Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[Florestan]

Good post. I can't disagree with anything you've said.

Thank you. I'm glad we have found a common ground.

I think (and please let me know if I am guilty of putting words into your mouth) where we differ, though, is that I don't find all such positions equally logical. Let me put it (rather crudely, admittedly) this way: there's no evidence for or against the existence of an invisible and completely undetectable banana floating in space just past the Andromeda Galaxy. Neither a believer or non-believer in said banana (I know, it's silly — sorry, I just couldn't think of anything else) can prove his/her position with certainty. There is no scientific/conclusive evidence one way or the other, but does that make both positions equally logical?

Define "logical", please. 

I agree with you, though, that not believing in the banana's existence is, indeed, a form of belief. But not all beliefs are logical equals. In fact, as I've said before, since we can never know anything with 100% certainty, all "knowledge" is, in fact, belief to some extent.

This is my position as well. We are mostly in agreement, it seems.

[Herman]

There's always the possibility that art, in Plato's time, did not achieve the same level of transcendence as it did in Europe.

Uh, hello? The art from Plato's era is regarded as one of the pinnacles of Western art history  -  the marvellously subtle statues at the Parthenon. the dramatic and lyric poetry, the painted vases.

It took hundreds and hundreds of years for art in the western world to get to that sublime level again.

Also, Athens is in Europe. (Europe is a Greek word.)

[Josquin des Prez]

Uh, hello? The art from Plato's era is regarded as one of the pinnacles of Western art history  -  the marvellously subtle statues at the Parthenon. the dramatic and lyric poetry, the painted vases.

I'm not going to argue the Greeks weren't supreme aesthetics, but do you really think their painted and sculpted art compares with the level of transcendence achieved in a piece by Bach, or one by Beethoven, in terms of what Plato is trying to express? Further, that quote doesn't say anything about poetry, and Plato himself quoted Homer extensively in his work, so perhaps he was speaking of the representational arts alone.

[Herman]

I'm not going to argue the Greeks weren't supreme aesthetics, but do you really think their painted and sculpted art compares with the level of transcendence achieved in a piece by Bach, or one by Beethoven,

Oh definitely. There's no question. I hate to play the numbers game but when you are in the Louvre museum you will see large numbers of visitors admiring the Milo Venus and the Samothrake Nike and many other things from the classical era of Greek sculpture that have never been in a concert hall listening to Bach.

Greek art is still revered and written about and studied 2500 years after. Let's wait and see how Beethoven fares.

[aquablob]

Thank you. I'm glad we have found a common ground.

Define "logical", please. 

This is my position as well. We are mostly in agreement, it seems.

As I implied in my post about the EM waves, the "logical position to take" must not be confused with "knowing truth," although the two also are not mutually exclusive. I obviously could be mistaken in not believing in God, but if one does not assume God's existence in the first place, I do not think the "logical position to take" is believing that God exists, given the lack of empirical evidence (or even, as I discussed earlier, convincing indirect evidence that forces one to deduce that God's existence is at least very likely). People will differ in interpreting the evidence, of course, but I'd like to add once again that I've never met a religious scientist who view his/her religious beliefs in the same way he/she views his/her belief in the theory of general relativity, for example.

But faith, as I see it (based on experience and conversations with religious friends, whom I respect and love as well as my non-religious friends, by the way), is a different matter altogether. I'm sure that my inability to relate to religious faith on a personal level is a result of my upbringing. I certainly can relate to feelings of spirituality, though, which seem to be universal. I think I experience moments of spirituality when listening to music that overwhelms me, for example, or when I share a special moment with my wife (whatever that means ).

[Josquin des Prez]

Oh definitely. There's no question. I hate to play the numbers game but when you are in the Louvre museum you will see large numbers of visitors admiring the Milo Venus and the Samothrake Nike and many other things from the classical era of Greek sculpture that have never been in a concert hall listening to Bach.

Greek art is still revered and written about and studied 2500 years after. Let's wait and see how Beethoven fares.

You misunderstood what i'm trying to say, and Plato as well, from the look of it. Read the original context. I'm not disputing the fact the Greeks were among the greatest artists in human history. In fact, i'd go so far as arguing nobody has ever achieved the same level of aesthetic heights as they. But from the point of view of something that transcends the mere stimulation of the senses, something that goes beyond, right into the world of metaphysics, i don't think a painted vase can do that.

[Florestan]

I was just playing your game. As JdP correctly noted, if the existence and actions of God would explain the origin of life, Universe and man, then it would be logical to consider it, if only as a hypothesis; on the other hand, the flying trans-Andromedan banana would explain nothing, not even its own existence and as such it would be illogical to consider it even as a mere hypothesis.

To summarize: belief in God without conclusive evidence is more logical than belief in banana in the same conditions. Thus, I agree again with you once again: not all beliefs are equally logical.

But faith, as I see it (based on experience and conversations with religious friends, whom I respect and love as well as my non-religious friends, by the way), is a different matter altogether.

Absolutely, otherwise it wouldn't be faith.

[Herman]

You misunderstood what i'm trying to say, and Plato as well, from the look of it. Read the original context. I'm not disputing the fact the Greeks were among the greatest artists in human history. In fact, i'd go so far as arguing nobody has ever achieved the same level of aesthetic heights as they. But from the point of view of something that transcends the mere stimulation of the senses, something that goes beyond, right into the world of metaphysics, i don't think a painted vase can do that.

Yes, I misunderstood, and no, those classical painted vases were not meant to be transcendant art. They have however become so, to a degree, because of their history.

However the best Greek sculptures are not "mere stimulation of the senses". They tell us something about life, death ina sublime way. And remember music is just vibrating air, too.

[aquablob]

I was just playing your game. As JdP correctly noted, if the existence and actions of God would explain the origin of life, Universe and man, then it would be logical to consider it, if only as a hypothesis; on the other hand, the flying trans-Andromedan banana would explain nothing, not even its own existence and as such it would be illogical to consider it even as a mere hypothesis.

To summarize: belief in God without conclusive evidence is more logical than belief in banana in the same conditions. Thus, I agree again with you once again: not all beliefs are equally logical.

Absolutely, otherwise it wouldn't be faith.

Fair enough!

[Sergeant Rock]

But from the point of view of something that transcends the mere stimulation of the senses, something that goes beyond, right into the world of metaphysics, i don't think a painted vase can do that.

Keats disagrees with you:

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard/Are sweeter...  "Ode to a Grecian Urn"

Sarge

[Josquin des Prez]

Keats disagrees with you:

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard/Are sweeter...  "Ode to a Grecian Urn"

Sarge

Yeah, but Keats was British, what did he know about music?   

[Florestan]

Yeah, but Keats was British, what did he know about music?   

Apparently, a lot...  0:)

[Homo Aestheticus]

And remember music is just vibrating air, too.

I agree with you although Mr. Barenboim does not:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2009/feb/03/music-daniel-barenboim-paradox

His ideas about music are somewhat cringe-inducing to read; I draw the line at transcendence and nothing more. 

[karlhenning]

His ideas about music are somewhat cringe-inducing to read

One of the very few things you have in common with Mr Barenboim, no doubt.

[DavidRoss]

One of the very few things you have in common with Mr Barenboim, no doubt.

Through the nose, Karl!  (And that was my last cup of coffee, too!)

[drogulus]

To summarize: belief in God without conclusive evidence is more logical than belief in banana in the same conditions. Thus, I agree again with you once again: not all beliefs are equally logical.

     I think they are the same logically. All you need is the initial premise and the logic takes you to the position you always intended to arrive at. Empirically bananas have the edge since they exist unproblematically, so a godlike banana has already passed the first, admittedly easy test. The erroneous superiority of a god over a banana is a matter of a defended tradition.

    And you can't say that a banana is more ridiculous than a god without raising this question: Since a banana can be defined in such a manner as to exclude other banana-like phenomena whereas a god is designed to escape definition and disproof doesn't that make a banana falsifiable while a god is merely a nullity, a hypothesis that can't be tested?

     Advantage: Banana. Not on logical grounds, but as a testable hypothesis. We reserve our greatest derision for those propositions which, in the famous saying, do not even get to be wrong. Wiki says:

     An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively, theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything.

[Josquin des Prez]

     I think they are the same logically. All you need is the initial premise and the logic takes you to the position you always intended to arrive at. Empirically bananas have the edge since they exist unproblematically, so a godlike banana has already passed the first, admittedly easy test. The erroneous superiority of a god over a banana is a matter of a defended tradition.

    And you can't say that a banana is more ridiculous than a god without raising this question: Since a banana can be defined in such a manner as to exclude other banana-like phenomena whereas a god is designed to escape definition and disproof doesn't that make a banana falsifiable while a god is merely a nullity, a hypothesis that can't be tested?

     Advantage: Banana. Not on logical grounds, but as a testable hypothesis. We reserve our greatest derision for those propositions which, in the famous saying, do not even get to be wrong. Wiki says:

     An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively, theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything.

I think your argument is fallacious. The object of our discussion is not bananas proper, but undetectable bananas floating in space, which is a completely different entity. Further more, by your argument, God too is a testable hypothesis, since, being created to his image, we know that he is similar to us, which means god is man, except he is all powerful and all knowing, much like an invisible floating space banana is a banana, except it is invisible and space floating. Therefore, the untestable element here is the all powerful and all knowing, as well as the invisible and space floating.

[Benji]

God too is a testable hypothesis, since, being created to his image, we know that he is similar to us, which means god is man,

Now that's a logical fallacy. Can you not see that you're using completely circular reasoning?

[drogulus]

Further more, by your argument, God too is a testable hypothesis, since, being created to his image, we know that he is similar to us, which means god is man, except he is all powerful and all knowing, much like an invisible floating space banana is a banana, except it is invisible and space floating. Therefore, the untestable element here is the all powerful and all knowing, as well as the invisible space floating.

     Whaddaya mean, we know??

     How do you know what in this basket of claims is logical, or even seriously asserted? Never mind, serious or not, no one has found anything remotely like your proposal. How is similarity to us consistent with total unknowability beyond space, time, and reason?

     Bananas exist, OK? An Andromedan banana is very unlikely, but it isn't a logical absurdity or a bundle of imponderables. What does a god resemble if it doesn't resemble anything? Your estimate of what is or isn't logical or otherwise is not convincing. And you completely underestimate the nonsensicality of the ever shifting cloud of god assertions. The lack of stability in their various expressions screams bullshit. This bullshit was designed by an evasive tradition uncomfortable with any idea of truth that threatened to turn around and bite it.

     And so we have to have Andromedan bananas just to show where these propositions stand if you seriously try to make sense of them. Gods are more likely than Andromedan bananas? Sadly it turns out that we can't tell!!! Can it get any worse (better?) than that??  _0:)

[Josquin des Prez]

Bananas exist, OK?

Invisible space floating bananas do not, or rather, we don't know, much like all powerful and all knowing men with gray flowing beards do not exist, or rather, we don't know. The fact that the invisible space faring banana is banana-like doesn't mean that it is in fact a banana. It is invisible, and it is space floating. I believe that, in this sense, the undetectability and the location of the banana are exactly on the same plane as the all powerful and all knowing qualities of this man-like being who is watching us from the clouds. That is, they are specific characters which must be accepted as an article of faith. That we know what a banana is can only give us unrelated information outside the article of faith. That is, if we were to actually discover an invisible space floating banana, we know that, it being a banana, it can be peeled, and eaten. Likewise, if we were ever to meet God, knowing that he is man-like, we would expect man-like qualities, like the ability to speak and reason, or the ability to feel emotion, like anger.

In essence, what i'm trying to say here is that what makes the invisible space floating banana and the all powerful and all knowing being similar is that they both must be accepted as an article of faith, which means you cannot test the invisible space floating in the banana anymore then you can test the all powerful and all knowing in God. If you say that the invisible space floating banana is a testable hypothesis, then it means that the original comparison was faulty, for you could have as easily argued that the banana currently residing in the house next door must be accepted as an article of faith, since i do not really know whether it is there or not, where i could simply call the neighbor and ask if they posses a banana, or walk to their house and see it for myself. The point of introducing the space faring banana is that it is an untestable hypothesis.

Thus, empirically, God and the banana are exactly the same.

Gods are more likely than Andromedan bananas?

I never said that, nor did Florestan. All i did is explain why one is more likely to be believed in then the other. Imagine you are a scientist who's job is to explain a particular natural phenomena. On one side, you have an hypothesis, which might explain the phenomena but is ultimately untestable, and on the other you have an undetectable flying spaghetti monster roaming the streets of New York. Which one are you more likely to consider, in relation to the natural phenomena you were studying to begin with?

Now, if you said that the space floating banana was God (as opposed to the man with the gray flowing beard living in a cloud), then you have a different argument on your hands.