Religion A perfectly rational belief

[DougShrapnel]

Where the retina connects to the optic nerve, the mind forces itself to fill in the details of the missing information. Don't believe me look here. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html) Filling in the details of the unknown is a marker of a healthy brain. When people say that the religious are being irrational it's not entirely true. If you don't want to hear any of this mumbo jumbo regarding your brain filling in the details regarding religion, because you think it might change your mind. Don't worry it can't. Thinking rationally cannot override the brains directive to fill in the details. So go ahead and for a brief moment it time, imagine what the world would look like if we filled in the blind spots regarding our origins, and unknown causes of natural phenomenon.


You should be very familiar with what you would expect. It's a well known concept of the god of the gaps. Gods control the lighting, and the winds and volcanos and the moon and the sun, when our brains fill in the details that we are blind to. We now know that evolution is a much more likely story than creationism in the bible. But it was perfectly rational to believe creationism before we had the knowledge that we have now. We did not have a choice but to fill in the details.

Although god of the gaps is a descriptive what. It doesn't address how or why. How is that the brain forces you to fill in something regarding ones unknown knowledge about your existence. You have no choice in the matter. You can not stop it from doing it. And it's a damn good thing that the brain does this, without asking our permission. We would be lost without it.

So we atheists come at xtians with charges of irrationality, it is a weak charge. They are being very rational. Their mind has filled in the details regarding the context of their surroundings. ID as a religion might be a fairly perfect filling in of details. But it fails when we use ID to overwrite the knowledge we have.

The main two things that are left are the creation (cause of creation) of the universe, and the emergence (cause of emergence) of life. I implore you to not go down the same road that is proven to be at least in part the quite intelligent and necessary context based making stuff up.

edit: horid typos

[vhawk01]

Did you post this when drunk? Not really because of the content, but this is like an insane number of typos for you.

[madnak]

You're not arguing that religion is rational, you're arguing it's in the human nature. I agree with you. But that doesn't make it rational. What you "fill in" with regard to vision, or memory, etc, is frequently inaccurate. This inaccuracy increases as things become "stranger" or further removed from concrete practical reality.

And this "filling in" is certainly not rational. It's not necessarily "irrational," as irrationality tends to imply conscious thought, but the brain fills things in according to ingrained patterns, not reasoned calculations. It's almost literally a "knee-jerk" type of response. And yes, I think using a knee-jerk response to determine the basis of life, the universe, and everything is irrational.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you post this when drunk? Not really because of the content, but this is like an insane number of typos for you.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. Sorry I'll try to edit. I'm also much worse than average regarding my english skills.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you post this when drunk? Not really because of the content, but this is like an insane number of typos for you.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. Sorry I'll try to edit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, its perfectly readable, just wondering.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not arguing that religion is rational, you're arguing it's in the human nature. I agree with you. But that doesn't make it rational. What you "fill in" with regard to vision, or memory, etc, is frequently inaccurate. This inaccuracy increases as things become "stranger" or further removed from concrete practical reality.

And this "filling in" is certainly not rational. It's not necessarily "irrational," as irrationality tends to imply conscious thought, but the brain fills things in according to ingrained patterns, not reasoned calculations. It's almost literally a "knee-jerk" type of response. And yes, I think using a knee-jerk response to determine the basis of life, the universe, and everything is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]I believe it's rational. What our brain tells us is true, we believe. We have no choice in this matter. The main thing we can do is to adjust our actions based off of what we know is the likely misrepresentation of reality. The other things that we can do is adjust those items that our minds use to fill in the details. This is much harder.

[madnak]

That's not true - we have plenty of choice. It is limited in many ways, but we certainly have it. At bare minimum we can take the position of bunny, who has no "choice" but to believe in Christianity but still accepts that his belief is ultimately irrational.

Certainly we can choose not to merely accept our first impression. We can choose to examine our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and become better, richer people for it. Most people don't bother - that makes them rational? No.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not arguing that religion is rational, you're arguing it's in the human nature. I agree with you. But that doesn't make it rational. What you "fill in" with regard to vision, or memory, etc, is frequently inaccurate. This inaccuracy increases as things become "stranger" or further removed from concrete practical reality.

And this "filling in" is certainly not rational. It's not necessarily "irrational," as irrationality tends to imply conscious thought, but the brain fills things in according to ingrained patterns, not reasoned calculations. It's almost literally a "knee-jerk" type of response. And yes, I think using a knee-jerk response to determine the basis of life, the universe, and everything is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]I believe it's rational. What our brain tells us is true, we believe. We have no choice in this matter. The main thing we can do is to adjust our actions based off of what we know is the likely misrepresentation of reality. The other things that we can do is adjust those items that our minds use to fill in the details. This is much harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know about that. I can spin around in circles for a while and my brain is telling me the world is spinning. But I don't go screaming out of my house to alert the authorities. I try to understand the shortcomings of my hardwiring (I'm pretty uncomfortable saying that, but lets go with this metaphor for the purposes of the discussion) and try to compensate. I think THAT is the rational thing to do.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not true - we have plenty of choice. It is limited in many ways, but we certainly have it. At bare minimum we can take the position of bunny, who has no "choice" but to believe in Christianity but still accepts that his belief is ultimately irrational.

Certainly we can choose not to merely accept our first impression. We can choose to examine our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and become better, richer people for it. Most people don't bother - that makes them rational? No.

[/ QUOTE ]Ah but having the belief vs keeping the belief in face of overwhelming evidence are different. We cannot stop our mind from filling in the details, any more than we can stop it from controlling our heart rate and blood presure. Which I guess it can be done, but it very difficult to do. If my pulse is 250 I can't change it by will alone,even tho it's likey to kill me. I can only take those actions to get my heart rate down.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know about that. I can spin around in circles for a while and my brain is telling me the world is spinning. But I don't go screaming out of my house to alert the authorities. I try to understand the shortcomings of my hardwiring (I'm pretty uncomfortable saying that, but lets go with this metaphor for the purposes of the discussion) and try to compensate. I think THAT is the rational thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ] what do you do when your brian tells you the world is spinning? If you are like me you lay down until it stops. Soon your mind stop telling you it's spinning and everything is OK. But in the case where your mind is telling you that the creation of the universe, and the creation of you, is God. You have few options but to "lay down" until the spinning stops.

[madnak]

Yes, but that's what is so amazing about the mind. It's part of imagination. Religion restricts that tendency, the abililty of the mind to create awesome music out of virtually nothing, by forcing it all into a box of dogma. Now, spirituality I see differently. But it's actually possible for the brain to fill things in such that different elements contradict themselves - and that can be the source of incredible value. But again, religion restricts that. Religion stifles imagination by turning it toward stasis, and what you're talking about is the most remarkable example of dynamism in the known universe.

[JayTee]

I don't think your example supports your argument as much as you'd like. The brain doesn't fill in as much as it just ignores what it doesn't know. In this view, religion is still irrational.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
what do you do when your brian tells you the world is spinning? If you are like me you lay down until it stops. Soon your mind stop telling you it's spinning and everything is OK. But in the case where your mind is telling you that the creation of the universe, and the creation of you, is God. You have few options but to "lay down" until the spinning stops.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you do when your brain tells you that the evidence of your senses as interpreted through certain mental activity adds up to a legitimate representation of some sort of "objective" world out there, lie down until it stops?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but that's what is so amazing about the mind. It's part of imagination. Religion restricts that tendency, the abililty of the mind to create awesome music out of virtually nothing, by forcing it all into a box of dogma. Now, spirituality I see differently. But it's actually possible for the brain to fill things in such that different elements contradict themselves - and that can be the source of incredible value. But again, religion restricts that. Religion stifles imagination by turning it toward stasis, and what you're talking about is the most remarkable example of dynamism in the known universe.

[/ QUOTE ]As you likely already know I'm pretty much a "foxhole atheist". So I'm not advocating that religion is correct, quite the opposite. I'm saying that religion is incorrect, but the belief in a God that controls the unknowns was and is to a certain extent a rational belief to hold. Not becuase of it's correctness, but because our minds tells us it's correct. The external arguemnts cannot compete with what our minds tell us.

And I of course agree with the rest of your post.

[madnak]

I agree with that, but I also think very few people see religion in that light.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what do you do when your brian tells you the world is spinning? If you are like me you lay down until it stops. Soon your mind stop telling you it's spinning and everything is OK. But in the case where your mind is telling you that the creation of the universe, and the creation of you, is God. You have few options but to "lay down" until the spinning stops.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you do when your brain tells you that the evidence of your senses as interpreted through certain mental activity adds up to a legitimate representation of some sort of "objective" world out there, lie down until it stops?

[/ QUOTE ]Hey skidoo, My mind tells me that it only my subjective view of reality that is in it. However I assume an objective world de facto. I can glimpse at what it is, but it's always thru the filters I apply. Science, and knowledge are the most effective way of getting subjective reality, the only one you can know of, inline with objective reality.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that, but I also think very few people see religion in that light.

[/ QUOTE ]I would like for more people to view religion in that light. Especially those that are, but also those that are not.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think your example supports your argument as much as you'd like. The brain doesn't fill in as much as it just ignores what it doesn't know. In this view, religion is still irrational.

[/ QUOTE ] Maybe not, if not, I'm fairly(50/50) sure that it's just my laziness that I didn't type several pages on the topic. I am almost certian that the brian must fill in the missing info, almost all the time, when appropriate. You never see a black hole in your vision, where you are blind. You never see a black hole in your minds eyes regarding your creation and existance.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Where the retina connects to the optic nerve, the mind forces itself to fill in the details of the missing information. Don't believe me look here. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html) Filling in the details of the unknown is a marker of a healthy brain. When people say that the religious are being irrational it's not entirely true. If you don't want to hear any of this mumbo jumbo regarding your brain filling in the details regarding religion, because you think it might change your mind. Don't worry it can't. Thinking rationally cannot override the brains directive to fill in the details. So go ahead and for a brief moment it time, imagine what the world would look like if we filled in the blind spots regarding our origins, and unknown causes of natural phenomenon.


You should be very familiar with what you would expect. It's a well known concept of the god of the gaps. Gods control the lighting, and the winds and volcanos and the moon and the sun, when our brains fill in the details that we are blind to. We now know that evolution is a much more likely story than creationism in the bible. But it was perfectly rational to believe creationism before we had the knowledge that we have now. We did not have a choice but to fill in the details.

Although god of the gaps is a descriptive what. It doesn't address how or why. How is that the brain forces you to fill in something regarding ones unknown knowledge about your existence. You have no choice in the matter. You can not stop it from doing it. And it's a damn good thing that the brain does this, without asking our permission. We would be lost without it.

So we atheists come at xtians with charges of irrationality, it is a weak charge. They are being very rational. Their mind has filled in the details regarding the context of their surroundings. ID as a religion might be a fairly perfect filling in of details. But it fails when we use ID to overwrite the knowledge we have.

The main two things that are left are the creation (cause of creation) of the universe, and the emergence (cause of emergence) of life. I implore you to not go down the same road that is proven to be at least in part the quite intelligent and necessary context based making stuff up.

edit: horid typos

[/ QUOTE ]


I think there are many many orders of magnitude difference between ...

on the one hand, a single brain processing an incoming torrent of incomplete-and-sometimes-inconsistent-information in split seconds and having to make a best guesstimate of what's happening that will do for the moment,

and on the other hand billions of people with entire lifetimes to communicate, experiment, theorize, and apply all kinds of checks and balances in a long term cooperative search for the truth.

Of course the latter malfunctions in all kinds of ways too. But it's a completely different malfunction.

In any case there is really no excuse for religion existing.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where the retina connects to the optic nerve, the mind forces itself to fill in the details of the missing information. Don't believe me look here. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html) Filling in the details of the unknown is a marker of a healthy brain. When people say that the religious are being irrational it's not entirely true. If you don't want to hear any of this mumbo jumbo regarding your brain filling in the details regarding religion, because you think it might change your mind. Don't worry it can't. Thinking rationally cannot override the brains directive to fill in the details. So go ahead and for a brief moment it time, imagine what the world would look like if we filled in the blind spots regarding our origins, and unknown causes of natural phenomenon.


You should be very familiar with what you would expect. It's a well known concept of the god of the gaps. Gods control the lighting, and the winds and volcanos and the moon and the sun, when our brains fill in the details that we are blind to. We now know that evolution is a much more likely story than creationism in the bible. But it was perfectly rational to believe creationism before we had the knowledge that we have now. We did not have a choice but to fill in the details.

Although god of the gaps is a descriptive what. It doesn't address how or why. How is that the brain forces you to fill in something regarding ones unknown knowledge about your existence. You have no choice in the matter. You can not stop it from doing it. And it's a damn good thing that the brain does this, without asking our permission. We would be lost without it.

So we atheists come at xtians with charges of irrationality, it is a weak charge. They are being very rational. Their mind has filled in the details regarding the context of their surroundings. ID as a religion might be a fairly perfect filling in of details. But it fails when we use ID to overwrite the knowledge we have.

The main two things that are left are the creation (cause of creation) of the universe, and the emergence (cause of emergence) of life. I implore you to not go down the same road that is proven to be at least in part the quite intelligent and necessary context based making stuff up.

edit: horid typos

[/ QUOTE ]


I think there are many many orders of magnitude difference between ...

on the one hand, a single brain processing an incoming torrent of incomplete-and-sometimes-inconsistent-information in split seconds and having to make a best guesstimate of what's happening that will do for the moment,

and on the other hand billions of people with entire lifetimes to communicate, experiment, theorize, and apply all kinds of checks and balances in a long term cooperative search for the truth.

Of course the latter malfunctions in all kinds of ways too. But it's a completely different malfunction.

In any case there is really no excuse for religion existing.

[/ QUOTE ]Not even our mind is built that way? Or have I not effectively argued that point?

[David Sklansky]

"The main two things that are left are the creation (cause of creation) of the universe, and the emergence (cause of emergence) of life. I implore you to not go down the same road that is proven to be at least in part the quite intelligent and necessary context based making stuff up."

You left out the emergence of consciousness, the emergence of specifically Doug Shrapnel, and stuff about quantum theory that I'm not fully qualified to discuss.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"The main two things that are left are the creation (cause of creation) of the universe, and the emergence (cause of emergence) of life. I implore you to not go down the same road that is proven to be at least in part the quite intelligent and necessary context based making stuff up."

You left out the emergence of consciousness, the emergence of specifically Doug Shrapnel, and stuff about quantum theory that I'm not fully qualified to discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks David, sometimes it's important to let others elaborate. QM I mentioned breifly here "unknown causes of natural phenomenon." I include myself in the life one. But there was a glaring unaccounted for existance of conciousness. Perhaps that fits in well with unaccounted for natural phenom. But the biggest glaring omission in the post was that I didn't describe how we should instead of going with the filled in data, but rationally detemine probabilities of what could be the correct solution of what we are blind to. It's something that I lack the expertise to advise further.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that religion is incorrect, but the belief in a God that controls the unknowns was and is to a certain extent a rational belief to hold. Not becuase of it's correctness, but because our minds tells us it's correct. The external arguemnts cannot compete with what our minds tell us.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be reasonable for our mind to tell us that some force (let's call it god) must have created the universe. It is, however, completely unreasonable for our mind to tell us that a man rose from the dead and floated up into the atmosphere, that a virgin had a baby, that a piece of bread is actually human flesh, etc.

Most theists don't just have a vague feeling that something must be responsible for the universe. It's way more than the mind filling in the blanks. It is irrationality caused (usually) by brainwashing as a child.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Most theists don't just have a vague feeling that something must be responsible for the universe. It's way more than the mind filling in the blanks. It is irrationality caused (usually) by brainwashing as a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

As well as a hugely inflated ego, since religion seems to make one central to god's (the absolute uber-fuhrer) concerns. I mean, all this universe, to give me the choice to be saved! LOL

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but that's what is so amazing about the mind. It's part of imagination. Religion restricts that tendency, the abililty of the mind to create awesome music out of virtually nothing, by forcing it all into a box of dogma. Now, spirituality I see differently. But it's actually possible for the brain to fill things in such that different elements contradict themselves - and that can be the source of incredible value. But again, religion restricts that. Religion stifles imagination by turning it toward stasis, and what you're talking about is the most remarkable example of dynamism in the known universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it about Religion that you think stifles creativity? Prescriptive codes of conduct? The dichotomy you create is surely de rigeur, but you've yet to support it with specific examples, so it fails to satisfy anyone who wasn't raised on this pablum.

[KUJustin]

Alright, I apologize for not reading the whole thing (it's past my bed time), but you're ignoring those of us who believe for reasons outside of an inability to explain something scientifically.

In fact, to believe in God based solely on something like that seems very simple and insincere.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
As well as a hugely inflated ego, since religion seems to make one central to god's (the absolute uber-fuhrer) concerns. I mean, all this universe, to give me the choice to be saved! LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even make an attempt to look dispassionate, or are you content to play the role of flatulent popinjay?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that religion is incorrect, but the belief in a God that controls the unknowns was and is to a certain extent a rational belief to hold. Not becuase of it's correctness, but because our minds tells us it's correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be equivocating two different 'rationals' here. From the objective and from the subjective.

It seems 'rational' that a slinky should walk it's way down the stairs. That does not mean the slinky is being rational in so doing.

From the outside we can rationally understand how a good chunk of the population falls into a 'god of the gaps' mode of thinking.
That does not make such thinking 'rational thinking'.
From the outside, it rational that Meth may bring on persecusion complex. That does not mean the user is making rational decisions while experiencing them.

luckyme

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As well as a hugely inflated ego, since religion seems to make one central to god's (the absolute uber-fuhrer) concerns. I mean, all this universe, to give me the choice to be saved! LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even make an attempt to look dispassionate, or are you content to play the role of flatulent popinjay?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least, I don't think I am the purpose of the universe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
At least, I don't think I am the purpose of the universe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

To what purpose do you defer, then?

[IronUnkind]

Your application of the linked study suffers from a basic misunderstanding. Reason is not the mechanism which creates these images. It is the means by which one is able to recogize that they are, in fact, illusions.

As a theist, I appreciate the conciliatory spirit of your post, but I don't think that it helps my position. Still, you are correct that religiousness should not be held as prima facie evidence of irrationality.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least, I don't think I am the purpose of the universe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

To what purpose do you defer, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

None. Purpose doesn't appear to be a sine qua non of existence except in a very negative way.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least, I don't think I am the purpose of the universe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

To what purpose do you defer, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf? just wtf?

It's in english, and I guess it's a sentence. But then....

[Double Down]

Dude, the only people that filled in gaps were those who created religion. Modern Christians believe what they believe because they were TOLD those pieces of info. They didn't fill in any gaps, the gaps were filled in for them by their parents, community, etc.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that religion is incorrect, but the belief in a God that controls the unknowns was and is to a certain extent a rational belief to hold. Not becuase of it's correctness, but because our minds tells us it's correct. The external arguemnts cannot compete with what our minds tell us.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be reasonable for our mind to tell us that some force (let's call it god) must have created the universe. It is, however, completely unreasonable for our mind to tell us that a man rose from the dead and floated up into the atmosphere, that a virgin had a baby, that a piece of bread is actually human flesh, etc.

Most theists don't just have a vague feeling that something must be responsible for the universe. It's way more than the mind filling in the blanks. It is irrationality caused (usually) by brainwashing as a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

Revots excellent post, the main force of my post was that we all aren't born with the answers to the great questions in life. It's important to not hold our knowledge and understanding agaisnt those that don't have the same understandind. It's only a matter of time before they do. It was the same way when people rejected Zues, Thor, or the great JuJubee. People must understand the POV, and you are relatively new to this forced view to be agianst religious beliefs, of the reasons why people fill in the details with the most appropriate(to them) god of choice.

In addition to an unsayvering fight for truth, one should also be on a solid foundation with the interaction between ourselves and those that have not yet understood what we have come to know is a better, more accurate, model of the world. But to say a less accurate model is worthless and irrational is preposterous.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most theists don't just have a vague feeling that something must be responsible for the universe. It's way more than the mind filling in the blanks. It is irrationality caused (usually) by brainwashing as a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

As well as a hugely inflated ego, since religion seems to make one central to god's (the absolute uber-fuhrer) concerns. I mean, all this universe, to give me the choice to be saved! LOL

[/ QUOTE ]Hey MIdGe, been a long time. Hope you are doing well. The huge inflated ego isn't regulated to only the religious.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that religion is incorrect, but the belief in a God that controls the unknowns was and is to a certain extent a rational belief to hold. Not becuase of it's correctness, but because our minds tells us it's correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be equivocating two different 'rationals' here. From the objective and from the subjective.

It seems 'rational' that a slinky should walk it's way down the stairs. That does not mean the slinky is being rational in so doing.

From the outside we can rationally understand how a good chunk of the population falls into a 'god of the gaps' mode of thinking.
That does not make such thinking 'rational thinking'.
From the outside, it rational that Meth may bring on persecusion complex. That does not mean the user is making rational decisions while experiencing them.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]Yes I'm playing a little bit with the world rational. Perhaps understandable would have been a better choice. Slinky's can't be rational. As far as your statement regarding 'god of the gaps' being an understandable thought, that is more what I meant vs rational.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Your application of the linked study suffers from a basic misunderstanding. Reason is not the mechanism which creates these images. It is the means by which one is able to recogize that they are, in fact, illusions.

As a theist, I appreciate the conciliatory spirit of your post, but I don't think that it helps my position. Still, you are correct that religiousness should not be held as prima facie evidence of irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm glad you appreciate the conciliatory spirit, however, I'm not trying to be consouling. I'm trying to state a position against what is in my opinion the worst charge agaisnt a religious position. And that is that the religious are irrational. I'm OK with saying that you are wrong, but hey what do you expect from an atheist, but I'm not OK with saying that theism is irrational. I think you understand that it's the prima facie evidence of irrationality that bothers me to a certain extent.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, the only people that filled in gaps were those who created religion. Modern Christians believe what they believe because they were TOLD those pieces of info. They didn't fill in any gaps, the gaps were filled in for them by their parents, community, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]No Everyone fills in the gaps. You cannot not fill in the gaps. You have no choice in th matter. Yes most xtains where told to believe in those pieces. However most of those peices fit in well with the gaps in our knowable world.

[DougShrapnel]

Iron, if we can both agree that the religious aren't being irrational regarding thier religion, it gives us a starting point. The starting point is so very important. Well yes it's, IME, a illuison. But that doens't matter to me as much as anything else that is important. By that i mean that the "illusion" part isn't important. Only that provided we can understand the nature of faith we can best judge the correctness and usefulness of it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey MIdGe, been a long time. Hope you are doing well. The huge inflated ego isn't regulated to only the religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Doug,

Quite right! But it seems to be always involved with the religious, since it is usually a matter of personal salvation.

[MaxWeiss]

It may be human nature, but it's not rational. Given how much we've learned and the fact that we keep filling in those gaps with more and more knowledge should give one considerable doubt about god being in those gaps, since we keep closing them without him.

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be human nature, but it's not rational. Given how much we've learned and the fact that we keep filling in those gaps with more and more knowledge should give one considerable doubt about god being in those gaps, since we keep closing them without him.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you stop using theory as fact let me know, until then its just sad to me how many scientists preach about how much we KNOW and act greater than christians when their beliefs take just as much faith in my opinion.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
scientists preach about how much we KNOW and act greater than christians when their beliefs take just as much faith in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we know how little you need, to have faith!

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be human nature, but it's not rational. Given how much we've learned and the fact that we keep filling in those gaps with more and more knowledge should give one considerable doubt about god being in those gaps, since we keep closing them without him.

[/ QUOTE ]I couldn't argee more. The point wasn't that a religious belief is correct, merely that having a belief is rational. Becuase the mind presents falsehood as truth to you. I think this outlook is a better description than "God of the Gaps". Religion was perfectly rational 2,000 years ago, It becomes less so as each day passes. And it wasn't until about 100 years ago that the needed infromation was present to shift it's rationality.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey MIdGe, been a long time. Hope you are doing well. The huge inflated ego isn't regulated to only the religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Doug,

Quite right! But it seems to be always involved with the religious, since it is usually a matter of personal salvation.

[/ QUOTE ]The snake oil sales aspect of religious thought is quite troubling indeed. The pitch believe this and you will live forever, is much more appealing than base you life of reason and reality. I'm not certain that the relgious are any more egotistical then the non religious. They just have a better marketing team.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The snake oil sales aspect of religious thought is quite troubling indeed. The pitch believe this and you will live forever, is much more appealing than base you life of reason and reality. I'm not certain that the relgious are any more egotistical then the non religious. They just have a better marketing team.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubts they need marketing! /images/graemlins/smile.gif It is the only way to sell a product that has no benefit!

[MaxWeiss]

Say what!? I'm not even sure what you just said, but it seemed like you were disagreeing with something.

We do KNOW a lot. In fact, much more than we used to. The fact that we still don't know a lot means nothing. It just means there's more to learn, possibly an infinite amount--I don't know if we'll ever know everything! Science isn't a search of answers, it's the search for the right questions. (oooohh, deep. Yes, I came up with that, unless I heard it somewhere and am forgetting...)

God is not an answer, or even likely to exist. God is a cop-out for ignorance. Why not just admit we don't know???

How exactly does a confirmed scientific theory take as much belief as your belief in god??? I believe a ball will fall when I drop it because it always has before, and I have an understanding of the reasons WHY it has done that before and should do it again. That belief is based on testing and deduction. God is based on...... ???????...... Seriously, the idea of god actually existing (as more than a name for nature or spiritual experiences) is so far out in left field... wow. Think about it??? What is belief???? Thinking something is true without reason and defending it!!! Is that considered GOOD anywhere else????????

[MaxWeiss]

Interesting. Agreed. Though it might become more rational after we nuke everything and lose all our knowledge! Seriously, I am very concerned that we will kill ourselves off within my lifetime (pun intended).

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. Agreed. Though it might become more rational after we nuke everything and lose all our knowledge! Seriously, I am very concerned that we will kill ourselves off within my lifetime (pun intended).

[/ QUOTE ]I'm concerned about that as well. Extending the time line far out enough. The estimate I hear are 100-500 yrs. All the different ways we can destroy human life, both actively(nuclear war) and passively(not pursueing stem cell research), add up to near certainty.

A 2nd ancillary point is the the filling in the details also describes faith to a reasonable aproxiamaton. I have faith that god exists. I know without science telling me so. My mind tells me so.