Let's Wax Philosophical . . .

[AndyC]

Had to vote "don't know." The universe and my own existence make more sense to me if there is some higher intelligence or purpose to things, but I don't think we're capable of understanding it, and our religion should evolve with our understanding, in order to lead us closer to the truth. I consider myself a Christian Agnostic, in that I practice and identify with Christian belief, but I don't necessarily cling to the specifics. I see religion as our best attempt to understand the divine, and most definitely a work in progress.

From that perspective, I find the choice between "created by God" and "happened by accident" to be totally inadequate, and symptomatic of the rigid thinking in both science and religion, and their mutual knee-jerk hostility. The two options aren't even mutually exclusive. Where anybody got the notion that evolution means no God, I have no idea. As far as I'm concerned, a world that is forever changing, adapting and improving itself is far more miraculous than one that was just made as-is, and who's to say it wasn't set in motion by a higher intelligence?

What's more impressive? A machine built to function a certain way under certain conditions, or one that changes to do whatever is needed? The latter is far more difficult, and more befitting an all-powerful God.

And I don't think God needs to be anything like us. To me, created in God's image can easily refer to sentience, free will and a need to create. That we began as lower forms of life is in no way a reflection on God.

And even if you want to say God made us from dust (which is not wrong, we're made of elements from our environment), does it need to be something as simplistic as packing mud together and breathing life into it, or can it be done through a lengthy and complicated process of development and change? Again, which is more impressive?

I just find that the strictest religious beliefs I hear are far less wondrous, miraculous and Godlike than the scientific explanations the same people persist in denying.

[indianasmith]

This is how I view it . . .

The scientific theory of evolution does NOT rule out God; it is merely an explanation, based on observation and measurable data, of how life on this planet developed and diversified.

The philosophical theory of Darwinism, as practiced by many scientists and atheists, DOES rule out God, quite deliberately.  No God means no accountability, so we can do whatever the heck we want and never answer for it . . . that's the view summed up in that dreadful song "Nothing But Mammals."

A quick response to this comment by Dean:

"The perfect example is Indy's: if Jesus rose from the dead and we take that as proof of the existence of God, well what if He didn't, and it was just a story that was changed to suit the audience.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time, nor the last time, that somebody embellished the truth for the sake of a good story, no matter how noble the purpose."

If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, then what would have been the purpose in His disciples proclaiming that He did?  And announcing to the world that they had seen Him?  Remember, out of the 11 disciples who had survived the Passion Week, all but one were horribly martyred for preaching the Gospel of the risen Christ.  Men will die for a lie that they believe to be true, but who will die for something they KNOW for a fact to be false?  Paul, writing about 22 years after the crucifixion, said that there were 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ at one time - and that most of them were still alive at the time he wrote!  How could you make such a freakish, fantastic claim if there wasn't some truth behind it?  Especially when writing to a church that was challenging your authority and doubtless had members who would go check your facts?  Even the members of the Jesus Seminar, who deny about every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, grudgingly admitted that the birth of Christianity was inconceivable without a real, sincere belief on the part of the early church that Christ was truly risen.  Where did that belief come from?  There is a gaping hole in the history of the First Century AD that is the exact size and shape of a Resurrection!

[HappyGilmore]

Easiest answer for me: Don't Know.

Mainly, I'm not overly religious.  I don't disbelief in the existence of God.  Grew up a Catholic, going to Catholic school, attending church.  While in Catholic school, we were taught BOTH theories of creationism, ie: God created the Earth, mankind, etc, as well as Darwinism.  Talk about being 14 and conflicted as to where you came from.  Either from dirt or from like, apes and fish and the whole like.

Right now, as an adult, I do not attend church, haven't since around 14 or so.  There's a small part that wants to say that I subscribe to that theory.  But the rational part doesn't.  We really CAN'T say anything in terms of that.  We can't communicate with the dead or whatnot, so. 

Maybe a little bit of both?  Maybe we were created by God but his great plan involved the general progression of evolution?  That's my theory. 

[Couchtr26]

For me, we seem more as though we just came along descended from another creature.  I believe the design is something that could be improved.  Human beings physically are imperfect.  There are many systems that could be benefited from separation (breathing and food passage, for instance).  Also, as a visual animal I am surprised we lack the tapetum lucidum.  We lack fur but maintain hair, this seems counterproductive.  I understand some for warmth and some to avoid "chaffing" but why do we lack it?  I will give sweat glands as an obvious answer, however, why do we have hair at all.  I find these things as being relics of an ancestor and don't show design.   That is my opinion at least.   

Not to get in a big debate, but since this covers some in our beliefs.  I'm an Agnostic.  I don't say God doesn't exist, but before I believe I need more proof. 

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

Science and religion:

Religion says we were created.
Science says we evolved, and God had nothing to do with it.

However, religion says that God created Man "in His own image."  Now whether or not this means Man resembled God's physical image, or that God created Man from his own design, is the burning question.

That said, we all know that it takes someone to create a design, and to create it in a manner they see fit. "In the designer's own image" as it were.

And, naturally a design cannot improve or evolve to suit the long term need to adapt to it's surroundings unless the designer directly intervenes upon it's behalf, OR unless the creator specifically pre-designed it for natural evolution.  Such action demands a fair bit of scientific knowledge in order to achieve the goal.

So that said, I believe we were Created, and with that creation given the natural ability to evolve as our surroundings change.  God was both creator and scientist. After all, scientists design and create too, do they not?

And in that way, science and religion may both have something, but due to their pre-drawn lines in the sand, will never admit to it.  Just a thought.


 


 

[Allhallowsday]

 
 

[indianasmith]

Thank you, AH, for your incisive and eloquent commentary.

[Mofo Rising]

I think the most basic, unanswerable question in the universe is "Why is there something, instead of nothing?"

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the universe DOES exist. It's here, we're here. The reality we live in is real, and try and twist interpretations as we might, it's not going to go away if we do. Reality is the ultimate arbiter. As a scientist, and a believer in reality, I think we should do our best to try and figure out what the hell is going on by examining reality itself.

As for the explanations provided by the major religions, I don't buy them. They're nice stories, and I can see the power in believing them, but compared to reality I find them lacking.

I consider myself an agnostic, but one that is as atheistic as you can get without making a declarative statement. The only reason I don't proclaim myself an atheist is because there is no really good way to claim "God does not exist" without making unfalsifiable claims. God is the ultimate unprovable hypothesis. But, hey, if you want to explore the mysteries of faith, that's a central tenet.

indianasmith, I think you're being a bit hasty saying that the scientific process is trying to disprove the existence of God. The basics of Darwinian evolution are easy to understand, and the evidence keeps piling up that its the way things could have happened. The confluence of evidence is continually building. The idea of "proof" is a MacGuffin, but their are reams and reams of it, with not signs of it stopping. But this is not NECESSARILY anti-religion, even if people (like myself) would say it is.

I would use those papers as examples of why I believe what I do, but that's me. I don't think that the idea of speciation by evolution is any sort of good evidence that God doesn't exist. I think it's good evidence that the world-view posited by religion is suspect, but proof that God doesn't exist? Let's go back to that central question: "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

There are plenty of scientists trying to decipher the universe, and many of those don't see a contradiction between their work and their faith.

I would and will argue all those points, but this is the "wax philosophical" thread. I believe in the world as it is, and the central mystery is the awe-inspiring engine that fires it all.

"Why is there something instead of nothing?"

[dean]

If Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, then what would have been the purpose in His disciples proclaiming that He did?  And announcing to the world that they had seen Him?  Remember, out of the 11 disciples who had survived the Passion Week, all but one were horribly martyred for preaching the Gospel of the risen Christ.  Men will die for a lie that they believe to be true, but who will die for something they KNOW for a fact to be false?  Paul, writing about 22 years after the crucifixion, said that there were 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ at one time - and that most of them were still alive at the time he wrote!  How could you make such a freakish, fantastic claim if there wasn't some truth behind it?  Especially when writing to a church that was challenging your authority and doubtless had members who would go check your facts?  Even the members of the Jesus Seminar, who deny about every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, grudgingly admitted that the birth of Christianity was inconceivable without a real, sincere belief on the part of the early church that Christ was truly risen.  Where did that belief come from?  There is a gaping hole in the history of the First Century AD that is the exact size and shape of a Resurrection!

Well I guess you're kind of making my point for me in a way: what reason would Muslims have for saying that Christ wasn't resurrected?  Probably the same reason why Christians would claim that he was; legitimacy. 

I know we're going in circles, and I certainly don't mean to disrespect your views, just outlining mine.

Some truth behind their claims?  Perhaps, but all of it true?  Not so sure.  Again my opinion and just my interpretation of the facts.

It doesn't change the fact that we are probably just as likely to be created than we have just happened with current evidence on hand!


Why is there something, instead of nothing?  Because things are so much more interesting with something to talk about... And I should leave someone else to talk about it for a while I suppose.

[Flick James]

Well, I would never make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead or that he did not. However, I revere God through the laws of nature. They are enough. The order that exists in the universe makes it inconceivable to me that it all happened by chance. It is miraculous and needs no further embellishment. One could reasonably argue that the existence of order is easier to observe and prove than the existence of chaos. I believe that, and that is enough for me. I accept God on those terms alone. The laws of nature, and by extension of God, tell me that a man rising from the dead is unreasonable, and so I cannot accept it. Further, within those beliefs, I find it insulting to God to accept such a thing.

As for the argument why would multiple people make up such a thing, the answer is, I don't know. I used to be a Christian, and I witnessed people come together and agree that something happened that I did not see on multiple occasions, so I find it perfectly reasonable that, in a book that has been passed down and translated multiple times, such a thing could easily be either partially or completely false.

[indianasmith]

Let me touch on two things in those last two replies -
First of all, Muhammad was born 570 years after Christ.  There is no way he would have known if Christ was resurrected or not from personal experience.  He denied the Resurrection because "Allah" told him it did not happen. He denied that Christ was the Son of God for the same reason.  So, like everything else in Islam, it all boils down to one simple question - did God speak to Muhammad or not?  Muhammad offered no evidence, no miracles, no signs except the Quran itself.  He said its matchless purity was proof of its divine inspiration.  (Yes, there are later stories that Muhammad performed miracles, but those "Hadith" were written down well over 100 years after his lifetime, which is plenty of time for legend and myth to replace factual truth.

  Now, as far as the New Testament goes, to answer Flick's comment - while the NT has indeed been passed down for many generations and translated into every language on earth, there are over 6,000 Greek manuscripts that help us verify those translations. Textual scholars whose job is to analyze and compare discrepancies in the text are pretty universal in their assessment - which is that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity of 99.5%.  Of that remaining half a percent of the text about which there is still some doubt as to the original wording, there is not a single verse that casts doubt or question on any of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

  Bart Ehrman, a former Christian turned atheist and author of MISQUOTING JESUS, a scathing attack on accuracy of the Gospels, likes to point out that there are over 400,000 errors in the Greek text of the New Testament.  That sounds pretty damning until you break down these errors and analyze them.  For example, if a copyist misspells a word, and later copyists reproduce that misspelling in their transmission of the manuscript to the tune of 40 or 50 copies, he doesn't count that as ONE error - he counts it as 40 or 50!  The fact is, 80% of the errors he catalogs are simple spelling errors by later copyists that are easily corrected and do not affect the meaning of the passage they occur in.  Another 19 percent or so are word reversals - the most common being "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or vice versa.  By the time you eliminate all of those easily correctible copyists' errors, you are down to a document that has been passed down with remarkable purity from the First Century AD to today.  So while rejecting the content of the Gospels is always one's personal prerogative, saying that the content has been manipulated, altered, or corrupted is demonstrably untrue.

BTW, I love discussions like this and am not trying to offend anyone.  I appreciate the (largely) well-mannered and intellectual nature of our discussions here.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

 
 

Thank you, AH, for your incisive and eloquent commentary.

Poor ADHS (oh I'm sorry, that's AHD)

Apparently someone should inform her that cave paintings and symbols are no longer the standard for written human language.  Due to this overwhelming example of intelligence on her part, it's official that she's from Berkeley.

Either that or it's another attempt to bait me until I finally give in and admit that I mistook her for someone else.  Another epic fail on her part. 

Cheers to you, Indy.   

[dean]

Apparently someone should inform her that cave paintings and symbols are no longer the standard for written human language. 

Well maybe not standard, but certainly have evolved into an interesting art form:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti


And while I'm at it:






The above is a picture of ancient cave drawings in the Australian outback, possibly dated back 5000 years ago.  Proof that we may have been visited or even created by Aliens?  Maybe?

[claws]

AH is female  Didn't know that.

As for the topic, no idea why we are here and who or what created us. I'd like to think that aliens had something to do with it though.

[Trevor]

I know in my prowlings around the Internet, that I have run into people of every belief system, and many with no beliefs at all.  I know that what we believe is a major shaping force in our own self image.  So let me pose to you the most basic question of all:  How did we get here?  Do you believe that mankind was created, or at least, was planned to be here by some supernatural force - be it the God of the Bible, Plato's elusive Prime Mover, or even Great Cthulhu himself?  This answer doesn't rule out evolutionary development, it just addresses whether or not there was any superintending presence behind it.

Or, did we just happen?  Are we, as Darwin envisioned, just a freak genetic accident, a random series of mutations, with no eternal or cosmological significance whatsoever?

Or does thinking about this stuff make your head hurt?

Not trying to open a grand religious flame war, but I am curious as to what most people will answer.  Did we just happen, or were we placed here for a reason?

I believe that I was put on this earth to make people laugh ~ just the mention of my well-used underpants is enough to make people shudder and giggle at the same time.  I am a child of abuse as people here know but the friends I have who have kids and know my story are quite happy to let me look after those kids as that abuse STOPS WITH ME: it goes no further.

Regarding faith, I admit I have questioned my faith many times in the last thirty or so years and I will go on questioning it day after day as there has been and is too much horror in this world.