Picture Perfect

Thanks to all those who read and replied. Interesting stuff. Everything which follows is in reply to Nossie and Ant, in that order. 

Nossie, I did go away and now I came back. I still don't have internet, but am using (with permission!) a neighbour's wireless internet connection.

Basically, look at humans. How did they come to be? No, this isn't a Creation/Evolution debate I'm going to give you. We will assume that they began to come into being many many years ago, in a pool. And that they started as a tiny bacterium. Well. How did that bacterium come into being? How can you explain it, other than that there is indeed a God somewhere who started it all off. There is no other reasonable rational way of explaining it (quoted from Nossie).

I believe the ideas you propound are termed "creationist evolution" or "intelligent design." I used to believe that sort of thing when I was your age, and enjoyed debating it in (a faith) school where the majority believed in the literal 6 days of creation in Genesis. It got quite lively at times...But anyway. I have read and studied both Jewish and Christian creationist ideas. I believe the latter to include intentionally misleading statements and the former to be incomplete - the science is correct (unlike the latter), but it isn't all there...so I suppose that's misleading too, but I suspect it isn't intentional (that's more an inference from writing style - you can see the thought process of the author as he expounds the ideas and sometimes he gets it wrong and says the equivalent of "actually, that's wrong, BUT...").

Alternately, you're endorsing evolution as a scientific theory, but are saying it all started with God placing the first pool of water, or first bacteria there. Whilst I could give several examples of how that could be untrue, I understand what you mean and shall thus strengthen your question and bring about the first and foremost thing which is troubling me from a scientific viewpoint and which is a large obstacle which impedes my switch into complete disbelief in God - the Big Bang. It happened, that much we know. There's all sorts of evidence for it (such as radiology evidence...the waves of the Big Bang are still "visible" to us today). Science says the origin of life was a single atom, which exploded and eventually became what we know and love as the universe. How did that one atom get there? Science doesn't know. That doesn't mean to say religious people do know, but God is one possibility.

Also, humans have a spiritual side. It can't be denied. And why would they have a spiritual side if there is no God? Can't it be denied? I'm very wary of statements and ideas when people follow it up with something like "it can't be denied" or "it's obvious" - in my experience, those statements and ideas usually can be denied, or are't at all obvious.

However. Let's move on. 

A cursory lesson in Anthropology would answer this suitably (that subject is, of course, one of my university courses). Just read M. Bloch's essay "symbol, song and dance" or any of M. Weber's works on religion, or perhaps Durkheim's views. Because I've already read them all, I'll explain what each one says so you don't have to.

M . Bloch - Jewish bloke, I think, teaches in my uni. A student of the famed anthropologist Shapiro (another Jewish bloke) who was taught himself by another famed anthropologist (who was also Jewish, I think) called Malinowski (I think the reason for the very great number of Jewish Anthropologists is because Jewish people tend to move about a lot - especially in the first and middle part of the century - and are also brought up with at least two languages, making it easier for them to grasp new ones. But anyway....

Bloch says religion exists merely because people seek to dominate others. And sure enough, one readily example is Christianity. Over the years, the Church was a terrible dominator of persons for nigh on two thousand years.

Durkheim is less cynical and says it's more to do with social (moral) cohesion - i.e. making sure everyone of one particular group stays in one particular group. Darwinians would say that this statistically improves the chances of that group in surviving. Cynical Durkheimians and perhaps traditional - perhaps even neo - Marxists would say it's to do with the ruling class imposing its own values upon everyone else, the better to control them with. That is its effect, essentially, whether we as religious people like it or not, but feel free to be wary of that.

Weber says pretty much the same thing as the above, and goes into antagoinsing detail of groups, sub groups, part groups, culture groups, religious groups, etc. etc. etc. to prove his point. There is almost literally not a group he doesn't discuss. Not content with the modern world, he even talks about the ancient Israelites.

So there we have it. Many views as to why there is religion in the world and not one of them has to do with God or spirituality.

Moving onto Ant's ideas...

Interesting.... to be honest, I don't think you can prove the unprovable, and God's made it that way. Its a faith thing! And I know many people out there will despise this way of thinking ;)

The reason why people despise it is because you believe in an invisible, untouchable, unseeable, unhearable being you credit with creating everything and just believe it. A typical discussion with someone who does not believe in God and someone who does, replacing "God" with "fairies" would to you sound proposterous and rightly so...

Person A: I believe fairies exist.
Person B: They don't, they're not here. They're fake.
Person A: How do you know?
Person B: Have you ever seen one?
Person A: No.
Person B: So how do you know they exist?
Person A: I have faith. I just know. It's what my gut tells me.
Person B: Having faith doesn't make it so.
Person A: I also have evidence...I haven't watered my garden for years and everything grows amazingly in it. Must be fairies! Also, I have personal experience. They talk to me. Tell me things. Not with voices in my head, but through signs.

Understandably, anyone seeing signs from fairies is either really young, really old, or really mad.
So why is it any different when you replace "fairies" with "God" and "faith" suddenly becomes an admirable and respectable thing to have, when based on similar things to the above?

You cannot reasonably expect mature adults to simply have (blind) faith in something which they have never seen or heard.

I grew up agnostic, then was converted to Christianity in my teens. So flitted between belief and agnosticism. I am now, however, a firm believer.

I grew up indifferent. I reached the pinnacle of Jewish education, found Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, Druidism and Hinduism to be false - fascinating, but false nevertheless. So why not Judaism? There are fundamental differences, which I shall come to later, which also serve to propel me towards Judaism and away from agnosticism, atheism, or any other religion.

I had serious doubts about God per se about 3 years ago, but decided to reach the top of Judaic religious education first, before making ny conclusions on the matter. I also did it so no one could say "you're ignorant of scripture/rabbinic writings," and so that when I made the choice, I was standing on a solid tower of knowledge, rather than one of assumptions and ignorance. I never realised how far I actually came, until I recently debated (about Jewish matters) some students in a world class Jewish acadamy of higher learning, and outshone them both. The time, I feel, is ripe to make a choice and stand firm. But let's take a look at your evidence...

Creation - this was proposed by Maimonides (1134-1205). I used to agree, but now do not see how the logical conclusion should be God. Yes, there are amazing things in the world, but each has a perfectly sound scientific explanation, none of which has to do with God. As Douglas Adams (one of my favourite authors) once said, is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to believe there are fairies at the end of it?

Conscience - If we are merely biological machines, why do we have these? (1) And if conscience, morality and ethics are a social construct, (2) why don't we all rebel and kill each other? (3) After all, its survival of the fittest right? (4) Oh, but thats wrong. Says who? (5) And why is there opinion more weighty than mine or yours? (6) Conscience is evidence of a moral God.

1) First off, you'll have to note that "morality" has different definitions in different societies. For example, it's immoral for men and woman to walk in the same street according to Bedouins of Egypt. But it isn't regarded immoral by the inhabitants of the cities of Egypt, who practise this. Another example - it's immoral to notchop off the hands of thiefs in Saudi Arabia. Yet it would cause outrage if done - and is regarded to be immoral - in the west. There are millions of examples, literally. So yes, they are social constructs in that there is no universal path of "morals" or "ethics," but is peculiar to each society.

2) Maybe many would. If there was no government, no enforcers of the law, it is reasonable to assume that there would be no order. The proof of this is that we have enforcers of the law - if it wasn't needed, they wouldn't be there.

I am very much taken with a news article I read on the tube a few years ago (in the Metro, that bastion of knowledge) which was reporting on the very large fires in california (arty may recall them). The police, fire and ambulance services - in other words, all hte trappings of modern daily law enforcement and emergency services - were all functioning perfectly well, and yet in that moment of unusual chaos, people were reported as looting shops, cars and houses. Chilling pictures of signs with the words "looters shall be shot" were displayed in the paper.

Furthermore, you cannot seriously suggest that it is only because of your belief in God that you do not do all these things? Surely before you were religious, you had no desire to kill, maim, rape and rob? Therefore, I find, on both these counts, your argument to be incorrect.

3) Maybe.
4) Is it wrong? And says who? I don't know, you tell me!
5) Maybe they have more knowledge about the subject?
6) I see no evidence of conscience. In many religions, I see evidence of guilt, fear and the promise of reward. Judaism is not one of them; we are taught "do not serve God out of fear, nor for the desire for reward. Rather, out of love should you serve Him." 

But to bring all those last points into one paragraph, if I've understood what you've said (i'm not convinced I have), I would offer you what someone once said to me: "I'm not doing it because I'm kind, I'm doing it because then they'll be in my debt. It's a totally selfish thing." So here we have our first alternate argument: the promise of payback.

Just today, travelling on the tube, someone moved their bag out the way, to which they were thanked many times by someone else. The person who moved the bag sat next to me and whispered "actually, I did it for me, not them" - another selfish motivation.

Not that every apparantly selfless act is due to selfishness. Others may be to show dominance ("I am the man of the house. I do the work and provide food!") or help given to one's own group, which would therefore ensure the continuation and success of that group - e.g. compatriots, relatives, friends...or in cybernations, the little gift-aid package you get when first joining an alliance.

Other times, because it makes no difference to the person providing help. A few days ago I loaned someone some money. It made no difference to me at the time and I knew the person would repay it, so it wouldn't exactly break the bank. So why not help someone out? As it happens, the thougt running through my mind was "he's laid out cash unquestioningly for me in the past, so I'll do it for him now" - which brings us back to the repayment of favours argument.

Anyway. The point is, there is no reason to conclude that we do nice things because there's a God, just like there's no reason to conclude we don't all kill each other when there's no God (as I've pointed out, we often find we do in fact kill each other when there is no human law, so how cuold that happen if God exists? I'm not suggesting it's a proof that he doesnt exist, but am suggesting everyday morals have more to do with state law enforcement than God). 

I look forward to the responses which shall no doubt crop up (btw, Nossie, I notice you haven't speedily sent back my e-mail RE: the Judao-Christian debate we're having).

Thanks for playing, hope you all come back and do so again some time! Take care.