The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: God real or not  (Read 233966 times)

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
God real or not
« on: 09/02/2006 14:41:19 »
Could God actually be real i mean i am a Christian but every piece of science we have today say he is not real. That raises the big quustion is He REAL?

- Big T


 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #1 on: 09/02/2006 15:05:35 »
Nah, there's no real science to say that god isn't real, I don't think (and I'm quite emphatically *not* a christian, or jew, or hindu, or whatever), just none I believe in that says he, she, it or they is or are real.
Of course, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the biblical creation story is at best an allegory for I-don't-know-what, and it all depends on what you mean by god...
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #2 on: 09/02/2006 16:04:30 »
Exactly what do i mean? Who reallt knows? What is god is he man girl blakc white or evan mexican!

- Big T
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #3 on: 09/02/2006 17:07:07 »
Quite.
I just thought tjat if you're a christian you might know what sort of god you believe in.
If you're interested in whether science has disproved (your) god, you're going to need a hypothesis about what (your) god is...
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #4 on: 09/02/2006 17:29:33 »
What do you mean by real (let alone, what do you mean by God)?

Gad has no role to play in a scientific model of the universe.  The rules of science require determinism and repeatability, something that is inherently at odds with the notion of a sentient being.  Science even has problems dealing with human free will, so how is it going to deal with the notion of the free will of a supernatural being.

This does not mean God exists, or that he does not exist, only that he cannot exist within a scientific model of the universe.

The question then is whether the definition of real existence is constrained to that which is within the scientific model or not.  Can one have multiple co-existing models where something can exist in one model, but not in another model; and can such an existence be regarded as a real existence.

That something can exist in one model but not in another is self evident, so the remaining question is whether such an existence is a real existence.

If one were to assume a religious model that included a God, is there any limit to the number of permutations of such models that one can create, and how does one judge one model as functionally superior to another?

I suppose the first question one must ask is that if you wish to imagine a model of the universe that includes a God, what problem is that model supposed to solve, and how do you demonstrate that your model is the simplest way of solving that problem.

One of the problems with most real religions is that they actually create extremely complicated models of the universe, and models that contain very many arbitrary assumptions, and create extremely ambiguous answers.  These are attributes that are highly undesirable in any model.

Could you succeed in creating a model of the universe that contained a God, that was simpler, had only a minimum number of assumptions, and gave clear and unambiguous answers to the problems presented to it?
« Last Edit: 09/02/2006 18:12:58 by another_someone »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #5 on: 09/02/2006 19:41:51 »
Well I find myself as a staunch non believer in what I think is irational thought of believing in an illogical supernatural being/force/entity/deity....

..however...I remain avaialable to be convinced otherwise....so perhaps I have agnostical leanings.

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
 

Offline Ottehg Star

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #6 on: 09/02/2006 20:45:00 »
when i see scientific evidence for a god i will believe it but all i see are stories from a book. No one can come up with any evidence to prove there is a god and there is data to disprove some of the bible but not all of it. to me the bible is no more real than any other book for example The lord of the rings. if everyone made statues of frodo and worshipped it they would get locked in an asylum with padded walls. Going by this theory religion is merely an accepted form of Mass Hysteria and with no evidence for it. sorry if i offended anyones beliefs but im really anti religion.

on this subject whos read Angels and deamons by Dan Brown, this forum reminds me of that book, its excellent
 

Offline DocN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #7 on: 11/02/2006 20:55:39 »
Is it possible that someone like Einstein was closer to God because of his theory formation, than say, organized religions?  I did just hear an interesting idea about this from a minister, who felt that the true message of Christian salvation was that God was present in everything and everyone--that one should try to live the moment to the fullest, by finding God in the universe and, perhaps the universe itself, is God.
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #8 on: 13/02/2006 14:16:37 »
I don't know what to think rosey

- Big T
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: God real or not
« Reply #9 on: 13/02/2006 19:58:46 »
I would have said that the bible is more real than the lord of the rings - in that there is a load of (almost certainly extreemly biased - most of it was written by people trying to create a national myth) history in there, but I wouldn't want to base my world view exclusively on a book that was written by lots of people with political, and personal axes to grind, with a definite interest in making people think one way about Jesus... If there had been another version of the Bible which was essentially - 'well he is just this great guy with a load of interesting ideas..' I don't think it would have got so many bums on pews...

My attitude is that if there was good scientific evidence for there being a god/gods/flying spagetti monster, I would want to know how he/she/they/it worked and what physics it worked on.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: God real or not
« Reply #10 on: 13/02/2006 23:07:12 »
The question  was is god real or not, which is an unanswerable question because in the end the only thing that it comes down to is individual beliefs, you either believe or you don't.

Science as yet cant help because it can't prove anything either way in regards to the question, all it can do is refute writings written down in the bible. Which actually prove nothing either way .The only thing that science can prove is that some peoples beliefs are so strong that they felt the need to make up stories as a way to manipulate the minds of the unbelievers. A preacher needs something to preach and it helps if all the preachers of the same faith say the same things.

The way i see it is because nothing can be proved either way then everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they like without argument or prejudice.

Michael
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #11 on: 13/02/2006 23:28:01 »
quote:
The way i see it is because nothing can be proved either way then everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they like without argument or prejudice.

I'd agree up to a point... where there's no proof one way or the other (such as on the existence of a god)then the only practical response is an open mind... but where people persist in believing that which is demonstrably untrue then I reserve my right to a low opinion of their ability to reason and to regard their other beliefs with an increased degree of scepticism.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: God real or not
« Reply #12 on: 14/02/2006 00:15:11 »
Hi rosy

Compare your perception of colour compared to a group of people who are colour blind,and without science prove to them they are the ones seeing things incorrectly, Now try to prove to somebody who's whole life has been dedicated to god that god doesnt exist without any proof that what your saying is true. To them your the one that persists in believing in something which is demonstrably untrue.:)

Michael
« Last Edit: 14/02/2006 01:16:31 by ukmicky »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #13 on: 14/02/2006 01:53:09 »
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky

Hi rosy

Compare your perception of colour compared to a group of people who are colour blind,and without science prove to them they are the ones seeing things incorrectly, Now try to prove to somebody who's whole life has been dedicated to god that god doesnt exist without any proof that what your saying is true. To them your the one that persists in believing in something which is demonstrably untrue.:)

Michael



Sorry Michael, but it is quite possible to demonstrate to a colour blind person that “they are the ones seeing things incorrectly “.

Take 10 flat circular counters that the person who is colour blind cannot tell apart, but that you are able to distinguish (supposedly by colour) into three separate groups.  Mark the back of each counter with a number.  Then ask the person who is colour blind, and a person with colour sight, to separate the counters into groups by colour.  Repeat the experiment several times.

The person who can see the colours, should be able to repeat the grouping on each occasion, but the person who is colour blind will create different groups on each occasion.

This does not prove that what is being perceived is actually colour, but it does demonstrate that the people who claim to be able to see colour can see something that the person who is colour blind cannot see.

But, as I say, all it proves is that the colour blind persons view of the universe is incomplete.  Proving that an atheists view of the universe is incomplete would not the same as proving there is a God, only that there is something more than is understood.

George.
« Last Edit: 14/02/2006 01:58:02 by another_someone »
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: God real or not
« Reply #14 on: 14/02/2006 03:10:40 »
quote:
Sorry Michael, but it is quite possible to demonstrate to a colour blind person that “they are the ones seeing things incorrectly “.


Now go back a few hundred years to before Sir Thomas young and the modern theory of light so your in the same position as we are in now with trying to prove to a someone who passionately believes in god that god is fake with no science to back up our claims. Remember with no science to deal with colour you will have no idea how to create any tests to prove that a colourblind person is seeing things inaccurately, so how can you prove to him and expect him to accept your claims that his colour perception is not normal, as far as he is concerned your the one with screwed up vision and are mad because you you wont accept HIS colour perception as being normal.

its the same situation with god  we cant prove nothing in regards to our claims that there is no god so why  should he a lifelong believer in god  believe what we believe when we are in the same position as him and can't actually prove anything. at least he got faith , what have we got

Michael
« Last Edit: 14/02/2006 03:14:36 by ukmicky »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #15 on: 14/02/2006 04:12:45 »
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky

Now go back a few hundred years to before Sir Thomas young and the modern theory of light so your in the same position as we are in now with trying to prove to a someone who passionately believes in god that god is fake with no science to back up our claims. Remember with no science to deal with colour you will have no idea how to create any tests to prove that a colourblind person is seeing things inaccurately, so how can you prove to him and expect him to accept your claims that his colour perception is not normal, as far as he is concerned your the one with screwed up vision and are mad because you you wont accept HIS colour perception as being normal.

its the same situation with god  we cant prove nothing in regards to our claims that there is no god so why  should he a lifelong believer in god  believe what we believe when we are in the same position as him and can't actually prove anything. at least he got faith , what have we got

Michael



There is nothing that I suggested that would technically be unavailable to the ancient Greeks.  The most that you could argue is that the ancient Greeks did not do statistical analysis.

As I said above, there is nothing in the test that assumes anything about the theory of light, or the physiology of perception; it merely makes the assumption that if someone cannot see a difference between two groups of things, they will not be able to group them consistently into correct groups, while if someone can see a difference, they will be able to group them correctly.

I did make it very clear that the test cannot say anything about the nature of what is seen, only that it proves that one group of people can see something that another group cannot see.  Thus, it proves that the group who claim to see colour differences can demonstrate that the view of the colour blind group is incomplete.

George.
« Last Edit: 14/02/2006 04:15:49 by another_someone »
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #16 on: 14/02/2006 14:55:36 »
'ere, Michael...
Read what I wrote again please... I said very clearly that where there's no evidence one way or the other (like whether a god or gods exist(s) ) then people should be allowed to get on with believing whatever makes them happy (or in the case of some, their prefered variation on miserable).
However, there are people who believe that the sun goes round the earth (don't get silly with me about reference frames, I know all that and it isn't what they're saying) and I don't hold with people who suggest that I should accept that belief to be as valid as mine that the maths comes out one hell of a lot easier if we put that aside and let ourselves get on with basing our calculations on the idea that to all intents and purposes the earth goes round the sun.

I think that's a nice, uncontroversial example.

To look at yours about colour blindness... I can distinguish between light which has a measurable wavelength of 450 nm and that which is at 600 nm (I picked the numbers out of the air, I don't know what the real ones are for colour blindness). Some people can't. That doesn't mean that the interaction of light with matter happens differently depending on who's looking at it. Equally, in the UV spectrum *everyone* needs a spectrophotometer to see what's being absorbed/emitted.
I was going to say it's a spurious example, but actually I think it makes my point rather well.

Our perceptions of what's true have damn all to do with what *is* true, and common sense doesn't come into it much. Some things are more-or-less measurable by the instruments nature/god has granted us (sights/sounds) some are measurable with the tools we've devised (most of chemistry, the genetic code) and some we can't get at (god/morality/beauty). The relativists should only be allowed to get their grubby paws on group 3.

I don't want to disprove God, I think he's an irrelevance. Either he's there and gave us this world to try to figure out, or he ain't and there's a world to figure out entirely by chance... it makes no difference to my life. I would quite like to discourage people from being unpleasant to each other on the grounds of who they are and who they go to bed with, and am consequently biased against organised religion as a whole, but that has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make above.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #17 on: 14/02/2006 16:45:44 »
quote:
Originally posted by rosy
I don't want to disprove God, I think he's an irrelevance. Either he's there and gave us this world to try to figure out, or he ain't and there's a world to figure out entirely by chance... it makes no difference to my life. I would quite like to discourage people from being unpleasant to each other on the grounds of who they are and who they go to bed with, and am consequently biased against organised religion as a whole, but that has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make above.



Firstly, in terms of science, you are totally correct, God is, and must remain, an irrelevance.  Demonstrating that He is an irrelevance is not the same as demonstrating that He does not exist.

In terms of philosophy, anything to do with knowledge, and human perception of knowledge, and matters pertaining to the human psyche, must be relevant.  The concept of God has a pertinence to the human psyche, and for many people, to human perceived knowledge; and thus asking questions about the nature of religion, and thus the nature of the concept of God is relevant.  The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference.

The arguments against organised religion have more to do with organised humanity than with religion.  Nationalism is no less dangerous that organised religion, and the vehement anti-religious perspective of mainstream communism is also no less dangerous.  Religion is merely one of many ways in which you can segregate people into 'us' and 'them', and it is not the religion itself that is dangerous, but the segregation.  Unfortunately, it is an innate part of human nature that we do like to feel we 'belong' to a group, which inherently requires that we distinguish between the group we belong to and those who are outside of that group.

George.
« Last Edit: 14/02/2006 16:52:52 by another_someone »
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #18 on: 15/02/2006 17:47:29 »
quote:
The arguments against organised religion have more to do with organised humanity than with religion. Nationalism is no less dangerous that organised religion, and the vehement anti-religious perspective of mainstream communism is also no less dangerous. Religion is merely one of many ways in which you can segregate people into 'us' and 'them', and it is not the religion itself that is dangerous, but the segregation. Unfortunately, it is an innate part of human nature that we do like to feel we 'belong' to a group, which inherently requires that we distinguish between the group we belong to and those who are outside of that group.

I'd suggest this is only partly true. I'll grant you the human tendancy to xenophobia, but would contend that where specific "outside" groups are designated, or perceived to be so, by a religion that it is more difficult to bring those people into the "inside" group if the communities are living side by side... bigotry is accompanied by a belief that it's righteous, rather than a set of unthinking assumptions which can (I would suggest) more readily be broken down in the face of real people who turn out to be much like the people on the "inside".

quote:
The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference.

Quite. See my first post in this thread.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #19 on: 15/02/2006 18:45:54 »

quote:
The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference


Roll on utopia.

Unfortunately there will never be an overall agreed format for the definition of ' god '.Such is the realm of human nature to get caught up in endless rows over semantics.

If a principal subject is so complicated, with variations in definition, with so many facets, and differing methods of interpretation, so convoluted in nature , with numerous overlapping opinions and meanings….how on earth can a stable model of such topic be ratified ?


Is it that for some people that ,it is crucial to sway us to their belief ? and for others, it is the actual debate itself, that is the crucial element.....I think it is our very nature to disagree (and agree)...I suppose that's part of sentience eh ?....but I reckon it's that nature of ours that will be responsible for our downfall, ultimately the cockroaches will inherit the Earth.

I know knowledge helps us to understand, and thatt understanding often leads to further questions and though we don’t know the true nature of the Universe and ‘ God’…I suppose the fact that we feel compelled to discuss these topics helps us to understand them , or maybe, to put it another way, it helps us to familiarise ourselves with the topic and so lead to clarity in the ability to discuss and debate.

The God thing I think generates so much debate that sometimes I feel that it’s all pointless, I mean, does anyone actually think that one day there will be a harmonious belief that we’ll all believe the same thing ?..I don’t……what I do hope is that one day there will be a harmonious belief that we’ll all just get along fine despite our differing beliefs, creeds and ethnicity and affiliations etc etc

Anyway...I seem to have digressed....getting back to my original point, how can there ever be an all encompassing agreement on a topic that is so complicated ?




Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #20 on: 16/02/2006 01:17:39 »
quote:
Originally posted by rosy

I'd suggest this is only partly true. I'll grant you the human tendancy to xenophobia, but would contend that where specific "outside" groups are designated, or perceived to be so, by a religion that it is more difficult to bring those people into the "inside" group if the communities are living side by side... bigotry is accompanied by a belief that it's righteous, rather than a set of unthinking assumptions which can (I would suggest) more readily be broken down in the face of real people who turn out to be much like the people on the "inside".




I would ask whether what you are talking about is religion or God?  There are religions that have no notion of God (Buddhism being one that comes to mind), and I would also suggest that communism itself has many of the properties of a religion, although they would be horrified to think of it so.

Unless you accept the tenets of moral relativism, then it becomes inevitable that you have to fall back on some kind of notion of a righteousness that makes your notion of right superior to someone else's notion of right.  Whether you attribute your notion of right as God given, or simply somehow 'self evident' or otherwise unarguable, by whatever mechanism, you have to either accept that there is no absolute right, or that a particular version of right that is superior is based on irrational bigotry.

Once you accept that your version of right is the superior right, then it follows that anyone who believes a different version of right must be inferior to you.
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #21 on: 16/02/2006 14:29:34 »
But what if some punk thought of a good fairy tale to write so he called it the Bible. Waht if people spent there intire lives worshiping a fairy tale if God is real we had better know and soon! Because the way this world is going we could all be killed in an up coming World War 3. IN 1902 when Mary supossedly appeared she predicted a devastting tsunami, Many earthquackes, and a World War 3. 2 of 3 of these evaents has happened. Whitch raises more questions than ansewers. Is God real? It is all a big mystery. I don't know how many Cathlics we have out there but at sometime or another you must have asked your self this question: Is God Real??? And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.

- Big T
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: God real or not
« Reply #22 on: 16/02/2006 18:34:03 »
quote:
I would ask whether what you are talking about is religion or God? There are religions that have no notion of God (Buddhism being one that comes to mind), and I would also suggest that communism itself has many of the properties of a religion, although they would be horrified to think of it so.

Religion. I don't know much about Buddhism, but religions in general proscribe certain activities (and I'll go back to the sexual morality example because it's the one that comes to mind) simply because they're "wrong". I'd agree with you that communism (in some of its manifestations) has some aspects of a "religion" too... and it's those aspects, both of religion and of communism that I find objectionable. I'm not saying that I like anything else in particular just because I'm suspicious of religions.

quote:
Unless you accept the tenets of moral relativism, then it becomes inevitable that you have to fall back on some kind of notion of a righteousness that makes your notion of right superior to someone else's notion of right. Whether you attribute your notion of right as God given, or simply somehow 'self evident' or otherwise unarguable, by whatever mechanism, you have to either accept that there is no absolute right, or that a particular version of right that is superior is based on irrational bigotry.

No. I disagree. If we accept that there is only one "truth" (whether or not any of the existing religions/non-religions have any kind of handle on what that is), then moralities based on writings purporting to be "divinely inspired" by the deity of a religion which doesn't correspond to that truth is of less value than one which is based on truth.
Since we can't know who, if anyone, has the right idea then we have to reach a pragmatic balance where *provided no harm is done to other people*, we're all allowed to get on with what we believe is right. The effects of this are quite close to those you'd get by taking a relativist view *but* is philosophically very different.

quote:
Once you accept that your version of right is the superior right, then it follows that anyone who believes a different version of right must be inferior to you.

No. That is exactly my problem with the whole thing. Religion requires belief without rational backup. A rational view says "this appears to be best so we'll run with it until we find something better". Essentially it's a case of approaching right as you would science.


quote:
And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.

I don't suppose you'll read this, Tony, but didn't you say you were a Christian? Isn't the not knowing pretty firmly entrenched in Christian doctrine? The need for Belief and all that?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #23 on: 16/02/2006 22:50:19 »
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789

And i will not come to this conversation again because obviusly no one to date really knows the answer.




Did you really expect that, after thousands of years of people asking this question, there would be a simple answer to it.  On the other hand, are you so lacking in curiosity to be satisfied with the easy questions?

George.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: God real or not
« Reply #24 on: 16/02/2006 23:27:12 »
quote:
Originally posted by rosy

Religion. I don't know much about Buddhism, but religions in general proscribe certain activities (and I'll go back to the sexual morality example because it's the one that comes to mind) simply because they're "wrong". I'd agree with you that communism (in some of its manifestations) has some aspects of a "religion" too... and it's those aspects, both of religion and of communism that I find objectionable. I'm not saying that I like anything else in particular just because I'm suspicious of religions.




But does that not happen whether formal religion is involved or not?

150 years ago, sodomy (of either gender) was illegal, but girls could legally marry at 14 years of age.  We may argue arbitrarily for one or the other, but aside from our own emotional prejudices, one cannot prove a utilitarian argument in favour of either state of affairs.  It is still the case that in many countries in the world, marriage at 12 is not illegal, and polygamy is also accepted – not something that is likely to happen in the near future in this country in this country, but the only argument against it is that it is 'wrong'.

Other issues that are debated in this country are issues regarding animal rights – again, there is no utilitarian test one can pursue to determine an independent notion of right and wrong in such questions.

quote:


No. I disagree. If we accept that there is only one "truth" (whether or not any of the existing religions/non-religions have any kind of handle on what that is), then moralities based on writings purporting to be "divinely inspired" by the deity of a religion which doesn't correspond to that truth is of less value than one which is based on truth.
Since we can't know who, if anyone, has the right idea then we have to reach a pragmatic balance where *provided no harm is done to other people*, we're all allowed to get on with what we believe is right. The effects of this are quite close to those you'd get by taking a relativist view *but* is philosophically very different.




But how do you judge harm, and is harm itself independent of social context.

We regard harm as primarily a physiological issue, whether it be harm to the body or measurable harm to the mind.  Many religious doctrines regard harm to the soul as greater than harm to the body or mind.  I am not saying they are right or wrong, but merely suggesting that there can be different perspectives on harm.  Even any discussion of measurable of mental harm is fraught with difficulty (to a lesser extent, this difficulty also extends to measuring physical harm).

One can make simple measurements, such as what might effect life expectancy, and often through lack of any better measure, that is what is used; but it is generally wholly inadequate for what most people would aspire to, and denies people the right to take action that might risk shortening their life.




quote:


No. That is exactly my problem with the whole thing. Religion requires belief without rational backup. A rational view says "this appears to be best so we'll run with it until we find something better". Essentially it's a case of approaching right as you would science.




So how do you, without falling back on any irrational judgements, disallow human slavery but yet allow the farming of animals, and allow the enforced education of children.

One can in both cases suggest that what is being done is in the interests of society, that assumes that whatever is good for society is right, and in different contexts, where the needs of society are different, the rights of these situations are different.  Thus we get back to moral relativism, and as such, we would have to accept that where slavery is in the interests of society, in such a society there is nothing wrong about slavery.
« Last Edit: 16/02/2006 23:27:58 by another_someone »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: God real or not
« Reply #24 on: 16/02/2006 23:27:12 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length