Richard dawkins

[Castiel]

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.

Indeed, but why do you think that?, or do you simply accept that Evolutionary Biologist know more than you so must be correct. I do not accept that we are simply the Sum of our Parts, the more I think about energy and the way that energy transforms and the Human Brain's electrical pathways the more I feel that biology is missing something.

Biologists think and examine in a material way, if as you say you have studied some Quantum Physics, you will know that quantum theory doesn't have a strictly material perspective, it plays about with energy, the essence if you will of all matter. I feel that is where evolution may fail in trying to quantify freewill or more accurately Self-aware sentience, I do not think that biological science is equipped to define it in any material way.

Sure, as would I. I'm always fascinated to hear the explanations for such things, that scientific enquiry brings.

The universe is a wonderful, scary, beautiful, ugly place, we would be amiss to think that we, in our respective infancy can quantify and explain all things. Science attempts to, Religion claims to, but at the end of the day who are we to know God? When and if we do, then we would be, by mankind's religious definition anyway, be Gods ourselves.

Maybe my sentient energy will experience that day?

 

[izzy eckerslike]

I think that you look at the Bible in too literal a sense.

No, it's Christians that do that, Christians & Muslims endlessly quote passages from the book to try & prove their argument & many followers believe every word literally regardless of how impossible or bizarre.

so where is the evidence, mediums deluding the bereaved found to be total charlatans, the countless deluded Catholics who flock to that cash cow called Lourdes which is based on the 'visions' of a simple minded peasant girl.
A god who apparently watches priests raping children & does nothing?

The fact is that nothing supernatural regarding ghosts,angels, visions of god , the Loch Ness monster etc has ever been proved even though practically everyone has a camera phone now, says it all really.

Did George really slay dragons? it's part of our history but were there ever dragons, mermaids etc? no there weren't but a few hundred years ago it was totally believed & it's sad that people now seem incapable of letting go of medieval beliefs

 

[Glaucus]

It's faith it does not need evidence. Also science is totally wrong tool to use to try and gauge evidence.

How can you have free will and an interfering God? You can't. Whilst God has given us free will and untill the second coming he can not interfere.

Again you can not prove or suggest anything by looking at one denomination or a single person within a denomination.

 

[Castiel]

No, it's Christians that do that, Christians & Muslims endlessly quote passages from the book to try & prove their argument & many followers believe every word literally regardless of how impossible or bizarre.

so where is the evidence, mediums deluding the bereaved found to be total charlatans, the countless deluded Catholics who flock to that cash cow called Lourdes which is based on the 'visions' of a simple minded peasant girl.
A god who apparently watches priests raping children & does nothing?

The fact is that nothing supernatural regarding ghosts,angels, visions of god , the Loch Ness monster etc has ever been proved even though practically everyone has a camera phone now, says it all really.

Did George really slay dragons? it's part of our history but were there ever dragons, mermaids etc? no there weren't but a few hundred years ago it was totally believed & it's sad that people now seem incapable of letting go of medieval beliefs

Your lack of historical knowledge of a couple of hundred years ago suggests that to discuss belief structures or the political and financial systems within Religion including the Catholic Church's doctrine and the influence of social and political ideology upon religions and their doctrine would be pointless.

I would recommend researching something like the First Crusade from an historical perspective to see just how Pope Urban II and the Nobility of a poverty stricken overpopulated Europe used religious doctrine to further their own Political ambitions and how over the decades and centuries that influenced religious dogma and thinking, especially in the Catholic and Islamic world.

Find out the financial and social reason for why Catholic Priests cannot marry for example. It has little to do with God and more to do with protectionism.

Don't assume God is responsible for religion, Man is, for Man's own ends. God has little to do with it.

 

[Castiel]

What's that saying about bad workmen and tools? Although you're right, I wouldn't post much more than a couple of lines from a phone.

In my case it is probably an unholy alliance of poor workmanship and bad tools...

 

[izzy eckerslike]

It's faith it does not need evidence. Also science is totally wrong tool to use to try and gauge evidence.

How can you have free will and an interfering God? You can't. Whilst God has given us free will and untill the second coming he can not interfere.

Again you can not prove or suggest anything by looking at one denomination or a single person within a denomination.

Several posts back you say you don't believe in god & now your talking about the second coming etc.

 

[Naffa]

Indeed, but why do you think that?, or do you simply accept that Evolutionary Biologist know more than you so must be correct. I do not accept that we are simply the Sum of our Parts, the more I think about energy and the way that energy transforms and the Human Brain's electrical pathways the more I feel that biology is missing something.

Biology is missing lots, but biologists would be the first to say so. It is true that I do would hold the opinion of Hawking higher than my own, when it comes to a question of cosmology, say. But I wouldn't ever say that somebody was correct about something I knew nothing about. But I would be more likely to assume (yes, assume) Lawrence Krauss to be correct about a cosmological question that I'm ignorant of, than not. But I would never enter into an argument, defending his position.

Biologists think and examine in a material way, if as you say you have studied some Quantum Physics, you will know that quantum theory doesn't have a strictly material perspective, it plays about with energy, the essence if you will of all matter. I feel that is where evolution may fail in trying to quantify freewill or more accurately Self-aware sentience, I do not think that biological science is equipped to define it in any material way.

I haven't studied quantum theory, I've read about it. My pathetic understanding of it has been instrumental in my view of truth though, and my how I draw a conclusion.

The universe is a wonderful, scary, beautiful, ugly place, we would be amiss to think that we, in our respective infancy can quantify and explain all things. Science attempts to, Religion claims to, but at the end of the day who are we to know God? When and if we do, then we would be, by mankind's religious definition anyway, be Gods ourselves.

I couldn't agree more that our universe is a beautiful, awe-inspiring, transcendent place to be. All you have to do is read a page of Stephen Hawking to appreciate just how magnificent it really is.

I also agree that we, in our infancy, are still ignorant, to a monstrous extent. Also, a slight correction. Science does not claim to know everything, in fact, quite the reverse. It is the first to say that it is ignorant, and happy to be so as it is this ignorance which excites it so and drives it continue pushing back the frontiers of understanding. Need I point out the stark contrast that draws with religion? The entity that claims to have all the information needed? Claims that God has revealed unto us, everything we need know, and thus should take no thought for the morrow. The entity that has raised it's fierce head and attempted to stave off important advances in science (the most recent being research using stem cells), and thus, every considerable advance in science has been made in the most fierce opposition from religion institutions.

How lucky we should be, then, that there's absolutely no reason, whatsoever to believe any of the claims religion makes. I'm sure you've read A Brief History of Time, amongst other scientific texts, isn't the world painted by science infinitely more awe-inspiring and transcendent than that painted by monotheistic religion? Aren't the images captured by the Hubble telescope more impressive and transcendent than the burning bush? Obviously, this does not advance the argument of God's existence, but I will reiterate how grateful we should be that there's absolutely no reason to believe the claims of religion.

 

[Glaucus]

Just because I don't belive doesn't mean I can't read religious texts and come to my own opinion.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

Your lack of historical knowledge of a couple of hundred years ago suggests that to discuss belief structures or the political and financial systems within Religion including the Catholic Church's doctrine and the influence of social and political ideology upon religions and their doctrine would be pointless.

I would recommend researching something like the First Crusade from an historical perspective to see just how Pope Urban II and the Nobility of a poverty stricken overpopulated Europe used religious doctrine to further their own Political ambitions and how over the decades and centuries that influenced religious dogma and thinking, especially in the Catholic and Islamic world.

Find out the financial and social reason for why Catholic Priests cannot marry for example. It has little to do with God and more to do with protectionism.

Don't assume God is responsible for religion, Man is, for Man's own ends. God has little to do with it.

I don't assume god- end of, I always said religion was invented by man to control man, there is no god

 

[Castiel]

<snip>

I didn't say that Science claims to know everything, I said that Science attempts to answer everything, and Religion claims too. So at risk of being pedantic, your correction is not neccessary.

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on death. Do you have any thoughts on whether you simply cease or transcend or in any kind if afterlife?

 

[Castiel]

I don't assume god- end of, I always said religion was invented by man to control man, there is no god

What evidence have you to make such a rock solid judgement as there is no God.

Put aside for one moment any religious connection or interpretation, do you maintain that there is no such thing as a God regardless of how someone may define one?

 

[PermaBanned]

To quote good ol' Dara - Of course Science doesn't know everything! Otherwise it would stop!

 

[semi-pro waster]

I would disagree with your second point though, I believe that there are evils that exist in the world that religion not only has a monopoly on, and has a wish to see extended, but it the source of. And if not a source, certainly a catalyst. Islamic fascism would be the most modern and dangerous incarnation of this, but that's not to say that other religions, and other parts of the world are not guilty of something similar.

I'm a bit curious now, would you mind giving examples of evil you think could not exist without religion? From my viewpoint (jaundiced and cynical though it may be) I struggle to think of anything that stems from religion and could not equally come through another source i.e. the reason that XX atrocity is carried out may change and not come from a holy book but that it could still happen is unvaried.

I rather fear that human nature is at fault here, religion is just a convenient banner to rally behind. We as a species are almost endlessly inventive in ways to torture, maim and otherwise dehumanise each other - that's not to say we don't have good points but frankly the depths to which some will go are appalling.

I don't propose to do anything. I'm just making the point that religious belief can convince people that doing bad things is justifiable if it's in the name of their religion. The promise of heaven and virgins taught by some religions seems quite tempting for those who are brainwashed by indoctrination. If people can accept that that outcome is actually unlikely, then flying planes into buildings or planting bombs on buses seems a lot less tempting.

Maybe it was just the way I read it but it looked rather as if you proposed some kind of solution, possibly forcible. I don't know if getting rid of religion is the answer though, I suspect getting people to appreciate that "we're a' Jock Tamsin's bairns" might be a better starting point - or for those who are unfamiliar with the phrase, it simply means that we're all the same really, descended from the same stock despite superficial differences.

I don't assume god- end of, I always said religion was invented by man to control man, there is no god

You assume there is no god? Fair enough but that's still a faith based position.

 

[Castiel]

Maybe it was just the way I read it but it looked rather as if you proposed some kind of solution, possibly forcible. I don't know if getting rid of religion is the answer though, I suspect getting people to appreciate that "we're a' Jock Tamsin's bairns" might be a better starting point - or for those who are unfamiliar with the phrase, it simply means that we're all the same really, descended from the same stock despite superficial differences.

If you take evolutional theory back to it's very essence we are all the same, we are all, whether it be man, fauna, flora, rock, water, everything, descended from that single burst of energy in the big bang hypothesis. In that single action of creation there is room for God, how we define that God is where all the problems begin.

At it's most basic, we cannot dismiss God, however we define it simply because we don't have all the facts to do so.

I must say that although the OP IMO was attempting to troll, this thread has evolved (pardon the pun) into something of a worthwhile debate. Unusual for GD.

 

[Naffa]

I'm a bit curious now, would you mind giving examples of evil you think could not exist without religion? From my viewpoint (jaundiced and cynical though it may be) I struggle to think of anything that stems from religion and could not equally come through another source i.e. the reason that XX atrocity is carried out may change and not come from a holy book but that it could still happen is unvaried.

Sure, but before I do, I will make it absolutely plain as day that yes, I do believe there to be evil in this world that would not exist if religion did not exist, either.

I suppose examples I would cite would be genital mutilation (infibulation, circumcision; both male and female), I don't believe that a child with downs syndrome would have been sent into a polling station carrying a bomb had the people that sent the boy not believed he was going to heaven, I don't believe that the hijackers of 9/11 would have committed the acts they did if they did not believe they were being endorsed by the divine... Again, there are countless examples.

 

[semi-pro waster]

If you take evolutional theory back to it's very essence we are all the same, we are all, whether it be man, fauna, flora, rock, water, everything, descended from that single burst of energy in the big bang hypothesis. In that single action of creation there is room for God, how we define that God is where all the problems begin.

It's the naive idealist in me but I can't help hoping that at some point in human history (or the future more strictly since we've not done so well in the past) most people will view that the similarities that link us all are more important than the things that divide us.

Sure, but before I do, I will make it absolutely plain as day that yes, I do believe there to be evil in this world that would not exist if religion did not exist, either.

I suppose examples I would cite would be genital mutilation (infibulation, circumcision; both male and female), I don't believe that a child with downs syndrome would have been sent into a polling station carrying a bomb had the people that sent the boy not believed he was going to heaven, I don't believe that the hijackers of 9/11 would have committed the acts they did if they did not believe they were being endorsed by the divine... Again, there are countless examples.

All horrible examples but I can't view them as existing purely because of religion, while the reason may be given as religious I remain unconvinced that such actions could not take place independently. There may be a point about the scale of the actions though, without religion the numbers involved may be smaller.

//edit and naffa, your signature appears to be missing the end of the size tags so it's wrapping to two lines, please could you sort that.

 

[Naffa]

All horrible examples but I can't view them as existing purely because of religion, while the reason may be given as religious I remain unconvinced that such actions could not take place independently. There may be a point about the scale of the actions though, without religion the numbers involved may be smaller.

A fair point, I may even be convinced to concede that while religion may not be the source of such actions, it is inarguably a catalyst of great strength.

//edit and naffa, your signature appears to be missing the end of the size tags so it's wrapping to two lines, please could you sort that.

Thanks, and done.

 

[Castiel]

Sure, but before I do, I will make it absolutely plain as day that yes, I do believe there to be evil in this world that would not exist if religion did not exist, either.

I suppose examples I would cite would be genital mutilation (infibulation, circumcision; both male and female), I don't believe that a child with downs syndrome would have been sent into a polling station carrying a bomb had the people that sent the boy not believed he was going to heaven, I don't believe that the hijackers of 9/11 would have committed the acts they did if they did not believe they were being endorsed by the divine... Again, there are countless examples.

Genital mutilation is not just limited to religious practice. Circumcision was believed to have preventative medical benefits. Female clitoridectomy again has history of medical procedure, mainly with regard to mental conditions. Ridiculous in the context of modern science and education, but not in the context of the time.

Many cultures used mutilation in religious practice, but it is not limited to that, other instances include rites of passage, especially among warrior tribes, also you can never preclude Torture for whatever reason.


Do not dismiss ideological fervour, those who committed 9/11 could have just as easily used a political ideology as a justification. People sacrifice themselves and others for political motives far more than religious ones.

There is not a single attrocity or sacrifice that was done in the name of religion, that could not have equally been done in the name of politics or a secular ideology.

look at some of the barbaric practices carried out by some in the name of science as justification before making such sweeping comments.

 

[Castiel]

A fair point, I may even be convinced to concede that while religion may not be the source of such actions, it is inarguably a catalyst of great strength.

That is where we can strongly agree. Religion is often a catalyst, but equally it is human nature that powers it.

 

[Xordium]

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.

So tell me where the evidence is that there is any evolution or religion or indeed anything at all beyond what you perceive to be. What I am saying is that the advocates of science (of which I am one) ignore the epistemology of their discipline at their own peril. I mean you can not on hand criticise religion for saying there is a creator of the universe when you have accepted that the universe is exactly as you percieve it to be. Modern science comes across quite bad sometimes, even to it practitioners like myself, because it forgets it roots. The origins of modern science can be traced in the minds of great thinkers like Descartes and Comte. They are the people who did not give us the great inventions or great theories but opened out perceptions on how to search for those inventions and theories.

What the likes of Dawkins forgets it seems is that there is more than just the theory there is a responsibility of its application amongst a variety of other factors - Einstein himself acknowledging he realised this himself far too late. Dawkins castigates god and religion for the misapplication of religion messages but would he also castigate science itself for the misapplication of science or does he castigate the people who misapply science in inhumane ways. If Dawkins grandchildren/children turned to him and said they wanted to go to sunday school would he accept their request without an attempt to change their view? Dawkins in my mind is an exceptional thinker in his realm but unfortunately he does seem to lack the epistemological thought process whereupon he may have read the likes of Thus Spake Zarathustra and noted the part of gazing into the abyss for too long ...