46% believe creationist form of human origins

[waterfield]

"I just happen to see the "beyond science" explanations as mostly fulfilling psychological needs. "

I think that is true. Many people believe in faith out of pure desperation. I get that. But the vehicle by which they arrive doesn't dispell the destination. The fact that there are bad guys who are "christians" or that there are good guys who are agnostic is totally irrelevant to the truth.

[zn]

"I just happen to see the "beyond science" explanations as mostly fulfilling psychological needs. "

I think that is true. Many people believe in faith out of pure desperation. I get that. But the vehicle by which they arrive doesn't dispell the destination. The fact that there are bad guys who are "christians" or that there are good guys who are agnostic is totally irrelevant to the truth.

I don't think it;s desperation. I mean maybe you do but that's not what I think. According to that model, desperation is the psychological need and a faith fills it. What I think is that the actual pyschological need IS the need to believe, and/or a sense of wonder, and/or imagination, and/or a feeling that there is "a story." That can manifest itself in many ways. Like when a friend of mine tells me an authentic ghost story and I think it's cool and part of me just accepts it. In my particular case, though, my rational side notices my "need to believe" side doing that, so in the end I don't "commit." But either way the psychology I am pointing to is precisely the need to believe--which I think exists all in its own right, independent of any other motive.

Anyway. Faith doesn't necessarily EXPLAIN things and therefore ease desperation. It can also make things more mysterious and inexplicable.

So we're just different on this one.

[Zooey]

"I just happen to see the "beyond science" explanations as mostly fulfilling psychological needs. "

I think that is true. Many people believe in faith out of pure desperation. I get that. But the vehicle by which they arrive doesn't dispell the destination. The fact that there are bad guys who are "christians" or that there are good guys who are agnostic is totally irrelevant to the truth.

I don't think it;s desperation. I mean maybe you do but that's not what I think. According to that model, desperation is the psychological need and a faith fills it. What I think is that the actual pyschological need IS the need to believe, and/or a sense of wonder, and/or imagination, and/or a feeling that there is "a story." That can manifest itself in many ways. Like when a friend of mine tells me an authentic ghost story and I think it's cool and part of me just accepts it. In my particular case, though, my rational side notices my "need to believe" side doing that, so in the end I don't "commit." But either way the psychology I am pointing to is precisely the need to believe--which I think exists all in its own right, independent of any other motive.

Anyway. Faith doesn't necessarily EXPLAIN things and therefore ease desperation. It can also make things more mysterious and inexplicable.

So we're just different on this one.

I agree with that. I just finished reading "Owen Meany" and it gets into that very point about faith. That faith doesn't necessarily make anything easier, or explain anything.

I notice the same thing in myself - that my rational side notices my "need to believe" side in some situations. And sometimes I decide consciously to accept the "need to believe" because I see no harm in it and it may have benefits. Somebody said life is 90% attitude, or something, and there's something to that. This may be a bad example, but I sometimes see people who are miserable, and they may say something like "I just have bad luck all the time," and they can cite evidence to support that. And I just think, "why not believe you have good luck and find supporting examples of that?" Because the person would just be happier if they did that. The reality of what happens to them is exactly the same, but it's a question of focus, and you're the cameraman in your life. So whether it's "true" or not, why not just believe the other thing?

I don't know if that's a good example.

Sometimes you just need to believe. Believe that things are going to get better, or something. Empirical evidence to support that? Well, there isn't any, of course. But you will feel better if you believe it, and so what?

As Nittany points out, tormenting other people in order to sustain that "need to believe" is unacceptable. But I suspect even without religion in the world, people would find reasons to torment each other anyway. It's often pointed out that more people are killed in god's name than for any other reason, but maybe that's because "god" is what we call that need. And there are more people who call that need "god" than call it "equality" or "freedom" or whatever. Cuz there are plenty of examples of godless types tormenting people in the name of something, too. I dunno. Interesting conversation, though.

[waterfield]

"I just happen to see the "beyond science" explanations as mostly fulfilling psychological needs. "

I think that is true. Many people believe in faith out of pure desperation. I get that. But the vehicle by which they arrive doesn't dispell the destination. The fact that there are bad guys who are "christians" or that there are good guys who are agnostic is totally irrelevant to the truth.

I don't think it;s desperation. I mean maybe you do but that's not what I think. According to that model, desperation is the psychological need and a faith fills it. What I think is that the actual pyschological need IS the need to believe, and/or a sense of wonder, and/or imagination, and/or a feeling that there is "a story." That can manifest itself in many ways. Like when a friend of mine tells me an authentic ghost story and I think it's cool and part of me just accepts it. In my particular case, though, my rational side notices my "need to believe" side doing that, so in the end I don't "commit." But either way the psychology I am pointing to is precisely the need to believe--which I think exists all in its own right, independent of any other motive.

Anyway. Faith doesn't necessarily EXPLAIN things and therefore ease desperation. It can also make things more mysterious and inexplicable.

So we're just different on this one.

I think were likely saying something similar. Maybe there is a "desparate" need to believe in something. I like what Zooey says above about counting one's blessings-at least I think that was one of his points. I'm as guilty as anyone-as my wife consistently points out-when it comes to not finding what's good around me. But back to a belief in God. I keep coming back to the beginning of the beginning quandrum. To me -and maybe only me-it means something magical that man cannot answer. And to me that translates into the existence of something spiratual that has no origin-only existence. God? I don't know. Not long ago I sat down with a Luthern pastor and talked about some of this. She had some interesting things to say which she said were not necessaryily part of t he Luthern faith. While she believed in a "God" she did not believe at all in a heaven or hell. Those are products of man's imagination. She believed that God is with each person at all times and his or her love makes no distinction between the bad guys and the good guys. She also believes there is some form of spiritual afterlife and that includes all people -not just those who believe. Anyway, it was interesting to me hear a pastor talk with such bluntness. And BTW her "evidence" of God was the beauty that each of us can find in our lives-sorta like what Zooey said above-if you look for it. Whether its the beauty of personal love, the trees, the wilderness, the goodness of people, the arts, the talents of others, etc. And that goes for each person's frame of reference. For instance the sickly child who has no chance for a fulfilled life can find enjoyment in the mother's warmth or the tase of chocalate which can be every bit as rewarding as the sound and fury of the ocean to me.

[zn]

"I just happen to see the "beyond science" explanations as mostly fulfilling psychological needs. "

I think that is true. Many people believe in faith out of pure desperation. I get that. But the vehicle by which they arrive doesn't dispell the destination. The fact that there are bad guys who are "christians" or that there are good guys who are agnostic is totally irrelevant to the truth.

I don't think it;s desperation. I mean maybe you do but that's not what I think. According to that model, desperation is the psychological need and a faith fills it. What I think is that the actual pyschological need IS the need to believe, and/or a sense of wonder, and/or imagination, and/or a feeling that there is "a story." That can manifest itself in many ways. Like when a friend of mine tells me an authentic ghost story and I think it's cool and part of me just accepts it. In my particular case, though, my rational side notices my "need to believe" side doing that, so in the end I don't "commit." But either way the psychology I am pointing to is precisely the need to believe--which I think exists all in its own right, independent of any other motive.

Anyway. Faith doesn't necessarily EXPLAIN things and therefore ease desperation. It can also make things more mysterious and inexplicable.

So we're just different on this one.

I think were likely saying something similar. Maybe there is a "desparate" need to believe in something. I like what Zooey says above about counting one's blessings-at least I think that was one of his points. I'm as guilty as anyone-as my wife consistently points out-when it comes to not finding what's good around me. But back to a belief in God. I keep coming back to the beginning of the beginning quandrum. To me -and maybe only me-it means something magical that man cannot answer. And to me that translates into the existence of something spiratual that has no origin-only existence. God? I don't know. Not long ago I sat down with a Luthern pastor and talked about some of this. She had some interesting things to say which she said were not necessaryily part of t he Luthern faith. While she believed in a "God" she did not believe at all in a heaven or hell. Those are products of man's imagination. She believed that God is with each person at all times and his or her love makes no distinction between the bad guys and the good guys. She also believes there is some form of spiritual afterlife and that includes all people -not just those who believe. Anyway, it was interesting to me hear a pastor talk with such bluntness. And BTW her "evidence" of God was the beauty that each of us can find in our lives-sorta like what Zooey said above-if you look for it. Whether its the beauty of personal love, the trees, the wilderness, the goodness of people, the arts, the talents of others, etc. And that goes for each person's frame of reference. For instance the sickly child who has no chance for a fulfilled life can find enjoyment in the mother's warmth or the tase of chocalate which can be every bit as rewarding as the sound and fury of the ocean to me.

This is a good discussion.

[nittany ram]

"I just happen to see the "beyond science" explanations as mostly fulfilling psychological needs. "

I think that is true. Many people believe in faith out of pure desperation. I get that. But the vehicle by which they arrive doesn't dispell the destination. The fact that there are bad guys who are "christians" or that there are good guys who are agnostic is totally irrelevant to the truth.

I don't think it;s desperation. I mean maybe you do but that's not what I think. According to that model, desperation is the psychological need and a faith fills it. What I think is that the actual pyschological need IS the need to believe, and/or a sense of wonder, and/or imagination, and/or a feeling that there is "a story." That can manifest itself in many ways. Like when a friend of mine tells me an authentic ghost story and I think it's cool and part of me just accepts it. In my particular case, though, my rational side notices my "need to believe" side doing that, so in the end I don't "commit." But either way the psychology I am pointing to is precisely the need to believe--which I think exists all in its own right, independent of any other motive.

Anyway. Faith doesn't necessarily EXPLAIN things and therefore ease desperation. It can also make things more mysterious and inexplicable.

So we're just different on this one.

I think were likely saying something similar. Maybe there is a "desparate" need to believe in something. I like what Zooey says above about counting one's blessings-at least I think that was one of his points. I'm as guilty as anyone-as my wife consistently points out-when it comes to not finding what's good around me. But back to a belief in God. I keep coming back to the beginning of the beginning quandrum. To me -and maybe only me-it means something magical that man cannot answer. And to me that translates into the existence of something spiratual that has no origin-only existence. God? I don't know. Not long ago I sat down with a Luthern pastor and talked about some of this. She had some interesting things to say which she said were not necessaryily part of t he Luthern faith. While she believed in a "God" she did not believe at all in a heaven or hell. Those are products of man's imagination. She believed that God is with each person at all times and his or her love makes no distinction between the bad guys and the good guys. She also believes there is some form of spiritual afterlife and that includes all people -not just those who believe. Anyway, it was interesting to me hear a pastor talk with such bluntness. And BTW her "evidence" of God was the beauty that each of us can find in our lives-sorta like what Zooey said above-if you look for it. Whether its the beauty of personal love, the trees, the wilderness, the goodness of people, the arts, the talents of others, etc. And that goes for each person's frame of reference. For instance the sickly child who has no chance for a fulfilled life can find enjoyment in the mother's warmth or the tase of chocalate which can be every bit as rewarding as the sound and fury of the ocean to me.

Well, I would disagree that recognizing the beauty around us or finding inner strength in the face of adversity is evidence of "god" but they are nice sentiments, waterfield.

One thing we can agree about is that there is beauty in the world and we shouldn't lose sight of that amidst all the ugliness.

Remembering that doesn't solve anything but it is a nice diversion. Need a good port in the storm every now and then.

[Zooey]

"I just happen to see the "beyond science" explanations as mostly fulfilling psychological needs. "

I think that is true. Many people believe in faith out of pure desperation. I get that. But the vehicle by which they arrive doesn't dispell the destination. The fact that there are bad guys who are "christians" or that there are good guys who are agnostic is totally irrelevant to the truth.

I don't think it;s desperation. I mean maybe you do but that's not what I think. According to that model, desperation is the psychological need and a faith fills it. What I think is that the actual pyschological need IS the need to believe, and/or a sense of wonder, and/or imagination, and/or a feeling that there is "a story." That can manifest itself in many ways. Like when a friend of mine tells me an authentic ghost story and I think it's cool and part of me just accepts it. In my particular case, though, my rational side notices my "need to believe" side doing that, so in the end I don't "commit." But either way the psychology I am pointing to is precisely the need to believe--which I think exists all in its own right, independent of any other motive.

Anyway. Faith doesn't necessarily EXPLAIN things and therefore ease desperation. It can also make things more mysterious and inexplicable.

So we're just different on this one.

I think were likely saying something similar. Maybe there is a "desparate" need to believe in something. I like what Zooey says above about counting one's blessings-at least I think that was one of his points. I'm as guilty as anyone-as my wife consistently points out-when it comes to not finding what's good around me. But back to a belief in God. I keep coming back to the beginning of the beginning quandrum. To me -and maybe only me-it means something magical that man cannot answer. And to me that translates into the existence of something spiratual that has no origin-only existence. God? I don't know. Not long ago I sat down with a Luthern pastor and talked about some of this. She had some interesting things to say which she said were not necessaryily part of t he Luthern faith. While she believed in a "God" she did not believe at all in a heaven or hell. Those are products of man's imagination. She believed that God is with each person at all times and his or her love makes no distinction between the bad guys and the good guys. She also believes there is some form of spiritual afterlife and that includes all people -not just those who believe. Anyway, it was interesting to me hear a pastor talk with such bluntness. And BTW her "evidence" of God was the beauty that each of us can find in our lives-sorta like what Zooey said above-if you look for it. Whether its the beauty of personal love, the trees, the wilderness, the goodness of people, the arts, the talents of others, etc. And that goes for each person's frame of reference. For instance the sickly child who has no chance for a fulfilled life can find enjoyment in the mother's warmth or the tase of chocalate which can be every bit as rewarding as the sound and fury of the ocean to me.

Well, I would disagree that recognizing the beauty around us or finding inner strength in the face of adversity is evidence of "god" but they are nice sentiments, waterfield.

One thing we can agree about is that there is beauty in the world and we shouldn't lose sight of that amidst all the ugliness.

Remembering that doesn't solve anything but it is a nice diversion. Need a good port in the storm every now and then.

Yeah. I like to turn to that scene in "Titanic" when Jack lets go.

[nittany ram]

Yeah. I like to turn to that scene in "Titanic" when Jack lets go.

Yeah, I still bust out laughing at the thought of Jack slipping into the icy depths.

It's especially funny knowing what we know now...

There was room for him on that raft!

Bwahhahhahhahahaaahhahahaaaahhh!!!

[PA Ram]

Well clearly, Nittany you are a fundamentalist atheist. I've seen your type: walking the streets with your Darwin pamphlets, the Darwin fish on your cars, burning Christmas trees and egging churches. I know the type.

I would describe myself as "spiritual", for whatever that's worth. I guess I'm sort of agnostic but the bottom line is, like the Buddha(and I'm nothing like that sonofabitch)my feeling is that it just isn't that important a question. I can feel a "sense" of awe in nature and the vastness of the universe and in that I find a piece of spirituality. Is that feeling a God presence? I don't know how to describe it.

When I said that religion can provide answers that science can't---I meant human answers--answers that are helpful to our own psyche. That doesn't mean that these are the "right" answers to the big questions--but they are helpful answers to our human problems during the brief time we're here. I guess it's like philosophy. And that can be very helpful and useful during this life.

A science answer of, "Nothing matters, it's a mechanical process in a cold dead universe" may be the right answer but it's not particularly helpful here and now.

But remember, I'm speaking in broad loose terms. Some preacher insisting that God wants us to bomb Iran or taking real science out of the schools is another thing entirely.

There are many shades of this.

But I listen to a Richard Dawkins speech and it leaves me empty. He's brilliant. I love the selfish gene idea because it makes so much sense.

And I love science. I believe it's important that we base real world decisions in regard to climate change and in how the world works on what it has to tell us--not what some book written by men many years ago and interpreted many different ways has to say.

I think there is room for both---but in the proper use, and separate.

I agree with Zooey:

I notice the same thing in myself - that my rational side notices my "need to believe" side in some situations. And sometimes I decide consciously to accept the "need to believe" because I see no harm in it and it may have benefits. Somebody said life is 90% attitude, or something, and there's something to that. This may be a bad example, but I sometimes see people who are miserable, and they may say something like "I just have bad luck all the time," and they can cite evidence to support that. And I just think, "why not believe you have good luck and find supporting examples of that?" Because the person would just be happier if they did that. The reality of what happens to them is exactly the same, but it's a question of focus, and you're the cameraman in your life. So whether it's "true" or not, why not just believe the other thing?

[nittany ram]

Well clearly, Nittany you are a fundamentalist atheist. I've seen your type: walking the streets with your Darwin pamphlets, the Darwin fish on your cars, burning Christmas trees and egging churches. I know the type.

Well I know you're kidding but just to be clear, I don't think I'm a fundamentalist atheist if that means what I think it means. To me it means that I would be an atheist no matter what and that's not true. If I ever see compelling evidence of god's existence then I will believe that god exists. 'Fundamentalist' also has an evangelical connotation to me, and I'm not out there recruiting 'souls' to atheism. Actually I rarely discuss it with anybody. I read a few atheist blogs and stuff but that's pretty much it. I do have a Darwin fish on my truck but it's old and really faded now. Hardly recognizable. I celebrate Christmas with a tree and have never egged a church but in highschool I did egg a bowling alley once but that's a story for another time.

I would vastness of the universe and in that I find a piece of spirituality. Is that feeling a God presence? I don't know how to describe it.describe myself as "spiritual", for whatever that's worth. I guess I'm sort of agnostic but the bottom line is, like the Buddha(and I'm nothing like that sonofabitch)my feeling is that it just isn't that important a question. I can feel a "sense" of awe in nature and the

I also feel a sense of awe in nature. It's incredibly amazing. To me that doesn't come from a spiritual place but that's cool.

A science answer of, "Nothing matters, it's a mechanical process in a cold dead universe" may be the right answer but it's not particularly helpful here and now.

See to me it is helpful, The way I see it is, if mankind could just drop this shroud of mysticism that surrounds the wonders of the universe and appreciate it for what it really is we could elliminate the religious institutions that were born of this mysticism and which are largely responsible for the horrible state of the world. Then we could really get on with the business of improving the human condition everwhere. Yeah, it's a pipe dream, I know...

But I listen to a Richard Dawkins speech and it leaves me empty. He's brilliant. I love the selfish gene idea because it makes so much sense.

See that doesn't leave me empty. Just the opposite. But it's all good PA. You and I aren't that far apart in the important things.