It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

page: 18
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I overlooked this earlier.

Your title states the 'claims' are not scientific (which is to say they don't concern themselves with science I assume).

Which claims are you invoking by saying that? Do you just mean the one claim that a god exists?..
edit on 3-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


The properties of God exceed our limited human comprehension

...and yet religious people, with their limited human comprehension, believe a single Earthly book contains properties of god.

I always found it fascinating how on one hand people will profess how incomprehensible god is, and the other hand point to scripture that speaks of god's nature in the most simplistic and suspiciously humanistic fashion.

The god being incomprehensible is in direct conflict with the notion scripture contains descriptions of it.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy



It’s an interesting idea. However, faith-based belief doesn’t increase our chances of survival against the wild cat hiding in tall grass more than basing decisions on what’s observed. Our survival, I would think, has always had a direct relationship with tangible consequences, and faith doesn’t concern itself with that (if it did, the belief wouldn’t call for faith).


It's been argued that folkloric beliefs were (or are) foundational to religious belief systems and many of them carried morals/lessons to increase survivals...like river monsters to scare children from the risk of drowning. Faith-based beliefs united groups under common vocabularies which would increase survival against plural cats and other threats. Fire use and domesticating cats and dogs would be a great help too. As groups coalesced at river banks and coasts, they'd generate culture and this may have been informed by the commonality of their beliefs.

Groups who didn't create a social web of beliefs will have fallen foul of their individuality and not survived. It's why population centres grew through assimilation and those staying out in the hunter-gatherer lifestyle mostly went extinct. At least, their languages (or dialects) and gene pools died out whereas those engaged in the expanding villages and towns found safety in numbers and extended life expectancies.

I think it's hard-wired into the human species through natural selection. It's an idea anyway.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Fair enough. We have both established our beliefs/positions in this regard.

You didn't answer questions I had hoped you would though.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Which questions? Hit me.


I'm just arguing that culture and religious beliefs have to come from somewhere and it'd have to be in our genetics. They're an expression of something and it's typically about procreation and survival. I can speculate about the mind/body conundrum and would still expect survival (at least) to be a factor.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Hope it's cool i'm quoting myself here, but I meant these ones. I feel this needs to be addressed if the argument is that faith is ultimately biological.


I’m not sold on the idea faith/magical thinking are heritable characteristics. Especially in light of the fact there is not uniformity within nations in terms of religiosity. Religiosity also appears to be on a downward trend… in societal terms, practically over night; so how would that be explained if those traits have strong biological roots?



I'm just arguing that culture and religious beliefs have to come from somewhere

I'm arguing the same! We just disagree on the underlying cause it seems.
edit on 3-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

What could the underlying cause be if not fundamentally genetic?




I’m not sold on the idea faith/magical thinking are heritable characteristics. Especially in light of the fact there is not uniformity within nations in terms of religiosity. Religiosity also appears to be on a downward trend… in societal terms, practically over night; so how would that be explained if those traits have strong biological roots?


Firstly, it isn't clear that religiosity is reducing. I would sincerely hope so, but this world seems riven with religious-based conflict. Islam is increasing and I'm expecting Christianity to get it's third or forth wind in response to that. Secondly, even if organised religion in the West diminishes in population terms, the magical thinking side of it continues in some form. For example, people in secular places like the UK and Scandinavia continue to have 'spiritual' beliefs. These replace the kingdom of heaven with notions of an afterlife or karma. Different music, same drumbeat? Not sure there. It's thinking out loud.

In terms of biological basis? Tough one and not enough research has looked at the value of narratives in the human species. Have you ever wondered why humanity tells itself so many stories? Why we have a publishing world and millions watching TV? There's some innate element at play that suggests a biological function. Sure, we can say it's all limbic and pleasure centres, but I feel it's more than that. It's certainly an expression of an urge to communicate and perhaps therein lies the selective value? It's a survival trait to communicate and religious belief seems embedded in there somehow.

I've rushed this because I have to get going



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

I overlooked this earlier.

Your title states the 'claims' are not scientific (which is to say they don't concern themselves with science I assume).

Which claims are you invoking by saying that? Do you just mean the one claim that a god exists?..


The general question if God exists.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky


what could the underlying cause be if not fundamentally genetic?


I gave my answer to that earlier, yo. I agree there is an underlying genetic cause. Self-preservation is a biological imperative. We fear death. There is a biological drive to avoid it... and one of those manifestations takes the form of religion.


Firstly, it isn't clear that religiosity is reducing. I would sincerely hope so, but this world seems riven with religious-based conflict.


It is clear. Statistics show this trend. Do you want me to post them? Yes, this World is riddled with religious related issues. I obviously would not disagree. I stated as such in my earlier post. However, it's possible, as is the case, the religiosity is decreasing and religious damage remains a truth.


people in secular places like the UK and Scandinavia continue to have 'spiritual' beliefs.


Right. We agree that there is nothing inherently malicious about holding belief in 'spiritual' things! We agree, yes?


Have you ever wondered why humanity tells itself so many stories?


I wonder this all the time. I also wonder why we dream. Why do we have the capacity to create entire universes and a host of new characters in our dreams. We do this every single night. It's incredible. I think it speaks volumes about the magnificence of human beings. I need no appeal to god(s) or other worldly things to appreciate the magic there.

We are great story tellers. It's fantastic.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Sure.

I'm open to compelling arguments. Do you have one?

Look, the god character in the Bible is diabolical. Even if I believed that god existed, I would oppose it.

If you propose a different character, I would ask how you know its character at all..
edit on 3-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

descriptions of God, yes



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

Sure.

I'm open to compelling arguments. Do you have one?

Look, the god character in the Bible is diabolical. Even if I believed that god existed, I would oppose it.

If you propose a different character, I would ask how you know its character at all..


I have refered several pages of arguments. I don't feel like going over them again.

In summary they are the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments. Hoyle an atheist astrophysicist in conjunction with a biochemist have offered up a kind of teleological argument again pages back.

There is the simulation theory, which would require a designer, Spinoza's god a sort of pantheism of order.

I make no claims at all about folklore or religious tradition. Pascal Boyer has some papers in Nature about the possibility of a biological evolutionary aspect of believing. There is also some preliminary evidence in physical anthropology of chimpanzee ritual..


Just to point out I am an agnostic. I tend to agree with Spinoza on the subject.

edit on 3-6-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


There is the simulation theory, which would require a designer, Spinoza's god a sort of pantheism of order.


You don't understand Spinoza's god if you would lump it with that...

Either way, your position remains entirely unclear to me!
edit on 3-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Could you clarify what you mean?

I didn't lump Spinoza in whit simulation theory. If you mis understood this I didn't mean to lump them together.

I would lump Spinoza in a form of pantheism where thought and matter are all god. That the universe and everything it encompasses is god.

Can you point out anywhere I claimed to have convinctions?

Do you understand what agnostic means?



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I understand agnosticism.

I understand it so much that I know we cannot truthfully hold conviction in such things because our knowledge is limited.

That said, I am honestly just wondering what your belief is.

So you essentially think we are all emanations of 'god'? Hard solipsism?

Okay. So let's say your 'pantheistic' model is correct. So what. How should this impact our lives?
edit on 3-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

I understand agnosticism.

I understand it so much that I know we cannot truthfully hold conviction in such things because our knowledge is limited.

That said, I am honestly just wondering what your belief is.

So you essentially think we are all emanations of 'god'? Reality is an expression of 'god', and we (the Universe and all within) are just players in it?''

Okay. So let's say your 'pantheistic' model is correct. So what. How should this impact our lives?


I am not sure what you are getting at.

Is your point we should not have philosophical questions? Are personal observarions not relevant?

I am agnostic I don't think a model is correct.

The relevance are observations of what life could be or mean epistemologicaly and ontologicaly.

Personally I use them to keep from thinking I know everything and materialism is the only important aspect of life.

The purpose of the thread was to explain these are philosophical debates. They are not scientific and that is OK.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


The relevance are observations of what life could be or mean epistemologicaly and ontologicaly.


Do you think non-religious people lack meaning in their lives?


The purpose of the thread was to explain these are philosophical debates. They are not scientific


Depends on what "these" means. As I expressed earlier, religion is absolutely trespassing on science. It always depends on the claims..
edit on 3-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

I am not sure what you are getting at.

Is your point we should not have philosophical questions? Are personal observarions not relevant?

I am agnostic I don't think a model is correct.


The relevance are observations of what life could be or mean epistemologicaly and ontologicaly.


Do you think non-religious people lack meaning in their lives?


The purpose of the thread was to explain these are philosophical debates. They are not scientific


Depends on what "these" means. As I expressed earlier, religion is absolutely trespassing on science. It always depends on the claims..


Your replies make no sense logically. They appear to be strawmen. Maybe I am just not understanding why you are so sensitive here.

I have never mentioned religion. In any of my posts.

The reverse to your question (which you seem to somehow imply to my position) are religious people somehow not capable of scientific reasoning?

I again will state. Does God exist?

That's it. Just those three words.

From their people ask what is god?
And the debate begins.

But it's not science.
edit on 3-6-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

How is there a strawman when I clearly asked questions?? Seriously...

I asked for clarification on your position! Why is that me being sensitive? Am i'm not asking fair questions?


are religious people somehow not capable of scientific reasoning?


Religious people are certainly capable. We (religious and non-religious) do it all the time.

When we do scientific reasoning, we do so absent religious thinking.


From their people ask what is god?
And the debate begins.


Right. I ask you again. What is 'god'?? Can you define it? If not, then what the hell are we even talking about??
edit on 3-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

It is appearing you are not getting the agnostic part. Nor have you read through the thread.

Can I define it through agnosticism? Does that make sense to you?

Again the purpose of the thread is to show discussions of God are philosophical. Theread are many versions of God that have nothing at all to do with religious belief.

They are thought experiments if you will.

And again I already defined the god I most resonate with. Not one I believe in. When I studied philosophy and up until this day that meaning has changed. That is the sole purpose to me. Not defining.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join