Serious Does some sort of God exist? And why?

Taylor

i am alien
is a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I think we as humans try to explain our existence and like to give reason and meaning to all and everything they see in life, so that we can learn to understand where, what and why we are here. Like how we assure ourselves what we research is, mostly, what we believe to be true. Has it been proven? No; nor has it been disproven. However, the universe itself cannot be explained thoroughly due to its size, suggesting space and time are infinite. This theory alone suggests there is a higher power controlling "the universe" because the big bang theory included a heap of ideas, numbers and science to prove its very own story of an ever-expanding universe.

With TBBT, you're left questioning if there is a "God" because what is beyond that expansion? The bang itself happened, okay, but matter must've existed before the explosion and if that is so, then you could ask what was in existence before that bang took place? And with God's theory you're not entirely left questioning how everything came to be, but why it is like it is today?

"no one knows"
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcr
A god doesn't explain anything tbh, I mean, even if one exists, it had to come from somewhere. And I think it's more logical to believe the universe has always been there in some form (so it was never created to begin with) than to believe a god has always existed and then created stuff.
 

Martin

A monoid in the category of endofunctors
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I'm going to preface this post by saying that I am an atheist. I will go to Christmas or Christmas Eve Mass with my grandparents, but that is the extent of my religiousness.

Does a god exist? My response to that question is this: who cares? As a concept, God represents far more than just some divine being that directs the course of history and creates stuff. God is a friend you can turn to and speak your mind to in times of need when you have no one else to turn to; God is the arbiter for which you follow a pre-determined moral code which is, for the most part, a good way of leading your life. There are all sorts of different things beyond just these two which can make choosing to believe in a being such as God an appealing prospect to a lot of people outside of simply fitting in with the society around you or because of a disagreement with the theories of creation provided to us by science. Hell, even the mere act of going to Sunday Mass (or the equivalents for other religions) has meaning to it, whether it is to listen to the story of Jesus being recounted or whether it is for another (potentially more selfish) reason. If I were so inclined, I'd go to Sunday Mass just for the social opportunity it provides, which would involve choosing to believe in God out of pure convenience so as to justify the visit to Church.

Religion is primarily a spiritual device – one which is, sadly, abused or bent to match the twisted ideologies of groups like IS as well as individuals such as old British kings/queens and even some corrupt monks – and religious leaders like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and other such people are intelligent in a different way to physicists. If creation was the only ideology behind belief, religious figures such as Georges Lemaître (catholic priest; the physicist who originally proposed the Big Bang theory) wouldn't be disputing the explanation provided in sources such as the Bible. I believe that creation is supported adequately by one of the Big Bang theory or Wun-Yi Shu's cosmological model (1, 2), and I believe that the phenomenally small chance of everything being perfect for the existence of life in this exact point in the universe can be adequately explained using multiverse theory, which allows for every possible scenario to exist simultaneously in an infinite number of universes (and, as an aside, makes for some very entertaining sci-fi), but I also agree with a lot of the concepts, ideologies, and philosophies surrounding aspects of religion.

I don't think there is ever going to be an answer or any kind of "proof" (for lack of a better term) about whether God (or some other unobservable being) exists or not from a Creation standpoint; this comes down to the fact that no theory involving a beginning can ever explain the presence of (or the trigger for) whatever exists before the supposed "start point". With the Big Bang theory, what existed before the universe, what caused the big bang, and what caused the existence of the thing(s) that existed before the universe? With the creation story in the Bible, what created God (and, by extension, God's creator, God's creator's creator, and so on), and what was its motivation for creating what it did in the order that it did? Everything that we know or can surmise from the evidence available to us only tells us about two things: 1) the observable universe, and 2) the universe as it has existed since the supposed "start point". If Wun-Yi Shu's model is correct, it eradicates the need to explain these things all together, but that then opens up other things which need explaining, such as how you can have a space in which time exists without any kind of start point to run from and the origin of cosmic microwave background radiation. I believe that science and religion are ultimately both separate lines of philosophy which overlap in places and yet are both totally distinct from one another both with regards to the way they operate and with regards to the lens through which they perceive the universe. There is no proof in either, and they aim to make their respective followers think for themselves using the information they provide, and it does so with the aim of enlightenment, creating debate, and/or the advancement of understanding. Is either more credible than the other? That ultimately depends on what you perceive each to be. The idea of one "competing against" the other is stupid because the aim of both is not to try and disprove the other. Hell, for all we know the universe could have been created by the Big Bang theory with God watching it passively on a holograph in heaven as if it were some kind of reality TV show; the theoretical "proof" of one does not disprove the presence of the other so much as it changes the perception of the other. Ultimately the best way to go about following both is to be respectful of the views of those who follow the other and to take the little bits of both that you agree with and integrating them to form your own view of the universe.

Why did I write so much? Fuck knows. Just started and ended up vomiting stuff onto the page like I usually do. If anyone wants to reply I welcome it though! I didn't expect to be as interested in this topic as I ended up being.
 

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I still cannot help but wonder, why are humans so arrogant? Aren't there things that humans just cannot understand or comprehend? If so, can't there being an omnipotent being be one of them?
Of course there are things humans can't understand. Large numbers, small probabilities, or more than three spatial dimensions. There is simply stuff our brains aren't capable of handling on an intuitive level.

But I will postulate that an omnipotent being is an idea the mind can comprehend very easily. It is just the logical extreme extrapolation of the parental figure who seemed to be able to know everything and do everything. "How did X happen? Somebody made it happen. And that is all there is to say about it."

Combine this with an evolved trait of seeking answers until a satisfying answer can be found. And if the brain can't understand a phenomenon, it just makes up an explanation itself. Why does lightning strike? The gods must be angry. Why do the sun and the moon move across the sky? They must be gods chasing each other. Why are we here at all? Eh, probably gods again. That's an adequate explanation. Brain happy.

I have no problem with people pointing out that we don't really know all that much about the Big Bang, and what came before it (If anything at all. We don't know squat about the nature of time either, so the principle of causality might not hold up as well as it intuitively seems), which means that the science we love and trust isn't perfect. We can't turn to it for a definite answer, at least not right at the moment. Acknowledging that fact leaves a hole in our understanding that the brain itches to fill. If we don't know the answer, we want to fill it (or dismiss it as irrelevant - see the common attitude towards mathematics among certain people who don't understand it).

However, our primate brain isn't equipped to handle uncertainty. If it feels the question is important, it must have its answer. And that is why it feels perfectly comfortable making up something if data isn't available, or accepting an explanation without sufficient evidence. After all, the brain doesn't come equipped with a natural standard for fact-checking, that is a principle we've only recently derived. If the answer feels right, and doesn't contradict known facts in an immediately obvious way, it is accepted without further ado. Then the itchy feeling of a hole in your understanding goes away, and the brain is freed up to focus on other important things, like finding food, mating, or looking for predators. A savannah dweller has no time to stand about and think all day, and there is little benefit in doing so.

Hence why the unverifiable idea of an omnipotent being can be so readily accepted. Right now there is no way to know the proper answer, so a made up one that's popular in your tribe will be satisfying enough. Just say "God did it", and move on. Problem solved. Add "It's impossible to know God's plans" (therefore, seeking out the answer is meaningless - and therefore just as irrelevant to you as long division or second-order algebra), and it won't even bother you that no further details are available.

Personally, I try to not let the question-without-answer bother me too much, and you may even say I dismiss it with faith ("Somebody else will probably figure it out one day"), but if pressed to the answer I must admit that I stand clueless, however badly my brain dislikes that idea. I'm fine with the lack of knowledge on the subject, but I really dislike it when people think "We don't know for certain - so let's apply the technically-not-disproven answer somebody suggested back in the Bronze age!".
 
As a bit of background, I was raised Lutheran, spent about a year agnostic, converted back to Christianity afterward, and I'm currently deist agnostic.

On the one hand, I think the universe is too overwhelmingly complex to be the result of anything but a creator. The best example is DNA; DNA is a programming language coded inside our bodies. I see no way, even a theoretical way, that such a thing could result by accident. There's also the fact that it's exceedingly unlikely that a planet like earth could come to exist by accident; the chances of everything lining up just right to support life are astronomical, even when you consider all planets and stars in the known universe, so it takes faith that I don't have to believe that it just "happened" by accident.

But on the other hand, despite the evidence of intelligent design, there is the so-called problem of pain. If God exists and is omnipotent and omnibenevolent (such as the Christian trinity), why do we suffer? If God can end our suffering, but chooses not to, he is not omnibenevolent. If God wants to end our suffering, but cannot, he is not omnipotent. This alone is enough for me to discredit the idea of an all-encompassing, infinite being. Such a being would also have to be omnipresent, and the jury is still out on that, because either it is and we have no way to detect it yet (which is reasonably possible), or it isn't. I'm inclined to believe the latter because it relies on fewer assumptions and less faith (a quality that I have in exceedingly short supply).

Therefore, I believe the most reasonable and simplest explanation is that there is some kind of greater being that's responsible for creation, and for whatever god-forsaken (heh) reason had a hand in the beginning of humanity as well. However, reason suggests that this being is far from infinite, certainly not omnipotent, and likely cares very, very little for humanity. In fact, if such a being was not infinite, and had a definite beginning, it therefore must also have an ending, as it would be subject to entropy. I think that the idea of God literally being dead is a real possibility, although I hesitate to call a being that is not omnipotent or infinite God, even if it had the ability to create.

So in summary I believe that a powerful being that cannot classically be considered "God" played some role in the development of earth and humanity, but that this being is either long-dead, or it turned its back on us, and it is by no means the God of any organized religion, which are basically the modern evolution of ancient myths; fairy-tale explanations to explain away that which we do not understand and provide comfort for those who feel alone. Too often these religions are used as shields against criticism and weapons of prejudice against other people, but that's a different discussion.
 

Don Honchkrorleone

Happy Qwilfish the nightmare
is a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
I was born and raised Christian and I'm still a proud Presbyterian Christian (with a foot on Slavic Orthodox dogma), most on dogma but with some "twisted" practices because of my own interpretation of the Bible and of the Patristics, and limited theological formation (I'm not a theologian... yet). I could write a pseudo-philosophical post with a shitty format that takes away any credibility of point/irony/whatever it's supposed to be, but I won't because I need to do some stuff today so I'll write some small stuff. For me proof of God's existence is on my experience with Him, and the experience of my church. It's a thing faith provokes on you if you have it, but it's a really personal and warming feeling that you can sense on some moments. I felt that on several occasions and is a really uplifting and comfort feeling. Of course, someone will say it's an allergy, a fart or anything else, both non-Christians and Christians with different concepts of faith experience. I don't give a flying fuck if anyone disagrees, you do you. So yeah, for me God exists. I'm not trying to prove as I don't really care if people believe or not in the same Christian God I worship. If you want to see which is the great force that moves the universe I'd say check for yourself to the knowledge and the experiences till you either find something or find nothing at all, then you'll have your own answer.

As for why? How the fuck can I know? I'm not God.

EDIT: Just saw now that you believe that religion (I'd say more faith than religion) and science can coexist and I totally agree. If you want to delve more, Ernst Cassirer's Essay on Man (seeing that you're italian from your profile, the italian version is Saggio sull'uomo. Introduzione a una filosofia della cultura) may help you on the opinion :)
 
"We can never know" is such a pussy answer to these sorts of questions.

God is not real and the problem with discussions like is that they're arguing on the wrong field.

There are so many logical flaws with all the concepts of gods that humanity has invented across history. Add to that the fact that we can quite literally trace back the specific times to when certain people started believing in certain gods and its very easy to see why every human belief and religion is undeniably bullshit.

The question should be "Given the likelihood that a god doesn't exist what should we do about it and why?" Things like how churches get tax exemptions in multiple nations and how they attract all sorts of corruption. Horrendous crimes are committed all across the world in the name of religion.

If you believe in a god it is your burden to ask "Why do I believe in this?" not other people's burden to disprove. Sit down and have a long hard think about the environment you grew up in , the communities you spent time in, the people you talked to and the religions and beliefs of other people all around the world and think why they believe those things as well.

At risk of sounding like Richard Dawkins edgelord, the belief in god seems to hold back humanity in a lot of ways and not help it in any at all.

If you believe because it connects you with your family then know that you only believe because of external influence and not your own decisions.

If you believe because it calms you and gives you a warm personal feeling try weed. Very similar effects and the people that manage it aren't rapists/murderers/corrupt asshats
 
Last edited:
Omnipotency is a bullshit concept that is innately paradoxical- can an omnipotent being create a wall that is impossible to climb over? If they can't then they're not omnipotent. If they can, then they cannot climb over said wall and are thus not omnipotent.

Seraph's Fire I think you massively overestimate the improbability of life forming. As far as habitable planets forming goes, the overwhelming number of planets that are estimated to be in the galaxy (never mind the whole universe!) begs the question of why we haven't encountered extraterrestrial life (the famous Fermi paradox). I don't know the probability of habitable planets forming around stars off the top of my head as I'm no astronomer, but it's something that I can confidently say that we have plenty of data on, such that we can make reasonable estimates. For instance, studies have produced estimates that in the galaxy there are 40 billion planets in the galaxy orbiting in the goldilocks zone (Source, and the peer reviewed article it's based on). That's only to give a rough picture of the kinds of numbers in play, as there's a lot of other factors involved. Also if you don't already know about it, you might want to look up the Urey-Miller experiment. It basically replicates the conditions that were thought to be present early in the earth's existence and finds that they produce organic molecules that could conceivably go on to form life. Although none of these form a complete picture and cannot definitively answer how life came about, the point is that there's actually a lot of research that's been done on the topic with a bunch of different theories to consider, so there's a lot more to it than just chalking it up as seeming unlikely.

Also agree with Rugi js
 
At risk of sounding like Richard Dawkins edgelord, the belief in god seems to hold back humanity in a lot of ways and not help it in any at all.
Can you explain further? How exactly is religion holding back humanity? Is it really your belief that everything positive with religion can be replaced by weed or ???

idk man ur post comes across as super resentful so no clue if u personally had a negative experience with religion or if u actually believe this. if it's the latter then i'd be interested in hearing some further explanations so ye
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Can you explain further? How exactly is religion holding back humanity? Is it really your belief that everything positive with religion can be replaced by weed or ???

idk man ur post comes across as super resentful so no clue if u personally had a negative experience with religion or if u actually believe this. if it's the latter then i'd be interested in hearing some further explanations so ye
I won't claim I know exactly what this person meant, but perhaps they referred to the way religion used to block major scientific or social advances (and still does to a lesser extent). Christianism is the main reason Europe did not significantly progress in scientific fields in medieval times (leading to a standstill for 500 to 1000 years before the Renaissance era), whereas admittedly islamic countries reached their peak at that time, researching crucial elements in astronomy, medecine and algebra.

Even today, extremist religious groups (keyword "extremist") are still reactionary forces, seemingly trying to hold back humanity in darker times for the sake of religion. ISIS is the most blatant example, as they advocate a lifestyle that simply isn't in sync with the modern world's values, but extremist christian groups are often seen opposing social advances, such as gay marriage, multiculturalism, or abortion.

That's how I interpret it at least.
 

Asek

Banned deucer.
I won't claim I know exactly what this person meant, but perhaps they referred to the way religion used to block major scientific or social advances (and still does to a lesser extent). Christianism is the main reason Europe did not significantly progress in scientific fields in medieval times (leading to a standstill for 500 to 1000 years before the Renaissance era), whereas admittedly islamic countries reached their peak at that time, researching crucial elements in astronomy, medecine and algebra.
Do you have any sources on this

the papacy was the only real continuous political entity after the fall of rome putting funding towards sciences and learning in the west during the medievil times, whilst western europe largely fell behind in science due to lack of any real centralized authority / sovereign states, not to mention a large bulk of the first real universities to exist in europe came to exist out of the churches support.....

to blame the catholic church for the lack of scientific progress after the fall of rome is just flat out incorrect.
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Do you have any sources on this
Happy to oblige.

Actually, you are right: the Church was the leading point for science during these times, but at a cost: whatever strayed from their own views was deemed heretic, greatly decreasing the possibilities of study, thus slowing down science as a whole (e.g. Giordano Bruno's and Galileo's trials). That, and the awful understanding of the Black Death at the time. Surely they couldn't know what caused the disease, but immediately turning to prayers to cure people wasn't the smartest move.

Also according to this article, conservative folks nowadays are taking a much more indirect (and much more sneaky) approach than study field restriction, which is contestation of perfectly coherent evidence. This is also the reason pastafarism was created in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Don Honchkrorleone

Happy Qwilfish the nightmare
is a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
I won't claim I know exactly what this person meant, but perhaps they referred to the way religion used to block major scientific or social advances (and still does to a lesser extent). Christianism is the main reason Europe did not significantly progress in scientific fields in medieval times (leading to a standstill for 500 to 1000 years before the Renaissance era), whereas admittedly islamic countries reached their peak at that time, researching crucial elements in astronomy, medecine and algebra.
Ok, I say I'm sorry in advance for derailing the thread but the bolded statement makes me angry, really REALLY angry. And not because I'm Christian, even if I was the Übermensch (who believes that "science" is basically the same fake shit as "religion" but with a fancier name) I wouldn't care, but because I'm a Medievalist. Studying medieval history is what puts bread on my table and jrpgs in my consoles, and saying that the Middle Ages is as an immovable rock is against everything I studied 6 years (and plan to study for my whole life) for, and believing in that is a dangerous line of thought that takes away the attempts of legitimization of my profession and of about millions in the world. Hell, I didn't spend 5 days in the federal capital (far away from my state) last week discussing possibilities of theory, methodology and teaching of the period in question for nothing. I hope I don't sound salty, but here I go.

The notion of standstill before a massive break before the so-called "Renaissance" (the XVI one) is a brain tumor in the minds of men that isn't still cured. The only reason in which people believe it is because a damn monk (from where today is Italy, and that is really important) whose name I forgot that tried to push forward his apocalyptic logic, claiming everything between fall of (western) Rome and the great plague was shit. This notion was further advanced by the XVII french thought, using basis on the logic of ages present in Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days, for example, judging the period of Greece and Rome (but fuck anything from Egypt to the east, after all, "Ex Oriente Fiat Lux" was not supported by the so-called "genius" of Voltaire and co) the great good bringing, the Middle Ages was literally the "Dark Ages" and considered to have no "advance" (mainly due to their hatred towards Catholic Church, especially by the french philosophers) and now they were living a new good era of progress. This was kinda countered during the European Romanticism but during Imperialism and based on the theories of Darwin and Spencer, both promoted by protestants and atheists and that is really important, with the now pseudo-scientific theory that History evolves, it gained much more strength, using the thought of Middle Ages as a barbaric period where no type of "science" ever existed till the society as a whole "evolved". It should be noted that "science" for these thinkers is not and never will be what our society (or, for that matter, the arabs, the chinese, the mesoamericans, the indians and etc) accept as it, so they were as barbaric as the Middle Ages Western Europe (and as savage as Eastern Europe). Even Marxism, who believes in an evolutionary point of view of history and society to this day, calls that bullshit. This theory of a Dark Middle Ages because of the Christianity was thought to be broken at least since 1920 and especially after John Van Engen's excellent article about the dangers of generalization and trusting older historiography other than searching the damn sources, but the wave of blind neo-atheism is trying to resurrect it with full force for God knows why. The truth is: Middle Ages was a fucking dynamic roller coaster with powers trying to consolidate each other. I'll talk about West here because Byzantine and other Orthodox "advances" in the new scientific spectrum such as medicine, astronomy, technology, chemistry, and more (most of them promoted by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate itself, may I add); assuming that their relationship with Christianity was much less fluid (but still not fucking standstill) and much more "institutionalized" than in the Latin Europe. Also ignoring the medieval Scandinavia, both Viking and Christian, because they'd flat-out break that stupid and anachronic mentality outright. No, let's focus on Latin West, from the fall of Rome (another bs thing but for another time) to the "Renaissance" (which I'll discuss later based on the Braudelian concept of Longue Durée that most competent and credible historians make use of).

Truth is, based on the most modern researchers and new ways to analyze the sources that aren't only theological treatises, that the mythical institution known as Catholic Church, not only wasn't stoic and anachronic but also only became a thing in the XIth century, and only became a full-out "institution" after the Counterreformation in the XVIIth century. The existence of great cathedrals demonstrating local power is a thing from the Xth to the XIth, especially with the geographical remodeling of the local episcopal authority, and with the creation of the cemeteries and graveyards near the public church this entity was starting to try to consolidate its authority, culminating in the mythical "Gregorian Reform" that was much fucking harder and didn't consolidate at all. In fact, the birth of witchcraft is associated with the internal affairs from the multiple churches, who although under the theoretical power of the Roman Bishopric never managed to be at union. And as far as I know, there can't be stagnation without union, but rather dynamic processes between the Church (and the churches). Another break in this mentality is the cancerous "Trifunctional Society" popularized by Georges Duby, himself influenced by the Dumézilian thought, in the 60s. I bet everyone here read at school and carries to heart that the medieval society since its beginnings was composed of three people: The Clergy, the aristocracy, and the peasantry, famous by the pyramid of the "Three Orders" and by the name oratores (the ones who pray), bellatores (the ones who fight) et laboratores (the ones who work). It's a bunch of sheer bullshit, popularized by, guess what, an anti-catholic historiography (mainly Lutherans and atheists)! This was sadly the historiography in which Duby drank from, and only recently historians from different creeds and lack thereof are starting to move away from. A simple example is that during the Crusades, most of the knights weren't nobles but bishops and monks (different things as a bishop is part of the clergy while a monk, by logic, isn't and will never be). In fact, the so-called aristocrats fought fucking less than the damn peasants. That can be found not by historiography but by sources, specifically by letters addressed by and to the Pope, a thing which was really common, which some protesting but some agreeing. And for those who still think that the Church (with the capital letter representing an institution) is still immobile and controlled the people, let's talk about a french saint named Guinefort, praised by the local population and churches to be the patron of children and good household. The Papacy and some other local churches (and local population) were against. The only problem is that Guinefort was a dog. Even when the Church was against it, there were some cryptical cults that only got forbidden in the XXth century. Too much "standstill" for me.

The problem lies on the so-called Renaissance (not named by the ones that lived during the period by the way...), which by some agree (although I have my reservations), is that the Middle Ages only ended in 1789 with the French Revolution. This was a formulation by the well-respected french atheist historian Jacques Le Goff based on the well-accepted theory of Longue Durée ("Long Duration"). The mentality of the Renaissance "scientific" man was the same of the Catholic peasant, which broke only when Bastille fell (and not the event itself as almost nothing in History is immediate). Saying that the medieval man had no "propensity" to science is really dumb and anachronic as they were almost the same (again, not "standstill", but the dynamic sociocultural factors made the perpetuation of some aspects). And western Middle Ages (again, excluding Byzantium and Scandinavia and Asia to not drop the mic), in the new sense, also "progressed". Medicine was administered with pray with what they knew at the time, AS DO WE AND EVERY FUCKING SOCIETY WILL EVER DO. Some societies that don't believe in a higher deity in Africa (I forgot if it was Evans-Pritchard or Radcliffe-Brown, or another but I may search for it later). Astronomical and navigating techniques different from the Arabs (who, at least the ones in Al-Andaluz and other parts of Muslim Iberia, based their "discoveries" also in "discoveries" from the Catholics!) and used them for a lot of stuff like for war and food production. Alchemy, the father of modern chemistry, was refined during the period both with and without the consent of not the Church, but the churches, and the Church eventually made use of clergy and lay alchemic discoveries. And the famous "torture devices" that wasn't even created by the church but by the aristocracy, are, truth to be told, marvelous engineering products. And another thing, their conception of "science" and "arts" wasn't segregated concepts as it's in our current mentality. And again, I'm not talking about Byzantium, arguably more Christian than the Latin West. Ergo, it's dumb to say that there was no scientific "progress" (a word that historians hate to use but that's for another day) as what they considered science were surely thought and re-thought as it's today, just with a different mindset. And there are more, such as the possibility of being atheist in Middle Ages as now is commonly known by the historians, but I need to watch Made in Abyss now...

Happy to oblige.

Actually, you are right: the Church was the leading point for science during these times, but at a cost: whatever strayed from their own views was deemed heretic, greatly decreasing the possibilities of study, thus slowing down science as a whole (e.g. Giordano Bruno's and Galileo's trials). That, and the awful understanding of the Black Death at the time. Surely they couldn't know what caused the disease, but immediately turning to prayers to cure people wasn't the smartest move.
Three things:

1. You assume in your previous post that your conception of Middle Ages was till the 1500, but both Bruno and Galileo lived through Modern Age, specifically during the "Renaissance"...


1.1. Also, both Bruno and Galileo were Christians and died as such, so how they managed to even know that if the great Dumbing Catholic Church prevented "progress'?


2. The article whose link you've posted has neither historians nor sources, and afaik, just like experimental science, you can't just make claims without sources, methodology, and specialized bibliography...

3. Leprosaries or "Houses of Lazarus" as they were known were common during the Western Middle Ages, were much more like modern hospitals than places where people just prayed the illness away. And plague doctors tried to experiment various forms of herbs and stuff and create new kinds of medicine during the Bubonic Pestilence (the name more currently accepted of the epidemy among the medievalists). Praying was natural but not the only part of the cure, or do you think the Plague just stopped happening? That is, dare I say, kinda like what God would do...

TL;DR: Insulting Middle Ages insults me and other medievalists who try to give people what is possible to get out of a truth, however the hard it can and will be and no matter how many years it takes. We don't speculate shit based on stupid common sense. We're not fighting for over 60 years based on speculation. Don't insult Middle Ages. Sorry if I seem abrasive, you prob has the best of intentions, but I'm proud of what I do and when people try to de-legitimate it I become very pissed. Now return to debate the existence of a higher being, I need to watch Made in Abyss.

BROWN, Elizabeth. Tyranny of a Construct.
CASSIRER, Ernst. Essays on Man.
CLASSEN, Albretch (Ed.). Handbook of Medieval Culture.
______. Handbook of Medieval Studies.

FEBVRE, Lucien. Le Problème de L'incroyance au XVIE siècle.
GRANT, Edward. God and Reason in Middle Ages.
HARRIS, Stephen J.; GRIGSBY, Byron L. Misconceptions about the Middle Ages.
KUHN, Thomas. The Structures of the Scientific Revolution.
LAUWERS, Michel. Naissance du Cimitière: Lieux sacrés et terre des morts dans l'Occident médiéval.

LE GOFF, Jacques. Uma Longa Idade Média.
MATTOSO, José (Ed.). History of Portugal.
SEVCENKO, Ihor. "Remarks on the Diffusion of Byzantine Scientific and Pseudo-Scientific Literature among the Orthodox Slavs".
VAN ENGEN, John. "The Christian Middle Ages as a Historiographical Problem"
VICO, Giambattista. La Scientia Nuova.
WOLFF, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe.

Shitton of other books by brazilian medievalists especially by Dr. Rust, but I really don't want to sound pretentious :(
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Ok, I say I'm sorry in advance for derailing the thread but the bolded statement makes me angry, really REALLY angry. And not because I'm Christian, even if I was the Übermensch (who believes that "science" is basically the same fake shit as "religion" but with a fancier name) I wouldn't care, but because I'm a Medievalist. Studying medieval history is what puts bread on my table and jrpgs in my consoles, and saying that the Middle Ages is as an immovable rock is against everything I studied 6 years (and plan to study for my whole life) for, and believing in that is a dangerous line of thought that takes away the attempts of legitimization of my profession and of about millions in the world. Hell, I didn't spend 5 days in the federal capital (far away from my state) last week discussing possibilities of theory, methodology and teaching of the period in question for nothing. I hope I don't sound salty, but here I go.

The notion of standstill before a massive break before the so-called "Renaissance" (the XVI one) is a brain tumor in the minds of men that isn't still cured. The only reason in which people believe it is because a damn monk (from where today is Italy, and that is really important) whose name I forgot that tried to push forward his apocalyptic logic, claiming everything between fall of (western) Rome and the great plague was shit. This notion was further advanced by the XVII french thought, using basis on the logic of ages present in Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days, for example, judging the period of Greece and Rome (but fuck anything from Egypt to the east, after all, "Ex Oriente Fiat Lux" was not supported by the so-called "genius" of Voltaire and co) the great good bringing, the Middle Ages was literally the "Dark Ages" and considered to have no "advance" (mainly due to their hatred towards Catholic Church, especially by the french philosophers) and now they were living a new good era of progress. This was kinda countered during the European Romanticism but during Imperialism and based on the theories of Darwin and Spencer, both promoted by protestants and atheists and that is really important, with the now pseudo-scientific theory that History evolves, it gained much more strength, using the thought of Middle Ages as a barbaric period where no type of "science" ever existed till the society as a whole "evolved". It should be noted that "science" for these thinkers is not and never will be what our society (or, for that matter, the arabs, the chinese, the mesoamericans, the indians and etc) accept as it, so they were as barbaric as the Middle Ages Western Europe (and as savage as Eastern Europe). Even Marxism, who believes in an evolutionary point of view of history and society to this day, calls that bullshit. This theory of a Dark Middle Ages because of the Christianity was thought to be broken at least since 1920 and especially after John Van Engen's excellent article about the dangers of generalization and trusting older historiography other than searching the damn sources, but the wave of blind neo-atheism is trying to resurrect it with full force for God knows why. The truth is: Middle Ages was a fucking dynamic roller coaster with powers trying to consolidate each other. I'll talk about West here because Byzantine and other Orthodox "advances" in the new scientific spectrum such as medicine, astronomy, technology, chemistry, and more (most of them promoted by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate itself, may I add); assuming that their relationship with Christianity was much less fluid (but still not fucking standstill) and much more "institutionalized" than in the Latin Europe. Also ignoring the medieval Scandinavia, both Viking and Christian, because they'd flat-out break that stupid and anachronic mentality outright. No, let's focus on Latin West, from the fall of Rome (another bs thing but for another time) to the "Renaissance" (which I'll discuss later based on the Braudelian concept of Longue Durée that most competent and credible historians make use of).

Truth is, based on the most modern researchers and new ways to analyze the sources that aren't only theological treatises, that the mythical institution known as Catholic Church, not only wasn't stoic and anachronic but also only became a thing in the XIth century, and only became a full-out "institution" after the Counterreformation in the XVIIth century. The existence of great cathedrals demonstrating local power is a thing from the Xth to the XIth, especially with the geographical remodeling of the local episcopal authority, and with the creation of the cemeteries and graveyards near the public church this entity was starting to try to consolidate its authority, culminating in the mythical "Gregorian Reform" that was much fucking harder and didn't consolidate at all. In fact, the birth of witchcraft is associated with the internal affairs from the multiple churches, who although under the theoretical power of the Roman Bishopric never managed to be at union. And as far as I know, there can't be stagnation without union, but rather dynamic processes between the Church (and the churches). Another break in this mentality is the cancerous "Trifunctional Society" popularized by Georges Duby, himself influenced by the Dumézilian thought, in the 60s. I bet everyone here read at school and carries to heart that the medieval society since its beginnings was composed of three people: The Clergy, the aristocracy, and the peasantry, famous by the pyramid of the "Three Orders" and by the name oratores (the ones who pray), bellatores (the ones who fight) et laboratores (the ones who work). It's a bunch of sheer bullshit, popularized by, guess what, an anti-catholic historiography (mainly Lutherans and atheists)! This was sadly the historiography in which Duby drank from, and only recently historians from different creeds and lack thereof are starting to move away from. A simple example is that during the Crusades, most of the knights weren't nobles but bishops and monks (different things as a bishop is part of the clergy while a monk, by logic, isn't and will never be). In fact, the so-called aristocrats fought fucking less than the damn peasants. That can be found not by historiography but by sources, specifically by letters addressed by and to the Pope, a thing which was really common, which some protesting but some agreeing. And for those who still think that the Church (with the capital letter representing an institution) is still immobile and controlled the people, let's talk about a french saint named Guinefort, praised by the local population and churches to be the patron of children and good household. The Papacy and some other local churches (and local population) were against. The only problem is that Guinefort was a dog. Even when the Church was against it, there were some cryptical cults that only got forbidden in the XXth century. Too much "standstill" for me.

The problem lies on the so-called Renaissance (not named by the ones that lived during the period by the way...), which by some agree (although I have my reservations), is that the Middle Ages only ended in 1789 with the French Revolution. This was a formulation by the well-respected french atheist historian Jacques Le Goff based on the well-accepted theory of Longue Durée ("Long Duration"). The mentality of the Renaissance "scientific" man was the same of the Catholic peasant, which broke only when Bastille fell (and not the event itself as almost nothing in History is immediate). Saying that the medieval man had no "propensity" to science is really dumb and anachronic as they were almost the same (again, not "standstill", but the dynamic sociocultural factors made the perpetuation of some aspects). And western Middle Ages (again, excluding Byzantium and Scandinavia and Asia to not drop the mic), in the new sense, also "progressed". Medicine was administered with pray with what they knew at the time, AS DO WE AND EVERY FUCKING SOCIETY WILL EVER DO. Some societies that don't believe in a higher deity in Africa (I forgot if it was Evans-Pritchard or Radcliffe-Brown, or another but I may search for it later). Astronomical and navigating techniques different from the Arabs (who, at least the ones in Al-Andaluz and other parts of Muslim Iberia, based their "discoveries" also in "discoveries" from the Catholics!) and used them for a lot of stuff like for war and food production. Alchemy, the father of modern chemistry, was refined during the period both with and without the consent of not the Church, but the churches, and the Church eventually made use of clergy and lay alchemic discoveries. And the famous "torture devices" that wasn't even created by the church but by the aristocracy, are, truth to be told, marvelous engineering products. And another thing, their conception of "science" and "arts" wasn't segregated concepts as it's in our current mentality. And again, I'm not talking about Byzantium, arguably more Christian than the Latin West. Ergo, it's dumb to say that there was no scientific "progress" (a word that historians hate to use but that's for another day) as what they considered science were surely thought and re-thought as it's today, just with a different mindset. And there are more, such as the possibility of being atheist in Middle Ages as now is commonly known by the historians, but I need to watch Made in Abyss now...



Three things:

1. You assume in your previous post that your conception of Middle Ages was till the 1500, but both Bruno and Galileo lived through Modern Age, specifically during the "Renaissance"...


1.1. Also, both Bruno and Galileo were Christians and died as such, so how they managed to even know that if the great Dumbing Catholic Church prevented "progress'?


2. The article whose link you've posted has neither historians nor sources, and afaik, just like experimental science, you can't just make claims without sources, methodology, and specialized bibliography...

3. Leprosaries or "Houses of Lazarus" as they were known were common during the Western Middle Ages, were much more like modern hospitals than places where people just prayed the illness away. And plague doctors tried to experiment various forms of herbs and stuff and create new kinds of medicine during the Bubonic Pestilence (the name more currently accepted of the epidemy among the medievalists). Praying was natural but not the only part of the cure, or do you think the Plague just stopped happening? That is, dare I say, kinda like what God would do...

TL;DR: Insulting Middle Ages insults me and other medievalists who try to give people what is possible to get out of a truth, however the hard it can and will be and no matter how many years it takes. We don't speculate shit based on stupid common sense. We're not fighting for over 60 years based on speculation. Don't insult Middle Ages. Sorry if I seem abrasive, you prob has the best of intentions, but I'm proud of what I do and when people try to de-legitimate it I become very pissed. Now return to debate the existence of a higher being, I need to watch Made in Abyss.

BROWN, Elizabeth. Tyranny of a Construct.
CASSIRER, Ernst. Essays on Man.
CLASSEN, Albretch (Ed.). Handbook of Medieval Culture.
______. Handbook of Medieval Studies.

FEBVRE, Lucien. Le Problème de L'incroyance au XVIE siècle.
GRANT, Edward. God and Reason in Middle Ages.
HARRIS, Stephen J.; GRIGSBY, Byron L. Misconceptions about the Middle Ages.
KUHN, Thomas. The Structures of the Scientific Revolution.
LAUWERS, Michel. Naissance du Cimitière: Lieux sacrés et terre des morts dans l'Occident médiéval.

LE GOFF, Jacques. Uma Longa Idade Média.
MATTOSO, José (Ed.). History of Portugal.
SEVCENKO, Ihor. "Remarks on the Diffusion of Byzantine Scientific and Pseudo-Scientific Literature among the Orthodox Slavs".
VAN ENGEN, John. "The Christian Middle Ages as a Historiographical Problem"
VICO, Giambattista. La Scientia Nuova.
WOLFF, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe.

Shitton of other books by brazilian medievalists especially by Dr. Rust, but I really don't want to sound pretentious :(
I'll gladly admit defeat here, because at least I have renewed knowledge now. I'll probably read that again to fully understand everything.
I'll need to endure punishment for citing an article without sources as well, that was rather unscientific of me.
Though my second point still stands: conservative religious groups in this era are trying to slow down social advances.
 
Last edited:

GlassGlaceon

My heart has now been set on love
Omnipotency is a bullshit concept that is innately paradoxical- can an omnipotent being create a wall that is impossible to climb over? If they can't then they're not omnipotent. If they can, then they cannot climb over said wall and are thus not omnipotent.

Seraph's Fire I think you massively overestimate the improbability of life forming. As far as habitable planets forming goes, the overwhelming number of planets that are estimated to be in the galaxy (never mind the whole universe!) begs the question of why we haven't encountered extraterrestrial life (the famous Fermi paradox). I don't know the probability of habitable planets forming around stars off the top of my head as I'm no astronomer, but it's something that I can confidently say that we have plenty of data on, such that we can make reasonable estimates. For instance, studies have produced estimates that in the galaxy there are 40 billion planets in the galaxy orbiting in the goldilocks zone (Source, and the peer reviewed article it's based on). That's only to give a rough picture of the kinds of numbers in play, as there's a lot of other factors involved. Also if you don't already know about it, you might want to look up the Urey-Miller experiment. It basically replicates the conditions that were thought to be present early in the earth's existence and finds that they produce organic molecules that could conceivably go on to form life. Although none of these form a complete picture and cannot definitively answer how life came about, the point is that there's actually a lot of research that's been done on the topic with a bunch of different theories to consider, so there's a lot more to it than just chalking it up as seeming unlikely.

Also agree with Rugi js
People misunderstand the Christian God's omnipotence, and that's why people use statements like the one bolded above to try and disprove him based on an illogical starting point.

First off, people don't understand that there are things God cannot do. As Numbers 23:19 says,“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” In this verse, it clearly tells us that God cannot lie or repent. Straight from the Bible. And this is where a lot of uninformed Christians begin to scratch their heads in wonder, but only because they misunderstand the omnipotence of God. The Bible does not describe God as the word "omnipotent", because the human word for omnipotence covers literally everything. Everything from being able to pick up mountains to stealing a million dollars in a millisecond to anything you could imagine. Totally all-powerful in every single way, good or bad, and that's not what God is. God cannot do anything that contradicts or goes back on His perfect nature. God can do anything that supports his nature and would not contradict His moral perfection or nature. God cannot do anything that would violate His own existence, nor can he do anything that could contradict his nature. Since God is omnipresent, He is infinite. Therefore, by any means, if a wall were to remain a wall (a finite object with a top and two sides) , God would be able to scale said wall. In the same case as trying to create a boulder so large that He could hypothetically not pick it up, it would have to be bigger than something infinite, and would no longer be a rock. A rock, by definition, and a wall, by definition, are not infinitely large, and therefore could not exist without breaking their nature of being a rock or a wall. We, as humans, cannot naturally transcend and overcome our own natures. For instance, I, myself cannot run faster than the speed of light. If I asked if there was hypothetically a speed of light so slow that I could outrun it, you'd think I was daft. If the speed of light were that slow, then it would no longer be the speed of light, and therefore, would be totally illogical. My ability to run is also confined to my nature, and I cannot ever outrun the speed of light; it would be a violation of my nature. God is the same way. He cannot do anything that would violate His good and perfect nature.

Therefore, the premise of a wall that is impossible to climb over is inherently illogical without the nature of a wall being totally changed. It would have to be larger than infinite, which is, well, impossible. God cannot perform something that's totally contradictory to His nature or anything that cannot be. Nothing is greater than God, in size, magnitude, perfection. God's nature is holy, perfect, and complete, and God cannot commit any sinful acts or do anything that would contradict His nature.

I'll stop right there because I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'm totally open to discussion on this, and other questions one may have about the nature of God or about the qualities of His nature.
 
Omnipotency is a bullshit concept that is innately paradoxical- can an omnipotent being create a wall that is impossible to climb over? If they can't then they're not omnipotent. If they can, then they cannot climb over said wall and are thus not omnipotent.
Since God is all powerful, then he can be not all powerful.
 

Tera Melos

Banned deucer.
I'm pretty Jewish, as in Jewish Holidays are incredible. I also get to celebrate Christmas, which is awesome.

So, even if there isn't a God or Gods, I appreciate the holidays they've provided us petty mortals with.
 
People misunderstand the Christian God's omnipotence, and that's why people use statements like the one bolded above to try and disprove him based on an illogical starting point.

First off, people don't understand that there are things God cannot do. As Numbers 23:19 says,“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” In this verse, it clearly tells us that God cannot lie or repent. Straight from the Bible. And this is where a lot of uninformed Christians begin to scratch their heads in wonder, but only because they misunderstand the omnipotence of God. The Bible does not describe God as the word "omnipotent", because the human word for omnipotence covers literally everything. Everything from being able to pick up mountains to stealing a million dollars in a millisecond to anything you could imagine. Totally all-powerful in every single way, good or bad, and that's not what God is. God cannot do anything that contradicts or goes back on His perfect nature. God can do anything that supports his nature and would not contradict His moral perfection or nature. God cannot do anything that would violate His own existence, nor can he do anything that could contradict his nature. Since God is omnipresent, He is infinite. Therefore, by any means, if a wall were to remain a wall (a finite object with a top and two sides) , God would be able to scale said wall. In the same case as trying to create a boulder so large that He could hypothetically not pick it up, it would have to be bigger than something infinite, and would no longer be a rock. A rock, by definition, and a wall, by definition, are not infinitely large, and therefore could not exist without breaking their nature of being a rock or a wall. We, as humans, cannot naturally transcend and overcome our own natures. For instance, I, myself cannot run faster than the speed of light. If I asked if there was hypothetically a speed of light so slow that I could outrun it, you'd think I was daft. If the speed of light were that slow, then it would no longer be the speed of light, and therefore, would be totally illogical. My ability to run is also confined to my nature, and I cannot ever outrun the speed of light; it would be a violation of my nature. God is the same way. He cannot do anything that would violate His good and perfect nature.

Therefore, the premise of a wall that is impossible to climb over is inherently illogical without the nature of a wall being totally changed. It would have to be larger than infinite, which is, well, impossible. God cannot perform something that's totally contradictory to His nature or anything that cannot be. Nothing is greater than God, in size, magnitude, perfection. God's nature is holy, perfect, and complete, and God cannot commit any sinful acts or do anything that would contradict His nature.

I'll stop right there because I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'm totally open to discussion on this, and other questions one may have about the nature of God or about the qualities of His nature.
Tbh I don't really care too much about the issue of omnipotence, but I wasn't trying to leverage the definition of omnipotence into an antitheistic proof as you seem to imply, merely stating that the concept of omnipotence that I was working with is nonsense. Based on the definition I used in my post I think we're in agreement on that point.

In any case, you make a number of assertions about the nature of god that I personally don't see as being very solid. Omnipresence and hence the idea that god would be infinite seem to me to be lacking in evidence. On what basis do you make these claims? The big one is the idea of perfection though. What does this even mean? I'd criticise it for lacking evidence as well, but it's so vague that it's frankly meaningless. Not to mention being exactly the kind of thing that can be used to commit all sorts of logical fallacies. There is one specific point that you mentioned: moral perfection. I'd actually claim the opposite, that the christian god lacks a moral compass, with the old testament being riddled with proclamations that by any reasonable standard are morally repugnant, and also recounting the god's various deeds such as wiping out almost every living thing on the planet and what essentially amounts to the usage of bioweapons on civilians (iirc), based on when the jewish slaves are freed from egypt and a plague is released into the egyptian populace (I think?). Even the new testament isn't spotless thanks to it basically enshrining the idea that humans are inherently sinful and need to repent, and failure to do so will result in an eternity of torture when they are judged on every action they commit by a being that is apparently omniscient. It all seems rather dystopic tbh. Anyway, it's obvious we have very different views on christianity so I don't expect you to agree with my depiction of it, but maybe you can at least see where I'm coming from *shrugs*
 
While I won't discount the possibility of there being some kind of god out there somewhere, if there is a god I don't think it has any interest whatsoever in humanity. I beleive this because after the Dunblane Massacre I prayed that nothing like that would ever happen again. Later that year: Port Arthur massacre. 3 years later: Collumbine massacre.

I'll believe in gods when I see one.
 
Pascal's Wager is silly. Surely an all knowing god would know that you were simply believing for reward/fear of punishment and not because you genuinely wanted to. It also assumes that it's a 50/50 thing when in reality there have been thousands of God's created by man over the centuries. Any one of those could be the one true god.

If I was god I would judge people based on how they lived their lives rather than if how much they worshipped me.
 

Don Honchkrorleone

Happy Qwilfish the nightmare
is a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
I do not believe in a god/God myself, but something interesting to think about is Pascal's Wager. It's an argument made by 17th-century Frenchman Blaise Pascal, and it states that it's better to believe in a god, just in case there is one. The god would obviously be angered if you don't worship it, and on the contrary nothing would really happen if you worship an inexisting god. A counterargument could be the waste of time and such. This was kinda not really what you asked but imo it sorta adds to the discussion and stuff so I'm just going to leave it here.
I forgot where in Augustine of Hippona (or Saint Augustine), prob City of God but I'm not sure, and either in Psalms or Proverbs or one of the gospels that kinda debunk the Pascalian thought. At least for the Abrahamic God, if you worship Him only because of fear of afterlife you're kind of an opportunistic dick, and God knows why people worship Him. That's why major theologians really despised the 70s influx of the so-called "Theology of Fear" and "Theology of Panic" represented mainly in USA by Estus Pirkle. The weirdest part is that Pascal was himself a Jansenist, which took most of Augustine's writings very seriously. There is a specific name for that concept but I don't recall rn its name. It's also really controversial topic, especially in Reformed and Neopentecostalian theology of soteriology (study of salvation), including on the behavior God wants from us.
 
I won't claim I know exactly what this person meant, but perhaps they referred to the way religion used to block major scientific or social advances (and still does to a lesser extent). Christianism is the main reason Europe did not significantly progress in scientific fields in medieval times (leading to a standstill for 500 to 1000 years before the Renaissance era), whereas admittedly islamic countries reached their peak at that time, researching crucial elements in astronomy, medecine and algebra.

That's how I interpret it at least.
Thoughts on the following?

"It is often argued that science and religion are enemies, because both seek the truth, yet each finds a different truth.

The fact is that science and religion are allies. Science is interested above all in power. Religion is interested above all in order. Together, they are a winning team.

Science is a very expensive affair, and it has managed to achieve wonders thanks only to the willingness of governments and businesses to channel billions into research and development. Governments and businesses have funded science not out of pure curiosity, but because they believe it can help them gain more power and attain some cherished goals. And who sets these goals? Not science – but religions and ideologies.

Our religious and ideological beliefs are the ultimate source of funding for science, and in return, they get to shape the scientific agenda and to determine what to do with the resulting discoveries."

http://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/

I know this doesn't really touch on what you said, but it's just something I'd like to hear your opinion on given that your statement was already challenged (plus you also sort of pointed out a contradiction in your own statement...). I think the bolded in particular is quite an interesting idea.

Even today, extremist religious groups (keyword "extremist") are still reactionary forces, seemingly trying to hold back humanity in darker times for the sake of religion. ISIS is the most blatant example, as they advocate a lifestyle that simply isn't in sync with the modern world's values, but extremist christian groups are often seen opposing social advances, such as gay marriage, multiculturalism, or abortion.
ISIS isn't a religion (and neither are extremist christian groups). I think I understand your point though.

In response, I'd like to ask you if it is your belief that a society free from religion is an ideal society then? Do you have any thoughts on countries/states that have/had atheism as their national doctrine? e.g. Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue, the USSR, North Korea, current China, or any of the countries listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism ?

I think my initial question remains unanswered. How exactly is religion holding back humanity? ISIS exists and yet we live in an era of unparalleled prosperity - I guess the argument would be that we are at this point in spite of religion and its efforts to keep us in the dark ages. But I'm not sure I'm really convinced by that.
 
Thoughts on the following?

"It is often argued that science and religion are enemies, because both seek the truth, yet each finds a different truth.

The fact is that science and religion are allies. Science is interested above all in power. Religion is interested above all in order. Together, they are a winning team.

Science is a very expensive affair, and it has managed to achieve wonders thanks only to the willingness of governments and businesses to channel billions into research and development. Governments and businesses have funded science not out of pure curiosity, but because they believe it can help them gain more power and attain some cherished goals. And who sets these goals? Not science – but religions and ideologies.

Our religious and ideological beliefs are the ultimate source of funding for science, and in return, they get to shape the scientific agenda and to determine what to do with the resulting discoveries."

http://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/

I know this doesn't really touch on what you said, but it's just something I'd like to hear your opinion on given that your statement was already challenged (plus you also sort of pointed out a contradiction in your own statement...). I think the bolded in particular is quite an interesting idea.



ISIS isn't a religion (and neither are extremist christian groups). I think I understand your point though.

In response, I'd like to ask you if it is your belief that a society free from religion is an ideal society then? Do you have any thoughts on countries/states that have/had atheism as their national doctrine? e.g. Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue, the USSR, North Korea, current China, or any of the countries listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism ?

I think my initial question remains unanswered. How exactly is religion holding back humanity? ISIS exists and yet we live in an era of unparalleled prosperity - I guess the argument would be that we are at this point in spite of religion and its efforts to keep us in the dark ages. But I'm not sure I'm really convinced by that.
One could argue that secular philosophy provides just as much of an ideological backbone for a society's goals and subsequently scientific funding. One could also argue that a sufficiently well ingrained secular philosophy is functionally similar to institutionalized religion. But yes, it's indisputable that the questions that religion attempts to answer are very important. If we as a whole were more self aware about the role of religion and our role in shaping its impact we might have a healthier community.

I guess your other question depends on what kind of prosperity you're talking about? Like sure we can have religion and coexist with science and science funding or economic prosperity or peace time or whatever, but I'd argue we have long cultural strides to make with this specific implementation of institutionalized religion holding us back.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top