Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Dan_Solo · 02-02-2015 12:46PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

Yeah, I laughed at that as well. Garbo was floored by Fry's argument. He was like a rabbit caught in the headlights and couldn't think of anything to say. So he came out with an utterly inane, stupid comment. He seemed not to understand that he was asking Fry if would get in to a place which Fry obviously believed did not exist. He might as well have ask him if he had spoken to any leprechauns recently!
Byrne simply does not have the intellect to probe the mind of someone like Stephen Fry.

I'm no fan of Gay or his stupid show, but from what I gather he has a fairly standard set of questions for his guests and he was just ticking them off the list.
(I'm not much of a Fry fan either TBH. Outside of his comedy scriptwriting I just don't get him. Worships at the altar of Steve Jobs for a start.)

RobertKK · 02-02-2015 01:03PM

listermint wrote: »

Ah the Hindsight book, written by tools to explain things they could not explain themselves....(after they occurred) like em Weather Patterns, Space, Gravity. You know alot of the stuff we can explain now via science.

I love science, your logic would mean scientists would have to be atheist for you to take them seriously, yet many are not, many are.
I never claimed the bible is a science book.
You mention space, it was a Belgian Catholic priest who came up with the big bang theory in regards to the universe, also the Catholic church has a space observatory, and has not ruled out the existence of alien life.
The church is also not against the theory of evolution.

This 'I believe in science, not religion' is a load of intellectual claptrap. Science and religion are not in conflict. We do however get people from both sides who put up barriers where there is no need for barriers.
We saw it earlier in this thread with the stem cell argument that the church was against it. Yes embryonic stem cell research, but science moved onto adult stem cells which offered far better outcomes and without the ethical problems.

Anyone against science is stupid, we were given brains with the intelligence to understand and discover.
There is also the spiritual or mental aide to our beings and for some people religion fills a need, their book was written which gives tools to help people cope with life, rather than written by tools.
Science shows having a religion is good for your health...
http://www.livescience.com/18421-religion-impacts-health.html

pueblo · 02-02-2015 01:11PM

jester77 wrote: »

I don't get this whole god thing that people blindly believe in without ever logically thinking what it is they are believing in.

So if there is one true god, the creator of all, then why would it create something as evil as Satan and let it exist?

People are having trouble with the whole God and logic thing, fair enough.

If God exists and if God is the Supreme Being and if God is the Creator of everything then it would seem obvious that this God has a set of qualities and characteristics that make his nature so far removed, so qualitativelydifferent to ours that trying to understand his actions would be similar to a 3 year old trying to understand quantum mechanics.

If this God exists then you must accept that whatever you state/ask about this God will be certain to be incorrect, irrelevant and based on erroneous presumptions.

Human logic and reasoning would be useless tools when dealing with a being so completely and utterly different to a human.

Loafing Oaf · 02-02-2015 01:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Science and religion are not in conflict.

Yes they are. Belief in an 'immortal soul' that survives after your body dies is totally incompatible with a scientific understanding of life.

timetogo · 02-02-2015 01:14PM

pueblo wrote: »

If this God exists then you must accept that whatever you state/ask about this God will be certain to be incorrect, irrelevant and based on erroneous presumptions.

Human logic and reasoning would be useless tools when dealing with a being so completely and utterly different to a human.

So why worship or pray to a being like that? It'd be like an ant praying to humans.

RobertKK · 02-02-2015 01:18PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yes they are. Belief in an 'immortal soul' that survives after your body dies is totally incompatible with a scientific understanding of life.

The soul doesn't reside in the area of physics, biology or chemistry area of science.
The soul resides in the area of philosophy.

PopePalpatine · 02-02-2015 01:18PM

catallus wrote: »

The only capricious thing going on here is the insistence of the theophobes being wilfully blind to their redemption while revelling in their wretchedness!

Yeah, I think "Paradise" would be a misnomer if you were there.

Roger_007 · 02-02-2015 01:19PM

timetogo wrote: »

So why worship or pray to a being like that? It'd be like an ant praying to humans.

My dog thinks that I am God........my cat, on the other hand, IS God

kunst nugget · 02-02-2015 01:20PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The soul doesn't reside in the area of physics, biology or chemistry area of science.
The soul resides in the area of philosophy.

It actually resides in the Stax and Motown sections of my record collection.

shruikan2553 · 02-02-2015 01:21PM

pueblo wrote: »

People are having trouble with the whole God and logic thing, fair enough.

If God exists and if God is the Supreme Being and if God is the Creator of everything then it would seem obvious that this God has a set of qualities and characteristics that make his nature so far removed, so qualitativelydifferent to ours that trying to understand his actions would be similar to a 3 year old trying to understand quantum mechanics.

If this God exists then you must accept that whatever you state/ask about this God will be certain to be incorrect, irrelevant and based on erroneous presumptions.

Human logic and reasoning would be useless tools when dealing with a being so completely and utterly different to a human.

Wouldn't that make the entire bible useless?

pueblo · 02-02-2015 01:25PM

timetogo wrote: »

So why worship or pray to a being like that? It'd be like an ant praying to humans.

I agree the concept throws up a lot of questions. These questions are 'logical' to us, but in the spiritual realm they are often irrelevant questions.

We can't use musical notation to explore mathematics, similarly in dealing with the spirit we can't use human logic and reason.

This is where religion should step in to provide a 'language' as a way to perceive, experience and learn about the spiritual. How good a job religion does is another matter entirely.

pueblo · 02-02-2015 01:30PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Wouldn't that make the entire bible useless?

It makes the bible entirely useless if you are looking at it from the view point of logic, applying logic...it will not compute :P

If you look at the bible from a spiritual view point, looking at it using the language of the spirit then it makes a lot more sense.

Ash.J.Williams · 02-02-2015 01:33PM

pueblo wrote: »

It makes the bible entirely useless if you are looking at it from the view point of logic, applying logic...it will not compute :P

If you look at the bible from a spiritual view point, looking at it using the language of the spirit then it makes a lot more sense.

ya know i went to school ...and we studied religion for nearly 15 years....and not once was that ever mentioned....First i heard of it was last week listening to reza aslan. That says something now that i type it out! looks more like brain washing than education.

shruikan2553 · 02-02-2015 01:34PM

pueblo wrote: »

It makes the bible entirely useless if you are looking at it from the view point of logic, applying logic...it will not compute :P

If you look at the bible from a spiritual view point, looking at it using the language of the spirit then it makes a lot more sense.

But it was written by humans for humans. I though spiritual stuff was beyond our comprehension? People who read the bible seem to be able to explain what god wants and use quotes to back it up. Using human logic and human words to explain spiritual reasoning. Its either possible or not.

K4t · 02-02-2015 01:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

This 'I believe in science, not religion' is a load of intellectual claptrap. Science and religion are not in conflict.

As I mentioned in a previous reply to you which you ignored, scientists who believe in religion may not let their religious beliefs have an effect on their scientific ones, but they do engage in a perpetuation of faith which gives the real believers of faith "intellectual cover" and they are the ones who are dangerous as they then engage in the process of lobbying governments on a whole range of issues and poisoning the minds of people with extreme religious views.

So no, there is nothing 'wrong' with being a scientist who believes in religion, but it does help to support the situation I described above and it does involve a scary amount of doublethink.

Dravokivich · 02-02-2015 01:48PM

pueblo wrote: »

I agree the concept throws up a lot of questions. These questions are 'logical' to us, but in the spiritual realm they are often irrelevant questions.

We can't use musical notation to explore mathematics, similarly in dealing with the spirit we can't use human logic and reason.

This is where religion should step in to provide a 'language' as a way to perceive, experience and learn about the spiritual. How good a job religion does is another matter entirely.

huh? Musical notation is derived from mathematics. If you want to go further than fractions or decimals, sure use something else like numbers and various representative symbols such as Pi and Sigma or what have you. Which are for the most part fairly well defined.

You want to obliterate definition or limit the possibility of a definition to explore something?

You've picked a terrible analogy to explain your stance on spirituality, because you've taken something that's basis is purely for getting the correct answer and disregarded it against something, that's basis is on the lack of one and needing such an answer to be presented to you in an uncontrolled manner.

RobertKK · 02-02-2015 01:52PM

K4t wrote: »

As I mentioned in a previous reply to you which you ignored, scientists who believe in religion may not let their religious beliefs have an effect on their scientific ones, but they do engage in a perpetuation of faith which gives the real believers of faith "intellectual cover" and they are the ones who are dangerous as they then engage in the process of lobbying governments on a whole range of issues and poisoning the minds of people with extreme religious views.

So no, there is nothing 'wrong' with being a scientist who believes in religion, but it does help to support the situation I described above and it does involve a scary amount of doublethink.

That argument could be used against atheists too with atheist extremists like Pol Pot who had that campaign against Buddhists, Muslims and Christians in Cambodia.
Humans are humans whatever they believe or don't believe, but all are open to extremism, it just doesn't reside on one side.

pueblo · 02-02-2015 01:52PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

But it was written by humans for humans. I though spiritual stuff was beyond our comprehension? People who read the bible seem to be able to explain what god wants and use quotes to back it up. Using human logic and human words to explain spiritual reasoning. Its either possible or not.

This is where it gets complicated. I don't have much time for people who claim to have the truth all packaged up into one easily digestable set of dogmatic beliefs.

There is a Buddhist phrase 'Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon' Religion is only the finger pointing, not the moon.

I subscribe to Lao Tzu's view that "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

pueblo · 02-02-2015 01:57PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

huh? Musical notation is derived from mathematics. If you want to go further than fractions or decimals, sure use something else like numbers and various representative symbols such as Pi and Sigma or what have you. Which are for the most part fairly well defined.

You want to obliterate definition or limit the possibility of a definition to explore something?

You've picked a terrible analogy to explain your stance on spirituality, because you've taken something that's basis is purely for getting the correct answer and disregarded it against something, that's basis is on the lack of one and needing such an answer to be presented to you in an uncontrolled manner.

I may well have picked a terrible analogy, my apologies.

The only point I was trying to make was that human logic is not capable of grasping spiritual concepts because by their definition they deal with the spiritual world not the empirical world of logic, reason and science.

K4t · 02-02-2015 02:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That argument could be used against atheists too with atheist extremists like Pol Pot who had that campaign against Buddhists, Muslims and Christians in Cambodia.
Humans are humans whatever they believe or don't believe, but all are open to extremism, it just doesn't reside on one side.

You've misinterpreted my point. An atheist or a religious person who believes in science does not give intellectual cover to an atheist or a religious person who then goes and commits genocide, no matter who it is inflicted upon.
The religious person who believes in science does however give the extreme religious believers intellectual cover when lobbying the government in the name of religious beliefs and stuff written in the bible.
I also find it hilarious and slightly unsettling how you just throw in the Khymer regime without any relevancy in an attempt to twist the argument to your advantage. Amazing but not surprising.

Ghost Buster · 02-02-2015 04:31PM

Woodville56 wrote: »

Gay Byrne is no theologian so the excellence of Fry's answer must be seen against him pushing an open door unchallenged. He's been hawking this anti religion thing about for quite some time now and being an actor, he puts in a well polished performance - helps keep his media profile up too I suppose. If he's so angry and aghast at a deity who permits suffering and disasters to befall people, I'd love to know what his rationale is for when bad things happen good people ? If he doesn't believe in the existence of a vengeful God, how does he explain suffering in his atheistIc mindset? Seems to me his logic would be something along the lines of "ah well, sometimes sh*t happens "

Hes not angry at a deity, how could he be seeing as he doesnt believe it exists?
Dont you get that it was an answer to a hypothetical question!????
So , seeing as he stated in the interview that hes sees no greater point or meaning to the universe other than its very existance why in the hell do you think he needs to explain suffering or bad things happening to good people.?
He does not believe in any design, higher power, nut job creator...any of that.

Dan_Solo · 02-02-2015 04:39PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hes not angry at a deity, how could he be seeing as he doesnt believe it exists?
Dont you get that it was an answer to a hypothetical question!????
So , seeing as he stated in the interview that hes sees no greater point or meaning to the universe other than its very existance why in the hell do you think he needs to explain suffering or bad things happening to good people.
He does not believe in any design, higher power, nut job creator...any of that.

This seems a common problem. Some people can't even comprehend that other people don't believe their god exists. Or answering a hypothetical question means that you are saying you agree the hypothetical is a known fact.

robinph · 02-02-2015 05:02PM

Woodville56 wrote: »

Gay Byrne is no theologian so the excellence of Fry's answer must be seen against him pushing an open door unchallenged. He's been hawking this anti religion thing about for quite some time now and being an actor, he puts in a well polished performance - helps keep his media profile up too I suppose. If he's so angry and aghast at a deity who permits suffering and disasters to befall people, I'd love to know what his rationale is for when bad things happen good people ? If he doesn't believe in the existence of a vengeful God, how does he explain suffering in his atheistIc mindset? Seems to me his logic would be something along the lines of "ah well, sometimes sh*t happens "

Where did you get the idea that he's angry at a deity? He doesn't believe in a deity so how can he be angry with it?
He's also not aghast at this fictional deity, but he probably is aghast that people still believe in them despite the lack of any logical reason to do so.

Why do you think there needs to be a vengeful god in order for bad things to happen to good people?

"Sometimes sh*t happens" is a far more logical stance to take than believing that a vengeful god has decided to give you cancer, cause an earthquake, make your train to work late or make your sports team loose etc.

DublinWriter · 02-02-2015 05:09PM

pueblo wrote: »

Human logic and reasoning would be useless tools when dealing with a being so completely and utterly different to a human.

...yet we are allegedly made its image?

I absolutely *love* that cover all answer "Oh, we shall never know his ways and true intentions" that's used when the tricky questions about children with cancer get thrown about.

Dan_Solo · 02-02-2015 05:15PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

...yet we are allegedly made its image?

I absolutely *love* that cover all answer "Oh, we shall never know his ways and true intentions" that's used when the tricky questions about children with cancer get thrown about.

It's analogous to "the church does good, individuals in the church do bad."
"If God does good things it's because he's good, if God does bad things it's because we can't understand him."

RobertKK · 02-02-2015 05:26PM

K4t wrote: »

You've misinterpreted my point. An atheist or a religious person who believes in science does not give intellectual cover to an atheist or a religious person who then goes and commits genocide, no matter who it is inflicted upon.
The religious person who believes in science does however give the extreme religious believers intellectual cover when lobbying the government in the name of religious beliefs and stuff written in the bible.
I also find it hilarious and slightly unsettling how you just throw in the Khymer regime without any relevancy in an attempt to twist the argument to your advantage. Amazing but not surprising.

The problem with your argument is you put the religious person down as stupid. The extremist religious believer believes in science.
They use technology and science for bombs or the science that developed weapons, they didn't stay with the David and Goliath technology.

Dan_Solo · 02-02-2015 05:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem with your argument is you put the religious person down as stupid.

People can be wrong without being stupid.
It's just when they do it a lot you have to begin to wonder...

K4t · 02-02-2015 05:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem with your argument is you put the religious person down as stupid. The extremist religious believer believes in science.
They use technology and science for bombs or the science that developed weapons, they didn't stay with the David and Goliath technology.

Anyone who takes what is said in the Bible or the Koran literally, and furthermore attempts to influence law or public policy based on either, is stupid I'm afraid and most intelligent people, religious and non religious will agree with me on that, which further proves my original point.

edit: And that means not simply choosing the good bits.

RobertKK · 02-02-2015 05:39PM

K4t wrote: »

Anyone who takes what is said in the Bible or the Koran literally, and furthermore attempts to influence law or public policy based on either, is stupid I'm afraid and most intelligent people, religious and non religious will agree with me on that, which further proves my original point.

I take 'thou shalt not kill' literally, should our laws change so they don't copy the bible.

K4t · 02-02-2015 05:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I take 'thou shalt not kill' literally, should our laws change so they don't copy the bible.

Without simply choosing the bits which both people of faith and those not of faith would agree on was my point. You're so predictable. You simply want to win, like this all a big game to you.

Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Comments