[Science & Religion]God Created Human Brains to Believe in Him

Possibly, but I think we'd have to define the word "purpose" more carefully here, for the purposes of this discussion. Tectonic plates move and produce thrust faults, which produce mountains, which in turn collide with clouds to produce rain that then flows down hill effectively irrigating the continent, etc.. Could this be seen as the purpose of these plates and these kinds of thrust faults? Certainly within context of our global weather systems and our ecosystems they serve a very important purpose. Is there a bigger context? I think that's another question, but also a valid one.

 

Jung was the first to say our brains were hardwired to believe in gods...or archtypes...

Really makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint...believe in something can give you motivation to endure adversity thus increasing your likelihood of reproduction.

 

Those same mountains could also block moisture behind them creating a desert so was it the purpose of the plate tectonics to create a desert?

The problem with assigning purpose is that there is no possible answer. As much as its wonderful the mountains create temperate rainforest and have glaciers on top at the same time they also lead to desertification and avalanches. If the argument is that there is a purpose then what is it?

You can say that there is purpose but there is no way of ever proving that. Tectonic plates create mountains but they also create earthquakes and volcanoes. Are mountains, earthquakes or volcanoes the purpose of tectonic plates?

 

Science will never prove that God does not exist no matter how many studies and angles it wants to take. The best it can do is try to prove that the bible is a myth which doesn't prove anything.

You know the reason science hates religion so much? Because science fundamentally believes in nothing, everything is a theory. Whereas God tells you absolutely how it is. I believe that Science needs God more than God needs science, because when science proves that God is a theory it also proves that Science itself is God. Or their version of what god should be.

That is also why I laugh at people who claim they don't believe in God but they run about spouting theories of science. If science isn't a god to them I don't know what is. Science is the God of the inconclusive theory of nothinness.

 

Science hates religion so much because religion slept with science's boyfriend.

That skank...

 

I love this site. Where else could you read a debate about "God" involving plate tectonics, desertification, and avalanches?

 

This is why we have to carefully define what we’re talking about when we use the term purpose. With respect to the desert and its ecosystem, absolutely the mountains serve a purpose. Without them there would be no desert. At some point in history someone looked at a desert in the rain shadow of a mountain range and wondered about cause and effect, and eventually he, or someone who came after, figured out how that ecosystem works and the purpose the mountains serve in that ecosystem. You are defining the term purpose differently here, however. You are looking at a larger context and I’m saying that that is a different, but also valid, question and area of investigation. I think that humans seek to understand cause and effect, and purpose, at many different levels.

 

tell him about the twinkie.

 

I don't think you understand science very well.

 

Sure we can figure out how the ecosystem of a desert works but that still doesn't explain the purpose of that ecosystem.

We can point to causes and we can point to effects but if that isn't quite the same as having a purpose. For example our civilization has created a lot of waste that has immensely helped rats and seagulls prosper. Is the purpose of humanity then to help out rats and seagulls?

I think it is a tricky issue to start saying that everything has a purpose. You can point out a long chain of causality but does cause imply purpose? I think what you might be thinking about is meaning in regard to what is the greater signifigance of existence.

 

Again, I think we need to carefully define the word purpose here. Here’s the quote again.

What kind of purpose would you say the children are likely referring to? In general I would say that humans look for cause and effect and systems at many different levels. We want to know how the digestive systems of the bugs on the desert floor work, and how they survive the heat and survive with very little water. We want to know not only about the ecosystem that the bug lives in, but we want to know about all the connected ecosystems as well. We’re interested in looking at systems on top of systems on top of systems, and we’re also interested in looking at systems within systems within systems. We want to look at cells, and DNA, and compounds, atoms, electrons, quarks, strings .... We see systems everywhere, and by and large we find that theyare there. This begs the question, why would anyone suggest that we have an, “overdeveloped sense of cause and effect, which primes us to see purpose and design everywhere, even when there is none.”?

I suspect that she has a specific area in mind that she’s referring to, but when you look at the greater context I think she’s on shaky ground. Given that we seek to explore and to understand cause and effect relationships for pretty well everything, why would we stop looking for cause and effect, and purpose, when it comes to our own existence? Why would we seek to explore the minutia of every other aspect of the known universe but deny the exploration of this area?

 

^ I agree with you that we need to be careful of what we mean by the term "purpose". A cause that leads to an effect doesn't mean that there is a purpose. That tectonic plates cause mountains doesn't mean that the purpose of tectonic plates is so that mountains exist anymore than that inefficiencies in my digestive tract cause bacteria to thrive. If you simply look at something as saying that one thing is a cause that leads to an effect and that is purpose then it is perfectly valid to say that the purpose of human existence is to provide a wonderful environment for bacteria.

The problem that I see with the argument is that "purpose" implies more than just cause and effect but implies a deliberateness about the cause with a desired affect. There is also the problem that one cause might create multiple affects many of which aren't desirable depending on your viewpoint. For instance while there are alot of helpful bacteria in my digestive tract that further the process of digestion there can also be ones that produce toxins and make me ill.

As far as that we as humans want to understand how things work and look that still isn't quite the same as saying their is purpose or even that the human mind is hardwired to see purpose. I would say that is more of an argument that humans are curious.

I will agree that humans might seek to imbue things with purpose and speculate on whether things have a purpose but that gets back to my point about meaning. Meaning is ultimately something that is subjective and whether you assign a meaning to tectonic plates doesn't prove whether they do or not.

 

Just to add one more clarification.

Meaning is something that an outside observer can imbue onto an act or a thing.

Purpose is a something that is inherent and deliberate in the act.

 

It depends on how the word is being used. You’re using one definition, but that’s not the only one, and I suspect that it’s not the one the 7 and 8 year old children were using. What purpose do the lungs serve in the body? They exchange oxygen with CO2 in the blood. The word doesn’t need to refer to any higher purpose than that, and I suspect that what the children are referring to is essentially the way rocks and rivers and birds fit into the ecosystem, and not some greater cosmic purpose.

Whatever level we’re looking at, however, I think the questions are largely the same. They’re just bigger and more all encompassing as you move up. I would say that humans are naturally curious and we seek to understand all aspects of our lives, the key word there being all.

 

Science believes in no absolutes. Why do you think they call it the theory of relativity? I am sure somebody here is going diatribe me on the exact meaning of theories in science, lol.

Conceptually science accepts that every assertion is subject to better knowledge. In this regard science is infinity. Religion, on the other hand, is finite, thus if science can disprove religion, it really validates it's own methods of evaluations.

Does science hate religion? Not personally, but science has always been skeptical of anything that purports absolute knowledge.

The problem with science is that it's very methods prevent it from absolutely disproving anything, lol. The best it can say is WE REALLY REALLY EXTREMELY DONT BELIEVE IN GOD, lol.

 

"Hate" is a personification...

Science is not against religion because science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Science is the study of the material world. Religion claims dominion over something equally vast and potentially greater.

People who want science to disprove God are on the different side of the same coin of those who want inject God into science.

"If God is real, then I can observe Him methodically in a fashion repeated by others!"

Well, that isn't religion anymore, and that sure as hell isn't faith.

 

Once again you don't understand science that well or religion for that matter. Many scientists do believe in God and see there work as furthering progress in understanding God. Its only the most very shallow view of science and the most fundamentalist view of religion that sets them in opposition to each other.

Science is about understanding the how of things while religion is understanding the why. Science can neither prove or disprove God and the existence of God isn't a scientific matter except for in a completely misapplied manner.

You are correct that science never truly proves anything which is why it isn't in conflict with religion. The two can coexist.

 

ahh, but we mere humans are only acting in a few dimensions.

God exsits in many dimensions.

God must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. God could not have created the universe if He were only a part of it.

 

First of all, you should really stop talking about science as if it is a person. Science doesn't "do" anything, science is a method of trying to understand how the universe works. It is scientists who actually do things, or believe things, or like and hate things.

Second, you are completely wrong in saying that science cannot be used to absolutely disprove anything. You could not be more wrong. Science cannot completely prove anything, because it is always conceivable that there is some circumstance in which a generally regarded truth fails to hold. However, science can easily be used to disprove things. For example, science has been used to disprove the idea that space is filled with ether. We now know, thanks to ingenious experimentation by Michelson and Morley in the 19th century, that the ether does not exist. It has been proven. With science!