Why do you believe what you believe?

I was raised in a Christian environment and went to Christian schools. At an early age I already thought the sloppy reasoning of religious thinking was suspect. When I was exposed to science classes, I became convinced that nature was far more beautiful and interesting, and above all far more logical, without the fairy tale explanations of religion. I have to disagree with this. Normally I don't have any qualms over what other people choose to believe. But we have had a raving religious nut here in the Netherlands who butchered the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. The sentencing in his trial is due today. (In fact, it's due at about the time I'm writing this.) During his trial, it became clear that he commited this murder because of his stern belief that all those who do not acknowledge Allah's truth, do not deserve to live. He said he acted out of religious motives and would do the exact same thing, given the chance.That's one belief I think no one is entitled to, especially not so if they really act on it and kill someone for it. The only way to deal with such a person is to remove them permanently from society. I am opposed to the death penalty, so I think a life imprisonment is the only option in this case.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You forget that random chance isn't the only factor in evolution. Indeed randomness alone would very unlikely lead to what we see in living nature, but in combination with natural selection, it's an excellent explanation for it.You say you see design everywhere. Well, so do I. There is design in living nature. But you go further and draw the unwarranted conclusion that design implies intelligence, and an active designer. I don't think that's necessary at all. If two organisms have to compete for limited resources, then the one whose 'design' better enables it to get hold of those resources, is more likely to win and have its design propagated. It's a very simple mindless process that can nevertheless enhance design. As can be gleaned from what I wrote above, I think you present a false dichotomy here. Random chance does not preclude design. I think random chance and natural selection are one way to produce design. Another way is intelligence. The big difference between natural design and intelligent design is that natural design would not have foresight, or a plan underlying it, whereas intelligent design most likely would. Since we see a lot of strange, or even stupid design in living nature, seemingly devoid of any plan, I think intelligent design is not likely the cause of it. Here are a few possibilities that can explain a sudden surge in evolutionary development:If a big rock hits the earth and finishes off about ninety percent of life, then a lot of niches are left empty to be filled with new life. Since a lot of design has been 'discarded' as it were, solutions for life's problems will have to be re-invented. The randomness of mutations will ensure that some solutions will look like something that's been tried before, and others will be radically different.And if something radically new is 'invented' by evolution, something like multicellularity for instance, or a backbone, a whole range of new ways of life can be explored by evolution. So, not only the existing niches provide a boost, but also all kinds of new possibilities are opened up, creating niches that weren't there before. Needless to say that these new niches only add to the boost. But aren't you introducing a new, more complex entity here? An entity that needs an explanation of it own? The entity you propose may seem simple and likely, because it can be formulated rather concisely, but when you really think about it, it only adds to the mystery, and you are no nearer to an explanation at all, quite the opposite in fact.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

No, I disagree. I didn't say that design implies natural selection and random chance. Those are two principles that we can observe to simply happen in nature, without the need for an implication from design. What I said was that design does not necessarily imply intelligence, there is another possible way in which design can arise, as I explained. If you can back that up by quantifying the likelihood of both positions, then we have something interesting to discuss, otherwise I'm afraid it's just gut feeling, no offence intended. The difference is that "finding the metaphysical explanation far more compelling" is once more an expression of gut feeling, whereas "chosing the naturalist explanation" has a firm basis in evidence.I wrote:

quote:

---

The entity you propose may seem simple and likely, because it can be formulated rather concisely, but when you really think about it, it only adds to the mystery, and you are no nearer to an explanation at all, quite the opposite in fact.

---

And you answered: We may both start with a mystery, but again there is a difference: science attempts - succesfully, I might add - to unravel the mystery, whereas the "metaphysical explanation" isn't really an explanation at all. If it doesn't add to the mystery, it certainly does nothing to lessen it, and, worst of all, there is no way we can test this "explanation" to see if it has any real merit. Of course there may be more possibilities, but it doesn't make sense to make them up if there is not a shred of evidence for them. A comet or asteroid is only considered if if it suggested by evidence such as a discernible crater, or something more indirect like the KT-boundary. Well, you can simply state anything of course, but what use is it if you don't know whether what you state has any connection with reality? And why on earth do you say that we don't need to know anything more about the metaphysical designer? It's not as if ignorance is a goal, is it? Indeed. Science studies something external to itself, something it doesn't define itself, something with an independent existence. Theologians on the other hand (I would leave philosophy out of this), only study their own made up stories. What's the use of that?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Schrafinator has already answered your post to me, and I stand behind her. I will just pick one snippet from your post and add my own commentary. If you mean that the mystery consists of why this particular series of mutations happened and not another, then you must first ask yourself whether this particular series of mutations is of special interest. The only reason to find it special is because it resulted in our existence, and obviously our existence is important to us. But if you take an objective stance, there is no reason to think that one series of random mutations is more special than another.Suppose you throw a deck of cards in the air and then pick them up again, and you repeat this a few times. Is there any reason to think that the resulting order of the deck in any one trial is more special than in another?The only difference between the example of the cards and the evolution of life is that we can have several trials with the cards, but we have only one example of how life developed. That's why it seems special. But it could easily have gone very differently, in countless many ways. If you look at it this way, the mystery disappears. We evolved the way we did, and that's that. There is no why.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Would you say the same thing if I'd replace 'God' with 'monsters under your bed', or 'pixies'? If you reason like this, then anything, however outrageous, can be said to exist, and it should not be considered irrational.Suppose I said that there is always a pixie hovering in the air behind your head. You can never see it, because every time you turn around, it quickly moves, or becomes invisible or whatever. (Of course, everybody knows that pixies cannot be seen in a mirror, so don't try and be clever.)If you were of sane mind, you would probably not believe me and say that I am being irrational. But if I reasoned like you, then I could say: "If it is an irrational decision to say that pixies behind your head exist, it is just as irrational to say that they don't." Of course, you can immediately spot the logical error in that statement.Somehow, most people have a pretty good understanding of what is irrational to believe and what isn't. Why then is it that when it's God we're talking about, that understanding starts to falter so often?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I think that's where God had his afternoon dip.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

(Charles, you devil, you beat me to it.) Ahh, but you don't know what I know. I happen to know that pixies, before they picked up the habit of hovering behind people's heads, were in the universe-creation business. Unfortunately, the creation of a universe is a one-time-only event and, consequently, business became rather slack soon afterward. Pixies being pixies however, they quickly found another useful pastime for the next 12 billion years or so.Seriously, your objection is precisely why I ended my post with the following:

quote:

---

Somehow, most people have a pretty good understanding of what is irrational to believe and what isn't. Why then is it that when it's God we're talking about, that understanding starts to falter so often?

---

The only reason you give why believing in God is not irrational, as opposed to believing in pixies, is that God created the universe.But given what science has revealed to us about the universe, that is exactly what is irrational about believing in God. The evidence tells a different story. Now, people have no problems in seeing the irrationality of a belief in pixies, but they make an exception for belief in one particular pixie, viz. God. My question was: why? I don't think "because God created the universe" is an adequate answer.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

From a viewpoint within the universe, it has always existed, because 'always' means "for all time". Since "all time" is part of the universe and there is no time outside or before the universe - 'outside' and 'before' are meaningless concepts if applied to the universe - the universe can be said to have always existed. But all that is sophistry of course. In the same way, saying that a creator created the universe is begging the question also. Who created the creator?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Sophistry or not, I think we agree. If 'existing' means to occupy time and space, or even just time, then nothing can exist before time and space are created. So nothing can have created the universe. By that definition of existence the universe itself cannot even be said to exist: it would need to occupy space and time, which is what it consist of, not exists in.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Only if you think that everything must have a cause. Maybe that's not the case.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Everything? How can that be? Everything includes "god", so if "god" is the cause of everything, then "god" must have caused himself. You deny this possibility for the universe. Why then allow it for "god"?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

How about the universe coming into existence ex-nihilo, without a cause? It doesn't cause itself, nothing causes it. But it has a beginning, at least when viewed from the inside. Incidentally, inside is the only side available, when the universe is concerned.P.S. I hope you don't feel you are being given the rough treatment. If so, please know that it's not meant that way, at least not from me.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I can't explain it. But neither can I get my head around something (God, the universe) existing eternally. Both options are equally baffling, I suppose. Good.Got to go now, it's late here.
See you.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I'll have another go on this one.By definition, the universe is all there is. There can be nothing outside the universe. The very term 'outside' has no meaning with regard to the universe. Likewise, the universe is all there ever was and will be. There can be nothing before the universe, nor can there be anything after the universe. 'Before' and 'after' are meaningless concepts without the universe.If the universe had existed always, then it would be in a state of heat death by now. As we can see, it is not. Therefore, the universe has not existed always.Since the universe has not existed always, it must have had a beginning. Since there can be nothing outside or before the universe, the beginning of the universe cannot have a cause.Ergo: the universe had a beginning ex-nihilo, without a cause.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Your option 1 has one entity: the universe. Option 2 has two entities: a god, and a universe.We have evidence a universe exists, but we have no evidence for the existence of a god. Occam's Razor demands that we do not introduce unnecessary entities. Since you find both options equally strange and magical, the introduction of a god has not improved your understanding. It is only logical that you abandon the idea of a god until such time as it becomes a real improvement of your understanding.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins