On natural phenomena

[Diagoras]

Inspired by this quote in the ‘Questions about the earth’ topic, posted in the Science and Religion forum by brunumb:

No phenomena previously attributed to a god has been resolved in favour of a god rather than natural phenomena.

I’m interested in debating this, as I consider the claim as it stands to be truthful. In support of the claim, however, I would like to stress the significance of the word ‘resolved’ as used above. Used as a verb, it is usually defined as ‘to come to a determination; to make up one's mind’, but I think it makes the statement clearer if ‘resolved’ is taken as meaning ‘to establish the truth’ (i.e. confirm, settle, prove).

Therefore, the scope of this debate topic must necessarily exclude unresolved natural phenomena, i.e. ‘things for which there is currently no single, accepted scientific explanation’. An obvious example would be the beginning of the universe: something which science would accept as being currently ‘unresolved’ (although not necessarily unresolvable in the future). On the other hand, the theory of plate tectonics is a ‘single, accepted scientific explanation’ of why we see similar fossil strata on separate coastlines, and find seashells on mountain tops.


So, rewritten slightly, the question for debate is:

“No observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.�

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 29 by DrNoGods]

DNG, I wonder how you would feel losing a sibling or a spouse or, God forbid, a child. The world would suck a great deal knowing that they are dead and you'll never see them again. Not so for religious people. For many, they believe they will see thwm again. It doesn't matter if their views are a delusion from your atheist perspective. That perspective is without hope and depressing on a good day. I think this should be obvious.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 29 by DrNoGods]

DNG, I wonder how you would feel losing a sibling or a spouse or, God forbid, a child. The world would suck a great deal knowing that they are dead and you'll never see them again. Not so for religious people. For many, they believe they will see thwm again. It doesn't matter if their views are a delusion from your athwist perspective. That perspective is without hope and depressing on a good day. I think this should be obvious.

Not so for religious people?

What if your child didn't believe in your God? And then your child dies? If you are a religious person you must then believe that your child went to hell.

How is that comforting?

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 30 by Divine Insight]

Which theism?

Any theism is better than a lack of theism where there is no afterlife.
Here is just one such story. Would an atheist advise the parents the merits of understanding the universe? Perhaps encourage them to have more kids? Maybe get a few puppies? Make no mistake. The philosophy of atheism is miserable for those parents. Don't sugar coat it.

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

People choose their religious faith. If someone chooses a religious faith where people suffer in the afterlife then it doesn't mean they generally are not living in hopelessness. Sometimes they are, but then they should change their faith. Or at least try to change their faith. That's the same thing I say to atheists. Try to change to theism.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 34 by harvey1]

All you are doing is making an emotional argument.

1. I can't handle the thought of my loved ones dying.
2. Believing that people never truly die is better than believing that they do.
3. Therefore everyone should become a theist.

Notice that this argument doesn't mention anything at all about what might actually be true. It's an entirely emotional argument that's basically arguing X is more attractive than Y so we should believe in X instead of Y.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

People choose their religious faith. If someone chooses a religious faith where people suffer in the afterlife then it doesn't mean they generally are not living in hopelessness. Sometimes they are, but then they should change their faith. Or at least try to change their faith. That's the same thing I say to atheists. Try to change to theism.

By the way, I agree with your reasoning on choosing a faith-based belief.

If I were going to choose a religion based on pure faith I would choose Wicca. Based on various versions of Wicca that I have learned about Wicca has become one of the most attractive religions I've ever seen. There's no threat of damnation for not believing. In fact, in Wicca there isn't even any need to believe that the Goddess exists. The Goddess of Wicca watches over everyone whether they believe in her or not. And she doesn't frown upon those who don't believe she exists.

My second choice would be one of the various forms of Buddhism. Probably Tantra Buddhism. Tanta Buddhism allows for the appreciation of the physical world. The idea is that since God created the physical world appreciating it is to appreciate the work of God. So there's nothing wrong with enjoying physical pleasures.

And I find the Abrahamic religions to be so repugnant that I wouldn't even put them on my lest as a last resort. I would rather chose to believe in pure secular materialism to be quite honest about it.

In some cases, simply ceasing to exist can actually be better than various other alternative. And of course, the Abrahamic religion fully recognize this. Surely even Abrahamic theists acknowledge that to simply cease to exist would be far better than being tortured for eternity in a hell fire.

And by the way, it's not just the hell fire that makes the Abraham religious repugnant to me. I wouldn't want to live for eternity under the rule of either Allah, or Yahweh. So even their heavens aren't attractive for me. I just don't see any attraction to those religions at all. I certainly see not attraction in a religion where a God had to be beaten and crucified on a pole for my sake. Where is there anything attractive about that?

So if I were going to become a believing theist I'd probably choose Wicca. In fact already do that now anyway, but I openly confess that I see it more as something I wish could be true rather that something that I actually believe is true. As many secular psychologists have pointed out, many of these theological traditions can actually have some psychological benefits even without being true.

Perhaps something like Christianity might do this for you. But I don't have a desire to be worshiping a beaten body on a cross for having supposedly taken my punishment for me. That just not a positive thing IMHO.

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 34 by harvey1]

All you are doing is making an emotional argument.

1. I can't handle the thought of my loved ones dying.
2. Believing that people never truly die is better than believing that they do.
3. Therefore everyone should become a theist.

Notice that this argument doesn't mention anything at all about what might actually be true. It's an entirely emotional argument that's basically arguing X is more attractive than Y so we should believe in X instead of Y.

DI, you're spot on. I would never use an emotional argument to argue for the truth of a belief. However, we have a moral obligation to our fellow buman beings including the next generation to pass on hope. That means doing everything humanly possible to be theists.

Regarding the last post, everyone needs to seek meaning that works for them, but like I said, it has to also be true. Christianity doesn't meet those needs for you, and we ought to respect that. Keep in mind that there are different interpretations of the Christian tradition, so not all are equal.

[otseng]

Moderator Intervention

Though the discussion on the afterlife and other side topics are interesting, they are not directly related to the OP. Please start other threads discussing these.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 31 by harvey1]

DNG, I wonder how you would feel losing a sibling or a spouse or, God forbid, a child.

At my age (61) I have lost family members (a younger sister, and both parents), as well as several friends. But I am under no illusion that I will see them again in an afterlife. I would welcome that prospect, but see no reason to believe that it is even remotely within the realm of possibility. It is just too far fetched and baseless.

The world would suck a great deal knowing that they are dead and you'll never see them again.

Not if you don't expect that fantasy in the first place. Then it is just a matter of accepting reality as it is.

Not so for religious people. For many, they believe they will see thwm again.

Yes, that is true. And I think my mother genuinely believed that she would see her husband and daughter again as she was lying on her death bed in hospice and this made it easier for her to accept her own fate (and, of course, I did nothing but support her beliefs during that time). But the question for me and other atheists I know is whether or not this fantasy is really true, and I'm convinced that it is not. There is just no support for it other than faith.

That perspective is without hope and depressing on a good day. I think this should be obvious.

Why? If someone really believes that humans have no afterlife, and that gods of any kind do not exist, then there is nothing to be depressed about. It is just accepting the reality that when your body dies that is the end of your existence in the universe ... the same as every other living thing that has ever existed. What's wrong with being in that group and giving up the idea that humans, of all the species that have ever existed, are somehow special?

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 39 by DrNoGods]

DNG, see the moderator intervention. Anyway, the point of bringing up an afterlife was not to discuss an afterlife but to clarify a moral obligation to make every effort to interpret the evidence for God in a charitable light. Then, it becomes possible to discuss the OP without dismissing it with cavils. In any case, we're not allowed to mix topics so it makes it difficult to discuss the OP.