I Miss This Guy!

[stahleyp]

I've not yet read The God Delusion. I'm sure I'll check it out soon. I watched a lot of his debates and one or two of his series from the BBC. He makes some really good points. In fact, the more I read/watched from him (and Hitchens) the more I moved towards atheism. Then, I read Mere Christianity. That put things in a different perspective for me. Francis Collins said that it turned him from atheism to Christianity. Now, I can't say I've moved that far to the religious side yet, it has (among other things) put me in the theism camp.

 

If you read it, feel free to private message me with your thoughts. I'm curious to know what you think.

 

Cheers!

 

Will do and you do the same with Mere Christianity! :)

[Liberty]

Will do and you do the same with Mere Christianity! :)

 

Will do. I just put a hold on the revised edition at the library.  ;)

[rkbabang]

 

I don't know, it's the opposite view that scares me; without a big security camera in the sky, the religious people would no doubt try to kill and rape me and steal my stuff? That's scary.

 

If you do some serious introspection.  I think you will find your "belief" in both God(s) and Government(s) springs from the same source.  Your irrational fear of your fellow man.  We really aren't all out to get you, you know.

 

Man has evolved his aberration to theft and murder, as well has his need for social acceptance and wont to cooperate with his fellow man, because it has given us (as a species) a survival advantage to be so inclined.    It does the individual no good to murder everyone he sees if the species does not live on.  I look at morality as a "technology", i.e. something invented by man as a tool for man's survival.  In the field of moral-tech, the non-aggression principle, I think, is the state of the art.

 

There are some individual humans who wish to attempt to live via theft and violence.  What we should do is work together to protect ourselves from such psychopaths and sociopaths, not give them permission to rob us to raise armies and build nuclear weapons as we do now.

 

--Eric

 

 

EDIT:  Upon re-reading this I should clarify that I didn't mean "you" as in "Liberty", who I quoted, but "you" as in anyone who may be reading this and believing in either type of mythology (gods or governments).

[stahleyp]

 

I don't know, it's the opposite view that scares me; without a big security camera in the sky, the religious people would no doubt try to kill and rape me and steal my stuff? That's scary.

 

If you do some serious introspection.  I think you will find your "belief" in both God(s) and Government(s) springs from the same source.  Your irrational fear of your fellow man.  We really aren't all out to get you, you know.

 

Man has evolved his aberration to theft and murder, as well has his need for social acceptance and wont to cooperate with his fellow man, because it has given us (as a species) a survival advantage to be so inclined.    It does the individual no good to murder everyone he sees if the species does not live on.  I look at morality as a "technology", i.e. something invented by man as a tool for man's survival.  In the field of moral-tech, the non-aggression principle, I think, is the state of the art.

 

There are some individual humans who wish to attempt to live via theft and violence.  What we should do is work together to protect ourselves from such psychopaths and sociopaths, not give them permission to rob us to raise armies and build nuclear weapons as we do now.

 

--Eric

 

 

EDIT:  Upon re-reading this I should clarify that I didn't mean "you" as in "Liberty", who I quoted, but "you" as in anyone who may be reading this and believing in either type of mythology (gods or governments).

 

You might be right; I don't know. But,  tell me a bit more about how you explain consciousness, the complexity of biology/language, what started the universe, etc.

[tyska]

 

 

I'd recommend Mere Christanity by CS Lewis for more of the philosophical background. It made me think a ton.

 

Love all his writings. My favorite quote of all time comes from him and keeps me away from socialism.

 

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good

of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live

under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may

at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good

will torment us without end for they do so with the approval

of their own conscience."

[Liberty]

You might be right; I don't know. But,  tell me a bit more about how you explain consciousness, the complexity of biology/language, what started the universe, etc.

 

You'll find a lot of discussion of this in Dawkins' writings. But basically, postulating a god as an answer to these questions is just answering them with an even bigger question, so it's no answer at all. It's like saying in ancient times: "How does the sun work?" "God makes it work!" "Well, how does god work then?" While the correct answer we now know is nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms under massive pressure from the star's own gravity well :)

 

But if you really want to go deep into each of those topics, there are neuroscience textbooks (I have this one: http://cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs/mitecs/ though I can't say I've read it all), biology textbooks, cosmology textbooks, cognitive-language stuff (Pinker is an expert on that - http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-Instinct-Mind-Creates/dp/0061336467/ and http://www.amazon.com/The-Stuff-Thought-Language-Window/dp/0143114247/) etc. Lots of answers for you there, but remember that things we don't know (yet) just mean that we don't know, they don't automatically mean that there must be something supernatural behind it. A way to instinctively get that is to think back to all the questions that we've answered about how the world works during the past 300 years, and ask if back then it would have been rational to postulate supernatural causes for them. So is it any more rational now? It's ok not to know some things. When we get evidence to fill that hole, we should look into it, but without evidence, that square should stay blank until we find some.

 

Mysteries don't exist in nature. The mysteries are in our mind; they are on the map, not on the territory, so postulating 'a mystery' as an answer to something isn't really an answer, it's a confusion between the map and the territory. As a rule, if after an answer you don't know more than before, it's not really an answer :)

[rkbabang]

You might be right; I don't know. But,  tell me a bit more about how you explain consciousness, the complexity of biology/language, what started the universe, etc.

 

You'll find a lot of discussion of this in Dawkins' writings. But basically, postulating a god as an answer to these questions is just answering them with an even bigger question, so it's no answer at all. It's like saying in ancient times: "How does the sun work?" "God makes it work!" "Well, how does god work then?" While the correct answer we now know is nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms under massive pressure from the star's own gravity well :)

 

 

Exactly.  I forgot who said that "religion is simply pretending to know things you don't know".  Your guess is as good as mine what happened at the beginning to start the universe.  But saying "God did it" is so unsatisfying to me, because 1) you have no idea if god did it or not.  And 2) even if he did, my next question is where did he come from?  Why does he exist?  What is the meaning of god's existence?  You think you've answered everything, but you've answered nothing.  And the big problem is that, thinking you've answered everything, you stop searching for answers.  As an atheist I'm perfectly happy with answering "I don't know", when I really don't.

 

As far as consciousness goes.  Again I really don't know, but I think it may be an emergent property of the network effect.  In other words it is inherent in the highly parallel structure of our brain.  I think once higher level problem solving evolved in big brained mammals, maybe by accident (random mutation), that maybe natural selection took over from there to refine it.  I think bonobos and maybe chimpanzees are a lot more intelligent than most people think they are, and maybe conscious (do some research in this area you will be amazed at what bonobos have been taught to do), how do we know they don't have the mental capacity to be more civilized thinking beings or to think about thinking (sapience), but just lack the capacity to speak and thus develop language?  Again, I don't really know any of the answers, but "god did it" is highly unsatisfying to me, because it explains nothing and there is no proof of any God doing anything.

 

 

[stahleyp]

You might be right; I don't know. But,  tell me a bit more about how you explain consciousness, the complexity of biology/language, what started the universe, etc.

 

You'll find a lot of discussion of this in Dawkins' writings. But basically, postulating a god as an answer to these questions is just answering them with an even bigger question, so it's no answer at all. It's like saying in ancient times: "How does the sun work?" "God makes it work!" "Well, how does god work then?" While the correct answer we now know is nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms under massive pressure from the star's own gravity well :)

 

 

Exactly.  I forgot who said that "religion is simply pretending to know things you don't know".  Your guess is as good as mine what happened at the beginning to start the universe.  But saying "God did it" is so unsatisfying to me, because 1) you have no idea if god did it or not.  And 2) even if he did, my next question is where did he come from?  Why does he exist?  What is the meaning of god's existence?  You think you've answered everything, but you've answered nothing.  And the big problem is that, thinking you've answered everything, you stop searching for answers.  As an atheist I'm perfectly happy with answering "I don't know", when I really don't.

 

As far as consciousness goes.  Again I really don't know, but I think it may be an emergent property of the network effect.  In other words it is inherent in the highly parallel structure of our brain.  I think once higher level problem solving evolved in big brained mammals, maybe by accident (random mutation), that maybe natural selection took over from there to refine it.  I think bonobos and maybe chimpanzees are a lot more intelligent than most people think they are, and maybe conscious (do some research in this area you will be amazed at what bonobos have been taught to do), how do we know they don't have the mental capacity to be more civilized thinking beings or to think about thinking (sapience), but just lack the capacity to speak and thus develop language?  Again, I don't really know any of the answers, but "god did it" is highly unsatisfying to me, because it explains nothing and there is no proof of any God doing anything.

 

I can totally respect yours and Liberty's point. I really can. You are intellectually honest. Very, very few people are. We need people, like you, who are curious and so that we can advance. Indeed, if enough evidence came, I would certainly alter my beliefs. I am aware that I am using the old "god of the gaps" argument. I don't deny that whatsoever.

 

With that being said, if I had to take a guess, which do I buy? The theist argument or atheistic argument. Personally, I think the odds are more in favor of the theist argument over the alternatives. Am I right? I don't know the answer to that. I guess I won't really know until I pass on (unless science proves otherwise). Based on the mosaic view that I outlined before, I feel, as of right now, more aligned with the theists.

[rkbabang]

I can totally respect yours and Liberty's point. I really can. You are intellectually honest. Very, very few people are. We need people, like you, who are curious and so that we can advance. Indeed, if enough evidence came, I would certainly alter my beliefs. I am aware that I am using the old "god of the gaps" argument. I don't deny that whatsoever.

 

With that being said, if I had to take a guess, which do I buy? The theist argument or atheistic argument. Personally, I think the odds are more in favor of the theist argument over the alternatives. Am I right? I don't know the answer to that. I guess I won't really know until I pass on (unless science proves otherwise). Based on the mosaic view that I outlined before, I feel, as of right now, more aligned with the theists.

 

Yes, mankind will never know everything there is to know, so regardless of how much we shrink those gaps there will always be gaps for god to hide out in.  One reason that god of the gaps doesn't appeal to me is that I am afraid to die and everyone I know is afraid to die.  I know how attractive "life after death" sounds.  So much so that if it didn't really exist, someone would have to invent it.  In my opinion that is exactly what happened.    The intense feeling of not wanting to die is proof enough to me that religion is invented.  Nothing else could explain an almost universal belief in something for which there is absolutely zero evidence for.  As Dawkins says I also don't believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars.  Of course I can't prove that there isn't, I just have never seen one shred of evidence to make me think that there is one.  God is the same.  There is plenty of reasons to invent god if he doesn't exist:  Fear of death or the willingness to use peoples' fear of death to gain wealth or power over them.  But, like the teapot in space, there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

 

 

[Martian]

Yes, dogs were selectively bred when they pleased their human "pack".

 

All dog species have as common ancestors wolves. As with all selective breeding, useful traits were selected and reinforced over generations. Selection from wolves probably started with docility as the primary traint, but once you have a lineage that doesn't want to attack you, you can then start selecting for other traits; Some dogs were bred to hunt, or herd sheep, as alarm systems, or to act as companions, or just to be cute. In fact, it's no surprise why puppies and especially kittens are so cute -- the cuttest animals in any litter had more chances of being picked by humans for companionship, and over thousands of years, this results in huge selective pressure for traits that humans would describe as cuteness* :)

 

*Exhibit A: http://cuteoverload.com/

 

 

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond clearly explains how the dogs, cows, chickens, goats, pigs and horses were domesticated by humans. He also explains why zebras, wolfs and other animals were not domesticated.

 

The book starts from 10,000 years back, at the end of last ice age. It explains how different continents evolved at different speed, mainly because of climate, domesticable animals, domesticable plants like rice, wheat, corn.

The book explains how humans was able to domesticate certain plants and could not do certain plants till this day. He discusses how humans evolved from nomads to living in big cities..How some tribes/groups perished and some succeeded.

 

It is a very interesting book recommended by Charlie Munger.

 

 

[Guest valueInv]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/2012/09/05/revisiting-the-robbers-cave-the-easy-spontaneity-of-intergroup-conflict/

 

;)

[rkbabang]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/2012/09/05/revisiting-the-robbers-cave-the-easy-spontaneity-of-intergroup-conflict/

 

Thanks for posting this fascinating study. I've never heard of this one before. 

 

"Groups form easier than they fall apart"

 

This is unfortunately true, which is why we all need to think of ourselves as human beings first and foremost and relegate whatever other B.S. group you think you belong to (country, team, race, etc), a very, VERY, distant second (if at all).

[stahleyp]

I can totally respect yours and Liberty's point. I really can. You are intellectually honest. Very, very few people are. We need people, like you, who are curious and so that we can advance. Indeed, if enough evidence came, I would certainly alter my beliefs. I am aware that I am using the old "god of the gaps" argument. I don't deny that whatsoever.

 

With that being said, if I had to take a guess, which do I buy? The theist argument or atheistic argument. Personally, I think the odds are more in favor of the theist argument over the alternatives. Am I right? I don't know the answer to that. I guess I won't really know until I pass on (unless science proves otherwise). Based on the mosaic view that I outlined before, I feel, as of right now, more aligned with the theists.

 

Yes, mankind will never know everything there is to know, so regardless of how much we shrink those gaps there will always be gaps for god to hide out in.  One reason that god of the gaps doesn't appeal to me is that I am afraid to die and everyone I know is afraid to die.  I know how attractive "life after death" sounds.  So much so that if it didn't really exist, someone would have to invent it.  In my opinion that is exactly what happened.    The intense feeling of not wanting to die is proof enough to me that religion is invented.  Nothing else could explain an almost universal belief in something for which there is absolutely zero evidence for.  As Dawkins says I also don't believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars.  Of course I can't prove that there isn't, I just have never seen one shred of evidence to make me think that there is one.  God is the same.  There is plenty of reasons to invent god if he doesn't exist:  Fear of death or the willingness to use peoples' fear of death to gain wealth or power over them.  But, like the teapot in space, there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

 

 

 

If a tea pot in space alledgely had a book written about it and people credited miracles to it, I'd certainly things it's possible. Indeed there is plenty of evidence - although circumstantial.

 

A different of the brain than normally used for speaking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html

 

Radiation from the Resurrection? That's seems plausible for a layman like myself, at least.

 

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/22/9636065-was-holy-shroud-created-in-a-flash-italian-researchers-resurrect-claim?lite

 

Speaking of the Shroud of Turin, there was radio carbon testing that suggested it was fake. However, there is (naturally) controversy surrounding that, too. Here is a bit more controversy. Coins that were minted around 31 - 33 AD?

 

http://www.numismalink.com/fontanille4.html

 

Not really "proof" but hard evidence that someone, very likely existed, who was close to Jesus.

 

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/bulgarian-bones-could-be-john-the-baptists-as-claimed-scientists-say/

 

 

Near death experiences: a lot of people are completely changed by them. One for the more interesting ones was the Pam Reynolds case. Although not perfect, it was interesting to read about. Feel free to read about it. A good amount of critical analysis is available, too.

 

 

Personal experiences: Yes, some from my family, so perhaps they're biased or wrong. Eye witness accounts due to tend to count in court.

 

 

[rkbabang]

If a tea pot in space alledgely had a book written about it and people credited miracles to it, I'd certainly things it's possible. Indeed there is plenty of evidence - although circumstantial.

 

That can be arranged.  If L. Ron Hubbard can start a religion about space aliens living at the center of the earth, there is no reason why I can't start one about a celestial tea pot.

 

A different of the brain than normally used for speaking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html

 

That is interesting, but not proof of god.  There are many odd states of consciousness that some people can put themselves into.  Buddhist monks can manipulate their brain and body in ways you or I probably can't.  I will never speak in tongues because I will never be able to put myself into that frame of mind. 

 

Radiation from the Resurrection? That's seems plausible for a layman like myself, at least.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/22/9636065-was-holy-shroud-created-in-a-flash-italian-researchers-resurrect-claim?lite

 

If you could prove that the image was caused by radiation, that would be interesting, but still only proof that there was a source of radiation and someone's image was captured by it.  Hardly proof of a resurrection from the dead or that Jesus himself is the one in the image.

 

Speaking of the Shroud of Turin, there was radio carbon testing that suggested it was fake. However, there is (naturally) controversy surrounding that, too. Here is a bit more controversy. Coins that were minted around 31 - 33 AD?

http://www.numismalink.com/fontanille4.html

Not really "proof" but hard evidence that someone, very likely existed, who was close to Jesus.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/bulgarian-bones-could-be-john-the-baptists-as-claimed-scientists-say/

 

Many people existed at that time.  Many of the people mentioned in the bible probably existed as well.  Still not proof that Jesus (if he existed) was what he said he was (if he indeed claimed to be some kind of man-god creature).  You are talking about a very primitive superstitious desert people from thousands of years ago.  I'm sure they told all kinds of stories.  These particular stories happened to be the ones a Roman emperor wanted canonized in the 4th century to be the official religion of the empire.  Not very convincing.

 

 

Near death experiences: a lot of people are completely changed by them. One for the more interesting ones was the Pam Reynolds case. Although not perfect, it was interesting to read about. Feel free to read about it. A good amount of critical analysis is available, too.

 

There was a study done where someone created the whole tunnel and light effect by electrically stimulating a certain section of the brain.  I'm sure that when you almost die or you do stop breathing and your heart stops for a while and you come back that it is a very emotional experience and affects you in some profound way, which may even change the way you think about life.  All of that is understandable, and none of it is proof of anything.

 

Personal experiences: Yes, some from my family, so perhaps they're biased or wrong. Eye witness accounts due to tend to count in court.

 

Humans are pattern seeking creatures.  While this helps us survive and thrive it also has some weird "side effects"  where we see patterns when their aren't really any.    Do some reading on a few conspiracy theory websites for a good course in what I'm talking about.  Things happening in your life right when they "needed" to happen and that you were praying for are nothing more than lucky breaks.  Its funny how when you think something "needs" to happen and you pray for it, then it doesn't happen, you look back on it and think that what actually did happen was "for the best" and you interpret that as "god's plan" or "god looking out for you".    People interpret things through their own lenses.  Even though bad things certainly do happen to good people, for the most part human beings are wonderful at adapting to and surviving almost anything life throws at us.  We just don't often give ourselves the credit for our resilience.  It is more comfortable to think that someone more powerful has our back. I'm just an odd duck who is more concerned in what is true than what makes me more comfortable.

[matjone]

Interesting story.  I'd be pissed if someone shoved me down from heaven into a room where I had to listen to the Eagles, which in my opinion is pretty close to hell.

 

I know nothing about how the brain works, but I wonder if it's possible her's was working in some other unknown way (besides by using electrical signals) during this near death experience . 

 

[Liberty]

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond clearly explains how the dogs, cows, chickens, goats, pigs and horses were domesticated by humans. He also explains why zebras, wolfs and other animals were not domesticated.

 

The book starts from 10,000 years back, at the end of last ice age. It explains how different continents evolved at different speed, mainly because of climate, domesticable animals, domesticable plants like rice, wheat, corn.

The book explains how humans was able to domesticate certain plants and could not do certain plants till this day. He discusses how humans evolved from nomads to living in big cities..How some tribes/groups perished and some succeeded.

 

It is a very interesting book recommended by Charlie Munger.

 

It is a good book. I've read it. I also have Collapse by Diamond, but I haven't read that one yet.

[stahleyp]

rkbabang, thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'd like to comment on a couple points. By the way, what would make you believe? Liberty, I'd like your response, too.

 

There will, most likely, never be proof of god unless he shows himself (or isn't there...in which case we'll never find anything anyway!). We can only make assumptions based on what we know.

 

For instance, the vast majority of finance academics think value investing is a waste of time. The markets are efficient and that trying is a waste of time. The data also backs it up. Are we all fools for trying? Well, results tend to back that up. Is it due to luck, though? According to them it is. I think value investing is real, but there is a lot of evidence and theories to suggest it isn't. Though some due suggest it's somewhat possible.

 

I look at it like this. Are you gonna believe an academic or someone whom is in the field? I look at religion in a somewhat similar way. Yes, there are plenty of people who switch sides (Dan Barker for one, CS Lewis for another). All have very, very valid reasons. They are quite rational.

 

As for myself, I look at things science can't explain (the biggest issue for me is morality) and I place my bets on a creator. Am I wrong? Quite possibly. I think a being who has exists and who exists outside of science and scientific testing is more plausible than a universe that came from nothing. If science comes up with something better, it will certainly have my ear.

 

There was a lady that I knew, but has since passed, that made me really think there was something to all of this. If it weren't for her, I would've become an atheist. I do not remember the incident but this is my story. Maybe it was all a lie, but I believe it.

 

When I was two years old, I had cerebral palsy. My great aunt took me to see this lady (literally the most religious person I have ever known). She did not know about my ailment but she started to pray and went to my foot (where most of the symptoms were). My foot started to heat up and I was healed. I still do not suffer from any symptoms (that I know of anyway) of the illness.

 

Maybe it was random chance. Maybe it was my body just happening to heal itself the same time she prayed over me. Maybe the story is a lie or misunderstood. I look at this, I look at some of my other "god of the gap" arguments and to me, God is very plausible. I fought it for a long time, but over the past few months I've come to accept (although my rational side continues to fight me on it from time to time).

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about this until just a moment ago!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reincarnation_research

[ERICOPOLY]

The complexity of the life and human language. If we look at something like the human eye, it is almost unfathomable how that could come into being. It even puzzled Darwin.

 

So for you if the eye can't "just happen" by accident, it's much easier for you to believe that it's creator "just happened"?

 

The Deity seems more complex than the eye.

 

Me, I favor the less complex of the two as more likely to happen by accident.

 

Or if forced to accept that the Deity created the eye, I would have to restructure the religion a bit to explain that the Deity must have had a creator, who in turn had a creator, etc... etc...

 

Deities are more complicated than eyes, that's my line and I'm sticking to it.

 

I just don't know if religions take into account that the Deity must by definition be at least as complicated than what it is able to create.  So to use the argument that our world is so perfect that it could only have been created by a deity who in turn could not have been created...

 

Is it offensive to religions to suggest that their God may have been created.  Why would it be?  Why do they believe that this God was not created by a long chain of Gods?  Where is their proof that it wasn't?

[Liberty]

The complexity of the life and human language. If we look at something like the human eye, it is almost unfathomable how that could come into being. It even puzzled Darwin.

 

So for you if the eye can't "just happen" by accident, it's much easier for you to believe that it's creator "just happened"?

 

The Deity seems more complex than the eye.

 

Me, I favor the less complex of the two as more likely to happen by accident.

 

Occam's razor is definitely warranted here, but it's not even necessary since natural selection DOESN'T say that things happen just by accident. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The only thing that is random are the mutations. The selection of those mutations isn't random at all, it is the 'fittest' individuals that are selected in the gene pool by having more offspring than the less fit individuals. In the same way, organs like the eye evolved gradually by conferring advantages and thus extra fitness. They were passed on to offspring giving benefits, and some offspring then had slightly better eyes which were then passed on and so on. Rinse and repeat a few million years. So the first eyes were very simple and had limited capabilities, and they progressively got better and more complex:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

 

It's truly a fascinating topic, and not a mystery at all. But to show how the eye evolved and wasn't designed, you only have to look at the optical nerve. It's backwards! That's why we have a blind spot. Our eyes would be much better if the nerves were in the back rather than in front of the retina, but it happened that way first and evolution can't always backtrack after errors like that, and since it still works well enough, no real need. Same thing for how one of man's two testicles has a cord that goes all the way around some organs in the abdomen while the other is much shorter; an error that wasn't too bad for fitness and thus was left there, but definitely not a sign of design (unless you have one hell of an incompetent designer). Another example is how human women have such trouble with childbirth compared to most other mammals. It's because over time we evolved to walk upright, and there's a tradeoff there in pelvis size. Narrower is better to walk, but wider is better for childbirth. So basically, human brain size at birth has been limited by what can fit through a woman's pelvis at birth, and it's still just barely what fits without killing too many women (without modern medical help, a lot more would die in childbirth than do now) for the tradeoff to become an evolutive disadvantage.

 

In any case, it is certainly more plausible to me to say that complex things such as eyes and humans have simple origins and have gradually, incrementally become more complex over billions of years than to say that complex things like eyes and humans have an even more complex origin, a god. That's just answering a question with a bigger question. Without evolution by natural selection, absolutely nothing we're observing in biology makes any sense, and we can see evolution at work by sequencing DNA (even rewriting DNA!), in fossils, in selective breeding of plants and insides and bacteria (antibiotics, etc), in zoological categorization, in geographical and temporal diversity of species, etc. We can see it in action, we know it works.

[racemize]

I'd skipped this thread for the most part until Parsad mentioned it in another.  Good conversations going on here.

 

I grew up with my parents going from full blown religious to full blown atheism over a period of years.  At this point, my father is obsessed with religiousness/bible, mostly in a negative way, e.g., finding and writing about contradictions or silliness in the bible.  At this point, the sum of the impact of religion on him seems very negative to me.

 

Personally, I just don't see the point in thinking about it that much.  I believe in things that there is evidence for--if there isn't evidence, why make something up?  There's tons of things we don't know and the universe is certainly interesting enough without adding anything else.  If there is a god, but he never shows any evidence for himself, why bother?  I just don't see what god adds that is necessary, perhaps a sense of purpose for the universe, but I guess I don't need a "Big Brother" for that.

 

Just random thoughts, so carry on!

[Liberty]

I believe in things that there is evidence for--if there isn't evidence, why make something up?  There's tons of things we don't know and the universe is certainly interesting enough without adding anything else.

 

You just made me think of two pics which I had to Google:

 

https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/The-few-seconds-of-silence-that-followed-felt-so-good-.png

 

http://i.imgur.com/caWYC.jpg

 

As well as a book by Dawkins called Unweaving the Rainbow where he talks about, among other things, how it isn't true that science makes the universe less wonderful and amazing by revealing its secrets, but that it is religion's mysteries and revelations that are small and uninteresting - basically what a bronze age civilization could come up with - compared to the great questions and discoveries of science about the nature and composition of the universe and how things in it actually work.

 

I also like this sequence of posts on Less Wrong. Here's an excerpt:

 

"If dragons were common, and you could look at one in the zoo - but zebras were a rare legendary creature that had finally been decided to be mythical - then there's a certain sort of person who would ignore dragons, who would never bother to look at dragons, and chase after rumors of zebras. The grass is always greener on the other side of reality. [...]

 

I have already remarked that nothing is inherently mysterious—nothing that actually exists, that is.  If I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about my state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon; to worship a phenomenon because it seems so wonderfully mysterious, is to worship your own ignorance; a blank map does not correspond to a blank territory, it is just somewhere we haven't visited yet, etc. etc...

 

Which is to say that everything—everything that actually exists—is liable to end up in "the dull catalogue of common things", sooner or later.

 

Your choice is either:

 

Decide that things are allowed to be unmagical, knowable, scientifically explicable, in a word, real, and yet still worth caring about;

Or go about the rest of your life suffering from existential ennui that is unresolvable."

 

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Joy_in_the_Merely_Real

 

Slightly related:

:)

[stahleyp]

I believe in evolution. I'm not a "young earth creationist" or anything like that.  I don't believe that evolution just happened, though. I don't believe that the earth was created and the eye and the ipad just out of the course of sheer chance (and natural selection and....Steve Jobs). Is there any scientific proof that you can create something from nothing?  Does that answer the question of who created God? No, it doesn't. A satisfying answer, for me at least, is that God created the universe and helped guide it in certain ways, including evolution. Like I said before, I try to look at things from a mosaic point of view and then compare the two arguments. We have morality (I think, anyway), we have consciousness, complexity, personal experiences, reincarnation research, etc. Do I think all that could have happened from nothing? No. I don't see how. Do I think we should continue to do research? Absolutely.

 

Here is a great site for theism and evolution.

 

http://biologos.org/

 

Here is also a debate with John Lennox and Richard Dawkins

 

http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/debates

 

Any comments about the reincarnation research?

 

"Tom Shroder said Stevenson's fieldwork technique was that of a detective or investigative reporter, searching for alternative explanations of the material he was offered. One boy in Beirut described being a 25-year-old mechanic who died after being hit by a speeding car on a beach road. Witnesses said the boy gave the name of the driver, as well as the names of his sisters, parents, and cousins, and the location of the crash. The details matched the life of a man who had died years before the child was born, and who was apparently unconnected to the child's family. In such cases, Stevenson sought alternative explanations—that the child had discovered the information in a normal way, that the witnesses were lying to him or to themselves, or that the case boiled down to coincidence. Shroder writes that, in scores of cases, no alternative explanation seemed to suffice"

[stahleyp]

Liberty and rk,

 

Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too.

[Liberty]

Liberty and rk,

 

Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too.

 

Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence.

[alwaysinvert]

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347121742&sr=8-1&keywords=lawrence+krauss

 

Haven't read the book, though, but I'm told it's great,

 

I'm also wondering what makes you reject a deistic or pantheistic worldview in favour of theism. Could it be your biases playing up?

 

Not to be brusque, but if you cannot fathom how complexity can arise from simplicity with the help of darwinian natural selection you just don't understand the implications of it. The irreducible complexity argument (like the human eye) is just argument from ignorance. There are loads and loads of intermittent eyes in nature and they are all useful even though they lack elements/uses of what we would usually consider an eye. Check out this fascinating animal for example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara