Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[Skunkworks]

It irks people because in most cases it’s not just “god did it”, it’s “god did it, and he likes this, and doesn’t like that, and will do this if you do xyz” etc.

In most cases god isn't a just vague conecpet, it's a very specific one with real world baggage.

 

[zenf]

That is because they believe that God created it, they wouldn't logically answer "don't know" simply because due to their beliefs they do know. If you ask "How does God exist?" that is not something that their belief deals with, as it is outside of the relationship between them and their God, so logically they "don't know".

It just seems massively illogical and a completely pointless and useless explanation.

I don't understand why that irks people so much. I can understand why it would irk people to be told that is what they should also believe, but that isn't what is happening here..in fact the opposite is happening..people are telling theists that they shouldn't believe as they do, that they are stupid and ridiculous for even entertaining such ideas. That irks me as much as a theist telling me I am condemned because I do not share their particular interpretation of the Universe and any meaning to be had from my existence.

True, but that has gone both ways to an extent... Although I haven't seen any posts about "THE TRUTH" recently.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I think it irks slightly because when a theist is asked how the universe came into existence, rather than saying they don't know, they'll say that god created it. The logical question then is to ask, how could this god have always existed outside of the material universe to be able to create it.. They're quite happy to say that they don't know the answer to that, it seems, so saying that god did it doesn't really explain anything.

I think part of the problem is that you're trying to apply the logic of how we understand the universe to work to something that is by definition supernatural. Or if you prefer something you're using "ordinary" logic to try and define something that exists outwith those boundaries.

You're perfectly welcome to not believe in any god of course but if you've got the starting premise that there is a god who can do anything or nothing as they so choose and are not bound by any limitations then frankly the question of precisely how it happens is somewhat of an irrelevance. You could try and contain smoke with a colander but it's the wrong tool for the job - in much the same way that the scientific method isn't the right tool to answer philosophical questions.

Science and logic is almost infinitely useful on a practical level but that doesn't mean it is applicable to every situation. Conversely I'd say that religion or philosophy have their uses but you'd be wise not to use them in all fields. I tend to think of it as a Venn diagram, there's points where you might have some overlap but each have their own sphere where they are much better adapted than the other.

 

[Castiel]

It just seems massively illogical and a completely pointless and useless explanation.

To you..just as "the Universe came from Nothing" is massively illogical and completely useless an explanation to them.

You simply have different subjective perception and perspective..that is all.

True, but that has gone both ways to an extent... Although I haven't seen any posts about "THE TRUTH" recently.

I'm sure the Evangelicals (of both sides) will return at some point.

 

[NeilF]

I think part of the problem is that you're trying to apply the logic of how we understand the universe to work to something that is by definition supernatural. Or if you prefer something you're using "ordinary" logic to try and define something that exists outwith those boundaries.

You're perfectly welcome to not believe in any god of course but if you've got the starting premise that there is a god who can do anything or nothing as they so choose and are not bound by any limitations then frankly the question of precisely how it happens is somewhat of an irrelevance. You could try and contain smoke with a colander but it's the wrong tool for the job - in much the same way that the scientific method isn't the right tool to answer philosophical questions.

Science and logic is almost infinitely useful on a practical level but that doesn't mean it is applicable to every situation. Conversely I'd say that religion or philosophy have their uses but you'd be wise not to use them in all fields. I tend to think of it as a Venn diagram, there's points where you might have some overlap but each have their own sphere where they are much better adapted than the other.

I just can't fathom how in a universe where there's not the slightest evidence of magic, we complicated matters by suggesting it (needlessly) exists...?

And worse still we follow a belief system which has been shown to be erroneous in the past, countless times - Don't understand something... introduce a God to explain it...

 

[GiraffePencils]

I just can't fathom how in a universe where there's not the slightest evidence of magic, we complicated matters by suggesting it (needlessly) exists...?

And worse still we follow a belief system which has been shown to be erroneous in the past, countless times - Don't understand something... introduce a God to explain it...

Just because 'magic', as you refer to it, is not in the universe it doesn't mean that it's not outwith the universe.

It's like judging the entire world on the contents of your house.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I just can't fathom how in a universe where there's not the slightest evidence of magic, we complicated matters by suggesting it (needlessly) exists...?

And worse still we follow a belief system which has been shown to be erroneous in the past, countless times - Don't understand something... introduce a God to explain it...

This sounds very much like you're trying to apply Occam's Razor? Just because something is the simplest possible explanation for an outcome doesn't mean it's the correct explanation. It often may be correct and certainly for scientific theory the simplest predictively accurate explanation is best because it is less likely to go wrong but that's about utility rather than ultimate truth (should such a thing exist). Or to use an example - an apple falls to the ground and that's mavity (an unseen attractive force that exists in every object) or it's pixies who move said apple to the ground at a consistent and reliable rate - for predictive accuracy it doesn't matter which of those explanations is true provided it remains consistent so you would go with the simplest explanation because the actual method is irrelevant.

 

[NeilF]

Just because 'magic', as you refer to it, is not in the universe it doesn't mean that it's not outwith the universe.

It's like judging the entire world on the contents of your house.

Maybe so... But we're back into orbiting china again aren't we - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

There's nothing to suggest there's not an invisible inter-dimensional flying hippo living in my house that only comes into corporeal form when no one is looking and listening...

Magic - If there's absolutely no evidence for it? Why introduce it if it only complicated things?

Or to use an example - an apple falls to the ground and that's mavity (an unseen attractive force that exists in every object) or it's pixies who move said apple to the ground at a consistent and reliable rate - for predictive accuracy it doesn't matter which of those explanations is true provided it remains consistent so you would go with the simplest explanation because the actual method is irrelevant.

Well, you stick to your trillions of pixies carrying out the laws of Newtonian physics in a reality where magic prevails, and anything therefore goes... while some of the rest of stick to more tangible explanations until evidence comes to light to the contrary

 

[GiraffePencils]

Maybe so... But we're back into orbiting china again aren't we - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

There's nothing to suggest there's not an invisible inter-dimensional flying hippo living in my house that only comes into corporeal form when no one is looking and listening...

Magic - If there's absolutely no evidence for it? Why introduce it if it only complicated things?

Well it only complicates things if you choose to argue with the teapot.
If someone chooses to answer an unprovable problem with an unprovable answer, I think it's fair enough to let them

 

[NeilF]

Just because 'magic', as you refer to it, is not in the universe it doesn't mean that it's not outwith the universe.

It's like judging the entire world on the contents of your house.

We can see quite a lot of the universe... No magic wands found yet?

 

[Skunkworks]

Magic - If there's absolutely no evidence for it? Why introduce it if it only complicated things?

Quite.

All that we’ve ever witnessed is nature begetting nature, so why introduce this totally unnecessary and alien concept?

 

[NeilF]

Well it only complicates things if you choose to argue with the teapot.
If someone chooses to answer an unprovable problem with an unprovable answer, I think it's fair enough to let them

Problem is we end up in the pickle of people believing in psychics, the power of crystals, astrology and any other number of forms of hokum that comes along with this (lazy) approach...

Well, there's no evidence again it!

 

[GiraffePencils]

Problem is we end up in the pickle of people believing in psychics, the power of crystals, astrology and any other number of forms of hokum that comes along with this (lazy) approach...

Well, there's no evidence again it!

Well that's not really the same.
"in psychics, the power of crystals, astrology"
these are disprovable, though people choose to ignore the proof.

Arguing that god can't exist because you've never seen magic doesn't disprove god or magic.
In the argument of god creating the universe happens outside the universe, and all evidence of anything you have ever seen or heard of happens and happened inside the universe.
So you are coming to a conclusion with only one side of the equation.

The main problem with this is the other side can never be seen or even understood.

 

[zenf]

To you..just as "the Universe came from Nothing" is massively illogical and completely useless an explanation to them.

You simply have different subjective perception and perspective..that is all.

True, but I personally wouldn't say with certainty that the universe came from nothing, I'd say I don't know. I know it's subjective but it seems wiser to stay open minded considering there isn't any objective evidence for the god explanation.

Science and logic is almost infinitely useful on a practical level but that doesn't mean it is applicable to every situation. Conversely I'd say that religion or philosophy have their uses but you'd be wise not to use them in all fields. I tend to think of it as a Venn diagram, there's points where you might have some overlap but each have their own sphere where they are much better adapted than the other.

I completely agree but when trying to determine the actual origins of our universe, I don't think religion or philosophy are particularly useful, in the same way that I don't think they're particularly useful for understanding the intricasies of mavity.

Just because 'magic', as you refer to it, is not in the universe it doesn't mean that it's not outwith the universe.

It's like judging the entire world on the contents of your house.

What reason is there to believe anything exists outside of our universe?

I'd say it's more like believing Narnia exists inside one of your wardrobes, despite never seeing it.

 

[Zethor]

I think part of the problem is that you're trying to apply the logic of how we understand the universe to work to something that is by definition supernatural. Or if you prefer something you're using "ordinary" logic to try and define something that exists outwith those boundaries.

So how exactly do you have a discussion on "extraordinary" things not covered by "ordinary" logic? If you present such an idea, considering it has no logical frame work behind it, how can one determine if this idea is better than say, the result of a monkey clapping buttons with random words on them?

You could try and contain smoke with a colander but it's the wrong tool for the job - in much the same way that the scientific method isn't the right tool to answer philosophical questions.

The origin of mankind was found using the scientific method, as well as the origin of our planet, among many other things. There are plenty of philosophical questions that have been answered.

Science and logic is almost infinitely useful on a practical level but that doesn't mean it is applicable to every situation. Conversely I'd say that religion or philosophy have their uses but you'd be wise not to use them in all fields. I tend to think of it as a Venn diagram, there's points where you might have some overlap but each have their own sphere where they are much better adapted than the other.

Religion and philosophy are wonderful when discussing the human mind but they lag behind science in most other fields.

To you..just as "the Universe came from Nothing" is massively illogical and completely useless an explanation to them.

You simply have different subjective perception and perspective..that is all.



I'm sure the Evangelicals (of both sides) will return at some point.

In your opinion, are the two subjective perspectives equally valid?

 

[NeilF]

Well that's not really the same.
"in psychics, the power of crystals, astrology"
these are disprovable, though people choose to ignore the proof.

Arguing that god can't exist because you've never seen magic doesn't disprove god or magic.
In the argument of god creating the universe happens outside the universe, and all evidence of anything you have ever seen or heard of happens and happened inside the universe.

Prove your point then - Disprove the power of crystals? Strangely when you try you won't find any evidence, but some people will come forward and tell you it's still genuine, but can't provide any evidence at all.

When I look for signs of God or magic, I find no evidence, yet some people come forward and say it's there, but can't provide any evidence at all.

So you are coming to a conclusion with only one side of the equation.

The main problem with this is the other side can never be seen or even understood.

I'm coming to a conclusion on evidence alone, and not supernatural, unproven beliefs akin to thousands of other such beliefs that are now frowned upon (see countless other religious and supernatural beliefs from history).

 

[dirtychinchilla]

The answer isn't evasive. It is what it is, a response according to the theological definition of the nature of God. That it doesn't conform to the questioners expectations or their perspective and perception they had when phrasing such a question doesn't mean the answer is evasive.

Yes, but then why ask the question of us? That's the outrageous bit.

 

[GiraffePencils]

Prove your point then - Disprove the power of crystals? Strangely when you try you won't find any evidence, but some people will come forward and tell you it's still genuine, but can't provide any evidence at all.

When I look for signs of God or magic, I find no evidence, yet some people come forward and say it's there, but can't provide any evidence at all.




I'm coming to a conclusion on evidence alone, and not supernatural, unproven beliefs akin to thousands of other such beliefs that are now frowned upon (see countless other religious and supernatural beliefs from history).

Crystals, sorry I don't have access to any proof and cba looking right now.

astrology. "Your private life is probably in the throes of great change. This change is likely related to profound transformations that are taking place in your behavior" well no, not really.... that's not me.

psychics: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-investigates
While not disproving them, It provides evidence that their 'abilities' can be reproduced through non-supernatural means.

"I'm coming to a conclusion on evidence alone, and not supernatural, unproven beliefs akin to thousands of other such beliefs that are now frowned upon (see countless other religious and supernatural beliefs from history"

Your conclusion is that 'magic' doesn't exist because I can't prove that it does.
Fine. no I can't.
I was saying that there is a point that all actions revert back to, the moment when the universe began. And there is no way to prove or disprove anything before that point.
So you getting all vocal about how someone's belief of something which happened then is bad because it complicates your understanding sounds more dogmatic than someone believing a god did it

 

[semi-pro waster]

Well, you stick to your trillions of pixies carrying out the laws of Newtonian physics in a reality where magic prevails, and anything therefore goes... while some of the rest of stick to more tangible explanations until evidence comes to light to the contrary

The point of my analogy isn't that I believe that to be the situation, it's that for predictive accuracy it's irrelevant how the mechanism works, merely that it does continue to work.

So how exactly do you have a discussion on "extraordinary" things not covered by "ordinary" logic? If you present such an idea, considering it has no logical frame work behind it, how can one determine if this idea is better than say, the result of a monkey clapping buttons with random words on them?

Consider it to be better or worse according to whatever method of judgement you wish. I'm pointing out that people trying to judge the likelihood (or otherwise) of a god according to known physical laws and limitations are using the wrong metric because by definition the god or gods are outwith the boundaries of what we know of the universe.

If you want to say that nothing can exist outside of what we can perceive then that's fine, it's unlikely that there will ever be anything found to dispute that in any way that satisfies a rigorous scientific examination. I would note that it doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing else, merely that we can't find it.

The origin of mankind was found using the scientific method, as well as the origin of our planet, among many other things. There are plenty of philosophical questions that have been answered.

You can trace the evolution of our planet, our species and most other things on earth in a way that's understandable and evidentially supported. Does that mean that it's impossible for there to be an external force of some description directing it all? I neither know, nor indeed care much, about the answer but I'd be careful not to subscribe too strongly to the belief that science can (or should) answer philosophical questions since that's not something it is typically trying to do.

Religion and philosophy are wonderful when discussing the human mind but they lag behind science in most other fields.

On a practical level as I've said I'd value science over pretty much anything else but I'm not trying to discuss the relative merits of science vs religion - I'm simply saying that both fields have their merits.

 

[estebanrey]

If you are proposing that no one created God and he exists outside all of our understanding then you are making an illogical argument because you are on the one hand claiming you know that God is eternal but on the other saying that we cannot understand his existence, that doesn't make sense and is a contradiction.

Furthermore if your argument boils down to God is so complex that there's no way we could ever prove his existence either way then that becomes a completely pointless philosophy to hold because it has no more credence than me claiming my cat created the Universe, only he did it in such a way that he can never be proven he did it. It means I can propose an infinite number of possibilities for the creation of the universe and all of them (that couldn't be disproved) would hae to be given the same respect and likelihood as the God explanation, so why pick that one?

The question to theists isn't "what do you believe" but "why do you believe it" and I'd say the desperate attempts to create a possible God by claiming he lives outside human understanding may answer the first question but doesn't adequately answer the latter.