Gravity Movie Review

“Oh, that’s just “intelligent design” nonsense”

It is if you take it too far, for example by asserting that the fact that we can’t explain how the universe was created means that either god exists or that he doesn’t.

But so far we are only guessing. Either way.

“I’ve never ‘lost’ a belief in god, because I never held one. I am a critical thinker & a cynic. I certainly don’t believe ‘anything’, assuming that by ‘anything’ you mean to infer that I would be easily ‘had’.”

That was a general observation, not specific to you and not meant to be true in every case, just as generalisations about religion and believers are not true in every case.

What I meant was that there are a great number of weird and wonderful beliefs that inform peoples’ minds. From astrology to naturopathy to the Global Warming Cult to Critical Theory to feminist claptrap the world is full of irrational beliefs.

The point is that there is little we can know with certainty – mathematics, and maybe the rules of logic which determine the logical consistency of propositions and conclusions but have little to say about the validity of the underlying premises of arguments. Beyond that there is little to be certain about. I agree with one underlying current of postmodernist thought which acknowledges the limited areas of certainty and then asks “OK then, what do we do now?”

That is the situation we are all in, whether we know it or not.

“I’m definitely an atheist… I totally reject that my assertion that there is no god is faith based. It is based in logic.”

What logic is that? You can’t prove there is no god. You can think it unlikely that there is a god but you really can’t prove it. A logical position would be to assert that the null hypothesis is that there is no god and until someone proves that god exists it is irrational to believe in god. That would be a form of agnosticism.

“While religion is prominent in the public square, even just while it’s politely humoured, there is no reason why it can’t also be disputed in the public square. In fact, it should be disputed in the public square, because some of its mental obstacles seek to influence broader society.”

We are mostly agreeing here. When I said: “taking it further in the public square is pointless” I was suggesting that using religion (or atheism) as a basis for social policy is unproductive. It introduces concepts which are likely to be unpersuasive to people who do not hold those irrational beliefs and it is wrong to try to inflict such beliefs on others.

“I don’t think it’s necessary to have all of the answers to the origin of life to be able to correctly identify man made religions as the fantasy constructs which they clearly are.”

Religion has been pervasive in human history. Clearly superstition as an alternative to our inability to know things has been around for a long time. But religion’s role is much greater than this. In particular and especially in early civilisations it is very difficult to keep society together without religions. Early city states did not have the resources which would have been necessary for them to police themselves. It required far fewer resources to achieve social control through religious doctrines.

Religion also served to explain setbacks like natural disasters and military defeats – don’t panic just buckle down and be more pious.

Religion also served as a means of handing down wisdom; the lessons learned by earlier generations.

The reason the Catholic Church is such a long-lived institution is that much of what it has to say, even if that is not original or exclusive to it, is still relevant and valuable.

Religion also answers a need some people have for meaning in their lives. Rightly or wrongly many people seek or assume a teleological explanation for existence.

Historically, and in increasing numbers in more recent times, many people are satisfied without resort to a theistic belief system which explains their feelings of awe and wonder and gives meaning to their lives.

“The most obvious evidence that religion is humancentric & fabricated is in the dogmas specific to each religion & its adherents.

The hocus-pocus is not logically defensible, yet each sect & denomination clearly sees itself as the followers of the only ‘true’ god. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and no evidence apart from anecdotal exists to support a deity. That’s simply not good enough. The ‘vibe’ is worthless.”

The more doctrinally specific religions are the more they differ. They can’t all be right. And more particularly belief in the more specific doctrines is just that – belief.

Where we disagree is your assertion that such beliefs (the vibe) are worthless.

During my atheist years I was deeply unhappy and frustrated at the inability of logic to provide answers to moral questions especially the question of what I ought to do in any given situation. In the end I made a choice, subject to some overarching principles – mainly to respect the freedom of others to make their own choices. One point Benedict XVI made in his speech which notoriously angered Muslims was that Islam required blind obedience to Allah, since he was god and humans could not always understand his ways, whereas Christianity required Christians to apply the filter of reason, it being a faculty with which god endowed us.

Like many others here, I am happy with the choice I made. I am aware of its limitations but it has given my life direction and purpose (and a large number of children).

“Atheism is the only sensible position, when you put human religion under the microscope.”

Agnosticism is a more sensible position. Atheism is just another leap of faith, albeit in the opposite direction.

Reb, if you read the Bible literally you end up with a whole mass of contradictions. A better approach is to look at the life of Jesus, and at his parables and teachings. Even then there are contradictions in the Bible as it has come down to us. I think Pope Francis is trying to get Catholics to focus on the big issues – care, compassion and loving your neighbour.

The Church clearly won its battle with the Club of Rome and Paul Ehrlich in the 70s. Humans didn’t die out due to overpopulation by 1980. Also, Global Warming is a less tenable religion than Christianity. It has little to do with science other than as an example of what happens when science is politicised.

Anyway, each to his own. I don’t believe that my choice was irrational in the scheme of things. The beliefs I have adopted and the fundamental rules I follow seem decent enough to me. But that was my choice, and everybody else should make their own choice. There is no other way to deal with life than to think hard and make the best decision you can. Anything else is dishonest