Does God Exist?

Trying to figure out out if God exists or not totally exhausts me.You could spend your whole life on this quest and then you die and just get nowhere.

Reality can freak me out though.I mean why,now,everything.


Life to me is complete inexplicable,and that conundrum piques my interest enough,without some putative God who may or not punish me depending on whether I've been a good man or not.


I'm a modernist,and I haven't got much time for this shit anymore.

Of course,catch me on another day and I'll probably be singing a different tune.

I

 

There's a difference between doing science and doing life. Science is about testing refutable hypotheses and subjecting the results to peer review. It's the gold standard when it comes to human knowledge, but it has its limitations--the biggest ones being that not everything lends itself to that level of testing and that our lives are short. If we take the agnostic approach and suspend judgement while awaiting proof, our lives will be pretty constricted. What about politics? Should we stay home on election day because we can't prove who is the better candidate, or do we make an informed choice on the basis of the available evidence, including candidate demeanor, our experience, and personal values? What about history? Henry Ford told us that "History is bunk", and most of ancient history falls well short of scientific standards. So do we believe any of it, or pride ourselves for our high standards? What about biology? I just got through reading O.W. Wilson's The Meaning of Human Existence. Wilson, an eminent Harvard evolutionary biologist, atheist and leader in the development of sociobiology, comes down hard in favor of the theory that our altruism is a result of group selection. This makes him a heretic in the minds of many of his colleagues, especially Richard Dawkins, whom Wilson dismisses as "an eloquent science journalist". When Wilson published his heresy in the prestigious journal Nature, 137 biologists signed a protest letter, and when his book The Social Conquest of Earth came out, Dawkins urged people not to read it. Or what about Cosmology? The "show us the evidence" crowd have come up with M-theory as an alternative to design, but as yet there is no empirical support for multiple universes. In fact, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is convinced that the universe we're living in is a computer simulation a la The Matrix.

So what's my point? Nothing is certain, not even that. We place our bets on the reality that seems most plausible to us in light of the evidence available. I'm betting on human evolution because so far it's the explanation most consistent with the available evidence from a variety of sources. But it's only a Cambrian rabbit away from being discredited. So far, no rabbits. I'm also tentatively betting on a Higher Power (aka, God,the Ground of Being, Something Big Out There) as a felt presence of a benevolent force in the universe, not necessarily an omniscient, omnipotent Dude in the Sky. It provides an explanation for the integrated complexity of the universe and a metaphor for ultimate meaning. I'm betting against creeds, dogma, and church bureaucracy. I admire many features of the various world religions, but I'm skeptical of all of them as guides to "The Truth". On Mr. Writer's video supra Sam Harris tells us that we should prefer the truth over what is useful to believe. I agree with that, but am less confident than Sam that I or he has a real handle on "The Truth". Wilson tries to redefine meaning in The Meaning of Human Existence, as what science tells us about how we got here and how things work. Science can give us a better understanding of physical reality, but it can never give us meaning as a sense of purpose or ultimate value. I use the term "God" to describe ultimate meaning, and I think I could accept the Dope's definition as "that which we invoke".

The call for "evidence" in this forum is often really a call for "proof", which varies with context. Most decisions in the real world--e.g., what level of lead we can be exposed to, how a highway should be constructed, or who gets prosecuted--are not based on scientific proof or even courtroom proof, but on substantial evidence and probable cause: enough evidence to convince a reasonable person to take action even though another reasonable person might not be convinced. I submit that when it comes to betting on the nature of the universe, it's not unreasonable to bet on purpose, even though reasonable skeptics aren't convinced.

 

i mean the phrase literally. that's the only way you're going to have what can really be called a god. literally non-physical. all the subtleties of mater and energy and their permutations are subject to scientific examination and thus potentially can actually be known. i mean aside for there quite probably being more things to be known then all of sapient beings to know them.

but the topic question is really honestly unknowable. as people on both sides of that cloud love to keep pointing out to me, we can't even know whether or not completely non-physical things exist.
we only know that there's no reason that they can't. and if they can, then there can be things like gods.

then you have these religions that add layer upon layer of detail to their speculations. which only narrows further, makes even longer the odds, of their getting it even close to right.

we cannot KNOW of a god, just as we cannot KNOW a certainty of anything of the sort not being possible.

so there is this possibility, within which, something, whole universes of somethings, god like, could exist, and all we can say about it, with confidence to anyone but ourselves, is that yes, such a thing could exist, because there is no way we could KNOW, either way, if it did.

so yes, that's what i mean by neither physical nor imaginary. that things, completely non-phyisical, there's absolutely no reason they cannot exist, just exactly as there is just as absolutely no way, we could ever possibly know of them.

so we have this word "god". its origin is actually a contraction of the word "good".

so to me, when people mention this concept, that is what they're talking about.

something that could exist, that by its very nature can never be known whether or not it does.

it could also be called a third order of intangibility.

first order being things that are clearly the result of physical things, that can be physically measured, but which are not physical things themselves. emergent phynomina, even computer programs.

second order would be fundimiental principals, still discoverable by applying scientific methods of inquiry. like thermodynamic or generals and special relativity, string theory, grand unified theory and so on.

and of course that's sort of the sight post at the end of the road that says beyond here lies madness.

but the beyond of there, that has nothing discoverable sticking out that can be measured, offeres really nothing to the best and most powerful means of observation we can devise. there's really nothing that can prevent that from existing too. only that, again by deffinician, this is what we cannot know.

the ego is a real bitch. it doesn't want us to admit to ourselves that there can be things we cannot ever possibly know.

but that cannot prevent them for existing. only our knowing about them. anything more about them, then that nothing guarantees or can guarantee, their non-existence.

 

Okiefreak, that sounds like a very nuanced and educated way of saying "I have no idea and no evidence, but it makes me feel good to believe that there's a benevolent higher power, so I will believe it".

The fact that it makes you feel good to believe it should arouse your suspicions immediately and set you towards being cautious in embracing this view.

I didn't really understand your points about dawkins et al; yes, there is disagreement and even childish bickering in the sciences. They are still mortals with foibles and careers and reputations. We look past that at the results. If richard dawkins says something stupid based on no evidence then I won't listen to it, even if i think he's a rather brilliant communicator of science (and scientist no doubt).

 

He sounds very rational and seems more educated on the subject than most people. Why exactly should he be suspicious and/or cautious about his conclusion (so far) that God seems good?

 

the thing about religion is that it promotes ignorance as a virtue and teaches people not to think for themselves. when I seek knowledge I make use of any and ALL sources available to me.

they have the attitude that since we can never possibly understand everything that it is futile and undesirable to attemp to understand anything as some things are just beyond us ... standing in the way of progress.

I'd be willing to bet that to someone 2000 years ago we are close to knowing "everything" since we know so many things that people in that time had no idea were even available to know (every answered question yields ten-fold as many more). I'm not even sure that there's really a limit to our capacity to understand since knowledge is built in a cumulative fashion and we don't have to continuously reinvent the wheel. if the there is a limit we are no where close to it.

 

It is impossible to prove non-existence... I was hoping my non-physical hallucinatory chip example would have made that clear.

If there is smoking gun evidence that a multiverse exists, I probably wave the white flag as multiverses inherently suggest different laws of physics for other universes, although I doubt I'd be convinced that there is overlapping interaction in our universe or anything remotely similar to any of the deities we have imagined. However if all we can provide concrete evidence for is a physical universe which displays emergent properties and can sustain and account for all the complexities of life and the universe, there is no reason to make claims and false attribution to non-physical supernatural beings.

For instance, There is no reason why I can't say that my headphones couldn't have been made by a supernatural being, after all I wasn't there to witness them being made. All logic and rationale suggests to me that in this objective universe, my headphones were made by a person and perhaps machine, that is physical interaction upon physical material.

Computer programs are physical by the subtletities of matter and energy. They run code when they are expending energy.

 

Are you talking about ignorance and knowledge in general, or in science, or ignorance and knowledge about the subject of god(s)? As most religious people i know make at least as much use of all available sources as nonreligious people.

 

.

 

mostly regarding science. the religious right has gone so far as to try and ban the teachng of evolutionary biology in schools (like that would really fly).

seems to me a lot of them want to dumb down and shelter us from reality. not to mention whether they like it or not, understanding of such things is a prerequisite for all fields relating to biology ... I would ask one how they thought scientists come up with the lates vaccines (such as the latest flu vaccine) and how they can predict strains but some of them seem quite incapable of applying rationality.

it can get me quite irritated actually, I like to make progress in a conversation. if you have some evidence then present your case and I'll be completely happy to discuss it intelligently, but some of these people fail to see the flaws in their reasoning or the logical fallacies (sometimes atrocities) that they commit and even after explaining this they still don't see it. I feel like I'm speaking with a child or a brick wall and no progress can ever be made as there's no way else to explain it. if they still can't get it they never will ... and sometimes I think they really do, they have to, and that they just don't want to admit their own insecuries in the belief system that they hold.

I'm out saying that all of religious people are stupid, that would be a gross over generalization, but I do feel that much of religious ideology is deeply rooted in delusion and often fails on philosophical grounds as well.

 

Your use of the term "feel good" is problematic. I try to base my judgments on reason and the best available evidence, but am willing to use intuition when all else fails. Caution is always in order where controversial beliefs are concerned, as long as it doesn't lead to paralysis. I wonder if you've considered the possibility that your own confident rationalism might be motivated by a desire to "feel good" about making your way in a world of uncertainty. The point about Wilson vs. Dawkins was simply to illustrate the reality of paradigm shifts and the precariousness of relying on what appears to be today's scientific consensus.

 

The religious right is wrong. The landmark case overturning the order of the Dover Area School District to require teaching Intelligent Design in the schools nicely illustrates the diversity of viewpoints subsumed under the label "religion". The star witnesses for both sides were devout Catholic biologists--Dr. Michael Behe, leading advocate of ID, and Dr. Kenneth Miller, champion of Darwinian evolution. Miller mopped up the floor with Behe. Apparently "dumbing down" didn't interfere with Miller's ability to develop a reputation as an evolutionary biologist at Brown University while retaining faith in God, which he's explained in his book Finding Darwin's God.

I happen to agree with you that "much of religious ideology is deeply rooted in delusion and often fails on philosophical grounds as well." I'm taking a college course on Classic Christian Writings in which we examine the development of Christian thought just after the New Testament. What we call Christianity today is the product of centuries of controversies, the winners of which embodied their views as creeds and church doctrines. A good deal of politics was involved, and highly articulate, forceful, thinkers like St. Augustine, Athanasius, and St. Anselm were able to prevail on such matters as original sin, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and other issues. Unfortunately, the emphasis shifted from following the teachings and example of Jesus to believing unbelievable doctrines--pregnant virgins, walking dead people, etc. Any group organized around beliefs inevitably suffers from "groupthink" in yielding to pressures toward conformity, but this differs considerably from one denomination to another.

 

I may take a peak at that book next time I have the chance (and remember to do so). I think you know that one of my points is the denial of scientific fact such as evolution. Being an evolutionary biologists requires an understanding of evolution, and with that level of understanding I don't see how you could still deny it, to me that would be like a physicist that didn't believe in gravity, or a chemist that doesn't believe in electrons.

it's still my position that fundamentalist views stand in the way of reaching our true potential as a species, and in some ways harmful to society. it's also my opinion (as well as the opinion of some psychologists) that religious fundamentalism has the potential to cause psychological trauma as well, as it can force otherwise reasonable people to hold two or more incompatible beliefs, and somehow attempt to reconcile the two by bending rationality in a way as to force their compatibility. I see it somewhat like putting on headphones where the speaker in you left ear is playing comoletely different music than the one in your right. of course you would find this annoying as your brain is receiving conflicting information from each ear which your brain cannot fit together in a way that makes sense, so eventually you begin looking for ways be relieved of this burden, in this case by removing one of the speakers from your ear and going with the one that makes the most sense. some people may be inclined to stop the music altogether.

 

I agree with you completely about religious fundamentalism--Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. I find it amazing that literalists can function as well as they do. But since I live in the Buckle of the Bible belt I deal with True Believers every day. Some of them are quite intelligent, but the intelligence is compartmentalized. Major areas are off limits to critical eamination, and I can't help but think it affects other parts of their lives adversely..

 

Thanks for clarifying, Ace. I am slowly getting that american conservative christians are a bit behind (in general), and also seem to have the numbers that they can influence/impact the rest of society. Not that i didn't hear before about how things like being against abortion or being against evolution teached in schools are still newsworthy items and important political spearpoints over there, but hey i figured that could just be american media/politics I guess the (stereo)typical 'biblethumpers' have a big majority there. Here we (antitheist or not) became quite tolerant of christians who take the bible literally etc. since they really are quite harmless to society. I can understand why certain american atheists still like to target and agitate against religion so much, although it still seems a bit unnuanced most of the time. For example, and yes finally relating to the thread topic again , how they convict theistic beliefs as a whole.

 

I understand how some atheists can take an antagonistic position against theistic ideology. Many struggle with religion for a long time, and the distress it has dealt the psychologically. i imagine some are just a bit bitter about the whole thing, and can't quite get rid of the bad taste that their own experience with religion has left in their mouths. They see it as the next logical intellectual step for a person to take and become frustrated when others can't make that same connection and seem to defy any reasonable mode of thought.

 

I both understand and can relate. It sounds like me in puberty. Glad i am past that! Rather look as objectively as possible.

 

I like the analogy here...could apply to many things....

 

Which "they" of American Atheists are you referring to? And what do you mean by convict theistic belief as a whole?

Sam Harris explicitly suggests there is a difference between Islam belief and Jainism or Amish beliefs in that debate Writer posted.

 

Harris does, in that video, suggest that Islam is worse than other religions from the standpoint of promoting violence. Yet in the earlier video provided by Mr. Writer, he says that "religion" is the most destructive human ideology. That statement is hard to defend in light of the body counts produced by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Korean Kims (of what religion or ideology are they?). And he doesn't distinguish between kinds of Muslims. I know lots of Muslims in Morocco and the States who are deeply attached to Islam but seem to be content to go about their daily lives in peace with their neighbors. Harris tries to argue that Islam inherently leads to violent jihad, and that bin Laden's Wahabist extremism was a logical extension of Muslim beliefs. Harris thinks that fundamentalism is the purest expression of religion, and that moderates are just fuzzy minded people who can't see the true implications of their beliefs. But for the most part, Christians learned the hard way after the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to keep their zealotry on a short leash and learn to get along. Many of them even mad their peace with Darwin. Ironically, Harris' Islamaphobia is stirring the pot of suspicion and hatred that could readily lead to violence.