wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 8, 2008 17:00:45 GMT
Steve,
Clearly, my experience with Pascal's Wager was different than yours. I would dearly love to hear how your experience in that regard turned out to be negative. Everyone's and anyone's "faith journey" is of keen interest for me.
In answer to your observation about a finite time-span on earth and not closing my mind to that prospect, I certainly agree with you that our time here is precious. Also, my experience outside of faith, was that I wasted my time in chasing many creations that were not satisfying. For example, I spent a great deal of my time and effort (and money) chasing things and experiences that I thought were "fun". In other words, my efforts were directed as experiences that gave no substance, and in a word, they were pointless and I knew that not only were they not satisfying, but they also were even destructive (mostly for me, but for others around me as well). Now that I am a Father of 6, there is rarely much doubt that what I do matters. There is not only great comfort for me in this, but I cannot imagine living in any other way that would satisfy me.
How do you find purpose in your life as an Atheist? (that is a real question, not a rhetorical one).
I doubt that God wants you to be an Atheist, although I must admit that I smiled when I read that.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 8, 2008 22:24:56 GMT
I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic I guess. I place theists & atheists at one end of a line & agnostics at the other. Theists & atheists are both believers from my PoV, agnostics simply don't know. (there is a particular kind of agnostic who says it isn't possible to know but I find such statements indicative of belief - they've moved to the other end of the line)
The moments I cherish, that have given greatest satisfaction are, for me, those moments the are either of or lead to increased awareness & knowledge. When I push a boundary & find out something new about either me or the world, I am happiest.
I've never been a 'purposeless fun' kind of guy; I found the juvenile pursuits mostly frustrating & a waste of time. I wasn't particularly popular as such frustration tended to bring out sarcasm. ;D
I don't think a belief in God is necessary to have a meaningful & fulfilling life, but I do think spiritual awareness might be a prerequisite. Certainly chasing the physical doesn't seem to be bringing anyone happiness; we look around at a world so much at odds with human purpose that it's hard to find a human who doesn't have an 'escape' of some kind, be it alcohol, drugs, trance dance or religion - it seems our society is so ill-fitting to what we really need that we can tolerate it only with a substitute to help us survive it.
So I look for things that will help others, that will increase my knowledge (or theirs, but that's a difficult path to successfully navigate) or that leads towards a higher awareness.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 9, 2008 11:00:45 GMT
The words atheist and agnostic do not have agreed meaning. More correctly, I believe that there is no role for a god in the universe, and therefore there is little purpose in speculating in the absence of evidence. I think that is technically agnosticism, but some people give agnosticism a more spiritual meaning which I don't subscribe to.
Similarly, some people view "atheism" as a "faith" in nothing. On this basis, I like Richard Dawkins argument that few think that failing to believe in "fairies at the bottom of the garden" isn't regarded as a "faith" position.
My "purpose" in life is to enjoy time with my friends and family, to find out and experience new things, and to look after myself. I'm not hugely ambitious!
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 10, 2008 5:47:18 GMT
I obviously need to visit this forum more often. Without a doubt, this has been the best thread I have read anywhere on this site. I love it. I hope this thread keeps going for when I get breaks from my job at Microsoft (winking at acolyte). I also grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home in the heart of America. I think those homes and organizations are victims of a lot of characiturizations by people who really don't know them. Kiwi, my wife is from Korea - I met her when I lived there. Having associated with many Korean Christians, I can assure you that looking forward to the rapture and thinking the 70'th week (tribulation) is yet to come is not restricted to America. But my point in writing has nothing to do with a disagreement, and much more to do with identifying with what I read here from several of the members (even you, Steve ). I don't see any boredom from thinking that God created the universe, and I have had many times of deep, soul searching doubt in ths area. But in the end, my concept of God is one of an infinite God. That doesn't make anything boring because there is no limit to what I can explore or what is to be learned. I know people with a much narrower view of God than I have, but when I think about that, they are trying to understand just as I am, and that is their current position of understanding. If we are honest, we have to admit that it is incredibly difficult to know much about God (has anyone here ever sat down and had a face to face conversation with God?). I've had a lot of times of doubt because there are so many different viewpoints, most coming with the most honest of intents and sincerity of pursuits. So it is impossible for me to think that my viewpoint is the only one that is valid. But the diversity had me spending a long time questioning how anyone could know for sure. That really bothered me. One poetic line from a piece of prose stuck with me, and is what finally settled it for me. I don't remember where I read it, but it had to do with seeing evidence of God in creation. The author wrote about walking on the beach and seeing a heart with someone's initials being scratched in the sand. All along the beach, he could see the evidence of the waves and the way it shaped the sand. In the initials, he saw evidence of intelligence. It wasn't that it was more beautiful than the other things on the beach, but it was more that this was just not possible without a motivation other than what normally motivated the sands on the beach. That was the starting point - writing in the sand. And that moved into other things I saw, and then into the formation of life itself. In particular, I thought about this with DNA. Basically, I saw the amino acids that form DNA as letters of an alphabet. (Maybe I heard that analogy as well, I don't remember where I heard it if I did). As I thought about that, then with that alphabet, sentences (genes) and paragraphs (Chromosomes) were written and constructed into both an instruction manual, and a historical account. Instructions because the chromosomes contained the instructions on how the organism was to be constructed, and a historical account because written into those pages within the nuclei of all of my cells is an account of my Native American and my European heritage, and in those of my children was that combined with the asian heritage given to them by their mother. My adopted son has a similar set of instructions with a much different historical account of his blood lineage. It is all there. It relates to the writing in the sand because just as the writing in the sand represented something besides the way the sand was normally motivated, that is not the normal way that molecules are motivated, at least not without an intelligence behind them. The DNA speaks stronger to me of an intelligence behind my existence than anything else I've ever considered. I don't expect it to have the same meaning to anyone else because our paths and current positions on this earth are so different, but to me, the DNA was the writing in the sand. From that point, my ponderings progressed to things like how sexual reproduction could have developed - again, it seems that there is handwriting there because from the simlest of life, there just is no normal motivation to split a single class of organizms into two genders both of which are absolutely necessary for the continuation of the species - it had to develop at exactly the same rate with both genders or else the species would have ceased to exist. Everything from the shape and size of the sex organs to the parallel meiosis to the response to pheramones is absolutely essential to work together if it is to be functional. I don't see the issue as complexity so much as I see it as just the writing in the sand. I don't see science or engineering to be in conflict with faith at all. In the sense that I see it, science is the discovery of creation. If God is infinite, then there is no end of what science can discover, and no end of what I have the chance to learn. So, to put it plainly, science is a study of "how He did it" for me. ("He" is a convenient term - not a term to imply that I think God has a certain set of sexual capabilities). It seems to me that we are given intelligence, and if everything else was done by design, then we are expected to use our intelligence. Since we are not given all the answers, we are cetainly allowed by any intelligent creator to question and explore. So after that journey through doubt and how that turned out, I am a Christian. You probably would not define me as fundamentalist (I don't define myself that way anymore). I attend church with my wife. They don't speak for me (don't try to). I don't agree with everyone there any more than I agree with everyone here or everyone in the supermarket, but I go there with them because of common interests. And I thoroughly enjoy the church where I go. I'm sure my image of God is different from many who attend with me, but since I have to admit that I have never met Him face to face, then I also have to expect that, and respect that. And I have very thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I'm very glad that you guys decided to post here. And Steve, even though we disagree very often on this forum, I am also very glad you posted here.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 10, 2008 9:52:56 GMT
Yes, its has been a very interesting thread, and many of us have been very honest. Probably because this is somewhat anonymous, but, still, baring ones 'soul' always makes one feel vulnerable.
Some quotes from -- F A Schaeffer He Is There And He Is Not Silent --
But first some explanation for the less philosophically inclined: 1. general (=Science & nature) and special (=The Bilble ) revelation.
2. The unity and diversity problem: This is far more than a philosophical issue - it gets down to the day to day issues we face in relationships. Which is more important? The individual or the State? The husband/wife? or the marriage? The individual or the family? Maleness/Femaleness ( "Man, male and female is made in His image.)
Unity (one) and diversity (the many) are equally important, as both are at the center of the Godhead. Of course, to accept that God is there, and that he has spoken (both in His creation of the world and elsewhere) implies we have duty to seek out his "Words" both in the universe around us and (I believe), in His scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 10, 2008 11:22:30 GMT
The words atheist and agnostic do not have agreed meaning. More correctly, I believe that there is no role for a god in the universe, and therefore there is little purpose in speculating in the absence of evidence. I think that is technically agnosticism, but some people give agnosticism a more spiritual meaning which I don't subscribe to. Believing there is no role is a belief - that places you over at the 'believers' side of the line... I believe. ;D And actually, both atheist & agnostic DO have agreed meaning, but there is a tendency for 'sides' to make alterations to those meanings. The one I mentioned is one such chance to the actual definitions. Similarly, some people view "atheism" as a "faith" in nothing. On this basis, I like Richard Dawkins argument that few think that failing to believe in "fairies at the bottom of the garden" isn't regarded as a "faith" position. My "purpose" in life is to enjoy time with my friends and family, to find out and experience new things, and to look after myself. I'm not hugely ambitious! Failing to believe in the fairies is an Agnostic position. stating an opinion baswed on the belief they don't exist is an atheist position & so, quite rightly, places the believer over in the belief camp. Lacking belief until further eveidence comes along is agnostic; deciding a situation cannot be true without confirming evidence is a belief. If Dawkins fails to believe in fairies, that's fine - if he proclaims there are no fairies simply because he has no evidence of such, that's belief. The same principle applies in much wider circles than the God question, and in and of itself is my reason for finding & registering on this forum. Science has, for the past 2 - 3 decades, become a belief medium - it is being used to promulgate politically expedient views. Science is the new religion because it requires belief rather than pure factually based hyptoheses & theories able to be tested. And no, I am NOT relating this to the AGW positions - there's a global agreement of a subject that has literally no scientific justification that has changed the laws in almost every country - looking back at how it happened sheds a whole new light on the AGW sequence of events. Personally I am amazed at how many otheriwse rational people allow their thinking to be directed by faulty science or faulty reporting of science. Gobsmacked is probably a better word.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 10, 2008 11:51:19 GMT
I obviously need to visit this forum more often. Without a doubt, this has been the best thread I have read anywhere on this site. I love it. I hope this thread keeps going for when I get breaks from my job at Microsoft (winking at acolyte).... *grins* Programmers are people who honestly believe they can have an answer for everything a human can throw at their software - this is particularly difficult because most of them have never seen a human in daylight! - quote=Acolyte. ...That was the starting point - writing in the sand. And that moved into other things I saw, and then into the formation of life itself. In particular, I thought about this with DNA. Basically, I saw the amino acids that form DNA as letters of an alphabet. (Maybe I heard that analogy as well, I don't remember where I heard it if I did). As I thought about that, then with that alphabet, sentences (genes) and paragraphs (Chromosomes) were written and constructed into both an instruction manual, and a historical account. Instructions because the chromosomes contained the instructions on how the organism was to be constructed, and a historical account because written into those pages within the nuclei of all of my cells is an account of my Native American and my European heritage, and in those of my children was that combined with the asian heritage given to them by their mother. My adopted son has a similar set of instructions with a much different historical account of his blood lineage. It is all there. It relates to the writing in the sand because just as the writing in the sand represented something besides the way the sand was normally motivated, that is not the normal way that molecules are motivated, at least not without an intelligence behind them. The DNA speaks stronger to me of an intelligence behind my existence than anything else I've ever considered. I don't expect it to have the same meaning to anyone else because our paths and current positions on this earth are so different, but to me, the DNA was the writing in the sand. This is a nice analogy, but unfortunately it's not how things are. DNA is not the brains nor the motivation behind a cell. It is little more than the instruction set or blueprint used by the cell to perform certain tasks. While DNA might provide the instruction set for how to make the organism, it has little to do with causing the organism to happen. Nor does it initiate anything. Cells work in only one way... from outside the cell, an instruction comes. The cell membrane decides if this instruction is allowed or not. Viruses for example, work by fooling this process into allowing the virus to penetrate the cell & so take it over to reproduce the virus set of instructions. Note that we have not found ANY cells that work other than in this way. None. We have however found two different ways to instruct the cell - one is via chemicals, which impinge the cell membrane & either initiate internal changes or penetrate the barrier to enter the cell. The other is via fields or radiation - the evidence is equivocal (that I have seen) as to whether these two events are the same or constitute 2 different methods. But they can & do affect cells & how they function. The problem this raises with the whole DNA sentence/chromosome phrases idea becomes obvious with a question - if ALL cells operate this way, from where do we get the initial impulse that sparks an action? There's a second issue that comes up; the so-called 'junk' DNA is actually more interesting than the encoded 'gene' DNA. Junk DNA responds to language encoding analysis, in two different ways. In other words, there are analysis procedures which show significant response when they are applied to junk DNA patterns. This implies that junk DNA is definitely not junk & in fact may be more important to the expression of Life from the cell than that of the blueprint or instructional genetic codes. And remember, much more than 90% of the genetic information in every cell is not genetic or gene expression. From that point, my ponderings progressed to things like how sexual reproduction could have developed - again, it seems that there is handwriting there because from the simlest of life, there just is no normal motivation to split a single class of organizms into two genders both of which are absolutely necessary for the continuation of the species - it had to develop at exactly the same rate with both genders or else the species would have ceased to exist. Everything from the shape and size of the sex organs to the parallel meiosis to the response to pheramones is absolutely essential to work together if it is to be functional. I don't see the issue as complexity so much as I see it as just the writing in the sand. Actually, sexual reporduction shows a lot of evidence of an not-yet-finsihed battle between the sexes & it is thought to have come about because of the advantages of being able to randomise the genetics within a species. Let's ignore for the moment that species are very much a human concept. There exist within our genes certain patterns that suggest that even now, the sexes are battling to try to get the 'lions share' of genes passed along to the next generation. Currently females have the upper hand - all male mitochodrial DNA is stripped away at conception But when you look at gene expression, it is quite clear there are genetic stategies aimed at trying to dominate the male-female delivery of inheritance. It seems clear that sexual reproduction came about as a compromise between predator & victim. In most cases extant, it would seem the victim won the battle by allowing the predator to share (but not usually equally) in the reproductive result. As for whether or not there is motivation for sexual reproduction, there is the ultimate one - basic survival. Without sexual mixing of genetic information, all of a family is identical. So when a parasite finds a strategy for taking over a cell, it will have total success. Mixing sexually allows a certain randomity in the vulnerabilities within a family & so confers some survivability. Vis-a-vis the Black Death.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 10, 2008 15:31:50 GMT
I still don't buy this "belief in the absence of something is belief" argument, but I'll let it by.
In some contrast to acolyte's (PS I meant slh1234) position - that he sees a creators hand in everything - my non-God faith was also confirmed by recognising how complex nature was. It goes like this. As a kid I was taught how much better man was than animals. However, in watching Nature programmes (such as the wonderful outpourings from David Attenborough's BBC series) I realised not only how wonderful animals were, but also how similar they were to us both in their creativity and practices. Further, the vast proportion of the inventions of man have already been achieved somewhere in nature or the animal kingdom.
Additionally, the vast extent of the animal kingdom, and the many stops and starts in evolution caused by mass extinctions, or chance happenings tell me that the evolution of human intelligence was not inevitable on this planet.
So my original faith in our species somehow being the pinnacle of evolution is quashed. With it goes my belief that humans are somehow special.
And I prefer it that way because it puts the ball firmly in our court when it comes to how we manage our existence.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 10, 2008 16:16:08 GMT
Thank-you!!
I too very much enjoy this thread. I just wanted to add that I have recently read about the strong possibility that the Universe was designed with Discovery (by people on Earth) in mind!! That is that there is a fair bit of evidence we have been given an intelligence to understand AND the circumstances to ALLOW us to understand the Universe and the Created things in it (including ourselves).
I will give you an example. You all know that the night sky has visible stars and other astronomical objects capable of being wondered at. Even with the naked eye in the Southern Hemisphere you can actually see other galaxies (the Magellanic Clouds). However, if we lived in a globular cluster or at the heart of a galaxy (not that those places would allow us to live at all --> too dangerous!!), we would not be able to see much at all except the stars in our neighbourhood (too dense a star field).
I will give you another example, the moon is about 1/400 the size of the Sun and about 1/400 of the distance from the Sun to Earth and as a result it can effectively BLOCK the Sun during a solar eclipse. Quite amazing really!! (and beautiful!). That very fact has allowed us to learn a GREAT DEAL about our star and other stars. In fact there was a famous quote about our inability to figure out the composition of other stars (and the futility of trying). Of course, we have figured out a lot about the composition of other stars, starting with the Fraunhofer lines on the Sun. Eclipses have also allowed us to verify Einstein's General Relativity equations (bending of light by gravitational fields). There is no other place in the Solar System where you can see a total Solar Eclipse. Certainly it is suggestive that something other than a design with survival alone is in Mind. Could we have been given these insights, clues and intellect to be ABLE TO SEE HIS HANDIWORK!! (makes sense with a loving Creator, doesn't it??)
There are many other examples. I certainly suggest reading "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Stobel, if you want a MUCH better description of some of the evidence. Seeing the fingerprints of God in the Universe (and in our DNA!!!!) is very exciting to me and helps to support my Faith. I will freely admit to that need, despite having had 1-way conversations (Him to Me) from God. Believe it or not! They were very encouraging and I was in great need of it.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 10, 2008 17:34:20 GMT
The Moon being the same size as the Sun is quite a coincidence I'll admit. Though there is a strong argument that the existence of a large moon is a prerequisite for life, as its creation strengthened the earth's magnetic field (by increasing the proportion of iron in the core, its tides perhaps helped move life from the seas to land, and it acts as a balancing weight ensuring the earth's orbital variations are minimised, thus ensuring a more stable climate.
Probably though, we also need Jupiter to clean up most of the big asteroids and comets. But we don't want Jupiter to clear up all the asteroids, because without the odd extinction event evolution might stabilise on one species for too long.
On the other hand, in a more dense stellar environment we'd be proportionately more at risk from the violent behaviour of other stars. I understand a supernova within 30 light years would be dangerous to earth.
So while you can argue that our environment is designed to help us find things out, you can also argue that if the environment is so designed, how do we know whether we've found something of real value or whether its a side effect of the scenario set up for us.
Having played the odd adventure game on the computer, the more like real life they are, the more satisfying they are. Contrived problems are always a huge disappointment (particularly if they take you a week to resolve).
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 10, 2008 23:10:34 GMT
Steve, you have me confused with a Creationist I think. while I will admit of the possibility that the Universe wasn't one big accident, I don't think there's a Creator behind the bushes watching it all go on.
The 'coincidences' mentioned (& a lot of others) are more easily explained if we consider the possibility that initial design specs were set to ensure the right conditions - a bit like setting up a petrie dish in the lab - you don't sit it on top of the bunsen burner if you are planning on culturing specimens in it.
The alternative may be true, but it's a lot more complex than we need to actually explain how Life came to be. Multiple Universes gets very complex very fast & takes the wastage of cosmoi to incredible lengths to just provide the one suitable for Life.
Life doesn't seem to 'fit' in our scientific description of things. We can trace it all the way down to the organelles that provide cell power but at that point we stumble. We can track cells all the way back to the brain as to how things occur in our bodies but again, at that point we stumble. We can track the physical all the way down to quarks & know that it goes smaller but again we stumble. We can define electricity & magnetism to the nth degree but when we try to explain just what causes the effects we've labelled, again we stumble. Gravity is simply a mystery on a whole different level. Light behaves apparently according to the wishes of the observer - we have no real explanation for why this is so nor what light actually is.
With basics like this unanswered, as well as the workings of complex rules across the kingdoms of Life that produce such variation & wonder around us, & add in the strange experiences people have where suddenly they can feel the universe around them & their connectedness to it all, & the purely physical, accidental universe seems a bit short in the explanation department.
But to iterate, in my view, this doesn't require an ongoing Creator to watch it all; it does however place a lower limit on the smarts of whoever may have planned it.
If it's all a random fluke we need explanations a whole order of magnitude better than those we currently have.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 11, 2008 2:22:59 GMT
Acolyte, I think you may be straining with a detail to the point of missing the main gist of what I was saying. I recognize that any analogy breaks down at some point, but let me see if stretching it just a bit more might help.
You're telling me about the stick, or the pen that is used to write. I didn't see the writing itself as the source of intelligence, but rather the evidence of it. In both of your breakdowns, I see you as getting into the "how He did it" portion. That's fascinating and important, but it doesn't conflict me in what I was laying out originally.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 11, 2008 3:34:48 GMT
Acolyte, I think you may be straining with a detail to the point of missing the main gist of what I was saying. I recognize that any analogy breaks down at some point, but let me see if stretching it just a bit more might help. You're telling me about the stick, or the pen that is used to write. I didn't see the writing itself as the source of intelligence, but rather the evidence of it. In both of your breakdowns, I see you as getting into the "how He did it" portion. That's fascinating and important, but it doesn't conflict me in what I was laying out originally. ;D ;D Actually slh, I wasn't really addressing your post other than peripherally - it was more the general idea that there's a Creator hanging around making adjustments on-the-fly. For me that would be evidence that the proposed 'creator' simply isn't big enough - making adjustments as things unfold would imply a distinctly limited creator - along the liners of the Judaic one that seems to require regular ego-massage & punishes eternally the slightest slip. Personally I find it difficult to accept that something capable of creating the cosmos we see out there & in here could even be considered in the same league as the biblical god. I understand your analogy but to me any possible creator would be the one who put into motion a plan that would eventually produce a lifeform capable of wielding the stick to make the heart. such a putative creator may not have known if the lifeform would have 2 arms or 10 feelers; it could have just biased the origin so as to favour the development of Life.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 11, 2008 4:44:12 GMT
I don't really see what is taking place as adjustments. There are laws of nature that have been put in place, and they always apply. Those don't seem to be in any kind of adjustment.
But with the concept of an infinite creator, we would have to consider that what we currently see may not be the finished product. You talk about it being set in motion, but one of the things I consider as a possibility is that "creation" may not be a finished product so much as an ongoing process. The universe could still be in development. That development may never be complete.
But those are things we can only address philisophically.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 11, 2008 5:47:30 GMT
I don't really see what is taking place as adjustments. There are laws of nature that have been put in place, and they always apply. Those don't seem to be in any kind of adjustment. But with the concept of an infinite creator, we would have to consider that what we currently see may not be the finished product. You talk about it being set in motion, but one of the things I consider as a possibility is that "creation" may not be a finished product so much as an ongoing process. The universe could still be in development. That development may never be complete. But those are things we can only address philisophically. Maybe... but if we could get a little closer to laws of reality or have a better understanding of just what causes the basics to be as they are, then we could apply scientific method to make predictions & see if they are accurate. In other words, I don't necessarily agree that we can only address such things philosophically - if you'd add a 'for now' to that...? Also, the thread title mentions Intelligent Design (with caps) so I think it's presumed that ID is as proposed in the US. I doubt any of the proponents of ID would agree with either you or me - they'd be firmly of the belief that God made it all, that God is around even now, fiddling & making things go as He planned. The finer nuances of contradiction in that idea would pass them by.
|
|