Here is a brilliant review of Dawkins's "The God Delusion", brilliant with only minor flaws:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
It is by Alvin Plantinga, a theist philosopher who is held in the highest regard by Quentin Smith, one of the house-hold names for American philosophical atheism. Quentin thinks Plantinga to be so influential that he holds him largely responsible for initiating the desecularisation of academic philosophy from the 1960s onwards:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/metaphilosophy_of_naturalism.htm
A few side notes:
a) The flatness problem of the universe that Plantinga mentions is largely believed to be solved by the scientific theory of inflation (inflation is supposed to have taken place in the first few split moments of the universe), although nobody has yet shown the required inflaton field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
However, even without the flatness problem there is enough extraordinary specificity in the laws of nature that the strength of the fine-tuning argument is not affected.
b) The quote of Stephen Hawking should read (editing problem in the text):
reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 1012 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 1010 K would have resulted in the Universe's starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 K.
c) I don't necessarily think that Plantinga implies with his sentence:
"Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life",
that he holds impossible an origin of life by natural causes (which, in the theist's view, are the secondary causes by which God creates).
Rather, it is clear that this sentence is just part of the larger argument in which Plantinga plays along with Dawkins's argument about God and DNA and along the way refutes it philosophically.
***
This time I will not participate in the discussion, but sit back and enjoy.
Al
That was long, and I have to re-read to fully grasp it, but a couple of things on simplicity that made me scratch my head. First of all Plantinga's (and the other theists' he mentions) insistence on God being simple as opposed to complex is deceiving in the sense that the description of a God in spirit not composed of complex parts does not mean 'simple' in the sense that they use in their arguments. A spirit, if there was one, is by no means 'simple' simply because it is not made of complex parts.
Secondly, and more importantly, if God is simple this would refute the most basic theist argument that complexity cannot arise from simplicity wouldn't it?
Quote from: orbital on March 03, 2008, 02:21:47 PM
Secondly, and more importantly, if God is simple this would refute the most basic theist argument that complexity cannot arise from simplicity wouldn't it?
so i guess both atheists and theists are wrong.
Having learned that, i'm sure there will be a new belief system that conquers them all- The-A-ists! 0:)
Quote from: orbital on March 03, 2008, 02:21:47 PM
Secondly, and more importantly, if God is simple this would refute the most basic theist argument that complexity cannot arise from simplicity wouldn't it?
Outstanding! It would validate "no skyhooks, only cranes" by admitting that cranes do all the work. If simplicity doesn't require initial complexity, complexity goes back to being the product of, rather than the cause of, the processes that constitute our universe.
A pity my paperback copy of The God Delusion is on loan to a friend; in the updated introduction I think Dawkins addressed Plantinga's arguments briefly.
A few folks on the Dawkins forum (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=28397&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) have read Plantinga. An interesting read. :)
Quote from: Brian on March 04, 2008, 11:19:15 AM
A few folks on the Dawkins forum (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=28397&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) have read Plantinga. An interesting read. :)
Just want to bolster my recommendation. The more you scroll down, the more interesting the reading gets. :)
Quote from: Brian on March 03, 2008, 09:22:32 PM
A pity my paperback copy of The God Delusion is on loan to a friend; in the updated introduction I think Dawkins addressed Plantinga's arguments briefly.
Yes, he does. Plantinga would be an embarassment to philosophy, if he were not an apologist. That excuses everything since apologists are not required to believe what they say. They are sham reasoners (for more on sham reasoning see Susan Haack: Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism (http://csicop.org/si/9711/preposterism.html)).
Quote from: drogulus on March 04, 2008, 11:55:59 AM
Yes, he does. Plantinga would be an embarassment to philosophy, if he were not an apologist. That excuses everything since apologists are not required to believe what they say. They are sham reasoners (for more on sham reasoning see Susan Haack: Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism (http://csicop.org/si/9711/preposterism.html)).
What did Dawkins say about this review?
Here is the entire debate between Rabbi Boteach and Christopher Hitchens .
The Rabbi made a fool out of him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ
Quote from: Saul on March 06, 2008, 07:25:30 AM
Here is the entire debate between Rabbi Boteach and Christopher Hitchens .
The Rabbi made a fool out of him.
You think? No one else who watched the debate seems to think so, as you can see here (http://www.jewcy.com/faithhacker/royal_rumble_hitchens_vs_boteach), here (http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_full_god_debate_video/) and here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/christopher-hitchens-bot_n_84369.html)
A few of the comments worth repeating, just because they're kind of funny:
"In the cab on the way home, we coined a new phrase: 'To Shmuley,' denoting the making of pathetic, unsupported non-sequitur arguments and the taking of flailingly weak intellectual positions, with a dash of name-dropping bluster thrown in for good measure. Excruciating."
"After the way Hitchens treated Boteach, it was a little hypocritical of him to chastise God for condoning bloodbaths."
"Hitchens wiped the floor with Boteach to such an extent that it was actually Hitchens who lost, in a sense, just by showing up. Lost stature, that is."
"Here's the thing... despite both Hitchens and Boteach being annoying, self-righteous egomaniacs, there's a difference between the two. Last night's debate taught me that Hitchens is an intelligent, annoying, self-righteous egomaniac. I wish I could say the same for Boteach."
I can't judge for myself at the moment, as the computer I'm using doesn't have sound. Thanks for the link, anyway. I'll try keep an open mind while watching.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 06, 2008, 08:31:39 AM
You think? No one else who watched the debate seems to think so, as you can see here (http://www.jewcy.com/faithhacker/royal_rumble_hitchens_vs_boteach), here (http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_full_god_debate_video/) and here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/christopher-hitchens-bot_n_84369.html)
A few of the comments worth repeating, just because they're kind of funny:
"In the cab on the way home, we coined a new phrase: 'To Shmuley,' denoting the making of pathetic, unsupported non-sequitur arguments and the taking of flailingly weak intellectual positions, with a dash of name-dropping bluster thrown in for good measure. Excruciating."
"After the way Hitchens treated Boteach, it was a little hypocritical of him to chastise God for condoning bloodbaths."
"Hitchens wiped the floor with Boteach to such an extent that it was actually Hitchens who lost, in a sense, just by showing up. Lost stature, that is."
"Here's the thing... despite both Hitchens and Boteach being annoying, self-righteous egomaniacs, there's a difference between the two. Last night's debate taught me that Hitchens is an intelligent, annoying, self-righteous egomaniac. I wish I could say the same for Boteach."
I can't judge for myself at the moment, as the computer I'm using doesn't have sound. Thanks for the link, anyway. I'll try keep an open mind while watching.
You measure your understanding and your ideaology based on what others say about the debates?
Dont you have your own brains?
Listen to the towering questions the Rabbi asked and how he destroyed Hitchens' foundation.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 06, 2008, 08:31:39 AM
"Here's the thing... despite both Hitchens and Boteach being annoying, self-righteous egomaniacs, there's a difference between the two. Last night's debate taught me that Hitchens is an intelligent, annoying, self-righteous egomaniac. I wish I could say the same for Boteach."
That's a pretty accurate summary there. I'm far from a fan of Hitchens (I don't care for his
anti-religious stance at all), but he carried himself quite well in that debate...
Quote from: Saul on March 06, 2008, 10:31:05 AM
You measure your understanding and your ideaology based on what others say about the debates?
Dont you have your own brains?
Listen to the towering questions the Rabbi asked and how he destroyed Hitchens' foundation.
"Shrunk" did say this:
QuoteI can't judge for myself at the moment, as the computer I'm using doesn't have sound. Thanks for the link, anyway. I'll try keep an open mind while watching.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 06, 2008, 02:51:14 AM
What did Dawkins say about this review?
I don't know if he's made a statement about it. He did address arguments for the existence of gods, including the design and ontological aruments (the latter now associated with Plantinga), in Chapter 3 and then goes on to discuss arguments against in Chapter 4.
I note that Marxist critic Terry Eagleton agrees with believers who scorn Dawkin's reasoning on the grounds that Dawkins doesn't pay sufficient attention to the subtleties of theology. This is not surprising when you think about it, since Marxists, postmodernists, and religionists all relativize conceptions of truth to beliefs. So, if I want to know what's true about Roman Paganism I can do all the research I want, but until I actually sacrifice a white bull to Jupiter I'm not allowed to say it's false.
Plantinga says that Dawkins is assuming materialism when he asserts that a creator god must be complex. He's also jumping to a conclusion himself when he treats the properties of any supernatural being as infinitely variable for the purposes of his argument (complex enough to create a universe, simple enough to be a source of things) and yet unknowable for the purposes of evading any analysis but his own.
Besides, Plantinga is assuming materialism, too, if he thinks he can avoid the regression problem by positing simplicity. Why would he need to do that unless he was trying to avoid the implications of Dawkins's supposedly materialism-based argument?? Why is he trying to fix a problem he says he doesn't have?
Platinga makes exactly the same 'mistakes' that he accuses Dawkins of, in that he claims that Dawkins is wrong, so God must exist. Great argument ::)
And Saul.....Boteach did NOT wipe the floor with Hitchens. The only the reason you think so is because he supports the side that you cling so pathetically onto. That IS the only reason. Why don't you give reasons as to why Boteach was so convincing, and not Hitchens? No.....that would require actual thought, and from that, logic and reason which would, in turn, attack the fanatic fundamentalism from which you take so much comfort.
Not going to happen.
Quote from: Saul on March 06, 2008, 07:25:30 AM
Here is the entire debate between Rabbi Boteach and Christopher Hitchens .
The Rabbi made a fool out of him.
The other way around actually :-\
I watched the whole thing, and the Rabbi was preaching rather than debating. Even the presenter (who is, too, a rabbi I think?) made some fun of Mr. Boteach. It was really embarrassing to watch him talk about scientists who have changed their theories about the age of the earth. Clearly for someone who has no respect for scientific method it must look that way :-\
Quote from: orbital on March 06, 2008, 01:14:47 PM
The other way around actually :-\
I watched the whole thing, and the Rabbi was preaching rather than debating. Even the presenter (who is, too, a rabbi I think?) made some fun of Mr. Boteach. It was really embarrassing to watch him talk about scientists who have changed their theories about the age of the earth. Clearly for someone who has no respect for scientific method it must look that way :-\
The other Rabbi is not a real Rabbi because he is reform, and perhaps a heretic himself.
Rabbi Boteach debated in a great manner, asking great questions and bringing towering points to the discussions. What did Hitchy did besides cast some stupid jokes , talking like an arrogant moron who thinks he rules the world. The Rabbi, if you listen carefully asked extremly strong questions...
Can you answer them?
And you know what's also sad?
Christopher Hitchens is Jewish:
Wikipedia
Ethnic identity
In an article in the Guardian Unlimited on April 14, 2002, Hitchens says he is Jewish because Jewish descent is matrilineal. According to Hitchens, when his brother, Peter, took his new bride to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her 90s, Dodo said, "She's Jewish, isn't she?" and then announced: "Well, I've got something to tell you. So are you." She said that her real surname was Levin, not Lynn, and that her ancestors were Blumenthals from Poland.[99] According to The Observer of 14 April 2002, Christopher "insists that he is Jewish," and explored the issue in depth in the title essay of his book Prepared for the Worst.
In a column he wrote for the Los Angeles Times on February 9, 2006, Hitchens wrote, "my grandmother told me as an adult that both she and my mother were Jewish, and it sent me looking for my forebears on the German-Polish border". Peter Hitchens disputes that the brothers have significant Jewish ancestry, adding that "they are only one 32nd Jewish".[99] Nonetheless, according to Halakha, Jewish maternal lineage guarantees one to legally be considered a "full-blooded" Jew, regardless of the father's ethnicity or religion.
Quote from: Saul on March 06, 2008, 06:10:47 PM
The other Rabbi is not a real Rabbi because he is reform, and perhaps a heretic himself.
::)
Quote from: just josh on March 06, 2008, 07:29:39 PM
::)
He is a conservative "Rabbi".. it means nothing...
Quote from: Shrunk on March 06, 2008, 08:31:39 AM
You think? No one else who watched the debate seems to think so, as you can see here (http://www.jewcy.com/faithhacker/royal_rumble_hitchens_vs_boteach), here (http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_full_god_debate_video/) and here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/christopher-hitchens-bot_n_84369.html)
The funny thing is that a lot of the positive comments are very obviously from our very own Saul here, appearing under the name of "saulboyit".
The rabbi has a few good points there. Yes, we have the potential for "higher qualities", we can be "compassionate" and "inspired", and we can somehow grow beyond an animal that was shaped by relentless evolution or whatever other mechanisms of development were at work there. I completely agree. I also agree with him in principle that the potential for "goodness" and "righteousness" is innate in us, and that we should develop that.
However, I don't see at all what all that has to do with adhering to a primitive tribal religion. In fact, adhering to that kind of primitive tribal religious thinking really stands in the way of realizing such ideals on a broader scale. He is also wrong about assuming and claiming that people who do not adhere to such superstitions can not live up to high standards. Here, he is directly contradicting himself, because if the potential for goodness is innate in us, why should we need "divine commandments" then to see that? He is also wrong when he says that the 10 commandments are so powerful and binding because they were given by "god". Like the one which says "thou shalt not kill". Only a few pages later in the bible, it is all about killing and decimating and erasing entire peoples.
I am not surprised that within his 15 minutes expose, he builds in all that, and of course, references to Hitler and the holocaust, and the fact that even though that happened, Jews were so bound by those commandments that they didn't blow up buses and other stuff in reaction to the persecution. That is very sad and simplistic populism which, of course, points towards the current situation in Israel. Simplistic, populist, clever, and very immoral and calculated. People like that rabbi are very dangerous because they have clear onjectives and goals and use simplistic propagandist techniques to snare in simple minds, like our friend Saul here.
All his comments about evolution and all that are also nonsense. Sure, evolution is a brutal and merciless principle, but recognizing it doesn't mean one has to condone the "survival of the fittest" as something humans have to implement, too, by killing off weaker people. That is where our human greatness and compassion can come into play. But that is exactly what his religion preaches. His religion is all about being part of a "chosen" group. Which inferes that other people are less "chosen", for whatever reason. And the bible is all about celebrating the slaughtering of people who are not "chosen".
Which is kind of ironical. I don't know either if there is some kind of divine principle at work behind everything, but it is glaringly obvious that if there is such a thing as a higher power, it is certainly none of the totally invented "gods" of conventional mythology. Those are all obvious inventions of humans. Like the other speaker points out, people have "discarded" a lot of deities over the millenia, so why not discard some which are very obviously the invention of humans?
As we have already clarified in another recent discussion, the stories in the bible are to a very large degree invented and have no relationship to actual verifiable history, just like all the other religions out there today, and in the past.
That the powerful "god" described in the bible doesn't exist has been proven over and over again, by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, lots of people up to the Nazis who clarified once and for all that that "god" doesn't exist or if he does, he doesn't give a shit about the "chosen people" anymore. It is easy to see why a group of people which has been constantly humiliated over and over again through the ages needs to indulge in fantasies of being protected by a powerful "god", but it is just as easy to see that that "god" is pure fantasy.
So again, some of the things the rabbi says there are definitely true, but he completely fails to explain why all these good qualities of people should be tied to adhering to a primitive tribal religion. In that, he completely contradicts himself. When he says that evolutionist principles are cruel and inhuman, then he has to apply that to his own elitist and exclusionist mythtology as well.
Quote from: Saul on March 06, 2008, 06:10:47 PM
Rabbi Boteach debated in a great manner, asking great questions and bringing towering points to the discussions.
Well, I've now watched the debate, but I must say I somehow missed the parts you mention. I don't see much point in rehashing the debate here, however. Anyone can watch it and make up their own minds. I think we've already derailed Al's thread enough.
Quote from: drogulus on March 06, 2008, 12:18:21 PM
I note that Marxist critic Terry Eagleton agrees with believers who scorn Dawkin's reasoning on the grounds that Dawkins doesn't pay sufficient attention to the subtleties of theology.
I can't say I find this argument very convincing. It's interesting that those who make it usually have little problem accepting that someone can
believe in God without an extensive background in theology.
Quote from: M forever on March 06, 2008, 10:21:33 PM
The rabbi has a few good points there. Yes, we have the potential for "higher qualities", we can be "compassionate" and "inspired", and we can somehow grow beyond an animal that was shaped by relentless evolution or whatever other mechanisms of development were at work there. I completely agree. I also agree with him in principle that the potential for "goodness" and "righteousness" is innate in us, and that we should develop that.
However, I don't see at all what all that has to do with adhering to a primitive tribal religion. In fact, adhering to that kind of primitive tribal religious thinking really stands in the way of realizing such ideals on a broader scale. He is also wrong about assuming and claiming that people who do not adhere to such superstitions can not live up to high standards. Here, he is directly contradicting himself, because if the potential for goodness is innate in us, why should we need "divine commandments" then to see that? He is also wrong when he says that the 10 commandments are so powerful and binding because they were given by "god". Like the one which says "thou shalt not kill". Only a few pages later in the bible, it is all about killing and decimating and erasing entire peoples.
I am not surprised that within his 15 minutes expose, he builds in all that, and of course, references to Hitler and the holocaust, and the fact that even though that happened, Jews were so bound by those commandments that they didn't blow up buses and other stuff in reaction to the persecution. That is very sad and simplistic populism which, of course, points towards the current situation in Israel. Simplistic, populist, clever, and very immoral and calculated. People like that rabbi are very dangerous because they have clear onjectives and goals and use simplistic propagandist techniques to snare in simple minds, like our friend Saul here.
All his comments about evolution and all that are also nonsense. Sure, evolution is a brutal and merciless principle, but recognizing it doesn't mean one has to condone the "survival of the fittest" as something humans have to implement, too, by killing off weaker people. That is where our human greatness and compassion can come into play. But that is exactly what his religion preaches. His religion is all about being part of a "chosen" group. Which inferes that other people are less "chosen", for whatever reason. And the bible is all about celebrating the slaughtering of people who are not "chosen".
Which is kind of ironical. I don't know either if there is some kind of divine principle at work behind everything, but it is glaringly obvious that if there is such a thing as a higher power, it is certainly none of the totally invented "gods" of conventional mythology. Those are all obvious inventions of humans. Like the other speaker points out, people have "discarded" a lot of deities over the millenia, so why not discard some which are very obviously the invention of humans?
As we have already clarified in another recent discussion, the stories in the bible are to a very large degree invented and have no relationship to actual verifiable history, just like all the other religions out there today, and in the past.
That the powerful "god" described in the bible doesn't exist has been proven over and over again, by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, lots of people up to the Nazis who clarified once and for all that that "god" doesn't exist or if he does, he doesn't give a shit about the "chosen people" anymore. It is easy to see why a group of people which has been constantly humiliated over and over again through the ages needs to indulge in fantasies of being protected by a powerful "god", but it is just as easy to see that that "god" is pure fantasy.
So again, some of the things the rabbi says there are definitely true, but he completely fails to explain why all these good qualities of people should be tied to adhering to a primitive tribal religion. In that, he completely contradicts himself. When he says that evolutionist principles are cruel and inhuman, then he has to apply that to his own elitist and exclusionist mythtology as well.
Have you watched the entire debate?
Yep. Like I said, he has a few good points about the human potential to rise to a "higher" level, but there is absolutely no reason at all to tie that to his or any other religion. In other words, sorry Saul, they cut off part of your dick for nothing. You can be however good or bad you want to be, however inspired and spiritual (or not) you want to be, you can be "in touch" with the mysteries of our world, you can be and do all that and much more with your best friend intact. You don't need to be part of some tribal cult. And being part of it doesn't guarantee you are somebody special either. They lied to you about that to make you emotionally dependent and influenceable. It's just primitive tribalism, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: M forever on March 07, 2008, 05:34:55 AM
Yep. Like I said, he has a few good points about the human potential to rise to a "higher" level, but there is absolutely no reason at all to tie that to his or any other religion. In other words, sorry Saul, they cut off part of your dick for nothing. You can be however good or bad you want to be, however inspired and spiritual (or not) you want to be, you can be "in touch" with the mysteries of our world, you can be and do all that and much more with your best friend intact. You don't need to be part of some tribal cult. And being part of it doesn't guarantee you are somebody special either. They lied to you about that to make you emotionally dependent and influenceable. It's just primitive tribalism, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well , the only reason we do it, is because G-d had commanded us to perform this ritual. You, M, do not believe in G-d, therefore you cant understand why someone would agree to have a circumcision. But for the believing Jew, who believes and knows that the G-d of the universe had commanded his forefather Abraham with this commandment and later on wrote in the Torah that all Jews on the eight day of their birth should enter the covenant through this ritual, it makes perfect sense. Whether it has medical benefits is a non-issue. Whether abstaining from eating pork is healthy or not, makes no difference for the faithful Jew who believes in the almighty.
Remember one thing M, that you are not Jewish, and you have no idea what it means to be a Jew, you also do not know or appreciate the beauty of the Torah, its depth and wisdom. You are an outsider who uses his extremely limited understanding and comprehension of the Torah way of life, to view every single commandment as a burden and as a great toil. But its easy to cast insults and criticize from the outside, when the full picture and the essence of the concepts of Judaism are only virtual in your mind , never materialized or lived through in real life.
Even if you understood the great and pivotal significance of this commandment to the Jewish people, you would still had a blurred and fogy vision and understanding of this commandment. Besides understanding one needs to feel and experience the undeniable feeling and awesome realization of entering into an everlasting covenant with the creator.
You see, without G-d in the big picture, this ritual can be viewed as barbaric , anti-intellectual and even naive, but when you have G-d and you believe in him and you follow his commandment for thousands of years, everything makes sense, and everything is beautiful, noble, important and significant.
Hey Saul, do the jews still circumcise today?
What % would you say practice this 2000 yr old out dated ritual?
Quote from: Saul on March 06, 2008, 06:10:47 PM
The other Rabbi is not a real Rabbi because he is reform, and perhaps a heretic himself.
Rabbi Boteach debated in a great manner, asking great questions and bringing towering points to the discussions. What did Hitchy did besides cast some stupid jokes , talking like an arrogant moron who thinks he rules the world. The Rabbi, if you listen carefully asked extremly strong questions...
Can you answer them?
Which ones?
The problem with Rabbi's point of view is he is asking the questions from the wrong perspective. That's why I said he is preaching rather than debating. He can't even see how ridiculous the question "Why is it that there is life only on earth and nowhere else? If the earth was tilted a few more degrees to that side... or if the moon was just a little closer... etc.." is. This is not even a question. I mean what does it even mean? What would it matter if the same conditions were met in another galaxy in another solar system on another planet and we lived there? HE would still ask the same question. It is
because all these conditions are met here that he is on that podium talking.
Quote from: Saul on March 06, 2008, 06:26:29 PM
And you know what's also sad?
Christopher Hitchens is Jewish:
So am I. What does that have to do with anything? Why do you think that all Jews should believe in God or a religion?
Quote from: M forever on March 07, 2008, 05:34:55 AMThey lied to you about that to make you emotionally dependent and influenceable. It's just primitive tribalism, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
True but it's more than that...
Circumcision is abhorrent sexual torture, and its only purpose is to decrease sexual sensation...... Plain and simple.
Jewish and Muslim leaders really take to this practice because they are also vociferous supporters of sexual suppression.
It is astounding to me at how muted our American society is on this totally and medically pointless procedure.
It doesn't take much to realize that nature didn't intend the foreskin and the penis to be separated at birth. Try retracting the foreskin of a newborn's penis and you're struck by the steadfast tenacious grip it has on the glans or head. The foreskin is sealed to its bounty like a silo, and only slowly, over the years, yields to full retractability. But it's far more than just a sheath. The foreskin contains thousands of highly sensitive sensory receptors called Meissner corpuscles, which are more abundant there than in any other part...
I've never been able to understand how parents can agree to do it. Pure evil. The babies scream when it is done. That is because it is horrifying and painful, and we keep doing it generation after generation because of sexual taboo... Purely optional, with deadening of the member the only result.
Quote from: Operahaven on March 07, 2008, 08:14:31 AM
True but it's more than that...
Circumcision is abhorrent sexual torture, and its only purpose is to decrease sexual sensation...... Plain and simple.
Jewish and Muslim leaders really take to this practice because they are also vociferous supporters of sexual suppression.
It is astounding to me at how muted our American society is on this totally and medically pointless procedure.
It doesn't take much to realize that nature didn't intend the foreskin and the penis to be separated at birth. Try retracting the foreskin of a newborn's penis and you're struck by the steadfast tenacious grip it has on the glans or head. The foreskin is sealed to its bounty like a silo, and only slowly, over the years, yields to full retractability. But it's far more than just a sheath. The foreskin contains thousands of highly sensitive sensory receptors called Meissner corpuscles, which are more abundant there than in any other part...
I've never been able to understand how parents can agree to do it. Pure evil. The babies scream when it is done. That is because it is horrifying and painful, and we keep doing it generation after generation because of sexual taboo... Purely optional, with deadening of the member the only result.
Concise and to the point.
Do you know how many jews or muslims practice this barbaric crime against human nature today?
From your post, i can understand why, at least in part, God told abraham to initiate this custom or ritual. from a psycho/spiritual perspective that is.
btw don't bring up the african muslim community's circumcision on women, its too heart rending. :'( :'( Though not practiced widely, (Thank God), the results are more destructive than the procedure on males.
There is turning back for Saul. His last post is actually pretty terrifying.
Quote from: Saul on March 07, 2008, 06:43:09 AM
Well , the only reason we do it, is because G-d had commanded us to perform this ritual. You, M, do not believe in G-d, therefore you cant understand why someone would agree to have a circumcision. But for the believing Jew, who believes and knows that the G-d of the universe had commanded his forefather Abraham with this commandment and later on wrote in the Torah that all Jews on the eight day of their birth should enter the covenant through this ritual, it makes perfect sense. Whether it has medical benefits is a non-issue. Whether abstaining from eating pork is healthy or not, makes no difference for the faithful Jew who believes in the almighty.
Remember one thing M, that you are not Jewish, and you have no idea what it means to be a Jew, you also do not know or appreciate the beauty of the Torah, its depth and wisdom. You are an outsider who uses his extremely limited understanding and comprehension of the Torah way of life, to view every single commandment as a burden and as a great toil. But its easy to cast insults and criticize from the outside, when the full picture and the essence of the concepts of Judaism are only virtual in your mind , never materialized or lived through in real life.
Even if you understood the great and pivotal significance of this commandment to the Jewish people, you would still had a blurred and fogy vision and understanding of this commandment. Besides understanding one needs to feel and experience the undeniable feeling and awesome realization of entering into an everlasting covenant with the creator.
You see, without G-d in the big picture, this ritual can be viewed as barbaric , anti-intellectual and even naive, but when you have G-d and you believe in him and you follow his commandment for thousands of years, everything makes sense, and everything is beautiful, noble, important and significant.
Saul,
Your religious beliefs do not alter the fact that the majority of the world's civilized peoples consider neonatal circumcision to be criminal assault - a ghastly, unnecessary barbaric act imposed on innocent and helpless victims.
Quote from: paulb on March 07, 2008, 08:33:46 AMDo you know how many jews or muslims practice this barbaric crime against human nature today?
I'm not sure but look at this way:
Every 26 seconds a circumcision is performed in the United States..... This is in sharp contrast with the rest of the world, where over 80% of the male population are left whole and intact including all of Europe, most of non-Muslim Asia and Latin America as nature designed them before the collective wisdom of the mohels, rabbis and imams had a "better" idea....
Quote from: Operahaven on March 07, 2008, 09:06:47 AM
a ghastly, unnecessary barbaric act imposed on innocent and helpless victims.
Well said!
Then there's this revolting story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html) of a mohel who transmitted herpes to three infants, one of whom died, by following the orthodox practice of applying "oral suction" to the penis after circumcision. I don't know where to start.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 07, 2008, 09:25:29 AM
Then there's this revolting story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html) of a mohel who transmitted herpes to three infants, one of whom died, by following the orthodox practice of applying "oral suction" to the penis after circumcision. I don't know where to start.
and here's the best line:
"This is a very delicate area, so to speak," said Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden.
Quote from: Operahaven on March 07, 2008, 09:07:40 AM
Every 26 seconds a circumcision is performed in the United States.....
I'm sceptical of this statement.
The birth rate itself might not even be a birth every minute.
this is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
generally, the more civilized/developed a nation is, the lower the birthrate.
i just spelled "civilized" with an s at first..... somehow i must be reading too much stuff written by British people lol
Quote from: paulb on March 07, 2008, 06:57:47 AM
Hey Saul, do the jews still circumcise today?
What % would you say practice this 2000 yr old out dated ritual?
The vast majority do, even the most secular.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 07, 2008, 08:42:22 AM
There is turning back for Saul. His last post is actually pretty terrifying.
What's so scary in saying that without G-d not eating pork would seem odd and even naive, but with the faith in the all mighty, his commandment makes sense, for he is G-d and he can command his servants as a King would command his subjects.
Whats so scary?
Quote from: Saul on March 07, 2008, 10:19:31 AM
The vast majority do, even the most secular.
i had to delete what i just wrote
What worries me is that if God is indeed alive, why does he not say "Hey, pork's safe to eat now. Don't worry about it any more"?
This may sound a little simplistic but why must religions rely solely on ancient writings?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 07, 2008, 02:15:25 PM
What worries me is that if God is indeed alive, why does he not say "Hey, pork's safe to eat now. Don't worry about it any more"?
This may sound a little simplistic but why must religions rely solely on ancient writings?
this may be a possible reason.
Of all the meats, pork is the *heaviest* on the blood/digestion.
I rarely eat pork, due to a past experience (my fault=undercooked)). even if I eat well cooked bacon, i get some reaction.
I miss the german dish, thin pork chops/sauerkraut/potatoes/white wine.
Quote from: Saul on March 07, 2008, 06:43:09 AM
You see, without G-d in the big picture, this ritual can be viewed as barbaric , anti-intellectual and even naive, but when you have G-d and you believe in him and you follow his commandment for thousands of years, everything makes sense, and everything is beautiful, noble, important and significant.
'Let's do the Time Warp again.'
Buddy Holly was not, apparently, singing his very last song.
Quote from: Saul on March 07, 2008, 10:24:10 AM
What's so scary in saying that without G-d not eating pork would seem odd and even naive, but with the faith in the all mighty, his commandment makes sense, for he is G-d and he can command his servants as a King would command his subjects.
Whats so scary?
What's scary is that you believe all that to be fact. And that you preach it like a cheap televangelist.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 08, 2008, 02:23:30 AM
What's scary is that you believe all that to be fact. And that you preach it like a cheap televangelist.
What's scarier is that, once you set aside your own sense of morality and rationality, you become beholden to whatever you believe God wants you to do, no matter how irrational or immoral. Does anyone need to be reminded where this can lead- and has led?
Quote from: Norbeone on March 08, 2008, 02:23:30 AM
you preach it like a cheap televangelist.
hey jey now.
everyone knows TV *angelists* ;D ..are not cheap at all.
Why some own 5 planes, 1 of the 5 is a $20 million Jet
another *TV-angelist* boughta marbel toliet valued at $60K for her home.
So watch it there buddy, these guys and gals serving *God* are not cheap by any standard. ;D
Quote from: Saul on March 07, 2008, 06:43:09 AMRemember one thing M, that you are not Jewish, and you have no idea what it means to be a Jew.
Yes Saul, we don't know what it means to be a Jew but
you don't have an idea what it means to be mentally free, an atheist. You don't understand how stupid old religions seem to us.
Quote from: paulb on March 08, 2008, 04:25:46 AM
hey jey now.
everyone knows TV *angelists* ;D ..are not cheap at all.
Why some own 5 planes, 1 of the 5 is a $20 million Jet
another *TV-angelist* boughta marbel toliet valued at $60K for her home.
So watch it there buddy, these guys and gals serving *God* are not cheap by any standard. ;D
True true. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2008, 04:26:44 AM
... don't have an idea what it means to be mentally free, an atheist.
Mentally free? Yeah right.
I don't see how a train of thought as intellectually unconvincing as atheism (trust me, I've seriously tried that thinking) can make you "mentally free".
BTW, don't tell me I need to study science more. I know more about science than almost all atheists on this board (I am a scientist myself). And yes, all the conclusions of mainstream science are a non-issue for me. I just interpret them philosophically very different from atheism.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 08, 2008, 08:04:50 AMI don't see how a train of thought as intellectually unconvincing as atheism (trust me, I've seriously tried that thinking) can make you "mentally free".
Al,
I agree with you on this one.... How anyone can disbelieve in the existence of
any supernatural being is beyond me.
Quote from: Operahaven on March 08, 2008, 08:34:41 AM
Al,
I agree with you on this one.... How anyone can disbelieve in the existence of any supernatural being is beyond me.
Personally, I don't
disbelieve in the existence of God, or any other supernatural being. There is just, in my view, no evidence that such a being exists, therefore no reason to believe that it does. I can understand that, for some, there are emotional, psychological, and intellectual benefits to believing that it does exist. I'm just not one of those people.
I have no problem with Al's strain of belief, which does not blind him to the realities of the universe. If he finds the idea of a universe that includes God more convincing than one without, who am I to argue? Just so long as he doesn't start misinterpreting the things his mind and senses tell him about the universe so that they conform to some preconceived idea of the nature of that God. (Not that I think he does.)
The type of belief that Saul espouses, on the other hand, strikes me as mental slavery.
Good post, Shrunk.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 08, 2008, 09:34:13 AM
Personally, I don't disbelieve in the existence of God, or any other supernatural being. There is just, in my view, no evidence that such a being exists, therefore no reason to believe that it does. I can understand that, for some, there are emotional, psychological, and intellectual benefits to believing that it does exist. I'm just not one of those people.
I have no problem with Al's strain of belief, which does not blind him to the realities of the universe. If he finds the idea of a universe that includes God more convincing than one without, who am I to argue? Just so long as he doesn't start misinterpreting the things his mind and senses tell him about the universe so that they conform to some preconceived idea of the nature of that God. (Not that I think he does.)
The type of belief that Saul espouses, on the other hand, strikes me as mental slavery.
Shrunk,
Thanks for expressing it so clearly.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 08, 2008, 08:04:50 AM
Mentally free? Yeah right.
Al, scepticism isn't natural. It's an adaptation, and because it requires, rather than merely permits, that beliefs be warranted by a more or less rigorous process, it actually involves a reduction of freedom. For those of us who don't think the revelation exception can be allowed, we're not free to believe things like other people are. Not without behaving in an unprincipled manner, that is.
Of course, the less freedom allowed to believe the highly implausible, the more freedom to devote to realistic ideas about the world. I don't want the freedom to believe that witches are made of wood if it comes at the high price of believing there are witches. For that reason, I think "freethinker" is justified, even though in the short run, we're less free, and less irresponsible. The free will of the theist is a form of intellectual libertinism. You should forbid this to yourself, IMO, on the grounds that real freedom requires real responsibility.
Quote from: drogulus on March 08, 2008, 10:06:01 AM
The free will of the theist is a form of intellectual libertinism. You should forbid this to yourself, IMO, on the grounds that real freedom requires real responsibility.
I
am intellectually responsible. That is why I did seriously consider atheism, but found out that it doesn't work for me.
Quote from: paulb on March 07, 2008, 02:38:37 PM
this may be a possible reason.
Of all the meats, pork is the *heaviest* on the blood/digestion.
I rarely eat pork, due to a past experience (my fault=undercooked)). even if I eat well cooked bacon, i get some reaction.
I miss the german dish, thin pork chops/sauerkraut/potatoes/white wine.
Perhaps it's to redress the balance, as pork is the favored meat in China.
Quote from: James on March 08, 2008, 11:58:42 AM
...but Dawkins' own fundamentalism & dogma - and make no mistake his position is every bit as much one of faith as any theists - is not a compelling refutation of theistic belief.
How could his position be one of faith?
He disbelieves in religious claims but there is NO evidence to support them. His scientific views are all based on testable evidence. These scientific views are therefore not faith-based.
Also, he isn't fundamentalist either. He has stated many times before that if good testable evidence supporting religious claims came to light, he would be more than willing to change his views. This is exactly what fundamentalism isn't.
I'm afraid your assertions made against Dawkins are unfounded and self-evidently incorrect.
....I like your views on Bach though. ;)
Quote from: Shrunk on March 08, 2008, 09:34:13 AM
Personally, I don't disbelieve in the existence of God, or any other supernatural being. There is just, in my view, no evidence that such a being exists, therefore no reason to believe that it does.
well, if God revealed himself to the whole world at once and videotaped it, the whole game would be over :P
(of course, the game can't be that easy :P )
Quote from: Norbeone on March 08, 2008, 12:43:30 PM
How could his position be one of faith?
[...] His scientific views are all based on testable evidence. These scientific views are therefore not faith-based.
Wrong. The multiverse theory (to explain away the fine-tuning of natural laws) that he believes in is not based on testable evidence (scientific evidence is limited by the particle horizon and the visible horizon of the universe), but metaphysics dressed up in scientific language. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It is based on "scientific" faith.
QuoteAlso, he isn't fundamentalist either. He has stated many times before that if good testable evidence supporting religious claims came to light, he would be more than willing to change his views. This is exactly what fundamentalism isn't.
If the universe was created by a God who creates through secondary causes, the natural causes that science studies, then God is undetectable by the scientific method, but still very much the originator and sustainer behind it all. So this misses the point.
Dawkins's argument that all religion is inherently dangerous, and his unwillingness to concede that terrible atrocities were committed in the name of atheism, are most certainly fundamentalist. He is just as fundamentalist as religious fundamentalists.
A little pointer: The more atheists take Dawkins seriously, the less they are taken seriously by theists. If atheism wants to be taken seriously as a cause, it has to distance itself from Dawkins. Dawkins is one of atheism's own worst enemies (his excellent and highly recommendable writing on evolutionary biology is another issue entirely).
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2008, 04:26:44 AM
Yes Saul, we don't know what it means to be a Jew but you don't have an idea what it means to be mentally free, an atheist. You don't understand how stupid old religions seem to us.
I was not religious as a kid and I was raised in a secular/traditional neighborhood in Israel. We didn't keep the Sabbath and I didn't know what it means to live as an orthodox Jew. When I came to NY at age 12, my parents sent me to a public high school, we were not religious. But a year later, my parents have sent me to an orthodox Yeshiva and from there I began learning about my faith. This Yeshiva was modern and I still wasn't 'into it ' as they say. But at the age of 16 I decided that I wanted to study in a real orthodox Yeshiva, that concentrated on Talmud specifically without secular studies. So I enrolled in that Yeshiva and studied there a few years. I later on studied in a Yeshiva/college for high Talmudic studies, that was also about 2 years or so. In these Yeshivas I finally got the education that made me see what it means to be Jewish and what the Torah and the Talmud were all about.
No one had forced me to go and study in these yeshivas, it was my personal choice. So I perfectly know what it means to be secular, because as I explained , I was secular myself. But later, I decided by myself to go and study and learn what my faith is all about and what it means to belong to the Jewish people.
You on the other hand were always secular and had never seen or felt ' the other side', therefore you are the one who is missing information and exposure, not me.
Quote from: James on March 08, 2008, 11:58:42 AM
The thing about Dawkins & his book to be honest, is that he's not really saying anything new essentially....sure, it may not be all under one roof in a convenient best selling highly publicized book, but many of the things he's pointing out i've heard before for the most part. It's no big revelation really. Personally, having heard him speak on these issues...I've been so shocked by the lack of rigour in his elementary thought processes - and the antagonistic, condescending way he spouts half-baked "theories" ... OK so he's getting some attention to the ideas ... I 100% see the value of that ... and I'd be standing on his side against any religious fundamentalist drivel, but Dawkins' own fundamentalism & dogma - and make no mistake his position is every bit as much one of faith as any theists - is not a compelling refutation of theistic belief.
Occasionally he loses styles points, and I suppose this is a big deal for theists. Maybe I wouldn't care for his condescending tone either.
Some of us are just as interested in the substantive points he raises, which don't have to be new (in fact they had better not be, since the best arguments against theism are old).
Dawkins main argument is that the complexity of the universe developed out of simple beginnings, so the argument that a creater god could be justified is undercut. The theists have always argued for a creater on the grounds that the creation was too splendid to be self-generating, and that very evident excellence and fitness argued for intelligence. Unfortunately for the theist view, this establishes as an initial cause the very complexity that Dawkins shows is a product. Recently theists have conceded the point (I'm telling them this in case they missed it) by reversing field and positing a
simple god.
My interpretaion goes like this:
When Dawkins explains that complexity arises from simple beginnings he's referring to what has been observed about natural processes and theories about how they have produced what exists now. Whatever you think about the Big Bang (I don't like it) or any other particular scientific theory, you have to admit that he has a good naturalist case to make.
When theologians posit a simple designer god, they have no obligation to make such a hypothesis conform to anything external to the argument they make (that's an example of theistic free will), they only have to save a premise they can't abandon without ceasing to be theists. This they do, and so their god becomes as simple or as complex as they need to counter the naturalist arguments. After all, their god is hardy likely to appear before us and correct their misapprehensions.
:D So, in a sense, both are arguing from within frameworks that do not permit defection. You have a choice between a framework that is defined by what can be observed and theories that are developed in the light of falsification by test, as well as further evidence and yet more tests. Or you save the initial prescientific framework at whatever cost and bend all evidence to conform to it (not as difficult as you might think, since only the minimal premise need be saved [god creates world], so you can incorporate what science says as your own). By this process of "epicycles" (simple gods, complex gods, what you will) you'll never have to say you're sorry.
So the real point of the theistic counterargument is not, and has not been for a long time, to present a credible alternative to naturalism, but to stay in the game for the sake of appearances, and to uphold the honor of theism. This shows the remarkable conservatism of human culture as well as its gift for synthesis. The fact that the antagonists have such contradictory truth conditions for what they believe is less important than the cultural impact of the institutions that are built on these traditions.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2008, 04:26:44 AM
Yes Saul, we don't know what it means to be a Jew but you don't have an idea what it means to be mentally free, an atheist. You don't understand how stupid old religions seem to us.
What are the relative advantages of "new" religions?
From the Onion:
Christ Announces Hiring Of Associate Christ (http://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/christ_announces_hiring_of?utm_source=onion_rss_daily)
He's a former Customer Service manager for Sears, so I guess he won't need much OTJ training. :)
Quote from: drogulus on March 09, 2008, 08:50:53 AM
Dawkins main argument is that the complexity of the universe developed out of simple beginnings, so the argument that a creater god could be justified is undercut.
No, it is not undercut. Modern physics and cosmology shows that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for the evolution of any complexity (not just life) in the first place. And atheism's attempts to explain away this fact are weak.
QuoteThe theists have always argued for a creater on the grounds that the creation was too splendid to be self-generating, and that very evident excellence and fitness argued for intelligence. Unfortunately for the theist view, this establishes as an initial cause the very complexity that Dawkins shows is a product. Recently theists have conceded the point (I'm telling them this in case they missed it) by reversing field and positing a simple god.
Recently? Utter rubbish. Theistic philosophy has posited a simple God since at least Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the 13th century (talk about recent, hehe), and probably way before as well.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 09, 2008, 09:20:21 AM
No, it is not undercut. Modern physics and cosmology shows that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for the evolution of any complexity (not just life) in the first place. And atheism's attempts to explain away this fact are weak.
I don't think so. I don't understand what special means in this context. We have no very clear idea of how special the conditions are, since we don't know how freely they can be different from what they are.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 09, 2008, 09:20:21 AM
Recently? Utter rubbish. Theistic philosophy has posited a simple God since at least Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the 13th century (talk about recent, hehe), and probably way before as well.
I don't understand this. Epicurus said there were atoms, but he didn't know anything about them. The recent invocation of simplicity is a response to the success of recent scientific arguments. Aquinas could advocate anything, just as Plantinga does today, without incurring the slightest penalty. Arguments that can't be wrong can't be right, either, since there's nothing to make them so. It doesn't matter,
Al, if witches are made of wood unless there are witches.
My point was that the intelligent god of the modern theologian has been reengineered to answer the current scientific model, so intelligence is now seen as compatible with simplicity. I understand that the theist doesn't want to be seen as conforming his ideas to what science says, but it must be done to some extent for appearences sake, since appearences are the point of arguments which can't lead to anything else.
The whole argument against naturalism is (or
was) that complexity can't arise from simplicity*. It required complexity in the form of a god to start it. No god can be an intellect and be simple except in the imagination of theists. Since an imagination unconstrained by anything other than the initial premise is what you have, you can say anything, which is why you do. When you want it simple, it's simple. When you want it complex, it's that, too. And when you want it transcending the categories our "feeble minds" can comprehend, it will also be that. What it can't be, therefore, is something that can be checked for accuracy.
I also note that every such argument is equally good as an argument for whatever other idiocy that you, along with me, don't accept. There are no limiting conditions which constrain your position to the "one true God". These are all-purpose arguments, as your "devil" surely knows. Which is, of course, why he encourages you to propagate them, therefore undercutting the only standard that could save you.
>:D *Edit: I made a mistake and said complexity when I meant simplicity, so I corrected it.
Quote from: Operahaven on March 07, 2008, 08:14:31 AM
I've never been able to understand how parents can agree to do it. Pure evil. The babies scream when it is done. That is because it is horrifying and painful, and we keep doing it generation after generation because of sexual taboo... Purely optional, with deadening of the member the only result.
This "deadening of the member" notion is nonsense. Jewish men have no problem having great sex, getting it up or making babies.
Quote from: Don on March 09, 2008, 10:11:09 AM
This "deadening of the member" notion is nonsense. Jewish men have no problem having great sex, getting it up or making babies.
Even so, Don, it is pretty horrible that it is done in the first place, i'm sure you'll agree.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 09, 2008, 09:20:21 AM
No, it is not undercut. Modern physics and cosmology shows that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for the evolution of any complexity (not just life) in the first place. And atheism's attempts to explain away this fact are weak.
Atheism doesn't attempt to explain it away. Dawkins certainly doesn't. These highly specialised laws are something that most scientists agree are the case. And before you say, the multiverse theory isn't an attempt to explain it away either.
Furthermore, that fact that they are so special isn't evidence that there must be a God behind it. Why don't people allow science to progress even more before reverting to that old story?
Quote from: Norbeone on March 09, 2008, 10:21:01 AM
Atheism doesn't attempt to explain it away. Dawkins certainly doesn't. These highly specialised laws are something that most scientists agree are the case. And before you say, the multiverse theory isn't an attempt to explain it away either.
Furthermore, that fact that they are so special isn't evidence that there must be a God behind it. Why don't people allow science to progress even more before reverting to that old story?
Maybe I'm missing something, but to me the "fine tuning" argument just seems like another instance of the anthropic fallacy. First of all, there is the assumption that the primary purpose of the universe's existence is to allow life to arise. The idea of the universe having a "purpose" at all is already presumptuous to begin with. Secondly, even allowing for the existence of extraterrestrial life, living things make up an almost infinitely small portion of the universe. If all living things were to be snuffed out tomorrow, the universe would be changed to a virtually unnoticeable extent. To living things like ourselves, such an event seems cataclysmic, but in the big picture it would be meaningless.
It is also an assumption that the physical constants of the universe are independent of each other and need to each be individually fine tuned. It might be that they are as interrelated as the radius and circumference of a circle; there is only one specific relationship they can have. We just don't know.
I also don't see why, even if we assign primacy to living entities, they can only occur in the universe as it is. To be sure, life
as we know it requires the universe as we know it. But who is to say that life of a completely different sort could not arise in a universe entirely composed of red dwarves, say? If we were to (absurdly, I admit) imagine some intelligent being observing our universe before life had arisen, would that being be able imagine life occuring in anything near the form it has, if it could conceive of the idea of life at all? My suspicion is that such a being would be absolutely shocked by something as simple as a slug. In a universe "tuned" to different constants, life could theoretically occur in ways we would never imagine, or would not even think of as life at all. Could stars develop intelligence? Why not?
These speculations are far out, I agree. But if we are going to have a discussion that allows for the possibility of something as absurdly improbable as the theistic God, then I think all bets are off, and any other seeming absurdities are also fair game.
(Edited for grammar and sloppy wording.)
Can't we lighten up just a bit? ::)
I'm off to kill some imaginary beasts.....(uh oh...)
(http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4901/77mental0000vf6.th.jpg) (http://img329.imageshack.us/my.php?image=77mental0000vf6.jpg)
At least you can see these guys coming and get off a few shots before you're overwhelmed by their utter simplicity. :D
Quote from: Norbeone on March 09, 2008, 10:16:20 AM
Even so, Don, it is pretty horrible that it is done in the first place, i'm sure you'll agree.
Can't say that I do. In the jewish faith, it's a custom that doesn't seem to do any harm. Although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I have no problem with the practice. I'm much more concerned with staying out of the reach of religious fanatics like Saul.
Quote from: Don on March 09, 2008, 11:38:43 AM
Can't say that I do. In the jewish faith, it's a custom that doesn't seem to do any harm. Although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I have no problem with the practice. I'm much more concerned with staying out of the reach of religious fanatics like Saul.
Hiding from yourself ,Don?
Quote from: Don on March 09, 2008, 11:38:43 AM
Can't say that I do. In the jewish faith, it's a custom that doesn't seem to do any harm. Although I don't have a religious bone in my body, I have no problem with the practice. I'm much more concerned with staying out of the reach of religious fanatics like Saul.
Fair enough.
Though, i'll take it as a safe bet that the less common practice performed on female children doesn't tickle your fancy too much.
Quote from: Saul on March 09, 2008, 12:42:41 PM
Hiding from yourself ,Don?
I've had it with the garbage you keep slinging at this site. You're a pathetic role-model for an American jew. But what really bothers me is that you continue to inititate and/or become confrontational in threads of a religious nature. This is a place for music; if I want religious engagement, I'll head to the temple. I sure don't want to hear what you have to say on the subject.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 09, 2008, 12:55:54 PM
Fair enough.
Though, i'll take it as a safe bet that the less common practice performed on female children doesn't tickle your fancy too much.
A very safe bet. Frankly, nothing about God, religion or its customs/practices tickles my fancy.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 09, 2008, 12:55:54 PM
Though, i'll take it as a safe bet that the less common practice performed on female children doesn't tickle your fancy too much.
This is in some dismal places practised as a custom. It is physical abuse amounting to mutilation with very serious affects on health. In any civilized country it is a criminal offense. I think it can only be blamed on man's wickedness, not on religion.
Quote from: Don on March 09, 2008, 10:11:09 AMThis "deadening of the member" notion is nonsense. Jewish men have no problem having great sex, getting it up or making babies.
But Don I think we need to look at the bigger picture.... This is what medical science tells us about circumcision in the year 2008:
Circumcision destroys:
1. Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans while the penis develops.
2. Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.
3. Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis to that of ordinary skin.
4. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune system.
5. Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's corpuscles.
6. Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.
7. Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.
8. The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing, and protects from dirt and other contaminants.
9. The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.
10. Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system.
11. The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed.
12. The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful, silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.
13. As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.
14. The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without drying out the vagina.
15. The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
16. 10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.
17. As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.
18. Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural function and possibly stunting its growth.
19. An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.
20. Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.
****
Just a few more reasons why I find the practice of circumcision - whether for religious or cosmetic reasons - absolutely insane.... It's the removal of a
functional body part.
Quote from: drogulus on March 09, 2008, 10:04:21 AM
I don't understand this. Epicurus said there were atoms, but he didn't know anything about them. The recent invocation of simplicity is a response to the success of recent scientific arguments. Aquinas could advocate anything, just as Plantinga does today, without incurring the slightest penalty. Arguments that can't be wrong can't be right, either, since there's nothing to make them so. It doesn't matter, Al, if witches are made of wood unless there are witches.
My point was that the intelligent god of the modern theologian has been reengineered to answer the current scientific model, so intelligence is now seen as compatible with simplicity. I understand that the theist doesn't want to be seen as conforming his ideas to what science says, but it must be done to some extent for appearences sake, since appearences are the point of arguments which can't lead to anything else.
Complete utter nonsense. The intelligent God of the modern theologian happens to share the attributes of the model of Classical Theology, which has established these attributes many centuries ago,
many centuries before modern science.
The attributes of God are independent of the particular way He chose to create the universe.
Quote from: Don on March 09, 2008, 02:35:48 PM
I've had it with the garbage you keep slinging at this site. You're a pathetic role-model for an American jew. But what really bothers me is that you continue to inititate and/or become confrontational in threads of a religious nature. This is a place for music; if I want religious engagement, I'll head to the temple. I sure don't want to hear what you have to say on the subject.
And Im confrotational?
Quote from: Saul on March 09, 2008, 04:37:53 PM
And Im confrotational?
It does get rather old. I mean, how many of us here are Jewish anyway? No one else here is Jewish (as far as I know), so why should we care? You say you don't want to convert anyone, so what the heck is your point then? "Woo hoo, I'm Jewish, I'm better than you!" ??? I'm just puzzled as to your whole reason for advertising your religion when you aren't even wanting to convert anyone (not that wanting to do
that would be any improvement!).
You seem more
insecure in your religious belief because you always feel the need to broadcast it to the world. Its one thing to be proud about your religious heritage-- its quite another to advertise it every chance an opportunity arises.
Quote from: just josh on March 09, 2008, 05:17:21 PM
It does get rather old. I mean, how many of us here are Jewish anyway? No one else here is Jewish (as far as I know), so why should we care? You say you don't want to convert anyone, so what the heck is your point then? "Woo hoo, I'm Jewish, I'm better than you!" ??? I'm just puzzled as to your whole reason for advertising your religion when you aren't even wanting to convert anyone (not that wanting to do that would be any improvement!).
You seem more insecure in your religious belief because you always feel the need to broadcast it to the world. Its one thing to be proud about your religious heritage-- its quite another to advertise it every chance an opportunity arises.
Where did I advertise it?
Quote from: Saul on March 09, 2008, 06:04:16 PM
Where did I advertise it?
Too many posts for me to link to...
Quote from: just josh on March 09, 2008, 07:06:10 PM
Too many posts for me to link to...
Well I didnt make a religious post for about 2 weeks now.. so just relax..
Quote from: Saul on March 09, 2008, 07:59:58 PM
Well I didnt make a religious post for about 2 weeks now.. so just relax..
Thank G-d. ;)
Quote from: just josh on March 09, 2008, 08:03:31 PM
Thank G-d. ;)
No, its 'thanks' to people like you who are 'uncomfortable' about G-d but seem naturalists when it comes to atheism
Quote from: Saul on March 09, 2008, 08:07:42 PM
No, its 'thanks' to people like you who are 'uncomfortable' about G-d but seem naturalists when it comes to atheism
I have no beef with religion per se, but hey, whatever floats your boat... ::) It doesn't bother me that other people theists, atheists or whatever-- I've grown rather apathetic toward that whole issue. But its awfully puzzling extolling the great virtues of orthodox Judaism when you don't want to convert anyone, and there also aren't any (?) other "lapsed" Jews here to get them back on the "right track." Very puzzling to say the least.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 09, 2008, 03:47:32 PM
This is in some dismal places practised as a custom. It is physical abuse amounting to mutilation with very serious affects on health. In any civilized country it is a criminal offense. I think it can only be blamed on man's wickedness, not on religion.
That last sentence only makes sense if you assume that religion is anything other than a creation of man. As I see it, religion is a man-made ideology. And one of the tenets of this ideology is that rational thinking must be subservient to divine revelation. As such, it often serves as justification for atrocities such as female genital mutilation. Which is not to say that such atrocities would not occur without religion. Rather, they are the result of a human tendency, of which religion is the most pervasive expression.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 09, 2008, 10:58:27 AM
something as absurdly improbable as the theistic God
We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others. - Blaise Pascal(A fundamentalist, superstitious and un-scientific claim --- but true, nevertheless. ;D)
Quote from: Norbeone on March 09, 2008, 05:03:08 PM
Are you Jewish?
Is the Pope Catholic? ;D
Hey, has anyone else seen the New Commandments?
Sorry, chaps, taking drugs is a no-no! >:(
Quote from: Shrunk on March 10, 2008, 04:32:39 AM
That last sentence only makes sense if you assume that religion is anything other than a creation of man. As I see it, religion is a man-made ideology. And one of the tenets of this ideology is that rational thinking must be subservient to divine revelation. As such, it often serves as justification for atrocities such as female genital mutilation. Which is not to say that such atrocities would not occur without religion. Rather, they are the result of a human tendency, of which religion is the most pervasive expression.
I take your point. Religion is often used as an excuse for actions even when there is nothing in that religion's writing to justify them.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 10, 2008, 09:26:26 AM
I take your point. Religion is often used as an excuse for actions even when there is nothing in that religion's writing to justify them.
Even when there are such things in the religion's writing, that fact does not justify them.
Quote from: Hector on March 10, 2008, 05:16:06 AM
Is the Pope Catholic? ;D
It's not a widely known fact that since before the Schism the title of Pope was (and still is) only reserved for and bestowed upon two bishops; the Roman pontifex
and the (now called orthodox) patriarch of Alexandria.
So, the answer really depends on which one you mean... ;)
I had said:
Modern physics and cosmology shows that the laws of nature have to be exceedingly special to allow for the evolution of any complexity (not just life) in the first place. And atheism's attempts to explain away this fact are weak.
Quote from: drogulus on March 09, 2008, 10:04:21 AM
I don't think so. I don't understand what special means in this context. We have no very clear idea of how special the conditions are, since we don't know how freely they can be different from what they are.
and:
Quote from: Shrunk on March 09, 2008, 10:58:27 AM
It is also an assumption that the physical constants of the universe are independent of each other and need to each be individually fine tuned. It might be that they are as interrelated as the radius and circumference of a circle; there is only one specific relationship they can have. We just don't know.
I had answered this on the "Scientific fundamentalists" thread already, but
here we go again:
There cannot be a necessity of laws of nature (i.e. they have to be as they are) for logical reasons: even if the laws of nature are the way they are because they have to satisfy a unique and unified system of forces (and thus the constants all are interrelated), they could have been built around another unique and unified set of forces. There is no logical disputing that.
Perhaps the values of the parameters cannot be
anything (most multiverse proponents would probably say they can), but they can nonetheless be a tremendous variety of possibilities.
See also what physicist Stephen Barr has to say about this, from his article "Anthropic Coincidences", which is worth reading as a whole, at:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2208
(You can substitute "the choice of God" with "random shuffling of parameters", if you want to go for what might be possible in terms of laws of nature by merely "natural" means.)
"Einstein famously asked whether God had a choice in how He made the world. Many physicists nowadays suspect not. They suspect that all mathematical relationships in the laws of physics will turn out to be dictated by some deep underlying principles that leave no room for things to have been otherwise. One frequently hears the possibility discussed that the laws of physics are "unique." The idea is that everything about the physical world-the kinds of particles that exist, the kinds of forces and their relative strengths, the number of dimensions of space and its degree of flatness, the energy levels of the carbon-12 nucleus, and so on, down to the smallest detail-may have to be as they are on account of some fundamental physical principles. If so, God could not have the freedom to arrange the laws of nature to be "propitious for life" or otherwise, since His hands were completely tied.
"However, this is plainly wrong. Physical principles could not have tied God's hands, for the simple reason that He could have chosen some
other principles upon which to base the laws of physics. For example, while the relative feebleness of the electromagnetic force, which we saw to be anthropically fortunate, may be a necessary outcome of a "grand unified" framework, it was by no means necessary that the world be built according to such a "grand unified" framework. In fact, we still do not know whether it is. So, in this particular matter God clearly did have a choice-indeed, many choices, as there are many mathematically self-consistent frameworks that involve "grand unification" and many that do not.
"As a matter of fact, there are an infinite number of mathematically self-consistent sets of laws of physics that could have been chosen as the basis for the structure of a universe. This is incontestable. When those (good) physicists talk about the laws of physics being possibly "unique," they are speaking very loosely. What they really have in mind is the idea that a unique set of laws may be necessary if it has to satisfy certain assumed preconditions. For example, many theorists believe that there is only one possible set of laws-"superstring theory"-that can incorporate simultaneously the principles of quantum theory and the principles of Einsteinian gravity. However, there is certainly no reason to suppose a priori that the universe had to incorporate either quantum theory or Einsteinian gravity. In short, the universe could have been made differently, and if it had been life might not have been able to arise. These assertions, it seems to me, can hardly be disputed." (End of quote.)
***
Thus, there cannot logically be a "necessity" of laws of nature, which science might be able to investigate. Science can also not investigate if the laws of nature that we observe are ontologically necessary (i.e. have a necessity of being). Ontological necessity is an issue for philosophy, not science.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 09, 2008, 10:21:01 AM
Furthermore, that fact that they [the laws of nature] are so special isn't evidence that there must be a God behind it. Why don't people allow science to progress even more before reverting to that old story?
I have answered also this issue about progress in science, when it comes to answering those questions, already before, but here we go again:
We have three options for the naturalistic emergence of these laws:
1. Brute chance for the emergence of these laws. However, chance on a sample of one (our universe) cannot be investigated scientifically.
2. A necessity of these laws – they could not be any other way. I have just addressed this point above.
3. The multiverse. Here we have a randomization of laws of nature in trillions of trillions of universes (the multiverse), among which our universe then is a statistically necessary outcome. This theoretically eliminates the unsatisfactory concept of chance. However, science cannot study the putative multiverse because of
absolute observational limits: the particle horizon and the visible horizon of our universe. Important: These observational limits are even conceded by scientists who are proponents of the multiverse theory – not doing so would be irrational, given their nature.
The visible horizon is limited by the Cosmic Background Radiation at 300,000 years of age of our universe. Before that age, matter and radiation were coupled and the universe was opaque: photons scattered randomly, unlike later until now. The particle horizon in physical cosmology is the maximum distance from which particles can have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe. It represents the portion of the universe which we could have conceivably observed by the present day. This limits our establishment of causal connections.
For an excellent discussion of this, i.e. the question of ultimate origins and the absolute limits of science, I strongly urge you to study the following paper by George Ellis, a leading theorist in cosmology:
http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/enc2.pdf
(You can skip over the mathematical formulas.)
Quote from: Shrunk on March 09, 2008, 10:58:27 AM
I also don't see why, even if we assign primacy to living entities, they can only occur in the universe as it is. To be sure, life as we know it requires the universe as we know it. But who is to say that life of a completely different sort could not arise in a universe entirely composed of red dwarves, say? If we were to (absurdly, I admit) imagine some intelligent being observing our universe before life had arisen, would that being be able imagine life occuring in anything near the form it has, if it could conceive of the idea of life at all? My suspicion is that such a being would be absolutely shocked by something as simple as a slug. In a universe "tuned" to different constants, life could theoretically occur in ways we would never imagine, or would not even think of as life at all. Could stars develop intelligence? Why not?
If you would have studied this issue sufficiently, you would know that not just life
as we know it, but
any chemical complexity requires highly specialized laws of nature.
Any detuning, and any chemical complexity would be impossible. Just hydrogen, and possibly deuterium and helium (or equivalents), and no chemistry.
We know that
material life requires complexity of matter, and complexity of matter is impossible without chemistry. Thus, if several of the physical constants were freely variable, then the chances to arrive at any laws of nature that allow for material complexity – thus any kind of life, not just life as we know it – would be very low. Our universe with its specific laws of nature would be a small oasis within a vast desert of a humongous number of sterile, non-complex universes where no chemistry takes place.
If, on the other hand, there would be a completely different kind of life in a completely different kind of universe with laws of nature that do not at all resemble what we have (and which also produce entirely different particles), it is still the most rational assumption that this life would be based as well on some material complexity, which in turn would be based on some sort of alien chemistry (being a semi-closed system and metabolism require complexity, there is no disputing that). And furthermore, we would rationally expect by extrapolation from our laws of nature (we have nothing else to go by) that also here any detuning of physical constants would make that alien chemistry impossible.
Thus, another small oasis within a vast desert of a humongous number of sterile, non-complex universes where no chemistry takes place.
Overall, then, even if some entirely different form of life might be possible somewhere else under completely different conditions, the probability for any life, known or unknown, most likely still remains very low.
QuoteCould stars develop intelligence? Why not?
Hardly, without chemical complexity, which is not found in stars. Imaginative thinking is one thing, wild baseless science-fiction another.
That you put this in the context of
"life could theoretically occur in ways we would never imagine, or would not even think of as life at all",
does not really give you a free card to allow for
anything.
If you allow for life without any – even alien – chemistry, then kudos to your imagination, but it leads you into regions of thought that are not seriously debatable anymore and which have no basis in our knowledge from science.
And I have never seen it debated in those terms by a scientist.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 09, 2008, 10:58:27 AM
But if we are going to have a discussion that allows for the possibility of something as absurdly improbable as the theistic God, then I think all bets are off, and any other seeming absurdities are also fair game.
You should study philosophy more. Generally, in theistic philosophy the probability of God is maximal (there is nothing else as probable), since God is the metaphysically necessary being. All other beings acquire their being from Him, i.e. without Him nothing would exist.
Thomas Aquinas: all creatures derive their
actus essendi, their act of being, from God, while God is
esse, being, itself.
Sure, as an atheist you can reject this thinking, but to suggest to a theist – or without taking the theistic view into account – that God is "absurdly improbable" is, indeed, absurd.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 09, 2008, 04:27:24 PM
Complete utter nonsense. The intelligent God of the modern theologian happens to share the attributes of the model of Classical Theology, which has established these attributes many centuries ago, many centuries before modern science.
The attributes of God are independent of the particular way He chose to create the universe.
That's what wrong,
Al. A real god's attributes would be dependant on what could be demonstrated about them. How else could you
attribute them?
The whole point of the original response to Darwin was that design was necessary, and a blind process couldn't build up the features of the world from a simple beginning. As science has shown how this can happen in ever greater detail, the argument has shifted from a designer working from a blueprint to an initiator of the process. What Aquinas and Plantinga say means nothing if they can't provide a reason for saying it.
The real argument was over whether natural selection violated a principle that a great being or cause must be the author of the complexity in nature. Merely saying that the creator is simple while permitting him to do complex things as a matter of intention is to violate sense, as well as to leave the question of how this is determined unanswered.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 10, 2008, 11:59:09 AM
You should study philosophy more. Generally, in theistic philosophy the probability of God is maximal (there is nothing else as probable), since God is the metaphysically necessary being. All other beings acquire their being from Him, i.e. without Him nothing would exist.
Thomas Aquinas: all creatures derive their actus essendi, their act of being, from God, while God is esse, being, itself.
Sure, as an atheist you can reject this thinking, but to suggest to a theist – or without taking the theistic view into account – that God is "absurdly improbable" is, indeed, absurd.
But theistic philosophy is about what a theist can maintain, not what is actually there. For that you have to go to philosophy proper, which means natural philosophy or science. If there's another way to get the truth about what is there, the proponents of the other way must deliver the goods. They can't do that.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 10, 2008, 11:58:15 AM
Overall, then, even if some entirely different form of life might be possible somewhere else under completely different conditions, the probability for any life, known or unknown, most likely still remains very low.
Hardly, without chemical complexity, which is not found in stars. Imaginative thinking is one thing, wild baseless science-fiction another.
That you put this in the context of
"life could theoretically occur in ways we would never imagine, or would not even think of as life at all",
does not really give you a free card to allow for anything.
If you allow for life without any – even alien – chemistry, then kudos to your imagination, but it leads you into regions of thought that are not seriously debatable anymore and which have no basis in our knowledge from science.
And I have never seen it debated in those terms by a scientist.
Freed from the necessity to conform to the theistic
a priori, you make an excellent argument, of the same kind anyone would in the face of improbable assertions without foundation.
You and Aquinas and Plantinga do not have the free cards you think you do just because your premise takes a theistic form. It's still governed by reason and evidence. The loophole is not there just because you want it to be.
Thanks for the detailed responses, Al. Admittedly, neither cosmology nor philosophy are my strong points. Still, your arguments leave me unconvinced that God is anymore than one of a number of possibilities to explain the nature of the universe.
I'll return to my analogy of a circle. A circle has a number of attributes: Radius, diameter, circumference, area. However, these attributes are not independent of one another. If any one of these attributes is determined, then so are all the others, and all other dimensions can be known once any single one of them is. The question is, is this necessarily so? Does this fact reflect some immutable law of the physical universe, or is it simply a whim of God? Could God, if he so willed it, had made it so that the attributes of a circle had a different relationship than the one we know of, or even be completely independent of each other?
Now, as I understand the "fine tuning" argument, it in effect posits God (metaphorically) sitting at a control panel with a number of knobs. One might be labelled "gravitational constant" another "weak force" or "electromagnetic force", etc. God then tweaks each these knobs to a precise number to allow a universe to come into existence which allows for chemistry and life to exist.
Now, lets take an alternative view. Let's say the control panel still exists, but there is no one sitting at it twiddling knobs. The knobs just move randomly. The other difference is that the controls no longer operate independently of each other. Any knob can be turned, but once one knob is moved, all other knobs also move by a determined amount. Their relationship is like that of the attributes of a circle. Any individual parameter can be set anywhere, but once that parameter is fixed, so is every other one. There is still a large number of possible "settings", possibly even an infinite number, but any one of those settings will allow for a stable universe that can lead to the existence of complex chemistry and life, though the precise forms those take may be very different from setting to setting.
Now, perhaps this stems from some fundamental misunderstanding on my part, but I fail to see why one of the above scenarios is more likely than the other. Scenario two seems more plausible to me, but I can't really justify that except to say that it seems the kind of thing that physics could conceivably illuminate at some point. The God scenario just seems like something that will always remain an unverifiable possiblity, and one which raises more questions than it would solve.
Does a god have the attributes of a basketball, or the attributes of a circle? It would have to be a circle, I think. The attributes of a basketball, a real object, are determined empirically, by examining it. The attributes of a circle, OTOH, are something one reasons about. It follows that the god Plantinga reasons about most nearly conforms to an abstraction. This will be so until an event in the world shows otherwise.
The eruption of a real god into the world would be a disaster for such speculation, rendering it meaningless even to those who accepted it formerly. If that doesn't happen, and I don't think it will, it will be like string theory, another exercise about itself and not about anything real. I don't think gods or circles or hypotenuses will invade our lovely planet and seek revenge upon us for our foolish presumption. So theists are probably safe, as are scientists and mathematicians. :)
Quote from: drogulus on March 10, 2008, 01:47:07 PM
Does a god have the attributes of a basketball, or the attributes of a circle? It would have to be a circle, I think. The attributes of a basketball, a real object, are determined empirically, by examining it.
Also, if God had the attributes of a basketball, then we could score points by putting him through hoops.
Come to think of it, that's pretty much what Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jim Kennedy and the Trinity Broadcast Network do.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 10, 2008, 01:24:14 PM
Thanks for the detailed responses, Al.
You're welcome.
QuoteAdmittedly, neither cosmology nor philosophy are my strong points. Still, your arguments leave me unconvinced that God is anymore than one of a number of possibilities to explain the nature of the universe.
Which is understandable. As we had said, this is not about proof but about credibility, and an assessment of credibility is partially influenced by one's personal background.
QuoteNow, lets take an alternative view. Let's say the control panel still exists, but there is no one sitting at it twiddling knobs. The knobs just move randomly. The other difference is that the controls no longer operate independently of each other. Any knob can be turned, but once one knob is moved, all other knobs also move by a determined amount. Their relationship is like that of the attributes of a circle. Any individual parameter can be set anywhere, but once that parameter is fixed, so is every other one. There is still a large number of possible "settings", possibly even an infinite number, but any one of those settings will allow for a stable universe that can lead to the existence of complex chemistry and life, though the precise forms those take may be very different from setting to setting.
Now, perhaps this stems from some fundamental misunderstanding on my part, ...
Hmm, the above scenario does not quite work scientifically as you envision. It was an elegant thought experiment though.
Quote from: drogulus on March 10, 2008, 12:26:39 PM
But theistic philosophy is about what a theist can maintain, not what is actually there. For that you have to go to philosophy proper, which means natural philosophy or science.
Wrong as wrong can be. Philosophy proper means "love of wisdom". This is by no means limited to science*. "Natural philosophy" is just one out of many "philosophies" and as such just as valid (or invalid) as "theistic philosophy". To confound science with philosophy and proclaim "natural philosophy" as the only true philosophy amounts to dogmatism.
*Of course, science and wisdom are neither mutually exclusive nor automatically related.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 10, 2008, 04:04:05 PM
Hmm, the above scenario does not quite work scientifically as you envision. It was an elegant thought experiment though.
Where did I go wrong?
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2008, 11:48:02 PM
To confound science with philosophy and proclaim "natural philosophy" as the only true philosophy amounts to dogmatism.
Dogmatism indeed.
The reasoning of many atheists, including Drogulus, seems to go as follows:
"I only accept observational evidence, which is only obtained from the material world. Science, which studies the material world, has had spectacular success in providing observationally verifiable evidence and in explaining how the natural world works. Hence, science has shown to be the only reliable source of human knowledge. Therefore, I don't accept the possibility that there is any other reality than what science studies, i.e. the material world."
This, however, is circular reasoning: the conclusion is basically the same as the premise from which it started.
Quote from: Wanderer on March 10, 2008, 11:44:07 AM
It's not a widely known fact that since before the Schism the title of Pope was (and still is) only reserved for and bestowed upon two bishops; the Roman pontifex and the (now called orthodox) patriarch of Alexandria.
So, the answer really depends on which one you mean... ;)
Oh, bollicks, ya got me!
I have no idea and this may surprise you or not, couldn't care a monkey's! ;D
Also, being rich is a no-no!
So, if you made your pile by selling drugs you are in for an eternity of Damnation (some might think it worth it - the fools!).
Quote from: Wanderer on March 10, 2008, 11:44:07 AM
It's not a widely known fact that since before the Schism the title of Pope was (and still is) only reserved for and bestowed upon two bishops; the Roman pontifex and the (now called orthodox) patriarch of Alexandria.
Curiously, I knew that. But you are certainly correct,
Tasos, that it is not widely known.
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2008, 11:48:02 PM
Wrong as wrong can be. Philosophy proper means "love of wisdom". This is by no means limited to science*. "Natural philosophy" is just one out of many "philosophies" and as such just as valid (or invalid) as "theistic philosophy". To confound science with philosophy and proclaim "natural philosophy" as the only true philosophy amounts to dogmatism.
*Of course, science and wisdom are neither mutually exclusive nor automatically related.
No, I'm not wrong. Going to philosophy proper from theistic philosophy is an escape from dogmatism. And resorting to science to determine the existence of entities is just a good move, since the existence of entities can't be demonstrated by pure reason. Whether something exists or not is determined by reason and evidence working together. If you use the methods of pure reason you get something like "god is perfect, perfection requires existence, therefore god exists". You can't determine the existence of anything that way.
Quote from: drogulus on March 11, 2008, 12:51:13 PM
If you use the methods of pure reason you get something like "god is perfect, perfection requires existence, therefore god exists". You can't determine the existence of anything that way.
Silly how atheists always hammer on the ontological argument for God, which is hardly taken seriously by any theist.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 11, 2008, 03:01:39 AM
Where did I go wrong?
Well, you simply can't vary over a large range.
Also, how do you "tie the knobs together" if you have very different numerical values, such as 40, 0.007 and 10
-120, to name just three of the values (eta, epsilon and omega)? Are you linearly varying them all by 0.001 increments? That obviously does not vary them all by the same "percentage". But if you don't linearly tie them together, then all bets are off in terms of arbitrariness.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 10, 2008, 11:59:09 AM
Generally, in theistic philosophy the probability of God is maximal (there is nothing else as probable), since God is the metaphysically necessary being. All other beings acquire their being from Him, i.e. without Him nothing would exist.
Thomas Aquinas: all creatures derive their actus essendi, their act of being, from God, while God is esse, being, itself.
This is dogmatism of the precise kind that provoked the modern reaction in philosophy (by modern I mean recent centuries, not recent decades). It depends on the acceptance of a premise which can't be justified by a higher standard. Logical possibility should be seen as the lowest standard for the existence of anything. We say, for example: "Yes, it's logically possible for strings, gods, or a multiverse to exist", meaning we have no higher standard to deploy in their defense. There is a motive (save the underlying premise) but not a warrant beyond that. Maybe there's hope for strings, but we'll only know if we can figure out how to test the idea. We also might do more investigation of intercessory prayer and other paranormal possibilities.
Like Hume, I accept science on pragmatic and not dogmatic grounds. In other words, it works. And I resort to metaphysics in a defensive mode, to counter the more extravagant metaphysics of my opponents. To be puritanical about it, I shouldn't do it at all. But I'm not a dogmatist, so I allow for metaphysics, largely because it's fun, and to demonstrate how little can be accomplished by it.
Denying the ontological argument is not the point, since I see no reason to accept any such arguments.
Why is Terry Jones argument for witches (
Holy Grail) and their supposed composition (to say nothing of their guilt!) funny? It's not just because we no longer think there are witches. To really get the point of this sketch, you have to understand that we no longer reason that way about what exists. We only argue in such a medieval manner about premises that can't be justified in any other way. Today we understand that a search for real witches, gods, or other improbables requires something beyond a mere deductive argument. Real investigations requires estimates of probability, which in turn requires some kind of evidence. Whether such evidence suggests materialism or not is beside the point. Many scientists would gladly investigate nonmaterial causes, and such investigations do in fact occur. The charge that scientists are dogmatically commited to materialism is false, though some scientists may exhibit signs of such a bias, it's not intrinsic to the methodology.
Also, we now understand that such concepts as "pure being" or 'being itself" are not useful. Existence is not an attribute. It is properly understood as a statement of a conclusion, that
something exists, and must therefore depend on a prior argument in which evidence is evaluated.
Logical arguments about the necessary existence of something are inappropriate for doubtful things, which can't be made less doubtful by such a move. They can only be assumed dogmatically. Since you can't do anything useful with these ideas, you should just give up on them, and not waste time in a futile attempt to disprove them.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 11, 2008, 01:33:01 PM
Silly how atheists always hammer on the ontological argument for God, which is hardly taken seriously by any theist.
You seem to have some problems with atheists. Why? Most of them just mind their own business.
Quote from: Don on March 11, 2008, 03:42:07 PM
You seem to have some problems with atheists. Why? Most of them just mind their own business.
Because they posit that the centerpiece of his existence is nonexistent. But Al is considerably more intelligent and tolerant than many of his less clever colleagues in faith, who have some problems with other flavors of theism too.
Quote from: Don on March 11, 2008, 03:42:07 PM
You seem to have some problems with atheists. Why? Most of them just mind their own business.
Bullshit. This is my business. It's also Al's business, and anyone else's who can contribute to the discussion. I have no use whatsoever for drones who "mind their own business".
Quote from: Brian on March 11, 2008, 03:47:59 PM
Because they posit that the centerpiece of his existence is nonexistent.
No, as should be clear by now I am not shaken by that at all. What I do have problems with are certain kinds of argumentation, however.
Thanks for the kudos, anyway.
Quote from: drogulus on March 11, 2008, 03:49:18 PM
Bullshit. This is my business. It's also Al's business, and anyone else's who can contribute to the discussion. I have no use whatsoever for drones who "mind their own business".
On the contrary, a "live and let live" attitude is the better way to go.
I've been absent from the board a long time in order educate myself about music and other things. I've realized that learning doesn't come from debate. Ideas should be judged and tested, but that process doesn't produce them. For most of my life, I have been uninterested in religion, but after examining the facts and reasoning I became a true atheist. It was Dawkins' call to arms which finally pulled me over from agnosticism.
Like many of you, I do science. I'm an engineering grad student and my particular field is more mathematically and logically rigorous that others in my department. In short, I am required to prove every statement I make, which is actually a process I enjoy. However, putting the metaphysical up to that process inevitably dooms it to failure. How can something extra-physical possibly be judged by the standards of science. How can we hope to understand God when, by definition, He is outside of our understanding? These questions, I believe inevitably, lead to dismissal of all things which we cannot see or trust others to have seen and understood.
After reading Alex Ross's The Rest Is Noise, I have come to understand that I know very little about music. And more importantly, Art will not save the world. We are all humans, making human things, including Art. Our science is an amazing achievement but ultimately limited by the neurons in our brain. Science can help us know, but how we use this knowledge is what tells us we are human. Technology saves us and destroys us, and there is no guarantee that is the former which will prevail.
Human understanding of the cosmos, how they were created and, more importantly, why they were created will ultimately fail to produce suitable answers. Human answers, even when guided perfectly by the scientific method and philosophy, are in the end just human musings. In the end, science is really only good for predicting the future and unraveling the past as far as it is useful to us. Any thing else are just the silly games drogulus referred to. Are they really anything else?
If you believe the gospels in the Bible, there have been times when the metaphysical has touched upon the fabric of our human world. The miracles cannot be tested, by definition. And that is why science fails to understand them. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, again, by definition. But that same leap of faith shouldn't be tied to intelligence, but to philosophy. Intelligence is a person's ability to understand the world, which doesn't necessarily require them to believe in only the things which can be proven.
A case in point would be this. Suppose a metaphysical event happened and was recorded. How would you go about verifying it to be metaphysical? I think there would have to be an exhaustive search for all possible physical explanations and when they failed, part of the population would believe it to have happened and part would dismiss it as an illusion. Forever it would remain a mystery. Hasn't this happened exactly with the metaphysical event of the Resurrection?
So it is not so stupid to believe, I suppose. As I have come to learn this, I have started to think about a very interesting proposition. What if Jesus's life, as more or less related in the gospels, was a real history? I am not so sure yet what the answer to that question is, but I am examining it as best as I can with my limited brain.
And I have greatly enjoyed this current debate. Both sides have been extremely knowledgeable and clear, and it is great fun to read.
Excellent post, Catison.
Quote from: Don on March 11, 2008, 07:36:21 PM
On the contrary, a "live and let live" attitude is the better way to go.
To address that remark to Ernie is one of the most beautiful instances of optimism I have yet seen on this thread.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 12, 2008, 03:53:56 AM
To address that remark to Ernie is one of the most beautiful instances of optimism I have yet seen on this thread.
;D >:D
Quote from: Don on March 11, 2008, 07:36:21 PM
On the contrary, a "live and let live" attitude is the better way to go.
But that's not the contrary. Live and let live is exactly what I do in life. It has no application to the
Plantinga: The God Delusion thread, though. Here arguments are not just permitted, they are the whole point. And what could "minding your own business" mean in this context, other than you don't care for how others are responding in this thread? How is that "minding your own business"?
(not that I would require anyone to do such a thing)Quote from: Catison on March 11, 2008, 07:39:39 PM
And I have greatly enjoyed this current debate. Both sides have been extremely knowledgeable and clear, and it is great fun to read.
Mind your own business.
>:(
Quote from: drogulus on March 12, 2008, 11:32:43 AM
But that's not the contrary. Live and let live is exactly what I do in life. It has no application to the Plantinga: The God Delusion thread, though. Here arguments are not just permitted, they are the whole point. And what could "minding your own business" mean in this context, other than you don't care for how others are responding in this thread? How is that "minding your own business"? (not that I would require anyone to do such a thing)
Mind your own business. >:(
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/4424/ohoq9.jpg)
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/790/clipboard01lf7.jpg)
Prof. Plantinga answers objections to his metaphysics from an uncomprehending materialist.
LOL!
If God is absolute form and is not made up of created matter, I'm wondering why his simplicity matters so much (in relation to the existence of organized complexity mentioned earlier).
Quote from: Danny on March 12, 2008, 01:27:03 PM
... and is not made up of created matter,
Well, that is exactly the point. Dawkins's claims about the improbability of God all rest on his confusion that God must obey the exact laws that complex matter obeys, and material complexity indeed only arises through evolution.
Dawkins thinks his chapter 4 of The God Delusion is the absolute clincher, but it is precisely this chapter that theists smile the most about. Dawkins appears to envision God as one humongous, gigantic brain, and this is funny indeed.
Delusion, truly 8)
Quote from: Danny on March 12, 2008, 01:27:03 PM
If God is absolute form and is not made up of created matter, I'm wondering why his simplicity matters so much (in relation to the existence of organized complexity mentioned earlier).
It doesn't really matter unless it stops being metaphysics and figures out how to be real. One way metaphysics works is to dream something up and then give it a name. Since there's nothing to compare it with, you can do this to your hearts content. The other way, known henceforth as "the other way", is to think up a name and find something to apply it to. So long as that thing doesn't resemble too closely something that actually exists you won't have any trouble.
:) The only time you're likely to have trouble is when your scheme corresponds closely to what evidence-based systems like scientific materialism say. Then you can be accused (with certain justice, it must be said), of making metaphysical assumptions not strictly warranted by what actually can be known.
Here's the odd part. The people who make the most out of this objection are proposing a metaphysical scheme that's overtly anti-verification all the way through! Which leaves one wondering: Just exactly how do they propose to make their speculations secure enough to be a real alternative?
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 12, 2008, 01:48:15 PM
Well, that is exactly the point. Dawkins's claims about the improbability of God all rest on his confusion that God must obey the exact laws that complex matter obeys, and material complexity indeed only arises through evolution.
Dawkins thinks his chapter 4 of The God Delusion is the absolute clincher, but it is precisely this chapter that theists smile the most about. Dawkins appears to envision God as one humongous, gigantic brain, and this is funny indeed.
Dawkins is trying to help.
:P Since you appear to have no interest in understanding what you say, he proposes to make sense for you. The fact that he doesn't do a very good job of it says more about the faults of what is being proposed than it does about his attempts to understand it. As the theists say when they think we're not paying attention, no one is meant to understand this stuff.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 12, 2008, 01:48:15 PM
Well, that is exactly the point. Dawkins's claims about the improbability of God all rest on his confusion that God must obey the exact laws that complex matter obeys, and material complexity indeed only arises through evolution.
And why don't these laws apply to God?
And, where did God come from?
Quote from: drogulus on March 12, 2008, 01:58:59 PM
Dawkins is trying to help. :P Since you appear to have no interest in understanding what you say, he proposes to make sense for you. The fact that he doesn't do a very good job of it says more about the faults of what is being proposed than it does about his attempts to understand it. As the theists say when they think we're not paying attention, no one is meant to understand this stuff.
Now
that was a funny comment.
Quote from: drogulus link=topic=6I 316.msg155587#msg155587 date=1205350363
But that's not the contrary. Live and let live is exactly what I do in life. It has no application to the Plantinga: The God Delusion thread, though. Here arguments are not just permitted, they are the whole point. And what could "minding your own business" mean in this context, other than you don't care for how others are responding in this thread? How is that "minding your own business"? (not that I would require anyone to do such a thing)
No, that was not my meaning. I felt that Al was was lumping atheists together, saying that they do this or that, disparge the views of theists, etc. So I just wanted to point out that most folks (believers and non-believers) don't disparage anyone but do respect the rights of others to hold and practice their own views. Sorry that the way I phrased my comment did not come out clearly.
No, Don. You're evil, but in a respectful way. ;D
Quote from: drogulus on March 12, 2008, 01:58:59 PM
The only time you're likely to have trouble is when your scheme corresponds closely to what evidence-based systems like scientific materialism say. Then you can be accused (with certain justice, it must be said), of making metaphysical assumptions not strictly warranted by what actually can be known.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. - Martin Rees
Quote from: Norbeone on March 12, 2008, 03:53:01 PM
And why don't these laws apply to God?
The laws of complex matter don't apply because God is not matter. He created matter.
QuoteAnd, where did God come from?
God does not come from anywhere, rather, He is the eternal basis where everything comes from.
Quote from: drogulus on March 12, 2008, 05:20:46 PM
No, Don. You're evil, but in a respectful way. ;D
Ernie is, of course, at his drollest when he is projecting his hostility upon faceless Others.
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2008, 11:59:02 PM
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. - Martin Rees
With unlikely things only evidence of presence matters. It's a question of burden of proof. There more unusual the claim, the higher to evidentiary hurdle to overcome. As Russell said, the teapot orbiting in space may exist, and it would be hell to disprove, but the sound position to take is that there's no reason to think it's there. Affirmative evidence is what you need.
Gods are not disproved. Instead, they lose a vote of confidence and are ignored out of existence. It's funny, I've been saying all along that things that have to be believed to be true aren't. Look at history, and you'll see confirmation. All the dead gods weren't disproved, they died of neglect.
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2008, 04:45:30 AM
With unlikely things only evidence of presence matters.
That's exactly the kind of argument made by the inhabitants of Plato's cave.
Unlikely things, the evidence of presence . . . we are talking about lack of civility on Ernie's part, aren't we? 8)
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 12:21:25 AM
God does not come from anywhere, rather, He is the eternal basis where everything comes from.
But couldn't the same argument be made for the universe itself. In other words, why not say the universe does not come from anywhere? Why can't everything come from the universe itself?
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2008, 04:45:30 AM
With unlikely things only evidence of presence matters. It's a question of burden of proof. There more unusual the claim, the higher to evidentiary hurdle to overcome. As Russell said, the teapot orbiting in space may exist, and it would be hell to disprove, but the sound position to take is that there's no reason to think it's there. Affirmative evidence is what you need.
I don't think this line of reasoning is going to persuade anyone who is a believer in God. They have their evidence in the ancient texts.
But of course these texts won't stand up to the evidence requirements of science, because the very thing these texts talk about is metaphysical. It is outside scientific inquiry by definition. The hard part is to think that there might have been something that has happened outside of physics and that us humans won't eventually figure everything out. That opens up a lot of possibilities.
The fear is such line of reasoning leads to chaos. If there is some world beyond physical understanding then anything could happen. What good is studying the world and its laws if God could come along and change them for His purpose at any moment? Or, how am I supposed to trust anything if it doesn't have to be accompanied by verifiable evidence?
These questions are moot to the believer, which may be a sign of weakness to the nonbeliever. However, there is something humble in admitting you don't have the answers. If you ever come to a point when you realize that you won't be able to figure out the meaning of the universe simply by reading and thinking a lot, you'll have to come to rely upon others. For many, the reliability comes from the Church, which makes its business the meaning of the universe. If you can accept it, it touches, historically and metaphysically, God himself, and it brings its own literature in support of its beliefs, available for examination by us mere humans.
Now perhaps what the Church feeds us is a bunch of made up junk for weak people. But what if the biblical authors actually were telling the truth? Wouldn't that be evidence?
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 06:06:05 AM
But couldn't the same argument be made for the universe itself. In other words, why not say the universe does not come from anywhere? Why can't everything come from the universe itself?
Sure it could. However, there we stumble onto some problems. As I had written elsewhere about a wider material background that might have produced our universe:
"Furthermore, the demand on eternal matter would also have to be that it does not have to obey the second law of thermodynamics (by the way, this demand also holds for the "re-set" of a potential cyclic universe upon each bounce). Otherwise, what use would be eternal matter if it had all run down into an undifferentiated mush that would not have the thermal/motional energy anymore to produce universes? In the ekpyrotic model (or one may think of equivalent other options if string theory, upon which it is based, will be refuted), for example, we have the birth of our universe from a collision of membranes (branes) in multi-dimensional space.
"Where does the energy of collision come from if the second law of thermodynamics holds in an eternal universe? It could never self-renew, and if it cannot, it would eventually run down into thermal randomness, and one would be forced to ask the question: where did it come from in its original "fresh" state?
"If the postulated eternal matter once had to be in an original "fresh" state, it cannot be self-sufficient and eternal after all, certainly not in a state that eternally can produce universes. Thus it would beg the question for an originator of this matter anyway."
***
Certainly, one may believe in the magic of a wider universe where the second law of thermodynamics does not hold, but I find this unlikely (we know how matter behaves *)) and we probably can never observe this, given the absolute observational limits in cosmology that I outlined above. Here, faith needs to replace observational evidence.
I personally find the concept of the immaterial Unmoved Mover (the Prime Mover) much more convincing.
*) Yes, we know that all matter moves at all times on the microscopic particle level, but this is different from eternal movement with always fresh kinetic energy on the macroscopic level.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 06:24:26 AM
These questions are moot to the believer, which may be a sign of weakness to the nonbeliever. However, there is something humble in admitting you don't have the answers. If you ever come to a point when you realize that you won't be able to figure out the meaning of the universe simply by reading and thinking a lot, you'll have to come to rely upon others. For many, the reliability comes from the Church, which makes its business the meaning of the universe. If you can accept it, it touches, historically and metaphysically, God himself, and it brings its own literature in support of its beliefs, available for examination by us mere humans.
Now perhaps what the Church feeds us is a bunch of made up junk for weak people. But what if the biblical authors actually were telling the truth? Wouldn't that be evidence?
Exactly.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 06:24:26 AM
IThese questions are moot to the believer, which may be a sign of weakness to the nonbeliever. However, there is something humble in admitting you don't have the answers. If you ever come to a point when you realize that you won't be able to figure out the meaning of the universe simply by reading and thinking a lot, you'll have to come to rely upon others. For many, the reliability comes from the Church, which makes its business the meaning of the universe. If you can accept it, it touches, historically and metaphysically, God himself, and it brings its own literature in support of its beliefs, available for examination by us mere humans.
The irony, though, is that the religion is often used as a means of denying that one doesn't have the answers. It proffers answers to questions, but those answers are unverifiable and of no material use. Scientific answers, on the other hand, have immediate concrete benefits in terms of actually increasing our understanding of how the universe operates, and our ability to accomplish tasks and solve problems. I fail to see any such benefits to religiously inspired ideas such as Al's concept of the "immaterial Unmoved Mover". Even if such a thing exists, what new technology does it allow us to create, what disease does it allow us to cure, how does it increase our understanding of any other questions?
Quote from: Shrunk on March 13, 2008, 06:57:46 AM
Scientific answers, on the other hand, have immediate concrete benefits in terms of actually increasing our understanding of how the universe operates, and our ability to accomplish tasks and solve problems.
Is that all that man is? A task-accomplisher and a problem-solver? A robot, in other words?
Quote from: Shrunk on March 13, 2008, 06:57:46 AMI fail to see any such benefits to religiously inspired ideas such as Al's concept of the "immaterial Unmoved Mover". Even if such a thing exists, what new technology does it allow us to create, what disease does it allow us to cure, how does it increase our understanding of any other questions?
How does God impede us to create new technologies or to cure diseases?
You see, your main problem is that you think about science, God and humanity in purely utilitarian / instrumentalist terms.
Quote from: Florestan on March 13, 2008, 07:42:52 AM
Is that all that man is? A task-accomplisher and a problem-solver? A robot, in other words?
How does God impede us to create new technologies or to cure diseases?
You see, your main problem is that you think about science, God and humanity in purely utilitarian / instrumentalist terms.
No, I'm just saying that religion is of no use in answering scientific questions, such as "How did the universe originate?" There are other questions, perhaps equally important, to which science offers no answers. Whether relgion holds answers to those questions is a matter of debate.
Quote from: Shrunk on March 13, 2008, 08:00:43 AM
No, I'm just saying that religion is of no use in answering scientific questions, such as "How did the universe originate?" There are other questions, perhaps equally important, to which science offers no answers.
True. One of those questions is "
Why did the Universe originate"
Quote from: Shrunk on March 13, 2008, 08:00:43 AM
No, I'm just saying that religion is of no use in answering scientific questions, such as "How did the universe originate?" There are other questions, perhaps equally important, to which science offers no answers. Whether relgion holds answers to those questions is a matter of debate.
I would say that yes, religion is of no use here. But only because science deals with the physical universe. If there is such thing as an immaterial metaphysical reality, then we are limited in our understanding if we limit ourselves to science. I could turn your original question around and ask, what use is science to tell us about the metaphysical? Religion hopes to tell us why things are done and provide a purpose for the physical world; I don't think science can tell us this. Each man must learn his own purpose.
I had said:
"Silly how atheists always hammer on the ontological argument for God, which is hardly taken seriously by any theist."
Don responded:
"You seem to have some problems with atheists. Why? Most of them just mind their own business."
and:
"No, that was not my meaning. I felt that Al was was lumping atheists together, saying that they do this or that, disparge the views of theists, etc. So I just wanted to point out that most folks (believers and non-believers) don't disparage anyone but do respect the rights of others to hold and practice their own views. Sorry that the way I phrased my comment did not come out clearly."
***
Ok, now I understand what you mean. I might have been more cautious with my wording, and might have said instead of "Silly how atheists always hammer on" (which may make the impression of lumping them all together),
"Silly how atheists frequently hammer on", or: "Silly how some atheists always hammer on"
I am usually more cautious – sorry when I wasn't here – by not saying "atheists" but "many atheists" or "some atheists".
And you may be right, Don, in that many atheists may respect the views of theists. However, today's most vocal public atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris) certainly do not – they hold that religious belief is inherently irrational – and the same holds for many "internet atheists", including some here.
Quote from: Florestan on March 13, 2008, 08:28:50 AM
True. One of those questions is "Why did the Universe originate"
Florestan, don't you think that this is one question that has no answer, and therefore it is not a question at all? Since we know that we have been in existence in the last 100,000 years -at most- out of the 14 billion years of universe, even if it has a reason, it is safe to say, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with us and thus, hardly concerns us :P
Also, I don't think science should concern itself with the question "why" anyway. It's area of concern should be "how"
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 08:33:43 AM
I would say that yes, religion is of no use here. But only because science deals with the physical universe. If there is such thing as an immaterial metaphysical reality, then we are limited in our understanding if we limit ourselves to science. I could turn your original question around and ask, what use is science to tell us about the metaphysical? Religion hopes to tell us why things are done and provide a purpose for the physical world; I don't think science can tell us this. Each man must learn his own purpose.
Some of our neighbors pursue as an article of faith that everything that is, is material, and therefore within the purview of the natural sciences.
It is a peculiar religion, but they are welcome to it. Especially if they can live peaceably with others.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 08:48:45 AM
Also, I don't think science should concern itself with the question "why" anyway. Its area of concern should be "how."
This is good sense; and you are endorsing a traditional boundary to Science's field of inquiry.
Some people suppose that only that which is within Science's field of inquiry, is real, and therefore anything that won't fit onto that Procrustean bed, is without merit.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 08:39:59 AM
And you may be right, Don, in that many atheists may respect the views of theists. However, today's most vocal public atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris) certainly do not – they hold that religious belief is inherently irrational – and the same holds for many "internet atheists", including some here.
Understood. I don't really consider myself an atheist. I haven't the slightest idea if God exists, and I'm satisfied to leave it at that.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 08:48:45 AM
Florestan, don't you think that this is one question that has no answer, and therefore it is not a question at all?
No, I don't. It may have no answer for you as an atheist, but I am a theist and for me it is a very important question and an answerable one at that.
Besides, if someone in the 13th century asked "How can man fly?" or "How can tuberculosis be cured" he would have received exactly the reply you made.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 08:48:45 AMSince we know that we have been in existence in the last 100,000 years -at most- out of the 14 billion years of universe, even if it has a reason, it is safe to say, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with us and thus, hardly concerns us :P
In other words, there may be a reason, which you have no idea about, but you feel safe saying it has nothing to do with us. Your logic is seriously flawed.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 08:48:45 AMAlso, I don't think science should concern itself with the question "why" anyway. It's area of concern should be "how"
Quite correct. That's my point.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 08:48:45 AM
Florestan, don't you think that this is one question that has no answer, and therefore it is not a question at all? Since we know that we have been in existence in the last 100,000 years -at most- out of the 14 billion years of universe, even if it has a reason, it is safe to say, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with us and thus, hardly concerns us :P
Not if the reason is a timeless God, a God outside time, for whom everything can exist with the same actuality, be it 14 billion years ago or now or 14 billion years in the future. If there is a timeless God who created the universe, He already knew at the start of the Big Bang how all evolution -- physical and biological -- would eventually turn out. In that sense, time is irrelevant for God.
***
And no, the "timeless" notion is not something invented by theistic philosophy to come up with a "solution" to modern science and the vast time spans it puts before us, but classical philosophy from many centuries before the scientific revolution.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 13, 2008, 08:53:49 AM
This is good sense; and you are endorsing a traditional boundary to Science's field of inquiry.
Some people suppose that only that which is within Science's field of inquiry, is real, and therefore anything that won't fit onto that Procrustean bed, is without merit.
Sure, I'd be very cautious of a scientist who pondered on the question unless s/he is making a philosophical inquiry outside her/his field of work.
I'd like to think that if there was a reason for everything, it would either have to be impossible to find or so easy that it would be right here in front of us. It should not be something that we can find out by research.
Quote from: Florestan on March 13, 2008, 09:02:43 AM
No, I don't. It may have no answer for you as an atheist, but I am a theist and for me it is a very important question and an answerable one at that.
But, it is
you [us] who have invented the question. It was not based on an observable phenomenon. You are asking science to find the answer to it, and if it can't (
and it can't) answer it, why should it take the blame for it? A good method to question the validity of existence of anything may be to ask what if it didn't exist? What if there was no reason for the universe to exist, what would be different in the universe as a whole except for some civilization on a small planet in the outer reaches of a very small galaxy?
That we are intelligent enough to be able to ask such a question does not merit its validity IMO.
Quote
Besides, if someone in the 13th century asked "How can man fly?" or "How can tuberculosis be cured" he would have received exactly the reply you made.
They are not the same type of questions, you do realize that. These questions were asked
after there was an observable phenomenon. People were dying of tuberculosis so to find a cure was an answer to that problem. Or they have observed birds and other flying creatures in the nature, examined it, blueprinted the mechanism of wings and other tools, then asked "How can we make a machine that can fly us in the air?".
You can ask, "why is there a gravitational pull?" It is a valid question, and it is based on an observation. There is the scientific explanation for it (spacetime bending with the presence of particles, etc) but there is not a philosophical reason for 'why, oh why do objects pull each other?". You can apply the same non-existence test to it and draw the conclusion that if there was no gravitation, universe would not be what it is today, and you have the philosophical answer if you need one.
Quote
In other words, there may be a reason, which you have no idea about, but you feel safe saying it has nothing to do with us. Your logic is seriously flawed.
I personally think there is no reason, I don't see the reason for a reason in fact ;D I might be wrong of course, who knows? I am only leaving the option out because it is not something I know for a fact. What do you think the reason is? and how would it affect the rest of the universe in your opinion?
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 09:03:45 AM
Not if the reason is a timeless God, a God outside time, for whom everything can exist with the same actuality, be it 14 billion years ago or now or 14 billion years in the future. If there is a timeless God who created the universe, He already knew at the start of the Big Bang how all evolution -- physical and biological -- would eventually turn out. In that sense, time is irrelevant for God.
Yet we are bound by time, we are not God. Our solutions will always have to include the notion of time. If it is revealed to all of us today without leaving any trace of doubt that God created the universe for the reasons that were foretold in the scriptures, wouldn't it dawn on anyone to ask what the rest of the universe was for? and why it took 14 billion years to shape to what it is today?
I guess what I want to ask is, "What reason for why universe came to be would wholly satisfy you ?"
Quote
And no, the "timeless" notion is not something invented by theistic philosophy to come up with a "solution" to modern science and the vast time spans it puts before us, but classical philosophy from many centuries before the scientific revolution.
No arguments there. Thankfully it also credits the "No Creator" view as well, for it discredits the need for an action for the original reaction :)
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 09:46:34 AM
These questions were asked after there was an observable phenomenon. People were dying of tuberculosis so to find a cure was an answer to that problem. Or they have observed birds and other flying creatures in the nature, examined it, blueprinted the mechanism of wings and other tools, then asked "How can we make a machine that can fly us in the air?".
Surely the most basic observation of any self-aware creature is that he has been created. Is it then not an observable phenomenon which may be questioned?
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 12:21:25 AM
The laws of complex matter don't apply because God is not matter. He created matter.
God does not come from anywhere, rather, He is the eternal basis where everything comes from.
Al, as a self-proclaimed scientist, you can't seriously think this is an acceptable answer, can you?
How do you know he doesn't come from anywhere? How can that make sense, as a scientist? And please don't say 'these things are outside science', because they happen to be VERY scientific questions. It is completely ignorant to just think these explantions up without having any actual proof for it. If you DO have proof or at least some rationalisation, however, please present it, because that's the only way that you could begin to convince anyone of this (so far) baseless claim.
This is exactly the type of thing that frustrates me, because it's an easy way out for the believer when they say something that they claim needs no explanation. EVERYTHING needs an explanation.
EDIT - not that i'm saying everything can be explained right now, but it still holds true that there should be some solid reaons to really believe in something.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 09:55:37 AM
Surely the most basic observation of any self-aware creature is that he has been created. Is it then not an observable phenomenon which may be questioned?
That's why we have medicine and, more recently, psychology. To investigate how we function, and how we can function better, no?
We do not have any questions hanging about our physical existence. I know "how" I was created (sexual intercourse), and to a large extent, -if I must know- "why" I was created (sexual pleasure or planned parenthood or both).
The type of "why" questions I question are those that ask not "why do the birds fly" which is essentially asking "how do the birds fly", but those that ask "why am I here" which is a different type of "why" which has nothing to do with "how is it that am I here". And those types of questions are invented not observed. Meaning, they presuppose a reason,
then try to find an explanation for it.
Well stated, orbital.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 10:26:16 AM
The type of "why" questions I question are those that ask not "why do the birds fly" which is essentially asking "how do the birds fly", but those that ask "why am I here" which is a different type of "why" which has nothing to do with "how is it that am I here". And those types of questions are invented not observed. Meaning, they presuppose a reason, then try to find an explanation for it.
Physics, as we know it today, is unanchored at the limits of space and time. We have started at a, more or less, arbitrary point defined by our ability to observe. At the fringes of our perception, physics is cloudy. We don't understand the universe at the time of the big bang and we don't understand subsubatomic particles completely. Perhaps we will one day. But questions will always remain. The limit of these question is the big one: why is it the way it is? That is a perfectly reasonable question. And prospecting there is no answer is just as much of a problem as saying God did it. Both answers have no scientific evidence and would be equally illogical.
But isn't that exactly the type of thing people ridicule the Church for? Don't ask us
that question.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 13, 2008, 10:07:10 AM
Al, as a self-proclaimed scientist, you can't seriously think this is an acceptable answer, can you?
How do you know he doesn't come from anywhere? How can that make sense, as a scientist? And please don't say 'these things are outside science', because they happen to be VERY scientific questions. It is completely ignorant to just think these explantions up without having any actual proof for it. If you DO have proof or at least some rationalisation, however, please present it, because that's the only way that you could begin to convince anyone of this (so far) baseless claim.
This is exactly the type of thing that frustrates me, because it's an easy way out for the believer when they say something that they claim needs no explanation. EVERYTHING needs an explanation.
EDIT - not that i'm saying everything can be explained right now, but it still holds true that there should be some solid reaons to really believe in something.
You're wrong, this is
not a scientific question, because science deals with the material world, not with the immaterial.
EVERYTHING needs an explanation? At some point one thing must be the basis for everything, for the atheist it is eternal matter, for the theist it is God. Where does matter come from?
Don't say from quantum fluctuations, which produce matter "from nothing". That theory is complete nonsense, since a quantum vacuum which produces fluctuations is a field, i.e. not nothing. So where does that field come from?
So just like an atheist is forced to concede that there must be a basic reservoir of eternal matter, energy or fields, the theist says that the basis for all is God.
One thing
must be the ultimate explanation.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 11:13:37 AM
So just like an atheist is forced to concede that there must be a basic reservoir of eternal matter, energy or fields, the theist says that the basis for all is God.
One thing must be the ultimate explanation.
Ok, but why is that thing God?
Quote from: Norbeone on March 13, 2008, 11:18:25 AM
Ok, but why is that thing God?
I think I have explained sufficiently by now (maybe you want to read my posts again) why
a) the Designer hypothesis satisfies me most *)
b) the concept of eternal matter (fine-tuning of the laws of nature aside) does not satisfy me
*)
in the context I find the evidence from divine revelation, i.e. declarative evidence, an additional satisfactory element. Whereas we have no evidence for the multiverse or other naturalistic explanations of ultimate origins whatsoever, neither scientific nor otherwise.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 11:11:07 AM
Physics, as we know it today, is unanchored at the limits of space and time. We have started at a, more or less, arbitrary point defined by our ability to observe. At the fringes of our perception, physics is cloudy. We don't understand the universe at the time of the big bang and we don't understand subsubatomic particles completely. Perhaps we will one day. But questions will always remain. The limit of these question is the big one: why is it the way it is? That is a perfectly reasonable question. And prospecting there is no answer is just as much of a problem as saying God did it. Both answers have no scientific evidence and would be equally illogical.
But isn't that exactly the type of thing people ridicule the Church for? Don't ask us that question.
So if everything is known one day, that question will still prevail ;D The question will remain because we invented the question. It is like asking me the final decimal digit of Pi, or better yet, the numerical representation of the square root of -1, I can't answer it because there isn't an answer -unless I answer it with something I can only suppose. I can say the answer is
i . Just think of i as the answer and you can base your theories on it, but it wasn't the real answer. You invented the question and I invented the answer.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 11:13:37 AM
One thing must be the ultimate explanation.
If there is an explanation, that is.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 09:46:34 AM
Yet we are bound by time, we are not God. Our solutions will always have to include the notion of time. If it is revealed to all of us today without leaving any trace of doubt that God created the universe for the reasons that were foretold in the scriptures, wouldn't it dawn on anyone to ask what the rest of the universe was for?
For the glory of God. Already in the 15th century the theologian and astronomer Nicolas of Cusa said that only an infinite universe would be worthy of the Creator. Well, our universe may not be infinite, but it is unbelievably vast.
Also, you can look at God as an artist instead of an engineer. If physical evolution demanded that during its course the universe would grow so big, why would it bother the artist if it is the most elegant way of creation?
But wouldn't that be wasteful? Efficiency applies only to designers with limited resources. God is unlimited, so in this case the question doesn't make much sense.
Quoteand why it took 14 billion years to shape to what it is today?
Because that is how long the natural processes take that the Designer chose. Again, in a sense time is irrelevant to God.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 06:24:26 AM
But what if the biblical authors actually were telling the truth? Wouldn't that be evidence?
No, the evidence they were telling the truth would be evidence.
We are talking about supernatural realms and the entities in them.
Al says the rules don't apply (except his rule that they don't apply. I wonder where that came from?). So, in the spirit of adventure, let's play along.
One distinction that can be made in the world we live in is the distinction between real and imaginary entities. Does this distinction hold in the supernatural realm? No, it can't, since we have no knowledge with which to make it. In like manner there is no distinction between a real and imaginary theology in
this world that is about another world for which there are no rules. Rules are observed regularities, so no observation, no rules.
If you want to populate this other world, you have to make it up. Therefore there is no distinction upon which to make the judgment that a religion is fake. Zeus isn't more fake than Allah, he's just more lonely.
If in some manner evidence about an alternative realm different from ours should come to light, then we will get a chance to observe, discover rules and make all the distinctions that we can't make now. Until then, the believers console themselves with the notion that what they believe can't be disproved. But think of all the undisproved things. There are an infinite number of them. How many are real? A tiny fraction, surely. Without evidence, how do we know which ones are? So I think this notion that lack of disproof is a license to believe is overrated.
QuoteOne thing must be the ultimate explanation.
I don't think there will be an ultimate explanation. Explanations are always interpretations based on a particular state of knowledge, and total knowledge doesn't seem possible. So we'll always be stuck with non-ultimate explanations. Since they can do useful things, that's OK.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 12:15:23 PM
Because that is how long the natural processes take that the Designer chose. Again, in a sense time is irrelevant to God.
It's strange that when someone appears so assertive about these things, it seem that it should be taken less seriously.
My point is, Al, that you appear to
know for certain the things of which you speak. I'd love to know how anyone can be so sure about such things as time being irrelevant to God etc.
Either there is nothing or there is a universe (in some stage of development). Without a universe there cannot be a reason.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 13, 2008, 12:42:14 PM
It's strange that when someone appears so assertive about these things, it seem that it should be taken less seriously.
My point is, Al, that you appear to know for certain the things of which you speak. I'd love to know how anyone can be so sure about such things as time being irrelevant to God etc.
Because it can't be disproved.
Al has a
Get Out Of Jail Free card. I could have one too if I wanted, but I prefer to have truth defined within some limits and live with the uncertainty of disconfirmation. That's been a good way to go for a long time now. I don't see any reason to change horses. Maybe someday science will come to an end and there will be no more new knowledge, but this seems unlikely to me. Anyway, we haven't reached that point.
The proposal that there's another path to knowledge that doesn't require confirmation by transparent methods has gone nowhere. All it amounts to is an assertion that you have a right to call what you say true because you say it. Nothing is true without something making it so, so let's get past the assertion and go directly to what warrants it. When you get there, what you find is belief. The supernatural is true because it is believed. That's the ultimate Rope Trick, the one you play on yourself.
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2008, 01:16:35 PM
Because it can't be disproved. Al has a Get Out Of Jail Free card. I could have one too if I wanted, but I prefer to have truth defined within some limits and live with the uncertainty of disconfirmation.
That should make you an agnostic rather than an atheist.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 13, 2008, 12:42:14 PM
My point is, Al, that you appear to know for certain the things of which you speak. I'd love to know how anyone can be so sure about such things as time being irrelevant to God etc.
If you accept God's existence, then His timelessness is a basic philosophical conclusion. If you don't accept God's existence it's a different matter.
Just like with the multiverse: if you believe in the multiverse idea then the randomization of the laws of nature between the individual universes contained in the multiverse is a basic philosophical conclusion to explain the apparent fine-tuning of our particular universe.
Only that I personally find the God idea far more persuasive.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 01:28:18 PM
That should make you an agnostic rather than an atheist.
That's a good point. My atheism is not having a religion. My affrmative belief is that materialism models how true beliefs are found.* But they don't have to be consistent with what materialism says now. A real god, in the process of being discovered, would reveal many things not imagined as possible now. But I don't think the intuitions relied upon by believers are a good guide to what a real god would be.
Another thing to consider is that a real god would collapse the distinction between the natural world and the purported supernatural one. In the process of formulating rules to acccount for a real god we'd have to abolish a distinction that would have been rendered inoperative.
*You can take that operationally, rather than metaphysically. I like to speculate, though.
:)
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 01:31:22 PM
Only that I personally find the God idea far more persuasive.
Then you are - and I know you've repsonded to this before - left with the problem of where God came from, something that should be scrutinized in the same way as all other material things are, whether you you agree or not.
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2008, 12:29:55 PM
If in some manner evidence about an alternative realm different from ours should come to light, then we will get a chance to observe, discover rules and make all the distinctions that we can't make now.
But believers have accepted the bible as evidence. This is sufficient evidence that the metaphysical is real and that Jesus capable of miracles. The only reason it is not evidence to you is because you choose not to believe. True, the text is ancient and written in a style quite unlike that of a biography or history, but to the standards of ancient texts, they offer a good source of information about metaphysical events 2000 years ago.
But there is no guarantee the metaphysical is observable by scientific standards. Its not like we are constrained to one set of physical laws and God another. The idea is that He is unconstrained, by definition. But in order to accept that you must admit there might be a realm unobservable by science.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 02:35:03 PM
But there is no guarantee the metaphysical is observable by scientific standards.
There's a guarantee that it isn't.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 02:35:03 PM
Its not like we are constrained to one set of physical laws and God another.
It's not like anything else, either. By definition, that is.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 02:35:03 PM
But in order to accept that you must admit there might be a realm unobservable by science.
I do accept it. Unobservable should be taken seriously, though.
Quote from: Catison on March 13, 2008, 02:35:03 PM
But believers have accepted the bible as evidence. This is sufficient evidence that the metaphysical is real and that Jesus capable of miracles. The only reason it is not evidence to you is because you choose not to believe.
Something being sufficient evidence because you choose to accept it isn't a good reason for regarding it as evidence. Why don't you accept that all events in the Lord of the Rings books really happened? (aside from the fact that the author obviously didn't attempt to convince readers of it)
The bible shouldn't be evidence for anyone because it is simply not able to demonstrate that the events that occur within it actually happened, or that it's claims are factual.
Why in God's name (pardon the irony of the expression) don't people be a little more demanding than
this? Maybe I missed a meeting or something. ???
Quote from: Norbeone on March 13, 2008, 03:06:42 PM
Why don't you accept that all events in the Lord of the Rings books really happened?
I'm narrow-minded.
:D Or maybe this is how it is:
God is real. He's a tall skinny guy named Fred who lives in Hicksville, N.Y. He teaches Earth Science at Division Avenue H.S. in Levittown. He votes Republican and shops at Modells.
If you can't define what you mean by saying something exists, then you aren't really doing what you think. Fred
really is God. But a certain looseness in the parameters makes it possible to say so. Most of us would prefer a beard and omnipotence and an Orson Welles voice. But the definition has been chosen to maximize the possibility of real existence, so Fred it is.
If you want to fulfill an ideal definition you may not find what you want, so you might as well put it someplace no one can look to avoid unpleasantness. Or you can look for something that is there and tailor the definition to fit it. That's how you get Fred. Maybe now that you have him you don't want him. Maybe what you really want is something that you can't have.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 13, 2008, 03:06:42 PM
The bible shouldn't be evidence for anyone because it is simply not able to demonstrate that the events that occur within it actually happened, or that it's claims are factual.
But this is the point. How do you expect to judge something metaphysical using logic? Regardless of whether or not Jesus is truly the son of God, if you attempted to judge the gospels themselves by any scientific inquiry, it is bound to fail. If you only accept a material universe, then yes, there is no possible factual basis for the gospels. However, a believer need not rely upon physical evidence when the stories speak for the evidence. His reality is very different.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 09:46:34 AM
But, it is you [us] who have invented the question. It was not based on an observable phenomenon.
Not an observable phenomenon?. You're kidding, right? Look around you: inorganic matter everywhere. many different forms of life, stars in the sky etc. It is a legitimate question, arisen from an empirical reality, to ask "Why all these exist?". Now, the answer depends on where you look for it. If you turn only to science --- or rather, to scientific materialism --- you will not find any answer, you'll conclude there is none and stop there. But some of us won't stop there. If scientific materialism can't provide an answer to a question, we'll look elsewhere: There is much more wisdom in the world than it: religions, traditions, customs, the collective uncounscioussness etc. If you want to limit your world only to what can be measured and weighted, fine. I just wish you good luck in quantifying love, friendship, sacrifice, beauty, goodness or whatever else is not a material entity.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 09:46:34 AMYou are asking science to find the answer to it, and if it can't (and it can't) answer it, why should it take the blame for it?
You don't read very attentive what I write, do you? I said it before and say it again, this time in bold, maybe this way you'll see it:
I don't ask science to answer "Why?" and I don't blame it for not being able to answer just as I don't blame a dog for not being able to fly.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 09:46:34 AMThey are not the same type of questions, you do realize that. These questions were asked after there was an observable phenomenon. People were dying of tuberculosis so to find a cure was an answer to that problem. Or they have observed birds and other flying creatures in the nature, examined it, blueprinted the mechanism of wings and other tools, then asked "How can we make a machine that can fly us in the air?".
Exactly. They saw people dying of diseases, birds flying or trees in the wood and asked "Why all these (diseases, birds, trees) exist?" A reality-based question if ever there was one.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 09:46:34 AMWhat do you think the reason is? and how would it affect the rest of the universe in your opinion?
I think and believe the reason why Universe and everything that's in it exist is because God wanted it to exist and created it through a complex process whose technicalities are way beyond our grasp, although its traces can be observed and studied.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 09:46:34 AMYet we are bound by time, we are not God. Our solutions will always have to include the notion of time. If it is revealed to all of us today without leaving any trace of doubt that God created the universe for the reasons that were foretold in the scriptures, wouldn't it dawn on anyone to ask what the rest of the universe was for? and why it took 14 billion years to shape to what it is today?
First you admit that if God exists He is not bound by time, then you ask Him what the time was for. As I said earlier, your logic is seriously flawed.
Quote from: orbital on March 13, 2008, 10:26:16 AM
The type of "why" questions I question are those that ask not "why do the birds fly" which is essentially asking "how do the birds fly", but those that ask "why am I here" which is a different type of "why" which has nothing to do with "how is it that am I here".
Sophistry and verbal play, I'm afraid. The crux of the matter boils down to this:
Theist: How do the birds fly?
Atheist: This way.
Theist: Why do the birds fly this way?
Atheist: ...
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2008, 01:50:55 PM
That's a good point. My atheism is not having a religion. My affrmative belief is that materialism models how true beliefs are found.* But they don't have to be consistent with what materialism says now. A real god, in the process of being discovered, would reveal many things not imagined as possible now. But I don't think the intuitions relied upon by believers are a good guide to what a real god would be.
Another thing to consider is that a real god would collapse the distinction between the natural world and the purported supernatural one. In the process of formulating rules to acccount for a real god we'd have to abolish a distinction that would have been rendered inoperative.
*You can take that operationally, rather than metaphysically. I like to speculate, though. :)
So in one way you admit that agnosticism might be a good way to go, but on the other hand you have already positively decided to reject the reasonable theist version of God. A "real god" has to do this and that, and his works should be open to evidence of the kind scientific evidence is. The theist God, however, has created the regularities of nature that science studies and only very rarely performs miracles. Since God is thus behind and in the regularities of nature He will be the reason of it all, but still be undetectable by science which thrives exactly on those regularities of nature, on reproducible observational events (which miracles are not). You reject this view, by the way also held by the founding fathers of science. And you have already decided that the Bible cannot be true since it is not open to scientific investigation.
You thus have already dogmatically decided against the possibility of the theist God, but on the other hand you claim that you are not dogmatic. But that is exactly what you are, a dogmatic atheist.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 05:23:08 AM
. . . You thus have already dogmatically decided against the possibility of the theist God, but on the other hand you claim that you are not dogmatic. But that is exactly what you are, a dogmatic atheist.
Precisamente.
I daresay not all dogmatic are atheists, but all atheists are dogmatic.
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2008, 06:03:00 AM
I daresay not all dogmatic are atheists, but all atheists are dogmatic.
Perhaps so; I was going to offer a mild objection, but of the people whom I immediately think of as 'non-dogmatic atheists', pehaps agnostic is the more accurate descriptor.
Whereas being firm in "ruling out" a theistic god, in most instances certainly qualifies as dogma.
Just as Ernie's (e.g.) rabid protestations against religion readily qualify as a zealous crusade.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 14, 2008, 06:07:23 AM
Perhaps so; I was going to offer a mild objection, but of the people whom I immediately think of as 'non-dogmatic atheists', pehaps agnostic is the more accurate descriptor.
Exactly. I know who you think of here and I strongly agree.
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2008, 12:28:03 AM
Sophistry and verbal play, I'm afraid. The crux of the matter boils down to this:
Theist: How do the birds fly?
Atheist: This way.
Theist: Why do the birds fly this way?
Atheist: ...
Florestan, you have the answer for the second question already, yes? If I am not answering that question it is not because I don't know the reason why the birds fly this or that way, it is because I don't think there is a reason for me to think that there is a reason for it, that's all.
IT is not fair to say that everything must have a reason and then to delegate all those reasons to one principle which is the source of those questions in the first place. Those "why" questions would have no meaning if you did not think you have the answer before asking it.
Quote from: orbital on March 14, 2008, 06:16:37 AM
Florestan, you have the answer for the second question already, yes? If I am not answering that question it is not because I don't know the reason why the birds fly this or that way, it is because I don't think there is a reason for me to think that there is a reason for it, that's all.
IT is not fair to say that everything must have a reason and then to delegate all those reasons to one principle which is the source of those questions in the first place. Those "why" questions would have no meaning if you did not think you have the answer before asking it.
What you say describes quite right the self-imposed limitations of the atheists.
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2008, 06:24:19 AM
What you say describes quite right the self-imposed limitations of the atheists.
As far as I can tell, the philosophy is this: All things in the universe have a purpose, but the universe itself has no purpose. So I can ask the question, what is the purpose of a bird flying from A to B. But I cannot ask why this bird flys in such a way, because that would be too close to asking, why the universe is the way it is.
If that is true, why should there be a disjunction between which questions have an answer and those that do not?
Quote from: Catison on March 14, 2008, 08:11:06 AM
As far as I can tell, the philosophy is this: All things in the universe have a purpose, but the universe itself has not purpose. So I can ask the question, what is the purpose of a bird flying from A to B. But I cannot ask why this bird flys in such a way, because that would be too close to asking, why the universe is the way it is.
If that is true, why should there be a disjunction between which questions have an answer and those that do not.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Quote from: Catison on March 14, 2008, 08:11:06 AM
As far as I can tell, the philosophy is this: All things in the universe have a purpose, but the universe itself has no purpose. So I can ask the question, what is the purpose of a bird flying from A to B. But I cannot ask why this bird flys in such a way, because that would be too close to asking, why the universe is the way it is.
If that is true, why should there be a disjunction between which questions have an answer and those that do not?
Not all things in the universe have a purpose. Is there a purpose to why a distant star in the Eagle Nebula goes bust? There is a reason for it, i.e there are underlying causes, but there is no philosophical purpose to it. We would not be affected in the slightest if that star lived another 10 million years.
What is the purpose of a bird flying from A to B? To gather food, to give birth and look after their young, to mate. Or perhaps for shorter distances (i.e from tree to tree or from branch to branch) to have a more advantageous view of below perhaps? Simple survival tactics. I don't understand your question "Why does a bird fly in 'such a way'"? What is curious about the way they fly ???
It is hard for me to believe that there is no distinction between what organic beings do and for what reason, and why the universe came to be. They don't belong in the same category at all. We know that if some birds did not fly south they would go extinct, so here is your reason. Can we say the same thing about the universe? What if it did not come into being ??? How can we compare the two at all?
We know why some things occur because they happen over and over again. In that way we can observe, see similarities, the circumstances surrounding them and draw our conclusions.
Quote from: orbital on March 14, 2008, 09:07:17 AM
Not all things in the universe have a purpose. Is there a purpose to why a distant star in the Eagle Nebula goes bust? There is a reason for it, i.e there are underlying causes, but there is no philosophical purpose to it.
You're right, one might say that this holds for a theistic universe as well.
Theist: How do the birds fly?
Atheist: This way.
Theist: Why do the birds fly this way?
Atheist: Because it's better than the other ways which the bird's ancestors and cousins have tried over the last few million years.
Theist: Why do the birds fly at all?
Atheist: Wouldn't you want to?
Theist: Why do the birds even exist?
Atheist: If the birds didn't exist, then why wouldn't they exist?
... and so on and so forth ad infinitum. My basic problem with the question of "Why?" can be summarized as "Why not?" If, for example, life exists here on Earth for a purpose, the logical question in my mind is, "Well, what is the purpose of life not existing somewhere else?" Surely the nonexistence of life would have a purpose too!
Quote from: Brian on March 14, 2008, 11:26:29 AM
Surely the nonexistence of life would have a purpose too!
Yes, exactly. That implies a decision has been made to create, or to not
not create.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 05:23:08 AM
So in one way you admit that agnosticism might be a good way to go, but on the other hand you have already positively decided to reject the reasonable theist version of God. A "real god" has to do this and that, and his works should be open to evidence of the kind scientific evidence is. The theist God, however, has created the regularities of nature that science studies and only very rarely performs miracles. Since God is thus behind and in the regularities of nature He will be the reason of it all, but still be undetectable by science which thrives exactly on those regularities of nature, on reproducible observational events (which miracles are not). You reject this view, by the way also held by the founding fathers of science. And you have already decided that the Bible cannot be true since it is not open to scientific investigation.
You thus have already dogmatically decided against the possibility of the theist God, but on the other hand you claim that you are not dogmatic. But that is exactly what you are, a dogmatic atheist.
I say a real god because only evidence of
some kind can establish reality. It doesn't have to be of the kind that has appeared up to now. It can even be of a miraculous nature. Hume didn't say he wouldn't accept evidence of miracles, he said it would be very hard to overcome objections to such evidence. That's a practical and not a dogmatic criterion.
The theist god you propose is an assumption. I reject the view that it can be established by assuming it. Once again, that's not dogmatic, it's just sound practice. If you merely proposed a god and said "this might be true, and I'd like it to be so" then there would be no problem. Instead you seem to take "liking it to be so" as evidence that it's true.
The difference between atheist and agnostic shouldn't be oversold. Neither thinks a god is likely. One term expresses doubts about the supernatural, the other has no religion. Strictly speaking, they don't contradict each other, though in practice the terms are associated with different groups, sorted by degrees of "niceness", I suppose.
The entire universe is evidence to the existence of G-d.
Anyone who doesn't believe this, chose not to believe, and all the scientific motif is just a cover to this choice.
Quote from: Brian on March 04, 2008, 11:19:15 AM
A few folks on the Dawkins forum (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=28397&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) have read Plantinga. An interesting read. :)
There's a Dawkins forum?
oh
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 12:20:27 PM
I say a real god because only evidence of some kind can establish reality. It doesn't have to be of the kind that has appeared up to now. It can even be of a miraculous nature. Hume didn't say he wouldn't accept evidence of miracles, he said it would be very hard to overcome objections to such evidence. That's a practical and not a dogmatic criterion.
The theist god you propose is an assumption. I reject the view that it can be established by assuming it. Once again, that's not dogmatic, it's just sound practice. If you merely proposed a god and said "this might be true, and I'd like it to be so" then there would be no problem. Instead you seem to take "liking it to be so" as evidence that it's true.
Your naturalism with respect to ultimate origins is also an assumption, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever. You claim to live by evidence only, but you don't.
QuoteInstead you seem to take "liking it to be so" as evidence that it's true.
This exactly holds for your naturalism.
My assumption, however, is suppported by evidence:
(Response to Norbeone)
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 11:29:13 AM
I think I have explained sufficiently by now (maybe you want to read my posts again) why
a) the Designer hypothesis satisfies me most *)
b) the concept of eternal matter (fine-tuning of the laws of nature aside) does not satisfy me
*) in the context I find the evidence from divine revelation, i.e. declarative evidence, an additional satisfactory element. Whereas we have no evidence for the multiverse or other naturalistic explanations of ultimate origins whatsoever, neither scientific nor otherwise.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 12:20:27 PM
I say a real god because only evidence of some kind can establish reality.
Exactly, there is the declarative evidence of divine revelation. Certainly, you can reject it more easily than scientific evidence. But a personal choice of yours to reject it does not necessarily make it any less evidence.
QuoteThat's a practical and not a dogmatic criterion.
Well, you have made a dogma out of your "pragmatism".
Quote from: Saul on March 14, 2008, 12:38:15 PM
The entire universe is evidence to the existence of G-d.
Anyone who doesn't believe this, chose not to believe, and all the scientific motif is just a cover to this choice.
This is shooting your arrow and painting a bullseye around it. What is a god? Why it's......the
universe! Now if you just stop there you're OK. What do we know about the universe? Well, quite a bit. We have physical constants, a fairly well fleshed-out history, and a good idea of how it will change over the next few billion years. There's a good deal of speculation about whether it means anything to say it could have been different from how it is, or whether it's one of a series or parallel multiverse complex. Right now, no one knows what meaning to attach to these concepts.
If the universe is a god then it's not a product of god, so Spinoza would be right. It would also mean that our knowledge of the god/universe would be co-extensive, the right kind for knowledge for both. To the extent we know about one, we know about the other.
If
Al is right (in spite of himself
:D) and you're right, then you would have a simple god (one without parts) co-extensive with the universe (which has parts, so the god would be the universe in its
gestalt aspect!
:P) I can go for that! No more hiding hole in the supernatural, no more obscurantism about Perfect this and Absolute that. Yes, I heartily endorse this naturalization!
But that wouldn't make it true, would it?
(what would make it true, I wonder?)
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 12:59:20 PM
Your naturalism with respect to ultimate origins is also an assumption, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever. You claim to live by evidence only, but you don't.
I don't know if the concept of ultimate origins can be made to mean something worth being dogmatic about. Why would I want to have a dogmatic as opposed to speculative opinion about such abstruse musings?
The dogmatic position would be to take such a concept, posit an explanation you don't understand, and then hold it to be true and immune to disconfirmation.
Al, are your beliefs about the origin of the universe immune to disconfirmation?
Mine certainly aren't. If evidence arrives that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog, then I will (reluctantly? joyously?) admit that is the case.
One time a young hip-hoppy kid caught me reading Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". After he asked about and I informed him what I was reading, he said to me "yo, big man, like I don't need no 'philosophy', I just live!" After I pointed out that this, too, could very well be considered a philosophy, he just laughed and said "yo, you lost me, big man!" and walked away shaking his head.
I seem to encounter similar viewpoints on these threads. I notice it requires more tact for me to just shake my head like the hip-hopster quoted above. However, on some of the above points:
In the broad definition of religion, one could see any set of beliefs that facilitate the individual's existence as being a "religion". Hegel made an unfortunately verbose (but stupefyingly brilliant) document concerning "truth" and the way the individual interacts with it. It's called the "Contrite Consciousness" from his classic, "Phenomenology of Spirit".
The "leaps of faith" (borrowing both Kierkegaard's saying and definition of such) that one makes every day, may actually define what "religion" a person follows. One could start with the most "obvious" (read: conditioned most) presumption: that other consciousnesses besides our own exist.
Pragmatism, analytical philopsophy, esotericism...all apply.
I'm ready for the assault.
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 01:16:43 PM
In the broad definition of religion, one could see any set of beliefs that facilitate the individual's existence as being a "religion". Hegel made an unfortunately verbose (but stupefyingly brilliant) document concerning "truth" and the way the individual interacts with it. It's called the "Contrite Consciousness" from his classic, "Phenomenology of Spirit".
The "leaps of faith" (borrowing both Kierkegaard's saying and definition of such) that one makes every day, may actually define what "religion" a person follows. One could start with the most "obvious" (read: conditioned most) presumption: that other consciousnesses besides our own exist.
As a broad term, I think I am cool with that, though I just call it "philosophy" myself. I suppose that would fit more or less with what Tillich called "the ultimate concern."
Quote from: just josh on March 14, 2008, 01:21:30 PM
As a broad term, I think I am cool with that, though I just call it "philosophy" myself. I suppose that would fit more or less with what Tillich called "the ultimate concern."
Good point about Tillich, you've done some reading!
Sometimes it's interesting to mentally contemplate exactly what resolutely "divides" philosophy, theology...science. I haven't been too convinced by anyone here on this point as to "resolute" differences. But again, whadda
Iknow?
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 01:16:43 PM
The "leaps of faith" (borrowing both Kierkegaard's saying and definition of such) that one makes every day, may actually define what "religion" a person follows. One could start with the most "obvious" (read: conditioned most) presumption: that other consciousnesses besides our own exist.
I'm ready for the assault.
Yes, all operating principles for humans require leaps of faith. We are all naturalists in everyday life, which requires a warranted leap of faith to get up in the morning. When it stops working I'll abandon it.
Some are in addition supernaturalists for some purposes, but fall back on naturalism when the rent is due.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 01:24:42 PM
Yes, all operating principles for humans require leaps of faith. We are all naturalists in everyday life which requires a warranted leap of faith to get up in the morning. When it stops working I'll abandon it.
Some are in addition supernaturalists for some purposes, but fall back on naturalism when the rent is due.
Well written! But please define "supernaturalism" and "naturalism".
The catastrophic mistake is to use science as a medium to determine truths.
Science doesn't have the tools to discredit the existence of G-d. Some stupid scientists adhere to Science as a Prophet, where they ask 'Science' whether a thing is right or wrong, but science is ran by humans who are not objective at all times, and can use science as a medium to validate their ideals and their world outlook.
Science ran by scientists can hardly be objective.
Quote from: Saul on March 14, 2008, 01:34:37 PM
Science ran by scientists can hardly be objective.
Ah.
Quote from: Saul on March 14, 2008, 01:34:37 PM
Science ran by scientists can hardly be objective.
You're right. Because individuals have biases and all sorts of weaknesses, it would be better to have science run by robots with only the absolutely minimalist preconceptions. But such intelligent robots will have their own biases, gained as part of a program that's functionally useful. The advantage that a methodical approach has had is that biases are canceled by the process itself, not perfectly, but usefully. When we land an astronaut on the moon, a gigantic program of bias compensation is seen to operate well.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 01:41:21 PM
You're right. To the extent that individuals have biases and all sorts of weaknesses, it would be better to have science run by robots with only the absolutely minimalist preconceptions. But such intelligent robots will have their own biases, gained as part of a program that's functionally useful. The advantage that a methodical approach has had is that biases are canceled by the process itself, not perfectly, but usefully. When we land an astronaut on the moon, a gigantic program of bias compensation is seen to operate well.
It's commendable (and telling) how you included the word "usefully". That might have been the climax of your well thought out paragraph.
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 01:42:56 PM
It's commendable (and telling) how you included the word "usefully". That might have been the climax of your well thought out paragraph.
Yeah, but what about the robots?
(http://static.flickr.com/7/8923662_67b36f8c8e.jpg)
Pragmatism arrives in Washington.
(that'll be the day!)
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 02:15:04 PM
Yeah, but what about the robots?
(http://static.flickr.com/7/8923662_67b36f8c8e.jpg)
Pragmatism arrives in Washington. (that'll be the day!)
Aw, G.W.'d open an economy size can o' whup a** on that mofo!
Spiney would nail his head to the floor!
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 02:21:23 PM
Spiney would nail his head to the floor!
(laughing with supernatural fevor)
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 02:15:04 PM
Yeah, but what about the robots?
(http://static.flickr.com/7/8923662_67b36f8c8e.jpg)
Pragmatism arrives in Washington. (that'll be the day!)
:o :o ... D D D D Dinsdale!!
Quote from: Catison on March 14, 2008, 12:14:27 PM
Yes, exactly. That implies a decision has been made to create, or to not not create.
It would if it implied a decision, which it does if you already believe it. Otherwise, a decision looks like something that requires a Decider to be built first, perhaps by evolution. Which, in turn.....
(http://people2.clarityconnect.com/webpages6/ronhenry/turtlesWeb.JPG)
My question is: How many "turtles all the way down" are enough for
you? Wittgenstein said an explanation has to stop somewhere (so much for taking metaphysical explanations as truth!), so if you really want to stop the madness, start at the top with the first turtle, OK? Either you force the first one to reveal his secrets or you give up on turtles altogether.
If you want to speculate, go ahead. But unless you can find a way to show how things are
different if what you believe is true than if it's false, you aren't saying anything except what you believe.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 01:15:19 PM
Al, are your beliefs about the origin of the universe immune to disconfirmation?
Of course not. The very instant you show me the multiverse I will seriously and honestly start to reevaluate my thinking.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 01:15:19 PM
Al, are your beliefs about the origin of the universe immune to disconfirmation?
Mine certainly aren't. If evidence arrives that the universe was created by a giant hedgehog, then I will (reluctantly? joyously?) admit that is the case.
Yes, and you will wait and wait and wait for the evidence...
Your position reminds me of what Allan Sandage wrote, who according to Wikipedia was "throughout the 1950s and well into the 1970s regarded as the pre-eminent observational cosmologist" and who converted to Christianity at age 50:
"Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything"
is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science."
(Emphasis mine.)
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 13, 2008, 09:03:45 AM
Not if the reason is a timeless God, a God outside time, for whom everything can exist with the same actuality, be it 14 billion years ago or now or 14 billion years in the future. If there is a timeless God who created the universe, He already knew at the start of the Big Bang how all evolution -- physical and biological -- would eventually turn out. In that sense, time is irrelevant for God.
I believe this is what we are discussing. You say "if the reason is a timeless God". What would count as confirmation of the source of this belief? What would be the falsification of it? What is the meaning of
if in this context?
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 03:46:20 PM
Yes, and you will wait and wait and wait for the evidence...
I'll try and stay busy.
:)
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 03:57:32 PM
I believe this is what we are discussing. You say "if the reason is a timeless God". What would count as confirmation of the source of this belief? What would be the falsification of it? What is the meaning of if in this context?
I'm thinking of the old Hegelian argument involving "how can there be time unless there is considered a 'beyond time', anti-time, inverse time etc..."
How can there be a finite without at least conception of infinite, etc.
Not sure if that adds to the discussion, I just remember those questions having provoked alot of thought on my part.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 03:46:20 PM
But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science."
(Emphasis mine.)
An act of faith I don't share, by the way. As for the things of spirit, whether you conceive of them in material terms or not is based on what we can find out about them. It takes more dogmatism to refuse this simple observation than to accept it. I never understood how people could reject finding out how things work as a basis for knowledge while embracing the most defeatist alternative. Some people just give up, I guess. Religion preys on this weakness.
Quote from: Haffner on March 14, 2008, 04:01:33 PM
I'm thinking of the old Hegelian argument involving "how can there be time unless there is considered a 'beyond time', anti-time, inverse time etc..."
How can there be a finite without at least conception of infinite, etc.
Not sure if that adds to the discussion, I just remember those questions having provoked alot of thought on my part.
I addressed this earlier, I don't know where. The idea is that
nothing doesn't exist as an alternative to something. That's just a theory we have, which doesn't look all that good right now. One answer to the "why is there something rather than nothing" is that
nothing is unstable ::). I know these are unsatisfying answers but I offer them in the spirit I'm known for.
>:D That is, they are junky ideas we have when we don't know enough about the subject, in the manner of "revealed truth".
:D :D Edit: One thing I must make clear, if I haven't yet done so.
I don't believe it's an established fact that science will discover everything. I say instead that there's no reason to assume at the outset that what we are capable of knowing can't be understood in a scientific manner. The correct thing to do is let the results of investigations speak for themselves, and let what we learn inspire further investigation. There is no shortcut to building new knowledge on what is known, even if it never leads to heaven.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 04:13:44 PM
I addressed this earlier, I don't know where. The idea is that nothing doesn't exist as an alternative to something. That's just a theory we have, which doesn't look all that good right now. One answer to the "why is there something rather than nothing" is that nothing is unstable ::). I know these are unsatisfying answers but I offer them in the spirit I'm known for. >:D That is, they are junky ideas we have when we don't know enough about the subject, in the manner of "revealed truth". :D :D
;)
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 03:57:32 PM
I believe this is what we are discussing. You say "if the reason is a timeless God". What would count as confirmation of the source of this belief? What would be the falsification of it? What is the meaning of if in this context?
What is the meaning of
if in this context? You read way too much into this. Think about it for a moment.
Here is my problem with this whole 'God' debate: We are all born with various abilities to reason. What omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god could allow us to flounder around over lifetimes trying to understand if he exists or does not exist? Where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in allowing the death, destruction, and suffering of children around the world (to pick only one example)?
I don't deny that there may be a god...it is just that no one has convinced me of that. But, I will accept the possibility of his existence. I have no other choice. In my moments of suffering and despair I certainly want a merciful and omnipotent god to intervene on my behalf. I pray as follows..."Dear god, you gave me the power to reason and so you must know that in my heart of hearts no mortal (especially myself) has been competent enough to guide me to knowing if you are real. You must know that my understanding of you is not motivate by bad intentions. You must know that I lead a compassionate life with malice towards none and doing the best I can within my power to apprehend you. If you are real, and all generous and all compassionate, help me through these dark and painful moments in my life that have clearly exceed my abilities to correct or prevent."
This is my personal "religion" if a name must be given to this approach. I have no use for the man made religions that claim to know more than I but are unable to prove they do.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 06:03:18 PM
What is the meaning of if in this context? You read way too much into this. Think about it for a moment.
So, what would cause you to abandon "your god did it" solution? This is your moment to shine! You can prove me wrong by telling me that "yes, if something disconfirmed the god hypothesis, I would give it up"!! (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif) (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif) (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif)
All you got to do is say you're an open minded chap and give in to the 3 devils! :P (you thought I was going to say "dance, dance, dance...." ;D).
Edit: I'm getting tired. That's enough for one day. See y'all later.
(their names are Huey, Dewie, and Louie..)
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 03:46:20 PM
Your position reminds me of what Allan Sandage wrote, who according to Wikipedia was "throughout the 1950s and well into the 1970s regarded as the pre-eminent observational cosmologist" and who converted to Christianity at age 50:
"Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science."
And he's not the only scientist sharing that view.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 06:47:54 PM
So, what would cause you to abandon "your god did it" solution? This is your moment to shine! You can prove me wrong by telling me that "yes, if something disconfirmed the god hypothesis, I would give it up"!! (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif) (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif) (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif)
All you got to do is say you're an open minded chap and give in to the 3 devils! :P (you thought I was going to say "dance, dance, dance...." ;D).
Hey, Drogulus, do you even pay attention to what other people say or do you just discuss for the heck of discussing?
I already gave the answer above:
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 14, 2008, 03:35:14 PM
Of course not [is my belief immune to disconfirmation]. The very instant you show me the multiverse I will seriously and honestly start to reevaluate my thinking.
This reevaluation of course implies that I might take the ultimate step that you demand.(http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif) (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif) (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smiles/lildevil.gif)
My beliefs are rational, and thus also allow for a rational disconfirmation.
The way I see it, from a purely scientific point of view, belief is not an act of knowledge, but an act of will, nay, of free will in the proper sense of both terms. Since science, i.e. the body of factual knowledge and accepted theories about the material world at a given time, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, to believe is a matter of choice. I choose to believe that God exists and this mine choice (i.e, will) is free, not bound by unconclusive scientific data. I am a human being, not a robot, and my thought is not bound by the limits of science. And the fact that in the course of history human beings have been able to transcend their physical, material limits is proof enough for me that there is more to man that a mere blind biological machine coming from nowhere and heading to nothingness.
So, the way I see it, theists have chosen freedom, while atheists have chosen bondage: bondage to the material world, bondage to sensorial data, bondage to the limits of human reason.
Quote from: Operahaven on March 14, 2008, 06:16:27 PM
This is my personal "religion" if a name must be given to this approach. I have no use for the man made religions that claim to know more than I but are unable to prove they do.
And a rather moving description of it, too. I agree with everything you say, though I have strong doubts as to whether I would crack upon iminent death and start praying. Never know, however.
And concerning scientific reductionism: this may seem to some a rather bleak way to look at things, but what other convincing methods are available to us, ones convincing enough to lead to a strong belief (or claimed knowledge) of a universe-creating God?
Also, I don't believe science will know everything or can know everything. Maybe it will eventually, but I admit I reserve judgment on that one. On the other hand, science
has discovered a lot of things; things that religion never has or could never hope to discover (relevant or not).
To Florestan:
I don't see how accepting bronze-age myths as a result of parental transmission (or whatever indoctrination method it is) as freedom. The whole point of science is to provide a method of showing whether or not things are really true. Any claims that God is beyond scientific validation or that such methods shouldn't be employed when dealing with these 'metaphysical' things is 100% conjecture and seems like nothing more than an excuse, an easy way out of giving their beliefs credibility.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 15, 2008, 04:02:17 AM
Hey, Drogulus, do you even pay attention to what other people say or do you just discuss for the heck of discussing?
Sometimes. I just like barking at passing cars.
8) I don't understand your position here. I don't think the multiverse is presently falsifiable, but it might be some day. If some form of disconfirmation becomes available, I think we both would accept it on the same grounds.
Now the other part, where a god is pure being and creates (or in some manner brings about) the universe, has to be treated differently. Here there is no likelihood of disconfirmation. That is, no combination of future scientific discoveries about the nature of existence could ever amount to a refutation of these statements. When there is no set of facts to disconfirm a belief, why give it up? The mistake is to think that such a belief is a proposition which happens to be untestable.
The untestabilty doesn't just happen, it is a chosen feature. Creator gods and untestable gods are the same thing, and their defenses can't be breached. What can be done is what I'm doing, launching probes about what beliefs accompany the main belief, like destroyers guarding the main battle fleet. I mean beliefs like materialists are dogmatic (in comparative terms they are undogmatic), people disbelieve for bad reasons, an authoritative vision or revelation is a form of confirmation, the devil (or even 3 of them) is tempting you into disbelief (my favorite).
So if disconfirmation isn't possible how do people break the spell? Mostly, I think people get tired of the gamesmanship involved. All the double-bookkeeping, where you're as materialist as the next guy about everyday life but reserve the right to object for those special moments where nothing is at stake but an interpretation of something that can't be known anyway. This shows good judgment. Don't abandon materialism when it counts, only when it costs you nothing.
Quote from: Florestan on March 15, 2008, 07:08:46 AM
The way I see it, from a purely scientific point of view, belief is not an act of knowledge, but an act of will, nay, of free will in the proper sense of both terms. Since science, i.e. the body of factual knowledge and accepted theories about the material world at a given time, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, to believe is a matter of choice.
Yes, my belief is also an act of free will to accept divine revelation and a personal relationship with God, but I could not have belief if it would not be supported by rational reasons to do so. Interestingly, the Catholic church appears to think the same way, since it condemns fideism, which is belief without reason, "believing just to believe".
QuoteSo, the way I see it, theists have chosen freedom, while atheists have chosen bondage: bondage to the material world, bondage to sensorial data, bondage to the limits of human reason.
Yes, and many of them are trapped in a sort of circular reasoning. As I had said before in this thread, the reasoning of many atheists seems to go as follows:
"I only accept observational evidence, which is only obtained from the material world. Science, which studies the material world, has had spectacular success in providing observationally verifiable evidence and in explaining how the natural world works. Hence, science has shown to be the only reliable source of human knowledge. Therefore, I don't accept the possibility that there is any other reality than what science studies, i.e. the material world."
This, however, is circular reasoning: the conclusion is basically the same as the premise from which it started.
***
Interestingly, after I had written this, I discovered that Allan Sandage also mentions the trap of circular reasoning:
"Q. Can the existence of God be proved?
"I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days," or "genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA that, in cells of a particular individual, replicate during mitosis, and in reproduction unite with DNA from another individual to produce the hereditary similarity of progeny with their parents, etc." The enormous success of modern science is undeniable in producing such facts, which have a strong ring of certainty, and this success simply cannot be ignored.
"Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality."
Quote from: Florestan on March 15, 2008, 07:08:46 AM
The way I see it, from a purely scientific point of view, belief is not an act of knowledge, but an act of will, nay, of free will in the proper sense of both terms. Since science, i.e. the body of factual knowledge and accepted theories about the material world at a given time, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, to believe is a matter of choice.
So, the way I see it, theists have chosen freedom, while atheists have chosen bondage: bondage to the material world, bondage to sensorial data, bondage to the limits of human reason.
This is rather odd. It sounds like everyone is choosing with equal freedom. Scientists (and finders of fact in general) are liberated by the rules they observe. In their absence human beings are truly in bondage to ignorance and superstition. Modern believers understand this and run both systems in parallel. It's kludgey but it imposes no great penalty in a secular democratic society where religion has been defanged. When you look at the rest of the world, though, our comparative safety seems more precarious.
Quote"Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality."
If I wanted to commit circular reasoning, I hope I would have the
chutzpah to accuse others of doing it at the same time!
Al, do you read this stuff before you post it?
"Those who deny God..."
Here you see the parallel systems in action. Could Sandage even imagine himself saying anything this idiotic about a colleague who didn't accept some theory about the expansion of the early universe? No, but in his fanciful parallel world where things don't have to make sense he's free to take all the liberties he wants. He's
free! It's the freedom of a child with a responsible parent nearby. In this case the parent is the other belief system he subscribes to, the one where reason and evidence do matter. In other parts of the world, it's common to find these systems only separately and at war with each other.
Quote from: Saul on March 14, 2008, 01:34:37 PM
The catastrophic mistake is to use science as a medium to determine truths.
Saul, when you say things like this, you do make yourself appear absurd.
The entire purpose of science is to determine truths within the natural world, things like the boiling point of pepto-bismal, the rate of absorption into the water-table, the nature of the DNA chain.
Remarks like yours above, are a catastrophic mistake.
Quote from: Operahaven on March 14, 2008, 06:16:27 PM
Here is my problem with this whole 'God' debate: We are all born with various abilities to reason. What omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god could allow us to flounder around over lifetimes trying to understand if he exists or does not exist? Where is the logic in that?
You don't really want an answer, do you? I get the impression that you're just sort of tossing this onto the table as your personal reason for not bothering with it. And, of course, you are at complete liberty.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 15, 2008, 04:02:17 AM
Hey, Drogulus, do you even pay attention to what other people say or do you just discuss for the heck of discussing?
I dare make answer for him: no, he pays attention to nothing which does not either (a) more or less directly agree with him, or, (b) give him ready occasion to keep flogging his rant.
Those who deny Planet Mongo at the outset by some sort of circular reasoning will never find Planet Mongo.
The charge of Denial is an old familiar one. If someone doesn't buy your potion he's Denying it (or denying IT). But why should a denial be necessary? All that's needed is to observe that Sandage has not the slightest intention of following through on his "other proofs" statement. If such proofs existed then all the rhetoric that believers emit about how inaccessable to reason these beliefs are would be revealed as the meaningless blather it is.
So which is it, accessable to reason "of a different kind" or inaccessable? Most of the time the answer is inaccessable but under pressure the fissures in the dual system open up and the truth comes out. What is said is designed for different audiences. For those who will swallow a dumbed down version it's "our feeble minds" can't understand. For a more sophisticated audience it's understanding of a different, but unspecified, kind. The implied promise to explain will never be kept. Sandage would rather insult his colleagues to feed his habit, and cast people he supposedly respects overboard. What a sorry business.
Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2008, 09:46:10 AMIf such proofs existed then all the rhetoric that believers emit about how inaccessable to reason these beliefs are would be revealed as the meaningless blather it is.
I don't think there are many believers who would say that they are doing something unreasonable. They are believing something unprovable and unanswerable to scientific understanding. That is a different statement. You can reasonably believe something metaphysical if you see evidence for the metaphysical, which many do in the ancient texts.
Quote from: Florestan on March 15, 2008, 07:08:46 AM
And the fact that in the course of history human beings have been able to transcend their physical, material limits....
What are you referring to here,
Florestan?
Quote from: Norbeone on March 15, 2008, 07:42:15 AM
I don't see how accepting bronze-age myths as a result of parental transmission (or whatever indoctrination method it is) as freedom.
This illustrates another striking difference between theists and atheists. While theists take science very seriously and see it as a legitimate human endeavour, atheists dismiss religion altogether as "bronze-age myths" and every religious person as "indoctrinated". It seems that the last resort of atheism is
argumentum ad hominem.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 15, 2008, 08:14:38 AM
Yes, my belief is also an act of free will to accept divine revelation and a personal relationship with God, but I could not have belief if it would not be supported by rational reasons to do so. Interestingly, the Catholic church appears to think the same way, since it condemns fideism, which is belief without reason, "believing just to believe".
I trust you don't think I am a fideist. My point is my belief is supported by, not based on, rational reasons. And speaking of the Catholic Church, I wholy agree with the sound principle of St. Anselm of Canterbury:
Credo ut intellegam (I believe in order to understand).
Quote from: Shrunk on March 15, 2008, 11:41:15 AM
What are you referring to here, Florestan?
The well-documented cases of miracles performed by Christian saints, Hindu yogis or Buddhist monks, for instance.
Quote from: Florestan on March 15, 2008, 12:57:00 PM
I trust you don't think I am a fideist. My point is my belief is supported by, not based on, rational reasons.
Yes, of course.
Quote from: Catison on March 15, 2008, 11:27:17 AM
I don't think there are many believers who would say that they are doing something unreasonable. They are believing something unprovable and unanswerable to scientific understanding. That is a different statement. You can reasonably believe something metaphysical if you see evidence for the metaphysical, which many do in the ancient texts.
Not in those words, but they would say that gods can't be found by reasoning about them, all the while reasoning their asses off to get out from under what they got themselves into. Modern people who believe are just like you and me, they know how things are, but they reserve the right to say it's a different way too, even though they admit they don't know what that way is. It takes a lot of rationalization horesepower to do that. They are reserving the right to object for a later time when they can figure out what their beliefs actually amount to. Trust me, they never will.
What is "evidence for the metaphysical" if the term is defined by the lack of evidence for it?
Al gives me grief for my supposed dogmatism about metaphysical naturalism, and he would be right to do so if I didn't make it clear that my scepticism is applied to all absolutisms, including the small band of scientific realists who think their models are just true, period. Naturalism is an efficient model for a theory of everything (science works because its models map the world closely), but it suffers the same fate as religious ones: It can't be confirmed. Sometimes chunks will fall off into science but mostly not.
Quote from: Florestan on March 15, 2008, 12:57:00 PM
(I believe in order to understand).
.
I know. It doesn't work.
Quote from: Florestan on March 15, 2008, 01:24:06 PM
It doesn't work for you.
I'm not a relativist. I don't know what that means.
:)
Hey, you know what? ::) When things hit a lull, I'll ask people to "define belief" or "please define proof" just to keep my hand in. I might even throw in an occasional Precisamente if I'm feeling up to it. (if Karl says it's OK, that is)
Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2008, 01:20:46 PM
Al gives me grief for my supposed dogmatism about metaphysical naturalism, and he would be right to do so if I didn't make it clear that my scepticism is applied to all absolutisms, including the small band of scientific realists who think their models are just true, period. Naturalism is an efficient model for a theory of everything (science works because its models map the world closely), but it suffers the same fate as religious ones: It can't be confirmed. Sometimes chunks will fall off into science but mostly not.
Then again, with this thinking you should be an agnostic and not an atheist.
And don't come with things like:
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2008, 12:20:27 PM
The difference between atheist and agnostic shouldn't be oversold. Neither thinks a god is likely. One term expresses doubts about the supernatural, the other has no religion. Strictly speaking, they don't contradict each other, though in practice the terms are associated with different groups, sorted by degrees of "niceness", I suppose.
No, a truly openminded agnostic simply says "I don't know", not that a God is "unlikely".
But I forgot, you already have made up your mind about what a "real god" should or should not be like -- so perhaps you are just a dogmatic atheist after all.
That's a real mish-mash there, Al.
Atheism means no religion. I have no religion. Atheism is the correct term.
In fact, it's more likely that an agnostic is flying a false flag than an atheist is.
Everyone should be able to undertand that gods are extremely unlikely. Believers want that not to be a bar to belief, but they only deny it to contradict a critic. Everyone knows a miracle is impossible, otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle for it to happen. Does that really need to be said after all this?
Al, how open-minded are you about Zeus and Aphrodite?
How open-minded do you have to be after a couple of thousand years?
What about Baal? Don't you want to tell Saul (and me, too!) how narrow-minded he is for dismissing Baal without even a fair trial?? And just how narrow-minded is it of Karl not to give a fair hearing to the Thetans, or Ahura Mazda, or Eric Clapton, for that matter? ???
Quote from: karlhenning on March 15, 2008, 08:58:57 AM
Saul, when you say things like this, you do make yourself appear absurd.
The entire purpose of science is to determine truths within the natural world, things like the boiling point of pepto-bismal, the rate of absorption into the water-table, the nature of the DNA chain.
Remarks like yours above, are a catastrophic mistake.
I meant to say Spiritual truths, ideology, Ideals, and Faith.
I understand why you misunderstood me, it was my fault.
Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2008, 02:05:57 PM
Atheism means no religion. I have no religion. Atheism is the correct term.
Not quite. Atheism comes from the Greek a-theos = godless, without God.
After the 13 pages of this thread, the important difference between supernatural and the natural hasn't even been properly established. People like myself, drogulus and shrunk seem to find it impossible to gain the understanding of the believers here: Haffner, Florestan, al and....(ahem...Saul). We are clearly missing something that the 'believers' have; something that 'we' can't seem to obtain. And i'm not been sarcastic or facetious here: the believers I mention are ones whose intelligence I take to be wholly genuine (I know how pretentious that sounds, but trully I don't mean to it to be so). As a result of some of the arguments made by some 'believers' here I must admit that I question the whole notion of what gives me credit for what I, myself, believe. Not that i'm saying any such arguments have power so far as convincing me otherwise, but still, I do start to question the fundamentals.
(Beware, this is a rather intoxicated comment, so maybe it shouldn't be taken too seriously.) >:D
as a slightly more direct commet: the difference between atheism and agnosticism (as has been stated here before) shouldn't be oversold. Most claimed atheists are actually agnostics; it's just that the sheer lack of evidence for Gods is so lacking that it's not really saticfactory to state that such said Gods' existence is unknown, rather that they are highly unlikely. Furthermore, the defintions of each are so ambiguous that I don't even know what to label myself.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 15, 2008, 06:39:26 PM
Not quite. Atheism comes from the Greek a-theos = godless, without God.
Still, what is the important distinction? Surely it's the
reason for lack of religious belief that's crucial.
Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2008, 01:20:46 PM
What is "evidence for the metaphysical" if the term is defined by the lack of evidence for it?
Then by what criteria would you consider evidence for the metaphysical?
It seems you've created a wall around a materialist world. You can't say you would accept metaphysical events if only there was evidence and then create the circular argument of defining metaphysical events as though which have no evidence.
I have always thought of metaphysical events as those events which cannot be understood by physics. It has nothing to do with evidence for them, except in lacking a scientific, material signature.
Quote from: Catison on March 15, 2008, 07:07:20 PM
Then by what criteria would you consider evidence for the metaphysical?
It seems you've created a wall around a materialist world. You can't say you would accept metaphysical events if only there was evidence and then create the circular argument of defining metaphysical events as though which have no evidence.
I have always thought of metaphysical events as those events which cannot be understood by physics. It has nothing to do with evidence for them, except in lacking a scientific, material signature.
What, then, are your own rational (non materialistic) methods of distinguishing between falsehood and reality, in terms of the 'metaphysical'. I think this is what we're all waiting to here.
Quote from: Norbeone on March 15, 2008, 07:00:07 PM
As a result of some of the arguments made by some 'believers' here I must admit that I question the whole notion of what gives me credit for what I, myself, believe. Not that i'm saying any such arguments have power so far as convincing me otherwise, but still, I do start to question the fundamentals.
I think the common thread to all who are discussing here is that we are truth seekers. We want to know the true nature of the universe. How you find the truth yourself is an extremely complex process, but I think ultimately the atheist come from a stock of materialists, and the theists believe there is something more than the physical reality. That is more a difference in philosophy than a difference in religion.
For a long time (until about a month ago) I counted myself among the materialists/atheists. But my mind was changed when I realized that in a materialist world, it is impossible to accept evidence for metaphysical events. These events simply do not exist, and when presented with the evidence, it should be examined further until the real (i.e. physical) explanation is found.
My turning point was when I thought about what would happen if today there were a recorded metaphysical event. What if our current technology showed us something so amazing that it was extraordinarily easy to accept it as a true metaphysical event. But in the future, after we have moved science along to unfathomable areas, how would this metaphysical event be interpreted? My guess is that it would be dismissed, because our current technology is too archaic to have accurately represented the whole picture. The scientists of the future have to rely upon ancient data from laughably rudimentary technology. It would be easy to dismiss, but would they be right in doing so?
We are the scientists of the future, looking back on history through an ancient text transmitted by a thousands of monk scribes. Should we find their technology so easy to dismiss?
Quote from: Norbeone on March 15, 2008, 07:16:53 PM
What, then, are your own rational (non materialistic) methods of distinguishing between falsehood and reality, in terms of the 'metaphysical'. I think this is what we're all waiting to here.
It is believing that I might not have all the answers myself, scientifically. It is trusting others that they are not crazy or misled or misunderstanding. I have found the Catholic church, which touches Jesus directly through history and tradition to be trustworthy. I can't say this is the real or true path, but it is my path.
Brett, I am very happy for you. The Catholic faith is my path too.
Quote from: Catison on March 15, 2008, 07:28:27 PM
I have found the Catholic church, which touches Jesus directly through history and tradition to be trustworthy.
This is indeed very important. I feel that a main reason why various Protestant denominations often fail to inspire security in their theology and teachings is their rejection of tradition a.k.a the dogma of
sola scriptura. The Old and New Testament bereft of their centuries old worth of interpretative context and other elements that directly connect our time with Jesus Christ's own time and teachings through the institution of the Church must really seem dry and in dire need of justification and proof. That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.
Quote from: Wanderer on March 16, 2008, 12:53:41 AM
That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.
Yes, the philosopher Robert Pennock, one of the key witnesses against Intelligent Design in the Dover trial, says that typically students who attended Catholic high schools have had the best education in evolution:
http://www.tcnj.edu/~magazine/magazine/spring2000/pages/creationist/creationist3.html
Science classes in Catholic schools don't even teach theistic evolution, they teach evolution, period.
Quote from: Wanderer on March 16, 2008, 12:53:41 AM
This is indeed very important. I feel that a main reason why various Protestant denominations often fail to inspire security in their theology and teachings is their rejection of tradition a.k.a the dogma of sola scriptura. The Old and New Testament bereft of their centuries old worth of interpretative context and other elements that directly connect our time with Jesus Christ's own time and teachings through the institution of the Church must really seem dry and in dire need of justification and proof. That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.
Exactly. The
Sola Scriptura principle was logically bound to produce (a) the fragmentation of Protestant denominations and (b) their fundamentalism.
Quote from: Florestan on March 16, 2008, 05:57:26 AM
Exactly. The Sola Scriptura principle was logically bound to produce (a) the fragmentation of Protestant denominations and (b) their fundamentalism.
One must say, in all fairness, that mainstream Protestantism worldwide is usually not fundamentalist. The widespread fundamentalism in the Bible Belt is a local North American phenomenon. And also in America there is a significant portion of non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations.
Quote from: Catison on March 15, 2008, 07:07:20 PM
Then by what criteria would you consider evidence for the metaphysical?
Brett, you have homed in on the correct question, I believe. As
Al points out, it isn't right to treat metaphysical assumptions as truths.
:P So, for example, the fact that science works to produce useful knowledge about the world can't be a justification for claiming that scientific discoveries are true in an absolute sense, that our discoveries demarcate what exists beyond disconfirmation. By the same sound principle I say that similar self-reinforcing systems like "I believe in order to understand" can't be justified either. There are many things you could believe. Do you really want to try believing them all? It would be better to filter out the less probable up front.
So my refusal to rely on metaphysics as a guarantee applies universally, and not just to religion.
To answer your question, metaphysics is more or less defined as unconfirmable. That's how it gets to be what it is. So do you still want to know how to confirm it? Let's put it this way: If it's confirmed, it ain't metaphysics no more.
;D
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 16, 2008, 06:44:48 AM
One must say, in all fairness, that mainstream Protestantism worldwide is usually not fundamentalist. The widespread fundamentalism in the Bible Belt is a local North American phenomenon. And also in America there is a significant portion of non-fundamentalist Protestant denominations.
Yes, that is also true.
Quote from: Al Moritz on March 16, 2008, 12:18:17 AM
Brett, I am very happy for you. The Catholic faith is my path too.
Me as well. I have problems with the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus dictum (though I believe the Church has softened on that one), and I'm not altogether wild about the non-Latin mass (the Holy See is thankfully working on it), but overall the Roman Catholic faith system helps Affirm me.
When I attended the Palm Sunday mass today, I was deeply moved by the entire proceedings.
I can't properly relate here how much the Church has made my life better overall. Everyday I try my hardest to be charitable, kind, loving. I try to sacrifice selfish things and practice restraint. All those things have added a character to my life that I wouldn't have had without. I realize that for many the Catholic Church is on the "outs" (and not entirely for wrong reasons), but I can still keep my head up and shoulders back when I state "I am a Catholic", in profound gratitude for the positive, beautiful things it has given my life.
Quote from: Wanderer on March 16, 2008, 12:53:41 AM
This is indeed very important. I feel that a main reason why various Protestant denominations often fail to inspire security in their theology and teachings is their rejection of tradition a.k.a the dogma of sola scriptura. The Old and New Testament bereft of their centuries old worth of interpretative context and other elements that directly connect our time with Jesus Christ's own time and teachings through the institution of the Church must really seem dry and in dire need of justification and proof. That is how nonsense such as the recent fundamentalist anti-scientific campaign sprang up and that's why the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches don't seem too troubled by it.
And they will probably continue to not be troubled by it. The Catholic and Orthodox churches seem to imply that the Bible is a Living Word, one that didn't just "shut down" after St. John's Apocalypse. I also tend to believe this, and I believe that portions of the Bible are allegorical. I mean no offense to anyone here, but there are alot of embarassing goofs that tend to come up when one tries the sola scriptura route. I'm sure I don't need to point them out.
TTT
Further thoughts on criteria for the metaphysical:
I don't have criteria for the metaphysical. Criteria is what I don't have for it, along with everything else. If I had something for it, then I could have criteria for it. How can I have criteria for things that I don't know about as a class? Are you trying to make me angry? ;D
Is it really worthwhile to have something called criteria for anything beyond the material world? If so I don't know what it is and the people who insist there must be something can't make themselves plain. I wish they could, but I understand why they can't. How do you tell someone about the importance of something you don't know about, even to the extent of not knowing what it is you're actually talking about? How can you have criteria for that?
Quote from: drogulus on June 21, 2009, 06:06:00 PM
How can you have criteria for that?
Its called Philosophy.
Quote from: Catison on June 21, 2009, 08:35:16 PM
Its called Philosophy.
I hope not. But you're right, I fear. Not only is a considerable portion of philosophy devoted to learned discussion about the importance of unknowns, in addition many of these thinkers are the ones who think that unknown alternatives (unknowable, usually) are better than known ones, that we don't know there's a real world because we don't know it perfectly. I find it amusing that the standard for a real world is what I consider artificially high and the standard for the missing alternative (everything else, that is), is very low, on the order of if you can't prove it's not there it certainly is. Let's call this the "god standard", shall we?
So I think philosophy in general is in the shit, and I protest, and wish to move definitions closer to what's definable, and away from what's not. This is controversial. Certainly the imperative to publish and the need to appear original and challenging play a role. It's funny how much alike these fellows sound though. The convention about reality being a construct is getting
real tired. This is supposed to be a big shocker. Guess what, representations aren't the world. Well, whoo-eee, you coulda fooled me! Have any of these guys ever studied statistics or information theory? They should ask their kids about bit rates and sample rates before showing their ignorance about representation.
Quote from: drogulus on June 22, 2009, 06:21:33 PM
So I think philosophy in general is in the shit
No, Ernie, just
your philosophy (in general).