I should probably introduce myself.

[gregmonsta]

Greetings

[Stefan-A]

Be careful, folks. Religion is a sensitive issue to many and if people start to preach, proselytize, provoke, or punch, I may have to swing my mighty banhammer. I'm sorry, I'm listening to Manowar as I'm typing this.

[GarterGeek]

Welcome!!! I hope you'll share with us some of the work you're doing, it sounds fascinating.

Interesting bio. Looking forward to seeing your setup.

My malignant cancer is a welcome part of my life and has brought me nothing but peace and a deeper understanding of this blip in time I've been given. We all have differing opinions and that's what makes life so interesting. Welcome.

Although, I do not want to start an arguement or even perpetuate the topic. I have to say that I agree with guidofatherof5. My malignant cancer has also helped me in many ways.

[GradStudentLeper]

I have to counter (in a good natured fashion of course). Not trying to convert anyone to atheism, but just so people understand where that statement comes from.

I am not going to sit here and say "god does not exist" While I think this, I cannot actually prove it. I see no evidence to suggest he does, and if he does exist, he is not a particularly pleasant individual (I can get into the problem of Theodicy over private message if someone wants), but I cannot prove he does not exist for the same reason i cannot prove that all of existence didnt suddenly appear 4.8 seconds ago with a full record of a prior existence including memories. I will however leave that as a premise of my argument. Here it goes

There are a vast number of religions. All of them make different claims, but yet all adherents say it helps them. Obviously it is not God that does anything (because if he did, only certain religions would feel this), or even the belief in the competing truth claims(same thing).

It is not the teachings of <insert holy person here> that make you a better person. Arguments about the morality contained in holy books aside, when you read a holy text and make a decision to accept or reject its teachings, you are making a moral decision. You are deciding for yourself whether those teachings are themselves ethical. In this sense, morality is not top-down. Holy text--->Person. You already accept certain moral tenants (such as that slavery is wrong), and then seek justification for them. This is because you evolved to empathize with other human beings (and indeed other organisms), as part of the highly adaptive social intelligence that makes us human. This is not even a product of your higher brain functions.

Your higher brain functions however demand justification and structure for that moral intuition. Accepting the moral teachings of a holy book gives you this. However other things give you this as well, I for example structure and justify my moral intuition to myself with an ethical system called Utilitarianism.

Both the Utilitarian and the Believer run into ethical dilemmas sometimes. Things that their ethical system does not cover, or when their intuition contradicts their system. When those happen they need to be resolved and depending on the person's inclination they can be resolved by sticking to intuition and conveniently ignoring their ethical structure, or they can stick to their structural guns and grudgingly accept the solution proffered by what gives their ethical system structure. I sometimes do this too. So the actual benefit here we can write of as Nil.

The difference here are the social structures that form around religious belief. These serve to reinforce the religious beliefs and provide social support for adherents. This by itself is good. Everyone needs community, and I cant get that by going to the local gathering of Philosphical Naturalists. There isnt one. The difference comes in the other costs whcih stem largely from beliefs that I do not think have any rational or evidentiary basis.

The first and foremost cost is that belief in supernatural events and entities causes bad decision making, and while the actual teachings of religious ethical system may or may not be good, the decision making process and sometimes underlying motivations are bad. Here is why:

Because there is no evidence of a God's existence (and because I am not actually trying to convert anyone, only explaining my own position, I will not go into this save for over private message if someone asks. I will simply leave it as a premise of my position for now), it is not a good idea to make decisions based upon that precept.

First, because you cannot know the will of this deity if it does exist. For example, say we know there is a God. But do not know which one. There are an infinite number of truth claims regarding the will of this deity. The decision making process goes like this.

God exists... then what?

Even if we can conclusively prove that A god exists, we are still left to our own devices with regard to decision making. To put a human face on this:

My grandfather recently had a stroke. He died before the decision to remove life support had to be made (no need for apologies and condolsences, he was in constant pain for over a decade, I am happy he is dead because he no longer suffers), but what if he had not? What does God want? Does he want my grandmother to pull the plug, or not? There is no way for grandma to know this, and thus the decision to do it is arbitrary. However, we DO know that were she to keep him on life-support, everyone suffers (save for him, because he is unconcious and most of his brain is starved of oxygen and dead) and she incurs massive financial costs every day. Obviously the best decision is to remove life support and allow grandpa's heart and lungs to stop.

However religious beliefs, based upon what I think are faulty premises (read: gods existence and his desire to keep dying people on life support indefinitely) a LOT of people make the other choice and suffer needlessly every year. All because of a faulty decision making process, and an onus of moral consideration shifted away from human suffering, and placed instead upon an inscrutable, if not non-existent entity's relative pleasure or displeasure. Now, this is different if you actually believe in this being, but I dont. So that is what it looks like from my end. And it is not just end of life decisions, but a whole host of others. From abortion to stem cell research, to whether or not Gay people are to be treated as legal equals. These decisions are made by religious people based upon premises that I do not think are grounded in reality, and it hurts a lot of people.

When we expand this to look at human history, these decisions based upon what I think are faulty premises have lead to untold suffering. Wars, torture, genocide. The thirty years war alone, a war fought for one reason: Religious disagreements between protestants and catholics, caused through battle, famine and disease the deaths of millions and millions of people. The Jews were not just persecuted in Nazi germany, but were subject to two thousand years of persecution by christians because they "killed Jesus", the sum total of which made the Holocaust (also religiously motivated), look like a walk in the park.

As for understanding existence, how can you? There are an infinite number of religious claims floating around, none of which (save for the ones that make claims about the physical world, but that is what science is for, religion is almost always wrong about these save by coincidence or mental gymnastics) can be evaluated by anything other than the believer's subjective desire to believe it. What I mean by this is that any understanding about the mysteries of your existence you derive from your religion is arbitrary. I could create a roman style Mystery Cult (like Mithriasm) right now, and any followers I attract would achieve the same perceived understanding that you do, and there is no way for either you or my disciples to actually know which, if any (both could be wrong), are correct.

This is not inherently bad. If you derive what you consider to be answers to those big philosphical questions (what is my purpose? for example)and they work for you, more power to you. It is when these answers are either patently wrong and lead to bad decisions(IE. when they are claims about the physical universe which contradict what we know from science. Read: creationism), or when they get imposed on others (Read: scientific research that could cure disease is stopped due to the unknowable desires of an inscrutable and potentially non-existent being) that these answers cause problems.

Because of these reasons, i think religion does more harm than good, even when we take into account the peace and tranquility that it brings upon believers. Sorry if that was a little long. I didnt want to leave it as a snide remark, or let people think I was a dawkins parroting "OMG Religions are EVIL!!!111oneone!eleven" atheist.

[adamanteus]

Right. We all have our own beliefs, and we're all entitled to them.
But this is a forum dedicated to Thamnophis. Okay, we digress occassionally, but I think a discussion on the existence of God (or Gods) it's better suited to some other forum. We have some very religious members here, we also have some true atheists. We must respect their choices. Let's keep this as a 'welcome' thread.

[adamanteus]

PS Further posts on the topic of religion (for or against) will be deleted, in the interests of furthering a community with a common interest... Garter Snakes.

[jitami]

Welcome!

You're work sounds fascinating and I'm looking forward to hearing more about it, along with the promised set up pictures, of course

I know the issue of sub species of Western Terrestrials has been a bit of a debate, but I honestly haven't taken the time to figure out why. To me e. elegans looks about as much like a vagrans as it does a marcianus I understand that taxonomy is not based solely on appearance, but the difference to me seems rather large. I would love to hear your thoughts...

[GradStudentLeper]

Well, honestly I dont consider subspecies to be valid anyway. I think the biological species concept is a load of bull, and instead use the evolutionary species concept. T. elegans is so wide ranging that I am pretty sure that based upon a lack of gene flow, and specialization within parts of its range many populations need to be elevated to species status. However to my knowledge, a massive phylogeographic study on the genetics has not been done to bring this about.

[GarterGeek]

Well, honestly I dont consider subspecies to be valid anyway. I think the biological species concept is a load of bull, and instead use the evolutionary species concept. T. elegans is so wide ranging that I am pretty sure that based upon a lack of gene flow, and specialization within parts of its range many populations need to be elevated to species status. However to my knowledge, a massive phylogeographic study on the genetics has not been done to bring this about.

Just curious: What is the evolutionary species concept and how is it different from the biological species concept? How does the evolutionary species concept make subspecies invalid? I don't know anything about this.

[GradStudentLeper]

Just curious: What is the evolutionary species concept and how is it different from the biological species concept? How does the evolutionary species concept make subspecies invalid? I don't know anything about this.

The Evolutionary Species concept defines a species as a Lineage which is distinct from others, and identifiably on a separate evolutionary path than its closest relatives. IE. it defines species in terms of an evolutionary significant unit. A subspecies by definition is not really distinct or on a separate path from other members of its species, and if it is, it needs to be elevated to species status.