created by God

24

Comments

  • The question was not about "claims" but how this guy reconciles faith and his science. The answer, unsurprisingly, is in his books.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    If you say that science is observational and empirical, then there seems to be no overlap between science and theism. There might be with religion, since some religions are not theistic (e.g., advaita).
    Yes, good point of course. Must look that one up.
    On the other hand, science isn't only observational. It also uses guesswork, for example, but then the guesses are tested. It speculates, and so on.
    Yes, and may well come up with some promising ideas for future progress but in the meantime, until the testing is possible, remains a speculation.
    No, I can't find an overlap. It doesn't matter, does it? Humans have different faculties. If I believe that Thor causes thunder, that is quite satisfying.
    Hmmmm, only up to the point where you hear about personal incredulity I think!

    Whose incredulity? That Thor creates thunder? I don't see the problem, really, since I am not making an empirical claim, but I suppose some religions do, e.g., that I am created. I suppose this is not not truth-apt, maybe, like Thor.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's impossible to win this argument, isn't it.

    You imply that those who say that there isn't a major problem aren't hard scientists. I show that this isn't the case, with an example - but you dispute his credentials. I then underline his acceptance by his astronomical colleagues and then you make some other comment on why he's bothered.

    It's almost like you have the answer that you want and are determined to explain or wave away information to the contrary.
    No, you're right in your first comment here - no complete agreement possible, but I find that the interest is in the points raised.
    I would find it most interesting to have a conversation with David Wilkinson in order to hear how he puts forward, or perhaps even justifies, his belief in something requiring 100% faith, but, as the NSS are often pointing out, what we need is a properly secular society, not one where faith beliefs are banned or anything like that.

    in the second sentence you think I imply that such a person as DW is not a 'hard' scientist. No, that is not what I imply.His qualifications are there and, as you say, are valued. What I would like to know is how the argument that, I assume, goes on in their heads about who, what and where is the god they believe in in the universe they study. Perhaps the question comes up, but then they put it aside, or ignore it.

    Maybe read one of his books on the subject.

    What does he claim?

    Why are you asking me?

    You said to read him.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's impossible to win this argument, isn't it.

    You imply that those who say that there isn't a major problem aren't hard scientists. I show that this isn't the case, with an example - but you dispute his credentials. I then underline his acceptance by his astronomical colleagues and then you make some other comment on why he's bothered.

    It's almost like you have the answer that you want and are determined to explain or wave away information to the contrary.
    No, you're right in your first comment here - no complete agreement possible, but I find that the interest is in the points raised.
    I would find it most interesting to have a conversation with David Wilkinson in order to hear how he puts forward, or perhaps even justifies, his belief in something requiring 100% faith, but, as the NSS are often pointing out, what we need is a properly secular society, not one where faith beliefs are banned or anything like that.

    in the second sentence you think I imply that such a person as DW is not a 'hard' scientist. No, that is not what I imply.His qualifications are there and, as you say, are valued. What I would like to know is how the argument that, I assume, goes on in their heads about who, what and where is the god they believe in in the universe they study. Perhaps the question comes up, but then they put it aside, or ignore it.

    Maybe read one of his books on the subject.

    What does he claim?

    Why are you asking me?

    You said to read him.

    So? You expect me to summarise someone else's experience in a post? No.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    In that case there's no point reading him.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    I don't think it is. I wonder if SD is saying that faith is dodgy, because it's not empirical, but then lots of things aren't, e.g., art.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    In that case there's no point reading him.

    Ooookay then.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Art is increasingly empirical. Like religion. Merely psychological.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    I don't think it is. I wonder if SD is saying that faith is dodgy, because it's not empirical, but then lots of things aren't, e.g., art.

    Susan's repeated assertion is that science and faith are incompatible. Plenty of people here have explained how they reconcile things, plenty of other people exist who have written extensively on this topic.

    Unfortunately none of these things are good enough and she continues making the same points over and over again.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps it's relevant exactly what is meant by "overlap."
    From my point of view, I think the simplest description would be that the scientific method requires one to start with an observation which can be independently observed and verified. In religious beliefs, that cannot be done, so there is no common area.

    Much of the science in this area is theory - it isn't observed or verified, nor is it empirical. People would like it to be, but it simply isn't. Sorry.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ….I thought perhaps the question in the OP had been asked with an open mind. I guess not.
    We're joking aren't we?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Art is increasingly empirical. Like religion. Merely psychological.

    Well, it's very subjective. I rave to people about Emin's "My Bed", and they think I'm mad, but I'm not, but it's not truth apt.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps it's relevant exactly what is meant by "overlap."
    From my point of view, I think the simplest description would be that the scientific method requires one to start with an observation which can be independently observed and verified. In religious beliefs, that cannot be done, so there is no common area.

    Much of the science in this area is theory - it isn't observed or verified, nor is it empirical. People would like it to be, but it simply isn't. Sorry.

    What do you mean by "this area"? There are highly theoretical areas, but they usually aim to be tested in some way. For example, the notion of dark energy should eventually permit predictions and observations, or it will be revised..
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps it's relevant exactly what is meant by "overlap."
    From my point of view, I think the simplest description would be that the scientific method requires one to start with an observation which can be independently observed and verified. In religious beliefs, that cannot be done, so there is no common area.

    Much of the science in this area is theory - it isn't observed or verified, nor is it empirical. People would like it to be, but it simply isn't. Sorry.

    What do you mean by "this area"? There are highly theoretical areas, but they usually aim to be tested in some way. For example, the notion of dark energy should eventually permit predictions and observations, or it will be revised..

    Exactly my point - they aim to be tested, but they haven't been and currently cannot be. It is claimed that they should permit observations, but it is only a claim. "This area" is Theoretical Physics - there's a clue in the title.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ….I thought perhaps the question in the OP had been asked with an open mind. I guess not.
    We're joking aren't we?
    I am by nature an optimist.

    I am also sometimes disappointed.

    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    I don't think it is. I wonder if SD is saying that faith is dodgy, because it's not empirical, but then lots of things aren't, e.g., art.

    Susan's repeated assertion is that science and faith are incompatible. Plenty of people here have explained how they reconcile things, plenty of other people exist who have written extensively on this topic.

    Unfortunately none of these things are good enough and she continues making the same points over and over again.
    Yep. And the remark that it’s easier for psychologists and psychiatrists than for those in the physical sciences to “suspend their disbelief”—not to reconcile things, but to ignore the foundational disbelief that they as scientists surely must have—is just another demonstration of it.

    That’s the closed mind to which I referred. There seems to be firm rejection of the possibility that any “real” scientist could sincerely hold religious beliefs and reconcile them with scientific understanding.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited February 9
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Art is increasingly empirical. Like religion. Merely psychological.

    Well, it's very subjective. I rave to people about Emin's "My Bed", and they think I'm mad, but I'm not, but it's not truth apt.

    I believe the subjective is wired ahead of experience, like morality. I love modern art too. Rothko is the ultimate. Inspired by the master Monet of course. He makes me weep more than any other. Turner. Sisley.

    Ancient neurology at work. Fish chatter and hear with their whole bodies. So music moves us.

    Art, religion, morality are long, long life stories.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ….I thought perhaps the question in the OP had been asked with an open mind. I guess not.
    We're joking aren't we?
    I am by nature an optimist.

    I am also sometimes disappointed.

    That's the thing about being a pessimist - at least you are usually right!

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Art is increasingly empirical. Like religion. Merely psychological.

    Well, it's very subjective. I rave to people about Emin's "My Bed", and they think I'm mad, but I'm not, but it's not truth apt.

    I believe the subjective is wired ahead of experience, like morality. I love modern art too. Rothko is the ultimate. Inspired by the master Monet of course. He makes me weep more than any other. Turner. Sisley.

    Ancient neurology at work. Fish chatter and hear with their whole bodies. So music moves us.

    Art, religion, morality are long, long life stories.

    Modern art makes me weep too - but for different reasons.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Art is increasingly empirical. Like religion. Merely psychological.

    Well, it's very subjective. I rave to people about Emin's "My Bed", and they think I'm mad, but I'm not, but it's not truth apt.

    I believe the subjective is wired ahead of experience, like morality. I love modern art too. Rothko is the ultimate. Inspired by the master Monet of course. He makes me weep more than any other. Turner. Sisley.

    Ancient neurology at work. Fish chatter and hear with their whole bodies. So music moves us.

    Art, religion, morality are long, long life stories.

    Modern art makes me weep too - but for different reasons.

    : ) you can't help your wiring.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    I don't think it is. I wonder if SD is saying that faith is dodgy, because it's not empirical, but then lots of things aren't, e.g., art.
    I think that, as far as I'm concerned, the difference in the meaning of the idea of overlap between other subjects is that none of the others relies on faith alone. History happened; there often are varying versions of particular events but generally speaking no-one thinks that history is entirely a fictional story, and in any case, even if they did, the effect on all the people in the worlld of such a misunderstanding is negligible. Art exists; and although each aspect of it can be differently appreciated by each person who observes it, no-one needs faith alone to accept it.

    The world of empirical science has taken a path which tries at all [points to eliminate bias and faith, especially where eliable knowledge is required and where human safety is important. Much of the physics of the universe does not affect us directly but it is good to know that whatever the current state of knowledge, someone can always come along and improve it.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    I don't think it is. I wonder if SD is saying that faith is dodgy, because it's not empirical, but then lots of things aren't, e.g., art.

    Susan's repeated assertion is that science and faith are incompatible. Plenty of people here have explained how they reconcile things, plenty of other people exist who have written extensively on this topic.
    No, I do not say they are incompatible exactly - since there are very evidently people who deal with both in their personal lives, but I do think there is not one belief which requires 100% faith which can be observed in science. And new or varing versions of things said already are always interesting to read and learn from.

    And, yes, I have much enjoyed the many discussions I have been involved in on all sorts of aspects of theology.
    Unfortunately none of these things are good enough and she continues making the same points over and over again.
    That is slightly unfair! I wrote the OP here and it might have been a DH topic, and am finding it interesting thanks to the responses.

  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps it's relevant exactly what is meant by "overlap."
    From my point of view, I think the simplest description would be that the scientific method requires one to start with an observation which can be independently observed and verified. In religious beliefs, that cannot be done, so there is no common area.

    Much of the science in this area is theory - it isn't observed or verified, nor is it empirical. People would like it to be, but it simply isn't. Sorry.

    What do you mean by "this area"? There are highly theoretical areas, but they usually aim to be tested in some way. For example, the notion of dark energy should eventually permit predictions and observations, or it will be revised..

    Exactly my point - they aim to be tested, but they haven't been and currently cannot be. It is claimed that they should permit observations, but it is only a claim. "This area" is Theoretical Physics - there's a clue in the title.
    but no-one, especially the scientists involved, expects them to be accepted on 100% faith.

  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps it's relevant exactly what is meant by "overlap."
    From my point of view, I think the simplest description would be that the scientific method requires one to start with an observation which can be independently observed and verified. In religious beliefs, that cannot be done, so there is no common area.

    Much of the science in this area is theory - it isn't observed or verified, nor is it empirical. People would like it to be, but it simply isn't. Sorry.

    What do you mean by "this area"? There are highly theoretical areas, but they usually aim to be tested in some way. For example, the notion of dark energy should eventually permit predictions and observations, or it will be revised..

    Exactly my point - they aim to be tested, but they haven't been and currently cannot be. It is claimed that they should permit observations, but it is only a claim. "This area" is Theoretical Physics - there's a clue in the title.

    I don't really get your drift. Scientific method relies on observation, repeat observations, hypotheses, predictions, and so on. For example, when quasars were first seen, there was lots of head-scratching, how could something be so distant, yet so bright? However, after extreme red shifts were detected, it started to make more sense.

    All of this relies on theoretical physics, of course. I don't see the problem.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ….I thought perhaps the question in the OP had been asked with an open mind. I guess not.
    We're joking aren't we?
    I am by nature an optimist.
    well, that's one thing we most certainly have in common - I'man incurable optimist!
    I am also sometimes disappointed.
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    I don't think it is. I wonder if SD is saying that faith is dodgy, because it's not empirical, but then lots of things aren't, e.g., art.

    Susan's repeated assertion is that science and faith are incompatible. Plenty of people here have explained how they reconcile things, plenty of other people exist who have written extensively on this topic.

    Unfortunately none of these things are good enough and she continues making the same points over and over again.
    Yep. And the remark that it’s easier for psychologists and psychiatrists than for those in the physical sciences to “suspend their disbelief”—not to reconcile things, but to ignore the foundational disbelief that they as scientists surely must have—is just another demonstration of it.
    I will go back and check in a minute, but I think the word easier was used as a suggestion, not a strong statement.
    That’s the closed mind to which I referred. There seems to be firm rejection of the possibility that any “real” scientist could sincerely hold religious beliefs and reconcile them with scientific understanding.
    I am sorry that you think I have a closed mind. If that were so, I would not always be so interested in reading and joining in discussions. I can only assure you, and anyone else who thinks similarly, that I do not ever reject without consideration, or reject finally and unalterably, and even then I would not use the word reject, and I'll keep looking out for more reliable truths.

  • I don't get what reconciliation means. If a physicist holds religious views, why is there a problem? They are different areas of experience.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    I will go back and check in a minute, but I think the word easier was used as a suggestion, not a strong statement.
    That misses my point completely. My problem was and is with your use of “suspend their disbelief.”

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    Sorry I'm late with my ruling here. I'm recovering rather slowly from an illness. This is a DH thread and I will be asking Admin to move it.

    On going comments about SusanDoris's posting patterns are probably best handled in the Hell thread.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory and Dead Horses Host
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ickzackerly.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I will go back and check in a minute, but I think the word easier was used as a suggestion, not a strong statement.
    That misses my point completely. My problem was and is with your use of “suspend their disbelief.”

    Although that is a standard term, first developed by Coleridge, to describe narratives that involve something non-real, e.g., theatre. It's not necessarily pejorative.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    We reconcile the irreconcilable all the time. Don't make it rational.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I will go back and check in a minute, but I think the word easier was used as a suggestion, not a strong statement.
    That misses my point completely. My problem was and is with your use of “suspend their disbelief.”

    Although that is a standard term, first developed by Coleridge, to describe narratives that involve something non-real, e.g., theatre. It's not necessarily pejorative.
    Of course it is a standard term that is not necessarily perjorative. Use of that standard term in the context where it was used in this thread, however, conveys an underlying assumption, I think.

    I’ll leave it there in light of the hostly admonition.

  • Nick Tamen
    I have checked and my word 'easier' was definitely qualified and was not in any way a strong pronouncement.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I don't get what reconciliation means. If a physicist holds religious views, why is there a problem? They are different areas of experience.

    Sorry, my 'Ickzackerly' was to this.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I will go back and check in a minute, but I think the word easier was used as a suggestion, not a strong statement.
    That misses my point completely. My problem was and is with your use of “suspend their disbelief.”
    Okay - I had no way of knowing this since the voice reads all equally. Was it emphasised or
    something?

    When a scientist is working on a project, or testing a hypothesis or something, I think you will agree that it is important to avoid allowing bias or other personal opinions to get in the way of the work. Since most physicists working in the physics of the universe know that there is no objective evidence for faith beliefs, then if he or she has such a faith belief, then that must be suspended while the work is going on.

    Ah, and I've just noticed this seems to be in DH now!
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Sorry I'm late with my ruling here. I'm recovering rather slowly from an illness. This is a DH thread and I will be asking Admin to move it.

    On going comments about SusanDoris's posting patterns are probably best handled in the Hell thread.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory and Dead Horses Host
    I'd rather the thread was closed/!!

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It's alive and kicking! It's just the subject that's a dead horse.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    I don't think it is. I wonder if SD is saying that faith is dodgy, because it's not empirical, but then lots of things aren't, e.g., art.

    Susan's repeated assertion is that science and faith are incompatible. Plenty of people here have explained how they reconcile things, plenty of other people exist who have written extensively on this topic.
    No, I do not say they are incompatible exactly - since there are very evidently people who deal with both in their personal lives, but I do think there is not one belief which requires 100% faith which can be observed in science.

    Whoever said there was? Since what you ask for here is a logical contradiction, you're not likely to find it.
  • I would be highly worried about a scientist who believed 100% in science. Part of being a good scientist is knowing the limitations and problems of current scientific knowledge
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Susan Doris: when it is believed that God did the creating of us
    The kind of begs the question,’What IS us’ SD. If as your record here suggests, you think we are merely creatures of what Hemingway termed the biological trap, then you have your answer already and it is a waste of time to engage with your query.

    If we are more than the products of biology, higher order mammals, then your question behind your question is, ‘what evidence does anyone have of that?’ You have and continue to reject all such evidence proffered though and yet continue to ask the frustrating question.

    This seems to be because you somehow expect a justification of belief in terms of empirical evidence. Such evidence can only point you into areas you reject because you do not have experience of it. You may consider that neither does anyone else. CS Lewis was a converted atheist and so was Malcolm Muggeridge. However, what turned them from scepticism was nothing to do with their intellect. If that is the only dimension you bring to the table then you must continue to beat your head against a category error. Faith does not come through reason.

    In fact Paul says it comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God in the book of Romans. I think that another scriptural clue to your query is found in the prophet Zechariah 12:1.

    It is God...who created everything...’and forms the SPIRIT of man within him’
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    ….I thought perhaps the question in the OP had been asked with an open mind. I guess not.
    We're joking aren't we?
    I am by nature an optimist.

    I am also sometimes disappointed.

    That's the thing about being a pessimist - at least you are usually right!

    That's a scientific fact. In that it's healthier.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    The question was not about "claims" but how this guy reconciles faith and his science. The answer, unsurprisingly, is in his books.

    Not an answer that answers.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    I would be highly worried about a scientist who believed 100% in science. Part of being a good scientist is knowing the limitations and problems of current scientific knowledge

    What % of anything else should they believe in?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    What do people mean when you that there's no overlap between physics and theology? Is there any overlap between physics and history (in the same sense)? Is that a problem for history? If so, why is it a problem? If it's not a problem for history, then why should it be a problem for theology?

    Well yeah. History is predicated on physics.
  • I put the OP in a tentative, non-confrontational way so that I would not be treading on toes and because I was, as always, interested in reading the views of others in this forum.

    MPaul
    Yes, the 'us' referred to the human species, but I never think of us as *merely* anything, since that would be to immediately under-value who we are. However, we are, of course, very complex creatures with the most sophisticated brains and language so the more we can learn and understand about ourselves and others, the better a place the world will be.

    I don't think I have anything to add here and appreciate the comments and points that have been made.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited February 10
    I don’t think there is a ‘when’.

    God is the creative force behind everything imo. Without God there wouldn’t be anything.

    God was before the beginning, the impetus for the Big Bang and the force behind the need for life to grow and evolve. The sustainer of all things. This God has many names in 1000 religions. The religions themselves reflect people’s weak attempts to explain the ‘why’s’ of life. They are usually taken over - one way or another - by exploitative men. But they are not wrong at core - a belief that there must be a God, that there must be more to life than just atoms randomly getting on with it.

    How do I know? I don’t. But I can’t find any other reason for everything to be.

    I believe God is good. Or rather I hope God is good. But, if She isn’t good, She’s certainly amazing.

    (Jesus called out and challenged a set of these exploitative men, which is a good reason to admire and follow him)
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Or you could see God as a necessary human construct - the necessity reflected in the universality of gods.

    The outworking of that idea is that God is created when humankind needs the purpose in life, the codification of morality, a direction in which to steer (thy Kingdom come), a way to praise the wonder of their world, a focus for the creative spirit. The problem is always when God is made in punitive form or ossified in earlier forms.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Or you could see God as a necessary human construct - the necessity reflected in the universality of gods.

    The outworking of that idea is that God is created when humankind needs the purpose in life, the codification of morality, a direction in which to steer (thy Kingdom come), a way to praise the wonder of their world, a focus for the creative spirit. The problem is always when God is made in punitive form or ossified in earlier forms.

    Yep - either way works for me.

    What doesn’t work is a void, a nothingness.

    But, like you say - that’s a human need. I find atheists replace it with something else to give meaning to life. For my son it’s care for the environment. A perfectly valid stance imo.
  • Before posting the following, drafted on a document, I have read and re-read a few times and hope I have avoided any of the afore-mentioned treading on of toes.

    Boogie an Curiosity killed

    Thank you for most interesting and, as always, thoughtful posts.
    Boogie, ;may I ask – and please ignore the question if you’d rather – what you think it is that stops you short of accepting a don’t know rather than a God answer?

    CK – Yes, I agree that the phrase, a ‘necessary human construct’, sums up exactly what it is; and, as mr cheesy mentioned earlier on, it is probably all to do with the narrative, which, as I understand it and which satisfies me personally, must have been an important survival trait.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    I don’t think there is a ‘when’.

    God is the creative force behind everything imo. Without God there wouldn’t be anything.

    God was before the beginning, the impetus for the Big Bang and the force behind the need for life to grow and evolve. The sustainer of all things. This God has many names in 1000 religions. The religions themselves reflect people’s weak attempts to explain the ‘why’s’ of life. They are usually taken over - one way or another - by exploitative men. But they are not wrong at core - a belief that there must be a God, that there must be more to life than just atoms randomly getting on with it.

    How do I know? I don’t. But I can’t find any other reason for everything to be.

    I believe God is good. Or rather I hope God is good. But, if She isn’t good, She’s certainly amazing.

    (Jesus called out and challenged a set of these exploitative men, which is a good reason to admire and follow him)

    There was no beginning.
Sign In or Register to comment.