Religion
Related: About this forumFive rational arguments why God (very probably) exists
From the long article:
Such trends have ironically been taking place even as the rational probabilities for the existence of a supernatural God have been rising. In my 2015 book, God? Very Probably, I explore five rational reasons why it is very probable that such a God exists.
Just as a point, if 23% have no religious affiliation, only 8% do not believe in a deity.
In his commencement address to Kenyon College in 2005, the American novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace said that Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.......
The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre thus wrote that for much of the 20th century Marxism was the historical successor of Christianity, claiming to show the faithful the one correct path to a new heaven on Earth.
In several of my books, I have explored how Marxism and other such economic religions were characteristic of much of the modern age. So Christianity, I would argue, did not disappear as much as it reappeared in many such disguised forms of secular religion.
To read more:
http://religionnews.com/2017/05/11/five-rational-arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists/
msongs
(67,361 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If so, pick which works for you.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)lastlib
(23,163 posts)And edible.
Ra-men. May the Sauce be with you!
procon
(15,805 posts)ghosts, zombies, maybe unicorns, surely some witches, and what about Orcs, leprechauns, or Selkies? Its a very long list.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...and a light dash of Sprites, but no Imps please, they just spoil a party.
Unicorns DO exist!!!!
I grew up on a unicorn farm in the seventies!!' If you don't believe go ahead. And ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster he'll straighten your ass out quick !
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1.
Despite the many other enormous advances of modern physics, little has changed in this regard. As Wigner wrote, The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it.
The scientific method was created in the 18th century by mixing mathematics with the occult experimentalism of the Renaissance. That's why math is an integral part of science. Science is a cultural offspring of math.
In other words, as something supernatural, it takes the existence of some kind of a God to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible.
Behold the God of the gaps!
2.
The great British physicist Roger Penrose in 2004 put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds mathematics, the material world and human consciousness.
And the human consciousness is soooooooooooooo independent from the material world that we can manipulate it at will with drugs.
And let's ignore that some animals have more consciousness than a human toddler. It's as if the consciousness were a side-effect of the complexity of the brain...
3.
Yet, our nonphysical thoughts somehow mysteriously guide the actions of our physical human bodies. This is no more scientifically explicable than the mysterious ability of nonphysical mathematical constructions to determine the workings of a separate physical world.
These "non-physical thoughts" are physically tangible electrochemical signals between neurons that can be manipulated in a myriad ways.
We already have primitive Brain-Machine-Interfaces that can translate thoughts into digital signals.
We have bionic eyes. They are so far still way, way worse than a natural human eye (and expensive as shit), but hey, it's better than being blind.
We have bionic limbs with a sense of touch.
The supernatural character of the workings of human consciousness offers a second strong rational grounds for raising the probability of the existence of a supernatural God.
Oh Noes! The God of the gaps has returned!!!
4.
With these developments bringing standard evolutionary understandings into growing question, the probability of a God existing has increased correspondingly.
From a summary of this guy's book:
"Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring."
Oh, look! The darwinian theory of evolution now has a competitor in Shapiro's theory of evolution! Funny how his theory also ignores God... It's almost as if the author of the article misrepresented Shapiro's work to pretend to have an argument.
5.
In the Axial Age (commonly dated from 800 to 200 B.C.), world-transforming ideas such as Buddhism, Confucianism, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and the Hebrew Old Testament almost miraculously appeared at about the same time in India, China, ancient Greece and among the Jews in the Middle East these peoples then having little interaction with one another.
Dude...
Really?
That's your argument?
Stuff happened at the same time, therefore there must be a God?
The development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe and its modern further advances have had at least as great a set of world-transforming consequences. There have been many historical theories, but none capable of explaining as fundamentally transformational a set of events as the rise of the modern world. It was a revolution in human thought, operating outside any explanations grounded in scientific materialism, that drove the process.
You do not want to go there.
You do not...
Ah, forget it. Let's go there.
The 17th Century was the late Renaissance. The scientific method did not exist yet. (It would come a century later.) What did exist was a flurry of scholars, mystics and philosophers who recognized that something was wrong with main-stream religion. They realized that there were answers that religion could not provide. They were looking for what's beyond religion. And they used methods such as magical rituals and materials, imagines, an early version of psychology, astrology, numerology, that fringe concept known as "laws of nature"... By mid-17th century, the Renaissance-occultism was already losing its reputation, because none of their theories were proven true. The rise of mathematics killed off the mystic parts of this research-movement, but when mathematics and experimentalism were combined, they resulted in the "scientific method" which turned out to be very reliable.
(I suggest the books of Frances Yates on this topic.)
The rise of the modern world. Science did that. Hard work did that. Errors and mistakes and dead ends and sacrifices did that.
It was the rejection of religious and magical concepts that did that.
But, hey, if it makes you feel better: Feel free to attribute the cultural revolution that rejects religious concepts to God.
6.
In several of my books, I have explored how Marxism and other such economic religions were characteristic of much of the modern age. So Christianity, I would argue, did not disappear as much as it reappeared in many such disguised forms of secular religion.
That the Christian essence, as arose out of Judaism, showed such great staying power amidst the extraordinary political, economic, intellectual and other radical changes of the modern age is a fifth rational reason for thinking combined with the other four that the existence of a God is very probable.
Wait.
Polls are showing that the fastest-growing religious segment are the people who have no interest in religion whatsoever, neither positive (like believers), nor negative (like atheists and agnostics).
That means that by that very same argument as the author made above, God probably DOES NOT exist because religion is disappearing.
But if you think that the survival of a particular cultural meme in a narrow segment of the human population is somehow proof for God's existence because it was him who made that meme stick around... then all I have to say is "Buh-bye."
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I especially loved the "religion is disappearing" meme that is apparently an article of faith among atheists. One assumes that 10,000 years from now, the same small minority of atheists will be making the same argument that religion will be disappearing very, very soon.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Ignoring issues may be how you "win" a religious argument, but that's not how it works in the real world.
As for the question whether religion is disappearing, feel free to check any poll on that topic.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)There are theists and non-theists. And belief perseverance on both sides.
Evidence appears to show that humans have been religious for many thousands of years. If you believe in thousands of years of group psychosis that is your choice.
If you believe that being a non-theist makes you superior intellectually or that it indicates that you are possessing a special insight you are welcome to those feelings.
procon
(15,805 posts)Humans are easily frightened and primordial man had an innate fear of everything from natural phenomena, fear of the unknown, to fear of death. Then someone figured out how to capitalize on fear and called it, religion. Nothing has changed.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)An arbitrary drawing of lines and convincing those within a particular arbitrary boundary that those outside the boundary are enemies.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)it must be God! Give me a break!
The mystery of why you cannot convince me that there is a God, because I must be a God, that's it! (Sarcasm, I cannot get my shift key to work without shoving down really hard and I keep hitting the wrong keys, Damn me!)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Impressive.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Jim__
(14,063 posts)It's not exactly on topic, but since it was referenced in the OP:
[center]
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Thank you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You either believe or you don't.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And one either believes that there is no Creator or one does not. Neither belief is provable.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Suppose "god" is an emergent consciousness that arose as an epiphenomenon of a pattern of electromagnetic fields on a galactic scale billions of years after the big bang. Given the limitations of the speed of light such a disembodied consciousness might take a million years to form a single thought. Human existence might be a flicker so brief that in the time between our emergence and our extinction, "god" doesn't even notice that we ever existed.
Of course, such a "god" would be utterly irrelevant to the human race, so for practical purposes it might just as well not exist.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If one believes that the universe spontaneously came into being, your thought is possible.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,362 posts)edhopper
(33,484 posts)but some are dishonest characterizations of what people like Gould and Dennit said.
Really weak and unconvincing.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)is the argument from evil/suffering. The most popular response to that argument is "free will". And yet there are conditions in the universe that diminish free will, like mental illness. If God cares so much about free will, why not prevent mental illness that impacts free will?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If you go swimming all day and suffer a sunburn, is it the Creator's fault?
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Choice is limited by a large number of factors, very rarely if ever will there be a choice free of constraints.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But given that the world is not perfect..............
edhopper
(33,484 posts)free will to not suffer.
Why is the free will of horrible, evil people more important that the harm and torment of victims?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Nt
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Because mental illness that diminishes free will isn't really itself a chosen thing, and that's what I was talking about. If free will is so valuable to the creator, why allow illnesses that diminish or abolish it?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and allowing things to evolve as they will. But I cannot speak for the Creator, this is merely my interpretation.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)God believes in free will, but God's not going to protect it or ensure that all his creatures have it? By the way, this also leaves God siding by default with those who have the strength to impose their will, since God apparently doesn't intervene to protect the free will of rape victims, for example. Why should the free will of the rapist to rape be honored, and not the free will choice of the victim not to be violated?
This seems like a very libertarian conception of God, where any intervention in the marketplace reduces freedom, even if it would actually enhance the freedom or other well-being of consumers.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but you are not claiming to be the Creator.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I'm assuming it doesn't make sense to you just as it doesn't to me, since you also aren't claiming to be the creator.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I can only speak to my beliefs regarding the nature of that Creator.
edhopper
(33,484 posts)[img][/img]
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Especially the "god" of the Bible who seems to really get his rocks off on pain, suffering, and death.
True Dough
(17,255 posts)Not even in the kitchen!
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Kinda says it all...
trotsky
(49,533 posts)A cruel, vicious plan that deliberately includes pain and suffering because the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to do things.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)Frustrate me. Take that word "supernatural." By definition anything supernatural is "beyond nature" or in other words, not subject to the (evidently) logical laws of nature. I'd go so far as to say the truly supernatural is beyond mortal comprehension. So how can we analyze the supernatural with logic? I'm not a trained philosopher nor a theologian. But. Why does anybody who already believes in a deity, need any proof? Are they trying to use this argument to convince those of us who don't believe?
edhopper
(33,484 posts)some evidence that anything supernatural exixts, before we talk about it's eplanation being unknowable.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)The supernatural. Just the opposite. It's late and I've been up a long time.
edhopper
(33,484 posts)I was just elaborating on what you said. Late for me too.
I worded it poorly. Sorry it sounded confrontational.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that the number of non-religious people is increasing.
BTW, none of your five arguments were convincing. Sorry.
How about you first work on getting all religious people to agree on which god(s) exist(s), then you can work on establishing your arguments as to whether it (or they) exist(s).
Because remember: you are an atheist w.r.t. every other god any human has believed in.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Just a recognition that atheism represents a tiny minority. Belief in a deity seems to be the default position for humans and has been for as long as humans have been around.
A small point, but they were not my arguments.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)When you figure out the proper terminology in this discussion, let me know.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'Herp derp reason 1'
ZERO
'Herpa derpa doo reason 2'
ZERO
etc
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There seem to be several different concepts being discussed all at once.
1. A creator: A sentient existence that structured the universe
2. A deity: A sentient existence that currently engages the universe
3. A supernatural entity: A sentient existence that manipulates the current universe
4. Organized religion: groups of individuals agreeing on the nature of the above
5. Faith: The belief or adherence to a set of concepts derived from above.
6. Speculation: The curious consideration of something.
The vast majority of the planet speculates about a deity. The vast majority of the planet suspects #2. Large numbers of people engage in #5. #4 sees general declines when observed over long periods of time. But there are notable periods of reverse trends, especially on a global basis. I suspect #3 is becoming a bit less popular but I suspect #1 is still larger than #5.
The one that I rarely see discussed is #1-3 but that is neither benevolent nor worthy of worship.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Mainly because in these types of discussions, it benefits the theist GREATLY to jump from definition to definition in order to avoid the inherent contradictions in each one.