Senate Atheism 4.0 - Now Discussing: Religiosity and intelligence

Young Earth creationism is a far cry from mainstream Christianity. As Tyson notes in that very video I linked to, it's a fringe who push anti-science.

Religion exists to tell us the why and science explains the what and how.

So says Michio Kaku so say we all.

(No really, Kaku has stated that before)

Now of course not all people need to know the why. But most do.

Yathura, considering Stephen Hawking, not exactly Mr. Theology, stated in the past one could resolve a belief in a supreme creator and evolution by suggesting the laws of nature don't leave out the possibility of godly creation,it's not conflicting to see evolution as a law and then the creator as the trigger of the law.

And of course The Bible would come into conflict with the findings of science. It's a book written by human beings and edited and translated by flawed human beings over centuries.

Most mainstream Christians believe The Bible is allegorical, not literal.

 

It would be quite unfair to say Young Earth Creationism is merely a 'far cry,' considering as roughly 40% of the US population still accept it over evolution. If this were a figure like 25% of the christian population, you could call this a minority amongst christians... yet still almost half the US population continue to believe in young-earth creationism over evolution.

At least in the US, Young Earth Creationism is still a powerful influential force amongst christians. I can't rightly say I know how the rest of the world's christians treat the story of creationism, but I'd have to imagine far more accept the young-earth creation story over evolution... considering as most don't have free access to education like in the US. The only other country in the Global North which has a higher 'young-earth creationist' population than the US is Turkey.

Science covers the 'why' quite better than religion, I'd say. There isn't a religious cause or motive that can't otherwise be fulfilled by a secular means. In other words, people can just as easily (and possibly more effectively) create their own purpose in life without needing a god. Personal beliefs and values are both beneficial to the individual and the society... organized beliefs are a completely different matter. The reason why I'm anti-theist is that I believe people would be better served (and serve better) if they didn't believe in a god. While blind faith could drive people to do good deeds once in a while, it has the power to drive good people to commit vile deeds for no good reason. I'd rather that people find their own purpose in life, rather than having one enforced upon them.

I personally find it sickening to think that some people would go on a killing rampage if they didn't believe there was a god watching his every move. What do I mean by this? If someone seriously believed the only thing keeping himself from committing vile crimes against humanity is an all-powerful god, I'd call that individual a sociopath. And that's exactly the kind of thinking I believe is unhealthy. I would much rather live in a society where people are taught to recognize themselves amongst their peers and recognize their place among society. I believe that people would be better served with this kind of motivation driving their actions... not some theoretical external force threatening them with punishment if they commit crimes against their society.

Why? Would you rather someone helped you out of some expectation that they'd be rewarded by some all powerful god later in life? Or would it be nice just to accept that some people just want to be considerate when others are in need?

Alright, then you render christianity completely obsolete. There's nothing more to say than that.

The whole purpose of a holy scripture is to be some message from a perfect god that brings enlightenment upon people. The moment that one passage within the bible is accepted as blatantly false, the entire text loses its 'holiness.' Christianity i

 

Yuthura, I don't know if you saw my last post to you (it was a rather late response), but I asked (1) what did I write that finally got through to you?, and (2) what do you think of my idea of attacking the "root cause" of the blind theism that you have a problem with? Peace...

Nope, not a deist, sorry!

I think God has been involved with the universe since creation, I just don't see God's involvement as necessarily supernatural. I believe that time will prove that God, souls, and the afterlife are compatible with our scientific understanding of the universe.

 

Just for the record, Michio Kaku can eat a ****. He's an accomplished scientist, but he apparently decided it's more important to be the news show's exciting go-to science guy than to actually communicate the reality of the current state of science.

And you can just keep saying "it hasn't yet!" until the end of time if that's what it takes. But that's not the way to discover what's actually true.

Your position is both unscientific - being unfalsifiable - and intellectually inconsistent, because by this logic you should believe in every fool thing that has no evidence for it and could be proven with time, like the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot and fairies and unicorns on the dark side of Europa.

Maybe someday those things will be demonstrated to exist. When they do, I'll believe them. But not before, because I care about what's actually true and not just what I want to be true. And even if we find a way to redefine the supernatural so that it is compatible with the universe as we understand it, that still doesn't mean those things exist. They are certainly not necessary the way, say, dark matter is, as the universe seems to account for itself just fine (and arguably better) without them.

 

No. Are we really going to go over this again?

 

Yes yes, I know, you just "hope" these things are true and generally go about your life as if they're not. Whatever makes you feel good, sure, fine. I still think you're leaving yourself unnecessarily open for a habit of more readily accepting false beliefs, but that's your prerogative. What I don't understand is why you choose to identify yourself with a label that has inappropriate connotations for your position, and compound the confusion by arguing on that side when you mostly agree with the atheists and you don't care what they have to say in the cases where you don't because you've already decided what you're going to choose to believe and consider it settled.

You're a friendly guy and all, but most of your posts come down to explaining how your position isn't what the label you've applied to it implies it is. By all means engage in whatever threads you like, but in the interests of productive conversation, can you please just explain to me what you're hoping to accomplish here? What you're seeking to understand or to help us understand? For my sake more than yours, so I understand where you're coming from rath than talking st cross-purposes. Because it seems, as you are pointing out yourself, that we just wind up going in circles.

 

Except it doesn't. "Why" isn't always a relevant, or even answerable, question. And when it is, religion doesn't actually provide the answers.

 

Religion exists to tell us how to live a life that is "good". It doesn't tell us why anything, except metaphorically.

 

Religion exists so authoritarians can claim an unassailable source for their authority and use it to control others.

 

Religion exists because people love tradition.

 

Honestly this thread has me increasingly convinced that religion exists so that people can all argue about it.

 

Ironically, that's probably true.

Ghost:

I probably suck up to Dorkman a bit too much when it comes to religion, but I have many of the same thoughts as him about your religious beliefs.

I will freely admit that you are well-grounded in reality, but your religious beliefs seem entirely grounded on emotion. What I can't figure out is how one can actively recognize something to be fiction, yet cling to it with hope that it just might be possible. The difference I see between you and a young-earth creationist is that you seem a 'god of the gaps' believer. You don't reject the validity of scientific theories which are backed by factual evidence, you don't make excuses for beliefs not supported by evidence, and yet you feel the need to plug god somewhere in your beliefs.

While I respect your beliefs much more than I had before, I'm still confused at how one such as yourself can defend a belief in the absence of evidence. While there is no positive evidence that can possibly disprove the existence of an all-powerful being, I cannot fathom how anyone as informed as you could believe anything on emotion alone. You say you hope there is a god... I get that. I accept you probably don't lie to yourself or get lazy when it comes to defending your beliefs.

As you probably know, reality doesn't conform to what a person wants. Holocaust victims obviously didn't want to be stuffed into gas chambers and killed, but their emotions didn't change the reality of their situation. I simply cannot imagine how anyone can believe an all-powerful and benevolent god could possibly have allowed such crimes against life to have happened under his watch. Based on this alone, I have trouble understanding how anyone could want to worship a being who has the power to prevent human suffering, but simply chooses not to intervene.

Either way, I personally see no desire nor reason to believe in a god. And it seems to make much more sense when you just leave god out of the picture completely. Some people just naturally are inclined to make themselves feel more important by thinking something more powerful is watching over them. And some are just afraid of the unknown, and so plug any answer they want to fill in the holes within their lives.

One last thing:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/world/asia/afghanistan-rape/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

A rape victim sentenced to 12 years, or marry the **** who raped her... a testament to the evils of religion. Blame the rape victim!

This kind of cultural/religious cruelty sickens me to the core.

 

The law is meant to keep women chaste until they are married so that they don't bring millions of bastard children into the world.

It's not fair to the women who are actually raped, but it serves the "greater good". That's the idea anyway.

 

This just might be the most disgusting thing I have ever read. Ever. Anywhere.

 

This is a problem with the patriarchical religions, not just Islam. In Judaism, several centuries ago, if a woman was raped, but did not cry out, she faced a similar situation. However, if she got pregnant, she could marry any single man who would have her to make her child legitimate.

The rape was never the man's fault. Fortunately, the Jewish religion evolved to be a bit more humanistic.

This is pretty horrible. What is to stop a man from raping a woman so he can get to marry her, whether she wants to marry him or not?

 

Do you believe in that? Do you think it's appropriate to sacrifice the rights of a few rape victims who got pregnant against their will... for some greater good?

I hope you are just regurgitating something you genuinely don't believe, because it would sicken me to think you could actually defend the crimes of rapists for such a reason. If you say that you don't approve of this practice under any circumstances... then I can honestly say you are morally superior to god when it comes to this.

In much of my experience, the very people within a religion are morally superior to the supposedly-perfect god they worship. This is what strikes me as odd about religion. The bible is in no way a guide for morality, even within the new testament... and yet there are good people who commit terrible deeds because they think they are following god's will.

Wannasee... if you do believe in a god, then it might do you some good to consider yourself whether you are morally superior to the god you worship. Because I can honestly say you are a probably a more moral person than the god you worship, but not if you maintain a belief which doesn't respect the rights of others.

 

I was just explaining the rationale behind the law.

If you think bastards and loose women are bad for society, then you institute this kind of law. If you are more concerned with individual rights, then you don't.

Like everything in life, there is a trade-off. For everything you gain, you lose something. So I don't know what's "right", ultimately.*

*Obviously I don't support rapists.

 

What is the reality of the current state of science? Please educate Professor Kaku and myself.
Oh yeah, just that tiny accomplishment of string theory. And he's just working towards a unified theory. Yeah, he's just a accomplished scientist. I guess because he doesn't shout from the "heavens" "I'm a atheist!"(and he is) and he's actually fair towards those colleagues of his who do have faith, he's just a ****.



By the way, I'm reading his recent book Physics of the Future.

Great read. Covers advancements in science in 15-25 years, then 50 and finally 100 years from now. He readily admits the 100 is nigh impossible to predict but it is a fun final section of the book.

Well yeah, perhaps in time it would be understandable and fit into scientific realities and processes. But right now it does appear supernatural. And there may come a time when humanity will possess god-like powers, but there is not any evidence out there that a godlike figure created the universe. There is only our faith that a creator did so.

And the afterlife is an entirely different subject altogether. I have a much harder time believing in an afterlife than creation. It is true that energy is not lost only transferred but there is no evidence showing we retain a conscious soul after death.

 

Yeah, you totally pwned that argument I wasn't making at all! Strong work!

My distaste for Kaku has got nothing to do with atheism -- I can see how you might be confused based on the topic of the thread, but that's why it's important to read, like, the post, and not just the thread title. My issue relates more to the kind of thing you mention in his Physics of the Future book, where he casts forward 50 or 100 years and predicts what will be. He may readily admit in the book that those things are impossible to predict, but when I see him on television shows he's saying all of those things as though they are established fact, and in his excitement to be the next Carl Sagan he has a tendency to oversimplify basic science and try to make it sexy at the expense of making it understandable or accurate.

I'm not questioning whether or not he understands it at a high level -- much higher than my own, certainly -- but he seems less interested in helping the public actually understand what he does than he is in making himself the go-to TV guy by being willing to say something vague about quantum physics in relationship to Harry Potter or whatever the latest movie is. He strikes me as a panderer and it rubs me very much the wrong way. But maybe I've just seen the wrong interviews.

 

What experiments or predictions has string theory made to confirm it's validity?

 

Him and everyone who ever goes into particle theory ever. That's like saying "Oh yeah, this baseball player is phenomenal, he occasionally hits the ball."

 

I don't like Kaku either, but I disagree that he should eat a ****.

If you are interested in hard science, then you should take a class. Television is aimed at a general audience.

 

So the British government is to send a brand new copy of the King James Bible, complete with a foreword by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, to every school in Britain. What a thoroughly repellant proposition. If you're going to send out a book that actually means something and could do with being being spread around more in schools, then why not give them The Origin of the Species? A book that actually seeks to educate and stimulate the mind, rather than spread the idea of subservience and intolerance. Yes it's not had an important milestone since reaching 150 a couple of year ago, but there's no time like the present. After all, is it not the role of the education system to educate? What does the Bible teach that is still relevant or not done better elsewhere? The works of Shakespeare would provide you with a better moral outlook on life than anything in the Bible.

Certainly the influence of the KJB on Western Culture is profound and maybe you could argue for this from an artistic point of view, though I imagine these arguments would be weak. What baffles me further though is why does a government see fit to spend almost £400k on the distribution of an outdated and irrelevant book on one hand, yet with the other preach austerity and tightening of the belt through government cuts? At best it's hypocrisy and at worse it's the distribution of religious dogma.

 

I don't like Kaku either, but he's not interesting enough for me to care if he eats a .... or not.

And to suggest to someone who's sending out Bibles to schools that they'd do better to send out copies of Darwin is unhelpful. They're two different beasts. It's a comparison that only helps to pit science against religion and to make The Origin Of The Species more controversial, while it shouldn't be controversial at all - the knowledge it represents should be basic stuff in schools. If that's guaranteed, I see no issue with sending around whatever fiction the secretary deems appropriate.

 

The conflict arises from the fact that the government should not be issuing (at great expense might I add) copies of the Bible with a foreword from a member of the Government when copies of books like The Origin of the Species are not getting into school at all. I quite agree that TOotS should be uncontroversial when evolution has been proven to be true, yet it still gets neglected when it is quite clearly one of the most important books ever written.

I'd have no problem with the issuing of Bibles if they would do the same for other, more important books. It cannot be one rule for religion and another for anything else. Religion should never get a free pass.