My question, as you know, is obviously not explaining the origin of a single event. That would be trivial. It's the broader question of reaching a conclusive answer. We can't. Not logically. If you have faith we will you can say it
Since it is intuitively not conceivable how can say, logically, that we will have an answer?
At least I can conceive with my imagination the idea of matter taking on another form due to external influences. I can't conceive how the origin of the Universe, "nothing" started.
You're really torturing the definition of the word logic.
That makes no sense. There was an origin so it is quite possible we will find an accepted scientific explanation. I'd even say we have made huge progress getting there already.
Because something is not intuitive doesn't make it not so. Your personal, or even general, incredulity has no bearing on logical possibilities nor reality. Quantum Mechanics is not, for instance, intuitive in any way.
To that point, I’ve always found it non-coincidental that organized religion and organized government always show up at around the same time.
I'm afraid your imagination isn't how we determine scientific facts or probability for that matter.
that would give us evidence of something we could say was "god-like" but it wouldn't be evidence of "god". assume supernatural beings did exist, the first thing you'd say is that "god" is beyond you, too. for example, insofar as anything exists, it does not choose to exist because choosing to exist implies existence prior to existence (implies choosing prior to a state where choosing becomes possible. which is existence). the concept of god people tend to have is one which wills itself and other things into existence. that is a hard one to square even in non-religious terms. there are some good logical arguments about "god", again very abstract use of that term, being a kind of universe-external entity. dovetails with big bang theory a little.
Then don't take my imagination for it, but can you do it? Even qualified scientists have talked about humanly it is impossible to get to an origin because there will always be an origin to that origin.
Literal insanity to believe in any religion given the context.No, it's all just for us.
I don't need an answer. I'm quite happy to believe that we're a quirk of fate. An often amazing one in a vast sea of lifelessness but to me believing that we're special or someone has a plan and rules for us in the context of the vast infinity of space as illustrated in the previous post I quoted is narcissist in the extreme. We're nothing, less than a millionth of an amoeba, yet we live. Is that not enough? Religions came into being before we knew we were an infinitesimally small life-form in a dark corner of the Universe. It's quite literally human exceptionalism and based on the egotistical notion that we must be special because we are self-aware. For anyone wondering why atheists find humour in Religion it's because once the veil is lifted it's quite laughable that anyone could think that a higher power who could create an infinite universe would give us a set of rules and punish or reward us for all eternity based on what occurred, for them, in the tiniest infinitesimally small fraction of the blink of an eye.
A start, not outright proof. TBH I think it is a waste of time even trying as the ship has sailed. The chances of there being any supernatural being, much less a god, is virtually zero.
yeah i think proof and religion are not well suited. science will seek to explain religious phenomena via proofs. so hypothetically if we proved the existence of higher order beings as "god-like" we might then explain ghosts and phantoms from a scientific point of view. but religion will still hold those things to be proof of god (without any actual proof, and that's why it's faith-based).
There may be a point beyond we can't "see" to know what came before. I'm thinking before the singularity that started the current expansion. But historically there have always been declarations of limits to knowledge that have been wrong. So we may well get there, at least being able to model what came "before" the big bang e.g. big bang, big crunch cycle or whatever. But you don't fill gaps in knowledge with whatever nonsense you like. You work towards building knowledge upon knowledge.
Ghosts and phantoms? Once again it falls to a comedian to point out how nonsensical this idea is
post removed. but i'm not saying either exist, i'm saying that if we somehow reasoned their existence hypothetically it would have implications for science but religion would probably remain as it is. before Franklin people used to say lightning was an act of god. when Franklin and others demonstrated how it worked in natural scientific reasoning, fewer people claimed lightning for the sphere of god. but many people still do. they'll say you can figure out how it works, but you cannot figure out how it got here. the argument moves from the individual mystery to the meta-mystery, or from token to type. my point was that even in such a scenario you would see the same kind of thing take place ("you've explained how ghosts exist but you cannot explain how or why we're here in the first place").
Click it it is still there. Not sure why it shows up as removed. Is there a tldr for your ghost story? No chance I'm arsed hypotheticalling about ghosts, sorry. God and religion are bad enough. What about fairies and elves?
you've missed the point entirely. tl;dr i'm explaining the difference between science and religion the context of faith and reason.
Ok I went back and read it. I've clearly missed your point but I'm still but sure I get what you're saying.
more or less. still not sure about indoctrination before age of reason being a prerequisite as many in this thread seem to have become religious or found belief in god in their adult years. others seem to have gone the other direction. i think there's at least two aspects to it. one is the social function which you point out. another is the epistemic crisis, or gap problem. like the difference between a religious person and a theologian. the theologian is more logician than religious zealot, these days anyway, at least the university kind, who often views god in very abstract logical terms.
I would say that all sounds very protestant.
You could also say the same about all those other other aspects of human existence that contribute towards a person's identity, like: nationality, sexuality, culture, gender, race, ethnicity and so on. People don't exist in the abstract however.
I’d say folks like me and folks who arrived at religion as an adult are in the minority. Most religious folks were born and raised into a religion and never leave it.
Last I checked, people were born with those attributes and didn't choose to believe in it, as opposed to religion. Which is why there is an argument of removing religion from society as a defining attribute for anyone's identity, as it's disposable.
yeah that's a fair point. the majority will be as you say born and raised.
I think the question itself is illogical without a set definition of “origin” or at least with how you’re inferring “origin” in thr above post. The science might get to a point where it has full understanding of the big bang, and then the origin of the big bang, lets say A. Then you can again ask what is the origin of A, how did A come about. The science may again understand that the origin of A is B. But then again you might ask how did B come about, and so on and so forth. This “how” question about the origin can go to infinitum without a set definition.
Catechism: existsI would say that all sounds very protestant.
To borrow from Russell…
My son has had nothing to do with religion and views the notion of a god no more believable than ghosts or mythical beings. Without indoctrination it isn't believable.
I would tend to agree. The reactions of people indoctrinated in one faith to the sincerely held beliefs of people indoctrinated in a different one make me believe that.
Oh that’s one I always enjoy talking about with students when I teach world religions.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had a conversation like that with a student where they ask me “how can they believe something that silly?” and I’m like, “well, did it occur to you that they might think the same about what you believe?”
Indoctrination of the young isn’t just a Protestant thing.
Bertrand’s quote = religious people can believe anything or nothing, too. Just depends on what someone tells them to think.
It certainly isn’t. However, your use of the term ‘indoctrination’ implies some mass Soviet or North Korean style re-education program, which, it goes without saying, is hardly true.
What you’ve described is something that I’ve had no experience of. I’ve never in my life had a family member or any so-called religious person telling me what to think, and I attended a Catholic school.
I don’t care what word makes you feel less icky to use, but that’s what it is. You take children and tell them this all powerful deity exists and you constantly reinforce it and their brains form around that belief. It becomes part of who they are.
You’ve got no clue what you’re talking about here. The better performance “on this side of the Atlantic” has to do with them being private schools that charge high tuition and have selective admissions for their students, while us lowly public schools take any and all. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with religious indoctrination.Sure you haven’t. I guess the existence of catechism and sermons and holy texts and holidays are all just a fever dream of mine.
