Is there a God?

[Brendan]

I think what Narnia was asking with this thread was more a question about the nature of god/s, why they seem to be pretty universal across cultures and what the relationship to the human psyche is.

Approaching it from a point of view of faith in Jesus, Prince Phillip, Woden or the Spaghetti Monster can?t answer that. Apart from the fact that it is addressing a question that wasn?t asked all that you are doing is asserting that you have an ?answer? that has been told to you by someone else. You need a lot more than, "It's true because it says so here." to make a convincing argument about something.

As for the descent into the nonsensical (in this context) debate on science and religion, is it remiss of me to call everyone idiots? Seriously, your taking ideas that all of us had thought through backwards and inside-out by the age of 8 when we first started to wonder about all this god and church stuff then just putting them into grownup words.

[Brendan]

please excuse me. I have a headache this morning and am therefore being a dick.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I have a theory Brendan. You are not posting enough. Blanket-bomb the Forum and we won't notice the dodgy ones.

[surely Fatherhood is not that demanding? What are wives for?]

[Brendan]

The demands of fatherhood are a privilage that holds uncountable pleasures. Unfortunately I?m also currently doing 2 jobs because of the ?current financial climate? and a law degree in my spare time. So I?ve had to put arguing about theology, politics, existentialism etc. on here to the side for now to focus on filling out memos for finance or pouring over text books that smell slightly of baby sick.

The Ashes is (or should that be are) starting soon though.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Well I suppose that's a reasonable excuse.

Can't wait for The Ashes. Sri Lanka seem to be softening them up nicely.

And in order to not subvert this thread, if there is a God/god - do you think a burnt offering appropriate?

[Brendan]

I?m pretty sure that regardless of their existence the gods are supporting England.

However to ensure that the god of the Israelites is placated and ?on side? as it were perhaps we should take the precedent from Genesis 4 vs 3-5.

According we shall chucketh 2 pots upon the bonfire which cometh this Friday. The contents of one being of Bovril and of the other being of Vegetablemite. And the Lords shall have regard for the meaty goodness but shall not have regard for the vegetable and the producers of the vegetable pot shall be downcast.

Yea verily.

'n shit.

[shell_8]

I don't know who said this, but one of my favourite quotes is:

"Going to war over religion is basically killing one another to see who's got the better imaginary friend."

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[silverfox]

It was Richard Jeni, the American comedian and actor.

A lapsed catholic, unfortunately he had mental problems, schitzophrenia, and committed suicide by shooting himself in the face. Just thought I'd mention that to put the idea of imaginary friends into perspective.

[shell_8]

*Wow*

[ManOfTheCloth]

Hello all,

I?ve been reading a variety of the posts although I have to say not all posts within this debate as it is vast. I would like to join the debate because, hopefully, I have something to offer and because I care about you all even though I don?t know any of you personally.

I?m sure I have missed many valid points but the here are a few of the points I have noticed that appear to be stumbling blocks for many people.

The question of suffering ? be it David Attenborough?s parasitic worm or whatever other form of suffering within the world. This is perhaps the biggest stumbling block for belief for many, that is, ?why would a benevolent omnipotent, omniscient being create a world in which there is so much suffering when he could eradicate it all or better still, not create or permit it to be created in the first instance, by duty of the fact of his all powerful, all knowing nature?. It appears to defy logic. Or does it? Let?s try and imagine a world without suffering, at first it seems like Utopia but in order for there to be no suffering, there first needs to be perfect love. I would argue that love is brought about by suffering, that God permits suffering in order to bring about love. We need to choose love, to choose using our free will, if it was forced or automatic it wouldn?t be love, it would be robotic. Think about it. A baby is born crying, such that its mother cares for it, feeds it, cuddles it, nurtures it. If the baby was born self sufficient, there would be no need for this love and affection and the bond of love would never grow, a bond of love that one has to acknowledge as being extremely strong, perhaps the strongest we encounter day to day. I would argue that this is the reason for all forms of suffering. In order that the greatest of our human emotions is stirred up within us, when we see suffering, we relate to it, not on an intellectual scale but within our souls, it affects us. Occasionally it affects us so much that we feel the need to alleviate it in another, where we cannot, this affects us in another way very deeply. Out of these feelings we learn to love, if we are the sufferer, we learn to be loved and to accept love. I believe that is the reason for our existence, to learn to love and to be loved, paradoxically perhaps, suffering is one way in which God brings this about.

The debate of science and religion ? absolute poppycock, there is no debate within or between Science and the major Christian Institution, that is the Catholic church. I am totally bemused by this argument and am continually surprised to find that people believe me to be a Creationist (in the American Evangelical way of the word), that because I am a Christian, I must somehow deny the Big bang Theory or Evolution. Well I don?t. I believe the best explanation we have for the how the world came to be is found in the Big Bang Theory. The fact that a catholic Priest, George Lemaitre, pioneered this theory only adds to the absurdity that many aggressive, fundamentalist, dogmatic atheists, such as Dawkins, seek to infect people with. Evolution also sits perfectly well within my belief system, it is perfectly feasible to accept that God started off the process of Evolution and that he knew exactly what he was doing when he started it but there are certain forces at work out there who are trying to make you believe that the two do not go together, well they do, in fact, extremely well. Science complements religion as religion complements science, they are not opposed. If you are interested in further research into evolution from a spiritual aspect, have a look at Francis S Collins? ?The Language of God, A Scientist presents evidence for belief?. Francis Collins led the human genome project in the US and was the guy stood next to Clinton when he announced to the world that they had mapped the human genome. It is extremely well written and addresses many of the age old philosophical questions that are being presented as new in some of today?s ?Humanist? circles.

The other point I'd like to comment on at this time is the belief by some of you that the bible is some old book that seeks to stop us from enjoying ourselves or having fun. If you actually read the Gospels, you will quickly come to realise that this is false. Christ enjoyed himself, there are many accounts of him eating with people, enjoying weddings and living life to the full. Take the wedding at Cana, the guests had finished all the wine! Everyone was having a good time, Christ didn?t berate the guests for being merry. He instead performed a miracle to allow them more to drink, substantially more in fact. 6 stone jars each holding 20-30 gallons, we are told. That is the equivalent of 700 litres or approximately 1000 bottles of wine, that does not sound like a Killjoy to me. The eternal torture to which some of you feel you are threatened with is, in my opinion, an eternity without God. If we choose to live without God, without love, then we do it to ourselves, it is not God that punishes. You punish yourself by your own choices. That is what the bible warns against. God loves us and cares for us, He wants the best for us. He knows what is best for us but all too often we think we can go it alone, that we know better. That is pride and was Satan?s downfall. Listen to your soul and that?s where you will find God, he is there in all of us, waiting to be listened to. So, is there a living God, a God that interacts with the world? Emphatically yes and he is living inside and interacting with every one of us. God Bless.

PS Well done Narnia, God is certainly working through you!

[Narnia]

Dear ManOfTheCloth, I am at a loss for words. I would rather God worked on me than through me. However I don't wish to be pedantic given your uplifting post. People may not agree with you and neither might I, but there is no harm, and possibly a good deal of good to be had, in telling people there is something to live for!

The only problem I have with 'God' is that he is now defined by religions. The proof of his/hers/it's existence is life. Are we a fluke? Why is the earth so beautiful? Why can we appreciate beauty? What is it in us that allows us to do that? Why do we love? Who invented 'love'? There is no actual need for it to exist in this life, but it happens.

Finally, why do you say God is working through me? This is a big thread and like you I haven't read everything. Why me?

I'm not a Saint am I?

PS joking about the saint bit

[silverfox]

Welcome to the debate ManOfTheCloth.

As it's late I'd just like to pick you up on one point. You stated:

"The debate of science and religion ? absolute poppycock, there is no debate within or between Science and the major Christian Institution, that is the Catholic church..."

I beg to differ. Allow me to ignore institutional religion, dogma and tradition and just concentrate on the idea of what God v science means.

The concept of 'God', ie monotheistic, in many religions, is of a supernatural God, who has always existed and will do for eternity, who created everything, seen and unseen. As such, God is supernatural, ie above natural laws, not part of nature as such.

You say you have no problem with reconciling evolution and the theory of the Big Bang with the notion of the existence of God. I agree. However, science, which seeks to reveal and explain how nature works, causal links, the physical laws behind the creation of the universe, how and why life exists, is by it's very definition opposed to the notion of supernatural existence and events. Given time, science expects to explain all known existence in terms of physical and/or chemical laws.

In this very important sense, science and religion are opposed. Science cannot conceive of the supernatural whereas a God can shape natural laws to suit His will.

Strikes me as a bit of a problem here.

[Narnia]

Silverfox

Science may be able to explain 'how' life exists. It can't possibly explain 'why' it exists though.

[Tarot]

When a pregnant woman, has what is called "the quickening". around three to four months is when the babys heart etc starts to beat. Thats what we were told by my old Irish midwife grannie. Many pregnant women faint around this time too. Gran said it was life breathed into the baby from God.

[mockney piers]

Welcome to the debate man of cloth.

Intereting post but i have to say I find it uncompelling.

For starters i don't buy the 'there can be no suffering without perfect love' line which rather makes the rest of the argument fall flat. Other organisms progenise and leave the offspring to their fate.

But you talk of love between mother and child, so then we are talking about humankind i guess. That all of creation, all the suffering in the world is for the benefit of us is an anthropocentric step too far for me, I can't believe that it's all about us, I thought we'd stopped believing the universe revolved around the earth, let alone mankind, a mere evolutionary tick in the greater scheme of things.

Of the other stuff, I'm no fan of Dawkins either but you do misrepresent him. In his programme and book he talks to Catholics and Anglicans alike with interest about how they do accept scientific explanations and theories such as the big bang and evolution as the best explanations. But I recall the representatives of both institutions saw them as the mechanisms by which God effected creation, complete with all the physical laws the He put in place. So both are shaped by divine providence.

How that stance and creationism differs is merely a matter of degrees surely, the evangelicals coopt scientific language in a bid to undermine it whereas the catholic/anglican axis is more subtle accepting sciences observations but drawing divine inspiration from it.

Dawkins didn't deny that the church thinks like that he merely pointed out that it wasn't scientific reasoning behind their conclusions and pointed out that physical laws are suspended for the miracles in the gospels.

And for the final point, that wine gets the nod from on high, well, I'll drink to that ;)

[mockney piers]

In fact thinking about it, isn't just as easy to argue that suffering is actually the purpose of existence as entropy is built into the very fabric of existence.

Could love then be man's very mundane way of transcending his desperate lot, a human coping mechanism if you will?

Actually thinking about it didn't quite a few heresies consider this plane of existence quite literally hell? And catharism (not strictly speaking a heresy at all) believed something on those lines, that the physical world was evil and only the spiritual could be pure?

[ManOfTheCloth]

Narnia,

I referred to God working through you by the fact of you having started this thread, that you are searching and that you see so much beauty in the world are the beginnings of the search of which I believe we are created for. I hope I didn't offend you, I know it perhaps can be a scary thought but it should be comforting and reassuring also. I might add that (and I realise you were joking!) that I don?t consider you a saint as I don?t know enough about you but that is a possibility for you, for all of us!

Mockney, Science and Theology are not the same thing and you are correct in your assertions that as Science deals with nature, it can never prove the existence of something outside of nature, it can point to order in the universe and so forth and it can point to things that amaze by the intricacy of their design and thus lead us to conceive that a Divine being, a grand designer if you like, was at work. The argument from design is an old argument, you may have heard it referred to as ?The Divine Watchmaker? argument and this is true that this cannot prove the existence of a Divine Being. Further recent works by geneticists such as Francis Collins only add weight to the argument as a whole. I would encourage anyone who is searching to read his book, especially if science is your bag. It is an argument I find compelling if not sufficient enough to stand on its own, it certainly enhances my faith.

So when I say that there is no science v religion debate, I maintain there is none. As I said, science complements religion or theology if you like, in much the same way that Philosophy is the handmaid of Theology. Science cannot contradict faith, it can enhance it and help to rationalise it. Ultimately though, as Silverfox points out, science can never answer the ?Why anything instead of nothing at all? question. Aquinas of course, discussed this question in his ?5 ways? centuries ago.

I accept it was late when you wrote but I do struggle to understand how you can describe love as a mundane concept, love cannot be explained other than in something greater than us, that being the Divine, God. You are correct in talking about the Dualism of body and soul, the belief that all physical things are evil and only the spirit is good and yes, these are considered heresies and certainly not what mainstream Catholicism or I would purport to.

Thanks all for the welcome!

[Huguenot]

Head rolling, Ecstasy, worshipping the divine, rock concerts, football matches, running of the bulls.

Only one of them seems to involve a surfeit of moral righteousness, self regard and incorrigible desire to foist it onto others.

It's not even as if 'God' whoever she may be can tell us 'why we are here', she's just a neat platitude to side step the discussion and leave us free to pursue our inherent narcisism with a sense of self satisfaction.

Whoops! I say 'she', but haven't five archbishops just resigned at the very thought that women are allowed to, you know, share the joy? Seems it's not all about 'love' at all....

[mockney piers]

I meant mundane from mundus or worldy to differentiate it from something supernatural. You say that love can only be explained as a facet of the divine, but that's not really an explanation at all is it, it's an opinion and an expression of faith.

If im to be cheeky for a moment i could ask if love is the presence of god within us then why can people suddenly be incapable of love after frontal lobe damage in a collision, are you saying that the divine atually physically lodges in a certain part of the brain, does God then have an actual physical presence in the mundane realm?

Anyhow I'm playing devils advocate a little. I agree that science and religion arent incompatible, i don't see why one should try to deny the other, but i do think they are chalk and cheese. To describe them as incompatible is like saying needlework and history are incompatible, they're not they're just different subjects.

I'm all for faith, i think it's great, but isn't faith quite literally that, doesn't it demean faith to try and find explanations?

Likewise i think it's wrong of scientific rationalism to undermine faith, it shouldn't be it's business and that's why I don't like Dawkin's attitude, but tend to agree with him that when faith denies scientific progress it is self defeating and can be dangerous and needs to be addressed.

Back to love it just seems to me to be begging the question when we consider suffering to be a component of love in the same way that shadows only exist because of light. It's too neat and feels like it's coming from the wrong direction, a conclusion to prove the hypothesis rather than a hypothesis to find the truth. If I'd been born in the 14th century I'm pretty sure I'd have found one of those heresies a more compelling explanation because the logic makes sense, (ie that it's the suffering that is the point, a view that Yahweh seemed to subscribe to before he became a)the only god and b)a loving one) though knowing how the church treated heretics it probably wouldn't have been a very healthy stance to take ;)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Just for MP:

http://www.tapestry-kits.com/bayeux_tapestry.jpg

[mockney piers]

Long live the king?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Aye, aye!

[Brendan]

My problem with the whole Science/Religion thing is that they are completely different things.

Religion is an institutionalised world view based on belief.

Belief plays no part in science.

Science is the normal faculty of critical reasoning that every human posses (and displays when they do magical things like pour the tea from their cup into their mouth instead of into their ear) formulated into a formal discipline to make it easier to share learning and tackle more complex problems.

You don?t believe in science. It just is.

[Narnia]

ManOfTheCloth, whatever you saw in my posts that led you to conclude the above, you may well agree that it is no more than a position in life that one was born with, which makes me just the same as everyone else. What happens subsequently is that we lose it for one reason or another. Some forget they ever had it and others try to recover it. Think of babies. smelly nappies, crying for no apparent reason (but maybe an unapparent one) and generally taking up your time when you could be watching the football or pruning your roses. We still love them as they have what we want. The ability to give unconditional love to you and the local tramp. No judgement. We like that, though maybe we know not why. In fact as a silly parent we might even think it's something to do with us. It isn't.

[sedgewick]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My problem with the whole Science/Religion thing

> is that they are completely different things.

>

> Religion is an institutionalised world view based

> on belief.

>

> Belief plays no part in science.

>

> Science is the normal faculty of critical

> reasoning that every human posses (and displays

> when they do magical things like pour the tea from

> their cup into their mouth instead of into their

> ear) formulated into a formal discipline to make

> it easier to share learning and tackle more

> complex problems.

>

> You don?t believe in science. It just is.

Aren't scientific theories and hypotheses a belief? as they are theories and not statements of facts.

What a ridiculous comment.

Scientists and philosophers once believed this stuff to be correct.

?Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.

?Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.

?Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.

?The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.

?Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.

?Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)

?Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.

?Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).

So belief does/has played a part in science.

I wikied that little lot.