Fundamentalism and Science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2016, 11:58 PM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 06:45 PM)Noric Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 06:38 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If a god does exist, then it isn't concerned with our survival or our well being. The world looks very much like a world in which there are no magical solutions to poverty, homelessness, starvation, disease, genocide, etc.

Denying science is denying observation.
Fundies is where fun dies and religion engulfs your critical thinking.

A thought... if this God exists as omniscient, should it then be unavoidably aware of our existence? That would lend itself to a pretty cruel version of God (that's if you don't already think he's cruel as is), one that is by definition aware, but willfully uncaring. I can understand a lot of distaste with the supreme deity concept from that perspective.

Yes, God has to be aware of us, pretty much by any definition. The whole cruelty thing depends on how you want to view God.

From the fundamentalist perspective you have a god of wonders and miracles who loves you dearly but won't even put in so much as a cameo appearance to abolish slavery or prevent genocide. This description of god is, as you have correctly stated, obscenely cruel and utterly hypocritical. Whimsically using his powers to show off to Egyptian pharoahs but never doing anything useful.

On the other hand, you can view god as analogous to a parent with rowdy kids. If god comes in and cleans up every time we commit some terrible attrocity then we just keep being horrid. No development as a species because there are no consequences, much like a bunch of spoiled brats. That still leaves natural disasters but perhaps that's god's way of hinting that we should use our brains and stop having real estate booms in places that even we jumped-up apes have given such poetic names as "tornado alley" and "the ring of fire". From that perspective, god need not be viewed as entirely cruel given the possibility that any action he might take to intercede would make matters much worse.

Seriously, take a look around at the holy wars and terrorism and attrocities comitted in the names of religions, just in the last century. And THAT is just what you get based on a rumor. Now imagine the unalloyed hell that would break loose should God Himself put in an actual appearance. God would be relegated to a nightmare existence of micromanagement just to keep every second one of us from knifing the guy to our right in the Mother of all Unholy Wars.

The problem is that the fundamentalists' miracle working god who hangs with Abraham and turns people into jumbo-sized salt licks is utterly irreconcilable with this more responsible, caring but hands-off parent figure deity. Ones an omnipotent frat boy and the other is a higher being. Apologists have great fun trying to shoehorn the one into the other's shadow.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
06-01-2016, 12:18 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 08:42 AM)Noric Wrote:  Now I'm gonna start off by saying I don't know jack shit about deep philosophy, science, or religion really, at least comparatively.

I stopped reading at this point.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 12:30 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(06-01-2016 12:18 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 08:42 AM)Noric Wrote:  Now I'm gonna start off by saying I don't know jack shit about deep philosophy, science, or religion really, at least comparatively.

I stopped reading at this point.

Understandable. Past experiences discussing things like this lead me to overcompensate sometimes. I guess a more apt thing to say is,

"I know what I know, and I don't know what I don't know. So here's my question so I can know more"

Acceptance is a hell of a drug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 12:31 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 11:58 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 06:45 PM)Noric Wrote:  A thought... if this God exists as omniscient, should it then be unavoidably aware of our existence? That would lend itself to a pretty cruel version of God (that's if you don't already think he's cruel as is), one that is by definition aware, but willfully uncaring. I can understand a lot of distaste with the supreme deity concept from that perspective.

Yes, God has to be aware of us, pretty much by any definition. The whole cruelty thing depends on how you want to view God.

From the fundamentalist perspective you have a god of wonders and miracles who loves you dearly but won't even put in so much as a cameo appearance to abolish slavery or prevent genocide. This description of god is, as you have correctly stated, obscenely cruel and utterly hypocritical. Whimsically using his powers to show off to Egyptian pharoahs but never doing anything useful.

On the other hand, you can view god as analogous to a parent with rowdy kids. If god comes in and cleans up every time we commit some terrible attrocity then we just keep being horrid. No development as a species because there are no consequences, much like a bunch of spoiled brats. That still leaves natural disasters but perhaps that's god's way of hinting that we should use our brains and stop having real estate booms in places that even we jumped-up apes have given such poetic names as "tornado alley" and "the ring of fire". From that perspective, god need not be viewed as entirely cruel given the possibility that any action he might take to intercede would make matters much worse.

Seriously, take a look around at the holy wars and terrorism and attrocities comitted in the names of religions, just in the last century. And THAT is just what you get based on a rumor. Now imagine the unalloyed hell that would break loose should God Himself put in an actual appearance. God would be relegated to a nightmare existence of micromanagement just to keep every second one of us from knifing the guy to our right in the Mother of all Unholy Wars.

The problem is that the fundamentalists' miracle working god who hangs with Abraham and turns people into jumbo-sized salt licks is utterly irreconcilable with this more responsible, caring but hands-off parent figure deity. Ones an omnipotent frat boy and the other is a higher being. Apologists have great fun trying to shoehorn the one into the other's shadow.

VERY good points you made there. Thanks for that reply.

Acceptance is a hell of a drug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 09:29 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 11:16 AM)Noric Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 11:04 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Others set out on a journey thinking that the evidence will obviously lead to the conclusions they already hold. If you follow that journey courageously I predict that one day you'll need to make a decision either to join the fundamentalists in denying where the evidence leads, or joining the liberal theists who only take both the path of evidence and the tenets of their religion in small enough doses not to have to deal with the conflicts between them.

Wouldn't the latter decision develop a bit of willful ignorance from both of those sides, and then you'd basically be at square one again? I couldn't imagine a perfect equilibrium with those kinds of things because it comes at the cost of basically not wanting to deal with the conflicts by way of not knowing what the conflicts even are. Like ignorance of the law doesn't mean you're immune to it.

Well, then there are those who choose the third path: Thus this forum. People are good at compartmentalizing though. They can accept contradictory statements as simultaneously true. They can argue away inconsistencies until they seem small enough to ignore.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 03:32 PM)Noric Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 03:26 PM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  You make a good point. I once nearly gave a theist a heart attack by stating that if there is a god there's nothing to indicate we're anything to him at all besides a fungus growing on some chicken salad in the back of his refrigerator; no intent, no design, but rather something that occurred entirely without his knowledge and as a result of his laziness.

I can interpret that in a positive direction actually. Is that a bad thing?

Yes it is a bad thing. Religion does not need interpretation. It is true as is or not. And rational people have determined it as not!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(06-01-2016 12:31 AM)Noric Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 11:58 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Yes, God has to be aware of us, pretty much by any definition. The whole cruelty thing depends on how you want to view God.

From the fundamentalist perspective you have a god of wonders and miracles who loves you dearly but won't even put in so much as a cameo appearance to abolish slavery or prevent genocide. This description of god is, as you have correctly stated, obscenely cruel and utterly hypocritical. Whimsically using his powers to show off to Egyptian pharoahs but never doing anything useful.

On the other hand, you can view god as analogous to a parent with rowdy kids. If god comes in and cleans up every time we commit some terrible attrocity then we just keep being horrid. No development as a species because there are no consequences, much like a bunch of spoiled brats. That still leaves natural disasters but perhaps that's god's way of hinting that we should use our brains and stop having real estate booms in places that even we jumped-up apes have given such poetic names as "tornado alley" and "the ring of fire". From that perspective, god need not be viewed as entirely cruel given the possibility that any action he might take to intercede would make matters much worse.

Seriously, take a look around at the holy wars and terrorism and attrocities comitted in the names of religions, just in the last century. And THAT is just what you get based on a rumor. Now imagine the unalloyed hell that would break loose should God Himself put in an actual appearance. God would be relegated to a nightmare existence of micromanagement just to keep every second one of us from knifing the guy to our right in the Mother of all Unholy Wars.

The problem is that the fundamentalists' miracle working god who hangs with Abraham and turns people into jumbo-sized salt licks is utterly irreconcilable with this more responsible, caring but hands-off parent figure deity. Ones an omnipotent frat boy and the other is a higher being. Apologists have great fun trying to shoehorn the one into the other's shadow.

VERY good points you made there. Thanks for that reply.

Thanks. I'm glad that you enjoyed. Try the veal!

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 01:22 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 08:42 AM)Noric Wrote:  Now I'm gonna start off by saying I don't know jack shit about deep philosophy, science, or religion really, at least comparatively. But there's a qualm I've always had with the science denying flavor of fundamentalism. Now I'm a theist to a certain degree, but if by some off chance we were put here, we're obviously also supposed to survive. So using that basic concept, isn't it kinda... ass backwards do deny the understanding and continuing study of the earth and environment and universe around us to better use it to our advantage and prolong the survival of our species, even based on religious doctrines? What are you guys thoughts on this? I can clarify if anything I said was vague. I tend to do that...
Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 01:34 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
A vague post followed by a vapid reply.

True to form Pops. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
17-01-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(17-01-2016 01:34 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  A vague post followed by a vapid reply.

True to form Pops. Thumbsup

But it was coherent. One of the only posts of his that was!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: