Chinahand Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I have to say I am enjoying this thread. I'm interested in what Woolley is saying, though I don't necessarily agree with it, and I'd like to understand it better. For me religions are very complex things - they contain folk knowledge, wisdom, community, and through these and other things can very much be a social good. They also can have a darker side and they quite definitely do contain nonsense. The 1st chapter of Genesis is nonsense. But the real complicated part of religions is that you can take this nonsense and still contort it to wisdom. Just as with poetry you can gain insights from thinking about Genesis. I think it would be niave to deny that - but a far greater niavety is to claim these words are the inerrant revelation of a Bronze age God. Anyway I recently read these comments on E.O. Wilson's new book and thought they fitted in with this debate. What do you think? In his latest book, E.O. Wilson, distinguished biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, addresses "the human condition," that is, the framework around the timeless questions of: What are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? He writes: "Religion will never solve this great riddle. Since Paleolithic times each tribe -- of which there have been countless thousands -- invented its own creation myth [revolving around] God, a tribe of Gods, a divine family, the Great Spirit, the Sun, ghosts of the forbears, supreme serpents, hybrids of sundry animals, chimeras of men and beasts, omnipotent sky spiders -- anything and everything that could be conjured by the dreams, hallucinogens, and fertile imaginations of the spiritual leaders." These creation myths were important to the cohesiveness of the tribes and therefore aided the survival of the group and the individuals comprising it. In that sense, in prescientific eras, the veracity of the creation stories, or lack of it, was irrelevant. However, in a scientific age of fossil records, DNA, genomes and genetic engineering, there is a higher standard for evidence and truth. Wilson writes, "Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and the chaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology. We thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Ahh. But we don't see things as they truly are, only as we perceive them to be within our own very strict limitations. Our brains and eyes function in the particular way that we see 3 dimensions and perceive a 4th (time) in a restricted way. It is now thought likely that there are at least 11 dimensions including 8 that we are totally oblivious to although we exist within them. There are many things in nature that exist but are undetectable to us. Some have been theorised but many more will be beyond the wildest dreams of our greatest brains. I would not therefore use our inability to detect something as a good reason for its non-existence. That would be just another conceit of man who is not all he cracks himself up to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I think both Chinahand and Woolley have made some very good points. Personally, I take the view that Gods have been created by people to help them make sense of the world and to provide some rules of societal conduct to ensure a cohesion in society. I see religion as something which serves (or should serve) the best interests of people and not as something for people to serve. My own Agnosticism is based our undoubted ignorance - to use Rumfeldspeak, there are a huge number of Unknown Unknowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I would not therefore use our inability to detect something as a good reason for its non-existence. Where do you end with that? In a universe filled with infinite possibilities you really do have to make a judgement call from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I would not therefore use our inability to detect something as a good reason for its non-existence. Where do you end with that? In a universe filled with infinite possibilities you really do have to make a judgement call from time to time. Not on things like "Is there a god?" You really don't need to know do you? If you believe, then you have faith and know all you need to know anyway. If you don't then you are happy with that too. Isn't it fascinating (if frustrating) that the universe is full of infinite possibilities that we do not understand? Very humbling indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I would not therefore use our inability to detect something as a good reason for its non-existence. Where do you end with that? In a universe filled with infinite possibilities you really do have to make a judgement call from time to time. Not on things like "Is there a god?" You really don't need to know do you? If you believe, then you have faith and know all you need to know anyway. If you don't then you are happy with that too. Isn't it fascinating (if frustrating) that the universe is full of infinite possibilities that we do not understand? Very humbling indeed. But once the concept of god or creator is brought into the 'equation', it ultimately narrows those infinite possibilities. Putting the awe and wonderment out there down to some all-seeing and omnipotent deity stops the progression of ideas. I personally have no problem in denying the existence of god(s). For me, i KNOW there is no god(s), full stop. I also believe that in say, 500 years if not sooner, mankind may look back on its 'religious past' with a sense of mild-amusement, if not embarrassment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Not on things like "Is there a god?" You really don't need to know do you? If you believe, then you have faith and know all you need to know anyway. If you don't then you are happy with that too. Isn't it fascinating (if frustrating) that the universe is full of infinite possibilities that we do not understand? Very humbling indeed. We very much do have to make a judgement call, as it can fundamentally influence how you live your life. Religions are responsible for defining the most important aspects, so yes, I really do need to know. I've looked at the evidence, looked at the blatantly made up bullshit and the result is I'm an atheist. I have no belief in god. I don't agree with your 'absolute certainty' definition. Nothing can be proved with absolute certainty, so it's silly to apply it to the existence of a deity. I'm not stupid, if god appeared before me and gave me a pie, I'd change that view. That doesn't make me agnostic either. The overweening lack of evidence is enough for me to not be agnostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [The overweening lack of evidence is enough for me to not be agnostic. Slim, I think that Quilp and yourself are making an error in thinking that the evidence and knowledge currently available is all there is - there may be evidence of which we are presently unaware but may become aware of in the future. Surely, given that possibility, the only rational conclusion is not Atheism but Agnosticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Slim, I think that Quilp and yourself are making an error in thinking that the evidence and knowledge currently available is all there is - there may be evidence of which we are presently unaware but may become aware of in the future. Surely, given that possibility, the only rational conclusion is not Atheism but Agnosticism? Like I said earlier, it depends on your definition, but if I define Atheism as an absence of belief in a deity then I can quite happily be both an Agnostic and an Atheist. And if the language needs to be any clearer, I'm also a 'non believer' in any kind of religion. I think that makes my position known I broadly agree with Dawkins stance in the God Delusion where he describes levels of athiesm and admits you can't be 100% sure, I think he ended up with something like 6.9/7 sure there wasn't a god. I'm not sure what pro-faith types get out of the hair splitting. Is 'there is no god' vs 'there is very probably no god' really an important distinction to make compared to 'there is a god, you're made in his image and if you do naughty things you'll be punished for eternity'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [The overweening lack of evidence is enough for me to not be agnostic. Slim, I think that Quilp and yourself are making an error in thinking that the evidence and knowledge currently available is all there is - there may be evidence of which we are presently unaware but may become aware of in the future. Surely, given that possibility, the only rational conclusion is not Atheism but Agnosticism? Nah, not for me. I am vehement in my dis-belief and will NEVER be shaken or decide that fence-sitting is the safest option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 As long as it wasn't a Gregg's pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [The overweening lack of evidence is enough for me to not be agnostic. Slim, I think that Quilp and yourself are making an error in thinking that the evidence and knowledge currently available is all there is - there may be evidence of which we are presently unaware but may become aware of in the future. Surely, given that possibility, the only rational conclusion is not Atheism but Agnosticism? Nah, not for me. I am vehement in my dis-belief and will NEVER be shaken or decide that fence-sitting is the safest option. Ahhh. A fundamentalist atheist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nah, not for me. I am vehement in my dis-belief and will NEVER be shaken or decide that fence-sitting is the safest option. Yes, that's also my problem with most of the people happy to call themselves agnostic. They see it as open minded. I see it as not committing and dodging the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [The overweening lack of evidence is enough for me to not be agnostic. Slim, I think that Quilp and yourself are making an error in thinking that the evidence and knowledge currently available is all there is - there may be evidence of which we are presently unaware but may become aware of in the future. Surely, given that possibility, the only rational conclusion is not Atheism but Agnosticism? Nah, not for me. I am vehement in my dis-belief and will NEVER be shaken or decide that fence-sitting is the safest option. Ahhh. A fundamentalist atheist! At times, i've been described as almost 'evangelical' in my atheism but the passage of time has softened my previously scathing attitude to religionists. I've learned to respect the need for belief, in others. Saying that, i am hardening against islam, for a variety of reasons, but mainly because i regard it as a subliminal and dangerous ideology and due to the increasing demographic of muslims around the globe. Not that i wish to get into a discussion about islam, it's pity it's not waslam.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 As long as it wasn't a Gregg's pie. I think god would stretch to a Fray Bentos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.