This is the only part I have trouble with and why I'm a deist rather than an atheist. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, along with the Big Bang theory, seem to put science on the side of the universe having a beginning. I see no reason why we couldn't consider whatever force(s) that led to this beginning a deity or deities. I'm not arguing for the Judeo Christian god, I'm just stating that whatever happened that led to the universe coming into existence doesn't seem to have an explanation in our current scientific model. Yes, I realize this is the old argument of the "watchmaker god", but what other alternative explanation is their? I don't think any serious scientists hold to the belief that the universe has always existed. And other than semantic preference, is their a reason not to label the cause of the universe's creation god?
Again I am not giving this force any other attributes or arguing that a particular religion is the correct one. I'm only arguing that some creative force which (as far as I can tell) no longer exists within the universe led to the universe's creation. How is labeling that force god any different than labeling the force that attracts any two bodies with mass gravity, or labeleling the force that attracts negatively and positively charged particles electromagnetism?
Do people argue that Gravity wants us to deny gay people the right to marry, or Electromagnetism has declared abortion a sin?
Until this happens God occupies a different place in our society than scientific discoveries.
There may be some disagreement among scientists about the nature of the Big Bang and whether the universe was “created”.
Because it is redundant and superfluous: the natural behavior of nothing is to, on its own, become something. The deity becomes little more than a spectator.
convinced? 
Right. That’s the difference between science and faith; not the lack of beliefs.
I don’t give a lot of credence to religious arguments because most of them seem like fairy tales at best, but I do give credence to philosophical ones. The very nature of our consciousness makes me think there must be more to existence than what we see. Who is the me that resides in my rain and looks out through my eyes and sees the world? Who is this essence that was given a name and taught a language and assumed an identity that another quite the same as the real actual me behind it all and experiencing this life through my body? And why does this consciousness seem to transcend this life and this body, and seem to have an understanding that is much greater than the limited organism that is me? I think these are some of the questions religion attempts to answer, but usually answers in a very simplistic way, the way a parent invents a story for a child to help explain and simplify the universe. Most adults can probably see through these pedantic explanations and are thirsting for more mature discussions of our existence. Some religions can handle this level of discussion, while others have a hard time letting go of the parent-child nature of the relationship. In any event, I think for many people what they are is looking for is philosophy more so than religion.
It doesn’t. Why do you believe that your consciousness transcends your life and your body? Why believe your “organism” is “limited” to such an extent that you would not understand something without outside-your-consciousness help? You discount your own abilities.
If you understand something, you understand it, even if you didn’t understand it a second or years before. You have broken through no limits inherent in your person.
Buying into the notion that only a religion or a philosophy (or hallucinogenic illusion) brings or brought understanding, not your own capabilities, is fed by a belief that they are inferior, incapable. This enriches only witch-doctor stakeholders and impoverishes education.
A friend of mine has an interesting view: she accepts the parts of the Bible that “ennoble God,” and throws out the parts that don’t. Moses parts the Red Sea: okay, that’s good. But when Elisha sends two bears to come and kill all the children who mocked him…that’s just a parable, and shouldn’t be taken literally. It would make God into a nasty guy.
Well, at least it is systematic!
There is no evidence that your consciousness transcends your body.
If someone opens your skull they could damage a portion of your brain that controls sight. You’d not only not be able to see, you’d lose the visual aspect to your memories. They could cut the halves of your brain apart, and make you unable to speak about what one eye saw, that the other didn’t.
We can deconstruct (not always on purpose, sometimes due to accident or whatnot), ability by ability, everything that makes your consciousness. Your ability to feel emotion, your ability to smell, your ability to walk, to feel physical sensation,* to think*! Why would you assume that when you die, and your brain is destroyed completely by rotting, your consciousness would snap back to full function? We see the opposite, the more that is clawed away from your brain, the less of you remains.
Seeming, isn’t evidence. I, too, feel a sense of awe and majesty when I walk into a great Cathedral, or see the Grand Canyon. It might seem that that feeling is the presence of the divine, but much more likely, it’s my mind going, “Woah, this expands the previous limits of our experience.”
Except that it does add something that a quilting club does not: a transpersonal experience, a transcendent connection to something bigger than oneself. As a poster upthread suggested, religion has more in common with sports fandom: membership in a community of devotion. (Although the difference between being religious and being a Browns fan is that religion is supposed to bring comfort…)
Seems to me that your friends are satisfying some other, non-rational need in their practice of their religions. Their faiths perhaps offer subjective truths, truths that work for them. The Clergy Project, a support group for clergy who’ve lost their faith, is showing us how many even among the clergy don’t accept the objective existence of God. I imagine that there are thousands of people who couldn’t defend their faiths, yet remain religious. Hell, there are even out-and-out atheists who are loyal church-goers; they’re called “most of the Unitarian Universalist Association”.
I imagine that when you think of religious people, you think of those who firmly believe in the objective truth of their beliefs, like evangelical Christians and Salafist Muslims. And they’re the ones, yes, whose beliefs cause problems. But they are only a proportion of the whole body of religious people. They’re just the ones who make noise.
By the way, I think it was Samuel Johnson who gave the book review you quoted.
It’s difficult to have a reasonable discussion when one side can invoke magic.
You seem to be taking with one hand and giving back with another.
So religion is not like a quilting club…it’s more like a sports club? Okay…
And if the Browns had a decent QB, the “comfort” issue might be resolved also…
And they’re all deriving “non-religious” benefits from their religion, i.e., non-theological benefits. God doesn’t have to exist for them to get these benefits.
Put another way, members of “false” religions get the same benefits as the members of true ones. A Christian would be hard put to deny that Hindus and Buddhists derive the exact same spiritual benefits from their practice of faith that a Christian does.
The “believing” is beneficial, not the truth of the belief.
It isn’t so much the degree of their belief that causes problems (although it does tend to cut off the possibility of communication.) My friends who “speak with Jesus” don’t really have problems, per se. They’re happy.
(Problems pop up when the religion tells people to do awful things, like go out and shoot doctors.)
I’m just saying that the objective benefits that some people get from faith don’t seem to have anything to do with the truth of the terms of that faith.
(It’s like the atheist who has a horseshoe over his door, for luck. “But you don’t believe in that.” “True. But I’ve been told it brings good luck, whether you believe in it or not.”)
Like the annoying noises caused by flying airliners into buildings and blowing up bombs on city streets and in buses.
Or the little noises of the classroom prayer being recited, which any student has the right not to listen to…by standing up in front of the whole class and leaving the classroom until the prayer is over(ostracism, anybody?). This happened while I was in school in Idaho.
So would being a fan of the WWF.
If everyone finally realized that no gods exist, this need would be redirected to other things and people. They don’t call intense devotion to a celebrity idol worship for nothing. The big difference is that when one’s god screws them over, people tend to make excuses, but most people face reality when Tiger Woods is caught with his pants down or Sammy Sosa is caught doping. That’s probably a good thing.
I can concede that there is much about the universe we don’t understand. Possibly even the existence of some higher force or intelligence that we can’t detect and acts in ways we cannot understand. However, I am unwilling to accept the existence of things that would contradict what we are able to actually observe about the Universe.
IOW, you might be able to convince me there is a God. You can’t convince me he created the world 5000 years ago.
I disagree that problems only arise when religions tell people to do awful things. I think that if more people stopped “leaving it all up to God”, maybe they’d be able to take more responsibility for their behavior and be more proactive about adressing their problems. There’s a fine line between stoicism and passiveness.
I also think about all the money wasted on religion. How many poor grandmothers are turning 10% of their SS income over to the Joel Osteen’s of the world, when they could be using that money on prescription pills and Lean Cuisines. Maybe people would be more willing to make a little more in taxes if Pastor wasn’t sucking them dry them every Sunday morning . If we had a more secure social safety net, there wouldn’t be such a demand for faith-based charities.
monstro: You do have some good points…but think about the money, effort, time, and resources we waste, just on sports. Stadiums and racetracks, stock cars, golf courses (huge waste of water!) the whole Olympics thing, etc. Look at the injuries and even deaths caused by sports.
We’re humans, a really goofy species. We like to waste our resources! I don’t have any respect for religion, but the fact that it’s a waste of time is really low on my list of gripes.
(Why are we wasting our time griping here on the SDMB when we should be writing best-selling novels, or selling insurance, or doing something really and truly productive? 'Cause it’s FUN!)
I am definitely a fan of the World Wildlife Fund.
When those who “just talk” are in a position of authority they can do damage.
Yes. Absolutely. That is how rational, intelligent people can be religious. As you quite felicitiously put it, the practice of the religion conveys the benefit, rather than the object of it. There is no rational argument for the existence of God. But that’s not really the point. (And again, I’m fairly certain God is a myth.)
As for the Browns, 20 starting quarterbacks in 16 seasons. And only one with a winning record. Don’t tell me an atheist can’t experience spiritual suffering…