Is it okay to believe in God?

[rikaaim]

"...the balanced beauty of universal gravity..."

Hope I quoted that correctly...this is usually where the hackles on my logical neck begin to rise.

Without logic and reason you would not even have the word, 'gravity' let alone a grasp of the meaning.

In other words, you use science to invalidate science and that is really cheeky.

We are discovering the natural laws of the universe, of matter and energy...and gravity...through and only through the use of reason and logic and scientific method. Not through faith, or a blind hope that god is really behind quarks, black holes and string theory.

C'mon, at least be reasonable.


amicus...




http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?Search=Yes

I see your point, but I often have to ask myself, "How can we hear that little voice inside our own head? It's nothing tangible, but yet it exists none the less." How do you explain conciousness? If it is simply electrons and synapses firing, then who's to say that God isn't on another physical level of atomic being? Just a thought. How does the big bang theory work? One day molecules collided and bang. Right? Well, where did those first molecules come from? There is always a piont where we will never know.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
I thought long and hard before adding to this thread. In the absence of a firm negative side to the question, I thought I might offer one.

I propose that if you are intelligent enough to ask the question of whether it is all right to believe in god, then you are smart enough to know that you should not.

So, no, it is not all right to believe.

It is most destructive and harmful to...believe.

Let me qualify that just a skosh. Long ago when man was in his infancy and did not 'know' the physical attributes of the Universe, it was 'all right' to believe in the unknown.

But now that we have poked holes in heaven and dismissed the demons and the devil, (all but Luc), then it becomes truly 'irrational' to believe in a god or any god.

We have, ultimately, only evidence towards the prediction and influence of the natural world. We have not proved the absolute impossibility of the existence of God. As such, God might possibly exist. What we're left with is establishing whether there is sufficient either (1) argument or (2) evidence for there to be reasonable belief.

Science hasn't yet provided either.

That's not a support of belief in God, really... moreso a "if you know of a conclusive and perfectly rational argument against the existence of God, please share it--as I haven't come across one in the entirety of my professional career".

Most people I have met are irrational to some degree or an other, so you will have good company if you still choose to 'believe' rather than 'know.'

There is also the social aspect to consider. Mankind needs an ongoing institution that possesses stability and ritual and custom concerning those very human frailties such as birth and death and marriage.

We also need, as referred to in earlier posts, a close association with blood relatives and close friends to gather round when adversity visits, as it always does.

But, (author's message!) for a rational mind, that seeks to apply reason and logic to comprehend the reality we live in, to accept faith or belief in any part of that search is to corrupt the process and the content of the mind.

Unfortunately, in the three potential avenues of epistemological justification, most all arguments for the notion of the absolute errancy of faith still cannot cope with revelation as an as-yet possibility. So, reason and logic would demand proper appreciation for it--as its not logically impossible.

It is my opinion that a large measure of mental illness, prevalent in modern western civilization today, is promulgated by a dual system combining reason and faith.

Such contradictions within the rational mind remaining unresolved through life, lead to a wider and wider doubt as to one's ability to deal with reality. Irrationality leads to insanity.

Unfortunately, clinical psychology doesn't really agree. Of the variables that affect clinical disorders, very little work has been done on the effect of religion or spiritual dedication (faith) on them. Vastly more evidence exists for personality traits, developmental psych, and biology.

Past all that, the jury is still out on whether faith and reason are in direct opposition. Surely, they aren't the same thing, but neither is experience (when compared to reason or faith). Locke didn't think so (during most of his career, save the earliest parts), neither did the whole movement in the thirteenth century. Most contemporary philosophers of religion and epistemologists (I think of Barnard, whenever I try and deal with epistemological possibilities, these days) are undecided. There is nothing essentially contradictory about the two. There are ways in which they can contradict, but that ends up being the same as reason versus experience--not essentially an opposition and impossible co-existance, but surely in practice there are times when they can be.

However, to get rid of experience in favor of reason is philosophically irresponsible. Experential confirmation is one of the three major pillars of philosophy.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

We have, ultimately, only evidence towards the prediction and influence of the natural world. We have not proved the absolute impossibility of the existence of God. As such, God might possibly exist. What we're left with is establishing whether there is sufficient either (1) argument or (2) evidence for there to be reasonable belief.

Science hasn't yet provided either.

That's not a support of belief in God, really... moreso a "if you know of a conclusive and perfectly rational argument against the existence of God, please share it--as I haven't come across one in the entirety of my professional career".



Unfortunately, in the three potential avenues of epistemological justification, most all arguments for the notion of the absolute errancy of faith still cannot cope with revelation as an as-yet possibility. So, reason and logic would demand proper appreciation for it--as its not logically impossible.



Unfortunately, clinical psychology doesn't really agree. Of the variables that affect clinical disorders, very little work has been done on the effect of religion or spiritual dedication (faith) on them. Vastly more evidence exists for personality traits, developmental psych, and biology.

Past all that, the jury is still out on whether faith and reason are in direct opposition. Surely, they aren't the same thing, but neither is experience (when compared to reason or faith). Locke didn't think so (during most of his career, save the earliest parts), neither did the whole movement in the thirteenth century. Most contemporary philosophers of religion and epistemologists (I think of Barnard, whenever I try and deal with epistemological possibilities, these days) are undecided. There is nothing essentially contradictory about the two. There are ways in which they can contradict, but that ends up being the same as reason versus experience--not essentially an opposition and impossible co-existance, but surely in practice there are times when they can be.

However, to get rid of experience in favor of reason is philosophically irresponsible. Experential confirmation is one of the three major pillars of philosophy.

I'm on Joe's side regarding just about all of this. Especially the bit about mental disorders.

 

[amicus]

Rikaaim...

"I see your point, but I often have to ask myself, "How can we hear that little voice inside our own head? It's nothing tangible, but yet it exists none the less." How do you explain conciousness? If it is simply electrons and synapses firing, then who's to say that God isn't on another physical level of atomic being? Just a thought. How does the big bang theory work? One day molecules collided and bang. Right? Well, where did those first molecules come from? There is always a piont where we will never know...."


A point that has troubled theologians and philosophers alike, "...where did those first molecules come from...?"

Where did god come from?

That is why we have a mind, to ask questions and seek answers.

That little voice in your head speaks to us all, each in our own way and is the sum total of our existence, our experiences and our thoughts.

Could there be more? Your god on an atomic level? Again, without reason and logic you would not know of atoms, they were not identified by faith/belief but by rational thought.

But if there is some divine intention of electrons whirling in orbit around a nucleus, it has provided no rational evidence that we can thus far observe and thus cannot be postulated except by faith which is usually worth about what you paid for it.

amicus...

And the thread starter has conceded faith as uppermost, thus, so be it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

As a side-note... and everyone should pay attention to this point:

The burden of proof in an philosophical enterprise always rests on the asserter, never the audience or the defense of the assertion. This is alot like Science or even Law. The positive assertion (the assertion or point that introduces new evidence, certainty, or conclusiveness on a previously ambiguous, unattended, or understood topic) MUST be backed by its own proof. "You can't prove me wrong" is never a valid defense of any point.

Taking it to science, a responsible scientific hypothesis (either in favor of the proving of something true or the proving of something false) has its own evidence and never relies on "you all have to prove my hypothesis untrue, otherwise it is true".

Taking it to law, its fairly obvious. Proving conclusive absolutes (guilt) is the burden, the defense is not required to prove innocense... they are required to attend the points of the prosecution sufficiently that they cannot prove guilt. One of the main reasons "new evidence" is a big no-no, as the defense is entitled to the right to see all the evidence being brought up and prepare its case accordingly.

This is important, not targetting just amicus, for everyone who chooses to make a point that says something is True, something Exists, something is Right, Wrong, Good, Bad, False, Possible, Impossible, Necessary, etc.

If you assert, the burden of proof is always on you. Never on others. If they assert NEW points, then they are required to prove.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

And the thread starter has conceded faith as uppermost, thus, so be it.

I may disagree with some points made, but it still interests me to hear every different view out there.

 

[cantdog]

I could never manage to do it, so I made a leap of faith, to atheism. Believer or not, the responsibility remains, though.

Amicus blames belief for the harm done by believers who, to be fair to him, say they do that harm in the name of the belief. I choose to blame believers, not belief.

Example: The Inquisitors were largely motivated by politics and wealth, through lack of scruple. All property of convicted heretics was forfeit. The heretics were removed from the game. It was a great way to destroy a political rival and get all his wealth. The law which forfeits the property of drug dealers makes the same things happen in that Inquisition, too.

But that doesn't blacken belief itself. Nor does it blacken the belief that drugs are destructive. In both cases, it is unscrupulous believers acting "in the name" of a belief which I don't see takes any tarnish thereby.

cantdog

 

[Xelebes]

I cannot honestly convince you to think that God is bad, just that I choose where my own faith lie. Dictating that there is or is not a God to you would place me in a position of being a hypocrite - something I oft try not to do.

 

[amicus]

Cantdog...


I do not see the distinction between 'belief' and believers.

Any individual who accepts a premise without knowledge does so on faith or belief.

And while individuals vary, the concept of 'belief' or 'faith' remains the caveat.

The human mind is functional in terms of perception, identification, categorizing and conceptualizing. I.E. Thinking.

Should the human choose not to think, but to accept, believe, have faith...then that rational function of thinking is given a back seat.

And you know about back seat drivers...nag...nag...nag...

(with apologies to Clint Eastwood)

amicus...

http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?Search=Yes

 

[thebullet]

Cantdog said:
It was a great way to destroy a political rival and get all his wealth. The law which forfeits the property of drug dealers makes the same things happen in that Inquisition, too.

Geez, Cantdog, that same point was made in the book Why Marijuana should be Legal by Rosenthal and Kubby.

Sometimes late at night I sometimes feel that in a world where there is wine, chocolate and marijuana, there must be a God. But then again, this world also has George W Bush. Naaahhh!

 

[thebullet]

I read a book a few years ago (sorry, can't remember the title or author) in which the writer theorized that when humans first acquired real language - perhaps 80,000 years ago according to him - they suddenly heard 'voices' in their heads. Even though H. sapiens evolved 150,000 or so years ago, it took us a long time to develop true language.

The sudden appearance of thoughts in the form of the spoken word inside early men's heads were perceived to be the words of some god. It was the birth of religion. Of course it was merely a misunderstanding of what was happening within their own heads, but that hasn't changed much in the ensuing 80,000 years.

I don't necessarily adhere to that theory, but it makes some sense.

Where was God in the first 13 Billion years or 21 Billion years of the Universe (however old it is this week)? Did He just suddenly pop up in the last few thousand years? If He is omnipotent, why didn't he create some species to praise him for the first 99.99999% of existence? Or is He just getting vain in His old age?

I have no problem with religion or religious people for the most part. Heinlein said that most people have some form of religion and like to bring it out and tinker with it from time to time. My problem is when religions or religious people try to stick their beliefs down my throat.

I've happily existed for many, many, many (I'm getting old here) years without any god to worry about. Now in my declining years I've got to worry about Allah, and God, and some kind of perverted, fucked-up view of Jesus Christ that must be making HIM roll over in his grave.

You want to believe in a god, more power to ya. As Randy Newman so aptly put it:
I destroy your cities
how blind you must be!
I take from you your children and you say
How blessed are we.
Ya'll must be crazy
to place your faith in me.
That's why I love mankind.
You really need me!
That's why I love mankind

 

[amicus]

Lurking and reading the mail

 

[mismused]

I propose that if you are intelligent enough to ask the question of whether it is all right to believe in god, then you are smart enough to know that you should not.
============

Ami cus,
don't you ever quit making with your pronouncements?
=============

So, no, it is not all right to believe.

It is most destructive and harmful to...believe.
=============

Really? Not so, other than as your opinion.
=============

But, (author's message!) for a rational mind, that seeks to apply reason and logic to comprehend the reality we live in, to accept faith or belief in any part of that search is to corrupt the process and the content of the mind.
===========

Einstein is the one quoted as saying that "God does not roll the dice." I believe you'll find he was a man of "reason."

Many scientists have acknowledged that from their points of view, it is difficult to say that there is a God, and just as hard to say that there is. Weinstein is one who says no, as opposed to Einstein.

There is no proof, scientifically, for or against God, using science or reason. Please, ami cus, use your brilliant mind in a more useful manner. Don't just spout whoever's party line you are pushing. That's a horrible thing to do with a mind as good as yours.
=========

regards,

amicus...

=========

You are often too much, ami cus, but not it any good way. You're so-called logical, reasoned thinking is as illogical, and self destructive as your writing, and mind are brilliant.

mismused

 

[mismused]

The human mind functions by discovering the evidence of the existence of those things that do exist.


Reason and faith are diametrically opposed and cannot coexist in reality without consequences.

================

The human mind is unknown to any and all as a fact of existence, ami cus, and it is also unknown "how" the human mind works. There is no empirical evidence to the contrary. We say we think, but even at that, we can't really prove it, or how we so-called "think," at least not in any way that anyone has proven. Thus you can't say unequivocally that the human mind functions by discovering. It's only your opinion.

Reason and faith . . . cannot coexist in reality without consequences? Oh, my. Get a grip, ami cus. Have you forgotten Hoyle already?

What proof, other than your now famous rantings, do you have to back that up?

Once more, I plead with you to use that ability of yours for other than your robotic, pre-programmed rants. Back up what you say with facts, and cite how you get them.

mismused

 

[mismused]

"

We are discovering the natural laws of the universe, of matter and energy...and gravity...through and only through the use of reason and logic and scientific method. Not through faith, or a blind hope that god is really behind quarks, black holes and string theory.

C'mon, at least be reasonable.

amicus...

===============

Oops! Here you are again, ami cus. Once more:

Remember Hoyle?

Okay, here's another. Gell-man. He's another who believed, but wasn't sure how. His gut just told him it was there, and his gut was often proven correct, according to his authorized biography.

I'm sure you know he is also a nobel prize winning, theoretical particle physicist.

C'mon, ami cus, at least be reasonable.

mismused

 

[English Lady]

I have seen, heard, me even, lots of scientific type persons who have had a faith, a belief in God. hey believe because they see him in all their work. Science does not disprove God nor prove him. It's not there for that. It's there for humans to find out more about their world and greater surroundings.

Belief is something that is built into all of us. We all believe the seat we'll sit on in a minute will not break when we sit down upon it. We believe the plane we board isn't going to just fall out of the sky, we believe alot. Science might go to explain why we can believe in these things but we don't all know the precise scientific reasonings for all our beliefs.

Belief is something we all have. Even those proclaiming they have no belief in God -that is as srong a belief. If it is ok Not to believe in God (as Amicus is basically saying) then surely the flipside of that is true. As there has to be some belief in God for people to say they don't believe in God.

I hope that makes sense. I am not so good with intelligent reasonings. I'm all abou emotion and feeling. I feel God with me every day. That is why I feel it is OK to believe in God because as Darkness said earlier God believes in me.

 

[mismused]

Where did god come from?

That is why we have a mind, to ask questions and seek answers.

That little voice in your head speaks to us all, each in our own way and is the sum total of our existence, our experiences and our thoughts.

Could there be more? Your god on an atomic level? Again, without reason and logic you would not know of atoms, they were not identified by faith/belief but by rational thought.

But if there is some divine intention of electrons whirling in orbit around a nucleus, it has provided no rational evidence that we can thus far observe and thus cannot be postulated except by faith which is usually worth about what you paid for it.

amicus...

===========

Thus spake ami cus!

Hmm! Let's put your reasoning through the wringer, ami cus.

Yes, we commonly say we have a mind, but why not consider that Mind, or mind, has us, or is us, or we are a fraction of It, or it?

Ami cus, you, as we all have, are assuming things not proven, nor, most likely, provable. Again, no one knows what mind is, nor that we have it, or that it has us.

Mind, or rather, the thoughts we say we think, are from an unknown source, or origin. It has not been proven. If it has, would you please cite the evidence found that is irrefutable?

How in the world can you say with any certainty other than your "belief," which you don't care for, belief, that is, that:

"That little voice in your head speaks to us all, each in our own way and is the sum total of our existence, our experiences and our thoughts."

Again, you're assuming, as most of us have, that mind, thoughts, are in our head. That is not proven, only that the brain has responses, but not thoughts.

Okay, again, prove, and cite it, how you can say, other than as opinion, or "belief," that the little voice is the sum total of our existence, our experiences and our thoughts, other than as your opinion.

Let's be reasonable, again, by your words, and face that much of what you say is so, is nothing but your opinion.

Yes, I guess you should start another religion. Just what we all need, another brand of gobbledygook!

mismused

 

[amicus]

Dear Mismused....

"...The human mind is unknown to any and all as a fact of existence, ami cus, and it is also unknown "how" the human mind works...."

The function on the human mind is known to most, and how it works is fully documented...all thee need to know is that truth is beauty and beauty, truth..."

You are like a worm on a hook, wriggling to escape reality by pleading ignorance of fish...

It ain't agonna work!

You get et!

But then, the fish will grow and I will eat the fish, so, "..all's well that ends well.." was that da bard?

 

[mismused]

Dear Mismused....

The function on the human mind is known to most, and how it works is fully documented...all thee need to know is that truth is beauty and beauty, truth..."

You are like a worm on a hook, wriggling to escape reality by pleading ignorance of fish...

It ain't agonna work!

You get et!

But then, the fish will grow and I will eat the fish, so, "..all's well that ends well.." was that da bard?

====================

ami cus,

dear nemesis of fact, and friend of whatever mixture of blather has entered into you, do one thing please:

Cite your fact(s)!

To say that:

" . . . the human mind is known to most . . ."

does not constitute fact.

The rest is pure camouflage, useless dross.

Who is MOST, and HOW do they KNOW it? Is this some esoteric mystery the which of only the chosen, select few are entitled to, or death will surely follow?

Come, ami cus, cite your FACTS! You have already endangered your life to your secret society that will surely destroy you for imparting your wisdom, however crouched in vagueness and ambiguity.

Politely put, as they say, "Put up, or . . ." Hmm! I'm sure that is something you can fill in easily.

If you have an "OPINION," then say so, express it thus, but please don't try to push it off as "fact."

You have such a beautiful mind, yet somehow, it is malfunctioning like some robotic program, stuck on it's recording as some records of old used to get stuck to repeat their last lyrics endlessly due to an inadvertent scratch on the surface.

Please revisit your "surface" for possible "scratches" that shouldn't be there; they are ruining what should be a most pleasant and enlightening moment for us.

Uh, I use "mind" in the casual term that most of us do out of habit, just to keep you from using that to cover up with more senseless blather.

Peace and prosperity to you, ami cus.

mismused

 

[cantdog]

Dear me.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Love that AV, dog.

 

[cantdog]

Nothin' like a good hat an' a suit o clothes.





Actually the photo was taken in Spain by a very reasonably decent photographer named Gautier Deblonde. Google him.

 

[BlackShanglan]

As a side-note... and everyone should pay attention to this point:

The burden of proof in an philosophical enterprise always rests on the asserter ...

I respond to this because it seems to underlie Amicus's assertion as well - i.e., a thing is not true simply because it has not been proved wrong. While agreeing, I add that a thing is not wrong because it has not been proved right. Joe's comments describe accurately the manner in which logical wrangles are traditionally carried on; however, we should not confuse this with reality.

The world is, of course, replete with things now thought or known to be real that for much of mankind's history could not possibly have been proven to exist - DNA, germs, the continents of North and South America, or meteorites (against whose existance Thomas Jefferson made, cogently, this very argument - that the burden of proof was on the one making the assertion).

The relevancy I see to God is that we know by the nature of the definition - "omnipotent omniscient being" - that it will be extremely difficult for humans to locate any actionable evidence. In that case, it behooves us to consider reality as well as the niceties of argumentation. While the assertion cannot be proved, that tells us only that there is no definitive evidence. In the absence of evidence, there is no "real" or metaphysical bias in favor of non-existance; that is, things that violate no other known principles are no more likely to exist than to not exist, and vice versa. God's existance is made neither more nor less likely by our ability to argue for a creator's presence, and in the absence of evidence one belief is really quite as likely as the other.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

Black Shanglan said, in part:

"...The relevancy I see to God is that we know by the nature of the definition - "omnipotent omniscient being" - that it will be extremely difficult for humans to locate any actionable evidence. In that case, it behooves us to consider reality as well as the niceties of argumentation. While the assertion cannot be proved, that tells us only that there is no definitive evidence. In the absence of evidence, there is no "real" or metaphysical bias in favor of non-existance; that is, things that violate no other known principles are no more likely to exist than to not exist, and vice versa. God's existance is made neither more nor less likely by our ability to argue for a creator's presence, and in the absence of evidence one belief is really quite as likely as the other...."

Shanglan

When I first began a talk radio program in a major market area, I was told the following: "Considering the news, commercials, station identification and assuming six full telephone lines, you may talk to as many as ten callers per hour. You have a three hour show; you may speak with thirty people. Keep in mind that your audience is in the tens of thousands. Talk to your audience, not the individual caller..."

That was good advice, as far as it went, for at times, I kept the same caller on the line the entire hour, if the caller was very good and also entertaining.

I do not expect to enlighten Black Shanglan as a 'certainty' about being uncertain, seems to be key to the argument expressed above.

But perhaps for the one or two who realize that the reign of religion as a moral arbiter is fast coming to an end; for those who wish to set the groundwork for an ethical and moral system based on reason and logic, I offer the following.

""...The relevancy I see to God is that we know by the nature of the definition - "omnipotent omniscient being" - that it will be extremely difficult for humans to locate any actionable evidence."

Review that sentence logically and you will find a major contradiction. Mankind 'defines' objects and theories based on the evidence and characteristics of the 'existence' of the item under investigation.

In other words, the object first exists, then we define it.

The last part of Shanglan's argument is even moree obtuse:

"...In that case, it behooves us to consider reality as well as the niceties of argumentation. While the assertion cannot be proved, that tells us only that there is no definitive evidence. In the absence of evidence, there is no "real" or metaphysical bias in favor of non-existance; that is, things that violate no other known principles are no more likely to exist than to not exist, and vice versa. God's existance is made neither more nor less likely by our ability to argue for a creator's presence, and in the absence of evidence one belief is really quite as likely as the other...."

Shanglan says, since the existence of god cannot be proved as there is no evidence of the existence of god. Shanglan goes Kantian on us and suggests the old philosophical ploy of 'proving the negative or non existence of god is on equal footing.

He closes by asserting that the lack of evidence indicating the existence of god indicates there may well be a god..."quite as likely as the other..."

This is an illustration of why most people do not pursue an understanding of philosophy or metaphysics (beyond reality) abstract, conceptual thought.

While reason and logic may be small tools against the weight of history and man's pursuit of a supreme being, they are the only tools we have to comprehend the reality we live in.

The axiom is: lacking evidence supporting the existence of 'A', one can conclude that 'A' does not exist. And we go on from there.

It is true that in the future, evidence supporting the existence of 'A', may in deed be discovered. At that time one must logically acknowledge that evidence.

Religion and the postulation of a guided purpose to the universe and the events therein, was an early attempt by man to comprehend his existence in relation to the real world.

An early and fully understandable attempt by man to understand.

There is no excuse here in the 21st century.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Mismused...

you said in part:

"...ami cus,

dear nemesis of fact, and friend of whatever mixture of blather has entered into you, do one thing please:

Cite your fact(s)!

To say that:

" . . . the human mind is known to most . . ."

does not constitute fact.

The rest is pure camouflage, useless dross...."


Dear Mismused...we have been down this path many times before.

When I said, "..the human mind is known to most..." I was being gentle to those fellow Litsters who do not acknowledge existence as an absolute.

In your case, I do not know if it is stubbornness, ignornance or simply the lack of the ability to perceive reality.

There are certain aspects of reality defined as 'axioms' truths that are self evident and absolute. The easiest on is: "A is A" Which means, "a thing is that which it is..." that to 'most' is self evident, easy to understand and is an absolute statement.

You whine and whine that I do not present 'facts' for you when the fault is in your ability to fail to acknowledge that truth and reality exist totally independent of either you or me.

I cannot prove existence to you, no one can, it cannot be done. Thus you muddle about looking for god to swoop down and enlighten you.

Ain't gonna happen my friend. You must use your mind in a logical, focused, non contradictory manner in able to comprehend the reality of your existence and the nature of your being.

Good luck.


amicus...