Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 7. (Read 7917 times)

That would have made then the first organism, or life form. Technically the first life form could be called 'god' just as bitcoin has the genesis block. But I'm highly skeptical that the first organism formed became an all knowing, never aging, magician.

I like the title of that paragraph: "Happy accident". Couldn't God be the very first happy accident of everything then?

I didn't deny that it may have been evolutionary advantageous, I simply pointed out that it could just as easily have been supplanted by critical thinking skills instead. Which leaves it's advantage as being 'in spite of', rather than 'because of'.
Bollocks. Consensus amongst the best researchers in a given field is only valid if the reasoning behind the consensus stands up for itself.

That they all agree is utterly irrelevant. It only matters *why* they all agree.

I would take the fact that all known human societies independently evolved religions as quite compelling evidence for the fact that it was evolutionarily advantageous at some point in history.

Also, I am not implying that the consensus proves the theory, but consensuses among the best researchers in a given field should obviously be given some weight.

I'll just leave this here, life without the need of life.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.U1_c3FfixHo

All we have is psychological dependency - that's why we do everything we do.

Just out of interest, what do you do? Can you justify it scientifically?
Why are you wearing the clothes you are wearing now? What rational function do they serve? Are you trying to position yourself in the social group - does it fit the current social norms? Are you projecting a social image to fit into the social group you identify with?
Everything we do is religion.

:head-desk:

Eesh, you're really gonna make me hold your hand and walk you through it then?

Fine, on we go:
So, you will concede at this point that your use of 'absolute truth', as opposed to simply employing the term 'truth', was superfluous hyperbole and entirely unwarranted, yes?

Now, in terms of your particular raison d'etre, philosophy or, as I prefer to call it, pretentious navel-gazing rhetoric - Let's look at your attempt to employ argument from abstraction, such as math, as equal to that which is observable and measurable via the scientific method.

Using abstract concepts as the basis for believing you are emplying objective reasoning *outside* of the realms by which the scientific method can be employed, namely, the observable, measurable and testable reality that is our Universe, unfortunately misses one rather important fact or, to use your word, truth.

Abstraction is derived from actual, tangible, measurable, observable, things. You know, those things what the scientific method gone done and got all clever on your ass about, to your chagrin.

Abstract concepts, such as math, generally represent things that actually exist or are a stated quantity of undefined 'things' for the purposes of mathematics and, when they do not represent things which actually exist, guess what they are?

That's right, they're arbitrary made-up-shit(tm) from our imagination and entirely devoid of any objective value whatsoever (other than entertainment). They may be pretty, like the flower is pretty but without the physical flower or a representation of such with which we can base the abstract notion of floral 'prettiness' on, you're fucked.

So your philosophical word-salad about 'truth' and 'God' is just as irrelevant as it is intellectual dishonest because, as much as you want your abstraction to stand up on it's own, it doesn't.

Abstraction that is not derived from substance is not reasoning, it is speculating.

It's an evolutionary argument - a belief in fairies may ensure survival better than belief that your sense of self is just a genetically induced survival mechanism.
Time will tell.

You are both a trivial, infinitesimally small speck and also a necessary, integral component to the state of the Universe as it is now.  This is partially implied by the sameness-in-difference principle which is a law of logic stating that differences can and *must* arise from the mosy fundamental of similarities.

Edit:  By the way, where there is a Universe, meaning is *absolutely necessary*.

Well, humans like stories. We are rather "pan narrans" than "homo sapience" (as Terry Pratchett so aptly put it).

"Don't go there because a terrible corcodile god will be upset and curse you and all your descendants" appeals much more to our charchteristic trait, imagination, than "don't go there or you'll be eaten by a crocodile".

Religions provide such stories and an easily conveyable form to retell them, thus setting reference points for the society to function in. The probles start to occur, when those reference points become so entrenched and are no longer updated to match the reality, as it happens now with Radical Islam and Orthodox Judaism.

Well, the implication is clearly that they would function worse as members of society if their illusions were shattered. It is an argument for religion, just not a very good one.

The way I interpret dancupid's statement, it's actually rather sensible. There are scientific disciplines that concern themselves with just such questions: psychology and social anthropology are two such examples. For example religious hierarchies that humans construct (polytheism, monotheism) correspond to the predominant social hierarchy of human tribes adopting those religions at the time.

Consensus is meaningless if there is no way to demonstrate whether primitive societies might have faired a whole lot better discovering critical thinking *before* made-up-shit(tm).

BTW, pro-tip, you can't prove anything by general consensus. Just because a bunch of people believe something to be true, it does not in any way, make it true.

Many people (including Richard Dawkins, everyone's favourite evolutionary biologist) have written on this subject, and the consensus is that religiosity was a survival aid to primitive societies.

Religion has played a role in organising societies in times and places where people were ill-equipped to contemplate things like science, society, the common good etc - it's much easier to get people to act in society's best interest with a heaven/hell carrot/stick approach than by asking them to consider all the long-term repercussions of their actions.

A good hypothetical example given by Dawkins are two tribes competing for resources: the members of the religious tribe are more likely to sacrifice themselves in battle (thereby making the tribe as a whole more likely to succeed) if they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

Of course Dawkins (and I) would argue that religion is unnecessary for these sociological purposes today - as a species we are now relatively enlightened, and capable of making decisions for the good of ourselves and others without the primal fear of supernatural punishment as a motivator.

Is not an argument justifying the continued existence of such. You are merely describing a psychological dependency, not a functional organisation.

"Oh but X did such good works, in the name of their God" - Simply explains that X, if they would not have done 'such good works' without their belief in their 'God', is an asshole who needs the threat of punishment/carrot of heavenly reward, in order to do good deeds. That is not an argument *for* religion.

You are and, until objective data suggests otherwise, it is.

I did look back and didn't see a solid rebuttal which is why I asked you to quote it/them for me.

'Absolute' truth is 'that which is'.  Were you expecting a different answer?

I think you should read what you quoted so you don't repeat me without realizing it.  I gave you a superior argument grounded in sound reasoning, but you didn't like that.  So, I switched to a tactic you can relate to, I.e. interjecting a logical fallacy.

Maybe so - I hope you are right. (I'm an atheist BTW)
But religious groups provide a social and psychological crutch that many people still need.
Spending 8 hours a day helping some company sell their irrelevant products for no reason is also nonsensical - but that's what most of us do with our lives (even if we are atheists).
Science may provide answers, but it doesn't tell me why I should get up in the morning - in fact it tells me clearly that I am a trivial infinitesimal speck in a meaningless, arbitrary universe.

Firstly, I don't have to 'believe in' Evolution, it is a theory supported by a vast array of observation and testing from multiple independent objective fronts.

Secondly, you state "If religious behaviour increases the chance of survival" then go on to make an assertion based on the hypothesis that something called 'religious behaviour' does, indeed, increase the chance of survival. How about you actually define what 'religious behaviour' equates to and why you think it would have any bearing on the survival rate of our species.

I'd wager that the growing prevalence for education, instead of indoctrination, is going to rightly see religion consigned to the history books.

If you look back and see where I point out how void-of-substance your assertions actually are because you cannot objectively define them beyond tossing a load of word-salad around.

Don't believe me? Try this:Oh I am *so* looking forward to your answer to this question then, are you ready?

What is 'absolute' truth?

(spoiler: we're not done yet matey)

Appeal to your own authority by way of superior argument, not by spouting off about how fucking awesome you are, then.

Human (ie one type of animal) behaviour is part of the universe.
If you believe in Darwinism then you have to accept that our behaviour (whatever it is) is only being tested by survival.
If religious behaviour increases the chance of survival then it too will survive - it doesn't matter if it's nonsense. Evolution doesn't test for nonsense.