Philosophy Now Forum

There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

sthitapragya wrote:There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

What is this "God" you speak of?

What is this "thing" that you do not want us to believe in?

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

What is this "God" you speak of?

What is this "thing" that you do not want us to believe in?

Sorry , but I am not getting into an argument with you ever again.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

What is this "God" you speak of?

What is this "thing" that you do not want us to believe in?

Sorry , but I am not getting into an argument with you ever again.

That is a pity because, depending on 'your' definition of 'argument', arguments can actually be very enjoyable and extremely enlightening, and thus very rewarding also.

sthitapragya wrote:There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

I take an exact opposite approach that is less thought of about our ancestor's: that the origins of what became religion is likely to have derived from a secular interpretation akin to science and less so to any religious idea that we know retrospectively impose upon them. Religion is just more likely a devolution of information relating more rational inspection of reality of the past. Religion is thus just an evolution of some past secular and 'scientific' (reality interpreted via everyday observations through everyday senses) reality of some period that either gets distorted as the game of 'telephone' OR was a likely intentional deception (for some forms of religion) being used for some political or economic interest to capitalize upon other people. I add this latter possibility as a likely interpretation of more recent 'cults' that have most apparent irrational justification assuming intellectual integrity of people.

Thus, religions like Scientology or Mormonism, would likely be internally designed with literal secular goals by its 'founders'. Their formation would be intentionally meant to be deceptive for some real functional goal. For Scientology, the founder, Ron Hubbard, for instance, likely thought that it might be functionally useful to find a means to foster the impression of a religion for legal reasons. Mormonism, as the other example here, could be just a form of 'legitimizing' polygamy in its founder's origin. It's not important these ARE the literal causes. But there is likely some more down-to-earth justification for those initiating a 'formal' religion.

As to many of the greater ones that have survived from the past though, many of these likely just accidentally devolved to BE religion when the context of their origins were lost.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
What is this "God" you speak of?

What is this "thing" that you do not want us to believe in?

Sorry , but I am not getting into an argument with you ever again.

That is a pity because, depending on 'your' definition of 'argument', arguments can actually be very enjoyable and extremely enlightening, and thus very rewarding also.

Yeah, but not with you.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
What is this "God" you speak of?

What is this "thing" that you do not want us to believe in?

Sorry , but I am not getting into an argument with you ever again.

That is a pity because, depending on 'your' definition of 'argument', arguments can actually be very enjoyable and extremely enlightening, and thus very rewarding also.

Yeah, but not with you.

sthitapragya wrote:...one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started.

Why?

Scott Mayers wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

I take an exact opposite approach that is less thought of about our ancestor's: that the origins of what became religion is likely to have derived from a secular interpretation akin to science and less so to any religious idea that we know retrospectively impose upon them. Religion is just more likely a devolution of information relating more rational inspection of reality of the past. Religion is thus just an evolution of some past secular and 'scientific' (reality interpreted via everyday observations through everyday senses) reality of some period that either gets distorted as the game of 'telephone' OR was a likely intentional deception (for some forms of religion) being used for some political or economic interest to capitalize upon other people. I add this latter possibility as a likely interpretation of more recent 'cults' that have most apparent irrational justification assuming intellectual integrity of people.

Thus, religions like Scientology or Mormonism, would likely be internally designed with literal secular goals by its 'founders'. Their formation would be intentionally meant to be deceptive for some real functional goal. For Scientology, the founder, Ron Hubbard, for instance, likely thought that it might be functionally useful to find a means to foster the impression of a religion for legal reasons. Mormonism, as the other example here, could be just a form of 'legitimizing' polygamy in its founder's origin. It's not important these ARE the literal causes. But there is likely some more down-to-earth justification for those initiating a 'formal' religion.

As to many of the greater ones that have survived from the past though, many of these likely just accidentally devolved to BE religion when the context of their origins were lost.

We are talking about a time when lightening was attributed to the God of thunder. There was actually very little science known then and superstition obviously ran rampant as too many things were unknown, extremely powerful and bewildering. And someone realized how that could be used to his or her advantage and ran with the idea. It is no coincidence that religion has evolved with science. As more things got explained a lot of things had to be changed. Now the only thing that remains unexplained is how life and the universe came into existence. That is why we don't believe in the God of thunder anymore but believe in the 'unknowable' God ( a cop out if there ever was one). Till we can explain these mysteries, this particular God is here to stay. You will notice that all the Gods believed in today, are just out of the reach of science. And that is how it has always been. The only difference is that in the earlier days, there was less science so there were more physical Gods one could believe in.

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:...one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started.

Why?

because.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
Sorry , but I am not getting into an argument with you ever again.

That is a pity because, depending on 'your' definition of 'argument', arguments can actually be very enjoyable and extremely enlightening, and thus very rewarding also.

Yeah, but not with you.

But I find 'arguing', logical reasoning, with you enjoyable, enlightening and rewarding. But if you do not find it that, then fair enough.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
That is a pity because, depending on 'your' definition of 'argument', arguments can actually be very enjoyable and extremely enlightening, and thus very rewarding also.

Yeah, but not with you.

But I find 'arguing', logical reasoning, with you enjoyable, enlightening and rewarding. But if you do not find it that, then fair enough.

Very well then. Let us give it another try. By God, I mean whatever God you believe in, because there are just so many of them and everyone believes in some God and laughs at the others belief. So if you believe in any kind of a conscious creator of any kind whatsoever, that is the God I am talking about. But if you believe in one, and you plan to argue about it, you will need to define your God exactly before we continue.

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:...one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started.

Why?

because.

Because you will never answer the ultimate cause otherwise.

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Why?

because.

Because you will never answer the ultimate cause otherwise.

No, because you will never be able to explain who your God is.

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: because.

Because you will never answer the ultimate cause otherwise.

No, because you will never be able to explain who your God is.

At this stage old mate - its not WHO its WHAT.