What's Your Religion and Why?

I think I’ve noticed an interesting distinction in this thread that maybe I had not considered before.

The people I know who are atheist and therefore non-religious (although there are atheist who still attend church, likely for many reasons listed below) typically have an attitude of “since religion proposes to be the teachings of God, and there is no proof God exists or that the church is truly teaching the inerrant word of God, there is no point in being religious”

Whereas @anon71262119 and I’m assuming there are many people like her, are “religious” at least in part because of the utility religion provides: Community, life structure, social interaction, personal fulfillment, etc… irrespective of if God exists or not. Heck, it almost seems like it could be secondary… Like if it could somehow be “proved” God didnt exist they would still want this in their lives. Where as if it were proved God did exist I still probably wouldnt go to church (assuming a specific church could be relied on to be the teaching the true word of God)

1 Like

I couldn’t. I am able to bring up the fact that the Teleological Argument with fine tuning involved could have a possible explanation with the multiverse theory.
You can call that bullshit but it is a interesting theory to me at least.

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not saying the theory itself is bullshit, nor am I saying Hugh Everett is full of shit. I lack the qualifications to make that call.

I’m saying that a lay-person playing the astrophysics card in a discussion about faith is, generally-speaking, bullshit. I explained the reasons why above. You couldn’t even begin to defend those ideas when someone challenged you on it.

Look its not the crime of the century or anything. I just wanted to get you thinking about how you present your ideas and, perhaps more applicable to this context, how you present other people’s ideas.

Deepak Chopra is certainly is a phony, a shyster, and book-pedaler. I think that’s one thing everyone can agree on. I studied at Caltech before becoming a professor, and I had the chance to meet with and talk to top physicists. I actually had a chance to meet Stephen Hawking on two occasions, as he would give a talk and eat at the Atheneum on campus.

While my own specialty is not physics, I consider myself to have a pretty good grasp of quantum mechanics and its implications. Still, I would not have the mathematical aptitude to make any contributions to the field. Nevertheless, I still see nothing wrong with a layperson being interested in the theories postulated by practicing physicists. If people were only allowed to speak on topics they were truly experts in, the world would be a silent place.

I understand. I’m one of those laypeople. I’m interested in in the subject in that I don’t ever miss any of the specials that come on the Discovery Channel and have read a couple of books.

It’s just a guess at this point since I haven’t ever formally studied physics or advanced branch of it, but I probably don’t have an aptitude to contribute to the subject either.

Ah fair enough.

Religion in itself usually is outside the realm of science but not against it.

What I was thinking about the other day was that there is about 9 monotheistic faiths in the world so each believe in a separate God.
So either:

  1. Only one of the faiths are correct, as in only their God is real.

  2. All are wrong.

  3. All are correct, each of their Gods exist so there is 9 total Gods which are Omni-etc.

Given the third scenario there can’t of been 9 equal Gods that are necessary and made us, so possibly there was one God who got bored of the whole eternal thing so made a equal of himself for whatever reason. Then if the God number two created another and they all can’t do anything to each other given there properties.

So this is my line of reasoning that there could be loads of the same or similar Gods so no faith is wrong. Possibly.

These are not “God of gaps” arguments or claims.

Anytime one argues ‘science seems incapable of accounting for X; therefore, the only explanation for X is God,’ one is making a God of the Gaps argument.

Oh this looks to be fun.

Christian
More specifically Anglican with very Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox tendencies

Why? My faith teaches me that I am what I am by grace. I can’t make an appeal to a particular argument that swayed me nor can I argue someone into submission to faith.

1 Like

Perhaps, but the infinite multiverse theory has a couple of tiny problems aside from being implausible. First, it’s circular. Second, there isn’t a shred of evidence for it.
Then you can jump into the epistemological issues of I, where infinite instances of I would have to exist, but be the one I and yet duly unconscious of the other Is, but still be singularly I.
It’s a headache…

1 Like

Unaffiliated theist, because the structure of the universe and the existence of mathematics, logic, consciousness, etc., fit perfectly within the idea of an intelligent designer. No other explanation comes close to conforming to the evidence.

3 Likes

I am not trying to “argue” with you here, but simply asking you the questions I ask myself and haven’t been able to come to a satisfying answer about.

Don’t you think that all you have done is move the problem back one step? “Where did XYZ come from? We dont know yet… so God did it” - As EyeDentist has pointed out, this is a God of the Gaps argument, which is problematic for many people, myself included. Okay… So HOW did this God do it? As also has been pointed out, this question is usually answered by the scientific method and is never, ever, ever ,ever “Well I guess God just does it and thats how it works.”

If nothing is really, provably known about this God, what good does that do as an explanation? We know nothing about it… but it had to have done XYZ

And lastly, why does God get to just exist without a creator or intelligent designer? Meaning, if Complex Thing A requires a designer, why doesn’t God? How does God get out of that requirement but nothing else does? Why aren’t you okay with Math, or Logic just existing in the same way you are okay with God doing it?

I hope I’m not coming off too abrasive here. As I said, these are the questions that cause me to be unable to believe that there is a God, and I wonder what your, and others, answers to them are if you have also thought of them.

Lonnie
You have the faith that all molecules, energy, whatever was lying about before any big bang or big inflation. How did these come into existence?

Since you said you wouldn’t seek God, even if given proof of existence, perhaps logic or science is your ‘god’. So what is your purpose for the short 70ish years on this unremarkable blue marble?

Not asking sarcastically btw, but curious.

That is a classic God of the Gaps argument.

In addition to the trenchant observations offered by @Lonnie123 above, I would point out that once you let the God-camel get its nose under the wall of the science-tent, science as an ongoing enterprise immediately falls apart. After all, if God is ‘allowed’ as a scientific explanation, then there’s no reason to continue with the scientific endeavor–let’s simply declare ‘God is responsible for everything we don’t understand at this moment,’ lock the door to the lab, and go get a beer. In other words, there is no principled way to limit the use of God as an explanatory construct–it can be used to explain literally everything.

Is there a requirement that life has a purpose?

1 Like

Fundamentally at least, to survive and multiply. Just like everything else.

The cosmological arguments do not answer that question, they do not say how the Unmoved-mover, Uncaused-cause, Necessary Being came to be. Only that the only possible logical solution to any of the arguments is that an Unmoved-mover, Uncaused-cause, Necessary Being must exist. It’s the only logical conclusion that can be had and a deductive necessity. We call it ‘God’, because the only thing we know of that fits the definition of what an Unmoved-mover, Uncaused-cause, Necessary Being must be. And it logically impossible for there to be more than one because there cannot be such a thing as two Uncaused-causes as inevitably they end up occupying the same epistemological space, thus violating the law of non-contradiction. However, it doesn’t matter much what we call it. We call it God and I am sure for you that conjures up images of the Judeo-Christian God, which is an idea you clearly hate. The arguments don’t deal with that though. They do not deal with religion, they are simply made to establish the existence of a God-like entity.

The answer as to “why does God get to just exist without a creator or intelligent designer?” is simply because something with that quality must exist. Something must exist, that causes, that cannot itself have been caused. Because if God was designed, caused or created, that’s not God, that’s something else. It maybe something very powerful, but if it has a cause, it’s not God. It mere kicks the can down the metaphysical road. And without a God solution you end up in an infinite regress/ circular reasoning, which is logically fallacious which is then false by default.

It’s a problem that has plagued atheism from the start, circular reasoning. No objections have been made that do not cause the arguments to spin off into circular reasoning.

Lonnie, I don’t know what you have heard or been exposed to, but no even half serious Theist does such special pleading as appeal to a ‘God of Gaps’ argument. We have many sound arguments for the existence of God. From Aristotle, to Aquinas, to Leibniz to Kant and a slew of whole other dead guys I can name drop on you have discovered, expanded on and successfully defended these arguments for centuries. I even know some living ones. Hell, even Darwin is quoted as saying “I deserve to be called a theist.” So we do not use a ‘god of gaps’ motif. It doesn’t help anyone to merely plug in a god into some unknown quantity and move on. We don’t do it and as a Theist, I know I am tired of being accused of it as many of us are. We have much logical support for the conclusion that God exists.

I have a short link for you. It’s basically what the Cosmological argument(s) for the existence of God are not. I like this link a lot and I think it address a lot of the questions you asked. It’s also short and to the point so you don’t go blind reading it. So I hope you will take the time to read it. I think it does a better job than I do, explaining objections to the argument and why they aren’t.

You guys like to get deep into the philosophy and physics of it. I get that, but why not look at it from a purely practical perspective.

"…surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.

Don’t dismiss religion on the basis of a superficial reading of the Bible and the newspaper. Might religious communities offer us insights into human flourishing? Can they teach us lessons that would improve wellbeing even in a primarily contractualist society. "

“Religious believers give more money than secular folk to secular charities, and to their neighbors. They give more of their time, too, and of their blood. Even if you excuse secular liberals from charity because they vote for government welfare programs, it is awfully hard to explain why secular liberals give so little blood. The bottom line, Brooks concludes, is that all forms of giving go together, and all are greatly increased by religious participation and slightly increased by conservative ideology (after controlling for religiosity).”

Quotes above are from this essay I posted earlier.
https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion

As I’ve said before, you can’t predict charitable giving to secular charities like the Heart Association by political party. Before someone jumps me, when you look at Dems and Reps, we give very similarly to these kinds of organizations. I’ve said that before, and it’s true. But in terms of health and flourishing as a community, the quotes above seem important.

Also, just an observation. Well, something I wonder about. So many progressives in the US seem to really long for bigger government safety nets. They just care more, right? They’re constantly frustrated by the people on the other side of the political aisle standing in their way, and they look forward to having a majority so they can vote our country toward something that looks like Norway, but A LOT bigger, and more diverse. Meanwhile, they’re feeling really impotent, waiting for that more enlightened time to come.

Why wait for an act of congress? Doesn’t it seem a little ironic that I’m probably one of the most Republitarian-minded smaller government people here, and yet my religious group is already FAR more voluntarily socialist than the typical NYT reading liberal? I love being part of a socially involved group that feels like an extended family. Why not find 100 like-minded lefties and get it going on? Form a local group of humanistic progressives. Get really voluntarily collectivist. You need to live close to each other for this to work well. In my church, we attend services by geographic area, so everybody lives within about a 3-4 mile radius. Pool some money as a percentage your income so you can actually afford to do something, and so even the poorest people feel like they are contributing and have some skin in the game. Some of them have more time than money and that’s fine because you need volunteers and people are happier when they are in a position of giving. You’re close enough to know what people really need. With existing social programs in the US, you can step up and fill in most of the gaps in terms of time and money, and you can do it FAR cheaper and more effectively because you’ll have zero bureaucratic overhead and everything is run by volunteers.

3 Likes

Mathematically speaking, you are right for sure based on what we know about the universe. For all the talk of the ‘design arguments’ I am not sure a lot of people have actually looked at the arguments and the math that it’s based on. People actually took the time to work these equations and the probabilities for for failure vastly exceed the quantities of the universe.
It’s a shame because they are impressive. We’re talking massive numbers here. Anthony Flew was the guy who actually finally convinced me of the efficacy and the value of the Argument from Design. He actually laid out the numbers we are talking about. The math was solid and math is difficult argue against.

That was actually the genesis of the multiverse proposition. Inflation theory provided a basis for the possibility of such a thing. Unfortunately, that’s about as close as multiverse proponents can get evidence. There was an ad hoc theory some lady scientist came up with, looking at the microwave imagery of the universe and pointed to an ellipse that appeared ‘cooler’ than other regions of the universe. Her conjecture was that this ‘cool spot’ represented an area where this universe ‘bumped’ into another one. I am calling bullshit on that one. The speculation for that is at an order of magnitude that simply is not reasonable. Maybe that spot just cool and another hot.

After all, we don’t even have a grasp on this universe. Ordinary matter, the stuff that we call matter, makes up 16% of the universe. 84% is made up of dark matter and we still don’t have any idea what it is. We do not know much about this universe, hence we cannot tell if an anomaly consists of things we don’t understand about this universe, or another universe.

You make some good points, Puff. Looking at the sociological perspective does have value. Living for a higher, larger purpose than yourself positively correlates with well-being. Only a theist can truly, honestly make that claim. The atheist, must at his core believe in a completely valueless, transient existence that is the effect of happenstance. So at our core our existence has no meaning, no reason, no point and that’s just too bad.
It does not prevent the atheist from doing good or being good. They certainly are free to make choices that benefit others and that give them the satisfaction of helping others. But in the end all of it is just as meaningless an act as anything else.

And you are right, you can live as a socialist right now, if that is how you believe life should be lived. Give up your tax deductions and pay more. Create and live in a self-sustainable commune. You don’t have to wait for government oppression to force us to do it.

1 Like

With all due respect, my main problem with your theology is the assumption that God’s existence is provable. Because of its implications for faith, I find this to be, from a Christian perspective, a deeply problematic position to hold.

1 Like