h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"If there isn't a God, why are we so interested in talking about him?"

Do you really have to ask? Why do we talk about beliefs that rule our lives? Millions have died because they believed in the wrong god or even in the same god but didn't worship him/her/it in the right way.

alji

"Two thirds of scientists believe in God" and the numbers vary according to discipline." American scientists!

I do not believe in god because of what science or scientists say but because of what religion and the religous say.

Take for example the story of Job. If the story is true then god did not know that Job would keep his faith and herefore he is not all-knowing and by definition is not god. Also in allowing all the evil to happen to Job's family he is not a just god and by definition is not god.
If the story is not true then there is no point in believing.

I'm not sure about the logic in the last sentence. There's nothing to stop someone believing in god(s) yet thinking the story of Job is a pile of old rubbish.

Job is just one of many stories that show the Hebrew god in a bad light. If you want me to start with Adam and Eve so be it.

>>Why aren't we all just living quite happily without ever imagining such a thing as a god?<<BP

Maybe because human beings have self consciouness, and find it difficult to cope with the knowledge of their own mortality and the sense of meaninglessness that gives to existance. Something bigger than us contextualises us in the sense it gives 'meaning', such as we are doing 'God's work, and the idea of some kind of afterlife either as reincarnation or heaven/paradise.

I think a lot of people just can't handle the idea that you live for 3 score years and 10 and then disappear uterly into a void for internity. Just being a 'gene machine' a la Richard Dawkins is a bit scary for anyone to face, myself included, but I'd rather be true to what my intellect is telling me than believe in fairy stories.

A number of interesting points:

1) Anyone who has not already done so should buy / borrow / steal a copy of Douglas Adams' 'The Salmon of Doubt' and direct themselves immediately to his speech 'is there an artaficial god'. Adams (a devout atheist) suggests that while God does not in fact exist he may well be a valuable social 'concept' if you like, that we should maintain some sort of belief in anyway.

2) Re God knowing what Job was going to do: You might argue that God knows all that it is possible to know, but that somethings (such as the free will decisions of individals) it is not possible to know and therefore God cannot know it anyway. Did anyone follow that?

3) I can't remember what three is any more, but it was a very intelligent and thought provoking remark, believe you me.

Astro, I wasn't finding fault with your example. What I meant was that many believers in god(s) do so without believing that there is much fact in the Bible at all.

btw, re: the scientists and faith survey on the other page.
I think it is worth mentioning that this research was funded by the Templeton Foundation, check out the wiki article on them and their website. They do seem to come up a lot when looking into science/religion studies.

They seem to specialise in funding research that shows a convergance, or tie in, between science and faith.

Which is not to say the research is biased, of course. I haven't been able to find the paper to see if the results are statistically significant or not, what the margin of error was etc. etc.

Everything is biased. It's very unlikely that they actually rigged the results, but usually when people comission surveys it's to find an answer rather than to answer a question, if you see what I mean. Surveys are, frankly, dubious sources of valubale information as you can always pick holes in the sample chosen and place different interpretations on the same set of results, and especially if the question is, as this one is, one which does not significantly advance the understanding of anything at all but serves merely as a matter of academic interest and a slight hint that actually all sensible people believe in God.

I think it is perfectly possible to design surveys so that they conform to rigorous scientific statistical principles. But so many surveys do not. One has to sort the wheat from the chaff. Some people refer to surveys that are not worth the paper they are written on to back up their point, either accidently on on purpose. It can be a pain in the a***e sometimes trying to find out how worthwhile a survey is. Though if it's published in a well respected journal like eg Nature, New Scientist I suppose there's more chance of it having real meaning.

And the Templeton Foundation's own stated goal (from their website) of bringing the two closer together leads me to suspect the questions are of a leading nature...

Which brings me back to my point: why did they conduct the survey in the first place?

But I don't want to get bogged down in debating whether or not surveys are valuble sources of information. I am interested in how it is possible to combine a discipline that surely demands not only proof but rigorous examination and questioning of that proof, with a belief system that seems to me to require a leap of faith beyond what is physically and empirically provable? Any thoughts?

Well it depends on what you limit the definition of God(s) to - the 'classical' one; omnipotent, all-knowing &c, complete with manifestations - requiring of you sacrifice & devotion. Or a more 'humanistic' one; all living things having some 'spark' of godliness within...merely, though not 'mere' in the sense of being small - just simple, asking of one to respect life and to try to live well...

"I am interested in how it is possible to combine a discipline that surely demands not only proof but rigorous examination and questioning of that proof, with a belief system that seems to me to require a leap of faith beyond what is physically and empirically provable? Any thoughts?"

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Science tells you what the universe is made of and how it exists, religion tells you who made it and why it exists.

Yes johnny that's kind of what I believe in, (freddy). And for sure I know when I die the 'matter' of my body will feed back into the general system of matter again. I also like the idea that all matter, including that of my body, originated from some kind of 'bigbang' billions of years ago. But as for all this immortal soul stuff?......nah

>>I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Science tells you what the universe is made of and how it exists, religion tells you who made it and why it exists.<<BP

I disagree. Science is a discipline that requires experiments to be performed which produce a result. In order for the result of the experiment to be accorded meaning, it needs to be reproducible. Ie another scientist can perform the same experiment and get the same result.

Religion which is based on faith requires no such rigorous and rational system.

Did anyone pick up on Lord Winston having a bit of a go at Richard Dawkins? Was in the independant and I can only get the abstract. Anyone here got a sub?

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article1220658.ece

It's clear that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive in that many people ascribe to both sets of ideas. However, I would have to agree with Fanny in as much as they do approach the idea of 'proof' from rather different angles. God is not generally detectable by any technical or sensory means, nor is his / her prescence irfetuably observable by action or affects as is the case with, say, gravity or evolution. None of this is conclusive rebuttal, of course, but I find it hard to understand how someone could on the one hand be taught to require incontravertable and observable proof in order to accept any scientific principal and, on the other, read, say, the bible, and think 'I see, fair enough'.

I'm not mocking, you understand, but I am confused.

>>It's clear that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive in that many people ascribe to both sets of ideas<<

Science and religion as disciplines ARE mutually exclusive. People being people are able to subscriibe to both because in many ways human beings are 'mad'. Arthur Koestler wrote about this idea. His theory being that the uniquely enormous cerebral cortex of the homo sapien brain, which evolved very rapidly, relatively recently, and is the part which mostly deals with cognitive and rational thought, is not properly integrated with 'older' parts of the brain which deal with emotion.

A good as theory as any other I think to explain the contradictions and contortions of belief that humans are capable of.

...There is a fair amount of circular arguing going on here about wether God(s) exist, what form is taken & the abilities possessed. But what about humanity's *NEED* for a deity - and do the 'higher' animals have such a need too...? Do Apes &c have a god, or Whales and other cetacians? - Several species are aware of themselves and demonstrate some ability to 'empathise' (for want of a better word), and have some idea that death is the end...so why not their having a 'god' too ?

Not having read the paper Fanny mentions, I don't have a firm opinion, but it does seem a reasonable suggestion - given that our brains don't even finish growing and 'wiring' themselves until we are about 21 years of age...maybe this is where the need for deity comes from...?