Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[DavidRoss]

Two words: 'Occam's Razor'.  It is simply unnecessary to hypothesize a parallel, 'spiritual' universe.  A spiritual universe might be a happy, comforting concept but isn't necessary to address any statable problem or issue.

That is, the only use of the spiritual universe concept is to comform the those whose sensibilities can't cope with the material universe.  I dare say it's the position of most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers that it's not to the advantage of the human race to believe in humbug just because it offers short-term stress relief to some individuals.

Relying on Ockham's principle to support a proposition contrary to it is rather amusing.  Your strawman "parallel spiritual universe" is either intentional intellectual dishonesty or reflects a naive misunderstanding of the concept of "spiritual."  And your dismissal of those who do not share your biases or unexamined assumptions as "irrational believers in humbug for the sake of short-term stress relief" discredits you far more than it does those you seek to discredit, and proclaims your present incapacity to investigate such matters with the fair-minded objectivity necessary if such inquiry is to be at all meaningful save as an exercise to shore up the preconceptions of an uncritical mind enthralled to a learned set of beliefs.

Come on, you've demonstrated reasonable intelligence.  Now, if such issues really matter to you (and if they don't why are you here?), please apply that intelligence to ferreting out the obstacles to open-mindedness in your own psyche.  Then you will at least enjoy the possibility of getting more out of these questions than the pleasure of patting yourself on the back.  

[Cato]

A: "Where did the Universe come from?"

B: "A vacuum fluctuation following the probabilistic laws of quantum tunneling allowed the Universe to exist after the tunneling with a finite size which decayed asymmetrically causing an inflationary phase."

A: "Where did all that come from?"

B: "Vilenkin shows that it came ex nihilo, as I just said, by a random, uncaused vacuum fluctuation."

Occam (overhearing): "Easier: it came from God, and by the way, Mister B, you could use a shave!"   0:)

Three spellings of William's name exist, like parallel universes: Ockhegm, Ockham, and Occam.

I prefer the Latinized version: it's just...easier!  

To be fair and more precise: Occam was against adding things to explanations: somewhat different from saying that the simplest or easiest solution tends to be right.

[Catison]

Fine: I'll concede that many scientists and rational thinkers believe in God.  What I'm not about to concede is these people are "completely rational", rather they have decide to compartmentalize their lives between what is based on observable, verifyable fact, and what is wishful thinking.

So it is wishful thinking to suppose God exists, but it is not wishful thinking to suppose, a priori, science gives us truth?

So let's consider theology a rational disipline, (for the sake of argument).  Rational certainly, but based on, and constrained by, premises that are not.

So what rational premises do you propose as an alternative?

[PSmith08]

So it is wishful thinking to suppose God exists, but it is not wishful thinking to suppose, a priori, science gives us truth?

Well, it's not wishful thinking so much as a grave misunderstanding about what science can do on its own terms. That is, finally, my biggest problem with the recourse to science in this debate. Unobserved phenomena are not necessarily excluded by science. Science takes no notice of things that cannot be observed because it has no other option. Taking recourse to a blind spot imposed by definition does not seem like a terribly clever move.

[DavidRoss]

Three spellings of William's name exist, like parallel universes: Ockhegm, Ockham, and Occam.

I prefer the Latinized version: it's just...easier!  

I like the Anglish one, probably because I grew up with it!

[Elgarian]

[Quoting Feanor: "Yes, of course.  To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the physical universe." A serious category error, here, and an extraordinary statement of belief expressed as if a statement of fact.

I was just about to pounce on this myself, but then noticed that you beat me to it, David. I'll leave it in your capable hands.

What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.

[Catison]

What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.

I am still learning myself, so please, if I make any errors, point them out!

[Cato]

I was just about to pounce on this myself, but then noticed that you beat me to it, David. I'll leave it in your capable hands.

What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.

"The sentence below this one is false."
"The sentence above this one is false."

Bitte! Herr Gödel!  Telefon!   

[Elgarian]

Not meant to be taken literally; obviously it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products . . . .

Not literally? ... So when the Clotted Cream Priest speaketh of the Great Cheese that will come among us from the Milky Whey at the End of All Things, you believe he speaks merely symbolically?

This will disappoint MN Dave.

[Dr. Dread]

"The sentence below this one is false."
"The sentence above this one is false."

Bitte! Herr Gödel!  Telefon!   

The next thing I say to you will be true. The last thing I said was false.

[Dr. Dread]

Not literally? ... So when the Clotted Cream Priest speaketh of the Great Cheese that will come among us from the Milky Whey at the End of All Things, you believe he speaks merely symbolically?

This will disappoint MN Dave.

The cheese stands alone.

[karlhenning]

The cheese stands alone.

Ah, another fan of Robert Sheckley's Dramocles: An Intergalactic Soap-Opera !!

[Elgarian]

I am still learning myself, so please, if I make any errors, point them out!

Just reading through what I wrote, I can see it might seem patronising. I'm sorry if it seemed so to you (or anyone else) - it's not at all what I intended. I was just feeling a bit faint-hearted at the thought of having to go over the same ground all over again. Not because I understand something that others don't; but because if we keep on making these category errors, nobody will ever be able to understand anything.

[Elgarian]

"The sentence below this one is false."
"The sentence above this one is false."

It's the sentence in the middle that worries me. People keep telling me it doesn't exist!

[karlhenning]

. . . I was just feeling a bit faint-hearted at the thought of having to go over the same ground all over again.

Entirely understand this sentiment, mon ami. Especially when (as happily has not happened on this thread apart from the OP) the neighbors with whom you have been having the discussion, start up again a week later, with no apparent memory that the ground has been covered before.

With eighteen coats.

And varnished.

[DavidRoss]

I was just about to pounce on this myself, but then noticed that you beat me to it, David. I'll leave it in your capable hands.

What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.

I suspect the reason for this oversight is that:

(a) they haven't the background to understand the concept, and
(b) they haven't bothered to inquire about its significance, because
(c) they fear the possibility of learning something that
(d) might require them to re-evaluate some of their cherished beliefs and (horrors!)
(e) admit (to themselves at least) that they might be wrong about something--

which just begs another question, because I cannot imagine why anyone of at least moderate intelligence wouldn't be vitally interested in knowing whether some of his core beliefs are in error, for otherwise he is condemned to acting in ways that may be inconsistent with and even contrary to his own values and interests.

[Elgarian]

they [the 'scientist/rationalist believers'] have decide to compartmentalize their lives between what is based on observable, verifyable fact, and what is wishful thinking.

There - right there - are several entwined problematic statements. To pick out but two, we have:
(a) the assumption that 'observable, verifiable fact' has the last word in these discussions. But that really is only an assumption; remember: 'The final outcome of philosophic thought cannot be based solely on the exact statements of exact sciences. The exactness is a fake.'
(b) the assertion that any alternative view is 'wishful thinking' - as if the comforting security of a dependence on 'observable, verifiable fact' were somehow free of any such possibility.

[DavidRoss]

Entirely understand this sentiment, mon ami. Especially when (as happily has not happened on this thread apart from the OP) the neighbors with whom you have been having the discussion, start up again a week later, with no apparent memory that the ground has been covered before.

With eighteen coats.

And varnished.

And then stripped to bare wood with the whole process starting again. 

[DavidRoss]

...as if the comforting security of a dependence on 'observable, verifiable fact' were somehow free of any such possibility.

Is it not surprising that the implications of the uncertainty principle are still not commonly understood--especially by people who claim to respect science and reason?

[karlhenning]

(b) the assertion that any alternative view is 'wishful thinking' - as if the comforting security of a dependence on 'observable, verifiable fact' were somehow free of any such possibility.

Yes, roughly equal parts of problematic and scornful of dissent.