The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God
IQ 2 offers well moderated thoughtful debates. This debate has a number of interesting points. But be warned that the opposing side led by Deepak Chopra will get very tiresome and repetitive (typical of Deepak Chopra). The opposing side's argument style is also reminiscent of the typical pro-religious argument. In style only - certainly not in substance.
Offered for those interested in intelligent debate. I would focus on the affirmative side since the negative side (opposing side) was mostly meta-physical, circular nonsense.
Of course the title is the topical question so feel free to opine on the subject defined by the title without referencing the associated debate.
Tags
Who is online
566 visitors
As our species (human beings) evolves socially, mentally, physically, etc. do we have less need for the concept of God?
Anything is possible, no? Is it reasonable to think that advancing to the 'next step' in our species - in x number of years - could give mankind new developmental senses which may allow us to elucidate better about spirituality and what life and death are?
It is certainly possible that we may evolve new senses. It is also possible that over time we will find that spirituality was nothing more than human beings looking for answers and getting help from their imaginations. Anything is possible.
. . . which may allow us to elucidate better about spirituality and what life and death are? Yes, TiG. Anything is possible in the future. We must see this from multiple points of view.
Most anything is possible. But that is really not information. What can anyone do with that statement other than nod? If someone claims they know something with absolute certainty then I suppose you can use the statement to illustrate they are incorrect in their certainty. Other than that, is it not just a platitude?
Then nod and move on. What is this?!
Your comments in this article have primarily been complaints, allegations of foul play, conspiracies, etc. This is getting very old. How about moving more to discussing the topic and tone down on the side-bar complaining?
To wit: As we Evolve, do we need God (i.e. the postulated sentient creator) more or less?
Evidently, you rule nearly everything I try to do as "ass-backwards," friend TiG. So, that is not new. Even so, I continue to 'take the shaft' and move on.
Hello my good friend TIG. Our need for that concept has some relation to the fact that all adults still carry inside of them an inner child ... we never outgrow wanting that ideal, good, all-wise and all-powerful parent to love, guide and protect us as we experienced in our infancy and childhood. Of course those of us who had a parent who did not fit this image are possibly the ones who had an easier time separating the mythology and the toxicity from the valuable parts of religion.
Seems to me you are speaking of the need for comfort (and other factors). I think a lot of people need the comfort of a God. I think some need the guidance they think they get from a God concept. Also I think the belief in a God has good to it. The comfort aspect especially.
I suspect this need has been fading and will continue to do so.
Hello Fr. Good to see you engaged in the discussion!
Now that we have the scientific method, who needs mythology and superstition to explain stuff?
Yup
Offered for those interested in intelligent debate.
Well if that be true-- why on earth did you seed it on a site like NT???
Faith!
Yes
What happens when objective rationalists meet dedicated true believers?
The same as happens when unstoppable forces meet immovable objects.
The negative side in this case were not dedicated true believers, but let's say they were. Under that assumption, my comment is that I think you are looking at these debates the wrong way. We can easily predict how they will end - the ending itself is entirely boring. What is interesting is the ebb and flow of the debate itself.
Further, these debates will never convince one side that the other is correct. Convincing the other party is not the purpose. The purpose is to put forth arguments and ideas for the audience to consider.
Except for the recent phenomenon that has relegated 'consideration' to the ash heap while extolling the virtues of fear, prejudice and false morality.
What is this phenomenon?
Wow, just started up at the top-left, and talk about 'stacking the deck'! The brief articles (above) comes across like this quote:
"One way to approach this is to get people thinking about religious claims in the same way they
already know they should approach claims made by used car salesmen, realtors, and politicians."
—Austin Cline
Heather Berlin makes this statement: "The only way I can know the world is through my subjective experience."
Does anybody here understand what she means?
You know, Charlottesville and all the rest. Hell, a few christian leaders has claimed that Trump was delivered by gawd. Benghazi congressionally investigated for years and not one question about the four soldiers killed in Niger. That phenomenon.
Are you referring to Heather's comments? The little video entitled 'God of the Gaps'?
Do you think that is what Heather is trying to do?
Yes. She is saying that her reality is a consequence of her brain processing the stimuli from her environment. Her truth, if you will, is subjective. She was not trying to be deep but rather to question the overly meta conceptual argument of the opposition. She is offering, in effect, common sense.
The other top left:
Wow, just started up at the top-left, and talk about 'stacking the deck'!
How am I stacking the deck?
Word cloud:
warned opposing side
Deepok Chopra very tiresome
repetitive typical
typical pro-religious argument
meta-physical circular nonsense
Try to be less vague.
You show words that are describing various aspects of the debate. The mere fact that I offer critical analysis that is not 100% sugary and flowery does not mean I am stacking the deck.
Where am I stacking the deck?
Does anybody here understand what she means?
Yes, I do. Subjective experience means that in her lifetime, the existence of an omnipresent or omnipotent being is either part of her experience or isn't.
I can safely say that in my own experience, if there is a God (and I don't believe that there is), then it is not the God of patience, love and acceptance. It is one of rage and vengeance on the frailty of mankind. A parent is supposed to use patience, guidance and love to promote the personal growth of offspring. If we really are God's children, it would appear that he isn't very much interested in saving us from one another, much less ourselves; therefore in my own experience, God is not worth my serious consideration. Quite simply, he leaves me empty and cold.
You are not talking about God, you are talking about a human conception of God.
The true God must encompass both polarities of duality.
Why does evil exist? Because it has to. If everything were "good" life would come to an instant standstill , because no one would be able to perceive or experience change.
Or one of indifference. If there is a God it would seem it resembles how a butterfly procreates which is to stick its eggs to the underside of a leaf and then leave never to return. It's offspring hatch to a world that doesn't care about them, they struggle to survive a universe that seems intent on eating them, such that they have to evolve defenses like spots that resemble the eyes of larger creatures or camouflage to help them blend into their environment, or they go extinct.
Good and evil are polar opposites of events, people, experiences or surroundings. Everything runs on a spectrum between one or the other. I don't believe standstill is the only paradigm to only goodness. That's just not a good enough reason to try to defeat evil.
The creator as indifferent? Then what's the point of the Bible? If the God of the Old Testament is indifferent to man, then there was no need for Jesus or the New Testament. God doesn't care how we get on and therefore some man-made construct of his omnipotence is just a useless vagary of a patriarchal imagination about dominance and cruelty.
Atheists of a certain type often ask if there is a God why does it allow evil?
Without evil there would be no good. I agree that evil and good exist on a continuum but that doesnt invalidate the conclusion. Why is existence constructed like this? Don't know.
One religious theory is that before creation as we know it there was a heaven where all was pure. The descent into material reality created duality. As far as religion goes I think that is as useful an explanation as any.
How so? Without "evil," there would be nothing but "good." If one follows the bible to its conclusion that god will defeat Satan and triumph over evil, then by definition that means there will be no evil, only good.
I wonder the same thing. I suspect it has to do with establishing power or control over others.
Well, god needed a makeover from the evil ogre he was depicted as in the OT. Think of god in the NT as God 2.0.
You got it.
Define "evil".
Then define Yahweh's evil vs Yeshua's evil.
How about culture's that do not believe in Yahweh's/Yeshua's definition of evil? Are those culture's "evil"? If so, should followers of Yahweh/Yeshua work to destroy them in order to eradicate "evil" so that the entire world is ruled by followers of Yahweh/Yeshua?
What happens when an objective rationalist is a true believer?
Hi Drak. Not sure you will get a response, but it would be interesting to read one.
Hello, TiG. How's things?
I'm not sure if a person can be both.
Drakk
Hope you're doing well
Katrix! Good to see you! Yes, I am doing well, thank you. In fact, I'm doing better than I have in a very long time. Long story : )
Since I am not you, I can't say it definitively, but I believe I understand what you're saying. I like to believe I am an objective rationalist that is a true believer. Of course, that presents the problem of what defines an objective rationalist, doesn't it? What do you believe defines an objective rationalist?
As always, the first task is to define key words. What do we mean by "need"? Why did anyone "need" God, ever?
I suspect that this question is tightly tied to another: "What purpose does God serve?"
For much of human history, God (or more accurately, multiple gods) were needed to explain tbe workings of the physical world, from weather to... just about everything... Obviously, as "scientific" explanations have replaced magical ones, that "usefulness" has diminished. (Although irrational and superstitious explanations are still sadly common even among supposedly educated people,"God" or "the gods" are rarely invoked for thunder nowadays...)
The God of Abraham was enlisted to enforce good behavior, but there have also been secular arguments since at least the Greeks. The need for God as policeman of behavior has fallen fast since the Enlightenment.
But... those are "needs" tbat are not really for God. She is a means to an end.
Do we have a need for God, directly? Do we need a deity? If we do, why would it be variable over time?
Indeed. If you are interested in the seeded debate (optional of course), 'need' is defined initially by the moderator and then within Michael Shermer's opening speech. The summary of the debate also offers the following:
Got the above from the website.
Yes and very much from the perspective of humanity.
You are on track with 'need' per this debate.
Also noted in the debate.
This is a more philosophical position than that held in the debate. (Although Deepok might have perked up on this point if you had been there.)
Because of the reasons you noted. In particular, the need to explain observed phenomena. Clearly that need has diminished substantially over time.
I meant my last paragraph to be independent of the previous cases of "need", which are indeed diminishing.
Do we have an innate, visceral (or hormonal or genetic) need for a deity, independently from the utilitarian cases cited previously. Some research seems to indicate that our species has a predisposition to believe in God. That's a rationalist question, needing a scientific response.
(Some people "need" God as an emotional crutch, but that's a need for a crutch, not really for God.)
To be complete, we should ask if we have "spiritual" need for God. Are we incomplete without God, or perhaps are we more complete with Him? This is unanswerable in the physical world, but (referring to a recent "scientific method" article) is the fact that this case is not falsifiable necessarily a game-breaker?
I think we do in the sense that we are driven to have explanations. I also am convinced that many will believe that which they desire - even if it involves denying facts and reason.
I don't and I feel quite complete. But I am in the minority (it would seem).
I think many people do and that there are likely evolutionary reasons for that as I discuss at 9.1.1, but I think it's an accidental (and unfortunate) side effect of how those neurological traits developed. From an evolutionary standpoint regarding the likelihood of an individual reproducing there are few if any adverse consequences to having an excessively active pattern recognition ability or to having erroneous assumptions about the cognitive abilities of weather events or other non-sentient things. All the evolutionary weight is in the other direction since hyper activity in those neurological processes would serve to protect a person from danger even if a majority of the time no such danger actually exists.
So the adverse consequences of those neurological traits are not to the individual who has those traits (at least not immediately) but to the societies where the resulting superstitions became formalized and institutionalized.
In addition to what you said about needing a god to explain the natural world or phenomenons, some people might "need" a god for emotional comfort or security, as a mental comfort mechanism.
Absolutely. The question now (and a good one) is if this particular need (i.e. comfort, security) is lessening.
For the particular comfort many are seeking, Religion is much more comforting then science and/or facts. A lot less complicated also.
Think how comforting a all-powerful, all-knowing father image that loves, protects and directs just like a dad should. The only problem is he has a temper and is very "old school" strict and a bit heavy handed when dishing out punishment, but hey.
If he's that strict even though he loves you, think how bad he'll lay punishment on people that bother him or his.
It's another example of Religion and Science serving much different needs. Science and facts are cold and not all that comforting, and Religion has few facts. I don't think all of humanity will ever completely grow beyond wanting a nice comforting Religion. If all they're using Religion for is comfort, I'm all for it and them.
.
The reason for the blank comment is while I was editing it I was called into a chat. By tine I got back to editing it, it almost timed out so that what was left was a jumble, so I deleted it. I was replying to this:
IMO ..some people do..some don't! (Or perhaps more accurately, some people feel pretty certain they do, some people feel pretty certain they don't!), So who's right? What is the ultimate "truth" in the Universe? Do we need a God or not?
That's a pointless question (unless someone is 100% sure they're right and those that disagree are wrong!) , because its a matter of opinion!
Some people feel they do, others feel they don't.
Well, things vary. (Except for those that don't
.
Many things in nature vary-- for example, in temperate zone, the seasons vary. The stock market varies-- there arfe periods where the economy is in recess, other times its booming. (But inevitably it seems to change...).
I am not an expert on world history, but my guess is that the planet goers through periods of much war and conflict and also other times of relative peace.
Heck-- even the tides vary (although that cycles is a short one, sometimes the tide is low, sometimes its high).
Why does it vary? Do we really need high tides? Do we need low ones?
Why do peoples' moods vary-- sometimes you feel good, sometimes you don't?
Why do things vary? (And is there any regular pattern to it? There is with the tides.., but what about other things..?).
That, to me, is one of the major issues. A god which used to tell its followers that women are property, that slavery is OK, that little girls are to be sold to their rapists, and that people who are different from us are to be slaughtered .. and now, it thinks those things are wrong? A true god wouldn't have morals which change along with us, as we become more civilized.
If a god changes as human morality evolves, then - no surprise here - it's like all other gods, created by its followers. And like Odin, or Zeus, or Osiris, or Puff the Magic Dragon, when someone stops believing in it, it no longer exists.
Spot on. Now why do people not recognize this absolutely blatant contradiction? It is amazing how the mind is capable of ignoring that which is undesirable.
Things have changed. Times have changed. Even faith has changed.
The lower economy folk need a belief that their lot will ultimately prevail for the good.
The upper economy folk need a belief that the lower economy folk will remain satisfied with the destiny they've been dealt.
The ringleaders of the MegaChurches need a belief that the coffers remain full and the wealth blessed upon them will remain unscathed.
As we evolve? Really? When I was young I told my boss, who was the owner of the company, that "Money wasn't everything." He smiled, bought me a donut and a cup of coffee. "No, he said, "Money is the only thing." So, with that being said I will add an often quoted quote. "The more things change, the more they remain the same.
The biggest factor seems to be education level, not so much a class or income issue. And there might be a correlation the other way too in that superstitious folks tend to be resistant to new ideas.
Education level. Very true. Also, the economy itself has changed. The stalwart benefactor of industry, which supported cities and regions for decades has mechanized, creating the increase of production and the decrease of the need for labor. I also surmise that the economic change has also altered religious perception.
I have to disagree. From what I've seen, the economic changes aren't what alters it. Education is what does - which is why the quest for knowledge is the original sin.
Question: Can a rationalist exclusivist fall "head over heels in love"? It is a serious question. So, please hold off on recrimination. It goes with the debate direction, by the way. I will explain as we go forward.
Cal, if you can find an appropriate venue for your question I will do my best to answer. But that is not topical for this seed.
The debater audience members are discussing, at one point, the future of humans as part or whole machine in generously less than 500 years. So let us say:
GOD IS DEAD
FAITH IS DEAD
RELIGIONS END.
So in 2018, what is the rationalist exclusivist like in the love category ("fall head over heels in love?"), because rationalist relations will become more pronounced in this reality s/he projects.
This is really stretching things Cal. You are asking questions about sidebar references in a debate about the necessity for God.
If this turns into a side discussion here I am cutting it off. So all I will offer is my opinion. I do not think that we will seek to remove emotional feelings from the human experience. I think people will seek to retain the euphoria of our emotions. Engineering away love, arousal, etc. seems very unlikely.
My friend, what? It is in the video. It's quite enlightening too. And refreshing! And, you want to "cut it off"? What is this a mere discussion on God and secularism is off-topic? Oh, I see now.
Rationalists apparently intend to 'debate' how to get rid of God, faith, and world religions, but do not want us to discuss how secularism will fit in its place!
So what about attempts to explain the existence of a Diety that are not based on logic but rather on a deeper level of knowing..i.e. on feeling?
(Or OTOH, what about a knowlege that a Diety exists based on something a bit different than Feeling...i.e. based on intuition"?)
I acknowledged that. Read my post. But it is tangential. If you want to talk about a sidebar (falling in love) then write an article on it as the topic. You understand the topic here Cal, so I should not have to spell this out for you. But if you truly do not understand the topic, read the title as a question:
The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God?
That is what we should be discussing. The ongoing NEED for God as we evolve as a species and as societies.
Good question. As we evolve, will we rely more on our 'feelings' or will we rely more on knowledge, reason and critical thinking? Will relying on feelings grow more or less necessary as we continue to evolve?
I believe that there are people who are consistently very rational-- in factit may be their predominant mode of functioning.
But who also believe in the existence of God based on knowing on a different level than logic. (IMO the two are not mutually exclusive).
Rationalists apparently intend to 'debate' how to get rid of God, faith, and world religions
I believe that there are people who are consistently very rational-- in factit may be their predominant mode of functioning.
But who also believe in the existence of God based on knowing on a different level than logic. (IMO the two are not mutually exclusive).
This quote (Shakespeare, Hamlet) sums it up nicely IMO:
‘There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of, in your philosophy.’
There are those who would argue that as we evolve, we will become more in touch with our spiritual nature. (I am moving in that direction more and more over time).I could try to explain that position, but it would take a long time so I won't
However I have a slight problem with the word feeling". In common usage it usually means "not thinking"-- that the two are opposites.
But I tend to use the Jungian model (IIRC he was one of Freud's students, but created his own interpretations). Basically,he felt that human personality types could be described by their position on two scales. The relevant one here is his view that there are basically 4 ways different types of people. based on how they mainly perceive the world: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing Intuiting. Each is different. (Thinking types primarily use Logic, Feeling types use Emotions, Sensing types use their physical Senses and Intuiting use their Intuition). Using one of these 4 modes is primarily how each type knows what they know.
(Or perhaps more accurately, how they know what they believe they know
Sop in that system there are 4 types. But in common usage we often talk as if there are only 2 types-- either you're logical (a "thinking type") or you're not. And what we mean when we say a "feeling" type. what we are describing may be anyone who is not a thinking type.
So when we say "feeling" we could be using it to describe an Emotional type...but or it might be a Sensing type..or an Intuiting type.
So here when I said believing in God or not by "feeling" I was using it in the usual way (feeling as opposed to thinking). But what I really meant was knowing by a means other than thinking-- meaning not by emotions but rahter by Intuition.
Some people who believe in God take it on faith..or because someone told them that there is a God. Some may even have used their own logic to "prove" God exists.
However what I was referring to was "Knowing God" not by logical proof but rather by intuiting that she exists.
TiG, do you intend to "usher" me through this article every time I offer up a point? It is my longstanding understanding that anything in a video, debate, article is appropriate and up for consideration in a discussion. So, what is this about? Let me address the points in the debate. The audience did with generous moderator 'blessing.'
Stop playing gratuitous games Cal.
Your understanding is wrong. It is not correct to pick anything that appears in a 90 minute video and deem it topical. Use common sense.
If you want to discuss love write an article.
The problem with 'feelings' is that they cannot be objectively reviewed. Anyone can claim feelings but unless they can be measured in some way they really do not count as evidence. So what are the others (outside of the individual expressing the 'feeling') supposed to do with the claim (other than note it as a claim)?
And that knowledge is unshareable - it is confined to the individual. Until it can be shared, it cannot be verified or incorporated into an objective model.
Love, like any emotion, is just a biochemical reaction in the brain. So your question doesn't make sense.
Okay! What are we evolving into? What is the "next" step do you see coming that using a subliminal title like this:
The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God
and a subliminal image like this. . .:
signifying?
Is this a new species of mankind or the same mundane people just without God, faith, and world religions? Is it projection or merely another form of psychological sublimination ?
Okay, we can not make comments about love in this article, Gordy! (TiG says no.)
We can only speculate where our evolutionary progress will take us. I'm hoping for super powers, a la X-men.
In the near term it will be people with really fast thumbs. Or it could be that the people with really fast thumbs will all be the ones killed while texting before they've had a chance to reproduce, so only the slow-thumbed and amputees will survive.
1. Did that "chimp" or thang in the early stages of the evolution image need God?
2. Mankind is in control of its environment in what appears to be a "timeless" setting to break stuff and discover new stuff.
3. And if God exist, won't mankind always be under God positionally? So what does "need God less" predicting?
Now you are complaining about the title of the debate and the artwork the debate organizers offered to represent the topic?? Look, Cal, this is not some grand conspiracy - it was a debate. I understand you disapprove of questioning the necessity of God but that is the topic. Don't blame the organizers for offering a debate-worthy topic and having graphics that express the topic.
Love is not the topic. Please write an article if you want to discuss love. This is obvious, right? This topic is the necessity for God as we evolve.
I do not think it is asking too much for you to try to focus somewhere near the topic.
The debate (and the topic) is about the human need for God.
I do not know what you are getting at. What does prediction have to do with anything?
Again my friend TiG! I graciously alerted Gordy (see 7.1.13 Gordy327 ) to your 'concern' and you come at me about it? Uncool.
I abided by your request and did not reply on the topic - which I wanted to do, incidentally. I only mentioned the directive and its source so Gordy would have evidence he needs as to why the matter should drop.
Sure it's not a conspiracy.
If you say so. This debate is just another in a long-running series of healthy doses of skepticism coming from atheists and skeptics.
Is this article looking forward to a future time when mankind will overthrow God positionally?
If all life did in fact evolve from single cell creatures that formed in the primordial seas, wouldn't that mean we would always be "under" single cell creatures since they came before us? Isn't it possible that "God" is simply a previous form of life we have evolved from that life on this planet may have now surpassed?
i'm not exactly sure what this means... if you no longer "need" your parents - does that you mean you overthrew them "positionally" ?
You mean the debate (you used 'article')? Assuming you meant the debate, I would say that Michael Shermer is looking forward to a time when unfounded beliefs are not held. Heather is searching for what you claim exists (spirituality that is beyond physical reality). The negative side was incoherent so who knows what they want.
So God is some inferior lesser than construct to your way of looking at it?!
Calbab...... You do realize that most skeptics were born into families that were believers. They came to their skepticism by asking questions and not getting any logical answers. Most skeptics are well versed in more than one religion, since they have been on a quest for truth. These are basically intelligent people who have found religion and God not to be useful in answering their questions.
Michael Shermer is an agnostic atheist. Heather Berlin is a theist. Deepak Chopra is irreligious but you will likely approve of his spiritual views. Anoop Kumar ... unclear, but does not appear to be an atheist.
So on what do you base your claim that this is some atheist conspiracy?
The analogy does break down does it? However, the image in 7.1.14 above does show the human dropping symbols of the great faiths (of God) in the waste bin of life and time. This symbolism is undeniable! To continue the analogy, yes, those parents are being 'booted' down into a grave-setting.
I'm simply positing that possibility. If God exists might it be some earlier form of life that seeded our planet? Might we possibly evolve to surpass our origins as we did with single celled organisms? Or do you believe God to have created something that could never or would never surpass itself? I hope my children surpass me and my meager accomplishments and those of my ancestors, wouldn't a loving God wish the same for his children?
I go back and forth with the terms, article and debate. You have supplied both, an article and a link to a debate. Seeing that I have read your statements at the top, read the "live transcript" and watched the video I can call it by various words. When time permits I will have to check out Ms. Berlin myself, for now I reserve my opinion.
Hi friend DocPhil! You can call me, Cal.
You likely do realize that people flow back and forth across these categories of atheist and theist blurring them during different points in their lives. Granted, Agnostics simply 'squat' on the line. Moreover, there are scientists that are theist, and former pastors who abandon faith, and so forth and so on. . . . . So yes, I realize a great many of these things.
I'm a Christian-believer. Christians do not believe mankind can be God or for that matter surpass God. I hope that is clear. Because it gets into a whole set of other discussions beyond the scope of TiG's thread. Thanks, DP for the question, nevertheless. (Smile.)
Personally I think it speaks directly to the question of whether the more we evolve the less we need God. I get that you have chosen a specific brand of faith, I myself was a Christian for over 30 years, but the point remains, if you debate whether we need God or God needs us we have to define what that God is or represents in order to debate that central question. If he is as I posit, just one link in the chain of our existence, then it would make sense that as we evolve the need for the idea of God would lessen. If he is an all powerful all knowing being we have no chance of ever surpassing, then we might need God more as we evolve and our understanding of him/her/it expands and our power over the universe around us grows.
On that note, I have often wondered what purpose there would be for mankind, outside of some desire for trophies on Gods mantle, if everything is already known and nothing new could every truly be discovered because God already knows everything. Is our journey for knowledge that pointless? Why do we have to reinvent the wheel as it were if God already knows every possible engineering invention and mechanical aid we could ever dream of? Is he placing bets with some other deity as to how quickly we'll figure it out? Why leave us in the dark about the mysteries of the universe or even the mysteries of the divine if we are eventually meant to learn those things? Is there some sort of pleasure derived from watching us suffer and slowly unravel those mysteries on our own along the way?
you seem to think if there's no "need" for God then all religion would suddenly cease to exist. I don't think that's what the point of this article is nor what the debate was about. It is entirely possible for people to desire to believe in God without having a "need" for it or trying to get others to have a "need" for it, correct ?
in very ancient time periods in our history - we "needed" God (or Gods/Goddesses) for a variety of reasons including explaining things that we didn't understand (for example, the Sun, the Moon, the Weather etc). I think this is just simply asking the question (in today's world) - do we still "need" God ?
it's a valid question and delves into questions as to why people do "need" God - is it comfort ? if it's comfort (for death etc) then do they need God or just the feeling of something (or someone or some being etc) to "greet" them in the "afterlife" when their nervous system ceases to function ? Many things attributed to God (or Gods/Goddesses) have been explained by Science and facts - we no longer worship Apollo or Artemis do we ? Nope, we have learned about the Sun rising and the Moon as well - so those no longer needed a God (or Goddess) to be their explanation.
As history shows - we learn through Science to explain things previously unknown that were attributed to God (or Goddess) and i think this article simply asks the question - do we still "need" God ? will we "need" God in the future ?
(if we don't "need" God, that doesn't mean that religion would suddenly end - there are people who believe in God (or a higher power) not out of necessity, but out of desire)
It seems to me that thinking about God is important. Thinking about good and evil is important, and in our culture, the two run together.
Denying the existence of God is an inevitable part of "thinking about God". Any God worth respect will understand.
It is reflecting the proposition. They could have phrased the proposition as this ...
"The More We Evolve, The More We Need God"
... and then the graphic would likely show the last person collecting more crosses (or equivalent).
Regardless of the proposition, in a debate there will be an affirmative side and a negative side. So both sides of the debate are posited regardless of the wording of the proposition.
You are complaining that they did not phrase the proposition as pro need. If they had phrased it as I noted above (... the more we need God) would you find complaints from skeptics of biased symbolism to be valid?
DP! Honestly, I do not know how to proceed with this area of discussion. I expect the 'hand' of TiG at any moment now. . . . I am not being sarcastic either.
I have no problem with what you call it. But note that it is difficult to offer a direct answer to a vague question.
Phoenyx13! Again, you are making a distinction without a difference. If man does not need God - why have in existence religious organizations to attest to God? Moreover, you are combining all Gods into one (for example: nature gods, elemental gods, spiritual god), I feel confident that it is the "One God" the Abrahamic God that is in view in this discussion.
No, I would have liked the image indeed! Your bottom lip would have been poked out, nevertheless!
That is the point of protest, no? The picture should have been excluded from the stage or wherever it appeared in the debate setting. It is biased symbolism. The proverbial 'lightning rod' for controversy!
Exactly. So you are not arguing from a principled position. You are okay with 'bias' (as you deem it) as long as the 'bias' supports your viewpoint.
there are many reasons including the comfort aspect of a God concept - i thought i had covered that, my error if i did not.
that's one of the current God(s) (the Abrahamic God) - but that wasn't the only God worshipped throughout history, correct ? to answer the question if we "need" God - we must look from history to present date, that includes prior worshipped Gods (and Goddesses), including current ones (the Abrahamic God isn't the only God worshipped currently) and what our "needs" were for them throughout history, if that need has diminished or increased etc, the reasons for diminishing or increasing "need" etc. You are making God as something tangible - whereas i am talking more about the "concept" of God (which i think is ultimately what they are discussing, not any specific God - since there are many worshipped today - but the concept itself)
Oh, but I wrote so much more than that. Including, how the image should have been excluded from the presentation setting. No matter. I can not win with you, my friend. Think the worse of me. *Ahem. I'll get over it.
Cal.... The argument is in perception....Man is an explorer by nature....we search for answers to the unknown.....we've done that ever since we began to walk on two feet and began to realize that we had some control over the environment. Explorations take different directions, some take us to a belief in a God, others take us to a belief in science and provability.
I think that the real dispute between theists and atheists is the manmade concept of religion. Most theists and atheists agree that religions are man made organizations. They are businesses that are set up to make profits and to provide a measure of exclusivity. They have been the cause of more grief in this world than any political ideology. The theism vs. atheism would be much more civil if the exclusivity of religion did not get in the way.
Point taken. Though, those other gods are defunct. As one who studies the opposing community at-length, I know they are going after the relevant God 'of this age.' In America (the grand prize) that's the God of Abraham.
I didn't think I had gone that far from the current area of discussion.
You asked:
1. Did that "chimp" or thang in the early stages of the evolution image need God?
As far as we can tell from excavated remains and burial methods from the time, our early ancestors had no concept of God. It wasn't until the last 20,000 years or so that we find evidence of rituals, cave paintings and idols that would infer the belief in some sort of deities.
2. Mankind is in control of its environment in what appears to be a "timeless" setting to break stuff and discover new stuff.
I don't think it appears to be "timeless" at all considering it's only been the last few centuries that mankind has been able to tame or control our environment. In fact it was within the last two thirds of a century that we made it to the deepest parts of the ocean and into outer space. Yes, we almost always end up breaking whatever new realm we discover and master, but the number of "new" environments we discover has slowed dramatically compared to 2,000 years ago when just stepping out our doors we faced new environments, creatures, challenges and discoveries.
3. And if God exist, won't mankind always be under God positionally? So what does "need God less" predicting?
As I said, whether we are under God "position-ally" would depend on what kind of God exists. If we just assume God is the omniscient omnipotent being that most Christians worship, then of course, we could not help but be dominated by such a universally powerful being that everything would owe it's allegiance to for without it nothing would exist. But if God is as I suggest, whatever ignited that first spark of life on our planet, whether it be a random chance electrical storm hitting the right amino acids at the right time with the right primordial soup, then we are the evolved result of that initial spark thus as we evolved we needed an explanation for things at one point and thus invented God and then as we evolve further no longer need to explain the unknown by labeling it "God". We don't need to invent Gods for why the sun comes up or the moon traverses the sky or waxes and wains. We don't need God to explain thunder or lightning, fire or the evaporation to rain cycle of water on our planet.
I disagree with this statement from the Christian point of view. If only because Apostle Paul did not take wealth and fame for his work effort, but only what he needed to survive. Of course, Paul did warn against filthy lucre and sordid gain by some sneaked in unawares. But this is human nature par for the course. We all toil together here on this earth: Good, Bad, and Ugly.
I agree, religion is a social construct. Jesus, the Messiah departed leaving instructions and a degree of spiritual power in the Earth. And, men were left to their own devices has how to best promulgate the Message. The results we see spanning thousand of years. So yes, man made religious organizations. But, let's be clear, a structure, a container, of some type became necessary.
defunct ? really ?
i thought you stated you studied the "opposing community" at length ? did you just mean Atheists when you stated "opposing community" ? as you can see - there are still other Gods worshipped today and some are "making a comeback" - so who's to say they ever really left ?
regardless - this illustrates the point that its not any specific God that they are discussing, its the concept itself that is being discussed, you seem to be taking this personally due to your religious beliefs in a particular God and this isn't specifically about you nor specifically about the God you worship.
that is purely opinion - there are many relevant "God(s) of this age" currently on this planet.
Okay. You're right: I am talking about the Atheist (sites and information). That stated, I could have missed a few "hidden" gods there too! So many discussions. . . *Sigh! So little time. . . .
Actually I should have said "intuition" instead of "feeling", as feeling usually refers emotions and I meant intuition which is actually different than emotions. However, they do have something in common-- they both are not based on reason , and results obtained by neither can't be proven to others.
While these insights are very real to those who have them, in most cases they can't be proven to other people! (Which doesn't necessarily negate their validity to those who experience them...).
I have experienced that quite often. For years I studied mysticism, psychic phenomena, etc. But my main interest has Astrology, which I've studied for over 30 years. There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that there is some validity to Astrology-- I've even used it successfully myself.
But long ago I came to realize that its can't be proven (logically) to anyone else . .
I even read some books about attempts to "Prove" it scientifically. They were unsucessful!
So there is this ironic sitution-- I know it works, but I can't transfer that knowledge to most other people. (Although I personally have no need to proselytize).
The thing is, intuition is testable because it inherently offers predictions.
But it should be. You were convinced of its validity by something.
Actually, you don't get to define Christianity. There are 33,000 Christian sects, none of whom agree on all aspects of what it means to be a Christian.
Do you feel yourself to be the true prophet, able to be the one person who can define what your god thinks and feels?
If not, take a step back, and stop being so damn offended when your logic is trounced. When you're called out, you get defensive when asked to support your argument. You keep telling me that I could accept your arguments if I'd only believe - circular "reasoning" at its best - yet, when I ask you to give Zeus the same consideration you expect me to give your god, you get your knickers in a knot.
If you want to debate, then do so. If you are trying to proselytize, then be prepared to have logic thrown back at you.
No comment.
this doesn't seem to make sense. If you "studied" it for over 30 years - how was the knowledge transferred to you ? if you know how it works - why aren't you able to explain it to others ? (as in, how you came to conclusion it works, what proof you required to validate in your mind that it works, how you were able to obtain that proof etc etc)
(please note: i'm not trying to be combative or offensive anything of that nature - i'm just genuinely curious which is why i'm asking the questions)
I recently wrote an article on this issue. Why God ? That's an easy question . We fear death and the concept of an omnipotent being that can control our own immortality is as seductive as any thought. The inability to prove the existence of God makes it even more appealing.
We then have the issue of tribalism . That translates into a my God is more powerful than your God. This leads to bigotry and an endless succession of religious wars.
Finally, we have intellectual laziness. Everything we don't understand can be attributed to God . Why have intellectual curiosity when the answers are in God's hands. Just trust God and all will be fine.
These were compelling arguments in the pre-scientific age. They don't hold water today. Science answers an increasing number of questions every day. Civilization demands intellectual curiosity,and we are beginning to move beyond the tribalism of the past.
Some still need God but their numbers are and will continue to decrease. In 100 years God may be an artifact of history.
I think "tribalism" implies religion. But IMO one can be spiritual and have a belief in some sort of "Higher Power" without religion.
What's the difference between religion and non-religious spirituality? I think that while religion can be spiritual it is a system where someone in authority tells you what to believe about the existence of God. Yes, that's tribalism.
But non-religious spirituality, , is not derived by following the dictates of an external power, but rather comes from within.
While most religions often say you are incapable of knowing God and therefore need to consult an "expert' (some sort of priest or holy man), you are actually capable of knowing on your own.
Ironically Christ, (a religious" leader) knew that, but most of his followers just didn't get it:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
--Luike 17:21
I like your differentiation between spirituality and religion. Not wanting to speak for you, I do think that you and I come from a similar place. Religion is a man made construct. It is a part of tribalism and a way for individuals to consolidate power. It has nothing to do with God or spirituality.
I take it a step further, though. God and spirituality are not the same. To me, God is a man made construct, similar to religion. He/she/it is an anthropomorphic construction of the human mind designed to project power and dominion over man. He/she/it is an excuse for earthly transgressions.
Spirituality is quite different. It is a feeling. It is not necessarily a belief. I feel a spiritual connection to everything on this earth. All of us have connectivity and we have a responsibility to one another. I personally don't care if you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or any or belief or non-belief system. I don't care if you are black, white, brown, yellow, red, or any shade in between. I don't care if you are American, Russian, Israeli, Syrian, Korean, or any other nationality. I don't even care if you are human, mammalian, reptilian, avian, or any other animal or plant. You are part of the same eco-system and share the same planet as I do. What we take from this planet, we have to replace. That is my spirituality. Your's may be different and that is fine. We all find spirituality in our own way.
It is one of the reasons that I believe that God is not necessary as man evolves. We learn how we are all integrated into the well being of this planet. This earth doesn't belong to God, it belongs to the creatures and flora that inhabit it.
I think part of the problem with the concept of "God" is that it means different things to different people.
Some people don't believe in God, but they believe in a "Higher Power". (IIRC, Alcoholics Anonymous used to talk about God-- turniong one's problems over to God.. But some people couldn't relate to that so they starting using the term "Higher Power". Some people use the term Universal Energy" or "Universal Life Force" Some of these concepts are similar to the ancient Chinese concept of "Qi ("Chee energy").
Many spiritual people feel that this energy connects everything....
In most branches of Hinduism they talk of Maya-- the world of illusion (the world of physical reality, of time and space, are illusion).. That its all just vibrating energy.
Of course all of this is very abstract and probably impossible for most people to understand unless they've experienced it.
Very well said.
Religion was created for two reasons:
1) To explain the unexplained.
2) To control masses of people.
We can now explain most things with science.
#2 is harder...
What better way to get people to do what you want than to tell them, "If you do what we say, live the way we tell you to live and give us money, you will live in your own personal utopia when you die, but.... If you don't, you will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity...". Today? Most of that is passed off as rhetoric, but 1800 years ago? It was believed as 100% fact, without question and to question that? Execution.
Religion is a system of CONTROL. No more, no less and it saddens me that this is still in effect to this very day. Nothing wrong with faith, nothing wrong with believing in 'God'... But when it influences your daily actions, or life ambitions.....you have gone too far....IMO...
An understatement!
Now, is God necessary for society to improve?
I'd say that it's generally an impediment due to the irrationality, tribalism, authoritarianism and all kinds of bigotry which such superstitions tend to promote. Just taking one aspect as an example, the misogyny and patriarchy which the Abrahamic cults promote have oppressed half the population for several thousand years. Only as the grip of these superstitions has lessened have women even begun to enjoy close to the same liberties and rights as men in secular society, and there are still bible-babblers trying to prevent women from controlling their own wombs. And that's ignoring the fact that within most of these cults women are still very much treated as 2nd-class persons.
However I'm not optimistic that these superstitions will disappear anytime soon given that many people are prone to be superstitious. Apart from the social control aspects inherent in religion I suspect there are neurological and evolutionary reasons behind the existence of a superstitious reflex, like our excellent ability at pattern recognition even in the absence of any pattern. Same thing with the evolution of our abilities at "theory of mind"........superstitious people overscope this projection of agency and intention so that they include events and non-sentient things like tornadoes and volcanoes.
So let's move away from the biblical God and to the 'god' of this debate. (No requirement to watch the debate.) In the debate, 'god' (per the affirmative) was taken as an abstraction - supreme creator entity. The negative side oddly defined 'god' as universal consciousness (sigh).
As we progress (evolve) do you think society (and individuals) will tend to need the notion of a creator entity to improve their collective situation? From your Abrahamic answer I presume you would respond no. But I am curious nonetheless how you would respond if 'god' is nothing more than the idea of a sentient creator (no Bible, no religion, no attributes).
No.
Again...Belief is fine, faith is fine...but it will not improve society in any way. The right says that faith and belief is the moral path, but....forgetting the transgressions of past and current political leaders, there is no proof of it. Some of our most religious leaders have proven that a belief in 'God' most certainly doesn't mean, "moral".
Obviously my answer is no for societies, at least in the abstract. What we don't know is how the lack of superstition would influence the organizational behavior of a culture, like whether respect for authority is reduced and how that might impact things.
For individuals I don't know since it would depend a lot on the society. In many cultures including our own the people who aren't superstitious don't fare well or have to conceal the fact that they don't share the superstitions of the majority. Granted that's less true today than 200 years ago but it's why there are still only a small handful of politicians who admit to being atheists.
Also note that my reference to the Abrahamic cults was just for a concrete example, and I was actually speaking generically about superstitions about "gods" of any kind. But regarding that example of misogyny I do think it's difficult to suss out how much is generic great ape behavior and how much is indoctrinated through religion, I just know that there are examples of cultures which haven't been nearly as bad.
Well in that case I guess I'm one of those "odd" people. One of those on the "negative side". (Although I don't like the term "universal conscious", if that it supposed to describe what I tend to believe).
In Taoism, "The Tao that can be explained is not the true Tao": I have recently begun studying some eastern philosophies (I recently stated going to traditional Chinese accupuncture as well as to a very different Japanese style) and have studied some Eastern philosophies. I have also Feng Shui'd my environment.
Some time ago I was living on a Yoga Ashram. I heard a n engaging Budhist speaker, and discovered that some aspects of Buddhism appealed to me.
Most recently I came across references to Taoism so I started studying this approach. (Just finished "The Tao of Pooh")., Much of Taoism resonates with me as well, although long ago I realized that I am the sort of individual who can never follow just one path....I like to choose the parts of amny approach that intuitively "feels" right to me and integrate into my life.
But to those judgemental types who dislike these sorts of approaches (probably because they can't be totally understood by logic) I would quote these words of wisdom:
There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
IMO, (or perhaps more accurately in my experience) logic works well in some areas, but not for other things-- to put it another way:
You can't get there from here.
The same can be said about non religious leaders as well. For example .... some of the worst mass murders in history were avowed Atheists. Stalin, Mao, and arguably Pol Pot to name a few.
Do you blame the horrors they perpetrated on Atheism or the men?
did those men perpetuate those horrors specifically in the name of Atheism (as we have seen horrors perpetuated specifically in the name of religion) ??
Should we attribute all the wars and mass deaths and genocide throughout history on the religious beliefs of those who started the conflicts? If so then throughout history religion has been the cause of billions of deaths. If not, then you wouldn't place the blame on atheism for those atrocities committed by authoritarians whose real goals were to cling to power and claim power for themselves, not in the name of atheism, but in their own names.
IMNAAHO, this is a serious anachronistic error. Your appreciation of the God of Abraham is built of three thousand years of events since then.
I different, and IMNAAHO much better method is to take the God of Abraham in the context of the Middle East three thousand years ago. The novelty in this god was that He required obedience to predefined ethical rules (as well as straightforward worship, of course...) This was a big step in the history of humanity's progress toward "normalized ethical behavior".
You say "Abrahamic cults"... but most Jews have long since moved along from the harsh God of Abraham. Christians should be following an entirely different ethic: "love one another" rather than any set of rules. (Many self-styled "Christians" have completely lost sight of Christ, preferring a strange idolatry of the Bible itself.) Mohamed's Islam mentions the God of Abraham, but Islam's God's requirement for obedience is a different path.
Pithy one-liners are usually... inaccurate...
Still waiting for an answer to my question
Still waiting for an answer to my question
They aren't following a religious doctrine and so they are judged individually. Once you use religion as the basis for such things though, then the religion also receives judgement. Not necessarily because you as a dictator or aggressor believe in said religion(s), but because you know people who do will buy in completely, quite often, as has been proven repeatedly throughout history....and so the belief system that allows for such is also suspect.
How does anyone know what anyone else "believes"?
Do you seriously imagine that Donald Trump believes in God, regardless of what he says?
I thought I was pretty clear in my answer, but to put it plainly, the answer would be "the men" of course. If we put all the blame on the theism or atheism of the genocidal maniacs in question all religions and none would be condemned for members of virtually every religion, and atheism, have blood on their hands at some point in human history. I do recognize, however, that some extremist versions of belief do intentionally promote violence and murder in the name of their religion, so much like I feel about guns, the guilty party is always the one who pulled the trigger, but i'm not against some regulation of extremist ideologies that tell their followers to go commit mass murder whether they be Christian extremists or Muslim extremists (or any other brand of faith, or even atheist extremists if they exist).
i cannot answer the question without more information which is why i asked:
and you have yet to answer it. I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.
What religion but a belief system? Same as Atheism.
See, there’s a clear answer. I agree. The individual must be blamed first regardless of what name or religion the harm is done in.
mine is not a defense of harm done by the religious any more than I excuse the non-religious for the harm they do.
Many atheists tend to think the have some sort of high ground in that regard .......... and they don’t
That is false. Atheism is a distinct lack of religious beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less. It's absolutely not a belief system lol. What you said is however a common refrain from believers.
That must mean that bald is a hair color.
There's no doubt that the particular set of beliefs and the influence of these superstitions have changed over the past several thousand years, but note that things like coverture laws and marital rape exemptions persisted until the mid-1980s and 1990s. So the adverse influence of these superstitions is very persistent and that's just looking at how those superstitions influence secular society. If you were to examine specific cults like the RCC, LDS or SBC you'd see that they're all still profoundly misogynistic and they continue to oppress half the human population which belongs to those cults.
I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.
Wrong, lack of belief is a belief system in itself but if it helps to tell yourself that it isn’t ..... by all means keep telling yourself that
answer my question, that was asked first and I will be happy to answer your question.
see how that shit works?
as previously stated (which i'm guessing you didn't read) - i cannot answer your question until i have more information thus the reason for me asking:
when you give me the information i need to properly answer your question by answering my question - then i will answer your question. see how that shit works ?
i'm still waiting for an answer to my question. (if you can't answer it, that's fine, just admit that you can't answer the simple question)
This insistence that atheism is a belief system is so silly. Why do people continue to push this stuff?
How does lack of belief in X turn into a belief SYSTEM ?
To illustrate this with reductio ad absurdum :
What, precisely, are the systems underlying aSantaism, aMartianism and aBigFootism?
Directly addressing this semantically:
Oxford on Belief System - "A set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code."
Oxford on Atheism - " Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
There are no principles of atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief that a god exists. Nobody should be confused about this, really.
It's less an issue of trying to convince myself and more an issue of the fact that what I said is 100% accurate.
You are using particular cases to prove a generality. That's a logical fallacy.
You've been provided with enough information to know that your comment is complete bullshit.
So, you have a belief system in unicorns and leprechauns .. that's interesting. You have a belief system in purple spotted flying hippos. By your own words, you have a belief system in these things (unless you actually believe they exist).
Got it.
On a more serious note, do you believe in any of the other gods humans have worshipped? And, if not, why not? I believe in one fewer god than you do. I can explain why I don't believe in Zeus, or Isis, or any of the other gods. So, please tell me why you don't believe in Zeus, as a starting point (or pick some other god, any god). Let's start a rational discussion. And yep, I'm serious about it .. not trying to be a smartass.
Yeah, i see how you work in here. i ask a question and you attempt to redirect, deflect, ratioanlize ..... the usual from the left. It's a simple question, that has a simple "A" or "B" answer. You don't NEED more information. You HAVE all the information you need to answer the question.
A.) You believe it's primarily the religion or belief systems fault
B.) You believe it's primarily the individuals fault
You won't answer because you know the answer can reflect just as badly on Atheists as it can on the religious. That's because it's primarily the individual that causes the problem not the belief system. Thats where the real evil comes from. From Man. Not from words in a book or from others words but rather how those words get interpreted and acted upon by INDIVIDUALS.
Again, Atheists have no moral high ground here. No matter how sanctimoniously they claim that they do. Some of the greatest evils in history were perpetrated by people with an atheist belief system. The megalomania displayed by some of those individuals was unprecedented in history and make no mistake, they were Atheists. Not Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.
They certainly didn't perpetrate those evils in the name or religion of the people they were killing. In most cases their own people. Unfathomable evils perpetrated by people who were Atheists. You can try to separate the two but you can't. Not rationally, not really.
then you shouldn't have an issue giving me the information i need to answer your question, right ?
LOL you think i play those silly "left vs right" games that you are apparently obsessed with ?? that's cute
this is where the information is required and thusly my question is asked:
i'm surprised you didn't catch on to this sooner, i apologize for assuming you did. You are stating that there are horrors specifically perpetuated in the name of a religion and comparing that to Atheism - but you didn't state if those men perpetuated those horrors specifically in the name of "Atheism" as the other men have done with their specific religion. It's not a comparable example if there are no horrors done specifically in the name of "Atheism" which is why i asked my simple question that you keep trying to dodge. (it's ok to admit you can't answer the simple question) so i cannot answer your question until i have more information.
see above.
i cannot answer because you haven't provided the information that i need in order to formulate an answer - did those men perpetuate those horrors specifically in the name of Atheism (as men have done in the name of a specific religion) ?
i don't remember claiming that they did - maybe you can point that out to everyone ? (i won't hold my breath, you still are unable to answer simple questions)
let's see your proof that some of the greatest evils in history were perpetuated by people with an "Atheist belief system" and in the name of that "Atheist belief system" like men have historically done in the name of {insert religion name} . (p.s. you are just highlighting a lack of knowledge about Atheism if you think it's a belief system - that's like stating "Bald is a hair color !" and "Off is a TV Channel !".)
Did they perpetrate those evils in the name of "Atheism" ? it's a very simple question that you seem unable to fathom an answer to. We've seen evils perpetrated in the name of {insert religion name} by men who followed that religion, if you wish to compare the two then you must answer the question - Did they perpetrate those evils in the name of "Atheism" ? (if the answer is "no" then the two scenarios are not comparable, are they ?)
Lol, nice try ....
So basically what you all are saying is ..... your belief that there is no God ..... is not a belief.
Right?
Sorry, i don't buy it. It's a lazy argument.
I could say something like, i don't believe Roses exist and leave it at that like all of you are trying to do with Atheism. Providing no evidence, no nothing. It's only a "non belief" right? I’m not making a claim of any kind—quite the opposite actually. I’m claiming nothing. I’m simply rejecting one of your beliefs—your belief in Roses.
So my belief that Roses don't exist, is not a belief. It's simply ..... a non-belief.
Right?
Only in the minds of partisan and hate filled Atheists.
Now go away. I'm already juggling enough Atheists here. Most of whom seem to have the ability to debate with less loathing and hostility like is your typical modus operendi here on NT
Clearly you have no idea what TiG is saying if that's what you take away from him. A lack of belief is not a belief.
No, you just don't get it!
A contradiction in terms. But hey, keep telling yourself that nonsense or that you're right if it makes you feel better.
No matter how many times you want to spew that nonsense, you're still wrong!
There is no point to debating with Atheists like you folks. You guys are so right ..... you are still right, even when you are wrong ......
Suffice it to say that once again, i disagree with you completely Gordy.
And that is still okay because you're good enough and smart enough and gosh darn it other atheists like you Gordy.
Except we're not wrong. But you go right ahead and keep thinking you're right. Perhaps give yourself a pat on the back while you're at it.
Suffice it to say, I couldn't care less.
You said it, I didn't!
And not just my explanation; others have explained this - mine was additional. Good grief, even Oxford explains it sufficiently at the dictionary level.
I think this is yet another example of ignoring the facts and stubbornly doubling-down on a talking point. No attempt to intellectually dispute the explanation (although arguing against basic dictionary definitions is usually a losing proposition) or to show how aBigFootism is a belief system.
As you know, stubbornly doubling-down is a very cliche pattern of discourse, but one still wonders why people go this route. Is it based on some notion that readers will not notice??
Lol sure you don't Gordy, sure you don't.
No, that is not what I am saying. You are equivocating. You said that atheism is a belief system. Clearly my point was that lack of belief is not a belief system.
You are also trying to use two distinct usages of the word 'belief' in the same sentence. That is a form of sophistry.
That's right, I don't! Don't flatter yourself into thinking otherwise.
( no need to be so rude )
it's a "saving face" technique, gives the person who is "saving face" the ability to be incorrect - but try to hide it and be smug as if they were actually correct (while hoping no one notices they were incorrect or unable to prove they are correct) It's not limited to one party nor the other, not limited to religious nor non religious - it's a human condition.
It boggles the mind as to why people feel the need to label atheism or non-belief as a belief system. It's like they are completely incapable of understanding that some people simply do not have a belief in something.
I think it's based on the notion that certain individuals lack the intellect to understand the point or make a valid one of their own. So they essentially repeat themselves (even when they're wrong), as if repetition will somehow validate or strengthen their position.
I agree, but why would one think that would be persuasive? Catching those who are not paying attention?
i'm not sure they think it would necessarily be "persuasive". it's a fight-or-flight reflex it seems - and they choose flight while still saving (in their eyes) their dignity and honor (or credibility etc). i could easily be wrong - these are just my observations.
Well, in most cases...but there are exceptions. For starters, the Quakers come to mind. And many Jewish scholars who study the Talmud are another good example. They believe in questioning everything! No beliefs are sacred to them (pun intended
. And there are some other religions or at least sects that are the same way. But granted they are a minority of religions.
No argument here.
But-- if everyone followed the Quaker religion-- would that not improve society..?
(I am thinking of your comment #9.1.4, above)
They're definitely not all the same but we shouldn't confuse the popular reputation of a particular cult with the effects those superstitions have on the broader society, like the Haredi men in Israel who study the Talmud but are essentially economically carried by their wives and by the state, while at the same time feeling free to oppress even non-Haredi women. Same thing with Buddhist monks in Tibet where their reputation today is quite different from how the ordinary Tibetan saw them before 1950.
It could be argued that if everyone followed any one religion society would improve just in the fact that religious wars and struggles would cease to exist. If we were ALL either Quakers, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or even atheists, without competing religious beliefs the world would become far more peaceful.
I wish I shared your optimism. I think we'd just find other ways to categorize other people as "the other" - National Geographic had a recent article which touched on that.
Yeah, but without religion, there would be one less thing to use for categorization.
Its a belief system. And there are other categories of belief systems-- for example the scientific belief system. And various political belief systems. (People used to say that Communism was like a religion. I believe that what they meant it that it was a strong belief system just as religion can be. In fact, just as with many religions, Communism proselytized and even sought converts!).
However I disagree with the statement that religion is a system of control. Rather I would say that it can be used as a system pf control. But so can any belief system-- political belief systems can also be used as a system of control ("True believers'" of Communism, even Socialism, Fascism" Capitalism, Naziiism, etc. can be controlled. Even "scientific" belief systems can be used to control people.
But it takes at least 2 people to having a system of control. The person doing the controlling and the person being controlled. The system only works if people belief in type propaganda of the system and are therefore willing to give up their control over their own lives...in return for (what they believe) is something that will be better.
What if we don't need God? What if God needs us?
What is the purpose of intelligent life on earth?
I also have to say that I find the seeder's conduct on this article to be condescending and repetitious.
Then God is not perfect but incomplete without worshipers to recognize his supposed greatness.
The only possibility of perfection exists in the unmanifested. "God" as a concept can be perfect. Once a physical 'world' is presented, there has to be imperfection, especially since this existence is based on duality and relativity.
God is laughing at you right now. How could it be otherwise?
From a universal standpoint, everything is perfect. The life and death cycles of stars and galaxies that play out over billions of years in an apparent never ending cycle has never failed or been interrupted by some imperfection. Life and death can be seen as part of this cycle so far from being imperfect, when death comes and that energy is reintroduced in some different form to the universe, was there some mistake? We might get sad, but the universe has no empathy for us, it follows the 1st law of thermodynamics perfectly where energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
A God, who supposedly manages all of this perfection, that is reliant upon worshipers to feel whole would be anathema to such a universe.
Gods can't exist without their believers. Think of Puff the Magic Dragon.
Gods fade away as humans invent new religions.
And what is the purpose of intelligent live online? (But then again, that's often so rare that its a moot point!
Then god has some codependency issues.
Why do you assume there has to be a purpose to it? Intelligent life is just a product of evolution.
How so?
How am I stacking the deck?
Word cloud:
warned opposing side
Deepok Chopra very tiresome
repetitive typical
typical pro-religious argument
meta-physical circular nonsense
Try to be less vague.
You show words that are describing various aspects of the debate. The mere fact that I offer critical analysis that is not 100% sugary and flowery does not mean I am stacking the deck.
Where am I stacking the deck?
==================================================================
The "critical analysis" saying that the pro-God half of the debate is "circular nonsense" is of course an attempt, even if unconscious, to predispose the conclusions to be reached by any who might watch the video of the debate, as are some of the other terms listed. To avoid this 'stacking the deck', the editorializing should have been confined to the comment section of the article.
First of all, there is no 'pro-God' side of this debate. The debate was about the necessity of God and the negative side did not argue the existence of God. In fact, the negative side defined God as consciousness. An entirely irreligious definition. They made no argument whatsoever regarding what the super majority of people on the planet call God. Indeed they wound up not making an argument at all - they spent their entire time giving examples of what they meant by 'consciousness' and how consciousness is the infinite necessity for everything. (ultimately they stated the obvious)
Second, as seeder, I summarized the debate. You apparently do not think a seeder should provide a summary. Note then that anything I wrote good or bad could be construed as 'stacking the deck' by your definition since good or bad the seeder or author would be 'predisposing conclusions' of the reader. Thus I reject the rule you just imposed on what a seeder can write as well as your definition of 'stacking the deck'. Seeder comments in an article body are as legit as author comments in the body. That established, when writing a summary I am not going to ignore the demonstrable fact that the negative side of the debate produced circular nonsense. Watch the debate. Do not presume ill intent simply because a summary was not all flowery. Life is messy: honesty and candor is not always 'nice'.
Bottom line, I seeded a debate that was 90 minutes and offered to the readers my summary of what took place. The link takes the reader to the website which has summaries of the debate and the full 90 minutes of debate. In short, it is best to not presume motives and make accusations.
You don't have to apologize for editorializing in the OP, but you also cannot redefine it. When you characterized the content of the side you opposed in solely negative terms, in the original post, it is not unfair for someone to observe you were "stacking the deck" in terms of how you wanted people to watch the debate.
Then, again, by your definition any characterization (good or bad) is stacking the deck or, alternatively, redefining the content. If an author writes an article you would have to call that 'stacking the deck'. The thing is, when someone writes anything in the body of an article they are going to be expressing their viewpoint. It is not possible to get around that. You are accusing me of dishonesty ('stacking the deck') because I summarized the debate honestly as I saw it (and indeed can defend everything I wrote). I think it is now time for you to cease since this is starting to derail the discussion.
Over the course of trillions of years, maybe trillions of trillions of years, worlds come and go across the vast span of multiple universes. Countless planets harboring intelligent life are born, pass through stages of development ascendancy and decline and eventually disappear, as if cosmic soap bubbles.
What is the purpose of all this activity?
If there is no purpose, why would such purposeless but precise activity go on forever?
The buddhist philosopher Alan Watts often hinted or even outright expressed in his lectures and writing this thought - the existence that we observe is God expressing itself.
Because it can. And does.
There seems to be no logical requirement of purpose for a precise activity to operate forever.
I have watched about 3/4's of the debate.
As seen on the show, this was an ill conceived debate. The two sides are approaching the question from very different perspectives. You can't have a proper debate under those circumstances.
Deepak Chopra is very stubborn and will not come off his talking point - "Consciousness is God". I usually find him annoying and he was some in this debate too. But just because he is annoying doesn't make him wrong.
But his ideas were not well suited for the topic of this debate. It was interesting, but the two sides were so at cross purposes that the 'debate' never materialized.
Fully agree. The negative side of the debate changed the definition of the word 'God' from what most everyone would expect (i.e. sentient creator) to 'infinite consciousness'. Doing so, they destroyed the debate (they delivering nothing of value to the debate) and wound up making an argument from authority (their own authority) about the significance of consciousness.
The value of this debate (as I noted in my summary) is the presentations of the affirmative side. Indeed I noted that so that people would not expect a stellar debate - I noted upfront that the negative side was a mess.
Indeed he is not wrong. Necessity is a function of consciousness. He is not wrong, he is just making a blatantly obvious point and packaging it up as deep thinking. As you can tell from the video nobody bought that nonsense. His side presented circular nonsense and most everyone in the room (including them I think) knew it.
Deepak Chopra understands his material, and he can express it very well. Unfortunately , he has been at it so long and has become so immersed in the dispensing of this information through some 85 books, workshops, videos, personal counseling perhaps, etc, all of which involves some level of him getting paid by the way, his presentation has inevitably become repetitious.
Saying "consciousness is God" is a concept, it is not a belief system.
But when he, and his partner there, says that 'universal' consciousness predates individual consciousness he is not 'wrong'.
I was listening to an interview with an author named Edward Feser, who has a recent book titled Five Proofs of the Existence of God. One of the aspects of one of the proofs ( I phrase it that way because I cannot remember if this was a proof in itself or part of one of the five proofs) is that we observe purpose. Causation that we observe comes from somewhere or something. In a real sense all we see is a representation of cause and effect. Purpose? Everything that happens has a purpose, no? Even if the purpose is only to distract. I mindlessly flip through a magazine. I cant even remember afterwards what I was seeing. Yet perhaps the purpose of doing that was to take my mind off something else.
What instigates all this purpose?
People will say cause and effect doesnt prove the existence of "God". Ok, but to me it shows something exists that is hidden or behind it all.
I conclude the purpose of this so-called "debate" was ill-conceived too. The whole "experience" was as Anoop Kumar clarified, people talking pass one another: An assemblage of VIPs and an audience to talk pass one another. We should blame the event organizer/s.
One side appeared to be talking over the audiences heads (without providing clear definitions) and the other side appeared to be counterpointing that God is responsible for all the malice in the world and without God an utopia will break out on Earth.— Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Fully agree. The negative side did not argue a belief system.
Of course he is not wrong. This is such an obvious point I would call it a platitude dressed in gratuitous abstraction.
Note that this debate is regarding the necessity of God as we evolve (in many ways), not whether God exists.
Our reality is all cause and effect. That is how we perceive everything. We have to work to break free of that intuition.
What is the purpose of a 3 year old little girl dying of leukemia? What is the purpose of a solar flare?
Why do you presume something instigates purpose?
Again the existence of God is not the topic, but all you noted is that cause-and-effect is a long chain reaction. Seems you think there must be an initial uncaused cause. I wrote an article on this - Existence - might be a better place to have this discussion. This topic is more on necessity of God as we evolve.
"These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year. If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year."
I'm curious as to what purpose can be extrapolated out of the 200 to 2,000 creatures going extinct each year serves, or for that matter what the huge number of creatures that lived for millions of years then faced extinction from the several near global extinction events served that we know have occurred on our planet since life first found a way in our primordial oceans. Were all those species whose evolutionary branches were cut off abruptly simply purposeless? Or was their purpose truly as some believers imagine, to decompose and create oil reserves for humans to exploit and use to fuel their wars and speed up the extinction rate?
I disagree. We should blame the negative side. They redefined God to 'infinite consciousness' and, in so doing, destroyed the very concept of 'debate'. As I noted (as I warned you) upfront in my summary.
That was not their argument. They argued that the need for a God concept to explain natural events has dramatically lessened over times (especially since the formation of science). They did note the historical power of religious belief and how it has been used to do harm but they did not argue that the absence of a God concept would yield utopia.
That established, note that I have encouraged people to opine on the debate topic. Watching the debate is optional. I think the topic itself is worthy of discussion even if contributors did not watch the debate.
The 'negative' side simply expressed their point of view. Whatever blame there is for the failure of the debate belongs with the IQ2 people who set it up.
And the question or topic was a pretty leading topic if you ask me. There is no objective need to believe in God , other than that it makes sense according to our instincts and observations. We exist. Why? Where did we come from? Where are we going?
I don't think we need God to be moral , if that were the case then all atheists would be immoral, which is not the case.
So I guess the affirmative wins the debate. Whoop de doo.
The reason that "evil" exists is simple. There is no perception of good without bad. That is the macro explanation. This existence is based on relativity and duality. Without it existence would be at a literal standstill, wouldn't it?
Really? So the negative side (that is debate terminology, not 'stacking the deck') has no responsibility for honestly addressing the debate topic??
That is how debates are structured. The proposition in a debate is going to make an assertion. The affirmative side will argue for the assertion and the negative side will argue against it.
I agree.
There is more than morality at play in this debate. But the affirmative side won by default since the negative side produced nothing but circular nonsense and redefined the word 'God' to something other than what most human beings would expect. The point of this seed is not that the affirmative side won. This seed exists for us on NT to discuss and/or debate the proposition: " The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God"
Deepak Chopra has been at this , publicly, often in the media , for 20 or 30 years. If the organizers of the debate didnt comprehend where he would be coming from they were derelict in their research of their participants.
Then there is no good or bad. Only perception and subjectivity.
First, I never asked why "evil" exists. I simply asked whether extinctions have a purpose. I must assume you are claiming that such extinctions are "evil". So what you are claiming is that most religious persons idea of God is either unable to prevent said evil, or is behind the evil because without it his creations wouldn't be able to define "good". So is your idea of God all powerful or an imperfect God trying his best to defeat "evil" that wouldn't exist without him? And getting back to my original question, if you believe extinctions are "evil" but believe God can do no wrong, why would he create something simply for it to go extinct? That would be like an artist creating masterwork sculptures but deciding to smash and annihilate half of them just to prove to the other half how important they are. Either that or as a warning to the others not to upset him/her/it.
Well , we as a species do conform to certain assumptions that are in fact based on relativity.
Something tastes good to you. The concept would be meaningless if there wasn't also something you have tasted that tasted bad. If all you ate was chocolate ice cream it would be neither good, in your opinion, or bad.
There is no such thing as good without bad . This is literally how we experience existence, through opposites or duality.
Heather Berlin argues God is "currently holding us back" and much more she says in her closing argument:
Heather Berlin implies that at some past time man needed God more than now. My questions:
1. Has our modern world changed mankind's position to God?
2. Has modern scientist-atheists like Heather Berlin needed God ever?
3. Does modern scientist feel it is "ready" (like a child grown to adulthood) to let go of its "parent's" hand?
Reality and perception are two very different things.
Good and bad exist. Evil people do evil deeds. Good people do good deeds. The cats and dogs who accompany them see these deeds, but see neither good nor evil.
And in that time Deepak Chopra has routinely discussed God in the conventional sense (i.e. creator). Chopra clearly knows what people mean by 'God' and has engaged in discussion and debate per that common definition. He clearly understood the debate topic (he is not stupid). It was his choice to redefine God in the debate during his presentation. Amazing you seem to be arguing that Chopra is not at fault for his own deliberate actions.
( By the way, are you aware that Chopra is irreligious? It is a mistake to presume that he would be on the pro-God, pro-religion, pro-faith side of a debate. )
To wit, based on Chopra's history, it is quite reasonable to expect him to actually engage on the topic using a conventional definition of God. One would expect him to go into the abstract (and doubletalk) too during his explanations, but that is not the concern.
"The cats and dogs who accompany them see these deeds, but see neither good nor evil."
Anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise. all sentient beings are capable of what is perceived to be good and evil.
However, good and evil are really social constructs. Without society, life just is....
I will also note that if dogs and cats dont see good or evil, then that only really serves to validate that good and evil are human societal concepts.
I have seen some of Chopra's works over the years, but am not familiar with him in great detail.
I did not find it at all surprising or out of the ordinary for him to approach the topic in the way he did. He has been saying a variant of "consciouness is God" for decades.
I do think the "debate" would have went more smoothly if the "against" side was composed of more traditionally monotheistic advocates.
Let me remind you of what you wrote:
Note that Heather did not argue that:
So what point are you trying to make?
Are you aware that Heather is a theist? She might be the only theist in the debate. Did you know that?
Define position so I can understand your question.
So you simply presumed Heather Berlin is an atheist. She is a theist.
Is God the parent? Are you asking if science (collectively) operates independently of a God hypothesis? If so, that has been the case for centuries. There is no distinguished God hypothesis at play in science because there has been no evidence to formulate a credible hypothesis. Science follows the evidence to where it leads.
Chopra puts forth different viewpoints on God (depending upon his mood it seems). I was not at all surprised when he started talking about consciousness as God (I would be surprised if he did not go absurdly abstract and meta-physical at some point) but I was quite surprised that he NEVER addressed the debate proposition by addressing God as the proposition framed it. He has written and has engaged in many interviews about God in a conventional, albeit abstract, sense and of course in his infinite, absurdly abstract senses as well. I cannot imagine what he thought he would accomplish by trying to convince the audience that God is infinite consciousness and to thus toss away their well established notion of the word. He shot himself in the foot IMO.
Note the topic was the necessity of God (conventionally defined as the creator). Redefining God violates the proposition. In other words, even if Chopra honestly and exclusively holds that God is infinite consciousness, he still was obligated to address the question of necessity of God per conventional definition of the word (i.e. at least sentient creator). And, importantly, his history shows he is quite capable of speaking about this God.
What kind of theist would state that God is holding US back? I will have to investigate Ms. Berlin further on my own! Moreover, her closing argument speaks volume against a personable belief in God, for that I can be forgiven of not knowing about such a relationship—which as time permits I will explore.
1. Position as in, if God is real - can man ever hope to displace God.
2. Did she state this in the debate? By the way, I am not sure my debate opened at the beginning - it sure seemed to get to 55 minutes in quick. If she did state it can you point me to the time where it is stated?
3. I wrote, "like" didn't I? The premise of the debate takes for granted that God, at some time or even now, is needed.
She is not saying that God is holding people back but rather belief in God. There is a difference. You highlighted this in your quote, Cal. Go back and reread what she actually said.
Of course not. If there is a supreme entity there is no displacing it.
Yes, look at the very beginning of her speech.
Yes you did:
The word 'like' was not a problem. Telling me you wrote 'like' therefore does not clear things up. Instead of editorial comments you could have spent your time paraphrasing your point for clarity. At this point I still am not sure what you are asking so I will just stick with my immediate answer.
She is not saying that God is holding people back but rather belief in God.
So God would be more helpful to us if we stopped believing in it? Hard to see how that makes sense.
It is a distinction without a difference, I agree. Nevertheless, my friend TiG, will likely tell us and everyone what we're missing about it. TiG, . . . .
No. It only means that a certain level of intellectual abstraction is required to perceive abstract ideas. Duh. Humans have that level. Perhaps some higher animals: cetaceans, elephants, great apes, ...
Here is what I wrote:
That means she is saying that belief in God is holding us back, not God itself. Tell me that you cannot distinguish between belief in God and God itself.
Read Heather's comments per Cal's quote:
Now read this in particular:
Do you see how she offers examples to clarify her point? Presume that Heather believes in a God of Love who is against violence and bigotry. Do you truly not understand how she could find that God (her God) is not holding us back but the various beliefs in God are ?
When you expand into the entire paragraph it does have a different context. Maybe in the future you can quote the entire context instead of complaining when people comment on the isolated sentences you present.
Just a thought.
I cannot repeat everything stated in a thread John. That is what the REPLY functionality (replied to ...) is for - that is why we have hierarchic (threaded) comments and why we have hyperlinks and scrolling. The quote I offered came from this thread. It was Cal who supplied the quote and my original comment was based on the quote he supplied.
Cut me a little slack, okay?
I was being a little sarcastic.
You can cut me some too, okay?
Sure, make thoughtful, honest comments that are reasonably on topic (not personal, not meta, ...) and disagree or not all is cool.
Cal.... The argument is in perception....Man is an explorer by nature....we search for answers to the unknown.....we've done that ever since we began to walk on two feet and began to realize that we had some control over the environment. Explorations take different directions, some take us to a belief in a God, others take us to a belief in science and provability.
I think that the real dispute between theists and atheists is the manmade concept of religion. Most theists and atheists agree that religions are man made organizations. They are businesses that are set up to make profits and to provide a measure of exclusivity. They have been the cause of more grief in this world than any political ideology. The theism vs. atheism would be much more civil if the exclusivity of religion did not get in the way.
See 7.1.50 above, please. (Smile.) Additionally, everything man does is tinged with its imperfection .
How can we possibly need god when god is one of our creations. The notion of god and what God wants has evolved as man has evolved. It is telling that gods demands always align with the wants of the believers and not the other way around.
The notion of God is an emotional pacifier for weak and intellectually challenged adults.
Aren't you the learned one?
What is your pacifier? One of those little things our mama's gave us?
I'm a fan of gum personally.
Please do not make this personal.
Not personal. If God is mine, then, what is hers
I do not consider myself to be overly intelligent. I would rate myself as only slightly above average in intelligence. I learn every day and would like to be able to learn much more than I do. Much of the time I spent looking for someone who is far more intelligent than I am to be my mentor.
This is where you make the mistake. I am not like you. I do not have a pacifier because I don't need or want one. I think my way through a problem logically instead of hoping that the god that I created will solve the problem for me if I pray hard enough.
I am not offended by her reply. I kind of liked it because it made me think.
That is so gracious of you,
You're very welcome.
Contentment and peace with the reality men and women are biological entities with limited lifespans?
Not everyone needs a pacifier...
You don't give yourself enough credit.
Agreed.
That is very polite for both of you to say and I appreciate the compliment, but I still don't see the possibility that I am much above average in intelligence. I have far more questions than I have answers and it is not comforting. If I am what it means to be above average in intelligence I do not have high hopes for the human race because I feel like a fool most of the time. If I am anywhere close to even the front 1/3 of the point we as a species are not as intelligent as we need to be.
Googling could be a pacifier.
Having questions is not an indicator of intelligence. If anything, it's a sign of intelligence, as you seek to educate yourself further. Now, having actual, factual information but choosing to ignore it or remain willfully ignorant is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Or at the very least, intellectual laziness.
i agree with this. Humans find many ways to acquire a "pacifier" and it can take different forms.
I guess that learning could be my pacifier. Is that an intellectual or emotional crutch in the eyes of conservative people?
No, they think learning is a defect and a "sin."
Belief in God (defined in various ways) brings comfort to many. In particular, dealing with (or, more precisely, avoiding acceptance of) the finality of death. When one loses a loved one it is comforting to believe that there is a second chance. When one fears one's own mortality it is comforting to believe that there is more than just this one life. Death is very scary, the hope of a second chance is comforting.
It is arguably the placebo effect; this form of comfort seems harmless.
So let's focus just on comfort for a moment. As we evolve, will we (human beings as a whole) need to believe in these comforting notions more or less? In your opinion, of course.
If I may "comfort" is a side-effect of being faithful. We believe God exist. God has provided us the means (Gift of faith) to do so. All the services - right and wrong- ideas and teachings sprang from the root of faith. Faith is the root cause, going all the way back to Abram/ham. Abram believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.
I hope that both as a species and as a society need religious belief less and less as we mature and face reality.
I do not fear death. I will not exist as I do now, so I will be at peace.
It is only religion that gives people a false hope of everlasting life so how is it offensive for me to say what is the truth? It seems that some people would rather be lied to and given false hope than to be told the truth. I'd be more offended that someone is lying to me but apparently I am far from normal. I have long felt to be a stranger in a strange land among people and maybe this is more proof that I am.
Not so sure of that. Faith from childhood is mostly indoctrination. So that makes sense. But what about adults who become believers? What is the trigger that caused them to believe? Almost a rhetorical question.
Often it is the prospect of 30-to-Life. Prisons are full of those who found God late in life. Parole boards love it...
Faith is a gift from God. That's scriptural. You do not accept that, oh well.
That said, there does appear to be two types of faith in view. 1: The faith of a child inherited from a parent. 2. The faith an individual receives as a gift fro m God.
One must have faith (in the Bible) to accept Faith as a gift from God on faith.
Add to that this:
Romans 10: 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
IMO, the more we evolve, the less we (collectively) will hold the Bible divine. That in itself will likely reduce the perceived need for God (at least God as defined by the Bible).
The Parable of the Persistent Widow
1 And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. 2 He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. 3 And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ 4 For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. 7 And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
TiG, so you may ask me why is this here? Honestly, I was not going to leave a reply to this one comment. But that would have been inappropriate seeing that a ready made reply comes right out of the Biblle. That "ancient book" by "ancient men."
It would seem that a first century writer records Jesus as noting that his return WAS NOT as imminent as some other writers seemed to indicate! Because faith has continued for two-thousand years and today mankind is JUST NOW anticipating some 'fraying' around the edges of fiath through a strong "push" by some academics in the science field.
Prophetic, a tiny bit? Merely good guesswork? Or wickedly cunning?
Amazing that from "Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" you came up with "Jesus as noting that his return WAS NOT as imminent as some other writers seemed to indicate!" from that parable. I can find no corroborating biblical apologetic or scholarship analysis that comes to that conclusion.
Further, even if others saw things as you do, this is at the very best an entirely vague prediction.
I'm original, eh? Must mean a little bit of something: I read for myself. TiG, I take my 'slings and arrows' right along with the guy or gal sitting next to me. (Just threw that last in free!)
So, unless I want to believe, I can't believe, according to you. I have to become delusional in order to accept delusions. I think you insult many people of faith when you say that, but that's your call.
We've been through this over and over. You tell me that I need to open my mind and heart to your god, before I can believe in it. I ask you .. if that's true, then try opening your mind and heart to Isis, or Thor, or one of the other countless gods which humans have worshipped over the eons, and see if you can believe in them. You then accuse me of being "cunning" which seems to be your reaction whenever you're challenged with logic. You're here to preach, but your arguments are sorely lacking.
Original is fine, Cal, but do you not see how someone interpreting the Bible any way they please is not very convincing (to anyone, theist or otherwise)? That is, it is one thing to offer 'this is how I interpret this passage'. It is an entirely different matter to posit a creative personal interpretation in an argument.
But your premise seems flawed. The preceding scripture is far more clear as to the intent regarding timing.
" And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. 7 And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily ."
Also, when you say " mankind is JUST NOW anticipating some 'fraying' around the edges of faith through a strong "push" by some academics in the science field." you seem to forget that there are FAR more Christians alive today than at anytime in history, especially compared to the first century. So if your claim is that Jesus would wait to return until the faith in him was waning, now is certainly not the time, maybe another hundred years or so the numbers will have dropped enough to support your premise.
People who have never owned a cat might never even contemplate the possibility of Kitty Cat heaven. If I told such a person that Kitty Heaven did exist and that all they had to do was donate money to my organization and whatever cats they might own in the future would get to Kitty Cat heaven, it's unlikely they would believe, they have no real motive to do so.
But those who have owned cats and had them pass away may strongly desire such a place to exist and thus want to believe in it wholeheartedly. And when I tell them such a place exists and describe it in detail, all the Kitty toys and catnip, a land flowing with milk and salmon, they would gladly donate nearly all they have if it would ensure their beloved cats get into such a place.
Now replace cats with humans and you pretty much have the system Religion has used to profit off hard working people while telling them "you just have to have faith! If you have faith, anything is possible! Oh, and please put some cash on the plate...". Every human has lost someone they loved, a grandparent, a child, a mate. And to top it off, we have no evidence either way of anything beyond this life, so anything is possible. For some, having faith in something completely unproved is better than simply accepting that we just don't know. And for them, if there's any chance a heavenly afterlife could exist for they or their loved ones, and giving money to large tax free religious corporations is supposed to help make sure they get there, they're eager to hand over their money and control of their own lives in exchange.
Whatever TiG! 'Mr. Big' on free-thinking until it does not suit personal purposes to not be so free-thinking. NOW you want to 'speak' UNIFORMITY and LOCK-STEP. RIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! There is LIBERALITY in Christ Jesus, how about that? There is a Protestant Movement that took place about it too.
Officially, you do not hold to a few of the passage at all, yes?
I think 'calm down' might be in order.
Now, I advocate critical thinking. That is quite different from 'free'-thinking (as you define it by example). Critical thinking is based on evidence and reason. It is the opposite of dreaming up whatever one finds desirable.
Well, there you go! The Bible passage one reads and applies is one to live by. (-:
DP, you might be overthinking it. BTW, that was a passing remark meant for TiG based on something he said. It was not intended (by me) to 'occupy.'
Er' you can not be talking about Christians like me because death does not frighten me. (Nothing is dead in the presence of God.) I do not grieve overlong over the departure of anyone. (It's the separation that's the 'kicker.') I do not give money to the church home I do not have. Moreover, I don't own any animals. Just saying. . . .
I recently wrote an article about a personal Easter service which I made possible for my mom. What I left out, was that Mom and the priest were having a great time talking about how you have to have faith in order to have faith as they were getting to know each other. I just kept baking cookies and kept my mouth shut out of respect. Just as I did at my cousin's house last night, when I visited her family for dinner and they said grace before the meal; I bowed my head and was respectful, and even said Amen because old habits die hard.
In here, if someone wants to make such silly proclamations, I can absolutely call them out. If you don't want to be challenged on your opinions, stick with your church, I think.
Are we not allowed to add our two cents just because your comment was directed at a specific NT member? Why not PM him if you wanted to keep it just between the two of you?
I was at my grandmothers funeral yesterday and did the same. I'm not trying to crap on any ones parade, but I do enjoy trying to get people thinking outside the box organized religion has trapped them in.
(Dryly.) I did not say that. It does not change the point that I was not intending a series of "full-blown" communications over it. Okay. Whatever. Keep the Peace.
Indeed. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
It is a bootstrap operation. Similar to one must open one's heart to Jesus. Basically one must believe to believe. I ... just ....
... my logical mind cannot relate to such thinking - to how this is persuasive to people. 
Self delusion at its finest.
Because unlike you, many people are not logical.
Very much circular. How is it possible that a book written by man can be faith in or proof of god?
How did God inspire the bible when the various books of the bible were written by men who lacked the level of education in a current GED?
The claim that God inspired the bible has always amused me. I had a very vivid dream last night but was it inspired by the tea that I drank or something that I read?
I understand that many people need the idea of god to exist for them to have a feeling of safety but there is a point where we must admit to ourselves that just because we can envision an idea doesn't mean that it exists. If we can claim that something exists because we read about it and it makes us feel safe in the face of uncertain danger then Harry Potty could be a god.
I've come to the conclusion that there are a large group of people who are immune to logic. I'm not sure if this is a cause or an effect of religious belief but I only know that logic is not as common as I wish that it was.
People, especially those in positions of power, scare me because there are not logical. I wish that there was a way to update our thinking process to rectify this critical software failure but people are not wifi compatible and I've never seen a human with a USB port of any sort that might allow that possibility. If we could update our software to fix faulty think I am hoping that we run on Linux or Fortran and not a Windows-based platform. Having an entire generation runnion on Vista or Windows 8 is truly terrifying
Yes. I think you are correct. Some people show no (or very little) ability to discipline their thoughts in a manner that enables formal logic. Others, however, are simply resolving cognitive dissonance by casting aside that which compromises the beliefs they desire.
IMO of course.
I'd say that conclusion is spot on.
Perhaps both, in a continuously vicious cycle.
Sad, but true.
I agree with both of you. There are far too many people who think that agreeing with what they say/believe/have been told is what logic means. Emotional thinking is far too common. I'm not sure if it was always this way and the internet has just made it more noticeable or that the internet and possibly talk radio has encouraged this sort of thinking and/or made it more acceptable.
When I am in a crowd I'd prefer to believe that those around me are just as intelligent as I am but that is seldom the case. I want people to be more intelligent than me because I hate the idea that people are looking up to me.
See epistte, I told you that you are more intelligent than you give yourself credit for.
Perhaps faith is an activity of strong emergence. In this way, an individual adds their "life endeavor" to the Wisdom from within the Bible and utterly unexpected—lifelong faith in God results.
I could follow your argument if those with faith pulled wisdom from the Bible but treated the wisdom (when found) as that of ordinary ancient men. Faith that the Bible is divine is circular. To wit, the Bible defines God who - as a character within the Bible - declares the Bible divine.
Well, God does not write books. So there is that. Should God condescend to pen revelations to " creatures ?" Better to let amanuenses do the 'grunt' work. Afterall, God does not need to read and his words bear up forever. Still, we digress. An explanation was presented for how faith could manifest.
What a hurtful thing to say! It is good that we are impervious it.
How is my opinion hurtful? Am I not permitted to express my Humanist views for fear of offending someone who does believe in god?
Where did you ever get the idea that God makes people weak and intellectually challenged? It is an deliberate insult to all believers, even if artfully disrespectful.
There are millions of doctors, lawyers, medical professionals, theologians, presidents, world leaders, and persons extraordinaire —including scientists who are God believers.
I did not say that the belief in god makes then weak or intellectually challenged. Please re-read what I said. I did not try to insult people and I am sorry if you took it that way.
This is what you wrote in two separate comments. Here is the definition of " notion ":
no·tion [ˈnōSH(ə)n] NOUN a conception of or belief about something.
There it is. If I got your statements wrong let me know.
And it's not hurtful to claim that those of us who are rational are "cunning" and stupid, and will go to hell if we don't believe in your particular interpretation of your cult? We who scoff at the false prophets, as the bible tells us to do, are the ones who will burn? That's hilarious.
I said that the notion of god/theistic religion appeals to many people who need an emotional support mechanism, as others have more tactfully expressed it. I did not say that believing in god makes a person ignorant.
There are many people who take part in religion as a social function for various reasons and may not fully believe.
Epistte, in sharp relief these two sentences are not the same. I do not wish to push this farther, nevertheless. Prayerfully, hopefully, it can be put to rest here and now.
I'm not sure why you are offended by my opinions.
They are the very same to me. Theistic religion appeals to people who need an emotional support mechanism. The idea of a god looking after them as well as creating an eternal space for them to exist is very appealing to some people.
Maybe, you should go tend your garden and think about it.
It's too cold for gardening in NE Ohio. It flurried a few hours ago. I wish that spring would hurry up.
Faith is a gift. It's been happening all through out the history of mankind. Even in the Bible, this one received faith and that one did not (because s/he did not ask)! It's even likened to a narrow path contrasted with a broad path. The process by now is old. We all were once without faith in God, including Abram/ham. But, we were changed. Some people do not want/like/wish to hear that, but what they want does not stop change from occurring—even in them at some point. In life there are catalyst to change.
No, it's just a belief in something (especially without evidence). Nothing more.
Per our earlier note, one must have faith to view faith as a gift.
IMO getting people to consider faith as something that is valuable (something even to aspire to) rather than a profound vulnerability is one of the masterstrokes of religion.
Hopefully as we evolve we will demand more before we grant belief; that we will expect convincing evidence and/or reason before accepting something as true.
Agreed. It's like self delusion is applauded over rational and logical thinking.
It's touching. . . how much you apparently care for us believers.
I care about most everyone. But I also care about logic and reasoning and rationality.
What you call logic and rationality is gibberish to some people.
It's not my fault if logic and rationality is over the heads of some people.
The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God
I myself believe it depends solely on the individual. Many people carry the religion of their birth from cradle to grave and find comfort in it. Others find their own ways to believe or not as their exposure to the universe around increases.
Personally I do not believe there is a right or wrong belief, it is what you choose to believe in or not.
Okay! Just listened to Heather Berlin's opening argument. TiG, I may owe you a small apology, because somehow I missed this information. Though I distinctly remember hearing some of the opening banter I did not ingest Heather's remarks. So we could have missed each other on a couple of points regarding her and the "mission" of this debate. For that possibility I extend an unspecified apology.
Now then, Heather Berlin states she was raised a "cultural Jew" (her term) more so than a "religious Jew." or words to that effect. I can appreciate that. Next comes her argument: The more we evolve (naturally) the less we need God.
Of course! In the natural world man requires God less! In the sense that as knowledge increases so does public and personal quality/ities of life for not just the select few - upper class and highbrow professionals - who can own it, but for more of rank and file humanity across the board. Even ancient Bible writers (see Book of Daniel) knew that such knowledge would advance mankind, for these writers had advances in there eras too.
What I do not get is this: Why as Heather B. continues her opening she has to compare human advances to man's spiritual advances (man vs God-religion fashion). As if somehow octagon fighting-style, two will enter; only one will exit: Victorious.
No apology is necessary simply for missing a detail in a 90 minute debate. An apology would be appreciated if you had suggested I was lying, etc. but you did no such thing on this point.
You should relate to her viewpoint though. She really wants a spiritual dimension to exist. Indeed she notes this is what drove her to her profession and remains a passion for her.
That pretty much was the debate question. The negative side would have been the ones to bring up a spiritual 'world' and the best they did was argue universal consciousness. Heather certainly would like a universal consciousness to exist (so that she would live on in this universal consciousness after death). But the negative side never developed this with their overly abstract, repetitive lecturing to the audience.
I do not think she is convinced that the spiritual dimension that she seeks actually exists. She essentially stated that in different words (not convinced sort of language).
I will delve more into the debate as time permits tonight and tomorrow to review the entirety - and it a second time. Starting with Mr. Shermer's opening argument.
We, religious people of good character and well-meaning humanists, should not be enemies in this. The world is big enough for science and religion, vice-versa. Perhaps, the Church will come to realize something of this deep-seated and abiding rancor that has build up over centuries. Of course, for me, as someone who lives life in the flesh and with a trace of spiritual power (I may as well own it at this point with humility) I just can not see why these two forces inside mankind continually fights to push apart.
Funny, even as I write this Paul and his arguments about flesh contrasting spirit come to the forefront.
Of course not. We should have thoughtful discussions - disagreement should not result in negative emotions.
I'd love to read your article and all the 324 comments, but I just don't have the energy or time.
So, I will just say I'm not so confident we are evolving that much. I think our assumptions that since we feel we have a much better understanding of life than ever before we are fooled into believing this is evolution.
Are the cities safer? Are we happier? Have we solved the troubles man has faced throughout history? In what way are we evolving? I'm sure some ideas are in the comments, but there are wars and the threat of wars throughout the world. People are about as afraid of the future as I've ever seen them.
Sure, we have many more modern luxuries than we have ever had in this world, cures for known diseases we have suffered. instant gratification and communication only dreamed of becoming reality in the past, but in a split second all that could end and within a couple of generations we would be back in the stone age. And the generation after that would probably be in worst shape than the one before it.
As long as we are evolving then the debate proposition can be considered. I know one person who seems to think humanity is not changing at all
but that position is (thus far) unfounded and likely the tiniest of cynical minority positions.
TiG, I am going to reorient on this topic. In her opening, it strikes me, Dr. Heather Berlin is stating that spirituality can be found in the brain and not coming from outside it, no? What did you get from her opening on this specific question?
Since she was 5 years old she has been concerned that her mind (who she is) would be lost upon death. Her hope is to find that there is something more than simply our physical being. If all that we are is contained as biochemical brain matter then upon death we are gone. All of our thoughts disappear - we return to what we were before we were born - a non-entity.
She is looking for evidence that there is more than that. This correlates well with the notion of a spirit (or a soul) that is considered part of the person but survives the body (and thus the brain).
I hesitate to post this, however
We are energy. I don't know how long that energy lasts, but I know it exists. From my own experience.
Yes, all matter is a form of energy.
You are saying something different though. You are really saying that an energy ‘shadow’ or spirit survives (for some duration) after our physical bodies die.
That has not been formally evidenced. Odd too given the number of people dying each minute, the opportunity to detect this spirit is in abundance.
Everything you state is true.
There are some things that can't be explained. it may happen to some, to none and for me one time. It happened.
Thank you for that answer:
Dr. Berlin's arguments appear to bifurcate . There is what you shared and there is this from the Live Transcript :
She does seem to be stating that to date science, which only looks for natural evidence, has 'found' or mimics(?) spirituality in the brain . And, thus not spirituality (or consciousness of God) outside the brain. Do you understand her saying this in the excerpt above?
Yes, she reports that science has yet to find evidence of 'spirit' outside of the brain. She is looking for it but has yet to find it.
Not even by a supposed omniscient God? It would seem to me that all things have an explanation and can be explained, we just lack the tools to see or test everything at this moment. It may be all of your "spiritual experiences" can be tested and explained some day, are you willing to accept that they could be some other phenomenon such as quantum "spooky action at a distance" that make you feel the way you do if we discover a way to test and show empirical evidence of such?
Well, biblically there is mention of two types of spirit activity: 1) The natural spirit. Small "s." (2) The Holy Spirit. Capital "S."
Thus, I conclude that spiritual activity (or religious experiences) manifesting in the life of a person would show up in a living brain. What we are to the world comes in and out through our brain, no?
Think I know where you are going with this.
Did I say or imply that God appeared that evening? No,
There was evidence...husband in next room, unfinished email, etc.
It was wonderful to know that my precious sister was trying to communicate with me. However, I wouldn't want it to happen, again.
Yes, we do experience reality through our senses and interpret same through our brain. And this has been formally verified. What has not been detected (even indirectly) is any form of cognitive ability outside of the brain. That is what Heather seeks.
Wait. I do not wish us to unintentionally diverge from each other at this point. So let me re-ask: To me, Dr. Berlin in her opening says she can create spiritual states in the brain:
neuroscientists can now induce religious or transcendental experiences by stimulating specific brain areas.
In your opinion are these inducements temporary states? Permanent states? Did she clarify?
She was not that specific but my impression is that these were temporary states. (Certainly hope so.)
Okay, for now, I will conclude she is addressing small "s" human spirituality in her research. That is a big advancement step all on its own! Of course, human spirituality ("s") resides in the brain, alongside all mental operations and personal human experiences. Moreover, this spirituality is universal and common to all, no? Incidentally, if science has "detected" and verified and let me us her terms quote, "induce religious or transcendental experiences by stimulating specific brain areas with powerful magnets, giving people out of body experiences and sensation with oneness with the universe" I wonder does this settle the scientific concern about their existences?
(I commit myself to getting back into the taped debate tonight.)
TiG, is Dr. Berlin implying she has located the seat of the human spirit in the brain?
Or, is she trying to have it both ways with her words, by discrediting Descartes use of the word "spirit" and substituting her own words "religious experience"?
What do you think this "religious experience" is she is telling us powerful magnets are able to bring?
To me she is simply stating that the brain alone is capable of generating experiences that correlate with what people label as religious or transcendental experiences. She notes that this has been done under controlled settings where the scientist initiates the experience in the subject's brain.
Perhaps Dr. Berlin is being ambiguous. She expressly contravened Descartes' statements by overlaying them with neuroscientists finding of today. However, it is not clear neuroscience experimentation is using the same language as Descartes' from her paragraph above. Despite all the religious and consciousness overtones! For example, what entails a "religious experience" for her?
One would need to direct questions to Dr. Berlin at this point.
Then Dr. Berlin puts forward the concept that science can create "can now induce religious or transcendental experiences by stimulating specific brain areas with powerful magnets, giving people out of body experiences and sensation with oneness with the universe,"implying this as one more step where God is needed less. What proof does Dr. Berlin have that a "bottled" or "clinical" grouping of other-worldly experiences can be better than the experiences today? Moreover, if science feels compelled to duplicate religious experiences in the brain is this further unspoken admission of their existence?
Cal, it is not possible for me to divine what Dr. Berlin is thinking. All I have is her words - same as you.
Well if a scientist was exploring 'religious experiences' I think the scientist has hypothesized that experiences (unqualified) are occurring and is trying to better understand the nature of the experiences.
She, like many others, has been told countless times spirituality 'happens.' Book treatises have been written for centuries amounting to "wisdom" books on the subject of spirituality and world religion. I suspect neuroscientists want to catalog, uniform, universalize, and make common to all —spirituality. This may be accomplished one day with our common human spirit. But the scientific method does not work beyond the natural senses, so far.
Boils down to evidence. Dr. Berlin says she would love to find 'spirit' and that she continues to look for it. No point discussing this further with me since I am not Dr. Berlin.
Agreed. It's pretty much a 'whipped horse' on this specific item. (-:
Using powerful magnets to 'develop' some form or kind of religious experience, would you consider it induced spirituality?
Simply a confirmation of an hypothesis that experiences which seem (to the subject) similar to a religious experience can be induced. Ultimately it is another bit of evidence that individual consciousness is a function of the physical brain.
Curious. Elevating consciousness in this way has been done since antiquity with alcohol (aka. "spirits"), cocaine (stimulants), hallucinogenic drugs, and now magnets. These types of euphoric effects are different from each other, nevertheless.
I suspect they are conducting rather specific, precise tests.
Very important consideration. And, a good one to bring up at this point. Well articulated. Case in point: Russia, North Korea, and closely involved Iran. These states have successfully evolved to raise the bar of science and technology for their people, however each state occasions and tinkers around the edges of excessive provocations, dangerous pessimism, and hazardous outcomes. A clear warning there yet exists great evil in the hearts of people and nation-states.
Wading in slowly & quietly>>>>>
I hope we are still evolving. I do think that whatever brings a person comfort is needed. If that is a belief in God, then that is their business. I find comfort in my own way and am evolved. The belief in a supreme being does not make one un-evolved - however trying to force all to believe in your supreme being does.
Veronica! Come right on in. No need to be nervous. We extend open arms to all - despite our gruff tones. Welcome! I like your comment.
Thank you... I am trying to maintain a kinder gentler me....
Much respect for that. Whatever your stance on this issue, I, we, care to read it. Whenever you are ready to share.
Hi. One of my best friend's daughter is a Wiccan. As she explained it....of the earth/nature. Sounds lovely.
Christians only have 2 major religious holidays., Wiccans have 8 holidays spread approximately every 7 weeks through the year.
Is Mr. Shermer's opening statement in part an argument that God gives humanity too much liberty? In that God does not set immediately 'correct' mankind's errors in judgement? To take this thought further, is it science or science adherents that are clearly beginning to display authoritarian attitudes and tendencies? I can point to presentations where adherents of science are explicitly working to get rid of other cultural forms and institutions (like in the field of medicine).
Deepak Chopra and Anoop Kumar seem to be discussing Atman (Consciousness).
Trying to make credible sense of Deepak Chopra is, IMO, an exercise in futility. But, if you are interested, here is a book excerpt where Chopra discusses Jiva , Atman and God .
I do not take Chopra seriously. He is a bullshit machine IMO.
Okay! I have often thought over the years Deepak Choprah is 'over-rated,' in my personal opinion. That he is part of the "New-Age Movement" and to each his/her own. Now there is a saying out of the past!!!
Now as I further listen to Deepak Chopra in this debate I become aware he is calling Absolute Consciousness synonymous with God. Chopra is saying that as humans everything we do is in some form and fashion a man-made construct - that things exist for mankind because people become aware of them. As a result, apart from what we name matter - for Deepak, the only true thing is Consciousness. Rather I agree or not with this worldview, that is where he seems to be.
Yes.
He is not saying anything other than the obvious. That is what he does. He takes basic concepts and dresses them up with abstractions. Ultimately, the point he made in the debate is that matter (energy) has no meaning or purpose except through consciousness and that consciousness is quintessential and universal consciousness is synonymous with 'God'.
Why people give this guy their attention is beyond me.