It Doesn’t Matter If God Exists

Posted by on July 9, 2012 in Featured, Thoughts | 34 comments

Atheists are continually fighting with theists on the topic of whether god exists or not. Theists often point at the world and say “Look around you, all this exists because God made it.” atheists counter this with “We have conclusive proof that the way the universe is now is caused by billions of years of cosmic evolution, still there’s no proof of God.” And this is where the debate ends, for a it’s very difficult for a theist to see how the universe couldn’t have been created another way than by the guiding hand of a god, and atheists have concluded that god is not necessary in order for the universe to exist.

In the mind of a theist, the question of God’s existence is of paramount importance, for if there is no God, then their whole universe-view crumbles into a heap. They therefore barricade themselves behind their beliefs, leaving no room for a shift in view. In the mind of an atheist, the constant demand for proof that there is no God is as futile as trying to prove there are no unicorns, or elves, or pixies.

So we are left with a standoff between the claims of theists and their demand that we disprove their theories of god. I’ve not seen it move much beyond that standoff, though there are some exceptions, and theists continually claim that the evidence offered up by atheists as to the absence of a god actually reinforce their viewpoint.

The only problem here is, we’re talking about the unprovable; it is impossible to prove a god exists, just as it is impossible to disprove its existence. And yet we all live our lives in such a way that it does not. Whatever the case, whether god exists or not, there has been no sign of intervention from him or it, an continual advances in science’s understanding of the universe actually fills in the gaps where god once inhabited. The god of the gaps is retreating into the only place that a god could live, and that’s within the minds of humankind.

So what importance does the question of the existence of god hold?

If the God of the bible or Allah exist, then his main interest in humanity is that we worship him, and follow his rules which are more concerned with how and where we “spill our seed” than that we be kind to each other. This version of God must be so petty, and so jealous, that even the thought of not worshiping him is enough to earn a person his wrath for all eternity. It also seems that this god has shown little or no interest in humanity, his prized creation, for the past 2000 years. All those years of prayer, all those lives lost from inaction, the years of wars and famine, and the continual degradation of the planet’s finite resources. Where is god in times of dire need for the entire species? If this is the case, why would we choose to worship him?

In the words of Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

If the deistic god exists, the god who set in motion the big bang and the evolution of the universe, but then left it to its own devices without interfering in any way, god becomes irrelevant except as a “first cause”, and doesn’t not require belief in him or it for humanity and the universe to exist. This version of god, though incredibly important to the creation of the universe, has little or no relevance to the way we live our lives. If in fact this god did exist, things would be very much the same way they are now, and dwelling on this idea is little more than mental navel-gazing.

Which brings me to my point. It matters little if any gods exist; either way we find ourselves in our current situations. Humans have made the technologies we now depend upon, and god seems to be neither here nor there, save a scant promise of the afterlife if we follow his rules, or as the shadow left behind by an uninterested creator. We still live as though there were no god. So what difference does it make either way?

So what difference does it make either way?

God is not the problem here. Religion is the problem. The thousands of years of people saying they know god, they know what he wants, what he demands from humans, and how we should live their lives, all comes from the brains of men. Would the creator of the universe be concerned whether two men want to marry? Would the creator of the universe be concerned about whether you mix polyester and cotton, or gather sticks on a Sunday? I’d say no, but men would be. It doesn’t take a genius to see the words in the holy books for what they really are; political propaganda from a time long past.

We could do wonders if we could set this question aside, and agree that whether I believe, or whether you believe is not important, but that we live this life with as much respect for ourselves and others so as to create societies built on equality, fairness and harmony.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (11 votes cast)
It Doesn't Matter If God Exists, 9.0 out of 10 based on 11 ratings

34 Comments

  1. I note that politically inert religions aren’t seen as problematic.
     
    Presumably there are many quiet groups earnestly spreading nice sounding ideas about good ways to stabilise society that we never butt heads with because they’re so poorly funded.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  2. The argument is redundant cuz we allow the Believers to set the goal posts, and they keep moving them all over the playing field. Martin’s right. Even if there were a god, that’s irrelevant. The god described in ancient texts is a codependent, petty, malicious god and the argument for loving him is the same I have heard from battered wives. He hurts us because he loves us. That’s not love. Even if the Abrahamic creator were real, he’s no god. He’s a monster. I don’t hate god, cuz he ain’t there. However, if he were there, we got more than enough reasons to hate him. Thankfully, the bible was written by manipulative men and not an omnipotent god, cuz there’d be no reason to live in a universe run by a selfish egocentric prick with more power than brains. I wouldn’t want to be an ant where a kid has a magnifying glass on a sunny day either. 

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  3. A truly deistic God would be a curiosity, but it would probably be hard to justify wasting a lot of time on him.  On the other hand, a sustainer God, by whom “all things consist,” as Colossians says, would be of vital interest.  He would not only have been Creator, but would be the one who is ” upholding all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).  If we wanted to understand how things work at the most elemental level, we would have to have some understanding of how God works. 
     
    As you say, “God is not the problem here.”  Personally, I think such a being would be the most fascinating of all possible subjects.  The problem, as you suggest, is that no one has been able to demonstrate that there is any need of such a Person, and much less that he actually exists.  The concept of deity seems to be what we might call a phyletic snowball, something that probably started as simple animism, but an idea that grew and grew until today it has such mass and momentum that it’s hard to see how it’ll ever melt away.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • What would a universe which was not designed by a god look like?

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      •  @askegg do you have a window nearby?

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        •  @thatfatbloke  – exactly.  Occam does away with the “god” thing since it has no explanatory power.  We do not seem to be able to tell a universe created by a god from one which is not, so why do they insist on making the assertion?

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @askegg  Imho the believer insists on their assertion because the god they have in mind is a concept that DOES have explanatory power for them. It couches what they feel is spiritual or profound in terms of the Divine. The believer doesn’t see their explanation as a fiction and their god as a concept. Monotheism tells them their fiction is true and that concept is a person.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      •  @askegg That’s a big part of the problem, I think.  There’s no way to get a handle on just what the differences would be.  We have no indisputable example of something God has created, so we can’t point and say, “See?  That’s the kind of thing God turns out.”

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        • @mspeir And what about something ‘irreducibly complex’? How would you determine, for example, that highly intelligent aliens have not engineered our dna? or drawn crop circles?

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      •  @askegg the universe we live in

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  4. A more than superficial understanding of Pascals wager would shame this author into rewriting, even retracting this piece. http://www.wholereason.com/2009/02/pascals-wager.html

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    •  @Dgsinclair Why, sure!  If anyone doesn’t agree with you, it must be because his understanding is “superficial.”  What other possible explanation could there be?

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • @Dgsinclair I have a pretty good understanding of Pascal’s wager and have tacked that before. http://martinspribble.com/archives/1892

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • @Dgsinclair I have a pretty good understanding of teh wager and have tackled it before http://martinspribble.com/archives/1892

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    •  @Dgsinclair Pascal’s Wager is just reiterating Martin’s point. The Believer argument is redundant. To believe in a petty tyrant god as described in the ancient texts in question because you want to err on the side of caution is silly. It really doesn’t matter if the god in question exists. If he were, he’s not worth  your worship, but deserves your disdain. A more rational explanation is that the reason the Abrahamic god appears to be filled with petty desires and tragic flaws is cuz he was made up by human beings who share those qualities. If there were an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving god, he would not behave like a petty human tyrant as described in Abrahamic texts. He would not demand your fealty or feel the need to scare you with punishment. 

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    •  @Dgsinclair Pascal’s Wager suggests living <i>as if</i> the god we have in mind is the biblical character of monotheism.
       
      This is problematic for the nonreligious because we see god’s spokemen are confusing personal fictions about their god with earthly facts about this world and its inhabitants.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • @blamer but as i wrote in one of my articles, Pasal suggested this, assuming that this practice would LEAD to faith because the fruits of such an attitude and practice would prove themselves and eventually PRODUCE faith. Essentially, remaining truly open to faith is what Pascal would call the reasonable position.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @Dgsinclair  @blamer Faith is never reasonable. Faith is choosing to accept an idea as if it had scientifically validated and repeatable proof, whether or not such proof exists. You pretend faith is enough, and it is not. This is why Pascal’s Wager fails. It is NEVER okay to accept the delusion blindly. 
           
          If you cannot prove something, you have no reason to believe in it. Faith is delusional and dangerous w/o sufficient evidence to back it up. 
           
          If you can prove something, and have sufficient evidence reinforced by peer review and repeatable testing, again, you have no reason to believe. Faith becomes redundant and absurd. 
           
          And even the scientific method is not something to believe in! It too has been painstakingly challenged, updated, revised and double checked throughout its existence. People may uncover an aberration or oversight tomorrow in how the scientific method currently works, which would cause us to review not only how it is used in the future, but how it’s been utilized in the past. EVERY SINGLE past fact & theory would need to be challenged again, with the new and improved scientific method, to make sure everything lives up to the new standards. In fact this should probably happen more often than it actually does. And someday I anticipate the scientific method will prove to be insufficient and we’ll come up with something even better. I have no idea what that would be, and I could be completely wrong about that. We don’t know. 
           
          Faith doesn’t allow for “we don’t know.” It makes a decision and sticks to it regardless of future discovery. BELIEF IS BROKEN. I don’t care how much Pascal wants to wager. 

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • @ZachsMind… If I shared your definition of faith, I would hate it too. My guess is that you view it as an unthinking obedience to an authority, with reason in abeyance. While some people follow this type of ‘blind faith’ and view faith and reason as non overlapping magisteria (Hinduism in particular views things this way), this is not the christian view at all. While empirical science is a great epistemic method, it is not the only tool at our disposal. 

          Faith, when seen as temporary trust in a reliable source (one that has proved itself to us in previous matters) allows us to function with knowledge and wisdom that is beyond our current comprehension or empirical abilities, which can later be verified by reason and science, if not experience. I dare say that all of us, except the most cynical, have authorities whom we trust, even though our own comprehension is minimal compared to theirs. Such trust does not have to be absolute or beyond scrutiny or doubt in order to be called faith…only the most narrow definition is unquestioning.

          While blind faith certainly is in opposition to reason, healthy faith is not. I have written on this at the following urls if you are inclined.

          How sure can we be of our spiritual convictions?
          http://www.wholereason.com/2011/03/how-sure-can-we-be-of-our-spiritual-convictions.html

          Faith and Reason – Link Dump
          http://www.wholereason.com/2007/09/faith-and-reason-link-dump.html

          The Atheist’s Caricature of Faith
          http://www.wholereason.com/2006/05/the-atheists-caricature-of-faith.html

          The Weslyan Quadrangle III – Scripture and Reason
          http://www.wholereason.com/2007/02/the-weslyan-quadrangle-iii-scripture-and-reason.html

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • @ZachsMind… If I shared your definition of faith, I would hate it too. My guess is that you view it as an unthinking obedience to an authority, with reason in abeyance. While some people follow this type of ‘blind faith’ and view faith and reason as non overlapping magisteria (Hinduism in particular views things this way), this is not the christian view at all. While empirical science is a great epistemic method, it is not the only tool at our disposal. 

          Faith, when seen as temporary trust in a reliable source (one that has proved itself to us in previous matters) allows us to function with knowledge and wisdom that is beyond our current comprehension or empirical abilities, which can later be verified by reason and science, if not experience. I dare say that all of us, except the most cynical, have authorities whom we trust, even though our own comprehension is minimal compared to theirs. Such trust does not have to be absolute or beyond scrutiny or doubt in order to be called faith…only the most narrow definition is unquestioning.

          While blind faith certainly is in opposition to reason, healthy faith is not. I have written on this at the following urls if you are inclined.

          How sure can we be of our spiritual convictions?
          http://www.wholereason.com/2011/03/how-sure-can-we-be-of-our-spiritual-convictions.html

          Faith and Reason – Link Dump
          http://www.wholereason.com/2007/09/faith-and-reason-link-dump.html

          The Atheist’s Caricature of Faith
          http://www.wholereason.com/2006/05/the-atheists-caricature-of-faith.html

          The Weslyan Quadrangle III – Scripture and Reason
          http://www.wholereason.com/2007/02/the-weslyan-quadrangle-iii-scripture-and-reason.html

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @Dgsinclair Oh ye of way too much faith. 
           
          If you do not share my definition of faith, then you are redefining the word. This may benefit you and those who believe as you do, but it isn’t a fair and rational way to communicate with people, to take words and pretend they mean things which they simply don’t mean, in order to shore up your argument. 
           
          I’m not making up what the word means for the purposes of my beliefs, cuz I don’t have any. Simply put, dictionary.reference.com defines faith as “confidence or trust in a person or thing” as well as “belief that is not based on proof” another definition of faith is “belief in a god or a religion” and then also acknowledges that “faith” can be used to represent any particular system of dogma. So one person may say “faith” meaning Christianity. Another may say “faith” and mean ufology. Depends on what they personally believe in. 
           
          This is not a christian or hindu or secular humanist definition. This is how the word “faith” works in practice. I’m no longer a christian so i don’t adhere to any christian definitions of anything. If a christian definition of something happens to mesh with actual reality, that’s more coincidence than anything. 
           
          One of the MANY problems w/belief is that you may adhere to one faith while the guy next to you accepts a totally different belief system. This causes subjective reality to get in the way of actual objective reality. 
           
          So you both look at the same object, and you may find it to be a holy shrine while he sees it as an abomination, when objectively speaking it’s just a stone carving of an animal or something. You both look at reality and see what your beliefs imbue the object with, when it’s just a stupid rock in a museum. 
           
          You can move the goal posts all you want but I already scored. I am using the dictionary definitions. Faith is the acceptance of an idea as if it were fact regardless of scientific validity; it is belief that is not based on proof. You may or may not happen to have proof, but you can still believe.
           
          Proof is not a requirement for faith. It IS a requirement for science. Because religion doesn’t need facts to legitimize itself, it immediately makes any religion illegitimate in the fact of actual reality. ANY religion is a delusion, even if in the future it turned out to just happen to be 100% correct, cuz ppl believed in it w/o proof, so they believed in it for all the wrong reasons. Cuz it felt good, or they were told by their elders to accept it, or for fear of an imaginary being tormenting them for eternity. These are NOT good reasons to accept anything as fact. The only reason to accept anything as fact IS TO HAVE FACTS! 
           
          Faith has no need for science, and dismisses science when the two disagree. Because of this, science has no need for faith. The two do not work together. If you pretend the two co-exist, you are either delusional, or a con artist. Or perhaps both. 
           
          There may be scientists who believe, but in the practical application of science, there is no room for faith. Never has been. Never will be. That’s not a belief. That’s a fact. That’s how science works. 

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @Dgsinclair I agree ZachsMind undermines those using “blind faith” as their defense for holding to some belief that flies in the face of scientific evidence. For example, that the world is approx 6000 years old.
           
          The weakness of the “blind faith” defense tarnishes your claim that “faith + contemporary academia” is a virtue. It boosts the believer’s feelings of trustworthiness, reliability. It doesn’t boost trustworthiness nor reliability that the group’s belief is a universal fact.
           
          Faith that a biblical fiction, say a miracle, is in fact historical always seems like you “know” something that we know is unknown.
           
          Today’s christian teachers cannot know our universe’s history contains a Genesis miracle and an Immortal Creator. Whereas Ivy League University professors can know that history began with a Big Bang event, and which parts of holytexts are fictions the faithful are mistaking for facts.
           
          If you think the authors of Genesis knew (not just correctly guessed) our universe had a beginning –wasn’t eternal– you need to explain why christian teachers “knew” the exact opposite.  Even for a time after science discovered that that christian teaching was in fact incorrect …thus as unethical as Young Earth Creationism to keep teaching to their next generation. It’s wrong for christian leaders to proclaim their religio-political fictions as if they’re teaching us –not fables– but facts about our world.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • @ZachsMind… If your source for discussing the various definitions of theological, philosophic, or other intellectual concepts is the dictionary, this will indeed be a short conversation. If, you mean to do no more than support your narrow, self serving pejorative opinions of faith, a pedestrian understanding will do.

          The roots of modern intellectual and scientific thought and practice can be found in Christian and enlightenment thought, and the tension you express between religion and reason is partly true, but greatly, it is a myth created by anti Catholic enlightenment thinkers. The most famous example is the now thoroughly debunked but still influential pseudo history of William Draper’s “History the Conflict between Religion and Science” 
          http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Evolution-Sunday-Michael-Zimmerman-2-7-2011.html

          First, it must be admitted that any strongly held ideology will manipulate the pursuit of knowledge, be it religion, atheism, or Darwinism, all of which have strong histories of impeding human progress. Also, religion has some special opportunities to deny reality in that it speculates on things which are beyond the grasp of science (like the existence of God), though reason apart from direct empiricism can help us winnow out particularly bad assumptions or arguments.

          My bottom line is this. Faith and reason are not in conflict in Christian tradition, even if some or many practice it that way. And I am not talking about the neutered faith of those who separate reality, intellect, and science from some private piety. Many of our greatest scientists and thinkers, like Pascal, Keppler, and Hoyle, have had robust faiths and sharp intellect that worked in concert in discovering and describing reality, and this is a real practice even today. 

          Those who have suffered anti intellectual faith may assume that all faith is such, but I think they are suffering from various combinations of personal injury and disappointment, fear of the subjective nature of our intuitions, feelings, and conscience, and various forms of ignorance: of history, of healthy faith and doctrine, and of their own motives. 

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • @blamer Do you have a source for Christians believing in an eternal universe? I can, however, answer why the catholic church supported the geocentric model… It was the prevailing view of science! Too bad they developed their doctrine to fit science instead of scripture, if scripture even mentions such details. With regard to an eternal universe, I think science has overwhelmingly validated its cosmology of a beginning, not to mention more correct historic and archaeological confirmations than any other ancient document. But that’s another topic.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @Dgsinclair You diss a dictionary? Really? And you honestly think that makes you sound more intelligent in this discussion? 
           
          I have no interest in “theological, philosophic, or other intellectual concepts” unless they can withstand rigorous repeatable testing and suffer through peer review and other crap like that. In my experience, philosophy and theology involves several stuffy men in suits arguing incessantly over nothing of substance; whereas science involves several stuffy men in suits throwing empirical data at each other until something sticks. 
           
          A dictionary is simple and elegant. It doesn’t claim superiority. It simply describes how a particular word has been used recently in common parlance. It can also become wrong, which requires it to be regularly updated and improved so that it has the latest information available. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary is currently in its eleventh edition, whereas there are many different translations of say, the christian bible for example, but all of them claim to be as close as they can get to the original “Book of Scriptures” which came from now dead languages and scholars can’t even agree on syntax or intent, much less meaning, of any of it. 
           
          One of the many problems w/the argument of religion and science is that you guys can’t even agree on what the word “theory” means. Believers think it’s something vague that can be open to interpretation. Scientists use the same word in a very different way. 
           
          You can’t get any two theologians to agree 100% on what they believe in regards to religious dogma. However, a scientific theory is largely agreed upon by the scientific community. When a scientist disagrees w/a theory, he puts together an experiment to challenge it. He doesn’t storm off in a huff to build his own church, like Martin Luther did, or countless others since. 
           
          Again, you keep moving the goal posts dude. Doesn’t matter. I scored days ago. In fact, I’ve already moved on. 

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @Dgsinclair  “Eternal universe” is the original scholarly interpretation of Genesis 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#Genesis_1:1.E2.80.933
           
          Later others believe and spread alternative interpretations. Sectarian bickering ensues. Christian theology (which historically schisms rather than unites) therefore has a bet each way:
           
          “discussed since the thirteenth century when Thomas Aquinas suggested that God could indeed have created an infinitely old universe”
           
          — Stanford Uni, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology-theology/#3
           
          So when we get to 1927’s radical new scientific theory (Big Bang vs Steady State) we see christendom react by defending their traditional teaching: some monotheists balk, others chalk it up as a win, and still others…
           
          “The whole question whether the world had a beginning or not is, in the last resort, profoundly unimportant for theology” (Mascall 1956, 155)

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @ZachsMind  @Dgsinclair I see history as being on our side.
           
           1. people cannot read, the Church does all the scholarly activity
           2. early universities are religious, teach philosophies incl. god & religion
           3. the branch “natural philosophy” (aka. science) and a theology department
           4. modern academia (ethicists, historians) VS seminaries for biblical sects
           
          Thus I personally have far more reverence for modern philosophers than theologians.
           
          I consider them the experts on critiquing arguments, so it matters to me that I learn what the current consensus opinion is:
           
           72.8% atheistic
           14.6% theistic
           12.5% other
           
          http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        •  @Dgsinclair >>the tension you express between religion and reason is… greatly… a myth
           
          Science and religion aren’t in conflict?
           
          >>any strongly held ideology will manipulate the pursuit of knowledge… religion… atheism… Darwinism… have strong histories of impeding human progress
           
          As retarding as religion? Perhaps more helpful, wrt say medicine??
           
          >>religion has some special opportunities to deny reality…though reason apart from direct empiricism can help us winnow out particularly bad assumptions or arguments
           
          You mean neighbouring departments of Ivy League Universities? or other more contentious institutions?
           
          >>Faith and reason are not in conflict in Christian tradition
           
          Off topic, but then why all the schisming into different denominations?
           
          >>not talking about the neutered faith of those who separate reality, intellect, and science from some private piety
           
          Agreed, to keep insist Ivy League professors and religious leaders have nothing to say about each other’s area of expertise seems pretty “delusional” at this point.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  5. @blamer @Dgsinclair Well, Wikipedia is a good place to start, though it’s hardly impartial or representative. Regarding the composition of philosophers, I’m not sure such a correlation means as much as you suppose, though it’s not a bad assumption. And as you know, truth is not determined by majority opinion. For a fuller perspective on the relationship between faith and science, see this list of books:
     
     GUIDE: Books on Christianity and Science
    http://www.wholereason.com/2010/04/guide-books-on-christianity-and-science.html
      
    Also, historical analysis shows that the spread of literacy, technology, medicine, And human progress are strongly correlated with xianity. For example, see

    The biblical origins of science 
     
    http://www.wholereason.com/2010/11/the-biblical-origins-of-science.html

    Religion, innovation and economic progress – Part I
     http://www.wholereason.com/2008/06/religion-innovation-and-economic-progress-part-i.html
     
    Religion, innovation and economic progress – Part II
     http://www.wholereason.com/2008/06/religion-innovation-and-economic-progress-part-ii.html

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    •      @Dgsinclair You’re conflating popular opinion (yes unreliable) with the majority opinion of living experts (the MOST trustworthy source we have available).
       
      Claiming that wikipedia’s bias undermines what it says about Genesis is to ignore the above point. If you think wikipedia in fact got that point of history wrong, then alter it. See what happens. Updaters help to ensure encyclopedias (and academia) are zeroing in on the true story.
       
      Pointing out that scientific thinking “came from” (spawned within) a christian society isn’t an argument for the lack of tension in the 21st century. On the contrary, it helps explain WHY church leaders have such resistance to new discoveries about our universe, humanity, history, and their biblical teachings.
       
      Including the teaching that the faithful are the purveyors of facts about the bible’s main character.
       
      >>I would contend that Darwinism has done nothing to aid science, and plenty to impede it
       
      Darwinism? Popularising that mechanism of evolution, natural selection? Academics say you’re wrong. Teaching the facts is better than teaching fictions as facts. Perhaps you have different values to prop up your claim that humanity is worse off because of a scientific discovery. Or that claim is simply in fact incorrect.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  6. Btw, for a concise overview of the argument for the christin roots of modern science, see http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/. I would contend that Darwinism has done nothing to aid science, and plenty to impede it, while Christianity was necessary (but not sufficient) for the rise of modern science, just the opposite of what modern atheists have been brainwashed to believe by anti theist enlightenment pseudo historians. History debunks the science/religion conflict polemic of the bitter anti theists. All they can really claim credit for in history are the atrocities of atheist regimes, and a paltry few contributions to science and man’s welfare, and nearly nothing to ethics or the valuing of human life, IMO.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  7. The OP:
     
    <blockquote>”…we’re talking about the unprovable; it is impossible to prove a god exists…”</blockquote>
     
    No, it is easy to prove a god exists – simply show him to us.  Simply show us the tiniest wafer-thin incontrovertible evidence that your proposition – that there is, indeed, a god –  is defensible. It is, after all, the responsibility of the claimant – in the face of the 10,000+ non existent gods that mankind has imagined – to offer evidence for this positive claim, not the responsibility of the atheist to disprove the proposition.
     
    What is “unprovable” is to show that a god exists <i>without evidence</i>. Without evidence, without a god-shaped hole in our understanding of the universe, without a definition of god which is either coherent or not disproved by the problem of evil,  the claim that there is a god is defeated. According to every other standard of logic and scientific method with which we measure our lives, god is disproven.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  8. @ZachsMind -.- have you read the bible or are you just letting your mind run amuck, cuz I believe we’re thinking of different Gods here. God never hurt us because he loved us ( i don’t even know how you conjured up that) but he instead inflicted pain upon Himself (sacrificing His Son) to make sure we can all be with Him. It’s the point-of-view you get; you can slander the Verbatim(harsh/strict) God all you want, I believe in a truly loving one.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  9. I wish more dogmatic zealots on both sides of the coin could see this. I lean heavily toward science, and as established in proper science the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If you want to say religious folk need to back their claims that is acceptable. However, if you on the other hand turn around and claim that deists cannot prove a god, hence there must not be one… well then I would ask for your evidence as well. Your opponent being wrong, does not automatically make you right.
     
    Somewhere in the comments I read something about the atrocities perpetrated by fascist atheist dictators. Along with a lack of contributions to science. I have to say, that is mildly hilarious, and here’s why. Where is your proof? There is proof that the crusades, the inquisition, the Moors invading Europe, and countless other religiously motivated atrocities happened. Now I’m not saying that only religious people kill. I point that out because someone out there is going to twist my words and repaint my sentiment thusly. I am simply saying. YOU MADE A CLAIM, BACK IT UP. Also, claiming religion contributed to science in any major way (other than motivating people to look elsewhere) is equal lunacy, for obvious reasons. We could live in an age with flying cars and extraplanetary colonies if not for religion. However, I will say at least an attempt was made here to present evidence. Though the argument is highly fallacious. The author of said article touched on correlation=causation fallacy immediately, and then proceeded to repeat the fallacy over and over in the first stage of his argument. I didn’t read further, because I didn’t need to. The conclusion was based of less than facts and logic. This does not necessarily make the conclusion incorrect, however, before I can in good conscience accept it as such, the work needs to be revised.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Have your say

%d bloggers like this: