Taken alone, yes. âItâs so complex it mustâve been created.â
That runs up against the other part: that people who really know the universe (better all the time) know its vastness - and emptiness (so far). Matter/Energy, Dark Matter (there is 5x more of that than there is âregularâ matter) and the biggest portion: Dark Energy. Is there a Watchmaker responsible for that, too? So the mere existence of us suggests a creator - but the lack of existence of something else Out There - back towards the beginning of time - suggests the opposite.
I think it helps to make a distinction here.
Invoking religion/faith/belief in a higher obtuse power to explain things we don't understand ultimately runs the risk of being pure tautology;
why did this or that happen?
Well, God.
why didn't this or that happen?
Well, God.
Ultimately, this doesn't help much if you are trying to work out why things happen. Here science really did suddenly shed light on the Dark Ages and in terms of the explanatory power (of chains of causation) it easily trumps religion.
However, if you merely invoke a faith/belief in God as an act of humility, as an acknowledgement of pure wonder at being alive and that not only do we exist, but are aware of the fact and surrounded by a vast universe of being, almost all of which appears to be insentient, then it has a different role and that is something I can acknowledge as valid, for it is an emotional response - a response to the awesomeness of things. Kind of like singing as the sun rises, or Gregorian chants in a monastery. There is something undeniably "ecstatic" about this.. ex-stasisâ in the sense of standing outside your customary point of view and sensing the universal flow through you.
I guess this is the spiritual aspect of religion. But IMO this is completely unrelated to the causative aspect that many religions claim to have a monopoly over, which by nature are exclusive and the absolute opposite of universal ex-stasis. Note also, the spiritual state of being is passive/receptive. You let it happen. It is not programmatic/dogmatic (make it happen).
To go a step further, an emotional/spiritual response to being does not necessarily mean we have to postulate the existence of a God as a causative, explanatory factor. Most birds I know appear to get along quite well without being aware of "God" and still sing gloriously at sunrise. But if someone finds the concept of God as a neat encapsulation as the source of all wonder, I can live with that. Maybe that is where birds are at. This would at least explain all that singing.
What I can't live so well with is when some people seem to think their religion gives them some kind of prior knowledge or right to tell others what to do. That is a fatal flaw of many religions and seems rooted in my view in basic tribal instinct than anything remotely spiritual.
Likewise, I also can't live with people who use scientific causative arguments to belittle people whose religious basis is purely spiritual.
That seems to be what religion should be teaching us...or the purpose of prayer.
To get out of the way and let God, the energy of the universe...whatever you want to call it...flow through you.
Maybe not so different as to how artists explain their works?
Slay the ego dragon.
If you want to experience, regardless of one's faith,
sit in a quiet room and ask, what is it that is keeping me from my true self?
If you are still enough, the answer will come...but i can only from my own experience.
As for those use their religion as some sort of "monopoly"...I probably have less time for these folks than an atheist
Things that do manifest themselves without any known physical explanations.
Whupping out my Occamâs Razor I always believe that stuff like that is a problem with data gathering (e.g., we canât see magnetism so why does that metal move?) or with our logistics (well, we know that the sun revolves around the earth but measuring how Mars moves across the sky with that weird pathway just defies explanation).
Taken alone, yes. âItâs so complex it mustâve been created.â
That runs up against the other part: that people who really know the universe (better all the time) know its vastness - and emptiness (so far). Matter/Energy, Dark Matter (there is 5x more of that than there is âregularâ matter) and the biggest portion: Dark Energy. Is there a Watchmaker responsible for that, too? So the mere existence of us suggests a creator - but the lack of existence of something else Out There - back towards the beginning of time - suggests the opposite.
I think it helps to make a distinction here.
Invoking religion/faith/belief in a higher obtuse power to explain things we don't understand ultimately runs the risk of being pure tautology;
why did this or that happen?
Well, God.
why didn't this or that happen?
Well, God.
Ultimately, this doesn't help much if you are trying to work out why things happen. Here science really did suddenly shed light on the Dark Ages and in terms of the explanatory power (of chains of causation) it easily trumps religion.
However, if you merely invoke a faith/belief in God as an act of humility, as an acknowledgement of pure wonder at being alive and that not only do we exist, but are aware of the fact and surrounded by a vast universe of being, almost all of which appears to be insentient, then it has a different role and that is something I can acknowledge as valid, for it is an emotional response - a response to the awesomeness of things. Kind of like singing as the sun rises, or Gregorian chants in a monastery. There is something undeniably "ecstatic" about this.. ex-stasisâ in the sense of standing outside your customary point of view and sensing the universal flow through you.
I guess this is the spiritual aspect of religion. But IMO this is completely unrelated to the causative aspect that many religions claim to have a monopoly over, which by nature are exclusive and the absolute opposite of universal ex-stasis. Note also, the spiritual state of being is passive/receptive. You let it happen. It is not programmatic/dogmatic (make it happen).
To go a step further, an emotional/spiritual response to being does not necessarily mean we have to postulate the existence of a God as a causative, explanatory factor. Most birds I know appear to get along quite well without being aware of "God" and still sing gloriously at sunrise. But if someone finds the concept of God as a neat encapsulation as the source of all wonder, I can live with that. Maybe that is where birds are at. This would at least explain all that singing.
What I can't live so well with is when some people seem to think their religion gives them some kind of prior knowledge or right to tell others what to do. That is a fatal flaw of many religions and seems rooted in my view in basic tribal instinct than anything remotely spiritual.
Likewise, I also can't live with people who use scientific causative arguments to belittle people whose religious basis is purely spiritual.
I believe that in most cases man is likely to be a factor.
Yes. Knowledge evolves understanding. Additionally, refines curiosity.
Beautifully stated.
Just because we might not believe in "God" doesn't necessarily mean that "God" doesn't believe in us.
If a faithful person claims that the evidence is positively everything and everywhere, what would an undecided or negatively inclined person as to faith accept as evidence? Not being tricky. Literally is there a marker or condition?
I think it helps to make a distinction here.
Invoking religion/faith/belief in a higher obtuse power to explain things we don't understand ultimately runs the risk of being pure tautology;
why did this or that happen?
Well, God.
why didn't this or that happen?
Well, God.
Ultimately, this doesn't help much if you are trying to work out why things happen. Here science really did suddenly shed light on the Dark Ages and in terms of the explanatory power (of chains of causation) it easily trumps religion.
However, if you merely invoke a faith/belief in God as an act of humility, as an acknowledgement of pure wonder at being alive and that not only do we exist, but are aware of the fact and surrounded by a vast universe of being, almost all of which appears to be insentient, then it has a different role and that is something I can acknowledge as valid, for it is an emotional response - a response to the awesomeness of things. Kind of like singing as the sun rises, or Gregorian chants in a monastery. There is something undeniably "ecstatic" about this.. ex-stasis— in the sense of standing outside your customary point of view and sensing the universal flow through you.
I guess this is the spiritual aspect of religion. But IMO this is completely unrelated to the causative aspect that many religions claim to have a monopoly over, which by nature are exclusive and the absolute opposite of universal ex-stasis. Note also, the spiritual state of being is passive/receptive. You let it happen. It is not programmatic/dogmatic (make it happen).
To go a step further, an emotional/spiritual response to being does not necessarily mean we have to postulate the existence of a God as a causative, explanatory factor. Most birds I know appear to get along quite well without being aware of "God" and still sing gloriously at sunrise. But if someone finds the concept of God as a neat encapsulation as the source of all wonder, I can live with that. Maybe that is where birds are at. This would at least explain all that singing.
What I can't live so well with is when some people seem to think their religion gives them some kind of prior knowledge or right to tell others what to do. That is a fatal flaw of many religions and seems rooted in my view in basic tribal instinct than anything remotely spiritual.
Likewise, I also can't live with people who use scientific causative arguments to belittle people whose religious basis is purely spiritual.
Belief is holding something as a truth
Faith is hoping something is truth...so there should be a nice heaping of doubt in faith.
...and if you hold something of faith (and there are universal things of faith) as a belief,
then we haven't slayed the dragon of ego...
If a faithful person claims that the evidence is positively everything and everywhere, what would an undecided or negatively inclined person as to faith accept as evidence? Not being tricky. Literally is there a marker or condition?
I was thinking more in terms of the paranormal. Things that do manifest themselves without any known physical explanations. And outside of religious acceptance and explanations as well.
Or in other words, is the paranormal (and perhaps reincarnation) considered not real and therefore self delusional ?
Or never mind. Maybe next year.
"I can't explain it" encompasses vast amount of daily life. None of that implies any particular actor or cause being at play.
If you assign some cause (outside of the influence of the physical) to anything you can't explain you have entered the realm of religious belief.
I was thinking more in terms of the paranormal. Things that do manifest themselves without any known physical explanations. And outside of religious acceptance and explanations as well.
Or in other words, is the paranormal (and perhaps reincarnation) considered not real and therefore self delusional ?
Or never mind. Maybe next year.
One size doesn't fit all. Some atheists might believe in spirits/ghosts/whatever, while not believing in deities of any kind.
One of my oldest friends, a college buddy/roomie is a planetary scientist. He discovered the furthest known contacted object in our solar system, untouched by thermal influence since the beginning, and therefore a treasure trove of information as to what happened at the beginning of the system. He predicted its shape using occultation, and has an understanding of space that boggles the mind. He was friends with Sagan.
Once, sitting with him and another (very religious) friend, I tried to ask him what his (limited human) understanding of the universe meant to him in terms of god or whatever. Heâs a quiet, thoughtful guy, and - in the milliseconds he paused - my religious friend jumped in and hijacked the convo. Iâll try again on another day, but I kinda think it was a moment thatâs passed.
Does the vastness of the universe say something about the non existence of a god? Or is it that we just are unable to comprehend something that would be that big compared to us?
Similarly, when you study biological functions, does the complexity of things like kidney function with its semipermeable membranes here but not there as urine gets made say something about a divine intervention that allowed something so microscopically detailed to exist, and therefore for us to exist?
I canât believe in an anthropomorphic god; that makes no sense. But is all of this vastness and complexity really random?
One of my oldest friends, a college buddy/roomie is a planetary scientist. He discovered the furthest known contacted object in our solar system, untouched by thermal influence since the beginning, and therefore a treasure trove of information as to what happened at the beginning of the system. He predicted its shape using occultation, and has an understanding of space that boggles the mind. He was friends with Sagan.
Once, sitting with him and another (very religious) friend, I tried to ask him what his (limited human) understanding of the universe meant to him in terms of god or whatever. Heâs a quiet, thoughtful guy, and - in the milliseconds he paused - my religious friend jumped in and hijacked the convo. Iâll try again on another day, but I kinda think it was a moment thatâs passed.
Does the vastness of the universe say something about the non existence of a god? Or is it that we just are unable to comprehend something that would be that big compared to us?
Similarly, when you study biological functions, does the complexity of things like kidney function with its semipermeable membranes here but not there as urine gets made say something about a divine intervention that allowed something so microscopically detailed to exist, and therefore for us to exist?
I canât believe in an anthropomorphic god; that makes no sense. But is all of this vastness and complexity really random?
Do atheists have any interests beyond the material world ?
Like arguing on the internet?
I consider that part of the material world.
I was thinking more in terms of the paranormal. Things that do manifest themselves without any known physical explanations. And outside of religious acceptance and explanations as well.
Or in other words, is the paranormal (and perhaps reincarnation) considered not real and therefore self delusional ? Or never mind. Maybe next year.
