Do you believe in God? - Page 8

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by dinahx

I have come full circle on the creation issue, especially on the subject of motive & PR. I feel like it is the side of Science that has the most to gain, via patent law, of denying the existence of God. Growing up, I felt like the only correct position was pro Darwin, anti-fanatical. But it seems that there is a clear motive in science for denying a creator or giving a 'jury's out'. They gain moral relativism, like 'who's's to say it is wrong to clone mice for eyelash research?' or 'who's's to say we can't own a seed or say, contaminate the whole world's corn with our patented genome?'

That is where applied ethics comes in. Omit religion, omit personal gain, examind situation with logic and a clear definition of what "moral" means at it's core and you find out there is really very, very few cases where moral relativism is the result.

[MusicianDad]

Science isn't about finding all the answeres, it's about determining the most probably cause. That is why you can never prove the null hypothesis, only fail to reject it.

[orangewallflower]

Originally Posted by bluebirdiemama

You make some good, interesting points

I think faith and science can co-exist nicely, as long as it's not "marketable faith" and/or "marketable science".
Obviously there is some degree of evolution, just, what is that degree? I don't think it explains the beggining of life. And Im wondering.... what the point is of the conference you mentioned? Have Catholics decided they don't believe in Genesis anymore? Or do they simply not wanting the "intelligent designers" making a stink about degrees of evolution?
If there are people called "intelligent designers" who think there is no evolution of species at all... that's new to me.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. There is no scientific theory (a theory is an explanation of observed phenomena) that does so. If one comes about it will be its own thing, not evolution. It is unlikely to ever happen. It will remain a mystery and rich ground for religious faith.

If intelligent designers all embrace the idea of evolution what is the problem? All I have observed in the name of intelligent design is (1) a desire for science teachers to discuss religious ideas (as inappropriate as a church being required to have a scientist give a counter argument to scripture) and
(2) a seriously misinformed notion of evolution. I have NEVER heard an IDer describe evolution in a way that reflects a fundamental understanding of what it is.

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

But who gets to decide what the intrinsic value of something is?

If everything in the universe is just randomly here due to chance occurrence, then I would think that the 'intrinsic' value of everything is completely subjective. I can decide that the intrinsic value of anything from a rock to a person is whatever I want it to be. Groups of people can come to an agreement on what they consider to be the intrinsic value of things (or people or animals or whatever), but that's still just a subjective opinion and can change.

On the other hand, if everything in the universe is created by an intelligent higher power, then the Creator has made each part of Its creation with the intrinsic value It has decided upon. That value is objective because it was intentionally put there by the Creator during its creation and can never change.

So how do objects in a completely random universe get their objective intrinsic value? And if that value is subjective, then how is it intrinsic?

Ok I've figured out what's bothering me about this. It's the assumption that anything may be of more value in nature than something else. I do not believe that to be true. For example, the lowly fungi and bacteria that decompose fallen leaves in a forest performs a valuable function and has no less value than the predators who prevent overpopulation. As the world was created, prior to mankind going in to muck it all up, things were in a good balance, with each entity having value. No one had to tell the fungus it was important, and it didn't need to evaluate it's sense of self worth to determine it's value, it just was and is. If you look at some of the remaining tribes in the world that have been minimally touched by modern developments, you can see how man as well fits into that balance. This doesn't mean that some random god somewhere went around assigning "intrinsic value" points to the different entities on a master list, and provides no evidence of such a god existing. And I don't believe that perfectly balanced ecosystems immediately evolved that way, there'd be no reason for adaptation otherwise. You (general) may not see something as having value, but honestly when it comes to nature, she really doesn't care about your opinion, kwim? Bottom line I guess is that when some people look, they see the hand of God in everything and when other people look they see anything but that.

[whiddle]

Originally Posted by Drewsmom

I'm asking this here b/c I wanted to get some answers from those who believe as well as some athiests as well. If you don't why? If you do why?

No.IMO, it's not logical and there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity.

[ThirdEyeMom]

“Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A critical appraisal 150 years after ‘The Origin of Species’” conference

Originally Posted by carmel23

I'd just like to interject a few points. First of all, it is possible to understand evolution and believe in God. In fact, the Catholic Church just had a big conference on evolution--and the intelligent design folks were pissed off because they weren't invited. ...

The upcoming Vatican-sponsored conference takes place March 3-7. February 10 was the presentation. This international conference on evolution will include "critical study of the theory of intelligent design, which, organizers said, represents poor theology and science." The proponents of intelligent design were not invited to give presentations at the March conference. "Organizers agreed to discuss how it appeared and developed as a cultural ideology, not as science."

Stay tuned...

[Arduinna]

The question in the OP would make a great poll. ok I made a poll please come vote in it http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1196875

[*EarthMama*]

I don't believe in God as a supreme being. I believe in a consciousness that flows through us all. A Oneness of Love. My experience with this is not a being outside of myself but rather an energy of divine intelligence of which we are all a part.

Just wanted to add that I do believe this to be a part of every living thing. We are all (fungus included ) part of the light, part of creation and thus one, so there is no hierarchy.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by SunshineJ

Ok I've figured out what's bothering me about this. It's the assumption that anything may be of more value in nature than something else. I do not believe that to be true. For example, the lowly fungi and bacteria that decompose fallen leaves in a forest performs a valuable function and has no less value than the predators who prevent overpopulation. As the world was created, prior to mankind going in to muck it all up, things were in a good balance, with each entity having value. No one had to tell the fungus it was important, and it didn't need to evaluate it's sense of self worth to determine it's value, it just was and is.

I guess I don't have a problem with believing that humans have more value than, say, a mushroom. Not that a mushroom has no value, but I would have no problem saving a human life over the life of a mushroom.

As for intrinsic value, it seems that I agree with the other posters that each part of (what I call) creation has its own value that comes from within it. The only difference is that I believe it was created with that value by God. I'm still not sure how anyone can know what the intrinsic value of anything is otherwise. Just saying something has intrinsic value *just because* isn't a satisfying answer for me.

The upcoming Vatican-sponsored conference takes place March 3-7. February 10 was the presentation. This international conference on evolution will include "critical study of the theory of intelligent design, which, organizers said, represents poor theology and science." The proponents of intelligent design were not invited to give presentations at the March conference. "Organizers agreed to discuss how it appeared and developed as a cultural ideology, not as science."

Stay tuned...

I'm very interested to hear what they have to say! I'm of the opinion that science uncovers the nature of God (as much as it can). Religion and science are not in opposition. There are simply questions that science cannot answer, and God is the most reasonable answer that I've found for those questions. And I'm saying this as someone who identified as a pagan for many years and only very recently came to this conclusion. The more I learn about the religion that I spent so many years opposed to, the more convinced I become.

[Thalia the Muse]

I'm still not sure how anyone can know what the intrinsic value of anything is otherwise.

But religious people don't agree -- at all -- about this either, so clearly if there IS a deity, it still hasn't solved the issue of how human being can know intrinsic value.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by Thalia the Muse

But religious people don't agree -- at all -- about this either, so clearly if there IS a deity, it still hasn't solved the issue of how human being can know intrinsic value.

Of course there is still debate even among religious people.

I can claim to know the intrinsic value of things/people/etc according to my religious beliefs, and someone else can disagree with me according to their religious beliefs, but how does an atheist claim to know the intrinsic value of anything? What does an atheist base this knowledge on? I honestly can't grasp this.

[Callimom]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

But who gets to decide what the intrinsic value of something is?

Groups of people can come to an agreement on what they consider to be the intrinsic value of things (or people or animals or whatever), but that's still just a subjective opinion and can change.

But this is what religion does. It collectively asserts that there is value bestowed by a god. Atheists believe there is value because...there is value. Given that (as a broad generalization) humans value people/things/ideas in similar ways regardless of religion, I would say that it is human nature to understand intrinsic nature and not a function of religion.

[EFmom]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Of course there is still debate even among religious people.

I can claim to know the intrinsic value of things/people/etc according to my religious beliefs, and someone else can disagree with me according to their religious beliefs, but how does an atheist claim to know the intrinsic value of anything? What does an atheist base this knowledge on? I honestly can't grasp this.

Atheists have ethics and value systems. They just aren't dictated by the supernatural.

[orangewallflower]

I too am of the belief that if value is bestowed by a god it is extrinsic, not intrinsic. Perhaps atheists are in an even better position to see intrinsic value.

[lobster_mom]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I guess I don't have a problem with believing that humans have more value than, say, a mushroom. Not that a mushroom has no value, but I would have no problem saving a human life over the life of a mushroom.

Right, as a human you have no problem believing humans are more valuable. A colony of mushrooms would run right over human life to preserve it's species. Not conciously, but that is just how evolution works. Do you think a wolf, a random example, recognizes your perceived intrinsic higher value as a human? Pshaw!

[Purple Sage]

Thanks for the responses. It certainly does shed light on some things for me as I'm learning more about my spiritual beliefs, and I'm grateful for that.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Thalia the Muse

But religious people don't agree -- at all -- about this either, so clearly if there IS a deity, it still hasn't solved the issue of how human being can know intrinsic value.

Humans only know what they perceeve as the intrinsic value. It may be (and I am sure often is) inaccurately perceeved by humans simply because the worth of something is not noticable in anyway.

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Of course there is still debate even among religious people.

I can claim to know the intrinsic value of things/people/etc according to my religious beliefs, and someone else can disagree with me according to their religious beliefs, but how does an atheist claim to know the intrinsic value of anything? What does an atheist base this knowledge on? I honestly can't grasp this.

Athiests (and Agnostics like me) base intrinsic value on science. We know that bacteria and fungus break down organic matter into a mush that ferilizes the soil and allows new things to grown which prevents errosion, cleans the air, and feeds animals that eat plants who deposit seeds and other organicly made fertilizer that is created because of the bacteria in an animals digestive tract. It doesn't matter if that process comes because God created it that way or because it's the only way for things to continue surviving and there for the most likely continue on. I mean, this would be a barren, rocky waste land with no life if not for the nature and there for value of things that so many people determine less then humans. We wouldn't survive without the rest of the natural world.

That's why mushrooms (and other fungi) rock!

[Thalia the Muse]

Yelllowjackets, on the other hand, suck. The existence of aggressive, malevolent insects that can sting multiple times and will mug you to steal your picnic is proof enough that the universe is not a benign place.

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by Thalia the Muse

Yelllowjackets, on the other hand, suck. The existence of aggressive, malevolent insects that can sting multiple times and will mug you to steal your picnic is proof enough that the universe is not a benign place.

Having been stung this past summer first by some bee that was living in the ground and second by a yellow jacket, I would have to concur!! I have no doubt they serve a purpose but I sure wasn't seeing it at those times! LOL!

[ThirdEyeMom]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Humans only know what they perceeve as the intrinsic value. It may be (and I am sure often is) inaccurately perceeved by humans simply because the worth of something is not noticable in anyway.

Glad you said this (and there was something in a prior comment of yours that made sense, too, regarding this) because I am unclear how God and intrinsic value got intertwined in this thread (no pun intended). To better understand the intrinsic/extrinsic value discussion here, I found for myself a decent overview at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy. Purple Sage, it may be what you are looking for.