February 26, 2013
-
With Desire comes Experience
The fact that knowing god, a higher power, something more than we can see, has been a universal desire as long as humanity has existed. This was argued to be just a long running error in our brains. Occam’s razor would have said that the simplest reason for this desire, like all such desires, is that which is universally desired exists. But Occam’s razor was seen by some as the simplest explanation that does not point to God (maybe the idea of a god is too complicated?). The seemingly more complicated explanation. It is simply a universally misdirected desire unique in that is does not lead to any real thing, was held to strongly. And a few could not understand the arguments perimeters (nearly universal, like the desire for sex. No the desire to be superman does not come close to fitting). I am not expecting to do any better this time but…. Here is more to think about on the same subject
- Belief in God—A being who reverence and worship are due—is common to almost all people of every era.
- Either the overwhelming majority of people have been wrong throughout all time, on one of the most important parts of their lives, or they have not.
- It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
All thinking people admit that religious belief is very close to universal, throughout all human history and pre history.
Does this fact amount to evidence in favor of religious claims?Are all the claims made by so many throughout all time based on hallucinations?
Skeptics need to admit that the personal testimony we see is impressive. The vast majority of humans have believed in an higher power. A Power to which the proper response was reverence and worship. The reality of our feelings, the desire to worship, our reverence, acts of love for this power. No one can honestly deny this is true.
If God does not exist, then these things have never once had a real object, they have always been a delusion. Is it really plausible to believe that?
Comments (136)
Can you please help me understand what it means to be hungry for sex, is it an overwhelming feeling to want to experience an orgasm. And if this can only be provided by your husband, why does Sex and the City have beautiful women having sex?
For me still, as always, it goes back to how nothing makes sense without God.
@RulerofMasons - If I ever have an entry about sex we can talk about it.
@mtngirlsouth - That is the way most see the world, even if they do not know God or call themselves Christian. Most who say they have no religion also say they believe in God 41% of them pray. It is few who do not see something that makes them believe in God
Again, I have to point to the fact that the nature of religious belief has varied widely throughout human history, including many who do not “worship” at all (see Buddhists).
But leaving that aside, let’s take for granted that most people throughout history have worshiped *something*. Does that count as strong evidence for what they believed in or worshiped? In a word, no.
The question we should be asking ourselves is whether people had good evidence for the things they believed in. If they didn’t, then the fact that many people believed something is no evidence at all. Throughout most of human history, people almost universally believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. They were, of course, wrong. The fact that everyone believed that for most of human history doesn’t establish anything.
In short, you aren’t going to settle the question of God’s existence by pointing to what people believe. The only way to settle the question is to do the hard work of assessing the belief-independent evidence for and against the existence of such a being.
@chaospet - Name another universally held desire that was held in all times, by all peoples, that has no bias in realty? Or is it only this desire for god that fits that bill?
@chaospet - And all of these people who have had a religious experience are hallucinating correct?
@trunthepaige - I just gave you one. Here’s another – almost everyone has believed (and continues to believe) that they are the uncaused initiators of their own actions. Developments in neuroscience have been showing nicely how wrong we are about that one. (here’s a fun video that shows some of the evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM )
Here’s another one – for most of human history, almost everyone has believed (and still does) that time moves at the same rate for everyone, regardless of where you are. Special Relativity (bolstered by many experimental results) has done quite a number on that one.
I could go on – the history science is full of examples of the overturning of common universal beliefs. The simple, obvious point is that pointing to what people think doesn’t settle anything – you have to answer the question of whether the belief in question is supported by the evidence, there’s just no getting around it.
@trunthepaige - I’m not saying anything about whether they are or are not hallucinating. They could all be right, or they could all be misinterpreting their experiences. The point here is that your appeal to what people believe does absolutely nothing whatsoever to settle the issue one way or the other.
@chaospet - No you did not give me one. And you did not do it this time ether. humans all observed the movement of time. Desire nothing other than knowledge (which exists) they correctly noted that time moves They lacked fact but again this was the desire to know things and facts are there for them to know.
I think you are miss representing this desire. People desire to know and have knowledge. They wondered why there were hurricanes and typhoons and when they couldn’t figure it out they invented the Posiden dude with the sea pitch fork.
As knowledge becomes more plentiful….people are abandoning the made up myths.
Lack of beleif in myth is at an all time high and growing.
@trunthepaige - I have given you three nearly universally held beliefs that are false. If you are trying to arguing that belief in God is true on the basis of the fact that it is universally held, your argument is undermined by those examples.
“It is simply a universally misdirected desire unique in that is does not lead to any real thing, was held to strongly. ”
is the desire for a god? or is the desire for what a god would offer us? salvation, knowledge, forgiveness, vindication, immortality, significance, explanation, etc.
“It is most plausible to believe that they have not.”
why? humanity has been wrong about things before.
“Are all the claims made by so many throughout all time based on hallucinations?”
i wouldn’t call them hallucinations, unless someone thought they heard or saw something that didn’t exist. i’d compare it to how i used to have an imaginary friend as a kid.
and the fact remains that as a Christian, you’re bound to think that any theist who believes in something other than the Christian god is wrong, no matter how earnest they are. the only difference between you and i is that i believe in one less deity than you do.
@chaospet - primary your problem it that you think I am gong to start addressing knowledge and scientific thought that was incorrect as a desire. You are on a wrong subject I said desire (sex thirst hunger etc)
@flapper_femme_fatale - So did you see that imaginary friend or was it just a game? nd yesa we can talk about which giod which people are right about god. But first is the a god at all?
@tendollar4ways - Yes there is a separate desire for knowledge and learning satisfies it. The thing is the man who can up with this idea had a PHD. He knew the difference and so do i.
Let’s ignore the validity of this so-called proof of God and say that it is indeed foolproof and substantive…
If universal belief in a conscious omnipresence is also proof of it, then why is there extreme variation in interpretations of this belief (i.e. its etiology)?
I might also venture to suggest that many personal experiences with religion are completely culturally based. I have heard few Anglo-Saxon protestants receive revelations from Krishnu, nor Jews communicate with plant spirits. I am making a guess that religion is culturally produced, the collective “desire” for it emerging from a shared feeling of helplessness as well as a tendency for humans to anthropomorphize natural events (which is biologically useful in many situations), particularly prevalent in primitive eras, but sustained through societal pressure, the euphoric feeling of meaning it gives to many people’s lives, and an evolved inclination.
@chaospet - Yes it does it point to belief in God as rational. Witness count right?
@trunthepaige - You referenced religious belief, and you used the universality of that belief to license an inference about the truth of that belief.
But if you want to put it in terms of desire, no problem – the point still holds. People VERY strongly desire to regard themselves as the uncaused cause of their own actions. Neuroscience has refuted this. People have strongly desired to see the Earth as the center of the Universe. There was a reason people were killed for challenging dogma on this assertion. And so on.
It doesn’t matter what mental state you’re discussing – the basic point is that if you want to know whether a belief is true, pointing to what people think (or feel, or believe, or intuit, or desire, or whatever) is not going to settle the issue. We have learned time and again that reality can depart, sometimes in striking ways, from our nearly universal convictions/preferences/desires/etc. If you want to settle the question of whether a belief is true or false, you have to look to the evidence.
@chaospet - No I talked of desire then experience never beliefs. Can you think of a desire that is based on nothing. It need only be a universal desire that has always existed? Like the desire for sex
@DrummingMediocrity - They are certainly biased. Trying to say that which one belief is 100% accurate wound be very difficult. The Christian faith changed almost by the zip code in its minor practices. But to say there is no God is to claim they are all deluded and experienced nothing. That their desire, one held by almost all, is some generic mistake, a corrupted DNA code, useless warp but still there. Or could there be a use for it this desire? One that would explain it being so widespread
@trunthepaige - There are two separate questions – whether belief in God is accurate, and whether it is rational. We have to be careful to keep them distinct.
Can belief in God ever be rational? Yes, I think it can. If I grew up in a medieval European society where everyone believed in Catholicism and I had only ever been exposed to arguments for Catholicism, then it might be rational for me to be a Catholic. Similarly, if I grew up in a medieval European society, it might be rational for me to believe that the Sun orbited the Earth, or that time was the same for everyone, or that I am the uncaused cause of all of my own actions.
Are those beliefs accurate? Completely separate question. We know the last three are false – whether the first one is true or false is a question that, like the other, will have to be settled on the evidence. Pointing to what people believe won’t settle it. To me, this is the more interesting and important question.
Here was your argument:
“Belief in God—A being who reverence and worship are due—is common to almost all people of every era.
Either the overwhelming majority of people have been wrong throughout all time, on one of the most important parts of their lives, or they have not.
It is most plausible to believe that they have not.”
Notice the reference to “belief”. And yes, I have already given you examples of other things people have desired that turned out to be erroneous – the desire for absolute freedom, to be the uncaused cause of your own actions, and the belief that goes with it, is a perfect example.
@chaospet - Yes it is a separate question and I say it is rational today as well.
So about that desire? .
I would like to know what credblity you give eye witness testimony (Experience)?
@chaospet - Dude I am not asking you make up a new blog can you address the subject?
@trunthepaige - I just gave you an example of something that people universally desire that does not have a basis in reality – the desire for absolute free will, to be the uncaused cause of your own actions, which has been refuted by neuroscience. I don’t know how many times you would like me to repeat it.
If you want to talk about testimonial evidence, then you’ll need a new blog post – that’s a different topic. Suffice it to say, your argument here – that the universality of a desire (or belief, or whatever you want to call it) settles anything – has been refuted.
@trunthepaige - The beliefs are due to desire and experiences. Im not asking you about the beliefs but the reasons for their existing.
What desire is based on nothing?
And do you discount all the religious experiences as delusions?
@trunthepaige - I think belief in God is a beneficial “mutation,” if you will. It seems to generally improve quality of life. I do not believe in mental “illness,” and I think the majority of “delusions” are perfectly human and most importantly, normal. What psychofrauds choose to stigmatize depends on the culture at any one time. The only psychoses which should be addressed are those which pose danger to others, such as Islam’s cult of hate, or individual threats to others/society. Those in this category, however, are not “diseased” patients, but evil subhumans who have no business in the presence of human beings.
@chaospet - Free will has been refuted has it? Dude a theory is not the same thing as proof. But why are you arguing anyway? Your thoughts are just reactions to set stimulus. Its not even your idea to argue you have no choice. You have no free will. I can play with the little bio robot
@DrummingMediocrity - I love the way you think. And you feel no need to try to disprove things that are likely true but not liked. The truth is not mean nor evil, it goes were it goes. I love you even if i somewhat disagree
@trunthepaige - The belief in absolute free will is based in desire and experience. We desire to see things that way, and that’s how we experience our actions. Neuroscience has proven that this is not grounded in reality. It is just as possible that the belief in God, grounded however it may be in desire or experience, is not grounded in reality. The bottom line is that you haven’t shown anything with your argument.
@trunthepaige - I said that *absolute* free will – the idea that we are the uncaused cause of our own actions – has been refuted by neuroscience. And it has indeed. That doesn’t mean that we might not be free in other senses. If you like, I’ll send you my dissertation on the problem of free will next month after I have defended it, it addresses your other questions.
@chaospet - Seriously why do you bother? it means nothing at all? you are not even making the discussion to argue. Its in your DNA and I hit your respond button. You cant help it. And its not proved so back to a desire based on nothing
@chaospet - Im sure it it will. not that you have any choice in doing so I seem to have simulated your argue mode. And again its not proved
@trunthepaige - See how strong your emotional reaction to the idea of our lack of absolute free will is? That just proves my point. Here is a universal conviction grounded in desire and feeling, and the evidence of neuroscience shows it to be false.
@chaospet - No I am laughing at the idea (and the idea in general) that you believe a theory that is not widely accepted, qualifies as an answer to my question. It is funny that you can not see the irony is you even caring to argue considering that you have no real mind. At least not one that thinks for itself. I have used your theory as an example of materialist thinking. It so pissed of materialist for me to point out that they had no minds, that they were far from free thinkers. Likely the way you guys think was a genetic flaw, as you rarely reproduce
@chaospet - Are you able to comprehend the idea of what are known as circumstantial evidences? I do not think you are, as you’ve responded to this post as though the author were using this, and this alone, as empirical evidence that there is a God, when the actual achievement of the post was to point to one of the evidences of an existing God.
How this works: Yes, you can give us commonly held beliefs that have proved untrue. However, until you can show us an absolute lack of both commonly held beliefs that were proved true, and there being no remaining commonly held beliefs that are as yet unproven one way or the other, you’ve failed to provide empirical evidence that her hypothesis is inaccurate.
Have a nice day.
@trunthepaige - <3 ILY too Paigy
The appendix at one time did something (or else God just has a sense of humor) now it is a useless blob that can only do harm (burst) and must be removed.
Desire for God could be catagorized the same way…it had its evolutionary purpose and now it is becoming an appendix.
As I mentioned this desire you speak of is waning.
@tendollar4ways - You do know that the belief that the appendix has no use has been dispelled ? Its a defense ageist Bacterial dysentery.
@tendollar4ways - But an honest effort was nice to see. Can you think of what the obsolete propose must have been?
@trunthepaige - I was expecting that answer. Wisdom Teeth. Desire causes many people to act irrationally….as you are with this post.
Purpose of Wisdom Teeth or having a spiritual father or mother (God)?
@tendollar4ways - Wisdone teeth are for chewing and they work good. Th problem is that we no longer live in small tribes where our jaws and teeth were set for each other. The one down side of wider genetic diversity is that teeth size and jaws might not work as well together. I still have by wisdom teeth. they came in nicely. I use them for their purpose every day
@tendollar4ways - You are forgetting that the subject is desire and religious experiences
It’s possible, because back in the day we didn’t have this thing called science, so we had to find our answers elsewhere. Now that our knowledge has expanded and has demonstrated the evidence is abundant in favor of 1) an old earth, and 2) gradual evolution, we have better answers that basically debunk religion.
As far as that desire to know “God?” Maybe if he wasn’t such a fucking jackass, because if he exists, that’s exactly what he is.
@secretbeerreporter - The desire for a god is not sated by education. The desire to learn and the desire for God are not the same things. What do you think of religious experiences?
@trunthepaige - I don’t really know what to make of them, because they’re so varied and none of them definitively point to one religion as absolutely true/false. These inconsistencies not just in history and historical religions, but in modern religion, make them hard to verify.
I’m sure a God exists at this point.
The question is why he’s slacking.
We at Table 54 will admit that at one time the vast majority (In fact, everyone) believed the world we live on was flat. As science in its infancy started to prove otherwise, the church reacted as it always does when it’s supremacy is threatened. It killed the men of science or, at minimum, forced them to recant the heretical nonsense the church deemed against the almighty word of God that they were presenting as fact. Does anyone still believe the world is flat? The Bible expressly teaches it. It also teaches that the sun and planets revolve around the Earth, which it says is the center of the Universe because God created Man, the utmost pinnacle of His creation, to be the center of all things created. When this Biblical idea started to be debunked by science, the teachers of this heretical claptrap were also either killed or forced by threat of torture to retract their teachings. People who still believe the earth to be the center of the Universe are kept in rubber rooms. People do not desire God. They desire a placebo to treat their fears, their ills, and their limitations. People are lazy. It is far easier to call upon a God when you don’t understand or fear something than it is to educate yourself. This is why there have been so many Gods since the beginnings of life on Earth. Oh, and for all the most powerful Gods that millions of people worshiped throughout history, all but a handful no longer exist. Today, we call their stories myths. Someday, when man’s quest for knowledge exceeds his need to whine in fear of the unknown, Gods will find that the human need for them will have passed away completely.
-Y
@trunthepaige - What you’re suggesting doesn’t follow from materialism, or from the lack of absolute free will. But, that seems like a topic for another blog post.
@DougX831 - If the hypothesis you’re referring to is her belief in God, I never suggested an argument that her hypothesis is inaccurate. I was only suggesting that the argument she has given here is not successful at proving God’s existence.
While I do not believe what I am about to say, because I am a Christian, I do know that during the Enlightenment, at least Spinoza suggested that for a time religion served as a measure to control, not just the people through organizations based in community, but also morally and ethically. Without those foundations and “threats” of things like hell, humanity would have gone into chaos. However, once the Enlightenment came, they found science, so science, along with humankind’s progression meant that humanity no longer needed God because they had science and reason, they no longer needed religion or faith. I totally disagree, but it is an argument I have heard numerous times. In addition, ever heard of the bandwagon argument, it is one of the known fallacies. Just because a majority of epople have done something, it does not make it right. For example: The Crusades, Slavery- both were wrong, but at the time the majority of people thought it was ok. So, while I do believe in God, I do not think you can argue his existence in a philosophical way by stating the majority have, do, and likely will believe in God.
@chaospet - She never posited that it was successful in singularly proving God’s existence, either.
I would also argue your claim that you never posited her argument was inaccurate. That’s the logical end of pointing out other commonly held beliefs that were “proven” untrue.
@trunthepaige - in general, i lean towards no. simply desiring something to exist doesn’t mean it does. at best, you can make it up for yourself if it helps you personally.
@Doubledb - Her argument here is different than that of the bandwagon approach, as it applies to slavery and the crusades. When you reference something “being right” you’re speaking of a human action, a cultural position, if you will. You’re speaking of a morality issue. This is not a morality issue, it’s a metaphysics issue. While you’re right that a majority of people doing something isn’t proof that it’s moral, the same accusation can’t be made against the majority of people desiring something. One (slavery) is a conscious decision, based on social and cultural norms of the people at the time. The other is an observable, some could say subconscious, behavior that can be observed throughout the whole of human history.
Philosophy is very much a credible argument for the existence of God, if for no other reason than “I exist, therefore You are.”
@flapper_femme_fatale - NO I not talking about person desires. I am talking about desire that are so widespread they are inherent in human nature.
DO you see all the religious experiences of millions of people as hallucinations?
I have to admit, not to criticize your entry here because I know you put a lot of good thought into it, but it means so little to me what can or cannot be proven with regards to spirituality. I don’t think a desire for God determines his existence, and likewise I don’t think lack of evidence of God eliminates the possibility of existence. I personally know there is a God, not because of any logical conclusion I’ve drawn or suggestion of proof, but because… that is just what I know. I really enjoy following evidence based research and I’m a fairly logical person but I am at peace with knowing some things are better not deduced with the mind but known with the heart.
Realistically, the people who don’t believe in God on the basis of proof are just wired that way and this sort of logic just doesn’t usually speak to them. (And that’s fine, you’re free to believe whatever you want)
@chaospet - Materialism means that only the material is real. We are simply machines.Your theory must be true it we are nothing more than biomechanical machines
@steph843 - You would make a great Calvinist
@trunthepaige - Materialism (plus facts about human physiology) implies that we are entirely *made* of biomechanical machines. It doesn’t follow that that’s all we *are* – establishing that claim would take some lengthy argumentation. Those are two very different claims. I could point you to some nice discussions of metaphysics and the mind/body problem if you’re interested in further elucidation.
@DougX831 - I never suggested that she did posit such a thing. I was merely pointing out that this argument doesn’t do the job – if she wants to establish God’s existence, she’ll need some other evidence. It sounds like perhaps you agree.
And really, no. All I was establishing is that this argument she offered was insufficient. If I wanted to show that God doesn’t exist, I would of course have to offer some positive arguments of my own – I haven’t attempted that here.
@Table54 - You sure just wrote a whole bunch of falsehoods about the Bible.
1)I think that you need to look up the definition of express – which is:
<li class=”vk_txt”>Operating at high speed.<li class=”vk_txt”>Definitely stated, not merely implied.
So – what’s the specific verse that definitely states, not merely implies, that the earth is flat?
2)The Bible doesn’t say that humankind is God’s greatest creation.
3)The Bible doesn’t teach geocentricity over heliocentricity. Ptolomy taught that, and the institutional church defended it – but that doesn’t make it a Biblical teaching.
4)The Bible doesn’t mention that the other planets revolve around the earth.
Ahh twisted facts, misrepresentations, and lies – the bread and butter of internet bigotry.
@tendollar4ways - New discoveries have found that the appendix has important functions in the body. LINK
@DougX831 - You misunderstood me, I wasn’t saying there are no good philosophical argument, there are, I just do not think this can be one of them. In Psychological terms, I would relate it to the difference between causation and correlation. Yes, because lots of people believe in God, there may be some correlation making it true that God exist (meaning there is a connection); however, just because those people believe in God does not mean he does, in fact exist (meaning it doesnt prove his existence).
Personally, I think CS Lewis laid down some pretty good philosophical reasons for the existence of God and the necessity of Jesus Christ if God, does in fact, exist. Basically he said that there is a spark of God is all of us, part of the divine image, even though we distort it. this is why we are all not totally corrupt and evil, because part of the original image of God is in all of us. CW Lewis stated that this is proven by the moral code we see across the world, certain things such as murder, lying, stealing, adultery, cheating, and incest are all morally wrong What this also means is that humans are different form the animals, not only because we are moral but also because we can reason, we can chose NOT to follow our instinct. If evolution is correct and survival of the fittest is right, then why does humanity care the the homeless, give money to the poor, take care of animals, put people on trail for murder. If humans are evolved animals, then why would we trade that instinct. There is something different about humanity and I believe, as Lewis, that the difference stems from humanity being created uniquely in the image of God. And also, if God does exist and humanity is fallen, there is nothing humanity can do to bridge that gap. Only a perfect human could bridge such a gap, yet none can be perfect. Thus, the answer to such a predicament is the incarnation(Jesus), a God-Man who bridges the gap, not only thorough his life and teachings but the eternal gap by his death and resurrection.
I know CS Lewis nor Lee Strobel were Christians from birth, both struggled with faith and came to faith on the evidence they saw and experienced. Whether one agrees with everything they say, I still think their books are worth a read (“Mere Christianity” and “A Case for Faith”).
@chaospet - Oh yeah in your world of nothing more than the material you really are not a thinking creature at all. Give the you the right stimuli and you will simply react to it. Your illusion of thinking is all about you reproducing, but even that is not a thought out thing. Personally i think, and I have, free will, a soul even. But if you want to be a robot you go ahead and be one.
And I guess I will give up on you ever finding an inherent human desire that is based on nothing real. Obviously your DNA code will not let you think in that way.
Simply addressing ‘religious experiences’. No, they shouldn’t be taken as ‘evidence’ ever. People have claimed to see UFOs, does that make it true? Do you automatically take their word for it?
If I told you I saw the Easter Bunny in my backyard this morning, would you believe me? I hope not, since I have no proof except saying I saw it. People can say/claim anything.
It could be they sincerely believe they saw something. Just like people call in ghost hunters to ‘prove’ their house is haunted. Could be mass hysteria, like the Salem Witch Trials. Or you know, they could just be lying for attention. Because saying you saw god, sure gets attention.
That’s all I have to say on this one.
@Doubledb - Correlation when it is universal and always points the same way. well only a fool would not take that into account.
@Doubledb - Would you agree with Lewis then, when he posits an evidence of God is ” that this is proven by the moral code we see across the world, certain things such as murder, lying, stealing, adultery, cheating, and incest are all morally wrong.” ?
If so, that is, at it’s core, precisely the same argument as the desire for God argument. If one is valid, the other is as well.
(You do know I’m being conversational, not combative, right? Just want to clarify, Xanga being what it is)
@Pure_Taint - Got it there should be no eye witness testimony on courts
@DougX831 - if you two start fighting I give up
@Pure_Taint - Everything you said is accurate, and can’t be disputed. However, the claim isn’t that a person has a desire for God, therefore God must exist. The claim is that billions and billions of people, throughout all of history have had this desire, and a circumstantial evidence for God can be found in that.
To put it another way, no, I wouldn’t believe you if you told me you saw the Easter Bunny in your backyard. BUT, if you told me, and a billion other people said they saw it too, I’d have to at least give it some plausibility, since you can’t get a billion people to even agree that Pepsi beats the snot out of Coke, and we all KNOW that’s absolutely true.
@trunthepaige - Oh the non-sequiturs, I don’t even know where to begin. Listen, if you want to even begin to have the slightest grasp of the metaphysical positions you’re talking about, start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
and then maybe also take a look here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anomalous-monism/
Or you can just blindly stick with your preconceived notions of what these concepts mean and imply, that works too.
@trunthepaige - That should never be the only thing a conviction is based on. Memory is fluid, eye witness accounts are notoriously flawed, ask any cop. Multiple eye witnesses almost never agree on what they actually saw.
If you want to twist my words around and apply my statements to other areas (which would be odd, since you see to dislike it when @chaospet did it to you) go on right ahead. Eye witness accounts are never proof of anything. That’s why circumstantial cases fall apart in court. PEOPLE LIE.
@trunthepaige - lol, nah D is cool. No fighting here lol
@Table54 - That did not address the points of my entry. And it is really Biblicaly illiterate. But I saw another person was addressing that.
You say there is not desire for a higher power. I gong to just say you are not thinking if you say that. There has never been a civilization that has not looked for god. And the desire is so obvious that the genetic reasons for the disire are being looked into.
@DougX831 - I’m sure I could find you a couple hundred million children who have all claimed to see Santa Clause, doesn’t mean they did.
I wasn’t addressing the cultural desire for a higher being. I’m strictly responding to SHOULD personal testimony be accepted as valid or proof. To which I say no. It’s not proof of anything.
@Pure_Taint - So you do take eyewitness testimony into acount. So if there are ten witness can that convict all by itself? am not trying to twist your words. Just see what you believe about witnesses
@Pure_Taint - Find me billions and billions of them? Nope. All I’m saying is the numbers matter. The numbers are astounding, and they make “millions and millions” seem like a few people hanging out at the local McDonald’s.
Personal testimony isn’t proof of anything, You’re right. However, accurate personal testimony does exist (not everyone lies about everything) and personal testimony that is backed up by other evidences, is valid. This post handles the personal testimony side. It would have been far too long to add in the other evidences. So, at the end of the day, until one can prove that personal testimony has never been accurate, it remains a valid part of evidence. …which is why we bother to put people on the witness stand.
@trunthepaige - No, of course not. 10 people can lie. If that’s the only thing the case is hinging on, the case should be dismissed. People talking is not proof.
@Pure_Taint - Got it no ones word should ever be believed. It bit hard on rape victims if the rapist uses a condom or in a few cased flushes things out with bleach. Even if a cop sees the crime the evidence is not good enough. With that belief it matters not that all of humankind has seeked God. I doubt you believe any of it. People can write anything they want. Text books are of course suspect. People do lie
“Throughout most of human history, people almost universally believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. They were, of course, wrong. The fact that everyone believed that for most of human history doesn’t establish anything.
In short, you aren’t going to settle the question of God’s existence by pointing to what people believe. The only way to settle the question is to do the hard work of assessing the belief-independent evidence for and against the existence of such a being.” @chaospet said.
Consider the evidence from physics. The Christian concept that there must be life after death is viable only if there are realms beyond the physical universe that exist outside of our space-time universe/awareness/ability to perceive. The Christian concept of “eternity” means God is eternal and heaven is His eternal realm. But in Newtonian physics these concepts made no sense, because time was presumed to extend indefinitely into the past and the future, and space was presumed to stretch unendingly in all directions. Along came Einstein to prove that space-time is warped (curved) and that even though every particle in space-time is moving in a straight line that in our reality it appears that everything is moving in a circular direction.
An introductory college physics course will greatly widened our understanding. Scientists speak of hidden dimensions, multiple realms, and even multiple universes. What don’t know a lot about multiple universes, but we know that if they do exist they probably must have operate under laws that may radically be different from those in our universe.
In psychology, you’d learn that people have needs and that our needs are homeostasis driven. They are essentially hard-wired into us. You’d probably read the latest about how the brain is constructed in your biology courses. You discover that the brain works to serve its master and that its master — you — can learn to condition it as a tool. You’d read that it can be used to greatly expand your connectedness to something beyond yourself. Perhaps you’d call it something other than spirituality because you don’t believe in a spirit. Fine, call it whatever you like. It is hard-wired into you and me both.
In philosophy you’d learn that perhaps the universe and many, many universes are a the result of consciousness.
Friend, perhaps you are putting your faith into outdated knowledge and in failed arguments when you keep at it with repeating yourself as you do. How the universe operates is not limited to your understanding. I thankfully pray to my God that I will by His will come to understand where I am and what I may do to change myself so that I will better describe myself and where we are. I do so, first for myself. I also do so, because the un-believers would have me be unprepared to meet my Maker and believe that I will become just a small pile of dust or ashes in my end here. It is not at all true and this I know because God rewards my faith and even provides me with advance awareness that what you are teaching falls short of what the average Christian must know. God is real and He will welcome us into eternal life.
@eshunt@revelife - Your response is rather all over the place. Some of what you so supports what I was arguing very nicely, but that doesn’t appear to mesh with your conclusion. I’ll just note that this bit: “How the universe operates is not limited to your understanding” is more or less exactly what I was arguing. That’s my entire point, really – that much of the universe is beyond of our understanding, and we’ve found it to contradict our intuitions/judgments/needs/etc on many occasions. Thus, trying to settle difficult metaphysical issues – like the existence of God – just by pointing to what people think (or desire, or feel, or whatever) seems rather misguided, to say the very least.
@trunthepaige - you can take that argument to a Sociologist, it is above my paygrade, ha ha
@chaospet - Your inability to notice that you don’t have a belief in a higher intelligence prehaps prevents an awareness that I didn’t offer you a similar view at all.
@eshunt@revelife - I haven’t noticed that I don’t have a belief in a higher intelligence? Intriguing.
I realize that your view is different than mine. What I was expressing in my reply is that some of the points you made in support of your view actually fit quite nicely with, and actually help demonstrate, the truth of what I was arguing, whether you realize it or not.
Did you know that there were at least 500 that were witness to the resurrection of Jesus? There are hundreds of thousands that report near death experiences where they see celestial beings like Jesus, angels and they say that they met relatives, spouses, children and so on. Why would I care what an atheist thinks about these things? I don’t.
I’ll talk about the cosmos with them. However, as to the existence of God — no way. Their opinions about God are of no interest to me.
I somethimes wonder, Paige, do you care what they think about God?
“All thinking people admit that religious belief is very close to universal, throughout all human history and pre history. Does this fact amount to evidence in favor of religious claims?”
No. Even though many people have and have had religious beliefs, that does not amount to evidence in favor of religious claims. No matter how many people believe a certain thing, that does not provide any evidence towards that certain thing being fact.
Are all the claims made by so many throughout all time based on hallucinations?
That depends. A hallucination is defined as “an experience involving the perception of something not present.” If the claim is real then it isn’t a hallucination. (Considering that many religious claims tend to negate or oppose one another [some people claim there are many gods whereas others claim there is only one god, etc.] some claims must be wrong, therefore, not ALL claims are necessarily hallucinations, but some must be.)
“Skeptics need to admit that the personal testimony we see is impressive. The vast majority of humans have believed in an higher power. A Power to which the proper response was reverence and worship. The reality of our feelings, the desire to worship, our reverence, acts of love for this power. No one can honestly deny this is true.
If God does not exist, then these things have never once had a real object, they have always been a delusion. Is it really plausible to believe that?”
Yes. Until something is truly proven to be fact, it is resonable to consider/admit that something else could be a possibility.
@musterion99 - I couldn’t help but notice the word Theory in this new discovery. Made me LOL really since I know how you folks feel about theories.
The Koala Appendix is very long and helps in digestion of coarse Eucalyptus leave which is its diet. My theory on this goes hand in hand with Wisdom teeth that these are a reminisce of our evolutionary past. We ate leaves at one time as part of our diet in the distant past and the wisdom teeth and appendix are on there way out as part of our anatomy.
I was born with only 1 wisdom tooth and it makes sense….we have evolved to where we don’t need them. Evolution in progress.
@tendollar4ways - LINK
@trunthepaige - I am addressing Desire and religious experience in my comments. I am accepting your assertion that there is a universal “Desire” for God. I however don’t think this proves there is a God.
This “Desire” or universal creation of God in all cultures is more than likely an evolutionary result or consequence.
Humans became self aware at some point. I have read theories that this happened with the development of language and our ability to use symbols to represent things. Ball is a arrangement of letters to make word or it is a sound we say or something we could write to represent an actual ball. But, the word ball or a round drawing on a paige or any other symbol we use to represent the actual round object…isn’t the round object. Through our use of symbols we became able to conceptualize ourselves.
The Desire for God more than likely was a result of our own self awareness we evolved into.
Buddhist are aware of this desire as well and refer to this as a mirror trying to see itself.
@musterion99 - LINK
i feel like an 8th grader in a class of professors. i love watching a dog trying to catch its own tail. ’round and ’round he goes until one day he realizes he will never catch his tail. the same for trying to “logically” win a debate of this nature.
i can see the point of trying to break through man’s (prideful, arrogant) nature, but once it is realized that neither side will budge an inch, isn’t it time to make closing arguments and move on? like the dog believing that just because he can see his tail must mean he is going to catch it – and WIN – why become exhausted with these futile arguments, no matter how civil they may be? one side believes, the other side doesn’t. how many atheists have been led to the lord because a christian convinced them that their reasoning was flawed? how many christians left god because an atheist “proved” the lack of one?
the mind of man is all i hear in these comments. both sides reasoning with their MINDS. do we not have a soul or a spirit or both? do we as christians have to ignore what we know is in every man woman and child? THAT tiny fact is the universal desire born into us all to HAVE ANSWERS. some people choose man’s wisdom. other people know man is flawed and choose a being who is NOT flawed. it is only a matter of choice. i will go back to the sand box now.
Wow. You hit right on a point I’ve been thinking about for a few weeks now. Get out of my head!
A classic argumentum ad populum. Doesn’t hold water.
C.S.Lewis ‘Mere Christianity’ page 46
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
C.S. Lewis ‘Mere Christianity’ page 53
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe is a price worth paying for free will–that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings–then we make take it it is worth paying.
C.S. Lewis ‘Mere Christianity’ page 88
When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly: while you are making them you cannot see them. YOu can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk. Good people know about both bad and evil: bad people do not know about either.
C.S. Lewis ‘Mere Christianity’ page 121-122
There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of “Heaven” ridiculous by saying that they do not want “to spend eternity playing harps.” The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written fro grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolic attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share his splendour and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of Heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it. People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs.
On the contrary. History has shown there every time man feared or misunderstood something, he made up a god to make him feel better. As days shortened in autumn, man feared the sun was going to disappear forever. So he simply created a sun god and sacrificed to it until the winter solstice occurred and the sun returned. Man has looked to the sun, the moon, animals, volcanoes, lightening, or whatever as gods. All because he needed peace from his fears. And we’re still doing it today. So of course man desires a god. However when man reaches the educational level where he understands that he can solve his own problems, he no longer needs a god to achieve peace of min.
-Y
In answer to your last question…yes
If we have an inborn need to believe in a god then why is belief in gods declining rapidly? And it is not uncommon for people to reach similar false conclusions across the world, many logical fallacies are common and are made by most people almost daily.
Also this argument boils down to something being true because enough people believe it. But people believe things for all kinds of reasons, logical, psychological, cultural etc. I offered a plausible psychological explanation for the desire of a higher power to be common and you disregarded it. I also offered cultural reasons.
And occam’s razor is the axiom that the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions tends to be the correct one. One example from a tv show is if there’s a storm and the next day a tree is knocked down and you have two possible explanations:
1) the tree was knocked down by the storm, or
2) lightning hit a flying saucer which caused it to lose power and crash, knocking down the tree
then logically 1 is more likely to be true because it requires fewer assumptions (that there was a UFO flying in the area, that aliens exist, that they’ve visited earth, that they have flying saucers etc).
@agnophilo - Its not no religion is not the same thing as materialist atheists. And every culture that is gaining in real atheism is losing the very population that is atheistic. Would wide atheism is shrinking as a percentage of population
@agnophilo - Unless you can point to other universal desires that point to things that are not real. The simplest explanation for this desire for a higher power would be that there is a higher power. While this is not my argument from desire it fit in with experience. If billions of people through out all time said they saw lightning hit a flying saucer and take out trees. Would not the simplest explanation for that be that flying saucers exist?
@Ninasusan - Wow you must not trust anyone then.
@Table54 - That of course makes you wonder why most people with science degrees believe in god. 76% of medical doctors believe in God. No one is better educated than medical doctors.
@eshunt@revelife - It is a great book
@Hunt4Truth - Actually I do I wonder what drives them. That knowledge helps me to help those whose faith they have hurt. Atheism is a hard painful mistress, happiness is not something that belief system offers. They leave a lot of wounded people. Years ago my passion was the people dogmatic legalistic churches wounded. I was one of those.
@trunthepaige - I assume you mean that as religion declines belief in a god increases? I’ve seen no evidence of this. It seems to me more like both sides are gobbling up the middle.
@trunthepaige - “Unless you can point to other universal
desires that point to things that are not real.”
Don’t you believe most of the gods of most religions aren’t real? And as has been pointed out many times it’s not a universal desire. Not even among believers. As we’ve discussed even many people who believe in a god on paper have no particular desire to believe in one. When americans are asked if belief in god is an important part of their daily life about half say “no”. How is that a deep, universal need?
“The simplest explanation
for this desire for a higher power would be that there is a higher
power.”
If only wanting something made it so.
“While this is not my argument from desire it fit in with
experience. If billions of people through out all time said they saw
lightning hit a flying saucer and take out trees. Would not the simplest
explanation for that be that flying saucers exist?”
And what if billions of people said they saw flying saucers take out trees and in the age of the camcorder, camera phone, security camera and spy sattelite not one person had ever gotten a picture of one, what would that suggest? People “experience” god the way people in the middle ages “experienced” demons whenever someone had a seizure. Their worldview said that seizures = demon posession so that’s how they interpreted those events. The same way people who believed in zeus “experienced” zeus every time there was lightning, and they “experienced” the muses every time they felt inspired and they “experienced” cupid or aphrodite whenever they fell in love.
We see the world through the lens of our assumptions about the world. You see the world through god-colored glasses. You might feel a sense of calm come over you and assume it’s god comforting you or feel a sense of sudden dread and assume it’s a demon or the devil. But nobody has ever actually seen demons or the devil or god any more than they saw the greek gods. It’s just a lens.
@agnophilo - No I mean the number of people who call themselves atheist is growing slower than the population is growing. And that is not projected to change.Those who call themselves “no religion” mos t of them believe in God over 40% of them pray. Their population is growing. Its project to increase by 13% world wide in the next 50 years. But that is slower growth than Christianity is expected to have, its also slower then Islam and even slower than the Hindus religion.
@trunthepaige - Higher levels of education correlate with less belief in god – and the medical training isn’t usually what makes them believe there’s a god – it generally starts in sunday school when they’re around six.
@trunthepaige - Atheism isn’t a belief system, and atheists are perfectly capable of being happy. The myth that atheists are always angry or unhappy or contrary stems from the fact that the only time you ever find out someone’s an atheist is when someone is hitting us over the head with their bible. It’s only when an atheist is being contrary to a religious person that you ever know they are an atheist, and they only ever feel the need to be contrary when someone is doing or saying something that pisses them off.
Do I strike you as an angry, hateful, unhappy person? The only time I’ve wanted to tell people off in any of these discussions is when they’re being hostile, unreasonable or dismissive.
@trunthepaige - Yeah but that’s because the population growth of the US is entirely from immigration, the fertility rate is just below the replacement rate. Recent immigrant populations aren’t going to magically become secular overnight any more than immigrants are going to speak english the second they get here, it usually takes a generation or two to really assimilate into a new culture.
@agnophilo - But with all the eduction most still believe in God. Few Christians would ever tell you that 70+% of this nation really is Christian. They just are not atheists and call themselves something they do not find uncomfortable. Most do not have any real faith at all. Cultural Christians
The thing is with education ( and often a lot of atheist pressure) the percentage of doctors believing in God stays very high.
@agnophilo - I am not talking USA I am talking about world wide. But yes atheists do not have babies and their belief system is unappealing. Especially to woman. If its genetic it is sort of a death gene
@agnophilo - I did not bring up the atheists are unhappy thing. Demographically it is a fact they are over repersented among those who are less happy or healthy. But does correlation = causation I am not saying that. (nor will I repeat that foolishness in order to not sound mean, that it does not imply it. I know it does but that is not what I am saying here). My faith does not promise happiness
@trunthepaige - I wonder why that is. And how can you argue that most christians aren’t really christians while arguing that the desire to believe in god is universal?
@trunthepaige - “I am not talking USA I am talking about world
wide. But yes atheists do not have babies”
The birth rate decreases as education, prosperity and IQ increase. If the population of the world continues to decline I’m fine with that, it will lessen pollution and world hunger and if the population size gets too low I’m sure people will shore up the numbers.
“and their belief system is
unappealing.”
Speak for yourself. And it’s not a belief system, every atheist forms their own diverse opinions about things. I agree that thinking for yourself doesn’t appeal to many people, but maybe it should. Eating healthy food isn’t very popular in the US either, does that make it a bad thing?
“Especially to woman.”
The things that correlate with atheism are things like education and prosperity, and traditionally being a woman has made it harder to earn a decent living and get a good education. It’s no surprise that there are more atheist men than women. Ever wonder why all of jesus’ apostles and all of socrates’ disciples were male? Because in their day women didn’t get an education, men did.
“If its genetic it is sort of a death
gene”
It’s not genetic, nor do atheists drop dead from genetic disorders. Not having kids and dying are two different things. And I debunked the “atheists die sooner” thing on your blog ages ago.
@trunthepaige - “I did not bring up the atheists are unhappy
thing. Demographically it is a fact they are over repersented among
those who are less happy or healthy.”
Have a source for this? And polls are often not good for measuring this sort of thing.
“But does correlation = causation I
am not saying that. (nor will I repeat that foolishness in order to not
sound mean, that it does not imply it. I know it does but that is not
what I am saying here). My faith does not promise happiness”
Even if atheists tended to be less happy (which I am skeptical of), countries that are more prosperous have the highest suicide rates, and the country that always ranks highest in national polls is, if memory serves, something like 40% christian, 60% non-believers. Plus doesn’t depression and mental illness correlate with high IQs?
Even if it were true, it doesn’t mean much. Besides, if the world as it is is depressing does that mean it’s not the way it is?
@agnophilo - Its easy to say a desire is so universal that they are looking to the genetic reasons for it and what part of the brain it comes. And not believe most are practicing Christians even though they say they are Christians. ( are you seeing that 70+% of the population loves it neighbors as much as it loves itself?)
But the earths population is not declining is it? and atheists reproduce at a very slow rates. I just looking at projections they do not point to an increase in the percentage of atheists
Woman outnumber men when we are taking about getting degrees. Its just that fewer woman than men ever become atheists no matter what the education levels.
As to debunking I think you tend to use that word far too much. In other words a plausible scenario is not proof. I’m sure this entry qualifies as that in your eyes.
@agnophilo - If you didn’t know, there isn’t a middle ground. I’ll share stats with you. Only about one-sixth of Christians say that they are totally committed to engaging in personal spiritual development. One-fifth say they live in a way that makes them completely dependent on God.
There isn’t any middle ground. Either a Christian is repentant and acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God or he/she isn’t a Christian. As for sinfulness, none of us are without sin. As for forgiveness of new sins, I don’t discuss that because there are some varying beliefs. As for me, I believe that I must always be repentant.
This is why I don’t debate “if” there is a God. My God Is. I would not dedicate myself to a possibility. I dedicated myself to the God that wrote my name in the Book of Life.
___
How do you know that there isn’t an atheist gene?
They’ve been seriously searching for a god gene forever. I wonder if anyone is looking for an atheist gene. [note: I don't believe either exists.]
___
you asked Paige: “doesn’t depression and mental illness correlate with high IQs”
If you leave out mental illness and choose depression – or if you ask strictly about mental illness, you’ll find different statistics if there are any good studies.
___
you asked Paige: “Besides, if the world as it is is depressing does that mean it’s not the way it is?” I wonder what this sentence means.
“Its easy to say a desire is so universal that they are looking to the genetic reasons for it and what part of the brain it comes.” said @trunthepaige - I posted this: How is a brain spirituality wired? (edit). A gene is not found. A system of brain use is.
If you look at the linked posts you’ll gather a bit more too. I didn’t add the last piece: some of us may develop abilities to control three
regions of the brain separately. This would not be exclusive to any group but may exclude the “do what feels good” crowd. Most of them are too lazy.
@Hunt4Truth - I would have guessed it was not a single God gene. Though over all brain wiring is genetic. I would like to think that some people are not born unable to find God
@trunthepaige - there may be a some that can’ find God and that may be part of His plan… you remember that He wrote us into the Book of Life before creation. Hopefully nobody here is a demonic beast.
There probably isn’t a gene but it isn’t ruled out.
@Hunt4Truth - I do not need to like the idea and I not going to know that in this life
@DougX831 - Oh you’re misguided. Who told you pepsi’s better than coke??? Poor thing!
@trunthepaige - i don’t think the number of people desiring something matters. either a desire can prove existence, or it cannot. and i can think of several rather universal desires that were only achieved through humans inventing it: the desire to communicate information (language and writing), the desire to make travel and movement easier (domestication of the horse, boats, automobiles, planes), etc. considering how many places developed agriculture independently, the desire to produce more was universal. but that doesn’t mean that domesticated crops have existed eternally. we had to come up with something that satisfied our desire. i see theology as the same way.
and i like i said, i don’t think anyone desires a god… i think they desire what the existence of a god can mean to them. you keep using sex as an example. i don’t desire sex… i desire what sex offers me: physical pleasure, intimacy, connection to another human being. all of those things can be acquired elsewhere, with varying degrees of satisfaction.
Well to begin with, no offense, but Occam’s Razor is often severely misinterpretted and misused. In fact, I’d say the atheists you mentioned, who used it to dismiss God, were also using it incorrectly. As I understand it, and I’m admittedly not an expert on it myself, it conveys the idea that one should make as few assumptions as possible, and its intent is by no means to discern the truth, but to delay the establishment of a conclusion, until such time as a conclusion can be reached that is backed more by evidence than by assumption and speculation. At any rate, it’s a horrible way to discern the truth. If the simplest explanation were always, or even usually, the right one, the Earth would be a flat disk, the sky would be a dome over it, and the sun, moon, stars, etc. would all revolve around us. Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, etc. would be jabbering mental patients, because all of the incredibly complicated things they figured out would be wrong wrongness at its wrongest.
As for the rest, yes, I do believe it’s plausible that all of those beliefs, shared by all of those people, are delusions. I think the desire for God is a response to other desires, that a lot of people do not understand very clearly. I may go into more detail in another blog entry, but for now, suffice to say, you have to remember, an all-powerful being is a pretty convenient way to envision any want one might have being fulfilled, it’s a very easy explanation for anything one might not understand, and what that being is, is not a constant. It has common traits that span cultures, because it serves common purposes, but even within the same religion, I don’t think any two people believe exactly the same things about it.
@Maverick83 - As few assumptions as possible would mean that whatever it is they think they are desiring is likely the truth. you of course have a long winded explanation why that is really full of assumptions. And it takes you pages of writing a millions of points to make that “simple” case
@trunthepaige - “As few assumptions as possible would mean that whatever it is they think they are desiring is likely the truth.”
That is, itself, 100% assumption. I don’t need to explain that it’s “full of assumptions”, it simply is an assumption.
But again, Occam’s razor is not a scientifically sound method of discerning truth. Again, as few assumptions as possible would have pointed to the sun revolving around the Earth. It took a lot more thinking, and a lot of “long winded” explanations, to prove that it doesn’t. It is not advisable to make assumptions, but that doesn’t mean one should accept whatever is put forth, or whatever may seem obvious, without question. The truth, in its entirety, is often quite complicated, or “long winded”. If you’re only willing to consider things that are put forth in a short, simple manner, you have no interest in truth, no hope of finding truth, and are doomed to a lifetime of religion.
@trunthepaige -
“Its easy to say a desire is so universal
that they are looking to the genetic reasons for it and what part of the
brain it comes. And not believe most are practicing Christians even
though they say they are Christians. ( are you seeing that 70+% of the
population loves it neighbors as much as it loves itself?)”
Then isn’t it more logical to say that it’s a generic need that can be channeled into or fulfilled by religion, the same way the generic need for food can be fulfilled by eating pizza but is not a need for pizza specifically? People need to feel loved, safe, etc – that believing a god loves and is looking out for them makes them feel that way is, to me, like pizza making me not hungry. I don’t think religious belief is the only way to feel happy or safe or loved any more than pizza is the only way to not feel hungry. And I don’t think that need is for god specifically any more than we specifically need pizza.
“But the
earths population is not declining is it?”
Not overall, but this is because most of the world lives in poverty.
“and atheists reproduce at a
very slow rates. I just looking at projections they do not point to an
increase in the percentage of atheists”
Yet the percentage of americans who don’t believe in a personal god increases every year, for the simple reason that atheism is not hereditary. Most people who become atheists do so independently without being indoctrinated. If say catholics started having fewer kids then catholicism would decline, but that is because it is heavily dependent on indoctrination. Atheism is almost never indoctrinated into kids even by atheist parents, because they themselves were indoctrinated and don’t want to do the same to their kids.
“Woman outnumber men when we
are taking about getting degrees. Its just that fewer woman than men
ever become atheists no matter what the education levels.”
Women have been attending college at a higher rate than men for all of five minutes. They became the majority a few years ago – it’ll take a generation or two before this has an impact on our culture.
“As to
debunking I think you tend to use that word far too much. In other words
a plausible scenario is not proof. I’m sure this entry qualifies as
that in your eyes.”
I pointed out a huge flaw in the study which couldn’t not skew the results. This busts the study, but you’re right it does not technically disprove the hypothesis. It does however relegate it to “unsupported” status.
@Hunt4Truth -
“If you didn’t know, there isn’t a middle
ground. I’ll share stats with you. Only about one-sixth of Christians
say that they are totally committed to engaging in personal spiritual
development. One-fifth say they live in a way that makes them completely
dependent on God.”
I’m not surprised.
“This is why I don’t debate “if” there is a God. My God
Is. I would not dedicate myself to a possibility. I dedicated myself to
the God that wrote my name in the Book of Life. “
To me it isn’t even a probability.
“How do you know that there isn’t an atheist gene?
They’ve been seriously searching for a god gene forever. I wonder if anyone is looking for an atheist gene. [note: I don't believe either exists.]“
There is a genetic component to everything and I don’t doubt people are genetically predisposed to certain feelings or ways of thinking, but it’s always nature vs nurture. Being genetically predisposed to being violent can be nullified by a positive upbringing. I also don’t think DNA is as specific as that, I think we have mechanisms that allow us to do general things like learn and feel etc, I don’t think there’s a gene for every human activity.
“you asked Paige: “Besides, if the
world as it is is depressing does that mean it’s not the way it is?” I
wonder what this sentence means.”
I’m saying that even if her claim is true (that the atheist worldview is depressing) that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I don’t think it’s depressing btw. But even if it were I’d rather accept a hard reality than believe a comfortable lie.
@Maverick83 - It’s not the simplest explanation, it’s the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. Occam’s razor does not support the view that the earth is flat over the view that the earth is round, at least not when you weight the evidence people had at the time.
@Maverick83 - That the earth revolves around the sun was only possible to be discovered once many observations were made – at which point it was heliocentrism which required more assumptions to be correct.
@agnophilo - Isn’t that what I said?
@Maverick83 - No, it’s the opposite of what you said.
I’m saying by the time enough observations were made to deduce that heliocentrism was wrong, occam’s razor would not have supported it (heliocentrism).
@agnophilo - I’m sorry, man, but you’re losing me, here. I said Occam’s razor favored geocentricism. That to believe the contrary (heliocentricism) would have required more assumptions. Until enough observations, and more importantly, logical analysis of those observations, suggested heliocentric theory was correct, at which point, heliocentricism was supported by evidence and logical inference, not assumptions.
@Maverick83 - Sorry, I just made a typo and said heliocentrism instead of geocentrism.
@agnophilo - All three times, or was it any one of them, in particular? At any rate, I suppose I may not have put it as clearly as possible, but my point in making the analogy was that while it is best to minimize assumptions, that alone is not sufficient to reach a conclusion, as it essentially means taking one’s initial impression (for example, geocentricism) as fact.
@Maverick83 - All three times. And it’s worth mentioning that geocentrism was an assumption, not an explanation for anything.
You might try reading Benedict Spinoza’s “Ethics.” It is a proof of the existence of God.