As a firm proponent of evolution, and natural selection, I’ve started giving some thought to the end of religion. Will we reach a point in time where religion no longer exists? Or when organized religion no longer exists. Thinking about this from a Darwinian point of view, it’s very easy to imagine the possible causes for religions to cease existing. One of the ideas I kept coming back to is the concept of religion being “educated out of” mainstream thought. I’m not suggesting that we actively push the idea that religion is wrong in schools, just give pupils the tools necessary for them to decide for themselves. This currently doesn’t happen, and we’ve seen that certain parties with a vested interest are pushing for religion to be more prominent in schools. Once pupils are educated to a sufficient level, the majority will come to the correct conclusion that religion is built upon a series of lies and tricks.
Looking further at this concept allows us to boil it down into two related variables. Firstly we have education (nurture) and then we have evolution (nature).
It’s possible to easily track the effect education can have on religion by looking at the proportion of religious people by nation. Different nations have different levels of education, and likewise, different nations have different levels of belief. There’s a nifty website called YesNoGod.com that has one purpose, to measure the levels of belief in God by country. At the time of writing there’s a clear tilt towards non-believing from the more educated countries. Dare I say, the more developed countries.
At this point I need to point out that correlation is not the same as causation. Not by any means. However, there is a strong correlation and we can hope, that in this case, a certain degree of causation exists. There’s certainly something there to suggest that as the level of education increases, the level of belief decreases. There are, of course, some conditions that need to be applied. For example, it has to be good, impartial education. Teach facts, not beliefs, basically.
So what about evolution? We need to take a limited view of evolution and natural selection in this context. Natural selection doesn’t work as well in such a developed species as humans as we are in the almost unique position of having the superior members of the species preventing the inferior members from failing. But, suppose we are still evolving mentally. I would suggest the following graph as a fair representation of what we will experience.
So what does this mean? To understand it, we have to look at the labels on the axis. Human Evolution refers to evolution of us as a species. This isn’t necessarily physical or mental evolution, but also represents societal knowledge and awareness. The sum of us as species, something that is steadily increasing. The other axis indicates the amount of faith required to be religious. Many believe this to be fixed, but I would suggest otherwise. To be frank, as scientific knowledge improves, and the stories written about in the various holy books are disproved, it will be harder to believe them. It will require more faith, more devotion. My anecdotal evidence for this is the sharp decrease in the number of people who literally believe the Bible’s description of Genesis as scientific evidence continues to prove it to be factually inaccurate. For example, completely disproving the Bible’s claimed age of the earth.
You’ll note that the graph isn’t smooth. In fact, it has a number of points which see sharp rises. These are events, or discoveries, that make a significant impact on the teachings of the various religious books. Discovering the earth’s true age would be one such discovery.
Unfortunately, this inevitable path brings with it the most hated form of religion. Extremism. As the amount of faith required increases, the type of person who believes changes. Moderately religious people evolve into agnostics, or even atheists, and extremists begin to be considered mainstream. And as you can see from the graph, I don’t for see a complete end to religion at any point. It will just reach the stage where the amount of faith required to believe will mean only the most extreme, the most vulnerable, the least educated and the most suggestible will consider themselves religious.
I’m putting this out there, I’m interested in your opinions. And whether you think my theories, and reasoning, are sound.
This is an interesting observation. It leads me to these thoughts: if we believe in atheism we believe in the absence of God. I learned in logic class that proving the absence of something is the most impossible of all tasks. That being so, then our belief in atheism is an act of faith which makes us religious. No??
You have it wrong I think.
People “believe” in various forms of religion based usually on a set of specifc dogma or holy books.
People who are “non belivers”….simply can find no evidence for any god …in which case none exists.
Not beliveing on god is not a form of religion in itself….there are no buildings or holy books we quote….we quote and discuss “facts”….not faith in imaginary things…..humanity is way past faith.
Society and the laws that govern it should be based on “reason”…and common sense.
best regards,
Nosaer
We have a bit of word definition problem here probably. I am using religion in the sense that it is a set of beliefs or opinions that are not or cannot be based on hard evidence. Since it is impossible to prove there is no God then that opinion must be based on belief that there is no God. Such a belief I am calling a religion.
Your statement: “People who are “non beliversâ€â€¦.simply can find no evidence for any god …in which case none exists.” has me wondering what you mean by …in which case none exists.” Obviously you cannot mean anything that produces no evidence does not exist. There are, for example, doubtless a large number of types of radiation that remain to be discovered. To think that we have discovered radio, x-ray, gamma rays, etc etc and there can be no more still undiscovered is about as naive as saying that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. So you must mean that “none exists” for that person who holds that opinion. That I must agree with, but it is a pretty trivial observation that doesn’t seem to lead any where of interest.
The way I think about it is this: a friend walks up and tells you the story of his religion. You listen and, after a brief consideration, decide you do not believe it. Does this require faith that his belief is not true? Not really. It requires faith in your own ability to reason. Since you have taken a logic class, you know that since you know you have strong reasoning skills, and through your reasoning skills you deduced that this was incorrect, you therefore have a sound logic reason for never considering the ridiculous idea for use in your own life.
I agree that scientific education is likely to lead to a decrease in literal interpretation of written religious scripture.
However, I don’t think scientific education would effect faith in intelligent design.
The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they could be complimentary. As we gain a greater insight into how the earth developed, we may concurrently be gaining a greater insight into the choices of the intelligent designer, eg. the design of evolution.
I think evolution is a very intelligent process, a great concept! In fact, I don’t see how science is in any conflict with intelligent design. Science is simply the systems that were intelligently designed.
I totally agree with your comments. My own training is Physics and Mathematics and I loved the discipline of these areas of learning. I conclusion is this: if we have confidence in the liberating and empowering effects of knowledge of truth we have nothing to fear but our own pet prejudices and fears.
“I conclusion is this: if we have confidence in the liberating and empowering effects of knowledge of truth we have nothing to fear but our own pet prejudices and fears.”
– That is very well put. However I would like to tend to the first comment you made on this post, in which you say: ” if we believe in atheism we believe in the absence of God. I learned in logic class that proving the absence of something is the most impossible of all tasks. That being so, then our belief in atheism is an act of faith which makes us religious. No??”
However your statement mentions “believe” and does not define this well. If we talk about strength of atheism on a probability scale we can certainly place ourselves all on a line from “I know there is a god” to “I know there isn’t a god” and move up and down the line according to evidence. Of course, many atheists in my experience would be almost certain that there is no god, but allow for the possibility as required by logic.
However, in the light that there is no evidence, and ESPECIALLY no evidence to follow the three main desert dogmas – in our day to day lives, we are just atheists.
What’s your take on this?
In regard to whether atheists are believers, I have to agree with you at about the 95% level, and perhaps if we discussed the definitions of our words in some detail my agreement would rise to 100%. I have just found it very interesting (understating here) that many atheists seem to become greatly agitated when one suggests that their belief system (religion) is based on belief (faith?). In my understanding of things in general and the metaphysical in particular there is no knowledge at all but what is based on faith in one thing or another. That seems to be the nature of our perception of our surroundings. Case in point, even the strictest and most rigorous scientist must have faith in the scientific method in order to continue to use it. He must al least have faith that the physics of the universe are not changing such that his prior discoveries are now, or at least becoming, irrelevant.
This is pretty erudite but perhaps the point I am trying to make is that in our present state, at least, the mind that is capable of generating space ships that actually take people to distant orbs is also capable of finding a way to explain it all away into hoax at worst, or some kind of self-hypnosis at best. Ergo we are all ultimately forced to take up one faith or another for there is no knowledge but what can be explained away. But enough of this.
I also want to comment on “ESPECIALLY no evidence to follow the three main desert dogmas”. I don’t remember ever hearing “the three main desert dogmas” expression before – that’s an interesting insight. On the other hand, there is a growing body of very compelling evidence for a couple of these dogmas. I speak in particular of a book which came out of nowhere in the 1830’s which claimed to be an ancient record. A goodly number of things mentioned in this book that first seemed to be hard evidence that it was a fraud, have, over the years turned into compelling evidence that it is not. It talks about two of these desert Gods.
Jackson, I hope you don’t mind me answering Mike here.
By belief, I think you mean “accept as true without strict scientific proof.” In this sense of course atheism is an act of faith. There is no question of probability spectrum. Either I have proof or I don’t. it is quite binary. If I don’t, then I might resort to probability – based on what facts, though?
You do an injustice, however, to the huge amount of excellent debate (on both sides) throught history, to suggest that there is simply “no evidence.” There are plenty of pointers to indicate that our universe and lives are not totally meaningless, arising out of pure randomness. Indeed how do things randomly come into existence? Is there a point to it all? These are fundamentally religious questions and will always be raised, no matter how many people like Dawkins want to make it illegal for us to propose them to our own children.
“By belief, I think you mean “accept as true without strict scientific proof.†In this sense of course atheism is an act of faith. There is no question of probability spectrum. Either I have proof or I don’t. it is quite binary. If I don’t, then I might resort to probability – based on what facts, though?”
What do you propose is the difference between:
Strict scientific proof
Strict proof
Non-strict proof?
Non-strict non-scientific proof?
Or are these terms meaningless? They are indeed completely meaningless. Proof resides within the realm of mathematics. Everything else, as you rightly say are pointers.
Now you start talking about “lives are not totally meaningless”. Where did you get “meaningless” from? I don’t believe that our lives are meaningless. I give my own life meaning and I am free to choose it. This has nothing to do with the discussion, and even if it did; it’s not evidence for or against a god or gods.
When I say there is simply “no evidence”, it is up to you, as the claimant, to submit your evidence for your beliefs – and not for me, taking the null hypothesis, to supply evidence for the non-existence of your claim.
Now regarding your claim to the right to indoctrinate your kids, I would like you to tell me exactly what Richard Dawkins has said which states in any way he is attempting to make this illegal. You’re spouting propoganda here. Nothing more.
Now a discussion of “How much crap can we teach our kids and pretend it’s really true” is an interesting one. Here in the UK we have a form of imposed multi-culturism that effectively allows and does nothing to prevent the routine genital mutilation (the removal of the female clitoris without visiting a recognised doctor or hospital) and the arranged marriages of school-aged girls by taking them out of school and sending them to Pakistan. We should accept this therefore because this is “their culture” and this is equally valid?
It is not true that different “World views” are equally valid, as some hold true to doctrines that we consider today to be immoral and unethical.
Teaching Creationism in Science classrooms is totally wrong. I’m not going to explain it here, as I assume you are well enough read to understand why.
Regarding, “Is there a point to it all?” – I’d like to hear your answer. I assume it goes along the lines of Christian teaching. Then, I would like to ask you why you do not accept Muslim teaching, or the teachings of the ancient Greek gods.
Let’s get to the point, since you are not clear exactly on any evidence for your claims. Nor are you clear on what your claims actually are:
Do you believe in the virgin birth?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in the ressurection?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in speaking in tongues?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in miracles?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe that Jesus talks to you?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in prophesy?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in modern healings?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in revivals?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe that we are in the end-times?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe that, in the thousand million stars in our galaxy, and in the billions of other galaxies that we are aware of, that we are the only sentient species in the cosmos?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in Ghosts?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
Do you believe in Demons?
– If “Yes”, please provide a reason for why I should believe in it, preferably with evidence.
“Either I have proof or I don’t. it is quite binary. If I don’t, then I might resort to probability – based on what facts, though?”
^ Now this is a very interesting topic to discuss.
We can both agree that proof, by definition is not just “quite” binary, but explicitly so. The only other option available to us when evaluating the remainder is that of evidence in order to generate a probability.
Richard Dawkins has an excellent chapter on this in The God Delusion. I’m not going to go through it here as it would be more beneficial for my time (and yours!) if you read that part of the book and I’d very much be open to discussing the detail.
In summary, there is a spectrum of belief between knowing that there is a god and knowing that there isn’t.
1 – I know there is a God (Defacto Theist)
2 – I think that there is a God and I live my life as if he is there
3 – I think that there might be a God and I live my life as if he is there
4 – I’m undecided if there a God, but I think there might be
5 – I’m undecided if there is a God and I don’t live my life as if there is one
6 – I don’t believe there is a God. [Defacto Atheist]
7 – I know that there isn’t a God with the same conviction that the people in category (1) know that there is.
You will find that most Atheists put themselves into category 6. Those that don’t believe the claims made by Theists and live their lives as if there definately is a God. Category 7 is not so popular (as you cannot say there is definately not anything), whereas by contrast, category 1 is filled with fundamentalist Christians.
What I would say regarding evidence is that there is no evidence FOR there being a God. We used to attribute everything to God, that Science now explains. “The God of the Gaps”. We have no longer a need for a god or gods as an explanatory device, so why then should people believe in a god or gods?
Rather than asking me to make my case for the non-existance of Yahweh, or the non-existance of the loch ness monster, or the non-existance of Santa, why don’t you – the claimant – make your claim?
1. Mike, calm down. Strictly speaking I didn’t need to add “strict” to “scientific proof.” Sorry.
2. The question of meaning is deeper than you think. If the universe is entirely random (ie without deliberate design) then it is consequently meaningless, ie without a point to it. It just is. But then that applies to everything in it too. We just evolved out of slime, for no particular reason, and could just as easily devolve again back into slime. How can you then “give” your life meaning, if it doesn’t actually have any meaning? As the old saying goes: you can’t give what you don’t have. At least you would have to admit that the meaning you “give” would be an illusion. On the other hand, if there is a God, then the entire universe and our lives definitely do have meaning. Hence it is a highly relevant point.
3. I have suggested that there are several hundred arguments for the existence of God that have certainly been treated with respect by eminent atheists/agnostics to the present time. You might disagree that the evidence is convincing, but it is not honest to repeat that there simply isn’t any.
4. I’m sorry I don’t have a copy of Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” with me, but the Wikipedia entry says of him: “He is most outraged about the indoctrination of children. He equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse.” I would certainly hope that he would want the mental abuse of children to be illegal, but you are possibly right that he may not explicitly say so.
5. I would never argue that all cultures are equally valid. Quite the contrary. Our Western culture is what it is because it was built by Christian monasticism. Its remaining strength is only because of the remnants still holding it together.
6. I don’t think that Creationism should be taught as science either, because it has nothing to do with science. It also has nothing to do with evolution. I am convinced that some form of evolution is the most likely hypothesis to explain the currently known facts. However I certainly don’t think it is proven, and certainly not in the form it is often explained today. Did you know that St. Augustine (way back in the 4th century) had a kind of evolutionary theory that at least accords with the principle that no effect can contain more than the cause. The most difficult parts of the evolution theory are the very origins of life from non-life, and the appearance of rationality with man. (This latter also ties back to the question of meaning).
7. “Is there a point to it all?” – I would have to say yes. Once again it is question of meaning. The universe is meaningful if and only if it has a Creator (ie it has a intelligent purpose). I believe that Muslims would agree with me in this. The ancient Greek gods served a different national purpose and (if you have read Homer or Virgil etc..) have some profound aspects to them, but were never really thought of as the foundation for existence. They did have something of a notion of “fate” which even the gods were bound by. To my knowledge, the Greek gods never taught anything at all.
8. We need to separate the question of the existence of God from the question of his essence. The former is knowable quite apart from any revelation, by philosophical means. But what God is actually like requires revelation (except for some very general principles). Thus I do not strictly “believe” that God exists, but claim that this is the only possibility for the existence of anything else. Whether Jesus was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead is another question altogether… yes I believe many of these things on your list, because I accept Jesus’s claim to be God. But I would agree that that is not demonstrable on the same level as the existence of God in general. IF someone else was convinced that Mohammed was God’s definitive prophet and that I should trade the Bible for the Qu’ran, I would be happy to have a debate on that point, but it would not affect the prior question as to God’s existence.
If you really (yawn) want me to explain any particular point out of your long list, I am happy to do so, but I don’t think it properly fits into the current forum.
9. I am delighted that most atheists put themselves into category 6 in your list. Many seem to speak like category 7’s [6 – I don’t believe there is a God… 7 – I know that there isn’t a God…] We agree that atheism is really a form of belief.
10. I was disappointed in the God Delusion because frankly it is quite ignorant [you may note that I do not like to use ad hominem argumentation nor sneer at genuinely held conviction, but this ignorance is inappropriate in an author who could easily acquaint himself with these things] in both philosophy (unlike the high standards of philosophical reflection of his atheistic forebears such as Bertrand Russell) and theology. I doubt there are many believers about who are devasted by the punches thrust at his straw man.
11. “We used to attribute everything to God that Science now explains.” Firsty Science does not (and cannot because of its very nature) explain existence. In fact science is based on (sound) philosophical assumptions, which many scientists are unaware about. There are other questions that Science needs to remain silent about since it is outside its realm eg life after death, meaning etc.. these are properly philosophical (and theological) questions that cannot be submitted to experimentation for verification. There is a modern danger precisely in attributing to Science (and scientists!) what we ought to attribute to God, and end up worshipping them! Fortunately people are realising that ethics, for example, is a separate field, and that it may be needed to curb the enthusiasm of some inhibited scientific ambitions.
The question posed by this thread was “When will religion END?” I cannot tell who made the original post unless it was the ethereal “the Atheist”. Anyway, I would like to address that question briefly while trying hard to ignore the slander heaped upon religion as being based on a “series of lies and tricks.” I think the atheist has been lied to and tricked into thinking that he is not religious, otherwise it makes no sense for him to pose the question in those terms. So I have to assume that the atheist has somehow convinced himself, or been convinced by something that atheism is not a religion. Actually, since it is inherently impossible to prove the basic postulate of atheism, it requires more “faith” than any other religion. That makes the atheist the most religious of all. So, the answer is that religion will never end. Change it will, but so long as we are able to conceive of ways to explain away any particular philosophical tenet, we will be forced to ultimately admit that the basis of our opinion on this part of the nature of the universe is faith. All sides of the issues can press forward with their evidence but it is all circumstantial and/or anecdotal.
Having spoken my mind on that, I will venture to throw out a bit of bait thus:
I am a believer in God and that he is literally the father of the human race. Well, at least of the spiritual dimension of our beings. There are two kinds of evidence I would like to offer in this matter.
1) There is life after death.
2) There is a God who is trying his best, as a gentleman would, to let us know what’s going on here without encroaching upon our mental, spiritual, and physical freedoms.
I will treat the first one here briefly, and if anyone shows an honest interest in the second, I would be happy to address that also, although that one will require a bit more time to write about. On the other hand, the evidence I have for number 2 is considerably stronger than what I have for number 1.
There is life after death. This does not prove there is a god, but if it is true, it does raise some very interesting questions about the issue. I have lived a long life and have during those years had four occasions where I have listened to a trusted friend or family member describe experiences which strongly suggest life after death.
A) When I was in high school, my brother accidently tipped a 30 foot long aluminum farm sprinkler pipe into a 44,000 volt power line that stretched across our farm. The electricity burned a hole the right depth and size to lay a quarter into the hole in his heel. There were deep narrow brown pits arranged around the perimeter of his foot where it came through the nails in his leather boots and burned out the tissue. Our father was on the scene and rushed to him and found him apparently dead. Gray skin, no pulse, no breathing. This was less than a minute after the shock. Our dad tried to administer artificial respiration but is was extremely difficult in the wet and muddy conditions so he placed his hands on his head and prayed for him. He revived shortly thereafter. Later my brother spoke very guardedly about what he saw while he was “dead” – it was apparently a very sacred experience for him. What he has told me is that he saw a beautiful white city and wanted to stay there but was given the option to return and choose that. He is 74.
B) When in my thirties, I worked for a man whose father was a dairyman. When my boss was old enough he took over the herd and worked very hard at making it the best he knew how. He slept very little. Eventually his health drove him to the doctors who said he was killing himself. He didn’t slacken his pace and eventually died in a hospital. He related that he was met by two people dressed in white who discussed his situation with him and gave him the choice as to whether to stay there or to return to his family. He said he had never experienced the peace and love that he felt at that time. He really wanted to stay, but after thinking about his wife and children he choose to return. It was extremely physically painful to come back.
C) A few years later I purchased a used car from a friend who ran a service station where I often bought gasoline and had repairs done. He eventually described this experience. He had been shot though the left eye in Viet Nam and was placed in a morgue for preparation for burial. He could see his body lying there below him and watched while some GI’s came through the tent looting the bodies that lay there. He was greatly angered by their actions, especially when he saw them going through his clothing. He was very upset by it. Soon a couple of other men came in to attend to the dead and one noticed a tear in his good eye. He asked the other one if dead men can cry. He didn’t think they could so they did some checking and rushed him in to emergency care where he was revived. He thought he had been “dead” for at least an hour. He related the experience to a few people over the years but they all seemed to think he was crazy. Eventually he met some Mormons who believed him. He started attending their church and later joined it.
D) About 5 years ago my eldest son was diagnosed with cancer, a huge lymphatic carcinoma that weighed several pounds. He was 35 and in excellent health so they hit him with the heaviest chemotherapy they had. It stopped the cancer and he is to this day still in remission. However, it did great damage to his body. He has been “code blue” twice. His experiences while clinically dead are very similar to the others I have related here.
E) One other family story comes to mind that is not a “life after death” evidence, just evidence of something beyond our capacity to adequately explain. In the 1920’s one of my uncles was seriously injured when his “speeder” (a small, open personnel carrier on the logging railroad where he worked in Northern California) was knocked off the track many miles from assistance. His right arm and left leg were broken. He managed to contrive a crutch from timber slash and hobbled several miles to get help. That same day, his mother, in Iowa, “saw” him come in the back door of her home and was startled by his presence as she knew he was in California. At first she thought it was his spirit and that he had been killed. His arm was bandaged. He said to her “I am alright” and disappeared.
Now, you may think whatever you will think about all this. I will just say that I knew all these people and all but the Vier Nam vet quite intimately. They were not weird or prone to “visions” or trances or whatever. In fact, in every case these were singular experiences for them. I relate them as a matter of interest and certainly not as proof of any particular postulate because they can all be explained away without much difficulty if that is what is wanted. On the other hand, they are factual and if one is really more interested in knowing the truth than in shoring up any particular opinion, then one must openly consider what they might mean.
Now, as to the other postulate, that I have some really hard, may I say, scientific evidence for the existence of God. If anyone is interested, I will be happy to address that topic.
Jackson – Yes, I did write the article, and I’m a little confused regarding your response. You started off saying you have two types of evidence for the existence of a God, describe some stories that were told to you, and then end by saying you relate not as proof. Of course, as you rightly state, all the stories can be easily explained away, even more so given that you experienced none of them first hand (which always seems to be the case) so they should not be treated as “evidence”. The other thing to remember, is that all the times people dream things (whether they happen to be unconscious in a morgue, dying in a field or a great distance away from their loved ones at the time or not) that have no correlation to real world events are rarely, if ever, discussed. The same thing goes for prayer. Ask your father about all the prayers that have gone unanswered. Make sure he includes the times he has prayed for sick friends and family members who have died regardless. Having said that, I can understand how a coincidence such as that can affirm someone’s faith.
As for your opening gambit, that atheists require that most faith, that is completely incorrect. As is the case in law, and science, all atheists require is proof. It take no faith to require proof of something. It requires no faith to not believe in something there is no proof of. The default position should, and indeed must, be negative. If you think it requires less faith to believe in an invisible entity that lives in the sky, that created us and continues to influence our lives than it does to not believe, despite the fact there is no evidence, you are deluding yourself. How much faith do you require not to believe in the Loch Ness Monster? After all, at least we have photos of the Loch Ness Monster, which is much more evidence than we have for any deity.
And I think the entire world would be very interested in any proof you have for the existence of any deity. As I’m sure you’re aware, no proof currently exists, and we can’t even prove the existence of Jesus who, if real, you would have thought to be mentioned multiple times throughout accurate official historical records, but this isn’t the case. So please, of course we are genuinely interested in any proof you may have.
I’d just like to add that I genuinely and wholeheartedly wish you and your family health and happiness.
genius!agree with everything you say totaly. religion is pathetic if you ask me and well past its sell by date. there will be no religion in years to come as there is noo need for a god any more.thousands of years ago the idea of a “god” was in my opinion a way to explain things that couldnt be explained, e.g humans created by god,the earth,and anything that we (humans) couldnt achive or do. but as you all well know science is taking over and each day all these things that so called god created are been explained by science. if you belive that god created humans then more fool you, you should check out darwins idea of evolution. also no relgious human can give1 piece of evidence proving that there is a god! in the next few decades or less we will know that life occures everywhere in the universe and us and earth are nothing special at all. and there is no reason for a god or religion any more. science explaines everything. sory about some of the spelling. no proof,no logic,no sense,no GOD
I HATE RELIGION!
Mark, You express your hatred with such religious zeal! What’s up with that??? Let me just add one thought: if believing in something I can’t prove makes me religious, then the atheist is the most religious of all.
I’m having a bit of a problem with what seems to be your perception of the “stories” I related. The 4 out of body experiences can most easily be dismissed as quirks of the traumatized mind, of course. But there is a pattern in all these that is at least interesting if not compelling. The 5th item I related was not of a dream but of an experience my grandmother had (which she related to me in person – she was a very conservative school teacher, not given to making up things) in broad daylight while she was wide awake. You could say that she ate something bad for breakfast, I suppose, but how is it that this “day dream” occurred the very day that her son in California was treated in a hospital?
I am also struggling with your statement “It requires no faith to not believe in something there is no proof of.” which you make in countering my statement that because it is impossible to prove there is no God, that atheism is “faith based”. Logically those two statements are identical. Your statement contains 3 negations, and like a mathematical expression, we can convert it without violating it by changing any two negatives to positives. Here are the four possible logical iterations of your statement generated by removing 2 negations:
It requires no faith to not believe in something there is no proof of.
It requires no faith to believe in something there is proof of.
It requires faith to not believe in something there is proof of.
It requires faith to believe in something there is no proof of.
The first is your statement.
The second and third ones we have already agreed on.
The fourth is my statement slightly rephrased.
It is late and I have to go to work in the morning – more later.
The “hard evidence” I mentioned earlier is a particular book which came out of nowhere and which contains a number of items which, at first (200 years ago) seemed to prove it a fraud, but those same items now seem to prove it is not. There are also a number of other interesting items. First I want to review the scientific method a bit. We all seem to agree it is a very useful tool in discovering truth.
The scientific method is often described as one wherein a postulate is proposed then tested (hopefully by several independent observers) and “proven” right or wrong based on the ability of the postulate to predict experimental outcomes. This description nicely fits the book at hand.
The postulate is that the book is a true record of an ancient civilization, written by a number of authors usually called prophets. It contains 512 pages and hundreds of references to things in the geography and culture of the people chronicled. So far it sounds like something like a Bible, but this one is very different. The Bible is a handed down, often translated collection of writings which have been extant since their first writing. The subject book appeared suddenly in 1820 and the claim was that an angel of God gave an ancient set of gold plates to a young man named Joseph Smith. No one has ever questioned that Joseph Smith was the author of this book. He wrote it. The problem is that Joseph claimed that he translated these ancient indecipherable characters into English and then the angel took back the plates. Perfect setting for a fraud and that’s what many said it was. (Many still do, for that matter, but only if they don’t honestly take a serious look at what’s going on here.)
So you have this book with very unusual claims for its origin. If it is a fraud, it ought to be easy to expose it since it contains a lot of stuff that was unknown to anyone in 1820. For example, it talks about elephants and horses in the America. To apply the scientific method to this book we can cast it in this light: it “predicts” that we sill find that elephants and horses once lived in the americas. (Hold on now, the coming proofs are much stronger than this one which I use only to illustrate how the scientific method can be correctly applied to it.) There are a whole raft of things that are postulated by this volume, many of which have been tested a proven correct. These are not only archeological finds but many other items.
For example, the book claims that it was written over a period of about 1,000 years as the record was handed down and added to by many authors. Computer word print studies (a rather recent tool) corroborate this. The book begins with a brief statement by its first author wherein he states his name, his background, his lineage, and why he can write with authority about his subject. The ancient text scholars call this a colophon. It turns out, that if this book Joseph Smith published in 1820 had not had a colophon, it would immediately have been suspect as a fraud since in the time and place of that first author, that is the way such records almost always started. I could go on and on with examples of these “predictions” made by the book which have been tested and corroborated. Let me mention one more that is particularly interesting to those who believe in the Old Testament. This 1820 book claims that it is quoting a bunch of Isaiah and does so in great detail. There are, however, a few minor discrepancies and then this one major one.
In Isaiah 2:16 we read “And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.” In this new book the passage is rendered thus: “And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.” When the book was first published, many thought, of course, that Joseph had just added that in for fun. However, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and translated 130 years later, guess what? The new book had it right all along.
So what does it all mean? Well, if you have any confidence in the scientific method you have to say that this is a fascinating book as it seems to be able to predict that as we discover more and more about the ancient civilization it claims to be from, the more it will be shown to have correctly predicted those new findings.
For the atheist, of course, the problem the book presents is that it has many strong evidences of its correct rendering of many things, and it also talks a lot about Jesus Christ and his divinity. Now, for some of you, that fact will be sufficient for you to write it all off as a hoax. That, of course, is a choice available to you. However, if you are more interested in learning the truth no matter how much it may upset you, your lifestyle or your comfort zone, then you may want to take a closer look.
I personally see it as a gesture by a loving Father who is quite aware of the problems people of faith are having in defending that faith in these days of intellectual sophistry, so he kindly gave the world this miracle book as hard evidence that, among a huge raft of other things, he and Jesus Christ divinely exist.
Hmmm. I see no one has bothered to engage this “hard evidence”. Must have scared them all off or something. It does pose a definite threat to atheism in that the book suddenly appears out of nowhere, makes numerous successful predictions about discoveries that will occur during the ensuing centuries, and at the same time talks about an historical appearance of God. So the “out of nowhere/successful prediction thing proves that it is scientifically sound (which is hard evidence of its correctness as a factual record) while the God and angels thing strikes a body blow at atheism. Can you find any holes in this? Or maybe I didn’t explain it clearly enough.
If you avoid the truth long enough, you will eventually never find it.
So you win the debate by total silence???
Atheist, I have returned to this post after a long absence and thought it fun to reconsider your pretty graph of “human evolution” against “faith required” with carefully included “sharp rises”. I have no doubt that it is highly scientific (or you would never have included it). I am very excited to discover that our faith evolves so dramatically. Perhaps you could provide me with some of the sources of your scholarship. I am especially interested in the sharp rises and the scale of things… could I have “enough faith to move mountains” soon?
PS Sorry I don’t generally like sarcasm, but couldn’t resist. Hope you’re not too offended.
lemme explain
requires no faith to not believe in something there is no proof of
this is not maths, its a statement:
it does not require faith
to not believe in something
that there is no proof of (god)
if there isnt any proof of it,
you dont need “faith” (by its current definition) to not believe in it
your essentially saying there are degrees of faith with everything, and there is…when is a good point to quantify faith. not believing in something that has no evidence, or actively believing in that thing. this depends on your logic…nothing further, people are individual. we examine the consequences of individuality and then re-assess if it is suitable in an acceptable way…i.e the desire to inflict pain
AND
that is not hard evidence of the existence of a deity, i wouldnt even call it evidence tbh
having said that, atheism is not a religion or belief system
atheism is a belief, but atheists get agitated when you spurt out the word “system” as if we congregate or actively build thoughts based on faith in comparison to facts
or the word “religion”
or that its on a similar level to theism because it is not – research
its not an active system, its a default position, belief requires a system
type in “belief system atheism” in google, i have no entertainment copying and pasting general common sense into a box on a website
not discovering something, being informed that there is a possibility of that something that is undiscovered, does not mean that there is nothing there, we conclude this after attempting to thoroughly quantify this and assessing this thoroughly, this is what turns people (including myself) atheist, which is what the article states, being educated strengthens logic….please dont ask questions about what i mean, google it, im not coming back
i dont enjoy debating philosophical questions, i like reading them, my viewpoint is always clear to the point where there is no need for me to debate. i am interested in debating new philosophical questions, but not ones that are posted on a majority of websites that have fixed conclusions, i dont have time.
i dont find this forum debate fun like a game, you havent mentioned anything new which would change my position from the default, so dont assume its some sort of game in which there is competition between your thought and the world, play on your own, -“so you win”
i feel that if you dont try to disprove (i.e.)god with every piece of knowledge available to humans, and then actively search for knowledge unless you can define that knowledge using fundamental observations that compose science, i.e axioms, its illogical to claim a god exists if your logic is anywhere near suitable to be capable of concluding god exists by my personal (and most educated peoples) opinion. nothing further
before commenting again, research your questions
Steve, just hang on there. You sound pretty smug and then stomp off in a huff. That’s not pretty and certainly does your position no good.
On the question of math/logic I beg to differ. Math is certainly based on logic and the manipulation I did was completely proper. I am compelled to suggest that before you address this issue again, you do some research into logic.
The question of whether atheism is based on faith is a matter of simple logic. If, for the sake of the discussion we assume that it is impossible to prove that God exists or doesn’t exist then it cannot be proven either way. If you then take a position on the question, the only basis you have for your position is your opinion, your belief or your faith. It doesn’t matter what label you use for it – in this case position, opinion, belief and faith are pretty much equal terms. The position of the agnostic is thus shown to be far superior to that of the atheist.
I think you are afraid there might be a God so your safe haven is to deny his existence. Why else would you not be an agnostic?
Who knows? Admit that we are not ready spiritually to know the truth on either side of the debate. All I believe is that we can believe in something more powerful then us and we will contuinue to believe in that somwething forever. Because, we hope to obtain this kind of power. Look at fire, fire was so special in the distant past and was hard to weild and all pffft today, I have 20 Bic lighters in my drawer. Everybody is a fire god. Religion is a fatasy that we hope to someday realize. Reviving the daed, giving sight to the blind, food in abundance, good manners, forgiveness. All virtues that will someday be realized, we are all Jesus’ soon to be, or our spawn to say the least.
Human = lust for power
I will be happy to agree that religion is a fantasy when you agree that atheism is a religion. Heh. : )
Because you can’t prove your position you are forced to just believe in it, much like I believe in mine. Therefore we are both religious. The correct answer to “When Will Religion End” in this sense, is when people stop believing anything – an event that will not happen any time real soon – (although the politicians have me well down that path in their sphere).
The biggest problem with religion, in the sense I think most atheist bloggers use that word, is that the most horrific things in world history have been perpetrated in the name of God. All these evil men have given religion and the gods they profess to serve a really bad name. And I agree with all that completely. My reply to that is by analogy: just because we haven’t seen a worthy statesman on any political ballot in the last 25 years doesn’t prove that there are none nor does it prove that the search for one is futile. Likewise, the seach for God is not futile unless you really don’t want to find him anyway.
“Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby”
Bit of twisted metaphor there.
Actually, we are discussing the meaning of the word religion. You seem to equate it with belief in a god while I take it to mean a faith or belief or opinion (using these words equivalently) based perspective on reality. I will agree to quit calling you “religious” when you agree that your position is based on belief only – that is, totally without hard proof. OK?
To all of you, both believers and non-believers, athiests and religious, I have a statement to make:
Whilst you ramble on about science, christianity and islam, you all seem to ignore or are unaware, of the Jewish perspective on the existence of God. A perspective that REJECTS BLIND FAITH in its entirety.
I will present an overview of the Jewish belief but the research is for you to do, in order to formulate your own well thought out opinions.
I will ATTEMPT to prove the CREDIBILITY of Judaism as a divine religion, and not simply the writings of a man claiming to have prophetic powers.
In short, the Jewish nation (children of Jacob/Israel) were numbered at approx 3 million when they left the land of Egypt. On their journey to the land of Israel, these three million people, stood at the foot of Mount Sinai whilst God spoke directly, NOT through Moses, actually directly, from God’s ‘mouth’ to the people’s ‘ears’, speaking the Ten Commandments. These three million people constitute my great, great, great etc. grandparents. Not only did they maintain this oral tradition for the last 3000 odd years up until today, but in addition, it is recorded in several places in the old testament, constantly repeating that the Jewish people ‘literally’ heard the voice of God.
This is known as the ‘KUZARI principle’ in academic terms. I recommend you google it
There are only a few theoretically possible “scientific” or “athiest” arguments that can DISPROVE this theory:
1) The largest conspiracy theory ever – THREE MILLION people, invented a lie together, at the same time, and were actually able to maintain that lie to their children, without a single person letting out the truth.
WHERE DOES THIS DIFFER FROM ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY???
ANSWER: Both Islam & Christianity are led by ‘holy’ books written/inspired by their main prophet (mohammed/jesus). It is VERY EASY for ONE man to tell a lie, or to invent the divine. Whilst I do not doubt that the word of mohammed and the koran has NOT been distorted by the pages of time, I seriously question the divinity of mohammed in the first place. Moses, although also, a ‘man’, had God behind him – speaking to the people, in order that his word should be validated as divine, in the eyes of the people. Mohammed had no God to back him up. He just ‘claimed’ God had spoken to him, and left the people to BLINDLY believe in this. Christianity is much the same. Like I say, we dont have blind faith in God. We have faith that our parents dont lie to us. We know that Moses did not lie to our ancestors for they themselves, all 3 million, claimed to have heard the voice of God. Whilst muslims also have faith that their parents did not lie to them, their very religious foundation rests on the shoulders of one man – mohammed, and not 3 million (the Jewish people), and thus it is appropriate to question the credibility of islam
The alternative athiest argument:
2) Three million people – my ancestory, were all ‘high’ on cocaine, at the same time, in the same place, hellucinating the same dream.
Josh – thanks for reminding us all of this magnificent testimony of witnesses. I would offer only one correction to your post – in regard to the first line. I know that when you said believers and non-believers you meant “in respect to God”, but these atheists need to realize that in a very real sense they are believers in their religion of denying the existence of deity. I think they like to comfort themselves in the false notion that they are not living by faith. Fact is, the nature of our existence and the limitations of our abilities forces us all to choose some basis for our philosophy of life (religion in my book) and to base that choice on more or less blind faith. In fact, I think the atheist has the blindest of all faith because he doesn’t even have a hope of ever proving his opinion correct. The very best evidence they can point to is totally circumstantial and the circumstances they point to can easily be interpreted in ways that support the belief in God.
Again – thanks! Do not be surprised if you get no response. I have posted some very strong physical evidence supporting God and have heard not even a peep.
Jackson, to address your point about atheists requiring faith, as we’ve discussed previously it requires no faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Do you require faith to not believe in pink flying elephants?
I also have to say that I’m yet to come across a compelling argument from either yourself or any other theist to frequent this site’s discussion areas. I’d be most interested in any
as would all the religious leaders, the world’s media and every person on the planet. Unfortunately, no such evidence exists and, as such, has not been presented on this site.I’ll take that example: pink flying elephants as a good example! If I should say yes, I believe in them, can you prove me wrong? Of course not, because you would have to prove that they do not exist. There is no way to prove such a proposition – that’s that whole point I have been trying to make. You can only believe that they don’t exist. Never mind the circumstantial evidences and the silliness of this example – Just address the principle of it – it is inherently impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, hence to hold that opinion you are forced to base it on faith or belief or supposition or whatever you want to call it. Let’s not get hung up on the meanings of words. Ergo, the atheist is a believer just as much as the believer [in the usual sense of the word].
Jackson, I think you fundamentally misunderstand logic. Something does not become true just because you believe it to be so. You can believe in flying pink elephants, and I may not be able to disprove their existence (although, theoretically, it is possible to disprove the existence of things providing those things are clearly defined. Note that we can absolutely disprove the existence of any deity that is defined as being omnipotent much like we can disprove the existence of Jahweh, the Christian God, because those things are defined), but that does not mean that they are real. Remember, lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself, and there’s zero, nil, zip, nada, evidence for any deity.
The burden of proof always is, always should be, and always shall be, on the person making the ridiculous claims of mythical beings. It is up to you, the believer, to provide proof. It is not up to me to disprove you. Innocent until proven guilty applies here and can be read as, do not believe anything until there is evidence. It’s the same principal.
Well, of course you can disprove the existence of God if you get to define him and what will be considered proof or lack thereof. Your statement that if the Bible is wrong then God in fallible does not make sense to me – but then I think I demand much more rationality in my Christianity than most “believers”.
Josh, I think you’d be hard pressed to find an atheist who debates with theists with any regularity that hasn’t come across the Kuzari Principal. And like most theist arguments it’s built on foundations of falsehoods, misrepresentations and flawed logic.
To cut right to the bone, there aren’t 3 million witnesses, there are claims of 3 million witnesses (or, rather 660,000 men + extras). That is fundamentally not the same thing. There are not 3 million (or even 660,000, or even 6) witness accounts of the event. You have one account that claims there were 3 million witnesses.
Ultimately, there is no more reason for believing in the Mount Sinai event than there is for believing the Bible is true (i.e. absolutely none whatsoever). The Bible is true because it says it’s true. The Mount Sinai event happened because oral tradition says it happened. You have Oral Tradition proving Oral Tradition, The Bible proving The Bible. I’ll tell you what, I’m infallible. Everything I say is true. How can I prove I’m infallible? Well, I’m infallible, and I said I’m infallible, and I’m never wrong. There, I just provided exactly as much proof for my own infallibility as you have for the existence of Jahweh. Try to logically prove that statement wrong without proving yourself wrong.
You are looking at this the wrong way. You believe it is true so you are seeking for ways to disprove it. Rather, you should open your mind and only believe things that are proven. The Mount Sinai event cannot be proven, has not been proven and has been abandoned by most sensible theists as an argument because it is so deeply flawed that it demolishes their credibility in any debate.
Sounds to me like someone put an echo to good use. Didn’t Muhammad do something similar and claim it as the word of god?
As to the strong physical evidence, I refer you to my post of almost a year ago, Jan 19, 2009, when I talked about the Book of Mormon. No one has even ventured to comment on that amazing bit of evidence so I wonder if anyone has even read the post. The fact is, that book is impossible to explain away – well, a number of people have tried and several of them have felt compelled to join the church that published it – so fair warning.
Actually Jackson, I think people didn’t want to dignify such an absurd suggestion with a response. I, personally, thought you were saying it in jest and therefore felt no response was required or expected.
If you believe that The Book of Mormon is incontrovertible, you’re living in a dream world. I’ve got one word for you, anachronism. To (mis)quote Trey Parker and Matt Stone:
And let’s be clear, the Wikipedia article barely touches the surface when it comes to discrediting The Book of Mormon (and it only touches on one aspect of the book, there are many ways to discredit it). If there are people who set out to “explain away” the book and ended up feeling “compelled to join the church that published it” they either didn’t actually read the book, didn’t do any research into the claims made in the book or had something seriously wrong with them. A more cynical person may even suggest that they might be publicity stunts by the (very shady) LDS Church.
I find your offhand and flippant response quite offensive. I spent a good deal of time writing a long post on your web site at your invitation and you treat me like I am an idiot. I suppose that I will probably quit bothering to engage you on this topic. Your response reminds me of President Obama’s response to Glenn Beck’s question about why there were several Marxist sympathisers in his cabinet and pointed out names, dates and speeches as evidence. Obama simply replied that Beck “in not a real journalist”. If you don’t want to engage on the issues, just say so and we will be done with this joke.
As to anachronisms – that, sir, is almost the whole point of my post. There are many anachronisms in the book – beginning in 1830 when it was published there were probably at least a hundred. Now, almost 2 centuries later, the number has dropped significantly because discoveries continue to be made that prove the book was correct all along.
Offended? Tough sh*t. You have no right to not be offended, here or anywhere else. If you’re offended by something, it’s *your* fault, not whoever it was that said something that offended *you*.
If *you’re* offended, it’s because someone has presented something that you, for some reason or another, cannot fathom; you’ve been bred to believe otherwise.
Now excuse me, I’m off to wander the mountains where two angels will meet with me and only me and tell me things that only I will know, and I will make a religion out of it, being sure to pester anyone who steps through the door for money, because LDS god, like all the rest, is all powerful and almighty, “but HE NEEDS YOUR MONEY! He’ll send you to the pits of Hades for all eternity if you go against his wishes! But… he loves you!”
“Religion is BULLSH¡T!” -George Carlin
Perhaps the writer will be interested to know that there is a difference between the way Roman Catholics and Fundametalists and other religions interpret the Sacred Scriptures. We Catholics acknowledge that there are such things as metaphors, or allegory or symbolism. As such, we do not take the Scriptures literally, but rather, we try to ascertain if certain things in the Bible are literal or if they are symbolic. And he/she may also take interest in the stand of the Catholic Church concerning evolution, both cosmological and human.
On cosmological evolution, the Church, in the First Vatican Council, that the universe was specially created by God out of nothing. It does not say, however, whether the stars and the planets evolved over time or came into existence with a snap of the fingers. What it does say is that if they did develop over time, then it was through the plan of God that this happened.
On human evolution, the Catholic position is more firm. We allow for the evolution of man’s body, of that part which is corporal and tangible, under the guidance of God, but we affirm that man’s SOUL was created specially. And the Venerable Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (Encyclical letter Humani Generis,”On Human Origin”) So whether or not the body evolved, we affirm that the soul was specially created.
Now I should like to ask questions:
Why does it seem that whenever the enemies of religion attempt to suppress it, suffering inevitably occurs?
Why is religion accused of being reactionary, when in fact, experience shows us that to the contrary, it is atheism which is reactionary? This statement may seem rather vague, so let me clarify. Why is it that religion, a product of continuing collections of insights and experiences which constantly moves forward and aids in the advancement of man, is accused of bringing it backward, while atheism, a heresy in the truest sense of the word, is praised as bringing it forward? Atheism is really a true heresy because it does not accumulate insights from a start, but rather, it destroys the start again and again and builds up again. How can this be called progressive?
I shall await answers. Thank you very much.
Every one of us were born atheist. Then, in most cases, we are converted to one religion or another without our own consent, forced by our parents or legal guardians. These people shape our young minds, often by choosing where to send us to school.
I think parochial schooling should be outlawed, as it is a form of torture and mental abuse.
There is no god. Get over it. EVOLVE.
A good point that nobody is raising:
One of the good observations that was brought up in the article is that as more people leave religion the ones that are left will be EXTREMISTS…
Look at the Islamic faith….now that the Arab countries are more westernized with TV, Internet & mobIie devices you are seeing this in action…. The extremeists would rather people raising donkeys to eat and pull the water from the dessert well, just like in the days of their Koran-and if not then-“PEOPLE ARE INIFIDELS AND SHOULD DIE” they ate very concrete and inflexible about how people should live…evolution is about a fluid and constant adaptation, totally in line with all the evidence around us..
And to what people are commenting about being athiest as being a religion?? All I can say is that our “evidence” is not set in stone as religion..,if science proves A today and then proves B tomorrow, atheists will switch appropiatley… If a GOD came down and PROVED that he existed and created everything, all of the atheists would adapt instantly… This principle is exactly why religion is wrong…evidence is what we can prove today (and hopefully forever) if religion followed this there should only be ONE VICTORIOUS RELIGION/GOD OF THE EARTH/UNIVERSE–doesn’t it bother you guys that there are soooo many religions out there?? And that most were created hundreds/thousands of years ago?? (besides the flying spaghetti monster (lol)) and that no new ones are being created now in the technology age??
I believe persinger postulates this correctly (Altho his experimental methods are questionable): that when humans finally were able to know their lives were FINITE (ie death) that they had to create something INFINITE so as to calm the anxiety of impending death… What better way to do this than to create a god…who looks after us and promises us an analgous life after death, infinite in all ways!!!…isn’t it funny that ALL religions promise this?? ALL RELIGIONS PROMISE INFINITE AFTERLIFE–