A world without religion.

• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-21 16:04

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;844503:

  Except that empirical science was based on the idea that an all powerful God provided the order and natural laws in the universe necessary for science to actually work. Without a belief in that kind of order and consistency, nobody would bother trying to figure out how things work.

  
  I'd like extensive evidence for that claim.
  First, I want the name of the philosopher or circle who put forth this idea, second I want a proper literary source given, ideally with the exact paragraph quoted, I want you to show in the same manner that it is not one of many discarded thoughts as they generally occur in the creative process but rather a basic tenet of the author's opus, and lastly I want you to show in the same manner that this has such a wide-ranging effect on the academical society that it was generally accepted as the standard hypothesis. Until then I call bullshit.
  
  Even so it's not relevant. That people who have the the notion of a Semitic shepherds' deity as the creator of the universe may eventually trace the independently perceived order in the universe back to the same is a mind-numbingly obvious tautology, and it doesn't provide any convincing grounds for the hypothesis that the perceived order could not have been perceived without aforementioned belief, and thus it can not convincingly argue that religion (obviously meaning just Christianism, or should I call it Paulism?) was necessary or even particularly helpful in providing the foundation of modern science.
  
  I'm sorry, but I think you stumbled upon your own argument in the last sentence, to speak diplomatically. If the believe in a creative deity (still a fairly big leap to "Jesus died for our sins", mind you) is a necessary requirement for an appreciation of the natural order and the wish to figure it out, then that means Atheism is inherently incompatible with the same sentiments. This then means that Atheists can not be dedicated researchers or philosophers, which directly contradicts observable reality. Therefore it can not be a necessary requirement for the aforementioned sentiments.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-21 18:28

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;844571:

  I'd like extensive evidence for that claim.
  First, I want the name of the philosopher or circle who put forth this idea, second I want a proper literary source given, ideally with the exact paragraph quoted, I want you to show in the same manner that it is not one of many discarded thoughts as they generally occur in the creative process but rather a basic tenet of the author's opus, and lastly I want you to show in the same manner that this has such a wide-ranging effect on the academical society that it was generally accepted as the standard hypothesis. Until then I call bullshit.

  
  
  The philosopher or "circle" that "put forth" the idea? Is such a thing even necessary? I do know that many great scientists were inspired by the order in the universe that monotheism provides to make make scientific discoveries. Michael Faraday, the father of modern day electromagnetism is a rather dramatic example of this, but there are others as well. Go to the library and pick up Electric Universe by David Bodanis, and read the chapter "Faraday's God". But no, I guess the idea of order in the universe that great scientists of the past reached on their own (without the aid of a "circle" to put it forth for them) is just a part of the "creative process" of their obviously inferior minds!
  
  

  Even so it's not relevant. That people who have the the notion of a Semitic shepherds' deity as the creator of the universe may eventually trace the independently perceived order in the universe back to the same is a mind-numbingly obvious tautology, and it doesn't provide any convincing grounds for the hypothesis that the perceived order could not have been perceived without aforementioned belief, and thus it can not convincingly argue that religion (obviously meaning just Christianism, or should I call it Paulism?) was necessary or even particularly helpful in providing the foundation of modern science.

  
  
  "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" -Albert Einstein
  
  Think about it.
  
  

  I'm sorry, but I think you stumbled upon your own argument in the last sentence, to speak diplomatically. If the believe in a creative deity (still a fairly big leap to "Jesus died for our sins", mind you) is a necessary requirement for an appreciation of the natural order and the wish to figure it out, then that means Atheism is inherently incompatible with the same sentiments. This then means that Atheists can not be dedicated researchers or philosophers, which directly contradicts observable reality. Therefore it can not be a necessary requirement for the aforementioned sentiments.

  
  
  No, I don't expect this argument to bridge atheists over to "Jesus died for our sins", as that is a matter of personal faith. But regardless, it is a very interesting discussion is it not?
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-21 18:40

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;844644:

  The philosopher or "circle" that "put forth" the idea? Is such a thing even necessary? I do know that many great scientists were inspired by the order in the universe that monotheism provides to make make scientific discoveries.
  [...]
  "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" -Albert Einstein
  
  Think about it.
  [...]
  No, I don't expect this argument to bridge atheists over to "Jesus died for our sins", as that is a matter of personal faith. But regardless, it is a very interesting discussion is it not?

  
  It is if your argument is that it provides a necessary foundation for their deeds instead of just the cultural frame, in particular when the claim is actually "that's the whole raison d'etre of Empiricism itself", and not "a few guys got inspired by it", which you seem to try to transform it into.
  
  I don't see how that anecdote bears any relevance to the quoted paragraph, and in particular to the arguments brought up therein. I'm not quite sure what thought I should put in it either, and what conclusions you expect to arise.
  
  I wouldn't call it particularly exciting, no. And I see you [S]bravourously[/S] decline to address the actual arguments.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-21 20:24

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;844654:

  It is if your argument is that it provides a necessary foundation for their deeds instead of just the cultural frame, in particular when the claim is actually "that's the whole raison d'etre of Empiricism itself", and not "a few guys got inspired by it", which you seem to try to transform it into.
  
  I don't see how that anecdote bears any relevance to the quoted paragraph, and in particular to the arguments brought up therein. I'm not quite sure what thought I should put in it either, and what conclusions you expect to arise.
  
  I wouldn't call it particularly exciting, no. And I see you [S]bravourously[/S] decline to address the actual arguments.

  
  
  The point is that empirical science is based off of the assumption that there is order and reason in the universe and that there are consistent natural laws that govern how it works. It should also be noted that most of the major branches of science were founded by people who believed in God (look it up). That's because a belief in God provides the basis for the assumption of order. Whether or not you agree is up to you.
  
  I shared that Einstein quote because I was under the impression that you think that it's "obvious" that the universe has order in it, when really, it is quite a profound concept that the universe can be understood.
  
  I did address the "actual arguments" by agreeing with you that this discussion has nothing to do with Christianity in particular.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-21 22:13

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;844774:

  The point is that empirical science is based off of the assumption that there is order and reason in the universe and that there are consistent natural laws that govern how it works. It should also be noted that most of the major branches of science were founded by people who believed in God (look it up). That's because a belief in God provides the basis for the assumption of order.
  
  I shared that Einstein quote because I was under the impression that you think that it's "obvious" that the universe has order in it, when really, it is quite a profound concept that the universe can be understood.
  
  I did address the "actual arguments" by agreeing with you that this discussion has nothing to do with Christianity in particular.

  
  It is one of many ways to consider the cause of natural order, yes, but it is in the least a necessity to find it (we're hard-wired to see order in everything anyway - in fact I'd rather reason this is the reason people came up with a creator, to explain the order in nature, rather than turning their head to the nature of the world because of their belief in a creative deity), which is what you were on about, if I don't suffer from severe reading disability.
  
  I don't believe it is profound at all, bu that is one of the philosophical key distinctions between theists and atheists I guess. If there's a system, you can describe it, even if it takes you, previous and following generations thousands of generations or at least years to do so. It is quite exciting to think about it though. Very satisfactory and fun.
  
  The actual argument was that neither religion/spiritualism in generaliter nor Christianism specifically provide a necessary fundament of science and the drive to understand and control the world around one, and that very much has to do with Christianism*.
  
  [SIZE="1"]In case you were wondering about my recurrent usage of this term, I use it to signify the Christian belief system, as opposed to Christianity which I use to signify the Christian community.[/SIZE]
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-21 22:38

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;844869:

  It is one of many ways to consider the cause of natural order, yes, but it is in the least a necessity to find it (we're hard-wired to see order in everything anyway - in fact I'd rather reason this is the reason people came up with a creator, to explain the order in nature, rather than turning their head to the nature of the world because of their belief in a creative deity), which is what you were on about, if I don't suffer from severe reading disability.

  
  
  Perhaps we're hard-wired to see order in things because we were "hard-wired" by a God who created that order in the first place. But anyway, it's interesting to note that polytheism does not provide a very friendly environment for science because the general consensus is that the universe operates on the fleeting whim of 20-30 different deities and that there are no strict laws of nature. So I hardly think I put the cart before the horse in saying that monotheism creates the basis for the assumption of order. See if you can get the book, The Greatest Hoax on Earth? by Jonathan Sarfati, and read the last chapter for an interesting analysis of this.
  
  

  I don't believe it is profound at all, bu that is one of the philosophical key distinctions between theists and atheists I guess. If there's a system, you can describe it, even if it takes you, previous and following generations thousands of generations or at least years to do so. It is quite exciting to think about it though. Very satisfactory and fun.

  
  
  But what is the guarantee that the universe really does and always will abide by the same laws indefinitely? After all, according to atheism, the universe is merely the product of a random explosion that came out of nowhere for no reason. With such a world view, it is logical to conclude there should be no order in the universe. Which is why Albert Einstein marveled at how comprehensible the universe is.
  
  

  The actual argument was that neither religion/spiritualism in generaliter nor Christianism specifically provide a necessary fundament of science and the drive to understand and control the world around one, and that very much has to do with Christianism*.
  

  
  
  It certainly drove the founders of virtually every branch of science. We are merely standing on the shoulders of giants, so it's easy for us to scoff and say that we don't need God to believe in an orderly universe, when in fact that the idea of an orderly universe was not always the consensus.
  
  

  [SIZE="1"]In case you were wondering about my recurrent usage of this term, I use it to signify the Christian belief system, as opposed to Christianity which I use to signify the Christian community.[/SIZE]

  
  
  I see... Though I believe "Christendom" would be a better word to describe the Christian community.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-21 23:14

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;844888:

  Perhaps we're hard-wired to see order in things because we were "hard-wired" by a God who created that order in the first place. But anyway, it's interesting to note that polytheism does not provide a very friendly environment for science because the general consensus is that the universe operates on the fleeting whim of 20-30 different deities and that there are no strict laws of nature. So I hardly think I put the cart before the horse in saying that monotheism creates the basis for the assumption of order. See if you can get the book, The Greatest Hoax on Earth? by Jonathan Sarfati, and read the last chapter for an interesting analysis of this.
  
  
  
  But what is the guarantee that the universe really does and always will abide by the same laws indefinitely? After all, according to atheism, the universe is merely the product of a random explosion that came out of nowhere for no reason. With such a world view, it is logical to conclude there should be no order in the universe. Which is why Albert Einstein marveled at how comprehensible the universe is.
  
  
  
  It certainly drove the founders of virtually every branch of science. We are merely standing on the shoulders of giants, so it's easy for us to scoff and say that we don't need God to believe in an orderly universe, when in fact that the idea of an orderly universe was not always the consensus.
  
  
  
  I see... Though I believe "Christendom" would be a better word to describe the Christian community.

  
  Perhaps it isn't so though. I see no reason to suspect that because the universe is complex and orderly that it could only possibly be the result of the work of a necessarily tremendously complex and orderly being which in itself is not the result of a creative process, but just "is", in fact I see reason to ridicule that notion for being primitive wishy-washy "Idunno" nonsense. That increasing education and understanding has caused people to increase the complexity of their explanations for something they believe and want to be true doesn't make me think otherwise. Even clever people are only people, and not immune to emotions, however irrational their consequences might be. I knew a Jewish Orthodox scientist who supported corporal punishment of homosexuals to save them from the wrath of Yahweh later on.
  If polytheism had such a disastrous effect on humans' will to understand and organise the world around them, then the Ancient civilisations of man could not possibly have prospered as they did.
  
  Why would I even think it would randomly change the way it works?
  That is a terrible condensed summary of the Big Bang theory, which funny enough has been proposed by a cleric to harmonise a belief in a creative god with science. I'm not quite sure why you don't use it as a pro-god argument, though I do have a suspicion...
  
  I greatly doubt that statement, not only because branches of science aren't "founded", they evolve from increasingly complex research. Also, I think what drove them was more specifically and precisely the order that they saw in the world, and the will to understand. Again, religion is not the cause of that, it provides a cultural frame. This isn't a matter of ridiculing previous generations of hard working scientists and philosophers, it is a matter of gathering the information from their work, expand or even replace them with more accurate results and put it all together in a coherent world view, so we can strive to understand the universe better. The god of Christianity amongst pretty much all gods I can think of certainly has no place in it, as comforting as that idea might be to many.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-21 23:43

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;844924:

  Perhaps it isn't so though. I see no reason to suspect that because the universe is complex and orderly that it could only possibly be the result of the work of a necessarily tremendously complex and orderly being which in itself is not the result of a creative process, but just "is", in fact I see reason to ridicule that notion for being primitive wishy-washy "Idunno" nonsense.

  
  
  It is generally accepted among astronomers that if they detect a complex radio signal from space that said signal was produced by an intelligent life form. Order and complexity do not come about by chance. If you see a pile of rocks scattered haphazardly on the ground, you would assume that said pile was a result of random forces of nature, but if you saw a bunch rocks arranged in an orderly manner (say, in the shape of a house), you would not question me if I told you that an intelligent life form built that house. Why then is the universe so different from these other simple scenarios? If you think you can create order without intelligence, then simply find the nearest brain dead vegetable and have him write you a poem.
  
  

  That increasing education and understanding has caused people to increase the complexity of their explanations for something they believe and want to be true doesn't make me think otherwise. Even clever people are only people, and not immune to emotions, however irrational their consequences might be. I knew a Jewish Orthodox scientist who supported corporal punishment of homosexuals to save them from the wrath of Yahweh later on.
  

  
  
  That doesn't discredit the fact that great scientists were driven by religion. Once again, if you don't think that's significant, then that's your business.
  
  

  If polytheism had such a disastrous effect on humans' will to understand and organise the world around them, then the Ancient civilisations of man could not possibly have prospered as they did.

  
  
  I'm not saying that civilization is impossible with polytheism, I'm saying that science as we understand it did not advance very far. Of course science did advance in polytheistic societies, but it is significant that much of the enlightenment era was pioneered by people who believed in a single God.
  
  

  Why would I even think it would randomly change the way it works?
  That is a terrible condensed summary of the Big Bang theory, which funny enough has been proposed by a cleric to harmonise a belief in a creative god with science. I'm not quite sure why you don't use it as a pro-god argument, though I do have a suspicion...

  
  
  I believe in the Big Bang... God spoke, and bang, it happened!
  
  But anyway, if there's no God who wrote the laws of nature (rules and parameters don't create themselves out of nothing), then why shouldn't the the universe constantly change how it operates? Why would there even be a single way in which it operates (via natural laws)?
  
  

  I greatly doubt that statement, not only because branches of science aren't "founded", they evolve from increasingly complex research. Also, I think what drove them was more specifically and precisely the order that they saw in the world, and the will to understand.

  
  
  Yes, "founded" is a rather obscure term. Though it is common to say that a scientist/group of scientists "fathered" a branch of science. Robert Boyle is generally recognized as the "Father of modern chemistry". Like I've been saying, for many scientists, "the will to understand" came from a belief in an orderly understandable universe.
  
  

  Again, religion is not the cause of that, it provides a cultural frame. This isn't a matter of ridiculing previous generations of hard working scientists and philosophers, it is a matter of gathering the information from their work, expand or even replace them with more accurate results and put it all together in a coherent world view, so we can strive to understand the universe better. The god of Christianity amongst pretty much all gods I can think of certainly has no place in it, as comforting as that idea might be to many.

  
  
  If God has no place in science, then what is the guarantee of consistency in the universe (or in the bio-electric-chemical workings of the human brain for that matter)? How do you really know anything? According to evolution, we are simply the product of random chemicals reactions at the bottom of a prebiotic soup. What gives you the faith that our brains even correctly register external stimuli? In fact, what would you even define as a "correct registering" of said stimuli?
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-22 08:08

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;844950:

  It is generally accepted among astronomers that if they detect a complex radio signal from space that said signal was produced by an intelligent life form. Order and complexity do not come about by chance. If you see a pile of rocks scattered haphazardly on the ground, you would assume that said pile was a result of random forces of nature, but if you saw a bunch rocks arranged in an orderly manner (say, in the shape of a house), you would not question me if I told you that an intelligent life form built that house. Why then is the universe so different from these other simple scenarios? If you think you can create order without intelligence, then simply find the nearest brain dead vegetable and have him write you a poem.
  
  
  
  That doesn't discredit the fact that great scientists were driven by religion. Once again, if you don't think that's significant, then that's your business.
  
  
  
  I'm not saying that civilization is impossible with polytheism, I'm saying that science as we understand it did not advance very far. Of course science did advance in polytheistic societies, but it is significant that much of the enlightenment era was pioneered by people who believed in a single God.
  
  
  
  I believe in the Big Bang... God spoke, and bang, it happened!
  
  But anyway, if there's no God who wrote the laws of nature (rules and parameters don't create themselves out of nothing), then why shouldn't the the universe constantly change how it operates? Why would there even be a single way in which it operates (via natural laws)?
  
  
  
  Yes, "founded" is a rather obscure term. Though it is common to say that a scientist/group of scientists "fathered" a branch of science. Robert Boyle is generally recognized as the "Father of modern chemistry". Like I've been saying, for many scientists, "the will to understand" came from a belief in an orderly understandable universe.
  
  
  
  If God has no place in science, then what is the guarantee of consistency in the universe (or in the bio-electric-chemical workings of the human brain for that matter)? How do you really know anything? According to evolution, we are simply the product of random chemicals reactions at the bottom of a prebiotic soup. What gives you the faith that our brains even correctly register external stimuli? In fact, what would you even define as a "correct registering" of said stimuli?

  
  The natural order we speak of is not an order of purposeful neat arrangements, it is one of forces working together to create the face of nature as we saw it. Your complex radio signal really doesn't touch upon this. Up to this point I actually liked conversing with you this time but it's going down the brain-dead route again.
  
  Yeah, but in a rather interchangable way. If I hit my child in the face so it accepts that cleaning your room is important, it's still just one of many ways to bring my child to accept that cleaning is important, and there are better ways.
  
  Imbecilic fundie humor.
  
  It's not a matter of strict parameters and rules -those are merely our approximations of the way nature works, though I would say they are quite accurate-, it's a matter of necessary logical consequence from the way things are. You're really just grasping at straws. Putting "god" into the few remaining gaps, some of which may not ever be filled because that simply would spit in the face of the methods of intellectually integral, honest, rigorous science, doesn't change anything about the fact that any sort of deity is most certainly completely irrelevant in day to day life, or in millennium to millennium life if you wan to talk about the universe.
  
  Yes, and that is separate from a belief in a deity. I've explained it to you a few times now.
  
  Even if god had a place in science, what guarantee would that fucking give us? It would give us the guarantee that we have lost intellectual integrity and just accepted lunatic gods of the gaps to fill our mind with ease. Even if the rules do change, it doesn't matter. We'll just figure them out again, because that's what science is about. It's about hoping to understand the world just as it is, not about hoping that your understanding of the world doesn't turn out to be incorrect because that'll make you whine like a kid who didn't get their candy. Some scientists might be so prideful, but the philosophy of science is still pretty clear about this. Deities have no place in science because accepting "god" as an explanation flies, punches, craps and vomits in the face of the scientific method. Simple as that.
  Maybe you would want to ask a neurologist about that. I can tell you though that the unreliability of the mind is exactly the reason why we have come up with these rigorous methods, so it doesn't mess too much with the results. The fact that our brain works so strangely and in a way that is only of reduced use for civilisation goes against an intelligent designer I would argue. Anyway you're kind of arguing 18th century niveau here. No one would really content the notion that the mind is unreliable anymore, and I don't really see how it is a pro-"Jesus died for our sins" argument.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-04-22 11:04

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;845280:

  The natural order we speak of is not an order of purposeful neat arrangements, it is one of forces working together to create the face of nature as we saw it. Your complex radio signal really doesn't touch upon this. Up to this point I actually liked conversing with you this time but it's going down the brain-dead route again.

  
  
  It's the same idea in that order cannot be created without intelligence. Chaos begets chaos.
  
  

  Yeah, but in a rather interchangable way. If I hit my child in the face so it accepts that cleaning your room is important, it's still just one of many ways to bring my child to accept that cleaning is important, and there are better ways.

  
  
  Not sure what your point is here. God didn't "hit" those scientists. Of course there are other ways of being inspired to make discoveries, but that doesn't change the fact that monotheism was a major driving factor of scientific discoveries.
  
  

  Imbecilic fundie humor.
  

  
  
  Don't forget to rep!
  
  

  It's not a matter of strict parameters and rules -those are merely our approximations of the way nature works, though I would say they are quite accurate-, it's a matter of necessary logical consequence from the way things are. You're really just grasping at straws. Putting "god" into the few remaining gaps, some of which may not ever be filled because that simply would spit in the face of the methods of intellectually integral, honest, rigorous science, doesn't change anything about the fact that any sort of deity is most certainly completely irrelevant in day to day life, or in millennium to millennium life if you wan to talk about the universe.

  
  
  So where did those laws of nature come from? Keep in mind that you cannot use science to answer the question because science itself is based on those natural laws.
  
  

  Even if god had a place in science, what guarantee would that fucking give us?

  
  
  The guarantee that the universe will not randomly change and that the laws of nature set by an unchanging God will not change either.
  
  

  It would give us the guarantee that we have lost intellectual integrity and just accepted lunatic gods of the gaps to fill our mind with ease. Even if the rules do change, it doesn't matter. We'll just figure them out again, because that's what science is about.
  

  
  Have fun with that! Science is all about making predictions and testing those predictions using established principles of nature. With that in mind, the prospect of having to totally change science every time the universe and/or the diverse deities of polytheism decide to change must be quite disheartening. Though thanks to a bunch of "imbecilic fundie" scientists, it is now common sense that the universe is orderly and consistent.
  
  

  It's about hoping to understand the world just as it is, not about hoping that your understanding of the world doesn't turn out to be incorrect because that'll make you whine like a kid who didn't get their candy.

  
  
  It's not just about "turning out to be incorrect", because without an orderly understandable universe, it's impossible to even judge what "correct" or "incorrect" even means! What objective criteria would you base it on?
  
  

  Some scientists might be so prideful, but the philosophy of science is still pretty clear about this. Deities have no place in science because accepting "god" as an explanation flies, punches, craps and vomits in the face of the scientific method. Simple as that.

  
  
  I would say that creationist scientists would be the least prideful.
  
  

  Maybe you would want to ask a neurologist about that. I can tell you though that the unreliability of the mind is exactly the reason why we have come up with these rigorous methods, so it doesn't mess too much with the results. The fact that our brain works so strangely and in a way that is only of reduced use for civilisation goes against an intelligent designer I would argue. Anyway you're kind of arguing 18th century niveau here. No one would really content the notion that the mind is unreliable anymore, and I don't really see how it is a pro-"Jesus died for our sins" argument.

  
  
  The "unreliability of the mind" was simply a hypothetical idea illustrating the inherent fallacy of evolution and atheism in that there is no guarantee of anything in a world of random chance. Once again, I fully acknowledge that this discussion has nothing to do with Christianity.
• User495 wrote on 2012-04-22 11:32
  what TA said pretty much sums up what I think
  
  
  

  Quote from Kayate;843273:

  It won't stop wars there will always be somthing

  
  
  and that would potentially be that population control agent, considering, realistically, the only kind of immortality we will get is, not dying from age, everything else is still up for grabs
  
  unless we invent power suits that grant us immunity from hazards that every newborn is assigned with at the beginning of their life
  
  or something like that