How.
culture and religion are very different.
Really, lets see this evidence for the mechanism behind evolution.
Richard dawkins
- Thread starter NormanPorkinson
- Start date
How.
culture and religion are very different.
Really, lets see this evidence for the mechanism behind evolution.
Do you really believe that? Do you know anything about the Middle East?
yes, where does there religion say this. It does not it is their culture. Just like a lot of Christian denominations are based far more on culture than religious text.
People hide their ideas behind anything they can, be it religion, a superior race or Weapons of mass destruction.
What it tells us is far more about the nature of humans than the religion. You can not blame a religion for what humans do. Unless that religion specifically says to do it.
People like to blame religion, thinking the world would be some better place, if it was never founded.
It wouldn't. Most wars are about land and resources not religion. Religion funded lots of early science.
It still happens today, just look at all the peak oil, global warming or any number of other reasons and how they wage terrorism and war in it's name.
Last edited:
Remember, most Christians' (and I would venture to say followers of the Abrahamic religions in general) belief in creation is not derived from a need to explain the way the world is. Faith in God as creator is a position of trust. We believe that God has revealed himself to humanity and claimed to be the creator. We do not necessarily believe that we could arrive at that position through empirical observation.
Like any relationship, once trust is established then belief follows based on the claims of the one we trust. Direct evidence is no longer so important. Unless we are presented with a reason not to believe we continue to trust. If trust can be established, faith can begin and belief follows without regard for further supporting evidence. A little evidence is often enough to lead to faith but evidence isn't the only way in. Kindness can do it. Indoctrination can do it. You can even stumble into it accidentally and unconciously.
Science too is partly built on trust. We rely on scientists not to falsify or surpress data. Any scientific theory you choose to believe in is based on trust in the scientific method itself, and the competence (and even imagination) of the practitioners. Even actively practicing scientists must trust their own abilities and those they work with. Scientific and religious knowlege really don't seem so different if you accept revelation (or the miraculous generally) as legitimate evidence.
Like any relationship, once trust is established then belief follows based on the claims of the one we trust. Direct evidence is no longer so important. Unless we are presented with a reason not to believe we continue to trust. If trust can be established, faith can begin and belief follows without regard for further supporting evidence. A little evidence is often enough to lead to faith but evidence isn't the only way in. Kindness can do it. Indoctrination can do it. You can even stumble into it accidentally and unconciously.
Science too is partly built on trust. We rely on scientists not to falsify or surpress data. Any scientific theory you choose to believe in is based on trust in the scientific method itself, and the competence (and even imagination) of the practitioners. Even actively practicing scientists must trust their own abilities and those they work with. Scientific and religious knowlege really don't seem so different if you accept revelation (or the miraculous generally) as legitimate evidence.
... if you make a priori assumptions that are equally as unprovable as anything religion has to suggest.
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
That does not prove mechanism.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Remember on key trait amongst all religions - they are all man made. People with just think of different ways to do these things.
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 423
So Natural selection is not a mechanism?
I'm confused, I thought there was all manner of evidence to show that evolution does actually happen, especially in Equines? Although the method by which it occurs is still pretty much a mystery.
With rational thought and in terms of which is most provable, religion doesn't even get past the first hurdle - not without blind faith... Evolution on the other hand - whilst not 100% provable, there is evidence to suggest it does in fact happen, certainly more than can be attributed to anything religious or supernatural, of which there is zero hard proof.
It's A mechanism. of random mutations. there is no evidence it is the right mechanism, as science can not really answer that question. it is a predictive model and is only interested in the simplest mechanism to get the results.
If you have 2 theories, both are predictively accurate, which one is taken as scientific? the simplest one.
A common problem in these debates is the lack of distinction between God, Religious God and no God.
My biggest problem is the Religious God, which is the one Dawkins attacks, as has been said it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist by definition of what a God is. A religious God however can be disproven because the religion projects assumptions, rules and beliefs onto that God which can often be found to be conflicting and sometimes paradoxical.
You cannot deny religion has caused many wars and led people to do horrific things, all of which however has been done in the name of something other than religion, so while removing religion wouldn't stop all the wars it would at the least remove a reason for people to draw barriers accross.
Personally i don't believe in a theistic god, i could accept a pantheistic god however. If i needed a label i guess it would be Humanist as I strongly believe people should stop looking to the heavens for strength and purpose and start looking to themselves and each other.
My biggest problem is the Religious God, which is the one Dawkins attacks, as has been said it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist by definition of what a God is. A religious God however can be disproven because the religion projects assumptions, rules and beliefs onto that God which can often be found to be conflicting and sometimes paradoxical.
You cannot deny religion has caused many wars and led people to do horrific things, all of which however has been done in the name of something other than religion, so while removing religion wouldn't stop all the wars it would at the least remove a reason for people to draw barriers accross.
Personally i don't believe in a theistic god, i could accept a pantheistic god however. If i needed a label i guess it would be Humanist as I strongly believe people should stop looking to the heavens for strength and purpose and start looking to themselves and each other.
Last edited:
Firstly I will point out that I am not religious, I hold no particular view on religion other than it is simply a man-made construct designed to better impose a Political, Legal and Moral rulebook on society. I believe that God and Religion should be treated as separate subjects.
Anyway do I believe in God?, that would depend. I do not believe in the anthropomorphic God of Abrahamic religions, neither do I believe in the Pantheon Gods of antiquity. This does not however preclude God overall.
Hawking stated recently that God is unnecessary if M-Theory does indeed prove to be the Unified theory that many have struggled with for decades, I think he makes a misjudgement by assuming God and the Universe are mutually exclusive. I am of a mind (currently, my thoughts on this are not set in stone, or even quicksand TBA) that God and the Universe are the same. God doesn't have to be a supernatural being as religions would have us believe, neither does he have to be anthropomorphic.
We also have to consider any Afterlife, again I do not believe in Heaven/Hell/Paradise/purgatory or anything like that. I do believe that the Essence that is me, not my corporeal body or my synaptic response to stimuli, but that energy that is uniquely mine does not necessarily have to be limited by my corporeal life and that essence or soul if you like, is what for thousands of years Shaman, Priests, Scientists and philosophers have been struggling to quantify. That energy, or sentience I think is outside the purview of evolutionary biology and more akin with theoretical physics which is why I cannot accept that Freewill is in reality an illusion based on evolutionary constructs as Blackmore seems to expound , I feel we should be looking at it from a different, more universal direction.
I don't know if that makes any sense, it is difficult to address my full thoughts and questions on this in a forum medium, limited as it is to input from those I am conversing with, but I hope it puts some perspective on how difficult I find the question Do you believe in God?
If I was of that train of thought, I would simply have plagiarised his comments verbatim and passed them off as my own. I don't understand your objection. I made it quite clear that we share a view, and I made it quite plain that my point would be better made via referral. All Christopher does in the video if quote C.S. Lewis, anyway. I can't believe that you're even picking me up on this point, what an utter waste of time.
Hitchens was refuting CS Lewis rather than simply quoting him, however I wasn't referring to that incident in isolation, but your overall reticence in giving us your personal view, rather than one through proxy. But I accept that you share his view and we shall leave it at that.
I would like to see some research into evolution and how it relates biologically to our individual personality (see above for some clarification) and while I don't discount evolution playing it's part it begs the question, For What End?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
There is no God.
There is no everlasting soul.
Only oblivion and nothingness.
We are nothing but empty vessels, life and consciousness are self-perpetrated illusions.
We may as well chuck ourselves of a bridge now, our existence is meaningless.
...Who's with me! No? Awww.
There is no everlasting soul.
Only oblivion and nothingness.
We are nothing but empty vessels, life and consciousness are self-perpetrated illusions.
We may as well chuck ourselves of a bridge now, our existence is meaningless.
...Who's with me! No? Awww.
Last edited:
Unfortunately Human nature transcends religion, and using Religion as justification has more to do with Human Nature than the Religion itself.
Religions mirror Humanity, we justify ourselves and our actions in many ways, religions do the same. Whether it be politics, economics, religion or just plain old greed, just because something is used to justify horrific acts (by our standards) should not be an indictment of the entirety.
Good and Evil reside in Men, by definition it will reside in societies and religions as they are made and controlled by Men.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
your body contains evidence of evolution including numerous now weak & unused muscles in your ears because your ancestors could swivel their ears in all directions like animals can.
Your skin still has the means to raise the once dense hair on your body when threatened or cold, we call them Goose pimples
Your eyes still have the remains of a third eyelid.
We have birds such as the Penguin with wings so weak & useless they can no longer fly because they have evolved as sea creatures with no need for wings
Any attempt to dismiss this as not proven or whatever is laughable when you are prepared to believe such bizarre things as 900 year old men,someone being turned into a pillar of salt, filling a boat with examples of every living thing on Earth, making a woman out of a mans rib etc. etc.
Do some research on such things as Exodus, how many Jews supposedly fled Egypt on their way to the promised land? was it ten, a hundred, a thousand
five thousand? they wandered for 40 years & yet not a single trace has ever been found by archeologists that could be attributed to them, evidence of a few other tribes etc but not one iota of this supposed mass exodus.
Incidently the parting of the red sea is even a farce as it's shown to be a medieval translation error as it actually reads sea of reeds
Every other story in the bible leads to the same conclusion, nothing other than feeble attempts at tying in scraps of wood found in Turkey as proof of Noah's ark etc. or evidence that there was a big flood.
That's pretty much why I posed the question in the first place. I would give a similar answer to the one which you posed to me, one of, in the end, uncertainty. I will not say, outright, that I believe it to be true or false (two words that are growing less and less meaningful to me since reading about Quantum Theory) but that I'm leaning towards the idea that, perhaps, 'freewill' is governed by our evolutionary instincts, and such.
Fair enough.
Sure, as would I. I'm always fascinated to hear the explanations for such things, that scientific enquiry brings.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
lets see how some of you perceive this;-
Possibly the greatest archeology discovery ever made is being unearthed right now in Turkey, it's Gobekli Tepe. Google it & be amazed
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2880,news-comment,news-politics,gobekli-your-questions-answered
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html
The complex is possibly 13,000 years old & was built at a time when man was a hunter gatherer, nothing has ever been found this old that shows man was capable of building huge monuments etc. The entire site was deliberately buried over,8000 years ago & the reason may never be known
Now the bad bit, the christian religious desperation to try & turn it into something it very obviously is not - is this the origins of the garden of Eden ?
It has to be because there are a few coincidences with things written in the bible therefore it's proof of god and everything else in the bible right?
Possibly the greatest archeology discovery ever made is being unearthed right now in Turkey, it's Gobekli Tepe. Google it & be amazed
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2880,news-comment,news-politics,gobekli-your-questions-answered
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html
The complex is possibly 13,000 years old & was built at a time when man was a hunter gatherer, nothing has ever been found this old that shows man was capable of building huge monuments etc. The entire site was deliberately buried over,8000 years ago & the reason may never be known
Now the bad bit, the christian religious desperation to try & turn it into something it very obviously is not - is this the origins of the garden of Eden ?
It has to be because there are a few coincidences with things written in the bible therefore it's proof of god and everything else in the bible right?
Last edited:
lets see how some of you perceive this;-
Possibly the greatest archeology discovery ever made is being unearthed right now in Turkey, it's Gobekli Tepe. Google it & be amazed
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2880,news-comment,news-politics,gobekli-your-questions-answered
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html
The complex is possibly 13,000 years old & was built at a time when man was a hunter gatherer, nothing has ever been found this old that shows man was capable of building huge monuments etc. The entire site was deliberately buried over,8000 years ago & the reason may never be known
Now the bad bit, the christian religious desperation to try & turn it into something it very obviously is not - is this the origins of the garden of Eden ?
It has to be because there are a few coincidences with things written in the bible therefore it's proof of god and everything else in the bible right?
I think that you look at the Bible in too literal a sense. You should try to see from the point of view of those who wrote the Bible, remember the Oral traditions of the Genesis pre-date any written word and so any attempt to decipher their allegorical or even literal meaning should consider that.
It is easy to dismiss thousand years old texts with a modern context, it is not so easy if you use the context of the time.
There is no reason why this could not be the Biblical Eden, whether the events told in the Bible took place literally are unlikely and improbable, but given an ancient context not surprising.