Existence of God; the philosophical debate.
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
behind every claim of evidence lies qualification, and key factor to establishing qualification is applying the correct theory.
For example, discussing the evidence for an electron amongst persons completely ignorant of physics is useless. And thinking that one can become familiar with physics by doing a PhD in european literature is also useless.
So when you open up with "what material evidence supports the existence of god" it suggests that god can be determined in the same way that we might uncover the existence of a planet or a bacteria. IOW, doesn't matter whether you are a saint or a schmuck, if you have the right tools in the right place you can find it.
God however (much like any important person in this world) reserves the right of not being directly approachable by schmucks (if you don't believe me, just try and get direct audience with Barrack Obama). Rather, the way to get direct audience with an important person is to share a common interest with them (for instance if you were a big finacial mover and shaker, you might be able to get direct audience with the president at this point in time). Similarly god is approachable by those who have attained a certain state of being.
For eg
BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
not sure what you are asking here
Like any claim of knowledge you will find three kinds of responses from three catagories of people
- those who have properly applied themselves for determining the means
- those who have not properly applies themselves but have faith in the means
- those who have not properly applied themselves and have no faith in the means
For instance suppose we were discussing the validity of a medical claim, you would get one group of responses from doctors, another from people who accept the advice of doctors, and yet another from those who distrust doctors.
Feelings, intuitions, idea of luck and all such issues contribute towards anyone's belief in the existence of a higher being. But if observed, we can easily realize that its same for everyone though it cannot be proved or established scientifically. So people have some ground to argue on. Something does exists which connects us all but it cannot be proved or disproved.
Then the believers go on to do the most irrational thing - to speculate that what they felt is because of the existence of a higher being who is controlling them. They don't ever care to think how higher or higher in what sense it can be. Another group of people even go to the extend of imagining a 20 foot tall dude with white beard wearing white dress(recently god started wearing suits though) sitting on a golden chair(remember gold and white is a big thing for humans for ages) and the imagination extends to everything possible. Humans basically paint their ignorance in the shape of God, heaven and hell. If we ask a kid to imagine how God would be, he might even contribute a cellphone and a laptop to the existing idea of God.
There is no God as humans perceive it as a whole. But a lot of reasons what makes them believe so are undiscovered natural laws which cannot be proved as a law within the limits of science.
God was created in the image of man.
You forgot to put a capital on the first word; be careful.
Behind most every claim of God, lies, create factors establishing qualifications.
But in science, theories are not considered true until the evidence is provided to support the idea.
The conundrum that lies behind the acceptance of beliefs over evidence is the ongoing pursuit of knowledge; the evolution continues in both disciplines.
:shrug:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I think humans have a built in neurological bias to interpret events in terms of intention. It's similar to how we tend to interpret certain visual inputs as a face (the famous Mars rock face, for example). We are left with a thousands year old mis-diagnosis called theism. Science has long superceded this idea, but popular culture hasn't cought up.
Bishadi:
I am about to give you consideration on your search for truth. I don't like to see people go mad in search for truth. Perhaps it is the only way for us to live our lives though
I guesssss This is true. Theories get crushed. I wonder. What you think God is. What you think the search for truth is. What is so important or imperative about the philosophical search for gods search for truth. I wonder why you think it should be crushed (to give numerous examples), of your search.
God in the philosohical interprise has only one final conclusion and it is something intelligent people sway from because it is one without much reason.
God is the easiest thing to consider and going mad is not a first step.
This is most true. In fact, a recent issue of the British NewScientist had an article regarding how susceptible the human mind is, not only to patterns, but also the concept of God; it even goes as far to suggest we are actually predisposed to such notions. It was the cover story, actually, and even in your post you have demonstrated how easily we attribute many things to intention. You used the words "built in" to describe this neurological phenomena. I know what you meant, you are obviously arguing the contrary to God and, likely, most, if not all things supernatural, but the language you used implies that we were designed. Don't worry, I understand you didn't mean to communicate this, I am simply pointing out how we can, oh so easily, ascribe intention without even meaning to or realizing it.
Anyway the article I mentioned says that experiments in children have shown that there is a default state in which we are naturally receptive to supernatural ideas. Different parts of the brain deal with inanimate objects and people, at least when we are babies. For example, if a box moves, a baby will exhibit surprised behavior, but a person moving in the same way will have no such effect. Thereby, the baby attributes that something has to move the box, and sometimes applying it to humans. Cause and effect. This, to me at least, is not a large jump in logic. We all do this. It seems to make sense in an evolutionary sense. The article then goes on to say that this sort of reasoning continues into adulthood, albeit in a lesser form. We simply muzzle it, but under great pressure (war, depression and other circumstances I expect), we sometimes lose the ability to keep these thoughts at bay. Even atheists and agnostics tend to assign "cause and effect" to circumstances where there are none, to some degree. People turn to the supernatural when in need.
If you want to see the evidence backing up these ideas, google "NewScientist" continue to the site and search "predisposed God" and it should be the top result. I'd link you all but this is my first post, so my post count isn't high enough to grant me the privilege.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
There could be some evolutionary advantage to such 'wiring'. That would explain a few things.
That is one of the leading theories. It encouraged greater unity and teamwork, which obviously is a positive when you are hunting a large animal.
I do not think we are hard-wired for religion. I think it arises from an interplay of two other modules which each have evolutionary benefit, but combined have bizarre secondary effects.
One is the superstition module, which has enormous benefit. This module is what makes us draw hasty conclusions on ephemeral data. It is why we confuse correlation with causation. If Thog eats a red berry on the "bathroom trail" and gets sick later, it is better safe than sorry: Don't eat red berries and don't eat anything on the "bathroom trail".
The incorrect and paranoid reproduce more than the scientist who tests every hypothesis and poisons himself. Nature doesn't reward being "right", just being hyper-aware. Note the paranoid delusionals in the WTC thread.
The second module is the "human agent" module. This is the one that assigns blame and credit for all changes to our environment. If a tool is moved, it didn't move itself, a person moved it. Probably Thog, the thieving bastard. This module is responsible for our culture, our sense of reciprocity, our alliances and our wars. It is also why we assume that if a tree moves, a bigger, stronger "man" must have moved it.
These two modules are well known to psychologists, and their interplay results in religion. Superstition guided by human agents. The way these religions are modified over the years has to do with the evolution and natural selection of memes, as stronger gods (stronger concepts, anyway) win out over weaker gods. Militant monotheism is the result.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It would also help a people to stick together in the face of adversity.
Would this also explain the negative disposition of theists towards atheists ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
This makes sense. But looking at humanity today, of which a vast majority is religious, one can't help but wonder about (a) genetic component(s) being responsible.
Perhaps this combination you mention has been favored throughout human evolution.
I don't think that that assumption is entirely fair, but it is possible.
Swivel: The two are not mutually exclusive. The article I referenced too has a certain Professor Dawkins commenting on the issue. It could be a mixture. If find it likely that religion persisted because of evolutionary advantages, yet I also agree that it is a by-product of the two modules you mentioned. Both theories have strong evidence supporting them, and so I think it logical that there lies some truth in both.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Why is it not fair ? This has been true throughout the ages, and not only in the religion department. Groups frown on outsiders, sometimes suppressing them or outright exterminating them. But especially so with religion.
Perhaps the fear is that people that choose not to be part of 'the group' will not help the group in times of adversity, choosing their own path. This makes outsiders useless to the group, and frankly just a drain on resources.
Actually, this has parallels with bullying.
GOD spoke directly to me...though that is personal and not material.
In that case...I'm here!!!
God is within, they are observing their own true nature and seeking, even if vaguely unbeknownst to themselves, to unleash it.
Both at the same time!!!
Groups also accept those from the outside, religion is also about conversion, which in some respects makes you tolerant of outsiders. Although I still see your point; I'd just like to see further study into that idea and neuroscience in general regarding religion. Neuroscience hasn't made a lot of progress with examining the origin and sustenance of religion, throughout the ages.
Reason tells me that a strong case can be made for your argument. The repeated occurence of religious wars provides a little basis for it.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Groups also accept those from the outside, religion is also about conversion, which in some respects makes you tolerant of outsiders. Although I still see your point; I'd just like to see further study into that idea and neuroscience in general regarding religion. Neuroscience hasn't made a lot of progress with examining the origin and sustenance of religion, throughout the ages.
Reason tells me that a strong case can be made for your argument. The repeated occurence of religious wars provides a little basis for it.
I'm just improvising here, of course. But I don't think I'm far off
I'm just improvising here, of course. But I don't think I'm far off
More likely than not you are.
Religion undoubtedly has an evolutionary basis, as it has persisted throughout the ages, and until recently was universal in all cultures. You could still argue that it is universal to some degree. Hopefully reason will take its place as a universally held view in the future.
i could see 'cultures' being hardwired... but babies learn from people. Meaning children are not born idiots, they learn it from their environment.
case in point
not bad sg