I totally understand what you stated. You stated that believing in any particular religion is not a choice and I strongly disagree. Of course it is something that is is a product of one's environment and life experiences but it is a choice.

Total BS. Logically if there was a God it could allow or disallow pain and suffering. So there are three and maybe more possibilities. The belief in a God is one of faith since the existence of such a supernatural being cannot be proven. You have faith that the people who taught you such things are revealing some truth.

There is nothing contentious in my statement. The bible states that people are given free will and are given the ability to choose to believe or not to believe and to sin or not to sin. Different religions use different ways of trying to steer their followers in a certain direction however people do have the ability to make choices.

I just realized something. A while back, Boobz claimed that religion was magic, I'm guessing he said that because when God or gods do things, they bend the natural order of things. In that case, this thread is asking:

"Science and magic (One and the same?)

And I believe we all know what Thor said, "Where I come from, (science and magic) are both one and the same. I believe the person who started this thread has trolled us all.

The focus of my argument is believing in God, not in adopting a particular religion...though I may have seemingly used "God" and "religion" interchangeably (and quite mistakenly if it seems that way), let's be very clear on this before we progress further...

Semantics is key here (hence why I have put many words in quotes)...I am in no way making an argument in regards to free will or predestination (which is how it seems you have interpreted my points)...I am merely classifying the "choice" to believe in God as a different type of "choice" than the trivial decisions we typically make...my distinction is not based on the importance of the "choice" as much as the nature of the choice...the conscious decision making we generally attribute to most choices simply is not the same in regards to God and the existence thereof...faith based decisions are different types of "choices" that are grounded in feelings, intuition, and psychological phenomenon...faith based decisions are driven primarily by past experiences and reactionary feelings while trivial decisions are the products of decision trees that utilize logic, reasoning, and some intuition...

You seem to have recognized this difference though have taken my statements to be affirmations of predestination which is just not the case...

You are looking at hypothetical universes that are irrelevant...pain and suffering do exist, and analyzing imaginary universes where they do not exist is not going to accomplish anything...on a slight tangent, even if that was relevant, we'd be left with four universes as we have two dualities compounded with each other (a universe with both God and suffering, a universe with God but not suffering, a universe with suffering but not God, and a universe with neither)...

Since pain and suffering exist, the only other variable (in this simple argument) is the existence of God...that clearly leaves us with two possibilities: 1) God exists and suffering exists or 2) God doesn't exist but suffering exists...

It follows then that either 1) God creates or at least allows suffering or 2) God does not exist...I have simply extracted the parts of each possibility that are the most discomforting or problematic...from there, I still stand by my statement that how one feels about each of these possibilities is a huge contributing factor to their belief or disbelief in God...and I would again stress that feelings are not choices, they simply happen (creating an indirect relationship between decision-making and faith)...

You may believe this, and your church/community may believe this, but that does not make it a fact...the bible does not just state "people are given free will", it just doesn't...the concept of free will is highly contentious in general and your statement is 100% opinion...there are specific scriptures that can and have been used to argue for or against the allowance of free will in a given religion, but using evidence to support a conclusion doesn't make the conclusion fact, just a very informed opinion...

Different religions acknowledge varying degrees of free will, and in some cases salvation is clearly and explicitly dissociated from choice (as in the case of Lutheranism)...that is just one example, though if you really believe free will is a universal consensus I encourage you to do research...you will find many instances of loopholes or tweaked semantics that help coalesce free will with omnipotence...likewise, both sides of the issue rely heavily on "informed" or "unique" interpretations of scriptures, some of which on the surface seem to contradict each other....

I am by no means arguing in favor of predestination or against the notion of free will, and I will stress again that the main point of my argument is a distinction between a faith based "choice" and a trivial choice...

Not necessarily...deistic thinking holds that God does not actively interact with the world, but rather provided the initial conditions for a dynamic system that follows specific natural laws to guide its evolution...

With our present understanding of the universe and science, it is hard to coalesce all aspects of theology with science...for example, if we grant that Jesus actually walked on water, how do we explain it scientifically?  An inability to provide an explanation would suggest that God actively interacts with the universe, though a scientific optimist would put faith in science and argue that a scientific explanation does exist, we just haven't found it yet...

Science is promising in its ability to "crack all the answers", but I think the jury is still out on whether science will actually accomplish that goal...we have yet to solidly prove whether the universe is deterministic or not, and without that, science requires just as much faith as religion in answering fundamental philosophical questions...

However you specifically stated religion and you cannot use the two interchangeably since many religions do not include a belief in God(s).

What don't you understand about free will? Which force of nature keeps you or anyone else from exercising free will and making choices? There certainly are constraints to what people choose depending on the real or contrived consequences,however we still have have the ability to make those choices. Use your own head. It should be obvious you have free will. You may think the pursuit of salvation takes away one's free will however it doesn't, you can still choose the other path even if you believe salvation exists can you not? There is no physical barrier to making such a choice.

How can you be so sure? My disbelief in God has absolutely nothing to do with pain and suffering or in thinking that a god couldn't exist because pain and suffering does. My personal disbelief is mainly based on the history of theistic religions throughout history and the level of hypocrisy revealed through the study of that history.

Science certainly does requires faith however it provides tangible evidence and reasoned explanations which allows the individual to further reason, not a simple "because some authoritative figure says so" answer.

That's funny you say that considering I just said the same thing... 

I specifically stated that the two terms cannot be used interchangeably, and I specifically made a point to clarify my argument in light of my error that I already admitted and have corrected...I don't know if you just read the first sentence of each paragraph or what's going on but it can't get any more clear than that...

My argument has nothing to do with free will...I am not advocating any particular theistic view or arguing against the idea of free will...if anything my argument implies free will...

This example suggests how the consequences of a chosen action affect one's beliefs...that inherently implies actions are choices and therefore products of free will...

Pain and suffering is simply one example...certainly there are countless other things that one can be exposed to that will arose feelings that affect how one thinks, and I have in no way implied pain and suffering is the only life experience that affects one's thinking...I simply picked a very specific example to work with as specificity helps demonstrate certain points better than abstractness...that, and I also have no desire to construct a "proof by exhaustion"...

Well that certainly makes sense in terms of how you would view religion, though that has very little to do with God....of course, it's your life experiences and if the abundant hypocrisy of religion has affected your belief (or lack thereof) of God well then so be it...your anecdote I think is quite typical, as it seems many (though not all) atheists have come to reject the notion of God due to the questionable history of religion... 

I would argue though that this conclusion of yours is based on a non sequitor, because God certainly can exist even if religion is completely fallacious...you have even contributed this statement:

Yours is a statement that clearly expresses God and religion to be independent of each other (ie you can have one without the other)...just as you can have a religion without a God, you can have a God without the "correct" religion...if the validity of religion is not necessary for the existence of God, then the invalidity of religion certainly should have no bearing on the issue...I am not criticizing your premise regarding the hypocrisy of religion, but rather I am questioning the logic used to make your conclusion...even if your premise regarding religion is absolutely correct, it does not follow from that premise that God doesn't exist, pointing to my statements earlier regarding faith-based decisions and the human mind...

Moving on to the overall discussion of the thread...

Tangible evidence certainly is a huge advantage science has over religion...that being said, science has failed to answer fundamental questions....

For example, science has failed to decidedly determine whether the universe is deterministic or not...just because you think you have free will doesn't mean you actually do, especially when you consider that the linearity of time is merely a human construct...

Science also has yet to indicate why the universe exists (though there is a great deal of evidence suggesting how)...

Science also has failed to point to a universal moral code...in other words, we have yet to discover a physical basis or set of natural laws that would allows us to determine a moral code...not that psychology, economics, or biology don't have theories related to morality, but they are certainly not complete nor are they foolproof...

Religion arguably has answers for these...different interpretations of different scriptures lend to varying views regarding free will, why the universe exists, and what moral codes to follow...

Just because religion has answers doesn't mean they are right...and just because science doesn't have answers yet doesn't mean it won't in the future...that being said, at this current moment religion provides answers for people (at least for some) while science does not...

I'd also add that tangible or empirical evidence is usually thought to be exclusive to science, though the proponents of naturalism and intelligent design have put an interesting twist on that...

Science essentially can not determine anything that has happened without leaving some form of evidence humans are capable of observing.

It's more than likely (in fact, probable certainty) that there is more we are not capable of observing than there are things we have already observed even the mere effects of.

Which science fiction world are you living in?

I don't expect science to answer such a philosophical question. Nor do I need to create a supernatural being to explain away such things.

A universal moral code would be just for some and unjust for others depending on the differing situations it is applied to. Once again I do not need to create a supernatural being to enforce such a moral code which may benefit some and injure others.

It certainly does and that is why I have no problem with people living their own lives religiously. The problem I have is when they try to impose those beliefs on others. In particular ones that contradict current science.

Intelligent design puts a 180 degree twist on science. It starts with a conclusion and forms an argument based on the conclusion. Intelligent design is not based on empirical evidence and is not science. It is another scheme to try to dumb down the population.

Its funny when I hear people say that the government should not legislate morality when it comes to things like seat belts and cellphone use  yet when it comes to their religious beliefs they are willing to vote away every right they currently enjoy.

Damn and blast....sucked in...

Seatbelt use and cellphone use [while driving, I assume] has nothing to do with morality.

It's social responsibility.   The cost to the general community of people dying whilst [and because they were] unrestrained, and the reckless endangerment of other people while text-driving, etc.

It has everything to do with God since God is a concept that is mainly rooted in religion. I don't believe God exists for the same reason I don't believe unicorns exists. I have never been convinced that God is more than simply a man-made concept. It is simply a word used by various religions and governments in different ways. In some cases to assign authority to some institution, sometimes to attempt to validate folklore, and in others used as propaganda to make something unjust appear to be just. Overall I think religion could be a good thing and my study of various religions and their traditions and culture is the basis for a lot of my own morality, however most religions do not adapt as time passes by and there are too many instances in present day where it is used unjustly. 

I don't know about you however my morals are based on how my actions might affect others. Is that not the same as social responsibility?

No.

It's like this: If you are an adult and even if you only have a middle school education than you have the tools to do the right thing. After that it's up to you.

All this other talk about science and God and abortion and all that is just a waste of time to me.

DO THE RIGHT THING AND EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FALL INTO PLACE.

I hope this meets the sites TOS. If not, at least find and read a copy of this mans excellent book, He has others as well. Great reading.

Just Google Robert Fulghum:

All I Really Need To Know
I Learned In Kindergarten

by Robert Fulghum

- an excerpt from the book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten

All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.
ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to live and what to do
and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not
at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the
sandpile at Sunday School. These are the things I learned:

Share everything.

Play fair.

Don't hit people.

Put things back where you found them.

Clean up your own mess.

Don't take things that aren't yours.

Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.

Wash your hands before you eat.

Flush.

Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.

Live a balanced life - learn some and think some
and draw and paint and sing and dance and play
and work every day some.

Take a nap every afternoon.

When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic,
hold hands, and stick together.

Be aware of wonder.
Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup:
The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody
really knows how or why, but we are all like that.

Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even
the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die.
So do we.

And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books
and the first word you learned - the biggest
word of all - LOOK.



Everything you need to know is in there somewhere.
The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation.
Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Take any of those items and extrapolate it into
sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your
family life or your work or your government or
your world and it holds true and clear and firm.
Think what a better world it would be if
all - the whole world - had cookies and milk about
three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with
our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments
had a basic policy to always put thing back where
they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you
are - when you go out into the world, it is best
to hold hands and stick together.

 

© Robert Fulghum, 1990.
Found in Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten, Villard Books: New York, 1990, page 6-7.

Nice post, Wiz.