"If you wanna watch telly, you should watch Scooby Doo
That show was so cool
Because every time there was a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who ran the waterslide
Because throughout history
Every mystery
Ever solved has turned out to be
Not magic"
Like one of my faves of his
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work?
Medicine.
Germ Theory
Diseases used to be associated with paranormal powers or the wrath of gods in most cultures. The discovery of microorganisms and advancement of medicine may be our civilization's greatest achievement.
Science deals with the natural, gods are by definition supernatural.
Science can not either prove or disprove existence of supernatural. It may only erode the reasoning why supernatural should exist.
That reasoning is subjective, and as such, there are no definite answers to your question unless we add additional constraints.
Didn't some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause? (being divil's advocate a bit here for the craic)
No
Slapping "quantum" in front of something does not make it magic.
Take 'natural' to mean 'being fully explicable by states in the observable world'.
'Supernatural' means everything not natural by that definition.
You have results (like Aspect's experiment) that prove that the world is not naturalist: the world is not fully explainable by observable states causing other states.
That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural. Going down that rabbit hole is completely meaningless, since we are no longer talking about science at that point.
In addition, if using your definition, nothing is natural according to our current understanding.
If I say something this person burst into flames for supernatural reasons, I mean without a measurable cause in the observable universe.
That has very little to do with anything related to the arguments you've made before, and I am not interested in participating in a Gish Gallop.
reddit.com
That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural.
Go on then: what definition do they use?
Slapping “quantum” in front of something does not make it magic.
Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)
Go on then: what definition do they use?
Natural means pretty much "element of the physical universe, identified by observation".
You're claiming in another comment to this thread that you have M.Sc., you should be aware of this, please stop wasting everyone's time.
Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)
Indeterminism is by no means non-natural, and it does not make things any less observable. We can observe quantum states just fine.
And as for
Yeah all the Bell stuff
"All the Bell stuff" doesn't have anything to do with "Didn’t some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause?"
And no, it didn't. AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.
You made a ludicrous claim, and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit, yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone's time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.
Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.
Right. We are in agreement. And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results. There is something going on in Aspect's experiment
Determinism: things are fully explained by natural phenomena, i.e. by observable elements of the physical universe
Indeterminism: observable elements of the physical universe are insufficient to explain experimental results; there is something else, like randomness
AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.
We must be misunderstanding each other somewhere. Surely you're not saying that zero physicists argue indeterminism? Obviously many/most physicists believe in indeterminism.
A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics (2013) by Schlosshauer, Kofler, and Zeilinger found that 64% of physicists believe that "Randomness is a fundamental concept in nature" and 48% believe "The randomness is irreducible". For the question "What is your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics?", the most popular answer by some way was the Copenhagn interpretation (which as you know is anti-deterministic)
Lev Vaidman: "Historically, appearance of the quantum theory led to a prevailing view that Nature is indeterministic.... Quantum theory and determinism usually do not go together." (Vaidman, L. (2014). Quantum theory and determinism. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 1(1-2), 5–38. doi:10.1007/s40509-014-0008-4)
You made a ludicrous claim
Yes. And these ludicrous claims are standard in physics for decades now. Specifically, the ludicrous claim that most physicists believe is that there are things going on without natural causes (Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”). That's an extremely standard ludicrous claim about our ludicrous universe.
and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit
That's false.
yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone’s time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.
Please calm down.
And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results.
According to who, exactly? This is just not even remotely true.
If you want to continue this, link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing, I'm tired of fighting vague, unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I try to make.
This is just not even remotely true.
???
I think I am misunderstanding you.
My simple uncontroversial claims: A) indeterminism means natural/observable causes are not sufficient to explain all experimental results, B) plenty of physicists (most) believe in indeterminism. Then my funny claim for the craic was C) you can use the word 'supernatural' to describe those effects because they are not natural ("Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.")
When you say my claims are "not even remotely true", and you want me to "support what you are proposing", which of these claims is it?
It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that's just the definition of indeterminism like. What is your counter-claim? If you deny that indeterminism means things aren't determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?
An example in a textbook: "If the world is genuinely indeterministic in this way, then it isn’t possible to provide a dynamical explanation of how a system produces a particular outcome in a quantum measurement — the outcome is intrinsically random." – that's from Ch.7 of Quantum [Un]speakables II, edited by Bertlmann and Zeilinger. You can also read section 3 of Ch.1 of Dirac's 1930 textbook.
link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing
I have linked two papers and an encylopædia entry already; you have not substantiated your claims with anything.
Here is an example of indeterminacy being "certified" in experiment that you might find interesting: Pironio, S., Acin, A., Massar, S., Boyer de la Giroday, A., Matsukevich, D.N., Maunz, P., Olmschenk, S., Hayes, D., Luo, L., Manning, T.A., Monroe, C.: Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem. Nature 464, 1021 (2010)
I’m tired of fighting unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I make.
I have not dodged anything. I'm not sure what "point" you're making. You seem to be saying that indeterminism doesn't mean "things aren't determined by observable causes" but yep that's what indeterminism means.
My simple uncontroversial claims
None of these is uncontroversial, C isn't even well-defined. I'd argue that B is correct only if A is correct. And A cannot be correct, since it leads to multitude of cotnradictions, one of which I'm going to demonstrate.
It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that’s just the definition of indeterminism
No, it most definitely is not. If you used this as a definition, I'm fairly certain that most physicists would absolutely not agree with your B.
If you deny that indeterminism means things aren’t determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?
Indeterminism means that if an experiment is repeated with the same parameters, there are no guarantees to get the same result. Nothing more than that.
Your definition implies that there needs to be a cause in the first place. And that is bordering on begging the question, because with that definition you are guaranteed to reach a point where there is something "unexplainable" (since there are infinite amount of layers), which can always be attributed to whatever supernatural thing you choose. There is absolutely no need for this to be the case.
In fact, you yourself quoted the textbook
the outcome is intrinsically random.
Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it's an intrinsic property of the theory, especially in Copenhagen interpretation, which is the status quo. As your definition implies a cause, it cannot apply here. There are other contradictions, but this one is simple and I only need one to show that the premise is flawed, and your other points rely on that.
you have not substantiated your claims with anything.
My only claim is that you are incorrect. There aren't really too many papers written about that. (I hope) I've shown your premise to be false because of faulty definitions, what more would you need? None of the stuff you quoted is supporting you, and in fact contradicts you, unless we specifically assume that other people use the definition you've given, which, again, is already shown to be erroneous.
Ok, we are in agreement on everything.
Haven't you identified this casino as an element of the universe, and observed how it works?
I can't predict exactly where the ball will fall, but i don't think roulette is supernatural. I can understand the non-deterministic process and chacterise the probability density. And test and observe over many trials to confirm the stochastic model is right.
Uncertainty, randomness, even entaglement and action at a distance can be observed right? with some degree of preision?
When you start to pin them down with experiments and describe the probability distribution experimentally, repeatedly, testably then hey presto; I'd call that a "natural" obsrervable random or non-deterministic process.
Maybe it's natural with some more uncertainty than usual , but as you said about Heisenberg everything is at least a bit uncertain, so it's really just a matter of how big is the variance of the probability distribution of your explanation or prediction.
I know you're just trolling by trying to use "supernatural" as a term for, unknown / uncertain / not fully explained / non deterministic.
For me supernatural might be be predicting that the roulete wheel will come up 6 black next time.
A way to determine the exact oucome of a process we believe to be non-deterministic.
Of course that supernatural thing (like magnetism was back in the day) will become mundane if and when science can pin it down experimentally. Develop a model with a lower variance estimator.
I'd argue entanglement has beein going through a process from supernatural and spooky when it was only theoretical. To natural now that it's been proven, but theres still a lot of uncertainty. so you might call it peri-natural?
I see the whole process of scientific explanation being moving our understanding of phenomena out of the mystical magical and supernatural realm, into the mundane natural world once we understand more about them and have some well understood (even if weak and incomplete) predictive power.
Whatever we observe empirically is "natural" by definition. Causality is an assumption, not a law of nature.
Good comment
The traditional notion of cause and effect is not something all philosophers even agree upon, I mean many materialist philosophers largely rejected the notion of simple cause-and-effect chains that go back to the "first cause" since the 1800s, and that idea is still pretty popular in some eastern countries.
For example, in China they teach "dialectical materialist" philosophy part of required "common core" in universities for any degree, and that philosophical school sees cause and effect as in a sense dependent upon point of view, that an effect being described as a particular cause is just a way of looking at things, and the same relationship under a different point of view may in fact reverse what is considered the cause and the effect, viewing the effect as the cause and vice-versa. Other points of view may even ascribe entirely different things as the cause.
It has a very holistic view of the material world so there really is no single cause to any effect, so what you choose to identify as the cause is more of a label placed by an individual based on causes that are relevant to them and not necessarily because those are truly the only causes. In a more holistic view of nature, Laplacian-style determinism doesn't even make sense because it implies nature is reducible down to separable causes which can all be isolated from the rest and their properties can then be fully accounted for, allowing one to predict the future with certainty.
However, in a more holistic view of nature, it makes no sense to speak of the universe being reducible to separable causes as, again, what we label as causes are human constructs and the universe is not actually separable. In fact, the physicists Dmitry Blokhintsev had written a paper in response to a paper Albert Einstein wrote criticizing Einstein's distaste for quantum mechanics as based on his adherence to the notion of separability which stems from Newtonian and Kantian philosophy, something which dialectical materialists, which Blokhintsev self-identified as, had rejected on philosophical grounds.
He wrote this paper many many years prior to the publication of Bell's theorem which showed that giving up on separability (and by extension absolute determinism) really is a necessity in quantum mechanics. Blokhintsev would then go on to write a whole book called The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics where in it he argues that separability in nature is an illusion and under a more holistic picture absolute determinism makes no sense, again, purely from materialistic grounds.
The point I'm making is ultimately just that a lot of the properties people try to ascribe to "materialists" or "naturalists" which then later try to show quantum mechanics is in contradiction with, they seem to forget that these are large umbrella philosophies with many different sects and there have been materialist philosophers criticizing absolute determinism as even being a meaningful concept since at least the 1800s.
If they were, it has nothing to do with nature being supernatural. It just means that nature's state is not locally real. That does not tie into religion in any objective way.
In addition, both of those articles are (slightly) wrong. There was a lenghty discussion about how in r/physics when they came out. The tl;dr is that it boils down to:
locality
realism
independence of measurement
Pick two.
But that has no relevance to religion other than you can make either philosophical or religious argument out of anything.
Which is a bit silly to me, in that any religious person could simply explain evolution away as the mechanism by which a god or gods created humanity (to iterate on form until creating their supposed "perfect image").
God being a human who was also his own father is fine, but the suggestion that evolution could be part of god's plan is where we draw the line?
They had to reject it because any religion with a creation myth specifically says how the god created people. To accept an alternative story would reject the notion of the book as truth.
The religious are not looking for answers, they already have all the answers by definition of their holy book or whatever. They're looking for confirmation bias and reject anything that goes against that.
Nope. In Islam, God commands His servants to seek knowledge in all things. Muslims are obligated to seek knowledge because it will only continue to prove the existence of God.
If you're talking specifically about the Abrahamic God, sure. But if it's about the existence of any higher being, then there's no contradiction here.
You even used the incredibly nebulous term "higher beings". Define it.
Anything that you would call a "god".
If I give an ostensive definition, I would say it includes the beings like the Abrahamic god, or Olympian gods, and exclude humans, animals, bacteria, the planet we live on, and objects we handle in our day to day lives. I'll tentatively draw the line at any being that is not bound to the laws of physics as we understand them today.
Why exclude humans, animals and bacteria? How about Sun? Jesus Christ? God-King Jayavarman II? A cat? Very small spirit of tiny stream? A holy stone (stone is not a human, nor animal or bacteria, a lot of stones were worshipped in various forms and meanings in history)? A tree chewed by pilgrims? Invisible Hand of the Market?
Incredibly arbitrary definition again constructed to wriggle your way from any concrete statement.
If we had the technological power, would humans run simulations of universes with Planck length precision? Obviously yes. So extrapolating from our one and only example of intelligent life (us), it seems like intelligent life enjoys stimulating universes. If our reality were the result of that kind of project, and the engineers lived outside the laws of physics, I would call them higher beings. And they could be as hands-off or as interventionist as they pleased.
Sure that's a valid defintion, albeit a super specific one and it directly exclude all (or almost all) known forms of religion on Earth.
Run command: "Fiat Lux"
Warning: it will take 7 days to complete operation. Continue?
"This had better be good."
"Fuck it, I'm tired of waiting, I'll come back on the 8th day."
"Oh, this IS good."
"What are these stupid apes doing? Fine, I'll educate them myself."
Instantiate avatar: "Jesus_Nazareth"
Which part is directly excluded?
The one where there is not only zero proof of anything of it being real, but also zero (or nearly zero) religious people actually beliving that.
And if we were talking about whether it were real, or whether people believed it in those specific terms, you'd have a point. But since we're talking about your assertion that major earth religions are "directly excluded" by that definition of "higher beings," i still fail to see the exclusion.
I don't think OP is asking about the existence of humans, or animals, or any other physical entity. If they were, you can trivially say that you exist, and therefore god exists. That's unless you want to go into ontology and question what it means to "exist", which I'm pretty sure also isn't what OP intended.
I didn't asked about OP, i asked YOU to define it and you are weaseling out of it continously, you cannot even answer why did you exclude humans, animals and bacteria from your definition, while humans and animals have been historically worshipped in many cases.
I'm trying to help OP reach an answer to their question, therefore the definitions I'm working with are the same as that of OP. What I personally believe should be categorized as a "higher being" is irrelevant because if it's different from OP's definition, it won't help them reach their desired answer.
any religious person could simply explain evolution away as the mechanism by which a god or gods created humanity
Many did, and this position is called Deism. In most versions, god(s) started the universe with initial conditions that would lead to the formation of intelligent life, and then withdrew.
Could be, but evolution makes God redundant, and then it is the whole simplest explanation thing that kicks in, right?
Occam's razor doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is always true, but rather that it's usually the most likely to be true.
Using simplicity as a measure of how likely something is to be true always felt a little anthropocentric. How do we determine that something is simple if not via the systems and abstractions that are easy for human minds to comprehend?
No.. not necessarily. Why can't God command the creation of something and then allow the natural process to create said thing? Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God.
At some point you're advocating for Deism. Which is fine enough, but doesn't really provide any satisfactory answers. You need to define exactly what you mean by "God" before any further useful conversation can be had.
The scientific process, including evolution, has dispelled the myths found in any religious textbook ever written, including their particular definitions of "God". I'd suggest you just drop the word and the associated baggage, and start from scratch. Come up with a new word, and define properties for it that make a coherent argument.
Well for one, I would recommend you drop the idea of what is God from the Christian perspective, they're clueless. That much is true. Islam is far superior in terms of intellect and sophistication, after all the Quran is the literal Word of God. Unlike the Bible, authored by pagan and anti-Christ men who had a liking to Egyptian mythologies.
(Quran 21:30) Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the Earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe?
(Quran 24:45) And Allah has created from water every living creature. Some of them crawl on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Surely Allah is Most Capable of everything.
(Quran 64:3) He designed you then made your design better.
(Quran 40:64) He formed you then made your forms better.
(Quran 71:17) And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth.
(Quran 76:28) We created them and strengthened their forms.
(Quran 82:6-9) O mankind, what has deceived you concerning your Lord, the Generous, Who created you, then proportioned you, and then balanced you; in whatever form He willed has He assembled you.
Going to be blunt, if you read these verses (and there's more verses) and don't believe that this aligns with a creation of something, which in turn evolves (strengthens in its form) then it was meant to be. There's nothing under the sun I could tell you that will pique your interest.
God has Willed it. This is the way.
He designed you then made your design better.
He formed you then made your forms better.
We created them and strengthened their forms.
That's not how any of this works. None of these require the process of biological evolution, they're clearly written as the islamic equivalent of intelligent design. Those describe some wizard creating something and then working to make it better, which is the opposite of how biological evolution works. Relying on "evolves" having several different meanings (evolves (strengthens in its form)) is not an argument that is made in good faith. The process of biological evolution is not described in any religious literature, including yours.
And Allah has created from water every living creature
I assume you bolded this because it's important somehow. It's not, though. It's a vague allegory that has no predictive power, is not science, and has nothing to do with the process of biological evolution.
Religions don't teach science. However, in Islam, we are obligated to learn science amongst other subjects. The verses you and I quoted do NOT conflict with evolution.
Many scientists believe that life on Earth originated in the ocean, and that all life was aquatic for the first 90% of Earth's history. Some scientists think that life may have begun near deep sea hydrothermal vents, which are chimney-like vents that form when seawater mixes with magma on the ocean floor, creating superheated plumes. The chemicals and energy from these vents could have fueled chemical reactions that led to the evolution of life. For example, a 2017 study found tube-like fossils in rocks that are at least 3.77 billion years old that resemble microorganisms that live near hydrothermal vents today.
Furthermore, using the DNA sequences of modern organisms, biologists have tentatively traced the most recent common ancestor of all life to an aquatic microorganism that lived in extremely high temperatures — a likely candidate for a hydrothermal vent inhabitant!
But like I said before, there's nothing under the sun that I can tell you that will sway you.
Those verses don't conflict with evolution. They don't conflict with anything, because they don't mean anything. What scientific advancements happened because of those verses? None, because science advanced to the point where we understood how evolution works, and some religious people copied their homework and went looking for meaning after the fact. If those verses meant something, there would have been centuries of progress on evolution before Darwin. There wasn't.
There's plenty of things you can convince me of, you just have to provide evidence, which you haven't done.
What could I say that would sway you into realizing that your religion is as silly as the rest? If the answer is nothing under the sun, then you're using a cheap rhetorical trick of projecting your intellectual shortcomings onto other people in order to make yourself feel better about them.
The "god" part becomes an unnecessarily complex explanation.
I prefer simpler explanations when they fit the data just as well as the complex ones. It also reduces te risk when trying to broaden out to other lines of enquiry.
As johsny said It makes the god explanation redundant for the large topic of species of life.
There's no need to waste time or energy "disproving" god. The whole concept of god is simply useless to understanding - and so is a waste of time or mental energy.
But the so called explanations referncing god are typically such bullshit anyway nothing testable, no evidence, just "god did some shit", "isn't god cool/powerful". So they never were actually useful to scientific reasoning.
However much they may pretend otherwise religions are so much more aligned with laws and social structures and norms of behaviour than they are about advancing science.
If you squint real hard, the first creation myth in Genisis is pretty close to evolution.
Heliocentric model.
Cosmic distance and time. Light speed as a limit.
The geological age of the Earth.
Dinosaurs.
Evolutionary theory.
Continental drift.
The periodic table of the elements.
Quantum theory, including wave-particle duality.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Black holes.
It's interesting, some theists would just say "that's how God built the universe" and be satisfied with that.
The halfway sensible ones would. But the ones that thing religious texts are magic books would burn the former as heretics if they were allowed to do so.
Well sure. There are religious people who want to know how the world works. After all, if there is a creator/God then one of the ways that being communicated with us for certain is the universe we live in.
Thats me over 15 years ago. Now I'm staunch atheist.
You should read the Quran. Or not.
What does the Quran say about black holes?
Never read the Quran, but had a coworker who claimed the quran explains a ton of science, including recent science. She also believed in creationism and therefore also thought evolution was bs, so I didn't put much basis into her words.
Religion is deliberately non-falsifiable. No matter what scientific proof you can come up with, at the end of the day they just say God is fucking with us burying skeletons of creatures that never existed and such.
The fact that it needs to be constructed that way is frankly all the proof I need to toss religion in the garbage, but everyone isn't so cavalier about the disposition of their "immortal soul."
Honestly immortality and the very nature of God are both abhorrent to me. If religion were true, the best I could hope for is to be cast into a lake of fire and be destroyed, so I kinda win either way. Worst case is all religion is wrong but so is atheism and I have to spend eternity with an entity who is less of a malicious cunt than the Abrahamic god.
Religion is deliberately non-falsifiable.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the non-falsifiablity of religion has evolved as a result of a sort of natural selection. Essentially all the falsifiable religious beliefs have been falsified, and thus have trouble propagating.
Hah! Fair enough.
Letter from Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (22nd May 1860)
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
On that note, what's up with the obligate coprophagy of the koala? And their famously smooth brains? I'd make the koala, were it I in the high seat, but a kind and caring creator wouldn't.
Some herbivores can't digest their food all the way, cows get around it by having more than one stomach and also chewing their cud (vomiting up from first stomach and rechewing). Rabbits do the same thing as koalas, partially digest their food and eat their poop.
The scientific method itself considers any as yet unsubstantiated theory as hypothesis. Applying this to the idea of God would leave one agnostic on the issue.
God's an unfalsifiable claim, so there really isn't anything that could test that hypothesis.
Pretty much any scientific test/discovery that counters anything in a religious text whose adherents view the text as completely truthful and literal. But sciencey stuff might not have much of an effect on religious folks who view their texts less literally.
But anyways... heliocentrism, germ theory, gravity, evolution through natural selection, probably a huge chunk of the field of archeology, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, probably the written language at various points in human history (but that's not really a discovery), trans species organ transplants, decoding DNA, direct genetic engineering, CRISPR, radio telescopy.
Translative spoken word by the time a second hand account of the word of god becomes the word of the person speaking. Weird god never came back once we had verbatim recording techniques to address these inaccuracies.
But he works in mysterious ways
It wasn't any particular scientific discovery that weakened religion. It was the popularity of science fiction that did it. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." People can now imagine how miracles are done without invoking anything supernatural. We might not have the tech to do it yet, but we have a pretty good idea of potential methods. That has placed a lot of "creator god" religions under pressure. Create life? Tech will eventually do it. Create a world? Sure, tech again. Given enough tech, a solar system can be spawned. Water into wine? We're halfway there with Kool-Aid. We already have vimanas (those ancient Hindu flying vehicles). We call them airplanes or helicopters. We can destroy a whole city with a single weapon. So why should we worship a supreme being who supposedly did those things?
Assuming we can conquer poverty, religions that survive will be centered around improving the human condition. Worshipping dieties will eventually fall by the wayside. It will still be a long process. You can't dispel faith with reason and facts. And people in poverty tend to embrace religion because it gives them comfort and hope that things will be better in the afterlife.
Religion exists for a number of reasons, but the primary purpose it serves an individual is as a foundation for their overall worldview.
"Faith" as many call it, serves to answer questions we don't have answers to.
Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens after we die?
Religion gives us comforting answers to these questions, and as these questions are ultimately unanswerable, can do so in perpetuity.
Religion has also tried to answer questions that we didn't yet have answers for.
What are the sun, moon, and stars? Why are there tides? Why does it rain?
God was long accepted as the source of these things, and prayer was thought to be the best way have any influence.
But today we have answered basically all the major questions. We have a working model of the entire solar system, down to the weather on other planets. We figured out how to turn rocks into computers. All that's left is the unanswerable.
As for where we come from, we've filled in a lot of gaps. Evolution is now the accepted answer for where Humans came from, now the question is where life itself came from, and if there's life outside of Earth (and how much).
Philosophy has given us plenty of options for what our purpose is. There are plenty of ways to wrap your mind around your own identity without turning to the supernatural.
And our study of anatomy and neurology suggests that our conscious self ceases to exist after death, the only thing standing in the way of that belief is the very human tendency to be in denial of our own mortality.
Printing presses, industrialized education, and the industrial revolution.
Giving people en mass the time study and educate themselves.
You need to define God first.
We should definitely start with this.
If it's biblical sky daddy that influences our everyday lives, pretty much everything.
If it's just more or less self-conscious entity behind the curtain of reality that sparked the universe, it's pretty much unprovable and so undisprovable.
Sanitation.
Doesn't even take science to debunk religions, yet you can't prove the non existance of a god
Science and religion are often compatible, I know of some Hindu thinkers (for example) who say scientific knowledge is to be taken as truth and religious truth should not contradict it - just that this scientific knowledge cannot explain the whole mysteries of the cosmos. You might be aware of "the god of the gaps" and arguments like that, or that God somehow created the universe using the laws of physics as we understand them. Historically, scientific thought and religious thought were often united and people pursued science and philosophy due to attempting to understand God (like many Islamic scholars in the 7th century or like Renee Descartes who ultimately sought to prove the existence of God by pure reasoning). Science as a complete system of belief without some religious aspect is actually a fairly recent phenomenon that likely had very little to do with any particular scientific discovery.
Indeed, science can do very little to explain why things happen. It's great at explaining how - e.g. science is great at explaining how fire burns or how a calculator can display an answer but it can be iffy on why. Now, "why" fire burns is probably more of a malformed question like what's north of the north pole but we're human, we like to ask why and seek purpose. Meaning makers.
The decline of religiosity wasn't really driven by science showing biblical stories weren't real, it's a process driven by material reality and class relations. Although many people considered themselves Christian or religious in the west, they were very Deist and didn't think God had much influence with the world apart from answering paradoxes like what was the primum movens etc.
Going further back, religion wasn't a choice or something to reason to - it was just your life and your community. In medieval Europe, you didn't really reason your way into a system of beliefs they all tied together into an economic system called the feudal mode of production. You just were a Christian and so was everyone you knew. Maybe some monks debated some esoteric aspects of theology but most people just lived their lives. This lasted for a while through to the Enlightenment and the emergence of capitalism in the 17th century. Except for some malcontents and rebels, people still didn't reason towards being Christian, say. It was just your life - more like a hangover from that older mode of production and social cohesion than something necessary to maintaining capitalism.
Fast forward to the actual decline of religiosity and rise of spiritual none-of-the-aboves and nothing-in-particular. This was a process started in the mid 20th century (not really in WW1 which was conceived often as a holy or religious war by the soldiers and officer class including miracles and appearances of angels and so on). In reaction to the rise of consumerism and individualism - now religion became a choice or affectation! This is where we start to see the irreligious begin their massive growth but especially by the beginning of the 00s. It's tempting to say Quantum Mechanics, GR, a scientific basis for cosmological origins like the big bang are responsible for the loss of religion - but in my view, these just coincided due to a third cause (that of economic changes and the settling in of mature capitalism).
I'm curious as to how people toughed it out despite most christian religious institutions being so uniformly corrupt and plain irritating. Shit, the crowd FSTDT dunks on, american politicians, and internet theology were all it took for me to get so deeply disillusioned I wanted to just cut strike everything from my mind, regardless of who's right or wrong. Merely not having other options to a point where leaving is unthinkable? Fear of reprisal from legal and cultural consequences?
Then again, I suppose at that point they would've just shifted to a different, less institution-focused denomination instead of just saying "fuck the whole thing" like I did. It wasn't a matter of the facts, it was a matter of me being fucking sick of them.
religion is the hubris that is the expectation of an answer to 'why'
The most reliable way to lose faith isn't through science, it's reading their holy text.
In general, nothing about science ever shakes a theist's faith, and I doubt it ever will. Reason being: the moment science breaks new ground, religion retreats further back into the unknown. As long as there is an unknown, theists will have something to take shelter from.
I don't think it's taking shelter as much as trying to find an answer to something that has no answer.
For example Eistein I don't think was trying to take shelter from reality. He wanted to look at reality as deeply as possible and he managed to peek through and see more than almost anyone ever had before.
But he still believed in a God. This is one of those reasons I always call myself an agnostic instead of atheist.
In a practical sense, I'm an atheist. I don't think Jesus turned water into wine or the Buddha achieved enlightenment and entered a higher plane of existence or whatever.
But I acknowledge there might be supernatural or supranatural items / phenomenon/ or even beings that we can't ever fully understand.
Einstein believed in "Spinoza's god", which is essentially just nature and the laws that govern the universe. It's not the same as believing in an anthropomorphic God and putting faith in scripture.
This is one of those reasons I always call myself an agnostic instead of atheist.
Those aren't mutually exclusive terms. "Agnostic" answers whether you know a god exists, and "atheist" answers whether you believe a god exists.
I don't know of any gods, and I don't believe any exist, so I'm an agnostic atheist.
Depends on what exactly which kind of God.
I don't think it's possible for science to really weaken or strengthen the case for a God in its most simple form (some entity existing outside of the observable universe), but particular tangible claims from religious texts or beliefs can and have been disproven. Others can't be disproven because of the nature of the claim made.
There aren't any. Some things will disprove specific religious ideas, but that's about it.
Do we really need a scientific discovery to prove an existence that doesn't exist? I think the proof that's required is proof that God does exist and until that comes about, religion is clearly just a man made construct for the purpose of power and control.
Besides, I've given clear scientific examples to religious people before and they simply stated that it exists that way because god created it that way which is just the dumbest fucking thinking imaginable. You can't help those people.
Molecular genetics.
Your birth.
Nothing u cant prove a negative.
People should stop saying this.
Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific literacy. This is how we get flat earthers and anti vaxxers.
I have an M.Sc
Well thats fucking concerning. Perhaps get the basics down before u start practising anything.
State your position calmly. What are you trying to say?
Using insults doesn't make you right.
Its a common, clear, and logic extension of the scientific process that you cannot prove a negative. I dont gets whats so complicated about this. Please since you are such an expert in the ways of calmly stating positions give me 1 single example of proving a negative with science.
A woman menstruating proves the negative on her being pregnant.
This reads very, "Well, I ask a four year old if they are a dragon they might say yes, and I know they are not a dragon!"
Yes, there are cases where information can lead you to an answer in a binary question. The more basic the question, the easier this is. But the more complex a problem becomes, the harder it is to disprove.
You can't just say N doesn't equal N(P) because it can't. Prove it.
Yes you absolutely can. Here's an extremely trivial example: 6 is not prime, which I can prove by simply saying 6 = 2*3. Bam, I've proved a negative.
While proving that 6 is not prime illustrates proving a negative in math, the caution arises in complex, real-world scenarios of non well defined domains. Demonstrating absences beyond math's clarity and definiteness can be challenging if not impossible to say the least.
You are just repeating a myth. A quick look from wikipedia:
Logicians and philosophers of logic reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims.[11][12][13][14][15][10][16][17] Philosophers Steven D. Hale and Stephen Law state that the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.[10][18] Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims (for example, "No Jewish person was at the party" is logically equivalent to "Everyone at the party was a gentile").[19] In formal logic and mathematics, the negation of a proposition can be proven using procedures such as modus tollens and reductio ad absurdum.[15][10] In empirical contexts (such as the evaluating the existence or nonexistence of unicorns), inductive reasoning is often used for establishing the plausibility of a claim based on observed evidence.[20][10][21] Though inductive reasoning may not provide absolute certainty about negative claims, this is only due to the nature of inductive reasoning; inductive reasoning provides proof from probability rather than certainty. Inductive reasoning also does not provide absolute certainty about positive claims.[19][10]
Demonstrating absencesanything beyond math's clarity and definiteness can be challenging if not impossible to say the least.
ftfy
Anyway, just a tip for future comments on the internet: I'd suggest not being an asshole in your very first reply to someone you disagree with unless there's a good reason to be, because it makes you look extremely silly if your shitty comment is actually just wrong. I wouldn't have commented in this thread at all if you hadn't been an immediate asshole to frightful_hobgoblin, but here we are.
What weakened religion is a long process going from the middle age to the modern world. It starts with the pope wars. It peaks with the religion wars in the XVIIth century. By this point the religious power was a political power like any other, but merely with a cultural hold on European populations. Which was the nail in the coffin.
During this period, the Church radicalised itself as a defense mode. Which solidified the laïcal mindset of the Lumières. Basically the church entered a cultural war against science because it feared it would lose controle.
Then the XIXth century happened. Monarchies got destroyed. And the Catholic Church got humiliated and destroyed as a political power. Socialism and communism appeared, and to state how progressive they were, they put the church in the same reactionary bag as the royalists.
In the middle of this are the liberals who don't care much about anything but profits. Si when democracy is on the rise, they are democrats. When royalty comes back, they praise the king. At least as long as they let them make good profits. And that's what the church doesn't let them do. Morale goes in the way of profit. It forbid slavery and exploitation. It's against science. It promotes charity. That sucks balls for the liberals. But order is good, so why not being a believer but without the problems?
It's not science that made religion recess. It's bad political decisions and alliances. Many renowned scientists were believers. Many still are. But somehow the religions are rejecting science because it doesn't go into litteraly what their old fantasy book wrote. It's a shame because religions could easily make a humanist evolution if they had the political will to do it.
You do realize you keep using the term, "religion" when you mean to use the term, "Christianity"... Not all religions are like Christianity. smh.
The title mention god with a capital G, which means it's the religions of the Bible, which means European history of things. Context in small details.
Everything Westerners think they know about religion, they just refer to the ridiculous bs that we know as Christianity and the Holy Bible. "Because this religion is fallible, so too must all the other religions be."
Christianity is to, "The Flintstones" as Islam is to Harvard University. Not even on the same plane.
Psalms 19:1-2
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge."
*"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."*
*"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves."*
Yep. Real scripture, really in the Bible and needs to be understood.
Those scriptures are not really germane to the question though. I understand the scriptures you posted might seem strange.
Remember that the entire nation of Israel were slaves for hundreds of years in Egypt when they were brought out by God, rescued from that slavery, and set free.
1 Corinthians 7:21-23 NIV
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings."
Galatians 5:1
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."
Then there's Philemon, an entire book of the Bible dedicated to Paul's letter to a slave owner looking for kindness when returning an escaped slave who converted to Christianity.
The Bible can be confusing and even contradictory at times when speaking from this or that person's point of view. We have Sunday schools where we wrestle with questions in an open forum, and I'm sure you'd be welcome as long as you were not antagonistic.
The bible is filled with contradictory passages. How can Ephesians 6:5 and Galatians 5:1 coexist as part of an allegedly true belief system?
They are speaking to two different situations.
Galatians 5:1 is talking about slavery to sin. The concept of being a slave to sin is a central theme in the Bible. Jesus pays the price to buy us out of that slavery, and the Father takes it even further, adopting us as sons and daughters. As John 3:6 says "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
Ephesians 6:5 is regulating an existing practice in Rome, slavery. Much time is spent doing this in the Bible, with slavery and other things. He gives instructions to persons who become Christians while enslaved. He also gave instructions to their masters...
Ephesians 6:9 NIV
"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
That's right. Then after the Israelites were freed, Moses, claiming to be speaking for God, gave them permission to take slaves of their own from the nations around them. Before that, they were told how merciless they could be when bludgeoning those slaves.
The Bible portrays this as moral behavior, and the excuses you've given me aren't convincing. I don't think there is any excuse for it, but I'm all ears if you want to give it a shot.
I won't "give it a shot". I don't believe in arguing people into believing - you believe or you don't. If you have as much information as you do and don't believe, I'm not likely to make a difference.
I will say I'm uncomfortable with some incidents in the Bible. The harsh lives before Christ, where slavery could be a mercy because the alternative was mass killing, is unfathomable to me.
I am grateful to not live in those times, but I wasn't argued into believing, and you won't be either. You know as much as you need to.
I'll quote Tim Minchin here
Like one of my faves of his
Germ Theory
Diseases used to be associated with paranormal powers or the wrath of gods in most cultures. The discovery of microorganisms and advancement of medicine may be our civilization's greatest achievement.
Science deals with the natural, gods are by definition supernatural.
Science can not either prove or disprove existence of supernatural. It may only erode the reasoning why supernatural should exist.
That reasoning is subjective, and as such, there are no definite answers to your question unless we add additional constraints.
Didn't some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause? (being divil's advocate a bit here for the craic)
No
Slapping "quantum" in front of something does not make it magic.
Take 'natural' to mean 'being fully explicable by states in the observable world'.
'Supernatural' means everything not natural by that definition.
You have results (like Aspect's experiment) that prove that the world is not naturalist: the world is not fully explainable by observable states causing other states.
That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural. Going down that rabbit hole is completely meaningless, since we are no longer talking about science at that point.
In addition, if using your definition, nothing is natural according to our current understanding.
If I say something this person burst into flames for supernatural reasons, I mean without a measurable cause in the observable universe.
That has very little to do with anything related to the arguments you've made before, and I am not interested in participating in a Gish Gallop.
reddit.com
Go on then: what definition do they use?
Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)
Natural means pretty much "element of the physical universe, identified by observation".
You're claiming in another comment to this thread that you have M.Sc., you should be aware of this, please stop wasting everyone's time.
Indeterminism is by no means non-natural, and it does not make things any less observable. We can observe quantum states just fine.
And as for
"All the Bell stuff" doesn't have anything to do with "Didn’t some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause?"
And no, it didn't. AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.
You made a ludicrous claim, and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit, yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone's time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.
Right. We are in agreement. And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results. There is something going on in Aspect's experiment
Determinism: things are fully explained by natural phenomena, i.e. by observable elements of the physical universe
Indeterminism: observable elements of the physical universe are insufficient to explain experimental results; there is something else, like randomness
We must be misunderstanding each other somewhere. Surely you're not saying that zero physicists argue indeterminism? Obviously many/most physicists believe in indeterminism.
Lev Vaidman: "Historically, appearance of the quantum theory led to a prevailing view that Nature is indeterministic.... Quantum theory and determinism usually do not go together." (Vaidman, L. (2014). Quantum theory and determinism. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 1(1-2), 5–38. doi:10.1007/s40509-014-0008-4)
Yes. And these ludicrous claims are standard in physics for decades now. Specifically, the ludicrous claim that most physicists believe is that there are things going on without natural causes (Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”). That's an extremely standard ludicrous claim about our ludicrous universe.
That's false.
Please calm down.
According to who, exactly? This is just not even remotely true.
If you want to continue this, link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing, I'm tired of fighting vague, unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I try to make.
???
I think I am misunderstanding you.
My simple uncontroversial claims: A) indeterminism means natural/observable causes are not sufficient to explain all experimental results, B) plenty of physicists (most) believe in indeterminism. Then my funny claim for the craic was C) you can use the word 'supernatural' to describe those effects because they are not natural ("Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.")
When you say my claims are "not even remotely true", and you want me to "support what you are proposing", which of these claims is it?
It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that's just the definition of indeterminism like. What is your counter-claim? If you deny that indeterminism means things aren't determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?
An example in a textbook: "If the world is genuinely indeterministic in this way, then it isn’t possible to provide a dynamical explanation of how a system produces a particular outcome in a quantum measurement — the outcome is intrinsically random." – that's from Ch.7 of Quantum [Un]speakables II, edited by Bertlmann and Zeilinger. You can also read section 3 of Ch.1 of Dirac's 1930 textbook.
I have linked two papers and an encylopædia entry already; you have not substantiated your claims with anything.
Here is an example of indeterminacy being "certified" in experiment that you might find interesting: Pironio, S., Acin, A., Massar, S., Boyer de la Giroday, A., Matsukevich, D.N., Maunz, P., Olmschenk, S., Hayes, D., Luo, L., Manning, T.A., Monroe, C.: Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem. Nature 464, 1021 (2010)
Heisenberg proved in Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik in 1927 that there is an uncertainty associated with measurement. There are deterministic interpretations (e.g. many-worlds: "The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness" or Bohm's interpretation of nonlocal hidden variables) and indeterministic interpretations (e.g. Copenhagn: "Today the Copenhagen interpretation is mostly regarded as synonymous with indeterminism")
I have not dodged anything. I'm not sure what "point" you're making. You seem to be saying that indeterminism doesn't mean "things aren't determined by observable causes" but yep that's what indeterminism means.
None of these is uncontroversial, C isn't even well-defined. I'd argue that B is correct only if A is correct. And A cannot be correct, since it leads to multitude of cotnradictions, one of which I'm going to demonstrate.
No, it most definitely is not. If you used this as a definition, I'm fairly certain that most physicists would absolutely not agree with your B.
Indeterminism means that if an experiment is repeated with the same parameters, there are no guarantees to get the same result. Nothing more than that.
Your definition implies that there needs to be a cause in the first place. And that is bordering on begging the question, because with that definition you are guaranteed to reach a point where there is something "unexplainable" (since there are infinite amount of layers), which can always be attributed to whatever supernatural thing you choose. There is absolutely no need for this to be the case.
In fact, you yourself quoted the textbook
Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it's an intrinsic property of the theory, especially in Copenhagen interpretation, which is the status quo. As your definition implies a cause, it cannot apply here. There are other contradictions, but this one is simple and I only need one to show that the premise is flawed, and your other points rely on that.
My only claim is that you are incorrect. There aren't really too many papers written about that. (I hope) I've shown your premise to be false because of faulty definitions, what more would you need? None of the stuff you quoted is supporting you, and in fact contradicts you, unless we specifically assume that other people use the definition you've given, which, again, is already shown to be erroneous.
Ok, we are in agreement on everything.
Haven't you identified this casino as an element of the universe, and observed how it works? I can't predict exactly where the ball will fall, but i don't think roulette is supernatural. I can understand the non-deterministic process and chacterise the probability density. And test and observe over many trials to confirm the stochastic model is right.
Uncertainty, randomness, even entaglement and action at a distance can be observed right? with some degree of preision? When you start to pin them down with experiments and describe the probability distribution experimentally, repeatedly, testably then hey presto; I'd call that a "natural" obsrervable random or non-deterministic process.
Maybe it's natural with some more uncertainty than usual , but as you said about Heisenberg everything is at least a bit uncertain, so it's really just a matter of how big is the variance of the probability distribution of your explanation or prediction.
I know you're just trolling by trying to use "supernatural" as a term for, unknown / uncertain / not fully explained / non deterministic. For me supernatural might be be predicting that the roulete wheel will come up 6 black next time. A way to determine the exact oucome of a process we believe to be non-deterministic.
Of course that supernatural thing (like magnetism was back in the day) will become mundane if and when science can pin it down experimentally. Develop a model with a lower variance estimator.
I'd argue entanglement has beein going through a process from supernatural and spooky when it was only theoretical. To natural now that it's been proven, but theres still a lot of uncertainty. so you might call it peri-natural?
I see the whole process of scientific explanation being moving our understanding of phenomena out of the mystical magical and supernatural realm, into the mundane natural world once we understand more about them and have some well understood (even if weak and incomplete) predictive power.
Whatever we observe empirically is "natural" by definition. Causality is an assumption, not a law of nature.
Good comment
The traditional notion of cause and effect is not something all philosophers even agree upon, I mean many materialist philosophers largely rejected the notion of simple cause-and-effect chains that go back to the "first cause" since the 1800s, and that idea is still pretty popular in some eastern countries.
For example, in China they teach "dialectical materialist" philosophy part of required "common core" in universities for any degree, and that philosophical school sees cause and effect as in a sense dependent upon point of view, that an effect being described as a particular cause is just a way of looking at things, and the same relationship under a different point of view may in fact reverse what is considered the cause and the effect, viewing the effect as the cause and vice-versa. Other points of view may even ascribe entirely different things as the cause.
It has a very holistic view of the material world so there really is no single cause to any effect, so what you choose to identify as the cause is more of a label placed by an individual based on causes that are relevant to them and not necessarily because those are truly the only causes. In a more holistic view of nature, Laplacian-style determinism doesn't even make sense because it implies nature is reducible down to separable causes which can all be isolated from the rest and their properties can then be fully accounted for, allowing one to predict the future with certainty.
However, in a more holistic view of nature, it makes no sense to speak of the universe being reducible to separable causes as, again, what we label as causes are human constructs and the universe is not actually separable. In fact, the physicists Dmitry Blokhintsev had written a paper in response to a paper Albert Einstein wrote criticizing Einstein's distaste for quantum mechanics as based on his adherence to the notion of separability which stems from Newtonian and Kantian philosophy, something which dialectical materialists, which Blokhintsev self-identified as, had rejected on philosophical grounds.
He wrote this paper many many years prior to the publication of Bell's theorem which showed that giving up on separability (and by extension absolute determinism) really is a necessity in quantum mechanics. Blokhintsev would then go on to write a whole book called The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics where in it he argues that separability in nature is an illusion and under a more holistic picture absolute determinism makes no sense, again, purely from materialistic grounds.
The point I'm making is ultimately just that a lot of the properties people try to ascribe to "materialists" or "naturalists" which then later try to show quantum mechanics is in contradiction with, they seem to forget that these are large umbrella philosophies with many different sects and there have been materialist philosophers criticizing absolute determinism as even being a meaningful concept since at least the 1800s.
1700s but yeah
Are you talking about this?
If they were, it has nothing to do with nature being supernatural. It just means that nature's state is not locally real. That does not tie into religion in any objective way.
In addition, both of those articles are (slightly) wrong. There was a lenghty discussion about how in r/physics when they came out. The tl;dr is that it boils down to:
Pick two.
But that has no relevance to religion other than you can make either philosophical or religious argument out of anything.
Yeah all the Bell stuff
Evolutionary biology was the main one
Which is a bit silly to me, in that any religious person could simply explain evolution away as the mechanism by which a god or gods created humanity (to iterate on form until creating their supposed "perfect image").
God being a human who was also his own father is fine, but the suggestion that evolution could be part of god's plan is where we draw the line?
They had to reject it because any religion with a creation myth specifically says how the god created people. To accept an alternative story would reject the notion of the book as truth.
The religious are not looking for answers, they already have all the answers by definition of their holy book or whatever. They're looking for confirmation bias and reject anything that goes against that.
Nope. In Islam, God commands His servants to seek knowledge in all things. Muslims are obligated to seek knowledge because it will only continue to prove the existence of God.
If you're talking specifically about the Abrahamic God, sure. But if it's about the existence of any higher being, then there's no contradiction here.
You even used the incredibly nebulous term "higher beings". Define it.
Anything that you would call a "god".
If I give an ostensive definition, I would say it includes the beings like the Abrahamic god, or Olympian gods, and exclude humans, animals, bacteria, the planet we live on, and objects we handle in our day to day lives. I'll tentatively draw the line at any being that is not bound to the laws of physics as we understand them today.
Why exclude humans, animals and bacteria? How about Sun? Jesus Christ? God-King Jayavarman II? A cat? Very small spirit of tiny stream? A holy stone (stone is not a human, nor animal or bacteria, a lot of stones were worshipped in various forms and meanings in history)? A tree chewed by pilgrims? Invisible Hand of the Market?
Incredibly arbitrary definition again constructed to wriggle your way from any concrete statement.
If we had the technological power, would humans run simulations of universes with Planck length precision? Obviously yes. So extrapolating from our one and only example of intelligent life (us), it seems like intelligent life enjoys stimulating universes. If our reality were the result of that kind of project, and the engineers lived outside the laws of physics, I would call them higher beings. And they could be as hands-off or as interventionist as they pleased.
Sure that's a valid defintion, albeit a super specific one and it directly exclude all (or almost all) known forms of religion on Earth.
Which part is directly excluded?
The one where there is not only zero proof of anything of it being real, but also zero (or nearly zero) religious people actually beliving that.
And if we were talking about whether it were real, or whether people believed it in those specific terms, you'd have a point. But since we're talking about your assertion that major earth religions are "directly excluded" by that definition of "higher beings," i still fail to see the exclusion.
I don't think OP is asking about the existence of humans, or animals, or any other physical entity. If they were, you can trivially say that you exist, and therefore god exists. That's unless you want to go into ontology and question what it means to "exist", which I'm pretty sure also isn't what OP intended.
I didn't asked about OP, i asked YOU to define it and you are weaseling out of it continously, you cannot even answer why did you exclude humans, animals and bacteria from your definition, while humans and animals have been historically worshipped in many cases.
I'm trying to help OP reach an answer to their question, therefore the definitions I'm working with are the same as that of OP. What I personally believe should be categorized as a "higher being" is irrelevant because if it's different from OP's definition, it won't help them reach their desired answer.
Many did, and this position is called Deism. In most versions, god(s) started the universe with initial conditions that would lead to the formation of intelligent life, and then withdrew.
Could be, but evolution makes God redundant, and then it is the whole simplest explanation thing that kicks in, right?
Occam's razor doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is always true, but rather that it's usually the most likely to be true.
Using simplicity as a measure of how likely something is to be true always felt a little anthropocentric. How do we determine that something is simple if not via the systems and abstractions that are easy for human minds to comprehend?
No.. not necessarily. Why can't God command the creation of something and then allow the natural process to create said thing? Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God.
At some point you're advocating for Deism. Which is fine enough, but doesn't really provide any satisfactory answers. You need to define exactly what you mean by "God" before any further useful conversation can be had.
The scientific process, including evolution, has dispelled the myths found in any religious textbook ever written, including their particular definitions of "God". I'd suggest you just drop the word and the associated baggage, and start from scratch. Come up with a new word, and define properties for it that make a coherent argument.
Well for one, I would recommend you drop the idea of what is God from the Christian perspective, they're clueless. That much is true. Islam is far superior in terms of intellect and sophistication, after all the Quran is the literal Word of God. Unlike the Bible, authored by pagan and anti-Christ men who had a liking to Egyptian mythologies.
(Quran 21:30) Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the Earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe?
(Quran 24:45) And Allah has created from water every living creature. Some of them crawl on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Surely Allah is Most Capable of everything.
(Quran 64:3) He designed you then made your design better.
(Quran 40:64) He formed you then made your forms better.
(Quran 71:17) And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth.
(Quran 76:28) We created them and strengthened their forms.
(Quran 82:6-9) O mankind, what has deceived you concerning your Lord, the Generous, Who created you, then proportioned you, and then balanced you; in whatever form He willed has He assembled you.
Going to be blunt, if you read these verses (and there's more verses) and don't believe that this aligns with a creation of something, which in turn evolves (strengthens in its form) then it was meant to be. There's nothing under the sun I could tell you that will pique your interest.
God has Willed it. This is the way.
That's not how any of this works. None of these require the process of biological evolution, they're clearly written as the islamic equivalent of intelligent design. Those describe some wizard creating something and then working to make it better, which is the opposite of how biological evolution works. Relying on "evolves" having several different meanings (
evolves (strengthens in its form)) is not an argument that is made in good faith. The process of biological evolution is not described in any religious literature, including yours.I assume you bolded this because it's important somehow. It's not, though. It's a vague allegory that has no predictive power, is not science, and has nothing to do with the process of biological evolution.
Religions don't teach science. However, in Islam, we are obligated to learn science amongst other subjects. The verses you and I quoted do NOT conflict with evolution.
But like I said before, there's nothing under the sun that I can tell you that will sway you.
Those verses don't conflict with evolution. They don't conflict with anything, because they don't mean anything. What scientific advancements happened because of those verses? None, because science advanced to the point where we understood how evolution works, and some religious people copied their homework and went looking for meaning after the fact. If those verses meant something, there would have been centuries of progress on evolution before Darwin. There wasn't.
There's plenty of things you can convince me of, you just have to provide evidence, which you haven't done.
What could I say that would sway you into realizing that your religion is as silly as the rest? If the answer is nothing under the sun, then you're using a cheap rhetorical trick of projecting your intellectual shortcomings onto other people in order to make yourself feel better about them.
The "god" part becomes an unnecessarily complex explanation. I prefer simpler explanations when they fit the data just as well as the complex ones. It also reduces te risk when trying to broaden out to other lines of enquiry.
As johsny said It makes the god explanation redundant for the large topic of species of life. There's no need to waste time or energy "disproving" god. The whole concept of god is simply useless to understanding - and so is a waste of time or mental energy.
But the so called explanations referncing god are typically such bullshit anyway nothing testable, no evidence, just "god did some shit", "isn't god cool/powerful". So they never were actually useful to scientific reasoning. However much they may pretend otherwise religions are so much more aligned with laws and social structures and norms of behaviour than they are about advancing science.
If you squint real hard, the first creation myth in Genisis is pretty close to evolution.
Heliocentric model.
Cosmic distance and time. Light speed as a limit.
The geological age of the Earth.
Dinosaurs.
Evolutionary theory.
Continental drift.
The periodic table of the elements.
Quantum theory, including wave-particle duality.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Black holes.
It's interesting, some theists would just say "that's how God built the universe" and be satisfied with that.
The halfway sensible ones would. But the ones that thing religious texts are magic books would burn the former as heretics if they were allowed to do so.
Well sure. There are religious people who want to know how the world works. After all, if there is a creator/God then one of the ways that being communicated with us for certain is the universe we live in.
Thats me over 15 years ago. Now I'm staunch atheist.
You should read the Quran. Or not.
What does the Quran say about black holes?
Never read the Quran, but had a coworker who claimed the quran explains a ton of science, including recent science. She also believed in creationism and therefore also thought evolution was bs, so I didn't put much basis into her words.
Religion is deliberately non-falsifiable. No matter what scientific proof you can come up with, at the end of the day they just say God is fucking with us burying skeletons of creatures that never existed and such.
The fact that it needs to be constructed that way is frankly all the proof I need to toss religion in the garbage, but everyone isn't so cavalier about the disposition of their "immortal soul."
Honestly immortality and the very nature of God are both abhorrent to me. If religion were true, the best I could hope for is to be cast into a lake of fire and be destroyed, so I kinda win either way. Worst case is all religion is wrong but so is atheism and I have to spend eternity with an entity who is less of a malicious cunt than the Abrahamic god.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the non-falsifiablity of religion has evolved as a result of a sort of natural selection. Essentially all the falsifiable religious beliefs have been falsified, and thus have trouble propagating.
Hah! Fair enough.
Source
On that note, what's up with the obligate coprophagy of the koala? And their famously smooth brains? I'd make the koala, were it I in the high seat, but a kind and caring creator wouldn't.
Some herbivores can't digest their food all the way, cows get around it by having more than one stomach and also chewing their cud (vomiting up from first stomach and rechewing). Rabbits do the same thing as koalas, partially digest their food and eat their poop.
The scientific method itself considers any as yet unsubstantiated theory as hypothesis. Applying this to the idea of God would leave one agnostic on the issue.
A couple of prominent examples of religious dogmas disproved by scientific discoveries are the Copernican Revolution and evolution by means of natural selection.
God's an unfalsifiable claim, so there really isn't anything that could test that hypothesis.
Pretty much any scientific test/discovery that counters anything in a religious text whose adherents view the text as completely truthful and literal. But sciencey stuff might not have much of an effect on religious folks who view their texts less literally.
But anyways... heliocentrism, germ theory, gravity, evolution through natural selection, probably a huge chunk of the field of archeology, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, probably the written language at various points in human history (but that's not really a discovery), trans species organ transplants, decoding DNA, direct genetic engineering, CRISPR, radio telescopy.
Translative spoken word by the time a second hand account of the word of god becomes the word of the person speaking. Weird god never came back once we had verbatim recording techniques to address these inaccuracies.
But he works in mysterious ways
It wasn't any particular scientific discovery that weakened religion. It was the popularity of science fiction that did it. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." People can now imagine how miracles are done without invoking anything supernatural. We might not have the tech to do it yet, but we have a pretty good idea of potential methods. That has placed a lot of "creator god" religions under pressure. Create life? Tech will eventually do it. Create a world? Sure, tech again. Given enough tech, a solar system can be spawned. Water into wine? We're halfway there with Kool-Aid. We already have vimanas (those ancient Hindu flying vehicles). We call them airplanes or helicopters. We can destroy a whole city with a single weapon. So why should we worship a supreme being who supposedly did those things?
Assuming we can conquer poverty, religions that survive will be centered around improving the human condition. Worshipping dieties will eventually fall by the wayside. It will still be a long process. You can't dispel faith with reason and facts. And people in poverty tend to embrace religion because it gives them comfort and hope that things will be better in the afterlife.
Religion exists for a number of reasons, but the primary purpose it serves an individual is as a foundation for their overall worldview.
"Faith" as many call it, serves to answer questions we don't have answers to.
Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens after we die?
Religion gives us comforting answers to these questions, and as these questions are ultimately unanswerable, can do so in perpetuity.
Religion has also tried to answer questions that we didn't yet have answers for.
What are the sun, moon, and stars? Why are there tides? Why does it rain?
God was long accepted as the source of these things, and prayer was thought to be the best way have any influence.
But today we have answered basically all the major questions. We have a working model of the entire solar system, down to the weather on other planets. We figured out how to turn rocks into computers. All that's left is the unanswerable.
As for where we come from, we've filled in a lot of gaps. Evolution is now the accepted answer for where Humans came from, now the question is where life itself came from, and if there's life outside of Earth (and how much).
Philosophy has given us plenty of options for what our purpose is. There are plenty of ways to wrap your mind around your own identity without turning to the supernatural.
And our study of anatomy and neurology suggests that our conscious self ceases to exist after death, the only thing standing in the way of that belief is the very human tendency to be in denial of our own mortality.
Printing presses, industrialized education, and the industrial revolution.
Giving people en mass the time study and educate themselves.
You need to define God first.
We should definitely start with this.
If it's biblical sky daddy that influences our everyday lives, pretty much everything.
If it's just more or less self-conscious entity behind the curtain of reality that sparked the universe, it's pretty much unprovable and so undisprovable.
Sanitation.
Doesn't even take science to debunk religions, yet you can't prove the non existance of a god
Science and religion are often compatible, I know of some Hindu thinkers (for example) who say scientific knowledge is to be taken as truth and religious truth should not contradict it - just that this scientific knowledge cannot explain the whole mysteries of the cosmos. You might be aware of "the god of the gaps" and arguments like that, or that God somehow created the universe using the laws of physics as we understand them. Historically, scientific thought and religious thought were often united and people pursued science and philosophy due to attempting to understand God (like many Islamic scholars in the 7th century or like Renee Descartes who ultimately sought to prove the existence of God by pure reasoning). Science as a complete system of belief without some religious aspect is actually a fairly recent phenomenon that likely had very little to do with any particular scientific discovery.
Indeed, science can do very little to explain why things happen. It's great at explaining how - e.g. science is great at explaining how fire burns or how a calculator can display an answer but it can be iffy on why. Now, "why" fire burns is probably more of a malformed question like what's north of the north pole but we're human, we like to ask why and seek purpose. Meaning makers.
The decline of religiosity wasn't really driven by science showing biblical stories weren't real, it's a process driven by material reality and class relations. Although many people considered themselves Christian or religious in the west, they were very Deist and didn't think God had much influence with the world apart from answering paradoxes like what was the primum movens etc.
Going further back, religion wasn't a choice or something to reason to - it was just your life and your community. In medieval Europe, you didn't really reason your way into a system of beliefs they all tied together into an economic system called the feudal mode of production. You just were a Christian and so was everyone you knew. Maybe some monks debated some esoteric aspects of theology but most people just lived their lives. This lasted for a while through to the Enlightenment and the emergence of capitalism in the 17th century. Except for some malcontents and rebels, people still didn't reason towards being Christian, say. It was just your life - more like a hangover from that older mode of production and social cohesion than something necessary to maintaining capitalism.
Fast forward to the actual decline of religiosity and rise of spiritual none-of-the-aboves and nothing-in-particular. This was a process started in the mid 20th century (not really in WW1 which was conceived often as a holy or religious war by the soldiers and officer class including miracles and appearances of angels and so on). In reaction to the rise of consumerism and individualism - now religion became a choice or affectation! This is where we start to see the irreligious begin their massive growth but especially by the beginning of the 00s. It's tempting to say Quantum Mechanics, GR, a scientific basis for cosmological origins like the big bang are responsible for the loss of religion - but in my view, these just coincided due to a third cause (that of economic changes and the settling in of mature capitalism).
I'm curious as to how people toughed it out despite most christian religious institutions being so uniformly corrupt and plain irritating. Shit, the crowd FSTDT dunks on, american politicians, and internet theology were all it took for me to get so deeply disillusioned I wanted to just cut strike everything from my mind, regardless of who's right or wrong. Merely not having other options to a point where leaving is unthinkable? Fear of reprisal from legal and cultural consequences?
Then again, I suppose at that point they would've just shifted to a different, less institution-focused denomination instead of just saying "fuck the whole thing" like I did. It wasn't a matter of the facts, it was a matter of me being fucking sick of them.
religion is the hubris that is the expectation of an answer to 'why'
The most reliable way to lose faith isn't through science, it's reading their holy text.
In general, nothing about science ever shakes a theist's faith, and I doubt it ever will. Reason being: the moment science breaks new ground, religion retreats further back into the unknown. As long as there is an unknown, theists will have something to take shelter from.
I don't think it's taking shelter as much as trying to find an answer to something that has no answer.
For example Eistein I don't think was trying to take shelter from reality. He wanted to look at reality as deeply as possible and he managed to peek through and see more than almost anyone ever had before.
But he still believed in a God. This is one of those reasons I always call myself an agnostic instead of atheist.
In a practical sense, I'm an atheist. I don't think Jesus turned water into wine or the Buddha achieved enlightenment and entered a higher plane of existence or whatever.
But I acknowledge there might be supernatural or supranatural items / phenomenon/ or even beings that we can't ever fully understand.
Einstein believed in "Spinoza's god", which is essentially just nature and the laws that govern the universe. It's not the same as believing in an anthropomorphic God and putting faith in scripture.
Those aren't mutually exclusive terms. "Agnostic" answers whether you know a god exists, and "atheist" answers whether you believe a god exists.
I don't know of any gods, and I don't believe any exist, so I'm an agnostic atheist.
Depends on what exactly which kind of God.
I don't think it's possible for science to really weaken or strengthen the case for a God in its most simple form (some entity existing outside of the observable universe), but particular tangible claims from religious texts or beliefs can and have been disproven. Others can't be disproven because of the nature of the claim made.
There aren't any. Some things will disprove specific religious ideas, but that's about it.
Do we really need a scientific discovery to prove an existence that doesn't exist? I think the proof that's required is proof that God does exist and until that comes about, religion is clearly just a man made construct for the purpose of power and control.
Besides, I've given clear scientific examples to religious people before and they simply stated that it exists that way because god created it that way which is just the dumbest fucking thinking imaginable. You can't help those people.
Molecular genetics.
Your birth.
Nothing u cant prove a negative.
People should stop saying this.
Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific literacy. This is how we get flat earthers and anti vaxxers.
I have an M.Sc
Well thats fucking concerning. Perhaps get the basics down before u start practising anything.
State your position calmly. What are you trying to say?
Using insults doesn't make you right.
Its a common, clear, and logic extension of the scientific process that you cannot prove a negative. I dont gets whats so complicated about this. Please since you are such an expert in the ways of calmly stating positions give me 1 single example of proving a negative with science.
A woman menstruating proves the negative on her being pregnant.
This reads very, "Well, I ask a four year old if they are a dragon they might say yes, and I know they are not a dragon!"
Yes, there are cases where information can lead you to an answer in a binary question. The more basic the question, the easier this is. But the more complex a problem becomes, the harder it is to disprove.
You can't just say N doesn't equal N(P) because it can't. Prove it.
sure
Huh, that was easy.
So how is your day going?p
rainy
Violent silence coming from @MuntedCrocodile@lemm.ee lmao
Yes you absolutely can. Here's an extremely trivial example: 6 is not prime, which I can prove by simply saying 6 = 2*3. Bam, I've proved a negative.
While proving that 6 is not prime illustrates proving a negative in math, the caution arises in complex, real-world scenarios of non well defined domains. Demonstrating absences beyond math's clarity and definiteness can be challenging if not impossible to say the least.
You are just repeating a myth. A quick look from wikipedia:
ftfy
Anyway, just a tip for future comments on the internet: I'd suggest not being an asshole in your very first reply to someone you disagree with unless there's a good reason to be, because it makes you look extremely silly if your shitty comment is actually just wrong. I wouldn't have commented in this thread at all if you hadn't been an immediate asshole to frightful_hobgoblin, but here we are.
You mean unfalsifiable claims right?
What weakened religion is a long process going from the middle age to the modern world. It starts with the pope wars. It peaks with the religion wars in the XVIIth century. By this point the religious power was a political power like any other, but merely with a cultural hold on European populations. Which was the nail in the coffin.
During this period, the Church radicalised itself as a defense mode. Which solidified the laïcal mindset of the Lumières. Basically the church entered a cultural war against science because it feared it would lose controle.
Then the XIXth century happened. Monarchies got destroyed. And the Catholic Church got humiliated and destroyed as a political power. Socialism and communism appeared, and to state how progressive they were, they put the church in the same reactionary bag as the royalists.
In the middle of this are the liberals who don't care much about anything but profits. Si when democracy is on the rise, they are democrats. When royalty comes back, they praise the king. At least as long as they let them make good profits. And that's what the church doesn't let them do. Morale goes in the way of profit. It forbid slavery and exploitation. It's against science. It promotes charity. That sucks balls for the liberals. But order is good, so why not being a believer but without the problems?
It's not science that made religion recess. It's bad political decisions and alliances. Many renowned scientists were believers. Many still are. But somehow the religions are rejecting science because it doesn't go into litteraly what their old fantasy book wrote. It's a shame because religions could easily make a humanist evolution if they had the political will to do it.
You do realize you keep using the term, "religion" when you mean to use the term, "Christianity"... Not all religions are like Christianity. smh.
The title mention god with a capital G, which means it's the religions of the Bible, which means European history of things. Context in small details.
Everything Westerners think they know about religion, they just refer to the ridiculous bs that we know as Christianity and the Holy Bible. "Because this religion is fallible, so too must all the other religions be."
Christianity is to, "The Flintstones" as Islam is to Harvard University. Not even on the same plane.
Psalms 19:1-2
"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge."
##Old Testament
#####Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV):
##New Testament
#####Ephesians 6:5 (NIV):
#####1 Timothy 6:1 (NIV):
Yep. Real scripture, really in the Bible and needs to be understood.
Those scriptures are not really germane to the question though. I understand the scriptures you posted might seem strange.
Remember that the entire nation of Israel were slaves for hundreds of years in Egypt when they were brought out by God, rescued from that slavery, and set free.
1 Corinthians 7:21-23 NIV "Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings."
Galatians 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."
Then there's Philemon, an entire book of the Bible dedicated to Paul's letter to a slave owner looking for kindness when returning an escaped slave who converted to Christianity.
The Bible can be confusing and even contradictory at times when speaking from this or that person's point of view. We have Sunday schools where we wrestle with questions in an open forum, and I'm sure you'd be welcome as long as you were not antagonistic.
The bible is filled with contradictory passages. How can Ephesians 6:5 and Galatians 5:1 coexist as part of an allegedly true belief system?
They are speaking to two different situations.
Galatians 5:1 is talking about slavery to sin. The concept of being a slave to sin is a central theme in the Bible. Jesus pays the price to buy us out of that slavery, and the Father takes it even further, adopting us as sons and daughters. As John 3:6 says "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
Ephesians 6:5 is regulating an existing practice in Rome, slavery. Much time is spent doing this in the Bible, with slavery and other things. He gives instructions to persons who become Christians while enslaved. He also gave instructions to their masters...
Ephesians 6:9 NIV "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
That's right. Then after the Israelites were freed, Moses, claiming to be speaking for God, gave them permission to take slaves of their own from the nations around them. Before that, they were told how merciless they could be when bludgeoning those slaves.
The Bible portrays this as moral behavior, and the excuses you've given me aren't convincing. I don't think there is any excuse for it, but I'm all ears if you want to give it a shot.
I won't "give it a shot". I don't believe in arguing people into believing - you believe or you don't. If you have as much information as you do and don't believe, I'm not likely to make a difference.
I will say I'm uncomfortable with some incidents in the Bible. The harsh lives before Christ, where slavery could be a mercy because the alternative was mass killing, is unfathomable to me.
I am grateful to not live in those times, but I wasn't argued into believing, and you won't be either. You know as much as you need to.