Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
Eugene Bucamp
12/05/2008
On Ya'akov's comment (12/02), atheism is, very simply, a belief that God doesn't exist, based on our shared experience of reality. Only a minority of atheists irrationally insist they know there is no God. The position of most atheists is that while we can't know for sure, it is nonetheless extremely likely, based on the overwhelming lack of evidence, that there is no god. So God is a possibility but so remote that it is more rational to ignore it. If Ya'akov is unable to find this view of atheism in his encyclopaedias, he can drop them at the nearest refuse dump.
Proof is often misunderstood as meaning necessarily a logical proof. No, a proof is any kind of proof. There is indeed no proof of any sort for God, but it is sufficient that there is a lack of evidence, because it is then rational not to believe in God. I believe a logical proof could not prove God because I believe a logical proof cannot prove the reality of anything, except of reality itself, as a whole, which is trivial enough. Effective proofs of the reality of things have to be founded on our common experience of reality. I would call them rational proofs, including all scientific proofs.
Obviously, I couldn't review all alleged logical proofs for God, but the ones I know about are very stupid, including that of serious theologians. But the point is that logical proofs for God, like all logical proofs for the reality of things, are necessarily inconclusive and I don't have to falsify any of them. Also, it is not just God that could not be disproved by a rational or even a scientific proof. It is generally all things that we have no idea what they are: You need to know what you are looking for. If you know a property of God that we could find evidence of, please tell us.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/02/2008
It has taken Eugene Bucamp (26/11/2008) more than five months to respond to my last post on this question. My answer: first, the term atheism, as defined by the The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, is the "metaphysical belief that affirms the non-existence of God or Gods" or "disbelief and denial of the existence of God or Gods." Bucamp assumes that atheism is a rational position since there is no evidence for the existence of God or Gods. This presupposes that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the arguments theologians have proposed (cosmological, teleological, etc.) for the existence of God or Gods. How would Bucamp know that there is no proof for the existence of God or Gods unless he has tried all possible proofs and falsified them? What precisely would count as proofs since it is a mathematical term? Perhaps he means valid arguments with true premises and the justified conclusion "God or Gods exist."
He also establishes the premise that you can't prove the non-existence of an entity like God(s). There are in fact two means in which to demonstrate that God or Gods do not exist. The first is through a priori reasoning, i.e., define the concept of "God" or "Gods" and if there are any logical inconsistencies with the definition, then you have proven that they do not exist. The second means to prove the non-existence of God or Gods is through a posteriori reasoning. To confirm that God or Gods do not exist, you would need to explore every geometrical dimension of space and time across each solar system and galaxy within the universe. Many atheists would retort that they need not prove the non-existence of God or Gods and that the burden of proof is only upon the theists to demonstrate the existence of God or Gods. But atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore, the burden of proof falls equally on both sides, and a fairer debate question would be "Do God or Gods exist?" or "Are there any Gods?"
Bucamp also stated that it is hubris to assume everything is natural. Since this belief already presupposes that the supernatural does not exist, he is already begging the question. In philosophy the terms "natural" and "supernatural" are difficult to define precisely and the demarcation between the two concepts leads to a lot of disagreement. However, a materialistic atheist would state that matter and energy are natural and anything beyond the physical constants and laws governing matter and energy is supernatural. By this definition, ghosts and gods are supernatural since they are deemed beyond the physical realms of nature. On the other hand, Bucamp's definition of natural as the "quality of everything that exists" is only justified by that meaning only. I could argue that the quality of everything that exists is defined as the universe. The term universe means the entirety of all existence, whether it arose by natural processes involving only matter or through supernatural intervention by a God or Gods.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/26/2008
Betty (10/25) says that, in the 1960's, the Holy Bible was read to her fellow students and that most "turned out very well" and "became productive people in society"! Believers who regard this sort of claim as good reason to believe in God should know that they definitely help give God and belief in God a bad name. Obviously, even if most young people who read Peter Pan stories later "turned out very well," that still wouldn't make Peter Pan real, yes?
Or does she simply mean that people who are not read the Bible inevitably don't "turn out very well" and that this is reason enough to read the Bible whether God exists or not? Or that it does prove God?! Finally, would she know among those who were read the Holy Bible in Germany in the 1920's and 30's how many turned out "productive members" of the Nazi Party later in life? Or simply how many at that time would quote the Holy Bible on Judas to justify their anti-Semitism?
RE: Kenneth Miller
Baffour Boahen
11/26/2008
Miller makes a lot of sense. God is the one that created us and this whole universe. God then gave us science to continue the legacy that he started for us. Without God there is no science. "He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself." Miller is on the money with that one.
RE: Whole Series
Shekhar Hardikar
11/25/2008
It is not about God or science; it is about our perception and change in perception that changes the way we look at things as our awareness increases. We all know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but for our daily convenience and for the purposes of the calendar, we say that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
It is our belief and tendency to classify information in certain categories. Our mind observes and records and behaves according to these patterns. These patterns actually define or defend our beliefs. It is not about language or maths or about technology; it is about our ability to recognise and create new patterns. These patterns are dependent on the lenses that we have, and then comes the million dollar question, what lenses do we use to see a frame of reference? And the debate goes on . . .
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/25/2008
Ya'akov says (06/26) that atheism is unsubstantiated. I agree, but the point is vacuous: How would you prove that something does not exist? You can't. We can show when there is no money in our wallets, but we are unable to prove that there is no God, or a Gloksburg for that matter, anywhere in our universe, in nature, or better still in "reality." I cannot prove that a Gloksburg does not exist, and nobody can, but who cares that our common disbelief in the Gloksburg cannot be substantiated?
Atheism is a word, and it means "to not believe in a god." Somebody cannot claim "to know" that God doesn't exist, as indeed some but not many atheists do (and indeed there is no "atheist Pope"). However, it is definitely reasonable "to not believe in God" when it is the case that we don't have any good reason to believe in it, since there is no evidence for it. Ya'akov probably doesn't believe in the Gloksburg but could not substantiate that a Gloksburg does not exist. In fact, we don't know what a Gloksburg is. Which is the point: we don't know what a God would be. Ya'akov's notion that the claim that all things are natural is "hubris" is equally pointless. How do you define "unnatural"? If ghosts existed, ghosts would be natural. Or how would you prove that something is not natural? Say you meet God: How do you prove he is not natural?
It is therefore misleading to say that it is "beyond our present science" to claim that the natural world has emerged from within itself. If you define "natural" as the quality of everything that exists, you don't need science to prove anything because logic is enough. The naturalist claim seems to be that the cause of "reality" (call it "nature" if you want) is not something "like a spirit" (in the sense of "like our mind"). This claim is beyond current scientific knowledge, but it could conceivably be substantiated one day because all you need to know is the nature of our mind, and we are getting close to do that.
RE: Whole Series
Ian Haggis
11/24/2008
I am finding these essays fascinating. Please send me a copy of the whole series, for myself and for my friends.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/24/2008
Many comments below are testimony to the difficulty, and indeed in my view impossibility, of having any kind of rational conversation whenever God is the starting point. Contributions by those professing a belief in some kind of spiritual realm also confirm the scattergun arbitrariness of spiritual beliefs. What is also clearly demonstrated, to come back to the question of obsolescence, is that if there is something that might indeed never become obsolescent, it is not a belief in God but the undeniable freedom of the human mind to lose itself in the infinite possibilities of a Mickey Mouse fantasia world. God is just one arbitrary speck in that limitless dimension.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Hampton
11/23/2008
Answering the question from a predominantly western point of view extends the error that science and spirituality are separate and distinct. References to classical Greek thinking as ancient and authoritative, without consideration of advanced civilizations that pre-date western thinking, contribute to the Phenomenal Fallacy, in which the field of relativity is viewed as the causal level, rather than as the gross level of effects and phenomenal manifestations reflective of the subtle causal plane.
RE: Whole Series
Don Kaple
11/21/2008
I define religion as the human response to the mystery of existence. God, for me, is that mystery. In algebraic terms, God is the big X, and both religion and science are solving for X. Scientists are theologians of the 21st century. So the God I believe in is not obsolete. It goes without saying, some images of God are indeed obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/14/2008
Contrary to what Brent Orrell (10/16) seems to suggest, the point of the argument about the crimes committed in the name of religion is definitely not to decide who the bad guy was. The point is simply that belief in God is no guarantee or even a good predictor of morality; that you can be a Pope and a murderer; that belief in the absolute, as introduced to mankind by Abrahamic religions, breeds totalitarianism.
Philip Wesel's assertion (11/05) that science rests upon "pure belief" is vacuous and disingenuous. Science is solidly founded on nothing less than our collective and continuing experience of reality. To call that "pure belief" is a renunciation of rational thought and a sad denial of our humanity. "Pure belief" cannot produce the vast amount of knowledge about the universe and nature that we now enjoy.
RE: Whole Series
Abdul
11/11/2008
Science is in its infancy yet. Thousands of years, many schools of thought, but they have not come up with the right or the true explanation of God, life, death, and almost everything that exists. So I say keep on looking. I believe that you should keep in mind that this complixity of existence cannot be of natural selection or chance. There has got to be a higher, more intelligent power. Our own existence should have more meaning than what we are doing. God does not need me or all of us. God needs our worship. Let us all look for the truth out of our own limitations for the sake of humanity and peace. I'm a Muslim. I truly believe in the freedom of thought for all. We have to be careful not to step on others in our quest for the good.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry H. Milam
11/06/2008
Just wishing I could wake up and understand.
RE: Whole Series
Philip Wesel
11/05/2008
The best answer regarding God's potential obsolescence is a combination of yes and no. By definition, "obsolescence is an object's attribute of losing value because the outside world has changed." In economic terms, "Obsolescence is a source of price depreciation." To me, the deeper question is not whether science makes belief in God obsolete. It is the question, "Does all science rest on rational thought?" and I think the answer to this is "no."
The foundation of much of science initially rests upon pure belief, which we subsequently work to either prove or disprove. Even here perhaps God is at work in encouraging us to question the nature of all things, to dig deeper and to uncover some truths while discarding others. I'm not ready to put God on mankind's dustbin of truth because both rationally and irrationally, I think that God's existence deserves more compelling proofs.
But science could make belief unnecessary and hence obsolete if it could solve problems which cause us to believe less deeply in God. Problems like poverty, energy, scarcity, and generosity could be solved. Are these things that science has the power to alter and overcome? If so, then I think some people will have less need for God in their lives. On the other hand, some people will see solutions as proof that God continues to exist and has relevance to both scientist and lay person alike. At a very basic level, some of us still need belief in God to guide us. As long as someone needs something and finds it useful, by definition it isn't obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Hurly
10/30/2008
Of course it does. Thinking scientifically means that you question assumptions and that you ask questions and you try to rationally justify the acceptance of ideas, and that's the antithesis of religious thinking. If you apply scientific reasoning to religion, it crumbles. There is simply no evidence for any of their claims.
Of course, some people avoid that problem by simply never thinking scientifically about their beliefs. That's an easy out, because most beliefs aren't the product of rational thought anyway. Does scientific thinking imply atheism? No, I don't think so. It's the lack of evidence of theistic and superstitious claims that scientific thinking demands that implies atheism.
An interesting study done in the Journal of Religion and Society was titled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" and seems to imply the correctness of my answer: "The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator, evolutionary science made belief optional."
RE: William D. Phillips
Stanley Rowden
10/27/2008
UK senior person, with a special interest in this subject.
RE: Whole Series
L. Zellmer
10/25/2008
Expanding on a key point in Angela Lloyd's 10/13/08 comment: In addition to unexplainable healing, too many beyond-science-encounters occur to be ignored. Anyone, after having such an experience, has no doubt about its reality. There are no words, pictures, or science to fully convey its reality to another person. That specific event can't be repeated. Even if it only happens once in a lifetime, it is so real, so powerful, it can change a life and give new meaning to everything. It seems such clues would entice science to check it out. Anyone hoping to intelligently discuss this without such an experience will have little to offer on the subject. How can they even assume to know anything about it?
Occasionally such experiences happen without any previous belief. Often belief has become the first step in turning an individual's life into an incredible new adventure. Sometimes this leads to a beyond-science-experience. Beyond coincidence, the evidence suggests something like an unknown reality does exist. Religion as modified by humans, while related, is a different subject. It seems a scientific thinker, a true researcher, would be eager to explore all the possibilies. If existing scientific tools can't find any access keys unlocking understanding, perhaps the tools are the problem. Possibly obsolete?
The term God, as typically understood, on one extreme is too small and on the other almost toxic. Words become useless. Discussions, especially between those extremes, can't be expected to prove anything. This is a new frontier to be explored. Everyone needs more respect for each other and the experiences they have had. When and if that's possible, working together to overcome obstacles to understanding, hopefully some progress can be made.
Related comments on this site: Ya'akov, Prichard, Zellmer, Barbara, Ruth (which can be found using the "find" tool).
RE: Whole Series
Richard A. Cormier
10/25/2008
God is Santa Claus for grownups. What does that have to do with science? We can believe in almost anything and still be scientists, mathematicians, artists, or basket-weavers. If we know one thing, it is that the human mind is quite adept at holding a myriad of conflicting ideas within itself and devising ways of justifying them all.
RE: William D. Phillips
Betty
10/25/2008
Yes, it does . . . when educators advocate that dinosaurs walked the earth, which you know in truth was no such thing. Proof: the Holy Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, states as true fact that man was created in God's own image. Nowhere does it say anything about apes. When mankind chooses to believe falsehoods as true creation facts, then we as a generation are lying to our children. I went to school in the 1960's, and a chapter from the Holy Bible was read to my junior high school homeroom class every morning. Guess what? Most of the students from that class and most of the other homeroom classes of other students turned out very well and went on to college or the work force and became productive people in society. Today our children are not taught the true Christian values which our founding fathers had established during formation of the constitution.
RE: Whole Series
Donald Kaple
10/24/2008
I made a comment on June 3, 2008 and am now revisiting this website. I'm amazed at the interest generated by the question of whether science makes God obsolete. I'd like to recommend Raimon Panikkar and John Hought. No doubt God is a human projection, but this needs to be examined further. Panikkar suggests that humans are a God projection. Interesting!
RE: Whole Series
Darryl Roberts
10/22/2008
Your essays are inspirational!!
RE: Whole Series
J Whitson
10/17/2008
In order to make God "obsolete," one must replace him/her with something better. Since God is not materially manifest, one must perceive his/her existence through belief; therefore, in order to replace God, one must obtain a better belief. Though whole communities and nations may hold a common belief, believing is fundamentally the prediliction of an individual, used to provide him/her with the perception of order and control over the apprehension of an existance with an unknown conclusion in a seemingly disorderly and uncontrolled universe.
Considering this, an individual may find more comfort, order, and control in the tenets of science, while another might not, finding greater comfort in one or more deities or, in the coin-of-the day, "greed is good." So, of course not: belief is entirely subjective. If people find comfort and happiness in their beliefs, then those are the true and correct beliefs for them. A "universally true belief" or the "only true belief" is an oxymoron. The disagreements among my learned colleagues on this dais rests my case.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Robert Hargett
10/17/2008
As an agnostic/skeptic, Mr. Hitchens makes the most sense to me.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Brent Orrell
10/16/2008
I have to take issue with Robert Sapolsky on the issue of whose hands have more blood on them. The religious wars of human history as well as the Inquisition and other domestic purges of non-believers can't hold a candle to the losses caused by secular ideologies like fascism and, even more so, communism. The rivers of Asia and Europe run red with the innocents slaughtered following these false Gods. Religious wars, having occured so much earlier in our industrial development, simply didn't have the tools for mass killing that modern ideologies have deployed in trying to bring their malign heavens to earth. I don't disagree that religion can act similarly as an impetus to murder, but it hasn't even come close to the scale of harm caused by atheistic philosophies.
RE: Whole Series
David
10/14/2008
The question is a subjective one. By this I mean that "God" as I understand Him and the concept of God reside completely within the mind. It may be that outside of the physical universe He also exists, but that is unknowable. It is really a metaphysical question, one not amenable to rational examination. Just trying to explain it, I go around in circles of reasoning. I believe that without man or another creature capable of higher reasoning, maybe a dolphin, the God I understand would not exist. He is because I believe He is. But He is more than that because as I live the "good" life, it becomes more difficult to separate "God" and "me."
The idea in transactional analysis, a type of psychotherapy, is that there is the parent, the adult, and the child. Or in the vernacular of the psychotherapist, the superego, the ego, and the id. God would be the father and mother of the very young child. As the child grew and began to solve problems, the adult, the problem solver would grow. And the id, the child, would make all this business worth while. Without the superego, it would be very difficult for the ego to nurture the id. Without God and some promise of permanence, however ephemeral, life would be very chaotic. God is that still, small voice that speaks to us as we lay upon our bed, waiting for sleep.
The historical evidence for God is, I believe, based entirely on human interactions with the physical environment and other human beings, and as such becomes a historical and sociological study, bringing us back full circle to the individual's inner life. And so the question really remains unanswered.
RE: Whole Series
Angela Lloyd
10/13/2008
Not at all. People who already believe in God are not impressed by the marvels of science. No matter how science evolves, it could never explain how a person suffering from cancer could be cured (healed) after doctors did everything scientifically and humanly possible. God will prove himself to be the master scientist. Through the wonders of science, humans impress themselves by duplicating what God has already done. So does Satan. Just keep living, and we will all see how BIG God is and how wonderfully we are created because of Him.
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
09/30/2008
I ran into this while reading "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck: "Adam said, 'Let me tell you. The proofs that God does not exist are very strong, but in lots of people they are not as strong as the feeling that He does.'" As mentioned in an earlier post, I suppose that the instrument for detecting God is human awareness. God can't be detected with physical instruments measuring the ping-pong balls of pulsating matter. An instrument that interfaces with the metaphysical is needed. Otherwise it's like trying to detect a smell with a microphone. Using a metaphysical microphone wisely still requires skillful application of the principles of scientific method.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/24/2008
Walter W. Lee (09/22) theorizes that the basis for human values is the survivability of the species. I agree, but I would add to that the survivability of the culture. The ongoing discussion on this page is testimony to that. This forum has become one of many battlegrounds where the God culture and the science culture struggle for supremacy. The survival of science is not in doubt. At this point I think the culture of God just wants to coexist.
RE: Whole Series
Walter W. Lee
09/22/2008
Regarding John Cozijn's comment of (09/19): I submit a scientific theory: the inescapable basis for human values is the survivability of the species.