External Influences

[aamirsaab]

I missed the trap! Nahh Nahh! My answer is basically "you make your own luck".

Sneaky

Why not call Chance "God"? Well simply because God is supposed to be a sentinant construct that can act and interact in meaningful ways.
The "Chance" element is simply random. If God is randomness, what is the point in praying/worshipping/hoping for paradise. If God is "chance" our pious actions count for nothing.

So am I correct in saying that it is based on your perception of God?

You've lost me now. Why do you think more must be necessary than "not believing in God in the first place"? Surely that is sufficient reason? Indeed, I don't see how an atheist could offer any other answer without ceasing to be an atheist and becoming an agnostic instead.

I thought that there maybe more than one reason. Though, in hindsight, perhaps I should have broadened the question to all as opposed to just aethiests.

...A few points:

1) I'm not sure that all the atheists who have answered say that they believe in 'luck' or 'chance' as an independently existing force. In fact, most of us have said precisely the opposite...

Ok, I'm cool with that.

2) All this talk of 'external influences' is just confusing the issue. We don't have a satisfactory definition of 'external influences', and it's difficult to see what specific limits are attached to that concept. What type of thing would fall under it?

Light?
Gravity?
My girlfriend?
The television?
Aliens?

Any of these things could count as 'external influences' in some way, so the concept is too vague to have any useful function in this discussion.

Fair enough.

And perhaps most importantly:

3) Even if aamirsaab's argument is sound, it diminishes god to being a humanly-invented concept, designed as a coping strategy, and with no objective reality. This is pretty much what most atheists say god is anyway, so I can't see how this benefits the theistic view at all.
...
Peace

I'm trying to explain God on a neutral basis. My theory is that what if God and religion is simply just a form of coping strategy. What if it is just another word for luck, chance, coincidence etc etc.

Ok, one final time: Let's take an example: In a test it says explain why a twig falls from the tree. If I was to write down the will of God, I would get no marks for it. I want to know why - why is there this inherent bias against religion when it comes to science. I have my assumption that it is down to the fact that you cannot calculate God's power and thus it is an alien concept (or, alternatively, that they don't believe in God - which is a topic in and of itself!). But is there any other reason?

Thank you all for your input into the discussion. I'm not sure if my ''plan'' will actually work now, though.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'm trying to explain God on a neutral basis. My theory is that what if God and religion is simply just a form of coping strategy. What if it is just another word for luck, chance, coincidence etc etc.

I think the point you're missing is that if god and religion are indeed a coping strategy invented by humans, then there is no need for god to exist or for religion to be true.

It's very strange to see a theist using this argument, because it totally undermines belief in the reality of god. Indeed, some atheists actually use this argument to support their position.

Ok, one final time: Let's take an example: In a test it says explain why a twig falls from the tree. If I was to write down the will of God, I would get no marks for it. I want to know why - why is there this inherent bias against religion when it comes to science. I have my assumption that it is down to the fact that you cannot calculate God's power and thus it is an alien concept (or, alternatively, that they don't believe in God - which is a topic in and of itself!). But is there any other reason?

Yes - in fact there are two that spring to mind. One big purpose of science is to attempt to explain the universe. The point about bringing god into a scientific discussion is that it explains nothing. In fact, the concept of god actually requires further explanation.

Secondly, scientists are perfectly capable of explaining why the twig falls from the tree without needing to refer to god. Scientists could use life-cycles and gravity to explain it (perhaps along with general knowledge of botany, the seasons etc.), and those explanations would work fine without the assumption that god exists or had anything to do with it.

Thank you all for your input into the discussion. I'm not sure if my ''plan'' will actually work now, though.

I must confess I couldn't see where you were going with this one. At least you got us all thinking, though!

Peace

 

[Trumble]

I want to know why - why is there this inherent bias against religion when it comes to science. I have my assumption that it is down to the fact that you cannot calculate God's power and thus it is an alien concept (or, alternatively, that they don't believe in God - which is a topic in and of itself!). But is there any other reason?

There is no bias against religion in science (although that does not mean scientists can not be biased against it). It is just that science cannot include God and remain science.

What it comes down to is that there isn't a single piece of empirical, verifiable scientific evidence in favour of the existence of God. That doesn't mean there are not other sorts of evidence in favour of God, but science does not and cannot deal with them without totally changing what it is, how it works and the results it gets. As an example, you will be fully aware that a browse through these forums will reveal a great many attacks on evolution. They may well, in some cases, actually present valid points why evolution should not be accepted dogmatically, or might be wrong. But none, not one, provide any positive evidence for a creationist alternative. Where similar points are raised in connection with other areas of science such as, say, the Big Bang theory, the results are exactly the same.

It was to answer pretty much this question that the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster came into being. It was not meant to mock or offend anybody, but it was meant to demonstrate that in terms of science (as oppposed to theology, philosophy, sociology or anthropology - which is the bit those who got upset didn't get) the FSM explanation of event X has precisely the same credibility as the God explanation of event X. Again, that doesn't mean scientists rank them the same, all but the most die-hard atheists would rank God as 'more probable', but not on scientific grounds. On scientific grounds there is simply no difference between them.

You may, as a theist, think that means there might be something fundamentally wrong with science. As a Buddhist, if not a theist, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. But science cannot be changed easily and the case to do so at all would need to be much stronger than it is now. Such change could be potentially catastrophic to the development of mankind. Again, evolution provides a handy example. The man behind modern 'intelligent design' was forced to admit that a science that could admit intelligent design must logically have to admit astrology as well. And if astrology, what else? Science would stagnate as what gives it is power, the method, cannot operate with such concepts. The result would be scientific stagnation, most likely accompanied by complete intellectual stagnation.

 

[barney]

CZ said it quite well. This is an aggys arguement really. It cant explain God as a rationale, simply ending up as disproof.

To clarify my earlier point, God must by all measures of Theism act in a non-random way. A random God would have reacted to Moses asking God to forgive his people by dropping fifty thousand salmon into Australia, or when giving the prophet instructions on how many prayers to say every day, instead had a quartet of dancing bears in top hats appear in France.
God has purpose. Purpose is not chance.