Why do some people find it hard to believe in God? Part 2

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

Technodad - I'm not aware of any schools teaching Creationism (yet - there is that danger with Free Schools though I thought the govt had explicitly banned it)- that term usually means God Did it In Six Days, 6000 years ago, and Evolution Didn't Happen.

What many schools - unfortunately not just faith schools - do is to propagate the Creator God myth. The 'act of collective worship' often includes hymns and many of them are couched in creator god terms - All Things Bright and Beautiful (and as I've already mentioned, never All Things Dull and Ugly) - and my particular least favourite 'Who put the colours in the rainbow...etc... it surely can't be chance...'.

This is more insidious and pervasive - while most people just laugh at fundamentalist Creationists, too many people swallow the idea of a good creator god without thinking about it.

[just signed the petition - whether there's any creationism being taught in schools or not, evolution should be properly explained to everyone )

Oh - Holo - the current name is purely Dickensian. Nowt to do with your nn ... I really would like to know why you chose it though! I'm only vaguely aquainted with the Apocrypha, this is the only story I can remember at all from it offhand.

At the end of the day, since religion is based upon "faith" and science is only based upon "facts", the discussion is pretty much pointless.

I can't agree with that! I'm jolly glad people bothered to have such discussions with me in the past.

GrimwigTheHeadEater - Thanks for signing the petition and I am glad that people did talk to you.

Technodad

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1617

Signed it aaaaages ago, good job posting it though Technodad

I had my little (ok, big) rant on the last thread about poisoning young minds with how god made bunnies and rainbows etc etc. I best not get myself all wound up again, i won't sleep, gives me nightmares

I still want to know about Jesus's DNA -

Oh FGS Himalaya it's just divine DNA ok? You're really not going to get anything that says much more than that, might just take a lot more words to say it that's all. Lol

If there is a god, I want to know who, or what created that god!

Technodad - the question is irrelevant since god is outside time and space - a wraparound concept, or something... (aka we have no frigging idea).

Same goes for the DNA.

Techno,from a Judeo-Christian POV the only category of god which is created is an idol. One of the real cornerstones of J-C belief is that God is both transcendent and eternal, therefore to ask 'who created god?' is like asking a sheep what football position they play.

Jesus' DNA - from a theological POV, I'd have to say that as 'fully man', Jesus would have to have fully human DNA, and I'd tentatively guess that as Joseph accepted the role as Jesus' earthly father, it could be half Joseph's. There is no such thing as divine DNA, as I've said over and over again on this thread. The question only makes sense as theological question, so there's your theological answer - you're really asking 'what ui the nature of the incarnation?'

Is anyone interested in talking more about the 'scientific method'? Or are you all just happy to accept that science = fact? (which would be a shame from my POV as I'd like to have a more nuanced and interesting conversation).

"Or are you all just happy to accept that science = fact?"

I don't think many people would agree that science = fact (as in 100% certainty). As has been said before, it's an imperfect method of finding things out, however it's the best objective method that exists.

Results ('facts' if you like) mostly come down to statistical probability that they are true - ie a hypothesis has been tested and the results are found to be statistically significant. That rarely means they are 100% so there is always a bit of room for doubt.

However it's a long time since I did a science degree and that's a quick one off the top of my head before the school run, so am happy to be corrected

It's fact in that it's a gathering of facts to come up with the most probable theory based on those facts. All the evidence that evolution is based on are facts for example.

sheep? Full Baack, I'd imagine.

Joseph... divine AI or not a Virgin after all? The question isn't a theological one. Its firmly in the realms of the material. If there was a man Jesus, who was the dad.

Not sure what you're looking for on scientific method TBH. Its the most reliable way we have of finding out about the material world (including biological systems, and their emergent properties). I think you're setting up a false battle between scientific truths and other 'truths'

if we lived in a society that prized elegance, originality and beauty of expression, maybe poetic / literary truth would be seen as the truest truth

• you can value such things very highly, but the scientific truths remain unavoidable. You can design the most elegant building imaginable, but if you don't get the physics of the forces right, if you don't get the chemistry of the materials you use right, it will fall down around your ears.

'Ye canna change the laws of physics'

HolofernesesHead.

Thanks for your reply, but I am a little confused in places.

therefore to ask 'who created god?' is like asking a sheep what football position they play - I don't understand this quote. Sheep can't talk, and although they can potentially make the motions that make them look like they are playing football, they have no concept of this. How is one self-aware human being, asking another self-aware human being a question regarding the origins of god anything like this? The only parallel is that I can see is that neither have the ability to give an answer that stands up to critique (the sheep can?t help this, but the human can).

I'd have to say that?.I'd tentatively guess that - There is quite a lot of estimating and guessing going on here! What do you actually ?know??

Is anyone interested in talking more about the 'scientific method'? Or are you all just happy to accept that science = fact?

I don?t think that ?science = fact?, science is ?based on facts?. Science is a process of asking questions, proposing theories, gathering data (facts), and testing the theories and improving them. For example:

• What shape is the world?
• I theorise that it is flat.
• Right then, I am going to sail in a straight line until I get to the edge to see what happens!
• Oh, I got back to where I started?.
• In that case, it must be a sphere.
• Right then, I am going to go on to a really high mountain and see if I can see the curve of the horizon and measure it. Etc etc.
• After lots and lots of iterations you finally get to ?The world is an oblique spheroid of the following dimensions measured with a 1% accuracy? (or whatever)

Your religious guess work seems to be missing a massive part of this method. For example:

• Who created god?
• I theorise from a theological point of view that god is transcendent and eternal, so no one created god.
• Oh, that is an interesting idea, lets run with that until people realise we are talking utter tosh, by that time we can have loads of laws in place to make it illegal to say we are wrong.
• Nice one! Do you think we can make some money out of this?.....

Grimwig - ha ha re full baaack

if we lived in a society that prized elegance, originality and beauty of expression, maybe poetic / literary truth would be seen as the truest truth

Do we not live in a society which prizes literary efforts?

Of course people differ in their opinions about various literature, but that's the point - there is no 'truthful' answer to 'which writer(s) write the best poetic/literary truth' and 'which writer(s) write a load of old nonsense' (unless you are talking about science books of course )

V. quickly - tdad - the thing about sheep playing football is that anyone asking how sheep play football has misunderstood the nature of sheep andfootball - same with 'who created God?' - misunderstaning of both 'science' (the process by which the universe cmae to be) and religion (the nature of God).

Also, the Christian study of God is the only discipline which makes itself invalid by having total mastery of its subject (God, precisely because God is infinite and we are finite) - hence fuzziness. Which, I understand, might madden you. But that's the way it is! If it were not, it could no longer be Christian.

Nice thoughts re. 'fact'....hopefully I'll post later on that....(busy day!)

But that's the way it is!

Or isn't.

.....Or could ever be Christian....

But surely by understanding the 'science' (the process by which the universe came to be), removes the necessity to have a religion (something made up to fill the gaps).

Why can't people just be happy with the idea that we can't currently explain everything in the universe, without resulting to filling in the gaps with "fuzziness" and completely random statements?

Techno - because when you're a believer, you think you have a relationship with God. Its not about trying to understand the universe. But then if you try to start thinking it through, you end up in Holo's loops of unprovability

Holo's loop of unprovability didn't make sense to me (not just because I am being awkward, but I don't understand the terminology: "the only discipline which makes itself invalid by having total mastery of its subject (God, precisely because God is infinite and we are finite)".

No-one can prove that I haven't got an invisible unicorn with magic powers sitting on the sofa with me, but I don't feel the need to prove it because it is utter nonsense. There are an infinite number of things in the universe that are un-provable, but it doesn't mean that they all exist by default!

By the way, I have actually got an invisible unicorn, and it can control your destiny. If you send 10% of your earnings to PoBox 21, then I will ensure that he doesn't send you to hell and that you have a good life. When I say "good life" I mean the life that he has in-store for you, which will be "good for you" but not necessarily actually good in the literal sense. Don't anger him by breaking the rules by the way, as things will get even worse for you! In case you were worried, I have set up PoBox 21 as a registered charity, so the Unicorn will be able to use all your kind donations completely tax free - for the good of the rest of the world of course. This is the life....

Fail. Insufficient obfuscutory terminology. No use of words in a non-standard manner.

hmm - I wonder if people ever wake up to find a unicorn's head in their bed.

Unicorn heads in beds will feature as a punishment in my first book "The old unicorn testament"