Oxford Union Society Debate: Religion Helps/Harms society

[PeterMP]

 

God did not reveal himself to me in any way. I do not see evidence for god. Belief cannot come without evidence, and so I am not free to choose faith.

Have you tried.

I cannot tell if you people are just playing or are actually serious about this ghost stuff.

More you believe in this stuff, more you will see it. That is how the human brain works. It is not real.

 

It works both ways. The more you don't believe in it, the less you will see it.

[alexey]

Have you tried.

It works both ways. The more you don't believe in it, the less you will see it.

I examined the evidence and arguments, but I did not try pretending to believe to see if it turns into a real belief at some point.

I was not raised religious, so for me belief comes after evidence and in proportion to evidence. I do not see how I could go about changing that.

[The Sisko]

Yusuf06

So your conclusion is that God isn't a nice guy even though God created a world in which it is possible that no person would need to go hungry, gifted us with minds and skills to be able to ship food and resources around the globe, and so because we as a people have thwarted what God wants for the people of Haiti...i.e. to be fed it's God that isn't nice? So by your thinking, people can abuse their free will and hoard the world's resources and because they sin God should then step in and create miracles to fill the gaps made by human greed and gluttony? Again, the problem is not God....the problem is humanity.

I used this as a specific example off the top of my head but there are plenty of examples where there's no human fault involved, i.e. natural disasters, disease/pestilence, simple accidents, etc. So where was God's alleged mercy while thousands of people died in the Phillipines? The aforementioned child walking in front of a car scenario? Nevermind that all this goes on in spite of all the prayers and supplications of believers. It seems to me that if God is there and he loves us as much as Xtians say, he'd intervene unless (as I used to) you believe in the "laissez faire" God who set things in motion then turns into Boss Hogg, ie "Handle it, Handle it". Even so, IMHO it takes a special kind of heartlessness to not only watch bad things happen that you could prevent, but to turn a deaf ear to the supplications of those you say you love. And how can you call it anything but sadistic to tell someone to ask for things you know that you'll never give them?

As for my conclusion, I'd beg to differ. My conclusion actually is that in light of all the world's suffering, the existence of a compassionate omnipotent being is much less likely than the more reasonable position that the universe is simply a random system without a "driver" other than physics and other natural laws. Over time I simply couldn't rationally continue to think I was hearing the hoofbeats of zebras instead of horses. Moreover I find the idea of a random universe more comforting than trying to rationalize the idea of a compassionate, caring God.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I can agree evil is caused by free will... What about suffering?

Suffering is the logical consequence of the abuse of free will. Suffering because of natural phenomenon is a value placed by us because our culture says that death is bad, therefore things that lead to death are seen and understood negatively. Imagine how the same experiences could be understood by someone who did not fear death.

I do not think I can answer this complex question in these terms. Freedom can mean so many different things. At one extreme, you could say that any influence compromises freedom. At the other extreme you could say that taking away her ability to carry out really bad choices actually gives her more freedom.

I'll agree with the first part, but the second part it sounds like you're talking about liberation rather than free will. As for using influence to "compromise" (a negative word you chose) affect free will is what parenting is all about, it's how we raise kids.

God did not reveal himself to me in any way.

Well considering you don't accept the premise f God anything that might be revealed to you is redirected by you to point to something else. Heck, God's revelation often comes through others, as such through this very conversation God is revealing Himself to you.

I do not see evidence for god.

Correction, you don't accept the evidence that has been presented to you, that's different than not seeing evidence.

Belief cannot come without evidence, and so I am not free to choose faith.

First, you're free to choose whatever you want, you however have chosen to adopt principles that you are committed to which make choosing faith seem impossible. As for belief coming with evidence I can go with that to an extent, but as stated previously you're already rejecting certain evidence as insubmissible based on man made rules which haven't always existed.

I used this as a specific example off the top of my head but there are plenty of examples where there's no human fault involved, i.e. natural disasters, disease/pestilence, simple accidents, etc. So where was God's alleged mercy while thousands of people died in the Phillipines? The aforementioned child walking in front of a car scenario? Nevermind that all this goes on in spite of all the prayers and supplications of believers. It seems to me that if God is there and he loves us as much as Xtians say, he'd intervene unless (as I used to) you believe in the "laissez faire" God who set things in motion then turns into Boss Hogg, ie "Handle it, Handle it". Even so, IMHO it takes a special kind of heartlessness to not only watch bad things happen that you could prevent, but to turn a deaf ear to the supplications of those you say you love. And how can you call it anything but sadistic to tell someone to ask for things you know that you'll never give them?

And you make the same mistake alexey makes, if no free will then you say God is a monster because He causes evil, if given free will you say God is a monster because He doesn't prevent free will. Your double standard creates a situation where you blame God for whatever happens therefore you get to dismiss God.

[alexey]

Suffering is the logical consequence of the abuse of free will. Suffering because of natural phenomenon is a value placed by us because our culture says that death is bad, therefore things that lead to death are seen and understood negatively. Imagine how the same experiences could be understood by someone who did not fear death.

I see suffering as an experience, and our evaluations of that experience being grounded in the way it feels.

Yes suffering is not suffering to somebody who does not experience suffering as suffering.

Obviously I cannot dispute a position that says suffering feels bad but is actually good in a mysterious way.

Correction, you don't accept the evidence that has been presented to you, that's different than not seeing evidence.

I do not accept the available evidence as evidence for god, and therefore I do not see evidence for god.

First, you're free to choose whatever you want, you however have chosen to adopt principles that you are committed to which make choosing faith seem impossible. As for belief coming with evidence I can go with that to an extent, but as stated previously you're already rejecting certain evidence as insubmissible based on man made rules which haven't always existed.

I am not rejecting the evidence but interpreting the evidence differently.

I am not free to believe whatever I want.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I see suffering as an experience, and our evaluations of that experience being grounded in the way it feels.

Feelings are relative, for someone who wants to live by scientific reason it seems strange for you to stake out a position like this based on something so relative.

Obviously I cannot dispute a position that says suffering feels bad but is actually good in a mysterious way.

Keeping in mind, this this is not my position.

I do not accept the available evidence as evidence for god, and therefore I do not see evidence for god.I am not rejecting the evidence but interpreting the evidence differently.

Bearing in mind that this isn't the same as not seeing evidence of God.

I am not free to believe whatever I want.

Because you have made chouces to follow certain principles and you follow those, you're free to do what you want.

[alexey]

Feelings are relative, for someone who wants to live by scientific reason it seems strange for you to stake out a position like this based on something so relative.

As far as I know, suffering due to lack of basic necessities is a nearly universal response for all human beings. Same goes for physical injury, loneliness, death.

I hear this "relative" claim a lot, and I think it severely underestimates commonalities amongst human beings.

 

Bearing in mind that this isn't the same as not seeing evidence of God.

By "seeing" you must mean something low-level, like "light hitting my retina". Yes light that hits my retina is similar to light that hits your retina, and thus I am exposed to the same "evidence for god" as you are.

When I say "I do not see evidence for god", I mean that a higher level process of recognizing observations as evidence that supports a conclusion.

 

Because you have made chouces to follow certain principles and you follow those, you're free to do what you want.

I am free to DO what I want, in a way, but not BELIEVE what I want.

Freedom to DO what I want is limited by my biology, environment, and what I perceive to be my responsibilities. In my view, that freedom does not include leaving my family to fend for themselves, for example.

Freedom to BELIEVE what I want, I do not even know what to say about it. I cannot just start believing stuff at will. I cannot control my beliefs the way I can control my actions.

The only voluntary control I have, is whether to pretend that I believe something or not... and I don't pretend to believe stuff, I do not work that way.