Why do people lose faith?

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote: »

A muslim (for example) with an equally strong personal opinion would 'find it inconceivable' that mohammed is false prophet.

What's the difference?

Exactly

kelly1

Points taken Wicknight. I have no proof that my beliefs are true so I must be careful not to offend others by not being so critical of their beliefs. Thanks.

Nalz

Apologies to the OP here, I'm just responding to the title of the thread as there is a bit of downtime here in work. Haven't read through the responses and replies.

Quite simply I was a devoted Catholic, went to Maas every Sunday, loved the idea of the parish staying together. Tradition and Righteousness all in one. What could be more right then that? I soon saw that its more important to make the best of life that you can and that only one thing should be taken from the bible, the one and only thing " love one another as I have loved you". No great God regardless of whether they exist or not (and unfortunately science is proving the bible wrong word by word) needs or wants praise anyway.

If ppl in this world treated others as they would be liked to be treated then it would be a far better place. Simple really. One little thing that’s it. No belief is needed, no practice is needed. Just be the best person you can.

And eat plenty of custard, but dont make yourself sick now

swiss

The thread title is about atheists losing their faith, so I'm going to return to that briefly if I may and discuss my own drift to apostasy.

For a lot of my childhood, I at least acted the part of a good catholic boy. I went to mass and confession, prayed regularly, and even served as an altar boy. I was given a usual christian education with religion classes in school and so forth, and many of my school teachers wore their faith on their sleeve, so to speak. Religion held a promise and an appeal as well as a terrible warning, be good and believe in God and you'll be rewarded with eternal life and bliss. Don't and you'll be condemned to the hellfires for eternity.

I couldn't say when exactly I started doubting the existence of God, I would have had moments of doubting and then feel guilty about it, like it was a sin to even doubt that God existed. It was in my early teens that I started to seriously doubt the existence of a deity. This deeper skepticism might have been influenced by a few friends of mine that were atheistic. It would have forced me to critically examine by belief system in a rigorous way and a number of questions, theological and otherwise, would lead me inexorably towards doubt, agnosticism, and then finally my current atheistic disposition.

The motivations and thought processes were and are no different than one might expect, for example the fact of natural disasters and evil in the world can't be explained away by any benevolent God (these were the same questions, I was to later learn, that were posed by Epicurus in ancient Greece and David Hume in more classical times). There was also the question as to why God needed us to believe in him and worship him so badly. Surely if it was that big a concern, God can make himself known to us and let us know that he went to the trouble of making heaven, earth, life, and humans just so we can spend lots of time thanking and praising him for it.

Looking at the history of religious faith didn't help inspire religious awe either, especially with regard to its regard to scienctific advance. When I first heard about conflicts between religion and science, it first struck me as odd. Surely, if religion teaches us about God and science about the world then science can inform us about Gods work. Of course, the difficulty was where science flatly disproved church dogma, such as Galileo's and Copernicus' discoveries. As most people know, Galileo was put on trial for his heresy, an act for the Catholic church "expressed regret" for his treatment in 1992.

Learning about Darwinian evolution was also, for me at least, another major nail in the coffin for religious belief as it explained so much about the origins and diversity of life. For example, God didn't punish people by giving them back pain and wisdom teeth that had to be removed (a rather silly design decision if he did put them there, one might think). Rather it was a product of our evolutionary heritage. This and the scientific consensus on the age of the earth pretty much blew the Genesis story out of the water.

Learning about other belief systems also led me to further question my own. Not by assuming they were any more correct, but by seeing how different people could believe things that were - by our standards - whacky and "out there" led me to see how Christian beliefs must seem bizarre to others. For example, do we really eat Christs body and drink his blood at communion? Taken in isolation from church dogma, the question is so ridiculous it hardly merits a response.

There were other considerations too of course, and I still can't say for certain whether or not God exists (you can't prove a negative). More recently however, I have been taking an interest in writings by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who have been articulating some of the issues I have had in believing religious faith and dogma. I think it is fair to say that while I am open to the possibility of being wrong, I don't see it as very likely.

kelly1

Hello Swiss, if I could just address a few of your points.

swiss wrote: »

There was also the question as to why God needed us to believe in him and worship him so badly. Surely if it was that big a concern, God can make himself known to us and let us know that he went to the trouble of making heaven, earth, life, and humans just so we can spend lots of time thanking and praising him for it.

Whether we realize it or not, we are totally dependent on God. It's not that He needs our praise but that He deserves our praise, love and devotion.

swiss wrote: »

Looking at the history of religious faith didn't help inspire religious awe either, especially with regard to its regard to scienctific advance. When I first heard about conflicts between religion and science, it first struck me as odd. Surely, if religion teaches us about God and science about the world then science can inform us about Gods work. Of course, the difficulty was where science flatly disproved church dogma, such as Galileo's and Copernicus' discoveries. As most people know, Galileo was put on trial for his heresy, an act for the Catholic church "expressed regret" for his treatment in 1992.

Science has never overturned dogma. I'm not sure if you have the right definition of dogma but that the earth was the centre of the universe/solar system was never dogma. Dogma is about spiritual truths, not astronomy.

swiss wrote: »

Learning about Darwinian evolution was also, for me at least, another major nail in the coffin for religious belief as it explained so much about the origins and diversity of life. For example, God didn't punish people by giving them back pain and wisdom teeth that had to be removed (a rather silly design decision if he did put them there, one might think). Rather it was a product of our evolutionary heritage. This and the scientific consensus on the age of the earth pretty much blew the Genesis story out of the water.

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally! It's quite clear that the universe wasn't created in 6 days and you would need to have your head firmly buried in the sand to believe that. The Church is agnostic when it comes to Adam and Eve's evolution or creation but what it does teach is that A&E were the first human beings to be given immortal souls. How their physical bodies came to exist isn't of much consequence.

swiss wrote: »

.... For example, do we really eat Christs body and drink his blood at communion? Taken in isolation from church dogma, the question is so ridiculous it hardly merits a response.

I'm sorry you feel this way but what I would say is that it's not beyond God's power to make Jesus present under the appearance of bread. What's more, this is well supported in scripture (John Ch. 6).

swiss wrote: »

There were other considerations too of course, and I still can't say for certain whether or not God exists (you can't prove a negative). More recently however, I have been taking an interest in writings by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who have been articulating some of the issues I have had in believing religious faith and dogma. I think it is fair to say that while I am open to the possibility of being wrong, I don't see it as very likely.

Seriously, the arrogance of these two makes me sick. It's OK for an individual to believe there is no God but to evangelize atheism is a terrible evil. They're nothing short of anti-Christs.

Just as a matter of interest, what effect did your slide into atheism have on your outlook on life? Did you feel liberated from the shackles of religion or did it leave you with less hope than you had before?

A while back I read one review of The Selfish Gene on Amazon and the man went into depression for a few years afterwards because it wrecked his faith! He saw no purpose in life afterwards.

neuro-praxis

I don't usually add to a thread that I haven't read, but this time I will make an exception - up to my eyes in work.

Why do people lose faith?

Because their faith is not in God - it is in the church. Then when church fails to fulfil them (something it could never do), their faith fades away.

That is my simple theory.

kelly1

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I don't usually add to a thread that I haven't read, but this time I will make an exception - up to my eyes in work.

Why do people lose faith?

Because their faith is not in God - it is in the church. Then when church fails to fulfil them (something it could never do), their faith fades away.

That is my simple theory.

And do you think those people who fall away from the Church continue to worship God privately? I suspect not! I think only a small number join other churches.

neuro-praxis

kelly1 I think you may have missed my point.

My argument is not that Christians must be entrenched in the church at all times (although I do not think you can walk the Christian journey and live life to the max without community).

Rather I am suggesting that those of us in the church need to examine where our faith lies, and what we put our hope in.

It's got to be God, or nothing. And it's got to be true, really true, or it's all totally pointless and we should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!

Edit: Also, it would be appreciated if when you mean RC church you write that. When I speak of the church, I am speaking of the church as a whole - the Body.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

And do you think those people who fall away from the Church continue to worship God privately? I suspect not!

I know alot of people who do, so you can put your suspicion to bed.

kelly1

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Rather I am suggesting that those of us in the church need to examine where our faith lies, and what we put our hope in.

It's got to be God, or nothing. And it's got to be true, really true, or it's all totally pointless and we should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!

Our faith needs to be in Jesus. But He didn't start a Church for nothing. The purpose of the Church is to continue Christ's work of salvation by teaching the truth and administering the sacraments by which we are saved. No Church, no salvation. But our focus needs to be on Jesus from whom all grace flows.

neuro-praxis

There you go again.

We are not singing from the same hymn sheet. I don't think you can read music.

kelly1

neuro-praxis wrote: »

There you go again.

We are not singing from the same hymn sheet. I don't think you can read music.

Now you've lost me! What have I misunderstood?

neuro-praxis

You are referring only to the RC Church, but you are calling it "the Church".

The RC church is all alone in its understanding of salvation. I have no problems whatsoever with you personally believing that someone who is not a member of the RC church cannot have salvation, but I utterly disagree.

You say the focus is on Jesus, and then you go muddling it up by saying "no church, no slavation". It seems to me from my understanding of the bible that what brings eternal life with Christ is a choice to walk with Him in life - a walk that continues after the first death.

What will you do if the RC church as an institution administering its sacraments crumbles and implodes? What if the end of the world comes and there is nobody to hear your confession or administer the last rites?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

I know alot of people who do, so you can put your suspicion to bed.

Nearly all my friends are apostate catholics and certainly seem to have little or no interest in Christianity. You can't deny that people have left the Church in droves to plough their own furrows. It's very rare that I meet someone of my age who shares my faith except within the Lay Dominicans of which I'm a member.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Our faith needs to be in Jesus. But He didn't start a Church for nothing. The purpose of the Church is to continue Christ's work of salvation by teaching the truth and administering the sacraments by which we are saved. No Church, no salvation. But our focus needs to be on Jesus from whom all grace flows.

On certain threads you say you can't judge others, that you don't know who's going to hell etc, then with one foul swoop you condemn all of those who aren't members of the Roman Catholic Church. In the hell thread I started months ago, you flip flopped about what hell was, if satan was there etc. You pasted links to explainations that you didn't even read yourself, nor understand. It seems to me you have no idea what you actually believe, you just channel dogma from your overlords! I personally think your view of salvation is disgusting, and am delighted that your church is falling! At the same time I hope you find a proper place for your loyalty and zealous ways. Namely, in Christ.

Digusted,
Jimi.

kelly1

neuro-praxis wrote: »

The RC church is all alone in its understanding of salvation. I have no problems whatsoever with you personally believing that someone who is not a member of the RC church cannot have salvation, but I utterly disagree.

I never said that non-Catholics cannot be saved. What I'm saying is that without the RC Church the New Covenant would be broken and nobody would be saved. The blood of the New Covenant is present in the Catholic Mass.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

You say the focus is on Jesus, and then you go muddling it up by saying "no church, no slavation". It seems to me from my understanding of the bible that what brings eternal life with Christ is a choice to walk with Him in life - a walk that continues after the first death.

I think Jesus wants more than that. He wants us to eat His Body and drink His Blood so that we may have life within us (John 6:52). He also wants to forgive our sins through the sacrament of confession. That is what Christ ordained (John 20:22).

neuro-praxis wrote: »

What will you do if the RC church as an institution administering its sacraments crumbles and implodes? What if the end of the world comes and there is nobody to hear your confession or administer the last rites?

That will never happen because we have Christ's promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18).

neuro-praxis

kelly1, the church is the body of believers. That is what the bible says. I understand that you believe something different. Every response you have made above is in the light of decisions that you have made regarding the authority of the church separate from the authority of scripture - a topic I struggle with.

Journey on in faith brother, but there is nothing we can put our hope in - nothing at all - except the rock of our salvation, which is Christ, and not the church.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

On certain threads you say you can't judge others, that you don't know who's going to hell etc, then with one foul swoop you condemn all of those who aren't members of the Roman Catholic Church. In the hell thread I started months ago, you flip flopped about what hell was, if satan was there etc. You pasted links to explainations that you didn't even read yourself, nor understand. It seems to me you have no idea what you actually believe, you just channel dogma from your overlords! I personally think your view of salvation is disgusting, and am delighted that your church is falling! At the same time I hope you find a proper place for your loyalty and zealous ways. Namely, in Christ.

Digusted,
Jimi.

Your disgust is unfounded. I never claimed non-catholics cannot be saved. Please don't jump to false conclusions.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

I never said that non-Catholics cannot be saved. What I'm saying is that without the RC Church the New Covenant would be broken and nobody would be saved. The blood of the New Covenant is present in the Catholic Mass.

OK, now I'm confused No RC church, no salvation, but non catholics will be saved?? So because catholics are doing this rite, they are saving non-catholics also? How does this work?

That will never happen because we have Christ's promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18).

I'd beg to differ. I think we are witnessing its demise at present. I wouldn't be surprised if it was wiped out within the next 100 years. Time will tell.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Your disgust is unfounded. I never claimed non-catholics cannot be saved. Please don't jump to false conclusions.

Well you said, no RC church, no salvation. What am I supposed to conclude? If anything it was a lack of clarity on your part. As you can see, Neuro-Paraxis thought you meant the same thing.

Up until Vatican II, it was taught that 'all' non catholics were not saved. I'm unclear as to Vatican II's stance, but it defo says that others can be saved outside of Roman catholocism. Were these messangers of truth and spirit, teaching truth before or after Vatican II?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

OK, now I'm confused No RC church, no salvation, but non catholics will be saved?? So because catholics are doing this rite, they are saving non-catholics also? How does this work?

I would need to read Dominus Iesus again because I've forgotten the details. You could read it if you were interested:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

I think the essential point about the Church is that it offers up the sacrifice of Calvary at every Mass as was foretold in the book of Malachi (OT):

Malachias 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

It is primarily the Mass that draws down God's mercy because in every Mass the sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented to the Father in atonement for our sins. And it is my understand that without the Mass, there can be no keeping of the covenant between God and man.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Well you said, no RC church, no salvation. What am I supposed to conclude? If anything it was a lack of clarity on your part. As you can see, Neuro-Paraxis thought you meant the same thing.

OK, point taken.

JimiTime wrote: »

Up until Vatican II, it was taught that 'all' non catholics were not saved. I'm unclear as to Vatican II's stance, but it defo says that others can be saved outside of Roman catholocism. Were these messangers of truth and spirit, teaching truth before or after Vatican II?

The teaching has always been "extra ecclesia nulla salus" - "outside the Church there is no salvation". The debate then arose over who are members of the Church. The Church teaches that non-catholic Christians are members of the Body of Christ but imperfectly so (sorry if this is offensive). It also says that non-Christians can become members of the Body through baptism of desire or blood. The Church basically tried not to put a limit on God's mercy by extending the definition of "member".

swiss

kelly wrote:

Whether we realize it or not, we are totally dependent on God. It's not that He needs our praise but that He deserves our praise, love and devotion.

This is a difficult point to agree on since I don't think God exists in the first place. However, even if God did, I don't understand why we would be utterly dependent on him. If he decided like not being around for a while, would we suddenly vanish in a puff of logic? Would we still not be free to go about our lives? What would materially change?

Science has never overturned dogma. I'm not sure if you have the right definition of dogma but that the earth was the centre of the universe/solar system was never dogma. Dogma is about spiritual truths, not astronomy.

I'm sorry, I don't think thats correct. While it is certainly true to say it is no longer part of church dogma because it is a provable falsehood, it did indeed form part of religious doctrine (otherwise, why would the church pursue Galileo in the manner it did - assuming what he was saying was not in breach of church teachings).

As an aside, the definition of dogma I am using is as follows:

dog·ma /ˈdɔgmə, ˈdɒg-/
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

I'm not including the definition to be patronising, just so I'm clear on what I mean by the term dogma in case there is any confusion.

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally! It's quite clear that the universe wasn't created in 6 days and you would need to have your head firmly buried in the sand to believe that. The Church is agnostic when it comes to Adam and Eve's evolution or creation but what it does teach is that A&E were the first human beings to be given immortal souls. How their physical bodies came to exist isn't of much consequence.

Ah! So you're saying bits of the bible aren't to be taken literally. Which bits? Is it all dependent on how we look at them and interpret them, or do we need a church to tell us (and change its mind every so often when it gets it wrong - see my earlier point about Galileo). If thats the case (and I know this is a stretch but bear with me) can't I argue this point for every bible passage so it can mean what I would like it to mean?

I'm sorry you feel this way but what I would say is that it's not beyond God's power to make Jesus present under the appearance of bread. What's more, this is well supported in scripture (John Ch. 6).

This must be a bit of the bible I'm supposed to take literally. Some church denominations would disagree with you on this point, but even if I take it that the catholic church is the only 'true' church, I was only singling this out as one piece of religious doctrine that especially stretches credibility for the non-believer. Other notable candidates are Jesus rising from the dead and the story of Noahs ark.

Seriously, the arrogance of these two makes me sick. It's OK for an individual to believe there is no God but to evangelize atheism is a terrible evil. They're nothing short of anti-Christs.

I can't help but see this as a double standard. I'm sure you're perfectly okay with missionary work and other 'spread the word' activities when it comes to the catholic faith. Perhaps its also true that you don't have a particular issue with other faiths doing the same thing, for example Muslim imans, Mormons, and so forth. But when it comes to evangelising atheism (I love that expression by the way), this activity is sickening and evil. Surely, they're just spreading the truth as they see it. As are most religious acolytes.

My suspicion is what you find objectionable is that they are "driving people" away from God, which I suppose would be a grave sin - akin to the work of Satan.

Just as a matter of interest, what effect did your slide into atheism have on your outlook on life? Did you feel liberated from the shackles of religion or did it leave you with less hope than you had before?

A while back I read one review of The Selfish Gene on Amazon and the man went into depression for a few years afterwards because it wrecked his faith! He saw no purpose in life afterwards.

At first, it was perhaps somewhat disheartening. As I stated before, religion held certain demands, mostly in terms of belief but also in terms of behaviour. The comfort factor, if I may call it that, was in the idea of a deity that cared about my existence and allowed you to carry on after death and meet your dead relatives and not simply die and wither away in a wooden box. Its also nice to think that the virtuous are rewarded and the wicked punished by some cosmic force, as we see in this life it is all too often the other way around.

However, now I can't say it bothers me one way or the other. The fact that religion might be comforting doesn't make it true, and as I thought about it, I found it unedifying that religion uses this 'carrot and stick' approach. Also, by realising that this life is the only one we have, it gives a certain immediacy that prompts us to, if I may borrow a cliché, life it to the full.

Also, some atheists like Richard Dawkins go to pains to say that they find their lack of faith in no way undermined their appreciation of life or the power, wonder and majesty of the universe, and that the power of science to enthrall and enrapt the imagination - for them - superceded anything religion had to offer. I wonder if that man who wrote that review had considered this. Would he still have been so dejected?

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church basically tried not to put a limit on God's mercy by extending the definition of "member".

How kind of them. I presume god is fully on board with the new definition they have come up with? I would hate for someone to go to hell because god did not get the memo from the catholic church in time.

MrP

Húrin

Both Purgatory and eternal punishment in hell are false inventions.

neuro-praxis

swiss wrote: »

However, even if God did [exist], I don't understand why we would be utterly dependent on him. If he decided like not being around for a while, would we suddenly vanish in a puff of logic? Would we still not be free to go about our lives? What would materially change?

I am going to give this question a bash, as it is a very good one.

If "God" exists, and we understand God to be "a creator being from which all existence flows" (plus whatever else you want to add) then we would indeed be very much dependent on this God. Allow me to explain.

Science can tell us how when a seed is placed in the ground with the right conditions of nourishing soil, moisture, oxygen and all the rest of it, it begins to blossom into a plant which later becomes, for example, a tree.

What science cannot explain is WHY this process happens. Science can examine it, dissect it, and explain the exact process. But there is no reason WHY anything would grow. It just does.

Now, if God has in fact created the world, then the "whys" in this world are dependent upon God for their existence. This can be understood in two ways.

1. Aristotle viewed God as the "unmoved mover"; a creator that kicked everything off and stands back. If this understanding of God is true, then even if God disappears, the world should keep on ticking over, provided this God didn't decide to destroy the world he had created. That is one kind of dependence.

2. The other kind of dependence suggests that the power of this creator God sustains our very bodies. Why is it that we breathe in and out? We can say how it happens, or why we need it to happen, but we cannot say why. Why is it that when a man and a woman get together they can create another human being? We know how it happens, and why we need to procreate, but not why it happens. It is a mystery.

If the Christian God exists, then he is sustaining everything in the earth - causing plants to bloom and children, when fed, to inexplicably grow into adults. (This is actually Aquinas' idea of what the soul is - the fulfilment of whatever potential comes with our existence!) This is what kelly1 probably means by utter dependence on God. As in, without God, we'd be diddly squat.

(Btw, haven't seen you in years swiss!)

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Science can tell us how when a seed is placed in the ground with the right conditions of nourishing soil, moisture, oxygen and all the rest of it, it begins to blossom into a plant which later becomes, for example, a tree.

What science cannot explain is WHY this process happens. Science can examine it, dissect it, and explain the exact process. But there is no reason WHY anything would grow. It just does.

That isn't really true, science can tell us WHY (dun dun dun!) things like life happen and grow and reproduce, and its down to the rules of chemistry (life is after all simply a massive chemical reaction).

Life is a natural consequence of the chemical properties of the universe. It isn't some great mystery as to why life exists or continues to grow and exist, any more than asking why does a ball roll down rather than up a hill (gravity).

You could say, why are the laws of chemistry set up to allow life to happen, but then that assumes that allowing life to happen is some kind of purpose, rather than simply an unintended consequence.

But that aside, even assuming life was created for a purpose by God, that doesn't actually provide a end to the question of "WHY" (dun dun dun!).

It simply moves the question to a point that a lot of religious people are happy to stop asking.

Why did God create the world? Because he wanted to. Why did he want to? Because he wanted to share existence. Why did he want to share existence? Because he is great and loving. Why is he create and loving? Because he is a perfect being. Why is he a perfect being? etc etc

If one wishes they can keep asking WHY pretty much ad nuseum. God provides no more of a definite answer than anything else.

neuro-praxis

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really true, science can tell us WHY (dun dun dun!) things like life happen and grow and reproduce, and its down to the rules of chemistry (life is after all simply a massive chemical reaction).

No, you have missed the point. I am speaking as a logician; as a philosopher. The "rules of chemistry" is the language which we we have engaged to describe the natural processes in the world. They do not address the question of why; which is why the massive field of metaphysics exists.

By the way, your defiinition of life is the most impoverished I have ever seen.

Now that Wicknight is here, I am leaving, as he doesn't do logic, only naturalism.

PS Wicknight - you will notice I was not addressing whether or not God exists - only why if he/she/it did exist we would be dependent on it.

Akrasia

neuro-praxis wrote: »

No, you have missed the point. I am speaking as a logician; as a philosopher. The "rules of chemistry" is the language which we we have engaged to describe the natural processes in the world. They do not address the question of why; which is why the massive field of metaphysics exists.

I Have a bachelors degree in Philosophy, and in my opinion, most of the field of metaphysical cosmology is a load of rubbish. It's this massively complicated set of ideas and theories that are all addressed to a problem that only exists in the mind of the philosophers themselves.

By the way, your defiinition of life is the most impoverished I have ever seen.

Now that Wicknight is here, I am leaving, as he doesn't do logic, only naturalism.

Logic is natural. There is no possible way that a universe that didn't include mathematics or logic could exist in any form stable enough to produce complicated bodies or intelligent life.

No Maths/order = no universe (and certainly no intelligent life)
Nothing without order can exist.

We can call this order god, but why bother, it's not an intelligent being, just a natural force necessary for our existence. we might as well call gravity 'god' (and in the end, that might be exactly what it boils down to), or the sun, god

PS Wicknight - you will notice I was not addressing whether or not God exists - only why if he/she/it did exist we would be dependent on it.

god would be just as dependent on some external rules and order as we are.

rockbeer

neuro-praxis wrote: »

What science cannot explain is WHY this process happens. Science can examine it, dissect it, and explain the exact process. But there is no reason WHY anything would grow. It just does.

You seem to presuppose that there is in fact an answer to the question of why things happen, beyond that provided by science. You might well be wrong - it could all just as easily be a big pointless accident. Why does there have to be a reason why? Perhaps it's as simple as things happen because they do.

Human instinct is always to ask why (just listen to any small child) and always to assume there's an answer. (That, in my opinion, is why we had to invent god.) However, that doesn't mean there is an answer, just that we're not satisfied until we've got one. Even if we have to make it up.