Giving Up the Ghost: On Faith

The search for answers does not stop when one has faith.

Is that what new atheists think? That the faithful have stopped looking for answers?

As far as what I know about my God? Not nearly as much as I'd like to know.

Damn little. In fact, I find the notion of God pretty freakin' incomprehensible. And I think that's by design. So I say he's like a mist... and John says "That's silly". Well, if my notion is silly, then so is Johns. And I know you know this... it is personal.

I don't think God gives a rip about what you or I or anyone else thinks about him. I do think he cares about how we treat each other. So... details? God cares about how we treat each other.

And the only way I possibly could have come to this conclusion are the texts and personal revelation.

What exactly do you mean by personal revelation?

I had some fairly mystical experiences that felt like revelations of truth when I was in my teens, but they didn't amount to anything in the end. Which is how I personally came to disregard personal revelation as a means of finding truth.

Aw man... you know.... bleeding from the palms, visions, etc.

Seriously. Contemplative prayer has revealed to me (voices? no. decisions to make and changes in lifestyle. yes.) Certain paths to take in order to prevent self-destruction and harm to others. So, you know, I asked for help, got these 'answers' and lo and behold, there is power beyond the self.

Happens all the time. Prayer works for a ton of people. A ton.

Though not as concretely and empirically as, say... a wood chipper.

Steve, Prayer can be a useful tool, but I don't see it as getting guidance from above. Prayer is no different than meditating on a problem to seek and answer. There are many similarities between a Christian praying and a Zen Buddhist meditating.

Sure. Maybe. Maybe not.

But I think we could agree that in most cases it's a matter of 'looking elsewhere' than your everyday, run-of-the-mill consciousness. I would go further and posit that contemplative prayer is a denying of the self.

So I get a chill down my spine and determine that these things I cannot do by my self, I can do with help. This is God. To me. Right now. Today.

To many it is not.

I don't know if we can agree that in most cases it's a matter of 'looking elsewhere'.

I don't meditate or pray, but from my understanding that's not what meditation is about. With meditation you look inside yourself, but this isn't a spiritual or supernatural act, but moreso about pushing out the distractions in order to think clearly.

I think people should take more personal credit for 'revelations' rather than giving that credit to God.

OK. But this is the crux... theists look outside the self. For atheists there is only self?

Steve, atheists would see theists actually looking inside themselves and just giving credit to something outside. IMHO, the self shouldn't be described as 'only'. The subconscious for example can be amazingly powerful in giving answers the conscious mind can't find.

Happens all the time. Prayer works for a ton of people. A ton.

It surely didn't for these people.

Though not as concretely and empirically as, say... a wood chipper.

If God is real and he really answers prayers, why shouldn't we expect the "power of prayer" to be empirically demonstrable? If you simply want to say that God chooses whose prayers he answers and whose he doesn't, and the ratio just so happens to mirror that of random chance, then what is the point of praying, since you're just as likely to get what you want by not praying? The only other argument I've seen to rebut studies like these is the idea that God has a hard-on for blind faith and deliberately won't allow himself to be "tested," which is, frankly, kind of silly.

Prayer seems like a bad idea to me, even if I thought it did anything. It's an attempt, which is bad. It asks god to change his(her? its?) plan...and when it doesn't work it's said to be god's plan, which will happen either way...so why pray? Sounds really rude to me...

I don't believe prayer is about getting what you want nor asking God to change the plan. I believe it's about asking for insight into the why of things and for strength. So yes, Brian and TheWarden seem correct in pointing out that the outcome essentially is arrived at from your self.

My dear sister became deeply involved in christianity for a period of about 10 years. She was always a christian before (and maybe afterward), but not very serious, and without a lot of information or desire to convert others. After "studying" with her church, she would frequently belittle me for not accepting her lack of understanding of her own god. She called me to task for expecting to understand anything about god. God was such that we should not seek to understand, she would explain in painfully condescending tones. What a convenient exit from the discussion. Steve's finding "the notion of God pretty freakin' incomprehensible" reminds me of this uncomfortable time in our lives.

It also seems that his stance on prayer goes from self-denial to arriving at outcomes from your self. I've been left behind...

Which is more damaging I wonder, blind faith out of conviction or blind faith out of laziness?

The former would definitely be the more dangerous.

Sloth does not beget seething judgmental activism.

Blind faith out of conviction often exploits blind faith out of laziness and says "Hey, look. So many people agree wtih me. My views MUST have merit!"

Moral codes arise prior to religious faith, and exist without it. And many religions have conflicting moral codes-- why does one faith consider something moral that another does not? Moral codes don't arise from faith, even though we pretend they do, and even though we excuse religious excesses because they "provide" us with moral codes.

No sex before marriage, and forbidding the consumption of pork may be practical methods of avoiding the spread of diseases, but these are not the reasons these practices arose, and the incidental protections that they afforded our primitive ancestors are not necessarily good reasons to retain them today.

Lying, stealing and killing are universally seen by humans, religious and otherwise, as bad things-- again, you cannot put the cart before the horse. Did our aversion to these things come from religion or did religion spring from our aversion to these things? Studies on the origin of altruism would tend to suggest that the latter is closer to the truth.

Religion is built around rules to further the spread of religion, and only coincidentally benefitted our ancestors, thus improving its fitness to survive in competition with other religions.

Given that moral codes pre-exist religious faith, and considering that there are a wide range of criminals who profess belief in God, isn't it just as likely that religion isn't really hampering anyone from committing crimes who wouldn't already do so? And given the spurious truth claims that religion promotes that lead to violent crimes (I'm thinking here of anti-abortion zealots, for example), can you really think that the net effect of an absence of religion would be an increase in the commission of crimes?

What's saving us from moral retards is a social system built on the concept of competing but equal rights, and a justice system that seeks to enforce it.

And given the spurious truth claims that religion promotes that lead to violent crimes (I'm thinking here of anti-abortion zealots, for example), can you really think that the net effect of an absence of religion would be an increase in the commission of crimes?

I wouldn't think so, but I also recognize that I'm not wired the same way a devout Christian is. I also won't make any sweeping generalizations and assume all Christians would go bat @!$%# if you take their tenets away, but I can't dismiss the idea that some people don't "sin" only because of a fear of eternal damnation.

Religion is built around rules to further the spread of religion, and only coincidentally benefited our ancestors, thus improving its fitness to survive in competition with other religions.

You don't really think that Religions purpose was solely to spread religion do you? Who would be the beneficiary of such a practice? God(s)? It's more appropriately recognized as a tool to benefit a civilization to be more fit to compete with other civilizations. Either way there was a practical purpose for those Religions that are arguably obsolete now.

I think he's talking about how memes and memeplexes spread here. The religions that spread the best are the ones that survive, and spreading the best has no particular connection to utility for the believers.

Exactly, Brian. It's a new idea for me, and one that I'm just reading about. But I certainly find compelling the idea that what's best for religion might not be best for the faithful followers or humanity as a whole-- consider potlatch traditions, as an example, or the Easter Islanders.

I just reviewed Dennett's Breaking the Spell, which touches on exactly this subject.

The religions that spread the best are the ones that survive, and spreading the best has no particular connection to utility for the believers.

I agree with that. But if we choose not to believe in God, we need to explain religion in a way that is not divine. Religion does not exist for Religion's sake. It was created by man to serve a purpose. While Polytheism and animistic religions may have arisen to explain the unexplained, modern monotheistic religions have introduced additional practices that serve a practical purpose to ensure a civil and hygienic society. Who would do such a thing and why? Obviously the kings and emperors, scholars, and the social elite would create these religions to serve the purpose of keeping their citizens passive and loyal to their cause.

Your still missing the point, Spacegoat:

But if we choose not to believe in God, we need to explain religion in a way that is not divine. Religion does not exist for Religion's sake. Religion doesn't have to exist as "divinely inspired" to incorporate changes that increase it's fitness with regard to other religions. As a meme, it can be completely natural, exist for its own sake, and be modified in ways that increase its fitness to survive in "meme-space" (culture) without necessarily benefitting the faithful.

It was created by man to serve a purpose. I think this was a much more organic process than you imply.

While Polytheism and animistic religions may have arisen to explain the unexplained, modern monotheistic religions have introduced additional practices that serve a practical purpose to ensure a civil and hygienic society. Who would do such a thing and why? Obviously the kings and emperors, scholars, and the social elite would create these religions to serve the purpose of keeping their citizens passive and loyal to their cause. Again, putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps those things are an offshoot of other elements which increased the fitness of religion to compete against other religions. It's highly doubtful that "kings and emperors, scholars, and the social elite" created religions or engineered them to create civil and hygienic societies.

You're approaching religious evolution in the same way that some people approach biological evolution, searching for a "designer" where none needs to exist.

I understand your point. Religion can and does exist for itself. But when you said "Religion is built around rules to further the spread of religion, and only coincidentally benefitted our ancestors, thus improving its fitness to survive in competition with other religions." you implied the genesis of religion. And you are saying that any societal benefit was only coincidental. It is that point that I disagree with. If you don't believe in god, then religion is a creation of man. Yes it is an evolution, but the rules of any religion are thought up by a person or a committee if you will. It may have been Abraham for all we know who thought up the business with Adam and Eve and Noah.

I think this was a much more organic process than you imply.

You're probably right there. It more likely it was a combination of fables passed on word of mouth throughout the years, but each one of them was made up by someone at some point. For instance some guy lived to a ripe old age and when asked "What's your secret?" he says, "I don't eat pork and I don't sleep around." That gets passed around, found to be usefull, and eventually ends up as a divine commandment in the Torah.

You're approaching religious evolution in the same way that some people approach biological evolution, searching for a "designer" where none needs to exist.

Err... if we didn't design religion, who did?

Nobody did. We may have created it, but we didn't create it with a 'design' in mind.

Sorry for the double post. I had a bus to catch and ran out of time. I wanted to expand on this notion of religion being designed for practical purposes. Moses came down from the mountain claiming to have talked to a burning bush. If he was genuine and all happened as described, he was obviously demented, hallucinating, and carved the stone tablets himself without knowing it. Or he could have been conning them. Realizing he's got all these people looking up to him as a prophet, he runs up to the mountain makes a up a bunch of rules, cleverly adding rules not to question his divine word, yada yada yada... Israel.

Take the New Testament. You can't tell me that wasn't put together by committee. And Islam takes the cake. That whole religion was made up by one man. And he was so disingenuous as to create laws that he didn't have to follow. Still those laws managed to unite nomadic Arab tribes where Christianity failed. Why? Because they were laws the Arabs could relate to. I take that back. Mormonism and Scientology are both more contrived than Islam.

Faith provides a moral code by which to live.

No, faith provides a system in which any moral code can be accepted without regards to reason. The same "faith" that tells you that sex before marriage is wrong (just because) tells some extremists/fundamentalists that it's good to kill infidels.

Note that we're not talking about a specific dogma here. We're talking about "faith" as a general means of justifying some belief. If you accept something as true based on faith, then you have simply chosen not to even try using reason or evidence to support your beliefs. You've basically given up on reason and said "I believe because I want to believe."

Faith itself doesn't lead to morality or immorality. What it leads to is arbitrary. That's the problem. It can justify anything, and nothing can override it, since it doesn't have any basis in reason or reality.

No, faith provides a system in which any moral code can be accepted without regards to reason. The same "faith" that tells you that sex before marriage is wrong (just because) tells some extremists/fundamentalists that it's good to kill infidels.

Yes, I said "a" moral code. Not "the" moral code. And "a" moral code exists as a subset of "any" moral code. I hope you read beyond that first sentence to see the point that even though some faith based morality is arbitrary, many tenets did at least serve a practical purpose at one time.

many tenets did at least serve a practical purpose at one time.

I fully agree, even though I'm against faith in religious doctrine. Why?

Once something that was, at some point in time, pragmatic, becomes doctrine, it rids of the need for pragmatic justification. Religion becomes an independent entity that feels entitled to never answer to any criticism, yet dictate the ways of the world.

This is why any religious notion of "This is the Moral Code" is inherently dangerous.

Thank you! Someone finally agrees. And you are right. The whole abstinence and kosher food doctrine served it's purpose whether you agree with it or not. But now it is a fossil that people follow blindly because no one has bothered writing a new book.

Spacegoat, I never disagreed that they didn't have the effect you say they did. I simply don't believe that they were intended to have the effect that you see them as "designed" for. Religions grow, they aren't "built"-- with perhaps the possible exceptions of Mormonism and Scientology.

Nobody sat around and said,

On that point we can agree to disagree. *grin*

Yes, I said "a" moral code. Not "the" moral code

But you implied that this was a good and/or useful thing. That's only true if whatever moral code you get is not evil. For instance, the moral code of the Jews at one time was pretty bad. All you have to do is read the OT to see how bad it was. Faith is what they used to justify that. Is that good? Was the moral code that the 9/11 hijackers took on faith a good thing?

It's a mistake to assume that all moral codes are positive.

It's a mistake to assume that all moral codes are positive.

I'm not trying to pass off arbitrary moral code as good or bad. I just stated that it had served a practical purpose. The examples I gave helped to keep people free from disease. You can debate whether they were right or wrong, but they were effective for their purpose.

My position is that doctrine may have served it's purpose at one point in time, but it doesn't any more. We are enlightened enough as a species to make an educated decision without blindly following some dogma.

For instance, the moral code of the Jews at one time was pretty bad. All you have to do is read the OT to see how bad it was. Faith is what they used to justify that. Is that good?

I shouldn't risk digging this hole any deeper for myself, but I will attempt to make a point that I think people often miss when they criticize "Old Timey" religion. Secular morals did not exist in ancient times as they exist today. When you reflect on how bad the OT moral codes were, reflect on how bad life was in the times of the OT. People were much more ignorant and much more brutal. Maybe we needed a thou shalt not kill commandment back then, because it wasn't so painfully obvious that it was generally a bad idea. Hell, it wasn't even that long ago when you went to your local barber to have a hole drilled in your head.

But now you're again equating "faith" and "that moral guide which had practical uses" (i.e., the result of the faith). If something has a positive effect then faith is not needed to justify it. The fact that it has a positive effect does that. So where was faith necessary? What purpose did faith serve?

When you reflect on how bad the OT moral codes were, reflect on how bad life was in the times of the OT.

I don't think any argument about how much life sucked back then could justify some of the @!$%# that's in the Bible. Mass murder, rape, executions for minor offenses, etc. cannot be justified by reason.

If something has a positive effect then faith is not needed to justify it. The fact that it has a positive effect does that. So where was faith necessary? What purpose did faith serve?

That's assuming that you are enlightened enough to know that it's good for you. If half of your family died from undercooked pork would you know it was the undercooked pork that did it. Before you answer put yourself back in the "Old Timey" religion days where angering the god under the rock by your front door would have been the more obvious cause. Same goes with syphilis. If I had to tell you you'd burn in hell if you ever eat pork again just to keep you alive and fighting for my side, so be it.

Before you answer put yourself back in the "Old Timey" religion days where angering the god under the rock by your front door would have been the more obvious cause.

Ok, even if that example is accepted, what would be the CURRENT excuse for that faith?

You've given an example in which evidence is involved. If half my family dies from undercooked pork, then I'm avoiding pork because it might kill me, not because I take it on faith that it's immoral.

That's assuming that you are enlightened enough to know that it's good for you. If half of your family died from undercooked pork would you know it was the undercooked pork that did it? ...

I'm beginning to think you're egging me on. Take it as read that you don't know what caused it.

If you didn't know that the undercooked pork did it, then where does the "don't eat pork" rule come from? Faith doesn't create rules. It justifies them. In this case you have a rule which had to come from somewhere, and the only reason it could have come into existence is that someone made the connection. Call me crazy, but that's using evidence, not faith.

Rukh, there is no excuse.
#4
#4.13
#4.17

Adam, you may want to read the top of this thread too. I was proposing that if we accept the fact that religion is not a divine creation, then it was created by man. I was pointing out that there were certain aspects of the doctrine that seem contrived. I proposed that religion was created as a tool to protect and control civilizations; thereby explaining how certain doctrines had practical purposes.

Wow, now you both lost me.

The examples I gave helped to keep people free from disease. You can debate whether they were right or wrong, but they were effective for their purpose. Keeping people free from disease was never their purpose. In talking specifically about the prohibitions on diet, these people engaged in these practices as ceremonial rituals, as they say themselves, not health protections; they engaged in these rituals to ritually separate the practice of their religion from the practice of other "pagan" religions of the area, as they themselves claimed. It's a strange health practice that claims "If the disease breaks out all over his skin and, so far as the priest can see, it covers all the skin of the infected person from head to foot, the priest is to examine him, and if the disease has covered his whole body, he shall pronounce that person clean. Since it has all turned white, he is clean." (Leviticus 13:12-13) So a fellow can be completely covered by a skin disease, but because he's uniform of color, he's "clean"? Jewish religious proscriptions as primitive healthcare might seem superficially to make sense, until you actually investigate it further than the surface.

The purposes were spiritual cleanliness and cultural segregation, not health. That spiritual cleanliness had some correlation with actual cleanliness was coincidental. As far as the belief being passed on, if these beliefs coincidentally benefitted the survival of the faithful, naturally they'd be passed on. There would now be more faithful to pass them on.

Now we could say that the doctrine had practical purposes-- spiritual cleanliness and cultural segregation-- but it's difficult to conclude that someone, somewhere, who had an over-arching view of the culture, sat down and mapped out what rules should be incorporated into the religion for the purpose of controlling people. There may be ad hoc rules for that purpose that were incorporated, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess that they occured over the span of the life of the religion, not that the bulk of them occured right at the outset of the faith.

And as far as a rule such as spiritual cleansing goes, I don't think you can infer that this was something that was simply decided. Again, this is a concept that's mutual to most religions. It's most likely that the concept itself evolved over time, and that changes that brought concepts of spiritual cleanliness closer to physical cleanliness simply had an ancillary effect of improving the survival fitness of the believers.

I'm still fairly convinced that these rules were grown over time, not written down by a man or a committee with what we now identify as their "true purpose" in mind.

This is getting a little to convoluted, so let me dismiss my suggestion that some doctrines exist for the well being of society, and focus on my suggestion that religion is contrived by man. Let's forget about Judaism, because it's origins go back so far that I don't think either one of us could back our argument with much historical fact. So let's look at Christianity.

There is nothing accidental about this difference between a church and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress.
[Bertrand Russell]

So, despite what Jesus said, it was the Church who created the doctrine of Christianity. You may argue that Church and Religion are separate things, but in the case of Christianity, they go hand in hand.

By the end of the first century, the smug confidence of the local bishops in their own ideas was about to be shattered by the very success of the Christ Cults. The doctrinal gulf between various groups calling themselves Christian had grown too great to be ignored, especially between the Gnostic Christians and those respecting the ecclesiastical and doctrinal authority of the bishops. So when intellectuals among these movements began to appear, it became obvious that something needed to be worked out. Finally, Valentinus of Alexandria, Justin of Samaria, Irenaeus (from Asia Minor, but writing from Lyons and a thoroughly loyal Roman), the Gnostic bishop Marcion of Sinope (a small town in Asia Minor), Clement of Alexandria, and a few others all converged on Rome in 140 C.E. with ideas of what Christianity was, that could hardly have been at greater odds. One of the most charismatic of these was Marcion, whose heretical views were supported by many other Gnostics in attendance. Indeed, this charismatic heretic was nearly elected to the papacy.
[Link]

The Church was created by committee.

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed very slowly over many centuries. This is not to say that formal councils and declarations were not involved, however. Some of these include the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain), the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Greek Orthodoxy.
[Wiki]

The book of record for Christianity was written by committee, an elite group of theologians who cherry picked what went into the New Testament.

I won't dismiss the fact that much of Christian and Jewish doctrine had their origin in ancient myths and adapted to the influences of time and geography like any good meme, but at some point (in Christianity's case 140C.E.) the religion becomes organized and their doctrines are solidified by picking and choosing the elements that someone determines best represents what they think their religion embodies. For Christianity, it was a committee of Christian cults. For Islam, it was Muhammad.

Maybe we're arguing about different points. I don't deny that some of the morals in the Bible had practical reasons for existing. What I'm saying is that faith has nothing to do with that.

If a rule has a practical reason for existing, then that practical reason can be used to justify the rule. Only when there are no practical reasons for a rule would faith be necessary to justify it.

I just don't buy the theory that religion was consciously created to control people.

Only Scientology :)

No, that was to get money. ;)

I just don't buy the theory that religion was consciously created to control people.

I admit that it's not the only reason religion exists, but you only have to look as far as Al Qaeda or Oral Roberts to see that religion is used to control people. But that wasn't really my point. I confess I am having a hard time backing up that practical religious rules were consciously created for those practical purposes, so maybe I am wrong. The only source I can refer to is the book Snow Crash, which is what gave me the notion in the first place. Of course a fictional novel is not a good source. The problem is that if it's true, the answer will be found in the dawn of civilization when rulers were believed to be gods, and the basic structure of organized religion was invented.

I think that it's not a strictly conscious effort to fabricate social rules and peg them as religion, but it's more of an organic process where some social rules that have no simply explanation (such as food poisoning from shellfish) are given supernatural/religious explanations.

These explanations are accepted, and the rules are thusly accepted as well. After a time, the explanations themselves are put on the back burner, and the social rules (now religious edicts) are strong enough to stand on their own.

I think that it's not a strictly conscious effort to fabricate social rules and peg them as religion, but it's more of an organic process where some social rules that have no simply explanation (such as food poisoning from shellfish) are given supernatural/religious explanations.

Right on, but I'd rather call it a learning process than organic. An organic process may allow for a completely accidental inclusion of a practice. Before there was writing people passed on their knowledge by word of mouth. At some point some tribe got sick from eating shell fish, and one particularly intelligent tribesman made the connection that the shell fish caused the illness. He brings his thoughts to the tribe at the camp fire one night and they decide that shell fish are dirty and will no longer be eaten. This knowledge gets passed down, and the tribe grows. After several generations the bloke with the bright idea is forgotten, but the tribe still abides by the rule. They just figure it must have been god who told them in the first place.

It wasn't just an arbitrary "let's make a religion" committee, but it was a conscious decision to start with, and it's a completely plausible scenario. In fact I think it's a more probable explanation than just coincidence or arbitrary religious identity.

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just disagreeing with the notion that "faith" was ever a necessary part of that process. Faith may have been used, but it wasn't strictly necessary.

It's not being defined as belief without evidence, I don't think. It's being defined as belief that is not based on proof. So the discussion is then, should we believe anything without proof? Secondarily the discussion could include whether the available evidence such as it is constitutes proof, though the number of people making that argument is much smaller.

I think for the purposes of this discussion, I think this lists the types of faith we're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#Religious_faith

I disagree with the examples that you use. In order for me to trust that God would leave a record God's activities, I would have to know a little about God up front. Where does this knowledge come from if not from the record that God left? In this meaning, belief and trust seem to be directed more at the historical text. It creates a circular logic.

What if I do not trust the "record" of God's activities I see. How can I trust a manuscript that has been translated, revised, and edited so many times that is only relevant to the last time period these actions happened?

Sigh... apparently my faith in Newsvine was misplaced as it just ate my comment. So the much shorter version: I think we're talking about this type of faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#Religious_faith. Predominantly we're talking about whether we should believe anything without proof, and secondarily whether the available evidence constitutes proof.

Oh sheesh. My first post wasn't there a second ago. Really.

Brian White,

If we define faith for this discussion as only that which is based on proof rather than based on evidence, then there is no valid reason for faith. Most of what any of us defines as their reality (with or without a god) is based on evidence, not proof.

It is a truism that you cannot prove that god does not exist. Similarly, you cannot prove that he exists (except if he chooses to provide such proof).

SplitTooth,

We read the ancient writings of, for example, the Egyptians, Greeks, Phoenicians, etc. to help us piece together the history of human beings. We do not summarily dismiss these written records because they are old or because they have been translated or because they may have been rewritten. Why would we choose to dismiss the writings of the Hebrews while finding all other written records to contain useful information?

Is it circular reasoning if I read the writings of Aristotle? In order to believe what he wrote, I have to believe he existed. I believe he existed because of what he wrote.

The difference is that when you read the Egyptian records you don't start believing on Egyptian ancient gods. Why is that? It is written and it is ancient. You should believe those also. What makes the Hebrew god more special?

Leonardo Leiria Fernandes,

What makes the Hebrew god special in relation to the Egyptian gods? He beat them? ;-)

Seriously, you avoid the question. If we eliminate all belief based on evidence because it is not based on proof (which eliminates just about everything except belief in oneself -- and leaves one to wonder about his/her own existence) and then eliminate any historical evidence on the basis that all historical written records contain information except those records which provide evidence for god, you have closed off all effective argument for anything.

Mykola Bilokonsky,

I am glad we have returned to the concept of evidence rather than proof. I can't prove the sun will shine tomorrow either. In fact, I can't prove the sun exists though there is a lot of evidence supporting the notion.

The question of written works as evidence of god is a little more difficult to defend.

I submit there are really two questions in any discussion of no god/god(s):
1) Is there evidence in the natural world/universe that there is a god or gods or can we construct a consistent and reasonably complete model based on natural processes with no purpose or external control?
2) If we fail to eliminate the concept of god in item 1, the next question is who is god?

It is when we reach the second question that written records become important. For example, if there is a god who purposefully created the universe and man, we would expect such a god to inform us of his involvement in creation and to inform us of his purpose.

If we remove written records from consideration, we don't at this point eliminate the possibility of god (we failed at that in the first instance), we just eliminate the possibility of identifying him.

Interesting argument jpark. For starters, I think there are many that believe in a God, but not necessarily one that *purposefully created* man. I don't see how one can accept the concept of evolution at its core while believing the above. But even for those that do believe in a God, and do believe that God purposefully created Man, then yes I can accept that it would be rational/reasonable to believe in the existence of some record of his will.

But even under that scenario, why would such a record necessarily be the Bible? There are countless other Holy Texts. From where does the Bible derive its authority?

On the issue of 'purposeful creation', I would presume that if there is a god and if he did create the universe and the world, he would necessarily have some purpose.

The concept of evolution and creation does not seem to me to be necessarily at odds. Presuming again for argument purposes that a god created everything, it is obvious that he created the universe to operate without constant intervention. Why would life and life processes be excepted? It would seem logical to create life in such a manner that it would be self sustaining and self diversifying.

On the question of the use of the Bible rather than some other text:
1) I got the impression from Mykola Bilokonsky's comments that he was guiding this discussion into an atheism vs abrahamic religion discussion.
2) If there is a god and we are to identify him, there are certain characteristics which we can identify which will eliminate many possibilities.

We would expect such a god to say he created the universe. Gods who do not claim to have created the universe would be eliminated.

We would expect any god capable of creating the universe to be rational and to have a purpose in his creation. Gods who do not express a purpose in creation would be eliminated.

We would expect a record which is reasonably accurate, which does not conflict with known history and which does not conflict with the known scientific principles of the universe.

Et cetera.

The God of Abraham provides a record consistent with the above expectations. There may be other texts consistent with the above.

I would presume that if there is a god and if he did create the universe and the world, he would necessarily have some purpose.

Well that's a huge assumption isn't it? And especially assuming that humanity is a part of that purpose. I think you have that belief because it's a part of your religious teachings. The notion of a god who created the universe doesn't necessarily imply any special role for humanity. And if that were the case, god wouldn't be telling us about how he created the universe, or telling us how to live. The deist position addresses the origin of the universe quite well while negating any special need for the personal relationship with god that theists have.

Even if all your assumptions were granted, I would have to say that the god of abraham seems an unlikely candidate. What about the countless generations who lived before there was any talk of Yaweh? Wouldn't your god have intervened in their lives and spoken directly to them, and given them such a record? The only way he wouldn't have is if the history of the old testament were literally true and the earth were only 6,000 years old. It seems to me you couldn't believe in an interventionist god and in the 100,000 years of unenlightened humans who came before 6,000 years ago at the same time.

Is there evidence in the natural world/universe that there is a god or gods or can we construct a consistent and reasonably complete model based on natural processes with no purpose or external control?

When people had no "natural" explanation to thunderstorms they used to say god produced them. Turns out that those people were wrong. Should we commit the same mistake about things we still don't understand now a days, or should we evolve a little bit and try to research and learn instead of believing on magic? Just because we don't know the explanation to everything it does not mean such explanation is god right?

And why is a "purpose" needed? Just because we want one?

Brian White,

I don't believe that purpose would be a huge assumption. Man is presumed intelligent and we don't see humans creating without purpose (not counting incidental creation of other humans while engaged in social activity). A God capable of designing and creating the universe but who had no purpose in the creation would seem at best frivolous and at worst mad.

Though I think we can safely attribute certain characteristics to any god capable of creating the universe, I don't think we can presume to anticipate an intelligence of that order. I would not attempt to presume why God revealed himself at the time and in the manner that he did.

I do not think that the earth is approximately 6000 years old nor do I believe that God ever declared an age to the universe or the world.

Seriously, you avoid the question. If we eliminate all belief based on evidence because it is not based on proof (which eliminates just about everything except belief in oneself -- and leaves one to wonder about his/her own existence) and then eliminate any historical evidence on the basis that all historical written records contain information except those records which provide evidence for god, you have closed off all effective argument for anything.

Evidence is one thing. Written records of supernatural things is another. There is just as much evidence of your god as of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Native Australian or any other "documented" gods throughout history. Do you claim all of those exist? If not, what makes the "evidence" for your god stronger than the "evidence" for all the other gods?

We would expect a record which is reasonably accurate, which does not conflict with known history and which does not conflict with the known scientific principles of the universe...

The God of Abraham provides a record consistent with the above expectations. There may be other texts consistent with the above.

In fact, the God of Abraham is not consistent with the above expectations. The Old Testament is riddled with historical errors, conflation of events occuring at disparate times, etc. It's not accurate, does conflict with known history, and conflicts with the known scientific principles of the universe. Ipso facto, it's false.

I'd also take exception to your presuppositions that

• We would expect such a god to say he created the universe. Gods who do not claim to have created the universe would be eliminated. Why? Is it not possible to identify God if he doesn't proclaim that he created the universe? Does failing to make that claim eliminate any possible physical evidence for his existence? This is an assumption, not a condition.
• We would expect any god capable of creating the universe to be rational and to have a purpose in his creation. Gods who do not express a purpose in creation would be eliminated. Again, why? Presuming God to be limited to a reason that we could comprehend isn't warranted. Maybe what appears irrational to us might, for reason known only to the omniscient, be perfectly rational. Again, this is an assumption, not a necessary condition.
• I would presume that if there is a god and if he did create the universe and the world, he would necessarily have some purpose. Presuming to know the mind of God is called 'hubris.' Why would we think that God would need to have some purpose in creating the universe. The very definition of 'God' should preclude the concept that he need do anything. It almost cries out that for God to have created the universe, he had to have done so for no reason at all. At any rate, the presumption of purpose here is exactly that, a presumption.
• Presuming again for argument purposes that a god created everything, it is obvious that he created the universe to operate without constant intervention. Why would life and life processes be excepted? Assuming for argument's sake that this is the case, why would God need to make the universe in such a way as to necessitate him interfering in the affairs of men, at all? The Old Testament God constantly meedles with human affairs. Are we to believe that he's capable of creating the almost infinite complexity of the universe, but was baffled by human actions such that he had to intervene at certain intervals to fix things for the descendants of Abraham?

It's hardly possible to keep all those contradictions present in one post without simply throwing up one's hands in disbelief.

Leonardo Leiria Fernandes,

I think the question was phrased fairly. If there is a god who created the universe, I would presume that his activity in creating the universe would imply a purpose. If the universe just exists without the benefit if a deity, then I would not presume any particular purpose in its existence.

Is the question "Can we construct a consistent and reasonably complete model based on natural processes?" somehow defective?

If we can't do that, then looking for answers beyond natural processes would seem logical.

iarnuocon,

I don't suppose it is possible to adequately respond to your post.

If we are prevented from using logical thought processes to examine the possibility of god, or if we must presume a god who does not operate in a logical manner, then we are indeed wasting our time.

You declare that god does whatever he does for no purpose at all (which is to attribute idiocy to god), and at the same time fault him for intervening in the affairs of men (which would indicate at least intelligent concern).

Mykola Bilokonsky,

A thoughtful response.

Perhaps I did phrase Item two ambiguously. I meant that if we are unable to construct a model of reality, consistent and reasonably complete, that does not contain a god, then logically we should seek a broader understanding of the universe. One which might necessarily contain a god.

I do not think I am being presumptuous to attribute certain characteristics to any god who is capable of designing and creating the universe.

I think we have strayed far from your purpose in this sub-thread of defining faith. When we get to the point of examining reality, it will doubtless be interesting to see if our (scientific) model is adequate.

Mykola Bilokonsky (8.20),

Guess I need to label these posts. I was responding to your 8.18 post when you posted 8.20.

We can certainly postulate a god who is insane or idiotic, as we can postulate multiple universes, time travel, and multiple fantasies. But in an effort to understand reality, there is no reason to postulate a malign, idiotic or insane god. The universe we see is unbelievably vast, beautiful and consistent. It does not provide evidence of an idiotic or insane creator.

I have been agnostic and even for a time atheistic.

I don't see reality as a choice. We certainly choose what we believe to be reality, but our choices cannot affect the nature of reality. I do see evidence for a creator. Therefore, I am unable to choose atheism.

jpark

This is precisely the problem: We can certainly postulate a god who is insane or idiotic, as we can postulate multiple universes, time travel, and multiple fantasies. But in an effort to understand reality, there is no reason to postulate a malign, idiotic or insane god. In an effort to understand reality, there is no reason to postulate any god at all. Postulating the existence of God on the basis of our presumptions about what he must be like says a lot about us, but nothing about God.

Though I think we can safely attribute certain characteristics to any god capable of creating the universe, I don't think we can presume to anticipate an intelligence of that order. I would not attempt to presume why God revealed himself at the time and in the manner that he did. Likewise, why presume that it is safe to attribute human characteristics to God, but stop short of attributing reasons for God's behavior? Why is it warranted in the former case, but not in the latter? There is an inherent comfort in thinking that there is a purpose to the universe, but this comfort is simply not enough to justify the presumptions that God must exist, must have created the universe with a purpose, and must exist in some fashion perceptible and meaningful to human beings. Your argument essentially says, "If one were to assume that God must exist, then God must exist." Any meaning from the statement starts with the presumption, not with the universe as we know it.

The universe we see is unbelievably vast, beautiful and consistent. It does not provide evidence of an idiotic or insane creator. It does not provide any evidence of a creator, at all. That something is large, pleasant (in some details) to human perception, and rules-based does not say anything about the existence of a creator. If the universe requires a creator, then why does that creator not require, in his turn, a creator?

I do see evidence for a creator. Of what does it consist?

iarnuocon,

I think the purpose of this section is to define faith, not debate reasons for/against the existence of god. I do believe there are reasons to conclude that there is a purpose and design evident in the universe, but I think such discussions should be handled in the appropriate section.

I think the purpose of this section is to define faith, not debate reasons for/against the existence of god.

jpark,

I think the question was phrased fairly. If there is a god who created the universe, I would presume that his activity in creating the universe would imply a purpose. If the universe just exists without the benefit if a deity, then I would not presume any particular purpose in its existence.

Is the question "Can we construct a consistent and reasonably complete model based on natural processes?" somehow defective?

If we can't do that, then looking for answers beyond natural processes would seem logical.

I have shown your reasoning of attributing the unknown to god is wrong with the thunderstorm example, which renders your item 1) useless. Explaining again: in the early days, men had no explanation for the thunderstorm, so, like you said, "would seem logical" to search for supernatural explanations. Was such supernatural explanation logical? You think so, I don't. Was such supernatural explanation correct? We both know it was not.

You in the other hand has not answered any of my questions. I will number them this time so you can address each one. If you refuse to answer my questions I will just quit debating with you because it would be pointless.

1. It has been seen numerous times through history that god was never the actor behind what science (or our limited model of reality) did not know then and does know now (i. e. thunderstorms). Why would he (and not any unknown natural law) be behind what we don't know now? What is different this time?

2. Don't you think supernatural phenomena need more evidence then written records to be taken seriously? If I and many people from my state in Brazil wrote that my late greatgrandmother could fly would you believe it or would you question it and demand more evidence? If so why don't you do the same with the Bible?

3. Evidence is one thing. Written records of supernatural things is another. There is just as much evidence of your god as of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Native Australian or any other "documented" gods throughout history. Do you claim all of those exist? If not, what makes the "evidence" for your god stronger than the "evidence" for all the other gods?

Those are three reasonably objective questions, so please address them with reasonably objective answers, and not by repeating your question which I've already answered twice.

Hm, no answers. That is interesting...

Leonardo Leiria Fernadndes,

You attribute the concept of god to primitive people trying to understand natural phenomena such as thunder. I don't know where you obtain that view. I remember as a pre-school age child wondering about thunder and then noting that the thunder followed the lightning. I don't recall developing a concept of a supernatural cause for either.

I don't know why or how the numerous gods of history were conceptualized. I would conjecture that most were created by rulers as a justification for their rule and as a tool to control the population. Many rulers were either appointed by the gods or were descended from the gods or were actual incarnations of the gods.

You ask why is one god better than any other god? I would ask you why is one theory of [whatever] better than any other theory?

Most gods either never claimed to be involved in the creation of the universe or provide a method of creation which is absurd. Your questions are equivalent to asking "There have been a multitude of conjectures/theories about [whatever] which are obviously wrong. Why should any theory have any validity?". I would say that numerous wrong answers can in no way invalidate a correct answer.

You mainly question why there should be a god at all. Why can't science be sufficient to answer questions about our reality. [Is that correct? That is your position, isn't it?]

Much of our reality cannot be answered by science. Many questions which science should examine, it doesn't.

A few of the items science can't answer, and probably never will be able to answer:
* Why is there something instead of nothing?
* Why is there so much of everything?
(That is, why does the Universe exist at all?)
* Why is this universe so perfectly designed to support suns, planets and carbon based life?
* Entropy increases in any closed system. Entropy has been increasing in the universe for billions of years. How did the universe arrive at a state of nearly 0 entropy billions of years ago?

A few questions science should address but doesn't:
Evolution theory provides a mechanism and force driving the diversity of life. But many questions remain which biological science doesn't even ask, much less attempt to answer.
* Why does life struggle to survive? What is the driving force behind survival of life?

What does it benefit a virus or single celled organism to even exist? What benefit does a blade of grass receive from its struggle to exist? None of these organisms have a nervous system or the awareness associated with a nervous system. What force drives them to exist at all?

* Why does all complex life age?

The concept of aging doesn't really apply to single celled life. But when multicellular organisms developed, age related death appears. All complex life can reverse aging. Two thirty year old organisms do not produce offspring with a biologic age of thirty. Therefore, it appears that natural selection selects for aging in all complex organisms. Why? Ageless organisms would have a survival advantage.

It would appear that survival is not the primary driving force of natural selection, or complex organisms would not select aging. Perhaps it is a secondary force, which we still haven't identified the cause of.

Perhaps reproduction is the driving force. Organisms commit scarce resources in reproduction, often destroying themselves in the effort to reproduce. In fact, many organisms seem to have no other driving force but reproduction.

If reproduction is really the driving force, then aging would be selected. The parents would use up resources needed by the offspring. But what does it benefit an organism to reproduce and die?

Two simple questions: Why does life struggle to survive? Why does it struggle to replicate?

Science neither questions these observations nor attempts to answer them.

You attribute the concept of god to primitive people trying to understand natural phenomena such as thunder. I don't know where you obtain that view. I remember as a pre-school age child wondering about thunder and then noting that the thunder followed the lightning. I don't recall developing a concept of a supernatural cause for either.

Well just because you never made that leap does not mean that early man did not. A way to explain nature and death as well as a unit for cultural adhesion all seem like rational explanations for early religion (but I will let others go into more detail).

Evolution theory provides a mechanism and force driving the diversity of life. But many questions remain which biological science doesn't even ask, much less attempt to answer.
* Why does life struggle to survive? What is the driving force behind survival of life?

I am not sure what these questions are that science refuses to ask, but most of the ones you present can be answered (though I will leave cosmology to those with more knowledge on the subject). Life struggles to survive because there is ultimately limited space and limited resources. This leads to competition over space and resources and thus those better able to survive and reproduce will gain an advantage over others. This leads to natural selection.

What does it benefit a virus or single celled organism to even exist? What benefit does a blade of grass receive from its struggle to exist? None of these organisms have a nervous system or the awareness associated with a nervous system. What force drives them to exist at all?

All life is made up of replicators that strive to reproduce and propagate. The cells and ultimately bodies made by these replicators represent different strategies of survival that have evolved to function in specific niches. It all comes down to basic biochemistry and the unconscious "need" for genes to replicate, even at the expense of genes that are different.

* Why does all complex life age?

Aging is caused by the accumulation of errors in our DNA over time. Basic molecules (oxygen), radiation (sunlight), and normal wear and tear (telomeres and replication errors) cause DNA to break down given enough time causing the body (which is built and maintained by the DNA) to begin to fail in the process we call aging. Our genes do not really care about aging, as long as we stay alive long enough to reproduce.

Science neither questions these observations nor attempts to answer them.

My answers just scratch the surface on the current ideas out there on these topics but it is fairly obvious that science is actually making an effort to answer these questions.

A few of the items science can't answer, and probably never will be able to answer:

A few questions science should address but doesn't:

All complex life can reverse aging. Two thirty year old organisms do not produce offspring with a biologic age of thirty.

jpark: To put it bluntly, just because you are ignorant of scientific theories, their development, and their extent does not mean that your idle pseudo-intellectual musings about "oh, science totally can't explain this" holds any water whatsoever.

You ask why is one god better than any other god? I would ask you why is one theory of [whatever] better than any other theory?

Hmmm, okay. For flat-earth, we can measure the curvature of the Earth's surface, we can walk or ride a boat due east until you get back to the vicinity of our starting point, and we can take pictures from space. For the ancient Greek musing that heavenly bodies traveled in perfectly circular orbits, read up on epicycles.

Now, show me FSM is wrong.

Two simple questions: Why does life struggle to survive? Why does it struggle to replicate?

How does religion answer it? ("God said so" isn't an answer, by the way. I could just as easily say "immortal transdimensional clowns with superpowers said so.")

Jack Huang,

Calling me ignorant is a poor response. Even if I were (which I deny), such ignorance would not affect the validity of my question.

Your indication at the end of your response is a good response. I don't know the answers and you don't either.

My point was that science cannot explain the universe we inhabit at the basic level of why the universe exists and why it has the properties it has. In simpler matters such as the nature of life, science has not conjectured nor developed a theory explaining why life struggles to exist and replicate.

Science is an excellent tool but is currently insufficient to answer many questions basic to our reality.

Besides, I was not trying to prove that god is a good answer. I was answering Leonardo Leiria Fernandes and his implication that all concepts of god were the result of primitive man wondering about his environment. Some might be due to that, some others may be deliberate fabrications by rulers, other reasons for the concept of god may have come from god.

The scientific questions I posed were merely to point out that science is insufficient to provide answers to many basic questions about our existence and our reality.

You are apparently content with questions of our reality which cannot be answered by an examination of that reality. That is OK.

Others are not content and seek answers outside of natural processes which cannot be deduced from an examination of natural processes. I think that is OK too.

Calling me ignorant is a poor response. Even if I were (which I deny), such ignorance would not affect the validity of my question.

Your ignorance -- and more gravely, your arrogance -- is demonstrated by you explicitly asking "a few questions science should address but doesn't", some of which praetor605 promptly responded to with scientific answers.

You argue from the implication that science just doesn't address the questions you don't bother to research the scientific theories for. That's why I call you ignorant.

Science is an excellent tool but is currently insufficient to answer many questions basic to our reality.

"God is in the gaps" is valid until you realize that the box that you put God into gets smaller by the second.

Science is an excellent tool but is currently insufficient to answer many questions basic to our reality.

Two thousand years ago, people thought that scientific explanations couldn't explain lightning. I have no problem with you saying "right now, science doesn't know," but you're saying "science doesn't have answers yet, so let's make up our own and call it good."

You are apparently content with questions of our reality which cannot be answered by an examination of that reality. That is OK.

Basically, yes. I am content that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. I don't feel that I need to fabricate answers, or believe in answers without physical evidence, that are most probably wrong. (e.g. lightning, Earth upon the backs of turtles, Apollo riding a flaming chariot across the sky, etc.)

Others are not content and seek answers outside of natural processes which cannot be deduced from an examination of natural processes. I think that is OK too.

Is it seeking answers, or picking your favorite "answer"?

I'm still waiting for your debunking of FSM, since you believe that it's as easy as debunking an invalid scientific theory.

If it's really that easy, why don't all (or even most) religiously contemplative people naturally believe in that one religion that's "most right"? There's very little scientific debate about evolution, plate tectonics, cell mitosis, cosmic background radiation, and a huge number of other scientific theories. You'd think that religious people would come to something remotely close to a consensus by now.

Thank God you are not foolish or arrogant...

praetor605 did not respond effectively to any question I asked. He said organisms struggle to survive because survival requires struggle (It avoids the question of the mechanism by which organisms are driven to survive). He said organisms replicate because they are replicators (He defines them as replicators and somehow that answers the question of why they are replicators?). He said organisms age because aging results from DNA damage (which is part of the method of aging), but does not answer why organisms select for aging in the first place.

I am ignorant about one thing. I don't have any idea what you are asking when you ask me to debunk FSM. Wait, are you seriously asking me to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Why don't you do that since you are so well educated. I haven't spent time examining that childish pseudo-fantasy.

The scientific questions I posed were merely to point out that science is insufficient to provide answers to many basic questions about our existence and our reality.

Of course there's things our science cannot yet explain, but to make the jump from that to "god done it" is a pretty huge leap and it also means ignoring the scientific discoveries we have made up till now and assuming that now we know all we can know.

That view could maybe be excused as ignorance, but to say "science is insufficient to provide answers to many basic questions" - which I read as "science is incapable of answering some (basic) questions" - is just plain unforgivable.

MatthewM,

Why is it unforgivable to think that there may be limits to what science can know? Have I blasphemed you god?

Because human nature is to discover new things and explore, how do you think we spread around the globe so much - it's not as if humans necessarily had to explore the globe, and we certainly had no pressing reason to visit the moon. No, we as a race want to know what, why and how.
To state that there's things we can never know just because you cannot imagine how we would know about it and therefore want to put a 'god' there is in my view unforgivable. It sounds like a kind of self imposed ignorance.

..and no you havent blasphemed my god (pfft), youre welcome to your opinion, but dont expect me not to question it.

MatthewM,

Failure to recognize reality can also sound like self imposed ignorance. Reality is whatever it is. It does not conform to our desires for what we believe it should be.

Failure to recognize reality can also sound like self imposed ignorance.

What? The reality of a god? Your reality?

Reality is whatever it is.

Reality is reality, it is what's real - measurable repeatable, etc etc, not what you decide is.

It does not conform to our desires for what we believe it should be.

So it is not some sort of god or supernatural 'thing' then? We agree?

Im getting very mixed messages here.

I understand this need for some sort of overseeing all powerful god being I really do. I see why in general humans need this comforting or enemy smiting character, but it really doesnt wash with me. What I dont understand is actually having a belief in it. Passing over all the decision making, responsibility and explanations for life to a 'god' and not wanting to find out 'why' for ones self just seems so intellectually lobotomising. Once you have a god as an explanation, everything can be waved away with the hand of 'god done it', after all god is all powerful and omnipotent. I just dont find that a satisfying explanation for anything.

Btw, you write this as if science is some kind of entity

Why is it unforgivable to think that there may be limits to what science can know?

.. some sort of god, as you state/imply here

Have I blasphemed you god?

It's not.

Its people, it's humans, its our ideas, our explanations for things in this universe. Explained in the best way we can at this time.

It's not a religion. For starters scientists argue all the time over the best theory, there is no convenient god to fall back on and tell us the whys or the wherefores.

MatthewM,

What I was saying is that reality includes what we know and what we don't know. If reality contains a god, it contains a god. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Our wishes in the matter are irrelevant.

I don't know why you would think I would need for god to exist. There are questions which science cannot answer. If god does answer those questions, I will not reject those answers just because they come from god instead of some scientist.

I will not reject those answers just because they come from god instead of some scientist.

I would suggest not atributing it to a god, wait till you have an answer grounded in reality and not a being created by humans.

Sigh. I suppose I will try this again (though someone not understanding the science does not mean science does not have an answer).

Brief tangent alert

We are made up of genes which are in turn coded for by DNA (a replicon). Now, when life was first forming a proto-cell developed that had a replicon (probably RNA) that catalysed its own reproduction. There is no reason why it did this, it just did, and since it could make more copies of itself it spread in a given population. Variation now existed since the copying mechanism is never 100% efficient and any change that produced a better replicon would lead to that variation becoming dominant and so on. There is no big cosmic question as to why this occurred, it was just biochemistry (though it certainly is mind-blowing biochemistry). Because in any given environment there are finite resources and space, the variations also had to be "good" at existing in said environment. Those that were not died but those that had an advantage over the others would produce more copies and out-compete the others.

The cells became more advanced and eventually acquired a DNA template because such modifications allowed for better survival and reproduction in that environment. This process takes many forms from "arms races" to "red queen" situations but it eventually lead to more and more complex organisms. But the idea is the same, that the bodies are survival machines designed to carry out those primordial instructions of replication. That is just the basics, but it more than answers your attempt to show science as being ignorant on the subject.

He said organisms age because aging results from DNA damage (which is part of the method of aging), but does not answer why organisms select for aging in the first place.

What we call aging are simply the maturation of an embryo into a sexually active state and then death. There are many different steps and directions this can take but the bottom line is that our bodies have evolved in such a way that we survive better with a relatively long "childhood", reaching breeding age around 12-13. And remember, it was not that long ago in human history when this age was the one in which marriages occurred. Childhood is an investment in making a good survival machine but there are other strategies. Some organisms produce massive amounts of offspring and bank on at least some surviving. We do the opposite.

So our DNA gets us to breeding age in the hopes that the machine is good enough to reproduce and pass on the replicon. After that, it does not really care what happens to you. What we call aging after our sexual prime is the result of wear and tear on a very good survival machine. It is like having a good car that you can drive for years and years. It can last you a long time but eventually things start to go wrong with it. The main factor in this wear and tear is damage to te DNA. Many things cause this and they start to overwhelm the machinery made to fix these problems. Thus, cancers become more common, the immune system breaks down, muscle loses strength, etc. It is also good to keep in mind that it is only recently that humans have consistently lived for long periods of time past sexual primacy. Thus we grow old and die.

It is not a matter of selecting for aging, Evolution does not "see" us after a certain age in most cases. Once we have reached the age to reproduce (and hopefully do so) then natural selection is not very active on us because reproduction has already occurred, so there is no point. And even if it could select for longer life (even though there is no benefit for it to do so) the basic biochemistry still needs to be addressed. DNA will still break down eventually since no process is 100% efficient.

Whew. Sorry folks, that was far from brief. I just cannot abide people claiming science has not answers on a subject when it has so many.

There are questions which science cannot answer. If god does answer those questions, I will not reject those answers just because they come from god instead of some scientist. The examples you gave are not questions science (as a method) cannot answer, but rather questions on which science has not arrived at any particular conclusions. Your semantic games in this regard remain unconvincing. You state that god does answer these questions. I do not see any evidence for god, and so cannot accept that "he" answers these questions until you see fit to provide some evidence that "he" exists. You assume the existence of god (and therefore, apparently, "need" for him to exist). Please provide such evidence to warrant the assumption. Until then, I will continue to dismiss the "answers" that you claim come from god as the figments of your imagination, and therefore no real answers, at all.

Science is a method of questioning reality to arrive at conclusions about the universe. Those conclusions are always amenable to new facts and better explanations.

God (religion) is a method of asserting conclusions about the universe. Those conclusions are never amenable to new facts and better explanations, but only to new "revelations" direct from the mouth of god.

Science has made more progress in explaining the interconnections between observable facts in the last ~400 years (really, the last 200) than religion has made in the last 400 centuries. As a method, science remains far and away the better tool for arriving at any conclusions about how the universe is arranged.

There are questions which science cannot answer.

There's the problem with religion right there. You are convinced that there are some things that cannot be known, so what's the point of science trying to find the answer for them. If everybody had that attitude we wouldn't be where we are today. You say that if god is real, he's real whether we like it or not. Great! Let's go find him. We won't find him in our prayers, but he's probably at the end of that road down which our curiosity is leading us.

praetor605,

Thank you for that. I already knew all that, as I suspect most readers on newsvine do, but it is useful sometimes to restate the obvious.

I do understand that aging is a complex process of errors, etc. accumulating in cells resulting in eventual death. My question was not about how aging happens, but why complex organism select for aging. All complex organisms are capable of reversing aging to produce offspring, yet they do not correct their own cellular errors. Aging is therefore selected by natural selection when the alternative is possible. Agelessness would be a survival characteristic, but natural selection rejects it.

I posited that survival was not the primary driving force of natural selection, rather replication was.

If survival is the driving force of natural selection, why do we age? And what causes organisms to seek survival?

If replication is the driving force of natural selection, what does it profit an organism to replicate and die?

I think these are reasonable questions.

all complex organisms are capable of reversing aging

Reverse aging?!

If survival is the driving force of natural selection, why do we age? And what causes organisms to seek survival?

Why does god not just stop aging and death then?

I really dont see what youre getting at with this. Why do things die maybe?

I am not sure that you do completely understand my "obvious" points because you continue to repeat your questions.

All complex organisms are capable of reversing aging to produce offspring, yet they do not correct their own cellular errors. Aging is therefore selected by natural selection when the alternative is possible. Agelessness would be a survival characteristic, but natural selection rejects it.

I also do not understand your usage of reverse aging. As I said, it is not useful for natural selection to keep organisms around once they have reproduced. And, as I have also stated, there are finite resources and space. There are many studies on population sizes that show how a balance must be maintained. If people from the 18th century were still alive there would be even less resources for those who came after all of which had to have been offspring made by those 18th century people. Such a population would deplete resources and lead to a dead end genetically.

Natural selection does not reject agelessness, it is not a valid choice to even consider. Our genome could not become ageless via natural means and the results of such a choice would be a disaster. If you look at species that live longer than humans you will usually find that they reproduce very slowly in order to keep the population at a certain level. In some regards humans have broken this mold and we can see the effects of overpopulation on the entire planet with the loss of biodiversity and the destruction of environments by human hands.

If replication is the driving force of natural selection, what does it profit an organism to replicate and die?

It may not profit the individual organism. But it does profit the DNA, which is more important since DNA is what build us and what is passed on. Getting the parents out of the way frees up resources for the offspring and gives that DNA a better chance to survive (and reproduce).

If survival is the driving force of natural selection, why do we age? And what causes organisms to seek survival?

I have already gone into this matter.

I think these are reasonable questions.

For the most part they are, which is why science is working hard to address them.

MathewM,

All complex organism take their old cells and create young cells for their progeny. Since complex organisms can reverse aging, the question is why does natural selection select for aging and death of the organism?

Darwin asked "Why do we have a diversity of organisms?", or some such, and developed from that question the theory of natural selection. Everyone thinks that was a good question and a good theory.

Why was his question OK, but mine makes no sense? Why does natural selection select for aging and death of the organism?

praetor605,

You seem to be agreeing that natural selection is not driven by survival of the fittest, but is driven by survival of the best at replication.

I still question why it is best for an organism to copy itself (or its DNA) and die. The best way to assure your survival (or the survival of your DNA) is to not die. But if replication drives natural selection, then it makes sense for the parent to die.

These questions still remain:
1) Why does life struggle to survive at all? Why is existence and survival important to life?
2) Why does replication drive selection instead of survival?

All complex organism take their old cells and create young cells for their progeny. Poppycock. You're simply persisting in your assertion without explaining either your terms or the meaning which you assign to them. Explain the process of "reversing aging" which you say that all complex organisms engage in.

why does natural selection select for aging and death of the organism? As has been explained to you ad nauseum, it does not. You're taking your limited understanding of natural selection, ignoring any clarification which your detractors are attempting to make to edify you, creating your own spurious arguments based on your misunderstanding of the science, and then claiming that science "can't answer" your "question." Science certainly can't answer it to your satisfaction if you're predisposed not to listen to the explanation.

Why was his question OK, but mine makes no sense? Because you're demonstrating a lack of understanding of the underlying processes that render your question as useful as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You seem to be agreeing that natural selection is not driven by survival of the fittest, but is driven by survival of the best at replication. Natural selection is driven by replication, variation, and differential fitness. Without all three, there is no natural selection.

I still question why it is best for an organism to copy itself (or its DNA) and die. Many organisms "copy themselves" and don't "die." Bacteria, for instance. Daughter cells are virtually identical to parent cells. I think you're driving more at the question of why complex organisms reproduce and die. Differential fitness and entropy (in the sense of "wear and tear").

The best way to assure your survival (or the survival of your DNA) is to not die. That depends on the fitness landscape.

Why does life struggle to survive at all? Why is existence and survival important to life? This is the same as asking why there is such a thing as "life." Science is getting closer to an answer (as in an explanation that fits the available evidence) than religion ever has, but as yet there is no consensus on the exact mechanism.

Why does replication drive selection instead of survival? It doesn't. As I said, the three necessary components of natural selection are replication, variation, and differential fitness.

What do these questions of yours have to do with your belief in God, or the evidence you claim exists for God?

iarnuocon,

Do you disagree that progeny of complex organisms begin life at a young biological age?

I merely mention that to note that aging is not necessary for complex organisms. If they can produce young cells from old cells for their progeny, they could do so for their own cells. That they don't is evidence that aging and death is beneficial in natural selection.

You ask me to explain the process? Why don't you. I have no idea.

This discussion began as an answer to the question of why isn't science sufficient to answer our questions about the universe, etc. My answer is that there are many things science is incapable of answering and there are many things which science might be capable of answering but science doesn't ask the question or seek the answers.

Thank God you are not foolish or arrogant...

Actually, I thank a scientific upbringing (and the Discovery Channel) for that. I'm not the one running around telling people what science can't do.

I am ignorant about one thing. I don't have any idea what you are asking when you ask me to debunk FSM. Wait, are you seriously asking me to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Why don't you do that since you are so well educated. I haven't spent time examining that childish pseudo-fantasy.

And your god is not a "childish pseudo-fantasy"... for what reason, pray tell? If it's so obviously a childish pseudo-fantasy, debunk it. You're the one equating "which god is better" with "falsifying scientific theories." I merely ask you to support that statement.

Here, just to make it simpler, I'll make up a religion on the spot and, if it's really so easy to tell which god is better, you try to debunk it:

Great Wing Wong created the Universe with a divine sneeze. Due to the explosive nature of a sneeze, the expansion of the universe can be easily explained. Wing Wong took curious delight in his sneeze, and began playing around with it, toying with it ever-so-intricately, creating, in the end, life on Earth. Wing Wong decided to have fun with this "life", so he made some "life" thingies bigger, others smaller, some frilly and colorful, some wormy and bland-looking. Being very lazy, He did this over the course of a billion years. To ensure that His playthings wouldn't stagnate and He wouldn't bore Himself, He made sure that they'd "naturally" break down over time, so He'd constantly have new and different "life" playthings. This is also why evolution occurs: Wing Wong hates boredom.

This should be easy to debunk, since I "found its truth" in about 10 minutes. Show me that you have an iota of backing behind the arrogance in your assertion of "Hey, it's obvious how one god can be better than another. It's just like science!" Otherwise, you're just spouting pseudo-intellectual drivel.

Why is it unforgivable to think that there may be limits to what science can know?

It's unforgivable to think yourself so godlike as to ever know what those limits are.

Jack Huang,

OK. I'll debunk your story. You made it up on the spot. That debunks it.

Since you find my questions unforgivable, it is fortunate that I neither need or desire your forgiveness.

iarnuocon went over most of this but I will make a few points.

You seem to be agreeing that natural selection is not driven by survival of the fittest, but is driven by survival of the best at replication.

It is the same thing. You need to be fit and survive long enough to attract a mate and reproduce.

These questions still remain:
1) Why does life struggle to survive at all? Why is existence and survival important to life?
2) Why does replication drive selection instead of survival?

Actually these questions have been covered. Life struggles because of finite resources and space as well as complex relationships built on that idea. Why is existance important to life? This makes no sense to me because life must exist in order to be life at all. It is not important to life, it is the defination of life in many ways. Again, replication and survival are two sides of the same coin in terms of life and selection.

My answer is that there are many things science is incapable of answering and there are many things which science might be capable of answering but science doesn't ask the question or seek the answers.

Our point(s) is that just because you are unaware of scientific research does not mean science is incapable of answering the question (eventually). I have also yet to see an example of a question science refuses to answer unless you are implying something like god.

OK. I'll debunk your story. You made it up on the spot. That debunks it.

"I made it up" is a euphemism for "it came to me in my thoughts, from Great Wing Wong Himself." I even wrote down His story. Now there's a historical record.

By your technique, I can just as easily debunk a few major religions in modern history.

Islam: Muhammad just made s--- up.
Christianity: The scribes of the NT made s--- up.

See? You still don't get anywhere. You basically just said "all religions suck equally."

Since you find my questions unforgivable, it is fortunate that I neither need or desire your forgiveness.

Hahaha, you seem to miss the fact that your questions are fine. Science is all about asking questions. Your godlike arrogance in thinking you know what science cannot do is the ignorant part. Arrogance in ignorance is unforgivable for a person who tries desperately to pass himself off as rational and intelligent.

Jack Huang,

Your arrogance is that you believe reality is whatever you choose it to be.

I believe reality is whatever it is.

We can't agree because you will reject consideration of anything which does not fit in you model of reality.

If reality does not contain a god, I can accept that. If it does contain a god, I can accept that too. You cannot accept the latter proposition because you reject it out of hand.

I still dont understand what you mean by 'reverse ageing'. We get younger? We just produce new cell surely? Just like when a wound heals.

If reality does not contain a god, I can accept that. If it does contain a god, I can accept that too.

god is an idea, a human construct, no more a part of reality than ghosts, fairies, leprechauns or Father Christmas.

MatthewM,

Since you already know the answers, why do you engage in these discussions?

jpark: I think maybe you're assuming that the "new cells" created by reproduction are different than all the other cells in the human body. That's not true. Even a 90-year-old human is constantly getting new cells throughout his body as other cells die. The term "aging" applies differently to cells than it does to the whole organism. An organism is made up of thousands or millions (billions?) of individual cells which each are "born", live, and "die" within the lifetime of the organism as a whole. Each of those cells "ages" on its own and then gets replaced. At no point is there any "reverse aging".

Aging for the organism as a whole works as described by praetor above. Eventually the defects in the DNA used to control the cells cause problems that no longer allow the cells to be replaced properly or (in the case of cancer) start replicating cells faster than they're supposed to. Plus, other wear-and-tear problems start to accumulate that the body just can't keep up with.

Throughout all of that aging process the body is still making "new" cells, but that doesn't change the fact that the organism as a whole is aging. New cells don't make an organism "young".

Adam Kemp,

Thanks for that. I would respond further but this is Mykola's discussion and he has closed it.

I am sorry Mykola, but I have got to answer this...

My friend jpark writes:

Leonardo Leiria Fernadndes,

You attribute the concept of god to primitive people trying to understand natural phenomena such as thunder. I don't know where you obtain that view. I remember as a pre-school age child wondering about thunder and then noting that the thunder followed the lightning. I don't recall developing a concept of a supernatural cause for either.

Have you ever heard of Thor, the god of thunder?

I don't know why or how the numerous gods of history were conceptualized. I would conjecture that most were created by rulers as a justification for their rule and as a tool to control the population. Many rulers were either appointed by the gods or were descended from the gods or were actual incarnations of the gods.

Hm, great conjecture. And it applies also to Christianity doesn't it?
Weren't the popes, bishops and priests the most powerful people in the
middle ages? What king could rule in Europe in the middle ages without
the "blessing" of the Church?

You ask why is one god better than any other god? I would ask you why is one theory of [whatever] better than any other theory?

Because one (scientific) theory encompasses a broader part of reality
than a previous theory. Relativity is better than Newtonian physics
because it explains aspects that Newton did not. But such reasoning do
not apply to religions, because all of them claim to "explain"
everything, so the question remains, how can one religion be better
than the other?

Most gods either never claimed to be involved in the creation of the universe or provide a method of creation which is absurd. Your questions are equivalent to asking "There have been a multitude of conjectures/theories about [whatever] which are obviously wrong. Why should any theory have any validity?". I would say that numerous wrong answers can in no way invalidate a correct answer.

Isn't the creation in the Bible absurd??

Much of our reality cannot be answered by science. Many questions which science should examine, it doesn't.

Your biology questions were all addressed well by others, but I will
give you my answers also, because they might add some further insight
and maybe you might decide to actually read reasonable explanation to
your "unsolved" questions this time.

A few of the items science can't answer, and probably never will be able to answer:
* Why is there something instead of nothing?
* Why is there so much of everything?
(That is, why does the Universe exist at all?)
* Why is this universe so perfectly designed to support suns, planets and carbon based life?
* Entropy increases in any closed system. Entropy has been increasing in the universe for billions of years. How did the universe arrive at a state of nearly 0 entropy billions of years ago?

Philosophical questions that science can't solve. Nobody knows "why"
there is gravity, but science explains how it works. Religion, in the
other hand does not explain either the "why" or the "how". At least
not with any reasonable evidence.

A few questions science should address but doesn't:
Evolution theory provides a mechanism and force driving the diversity of life. But many questions remain which biological science doesn't even ask, much less attempt to answer.

My following answers and others' previous answers are all based on
pretty good attempts to answer from science.

* Why does life struggle to survive? What is the driving force behind survival of life?

The replication of the gene is the driving force.

What does it benefit a virus or single celled organism to even exist? What benefit does a blade of grass receive from its struggle to exist? None of these organisms have a nervous system or the awareness associated with a nervous system. What force drives them to exist at all?

The replication of the gene is the driving force. Evolution does not
benefit organisms, it benefits genes.

* Why does all complex life age?

The concept of aging doesn't really apply to single celled life. But when multicellular organisms developed, age related death appears. All complex life can reverse aging. Two thirty year old organisms do not produce offspring with a biologic age of thirty. Therefore, it appears that natural selection selects for aging in all complex organisms. Why? Ageless organisms would have a survival advantage.

Because for your genes it is better for your two better adapted
children to live than for yourself to live. Since the species will
evolve to better replicators than you, what would be the point of
keeping an "old model" like yourself alive forever? Genes that kept
evolving through organism lifecycles would beat your "living forever
without evolving" strategy.

It would appear that survival is not the primary driving force of natural selection, or complex organisms would not select aging. Perhaps it is a secondary force, which we still haven't identified the cause of.

The replication of the gene is the driving force.

Perhaps reproduction is the driving force. Organisms commit scarce resources in reproduction, often destroying themselves in the effort to reproduce. In fact, many organisms seem to have no other driving force but reproduction.

Indeed.

If reproduction is really the driving force, then aging would be selected. The parents would use up resources needed by the offspring. But what does it benefit an organism to reproduce and die?

There is no benefit to the organism. Evolution does not benefit
organisms, it benefits genes. And, like I said, for you genes your two children are
more important than you. You should not keep consuming your better adapted descendents'
resources forever.

Two simple questions: Why does life struggle to survive? Why does it
struggle to replicate?

One simple answer to both simple questions: Because the organisms that
did not struggle to survive/replicate died and failed to perpetuate
their species. They are not around anymore.

Science neither questions these observations nor attempts to answer them.

My answers and all the previous ones are based in science. We are not
the ones making up explanations here.

By the way, please let me know if I failed to reasonably explain all your "unsolved" biology questions.

Ah, those revelations sound more like my later drug experiences. Very similar as a matter of fact. Those were a lot more fun, though they definitely pointed out the untrustworthiness of direct revelation, and indeed even of sensory input itself.

Split: subjective, personal experience is the crux of each individual life, but this is not the type of faith Myk is talking about. If "theism" is, loosely, the position in a God that created and rules the universe, "atheism" is the opposition. I recommend you reread last week's Giving Up the Ghost: Definitions.

To stray back to your first point, atheists calling Entity X "God" is shorthand for a broad range of theistic concepts and symbologies, perhaps a little like Marx is to communism, or "Man" is to humanity. It's a word like any other word: it connotes a meaning or meanings. People might have different ideas about what or who "God" (or "god") is, but everyone generally knows what you mean when you say it. Such is the intricatcy and chaos of language.

Mr. White - Not to say I haven't had my share of enjoyment of occassional substances, but those were later college years. the foundation of thought that I have built from came from sober reflection.

Stolte- As far as the use of the word God, it should have been left out. It did not build into the point I was moving towards and was more of a commentary of language as a part of our overall philosophies.

As far as faith is concerned: My idea of faith differs from what Myk has described above. The description above shows faith as being a rational choice, i.e. I can choose to have faith or not to. I disagree with this. In order to make a rational choice about faith you would need to be presented a group of facts, inferences, or ideas that build into your choice. But for that "rational" choice to be made, that group of information would have to be taken on faith. Its circular.

In my mind, faith is not a choice so much as a feeling or emotion closer akin to love. In this it is almost impossible to prove. The closest thing to proof that could be offered is: I have faith because I am alive and have the ability to question where life and consciousness came from. From a scientific standpoint - chemistry and physics. Then I ask, where did chemistry and physics come from?

In the end the conversation of God will inevitably lead to: I don't believe in God because I see no proof of God's existence vs. I do believe in God because I believe life is proof of God's existence and I see no proof that God doesn't exist.

No common belief structure, true.

We do have a secret handshake though.

(j/k)

I feel slightly uncomfortable about one element of this discussion at large - people keep asking me "Well do atheists think XYZ...?" It's difficult to speak for all atheists - we are not defined by a common belief structure

We are all defined by a common lack of belief surely?

Gravity, Relativity, Mathematics, Physics, Evolution - any of these could be disproved tomorrow. And we would try not to take it personally. We would pick up the scientific method, dust it off, and keep trying.

Exactly, which is why it's so f---ing frustrating when those of irrational faith try to lower scientific rationale to their level of naive immutability.

The "new atheist crusade" as some have termed it is not an attempt to make Christians et al. disavow their religions. That's pointless.

We merely want to counter the smear tactics used by the religious in their browbeating of atheism, claiming, among other things, immorality, anarchy, and a general malaise of evil among the atheist crowd.

New atheism is a response to centuries of watching religion try to put up roadblocks to scientific progress and rational thought at every turn, having been given wide berth to do this through the magical immunity of "Oh, it's my faith" and "Oh, well God agrees with me Nyeh.."

In short, it's calling BS on their BS.