Dom
Meteorite
Posts: 16
|
Post by Dom on Mar 21, 2010 20:23:23 GMT -5
Here is what I want to know, how did senses develop that allow humans to hear sound frequencies and see light frequencies? How did we develop conscienceness? Those 3 questions (along with a few others) are why I am tending to believe in a God.
Something else I thought of is, imagine you were able to create life (through abiogenesis), wouldn't that make you a creator? In science things that happen once, often happen again. If we were able to create a self-contained separate system, which supported self-sustaining life, even just single celled organisms, couldn't that be seen as proof to our creation? Kind of like if you've seen Dan Brown's simulation theory video, where he says the likely hood if we can simulate intelligent life, the higher probability we are simulated. So, if we can create life (acting as an external force), isn't there a higher probability we are created from an external force similar?
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Mar 22, 2010 5:56:46 GMT -5
Simply put - natural selection, natural selection, and natural selection.
If we managed to create a life separate from our own, we would indeed be the "creator" of that life. But it's a big leap of faith to say that that proves we have a creator.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 22, 2010 16:09:22 GMT -5
Indeed. That something can be created doesn't mean that it must have been created to occur. We can create diamonds, but that doesn't mean that the diamonds that we pulled out of mines had been created by anyone. If we ever managed to successfully perform abiogenesis, that would merely mean that it isn't impossible for us to have been created (by a god, aliens or otherwise), not that it was likely that we were created.
Considering most atheists don't make the argument that a creator existing is impossible, from a religious perspective that argument about abiogenesis is basically just fighting for ground you already have.
Besides, by most definitions of 'god', a god could do things we couldn't anyway, which makes the whole thing rather redundant.
As for developing hearing and sight, I believe there are papers on this, though I don't know off the top of my head of any sites or resources that would explain it at a level you or I could understand clearly. Nevertheless, I'm fairly sure it's been studied. Consciousness would be under development of the brain in early life I imagine, but it's a trickier subject, and is a question best asked to someone in the field if you have anyone you could ask about such things.
|
|
bleabot
Moon
Set phazors to dance, Mr. Warf.
Posts: 109
|
Post by bleabot on Mar 22, 2010 20:22:56 GMT -5
Simply put - natural selection, natural selection, and natural selection. Well, that's the interesting part, isn't it? I have no doubt whatsoever that natural selection caused us to become conscious, but why didn't any other animal grow such a useful tool? What was so unique about us? I think I've found the latest question to keep me up at night. Time to research! =D
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Mar 22, 2010 20:51:20 GMT -5
|
|
bleabot
Moon
Set phazors to dance, Mr. Warf.
Posts: 109
|
Post by bleabot on Mar 22, 2010 21:01:35 GMT -5
Self awareness. We know we think, but we aren't just thinking. I know other animals have it, but not as complete as ours. That's what I was talking about. Most animals go by instinct, even the more intelligent ones, but humans have a mind that can say "wait a minute...what should I do?". It's not just intelligence.
Actually, even if it is just that we're smarter, I'd still like to understand why we're smarter. Why didn't we just adapt like gorillas and become stronger, not smarter?
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Mar 22, 2010 21:33:19 GMT -5
Because we're a social species. Basically, once we began hunting in packs, with tools, our course was set. Better communication between members of the pack meant a more successful hunt. Better communication resulted in the crude communication of ideas between pack members, which in turn resulted in better weapons and strategies, which gave us more room to continue growing intellectually, and so on. It was cyclical. Eventually packs became more organized, became tribes, with social hierarchies and customs and -- most importantly -- language. Once we perfected language, our species very quickly rose to the top of the ladder, not through strength, but through intellect and collaboration.
Most of the great apes aren't that far off, actually. They are also social species, just a few steps behind us.
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Mar 22, 2010 23:38:42 GMT -5
Are you religious?
Yes.
Which religion are you?
Christian - United Methodist
Do you think religion is a necessary part of society?
As much as I would love everyone in the world to have faith and believe in God, it's NEVER going to happen. I do think it's good to have because it's good to have morals and standards to which we hold ourselves to. However, the Bible says that all sin is the same. Therefore, murder is equal to stealing a piece of gum in God's eyes. Yet this is not how it is in our society. That is why I think it's necessary to have religion (or at the very least, it's not a horrible thing to have), but it's also not a good idea to let murderers run around free just because they are as much of a sinner as I am.
Why do we have religion? Or, if you are religious, what purpose does it serve in your life?
I don't think there is anyway someone just made up this whole concept of God. It just didn't happen. The Bible was written over many years by many different people and in many different versions, YET each version agrees with someone else's rendition and whatnot. That didn't just happen. I only recently became a believer about 6 years ago. Like many people, one main reason I didn't want to be religious was because you have to get up early on Sunday. Now I embrace it. I absolutely LOVE going to church on Sundays and seeing all my friends. We really are a family. We have lots of fun events that are a blast, AND do without cursing, drinking, and drugs. Being a Christian has done wonders for my life, and a big part of that is the church I go to. People will have a hard time being a believer if they are in a church that doesn't have the characteristics that they like. For example, a traditional Christian will have a hard time coming into a church with Contemporary services.
But yeah, enough rambling for now...
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Mar 23, 2010 5:46:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 23, 2010 15:46:49 GMT -5
The Bible was written over many years by many different people and in many different versions, YET each version agrees with someone else's rendition and whatnot. That didn't just happen. No. Simply no. That is the biggest lie I've heard since being told that I would be required to handwrite after the fifth grade. Philosoraptor posted a pretty good link there to point out the inconsistencies. And finally, how do you know they weren't all written in order to agree with each other?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 23, 2010 17:16:48 GMT -5
^ Because, if they were, they actually would agree with each other! (I keed.) Don Exodus just posted a very interesting video on the evolution of altruism (that is, saving others at the cost of one's own life) aka 'kin selection' that might be interesting to anyone debating this, so I thought I'd share. It's a smidgen over 5 minutes long. www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Yrbc5O1gI
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 23, 2010 17:41:47 GMT -5
^ Because, if they were, they actually would agree with each other! (I keed.) Don Exodus just posted a very interesting video on the evolution of altruism (that is, saving others at the cost of one's own life) aka 'kin selection' that might be interesting to anyone debating this, so I thought I'd share. It's a smidgen over 5 minutes long. www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Yrbc5O1gIWell, they agree with each other vaguely. The story's the same - the details aren't.
|
|
evets
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
Post by evets on Mar 24, 2010 1:13:13 GMT -5
I realize I'm entering into this discussion a little late, but hey, better late than never, right? I just wanted to add a brief point before heading off to bed, but I promise I'll be adding more. <random off-topic logic lesson> ... There is a roundabout way to prove a hypothesis true using this method -- by making an assertion that, if proven false, would prove your initial hypothesis true. For example, you cannot prove God exists by using "God exists" as a premise within your argument. You could prove that God exists by using "God does not exist" as a premise (an assertion to be exact, and one that if proven false would inherently prove "God exists" to be true) and showing through otherwise certain facts and valid logic that this would result in a contradiction. </random off-topic logic lesson> To add to this point, this rhetorical method is called "Reductio ad absurdum" (Latin for "reduction to the absurd", I believe) and its one of my favorites. Basically if you can prove that statement A logically leads to a logical contradiction (A and not-A), then A is false. I was a little skeptical about joining this community at first, but after seeing the level of discourse and the general tone of the discussion, I think this is something worth participating in, and I think I have something of value to add to the discussion. I will post more on this topic later. -- EDIT: It's later. (I believe the proper forum etiquette is to edit one's post rather than double-posting, no?) So, I'm going to answer the questions honestly, and hopefully I won't get flamed for it. Are you religious?Yes indeed. Which religion are you?Christian, specifically fellowship baptist (my church is part of FEB in Canada) If you're familiar with the different denominations in Christianity in the US, note that this is different than Southern Baptist, which more people may be familiar with. Do you think religion is a necessary part of society?I think Christianity is a necessary part of society, and that the church acts as a restraining influence on what we call "sin". Why do we have religion? Or, if you are religious, what purpose does it serve in your life?I think that because of the way God created us, most people crave something more. Not knowing God, people try and create something on their own to fill their desires, to satisfy that nagging question in the back of their mind: "why am I here?" As a Christian, I believe that only Christianity holds the answer to that question. I ALSO hold that my faith is not simply blind obedience to something irrational. To the best of my knowledge, my beliefs are internally consistent and logically valid. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean one of us is stupid or illogical, it simple means that we started with a different set of premises. I also believe that faith is a kind of knowledge based on God's revelation, not simply an irrational belief. (cf. Aquinas ) A little more about me: I finished my undergraduate degree just a couple years ago at a small Christian university, where I studied philosophy and "Religious Studies" (Christian theology) . If there's any other philosophy people out there that can handle something a little heavier and are interested in seeing how a real Christian philosopher thinks, I highly recommend Alvin Plantinga, in particular his book called "Warranted Christian Belief". He puts forth the idea (and argues it masterfully) that Christians have a solid epistemological basis for their beliefs, and that we're not crazy and illogical.
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Mar 24, 2010 18:42:42 GMT -5
You can't just base your belief in faith on your belief in faith. That is the opposite of rational and logical.
I've never read Alvin Plantinga's books, can you give a brief summary of the idea?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 24, 2010 19:01:32 GMT -5
You would have to detail the logic and reasoning behind your beliefs before any of us could pose arguments or questions to it. But for starters:
Regions of the world that are and were not predominantly (or even remotely in many cases) Christian seem to be doing quite fine for themselves. Setting aside the topic of religion on the whole as a necessity for the moment, I think a good look around the world makes it incredibly clear that Christianity is not necessary to enforce ethics. Buddhism in Japan and other Asian countries is one example (and it's an atheistic religion to boot).
I looked up the summary of that book, and it mentions that Plantinga "contends that Christian beliefs are warranted to the extent that they are formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties, thus, insofar as they are warranted, Christian beliefs are knowledge if they are true." I may check it out in more detail given the chance and time, but I have yet to see a worthwhile discourse on religion where the writer or speaker felt that their beliefs were knowledge. Mistaking belief for knowledge is fanaticism. And for the record I apply that to both atheists and theists alike.
"People who believe they have the truth should know they believe it, rather than believe they know it." -- Jules Lequier
|
|
|
Post by shinigami345 on Mar 24, 2010 19:44:49 GMT -5
Are you religious?
Yes
Which religion are you?
LCMS Luthern Chrsitian
Do you think religion is a necessary part of society?
Yes
Why do we have religion? Or, if you are religious, what purpose does it serve in your life?
It serves as a place for me to say "This is where my strengh and my knowledge and my power comes from. This is my acropolis. This is my cornerstone or capstone." Now before I'm accused of blindly following my faith like a zombie or a singular sheeple I have questioned my faith and God has calmed my doubts and fears and kept me with Him.
On a side note I've tried discussing this with people before but it just turns into a flamewar it was on d2jsp.org with me vs like 24 athiests who had no inclination what so ever to discuss all they did was call me names and other bad things.
|
|
evets
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
Post by evets on Mar 24, 2010 23:12:09 GMT -5
I looked up the summary of that book, and it mentions that Plantinga "contends that Christian beliefs are warranted to the extent that they are formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties, thus, insofar as they are warranted, Christian beliefs are knowledge if they are true." I may check it out in more detail given the chance and time, but I have yet to see a worthwhile discourse on religion where the writer or speaker felt that their beliefs were knowledge. Mistaking belief for knowledge is fanaticism. And for the record I apply that to both atheists and theists alike. Its been a few years since I wrestled with Plantinga, so I'll try to explain a little more, but please bear with me. Basically, how I got into his ideas was through my epistemology class in university. Epistemology, for those who aren't familiar with it, is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question "how do we know what we know?" Going back to Plato (don't worry, I'm going somewhere with this, stay with me now. ), there are three basic things required for a statement to be knowledge: 1. Belief 2. Truth 3. Justification Or in other words, knowledge is Justified True Belief. This is still epistemology 101 here, but basically, the huge debate is over what is justification, and it gets in to skepticism and empiricism and foundationalism, and its all very fascinating. This brings us to Plantinga. He came up with his own kind of Justification which he calls "warrant". He lays this out clearly in his first two books (Warrented Christian Belief is actually the 3rd part of a trilogy), and those first two are all pure philosophy in the realm of epistemology, not an ounce of religion. Complete with formal logical proofs and everything. ANYWAYS. You can probably see where this is going. Plantinga basically takes this idea of "warrant" that he develops and says that Christian beliefs are "warranted." This is completely different than making the claim that christian beliefs are true. He's merely arguing that christian beliefs have warrant, and we can therefore claim that they are knowledge, not mere irrational belief. He's also attempting to answer the objection "...that Christian belief, whether or not true, is at any rate unjustifiable, or rationally unjustified, or irrational, or not intellectually respectable, or contrary to sound morality, or without sufficient evidence, or in some other way rationally unacceptable, not up to snuff from an intellectual point of vew." (WCB, preface, p. ix) If he's right, then Christian beliefs, my beliefs, are "intellectually respectable," even without touching the question of whether or not they are true. Personally, I think his argument is brilliant, and its worth taking seriously. If you're into philosophy, or the whole idea of epistemology sounds intriguing, I highly recommend checking him out.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 25, 2010 2:24:42 GMT -5
Ah, I see. Then he's come to the conclusion that the Christian belief is not one that should be discarded as absurd, but doesn't try to make the claim that it is proven fact either. I disagree with his use of the word knowledge, but not with the argument if I understand correctly. "Knowledge" to me is proven fact or the information that leads up to that. "God exists" is not known information. By my definition, Christians have knowledge of what is in the Bible, but not knowledge of there being a God. They have faith in that, which is okay, just not knowledge. As for whether or not they believe it is irrational, I think again that one's definition of the word in question often comes into play in that dispute. To be as accurate and understandable as possible, I think it's important to stick as close to dictionary definitions as possible, and only when there is no suitable term to use should one create their own, and even then they should be very clear about their definition prior to making the argument her statement. That stated, I would say that irrational is not the correct word (in that, correct or not, the religious tend to have reasons for their beliefs), but perhaps illogical is. Following purely the rules of logic and based on the facts we know, all emotion set aside, I don't believe that one can logically show that a god exists. Without a basis of evidence, the conclusion is, while not irrational, illogical. Also, keep in mind when you say that we start with a different set of premises, that any premise you start with has to be one you can back up. You cannot start with the premise that God exists. From a purely logical perspective, you must start without that premise, and come to it as a conclusion based only on premises that can be proven. Therefore, the neutral stance (prior to evidence being laid on the table, including obvious evidence when there is any) is the lack of belief in a thing's existence (though not necessarily the belief that the thing does not exist, which could be construed as similarly biased). To do otherwise would be begging the question. I'll put the book on my reading list, but I make no promises as to when I can get to it. It appears that my local library doesn't have a copy.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 25, 2010 3:36:05 GMT -5
That stated, I would say that irrational is not the correct word (in that, correct or not, the religious tend to have reasons for their beliefs), but perhaps illogical is. Following purely the rules of logic and based on the facts we know, all emotion set aside, I don't believe that one can logically show that a god exists. Without a basis of evidence, the conclusion is, while not irrational, illogical. I thought logic and rationality were basically the same thing? Well anyways I agree, I don't think believing in god is a logical decision, but trying to prove god exists is just illogical due to the difference between the nature of god and how we attain proof.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 25, 2010 12:23:38 GMT -5
irrational: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>
illogical: 1 : not observing the principles of logic <an illogical argument> 2 : devoid of logic : senseless <illogical policies>
The difference is vague but irrational refers to things for which there is no reason or logic whatsoever, while illogical refers to things for which there are reasons for but for which the logic is flawed or does not exist. A religion would only be irrational if, when a person was asked why they believe in that religion, the person could not offer any reason, 'they just do' or 'they don't need a reason', or if the person were to act or respond in such a way that their mental competence (not their intelligence, which is different) came into question (one alternative definition of irrational being insane).
A more mundane comparison of the words would be me preferring to eat ice cream instead of oranges. From a purely logical perspective, I should probably eat the oranges. However, because I do have a reason for wanting to eat the ice cream (the flavour), it could not be called irrational.
Which in the end, I suppose, brings me back to my belief that the religious have come to the wrong conclusion, but stick with that conclusion because they like it better. Given proper motivation, anyone will believe almost anything; they will believe anything they sufficiently desire to be true or fear to be true. People so badly want for there to be a heaven and a god that they will continue to believe in spite of the lack of logic in doing so.
|
|