Why We Believe in Gods

[_JohnStuartMill]

Well, the problem with that pretty quickly becomes, "Why should I believe science?" Science ultimately relies on epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy, so it's difficult to tease science apart from philosophy in that regard. I think you're trying to say something more like "you can't know things without appealing to experience" which is much less controversial. Even Kant would agree with something like that, although he might prefer another way to say it.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, the problem with that pretty quickly becomes, "Why should I believe science?" Science ultimately relies on epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy, so it's difficult to tease science apart from philosophy in that regard. I think you're trying to say something more like "you can't know things without appealing to experience" which is much less controversial. Even Kant would agree with something like that, although he might prefer another way to say it.

Yep, true.

In fact, in that thread, I remember someone else pointing out that that science itself was a philosophy, and I refined my point to say "the practice of science" as opposed to the philosophy of science. Philosophy gives us questions and methodologies for study, but philosophy itself does not do the verification.

[Guest]

Dawkins calls gene selfish because he's say they are the fundamental unit of selection. He's making an argument about individual genes increasing or decreasing according to their relative success and phenotypes just being an elaborate mechanism to further replication of individual genes. A person with all its complexities is just an giant tool to reproduce genes. It's just a metaphor to help people understand. He doesn't actually think they have self-interested desires. There's nothing particularly contraversial about it as a metaphor. Anthropomorphic metaphors don't "scream teleology."

I explain diffusion to people who know nothing about it by talking about where molecules "want" to go. That doesn't mean I think they actually have desires. It's a metaphor.

[_EAllusion]

Well then you need to present your quibble to Oxford physiologist/biologist Denis Noble, since he is the one who used that word to describe the process: "Genes are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating with it by complex processes, through which, blindly, as if by magic, function emerges."

I think it is pretty cool when scientists who don't have such a radical atheistic bent, use words like these to illustrate the mystery of what science can't explain. It can tells us what's going on at the molecular level, but it can only guess why its happening.

My quibble is with you. I didn't even need to hunt down this quote to know you were misrepresenting it in the context of a reply to what I wrote. But I did, and yeah, all by "as if by magic" he doesn't literally mean magic. He just means it's wonderously complex and partially understood. It's not much different than saying that SSRIs treat depression, "as if by magic." We do know a fair amount about how it works, though not completely so by any stretch. That doesn't mean he think it is Ok to explain things via magical explanations that simply tailor define themselves to account for whatever it is they are seeking to explain. That's clearly what I was talking about given the history of this discussion.

P.S. It's obvious you got this quote from Alister McGrath rather than reading the primary source, but whatevs.

[_JAK]

I don't think the argument to suboptimal design works here. In order to know something is poorly designed, you have to know what the designer was aiming for. Bad design, after all, is failing to achieve the intended aims. In the case of a generic designer, it does no good to help yourself to assumptions about what the designer intended. If the designer wanted the vertebrate eye to be jacked-up in the way it is, it did an awesome job.

Now, it is true that in the case of some proposed designers we have a little more information about the alleged designer's hypothetical aims. The God most people making teleological arguments believe in is maximally benevolent. And some cases of "bad design" implicate the argument from evil. So there's that. But design that looks bad according to what we'd desire is not, in of itself, an argument against it being designed altogether.

EAllusion stated:
I don't think the argument to suboptimal design works here. In order to know something is poorly designed, you have to know what the designer was aiming for. Bad design, after all, is failing to achieve the intended aims.

Exactly so.

EAllusion stated:
In the case of a generic designer, it does no good to help yourself to assumptions about what the designer intended. If the designer wanted the vertebrate eye to be jacked-up in the way it is, it did an awesome job.

A critical point is “assumptions about what the designer intends.” No evidence has been established for “designer” as in God. Further, all is speculation regarding the intentions of a mythological designer.

Be cautious in using the term “designer” as if such a thing were fact. It’s not established. Further, those who claim “designer” don’t agree on the particulars of their assertions and implied characteristics of “designer.”

EAllusion stated:
Now, it is true that in the case of some proposed designers we have a little more information about the alleged designer's hypothetical aims. The God most people making teleological arguments believe in is maximally benevolent.

The latter regarding “maximally benevolent” is by no means universal in those who make God claims. The notion that any identities may be relegated to “hell” as described by some Christians does not characterize “benevolent.” Some of those same God myth-makers, advocate that humans practice unconditional forgiveness. Some of the same Christians also claim a superstition in God which has an entity that is not forgiving in an unconditional say. If such a God were unconditional in love, no assumed eternal life would ever be endlessly in “hell.”

Such a position asks humans to be more forgiving than the claimed God is portrayed to be. Hence, their God exhibits less compassion than humans are commanded to exhibit. It’s an absurd position.

EAllusion stated:
And some cases of "bad design" implicate the argument from evil. So there's that. But design that looks bad according to what we'd desire is not, in of itself, an argument against it being designed altogether.

This appears a negative claim. Absent genuine, clear evidence that there is “design” at all, there is no evidence. There is merely claim aggressively asserted.

What we desire is ever more information and ever better design. Our notions of best design tends toward a design which has no failure. For those who assume designer, they assume purposeful design. At the same time, evidence demonstrates that even we humans today can conceive of superior design the design of all – everything. Medical science seeks to improve quality of life as well as length of life. It’s purposeful intervention. What we observe is not evidence of some supernatural design. No evidence has established the assertion. Those who claim so must ultimately embrace and advocate an inferior designer. No one does that openly.

“God makes no mistakes.” It’s an Amish notion (among other Christian groups which have similar mythology).

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

Hello,

Might I chime in for an observation? To what purpose would an Intelligent Creator do the following?









On and on...

Mr. Graham, do you advocate the idea of an Intelligent Designer-Creator?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Thanks for the photos Doc. To a wondering, thoughtful person there are only reasons that can be put towards your question... There is absolutely NO PURPOSE served by these unfortunate creations. On second thought, such bodies are subject to scientific studies that might lead to new findings and remedies for such genetic malfunctions.

But to imagine that being purposeful, one would have to subscribe to "The LDS Plan Of Salvation" and the nonsense put forth therein. Recall, Blacks were said to have chosen their inferiority simply to receive Mortality at any cost. So too was (is?) the claim made re all other "...handicapped folks..."

I think a promiscuous leader could be easier to follow than one who promelgated such ignorance and diabolical darkness...

Oh, re "Intelligent Design" ... It is manifest all around us... in the products of "Intelligent Humans." There is no intelligent "God" of any design, or nature...
Roger
*

*

[_JAK]

Hello,

Might I chime in for an observation? To what purpose would an Intelligent Creator do the following?









On and on...

Mr. Graham, do you advocate the idea of an Intelligent Designer-Creator?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Thanks for the photos Doc. To a wondering, thoughtful person there are only reasons that can be put towards your question... There is absolutely NO PURPOSE served by these unfortunate creations. On second thought, such bodies are subject to scientific studies that might lead to new findings and remedies for such genetic malfunctions.

But to imagine that being purposeful, one would have to subscribe to "The LDS Plan Of Salvation" and the nonsense put forth therein. Recall, Blacks were said to have chosen their inferiority simply to receive Mortality at any cost. So too was (is?) the claim made re all other "...handicapped folks..."

I think a promiscuous leader could be easier to follow than one who promelgated such ignorance and diabolical darkness...

Oh, re "Intelligent Design" ... It is manifest all around us... in the products of "Intelligent Humans." There is no intelligent "God" of any design, or nature...
Roger

Roger stated:
There is absolutely NO PURPOSE served by these unfortunate creations. On second thought, such bodies are subject to scientific studies that might lead to new findings and remedies for such genetic malfunctions.

Yes. In addition, until recently we humans were entirely unaware of some life forms deep in the oceans. Just as species have become extinct and are on the road to extinction, other species are evolving and adapting to the pressures of changing environments. Of course there are the examples you pictured. No matter how rare, if they are observed (objective, transparent observation), we must recognize the occurred. One in a million is still one if we can find clear evidence for it.

As for religious claims, they are irrelevant to the examples you demonstrate. As for salvation as it is invented in religious myth, it too is irrelevant.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK posted:

Roger stated:
"Why we believe in Gods?" Simply because we have been taught by theologians to believe in a God...

It’s more complex than that although your observation is certainly the case. “Theologians” took rise under the auspices of emperors and kings. To a large extent those ancient “theologians” served the state as it were. When kings and emperors needed justification for their exercise of power such as the conquest of other territories, the “theologians” gave them the approval of God.

As in the Divine Right of Kings. Seems North America was Granted to a number of Different Rulers by their respective "God" reps...

There was no science as we know that term in the past few hundred years. “Theologians” added credibility to the implemented desires of emperors and kings. Gradually, and at different times, “theologians” sometimes parted company with political heads. As the Church of Rome became more powerful, it was a “state” unto itself. It became more aggressive in matters of pronouncements regarding right vs. wrong.

By the 1517 schism which became the Protestant Reformation (initiated by Martin Luther), the “theologians” were at significant odds with one another. (Schisms actually occurred much earlier in the division between the Eastern Orthodox Church and what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church. However, in the context of your comment above, that the Protestant Reformation is critical to the evolution of multiple theologies in which religion had sufficient power and control to dictate religious doctrine.

“Theologians” were, the power-brokers of religious dogma.

Thus, Roger, what you say is correct, but it’s not very simple. Evolution of theologies is a maze of contradictory doctrines over time.As are most things nefarious it continues to be...

Roger stated:
Why do we not not believe in a God? Because we have learned by experience, "there is NO God as presented in theology."

Yes, or there is no genuine consensus in the many and varied “theologies” which have emerged to date that claim to be Christian.

JAK

Sort of like well intentioned parents teach about Santa Claus to kids that want to believe...

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, without an offensive war, we'd probably all be Muslims. You voted for Bush, didn't you?

You can't argue the point, can you? It is one thing to be ignorant of the relevant history, but to pretend to speak authoritatively on it for the sole purpose of supporting an atheistic point, is nothing short of hilarious. As I said from the start, you're way out of your league here.

They don't call them forced conversions, sure, but anyone with half a brain knows that forcing a "Christian" (who's actually just a Jew sprinkled with holy water) to follow Christian dogma.

Still can't argue against the fact that the Church never supported forced conversions, can you? I guess I can't blame you for trying to constantly derail.

Uh, no. My point was that Muslims have contributed to Western civilization in much the same way that Christians have. Also, that you're stupid.

And yet you cannot substantiate this.

Sure. But a) this is not because of a wide theological divide between Muslims and Christians, given that there are Muslims physicians today, and given some Christians' distaste for iconography

Stop trying to play the multicultural relativist and just accept the fact that Islam strictly prohibited this while Christianity became famous for it. Have you never seen the Cistine Chapel?

b) you're cherry-picking evidence: why is the depiction of the human body all of a sudden the standard by which civilizations are judged?

I just threw it out there as the off the top of my head example, whereby Islam's theological and universally enforced restrictions, hindred progress in medical science. Yo're just upset because your silly cadaver example doesn't even begin to compare.

I'd agree with that. What I'm contesting is the double-standard you employ for Christianity.

You haven't demonstrated a double-standard. You just think all religions are equal, and that is your problem. Seriously, if you can't distinguish between Christianity and Christendom, then I don't know what else to do for you.

When did I CFR that?

Are you trying to cut down on the number of things you've gotten wrong by pretending you never said some of them? This question was born from the following:

Kevin: In Islam, by contrast, non-Muslims were always worthy of oppression and non-theists, deserved to be killed, as did all apostates.

JSM: Call for References. - Jun 05, 2009 3:39 pm

Kevin: You can't be serious. Islamic law continues to uphold the doctrine that atheists are worthy of death, as are apostates from the faith.

JSM: What are you even responding to? - Jun 10, 2009 7:40 pm

Kevin: Your "Call for references" that Islam puts atheists to death and always had.

JSM: When did I CFR that?

Try to keep up.

No, that is not my position. Again, you are dumb

So now you're going to back away from your original claim that Islam resembled classical liberalism?

This is not true. Non-dhimmis didn't have the same rights as People of the Book, but this does not show that medieval Muslims were less liberal than medieval Christians.

First of all, you were the one making the claim that Islam was "classically liberal." You can't substantiate this. You have not addressed any of the numerous examples I gave where the Christian Church was more tolerant towards Jews. You can't respond to the numerous slaughters of Jews headed by Muslim authorities, including Muhammed himself. You can't respond to the doctrines in the Quran and ahadith that declare Jews the spawn of pigs and monkeys.

It wasn't the Church who was baptizing people against their will. You don't need to have to be a priest to baptize people, so any idiot with faucet could sprinkle a Jew with magic water.

This kinda proves my point, but just so we know exactly how superficial your knowledge really is, why don't you go ahead and provide with an example of a Jews who was baptized by some random idiot with access to water.

At that point, the Church would consider the Jew to be "Christian", and the Inquisition could work its magic.

How would you define its magic? Dd yo know that less than 2% who were tried were actually executed? Did yo know that compared to other judicial systems of the times, the nquisition was considered enlightened?

Pope Innocent III said that anyone who was tortured into conversion nevertheless

Call for references. Who was tortured into conversion? You're talking out of your butt again. When historians refer to "forced" conversions of the conversos of Spain, they are generally alluding to the socio-economic presures that made conversion beneficial. They are not suggesting that Jews were held a sword-point before being baptized, nor are they suggesting "torture" was involved. By comparison, during the many centuries of Islamic conquest atheists and polytheists were given two options, death or conversion. The Inquisition involved torture in relatively few cases, and it was only to extract a confession of heresy. Torture was not used as a punishment.

in other words, Jews were restricted under Christianity, too...

Of course they were. But we are comparing here. Under Islam, a Muslim could kill a Jew for commiting petty offenses. A Jew was not permitted to show any symbols of his religion, nor was he permitted to celebrate religious festivals. He was required, by Islamic Law, to be subdued. None of this was required in Christainity.

This is about the level of protection that the Hadith guarantees for Jews.

The Hadith? There are hundreds of them. Which one did you have in mind?

This was obviously not followed out if they were baptizing babies at the time, which they were.

Stop trying to change the subject and just admit you were wrong. The Church clearly rebuked any attempts to force people into baptism.

Don't be stupid.

In other words, you can't respond to the evidence. Jews were not allowed to celerate their festivals in public. They were required to pay a poll tax, usually during a humilating public ritual whereby a Muslim collector would grab the Jew by the beard and slap him across the face as he paid. If he couldn't pay, then he was to be killed for failing to live up to his part. Hence, you had many Jews forced to convert in situations like these because that was the only option left. Jews were usually labelled with marks to disntiguish them from the Muslims, and they were not alowed to ride horses in town, they always had to give way to a passing Muslim, etc. This was institutionalized discrimination that was written in the Islamic code. Now you might see various levels of dicrimination in a Christian society, but none of this crap was required or codified in any way. Again, whenever the Church caught wind of intolerance towards Jews, it would send out bishops to the area to put an end to it.

Again, the definition of "Jew" has not been static in this discussion.

What?

Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion.

Yes he did.

Before Constantine, though, Christians composed less than 10% of the Empire's population.

And?

That's not true. Clergy in the New World often had slaves at their disposal.

Funny. Now when pinned down on this subject, you leap all the way over to slavery. I guess it wouldn't do much good to point out that slavery was divinely sanctioned in Islam, and in fact still exists in Islamic societies, or that the very next page of your google-book indicates that the Church was responsible for the abolitionist movements.

I'm done talking with you about this stuff, Kevin. It's not worth it to deal with your appalling ignorance anymore.

Suuuuuuuuuuure JSM.

Sure.

Well, I see my last post has attracted a splash of responses from the usual suspects, so I guess I've got my posting work cut out for me over the next week. It is late and I'll be busy most of this week so I will leave with a quick comment to Schmo's silly exercise in denial about his previous anti-philosophical comments. I went back and found what he said on the matter:

LMAO. Yeah, religion and philosophy really contribute to truth. You left out astrology and witchcraft, too! (*shakes head while laughing*)

Did you get that? Schmo equated philosophy with astrology.

That you would group religion and philosophy with science is an affront to science. How anyone could say this with a straight face is beyond reason (although I can't say I'm all that surprised, considering the source).

Schmo seems oblivious to the fact that his is a minority position. Scientism is a belief system and a philosophy, which has not been shown to be true. So Schmo accepts it on faith alone. Then he tries to backpeddle once RenegadeofPhunk pointed out how idiotic his statements were:

I don't have anything against philosophy at all, as a subject of study. I just wouldn't use it to arrive at the truth any more than I'd use a boat to drive down the road. That's nothing against boats. I just prefer using the right tool for the job...I'm not bashing philosophy. I'm just saying it's not a reliable way to arrive at the truth, in and of itself.

Again, this is a textbook example of scientism and it says more about Schmo's intellectual laziness than anything else. Schmo doesn't have the intellectual stamina to figure out that his is a philosophy.He's too busy pretending to "ROFL" at everything I say, with no clear understanding of what it is I have actually said. The fact is, science relies on philosophy, not vice versa.

[_Paracelsus]

in other words, Jews were restricted under Christianity, too...

Of course they were. But we are comparing here. Under Islam, a Muslim could kill a Jew for commiting petty offenses. A Jew was not permitted to show any symbols of his religion, nor was he permitted to celebrate religious festivals. He was required, by Islamic Law, to be subdued. None of this was required in Christianity.

Call it derailment, but some christians TODAY can produce weird things in some cases of festivals.
THAT christians below are motivated, not forced .

From http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2 ... 244648726/
Poland Catholics oppose Madonna's concert :
"WARSAW, Poland, June 10 (UPI) -- Catholics are urging the Polish government and organizers to cancel U.S. pop star Madonna's concert scheduled for Aug. 15, the Assumption of Mary feast.
Marian Brudzynski, member of the Mazowiecki regional assembly, Wednesday said Madonna "cannot sing" on the religious feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary and announced a protest committee is being organized to stop the concert.
Brudzynski, a former member of the conservative League of Polish Families party, said Catholics will do all in their power to prevent the concert from taking place. The protest committee plans to ask Interior Minister Grzegorz Schetyna to cancel the concert, he said.
Brudzynski said if they fail to stop Madonna's concert they will stage a massive picket outside and added, "We want to stifle Madonna," Poland's thenews.pl Web site reported.
Krzysztof Zagozda, of the Catholic Society organization, said the concert would hurt Poles' religious sentiment as Madonna's performances are anti-Christian.
Stanislaw Malkowski, former Warsaw Solidarity union's chaplain, said the Catholic church and the Polish nation should protest loudly against the Madonna concert."


"...Madonna's performances are anti-Christian..."
"...the Catholic church and the Polish nation should protest..."
You know, Poland is one nation under god.
(Most Poles—approximately 89%—are members of the Roman Catholic Church. Though rates of religious observance are currently lower than they have been in the past, Poland remains one of the most devoutly religious countries in Europe.)

Isn't the method familiar?

OK, the big and abominable church can commit weird things.