Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#81

Post by ceejayoz »

linsistine wrote: post #79
ceejayoz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I technically don't know if there's an invisible unicorn living in a cave on the Moon. I can state with reasonable certainty that there isn't. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced by compelling evidence to the contrary, but "it's in the Bible" or "everything needs a beginning EXCEPT THIS ONE THING THAT MAKES MY ARGUMENT WORK" isn't that evidence.

It's reasonable to think that the Universe came into existence without some sort of creator, that it wasn't intelligently designed in some capacity, and that it came from nothing out of randomness and for no reason? That you came from your father's penis as a drop of fluid, to be formed into some living thing, and ultimately be given birth from your mother's vagina into this world for no reason, out of randomness, an…

Yes.

You've already indicated you yourself think it's reasonable to think things can come into existence without a creator, by asserting the existence of such a thing in the form of a creator.

I'm entirely comfortable with the concept of my being here due to natural selection rather than a mystical purpose. Don't make the mistake of thinking "everything must have a purpose" to be a globally shared worldview.

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#82

Post by linsistine »

notus wrote: post #76
linsistine wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've accepted the logic that all designs have a designer. But now you attempt to debunk the logic by saying, "Surely the Creator has a creator too, right?". But we've already established that the idea that all designs have a designer, all creations have a creator, is more logical than for something to come into existence, from nothing, with no creator, for no reason, and out of randomness.

I'm only accepting the logic for the sake of the argument, I don't actually accept it. I'm just pointing out that accepting the logic is dissonant because at some point you have to deny the logic.

then what logic do you accept?

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#83

Post by tcrow »

dfxm12 wrote: post #77
tcrow wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this idea, but it doesn't really address the fundamental issue or what it REALLY MEANS to say you are religious. Can I really make a valid claim to be religious If my actions are not in accordance with the principals of my religion? Sure I can say I "believe", but then If I truly did, why would I not act it out in my life? I don't think the two are really separate concepts at the most fundamental analysi…

Based on your line of thought here, I'm not sure you understand this idea as well as you claim to. You appear to be passionate about this though. I suggest you do some research into the key differences between Catholicism & Orthodox churches and many protestant churches like the Lutheran & Reformed Churches when it comes to sola fidelis vs "faith and works". I'll say this again: for many protestants (and thus many Am…

We may be talking past each other to some degree. I'm not debating the ideas of sola fidelis vs "faith and works", this goes beyond that, for those are, to some degree, just interpretations of the original doctrine of Christ. I'm not interested in interpretations and I'm positing the idea that unless you act out the doctrine of Christ in your life, you cannot make a valid claim to be religious (in the Christian sense).

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#84

Post by david-gpu »

linsistine wrote: post #46
david-gpu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not rational to "believe" that an object, a thing, a complex structure, can come into existence without being intelligently designed in some manner. Would you describe a dolphin as a complex structure? It wasn't designed, it evolved through natural selection. I suggest reading a short book titled "Why evolution is true", or "The blind watchmaker".

Belief in a higher power does not counteract the belief, or proof, of the idea of evolution and natural selection. Surely someone can design something to self-heal, self-correct, or evolve/adapt to it's surroundings right? Wouldn't a good designer/architect do that?

There's no need to introduce a creator in order to explain evolution. Introducing a creator does not help explain anything that could not be explained without it either. It is not a rational belief.

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#85

Post by dfxm12 »

tcrow wrote: post #83
dfxm12 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on your line of thought here, I'm not sure you understand this idea as well as you claim to. You appear to be passionate about this though. I suggest you do some research into the key differences between Catholicism & Orthodox churches and many protestant churches like the Lutheran & Reformed Churches when it comes to sola fidelis vs "faith and works". I'll say this again: for many protestants (and thus many Am…

We may be talking past each other to some degree. I'm not debating the ideas of sola fidelis vs "faith and works", this goes beyond that, for those are, to some degree, just interpretations of the original doctrine of Christ. I'm not interested in interpretations and I'm positing the idea that unless you act out the doctrine of Christ in your life, you cannot make a valid claim to be religious (in the Christian sense…

Oh, I thought you were making a point related to the article.

I'm not interested in interpretations and I'm positing the idea that unless you act out the doctrine of Christ in your life, you cannot make a valid claim to be religious (in the Christian sense).

Please find a Lutheran and posit this to them. :)

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#86

Post by Rainymood »

krapp wrote: post #70
ykevinator wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is how can religious people "choose" to believe something. Atheism is not a movement, it's a surrender to logic and reason. What's baffling is, how can people suppress reason because it feels good?

>What's baffling is, how can people suppress reason because it feels good? Humans are not primarily logical beings. Humans are primarily emotional beings for whom logic often serves as a basis to rationalize their emotions.

This is indeed one of the major themes covered in the book.

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#87

Post by ceejayoz »

linsistine wrote: post #80
ceejayoz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Time is a weird concept even in our universe at times. It breaks down entirely outside of the known universe."

Yes...but what does this mean?

That the idea that "things must have a beginning" may not be the case when talking about physics outside the known universe.

Sure, that's hard to wrap your head around, but so's quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. Doesn't change the fact that the universe works in very, very weird ways sometimes.

Here's Stephen Hawking on the weirdness of all of this: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

> Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#88

Post by soylentcola »

linsistine wrote: post #4
Rainymood wrote: post #2

For those hardcore atheists that just can't fathom why someone would believe in Christianity/religion in general, let me ask you are you WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic)? If the answer is yes, I can highly recommend the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It didn't really change my opinion on religion but it did give me a different view and perspective into why some others do bel…

What I can't fathom or understand is how someone can look at the universe and say that there was no Creator or Architect of some kind? If I showed you an incredibly complex software program and told you there was no developer or designer behind it, and that it came into existence randomly and for no reason, you would look at me like I'm crazy. Or for the artistically inclined, if I showed you the Sistine Chapel and t…

I guess in my mind these are two separate things. I accept and acknowledge my ignorance of (and, likely, incapacity to understand) the deepest workings of the universe.

At the same time, I have not seen any reason to believe that the ultimate nature of the universe is the creation of a conscious architect/designer.

As the traditional line of thought goes: who created or designed the creator? If the universe is so complex that it required a conscious being to kick everything off, then wouldn't that being be of sufficient complexity to also require a designer?

I don't mean to say that I can even comprehend the concept of how this universe could have come into existence. Sure, I can grasp on some vague level the processes we've observed or inferred, but I doubt that anything resembling modern humanity can possibly wrap their heads around the ultimate origins.

So to me, it seems a bit of a cop out (or maybe just anthropomorphism) when we think "well, it must be like another guy doing it....just a bigger/better/smarter/older/whatever guy". It's like the old joke of "turtles all the way down". We think in terms of hierarchy and design so we imagine some point at the very top of the hierarchy, there's a tippy-top dog who must have been responsible for designing things.

But the idea that there's a creator who is basically a super-whatever and he is aware of us and cares about what we do seems as unlikely to me as turtles all the way down. Sure it could be the case as easily as anything else since I can't fathom what could have provided the ultimate start of everything. But I've yet to see any evidence or logic that suggests this is the case. If anything it would seem the opposite.

Frankly I would love reason to believe I had a clue about this because when I mull over the concept of "everything" it's a bit terrifying.

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#89

Post by odorousrex »

linsistine wrote: post #36
ceejayoz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where this line of thinking falls apart is realizing you must, due to the same logic, explain the architect's coming into existence.

All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This source, or point of singularity, is what religious people refer to as 'God'.

This is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in theoretical physics/quantum physics/cosmology. (And I'm not saying I fully grasp it)

We, as beings who experience time linearly, can't fathom the concept of "No time". Every event we experience has a beginning, middle, and end.

Time was created along with the universe. "Before" the Big Bang there was literally "No time". There was no "before". There was nothing you could say was "before" because "before" literally did not exist. Just asking the question "what was before the big bang?" is nonsensical. You can't ask what was before "before" existed.

This gets more confusing because we know the Universe has had a finite lifetime.

I know this seems like a cop out. And you can say well then whoever/whatever caused the Big Bang was "God". That may or may not be true, it can't be tested of verified, but it seems that the universe is here just because it is here.

Which is not a very satisfying answer to most.

Re: Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

#90

Post by dual_basis »

linsistine wrote: post #52
lucozade wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly reasonable to look at the universe and believe that it came from something. Where there's little to no evidence is that it was designed. What for, us? Hardly, if so that's some record for redundant packaging. Some mysterious purpose that we can't fathom? Yeah, I've worked on software like that too. Colour me unimpressed. But it's beautiful? Well some of it maybe. A fairly large part of it is literally…

Purpose is subjective. What I'm saying is, all of "this" must of came from something. And that "something" is what people refer to as God, the Higher Power, the "Ultimate".

If you are just giving a name to whatever currently exists beyond scientific understanding then what use is that?

If you are implying that there was an entity with some form of conscious thought which designed the universe we currently experience then no, I don't believe that. There are plenty of examples of amazingly complex systems which were built from independent actions not requiring a creator to design them.

Post reply on HN