Thread: Why DO you beieve in God?

After reading a great many responses to the "why don't you believe in God" thread, I found myself wanting to ask this question. It seems to me the reasons for not believing (especially from a scientific perspective) are obvious, as there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence for the existence of God.

Some of the reasons I've encountered are:

Many people seem to require answers to those tough questions like "why are we here" and "what happens when we die", which most religions are adept at providing.

Many people are indoctrinated by their parents and community as children, which is a powerful way to instill belief in mythology.

I was myself once an example of both, but now have let go of belief in pursuit of non-attachment..

So why do you believe in God?

Because it's a nice idea. Although it's more a case of "suspension of disbelief" rather than actual "belief".

During a child's formative stage, it's easy to imprint values and ideologies. If you teach your young child that God is the truth, they will believe you. They are inclined to accept what their parents tell them is real because they don't know better. They don't have the critical thinking skills to yet refute what you say (nor the knowledge base).

For people who "find God" later on in life, it seems to be primarily due to a life-changing experience so powerful they cannot attribute it to themselves and refuse to think that it was just chance. For instance, you're hit by a car, in a coma for weeks, and barely pull through it. That is a powerful event and you want to believe it was for some greater purpose and not simply that doctors worked very hard to save someone who happened to be in an unfortunate place at a bad time.

For some reason, we love to dramatize and romanticize life, especially when it comes to our own experiences.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

During a child's formative stage, it's easy to imprint values and ideologies. If you teach your young child that God is the truth, they will believe you. They are inclined to accept what their parents tell them is real because they don't know better. They don't have the critical thinking skills to yet refute what you say (nor the knowledge base).

For people who "find God" later on in life, it seems to be primarily due to a life-changing experience so powerful they cannot attribute it to themselves and refuse to think that it was just chance. For instance, you're hit by a car, in a coma for weeks, and barely pull through it. That is a powerful event and you want to believe it was for some greater purpose and not simply that doctors worked very hard to save someone who happened to be in an unfortunate place at a bad time.

For some reason, we love to dramatize and romanticize life, especially when it comes to our own experiences.

I don't know how to put this politely but it sounds like you formed your opinion of religion from films...

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

During a child's formative stage, it's easy to imprint values and ideologies. If you teach your young child that God is the truth, they will believe you. They are inclined to accept what their parents tell them is real because they don't know better. They don't have the critical thinking skills to yet refute what you say (nor the knowledge base).

For people who "find God" later on in life, it seems to be primarily due to a life-changing experience so powerful they cannot attribute it to themselves and refuse to think that it was just chance. For instance, you're hit by a car, in a coma for weeks, and barely pull through it. That is a powerful event and you want to believe it was for some greater purpose and not simply that doctors worked very hard to save someone who happened to be in an unfortunate place at a bad time.

For some reason, we love to dramatize and romanticize life, especially when it comes to our own experiences.

I don't know how to put this politely but it sounds like you formed your opinion of religion from films...

I don't know what you're talking about. I formed my opinion of religion from my childhood experiences and then later in life when I married into a religious family and observed their behaviors regarding religion.

If I formed my opinions from films, I'd be wondering why Zeus would release a Norse water elemental.

From "films" ? I don't see where you get that notion, Trivium. What's wrong with film, anyway ? I think almost every experience in life has an example to be referenced from some film.

I can only conclude that because they have not thought about the question properly.. All to often and because it's easy. Acceptance of false promise and of reasons unproven. The 'truth' is we die. I am not one of the "You" am I...

Makes the most sense to me. Many of my prayers have been answered. and, it's pretty hard to imagine that we all came from nothing, we all have consciences, all the stuff in the universe exists, for no reason.

Originally Posted by Weterman

Makes the most sense to me. Many of my prayers have been answered.

Funny thing, that. I get a lot of the things I want, too. Of course, I'm assuming that the prayers of yours that were answered came in the form of little presents under a tree while you were sleeping and you didn't actually have to work for them. Cause otherwise, it would seem to make more sense that you EARNED those desires rather than some omniscient and all powerful universe-creator has a soft spot for some guy nagging him for stuff.

Originally Posted by Weterman

it's pretty hard to imagine that we all came from nothing

Yeah. Not sure why anyone would imagine that. Now, coming from elements which formed complex molecules and eventually organisms over millions of years and through energetic processes which have been demonstrated in a lab...well, that makes things easier to imagine. Not that we have to imagine much since reality is so easy to perceive.

Originally Posted by Weterman

we all have consciences

Except for people who don't. Like serial killers with a mental affliction.

Originally Posted by Weterman

all the stuff in the universe exists, for no reason.

Depends upon what you need for a reason. I exist because my parents wanted me to.

1. Indoctrination during our childhood, when we are accepting as a truth anything we're told.
2. Consolation. After some injustice is done towards us, it's a lot easier to accept an idea of God as an absolute judge.
3. Loneliness and lostness.
4. Because we can, and sometimes imagination is much more interesting than real life. (=

Originally Posted by HB3l1

1. Indoctrination during our childhood, when we are accepting as a truth anything we're told.
2. Consolation. After some injustice is done towards us, it's a lot easier to accept an idea of God as an absolute judge.
3. Loneliness and lostness.
4. Because we can, and sometimes imagination is much more interesting than real life. (=

5) genuine intellectual activity from reading extensively

You really think the amount of intelligent people in our history who believed (and do) believe in God is solely due to the above? Indocrination = giving someone my values (every parent does this not just theists), consolation (this sounds like the film thing to me... when does this actually happen in real life), loneliness and lostness (fair enough), imagination over real life (demonstrating your ignorance really...)

I am speaking from self-experience and from the experience of my closest..

When it comes to me, I used to believe in God only because I was indoctrinated by parents and society.. :-)

There are numerous example of people I know that turn to god after they got hurt. All you need to do is to open your eyes and observe.. it's not hard to notice .

How my statement 'imagination over real life' demonstrate my ignorance? Care to elaborate?

I asked my aunt this question - she has been a believer for many years. She said it is simply because it gives her comfort, a sense of community and a sense of purpose and provides rules and standards to live by and provides answers to problems that occur in her life.

There's being a religious "true believer" and there's being a member of the "Jesus fandom". Two completely different things.

The religious true believers often seem to be the ones who are intolerant, closed-minded and just plain unpleasant, whereas the Jesus fandom members are often the ones who are, well, nice.

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

I asked my aunt this question - she has been a believer for many years. She said it is simply because it gives her comfort, a sense of community and a sense of purpose and provides rules and standards to live by and provides answers to problems that occur in her life.

This is a completely understandable context for religion.

We're ALL afraid of things like death and we all wonder why we exist and what the right course of action is in life. Church and faith give us a way to shelter ourselves from the frightening notion that we are insignificant, that we live without greater meaning, that there is nothing after death. Some of us, however, are unable to lie to ourselves or, as my good friend Pastor Rex would say, "Accept Jesus into our heart".

If you DO believe in God, it is probably because, above all else, it is a comforting notion. Personally, I think comfort is overrated.

I'm atheist by day, agnostic at night. Why ? I don't know. They are pretty much the same. The darkness scares us, I figure. I read "The Exorcist" in a single night; didn't want to shut out the lights. When morning came I thought, as I put down the book;...a good read but, nah...couldn't really happen. And it doesn't. Stories are just stories. Like the Bible, which isn't even a "good read".

I have to ask the same question on this thread as I asked on the last thread: which god?


I don't believe in the Christian or Muslim god, if that's what you mean.

Originally Posted by Trivium

You really think the amount of intelligent people in our history who believed (and do) believe in God is solely due to the above?

Yes! Belief and intelligence are two separate things, we humans compartmentalise, What we do logically and rationally in our everyday lives, does not equate to our religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Indoctrination = giving someone my values (every parent does this not just theists),

Agreed! However with one exception other parents do not enforce a fear of an all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, super-being that can kill you in an instant.

First there were just reptiles and microorganisms. Then we were created by God as the believers think. I dont know why God is so impatient sometimes. He seems to have created dinosaurs,mammals and then his finest??? creation Humans. i dont know why He didnt make humans first if he was that smart and dexterous. Seems to me God got smarter after creating dinosaurs. I can also comment that God got this capability of creating Humans after much research. Or is it that God also evolved and maybe He will create a better species than Humans after much research and experimentation done on His part. What I think is , this is all rubbish. God made humans or humans discovered(or rather invented ) God.

A bit lazy, this, as it's a repost of previous posts elsewhere, but it saves repeating myself:

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Yes, of course! Everything should be questioned. A creator seems quite a plausible explanation for the existence of everything when against the argument that it 'just happened'.

In what way is one mystery better than another? A created universe doesn't seem plausible because a creator doesn't seem plausible. The argument that the universe "just happened" is an insultingly oversimplified version of the scientific understanding of the origins of our universe. If you want something simplified, the children's story offered in the Biblical texts should be right up your alley. "God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." Doesn't get any simpler than that.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The universe and its contents seem purposeful in some way, and if not guided by a superior force, may well have been set in motion by one. It's no less rational than that the universe 'just popped into existence'.

In what way does the universe "seem created"? From my perspective, there is nothing about the universe which indicates any kind of intelligent force behind it.

I didn't say one mystery is better than the other - just that both views have merit. And I say that the universe seems purposeful. The fact that the matter in the universe can come up with two opposing views for its own origin, and that we can imagine ourselves 'making' a new universe in the style of a creator seems somewhat purposeful, especially when it's such a big deal to almost everyone. Why should anyone care? Where's the evolutionary advantage of a belief in a creator - or a belief in evolution, if it comes to that? Life, and especially human life, certainly acts in a purposeful way, and if always in a way which suits survival, why the distraction of caring about where we came from? In this day and age? Because some matter in the universe strives to discover its own origins it suggests to me that knowledge of our origins are important. If it was known there'd be no doubt whether it was a creator or a result of physics which couldn't have went any other way. The physics view heaps coincidence on top of coincidence as the method of arriving at where we are today, and due to these coincidences being highly unlikely it's credible that an alternative explanation exists.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I'll have a bash at this one for the moment: The sudden appearance of matter in a suitable form; the necessary rate of expansion of it; the necessary balance of elements; the necessary conditions for life to exist; the fact that life got started at all; the fact of life matter being able to conceive of its creation by a higher being (why should it?). I think we can all picture a man-made universe - the making of tiny energy ball seeded with all that is necessary to grow into something like the cosmos. If we can think of it, it could maybe be done - so if humans could conceivably do that, then why not another entity?

Because there is no evidence to suggest such a thing. Part of science is ruling out that which is improbable. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios for our origin, but we must rule out those which are the least probable.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Interesting things may happen, but evolution by natural selection to the point of matter conceiving its own origins, and being darned argumentative about it, strikes me as not being a necessary consequence of energetic processes.

Why not? There is evidence for evolution and clearly we are capable of pondering our origins. Evidence and logic suggest that natural processes indeed lead to an organism capable of debating its origin. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise or is it just a gut feeling?

This also:

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Call me a Deist and we can avoid all that!

Would it even be a deity though? This advanced alien would have to have come from somewhere and as it stands, the only possible origin would have to be that it had to evolve somewhere itself as well.

Not necessarily. Time and space is dependent on the existence of matter, so a creator might not be bound by either time or space - or matter.

That is the very issue of this question.. That I can not find a place in my understanding for thing that are not of matter or time. That I can not find a truth to be found. Might it be that there is none ? Finding a truth from the minds of the confused. Because to not be confused would be the informed and Gods can not live with that. A reliance on fear of the unknown is essential for such faiths to be found.

Originally Posted by astromark

That is the very issue of this question.. That I can not find a place in my understanding for thing that are not of matter or time. That I can not find a truth to be found. Might it be that there is none ? Finding a truth from the minds of the confused. Because to not be confused would be the informed and Gods can not live with that. A reliance on fear of the unknown is essential for such faiths to be found.

Concepts abound relating to 'many worlds', 'alternate universes', the idea of this universe being some kind of bubble blown out from another universe, other dimensions, 'spooky action at a distance' and black hole singularity. The idea of there being no space, time or matter before the big bang/creation is something I find quite easy to accept in the context of these ideas. What there was before matter existed is unknown, but it either existed in some form or it was created. As a scientist you might accept that energy cannot be created, therefore it must have existed in one form or another before the singularity/big/bang. It may have been matter from another place or matter may have been created from a different form of energy. A creator making the universe is no more difficult a concept for me than the ones mentioned, and a God behind the singularity seems a reasonable proposition.

The Bible says that man was made in the image of God. At the time of writing the creative capabilities of man were far from what they are now, which is at a point where man can imagine himself being a Creator of a universe, and, in the imagination, sometimes actually is. Much more like God than might have been thought possible at the time. Did they not long ago make a machine which may have sucked the local cosmological features into a black hole? Creation is a major part of human life, and possibly a reflection of its Creator.

If it's taken that God's qualities and attributes are reflected in man the essential parts of the Bible make a lot more sense - because God's state of mind is easier to divine. I do not think that this shows a God who would prefer confusion - I'd say it says the opposite. And did not the eating of the forbidden fruit allow man to achieve God-like understanding?

There is enough to fear from the known - the unknown should not be a cause for alarm.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

First there were just reptiles and microorganisms. Then we were created by God as the believers think. I dont know why God is so impatient sometimes. He seems to have created dinosaurs,mammals and then his finest??? creation Humans. i dont know why He didnt make humans first if he was that smart and dexterous. Seems to me God got smarter after creating dinosaurs. I can also comment that God got this capability of creating Humans after much research. Or is it that God also evolved and maybe He will create a better species than Humans after much research and experimentation done on His part. What I think is , this is all rubbish. God made humans or humans discovered(or rather invented ) God.

Another possibility is that god is just like one of those pool sharks, that can hit all the balls into all the holes with just one move. Just gives the cue ball a push in exactly the right direction, with exactly the right velocity, and one by one it manages to ricochet into each of the balls and send them each rolling in.

In that event, all he had to do was create one microorganism, and then based on his infinite knowledge he could predict that it would eventually evolve into humans, and even specifically predict which humans it would evolve into.

Why go to all the extra effort of hand creating everything if he can just create one microbe?

Originally Posted by kojax

I don't believe in the Christian or Muslim god, if that's what you mean.

It's the same one with a common mythology.

( Quote)..
Concepts abound relating to 'many worlds', 'alternate universes', the idea of this universe being some kind of bubble blown out from another universe, other dimensions, 'spooky action at a distance' and black hole singularity. The idea of there being no space, time or matter before the big bang/creation is something I find quite easy to accept in the context of these ideas. What there was before matter existed is unknown, but it either existed in some form or it was created. As a scientist you might accept that energy cannot be created, therefore it must have existed in one form or another before the singularity/big/bang. It may have been matter from another place or matter may have been created from a different form of energy. A creator making the universe is no more difficult a concept for me than the ones mentioned, and a God behind the singularity seems a reasonable proposition. ( End Quote )

~ I reply.. Be careful.. I see you talking of alternate realities and bubble universe and other dimensions; All of which I could argue as unfounded nonsense. " It may have " is a much a imagining as 'created' .. You must adopt a test and challenge to be clear of theories tested as found substance of scientific revue.. Nothing else will do. Just the use of the word 'created' is a concern. As a scientist I can be aware that energies and mater can be shown to pop into and out of existence at random.. As you seem to accept a God creating.. Then, where was he before there was a space for him to be in ?

( Quote)..
The Bible says that man was made in the image of God. At the time of writing the creative capabilities of man were far from what they are now, which is at a point where man can imagine himself being a Creator of a universe, and, in the imagination, sometimes actually is. Much more like God than might have been thought possible at the time. Did they not long ago make a machine which may have sucked the local cosmological features into a black hole? Creation is a major part of human life, and possibly a reflection of its Creator. ( End Quote)

~ I reply.. What is this about ? Other than the first sentence I am at a lose to comprehend it.. No such machine has been built.. NO.

( Quote)..
If it's taken that God's qualities and attributes are reflected in man the essential parts of the Bible make a lot more sense - because God's state of mind is easier to divine. I do not think that this shows a God who would prefer confusion - I'd say it says the opposite. And did not the eating of the forbidden fruit allow man to achieve God-like understanding?

There is enough to fear from the known - the unknown should not be a cause for alarm. ( End Quote).

~ I reply.. Written by men of man..What else would you expect ? Was it not the tree of knowledge ? I would say argument is stuffed..

Was it Hitchens who said something like the 2 reasons for religion have been to provide comfort around death and to control the masses?

A quick and easy answer is because the geographical location of a person's birth plays a huge determining factor in what religion/God that person follows. Even people who have powerful experiences that change or strengthen their religious beliefs pick the religion that is dominant in that culture. It would be most unlikely that a person born into the bible belt would have an amazing, powerful experience that changes or strengthens their religious views and they decide they are now going to convert to Hinduism. (But that's more "why do you follow a religion" than "why do you believe in God".

I think that Jesuit saying of "give me a boy until he is 7 and I will give you the man" is frighteningly apt.

Originally Posted by astromark

( Quote)..
Concepts abound relating to 'many worlds', 'alternate universes', the idea of this universe being some kind of bubble blown out from another universe, other dimensions, 'spooky action at a distance' and black hole singularity. The idea of there being no space, time or matter before the big bang/creation is something I find quite easy to accept in the context of these ideas. What there was before matter existed is unknown, but it either existed in some form or it was created. As a scientist you might accept that energy cannot be created, therefore it must have existed in one form or another before the singularity/big/bang. It may have been matter from another place or matter may have been created from a different form of energy. A creator making the universe is no more difficult a concept for me than the ones mentioned, and a God behind the singularity seems a reasonable proposition. ( End Quote )

~ I reply.. Be careful.. I see you talking of alternate realities and bubble universe and other dimensions; All of which I could argue as unfounded nonsense. " It may have " is a much a imagining as 'created' .. You must adopt a test and challenge to be clear of theories tested as found substance of scientific revue.. Nothing else will do. Just the use of the word 'created' is a concern. As a scientist I can be aware that energies and mater can be shown to pop into and out of existence at random.. As you seem to accept a God creating.. Then, where was he before there was a space for him to be in ?

A creator would not necessarily be limited by either time or space, as they are both dependent on the existence of matter - which didn't exist until it was made.

( Quote)..
The Bible says that man was made in the image of God. At the time of writing the creative capabilities of man were far from what they are now, which is at a point where man can imagine himself being a Creator of a universe, and, in the imagination, sometimes actually is. Much more like God than might have been thought possible at the time. Did they not long ago make a machine which may have sucked the local cosmological features into a black hole? Creation is a major part of human life, and possibly a reflection of its Creator. ( End Quote)

~ I reply.. What is this about ? Other than the first sentence I am at a lose to comprehend it.. No such machine has been built.. NO.

I was referring to the large hadron collider.

( Quote)..
If it's taken that God's qualities and attributes are reflected in man the essential parts of the Bible make a lot more sense - because God's state of mind is easier to divine. I do not think that this shows a God who would prefer confusion - I'd say it says the opposite. And did not the eating of the forbidden fruit allow man to achieve God-like understanding?

There is enough to fear from the known - the unknown should not be a cause for alarm. ( End Quote).

~ I reply.. Written by men of man..What else would you expect ? Was it not the tree of knowledge ? I would say argument is stuffed..

Tree of knowledge, yes. Writings on man by men spread knowledge and understanding. If looking at the possibility of a Creator, then what others have said in the past may give a clue. The creation of man in God's image is an idea that deserves consideration. The Bible and its contents: at the time of writing there was this understanding about God which, if he does exist, was relevant then and still would be. Today we can imagine ourselves capable of grand creation, in the style of a God, and the act of creating is itself a strong driving force in humanity, beyond that apparently needed for survival. If man and God are alike then it makes sense that wanting to create is such a driving force behind many of man's activities.

'Samsmoot'. I obviously do not hold a religious candle.. and I do enjoy a discussion where a sense of logic is found.. Thanks.
~ I find agreement that man wishes to emulate the godlike set of ideals.. even if Gods as a concept are man made. As a aside.,
In discussions with educators who bring a class of school children to the Observatory we find it a concern. When a discussion of did man land on the Moon and have we been to Mars yet come from the teacher.. and a reluctance to accept the truth when told it. That one such event was interrupted by a educator whom insisted we could see 'Heaven'. To which I replied we do see the 'heavens'... but that that is a word play a little like saying - 'God knows'. When we mean 'we do not'. As a science based logician I play a thought that I would be well pleased to be able to say. 'That we have found that as humanity refers to itself as 'Man' We have discovered a race of beings calling itself God. From a planet they have named heaven.. and that a balls up of interpretations has led humanity down a side road of miss-understanding for nearly 2000 years. That the Question; 'Why do you believe in God.' ( Gods ) Seems best answered by the statement- Because of indoctrinated concepts as yet not confirmed.

Originally Posted by astromark

'Samsmoot'. I obviously do not hold a religious candle.. and I do enjoy a discussion where a sense of logic is found.. Thanks.
~ I find agreement that man wishes to emulate the godlike set of ideals.. even if Gods as a concept are man made. As a aside.,
In discussions with educators who bring a class of school children to the Observatory we find it a concern. When a discussion of did man land on the Moon and have we been to Mars yet come from the teacher.. and a reluctance to accept the truth when told it. That one such event was interrupted by a educator whom insisted we could see 'Heaven'. To which I replied we do see the 'heavens'... but that that is a word play a little like saying - 'God knows'. When we mean 'we do not'. As a science based logician I play a thought that I would be well pleased to be able to say. 'That we have found that as humanity refers to itself as 'Man' We have discovered a race of beings calling itself God. From a planet they have named heaven.. and that a balls up of interpretations has led humanity down a side road of miss-understanding for nearly 2000 years. That the Question; 'Why do you believe in God.' ( Gods ) Seems best answered by the statement- Because of indoctrinated concepts as yet not confirmed.

You make an excellent point, astromark, about indoctrinated concepts. I would be the first to admit to the possibility of being under the influence of handed-down ideas but am always prepared to question the status quo. Evolution by natural selection is an indoctrinated concept, and is the subject which brought me here. As God has recently been ruled out I am looking to see if he should be ruled back in.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolution by natural selection is an indoctrinated concept

So you don't distinguish between "indoctrination" and "education"?

As God has recently been ruled out I am looking to see if he should be ruled back in.

Since there's no evidence for "god" it's hard to see how he/ she/ it could be ruled back in.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

You make an excellent point, astromark, about indoctrinated concepts. I would be the first to admit to the possibility of being under the influence of handed-down ideas but am always prepared to question the status quo. Evolution by natural selection is an indoctrinated concept, and is the subject which brought me here. As God has recently been ruled out I am looking to see if he should be ruled back in.

By your logic, the teaching of any material should be considered indoctrination. When my mother taught me at 15 that pressing the gas pedal makes my car accelerate, she was trying to indoctrinate me. Her conclusion was based upon flimsy experimental premises and the application of vague principles such as work, force, and power. What kind of monster inflicts that upon a child?

It's also worth stating that God should only be inserted into scientific discussions in situations where it is also appropriate to insert unicorns.

[QUOTE=Flick Montana;542575]

Originally Posted by samsmoot

It's also worth stating that God should only be inserted into scientific discussions in situations where it is also appropriate to insert unicorns.

If this is a reference to unicorns in the Bible you would not be the first to point this out - and would stand to be corrected if you mean what the others mean. If comparing God and unicorns as mythical then fair comment if that's your take on it.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If comparing God and unicorns as mythical then fair comment if that's your take on it.

Is there another (rational) take on it?
Is there any more evidence for "god" than there is for unicorns?
If "no" then how do you justify any take other than the one Flick has?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

It's also worth stating that God should only be inserted into scientific discussions in situations where it is also appropriate to insert unicorns.

If this is a reference to unicorns in the Bible you would not be the first to point this out - and would stand to be corrected if you mean what the others mean. If comparing God and unicorns as mythical then fair comment if that's your take on it.

If it makes it easier to swallow, how about I revise my original statement to say, "The Christian God should only be inserted into scientific discussions in situations where it is also appropriate to insert Zeus."

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolution by natural selection is an indoctrinated concept

So you don't distinguish between "indoctrination" and "education"?

As God has recently been ruled out I am looking to see if he should be ruled back in.

Since there's no evidence for "god" it's hard to see how he/ she/ it could be ruled back in.

Evolutionism is quite new in the context of the whole of human history and I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was. The existence of a Creator explains everything, whereas science doesn't.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

It's also worth stating that God should only be inserted into scientific discussions in situations where it is also appropriate to insert unicorns.

If this is a reference to unicorns in the Bible you would not be the first to point this out - and would stand to be corrected if you mean what the others mean. If comparing God and unicorns as mythical then fair comment if that's your take on it.

If it makes it easier to swallow, how about I revise my original statement to say, "The Christian God should only be inserted into scientific discussions in situations where it is also appropriate to insert Zeus."

Fair comment!

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism is

...not a thing. It's just "evolution". Or evolutionary theory if you're referring to our only recent understanding of something which has been taking place for billions of years.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

quite new in the context of the whole of human history

So are computers and space travel. What's your point?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was.

Then, you could say the same thing about a heliocentric model of the solar system. Do you deny that as well?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The existence of a Creator explains everything, whereas science doesn't.

The existence of a creator explains everything but itself. The existence of Greek Olympians and the primal forces which spawned them explained everything once, too. I'm assuming you reject them, though. Of course, it's not because you're indoctrinated into a system of belief which demands your unquestioning obedience regardless of a lack of basis in reality.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If comparing God and unicorns as mythical then fair comment if that's your take on it.

Is there another (rational) take on it?
Is there any more evidence for "god" than there is for unicorns?
Of "no" then how do you justify any take other than the one Flick has?

The apparently rational take on it could have been that as the Bible mentions unicorns the Bible cannot be taken seriously. Serious examination of the Bible is one thing, disingenuousness or ignorance is not apt. I don't accuse Flick of this error - was just enquiring if he had committed it.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism is quite new in the context of the whole of human history and I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was.

The fact that you call it "evolutionism" shows how ignorant of the subject you really are.
And then you compound that ignorance by claiming it's "doctrinal" and a "belief".
Evolution is a FACT.
Belief isn't required.
Oh, and since part of your objection is its "newness" do you also think that aeroplanes are a "doctrinal belief"? How about computers? Science in general? Heliocentrism?

The existence of a Creator explains everything, whereas science doesn't.

Correct!
In the sense of "not even close".
Beyond "goddidit" how is a "creator" an explanation?
What can you predict (in the scientific sense) from "creator as an explanation"?

Edit: "god" as an explanation is no more useful than "Because I said so" is as an "explanation" to a child.
What investigation can be performed to confirm of deny this "explanation"?
What f*cking USE is "goddidit" as an "explanation"?

On the other hand, what science does know can be put to use. And built upon.

"God" as an "explanation" is a dead end. A full stop to learning. An intellectual cul de sac.

Edit: "god" as an explanation is no more useful than is "Because I said so" as an explanation to a child.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The apparently rational take on it could have been that as the Bible mentions unicorns the Bible cannot be taken seriously. Serious examination of the Bible is one thing, disingenuousness or ignorance is not apt. I don't accuse Flick of this error - was just enquiring if he had committed it.

1) You're ignoring the fact that I specifically quoted the part of your post I was referring to.
2) You're ignoring the fact that the "unicorn" in the bible is bugger all to do with the mythological creature.
3) You haven't bothered to address my questions.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism is

...not a thing. It's just "evolution". Or evolutionary theory if you're referring to our only recent understanding of something which has been taking place for billions of years.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

quite new in the context of the whole of human history

So are computers and space travel. What's your point?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was.

Then, you could say the same thing about a heliocentric model of the solar system. Do you deny that as well?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The existence of a Creator explains everything, whereas science doesn't.

The existence of a creator explains everything but itself. The existence of Greek Olympians and the primal forces which spawned them explained everything once, too. I'm assuming you reject them, though. Of course, it's not because you're indoctrinated into a system of belief which demands your unquestioning obedience regardless of a lack of basis in reality.

I will get back to you on this a bit later.

I'll wait with baited breath.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism is quite new in the context of the whole of human history and I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was.

The fact that you call it "evolutionism" shows how ignorant of the subject you really are.
And then you compound that ignorance by claiming it's "doctrinal" and a "belief".
Evolution is a FACT.
Belief isn't required.
Oh, and since part of your objection is its "newness" do you also think that aeroplanes are a "doctrinal belief"? How about computers? Science in general? Heliocentrism?

The existence of a Creator explains everything, whereas science doesn't.

Correct!
In the sense of "not even close".
Beyond "goddidit" how is a "creator" an explanation?
What can you predict (in the scientific sense) from "creator as an explanation"?
What investigation can be performed to confirm of deny this "explanation"?
What f*cking USE is "goddidit" as an "explanation"?

On the other hand, what science does know can be put to use. And built upon.

"God" as an "explanation" is a dead end. A full stop to learning. An intellectual cul de sac.

Will be back later to answer this.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The apparently rational take on it could have been that as the Bible mentions unicorns the Bible cannot be taken seriously. Serious examination of the Bible is one thing, disingenuousness or ignorance is not apt. I don't accuse Flick of this error - was just enquiring if he had committed it.

1) You're ignoring the fact that I specifically quoted the part of your post I was referring to.
2) You're ignoring the fact that the "unicorn" in the bible is bugger all to do with the mythological creature.
3) You haven't bothered to address my questions.

OK, I'll do so in a while.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism is

...not a thing. It's just "evolution". Or evolutionary theory if you're referring to our only recent understanding of something which has been taking place for billions of years.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

quite new in the context of the whole of human history

So are computers and space travel. What's your point?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was.

Then, you could say the same thing about a heliocentric model of the solar system. Do you deny that as well?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The existence of a Creator explains everything, whereas science doesn't.

The existence of a creator explains everything but itself. The existence of Greek Olympians and the primal forces which spawned them explained everything once, too. I'm assuming you reject them, though. Of course, it's not because you're indoctrinated into a system of belief which demands your unquestioning obedience regardless of a lack of basis in reality.

Sorry, but I don't really have a lot to say in regard to your comments at the moment. I'm not being ignorant - just have nothing helpful or interesting to say in response right now and I wish to address a couple of posts in this thread and another.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If comparing God and unicorns as mythical then fair comment if that's your take on it.

Is there another (rational) take on it? No, only a disingenuous or ignorant one.
Is there any more evidence for "god" than there is for unicorns? Yes, I believe so and have recently discussed why on this forum.
If "no" then how do you justify any take other than the one Flick has?.

It was not clear what Flick's take actually was at the time. It now is.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Is there another (rational) take on it? No, only a disingenuous or ignorant one.
Is there any more evidence for "god" than there is for unicorns? Yes, I believe so and have recently discussed why on this forum.

Er, what?
You say that you believe there's more evidence for "god" than there is for unicorns straight after you've said that "god" and unicorns are equally mythical - and that (here I quote your own words) ANY OTHER VIEW IS DISINGENUOUS OR IGNORANT.

Could you tell me how that works?
Surely those two statements are antithetical - unless you're also claiming that you yourself are being disingenuous or ignorant (or perhaps irrational).

I'd also like a link to your discussion on the "evidence for god" please.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism is quite new in the context of the whole of human history and I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was.

The fact that you call it "evolutionism" shows how ignorant of the subject you really are.
And then you compound that ignorance by claiming it's "doctrinal" and a "belief".
Evolution is a FACT.
Belief isn't required.
Oh, and since part of your objection is its "newness" do you also think that aeroplanes are a "doctrinal belief"? How about computers? Science in general? Heliocentrism?

The existence of a Creator explains everything, whereas science doesn't.

Correct!
In the sense of "not even close".
Beyond "goddidit" how is a "creator" an explanation?
What can you predict (in the scientific sense) from "creator as an explanation"?

Edit: "god" as an explanation is no more useful than "Because I said so" is as an "explanation" to a child.
What investigation can be performed to confirm of deny this "explanation"?
What f*cking USE is "goddidit" as an "explanation"?

On the other hand, what science does know can be put to use. And built upon.

"God" as an "explanation" is a dead end. A full stop to learning. An intellectual cul de sac.

Edit: "god" as an explanation is no more useful than is "Because I said so" as an explanation to a child.

Can I abstain from commenting on the above without appearing rude? I'd just prefer not to at the moment.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Can I abstain from commenting on the above without appearing rude? I'd just prefer not to at the moment.

Take your time.
I'd rather have a delayed but well-argued reply than a quick and trivial one.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Is there another (rational) take on it? No, only a disingenuous or ignorant one.
Is there any more evidence for "god" than there is for unicorns? Yes, I believe so and have recently discussed why on this forum.

Er, what?
You say that you believe there's more evidence for "god" than there is for unicorns straight after you've said that "god" and unicorns are equally mythical - and that (here I quote your own words) ANY OTHER VIEW IS DISINGENUOUS OR IGNORANT.

Could you tell me how that works?
Surely those two statements are antithetical - unless you're also claiming that you yourself are being disingenuous or ignorant (or perhaps irrational).

I'd also like a link to your discussion on the "evidence for god" please.

God and unicorns are not equally mythical. If it came across differently then it may not have been explained very well. I have made comments about evidence for God across three separate threads, including this one, and should be easy to locate.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

God and unicorns are not equally mythical.

I'd like some evidence for that please.

If it came across differently then it may not have been explained very well.

Uh, okay.

I have made comments about evidence for God across three separate threads, including this one, and should be easy to locate.

These?:
I didn't say one mystery is better than the other - just that both views have merit. And I say that the universe seems purposeful. The fact that the matter in the universe can come up with two opposing views for its own origin, and that we can imagine ourselves 'making' a new universe in the style of a creator seems somewhat purposeful, especially when it's such a big deal to almost everyone. Why should anyone care? Where's the evolutionary advantage of a belief in a creator - or a belief in evolution, if it comes to that? Life, and especially human life, certainly acts in a purposeful way, and if always in a way which suits survival, why the distraction of caring about where we came from? In this day and age? Because some matter in the universe strives to discover its own origins it suggests to me that knowledge of our origins are important. If it was known there'd be no doubt whether it was a creator or a result of physics which couldn't have went any other way. The physics view heaps coincidence on top of coincidence as the method of arriving at where we are today, and due to these coincidences being highly unlikely it's credible that an alternative explanation exists.

I'll have a bash at this one for the moment: The sudden appearance of matter in a suitable form; the necessary rate of expansion of it; the necessary balance of elements; the necessary conditions for life to exist; the fact that life got started at all; the fact of life matter being able to conceive of its creation by a higher being (why should it?). I think we can all picture a man-made universe - the making of tiny energy ball seeded with all that is necessary to grow into something like the cosmos. If we can think of it, it could maybe be done - so if humans could conceivably do that, then why not another entity?

Concepts abound relating to 'many worlds', 'alternate universes', the idea of this universe being some kind of bubble blown out from another universe, other dimensions, 'spooky action at a distance' and black hole singularity. The idea of there being no space, time or matter before the big bang/creation is something I find quite easy to accept in the context of these ideas. What there was before matter existed is unknown, but it either existed in some form or it was created. As a scientist you might accept that energy cannot be created, therefore it must have existed in one form or another before the singularity/big/bang. It may have been matter from another place or matter may have been created from a different form of energy. A creator making the universe is no more difficult a concept for me than the ones mentioned, and a God behind the singularity seems a reasonable proposition.

The Bible says that man was made in the image of God. At the time of writing the creative capabilities of man were far from what they are now, which is at a point where man can imagine himself being a Creator of a universe, and, in the imagination, sometimes actually is. Much more like God than might have been thought possible at the time. Did they not long ago make a machine which may have sucked the local cosmological features into a black hole? Creation is a major part of human life, and possibly a reflection of its Creator.

If it's taken that God's qualities and attributes are reflected in man the essential parts of the Bible make a lot more sense - because God's state of mind is easier to divine. I do not think that this shows a God who would prefer confusion - I'd say it says the opposite. And did not the eating of the forbidden fruit allow man to achieve God-like understanding?

Do you want a point by point rebuttal?
I could give one, but your entire argument appears to be based on "seems", human perspective (as an argument for the entire universe), a more-than-lingering belief (or over-readiness to assume "god") and some ignorance of what we do know.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

God and unicorns are not equally mythical.

I'd like some evidence for that please.

If it came across differently then it may not have been explained very well.

Uh, okay.

I have made comments about evidence for God across three separate threads, including this one, and should be easy to locate.

These?:
I didn't say one mystery is better than the other - just that both views have merit. And I say that the universe seems purposeful. The fact that the matter in the universe can come up with two opposing views for its own origin, and that we can imagine ourselves 'making' a new universe in the style of a creator seems somewhat purposeful, especially when it's such a big deal to almost everyone. Why should anyone care? Where's the evolutionary advantage of a belief in a creator - or a belief in evolution, if it comes to that? Life, and especially human life, certainly acts in a purposeful way, and if always in a way which suits survival, why the distraction of caring about where we came from? In this day and age? Because some matter in the universe strives to discover its own origins it suggests to me that knowledge of our origins are important. If it was known there'd be no doubt whether it was a creator or a result of physics which couldn't have went any other way. The physics view heaps coincidence on top of coincidence as the method of arriving at where we are today, and due to these coincidences being highly unlikely it's credible that an alternative explanation exists.

I'll have a bash at this one for the moment: The sudden appearance of matter in a suitable form; the necessary rate of expansion of it; the necessary balance of elements; the necessary conditions for life to exist; the fact that life got started at all; the fact of life matter being able to conceive of its creation by a higher being (why should it?). I think we can all picture a man-made universe - the making of tiny energy ball seeded with all that is necessary to grow into something like the cosmos. If we can think of it, it could maybe be done - so if humans could conceivably do that, then why not another entity?

Concepts abound relating to 'many worlds', 'alternate universes', the idea of this universe being some kind of bubble blown out from another universe, other dimensions, 'spooky action at a distance' and black hole singularity. The idea of there being no space, time or matter before the big bang/creation is something I find quite easy to accept in the context of these ideas. What there was before matter existed is unknown, but it either existed in some form or it was created. As a scientist you might accept that energy cannot be created, therefore it must have existed in one form or another before the singularity/big/bang. It may have been matter from another place or matter may have been created from a different form of energy. A creator making the universe is no more difficult a concept for me than the ones mentioned, and a God behind the singularity seems a reasonable proposition.

The Bible says that man was made in the image of God. At the time of writing the creative capabilities of man were far from what they are now, which is at a point where man can imagine himself being a Creator of a universe, and, in the imagination, sometimes actually is. Much more like God than might have been thought possible at the time. Did they not long ago make a machine which may have sucked the local cosmological features into a black hole? Creation is a major part of human life, and possibly a reflection of its Creator.

If it's taken that God's qualities and attributes are reflected in man the essential parts of the Bible make a lot more sense - because God's state of mind is easier to divine. I do not think that this shows a God who would prefer confusion - I'd say it says the opposite. And did not the eating of the forbidden fruit allow man to achieve God-like understanding?

Do you want a point by point rebuttal? Thank you, but I don't think that's necessary.
I could give one, but your entire argument appears to be based on "seems", I have tried to avoid that word and striven to present logical propositions in as clear a way as I can.human perspective (as an argument for the entire universe), a more-than-lingering belief (or over-readiness to assume "god") and some ignorance of what we do know.

I assume a God, yes, but as a consequence of my thought processes as opposed to belief. Some ignorance? I think plenty of would be more apt - but the good news is I'm always willing to learn.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I assume a God, yes, but as a consequence of my thought processes as opposed to belief.

Hmm, this is where it gets iffy.
Didn't you say you were an ex-theist?
Doesn't that mean that your "thought processes" have already been "corrupted"?

A sceptical approach would mean no a priori assumptions. And then see where you r thought processes lead you.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism is quite new in the context of the whole of human history and I would say it's as much doctrinal as belief in God formerly was.

The fact that you call it "evolutionism" shows how ignorant of the subject you really are.
And then you compound that ignorance by claiming it's "doctrinal" and a "belief".

Evolutionism:

1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

This is the dictionary definition of evolutionism and what I am referring to. As a scientist you may not like my usage of the word but in a creation versus evolution context its usage is apt. So when you call me ignorant for using this word I can only respond by saying that you are not only unnecessarily pedantic but also incorrect. You make the same accusation because I have said evolutionism is doctrinal and a belief. It is true - I know many people (non-scientists) who when asked about their take on evolution on natural selection cannot say much more than "we come from monkeys". They believe in evolution because they have been told to in the same way that people used to believe in God because they were told to. They have not come to their acceptance of evolution via intellectual rigour - and never will. They are as much indoctrinated as people of faith are - perhaps more.

I will refrain from answering any of the other points you raise as I see no benefit from doing so.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I assume a God, yes, but as a consequence of my thought processes as opposed to belief.

Hmm, this is where it gets iffy.
Didn't you say you were an ex-theist?
Doesn't that mean that your "thought processes" have already been "corrupted"?

A sceptical approach would mean no a priori assumptions. And then see where you r thought processes lead you.

I have never said that I am an ex-theist. But you make a fair point about my thought processes being already corrupted, and having assumptions - although I don't see how one can examine whether God exists without (Ah! I should maybe have said 'presume' a God instead) presuming a God in the first place. For the purposes of argument (firstly with myself, then on here) I have posited the possibility of a Creator's existence but have tried to assume as little as possible as regards His nature. Any view on God is likely to be tainted in some way but I can only say that I have tried an approach which, if not entirely sceptical, is at least attempting an unbiased understanding.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

You make the same accusation because I have said evolutionism is doctrinal and a belief. It is true - I know many people (non-scientists) who when asked about their take on evolution on natural selection cannot say much more than "we come from monkeys". They believe in evolution because they have been told to in the same way that people used to believe in God because they were told to. They have not come to their acceptance of evolution via intellectual rigour - and never will. They are as much indoctrinated as people of faith are - perhaps more.

Other examples of doctrinal belief systems in science include the General and Special Theory of Relativity, the Heliocentric Theory, Cell Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Gravity, the Big Bang Theory, Atom Theory, the Theory of Stellar Formation, the Theory of Plate tectonics, the Theory of Computation, the Theory of Electromagnetism, etc.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism:
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
This is the dictionary definition of evolutionism and what I am referring to.

Unfortunately Darwin has been updated since then.
Evolutionism was a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to increase in complexity through evolution.

The term "evolutionist" is commonly used as an anti-science label by proponents of creationism and intelligent design.

I.e. "evolutionism/ evolutionist" is not only out of date it's also most used as a pejorative (by people who don't understand/ don't want to understand what evolution actually is).

You make the same accusation because I have said evolutionism is doctrinal and a belief. It is true

Evolution is NOT a doctrine - it's open to question and scrutiny. Nor is it a belief.

I know many people (non-scientists) who when asked about their take on evolution on natural selection cannot say much more than "we come from monkeys".

In which case they don't know what evolution is: you cannot blame science for peoples' ignorance.

They believe in evolution because they have been told to in the same way that people used to believe in God because they were told to. They have not come to their acceptance of evolution via intellectual rigour - and never will. They are as much indoctrinated as people of faith are - perhaps more.

Wrong again.
What (some) people accept "on faith" is NOT what is taught. Therefore any misconceptions they have about evolution is their own doing and not "indoctrination" by anyone.
Blaming science for things that ignorant people hold to be true - especially when science itself shows that belief to be wrong - is misguided.

While there are people that "believe" in evolution it is NOT a result of indoctrination it is a result of their own failure to learn what is being said by science. It's ignorance in action.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by samsmoot

You make the same accusation because I have said evolutionism is doctrinal and a belief. It is true - I know many people (non-scientists) who when asked about their take on evolution on natural selection cannot say much more than "we come from monkeys". They believe in evolution because they have been told to in the same way that people used to believe in God because they were told to. They have not come to their acceptance of evolution via intellectual rigour - and never will. They are as much indoctrinated as people of faith are - perhaps more.

Other examples of doctrinal belief systems in science include the General and Special Theory of Relativity, the Heliocentric Theory, Cell Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Gravity, the Big Bang Theory, Atom Theory, the Theory of Stellar Formation, the Theory of Plate tectonics, the Theory of Computation, the Theory of Electromagnetism, etc.

If accepted to be true without examination it's doctrinal. The big bang theory, for instance, has taken the place of Genesis as the means of creation in the minds of the general public. I do not believe this is because they are all physicists, but rather because they have been told it was so. Blind faith, in other words.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

although I don't see how one can examine whether God exists without (Ah! I should maybe have said 'presume' a God instead) presuming a God in the first place.

Well a more accurate way would be to look at what evidence there is, and see where it leads.
If it doesn't point in the direction of existence for god then there's no need to postulate one.

You don't start by presuming what the evidence will lead to: you just go where you're taken.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If accepted to be true without examination it's doctrinal.

Nope.
A doctrine is taught.
If someone accepts something without actually being taught that something then it's not doctrine - it's just a personal view/ belief.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If accepted to be true without examination it's doctrinal. The big bang theory, for instance, has taken the place of Genesis as the means of creation in the minds of the general public. I do not believe this is because they are all physicists, but rather because they have been told it was so. Blind faith, in other words.

In other words, you are equating science education in schools to religious indoctrination.

You do realize that part of a scientific education is to question the scientific theories presented to us in the classroom?
How exactly can blind faith come into the picture when all the theories (including the theory of biological evolution) have heaps of evidence that is published in the peer-reviewed literature and subject to the strictest scrutiny in review articles and conferences? Various scientific institutions, books (both technical and non-technical), the Internet and even the TV (e.g. Cosmos) can provide information for the laymen so that they can understand the theories, rather than accept them.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Evolutionism:
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
This is the dictionary definition of evolutionism and what I am referring to.

Unfortunately Darwin has been updated since then. When? Since I gave the up-to-date dictionary definition?
Evolutionism was a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to increase in complexity through evolution.

The term "evolutionist" is commonly used as an anti-science label by proponents of creationism and intelligent design.

I.e. "evolutionism/ evolutionist" is not only out of date it's also most used as a pejorative (by people who don't understand/ don't want to understand what evolution actually is). So what? Doesn't make the usage inapt.

You make the same accusation because I have said evolutionism is doctrinal and a belief. It is true

Evolution is NOT a doctrine - it's open to question and scrutiny. Nor is it a belief. Not a doctrine in itself, but believed blindly by many as if it were.

I know many people (non-scientists) who when asked about their take on evolution on natural selection cannot say much more than "we come from monkeys".

In which case they don't know what evolution is: you cannot blame science for peoples' ignorance. I don't blame science for anything - just saying how it is.

They believe in evolution because they have been told to in the same way that people used to believe in God because they were told to. They have not come to their acceptance of evolution via intellectual rigour - and never will. They are as much indoctrinated as people of faith are - perhaps more.

Wrong again. No.
What (some) people accept "on faith" is NOT what is taught. Therefore any misconceptions they have about evolution is their own doing and not "indoctrination" by anyone.
Blaming science for things that ignorant people hold to be true - especially when science itself shows that belief to be wrong - is misguided.

While there are people that "believe" in evolution it is NOT a result of indoctrination it is a result of their own failure to learn what is being said by science. It's ignorance in action.

Pupils are taught evolutionary theory in what I term containment and indoctrination centres. They are told what to believe, then believe it. What follows is mere acceptance without further enquiry. Is that a surprise? They learn it, they tend to retain it, not as a considered opinion but because that's what they have been told. Indoctrinated to the hilt.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

When? Since I gave the up-to-date dictionary definition?

Your definition specifically stated "especially that formulated by Charles Darwin".
Darwin's take on evolution has been greatly updated.

Not a doctrine in itself, but believed blindly by many as if it were.

I.e. it's not what they were taught, it's what they have decided to believe.

Pupils are taught evolutionary theory in what I term containment and indoctrination centres.

Oh dear.
I think you just stepped over the line of rationality.
Is learning maths "indoctrination"?
Is learning how to drive "indoctrination"?

indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

Note the "uncritically" part.

They are told what to believe, then believe it.

Wrong.
They are given the EVIDENCE and shown WHY it is true.

What follows is mere acceptance without further enquiry.

Meaning they haven't learned anything, simply accepted without question and IGNORED what they were actually taught.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If accepted to be true without examination it's doctrinal. The big bang theory, for instance, has taken the place of Genesis as the means of creation in the minds of the general public. I do not believe this is because they are all physicists, but rather because they have been told it was so. Blind faith, in other words.

In other words, you are equating science education in schools to religious indoctrination. I am as far as evolution by natural selection is concerned.

You do realize that part of a scientific education is to question the scientific theories presented to us in the classroom?
How exactly can blind faith come into the picture when all the theories (including the theory of biological evolution) have heaps of evidence that is published in the peer-reviewed literature and subject to the strictest scrutiny in review articles and conferences? Various scientific institutions, books (both technical and non-technical), the Internet and even the TV (e.g. Cosmos) can provide information for the laymen so that they can understand the theories, rather than accept them.

All very reasonable and pertinent. But for all intents and purposes the layman can only have evolution by natural selection confirmed. Yes, the basics will be somewhat understood by way of what is learned in class but few will explore further. It is accepted as being so without further enquiry or questioning. Of course people can pursue a clearer understanding of evolution, but few choose to do that. I happened to do so but most of my contemporaries haven't. That's the common thing. In the UK they now have a programme depicting dinosaur mating - which I don't expect will enlighten anyone as to the truth or not of evolutionary theory. So when I say indoctrination is at play, perhaps that characterisation could be reined back a little - but not that much.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by samsmoot

When? Since I gave the up-to-date dictionary definition?

Your definition specifically stated "especially that formulated by Charles Darwin".
Darwin's take on evolution has been greatly updated.

Not a doctrine in itself, but believed blindly by many as if it were.

I.e. it's not what they were taught, it's what they have decided to believe.

Pupils are taught evolutionary theory in what I term containment and indoctrination centres.

Oh dear.
I think you just stepped over the line of rationality.
Is learning maths "indoctrination"?
Is learning how to drive "indoctrination"?

indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

Note the "uncritically" part.

They are told what to believe, then believe it.

Wrong.
They are given the EVIDENCE and shown WHY it is true.

What follows is mere acceptance without further enquiry.

Meaning they haven't learned anything, simply accepted without question and IGNORED what they were actually taught.

I think my reply to Cogito addresses most of this.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

All very reasonable and pertinent. But for all intents and purposes the layman can only have evolution by natural selection confirmed. Yes, the basics will be somewhat understood by way of what is learned in class but few will explore further. It is accepted as being so without further enquiry or questioning. Of course people can pursue a clearer understanding of evolution, but few choose to do that. I happened to do so but most of my contemporaries haven't. That's the common thing. In the UK they now have a programme depicting dinosaur mating - which I don't expect will enlighten anyone as to the truth or not of evolutionary theory. So when I say indoctrination is at play, perhaps that characterisation could be reined back a little - but not that much.

I agree that some people will blindly accept biological evolution, as they think that what is taught in science classes is correct and not subject to change (this is of course erroneous, but bad education(*) can lead to such a conclusion). However, even if people blindly accept it (without the proper understanding of the theory of biological evolution), it does not invalidate the multiple lines of evidence that argue in favor of it.


(*) For example, science teachers who reject the theory of biological evolution and as such distort the scientific consensus (cf. posts #1511-1513).

God is a pipedream.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by samsmoot

All very reasonable and pertinent. But for all intents and purposes the layman can only have evolution by natural selection confirmed. Yes, the basics will be somewhat understood by way of what is learned in class but few will explore further. It is accepted as being so without further enquiry or questioning. Of course people can pursue a clearer understanding of evolution, but few choose to do that. I happened to do so but most of my contemporaries haven't. That's the common thing. In the UK they now have a programme depicting dinosaur mating - which I don't expect will enlighten anyone as to the truth or not of evolutionary theory. So when I say indoctrination is at play, perhaps that characterisation could be reined back a little - but not that much.

I can agree that some people will blindly accept biological evolution, as they think that what is taught in science classes is correct and not subject to change (this is of course erroneous, but bad education(*) can lead to such a conclusion). However, even if people blindly accept it (without the proper understanding of the theory of biological evolution), it does not invalidate the multiple lines of evidence that argue in favor of it.


(*) For example, science teachers who reject the theory of biological evolution and as such distort the scientific consensus (cf. posts #1511-1513).

I have opened the thread and will have a look through it later. Thanks for that.

I could never reasonably deny the multiple lines of evidence in favour of biological evolution, whether by natural selection or otherwise. At the moment I have started to read the thread on here about Abiogenesis, without which evolution couldn't have happened. I certainly don't condemn the entire theory of evolution by natural selection because it fails to explain how life started in order to get evolved, but life starting in the first place, or at least what came immediately after is, surely, an integral part of understanding the theory. A theory of evolution which does not include all of life is incomplete.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Pupils are taught evolutionary theory in what I term containment and indoctrination centres. They are told what to believe, then believe it. What follows is mere acceptance without further enquiry. Is that a surprise? They learn it, they tend to retain it, not as a considered opinion but because that's what they have been told. Indoctrinated to the hilt.

You can't be serious. You're not questioning evolution, you're now questioning the process of learning itself. If this is really what you think, I'm relegating you to the Mayflow and Stargate files with people I no longer take seriously.

i don't see where opinions by people in why they believe in a god is any scientific kind of study of religion

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Pupils are taught evolutionary theory in what I term containment and indoctrination centres. They are told what to believe, then believe it. What follows is mere acceptance without further enquiry. Is that a surprise? They learn it, they tend to retain it, not as a considered opinion but because that's what they have been told. Indoctrinated to the hilt.

You can't be serious. You're not questioning evolution, you're now questioning the process of learning itself. If this is really what you think, I'm relegating you to the Mayflow and Stargate files with people I no longer take seriously.

This implies that I may have been taken seriously up until now. In the hope that that may continue I will make myself clear and baldly state that I do not question the process of learning. Which is not quite the same as endorsing any particular method of education, such as schooling in an establishment of learning. But I'm not necessarily saying that's bad either.

You're calling the teaching of a factual process "indoctrination". If teaching facts is indoctrination then the vast majority of learning falls into that category. It's fine if that's what you believe but your opinions will lose all validity to me. I don't have the time or patience for such absurdities.

I said this earlier on:

Originally Posted by samsmoot

So when I say indoctrination is at play, perhaps that characterisation could be reined back a little - but not that much.

One definition of the word 'indoctrinate' is to 'teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically'. If you believe me when I say that my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study, from being taught an unchallenged view, then perhaps you can see why I didn't consider the word as being too far off the mark, but if it will help I can withdraw from pushing it.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study.

i am curious to know if you have made further scrutiny or study of darwins theory of evolution ? if so, how did you go about this ? are you a scientist ? i am not a scientist.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I said this earlier on:

Originally Posted by samsmoot

So when I say indoctrination is at play, perhaps that characterisation could be reined back a little - but not that much.

What you're saying, "When I say 'indoctrination', I don't mean 'indoctrination' as every other person in the world means it."

So don't say "indoctrination" if it comes with a caveat.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study

Then your contemporaries are idiots.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study

Then your contemporaries are idiots.

i don't understand. i accept the theory of evolution in the manner it was taught to me at university, an introduction. i have also read some more about it. but i have never done any studies of my own. i also accept both of einsteins theory of relativity without further study. is this wrong ?

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by samsmoot

my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study.

i am curious to know if you have made further scrutiny or study of darwins theory of evolution ? if so, how did you go about this ? are you a scientist ? i am not a scientist.

Not a scientist. I admit to reading little by Darwin since school but have read many popular works by Dawkins and others - one book with a slightly different take, saying life may have evolved in fits and starts, one about the Burgess Shale. Jay Richards I also remember reading. Plenty of debates online which help but right now, and in line with my assertion that a theory of evolution which does not include all of life is incomplete, I am reading the Abiogenesis sticky on this forum.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study

Then your contemporaries are idiots.

i don't understand. i accept the theory of evolution in the manner it was taught to me at university, an introduction. i have also read some more about it. but i have never done any studies of my own. i also accept both of einsteins theory of relativity without further study. is this wrong ?

If you're not skeptical of everything you're taught, if you don't seek out information on your own and make your own discoveries, are you really learning? Anyone can absorb information, but if you're not understanding the concepts which underlie what you're being taught then you're just memorizing and not gaining real knowledge.

Basically, if the only learning you do is in the classroom, if you don't apply the concepts there to countless more hours in the real world, you're not getting much of an education.

Question everything.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I said this earlier on:

Originally Posted by samsmoot

So when I say indoctrination is at play, perhaps that characterisation could be reined back a little - but not that much.

What you're saying, "When I say 'indoctrination', I don't mean 'indoctrination' as every other person in the world means it."

So don't say "indoctrination" if it comes with a caveat.

Yes sir! Sorry sir!

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study

Then your contemporaries are idiots.

And yours are. So there. Nah, nah etc etc..

Bye.

Originally Posted by kojax

I have to ask the same question on this thread as I asked on the last thread: which god?


I don't believe in the Christian or Muslim god, if that's what you mean.

To clarify: ANY god, or gods, goddesses, etc

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

i don't see where opinions by people in why they believe in a god is any scientific kind of study of religion

My purpose in starting this thread was to garner information concerning the reasons why people believe in God, so that I could learn more about what drives humans to seek supernatural explanations for reality. It may not be the most formal approach, but I assure you my intent is primarily to expand my knowledge, as well as foster debate. Hopefully this is somewhat scientific..?

Because i was raised like that nothing more. And it is very confusing to believe or not, with all the scientific evidence I mean god could have created the big bang and let things develop as they go, i mean he can't die, he needs some fun so he creates the universe with chaos and in That chaos life emerges, we could be the accidental child that was to late to abort o.o

The classroom is important but so is the field work, Flick. Is that a universal rule of science ? You know my next question so I won't ask.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

my contemporaries have accepted evolutionary theory without further scrutiny or study

Then your contemporaries are idiots.

i don't understand. i accept the theory of evolution in the manner it was taught to me at university, an introduction. i have also read some more about it. but i have never done any studies of my own. i also accept both of einsteins theory of relativity without further study. is this wrong ?

If you're not skeptical of everything you're taught, if you don't seek out information on your own and make your own discoveries, are you really learning? Anyone can absorb information, but if you're not understanding the concepts which underlie what you're being taught then you're just memorizing and not gaining real knowledge.

Basically, if the only learning you do is in the classroom, if you don't apply the concepts there to countless more hours in the real world, you're not getting much of an education.

Question everything.

I just skimmed this thread but I noticed that someone equated God and unicorns. That's interesting because unicorns have been proven to exist. Rhinoseri, Narwhales, some types of beetles all exihbit the defining characteristic of having only one horn.
Oh but you don't mean them, you mean that the way you have imagined a unicorn to be does not exist. But that is a different question. Unicorns exist but not just like you and the ancient artists and illustrators thought they were.
So then you are admitting to the possible existence of a God who does not resemble the image humans have of Him? You do realize that this puts you in agreement with most serious theologians? Most of them will admit that even their ideas about the nature of God may be in error.
He might be a golden calf, after all.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

That's interesting because unicorns have been proven to exist. Rhinoseri, Narwhales, some types of beetles all exihbit the defining characteristic of having only one horn.

That's called "moving the goal posts".

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

That's interesting because unicorns have been proven to exist. Rhinoseri, Narwhales, some types of beetles all exihbit the defining characteristic of having only one horn.

Rhinoseri, Narwhales and some types of beetles are not unicorns.
One way we can tell that they are not unicorns is by how they are not called unicorns.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

I just skimmed this thread but I noticed that someone equated God and unicorns. That's interesting because unicorns have been proven to exist. Rhinoseri, Narwhales, some types of beetles all exihbit the defining characteristic of having only one horn.
Oh but you don't mean them, you mean that the way you have imagined a unicorn to be does not exist. But that is a different question. Unicorns exist but not just like you and the ancient artists and illustrators thought they were.
So then you are admitting to the possible existence of a God who does not resemble the image humans have of Him? You do realize that this puts you in agreement with most serious theologians? Most of them will admit that even their ideas about the nature of God may be in error.
He might be a golden calf, after all.

So, what you're saying is that the Leprechaun analogy is a more successful one. Got it.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

I just skimmed this thread but I noticed that someone equated God and unicorns. That's interesting because unicorns have been proven to exist. Rhinoseri...exihbit the defining characteristic of having only one horn.
Oh but you don't mean them, you mean that the way you have imagined a unicorn to be does not exist. But that is a different question. Unicorns exist but not just like you and the ancient artists and illustrators thought they were.

You are so correct it hurts. Uninformed or disingenuous sneering a la Lawrence Krauss is laughable.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

You are so correct it hurts.

So........you think unicorns exist?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by samsmoot

You are so correct it hurts.

So........you think unicorns exist?

Single-horned white horse-like creatures? No.

Some kind of horned beast of great strength referred to in the context of other mundane beasts? Then yes.

38 out of 46 popular English Bible translations fail to mention the word 'unicorn' at all, the remaining 8 being mostly King James based.

If ever there's a time to call "semantics!", this is it, as that's the issue. Did the KJ translators have in mind a one-horned horse as being the correct technical description? Not necessarily, IMO. Did they strive to present an understandable depiction of an unknown animal in the best way they knew how? Yes, IMO.

I think some kind of ox is what is described, though it is said it could refer to an extinct rhino species.

I'm sorry I even mentioned unicorns. This thread is going to turn into Ancient Aliens now, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm sorry I even mentioned unicorns. This thread is going to turn into Ancient Aliens now, isn't it?

Was thinking the same thing. Maybe use Zeus next time or something.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm sorry I even mentioned unicorns. This thread is going to turn into Ancient Aliens now, isn't it?

Was thinking the same thing. Maybe use Zeus next time or something.

I am certain that Unicorns were abducted by ancient aliens!

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm sorry I even mentioned unicorns. This thread is going to turn into Ancient Aliens now, isn't it?

Ancient Aliens?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm sorry I even mentioned unicorns. This thread is going to turn into Ancient Aliens now, isn't it?

Did somebody mention unicorns?



Online Dictionary –
God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Unicorn: a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.

There's plenty of difference comparing a god to a unicorn, but both have one thing in common – neither share evidence to exist.
Some theists claim the Bible is evidence for God, or the Big Bang, Abiogenesis etc. But I think those type of claims are probably not much different to claiming hoof tracking's found on a field belong to unicorns?

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I'm sorry I even mentioned unicorns. This thread is going to turn into Ancient Aliens now, isn't it?

Did somebody mention unicorns?



Online Dictionary –
God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Unicorn: a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.

There's plenty of difference comparing a god to a unicorn, but both have one thing in common – neither share evidence to exist.
Some theists claim the Bible is evidence for God, or the Big Bang, Abiogenesis etc. But I think those type of claims are probably not much different to claiming hoof tracking's found on a field belong to unicorns?

You're a prickly little character aren't you!