well, I think this notion that it's down to fear is bogus.

We are born with an innate sense of fairness, and throughout our lives experience distress and anger whenever it is violated. Yes, we learn all too soon that evil often goes unpunished in this world, and good unrewarded. But our nature continues to insist that this should not be, that this is not how things are supposed to be. To believe, therefore, that there must be something more is to take a stand that honors our nature and trusts our deepest intuition about life.

K.


In the statement you quoted above, Owner is saying that religion helps with people deal with mortality. I would have to say that's absolutely true. It's not the only function of religion, but it certainly is there. How many times do you hear people say of a deceased loved one "Well, he's in a better place."

What do you mean that we are born with an innate sense of fairness? I agree that we become distressed and angry when we feel that we've been treated unfairly, but I think that that has more to do with survival. 

To believe there's something more based on a survival instinct shows you just how complicated the human brain is. To think that you know something with out sufficient information is where atheism comes in. We don't know the meaning of life. We don't see evidence that any one else, at this point in time, knows the meaning of life. We just believe in societal systems that treat people fairly, because it helps to insure that we will be treated fairly.




_____________________________

I changed my profile name to - toserveonlyYou - but am having trouble posting in the forums with that profile.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/10/2011 6:15:34 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

In the statement you quoted above, Owner is saying that religion helps with people deal with mortality. I would have to say that's absolutely true.

On the subject of explaining to people what simple English sentences mean, please allow me to direct your attention to the fact that my post did not argue against religious belief being helpful to people dealing with morality. The position at issue (the word "fear" was the hidden clue) was this one:

I think the main reason why people believe there`s a god,ever-lasting life in a heaven,etc., is that we know we are going to die and are we`re afraid to die.

In the post you quoted, Owner softened his position from mortality being "the main reason" for belief, to belief being "just one way" that people deal with their fear. But I still think the notion that belief it is to any significant degree down to fear is bogus.

There is a not subtle difference between a belief being helpful to someone dealing with death, and fear of death being a reason for their belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

What do you mean that we are born with an innate sense of fairness?

I mean that we are born with an innate sense of fairness. Which word gave you trouble?

Sense of Justice Built Into the Brain, Imaging Study Shows

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

To think that you know something with out sufficient information is where atheism comes in.

Well, that certainly seems to be true in some cases.

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 8/10/2011 7:07:23 PM >

(in reply to lickenforyou)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/10/2011 8:04:44 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

against religious belief being helpful to people dealing with morality.

Correction (too late to edit original): mortality


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/11/2011 12:52:21 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		There may well be lots of reasons why people choose to believe in deities.

The anthropologist Mary Douglas offers one that is, to my mind, one of the better ones. Douglas asserts that whenever people get together to form groupings/societies, one of the very first things they do is to establish a set of ground rules (ie. create a power structure) in order to bind the grouping together. In order to make this power structure challenge-proof, the origin of the structure is attributed to an outside force, a deity - that which is 'God-given' cannot be challenged by mere mortals. Thus the continuity of the power structure is assured.

This insight doesn't discount the other reasons advanced for the belief in deities, nor does it argue against the existence of deities (Douglas herself was a devout Catholic). It does offer a way of understanding the persistence of deities and the operative role of such beliefs in human societies.

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/11/2011 1:39:51 AM   
DrStrangelove83


Posts: 8
Joined: 8/6/2011
Status: offline 		No science does not in anyway negate God, god, gods, the natural order, the universe, or "the BIG ELECTRON", as George Carlin referred to it.  It does tell us that certain things in The Bible are not scientifically accurate.  Like the whole creating the Earth in 6 days and resting on the 7th, for instance.  Since a day is a measure of time that only has meaning in the context of how quickly Earth rotates, if there was no Earth then "a day" would have meant something entirely different.  Cosmologists believe that in the early part of Earth's life she spun much faster, and a "day" was closer to 12 hours than it was to 24.

Our two most advanced theories in physics, quantum theory, and general relativity, are both wonderful theories, but they are incomplete, and it might not even be possible for us to ever complete them.  Quantum theory, for instance, states that the more you know about how fast an elementary particle is traveling, the less you know about it's location, and vice versa.  It is impossible for us at our current level of perceptive ability to know exactly what it's velocity is (how much energy it has), and exactly where it is at (what it is interacting with).  General relativity, Einstein's magnum opus, is incredibly useful for helping us understand issues on the macroscopic scale, like stars and galaxies.  But the mathematics of general relativity breaks down when you try to examine the inside of a black hole.  Basically for every single thing we know there are an infinite number of things we don't know.

Darwin's theory of evolution, for example, is a wonderful theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth incredibly well.  It has since been backed up by Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA.  But for everything Darwin's theory does well, there is something that it doesn't do so well.  It only talks about the origin of species, for instance; it has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life.  The Cambrian explosion, the period of time ~500 million years ago when most normal multi-cellular life sprang up very rapidly, was noted by Darwin as one of the prime examples that would be used to discredit his theory.  MANY forms of life simply sprang up way too quickly to be explained by "survival of the fittest".  With what we now know about DNA and radiation, we can hypothesize that some sort of cosmic event, like a relatively near by supernova, rapidly altered the genetic code of life on earth, giving rise to a large variety of new species.  It's hard to prove, but there are good scientists working on this as we speak.

Me personally, I believe, not because I have any proof of the existence of a deity/deities, but because when I look into a telescope or into a microscope, I see an incredible amount of purpose and order in "this ocean of chaos".  The big bang, for instance, is remarkably similar to, "And God said let there be light."  If you study cosmology you will see that biological evolution seems to be a part of the much grander evolution of the cosmos.  Carl Sagan used to say, "We are all star stuff."  In the beginning there was nothing, or at least nothing that we know about... and then BAM; physics was born, shortly after, physics gave rise to simple chemistry, the chemistry of hydrogen and helium; over millions of years, inside the cores of massive stars, those elements were fused, leading to complex chemistry, a chemistry capable of supporting life... and then biology, and then after millions of years of biological evolution, humans began studying the sciences that made their lives possible to begin with, and creating their own sciences like psychology and anthropology... and so on and so on.

I have spent a great deal of time with my nose buried in texts about physics and chemistry and astronomy, but I haven't done much reading of the bible.  That said, I don't feel that I need to.  As far as I understand it, Jesus's message was pretty simple.  "I love you very much; do your best to take care of each other, and remember me.", pretty much sums it up.  That's the kind of message that I can get behind.  And after apologizing to him for cursing his name in my atheistic youth, now I just raise my beer and wish him a happy birthday once a year.  And I've noticed that my life has been somewhat less chaotic ever since I took that step... coincidence... perhaps; perhaps not.

< Message edited by DrStrangelove83 -- 8/11/2011 1:54:38 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/11/2011 8:40:00 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
Personally, at least, I don't think utilitarian sociological speculations explain much of anything at all. In the first place, why doesn't the attribution of something to a deity provoke hysterical laughter? There is something in our nature.

One idea of what this might be implicates our understanding of cause and effect, i.e., an effect without an apparent cause invites belief in a non-apparent cause. But that fails to explain why we are willing to accept a non-material cause.

Too, even people who do not believe in any kind of supra-personal force or intelligence are often heard to express the wish that they could. Their reason may prevent them, but it doesn't eradicate the natural inclination toward such a belief.

I suspect that the fact we possess a hard-wired sense of justice or fairness is involved here. This was dismissed (above, previous) as merely some kind of "survival instinct," but it is far from being any such thing. In actual fact, it overrides our survival instinct. Millions of people are dead today who wouldn't be if we were wired simply for survival.

I think that our consciousness is built on an innate sense of a supra-personal imperative underlying the workings of the world. Even some animals have been shown to possess a similar innate recognition. The question, of course, is why.

K.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/11/2011 8:45:06 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		It negates the need, but not the belief.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/11/2011 9:29:27 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk


That was great! Thanks to ML too for giving it a second plug.

(in reply to LadyAngelika)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/12/2011 8:55:45 AM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		I think the question is flawed. Science in principle can not negate the need for god. Science deals only with a slice of reality that can be studied using scientific method. I am even surprised Hawkings came out with such statement. It does not make much sense. Many physicists are either agnostics or religious. It is difficult to believe information like the elegant set of laws of physics, genetic code, structures and so on arises from nothing. I am aware the atheists often prescribe to a philosophy called scientism. S. Hawkings is their friend, of course.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/12/2011 5:45:51 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

. It is difficult to believe information like the elegant set of laws of physics, genetic code, structures and so on arises from nothing.


Its not in the least difficult if you understand what "nothing" is in physics.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/12/2011 6:21:08 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

It is difficult to believe information like the elegant set of laws of physics, genetic code, structures and so on arises from nothing.

Its not in the least difficult if you understand what "nothing" is in physics.

Hear, oh Śāriputra, emptiness is form; form is emptiness. Apart from form, emptiness is not; apart from emptiness, form is not. ~Heart Sutra

K.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/12/2011 6:28:26 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Its not in the least difficult if you understand what "nothing" is in physics.

If we go deep enough we are bound to assumptions that may or may not have something to do with the reality (if there is a thing as "objective reality").  Hawkings understanding is just an episode of forever developing fantasies (I am not saying useless).

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/12/2011 6:36:37 PM   
playfulotter


Posts: 2195
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline 		My take on religion is that since science is an exact thing and religion is a "belief" and not exact at all.....one is always trying to prove itself and the other couldn't care about data to prove itself...I think  a lot of people have a need to believe in something bigger then themselves but others don't...I haven't had to so far in life but I have known people older than myself that found religion when they were older...I just can't believe in something like that..not at least yet.

_____________________________

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” ― Benjamin Franklin

"Some people are otters, some people are rocks." ~Sheldon Cooper

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/12/2011 6:39:29 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Its not in the least difficult if you understand what "nothing" is in physics.

If we go deep enough we are bound to assumptions that may or may not have something to do with the reality (if there is a thing as "objective reality").  Hawkings understanding is just an episode of forever developing fantasies (I am not saying useless).



developing yes, fantasy no. Unless you are among the "everything is fantasy" crowd, which is a self-defeating position. It doesnt matter if everything is fantasy if it gives the appearance of reality...you still have to live your life as if it is real. Same as the "free will" argument.


_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Does science negate the need for a god? - 8/12/2011 7:38:09 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

developing yes, fantasy no. Unless you are among the "everything is fantasy" crowd, which is a self-defeating position. It doesnt matter if everything is fantasy if it gives the appearance of reality...you still have to live your life as if it is real. Same as the "free will" argument.


The level of understanding of the World we are talking about does not really affect everyday life. As we are bound to assumptions, the truth can never be found, just different systems can be developed. The truth can only be told. So, you better believe in God (higher level of consciousness).

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094