About God and Skepticism:

I'm really conflicted. On the one hand I'm a skeptic of everything. I have trust issues on both sides of the God debate.

I am skeptical of the scientific community as well as the religious community. Neither can prove or disprove the existence of God, which is not what this topic is about anyway.

For myself, I have no choice but to believe in a primary cause for the universe but I don't know what that is. My only definition for "God" would be that primary cause, whatever it is. I don't know if I could call it "intelligent" at its beginning any more than I could call a fetus intelligent.

But I have a hunch that it is probably aware. By aware, I mean that in the beginning it had to have possessed potentiality for awareness. (Now I sound like Depak Chopra )

It may be difficult to argue that because of what actually exists currently in the universe, which is all kinds of living creatures with awareness. So that potentiality has indeed emerged from the ooze of primary cause to intelligent human life that is self aware.

That in itself is amazing and miraculous. Or else it is by design. Whatever you call it, it does indeed prove that the primary cause did have potentiality for intelligent awareness.

Because here we are.

Not at all. If you could think objectively about the posts I've made, you would see that I'm trying to help you see the blind spot in your own beliefs. It's unfortunate that you are so hostile to the idea of religion that even a gentle correction from a Christian is responded to with hostility.

Jeanniebean,

The Bible tells us to be skeptical, to question our beliefs. I have never suggested that religion should be looked at unskeptically.

My point is being missed, because Bushidobillyclub and others feel the compelling need to assign ulterior motives to my posts and try to read between the lines.

Science is supposed to be about looking for answers. The moment a scientist takes anything off the table, science has been compromised. It's okay for you or me to say "Pink unicorns didn't create the universe", but a scientist has to keep an open mind and follow the data where it leads. The moment the scientist says "pink unicorns don't exist", they are exhibiting a closed mindedness that could inhibit their scientific investigation. By simply stating that God doesn't exist, that closes avenues of investigation that should remain open.

Science, from what I know of it, cannot disprove nor prove the existence, or lack thereof, of God.

Some 'facts' (used loosely, in this environment) can help the belief that God exists, while others dispute it.

The weakest link, and IMO, the cause for most non-believers, lies i n the Bible itself. I think if the Bible was more solidified in its facts, didn't contradict itself, and wasn't, in fact, written by man; there wouldn't be a debate, one way or the other.

Christianity relies solely on faith; without it, what do they have?

If science destroys that faith, that still wouldn't disprove the existence of God, only in the aspect of how we 'consider' him to exist.I mean, who's to say that the Big Bang isn't right. However, at the same time, who's to say that it wasn't God himself that caused the Big Bang to begin with. (Theoretically speaking of course)

That's why I don't bother arguing that fact; because it is a fact that, regardless of what science 'discovers' it can never truly annihilate the possibility that a 'God' or a 'pink unicorn' created the universe.

If you are religious and only use the Bible as your defense, 'Well God says this', 'Paul said that', 'Peter proclaimed this'; you are going to be looked at like a fool by a person who believes the Bible itself to be a crock.

That's why I'm skeptical of both sides (science and faith that is), because one, in my mind, will never be able to prove the other wrong entirely. There are just far too many possibilities that would take beyond our lifetimes to negate them all.

I mean, for all we know, God did exist and maybe he, himself, died. *looks around making sure he doesn't get struck by lightning* That's why not everyone 'feels' his presence. Maybe God gave up on meddling on humanity's affairs and just waits for us in the end.

Maybe we were just created by coincidence. We just happen to be just far away from the sun and just close enough to have a rare occurrence take place which set the chains in motion for existence to come to be. Maybe the aliens we believe exist are actually just our ancestors living in a far away galaxy and they sent us here in order to try and preserve our lifeline and existence.

Christianity, like most if not all religions, are built on the concept of faith. If you lack it, you won't believe; period. It's not something that you can be convinced of, if you don't want it. It's not something that can be forced on you, because you'll want it less.

Sometimes, I wish I had faith myself, because I don't know what I believe in, but I do feel slightly envious at times of the religious people; at least they believe in something. Whether right, or wrong, it's not my place to say (obviously).

I honestly don't want science to disprove the existence of God, even though I don't believe in it myself, because if they did; what would become of us? At least people have an 'idea', whether wrong, vague, right, or clear; of what awaits us in the afterlife; but if that is shattered... then what becomes of us? A whole new wave of hysteria will erupt (maybe exaggerating) and Rome might just be torn apart from the inside, because it's what their entire country is built on; faith.

So, when it comes to religion, I myself, as skeptical, but only because the Bible has made me that way. I'm not like others that 'see him in everything' and I don't 'feel his presence'; but if one day I discover I was wrong about His existence, I can assure you, it will be one thing I was happy as s*** to be wrong about.

Just saying...

I’ve just read this entire thread, many pages worth of comic strip quality communication. After all those words what it boils down to are the quotes below. Oh wait, there was one other, a comment by Bushido which I can’t seem to find again so I’ll paraphrase. It was about the hard work that gaining knowledge takes and the humbling effect that occurs when one realizes how much there is to learn versus how little one knows. (I may have taken some liberty in that paraphrase because the idea was one I have often had myself.)




Nicely put and I also like:



I'm taking a moment to write some thoughts about this whole exercise.

There seems to be a kind of duality or maybe it’s a duplicity that exists within most people which causes us to search for commonality with others while declaring at the same time the uncommon experiences that have provided our own unique knowledge of the world. How do we find commonality from the different experiences that yield such unique knowledge of the world?

Interestingly, just as philosophical communcation has provided its own language including, strawmen, red herring, ad hominem, off-hand justification, and logical fallacies, so too science has created a precise way of viewing the world and communicating those observations with its own jargons.

Obviously some enjoy throwing about the language of philosophical debate. Most likely that knowledge took a little work and probably some embarrassing experiences that preceded the work. But the lesson was not carried far enough if there has been no effort in trying to gain knowledge of scientific communication as well.

Ethical communication requires effort, flexibility, and feeling humbled by all there is to learn versus how little one knows.

When a declaritive statement is made like - "pink unicorns exist" - there is nothing to be skeptical about. What makes you think that any and every statement requires skepticism?

And if one is not skeptical of your statement how does that make him biased against what you've said?

What do you suppose would be required in order to make a scientist interested enough in your 'hypothesis' to entertain the idea of a scientific investigation?

I don't mean to confuse you by asking three question in one post so feel free to answer each one in separate posts if you need to. They are:

1.What makes you think that any and every statement requires skepticism?

2. And if one is not skeptical of your statement how does that make him biased against what you've said?

3. What do you suppose would be required in order to make a scientist interested enough in your 'hypothesis' to entertain the idea of a scientific investigation?



Sorry, I know how much you hate editing but I just wanted to add the following:

The questions I've posed just might give some people a little more insight into how science works.

A scientist would never make the statement "Pink unicorns don't exist" unless someone who can't prove it tells him that they do exist. Even then, they would probably say, "I know of no evidence of the existence of unicorns, pink or otherwise."

There is enough things for a scientist to study and learn about on the "scientist's table" that are "real" and can be seen and touched and verified without having to put unreal, unseen or unproven things on the table. That would be a very cluttered table.

My attitude is to just let the scientists do what it is that they do. Their work is specialized to material things. They have no business poking around in the paranormal stuff anyway. They know nothing about it and don't really want to know. They are concerned with their own material world and they are convinced that is all that exists. Frankly I don't care.

I believe there is something more. It is an unfolded order of things that can't be seen or called "material." It is all mind stuff, but just a different kind of mind stuff. They will call me "uneducated" and "ignorant" I will call them "unenlightened."

But it is all science and technology. "Magic" is also just science and technology.

Getting back to the O.P.

I think the song and video is unenlightened, and condescending. But I'm sure skeptics and materialists will love it. It will make them feel so much superior to most people.

Sure, and the specific things mentioned are pretty funny!

My only problem is it is repetitive.

It's only condescending to those who relegate the sceientific view related to 'direct observation'to a religious status.

I'm not sure how the video would appeal to materialists more so than to others. Would you like to expand that idea?

Also at odds in your statement is the 'unenlightened'. If enlightment is shed light on knowledge, then there is no one whose individual knowledge spans the exetent of the universe.

So the video should appeal to any person who hold any kind of knowledge. Sorry, I can't make any more sense of your statement than all of this.

I edited just to editing.

Seriously? Of course there is, skepticism applies to assertions.



Can you show me where I said that?



Can you please clarify what definition for "skeptical" you are using? Your post has been very confusing so far.



I'm not a mind reader, hypothetical or otherwise.



I've never said that.



By skeptical, do you mean open-minded?



Once again, I am not a mind reader and I don't see any point in conjecturing about why a hypothetical scientist would be interested in my hypothetical hypothesis.



I find this comment both ignorant and condescending.

My problem with editing is when it's done AFTER the post has been responded to. Probably a half dozen times in this thread, I would respond to Bushidobillyclub and then discover that he had edited his post, often making a large number of changes.

This is either the No True Scottman fallacy or a claim to specific knowledge. Either way, I don't feel that this statement can be accepted.

Oh, you scamp you!

I thought the song and video was just dumb. It carries the premise that "common sense" outweighs facts. On Mingle and in the real world I have heard many use that argument about many topics of which they knew next to nothing.

Quantum physics defies common sense. So does many scientific subjects for any of a wide variety of reasons.

It defies common sense that someone thinks they know more (with no education) on a topic than someone who is highly educated on a topic.

I will def have to listen to it again, I def didn't take away any analysis on common sense vs science. It really is just a stupid song. (supposed to be light and humorous, but the topic is much deeper isn't it?)

I think the real analysis for skepticism has already taken place in this thread. You just have to dodge a lot of BS to get to it.

The intro to the song...

"I’m always amazed that some people believe
things that defy common sense
How do they accept the bizarre and the odd
for which there is no evidence

Sure, some people say that it’s harmless
And I wish I could just let it go...
But it’s not what we know that makes trouble
It’s what we know - that just isn’t so."

I think that is just there to rhyme. The evidence part is what matters to me at least . . . hehe.

The song itself isn't all that exciting. Even if the topic is quite interesting.

Ha Ha! You are being skeptical instead of believing what is before you eyes!

We have to **evaluate** what is before our eyes. That's all skepticism is. A pause to allow us to evaluate. Not assuming that what we saw the last 25 times is the same thing we are seeing now. Not assuming that what someone else tells us is the truth about what we are seeing. sing facts as a touchstone, and always looking for more facts that might help us come to reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPejT6-pAwY&lc=9rlVqpqbonfftchr8QtFYeU2W5U1PpG-di4d2EfVbjg&context=G231acc7FAAAAAAAAKAA&feature=g-all-c
Here is an example of a person who is skeptical that HIV causes AIDS. They believe many other things as well.

This illustrates how cherry picking data, confirmation bias, and sloppy reasoning lead a man to the wrong conclusion and a combination of faith/bias keeps it strong.