The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Harris wrote:
“Nothingness is not ontological at all, since that would reintroduce it as a subsidiary of being; rather, it is a principle that belongs to self-awareness. It is not a being or state of being or even the absence of them; it is a transcendence of the perspective of being that is meant to forfeit none of the possibility of being found in Being. Give a try to originate something out of nothingness by the use of any philosophical or scientific system of rules of conduct.”
I don't grasp what it is that your saying here, perhaps you could put it in more straight-forward terms? I don't think that its possible for a person to create something from nothingness, as there necessarily needs to be circumstances (or a state) that something is created from. I don't know whether this condition extends universally, as in "something cannot be created or caused by nothing," but that is intuitive.
Whether you take nothingness as a concept, something, or nothing nothingness outlines a limit beyond which mind simply fails to imagine anything.
I'm not sure if I follow you here? Are you saying that science isn't capable of defining phenomenal experiences? Are phenomenal experiences what you would refer to as intangible phenomenon?
Yes, I have written exactly that, “Science is incapable of defining phenomenal experiences.”
Harris wrote
“All mathematical objects, virtual processes, and black holes are indiscernible phenomenon.”
But aren't these phenomenon discernible by their efficacy? How would you argue that God is discernible (in any way)? I mean, there must be a discernible aspect you "perceive" to God which causes you to believe in his existence?
Harris wrote
“In my opinion, only logic is the key to the true understanding of God.”
Such logic as?
And true understanding such as?
“The six feet of the DNA coiled inside every one of our bodies 100 trillion cells contain a four-letter chemical that spells out precise assembly instructions for all proteins from which our bodies are made … No hypothesis come even close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means.”
Lee Strobel
Former legal editor of Chicago Tribune
“A code system is always a result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasised that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a code. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter.”
Pages (64, 67, 79, and 107)
“In The Beginning Was Information,”
Dr. Werner Gritt, information specialist
Harris Wrote:
“To believe in the existence of God based on logical evidences or not to believe (Human free will and free choice) only has a meaning until God is hidden from human physical senses.”
I don't understand what you're saying here?
Your choice to believe in the existence of God or to reject the idea of God is valid until you do not have means to perceive God through your physical senses. Disclosure of God to your physical senses would defeat the purpose of your Free Will that you use to reject the existence of God.
Just because an idea, such as 'god', is inevitable does not make it true. The initial argument in this topic was that the 'god' idea is an innate one therefore somehow true. 'Innate' is a slippery term particularly if applied as a truism. It's meanings can be inborn, inbred, instinctive, intuitive, unlearned and untaught (just a few of the many meanings). Already with these ones I have listed there are obvious contradictions given that we learn intuitions and instincts. As for 'inborn' and 'inbred' I seriously doubt a fetus or new born could be successfully interviewed on the subject of the 'god' idea.
One of my responses was:
“Spider web is an engineering marvel, which shows the finest mathematical precision. Likewise, bees and termites are also proud on their engineering masterpieces. All the same, the knowledge that spider, bees, and termites use behind their engineering skills is not an acquired knowledge.
However, complex innate knowledge like Idea of God reveal only with the understanding of the world. Idea of God does not need any introduction as “we are born (or created) with the idea of God” and I have already given few good reasons on why idea of God cannot be a construct, which was developed by empirical thinkers.”
I quote Leibniz again:
“This fits in with my principles, for nothing naturally enters our mind from outside; and it is a bad habit of ours to think of our soul as receiving messenger species, or as if it had doors and windows. We have all these forms in our mind and indeed always have had; because the mind always expresses all its future thoughts, and is already thinking confusedly of everything it will ever think clearly. We could not be taught something unless we already had the idea of it in our mind, the idea being like the matter out of which the thought is formed.”
Section 26.
Discourse on Metaphysics, (1686)
trans. G. Montgomery, La Salle
Granth wrote:Here is the experiment then. Raise a new born in a culture-less environment and where no language is expressed while feeding him nutritional food only and then see what this non-learning existence will leave him with after some decades .
This is second experiment. We are not done yet with the first one you proposed in these words,
As for 'inborn' and 'inbred' I seriously doubt a fetus or new born could be successfully interviewed on the subject of the 'god' idea.
Have you done that? What is the result?
Perhaps you should use your imagination. It may make more sense to just call my 2nd statement #1 experiment. It should then become obvious. It should matter not which order ideas arrive in. Maybe you could explain how my 'innate nature' informs me that there is no god as prescribed in the dominant religions. It should be obvious, yet again, that such a god is a construct of particular cultural attitude and is communicated to the very young of such cultures so that the young's neural pathways align to accept such notions.
-- Updated December 31st, 2015, 8:22 pm to add the following --
It is also quite probable that a religious person has such religious 'innateness', presenting itself as a genetic predisposition, hot wired in their forming brains as a consequence of a particular hereditary trait which acts to effect the imagination only in particular ways which make other ways of imagining impossible.
Granth wrote:Perhaps you should use your imagination.
Alright. This is interesting. You made this statement,
As for 'inborn' and 'inbred' I seriously doubt a fetus or new born could be successfully interviewed on the subject of the 'god' idea.
These doubts can be resolved if some experiments are performed. And now, you are telling me to use my imagination.
Well consider these then.
1. A person comes to a soil engineer, and ask him/her, if his plot of land could be built upon. And the engineer tells him to use his imagination! Or,
2. A person with certain condition comes to a doctor, and ask him whether it is serious. The doctor answers, "use you imagination"! Or,
3. A person wants some legal advice, so he goes to a lawyer, and ask if something is legal. The lawyer answers, "use your imagination"!
This is not serious. Anyway, let us forget about this.
It should matter not which order ideas arrive in.
Consider this then. I want to drink some water. Ideas come to me how to satisfy my thirst. First idea: Fill a cup with water. Second idea: raise the cup to my mouth. Third idea: drink from the cup. Now, if you think the order in which ideas arrive does not matter, then I might just drink from an empty cup, and fill it afterwards! Result: I will still be thirsty! Surely, order matters greatly.
Anyway, let us forget about this too. Mistakes happen.
It should be obvious, yet again, that such a god is a construct of particular cultural attitude and is communicated to the very young of such cultures so that the young's neural pathways align to accept such notions.
I do not have a problem with this if it is your opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is called the freedom of thought and conscience. It is under article 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of human rights. But if you are making a factual statement, then I I have to ask you for an evidence. The evidence at my disposal, which I have already produced says exactly the contrary. But anyway, if you have some evidence to support your claim then I have to ask you respectfully, to produce it. In such a way, we could assess it on a rational basis.
As for 'inborn' and 'inbred' I seriously doubt a fetus or new born could be successfully interviewed on the subject of the 'god' idea.
Daviddunn replied:
These doubts can be resolved if some experiments are performed. And now, you are telling me to use my imagination.
Well consider these then.
1. A person comes to a soil engineer, and ask him/her, if his plot of land could be built upon. And the engineer tells him to use his imagination! Or,
2. A person with certain condition comes to a doctor, and ask him whether it is serious. The doctor answers, "use you imagination"! Or,
3. A person wants some legal advice, so he goes to a lawyer, and ask if something is legal. The lawyer answers, "use your imagination"!
But, Daviddun, the doctor, the soil engineer, and the lawyer each advises from a body of knowledge . Western medicine, engineering, and law are backed up by Western civilisation since the Renaissance through the scientific enlightenment and law also includes humanistic protocols. Islam , Christianity, and Judaism have retained substantially the authoritarianism and the supernaturalism of the Middle Ages, and they are each to various degrees stick-in-the-muds about modernity.
If medicine, engineering, and law had not moved with the times they would be just as risible as religion .
Whether you take nothingness as a concept, something, or nothing nothingness outlines a limit beyond which mind simply fails to imagine anything.
I think I agree with you here. On a "negative scale" whereby nothing indicates the end of that scale, I think that nothingness would be "absolute-zero," a state where nothing occurs on any level of understanding or enquiry. It is difficult to postulate (or imagine) that such a state could or would lead to, or be the cause of something, by it's very nature. Indeed, I think that nothingness is the limit of our imaginations, as anything imagined beyond this point enters the "positive scale" of something. I think (as you've previously argued) that God, also denotes a limitation to our imaginations, whereby we cannot imagine anything "greater." However, I think this due to the notion that God possesses the Omni - qualities or attributes.
Yes, I have written exactly that, “Science is incapable of defining phenomenal experiences.”
What would you define as a phenomenal experience, one which science is incapable of defining?
[In response to your excerpts] The inherent or innate information in / of the universe was also one of my points in discussing God's existence. However, as I stated, this information along with the 'inherent algorithm' which the universe appears to operate by (the ordered processes) could be the natural clock-work like workings of the universe. Yes, there are signs and aspects of the universe which correlate with the faculty we understand as intelligence, but this correlation need not directly or necessarily imply the existence of an all - powerful creator, or even an intelligent designer. Anthropomorphism in the face of such correlations may seem intuitive, but there are other possibilities which can and should be explored; rather that going through the findings or evidence with a single-minded "that means God" mindset, indeed, that would seem archaic by today's standards of enquiry.
I mean, in order to postulate the existence of a creator or intelligent designer, we must justify the existence of an omnipresent being who's beyond both time-and-space, who not only is able to act in both an empirical and phenomenal capacity, but also is aware of, and takes a loving interest in us (human-beings). Do the correlations with intelligence cover that much ground? I don't think so. Faith and religion are required to bridge the believability or rationality gaps between these concepts. Which they do for believers.
Your choice to believe in the existence of God or to reject the idea of God is valid until you do not have means to perceive God through your physical senses. Disclosure of God to your physical senses would defeat the purpose of your Free Will that you use to reject the existence of God.
I used to be a strong theist, but I'm agnostic / deist at this time. I don't reject the existence of God. Why would being able to perceive God with my senses defeat the purpose of free will? Is your argument here religious?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Granth wrote:Perhaps you should use your imagination.
Alright. This is interesting. You made this statement,
As for 'inborn' and 'inbred' I seriously doubt a fetus or new born could be successfully interviewed on the subject of the 'god' idea.
These doubts can be resolved if some experiments are performed. And now, you are telling me to use my imagination.
Well consider these then.
1. A person comes to a soil engineer, and ask him/her, if his plot of land could be built upon. And the engineer tells him to use his imagination! Or,
2. A person with certain condition comes to a doctor, and ask him whether it is serious. The doctor answers, "use you imagination"! Or,
3. A person wants some legal advice, so he goes to a lawyer, and ask if something is legal. The lawyer answers, "use your imagination"!
This is not serious. Anyway, let us forget about this.
It should matter not which order ideas arrive in.
Consider this then. I want to drink some water. Ideas come to me how to satisfy my thirst. First idea: Fill a cup with water. Second idea: raise the cup to my mouth. Third idea: drink from the cup. Now, if you think the order in which ideas arrive does not matter, then I might just drink from an empty cup, and fill it afterwards! Result: I will still be thirsty! Surely, order matters greatly.
Anyway, let us forget about this too. Mistakes happen.
It should be obvious, yet again, that such a god is a construct of particular cultural attitude and is communicated to the very young of such cultures so that the young's neural pathways align to accept such notions.
I do not have a problem with this if it is your opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is called the freedom of thought and conscience. It is under article 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of human rights. But if you are making a factual statement, then I I have to ask you for an evidence. The evidence at my disposal, which I have already produced says exactly the contrary. But anyway, if you have some evidence to support your claim then I have to ask you respectfully, to produce it. In such a way, we could assess it on a rational basis.
Now, let us get back to the first experiment. Then, we can come back to your second experiment.
Granth wrote:As for 'inborn' and 'inbred' I seriously doubt a fetus or new born could be successfully interviewed on the subject of the 'god' idea.
Can you resolve these doubts by a scientific method?
I don't know which of your points wasn't supposed to be serious but with regard to order of ideas i meant specifically the ones i presented to you.
The link you posted easily refers to a natural need to believe in afterlife concepts because of natural fear of nothing or death. It appears such a need to imagine such concepts is an inbuilt survival code which in lower animals was only about proliferation of a species. However with a higher animal, such as humans (with our particular ability to imagine and retainment of such dream imagery), a side effect of a survival code goes beyond species proliferation and inhabits within a brain which has become sophisticated enough to develop an ego. Egos do not like ideas of nothing.
-- Updated January 1st, 2016, 11:45 am to add the following --
'Ego' = sense of a personal self and identification with that sense of self.
There was still this question I posted earlier: Can you explain how my 'innate nature' informs me that there is no god as prescribed in the dominant religions?
Granth wrote:I don't know which of your points wasn't supposed to be serious.
I wll try to explain as much as I can.
By 'your points', I think you mean this,
Daviddunn wrote:Well consider these then
1. A person comes to a soil engineer, and ask him/her, if his plot of land could be built upon. And the engineer tells him to use his imagination! Or,
2. A person with certain condition comes to a doctor, and ask him whether it is serious. The doctor answers, "use you imagination"! Or,
3. A person wants some legal advice, so he goes to a lawyer, and ask if something is legal. The lawyer answers, "use your imagination"!
Notice in the above quote of myself, I make use of the word 'or'. In english, this 'or' is known (here it has the grammatical function) as a coordinating conjunction.
Some links to further knowledge on the coordinating conjunction:
A coordinating conjunction joins parts of a sentence (for example words or independent clauses) that are grammatically equal or similar. A coordinating conjunction shows that the elements it joins are similar in importance and structure.
In the above site, it says of the coordinating conjunction 'or' : Presents an alternative or a choice. It also says that one can begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction and it provides some good advice of how to write clearly. Let me quote it, in case it might help anyone reading this.
English Grammar site wrote:You should try to limit how often you begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, but it is not incorrect to do so, especially if it will break up a particularly long sentence into more easily understandable chunks. Coordinating conjunctions are the simplest of all the conjunctions to recognize and master, and knowing how they work will improve the quality and complexity of your writing, so if that’s what you’re after, you are now fully equipped!Happy writing!
Which points I meant were not serious? The use of the coordinating conjunction 'or' should give the idea of a choice between elements of equal importance. One can chose any one of them or any combination of them or all of them; any of these are valid choices.
-- Updated January 3rd, 2016, 5:26 am to add the following --
Granth wrote:The link you posted easily refers to a natural need to believe in afterlife concepts because of natural fear of nothing or death.
If this is your personal opinion, then I have no problem with it. You are entitled to your opinion.
However evidentially it is innacurate and rationally unfounded. Nowhere in the link is there mention of 'need' or 'fear' or 'nothing'.
1. The word that is used in place of 'need' is 'tendency'.
science daily wrote:New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe ...
The word 'tendencies' is mentioned twice in the article. And the word 'need' not at all. It is beneficial here to look at their dictionary meaning, so that the difference in their meaning can be established accurately.
The word 'tendency' is described as,
An inclination towards a particular characteristic or type of behaviour.
Therefore, a tendency leaves room for a choice, while in the case of a need there is no (at least much less) choice.
2. The phrase 'fear of death' is not to be found in the article, and also the word 'fear' itself is nowhere used in the article. There is another unfounded claim in the comment made:
Granth wrote:...because of the natural fear of nothing or death.
The problem here lies in the use of the word 'because'. The study conducted by Professors of the University of Oxford, never claimed to establish a causal relationship of any sort whatsoever ; there is even a specific disclaimer to that effect. The conclusion of this study resulted only in the acknowledgement/recognition by science of the fact that the idea of God, the Almighty, and the idea of afterlife are indeed innate ideas (by the dictionary description meaning not something that is acquired through experience or rational inquiry, but inborn). That is all the study claims.
Granth wrote:Egos do not like ideas of nothing.
Obviously if we are talking about the 'idea of nothing', then we must at least have this idea. Many other people have this idea as well. And many people(including myself) live happily with this idea because it is very useful. For example, in the maxim: saying nothing instead of nonsense is always better. This would mean, according to the quoted statement, we do not have 'egos'; whatever an 'ego' be, it does not seem good if it does not like such a useful idea as the idea of nothing.
-- Updated January 3rd, 2016, 5:29 am to add the following --
Granth wrote:There was still this question I posted earlier: Can you explain how my 'innate nature' informs me that there is no god as prescribed in the dominant religions?
By the concept of God in the dominant religion, I understand this:
God is Almighty, All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Hearing, Perfect, Eternal, without a beginning and with no end, He cannot die; He has no equal, He has no partner, He has no son or daughter; He is separate from His creations, He is the Creator of everything.
The claim made by the scientific community says, that every human being is born in a state of belief in God, the Almighty and belief in the afterlife.
You are saying your innate nature informs you there is no god.
By using the dictionary meaning of the phrase 'innate nature' then the previous sentence is unfounded in both the Holy Scripture of the dominant religion and in the papers of the scientific community.
So what is the evidence for the claim you implied in the question?
-- Updated January 3rd, 2016, 5:35 am to add the following --
Some doubts were expressed that new borns and fetuses could not be successfully interviewed to verify the claim made by the scientific community represented by the Oxford University. In this post, I will attempt to show anyone who is interested some examples of this innate disposition that all humans have, and no matter how much one tries to talk oneself out of it, one cannot overcome this innate disposition. It is the Holy Quran listening experiment. Many people feel intense emotion or like crying or completely relaxed and secured while listening. Therefore there is no need to worry if that happens, it is normal and a good sign. An anecdote on this subject. There was a famous reciter of Quran named AbdulBasit Abdussamad who had recited for some Russian officials and also who recited for the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Ghandhi. Wikipedia says this of him;
Wikipidia wrote:‘Abdus-Samad was asked to recite for some leaders of the Soviet party. ‘Abdus-Samad recounts that four to five of his listeners from the Communist Party were in tears on hearing the recitation, although they didn't understand what was being recited, but they cried, touched by the Qur'an.Indira Gandhi, an Indian prime minister and political leader always felt touched by his recitation and would stop alongside to appreciate his recitation.
There are many videos of this experiment on youtube. I have selected and presenting the best I came across in relation to young adults, children of small age, babies, and a fetus in that order. Note: anyone willing to watch these following videos, it is highly advised to watch them in a clean place (i.e. not in the bathroom). Listening and reading of the Holy Quran should always be in a clean place.
1. Students at the University of Ottawa listening to Quran, a social experiment.
4. New born listening to the Holy Quran. One must here observe that when the Quran is recited in Arabic, the baby make a big smile, and when the translation follows, he stops smiling, and when the Arabic recitation is resumed, he smiles again.
Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkGFCq4HGwE
5. Fetus baby boy prostrating in his mother's womb when Quran is recited. If one look attentively while he is still in prostration, one can observe his little heart beating!
Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gUxJKARWUs
The recitation in the fetus video is by a famous reciter, Sheik Mishary Al-Afasy. He leads prayer in Mekka and Medina, the first two holiest cities in Islam. The third one being in Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa Mosque. In the fetus video, the first chapter and the first seven verses of the second chapter of the Holy Quran can be heard. The first chapter is also recited in the Ottawa University video. Below is a link to a recitation of the first chapter (Surah Fatiha) of the Holy Quran by the same reciter but with english subtitles to understand its meaning. I also provide a link to another chapter of the Holy Quran, for those who want to further this experiment; chapter 36 (Surah Yasin) of the Holy Quran, with english subtitles and the same reciter. One can come to it as often as one like, it is best if regular.
Those with small kids here, can verify with the Holy Quran recitation that the concept of God, the Almighty is already in them.
If one want to further this experiment with other chapters of the Holy Quran : it is advised to get a table of content of the Quran, make a youtube search with the chapter name and the reciter. There are many other videos of different chapters which are available on youtube.
Mr daviddunn. You use Science Daily as if to make a scientific point, although it is still opinion albeit scientific opinion, and then you post youtube links which provide nothing more than general opinion because scientifically we can not know from these experiments what it is that calms the baby or effects the emotions of people and children. Emotionally we respond to sounds, beat, resonance, pitch, tone and many frequencies. Color is another frequency we respond emotionally to.
-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 12:01 pm to add the following --
The baby above is also in some pain from the jab, but the Dr does his "incantations" and lo and behold, A miracle!
-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 12:10 pm to add the following --
And anyway, further and proper neurological experiments (Electroencephalography or EEG while exposed to imagery, for example), if they were done on the subjects in your youtube links, could have established what would have been going on in the brains of those subjects rather than merely using what appears to be your tool of choice, that of wishful thinking.
-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 12:58 pm to add the following --
Daviddunn wrote:
Granth wrote:There was still this question I posted earlier: Can you explain how my 'innate nature' informs me that there is no god as prescribed in the dominant religions?
By the concept of God in the dominant religion, I understand this:
God is Almighty, All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Hearing, Perfect, Eternal, without a beginning and with no end, He cannot die; He has no equal, He has no partner, He has no son or daughter; He is separate from His creations, He is the Creator of everything.
The claim made by the scientific community says, that every human being is born in a state of belief in God, the Almighty and belief in the afterlife.
You are saying your innate nature informs you there is no god.
By using the dictionary meaning of the phrase 'innate nature' then the previous sentence is unfounded in both the Holy Scripture of the dominant religion and in the papers of the scientific community.
So what is the evidence for the claim you implied in the question?
My point there was that I am 'informed'. Informed presumably by 'culture', whatever that has turned out to be. Culture, it has been shown through experimentation (you would be wise to look up a recent TVPG American documentary series 'The Brain with David Eagleman'), appears to grow genetically because cultural ways of thinking apparently effects cell structure and behaviour. 'Innate' really only implies something at some DNA level at best and it appears changes keep happening at that, still superficial, level. At that phenomenal level (it is still a physical phenemonon, natural rather than 'supernatural') evolution is still ongoing. Thought will impact upon evolution. Thought appears to be the next phase of evolutionary influence, given that the human brain is at the top of the evolution 'food chain' (at least for this planet).
-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm to add the following --
It would be total speculation and wishful thinking to consider that 'innateness' is something beyond anything physical. There is still no end to what is 'physical'. As science has been discovering over a long time with developing technologies, 'physical' just keeps going further and further, smaller and smaller, deeper and deeper. The thoughts I experience are as a result of influence and so it is the case with yourself and any other religious person. And thought (culture, in whatever form it assumes) effects 'us' (whatever we are) at a cellular level and presumably beyond. It is the rabbit hole within which absolute truth is unknowable. There is no end to the matter just as there is no end to what we may, even wishfully, think is INNATE.
-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 1:26 pm to add the following --
You have simply been using the word 'innate' as you would use the word 'god'.
Mr. DavidDunn, you really should be careful about extorting the supposed peaceful calming effects of the Quran, this is an argumentative philosophy forum and you are coming dangerously close to just plan preaching. Those youtube videos are in no way "experiments" in the proper scientific sense. They are anecdotal at best. At worst they are youtube propaganda videos selling a particularly dangerous brand of religiosity. It matters not that the "sound" is pretty or seductive even, there are many examples of phenomena meant to lure, conjure and even control those who are subjected to it. There are also many sounds that can evoke very powerful emotion like Beethoven's 9th symphony but that fact as a matter of argument and in any case has nothing whatsoever to do with "proving" the realness of "god".
Those with small kids here, can verify with the Holy Quran recitation that the concept of God, the Almighty is already in them.
I find this statement of yours to be down right silly, unless of course after listening to these verses my children start speaking in "tongues" or flying around on magic carpets. Even if it actually does calm them down, so what?....your conclusion is pure speculation. I suppose if I show them a video of flying unicorns prancing joyfully through the clouds and it calms them down then I can draw some profound conclusion about unicorns right? Of course not.
Harris wrote:
I do not think that Descartes, Leibniz, Calvin, and many other eminent thinkers were supporting a mere nonsense by insisting that all humans have, by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity.
You know, those individuals were born and lived long before Darwin's theory of evolution explained how the profusion of animal and plant life could have come from that first living cell. I'm convinced that they would not have come to the same conclusions if they were born today.
No one can explain how the universe came into being. But that doesn't mean that it was necessarily created by an intelligent entity. Still, the possibility of a conscious creator God is possible - though in my opinion highly unlikely. But even if there was a creator God, it doesn't follow that He is a personal God - one who is aware of us and has a heaven to give some of us eternal life. That's wishful thinking. And as incredibly unlikely as a personal God is, it's even more unlikely that any of the major religions got it exactly right. There have been so many, and all have been different.
If we have an innate sense that there is a God, then it was implanted in us by evolution. Actually, I suspect that the concept of God is the result of the human need to understand and explain things (again given us by evolution) - and the world is very difficult to understand. None of the arguments which you have given, Harris, are not convincing unless you are determined to believe in God no matter what.
I ran across this video on Youtube. A baby reacts joyfully when she hears the song "Dark Horse" which was written by Katy Perry. I had a deep think concerning this phenomenon. I concluded that Katy Perry is God.
Gary S wrote:I ran across this video on Youtube. A baby reacts joyfully when she hears the song "Dark Horse" which was written by Katy Perry. I had a deep think concerning this phenomenon. I concluded that Katy Perry is God.
My two boys, when toddlers, used to rock out joyfully to Smashing Pumpkins during drives in the car. Particularly to lines such as "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage". Maybe they "innately" they understood the inherent philosophy behind it. But then what can you expect from kafirs (those whom are presumably more likely to invest in the use of intellect, rather than just emotion, by welcoming some light to be shone upon dark and medieval concepts)?
Granth, considering this new data, I may have to rethink my conclusion that Katy Perry is God. Is it possible that babies responding to music or soothing tones has nothing to do with the supernatural?
Gary S wrote:Granth, considering this new data, I may have to rethink my conclusion that Katy Perry is God. Is it possible that babies responding to music or soothing tones has nothing to do with the supernatural?
I think nature is already super, in terms of it's mysteriousness (therefore it's hold on our imagination and measured by the investment of our inquiry), without requiring 'super' at the beginning of the definition. The way 'supernatural' is used is to make bold absolutist statements by those whom are arrogant and unimaginative enough to destroy any suggestion of mystery by claiming themselves as all-knowing (as they are, after all, in the image of some all-knowing father).
Gary S wrote:Granth, considering this new data, I may have to rethink my conclusion that Katy Perry is God. Is it possible that babies responding to music or soothing tones has nothing to do with the supernatural?
I think nature is already super, in terms of it's mysteriousness (therefore it's hold on our imagination and measured by the investment of our inquiry), without requiring 'super' at the beginning of the definition. The way 'supernatural' is used is to make bold absolutist statements by those whom are arrogant and unimaginative enough to destroy any suggestion of mystery by claiming themselves as all-knowing (as they are, after all, in the image of some all-knowing father).