is God nessicary?

[phillip1882]

so hear is a few problems i see, and why i think God might, i emphisize the word might, be nessicary.

 

so let's start with morality. i think most poeple can agree, there are some, though not many "concrete" rules, such as rules against murder, rape, theft, torture, etc. obviously these are relative in the sense we can disobey these rules if we see fit, but there are severe consquences for so doing. where do these rules come from? not from nature, animals use and abuse violence in abundance.

not from government, who often implements such methods, at the cost of society. we can only say one of two things, either they come from ourselves, or they come from some entity outside ourselves. i could exptrapolate this futher, but for now let's move on.

 

how about death? even if you're athiest and thus desire nothing after death, i think most resonable poeple can agree, the thousands of near death experances, suggests there just might be something there. now i must confess, i've seen the you-tube video on the "God helmet" so it's quite possible these experiances are hulicinated. never the less, people seem to have such similar experiances to the point of suggesting that there is an after life of some kind.

 

finally, let's take the vastness of space. even assuming it really is only 13.7 billion light years across, (i have my reservations, but for now i won't argue the point.) do you really belive physics and blind chance created it? for example, take the big bang. what banged?

where did all the particles and anti particles come from? i'm not suggesting that we should accept God as the final answer here.

we should question deeply and search for answers. but ultamately, we come to a point where the questions themselves make little sense. I realize even a child could ask, "what created God?" and to that question, i would respond in the following way. which is more common, to get order out of disorder, or disorder out of order? unless an active outside agent acts on a disordered field, you can't get order. a billion tornadoes going thorough a junk pile will never assemble an airplane.

[randomc]

The only issue religion addresses with any authority is morality. The other issues you present are outside of it's purview.

 

Evidence suggests moral emotions define categories of behaviour in which moral sanction of some sort always exists. But since this does not lead to actual specific moral truths, religion is arguably as good a moral compass as any.

 

Reason is another good one. If morality is defined in terms of harm and potential for harm, a balance between personal liberty and social cohesion should be possible without too much need for authoritative edict.

 

For example; running a gas-guzzling vehicle instead of something more fuel efficient involves a potential for harm to the environment and therefore to people in general. So running such a vehicle without good justification can be considered immoral. I would say use of such a vehicle by a haulage company involves good justification, whereas recreational use does not.

 

Morality could maybe just be reduced to risk analysis altogether, i don't know.

[John Cuthber]

"The only issue religion addresses with any authority is morality."

Yes, for example it's perfectly morally acceptable to offer your virgin daughters to gay men in order to save your own arse.

 

"After supper that night before bedtime, the men of the city, young and old, gathered around Lot's house demanding he bring his two guests out that they might "know" them. Lot went out and closed the door behind him and prayed that they not do such wicked things, and offered them his virgin daughters, that had not "known" man, that they might know them instead, and do with as they pleased. "

 

 

from Genesis, via wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(biblical_person)

[randomc]

"The only issue religion addresses with any authority is morality."

Yes, for example it's perfectly morally acceptable to offer your virgin daughters to gay men in order to save your own arse.

 

"After supper that night before bedtime, the men of the city, young and old, gathered around Lot's house demanding he bring his two guests out that they might "know" them. Lot went out and closed the door behind him and prayed that they not do such wicked things, and offered them his virgin daughters, that had not "known" man, that they might know them instead, and do with as they pleased. "

 

 

from Genesis, via wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(biblical_person)

 

This is scripture and not religion. If a senior person within an influential church were actually to endorse your strawman, you might then have a leg to stand on.

Edited April 20, 2012 by randomc

[John Cuthber]

This is scripture and not religion. If a senior person within an influential church were actually to endorse your strawman, you might then have a leg to stand on.

As I understand it that Bible as we know it was endorsed by these people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

They decided not to include some scriptures so, by including the book of Job, they endorsed it.

Since their version is accepted by many major churches and they are senior members of the church, I think I have met your criteria.

Incidentally, a straw-man is where you pretend that your opponent's belief is something other than what it is in order to ridicule it.

I didn't need to do that. The idea that morality comes from religion is ridiculous without any help from me.

 

In any event, you would still need to show how religion leads to morality. It's not sufficient to simply state that it does.

As I see it, the evidence shows that in spite of religion (or at least religious scripture) is subordinate to moral behaviour.

[randomc]

As I understand it that Bible as we know it was endorsed by these people

http://en.wikipedia....uncil_of_Nicaea

They decided not to include some scriptures so, by including the book of Job, they endorsed it.

Since their version is accepted by many major churches and they are senior members of the church, I think I have met your criteria.

Incidentally, a straw-man is where you pretend that your opponent's belief is something other than what it is in order to ridicule it.

I didn't need to do that. The idea that morality comes from religion is ridiculous without any help from me.

 

The fact that the bible contradicts itself so much shows that christian morality is not intended to be invariable. There are different mores for different times, and God's representatives interpret as appropriate. For as long as people follow them, they are moral authority and they legitimately define moral truths.

 

In any event, you would still need to show how religion leads to morality. It's not sufficient to simply state that it does.

As I see it, the evidence shows that in spite of religion (or at least religious scripture) is subordinate to moral behaviour.

 

OK, as far as i know, moral behaviour defines very little in the way of specifics. Specific moral truths are arbitrarily defined societal constructs, they are a contract really, an agreement. Therefore, that religion is subordinate to moral behaviour is entirely moot. Defining specific moral truths is a part of moral behaviour, religion is simply a means of definition.

 

The evolutionary function of moral behaviour can be considered to be such things as social cohesion, cooperation, etc, and so really systems of moral definition, such as religion, succeed or fail on the basis of selective advantage and not the correspondence of their rationalizations with reality. It doesn't matter how objectively true these constructs are, only that they succeed. Christianity has been very successful, and what reason is there to suppose that it wouldn't continue to be?

[questionposter]

I think god was mostly necessary in the beginning to give people an incentive to unite and form a hospitable society, but now I thought we've moved on enough and it no longer has that same effect.

[John Cuthber]

OK, so "The only issue religion addresses with any authority is morality."

and " For as long as people follow them, they are moral authority".

So, now that people have stopped following them (for example we no longer persecute people for eating shellfish, nor stone children to death for swearing at their parents), they no longer have authority.

 

That tells us that religion has nothing left.

Sounds about right to me.

[ydoaPs]

so hear is a few problems i see, and why i think God might, i emphisize the word might, be nessicary.

There are possible worlds in which God does not exist, therefore God it not necessary.

 

so let's start with morality. i think most poeple can agree, there are some, though not many "concrete" rules, such as rules against murder, rape, theft, torture, etc. obviously these are relative in the sense we can disobey these rules if we see fit, but there are severe consquences for so doing. where do these rules come from? not from nature, animals use and abuse violence in abundance.

 

Yes, from nature. We evolved as a social species, If you look at all of the moral behviour that transcends culture, it usually isn't limited to our species. These universal moral behaviours all have obvious evolutionary pressures for social species.

 

how about death? even if you're athiest and thus desire nothing after death, i think most resonable poeple can agree, the thousands of near death experances, suggests there just might be something there.

No, they don't.

 

finally, let's take the vastness of space. even assuming it really is only 13.7 billion light years across, (i have my reservations, but for now i won't argue the point.) do you really belive physics and blind chance created it?

Yes

 

where did all the particles and anti particles come from?

The primordial matter didn't "come from" anywhere. The total amount of mass-energy in the universe has always been the same. There was never a time when it wasn't what it is.

 

 

I like your "You can't explain this except that you can, therefore God" approach.

[randomc]

OK, so "The only issue religion addresses with any authority is morality."

and " For as long as people follow them, they are moral authority".

So, now that people have stopped following them (for example we no longer persecute people for eating shellfish, nor stone children to death for swearing at their parents), they no longer have authority.

 

I dunno, seems like there are still quite a lot of religious people around.

 

 

That tells us that religion has nothing left.

Sounds about right to me.

 

I don't think it matters either way. Populations will create moral truths with or without religion, and these truths will likely always be arbitrarily defined. The more interesting question here is the association of morality with authority.

 

That some people tend to make this association and some tend not to seems an intractable social problem to me. It will survive an end of religion, i think.

[dimreepr]

I think the one thing that transcends all religions, whatever forms the deities take. All basic morals can be traced back to this basic premise which, when done honestly by all of society, would solve most of our problems. What is this one thing that would solve all our problems? “Do unto others as you would have others do to you”. Why, if this is so easy, does society have so many problems? Good question, especially when you factor in the fact that, whilst we are all individual, we are all essentially clones. I can answer this simply enough, people aren’t being honest. Only when we lose the fear that if you did do this honestly, you would be ripped off. A decent honest society is perfectly possible and has existed and is possible without a belief in god.