[TRIGGER WARNING] how does religion exist in educated first world countries?

[Ipquarx]

drinking game: for every person who says there isn't proof for religion or that they require proof in this thread, take a shot

RIP ipquarx
died of alcohol poisoning

[Ad Bot]

[Moppy]

Well shoot, there's been such a big response, I can hardly process everything.
You're getting the gears turning in my head on this too hard, guys.
I will try to figure through everything you guys have said eventually.
I would argue that there's a evolution and abiogenesis are inseparable as a part of the secular worldview, and that there are other problems more directly related to evolution, but I've got work to do now, and I cannot write such a huge post like I did without another 3-4 hours of research so expect my response in a few days at earliest.
Yes, I know I look like a huge coward by stepping down so soon, but I have not much choice right now.

Regardless, this has been extremely enlightening so far, so, for me or against me, thank you all. :)

[SlayerZ99]

Religion was created for multiple reasons. One was to answer (or attempt to) three questions:
1. Where did we come from?
2. What is our purpose while we're here?
3. What happens when we die?

Part of what it means to be "human" is self-transcendence. Something beyond us, greater than us. Homo-religiosus or religious man is used. People wanted answers to things that seemed unnatural, or the phenomina. Greeks began studying religion 700 + BC. Rational reductionism, or reducing complex phenomenon through the application of logic.
Anyways I could keep rambling on about the history but things have changed now. Back then, people wanted and needed answers and they tried to explain things as best they could and when they couldn't come up with a clear answer you often get some spiritual or higher power.

As we've progressed throughout history, religion and beliefs have constantly been changing and challenged. As you entered into the Age of Enlightenment, theology is being challenged more in more. Science is beginning to explain the formerly explainable and the secularization begins to appear in education. Near the end of the age of enlightenment you also have Darwin presenting his theories of evolution.

We've never been more secular in schools. That being said I don't believe religion should specifically be taught in school unless in a study only environment. It my 12th grade English class we spend some time studying chapters of the Bible. I think it's important to study religion because it helps us to overcome ignorance, understand our culture, and achieve global perspectives.

Religion is inescapable so you might as well learn about it.

[Red Spy]

-wow I didn't know that-

[SlayerZ99]

If intelligent design were true then why do we have stuff like the Appendix

"Far from being useless, the appendix may produce and protect beneficial probiotic colonies in the digestive system."

You damn non-believer

[sir dooble]

If intelligent design were true then why do we have stuff like the Appendix

It's actually a pretty important organ in the growth of healthy gut flora.

It's not necessarily crucial, but if you can keep it, you should.

[Red Spy]

You damn non-believer

Forgive my sins

[Ipquarx]

Well shoot, there's been such a big response, I can hardly process everything.

All you need to process from my response is this: Focusing on abiogenesis is pointless and doesn't disprove evolution because they're two completely separate things. It's not by any means the main threat to young earth creationism, as science doesn't even know for sure what caused it. All we know is there's no reason to insist it wasn't natural.

[Headcrab Zombie]

"Far from being useless, the appendix may produce and protect beneficial probiotic colonies in the digestive system."

To be fair though, that's just a hypothesis. See the bolded "may" in your sentence.

[Moppy]

All you need to process from my response is this: Focusing on abiogenesis is pointless and doesn't disprove evolution because they're two completely separate things. It's not by any means the main threat to young earth creationism, as science doesn't even know for sure what caused it. All we know is there's no reason to insist it wasn't natural.

Okay, I'll bite. ;)
But just one more time.

First point:
I think that abiogenesis is a huge part of the story of evolution. Sure, it may not necessarily pertain to the direct process, but life had to evolve from somewhere to start out with. There can hardly be a story without a beginning, after all. Much like nothing can be built without the meterials, evolution cannot occur if life did not start. If abiogenesis is not the explaination for the starting point of evolution, then how did the sea-life, that eventually became all life, come to be in the first place? Without abiogenesis, evolution can hardly be called the origin of life moreso than it can be called the way life changes. If we cannot explain how life came to exist as we know it through modern, secular science, then it cannot be a substitute for a creator god. Allow me to reiterate my original point: Science, if it cannot eliminate the need for a creator god, then it cannot replace religion even in fully educated, majorly secular societies.


Second point:
Abiogenesis is a threat to young earth creationism, and many people have used it as an argument against it, because:

1)In order for it to work it requires millions of years, if not more, to overcome the overwhelming odds in a sort of million-monkeys-million-typewriters way. Young earth creationism suggests that the world is about 6,000-10,000 years old, in accordance with the biblical records found in the geneologies found in the first few books in the bible. These geneologies stretch back to Adam, the first man, who was made on the 6th day of creation. The Bible finds most of its credibility from its historical accuracy. If people can find that the the geneologies found in the Bible to be inaccurate, it could potentially discredit the entire Bible, as all of it is to be considered completely true. Therefore, any process that suggests the Earth must be millions of years old does not work well with the Bible.

2)It eliminates a need for a creator god to exist in order for life to exist. If we can explain that there doesn't need to be an external force to create anything, and that life, the world, and the universe as we know it can merely happen by chance, then why do we need to believe in a god? Everything could be explained away as a process that merely happens naturally.

Okay, we good?

[Niblic²]

if we can't explain how life came to be

then the answer to the question "how did life come to be" is

"i don't know"

you shouldnt default to "GOD DID IT" when you come across something unexplained like the origin of the universe or the origin of life or whatever the forget because nobody will beat you up if you say "i dont know"

[Jubel]

In order for it to work it requires millions of years, if not more, to overcome the overwhelming odds in a sort of million-monkeys-million-typewriters way.

One thing you should know though is that space is very big.

There are at least (maybe more) 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy, each with usually one planet, and easily more. Even if the chances of developing life were maybe 1 in a trillion, you're still going to have at least 100,000,000,000,000,000 stars out there with some life floating around them.

The thing is too, even if the odds are so horribly stacked against life happening, it obviously happened. Some people do end up winning the powerball of life.

Young earth creationism suggests that the world is about 6,000-10,000 years old, in accordance with the biblical records found in the geneologies found in the first few books in the bible. These geneologies stretch back to Adam, the first man, who was made on the 6th day of creation. The Bible finds most of its credibility from its historical accuracy.

I don't want to be offensive or anything, but the Bible is far from historically accurate. When we can carbon-date dinosaur remains to be 65 million years old or more, and use radiometric dating to age the Earth itself as at least 4.6 billion years old, the "historical accuracy" of the earth being created 10,000 years ago is extremely false, even as we have found tools created by early humans to pre-date that by far and away.

That doesn't mean that you can't believe in creationism though. One common argument is that thousands of years for us may be mere seconds for a deity or god. Maybe planting some adams and eves happened to us some 300,000 years ago, which could've been a few weeks on god's lovey Fireman of the Earth calender. It's just extremely ignorant to take a several thousand year old book as undeniable fact when it's been proved wrong in that facet.

[sir dooble]

It'd be a lot nicer if James Ussher never decided to give a date for the creation of the world.

[Red Spy]

Abiogenesis is a threat to young earth creationism

Logic is a threat to Y.E.C.

[XR-7]

Another thing to chew on pertaining to evolution is that even if mutations happened to the point of an animal being unable to breed with its previous species, there would have to be another animal with the same mutation at the same time in the same vicinity and somehow end up being the same species as the former mutated animal. They would then have to breed and successfully raise young in a likely brand new instinctual way and all of those young would have to reach loveual maturity and remain in the same area until that point and breed with each other to keep the species running.

Sounds a lot like a stretch to me.

you shouldnt default to "GOD DID IT" when you come across something unexplained like the origin of the universe or the origin of life or whatever the forget because nobody will beat you up if you say "i dont know"

See, it's not a thing where we see something weird and unexplainable that we just assume "God did it" and we just move on. Actually, I shouldn't say that, because there are people like that, but it doesn't apply to everyone who believes in God/a god. People who make this "argument" are really stretching towards ad hominem.