A World Without Gods
As much as we’d like to pretend otherwise, and as much as the evidence seems to point otherwise, the key difference between atheists and theists is not intelligence, open-mindedness, or rationality (though these traits certainly help, I think, one adopt an atheist worldview) but whether or not the person’s concept of a living world requires a god.
As a nerd who reads, plays, and sees a lot of fiction and fantasy, rarely do I see authors create a world without a god or gods. Even those products of imagination that include no obvious gods, a god or gods is either assumed, or there is some supernatural being (or more).
Some examples: take worlds like those of Dungeons & Dragons, which have shaped fantasy forever. Always, there are creation and ruling gods. Then you have worlds like that of Star Wars, where the idea of a gods or god is still present in things like ‘the Force’.
Is the real problem, then, that theists are less rational and un-intelligent and less open-minded (not that I’m not of the opinion that the majority of them need to have their heads checked) but that they were born and raised into not just a family but a society and species that not only has difficulty imagining a world without gods but caring about such a world?
From birth, even if we aren’t indoctrinated with specific religious dogma, we’re nonetheless indoctrinated with general theist ideals. Widely spread theist concepts like souls, good and evil, variations on karma, spirits/ghosts, etc, permeate our society whether we like it our not. Sexist, racist, and theist language and society mold everyone’s minds. Is it any wonder that we have difficulty even imagining a godless world?
A theist will, of course, say, why is it that all societies imagine gods? Isn’t this just them trying to reach out to the one God, oh lord baby Jeebus! Praise Jeebus! These are, of course, the sorts who cannot conceive of a world without a god and so feel the need to explain every thing using their particular god. The atheist, on the other hand, will of course realize the evolutionary need to imagine gods and spirits and creation stories–and of course acknowledge that the first of these were not even the Jewish ones.
So, should we spreaders of disbelief really be working on changing minds through our beloved logic and reason? Will this ever work on a large scale? Or, would a better strategy be to help the alternative, godless worldview enter the minds of theists?
To explain my point, let’s imagine two scenarios, two chances for a theist to re-evaluate their beliefs. In the first scenario, the theist is trolling an atheist board, sacred book in hand, ready to toss out scripture. Any argument the atheist makes is met with, in the theist’s head, reminders that logic are just the devil’s tricks! In the other scenario, is the theist perhaps reading a book or watching a movie, which is perhaps a fantasy of some sort. While not at all a major or even noted feature of the story, it does present a positive image of a godless world–one where either the lack of gods is recognized, or gods are made up anyways. The situation is presented as anything but bleak, however. Instead of just good and evil, all of the characters are human and presented as their lives mattering. The theist has let a worldview enter their minds in a positive light while their shields are down.
Which do you think is more effective?
Maybe atheists need to lay down our weapons of logic and reason for a bit and focus on reaching out in other ways.
Interesting idea, and I think you are right that it would be more effective to appeal through storytelling and emotions, rather then reason. I certainly would like to live in a world as free from religion as possible, or at least one that doesn’t exist under a theocratic death-grip as it does now. But (and it’s a big but) more than simply an areligious society, I want a reasonable one, where people make informed decisions that positively impact their lives and their community. My main goal is a world where people are rational, not merely godless. While offering people a new narrative like you suggest will definitely do atheism a lot of good, it doesn’t do much for rationality.
What I mean to say is that I’d rather slowly chip away with logic and in the process show people what real reasoning capabilities look like, than deconvert en mass without improving critical thinking.
I’m not interested in persuading anyone. I just want to speak the truth and express my personal opinions.
I learned long ago I can’t persuade anyone of anything: The only person whom I can persuade is myself.
The two techniques could probably work together rather well. Maybe not for the theists who come to troll the comments sections of atheist blogs, but the (probably larger number of) people who are theistic almost as though by default, not really seeing nontheistic perspectives as viable alternatives. If a pre-existing negative image or an automatic dismissal of the possibility might make it more difficult to persuade by pure reason, presentations of a godless world as a positive one could poke some holes in that memetic defense.
I’m not sure I understand the will to convert people to atheism- It seems like another religion, to me. Of course, nobody has a right to force a religious belief, and this applies to a belief in no beliefs.
Religion doesn’t need to be trolling. Sure, occasionally christian idiots will wave around a bible and talk in tongues, but that’s not the sign of the religious, that’s the sign of an idiot.
Logic or reasoning cannot prove or disprove God. In fact, logic seems to point TO a God with all the near-impossibilities of mere existence, which even Hawking says “smacks of creationism”. This, of course, doesn’t justify some nutjob swinging a bible and telling you you’ll burn in hell unless you repent in Baby Jesus’s name and stop your sinful masturbation and homosexualities and critical thinking.
All in all, I think your statement is unfair and targets a demographic that intelligent religious folk frown upon anyway. Much like how true pro-life individuals frown on clinic-bombers.
I understand what you mean Wolf–however, opening someone’s mind and letting them see with another perspective is anything but converting. It’s simply giving people a chance to understand another worldview and be able to debate and talk with someone across the aisle where otherwise they would never be able to.
The Wolf,
“In fact, logic seems to point TO a God with all the near-impossibilities of mere existence, which even Hawking says “smacks of creationism”.”
So, because of the variables that had to align in order for life to come about, an intelligent being had to exist to put said variables into their proper place. And this being comes from what? That’s not a logical conclusion, it’s the start of an infinite regression that explains nothing. Occam’s razor suggests that rather than explain away a universe that was created by a god who has always just been there, we’d be better off just stopping at the universe.
“All in all, I think your statement is unfair and targets a demographic that intelligent religious folk frown upon anyway. Much like how true pro-life individuals frown on clinic-bombers.”
Just like so-called intelligent pro-life folk (I’ve never heard an intelligent argument against a woman’s right to choose, but that’s neither here nor there) are still dangerous through the legislation they push onto women without having to plant bombs, moderate religious people have a negative effect on society without threats of hell. Although their offenses are many, their worst may be the demand that their beliefs and ideas should be respected.
No ideas should be above intellectual attack and dissection (not mine and not yours and not the President’s or the Pope’s). We should tolerate ideas; we should never respect them.
I couldn’t agree more, spgreenlaw, about ideas. I think it was Pharyngula that made quite a stir when he proclaimed no ideas or beliefs should be held sacred and desecrated The God Delusion, the Bible, and the Q’uran (and some other things, can’t remember what). I agree with this sentiment: ideas are simply that, and should never be held religiously. No one has the right to have their ideas free from attack.
Yvette,
Yes! The Great Crackergate scandal. I was quite impressed that he thought to include the God Delusion with the “Body of Jesus” and the Koran. It was a nice touch that showed that PZ meant what he said, and that any notions he might hold are not above criticism.
Incidentally, I’m really liking your blog.
I loved that, too, and was amazed that anyone was offended by it!
And thanks :)
Why would you want to ’spread the word’ of atheism? Doesnt that put you at the exact same level as those who have a ‘theist death-grip’ on the world? Proselytizing a belief in non-belief is still ultimately proselytizing and certainly no better then saying ‘my religion is better then your religion’.
I simply dont see why it has to always be an ‘us or them’. Why cant the religious individuals and the non-religious individuals learn to respect their difference and stop trying to convert each other. Let those who feel a value in believing or not believing make up their own minds through their own choices and their own education. Ultimately that self-determination will be a far greater motivator in their life then the self-doubt that arises from being convinced that their belief is wrong.
It seems perfectly logical to assume that if an atheist movement ever becomes as strong or powerful as the religious movements that it too would fall to same sorts of fallacies of logic to maintain its own grip on society. Its the nature of power structures and people invested in ideas, no matter how logical their ideas are. If you disagree I would suggest researching the history of string theory as a major limiting factor to scientific progress for 40+ years. A theory that is unprovable has dominated theoretical science due to the very human nature of vested interest and the fact that many of the people granting PHDs had a vested interest in their own field of study. Even if it were determined to be correct, a logical and scientific power structure would have granted PHDs to many ideas that were counter to the idea of string theory when in fact it granted almost none. The same would occur if power structures were built around an atheist belief system. We are, after all, just human. Evolutionarily it makes perfect sense to have a negative reaction to wasted energy towards one ideal and by that factor it will ultimately arise in any system of power we create.
The real question that matters is this: Is belief in the ‘incorrect’ that inspires positive self determination less or more valuable then a realization of the ‘correct’ that causes debilitating self doubt? Ultimately what is more important a motivating world view or an accurate world view? And this question can be applied either way since neither belief or non-belief can be proven to be correct beyond a doubt.
sigh… the force != god
Anon:
You assume opening someone up to a worldview is the same as attempting to convert them. It isn’t. When atheists attempt to debate the existence, or rather the nonexistence of God, we are talking to a wall, because theists have an entirely different worldview and have generally never experienced ours, while we tend to have experienced theirs. So, then, isn’t it only fair to let them into our worldview as well? Just because we are debating with them or trying to get them to understand our side doesn’t mean we’re being militant–we’re just looking for understanding on their part.
Well the question I have is if there is no influence of a God or gods, then who is to say that positively affecting your community is the right way to do something? Wouldn’t the most common thing to do is to act completely on your impulses and satisfying your own desires? I believe that is what I would do in a society which is affected by no higher authority.
M.A.:
That is sad, quite frankly. For Christians to toot their own horn so often about being ‘moral’, but to only be so thinking there is a God, shows a lack of real character.
As an atheist, I don’t need fear of a God to keep me from hurting my fellow being, or to give me a sense of right and wrong and want the world to change for the better. Morality is a product of evolution, but that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. Helping others is either always right and good or you simply see no value in it beyond getting to a certain place after you die.
There is a documentary call “Jesus Camp” that i recommend you watch, everyone in that documentary claims that all other religions are wrong, since they got it right and will not reason otherwise. Honestly, how ignorant must you be to accept something like that?
Also, whats all of this about christians getting upset over atheist billboards? why cant we atheist have our own billboards? a terribly terribly close minded group they are.
Actually, I’ve seen it. ;)
While I agree that in general, religious types are like that, let’s remember that not all are that way and there is a significant number that are intelligent, educated and open-minded. They’re not the majority of theists, though.
Raised as a Catholic I am now a atheist by reason of education and deductive reasoning. However, I am not going to waste my time trying to debate the religious. For the most part the ideas religions espouse are the ideas I like and want to live with. In other words their “overall concepts” are good. Don’t kill (unnecessarily), don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t take anothers spouse (it keeps the murder rate down). The problem with them is that they hold themselves to be head and shoulders above any other religion, and when they espouse killing a rival religious member, and because of religion they go astray. This is when we need to speak up, not beforehand.
The commonality shared by Theists and atheists is “iest.”
Oh, and faith. Faith in a greater power or faith in humanity.
But faith.
Now, if you want to read a humorous satire about the real, right wing wackos take on Obama, check out:
http://andeeroo.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/do-zipcodes-birthrates-eggs-and-butter-mathematically-reveal-the-anti-christ/
Lmao. Thanks for the link andeeroo.
I like how you’re just as zealous towards your sacred atheism as christians are toward their Jebus. “I’m just trying to open their eyes to the light, so they may be saved!” doesn’t sound like something else to you? You’re not sensing a connection here? Remember, they think they’re just as right as you think you’re right. The problem isn’t the belief, it’s the zealous belief that only ONE way is right and must be right, on either extreme.
As for Spgreenlaw’s ad hominems agains the pro-life, the sensible arguments stem from biological fact, that the fetus is a separate human life. It’s not taking away a woman’s right to “choose”, as choice is a very good thing that encompasses a vast array of decisions, such as what to have for breakfast or what color to wear or what hair style to have. It’s removing the right to destroy a biologically individual life consensually created. It is no more an invasion of rights or privacy than laws against murder or theft, laws which also hinder otherwise viable decisions a human could make.
No Wolf, I don’t see a connection: maybe it’s because all I want to do is show a different worldview is possible and alright, instead of ’saving your soul from hell’. If you don’t see the difference, I can’t help you.
Atheists debating with theists encounter a huge problem: theists just can’t see the world without a god or gods. And atheists, most atheists, have already seen it that way, but now see it without any. It’s near impossible to reach across the aisle and use logic and reason to debate someone when they simply can’t understand your worldview.
Further, atheists are the most hated people in the U.S.! How can you begrudge us wanting to share our worldview so we’re hated a bit less? That’s just cruel.
The Wolf,
Heard it before. I see nothing special about a human life without any self awareness or experiences of its own, which is all a fetus is. Life itself has no inherit meaning except that which we bring to it. A fetus, unthinking as it is, brings nothing to it’s life. Read Peter Singer, then get back to me, as I’m in no mood to have an argument with someone who uses such silly arguments.
I used to be Christian, not too long ago in fact. I had a couple of atheist friends (one of which I may have converted to Christianity, oops!). They weren’t the logical/rational/intelligent types, but both of them came from strict unloving families, and I figured they just didn’t sense the presence of God. I never heard any logical arguments from them. My whole life though, I couldn’t reconcile what the bible states with, ya know, facts/science, or with my idea that God was both benevolent and omnipotent.
Questions like “Why did some babies/kids die of starvation?”, or “Why would God murder people?” (Noah’s flood, Sodom & Gamorrah, Moses’s plagues), etc. drove me crazy. I came to reject the bible long before I became atheist. I just figured it was written by flawed human beings, and wasn’t really the word of the God I knew and loved.
Questions about why there were so many other religions in the world also bothered me — especially if the main way to get into heaven is to pick the right one. I started looking for information for myself so that I could try to find something that showed me that mine was right. I read a lot about lots of different religions, but nothing to satisfactorily show one was better than any other. Inevitably, I also wanted to see why some people didn’t believe at all. Well I am the type of person who accepts whatever conclusion to which logic/reason/facts leads. The atheist arguments were valid and based on facts. The religious arguments were based on hopes and dreams, and most of all faith. Faith is accepting something even without having the evidence to back it up. I am very uncomfortable with that idea. This is why I became atheist.
That is why I think that logical arguments can work, but not on everyone. My mom is a born again Christian – speaks in tongues and all that. She is not going to change her mind for anything, ever. Not that I try – I only talk about it when she tries to bring me back to Christianity. She is more emotional than logical. I think a lot of people are like that, and a different approach would probably be needed for them to change their minds.
The Wolf said that you are just as zealous towards atheism as christians are towards Jebus, but I disagree – or maybe I just see it as two different things altogether. You and other atheists, such as myself, base our knowledge on facts, and since religion is not based in fact, we reject it. Religious people make a claim and we reject it. We are not making our own claim here. We are just saying that the facts disprove their religion. It may not disprove there is a god 100%, but certainly we can pick out religious claims that are supposed to be the word of god and show that they are false. We also have this thing called science, which shows no sign of supernatural forces in our world. This leads us to the comfortable conclusion, logically and backed by facts, that there is almost certainly no god.
This is very different from making supernatural claims without evidence, as do religious people. We are looking at reality the best way we can understand it. They are making up their own reality. As I said before, atheists merely reject their claims. The central atheist argument that evidence does not support the existence of God is not the same type of claim that religious people make. There is absolutely no faith required in atheism. In fact atheism is lack of faith in religious claims.
Also, I am pro-choice. I would remind the wolf that spontaneous abortions occur on their own all of the time. The cluster of cells may be a separate life early in pregnancy, but does it feel? does it think? does it suffer? does it make sense to force a woman to raise a child she does not want? Nobody likes abortion. I have three kids and love them very much. But a woman’s right to choose is very important. She is already a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, suffering human being. The little cluster of cells is merely the potential to become so. The millions of sperm hanging around in my sack right now, and the eggs in my wife’s ovaries also have the potential to combine and create millions of new babies, but it’s not going to happen. Who says that when these cells join together and start dividing, that right at that moment, they are already ‘human’? Not me. While abortion doesn’t give us warm and fuzzy feelings, I think that a woman’s right to choose is essential. We all have to do our best to make our way through this life we find ourselves in, and sometimes we have to make tough choices. That is life.
FYI I was posting replies here as ‘Joe’, but I post everywhere else as ‘Noxidereus’, so I will do so here from now on too.
Glad to see you Joe/Nox.
I agree. There’s a definite difference between trying to convert someone to a religion, and trying to show a godless mindset. I think we really need more of this, if we ever want to be accepted in the national community.
An atheists CAN see a world WITH gods? How are you any different? You’re still pushing a viewpoint, wether it’s for hopeful eternity or hopeful nothingness. THEY think they have facts, just like YOU do. Can’t you see that you’re just trading Gods? One preacher wears black, one wears white. God proves nothing about science, and science can not and will not say anything about God.
Let me make my position clear- I don’t want to suppress views on religion or God. I also don’t want people going around trying to convert the poor idiots on the other side. This goes for you, and for christians, and muslims and nihilists and atonists and buddhists.
Tell me this- What “Science” do you use to prove God wrong? Science does one thing and one thing only- It explains how things work. How these things came to exist, wether a creator set them up invisibly, wether it happened by pure chance, is not up to the realm of science, it is something science can not answer and does not TRY to answer.
Spontaneous abortion is a fetal car crash. An abortion is a fetal execution. I hope I have the liberty of making a metaphor without being misread. The point is, one is accidental, the other is an intentional killing. There’s a difference. And no, sperm and egg are not humans. Try biology. A human is formed, and life begins, when the cells in an egg are fertilized and begin to divide. Not a second before, and not a second after. Genetically, biologically, and scientifically speaking, it is a separate human life.
Tough choices do not include killing other human beings, unless it’s a life-or-death situation. Awareness is irrelevant as well. Are you aware when sleeping? Does this give legal right to kill those in comas, or those who are asleep, or those who are mentally retarded and unaware? Considering that their humanity is apparently void if they can’t feel their death, I don’t see why not.
The wolf,
I am aware before I go to sleep, had plans and dreams and goals that I hoped to fulfill when I wake up. I have a concept of the future and I feel and act as if I will have a place in it. The same thing goes for those in a coma. A fetus has never had anything close to that and has no interest in it’s own survival. I never said their humanity was void. They are human. They are just not persons.
You keep bringing up humanity as if being part of a certain species is a magical right to life card, no matter what. What’s so special about humans? Personally, I care more about an adult pig then a human fetus. Pigs actually feel, think, and experience. A fetus, of any species, does no such thing.
Ah, one of the great laws of the internet: it always turns into abortion and buttsecks.
Wolf: I’ll ask you to calm down, please. I have no problem with debating you, but please do so calmly.
Yes, Wolf, most atheists have been theists already, and have already lived experiencing that worldview. Most theists, however, have only ever experienced a worldview that doesn’t include gods when they were very, very young.
There simply isn’t anything that remotely speaks of ‘pushing our viewpoints on others’ by debating or my own idea. The theistic worldview is a part of everything in our society, from movies to books to culture. Why is it any different for atheists, then, to present our worldview, when most theists can’t understand it? Further, isn’t this /good/ for the theist, if they really care about the truth and not just their own worldview? If they do care about what’s true, they would have no problem seeing another worldview, instead of forcing it out whenever they get a chance.
Science does have a factor in reasonably coming to the conclusion that God does not exist, by the way. It proves nothing, but since the claimants, theists, and God ‘himself’ prove nothing, there is simply no reason to believe there is a God. Science also tells us that matter cannot be created, that many things in holy books (especially the Bible) are simply impossible (within a reasonable probability: while of course nothing is impossible, let’s not be silly and pretend snakes can talk or that any other number of scientific impossibilities in the Bible can happen).
That’s not relevant. Your hopes and dreams are potentials, and even then, they’re dust in the wind. Black humans and women humans were not people at one time, too.
Because you can’t label Theism or Atheism as true or false- They are impossible to know. Truth, in this case, is up to the individual.
Firstly, many things in the bible are metaphoric, and are not meant to be taken literally. If you have ever practiced Alchemy, you will soon find that things that are hard to explain with plain words are shown with metaphor, simile and allusion. Secondly, I don’t go by the bible, I go by science. The sheer chance of the existence of time and space is next to impossible, let alone the other next-to-impossibilities science has shown us time and time again. This massive interwoven web of perfect chance existence is my evidence of God, as much as it is your evidence against. God is not the sweet baby jesus in a manger with sheep and a halo and a gilded cross and talking in tongues. God is simply the force behind the improbability.
Facts aren’t subjective, sorry to say. Opinions, of course, aren’t right or wrong, but at the end of the day, we could all be wrong, all be right, or one of us be right and wrong. That doesn’t mean theists should get to skip by and not see our worldview when we have theirs shoved down our throats simply by existing in a theistic society.
You have freedom to believe what you want. They have freedom to believe what they want. The issue isn’t that the world is centered on christianity, it’s that a few christians are zealots. Returning the zealousness in an equal and opposite direction won’t solve anything. Science will help neither side, scripture will help neither side. The only evidence we can give must be to ourselves to justify our own positions. I’m not going to try and convert you to christianity or islam or buddhism, you can do what you want. If you’re lucky and there is a God, and you’re lucky twice and it’s a kind God who cares about your actions rather than who you bow down to, we can laugh about this when we get to the afterlife. I’m hoping this is the case.
The Wolf,
The utilitarian requirement for personhood is that one is self aware. Women and minorities are self aware, thus they have are persons, what some chose to believe hardly matters in light of the truth.
I will repeat myself: our lives are valuable only because of our subjective experiences, and the experiences of others. Embryos do not value themselves. Now, short of you proving that a human life is innately worth saving, I can’t see this conversation moving forward. Do you actually have any reasons that I should believe that human life is inherently worthwhile? The onus is on you.
The Wolf,
I know that science does not have all of the answers, but that is not evidence of god. Using god as an explanation for things which science does not yet answer fully is invalid. Gaps in scientific knowledgs will continue to be filled in, leaving less and less room for the god of the gaps.
Also, I do believe that you are aware when you are sleeping. I do not advocate killing sleeping people. That is not the same thing. Perhaps if you believe in souls you would give special privelege to humans over other animals, or you would say that a baby is more than just a fertilized egg at conception. You would also conclude that awareness is irrelevant. I do not believe in souls, but I do value life – it’s not like I think abortion is great.
The reason why I am pro-choice (and always have been, even when I was Christian) is because it is not up to me to dictate to all women what their choices should be in this matter. I understand that bringing a child into this world is a major life change. I understand that some women can’t afford it, risk their lives, risk their futures (for example if they are too young), get raped, etc. There are a multitude of potential complications. Some women don’t want a child, or have to give birth. Why should we force someone to bring an unwanted child into this world, seriously degrading the quality of life for the mother and for the baby? I don’t think we should.
Firstly, I wasn’t arguing that science doesn’t have all the answers. I was arguing that science answers different questions. Trying to explain God with science is like trying to explain colors with sound. The questions science answer are in a different realm entirely, so “science” cannot be a disproof, or a proof, of God.
Secondly, it’s still a human life. Human life is human life- black or white, male or female, elderly or fetal. Are fetal lives special? No. This is exactly why they should not be slain by the millions for the mistakes of someone else.
The Wolf,
Sigh. That’s a rather absolutist position to take. An embryo is unthinking, unknowing, unimportant human life that has no interest in it’s own survival because it doesn’t even know it exists. It is parasitically dwelling in the body of another human, one who actually values her own life, and nobody has the right to tell another what to do with their own body. I have an incredibly hard time caring about something as sentient as a skin cell (which is human life too) when it tramples over the choices of an actual person. Fetal lives are not special. The lives of persons are. Lost fetal lives are not worth caring about since they don’t even care about themselves. The lives of persons are, because they do.
One more time, why the absolutist defense of all human life, with no regard for any other quality? Why not all life? After this conversation I’ll be surprised to find out that you eat meat, or support industries that directly result in the death of animals. Or trees. You’d best not swat at flies. It’s life!
Wow, this certainly is an active thread.
I’ll throw my two cents in on abortion:
I *hate* abortion. I’d never do it myself and I’d encourage everyone to really think it through. However:
-the world is already overpopulated as it is. I firmly think that, especially after the recent environmental report, bringing more children into the world may be crueler than abortion.
-abortions happen whether we like them or not. When they were illegal, however, wealthy women got safe abortions and less fortunate women will try to give themselves or receive alley abortions. This is extremely dangerous, and risking the life of the mother to save a few cells is wrong.
-souls *don’t* exist, as far as I can tell. Logically, they can’t. See my post ‘Suspicion of a Soul’ for my explanation why. This doesn’t mean life isn’t precious: it makes it all the more so, and means we should recognize that souls simply don’t spring out of nowhere and make life valuable, but rather that conscious life is what is most valuable. Further, if we really value life, allowing a mother or family to wait until they are ready to dedicate themselves to a new life seems best.
-and of course, all the usual arguments.
Wolf,
Please don’t be upset. I am enjoying this conversation with you. :)
Science most certainly can make a stab and make some interesting discoveries weakening belief in a god. What reason is there to believe that there is some supernatural, untouchable realm in which he exists?
Science *has* made progress in showing how common beliefs and ‘experiences’ our society associates with a god are simply products of our brain, and have advantages, like the god gene, and recently scientists have been able to find and trigger a spot in the brain that makes you have a spiritual experience. This seriously weakens the claim of those who have had spiritual experiences and say it’s proof of god.
As we move forward in science, we *may* be able to prove god’s nonexistence–or maybe we’ll find there really is a god.
But through use of the scientific idea of proving something before you believe it’s true, no rational person should believe in a god.
That was a bit of a ramble, something.
“The sheer chance of the existence of time and space is next to impossible”
So very very very wrong, you can’t say that time and space are next to impossible. You talk as if you knew what the statistical odds of the universe popping up are, as far as we know, those odds are 100%
After all the universe does exist and no one as never witnessed an non happening universe.
More, we don’t know how things work outside our universe, as such we have no way of knowing how often an universe is born or under what condition. For all we know it happense every 10 seconds.
If you are refering to the odds of life appearing, I’d forward you to take classes in astronomy and statistics. Given the number of stars in one galaxy and the number of galaxy in the universe (at least part of the universe we can see) the odds of a planet forming around a star at just the right position are quite good. And that’s when we only take into account the life form we are familliar with, those on earth.
Life could have evolved in a very different form elsewhere.
If your belief in god is based on this, I’m sorry to say that you are drawing a wrong conclusion. Statistics can explain this without any need for god.
Life needs to have value somewhere. I think the creation of the life is it. If it’s understanding, toddlers and alzheimer patients, along with the mentally handicapped, are also not “people”. The line must be drawn somewhere. I draw it right at the beginning- Bright as day, clear as crystal, the biological start of life is the start of life. This is on top of the fact that pregnancy is not a random malignancy, it is very, very easy to avoid pregnancy in the first place.
Science, though, can not prove anything about God, either for or against. It simply doesn’t ask the right questions, because the right questions are unaskable by scientific standards. There can be NOTHING asked to prove or disprove God, ever, by scientific methods.
According to Hawking, had the universe expanded at a millionth or so of a degree faster or slower during the big bang, it would have either spread too far to form stars, or it would have collapsed back on itself. I’d say that’s a pretty hardcore coincidence that we happened to hit the sweet spot. Especially considering that singularities, being outside of time, can’t exactly go about altering themselves or exploding. An object at rest and all that. It’s not just that life exists on earth, but that MATTER ITSELF exists- That alone didn’t even need to happen. Let alone matter that could be in several phases, let alone matter that could interact, let alone matter that could exert gravity and magnetism, let alone.. And again, this proves nothing. but, as I have just shown, it also doesn’t disprove anything either.
That, and I enjoy sacred geometry. It doesn’t prove anything, it’s just cool.
Anyway, back to the point, as show, the most science can do to me is make me say “Wow, that was a pretty clever set-up. Great job.”
I’m curious, Wolf: why, then, aren’t sperm and eggs considered lives worth saving?
Your take on the chances of life being created are all wrong: with the addition of multiple universes (as is apparently very possible–will have to get my science geek on here for that, though) and the vastness of the universe, it’s not so strange that life was created as there are so many chances for it to have done so. We know very little about the Big Bang: it’s possible it’s happened many times and that we’re one of millions of civilizations that have sprung up after a Big Bang only to eventually die out in the process. There’s just so much we don’t know–saying a God did it seems like an odd way of answering the question. Why not look at the evidence, then form a conclusion, instead of the other way around?
Also, I’d invite you to read a post of mine: “Suspicion of a Soul”. I’ve come to the conclusion that souls don’t exist, thanks to what modern science shows us and logic, and this in itself is the best evidence for the non-existence of God as we know it.
Again wolf, it doesn’t prove anything, hawking might be a genius but even him has to admit that he has no idea how things works outside our universe, as such saying the odds where against matter existing doesn’t make sense since no one has all the parameters to make such a claim.
You’re saying in the same paragraph that science doesn’t and won’t answer question about science and then goes on to say that you base your faith because of science
See the contradiction ?
Sperm and eggs are not humans- They can not, and never will grow or divide or gain consciousness alone. Life starts when a fertilized egg begins to divide- This contains all the genetic material for a biologically individual human. This is why skin cells are not sacred, this is why eyelashes and sperm and toenails aren’t sacred- They are not only part of the same being, but they will also never divide or create a different thinking being, at least not alone.
And no, my argument is not that “science can prove God but can’t disprove God”- My logic and reasoning does not present any proof, just evidence that I see. It’s not that life exists, it’s that even matter and laws of physics exist- It didn’t need to, remember. There could be no such thing as gravity, or magnetism, or mass, or time or reactive chemicals.
I think you’re missing my point a little bit here, berior, I’m not using science to argue for definitive proof of God, I’m using i as an example- Science can’t disprove it because all it does is present facts. And facts can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. My interpretation is that God is very clever and likes to mess with intricate, multi-layered systems.
Wolf, you’re creating lines that aren’t there: sperm and eggs can’t create life alone, but neither can a fetus. Stem cells, and cells scraped from the skin or inside the cheek, can be used to clone. Our individual cells ARE alive, and they work to keep us alive. The lines you’re using to define what is alive and what is not are extremely blurry. All I ask is you recognize this.
A fetus IS the new life, by the very scientific definition you should love!
Here are the criteria.
Is it dividing?
Does it have a complete set of separate DNA?
Is it of the human species?
If so, that makes it a human being. I will not recognize that it is blurry, it is as clear as any line you will find.
YOUR definition is the blurry one, it relies on something as shifty as consciousness- When does that kick in? At 6 months in the womb, feti can hear and touch- Of course, they have no language to express it, but they do react to stimuli.
At 6 months out of the womb? A baby will look around, but still won’t be able to form words. Two years old? Exactly at birth?
No, my clean-cut biological definition is clear as crystal, especially compared to yours.
And why does dividing cells suddenly make something as living as the host it lives on?
What about clones? They don’t have a complete separate set of DNA. Are they not considered life?
What about cancer cells? They, too, are dividing and of the human species, but no separate DNA. What is the difference, to you? Why can we destroy cancer cells but killing a clone would be cruel?
Furthermore, what is the reason we use to justify killing animals? They aren’t conscious. What, then, if a cow were fully conscious just as we are and we could prove it? Would it still be justifiable to kill it?
The lines are blurrier than you’d like to pretend. Your criteria are by no means correct or certain.
Because cell division is life. The ability to divide and reproduce. Ask a biologist when life begins. They will NOT tell you that it’s at birth.
They will have separate DNA from the being they are in, unless the DNA was taken directly from the mother, in which case I still say that it is a separate being, since the same DNA would continue well past birth. This would also make defining twins difficult, if we’re determining people only by DNA.
Cancer cells will not ever divide into a conscious human. It is not of the human species.
As for animals, we eat the meat to survive. We do not NEED to eat meat, all of us, but it is a major source of our food. When we come to a point where we can produce enough fruit to make meat obsolete, I will stand against meat as well. I am already against factory-raised meat for the cruelty involved.
The lines are the criteria used by science and biology. Yours are the lines granted by the law, which has, in the past, excluded many born humans from the personhood list.
Just heading off but Wolf: THANK YOU for using science instead of things like religion to make your case. Will get back to this later.
Taking a life is no big deal, we do it all the time even inconsciously, there is nothing special about life. The issue should not be wether a fetus is a new life, of course it is, but life is too broad a term to be used to make a conclusive argument.
Now, a human life, that’s somewhat different, but we aren’t discussing science anymore but are encroaching into the subject of phylosophy.
Does an unborn baby not having yet developped a nervous system complex enough to start experiencing anything conclusive (no dreams for exemple) is considered a person ?
We can’t discuss this issue from a purely scientific point of view for a simple reason, abortion happens all the time in nature, that is a fact that can’t be denied, misscariage happen, and even later, some species eat their own youngs.
The issue is a philosophical one.
The question is, should women be allowed to chose an abortion ?
If yes under what circumstances ?
Personaly, I think people should have the choice, I also think religion has no place in the debate. If someone doesn’t want an abortion because of their religion it’s fine, but forcing everyone else, especially those of another religion or with no religion to do like them isn’t showing a separation of state and religion.
Last I checked, those two things weren’t allowed to meddle.
I’m not saying I encourage peoples to get abortion, it’s not a trivial thing, I would only advise it if it was the best possible solution for everyone (in a case of health problem for exemple)
I agree with Berior’s last post (1/5 12:06pm). I agree with wolf that life begins at conception, but I don’t know when the fetus comes to a point when it ‘feels alive’. I understand how someone can be opposed to abortion based on the wolf’s reasoning and I don’t like abortion. I agree with Berior that people should have the choice. I don’t think it’s right to push this pro-life idealism into law and make other peoples’ lives harder.
I think there is no one “point” of life- As mentioned, a newborn, or even toddler, has very little in the way of what we consider thought. I feel this is likely because they have no language to express, even in their minds, what they feel, know or understand. This is a process that takes years, and starts in the womb. There is no defined “consciousness” line, and can not really be one. So, for me, when the life starts, it’s a human life. Cut and dry.