Comments on: 1st March 2010

By: The Heretic

The Heretic — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:58:23 +0000

I am betting on the white mice.

By: CaptainZero1969

CaptainZero1969 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:26:59 +0000

I recommend “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” by Daniel Dennett. Hitchens has spoken convincingly as well. He says religion was our first attempt at science, our first go at explaining the things that went on around us that we had no better explanation for. From an explanatory standpoint, our earlier polytheism made a lot of sense. People had jobs they were responsible for, why not have gods responsible for various domains as well. Finally, Dawkins makes a good argument for religion’s continued success in his description of the “meme”, that is, a unit of social inheritance, similar to a gene, a unit of genetic inheritance.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:21:09 +0000

Hsmokes, you have it absolutely correct.

Nature does not abhor a vacuum, humans do!

Being aware of our mortality, we ‘invent’ something to embrace a continuum, since we cannot imagine the world without us.

I really believe it is that simple.

It is hard to look at the world around us with any understanding of our insignificant place in the universe and still muster up the kind of arrogance that would let us create a god, but we seem to manage quite nicely.

That, or it is all because of a couple of white mice somewhere…

By: Holysmokes

Holysmokes — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:53:43 +0000

I’m inclined to agree with all of you, but the part I’m the most curious about is why? Why do so many people just decide there is some sort of a god out there? Is this caused as a sort of “spring board action” from other religions they have learned about ….or as many of you pointed out, influenced from? I find this phenomena quite perplexing, primarily because of all the gods humanity simply decided to create over history. It’s as if we are predisposed to inventing the dam things each time we cannot figure out a “natural world” event.

By: CaptainZero1969

CaptainZero1969 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:17:47 +0000

I’d call you a deist, HS. And as Steve points out, you’d be in good company. I’m sure most don’t bother to explore the roots of their social goodness but I’d describe the underpinnings as more or less “the golden rule”, that is, social contract.

By: John

John — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:24:12 +0000

I still contend that that was the reason for the “in god we trust” on the US money. Now go out and buy something and use your gods…

By: steve

steve — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:11:11 +0000

HSmokes, I think you have accurately characterized the thoughts of millions of Americans.

Now what?

By: Holysmokes

Holysmokes — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:27:19 +0000

Hmmm, most of you make valid points. Hypothetical scenario; I think a valid deity was responsible for the creation of everything …and is still with us. But I don’t believe the variety of religions floating around. Where does that leave my morality? I have no written text to follow. I have no clergy to bounce information against. I admit that I have no data on how to act in light of this god/being/creature. I may be a loony for thinking a god exists, but I don’t see this belief affecting my day-to-day morality. I have no basis for deciding how this god would want me to act, therefore I act the way I want. Yes, I agree that other religions would tend to taint my view, so it’s an interesting question. Too bad there is no way to test it.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:56:32 +0000

“Depends on the strain.”

LMAO.

Now I must wipe my nose and then wipe up all the chocolate milk I had been drinking…

By: CaptainZero1969

CaptainZero1969 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:06:37 +0000

Holy – your point is well made about distinguishing between religion and belief. I think that one is religious only to the degree that their belief causes actions intended to please a deity or avoid punishment. If they go about their lives behaving well toward their fellow man without such considerations then I think it’s fair to say their belief is irrelevant to their moral or ethical behavior. Such a believer is a deist or pantheist in action if not in name, right?

Belief only becomes the issue when it drives you to impose your doctrines on others. Since most here have no god-belief most attacks in that direction should be understood to be against religion, not toward the imaginary.

Do I think belief is ultimately harmful? That depends. Some people can live a long life unaffected by the cancer they don’t even know they have. Others die in weeks. Depends on the strain.