What Would a Fake Religion, Or Undesigned Universe look like?

[sadhatter]

So one topic i find that is very important in the subject of woo of all kinds ( you may have noticed my other similar threads.) is how one can decide if someone is fake or not.


So i have two questions to two different ( but possibly overlapping groups) of people.

1) If you are an id'er, what would a universe that is not intelligently designed look like?

2) If not, what would a fake religion look like? By this i mean a religion that was made by humans for the purpose of control or money.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

 

[Ladewig]

2) If not, what would a fake religion look like? By this i mean a religion that was made by humans for the purpose of control or money.

I'm not saying Scientology was designed to control people or accumulate money, but if I were going to design a religion for those goals, I would copy every last element of Scientology.

just sign me "Commodore Ladewig"

 

[SOdhner]

2) If not, what would a fake religion look like? By this i mean a religion that was made by humans for the purpose of control or money.

Okay, so I'm understanding the question to be about a religion that is created as a deliberate fraud, where the founder does not believe what he (or she) is saying to be true. Certainly you're going to get some replies (and may have already by the time I finish writing this) that insist that's what they all are. I would disagree with that but while disagreeing I would have to also include many cults as real religions because some of the founders (even if greedy and doing it partly for control) really did believe that they were divine. Anyway, onwards:

Short answer? Scientology.

Long answer? Hmm. Well, clearly it would have to grant the religious leader either control or boatloads of money. That leader would want to maintain that position of power and so I would suspect that they would insist that only they can recieve or interpret the Truth in most cases. I would expect that apart from those traits they could vary greatly - some people are happy to have a small cult while others want something big and super-profitable. I could maybe make more specific predictions if I wanted to break it down by motivation. Control and money can go hand in hand, but the approach will be different.

If I am understanding your question correctly, a "fake" one could turn into a "real" one at some point and we might not ever be able to say. The founder dies, or buys into his own story, or is replaced, and the entire organization could be real believers. So... yeah. I don't think we can have a clear way to differentiate real from fake in this case.

If, instead, you are asking about actual Truth... that would depend on the predictions made my the religion. If it makes testable claims you can test it, otherwise you can't. I would say that failing those tests would make the religion as a whole wrong, although it would not prove that it isn't partially right in some part of its philosophy and teachings.

 

[sadhatter]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

Not a good analogy an automobile has been proven not to show up in nature, the universe is nature it is the most in nature thing one can get. Essentially your asking me to answer your question for you in this case by asking me to give a definition of an un designed object so you can reply with " it is like that". Without having to put your own thought into the issue. I assumed your doctor analogy was being made for a legitimate need to clarify my premise ( in the other thread). But now your simply trying to get me to deliver a response so you can piggyback onto it and not have to give your definition.

One knows it is hot out because one has experienced cooler temperatures, one knows someone is lying by comparing them with those that have told the truth. I am not asking myself what an un designed universe looks like, i am asking you.

No cheating avalon, eyes on your own paper, and answer the question.

( or avoid it , it is your choice. )

 

[Third Eye Open]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not a good analogy an automobile has been proven not to show up in nature, the universe is nature it is the most in nature thing one can get.

And here's the problem: we have exactly one universe.
If, as you yourself have said, we know differences by comparing, how can we be expected to hypothesize on something for which, by definition, there is no comparison?
You can't define an undesigned automobile because all automobiles are designed. How, then, can you expect an ID component to define an undesigned universe?

 

[Piscivore]

What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

 

[sadhatter]

Okay, so I'm understanding the question to be about a religion that is created as a deliberate fraud, where the founder does not believe what he (or she) is saying to be true. Certainly you're going to get some replies (and may have already by the time I finish writing this) that insist that's what they all are. I would disagree with that but while disagreeing I would have to also include many cults as real religions because some of the founders (even if greedy and doing it partly for control) really did believe that they were divine. Anyway, onwards:

Short answer? Scientology.

Long answer? Hmm. Well, clearly it would have to grant the religious leader either control or boatloads of money. That leader would want to maintain that position of power and so I would suspect that they would insist that only they can recieve or interpret the Truth in most cases. I would expect that apart from those traits they could vary greatly - some people are happy to have a small cult while others want something big and super-profitable. I could maybe make more specific predictions if I wanted to break it down by motivation. Control and money can go hand in hand, but the approach will be different.

If I am understanding your question correctly, a "fake" one could turn into a "real" one at some point and we might not ever be able to say. The founder dies, or buys into his own story, or is replaced, and the entire organization could be real believers. So... yeah. I don't think we can have a clear way to differentiate real from fake in this case.

If, instead, you are asking about actual Truth... that would depend on the predictions made my the religion. If it makes testable claims you can test it, otherwise you can't. I would say that failing those tests would make the religion as a whole wrong, although it would not prove that it isn't partially right in some part of its philosophy and teachings.

In this sense fake would be one which is not made by a supernatural being, it can include those who are deluded but does not nessecarily have to. Con men and loons all would be in the fake catagory.

So in reference to the truth argument then, could one not just make a religion that does not make testable claims? I could make all sorts of outrageous claims and then say " my god makes sure these cannot function if tested." And by your definition of being able to tell if they are fake, you couldn't. It seems a rather big flaw in your ability to judge truth from lies in regard to religion, no?

As for the con men or the deluded, i am not asking for what "we" use, i am asking you. Surely you have ways of telling if someone is a con man or not, and use them, or else you would be a member of any number of dozens of religions. So how do you decide this?

And furthermore, what religion do you support? That is kind of important for the purpose of the discussion. Without it one cannot see if you apply the same principals of detection to your religion as others.

 

[IMST]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_240214c2cd6fd665cc.jpg[/qimg]

aw...beat me to it.

 

[excaza]

The whole problem with ID is that the entire foundation of the 'theory' is that people can't accept that complicated processes could come from nothing but base elements. It is fascinating to me that, over the course of time, you can go from a bunch of elements to a complex cell that can take energy from the sun and convert it into life-sustaining nutrients. Some people can't accept that it can just happen and that it had to be 'designed' by some higher power. But unless you can prove that higher power, you've got no basis other than your incredulity but you also can't be proven wrong.

As for Avalon's question, I don't think he's trying to piggyback on anything, it's a very smart question. You can't have an automobile that wasn't intelligently designed. An automobile is, by definition, a design. I can see what he's getting at though. I think the analogy serves to illustrate the difficulty of the intelligent/non-intelligent design issue.

A 'non-intelligently designed' universe for someone who doesn't believe in a higher power would be this one. I don't know what a 'non-intelligently designed' universe would be like for someone who believes a higher power created this one. But if you believe that this universe is created by a higher power, I don't think you could have a universe that wasn't created by said higher power without having to ditch the higher power.

That last sentence made my brain hurt...

 

[AvalonXQ]

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

 

[excaza]

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

If ID is your (in general, not you specifically) thing, would there even be a universe without a designer?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If ID is your (in general, not you specifically) thing, would there even be a universe without a designer?

Generally ID is directed to showing evidence of design in life on Earth. Although it can be broader and extend to showing evidence of design in the universe at large, many ID proponents are satisfied to confine their arguments to the Earth biosphere. Many even acknowledge that the intelligence involved may be other than divine.

 

[sadhatter]

And here's the problem: we have exactly one universe.
If, as you yourself have said, we know differences by comparing, how can we be expected to hypothesize on something for which, by definition, there is no comparison?
You can't define an undesigned automobile because all automobiles are designed. How, then, can you expect an ID component to define an undesigned universe?

See i can though, i can tell exactly what an un designed car would look like. My issue is that whatever i say your going to say " see it would be like that" so i want to see that you have your own idea before i give you an answer to copy.

We are talking about a hypothetical here, i might not be able to compare two universes side by side, but i can compare our universe and a fictional universe ( lets say the marvel comics universe.).

If someone asked me, what would a universe populated by superheros look like. I could answer the question, and not only because i have examples a plenty in fiction, but i can look at our universe now and say " this is what would be different if superhero's were here." I don't have to have seen a universe with superhero's in it i just have to think of what differences there would be between this one and another one.

So again, eyes on your own paper, and answer the question. Unless your answer is that you cannot and have not fathomed an un designed universe.

 

[tsig]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

It could reproduce itself.

 

[excaza]

Generally ID is directed to showing evidence of design in life on Earth. Although it can be broader and extend to showing evidence of design in the universe at large, many ID proponents are satisfied to confine their arguments to the Earth biosphere. Many even acknowledge that the intelligence involved may be other than divine.

Then you get right back into the standard, yet to be answered arguments against ID. If you're confining it to Earth, what made the rest of the universe? If you're saying it was something other than divine, who designed that designer? You start getting into a ton of mental/verbal gymnastics in order to shoehorn everything into the ID concept so it makes some sense.

ID would be a nice, easy answer to a lot of questions, but so far it doesn't stand up at all.

 

[excaza]

My issue is that whatever i say your going to say " see it would be like that" so i want to see that you have your own idea before i give you an answer to copy.

While I may not agree with a lot of the stuff he says, I have yet to see Avalon behave in the fashion you're accusing him of. Personally, I'm quite curious to know what you think a non-intelligently design car would look like.

So again, eyes on your own paper, and answer the question. Unless your answer is that you cannot and have not fathomed an un designed universe.

Settle down, he already answered you.

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

 

[SOdhner]

In this sense fake would be one which is not made by a supernatural being, it can include those who are deluded but does not nessecarily have to. Con men and loons all would be in the fake catagory.

Ah! Okay, excellent. Thanks for the clarification.

So in reference to the truth argument then, could one not just make a religion that does not make testable claims? I could make all sorts of outrageous claims and then say " my god makes sure these cannot function if tested." And by your definition of being able to tell if they are fake, you couldn't. It seems a rather big flaw in your ability to judge truth from lies in regard to religion, no?

Yes and no. It means that I can't prove that it is fake, yes. I can still form an opinion.

Surely you have ways of telling if someone is a con man or not, and use them, or else you would be a member of any number of dozens of religions. So how do you decide this?

There's a number of factors. First, I have ruled out the idea that God likes to run around performing miracles because I can't find any proof of it and so, in the absence of proof, I default to the status quo of "Things Aren't Magic". After that, I look at the philosophy. Many religions have a rule that tells you to not be a jerk, which I approve of for several reasons and seems to serve a purpose in society as a whole.

Where they disagree, I ask myself if I can find justification for those beliefs. Homosexuality is evil? Hmm. Well, how would that manifest in society? What evidence might we point to? If there's none at all and the answer from the religion is "No impact here, it's only bad in an unobservable way and you'll be judged for it when you die" then I have to decide if they seem to be a credible source.

That brings me to the question of whether or not I think people can commune directly with a divine source. Again, I've seen no proof of this and the status quo says people don't chat with god so I say they're almost certainly making it up (or confused, or insane, or whatever).

And furthermore, what religion do you support? That is kind of important for the purpose of the discussion. Without it one cannot see if you apply the same principals of detection to your religion as others.

The church I support is a lovely little United Methodist community. I don't agree with them on all things but that would be the case with any church I went to. The reason I attend is that I agree with them on the underlying philosophical points whether or not their religious reasoning is true, and they are good at making me stop and think about important issues in society. Left to my own, I might not self-examine as much and I think there is benefit to that. Furthermore, in the church I attend they openly encourage people to doubt and question as a means to spiritual growth. They don't insist that they are always right and don't think the bible was divinely guided or anything. That means I can attend for the examination of moral responsibility and social awareness without worrying about religious claims.

 

[sadhatter]

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

If one states a universe that was un designed would have no life, what are you using to base this statement on?

To make the statement that a universe would need life to be designed, one is making the inference that they know about all possible methods and reasons of design. So i would like you to now explain how a lack of life necessarily implies a lack of design. What evidence have you observed that shows a correlation between lack of life and lack of design?