Religion...

[ComandanteCero]

I get what you're saying, but I think use of the phrase "initial assumption" is a bit misleading. It's not like kids are born and spontaneously assume of their own accord that there's a "greater meaning" or a God (or, for that matter, a Santa Claus); on the contrary, it's repeated to them as Absolute Truth over and over by the people they love and trust the most. It shouldn't be surprising that this kind of "programming" (for lack of a better word; no negative connotation intended) can form the basis of a person's reality for life.

Absolutely, I agree, and I would agree with the term "programming".  There's this big cultural component to a lot of people's beliefs, and sadly for a lot of folks it becomes an excuse to simply not think critically about what they actually truly believe, and it's precisely that lack of critical thinking and examination that leads to bizarre conflations of cultural traditions and norms with supposed religious beliefs.  Then again, this is a problem for people in general, taking a critical look at our lives and the society in which we live and really thinking about the nature of things, the how's and why's.  It's easier to believe in a believing society than not to believe, just as it's easier to not believe in a non-believing society than it is to believe.

But yeah, when talking about this kind of stuff i don't mean to imply that all religious folks have gone through some critical thought process to arrive at their beliefs (that definitely isn't the case for most).  But I know that there are a lot of smart, knowledgeable and critical thinking people who are religious (folks who have been raised religiously and folks who have not) and that religious belief does not depend solely on cultural programming.

[aknowledgeableperson]

 I would still _challenge_ a belief that is unreasonable though, such as imaginary supernatural forces and provide very specific information to explain the position, which I've done.

For you it is unreasonable to believe in a god or gods.  But for many believers it is not unreasonable.  And that is where faith comes in.  Not that faith is unreasonable but acceptance that there is something more than what we can see or feel or smell or taste or hear.
I can remember a student in school raising a question about science disproving religion or a belief in God.  The teacher replied with something like "science is used to discover how God works".  You use science to show that belief in a God is all in our minds, that it is unreasonable.  However the opposite is true, science shows us the wonders of God, we learn more about God.
There are some sayings that might apply here.  The more we know the more we find out what we do not know.  For every question answered another two questions pop up.  It is hard to say how much knowledge will be discovered over the next 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 or more years from now or what questions will be answered but I do "believe" that science will never be able to answer all of the questions that come up nor discover everything there is to discover.

Discussing religion is much like discussing politics.  Put a liberal and a conservative together and there will be little if any agreement between them.

[mean]

But I know that there are a lot of smart, knowledgeable and critical thinking people who are religious (folks who have been raised religiously and folks who have not) and that religious belief does not depend solely on cultural programming.

I agree and disagree. I have a devoutly Christian grandma who also happens to be a Mensan, so the question to me isn't really whether smart, knowledgeable, critical thinking people are capable of being religious--clearly many, including G-ma, are. The question is, however, whether they'd have come to a position of faith without said cultural / familial programming. I say, no, in most cases not, and the evidence I submit is that my Grandma isn't a Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shintoist, Satanist, Wiccan, or any number of other things. She, like most religious people, is what she is because that's what she was indoctrinated into from the time she was born. She was programmed that way. If instead of being raised in the church, she's adopted by Muslims...

As for folks not raised religiously who come to it later in life, I think it's pretty clear that they are a very small minority. It seems to me that of that minority, an overwhelming number do it for their spouse / spouse's family, or to fit into some other community. In other words, cultural pressure. But I don't have stats on that.

Not that faith is unreasonable but acceptance that there is something more than what we can see or feel or smell or taste or hear.

So you're basically saying you are quite sure there is a thing which exists in reality that nobody can ever use any method to detect?

[aknowledgeableperson]

So you're basically saying you are quite sure there is a thing which exists in reality that nobody can ever use any method to detect?

And you are saying we have knowledge of everything we need to know?

[mean]

And you are saying we have knowledge of everything we need to know?

Of course not. That would be a very stupid thing to say, don't you think?

I am, however, saying that we can have knowledge of everything. Or at least, everything that matters--everything that can have an effect on us. I'm also saying we can detect anything that exists, either directly or indirectly, because anything that exists has a measurable effect on the universe.

[ComandanteCero]

The question is, however, whether they'd have come to a position of faith without said cultural / familial programming. I say, no, in most cases not

Well, i think the question of why the universe exists (and by extension why do we exist) is something that is bound to pop up in folks with or without religious upbringings, at least folks who are thinking about these kinds of things and willing to entertain these kinds of questions.  I think if there were a hypothetical world where no religion existed the question would eventually pop up.

Now, how that question gets answered will certainly be determined and shaped by society and culture.  In the hypothetical non-believing world, perhaps the question would be explained as a meaningless question: the universe simply exists, there is no why.  The reason one is asking why is simply because of how our brains are wired to try to understand the world - we will continue asking why until we reach the end of the line, the unknowable.  And perhaps in that society the knowable has been defined as that which can be measured and tested or derived therefrom.

But i wouldn't be surprised if there were folks who found this take on the world dissatisfying or ultimately lacking compared to how they feel the universe works, and those folks decided to field a number of possible answers, and that out of those possibilities all of a sudden one of them took off because it had the ring of truth and made people's lives make more sense or more fulfilling in some way.  Folks would know it's not based in tangible, measurable knowledge, but because it feels, tastes and rings true and brings goodness to their lives they are willing to take that leap of faith.

In other words, I can easily see religion developing out of these natural questions people are bound to have about the nature of reality, and there's no need to have some set societal or cultural tradition for folks to become religious.  Of course, in our world religions do exist, so most folks who might have these kind of questions wouldn't have to invent their own religion whole cloth, they would be more likely to explore existing religious traditions and go from there.

[mean]

Yeah, as you seem to have suspected, to me asking, "Why does the universe exist?" totally begs the question by assuming there must have been intent, or a motive. It's a meaningless and invalid question, like demanding to know, "Why does this mountain exist!?" It doesn't make any sense to even ask because nobody put the mountain there. I can only explain how it got there. Questions of why are impossible to answer. I could say, "this mountain was placed by an evil spirit who wished to impede my travels across this continent! Prove me wrong. Haha, you can't! Therefore my evil spirit ipso facto exists, and made this mountain, Q.E.D." But all such arguments are pretty much equally worthless to me.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I am, however, saying that we can have knowledge of everything. Or at least, everything that matters--everything that can have an effect on us. I'm also saying we can detect anything that exists, either directly or indirectly, because anything that exists has a measurable effect on the universe.

By saying:

I'm also saying we can detect anything that exists

Are you implying that we can do that detecting now?  You may not but if you consider the knowledge science has accumulated over the last 200 years and apply that growth over the next 200 years, and probably accelerate it, it is hard to say what mankind may discover during that time plus what may be found in archeological digs.

"Why does this mountain exist!?" It doesn't make any sense to even ask because nobody put the mountain there. I can only explain how it got there. Questions of why are impossible to answer.

"Why" is easy to answer.  It is the same as "How".  There is one take on God that He has a hand in everything that exists and it is all the way He wanted it to be.  The other take is He just got the ball rolling and then it happened with little guidance or interference from him beyond that point.  Instead of the universe being a chessboard where he controls every play it could be like a science experiment where one combines a few compounds and then add another compound once in awhile.

[IraGlacialis]

As for folks not raised religiously who come to it later in life, I think it's pretty clear that they are a very small minority. It seems to me that of that minority, an overwhelming number do it for their spouse / spouse's family, or to fit into some other community. In other words, cultural pressure. But I don't have stats on that.

My mom's a Thereveda and my dad's a Lutheran, but they didn't force their beliefs on me. The town I grew up noticeably consists of Baptists, Mormons, Mennonites, Methodists, and Catholics.
Despite, I went from being agnosticism to devout syncretistic Christianity that is closer to Orthodox philosophy rather than Protestant.
I know I didn't do it to fit in, as I have been lambasted by hardliners on both sides of the atheist/theist camp. Neither was it for the sake of being "nonconformist", as there are easier ways of doing it. I know it wasn't through sitting in on sermons and such as it would likely mean me becoming a Protestant.
It came from a process of methodically looking through different religions and determining on my own what I would consider to be personal truth to coexist wit the the physical realm. Arguable, that comes along the line of cultural influence, but I don't consider that to be the same as the cultural/social molding you allude to.

However, from experience, I actually agree with your observation. Most people who I have seen go from nonreligious to religious have done so through propaganda (I say that term in a purely factual matter; no connotation). Very few come to where they are on their own.

It is much easier for a religious person to lost their faith without overt cultural/relationship influence rather than the opposite.

[mean]

Are you implying that we can do that detecting now?  You may not but if you consider the knowledge science has accumulated over the last 200 years and apply that growth over the next 200 years, and probably accelerate it, it is hard to say what mankind may discover during that time plus what may be found in archeological digs.

I'm not implying anything. I'll try to be more clear: if something exists, it is by definition detectable, because its very existence changes the nature of the universe in a detectable way.

The next argument along this well-worn path is: maybe there are ghosts/gods/unicorns, and we just haven't developed the ability to detect them. And that's fine. I'm merely saying that if any of those things really exist, they can by virtue of their existence be detected.

I'd further opine that an all knowing, all powerful entity capable of creating something as vast and wondrous and complex as the universe should theoretically be fairly easy to detect. Easier, at least, than something like a single mote of molecular dust in a distant galaxy.

"Why" is easy to answer.  It is the same as "How".  There is one take on God that He has a hand in everything that exists and it is all the way He wanted it to be.  The other take is He just got the ball rolling and then it happened with little guidance or interference from him beyond that point.  Instead of the universe being a chessboard where he controls every play it could be like a science experiment where one combines a few compounds and then add another compound once in awhile.

First of all, philosophically speaking, "why" simply is not the same as "how", even though they are used interchangeably in colloquial speech. Philosophically, "why" implies motive. Surely you can see that "Why did you punch me?" is not even remotely the same question as "How did you punch me?" Similarly, "Why is this mountain (or universe) here?" is not the same question as "How is this mountain (or universe) here?" because "why" implicitly suggests a motivated actor with a reason for acting. Thus, asking "Why does the universe exist?" begs the question by implying the existence of God and is, to my view, a rather stunningly silly thing to ask when you think about it. Granted, I also think it's a perfectly normal human thing to ask, and probably a large part of the genesis of our collective mysticism, superstition, supernaturalism, and religion.

Second, I've been intimately familiar with both of those theological propositions since I was like 6, and even then I thought the were both poor explanations of the origins of the universe. 

That said, if I had to pick one, it'd be "God as chemist" theory, because that one requires a hell of a lot less complex and unnecessary rationalizing and "logical lubrication" to squeeze around the Epicurean style problem of evil.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/athe ... light.html

Sam Harris, a member of the tribe known as “the new atheists,” wishes the headline to this story said something else. How about “Sam Harris Believes in Spirituality,” he suggests over lunch. Or “Sam Harris Believes in ‘God,’ ” with scare quotes?

In any case, Sam Harris—a hero to the growing numbers of Americans who check the atheist box on opinion polls—concedes he believes in something certain people would call “God.”

Spirituality is not a new interest of Harris’s, however. A careful reader will have noticed that though he’s often been lumped together with the rabble-rousers Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens (all are advisers to his nonprofit group Project Reason), and though he continues to insist that religious faith is possibly the most destructive force in the world, he shuns the label “atheist.” Harris places reason at the apex of human abilities and achievement, but he concedes that there’s much that humans may never empirically know—like what happens after death. “Mystery,” he wrote in the concluding chapter of The End of Faith, published in 2004, “is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely on to explain everything else.”

“Ecstasy, rapture, bliss, concentration, a sense of the sacred—I’m comfortable with all of that,” says Harris later. “I think all of that is indispensable and I think it’s frankly lost on much of the atheist community.”

“If you let the concept of God float a little bit, almost everybody is a theist,” says Stephen Prothero, author of God Is Not One. What Sam Harris believes in—rationality, morality, transcendence, humility, awe, community, selflessness, and love—meets a fairly common definition of God

[ignatius]

“If you let the concept of God float a little bit, almost everybody is a theist,” says Stephen Prothero, author of God Is Not One. What Sam Harris believes in—rationality, morality, transcendence, humility, awe, community, selflessness, and love—meets a fairly common definition of God

Hardly.  Theists claim the god concept is a supernatural force independent of our minds.  Those attributes are all in our minds and I recognize and appreciate these as a part of the human experience and our consciousness, but would not at all in any way attribute these to a god defined as an external force independent of our minds.  These are our human experiences.  For whatever reason, theists oddly attribute human experiences to a god, not giving humanity enough credit, cheapening the human experience.

I suppose you could call such human experiences, 'spiritual', but that's not an external supernatural force, it is a human force.

[mean]

Hardly.  Theists claim the god concept is a supernatural force independent of our minds.  Those attributes are all in our minds and I recognize and appreciate these as a part of the human experience and our consciousness, but would not at all in any way attribute these to a god defined as an external force independent of our minds.  These are our human experiences.

Exactly. What an odd argument. "Atheist agrees that all humans share human experiences and emotions, thus he believes in God!"

Um. No.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Boy!!! Usually it is a fight among religious believers and now there is a fight between athiests over what spirituality means.

[mean]

Not really, it's pretty consistent: a God or gods outside the human mind. I don't think anyone would argue that human experiences, which occur within the human brain, are gods.

[ignatius]

As if there is a specific definition for all words, especially one that most would say is a personal definition....  

I don't even call myself an atheist as it is a theistic term.  I don't believe in flying unicorns but do not call myself an aflyingunicornist.  

[LenexatoKCMO]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/2 ... ld/?hpt=T2
Apparently AKP and His Holiness Benedict XVI are on the same page here:

"The scientist's experience as a human being is therefore that of perceiving a constant, a law ... that he has not created but that he has instead observed," the pope said.

That perception, in turn, "leads us to admit the existence of an all-powerful Reason, which is other than that of man, and which sustains the world," he said.

[mean]

"Man observes things he did not create, ergo God exists."

Keep that kind of logic up, Benny.

[ComandanteCero]

"Pope Praises Science, Somehow Still Believes in God!"  :lol:

the blog entry is particularly grating in how it assumes there is some inherent contradiction between religion and science which justifies their using Hawking's out of context quotations to somehow represent what the "scientific" view on God is.

Give me an argument for why science proves or disproves God's existence, and I'll point out where you've conflated your philosophy/theology with science.

Hawking's thoughts on God are as philosophy based (i.e unscientific) as Benedict's.  This doesn't make them any less worthy of consideration or debate or discussion, but the more people misapply the idea of science the more it's legitimacy is undermined as a source of objective information in the eyes of the public - which can lead to the kind of truthiness the Tea Party advocates.

[mean]

Hawking's thoughts on God are as philosophy based (i.e unscientific) as Benedict's.  

Ehhh, sort of. Hawking didn't exactly say science disproves the existence of God. He explains how God didn't need to create the universe, or more accurately, how the universe doesn't need a God to have created it in order to exist. I think it's probably a fairly good analogy to compare The Grand Design to a sort of layperson's On the Origin of Species. Neither book says, "Aha! Now I've gone and proven there is no God!" That wasn't the point. Both essentially strive to explain the mechanisms by which things in the natural world happen; it's just that, in neither case do those mechanisms require a God which it was previously assumed they did.

Of course someone can (and will) always move the target further back by saying, "Ah, but you've only explained the mechanisms God created!" or something. I can't imagine a scenario where there will ever be a definitive enough answer that people won't be able to move the target further back. Even if we were to know everything there is to know about the universe in terms of physical laws and natural phenomena, someone will always be able to just shrug and say, "I think God did it." No matter how fabulously unlikely it is.