Non Overlapping Magisteria

[Astrid]

It many ways it has proven to be self-defeating. Among the top reasons why people de-convert are evangelical war on evolution and their antiquated stance on sexual orientation.

The regressive aspects of the religion don't sell
well in China or to educated/intelligent people anywhere.

 

[Astrid]

Well the topic being on Goulds ideas related to separation of majesteria I think makes sense in this regard in that we might not expect religion to be a scientific pursuit. You don't need scientific evidence to have faith. And also, faith can ultimately be in something that is true, even if it is not known via science.

God could hypothetically exist, even if you don't have a laboratory experiment demonstrating God's existence. Some people just think that belief without scientific proof is irrational and some people think that belief without scientific proof can still be in true beliefs and therefore can be rational.


And some people don't like believing in things if they don't have scientific evidence. And that's fine if they take that position. Other people are comfortable believing (albeit usually in unclear ways due to a lack of evidence) in a greater purpose, rather than believing in a purpose of "none". And who is really right, may never be known to us, at least not here on earth. But it just is what it is.

Gould or no Gould you are replying to my post.

Forget about " science" and "proof".
There is no proof for either science or God,
and I wasn't talking science.
And never mind what "some people" think or don't think

I personally find a need to have SOME reason for
any belief, and the supposed virtue of blind faith
doesn't cut it.
There is no evidence for God outside of anyone's head.

Such evidence related to "god(s)" as I know of ranges from
Zero to strong negative value.
No evidence whatever of some "purpose".*

If believing anyway is not "irrational" we may have a different
understanding of the word.

* you do know the sun is ever so slowly getting hotter?
Eventually the oceans will be boiled away, long before the
sun expands to engulf the earth.

The place to create purpose is here and now plus
short term future.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are some concepts that science just cannot touch on. Purpose and meaning. Why is there something rather than nothing. Why is matter self-aware in our case, rather than us all having the sentience of a rock? Why is our sentience experienced as beauty and awe? Rather than perhaps nothing or no experience at all?

These are some of core questions that drive religion. Questions of identity and purpose.

And likewise there are questions that religion cannot answer because it doesn't implement any particular methods for investigating the natural world.

In this sense, I think that Goulds ideas make sense.

We have reasonable explanations for most of those things, including purpose and meaning. Not necessarily fully detailed, but reasonable hypotheses.

 

[Phred]

We have reasonable explanations for most of those things, including purpose and meaning. Not necessarily fully detailed, but reasonable hypotheses.

Most things have evidence to back them up. There isn't a single reasonable hypothesis that provides a rational explanation for the existence of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

We have reasonable explanations for most of those things, including purpose and meaning. Not necessarily fully detailed, but reasonable hypotheses.

Someone earlier mentioned a purpose for life being "none". I can't imagine you're referring to this. I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.

 

[durangodawood]

....I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.

Whats your answer to that? (Sorry if you posted it earlier).

 

[AV1611VET]

Most things have evidence to back them up. There isn't a single reasonable hypothesis that provides a rational explanation for the existence of God.

And what would constitute acceptable evidence?

What if He shouted from the sky?

John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

What if He showed up and physically reigned on the earth for a thousand years?

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

If you think physical evidence is going to change your mind, you're playing with fire -- literally.

 

[Job 33:6]

Whats your answer to that? (Sorry if you posted it earlier).

God has created us.

 

[durangodawood]

God has created us.

That just kicks the question up a level. God is something too.

 

[Job 33:6]

That just kicks the question up a level. God is something too.

Religions are faith based belief systems. It's fine if you don't like the answer or feel that it doesn't satisfy your curiosity.

But that is the religious answer. We exist because we were created to exist, to worship, love, give etc.

God of course is considered to be eternal.

 

[durangodawood]

Religions are faith based belief systems. It's fine if you don't like the answer or feel that it doesn't satisfy your curiosity.

But that is the religious answer. We exist because we were created to exist, to worship, love, give etc.

God of course is considered to be eternal.

I dont like that answer because its not even a response to the actual question.

The question you presented was: why do you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists?

Could you answer that one?

 

[Frank Robert]

I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.

According to some Cosmologists, like Lawrence Krauss, "nothing is not what we though it was."

 

[Job 33:6]

I dont like that answer because its not even a response to the actual question.

The question you presented was: why do you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists?

Could you answer that one?

With respect to the physical universe, we exist because we were created. God is eternal, there is no answer for why God exists, He simply is.

Or I guess it's fair to say that perhaps such a question would be answered in heaven.

 

[durangodawood]

With respect to the physical universe, we exist because we were created. God is eternal, there is no answer for why God exists, He simply is.

I see. No answer. I dont have one either from a naturalistic pov. There is something. It might be eternal. End of story.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see. No answer. I dont have one either from a naturalistic pov. There is something. It might be eternal. End of story.

Like I said, you don't have to believe the religious answer. You don't have to have faith in God that has an answer.

 

[Job 33:6]

Like I said, you don't have to believe the religious answer. You don't have to have faith in God that has an answer.

A lot of questions we have, in religion, we trust that all will be settled, all questions, all struggles, all challenges, will be leveled in the hereafter.

And the book of Job is the best example of this. A discussion of man's inability to comprehend answers that only God has.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Someone earlier mentioned a purpose for life being "none". I can't imagine you're referring to this. I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.

Correct, I'm not referring to a purpose for life, I'm referring to an explanation for purpose itself; what it means and why we use it.

To me there is no 'why?' for existence, it's just brute fact - you might just as well ask yourself why God exists rather than no God. It's really an incoherent question, like asking what the fundamental stuff of the universe is made of - it just is what it is - it's not made of anything else, it's what everything else is made of.

If you keep asking 'why?' you inevitably reach a point of brute fact, whether it's existence or God. I'm comfortable with stopping while there is still evidence for existence.

 

[durangodawood]

Like I said, you don't have to believe the religious answer. You don't have to have faith in God that has an answer.

For sure. I guess my main point is that your question doesnt really reveal a difference between believers and non-believers. "Something just is" unites them.

 

[Job 33:6]

For sure. I guess my main point is that your question doesnt really reveal a difference between believers and non-believers. "Something just is" unites them.

The difference is in my post above.

 

[durangodawood]

The difference is in my post above.

Seems more of a similarity there. Both believers and non-believers are not equipped to answer the question.

I guess you add that someone else (God) may have the answer. But in this forum, only humans (and perhaps a couple AI's) are here to answer.