Is religiousity a matter of aesthetics?

[Leafless]

My whole point is that you (and many other people) take aspects of science for granted truths. Thus, your faith in "science & logic" as as you put it, is no more logical than being a part of a different organized religion. However, it might be easier and less demanding upon you.

How right you are Charles.

Evolution dictates we have evolved from the amoeba stage.

Since as far as we know, no other life exist on any other planet, so a comparison cannot be made as to what we actually are.

So according to evolution we are a pile of evolved amoeba in constant battle with viruses for survival in fact feeding of one form or another for survival.

If in fact we can detect no other life in the universe, thus a sterile environment, we can assume we are nothing but contamination in a sterile universe.

Religion sounds a lot more logical.

[Electric Monk]

Evolution in a nutshell:

- mutations happen and are transfered to offspring

- therefore, offspring DO NOT have to be exact matches of parents

- new mutations can be maintained and repeated in 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation offspring

- enough mutations can make future offspring NOT ABLE to reproduce with original non-mutated lineage

- therefore, new "species" can develop

You are confusing speciation with evolution, speciation is a result of evolution, just as evolution is a result of mutation.

(Edit:gc1765 beat me to it.)

[Electric Monk]

How right you are Charles.

Evolution dictates we have evolved from the amoeba stage.

Since as far as we know, no other life exist on any other planet, so a comparison cannot be made as to what we actually are.

So according to evolution we are a pile of evolved amoeba in constant battle with viruses for survival in fact feeding of one form or another for survival.

If in fact we can detect no other life in the universe, thus a sterile environment, we can assume we are nothing but contamination in a sterile universe.

Religion sounds a lot more logical.

Considering the OP, if you read the quote above carefully it actually demonstrates your aesthetic reasons for choosing religion. You may have some logical reasons for choosing religion, but you have not expressed them here.

[Figleaf]

Religion sounds a lot more logical.

I can't begin to imagine how you can say that a worldview based on faith-above-reason, asserting a self-created man in the sky who only a small number of people even pretend to ever see, and requiring the acceptance of impossibly self-contadictory beliefs (omnipotent and omnibenevolent), as well as belief in things readily disproved, can 'sound more logical'.

But then I remember that to true believers 'logic' has no meaning other than what coincides with the faith, and that so, believers' reference to a concept of logic is, like other religious assertions, basically meaningless.

[Charles Anthony]

I never claimed that a new species was being created.

Correct. However, you disputed that they were the same organisms. I said an other possible hypothesis to explain your observations were that they were dormant.

I then said that for you to extrapolate and say that they were different organisms or mutations, you are ASSUMING knowledge of DNA or gene transfer. That is why I asked you if you have ever seen DNA?

If you do not want to assume knowledge of genetics but you still want to maintain your experiment proves evolution, you must prove that they are different from the original lineage. That is speciation.

Any which way you want to cut it, if you want to stick with your experiment as you described it, either:

1) you must make an assumption of prior scientific knowledge (which you take for granted, which is my point)

or

2) your experiment fails to prove evolution.

I think you are getting Speciation confused with Evolution .

The way that you constructed your experiment requires speciation to demonstrate evolution OR it requires assuming genetics.

You might want to read these Link and Link as well.

Thank you for directing my education. It tells me nothing new.

Then you will understand that my example is an example of evolution, not speciation.

Here is something from your links:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

We both agreed that we are assuming prior knowledge of DNA or genetics. That is my point: you assume aspects of science.

For me to believe in speciation would required some faith, but believing in evolution does not.

Actually, not for me. You should have chosen a better example.

You are confusing speciation with evolution, speciation is a result of evolution, just as evolution is a result of mutation.

(Edit:gc1765 beat me to it.)

Did he really? Do you understand his experiment??

Just to summarize: The construct of that experiment requires speciation to demonstrate evolution OR it requires assuming genetics. Otherwise, it fails to demonstrate my alternate hypothesis which is that you just made the organisms dormant.

Religion sounds a lot more logical.

I think so too.

I believe in species evolution but not to the degree of us coming from an amoeba. I will believe in magic before I believe we come from nothing -- I mean, the random sloshing around of mud.

[gc1765]

Correct. However, you disputed that they were the same organisms. I said an other possible hypothesis to explain your observations were that they were dormant.

The two organisms have different characteristics. One is resistant to antibiotics, the other is not. They are not necessarily different species but they are different. If you want to assume that antibiotics makes one "dormant" rather than killing it, that's fine, but it still reduces the ability of the bacteria to reproduce. The resistant bacteria still has the ability to reproduce, even in the presence of antibiotics, so it has "evolved".

have ever seen DNA?

No. It is impossible to see (in detail) DNA directly (ie with visible light) because the DNA is too small. I have seen evidence for DNA though. I think we've been through this before. It doesn't really matter anyways, the mechanism of evolution, or in other words why the resistant bacteria & the original bacteria are different is irrelevant, the fact is that they are different and that difference is inherited.

[gc1765]

I believe in species evolution but not to the degree of us coming from an amoeba. I will believe in magic before I believe we come from nothing -- I mean, the random sloshing around of mud.

Do you believe we were created by God? If so, how was God created?

[Electric Monk]

You are confusing speciation with evolution, speciation is a result of evolution, just as evolution is a result of mutation.

(Edit:gc1765 beat me to it.)

Did he really? Do you understand his experiment??

How does speciation not assume genetics?

What exactly the effects of the antibiotics are doesn't matter in this experiment, they could turn them purple, or make them sing show tunes, but all that is necessary to demonstrate evolution is that the antibiotics no longer have the same effect on subsequent generations.

I know you are making the point that scientists don't "start from scratch" every time they perform an experiment or propose a hypothesis, but a certain amount of pragmatism is necessary for any progress to be made. Science is one discipline where those who disprove fundamental previous knowledge are highly respected, (not always immediately), and questioning previously accepted knowledge is encouraged.

The key difference between science and religion is that scientific knowledge CAN be disproven, religious faith is inherently without evidence with which to prove or disprove it, else it would not be faith.

Religion sounds a lot more logical.

I think so too.

I believe in species evolution but not to the degree of us coming from an amoeba. I will believe in magic before I believe we come from nothing -- I mean, the random sloshing around of mud.

Look like more aesthetic reasons to me.

[Charles Anthony]

Do you believe we were created by God? If so, how was God created?

Sure. Why not?? Give me a reason why I should not.

How does speciation not assume genetics?

We define reproduction as a genetic transfer. Speciation is based on the ability/failure of two potentially different species to reproduce a viable and fertile offspring.

What exactly the effects of the antibiotics are doesn't matter in this experiment,

Actually, they do because there is more than one explanation for the same observations.

The preferred explanation ASSUMES scientific knowledge (genetics) which is itself is based on assumptions taken for granted.

My point is that if you split enough hairs (and I will boldly say that if you know enough science), there are aspects of science we can not explain but have very good working theories. We take things for granted until we can prove otherwise. That is a form of faith or religion which requires little logic on the part of the lay-man.

If nobody can prove the origin of matter or life or God or gravity or magnetizm or electricity, what is wrong with accepting them as magic?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

QUOTE(gc1765 @ Oct 15 2006, 03:57 PM)

Do you believe we were created by God?

Sure. Why not?? Give me a reason why I should not.

It will retard your ability for rational/logical thought.

As to gc1765's query,

If so, how was God created?

When using the 'causes of causal causation' argument, it is thoguht that there must be an 'uncaused cause', which is then labeled 'God'. However, it seems as though it is simply a break in the chain of logic. People are willing to attribute 'god' with the aspect of 'always was and always shall be', but at the same time are unwilling to accept the same attribute may apply to existence itself. 'Creation' is simply a human way of thinking, so we apply human attributes to all things.

[Charles Anthony]

It will retard your ability for rational/logical thought.

We all need to slow down anyway -- even the people who believe everything the "scientists" say. Otherwise, they may get duped into following political agendas without knowing it.

When using the 'causes of causal causation' argument, it is thoguht that there must be an 'uncaused cause',

I feel like I am drowning underwater! There might be some holes in my education....

[gc1765]

Do you believe we were created by God? If so, how was God created?

Sure. Why not?? Give me a reason why I should not.

Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

[Figleaf]

Do you believe we were created by God? If so, how was God created?

Sure. Why not?? Give me a reason why I should not.

Whether I can give you a reason, and what reason I would give, depend very much on what you mean by 'God'. If you mean 'Jehovah as described by Pope Benny', for example, the reason I would give is that such 'God' is a contradiction and therefore impossible. On the other hand, if you mean 'God' as 'whatever mystery remains unexplained by science', then I cannot give you a reason not to believe that.

[Charles Anthony]

Whether I can give you a reason, and what reason I would give, depend very much on what you mean by 'God'.

Are you asking me to define the terms in a question that is not mine?

As pertains to your opening questions of this thread, it is narrow-minded to look at "religious" people any different than people who take science for granted. Have you ever heard of thalidomide? Scientists recommended it at one point. I have met people whose mothers took it (on the recommendation of scientists) and their mothers never forgave themselves.

I have no problem with taking things for granted whether they be "scientific" or "religious" because neither can explain everything. Therefore, depending on how fine you want to split hairs, people ultimately make a choice of one or the other. People who just blindly believe everything that "scientists" say are equally vulnerable to abuse as are "religious" people. Both must be responsibly skeptical.

Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

No and neither can anybody else. What is your point?

Personally, I do not care. Since I believe in magic, absolutely anything is possible.

[gc1765]

Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

No and neither can anybody else. What is your point?

Personally, I do not care. Since I believe in magic, absolutely anything is possible.

Just curious is all. I've met a lot of people who say they can't possibly believe that life on earth arose from "nothing", but have no problem believing that God came from "nothing". I thought perhaps you could shed some light on that for me, as I have been wondering that for a while.

[M.Dancer]

Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

No and neither can anybody else. What is your point?

Personally, I do not care. Since I believe in magic, absolutely anything is possible.

Just curious is all. I've met a lot of people who say they can't possibly believe that life on earth arose from "nothing", but have no problem believing that God came from "nothing". I thought perhaps you could shed some light on that for me, as I have been wondering that for a while.

Do any biologists believe life came from "nothing"? I assumed the general concensus was acids and carbon.....

[Figleaf]

Whether I can give you a reason, and what reason I would give, depend very much on what you mean by 'God'.

Are you asking me to define the terms in a question that is not mine?

No, I was merely answering your question as best I could. Feel free to define your meaning if you like, or not.

As pertains to your opening questions of this thread, it is narrow-minded to look at "religious" people any different than people who take science for granted.

I don't know exactly what you mean by taking science 'for granted'. If you mean unthinkingly accepting the assertions of scientists, then I agree with you. But, as I have mentioned already, if you mean deciding based on an understanding of the nature of science that you'll take the assertions of science as very probably true and therefore don't bother to duplicate the experiments yourself, then I disagree. Believing in the process of science in a probabilistic (non-absolutist) way is substantially more reasonable than faith in religion.

I have no problem with taking things for granted whether they be "scientific" or "religious" because neither can explain everything.

Religion doesn't really 'explain' anything.

People who just blindly believe everything that "scientists" say are equally vulnerable to abuse as are "religious" people. Both must be responsibly skeptical.

Yes. Unfortunately, most religions of my experience actively discourage (indeed prohibit) skepticism.

[gc1765]

Do any biologists believe life came from "nothing"? I assumed the general concensus was acids and carbon.....

I used the word "nothing" rather loosely. What I mean is that life came from nothing living. The general consensus is that life arose from organic, "non-living" molecules called ribonucleic acids. Search for "RNA world" or "RNA world hypothesis" on google, that is what most biologists seem to believe.

[jbg]

Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

That assumes that G-d was created, as opposed to just existing. My view is that G-d is an invisible, all-enveloping presence. As much as I am an educated, non-superstitious person, there are some things simply not rationally explanable. Even the beauty of a sunrise, or a snowstorm, is something I doubt can just emerge without a guiding hand.

Just my two cents.

[Figleaf]

Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

That assumes that G-d was created, as opposed to just existing.

Yes but his point in asking the question was as a counterpoint to the objection religious people have to the idea of the universe 'just existing'. If God can exist without being created, why could the universe not just exist without being created?

I'll put a slightly different spin on it ... which seems more likely to spontaneously occur: a chthonic ball of energy and matter, or a perfect all-powerful consciousness?

[Leafless]

Can you answer my second question. How was God created?

That assumes that G-d was created, as opposed to just existing. My view is that G-d is an invisible, all-enveloping presence. As much as I am an educated, non-superstitious person, there are some things simply not rationally explanable. Even the beauty of a sunrise, or a snowstorm, is something I doubt can just emerge without a guiding hand.

Just my two cents.

The whole purpose of religion is that it provides a believe based on 'faith' for man to fall back on as the darkness of the unknown confuses and paralysis the mind.

How God was created is not of real importance since most religions regardless are built on the supernatural .

What is missing in this discussion is the the basic question: What is more useful to society as a whole, secularism or religion?

The obvious answer is religion since it supports and provides an inner strength and leads in a spiritual and moralistic way that secularism cannot provide.

Science basically tells us we are a pile of evolved germs feeding on one another. How possibly will this nourish society and provide society leadership other than political and provide the will to carry on.

Science is severely limited and although it has advanced in several areas including medicine it still cannot construct a human being, cannot explain what is the universe or what is it's purpose or in fact cannot even tell us what the planet Earth really is, among hundreds or thousands of other unanswered questions.

[gc1765]

That assumes that G-d was created, as opposed to just existing. My view is that G-d is an invisible, all-enveloping presence. As much as I am an educated, non-superstitious person, there are some things simply not rationally explanable. Even the beauty of a sunrise, or a snowstorm, is something I doubt can just emerge without a guiding hand.

Just my two cents.

If God exists, then there are two possibilities:

a) God has always existed

God exists now, but at some point in the past did not exist

Option a) can be ruled out using logic & common sense. God can not have existed for an infinite period of time. I would be happy to "prove" this if you'd like.

So, we are left with option . At some point God did not exist, but exists now. So the question is, how did it go from God not existing to God existing? How did that happen?

[Figleaf]

... What is missing in this discussion is the the basic question: What is more useful to society as a whole, secularism or religion?

1. I don't regard that as a useful question at all. It seems to suggest that a comprehensively perfidious fabrication might be justified on a basis of utility. I would disagree.

The obvious answer is religion since it supports and provides an inner strength and leads in a spiritual and moralistic way that secularism cannot provide.

I'd disa ree with that as well. Anything that detracts from mankind's accurate view of its environment and circumstances diminishes its capability to survive and prosper.

Science is severely limited and although it has advanced in several areas including medicine it still cannot construct a human being,

1. So what?

2. Neither can religion.

...cannot explain what is the universe or what is it's purpose...

Neither can religion, except imaginarily.