5 ms·

Because you don't need a God any longer to explain things. God is a literary device that has been used throughout the ages to fill in the gaps of human knowledg

by dr42 14y ago

Because you don't need a God any longer to explain things. God is a literary device that has been used throughout the ages to fill in the gaps of human knowledge. It's akin to other devices, like dream sequences, flashbacks, Chekhov's Gun, just one that caught on, mainly thanks to a couple thousand years of it being rammed down the throats (often, quite literally) of uneducated peasants. These days, we don't need the concept of a creator because we better understand the workings of the universe. This of course doesn't have anything to do with Faith, that's an entirely personal thing that some need/want to get through life, to each their own. Fortunately in this era we mainly have switched away from executing those that don't share the same faith. Oh, wait...

infinitesimal 14y ago
Great.
Dove 14y ago
I'd say that's rather overestimating the philosophical importance of evolution. When you look at the arguments people actually make about God's existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God), maybe one or two of them actually involve where ducks come from.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Considering the Catholic Church finds no contradiction between evolution and the faith, I too would say evolutions importance to the existence/non-existence of God is overrated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
  - dr42 14y ago
    You're rather neglecting the past thousand years or so where the Catholic Church would have you executed for thinking the earth wasn't flat. And let's not even mention their issue with women, witch hunts, and of course the Inquisition. And you're somewhat misleadingly misrepresenting that Wikipedia article. It actually says that the no-conflict position is an unofficial stance of the Vatican. It also (rather importantly neglected by your comment) says that their position is that humans are indeed special and need the existence of god. That's rather a conceited view of our species, but then this is coming from the same organization that spent much of the 13th century burning whole french villages...
    - Xcelerate 14y ago
      Okay, okay, I didn't mean to start one of these. Let's just get back to the AI discussion. (I do have a long paragraph about AI in the second part of my original post that has been neglected, you know).
    - protomyth 14y ago
      As to the first point: Slavery was once legal also, but that is no longer so. as to the second point: I would assume the Pope actually knows the opinion of the church and wrote so here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM or http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont_messages/1996/index_en.htm http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont... As to point 3: see my response to 1 and yes, religions for the most part believe Humans are special. Being sentient tends to do that.
    - fsiefken 14y ago
      Both protestant and catholic theology (Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Kasper, Moltmann) have largely moved past such a stop gap god. The original poster is right, me and most practicing christians in my country (arguably it's different in the US) don't see a problem with evolution. Within the framework of Catholicism (the largest organized, most developed christian denomination) believing so is no problem at all, the "deposit of faith" allows this. The seeds for this have been sown in the early part of the 20th century. Concerning the specialness of the human person or soul, and the need for God; this is first and formost meant as theological language.
- dr42 14y ago
  I am not overstating, or even stating at all any philosophical importance of evolution. Evolution just is, it doesn't need, nor does it care about our human philosophies. Evolution began long ago before humans (obviously) and was working just fine with our without us giving it any thought whatsoever. I think you have it backwards, religion very much depends (with glorious irony) upon evolution, and our human condition of attributing agency where there is none. Meanwhile, with our without any of thinking any mythological super being, evolution carries right along, at the cellular level all the way up to who we are. I am not saying there is, or isn't a god (I honestly don't care, what does it matter?) - but I am saying that it's time we stopped burying our heads in the sand and ignoring science, while we hack off the limbs of anyone that doesn't share our particular god theory.
Xcelerate 14y ago
So... am I the only religious person on this website who is also very scientific? I mean, I believe in evolution, and in my opinion the two concepts have always been complementary rather than exclusive (but I won't start a debate). Just curious.
- DanBC 14y ago
  I don't know about this website, but I know mathematicians (some of whom have made significant contributions) who are practicing christians. Not just for the social life either, but because they believe in god.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- gnaritas 14y ago
  I don't think they're compatible at all. I think those who think they are simply display evidence of our ability to maintain cognitive dissonance; religion and science are not compatible. The only people who think they are, are religious people who can't leg go of their faith, so they rationalize. Science is anti-faith, religion is anti-evidence, how anyone thinks them compatible is beyond me. Faith is not a virtue in science, it's just bad thinking.
  - fsiefken 14y ago
    The agnost Stephen Jay Gould thought they were not opposed: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html The Catholic church has the following to say about the relationship between faith and science: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/d...
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      That he did, but his belief can be summed up with this quote.. "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." And he's quite simply wrong, they do overlap as science has something to say about all of those things. Religion has no claim on the realm of morality and meaning, nor does it provide any actual answers on the subject, nor does it serve as a guiding light on the subject. Gould is trying to play nice because he thinks religion is valuable to many people and he doesn't want to offend. I do not believe his position honest, merely political. As for what the church thinks, they're going to rationalize no matter what, their opinions simply support my original statement.

by dr42 14y ago

infinitesimal 14y ago

Great.

Dove 14y ago

I'd say that's rather overestimating the philosophical importance of evolution. When you look at the arguments people actually make about God's existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God), maybe one or two of them actually involve where ducks come from.

protomyth 14y ago
Considering the Catholic Church finds no contradiction between evolution and the faith, I too would say evolutions importance to the existence/non-existence of God is overrated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
- dr42 14y ago
  You're rather neglecting the past thousand years or so where the Catholic Church would have you executed for thinking the earth wasn't flat. And let's not even mention their issue with women, witch hunts, and of course the Inquisition. And you're somewhat misleadingly misrepresenting that Wikipedia article. It actually says that the no-conflict position is an unofficial stance of the Vatican. It also (rather importantly neglected by your comment) says that their position is that humans are indeed special and need the existence of god. That's rather a conceited view of our species, but then this is coming from the same organization that spent much of the 13th century burning whole french villages...
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    Okay, okay, I didn't mean to start one of these. Let's just get back to the AI discussion. (I do have a long paragraph about AI in the second part of my original post that has been neglected, you know).
  - protomyth 14y ago
    As to the first point: Slavery was once legal also, but that is no longer so. as to the second point: I would assume the Pope actually knows the opinion of the church and wrote so here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM or http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont_messages/1996/index_en.htm http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont... As to point 3: see my response to 1 and yes, religions for the most part believe Humans are special. Being sentient tends to do that.
  - fsiefken 14y ago
    Both protestant and catholic theology (Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Kasper, Moltmann) have largely moved past such a stop gap god. The original poster is right, me and most practicing christians in my country (arguably it's different in the US) don't see a problem with evolution. Within the framework of Catholicism (the largest organized, most developed christian denomination) believing so is no problem at all, the "deposit of faith" allows this. The seeds for this have been sown in the early part of the 20th century. Concerning the specialness of the human person or soul, and the need for God; this is first and formost meant as theological language.
dr42 14y ago
I am not overstating, or even stating at all any philosophical importance of evolution. Evolution just is, it doesn't need, nor does it care about our human philosophies. Evolution began long ago before humans (obviously) and was working just fine with our without us giving it any thought whatsoever. I think you have it backwards, religion very much depends (with glorious irony) upon evolution, and our human condition of attributing agency where there is none. Meanwhile, with our without any of thinking any mythological super being, evolution carries right along, at the cellular level all the way up to who we are. I am not saying there is, or isn't a god (I honestly don't care, what does it matter?) - but I am saying that it's time we stopped burying our heads in the sand and ignoring science, while we hack off the limbs of anyone that doesn't share our particular god theory.

Xcelerate 14y ago

So... am I the only religious person on this website who is also very scientific? I mean, I believe in evolution, and in my opinion the two concepts have always been complementary rather than exclusive (but I won't start a debate). Just curious.

DanBC 14y ago
I don't know about this website, but I know mathematicians (some of whom have made significant contributions) who are practicing christians. Not just for the social life either, but because they believe in god.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gnaritas 14y ago
I don't think they're compatible at all. I think those who think they are simply display evidence of our ability to maintain cognitive dissonance; religion and science are not compatible. The only people who think they are, are religious people who can't leg go of their faith, so they rationalize. Science is anti-faith, religion is anti-evidence, how anyone thinks them compatible is beyond me. Faith is not a virtue in science, it's just bad thinking.
- fsiefken 14y ago
  The agnost Stephen Jay Gould thought they were not opposed: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html The Catholic church has the following to say about the relationship between faith and science: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/d...
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    That he did, but his belief can be summed up with this quote.. "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." And he's quite simply wrong, they do overlap as science has something to say about all of those things. Religion has no claim on the realm of morality and meaning, nor does it provide any actual answers on the subject, nor does it serve as a guiding light on the subject. Gould is trying to play nice because he thinks religion is valuable to many people and he doesn't want to offend. I do not believe his position honest, merely political. As for what the church thinks, they're going to rationalize no matter what, their opinions simply support my original statement.