Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scudbuster

Carl Sagan on Religion

106 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro

Thank goodness for PBS, and Carl when I was a kid.

fa1.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
9 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

 

There doesn't have to be a 'beneficial god' at the origin of the Universe.

Yes, absolutely, there does not have to be - or had to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
On 10/1/2017 at 9:26 PM, Wes4747 said:

To be fair, theres nothing out there we have scientifically verified... Doesnt rule out the possibility.

Nothing does, but in most applications we don't even bring up possibilities we can't rule out; there is no lower bar to clear for a claim. Should doctors tell patients, "I recommend antibiotics for your infection but I can't rule out the possibility that drinking tea will also treat it", or professors teach, "evolution explains the diversity of life on earth very well but we can't rule out that octopi were actually created from seaweed by Poseidon"?  Those are also possibilities that can never be 'ruled out', and we don't consider the disregarding of those possibilities as 'dogmatic' or close-minded or intolerant (which to be clear you didn't argue).

Edited by Liquid Gardens
me english no good
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Nothing does, but in most applications we don't even bring up possibilities we can't rule out; there is no lower bar to clear for a claim. Should doctors tell patients, "I recommend antibiotics for your infection but I can't rule out the possibility that drinking tea will also treat it", or professors teach, "evolution explains the diversity of life on earth very well but we can't rule out that octopi were actually created from seaweed by Poseidon"?  Those are also possibilities that can never be 'ruled out', and we don't consider or disregarding those possibilities as 'dogmatic' or close-minded or intolerant (which to be clear you didn't argue).

What's interesting LG, and I accept your premise for the supposed likelihood that God does not exist because of the lack of evidence, is that by far most people believe in, and are faithful to, God in one way or another. Not to mention, for all of human history too.

Why?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

What's interesting LG, and I accept your premise for the supposed likelihood that God does not exist because of the lack of evidence, is that by far most people believe in, and are faithful to, God in one way or another. Not to mention, for all of human history too.

Why?

IMO, the strongest motivator is that people want to believe, it provides comfort.  There are very few people that have said things along the line of, "I know I have no good direct evidence of this, but my faith informs me that we are all doomed to spend an eternity in miserable insanity when Cthulhu rises from R'lyeh".  No one really references faith to argue for something they don't want to be true.

To turn this around, or what I think you are maybe suggesting, for most of human history lots of people thought that illnesses and natural disasters were created by gods or demons or what not.  It didn't really have much to do with the truth of the matter though.  So why did they believe that?  And most importantly, did what so many people believed have anything to do with its truth all on its own?  To me this analogy parallels the situation with God, in that those people had no good information about what was causing illnesses and natural disasters; similarly, we don't really have any information on gods. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

we don't really have any information on gods. 

Yes we do. It needs to be sifted to get to the truth however. Just like science does.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
2 hours ago, Will Due said:

Yes we do. It needs to be sifted to get to the truth however. Just like science does.

But not really 'like science does'.  Science already has a methodology, and almost all theists admit that it can't be used for religious beliefs.  What methodology do you propose we should use to find out the truth about gods, and how do you know it's reliable?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

But not really 'like science does'.  Science already has a methodology, and almost all theists admit that it can't be used for religious beliefs.  What methodology do you propose we should use to find out the truth about gods, and how do you know it's reliable?

That's a good question. 

What I did is, like material tests are applied in science, I tested my thoughts about what's true spiritually by applying spiritual tests in my relationships. 

I applied myself spiritually in my relationships based on what I learned by traversing the minefields of the doctrines of traditional religions, there to realize the proof of the realities of the spiritual realm by building one experience on the next and growing personally for it, learning as I go, thereby proving the spiritual truths of religion on my own.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

That's a good question. 

What I did is, like material tests are applied in science, I tested my thoughts about what's true spiritually by applying spiritual tests in my relationships. 

I applied myself spiritually in my relationships based on what I learned by traversing the minefields of the doctrines of traditional religions, there to realize the proof of the realities of the spiritual realm by building one experience on the next and growing personally for it, learning as I go, thereby proving the spiritual truths of religion on my own.

That's fine, but that's finding truths about and for you specifically.  Science tries to find truths about the objective world, not really your subjective one.  If I remove all references to 'spirit*' in the above then I, and many people, do the same thing.  I call the process you refer to above, without the spirit stuff, 'learning' and 'maturing'; no spiritual anything required.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

IMO, the strongest motivator is that people want to believe, it provides comfort.  There are very few people that have said things along the line of, "I know I have no good direct evidence of this, but my faith informs me that we are all doomed to spend an eternity in miserable insanity when Cthulhu rises from R'lyeh".  No one really references faith to argue for something they don't want to be true.

 

You don't need ennemies, when you have the God of the Old Testament.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
7 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's fine, but that's finding truths about and for you specifically.  Science tries to find truths about the objective world, not really your subjective one.  If I remove all references to 'spirit*' in the above then I, and many people, do the same thing.  I call the process you refer to above, without the spirit stuff, 'learning' and 'maturing'; no spiritual anything required.

Ok but then here's the difference between material and spiritual proof.

With science, you don't need to be a scientist personally doing the proving, because it is objective.

With spirituality, you MUST be a religionist doing the proving yourself, not because it's subjective, but in spite of it being so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
21 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Ok but then here's the difference between material and spiritual proof.

'Spiritual proof' unlike 'material proof' doesn't have much of an agreement on what it even means.

Quote

With spirituality, you MUST be a religionist doing the proving yourself, not because it's subjective, but in spite of it being so.

If all you are doing is proving what works or 'is true' to you, then we are even farther away from anything related to science.  Other than psychological-type sciences, science is looking for truths no matter what is true to specific people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
14 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

'Spiritual proof' unlike 'material proof' doesn't have much of an agreement on what it even means.

If all you are doing is proving what works or 'is true' to you, then we are even farther away from anything related to science.  Other than psychological-type sciences, science is looking for truths no matter what is true to specific people.

I apologize. I'm not trying to compare scientific proof with spiritual proof.

The proofs of the spirit only have meaning personally, regardless of their value, regardless of agreement.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.O'N

Im sure many of us who dont believe in God "the bible one" would like to believe, we just need proof . Oh how i would love to see my Nan (grandmother) and family dog etc again, but my brain wont let me believe. But then again, when i die and i found out there is a God i be mad tbh. Many questions i would ask, like this one for example "oh so you ARE real? can you tell me why you let bad things like kids being murdered happen?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_

I think all faith system is based on hope. Why should it be different? In the ordinary world of aches and pains, stress, 'sin' and loss, we are all trying to get beyond our condition and come to a realization about who we really are. Even New atheists rationalize their existences, they believe we are biological robots living in a meaningless Universe, driven by blind natural processes. It's their way of trying to apprehend a bigger picture where their lives can 'make sens' in some way. Religious and spiritual people do exactly the same. They just have different methods.

Edited by TruthSeeker_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

 Even New atheists rationalize their existences, they believe we are biological robots living in a meaningless Universe, driven by blind natural processes. It's their way of trying to apprehend a bigger picture where their lives can 'make sens' in some way. Religious and spiritual people do exactly the same. They just have different methods.

No, i definitely don't believe I'm some kind of biological robot, and my personal world is often filled with great joy, fulfillment. Making sense of our country right now is a much different story however. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
3 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

No, i definitely don't believe I'm some kind of biological robot, and my personal world is often filled with great joy, fulfillment. Making sense of our country right now is a much different story however. 

'Biological robots' are pet words I like to use to describe the mind = brain position of materialism. The idea that your brain is a computer, neurones and synapses generating consciousness. When the brain dies, the computer shuts off and you fall into oblivion, 'nothingness' forever after. Some atheists find comfort in that. Spiritual people of course posit that you are more than the flesh and blood brain in your skull.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
On 10/4/2017 at 6:43 PM, TruthSeeker_ said:

'nothingness' forever after.

It's reality, it reminds me to try to make the most out of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 10/2/2017 at 1:17 AM, Timonthy said:

Which scientists? 

You can’t see the difference between proving something does exist, and proving something doesn’t exist?

It’s kinda ironic. Proving something does exist requires evidence (which there’s no real evidence of in this case), while proving something doesn’t exist requires no evidence (which is the case)...

You will not see that day before you die, unless it’s some kind of delusion. Willing to put money on it too. We’d have to get some kind of legal contract drawn up though. 

Timonthy, are you of the opinion that all science is somehow pure and honest?  Do you believe that biases don't enter into the process?  My point is that those who believe in the pure scientific method, display an arrogance that they either KNOW or WILL know the answer to our origins and that it cannot involve a Creator, a creative intelligence.  The scientific method is man's best attempt to understand and it has brought GREAT progress in most areas but it could also bring our end as a species in the not too distant future.  Not because science is evil, any more than a gun is evil.  It's what man does with the science that can be evil.  At its base, science worshippers reject a God of creation because it does not meet their own standard of morality or understanding.  That is their choice.  As time continues to unfold and more and more of the events that were predicted, come to fulfillment, that choice is going to be harder to defend.  If you are one of those who dismiss such events as "self-fulfilling" then hopefully you will apply your method to prove THAT as readily as you'd demand proof of any other phenomena.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
3 minutes ago, and then said:

Timonthy, are you of the opinion that all science is somehow pure and honest?  Do you believe that biases don't enter into the process?  My point is that those who believe in the pure scientific method, display an arrogance that they either KNOW or WILL know the answer to our origins and that it cannot involve a Creator, a creative intelligence.  The scientific method is man's best attempt to understand and it has brought GREAT progress in most areas but it could also bring our end as a species in the not too distant future.  Not because science is evil, any more than a gun is evil.  It's what man does with the science that can be evil.  At its base, science worshippers reject a God of creation because it does not meet their own standard of morality or understanding.  That is their choice.  As time continues to unfold and more and more of the events that were predicted, come to fulfillment, that choice is going to be harder to defend.  If you are one of those who dismiss such events as "self-fulfilling" then hopefully you will apply your method to prove THAT as readily as you'd demand proof of any other phenomena.

It's not that all science is pure and honest, it's that the scientific method is an actual method. And it is self-correcting. 

On the other hand, we have a collection of old books that men wrote when they didn't know anything about science.

That's not necessarily a method, or self-correcting. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do

Religion is self-correcting too. But it isn't happening in the same way that science self-corrects. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

It's not that all science is pure and honest, it's that the scientific method is an actual method. And it is self-correcting. 

On the other hand, we have a collection of old books that men wrote when they didn't know anything about science.

That's not necessarily a method, or self-correcting. 

I accept that.  I also accept that science is the best method to prove our theories about our physical reality.  What I don't believe is that science has all or ever will have all the answers.  Science can tell us "how" but not "why". The very fact that science's best answer to the moment of creation of our universe(s) is that something came from nothing proves this to me.  Their answer to the beginning of all things is just as magical as any religionist.  Further, those old men wrote things a couple of millennia ago that have come true and other things that seem to be coming true today.  

A couple of examples are the coming total destruction of the city of Damascus, Syria and a multi-nation assault against Israel where the only common tie is that they are all Islamic and they all hate the Jews.  That was written a thousand years before Islam was a religion.  Damascus has never been totally rendered a "heap of ruins" OVERNIGHT, nor left uninhabitable for any length of time.  It has changed hands many times but it always was occupied and the city lived on.

When these things happen, as I know they will, folks should remember that to reject a thing without investigation is the worst kind of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, and then said:

I accept that.  I also accept that science is the best method to prove our theories about our physical reality.  What I don't believe is that science has all or ever will have all the answers.  Science can tell us "how" but not "why". The very fact that science's best answer to the moment of creation of our universe(s) is that something came from nothing proves this to me.  Their answer to the beginning of all things is just as magical as any religionist.  Further, those old men wrote things a couple of millennia ago that have come true and other things that seem to be coming true today.  

A couple of examples are the coming total destruction of the city of Damascus, Syria and a multi-nation assault against Israel where the only common tie is that they are all Islamic and they all hate the Jews.  That was written a thousand years before Islam was a religion.  Damascus has never been totally rendered a "heap of ruins" OVERNIGHT, nor left uninhabitable for any length of time.  It has changed hands many times but it always was occupied and the city lived on.

When these things happen, as I know they will, folks should remember that to reject a thing without investigation is the worst kind of ignorance.

Of course not. There are some things beyond the scope of science. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Religion is self-correcting too. But it isn't happening in the same way that science self-corrects. 

 

 

Not really. New sects develop, and they might be more progressive than the old ones, but those orthodox sects have never really gone away. They just might have fewer adherents. And even that changes with the climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

It could be said that some people evolve, spiritually, but religion is dogmatic and unchanging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.