Metanet Forums

Alright, so say sometime in the future scientists discover the final "how" of existence, mathematically disproving any form of supernatural god. No "what ifs," but completely eradicated any thought that he could possibly exist. Given this scenario, how would the world likely react? I believe that, at least for a while, the world would descend into chaos. I mean, thousands of years of believe turned out to be wrong, and billions of people each believing in their own god, realizing it all isn't real. Finally realizing that, really, life does not have a meaning. We are here by accident, some math and science getting together and make a baby and we are the result. For a while, many would go nuts. Scrambling to waste their days living to please themselves because, all-in-all, who would give a rip? I mean, why not? You aren't going to get eternally punished for anything. Of course, you'll get punished through the government, but with all of the riots and protesting - especially from those who still wouldn't believe the hypothetical proof - I think police would be a little distracted. Although I'm sure we would eventually calm down, but I wouldn't be able to tell.

Thoughts?

Been reading the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy recently? ;)

The world would plunge into chaos. So many people have devoted their lives to the idea of a higher being in the hoipes that they will be rewarded for it. Think of the many and bloody wars that have been fought in the name of God, and all the people that have given their lives for his Word. If that was all for naught, the repercussions would be terrible.

There are a lot of societies that exist without the same notion of God as you, weasle. Those societies aren't chaotic. Also, a lot of the more secular societies seem more stable to me.

Theocratic societies (Saudi Arabia, for instance) are a little more chaotic because their basis for how the world works is "open to interpretation" or "subjective". Moreover, fact doesn't hold as much water as tradition for these groups. Where fact troubles tradition, tradition takes over and a disparity between truth and falseness emerges. If scientific discovery could prove God doesn't exist (which it cannot do--but just for the hypothetical...), we'd have an absolute standard on which we could base our perceptions of reality instead of a myriad different options.



The point is moot, though. The religious nutjobs wouldn't stop believing. I mean... think about it. More proof comes every century that makes the Church change its stance: the world is round, the world isn't the center of the universe, there's no such thing as witches, evolution. Every time one of these scientific discoveries occurs, the Church either has to change its opinion (and start agreeing that the world is actually round) or hold onto their traditions until they're forced to give in (and make everyone wait until they accept evolution). Each time people learn something else about the nature of universe that contradicts religious folk, religion will find a new cause to champion and will alter its definitions on what it means to be religious.

Finally realizing that, really, life does not have a meaning. We are here by accident, some math and science getting together and make a baby and we are the result.

Atheism in no way implies this.

Also, I'm not sure there would be total chaos. I think many theists will do what they do every day. They will completely ignore recent (or not so recent) scientific progress. Some of the more rational bunch of theists will become peaceful, reasonable atheists. I suspect many people will reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific findings. That is, they will still practice in the same way, but they will reinterpret the meaning of their ceremonies. Then, of course, there will be the nutjobs who completely lose it.

I think the entire premise of this hypothetical is flawed, though. Science cannot make statements about spiritual entities.

blue_tetris wrote:The point is moot, though. The religious nutjobs wouldn't stop believing. I mean... think about it. More proof comes every century that makes the Church change its stance: the world is round, the world isn't the center of the universe, there's no such thing as witches, evolution. Every time one of these scientific discoveries occurs, the Church either has to change its opinion (and start agreeing that the world is actually round) or hold onto their traditions until they're forced to give in (and make everyone wait until they accept evolution). Each time people learn something else about the nature of universe that contradicts religious folk, religion will find a new cause to champion and will alter its definitions on what it means to be religious.

none of your examples other than evolution is something that was upheld in the judeo-christian-islamic. They were creations of what the church believed was true, not necessarily what the religion was originally intended to be/believe. Then we can also get into Genesis, but we all know how that ends up.

blue_tetris wrote:There are a lot of societies that exist without the same notion of God as you, weasle. Those societies aren't chaotic. Also, a lot of the more secular societies seem more stable to me.

Irrelevant. I wasn't talking about just a monotheistic god, but any supernatural activity period. Of course the people in the middle of nowhere who have never heard modern understandings of a god aren't going to really care. Chances are they'll go back to worshiping the tree monkey of higher knowledge. However, that does not account for the majority of the population.

BT wrote:The point is moot, though. The religious nutjobs wouldn't stop believing. I mean... think about it. More proof comes every century that makes the Church change its stance: the world is round, the world isn't the center of the universe, there's no such thing as witches, evolution. Every time one of these scientific discoveries occurs, the Church either has to change its opinion (and start agreeing that the world is actually round) or hold onto their traditions until they're forced to give in (and make everyone wait until they accept evolution). Each time people learn something else about the nature of universe that contradicts religious folk, religion will find a new cause to champion and will alter its definitions on what it means to be religious.

I'm sure some of them would keep believing, but given the chance at knowing the real truth many people would go at it. Think of all the non-practicing Christians on a personal basis who only go to church because their parents always did. They likely don't really care, and it helps them finally get over all of the times people make fun of them because they went to church in the first place. Your examples of the Church changing it's opinion it based on smaller instances leading to evidence that god perhaps isn't real. Of course you can't prove a god is or is not real, this is all hypothetical (which I know you get, but apparently demonz does not). Which leads me...

demonz wrote:

me wrote:Finally realizing that, really, life does not have a meaning. We are here by accident, some math and science getting together and make a baby and we are the result.

Atheism in no way implies this.

Never implied that it did. You'll likely say that by presenting the view of atheism in the sense that the universe was created at random, I implied that atheism implies that (read it one more time, hopefully it will make sense). However, I was simply implying my personal belief that if God is not real (as in the monotheist 'God' that I believe in), life really doesn't have meaning. Yes, everyone has their own personal reason for life, be it to the benefit of others, or to eat cake. But in reality you are born, you eat cake, and then you die. There isn't any reason to be here. We are here at random if you uphold the belief that the universe was created through the natural laws of physics.

demonz wrote:Also, I'm not sure there would be total chaos. I think many theists will do what they do every day. They will completely ignore recent (or not so recent) scientific progress. Some of the more rational bunch of theists will become peaceful, reasonable atheists. I suspect many people will reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific findings. That is, they will still practice in the same way, but they will reinterpret the meaning of their ceremonies. Then, of course, there will be the nutjobs who completely lose it.

Once again, I only think the smaller margin of fundamentalists would deny the truth. Aside from them, the majority of the world accepts science as rational proof of being alive. It tells us that we are here, and not in some matrix (unless the Man just wants us to believe that...).

demonz wrote:I think the entire premise of this hypothetical is flawed, though. Science cannot make statements about spiritual entities.

Duh, it's a hypothetical question. Don't tell me that my hypothetical theory based on something that cannot happen is flawed, unless of course you tell me that it is hypothetically flawed. Then we just end up no where. It's like denying religion with religion.

you can deny religion with religion. If Jesus came down from the clouds and said "sup guys i'm back", then that would basically void all other religions.

but then again that's hypothetical as well

Never implied that it did. You'll likely say that by presenting the view of atheism in the sense that the universe was created at random, I implied that atheism implies that (read it one more time, hopefully it will make sense). However, I was simply implying my personal belief that if God is not real (as in the monotheist 'God' that I believe in), life really doesn't have meaning. Yes, everyone has their own personal reason for life, be it to the benefit of others, or to eat cake. But in reality you are born, you eat cake, and then you die. There isn't any reason to be here. We are here at random if you uphold the belief that the universe was created through the natural laws of physics.

Right, gotcha. That's what I figured you meant. You were expressing a personal belief, and I was saying that I disagreed with it. First, I'm going to state a technicality. The following point is not really a refutation of anything you said, it's just something I thought I should point out about terminology. "Random" means a "product of chance." It does not mean that something occurred without intelligent guidance. The universe follows (or seems to, anywho) primarily deterministic laws. These are neither random nor designed. Again, this is a technicality, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Now, to get to the meat of the argument. I hate to say this, but I'm pretty sure our disagreement is based on semantics. I agree that if there is no intelligent designer, then life has no overarching, absolute purpose. This does not mean, however, that an individual cannot find something for which to live. I don't see how the lack of an ultimate purpose is distressing--but that's not important. Do you agree with what I'm saying about absolute/relative meaning?

Once again, I only think the smaller margin of fundamentalists would deny the truth. Aside from them, the majority of the world accepts science as rational proof of being alive. It tells us that we are here, and not in some matrix (unless the Man just wants us to believe that...).

Roughly half of America denies an incredibly important scientific theory. That's evidence enough for me to be convinced that if someone is enough of a zealot, they can ignore whatever science they want.

Duh, it's a hypothetical question. Don't tell me that my hypothetical theory based on something that cannot happen is flawed, unless of course you tell me that it is hypothetically flawed. Then we just end up no where. It's like denying religion with religion.

Oh, yeah, I know. I'm not saying that it's a stupid scenario to consider or that this topic is somehow inherently flawed. I was just commenting on the impossibility that you postulated.

Deathconciousness wrote:

blue_tetris wrote: More proof comes every century that makes the Church change its stance: [...] the world isn't the center of the universe [...]

none of your examples other than evolution is something that was upheld in the judeo-christian-islamic. They were creations of what the church believed was true, not necessarily what the religion was originally intended to be/believe. Then we can also get into Genesis, but we all know how that ends up.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Ecclesiastes 1:5. Let's also not forget that whole thing with Joshua 10:13.

Your move, big guy.

demonz wrote:That's what I figured you meant. You were expressing a personal belief, and I was saying that I disagreed with it. First, I'm going to state a technicality. The following point is not really a refutation of anything you said, it's just something I thought I should point out about terminology. "Random" means a "product of chance." It does not mean that something occurred without intelligent guidance. The universe follows (or seems to, anywho) primarily deterministic laws. These are neither random nor designed. Again, this is a technicality, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Semantics is a bitch. I tend to get caught up in it's lusts of passion when it lures me in to it's scented and flower-laden bed. And about half of America refuting evolution (I just assume that's what you were referring to) I think that's because that half believes it to be more of evidence not proof. Something about transitional fossils. Then again, the other half tends to believe that what religion upholds is evidence, not proof (that evidence being faith).

rennaT wrote:

Deathconciousness wrote:

blue_tetris wrote: More proof comes every century that makes the Church change its stance: [...] the world isn't the center of the universe [...]

none of your examples other than evolution is something that was upheld in the judeo-christian-islamic. They were creations of what the church believed was true, not necessarily what the religion was originally intended to be/believe. Then we can also get into Genesis, but we all know how that ends up.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Ecclesiastes 1:5. Let's also not forget that whole thing with Joshua 10:13.

Your move, big guy.

Psalm 93:1 -- "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world is also stablished, that it cannot be moved"
...
Is this a serious problem? Do you even know what Psalms is? The book of Psalms is a bunch of song lyrics and poetry collected that people made about God in worship. Regardless, this verse makes no claims about the world. The last part where it says it cannot be moved is quite obviously your problem, and once again i will say a few things. First of all, a human wrote it and to their understanding, the Earth did not move. Secondly, the verse wasn't even meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be metaphor and if you're seriously going to argue a case for this verse to be taken 100% literally then i am done with you.

Psalm 96:10 says the exact same thing basically, and this one is even more obviously a metaphor. It says "The world also shall be established, that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously"
now this basically falls under the same principle as Psalm 93:1 except that in context, 96:10 is talking about final judgement God gives upon people. "That it shall not be moved" refers to the fact that God is not going to make sweeping judgement and generalization over humanity, but rather each person shall be judged "righteously".

Psalm 104:5 -- "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever"
ugh this is getting annoying. Same principle. Goddammit. It's poetry, exaggerations for the sake of exemplifying their deity. Don't be so petty and take things out of context.

1 Chronicles 16:30 -- okay im reading this and this is getting continually annoying. All these verses overlap over the same clause. Except its no longer poetry, its now just a metaphor the author put in.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 -- "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth forever"
not only does their modern understanding of their earth place it as something that has always been there and always be there (as long as their God allows it to be at least), but this is expression of how time has passed and that the earth had seemingly remained unchanged over this course of time.

Joshua 10:13 -- "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not it written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
wow
just wow. this is astonishing. I can't believe you couldn't come to this own conclusion by yourself, but it is illustrating how the day to them seemingly lasted forever, or at least until they had avenged themselves. It even says at the end that it went down after about a day. Which by definition is either a 24 hour period OR more importantly as long as the sun is up.

you know i would have thought you would have had actually some interesting scriptures to talk about but instead you illustrate the word choice and english's failure to fully express the original meaning of the original hebrew writing.

you know, i'm a Christian myself. so i'm around a lot of half-baked, altruistic fools all the time who are Christians but are a little too happy-go-lucky to be completely human as well. they say to me that God defies logic and science, and does not operate within their bounds (they frequently use the "He created them" barrage). thus, (generalizing,) i think that at least an appreciable amount of believers (at least for Christianity) would keep on believing, spouting that God defies all the undefiable junk. so i don't think there would be chaos.

@deathconciousness: actually, the earth will exist for all of time, according to my doctrine at least. know about the New Jerusalem? yeah, well that's going to be on the earth. God is going to establish His kingdom on the earth (after renovating it). but even still, none of those passages stated that the earth was truly and literally still and nonmoving.

Dude, Deathconciousness:

Whether or not you agree that the Church was right in reaching those conclusions is irrelevant. The Church did read the Bible, and the Church did come to the conclusions that the world is the center of the universe, the Jew they nailed to a cross is in control of the universe, and it's against the law to eat shellfish. All of those things are in the Bible and all of those things were concluded by the Church to be an aspect of their religion.

So, in essence, you said: "none of your examples other than evolution is something that was upheld in the judeo-christian-islamic"
Tanner said: "yes they were"
And you replied: "well, they shouldn't have been. here's how i interpret it..."

Originally it was about the Church and their interpretations. Then you made it about you and your interpretations. You come down hard on Tanner for explaining to you how the Church reached its conclusions only to say that Tanner himself made those conclusions and that you are opposed to them.

I am wholly confused at you.

Try not to lose sight of the original argument.



I was going to go one by one, through each thing you said about the scripture, quote it, and respond with: "The Church did take it literally. Then people discovered it wasn't true. Then the Church changed their mind." Because that was the original argument. And you forgot.

blue_tetris wrote:Dude, Deathconciousness:

Whether or not you agree that the Church was right in reaching those conclusions is irrelevant. The Church did read the Bible, and the Church did come to the conclusions that the world is the center of the universe, the Jew they nailed to a cross is in control of the universe, and it's against the law to eat shellfish. All of those things are in the Bible and all of those things were concluded by the Church to be an aspect of their religion.

you see this is problem. you attributing the values of the entire religion to how a church interprets the literature.

So, in essence, you said: "none of your examples other than evolution is something that was upheld in the judeo-christian-islamic"
Tanner said: "yes they were"
And you replied: "well, they shouldn't have been. here's how i interpret it..."

you can interpret anything in such a way. i was simply interpreting the verses, having seen them the first time, in the way that seemed most obvious to me and anyone who is not religious. There are much much more internally inconsistent flaws in the old testament that id rather explore rather than what he posted.

Originally it was about the Church and their interpretations. Then you made it about you and your interpretations. You come down hard on Tanner for explaining to you how the Church reached its conclusions only to say that Tanner himself made those conclusions and that you are opposed to them.

i was more critical for only attributing one type of interpretation to the verses. Especially in cases where these specific verses, when in context, read to be metaphorical internally, and not simply by taking some abstract theory and applying it.

I was also somewhat angry that all the verses were basically the same thing. He could have just posted one and gotten the same point across, or at least have told me that each of these verses have the same idea.

I was going to go one by one, through each thing you said about the scripture, quote it, and respond with: "The Church did take it literally. Then people discovered it wasn't true. Then the Church changed their mind." Because that was the original argument. And you forgot.

the original interpretation is not necessarily the correct one. The same goes for the notion that the latest isn't necessarily the correct one.

Another interesting question: if there came to be proof of God, or a god, then how would the atheists react ;)

I can answer SkyPanda's question. If what I consider irrevocable proof of God was revealed/discovered, I would probably become Christian (or whatever). It's that simple--despite being atheistic, I'm generally open to new ideas. I don't really want to get into this argument, but in general, the atheists and agnostics I know indulge in less bigotry than my Christian friends.

Also, to address the original question, I think it would be a weight off of everyone's backs to know for sure that we are completely in control of our own destinies. Just my opinion, remember.

It would be a relief for some people, vindication for others, and many would ignore it and continue to believe whatever they wanted. That's faith.

SkyPanda wrote:Another interesting question: if there came to be proof of God, or a god, then how would the atheists react ;)

I'd stick a finger up and tell him/her/it that I want nothing to do with omnipotent sadism.

Keeping in mind SkyPanda's question, WWTD?

i think i would be relieved. if God were proved to exist, i would keep living as normal. i don't think i would care about it. if God were proved not to exist....well, it would depend on the proof. it'd have to be pretty solid. i'd have to approve of it. but if i did, i'd just stop believing in God. maybe commit suicide after a few years.

yungerkid wrote:maybe commit suicide after a few years.

Even if there was no God, there's still plenty of good to be done for others that need it. Surely your values would carry?

good? oh. by whose definition? perhaps we need to first consider by whose standard objective morality is determined. i don't think there is objective morality. furthermore, i think morality is irrelevant. everyone has a purpose. so for each individual, it is necessary to do whatever is necessary to accomplish that purpose. morality is irrelevant because it can get in the way of that purpose. although, if there isn't a God, then how do we even have purposes in the first place?

anyway, i think my current values would carry.

Good like helping people who need it. If you can't find any other reason to live than what's been laid out for you, I'd have thought the values taught to you by your church, family, friends, the bible etc.. might spur you to help those in need instead of such a selfish end.

There was no need for the pseudo philosophical babble. But since we're here I'll propose you a hypothetical:

If we've all a purpose laid out for us, and if morality should be ignored if it interferes with that purpose, if somehow you discovered -through some divine means or whatever - that your absolute purpose to be here was to become a rapist, would you carry on following that instruction or would you question it?

....are we debating theoretically, or practically?

Both. Read my post again, I edited it.