GMG Classical Music Forum

Here is an excellent interview with Ken Miller:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

     Q: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

     Miller sees such ultimate questions as values questions, and confirms that the attempt to fuse the religious with the scientific can't be done, because while science is explicitly about what's true about the world, religious narratives are about "the meaning, value, and purpose of things". This is exactly right. Miller simply doesn't acknowledge that a value can't stand in for a fact, or be a fact equivalent, in any view about what exists. He says that the existence of God isn't a scientific question, which further confirms that it's not a question of fact, because all such questions are scientific. A god can't be "valued" into existence over the head of the only apparatus that can really answer such questions. In such circumstances the only thing you can do is treat god questions as unquestionable premises. The parallelism that Miller offers isn't viable, because the narratives can't be understood in terms of each other. They're inert, lying there side by side wondering what's on the tube tonight.

     

Quote from: drogulus on August 19, 2008, 02:43:41 PMHe says that the existence of God isn't a scientific question, which further confirms that it's not a question of fact, because all such questions are scientific. A god can't be "valued" into existence over the head of the only apparatus that can really answer such questions. In such circumstances the only thing you can do is treat god questions as unquestionable premises. The parallelism that Miller offers isn't viable, because the narratives can't be understood in terms of each other. They're inert, lying there side by side wondering what's on the tube tonight.

While, from a scientific or even strictly logical standpoint, the existence of God is an undecidable proposition speaking of a matter of fact, I don't think that the scientific narrative need be so completely divorced from the religious narrative. Why? At its root, religion tells a story. Such stories are full of what one would call facts. That might not appear to be the case at first glance, since those facts have been layered with varnish (artistic, interpretative, and doctrinal varnishes are some examples). Science, in describing natural phenomena, can, then, be a powerful tool for getting at the facts lurking in the background of the religious narrative. If science can provide a description and explanation of phenomena mentioned in a religious narrative, then the understanding of the religious narrative is improved. This goes from, to the agnostic or unbeliever, a nice (or not-so-nice) story that is largely cut from whole cloth to an interpretation of a natural event or process by civilizations incapable of understanding the event in analytical terms.

I do, however, take issue with the characterization of all fact questions being scientific. The homomorphism theorems from abstract algebra describe facts, but my hat goes off to the natural scientist who can derive them by observation of phenomena of the natural world. In other words, the viability of those tremendously important theorems is a question of fact, but not a question for natural scientists. Now the trivial objection to my point is that the homomorphism theorems are abstract and theoretical, which should make them somehow less cogent examples of the fact-vs-natural-science question. I would respond to that by saying that much of what we think about the basic building blocks of everything and how it all works is abstract and theoretical. My question, then, is what's the difference between the Higgs boson (which is a major, as I understand it, test for the Standard Model) and the homomorphism theorems? Well, one "exists" and the other hasn't been observed. And that's my point: something can exist as a matter of fact without coming under the observation of science. I don't mean to make a statement on the "big" question, other than to say that answering it on fact/science grounds might not produce an answer for reasons other than nonexistence.

In any case, I think the article is worth a read for its excellent explanations of what evolution is, what the scientific data for it are, and why it is such a good scientific theory*).



*) A generalization, based on many observations and experiments, by which scientific facts are explained – like the atomic theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity, to name a few examples. Or as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it, in science a theory is "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Another great site to explore wrt the defense and teaching of evolution is the National Center for Science Education (http://www.natcenscied.org/).  The NCSE is dedicated to promoting evolution and helping those who have been punished for teaching evolution in the classroom as well as working to prevent creationism from being put into the science curriculum anywhere in the nation.  You will find numerous links to other sites also concerned with the teaching of science in America.

I've already linked this story on the "Intelligent Design" thread, but I hope no one minds if I repeat it here.  It's regarding a recent California court decision that touches on the issue of teaching creationism in high schools:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/CA/782_victory_in_california_creation_8_12_2008.asp

Bunny,

seconded.


Shrunk,

yes, the judge made the right decision, obviously.

If anyone wants to have a laugh at Ben Stein's expense, then try this YouTube video: Why People Laugh at Creationists (part 23) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=related)

Then you can start at the beginning with part 1 and learn quite a bit about intellectual dishonesty as well as the errors of Creationism and ID.

More videos on YouTube:
Evidence for Evolution Part III (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=related) (and I hope everyone here can recognize the music. ;) )
Creationism Disproved? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA&feature=related)

Be sure to check out all of the related videos.


I'm really beginning to love YouTube ;D

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 19, 2008, 11:28:13 PM
While, from a scientific or even strictly logical standpoint, the existence of God is an undecidable proposition speaking of a matter of fact, I don't think that the scientific narrative need be so completely divorced from the religious narrative. Why? At its root, religion tells a story. Such stories are full of what one would call facts. That might not appear to be the case at first glance, since those facts have been layered with varnish (artistic, interpretative, and doctrinal varnishes are some examples). Science, in describing natural phenomena, can, then, be a powerful tool for getting at the facts lurking in the background of the religious narrative. If science can provide a description and explanation of phenomena mentioned in a religious narrative, then the understanding of the religious narrative is improved. This goes from, to the agnostic or unbeliever, a nice (or not-so-nice) story that is largely cut from whole cloth to an interpretation of a natural event or process by civilizations incapable of understanding the event in analytical terms.

I do, however, take issue with the characterization of all fact questions being scientific. The homomorphism theorems from abstract algebra describe facts, but my hat goes off to the natural scientist who can derive them by observation of phenomena of the natural world. In other words, the viability of those tremendously important theorems is a question of fact, but not a question for natural scientists. Now the trivial objection to my point is that the homomorphism theorems are abstract and theoretical, which should make them somehow less cogent examples of the fact-vs-natural-science question. I would respond to that by saying that much of what we think about the basic building blocks of everything and how it all works is abstract and theoretical. My question, then, is what's the difference between the Higgs boson (which is a major, as I understand it, test for the Standard Model) and the homomorphism theorems? Well, one "exists" and the other hasn't been observed. And that's my point: something can exist as a matter of fact without coming under the observation of science. I don't mean to make a statement on the "big" question, other than to say that answering it on fact/science grounds might not produce an answer for reasons other than nonexistence.

      Yes, there are facts of logic and mathematics which are not derived empirically. No doubt the use of deductive proof for the existence of creator gods is a misappropriation of the example they set. So I'll repeat that the existence of anything is a factual and not a purely logical question, and therefore always a scientific one. That encompasses the kind of theories you have in mind. The Higgs Boson is not the equivalent of a god in it's position in theories that are at least in part empirical. If our past theories about the existence of heretofore unknown particles had never been confirmed by observation, and if the only support for their existence came from an ideology that said that not only evidence but reason itself could not give knowledge of them we would hardly be likely to just say: "OK, you get a pass, they exist" unless that "unnecessary" confirmation actually took place.

       When you say something can exist without being under the observation of science you're certainly right, but this says nothing about what we're entitled to say is true about the existence of such entities. Sure, entities the existence of which are a matter of recent theorizing in the hope of empirical confirmation can be said to exist. Here we're talking about the interplay between the logical/mathematical and what can be confirmed by the evidence of observation. It's a very different ball game when you're using this example as a wedge to admit beings that play no role in such theorizing. It's a form of bait and switch: Admit the existence of the unobserved particle predicted mathematically and you must admit the creator god predicted by some guy with a long beard 2,500 years ago. Uh.....no, I don't think so. Is it clever? OK, you got me, it's a smooth move. Is it remotely plausible as a substitute/equivalent for science? No, it's not.

     Religious theories are scientific theories when they say anything at all about the world. They are bad theories because not enough sense can be made of them to falsify them. They shouldn't be treated as though they were true because of this. I can't prove the UFO isn't there. So it is, right? Isn't that a shabby way to think about it? Of course it is. So let's not make excuses for this sort of thing. The religious proponents must raise their game, and if we make allowances for them like this they'll never have to. That hurts all of us, as the ID controversy shows.

Quote from: drogulus on August 19, 2008, 02:43:41 PM
     He says that the existence of God isn't a scientific question, which further confirms that it's not a question of fact, because all such questions are scientific.      

Incorrect. All questions of facts of nature are scientific ones, yes, but not the question of the fact or non-fact of God, who stands outside nature -- how can He be nature when He created nature in the first place?

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 03:43:27 PM
Incorrect. All questions of facts of nature are scientific ones, yes, but not the question of the fact or non-fact of God, who stands outside nature -- how can He be nature when He created nature in the first place?

     Incorrect. There are mathematical or logical facts of abstract relations, and there are empirical, that is scientific, facts about the world. There's no category for a supposed fact that doesn't belong to these. But you're right about this, how can nature be created by something outside itself? It can't, outside of word games.

Let's not complicate things here. It is really quite simple:

If you sculpt an object, are you in that object? Of course not. You designed it, but you are most patently not part of it. Thus, if God designed and made nature, why should He be part of nature and therefore open to scientific investigation? This makes no sense.

***

Certainly, one might ask if He could be deduced from the design of the world, just like the involvement of a human hand can be deduced from an object's design. To anyone who is open to that possibility and allows for commonsense logical thinking, the design should be absolutely obvious, in the particular, exceedingly special, fine-tuned laws of physics that we see (we had discussed that before on "The Religion Thread"), and which allow for physical and biological evolution in the first place.

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

Quote from: drogulus on August 20, 2008, 03:49:21 PM
     But you're right, how can nature be created by something outside itself? It can't, outside of word games.

I have addressed this question of basic logic in my previous post.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 03:50:37 PM
Let's not complicate things here. It is really quite simple:

If you sculpt an object, are you in that object? Of course not. You designed it, but you are most patently not part of it. Thus, if God designed and made nature, why should He be part of nature and therefore open to scientific investigation? This makes no sense.

***

Certainly, one might ask if He could be deduced from the design of the world, just like the involvement of a human hand can be deduced from an object's design. To anyone who is open to that possibility and allows for commonsense logical thinking, the design should be absolutely obvious, in the particular, exceedingly special, fine-tuned laws of physics that we see (we had discussed that before on "The Religion Thread"), and which allow for physical and biological evolution in the first place.

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

    That's why the creator model is so empty. You have to do intellectual somersaults to try and show that what you left out of nature because it isn't there must now be admitted by necessity just to justify a model that can't be justified any other way. The universe is not the sort of thing that can be created, since it's everything by definition. Everything can't be created by another thing except in a word game.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 03:50:37 PM


A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

      I agree. So leave out the extra term and order lunch.  _:D

      I should say that I applaud Millers efforts to combat ID regardless of other disagreements. And your efforts as well, Al.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 03:43:27 PM
Incorrect. All questions of facts of nature are scientific ones, yes, but not the question of the fact or non-fact of God, who stands outside nature -- how can He be nature when He created nature in the first place?

Do you entertain the possibility that He might be She or some mix of the two?

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 03:50:37 PM
Let's not complicate things here. It is really quite simple:

If you sculpt an object, are you in that object? Of course not. You designed it, but you are most patently not part of it. Thus, if God designed and made nature, why should He be part of nature and therefore open to scientific investigation? This makes no sense.

***

Certainly, one might ask if He could be deduced from the design of the world, just like the involvement of a human hand can be deduced from an object's design. To anyone who is open to that possibility and allows for commonsense logical thinking, the design should be absolutely obvious, in the particular, exceedingly special, fine-tuned laws of physics that we see (we had discussed that before on "The Religion Thread"), and which allow for physical and biological evolution in the first place.

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

It is really that simple for simple minds. That game of a question with a yes or no answer and a "therefore" conclusion is now, what? 2500 years old, if not more. Socrates was a great proponent of that method, and the sophists (his contemporaries) were quick on the rebound, able to turn any argument into something "really that simple".

I'm not taking a position here - I have little interest in such a debate - but I take exception to such ultimately dishonest ways. Logic has no business in theology and not as much as could be thought in science.

Quote from: drogulus on August 20, 2008, 04:00:46 PM

      I should say that I applaud Millers efforts to combat ID regardless of other disagreements. And your efforts as well, Al.

Thank you.

Funny when someone brings up straightforward points that opponents do not like, he is accused of playing games, being "simple-minded" and intellectually dishonest.

Quote from: drogulus on August 20, 2008, 03:58:14 PM
    The universe is not the sort of thing that can be created, since it's everything by definition.

Everything "by definition"? That sounds like materialistic dogmatism.

Drogulus,

At this point I am tired of pointing out the logical and other flaws in your argumentation, in this and the other statements in your last few posts. I will stop here. I have more fun things to do than this; life is too short. Have a good day, erm, night.

Al

QuoteReligious theories are scientific theories when they say anything at all about the world. They are bad theories because not enough sense can be made of them to falsify them. They shouldn't be treated as though they were true because of this. I can't prove the UFO isn't there. So it is, right? Isn't that a shabby way to think about it? Of course it is. So let's not make excuses for this sort of thing. The religious proponents must raise their game, and if we make allowances for them like this they'll never have to. That hurts all of us, as the ID controversy shows.

I don't see the point in making excuses for the position that because the existence of something cannot be proved, it, therefore, does not exist. It's no less shabby, and, to be entirely honest, it serves the same purpose for the proponents as the opposing position. Indeed, it's worse than shabby: it's intellectually lazy and sloppy work. While science can clarify points in the narrative, science must remain silent - either in an affirmative or negative way - on the big question undergirding those narratives. It is, as a sort of corollary for reasons I've outlined above, no answer at all to say that all fact questions are scientific and have that serve as a step in some argument.

Quote from: Don on August 20, 2008, 04:15:32 PM
Do you entertain the possibility that He might be She or some mix of the two?

I entertain the possibility that sex, as a feature of creatures who reproduce themselves over generations, may simply not apply to Supreme Being.

Quote from: drogulus on August 20, 2008, 03:58:14 PM
    The universe is not the sort of thing that can be created, since it's everything by definition. Everything can't be created by another thing except in a word game.

This implies that if we were to discover something that is outside of our universe then our universe is not the universe. Will we have to invent a new word for it? I've never been comfortable with the idea of an act of creation but the universe was probably derived from some other entity, unless you believe in spontaneous generation. In which case, what was it generated in, and why?

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 06:40:18 PM
Everything "by definition"? That sounds like materialistic dogmatism.

     No, it's a matter of definition. The universe doesn't have to be matter and energy. It could include anything, and in fact as a matter of definition it does. There's no such thing as everything plus everything else, the else has already been taken care of by the "everything". It's the idea that there must be something outside the universe that's dogmatic, given this definition. And why would you define otherwise? Isn't the universe supposed to be everything? Isn't that the plain meaning?

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 20, 2008, 09:15:55 PM
I don't see the point in making excuses for the position that because the existence of something cannot be proved, it, therefore, does not exist.

      You fell right into it. I said you can't assume that something like a god or UFO exists just because it can't be disproved, and you turned it around as though I'd said what can't be proved doesn't exist, a weaker argument for you to deal with, but not mine. Let's go to what I said again: Just because the existence of something can't be disproved is no reason to think it does exist.


     

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 21, 2008, 12:43:43 PM
    This implies that if we were to discover something that is outside of our universe then our universe is not the universe. Will we have to invent a new word for it? I've never been comfortable with the idea of an act of creation but the universe was probably derived from some other entity, unless you believe in spontaneous generation. In which case, what was it generated in, and why?

      I don't exactly get what you mean here. Why would we need a new word? If the universe is bigger or more complex than we previously thought, then what? We've had to adjust our idea of the universe in the past without abandoning the universe concept, so why would that change? So here's a question: What would have to be the case to cause us to abandon the idea that the universe is everything if we always expand our concept of it to conform to our observations?  _{>:D 0:)}

     As for derived from another entity: No. For a very good reason that should be obvious (why isn't it?): It ceases to be another entity the moment we find out about it. All other entities are internal to an entity that contains everything by definition. A sufficiently flexible naturalism can't be overthrown. It expands to fill all the available space. Everything really does mean everything.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 06:40:18 PM
Everything "by definition"? That sounds like materialistic dogmatism.

Drogulus,

At this point I am tired of pointing out the logical and other flaws in your argumentation, in this and the other statements in your last few posts. I will stop here. I have more fun things to do than this; life is too short. Have a good day, erm, night.

Al

Instead of telling us every time you decide to bow out of a thread, you could just silently depart into the night. ::)

Quote from: Don on August 21, 2008, 01:06:24 PM
Instead of telling us every time you decide to bow out of a thread, you could just silently depart into the night. ::)

But then you'd never know they were gone.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 21, 2008, 12:43:43 PM
...In which case, what was it generated in, and why?

"in" assumes [a three dimensional] space. without universe there is no concept of space  $:)
"why" is in the same wavelength, when you ask "why" you are presupposing a notion of 'before'. and without universe there is no concept of time either  $:) $:)

     What does dogmatic materialism mean? Unless it means you're wedded to some concept of matter/energy that wouldn't allow for new phenomena to be observed and theorized about so that its behavior can be predicted, I don't see how materialism is dogmatic at all. One day perhaps our understanding of what exists will be so transformed by new discoveries that we'll want to invent a new terminology to describe it. Maybe we'll call it something else instead of materialism. It won't matter, though, because it will be the process that creates new knowledge that unites the new vision with the old, just as in the past with successive scientific revolutions. This is as far from dogmatism as the human mind can get.

   

Quote from: orbital on August 21, 2008, 01:24:56 PM
"in" assumes [a three dimensional] space. without universe there is no concept of space  $:)
"why" is in the same wavelength, when you ask "why" you are presupposing a notion of 'before'. and without universe there is no concept of time either  $:) $:)

      This is why the idea of "something outside of everything" doesn't work. If it's something, it's not outside. There is no outside. _{(it follows that there's no inside either, right? Inside what? ;D)}

Quote from: Philoctetes on August 21, 2008, 01:09:39 PM
But then you'd never know they were gone.

Most folks on the board who say they're leaving don't go anywhere, so the proof is in the lack of posting.  One thing about Al is that when he tells us he's leaving a thread, he makes good on it (although starting a new thread that's very similar to the existing one isn't quite a 100% withdrawl). ;D

    I don't blame anyone for absenting themselves from this discussion. Sometimes you just might want to collect your thoughts, or think about something else. And then maybe you can come back with a slightly different perspective. And there really is a lot of repetition in the arguments. There should be repetition, I think, both because we're considering variations on a limited set of ideas, and because it's mostly a matter of how these ideas are expressed and refined, so the consequences of the different options can be clearly seen, that makes the conversation useful. I completely disagree with the idea that what's said here is useless because we don't see lots of eager converts proclaiming their allegiance to the opponents point of view. This is usually a slow process, and it may take years before the implications are worked through. That's how it is with me, and I have a theory that other people are like me in this respect. _:D

Quote from: drogulus on August 21, 2008, 01:03:04 PM
You fell right into it. I said you can't assume that something like a god or UFO exists just because it can't be disproved, and you turned it around as though I'd said what can't be proved doesn't exist, a weaker argument for you to deal with, but not mine. Let's go to what I said again: Just because the existence of something can't be disproved is no reason to think it does exist.

I'll just say this, though I can gladly give you more, you can't think anything about an object, the existence of which is an undecidable proposition. If you're not trivially wrong in failing to disprove the existence of the object, then you're stuck with undecidability. Of course, that's rather more subtle than restating the axiom about a lack of a negative not proving a positive. There's no intellectual disgrace in admitting that a question cannot be answered one way or the other, which means that one cannot say anything about the object in question; when one cannot say anything and chooses the one thing that s/he cannot say from the lot, there's more of psychology there than anything "real."

All of that serves as a prelude to this: Any discussion on this subject that isn't a formal critique or pleasant exercise in logic and e-forensics is not altogether a productive exercise (to say nothing of absurdity), as it has an undecidable proposition as its object. There are no implications to consider, since there is nothing firm whence one can draw implications. There is only one logically sound position on the question, and that really isn't much of a position.

Very well put, PSmith08.

For some reason those 'undecidable' propositions come up time and again, whether from the zealot lot or the heathen den. After a calm spell someone decides it's time to send a flare or two just to see if the other side is still alive. Then after a reasonable amount of huffing and puffing, both camps fall asleep again. They've been entrenched for centuries and figure it's only a matter of time plus another round of argument for the world to come to its senses and side with them.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 22, 2008, 07:23:29 PM
Very well put, PSmith08.

For some reason those 'undecidable' propositions come up time and again, whether from the zealot lot or the heathen den. After a calm spell someone decides it's time to send a flare or two just to see if the other side is still alive. Then after a reasonable amount of huffing and puffing, both camps fall asleep again. They've been entrenched for centuries and figure it's only a matter of time plus another round of argument for the world to come to its senses and side with them.

Well, in this case, aside from a love of debate, the undecidable proposition in question is of tremendous importance, both in terms of our "real" understanding of the universe and in our personal understanding of the world. I should think that it's obvious in a very real way to all participants that there is no concrete answer to be had on this question; religion throws faith into the mix (though some thinkers have used logic to derive the result) to close the gap, and the opposing view has several methods - none quite as satisfying as faith - to do the same. To me, that's the whole problem with the debate: at some point, both participants are going to have make a deft move with something not entirely compliant with the rules of the game, so to speak, to arrive at their respective positions. That is, to my mind, like working out a mathematical proof until logic and the like can't carry you further and closing the door with "Assume that the preceding proposition necessarily implies the desired conclusion. QED" That's risible. Any debate that necessarily includes risibility as a needed step isn't much of a debate.

That's the whole point. Invoking logic and science, or faith will yield nothing but dissent. There will never be agreement on the subject and that much should be clear to any with a grain of intelligence. Logic and science by no means represent the questing layman's baggage. And religion's dictates may be quite an encumbrance to the believer's train of thought. IOW only extremists of both persuasions will find food for thought or amusement in that kind of debate.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 22, 2008, 09:37:50 PM
That's the whole point. Invoking logic and science, or faith will yield nothing but dissent. There will never be agreement on the subject and that much should be clear to any with a grain of intelligence. Logic and science by no means represent the questing layman's baggage. And religion's dictates may be quite an encumbrance to the believer's train of thought. IOW only extremists of both persuasions will find food for thought or amusement in that kind of debate.

I suppose that, like I said above, looking at the debate in purely formal terms or as an exercise in debate for its own sake can change the tone. No one but the pathologically deluded could think (1) that the debate will affect any change in the hearts and minds of the opponents or (2) that the discussion will succeed where success is impossible from the outset. That having been said, while it's no topic for polite company, it's a fun discussion when approached without an attitude that tends toward that pathological delusion.

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 22, 2008, 10:46:44 PM
I suppose that, like I said above, looking at the debate in purely formal terms or as an exercise in debate for its own sake can change the tone. No one but the pathologically deluded could think (1) that the debate will affect any change in the hearts and minds of the opponents or (2) that the discussion will succeed where success is impossible from the outset. That having been said, while it's no topic for polite company, it's a fun discussion when approached without an attitude that tends toward that pathological delusion.

I'd agree to some extent, but for one thing.  Religion has specific, concrete consequences in terms of people's beliefs and actions in other realms.  I'll leave the hot-button issue of religiously inspired terrorism (which I'm not convinced could not also be happening for purely political reasons)  aside and concentrate on the example that prompted this thread: evolution and creationism.  There are large numbers of people who insist on compromising the education of their children, and those of others, solely in order to preserve a particularly ludicrous form of religious faith.  As well, many people have little hesitation to insist that others restrain their behaviour in order to comply with religious dictates.  I'm tallking about issues such as homosexuality, abortion, etc.  I think it is worth repeating the point that the existence of any god whatsoever, never mind that of the god of any particular religion, is something for which there is no evidence.  Therefore, while people can feel free to live their own lives according to what they believe the dictates of God to be, they have no right to expect that society as a whole should function in accordance with those dictates.

As Sam Harris has said, a politician who stands up and says he bases a position on what God wants should be given no more credibility than one who based his position on what Zeus wants.  That's why I still think this debate is an important and worthwhile one.  It's not so much about changing anyone's beliefs, as it is about influencing the way those beliefs intersect with the interests of society.

Actually, I agree with quite a bit of what PSmith08 and Lilas Pastia say. I think agnosticism (the  undecided "I don't know", assigning *no* probability whatsoever in favor of either the God or no-God scenario^*)) should be the intellectual default position for non-believers. A position that I respect greatly. Faith adds something into the mix which allows for a decision in one direction, however, it cannot be proven by logic or science.

As I have repeatedly pointed out in discussions, my or any theist's arguments are about credibility, not about proof, and the same is bound to hold for the atheist side. I just don't find the atheist scenarios for the origin of the world credible in any way (and I have thought through all of them more thoroughly than most atheists will ever do). And atheists have no scientific evidence for their position -- science is silent on those ultimate questions and will always be as I have repeatedly demonstrated before; I won't go over the arguments here again. Thus, atheism ultimately remains a philosophical position just like theism, not a scientific one (something that most atheists have a hard time conceding, among others, because they do not  properly know the demarcations between science and philosophy).

If atheists want to believe in their scenarios, fine, even though I don't think they can be shown to be credible. However, I cannot stay silent when atheists do not concede that theism is a rational choice, and when they claim that believers are "deluded" or suffer from self-deception.


^*) many atheists seem unwilling to concede that there is a significant difference between atheism and agnosticism, but obviously they are wrong

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2008, 03:13:58 AM
As I have repeatedly pointed out in discussions, my or any theist's arguments are about credibility, not about proof, and the same is bound to hold for the atheist side.

I understand and respect your position here.  However, I don't think it's accurate to say "any theist's arguments."  There are many theists who are convinced their arguments are about proof, and that their religious beliefs should supercede empirical scientific evidence.  I know that's not you, or anyone (now) on this board.  However, such people do unfortunately exist and somehow seem able to hold a disproportionate degree of influence over the policies of our society.

Quote from: Shrunk on August 23, 2008, 03:26:39 AM
I understand and respect your position here.  However, I don't think it's accurate to say "any theist's arguments."  There are many theists who are convinced their arguments are about proof, and that their religious beliefs should supercede empirical scientific evidence.  I know that's not you, or anyone (now) on this board.  However, such people do unfortunately exist and somehow seem able to hold a disproportionate degree of influence over the policies of our society.

What is the proper proportion of influence they should wield, do you think?  And how does that compare to the proportion of influence wielded by the nihilists who've dominated our cultural, social, political, and intellectual lives for the past 50 years?

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 23, 2008, 03:34:32 AM
What is the proper proportion of influence they should wield, do you think?  And how does that compare to the proportion of influence wielded by the nihilists who've dominated our cultural, social, political, and intellectual lives for the past 50 years?

It's more the rationale behind the position, rather than the position itself, that I'm talking about.  Someone may arise at a position on, say, abortion based on their religious beliefs and decide to model their personal behaviour based on those beliefs.  However, if they seek to ban abortion for others, then religious doctrine should hold no validity in public debate.  Rational, moral arguments can be made for both sides of the debate, but following the dictates of a being who may not even exist is not one of these.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2008, 03:13:58 AM
Actually, I agree with quite a bit of what PSmith08 and Lilas Pastia say. I think agnosticism (the  undecided "I don't know", assigning *no* probability whatsoever in favor of either the God or no-God scenario^*)) should be the intellectual default position for non-believers. A position that I respect greatly.


^*) many atheists seem unwilling to concede that there is a significant difference between atheism and agnosticism, but obviously they are wrong

Most atheists are agnostics anyway. And, this agnostic position that you respectly so greatly is one that theists will never possess, or be willing to.

You say science has no decent explanatory theories on the origins of the universe, but you think christianity (i.e a SPECIFIC doctrine) has the answers. That seems much more deluded to me.

Quote from: Norbeone on August 23, 2008, 06:43:50 AM
Most atheists are agnostics anyway.

By lip service perhaps, in practice, no.

QuoteAnd, this agnostic position that you respectly so greatly is one that theists will never possess, or be willing to.

Obviously, you haven't paid much attention to what I said in my previous post.

QuoteYou say science has no decent explanatory theories on the origins of the universe, but you think christianity (i.e a SPECIFIC doctrine) has the answers. That seems much more deluded to me.

Need I say more? This is a typical confirmation of the atheist attitude.

In short, once again:

Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational.

Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold.

Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

Quote from: Shrunk on August 23, 2008, 03:26:39 AM
I understand and respect your position here.  However, I don't think it's accurate to say "any theist's arguments."  There are many theists who are convinced their arguments are about proof, and that their religious beliefs should supercede empirical scientific evidence.  I know that's not you, or anyone (now) on this board.  However, such people do unfortunately exist and somehow seem able to hold a disproportionate degree of influence over the policies of our society.

Now, hold on a minute. Both atheism and theism go beyond empirical scientific evidence and, to a greater or lesser degree, formal logic. Neither position is a necessary consequence of any quantity of empirical evidence. Somewhere in the creamy center of both positions is what I have called a deft move to get from a body of evidence, which implies certain conclusions, though none are the desired conclusion, to the desired conclusion itself. So, then, on some level, both positions require some belief that supersedes empirical scientific evidence, as that evidence won't get them where they want to go.

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 21, 2008, 09:47:08 PM
I'll just say this, though I can gladly give you more, you can't think anything about an object, the existence of which is an undecidable proposition. If you're not trivially wrong in failing to disprove the existence of the object, then you're stuck with undecidability. Of course, that's rather more subtle than restating the axiom about a lack of a negative not proving a positive. There's no intellectual disgrace in admitting that a question cannot be answered one way or the other, which means that one cannot say anything about the object in question; when one cannot say anything and chooses the one thing that s/he cannot say from the lot, there's more of psychology there than anything "real."

     My position is designed to deal properly with long term undecidablities of this type. I note that such long term unfalsifiables as those involving ghosts, trolls, and dragons (they still haven't been discovered) present no problem for the logician or the empiricist. They haven't been found and are therefore seen as unlikely to exist. There's no special case to fuss over regarding religious propositions because all such propositions are handled as a matter of routine in just this way, except for the monumental emotional and institution investment in keeping these dead propositions alive. Just as we only need to argue over bad philosophical viewpoints prophylactically to keep the underbrush clear, so to speak.

     We need to remember just what we've decided so these "how do you know it doesn't exist" questions don't assume the false importance the advocates claim for them: "It can't be disproven" takes you no more distance towards establishing the existence of a god than it does the existence of anything else. The argument is a general one about assumptions without supporting evidence and is always a loser in exactly the same way. Besides, how is such a general argument proof of anything specific? How is it an argument for A without being equally an argument for B, or even not-A? The argument that you don't need evidence would license belief in anything, or even everything, as has been pointed out many times before. You can't say: "Well, this argument is good for my god, but not for your god, and not for non-gods at all!". No, this is an argument with no limiting principle, so it should be rejected without limit as well. In fact, it has been. No one argues seriously for the existence of anything in this way except apologists, just about the worst thing you can say about an argument, I think.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 23, 2008, 07:45:51 AM
In short, once again:

Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational.

Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold.

Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

The last sentence is where we part ways.  I would replace "know" with "believe".

Quote from: drogulus on August 23, 2008, 10:03:36 AM
     My position is designed to deal properly with long term undecidablities of this type. I note that such long term unfalsifiables as those involving ghosts, trolls, and dragons (they still haven't been discovered) present no problem for the logician or the empiricist. They haven't been found and are therefore seen as unlikely to exist. There's no special case to fuss over regarding religious propositions because all such propositions are handled as a matter of routine in just this way, except for the monumental emotional and institution investment in keeping these dead propositions alive. Just as we only need to argue over bad philosophical viewpoints prophylactically to keep the underbrush clear, so to speak.

Well, treating a principle of vital importance to man's understanding of the universe like a ghost, troll, or dragon certainly meets the standards of the deft move I have discussed here, which gets both believers and unbelievers from a body of inconclusive evidence to their desired conclusion. You aren't making that claim manifest, but it's there. Your position does not, to be fair, deal properly with the undecidable proposition, either. Saying something is unlikely to exist doesn't answer the question. It's an interpretation of the evidence, and interpretation, while grounded in evidence and implication, is not the same as a necessary implication. So, then, a lack of evidence used to imply the unlikelihood of existence, while technically valid, doesn't really do much at all.

     Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm not omniscient, so my statement is of the normal empirical kind. When in doubt, it ain't there is the working assumption, revisable when new info shows up. Empiricists aren't absolutists with guaranteed truths (see Hume). They tend to doubt even the verifiable. A good thing, too, otherwise science wouldn't be possible. Scientific theories couldn't replace their predecessors, could they? The absolutists, whose views require the humility of other people (especially the humility of their bullshit detectors), operate differently. They are always completely right, which is easy since if you never say anything that can be disproved, you can always claim you're opponents have lost the argument. That makes me the cop on the beat, trying to keep the hustlers at bay. _;D

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 23, 2008, 10:15:24 AM
Well, treating a principle of vital importance to man's understanding of the universe like a ghost, troll, or dragon certainly meets the standards of the deft move I have discussed here, which gets both believers and unbelievers from a body of inconclusive evidence to their desired conclusion. You aren't making that claim manifest, but it's there. Your position does not, to be fair, deal properly with the undecidable proposition, either. Saying something is unlikely to exist doesn't answer the question. It's an interpretation of the evidence, and interpretation, while grounded in evidence and implication, is not the same as a necessary implication. So, then, a lack of evidence used to imply the unlikelihood of existence, while technically valid, doesn't really do much at all.

    Sorry, I won't sit still for the "it's important" dodge. Such appeals to the gallery won't help you here. My argument is about the fact that importance doesn't improve a bad argument. I agree, trolls are unimportant. However, an argument that fails to establish their existence is not improved by applying it to important (culturally and emotionally at the individual level) entities. You can't cut slack for anybody, and in fact it works the other way, I would think. A god or an asteroid hurtling towards the earth, both being important, would require a tighter rather than a looser standard. Let's not hear any more about how I'm trivializing with this comparison. The comparison has substantive import, as I've shown: Arguments that are bogus for trivial matters do not improve when applied to matters we can all agree are of great importance.

Fine. I won't tell you that you're trivializing the comparison to bridge the gap between the point beyond which empirical evidence and logic fail and the point where your desired conclusion is a necessary consequence. That, however, doesn't really change anything, does it? The simple truth of the matter is that you can apply whatever standard you like, strict or permissive, and you still won't be able to decide the question. Your approach doesn't deal with such propositions by saying that the answer to an unanswerable question is "likely" this or that. Such an approach requires interpretation of a body of evidence, and interpretation, as I've said, doesn't count for much. Doubt as the default position is merely an interpretative choice, and it produces no more validity than does credulity, since both produce a "likely" answer. A "likely" answer is no answer at all, though, speaking strictly; either something has an answer, which can be shown or derived, or it doesn't have an answer. There's no middle ground here in a formal, logical sense. Indeed, any attempt to get around the undecidability of this proposition is doomed to fail in a vacuum, unsupported by neat tricks or logical leaps. Let's call a spade a spade and admit that both positions that deviate from a clear-eyed admission that there's no way to know one way or the other are guesses.

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 23, 2008, 09:39:30 AM
Now, hold on a minute. Both atheism and theism go beyond empirical scientific evidence

Agreed.

QuoteSo, then, on some level, both positions require some belief that supersedes empirical scientific evidence, as that evidence won't get them where they want to go.

Yes. However what Shrunk, to whom you responded, meant (I think) is that for some religious people their beliefs go beyond scientific evidence in the sense that: "if my religion says otherwise, science cannot be right". Both he and I have an issue with that.

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 23, 2008, 09:39:30 AM
Now, hold on a minute. Both atheism and theism go beyond empirical scientific evidence and, to a greater or lesser degree, formal logic. Neither position is a necessary consequence of any quantity of empirical evidence. Somewhere in the creamy center of both positions is what I have called a deft move to get from a body of evidence, which implies certain conclusions, though none are the desired conclusion, to the desired conclusion itself. So, then, on some level, both positions require some belief that supersedes empirical scientific evidence, as that evidence won't get them where they want to go.

One noteworthy problem with this account, P, is that it neglects those inconvenient cases of epiphany despite unwillingness to believe.

Furthermore, I would say that the growing body of scientific evidence of a knowable, rational order underlying existence is nothing but empirical evidence of God.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 23, 2008, 11:18:47 AM
One noteworthy problem with this account, P, is that it neglects those inconvenient cases of epiphany despite unwillingness to believe.

There are always pathological cases for any system.

QuoteFurthermore, I would say that the growing body of scientific evidence of a knowable, rational order underlying existence is nothing but empirical evidence of God.

I could be a real jerk and say that any mathematically based explanation or system of explanations is going eventually to show a knowable, rational order at its root. When you build on a rational foundation, you shouldn't be surprised when you find a rational foundation. I do, however, take your point and agree with it. For me, the big "moment" came in my distribution-requirement-fulfilling astronomy class junior year. The professor discussed, very briefly, the large-scale structure of the Universe, including some of the results from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. The fact that there are elements to form structures on the largest possible scale, with the indication that those elements are size-limited, gave me pause to think. Of course, the problem with scientific evidence, being the reportage of facts, is that anyone can interpret the data in a pleasing way.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 23, 2008, 07:45:51 AM
In short, once again:

Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational.

Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold.

Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

"Atheism--Claiming that there is no God.  Implicit is an underlying claim of omniscience.  The position is not rational."  
The argument of implicit omniscience presented here is an assumed and irrational one itself.  Claiming there is no God needs no grounds for presenting or implying an alternative.  If someone says there is no God, there is no reason at all for them to have any 'underlying' motive or claim.  They simply believe there is no God and do not have any construct other than their own physical and spiritual and living experience to think and state that there is no God.  It is you who, because of your own pattern of belief, think there is an implication being made. In fact, the only thing underlying their claim is what they think, and they don't really think: "Well, everything I know see and learn is omniscience (equiv. to L omni- omni- + scientia knowledge) so there must be no God."  It is quite simple.  They don't believe in deity - no underlying anything, no presumptions to be considered, not even a belief in omni-science.  Just...there is no God.  That's it.  No argument from them.  They just don't believe.  By doing so they do not also consider that they have "an underlying claim of omniscience" - you seem to be doing that for them for some reason.  Period.

"Agnosticism--Claiming not to know whether God exists.  A perfectly rational position for those who do not know, regardless of whatever beliefs (God, no God, or absence of any belief) they might hold."
Do not know what?  I am not sure whether this statement is a mistake in syntax or semantics.

"Theism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists."
This is the most 'irrational' claim of them all.  Those who know God exists?  Well, if they REALLY know God exists, which God is it from the multiple denominations of religious people who 'know' God exists?  The Muslim God?  The God of the Torah?  The Christian God?  The Hindu Gods?  Every denomination has people who 'know' God exists.  And if GOD(S) did truly and really exist, by default there would be only one World Religion because no other God would be known to exist.  But this is not and never has been the case.  There are Gods being worshipped in different forms all over the World.  To have a real and true knowledge that God or in some cases Gods exist is irrational through multiple dimensions of human conflict, spiritual and physical, which result from this 'knowledge' of Gods existence.
Well, I have not met a person yet who has said "Hello, come to my home, God has popped in for a cup of tea, you can meet together" or a World Leader who has said "Last night God came to me...and here he/she/it is...!"  The World and its ways would be completely different if the God who is 'known' was palpable to us all.  But as yet, no God or Gods have made themselves tangible unto the World, but many Gods have manifest in the minds of men.

However... :-\...I believe in something equally irrational.  I belive that the Universe is exactly that, the Universe, and no matter how many levels or dimensions, it is the Universe becuase that is what it is, everything that is different and everything that is the same, everwhere, at all times.  The Universe is power and motion and birth and death way beyond I will ever understand, but the creative power of birth and generation and death and regeneraton - therein is the power and existence of something I choose to call God, because I don't know what else to call it.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 23, 2008, 11:18:47 AM

Furthermore, I would say that the growing body of scientific evidence of a knowable, rational order underlying existence is nothing but empirical evidence of God.

And which God would that be then?

Mahler10th, I agree with basically everything you've just said, though I would always refrain from calling what you perceive to be the workings of the universe 'God.'



In reference to the title of the thread, we really are in a sad state of affairs when an article needs to be written defending evolution. It simply doesn't need any extra support on top of the amazingly vast amount of actual evidence it has.

You are confused about the difference between knowledge and belief...and also about the difference between something--God, gravity, beauty--and concepts about the thing itself.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 23, 2008, 12:01:13 PM
You are confused about the difference between knowledge and belief...and also about the difference between something--God, gravity, beauty--and concepts about the thing itself.

You can't tell me what i'm confused about, especially when it's you that's entirely confused about the difference between knowledge and belief. I've argued with you before that theists cannot 'know'. I know your views, and they're fundamentally flawed IMO.

Sorry, Norbeone--I was responding to Mahler 10, not you.  Your posts got in-between.  I've paid no attention to them.

So you were  ;D

Though, what I wrote still applies, I think. I don't want to speak for Mahler10 but I suspect that he may agree with what i wrote in reply to your comment.

DAVID ROSS said:  "You are confused about the difference between knowledge and belief...and also about the difference between something--God, gravity, beauty--and concepts about the thing itself."

Hmm...I am sorry David, that you choose to 'believe' I have no 'knowledge' on the difference between belief and knowledge.  Let me explain some more.
Knowledge has a number of definitions, none of which can be applied to a 'knowledge' of God because all existing 'knowledges' on deity(s) are in conflict. Many God(s) are 'believed' with certainty as 'knowledge' to exist.  These certain 'knowledge(s)' of so many divided and individual God(s) become unbelievable on such analysis because these 'knowledge(s)' are not what those who have them think they are...
They are just belief ...belief is something unproven and not universally recognised as being true on the scale of its assumed polarity.  An assumption or construct of belief coming from 'knowledge' of a 'true' God from a matrix of 'certain' and 'true' Gods Worldwide which in itself is a belief is nothing short of nonsense, but continues to be the posit of religious fundementalists.  :P

NORBEONE said: "I've argued with you before that theists cannot 'know'."
Precisely. ;D

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 23, 2008, 10:50:30 AM
Fine. I won't tell you that you're trivializing the comparison to bridge the gap between the point beyond which empirical evidence and logic fail and the point where your desired conclusion is a necessary consequence. That, however, doesn't really change anything, does it? The simple truth of the matter is that you can apply whatever standard you like, strict or permissive, and you still won't be able to decide the question. Your approach doesn't deal with such propositions by saying that the answer to an unanswerable question is "likely" this or that. Such an approach requires interpretation of a body of evidence, and interpretation, as I've said, doesn't count for much. Doubt as the default position is merely an interpretative choice, and it produces no more validity than does credulity, since both produce a "likely" answer. A "likely" answer is no answer at all, though, speaking strictly; either something has an answer, which can be shown or derived, or it doesn't have an answer. There's no middle ground here in a formal, logical sense. Indeed, any attempt to get around the undecidability of this proposition is doomed to fail in a vacuum, unsupported by neat tricks or logical leaps. Let's call a spade a spade and admit that both positions that deviate from a clear-eyed admission that there's no way to know one way or the other are guesses.

    Spoken like a true absolutist. Of course from the absolutist perspective the empirically derived looks like just a guess, a guess that the future will be, in certain ways, exactly like the past. This is a notorious problem in philosophy that I'm sure professors offer to students to shake them out of their complacency. It says that you don't know what you think you do. This tends to work since students, like many others tend to spend their thinking lives trading one set of absolutes for another, like religion for some naive realist version of science, or the other way around in some cases.

     What for the absolutist counts for little counts for quite a bit for the empiricist that operates on the best evidence, Occams razor, and inference to the best explanation. This flies planes, builds bridges, and gets you to the Moon and back in one piece. Viewed as a prediction, you have Lucretius ("no god, just nature") and the disciples of Jesus ("he'll be back in a minute"). For the absolutist nothing matters about these stories except that neither one passes an absolutist test, and therefore the favored story can be indulged (why this doesn't equally mean we can indulge the "We're going to kill you Jewish vermin" story doesn't have to be considered, because we've seen that's exactly what it does mean).

     So the guesses that underlie all empirical science, much of modern philosophy, and every last scrap of engineering with its close but not perfect tolerances show that the only concept of truth that matters functionally for our civilization is the kind I endorse. Your kind, where arguments about the existence of likely and extremely unlikely entities are seen as equivalent because no proofs are involved is only useful when you study medieval philosophy, or theology from any era, I suppose.

     

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2008, 11:04:27 AM
Yes. However what Shrunk, to whom you responded, meant (I think) is that for some religious people their beliefs go beyond scientific evidence in the sense that: "if my religion says otherwise, science cannot be right". Both he and I have an issue with that.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 23, 2008, 11:18:47 AM
Furthermore, I would say that the growing body of scientific evidence of a knowable, rational order underlying existence is nothing but empirical evidence of God.

Agreed, especially with respect to the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, but with a caveat: the "empirical evidence of God" here is a commonsense philosophical interpretation of the scientific evidence, it is not the scientific evidence proper. That evidence in itself is neutral with respect to world view (theism and atheism alike). Data are just data.

Quote from: drogulus on August 23, 2008, 01:36:33 PM
   
     So the guesses that underlie all empirical science, much of modern philosophy, and every last scrap of engineering with its close but not perfect tolerances show that the only concept of truth that matters functionally for our civilization is the kind I endorse. Your kind, where arguments about the existence of likely and extremely unlikely entities are seen as equivalent because no proofs are involved is only useful when you study medieval philosophy, or theology from any era, I suppose.

Yes indeed.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2008, 01:42:16 PM
Agreed, especially with respect to the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, but with a caveat: the "empirical evidence of God" here is a commonsense philosophical interpretation of the scientific evidence, it is not the scientific evidence proper. That evidence in itself is neutral with respect to world view (theism and atheism alike). Data are just data.

     Then you don't agree. Data are just data. Neither can you use the beauty of nature, or its vastness, or any other attribute. As you said earlier:

     

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 20, 2008, 03:50:37 PM

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

      And the best I can do in support of this is to say thank you.  _:)

Quote from: drogulus on August 23, 2008, 01:49:58 PM
      And the best I can do in support of this is to say thank you.  _:)

You don't pay accurate attention to what I say. I said "on the level of scientific observation" which is, indeed, consistent with my last post. However, I said that the philosophical interpration of the data can point to theism (an atheist of course would claim the opposite, of course).

I should specify more clearly. Just like theists, atheists also perform their own philosophical interpretation^*) of the scientific data, which in themselves are neutral towards any world view. Only the agnostic stays neutral towards the scientific data.

^*) they may claim their views are strictly based on scientific evidence, but this has been shown here not to be true. They are based on an interpretation of the scientific evidence.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2008, 01:56:43 PM
You don't pay accurate attention to what I say. I said "on the level of scientific observation" which is, indeed, consistent with my last post. However, I said that the philosophical interpration of the data can point to theism (an atheist of course would claim the opposite, of course).

    As I said it can point anywhere. But why invoke the universe for this? If you don't need evidence you really don't need it. You want the authority that evidence will give you without it actually pointing towards anything other than the empirical facts derived from it. You're basically playing a double game here. Scientifically (hard-headedly, you might say), the regularity of nature supports no more than what we agree it supports. At the level of beliefs (soft-heartedly, following William James) it supports the beliefs you hold. How convenient.

   I've decided that the gloriousity of the Milky Way supports my favorite deity (which at the moment happens to be Quetzalcoatl).

    (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Quetzalcoatl_telleriano.jpg)

    Of course, this is silly, isn't it? Or, it would be if we hadn't dismantled our empirically derived standards to keep our Mysterians happy.   <sub>:D

    (Incidentally, I'm having tamales tonight, in support of the Ferocious One, and because they're tasty! :D)</sub>

God as some have understood him / her:
(http://www.dollsofindia.com/dollsofindiaimages/articles/ht41sm.jpg)
Philisophical interpretations welcome.

God as thought of in the Western World:
(http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/images/God.jpg)
Scientific interpretations welcome.

Quote from: mahler10th on August 23, 2008, 02:28:41 PM
God as some have understood him / her:
(http://www.dollsofindia.com/dollsofindiaimages/articles/ht41sm.jpg)
Philisophical interpretations welcome.

    Of course I welcome them as what they are (which means what they appear to be), artistic renderings from a specific prescientific tradition. Why cheapen it by insisting on a literal factual interpretation unless you're in the grip of an ideology that instructs you there's no difference between the plausible supported by evidence and the highly implausible (often with components that are literally impossible like omniscience and omnipotence). What's the purpose of this leveling? To lower the profile of one belief in support of another. It doesn't work, though. Each one must stand on its own.

     The ID'ers try this with evolution, talking about the supposed problems as though their model could possibly gain something. This is what's behind the "all unproven ideas are equal, and my god idea is even more equal" idea  _;D. Most knowledge is unproven in the formal sense, that is the result of observations rather than logically or mathematically certain. By a little bit of theistic Jiu Jitsu our empirical knowledge is subordinated to the perfect knowledge of deities! Now that's an amazing trick which only works because we tolerate it.

Quote from: drogulus on August 23, 2008, 01:36:33 PM
So the guesses that underlie all empirical science, much of modern philosophy, and every last scrap of engineering with its close but not perfect tolerances show that the only concept of truth that matters functionally for our civilization is the kind I endorse. Your kind, where arguments about the existence of likely and extremely unlikely entities are seen as equivalent because no proofs are involved is only useful when you study medieval philosophy, or theology from any era, I suppose.

I said I wouldn't comment on your best-beloved deft move, and I'll stick with that. I will say that you're fundamentally off-track from the outset. You see, the question of the existence of an incandescent lightbulb, for example, is easily answered. Once one can say that the incandescent lightbulb exists, then we can do the whole prediction game. It has become knowable. How one knows anything about something whose existence is undecidable is another question. Indeed, one might call it a matter of faith. Your empiricism and materialism have nothing to say about an abstract entity whose existence can never be certain. That's just how it works. It would make more sense, then, to leave such questions alone while simultaneously acknowledging an upper bound to the reach of the system. To put it another way: No one tries to replicate Euclid's proof on the infinitude of prime numbers by using the second derivative.

     A working assumption that something doesn't exist is leaving it alone. That's what you do when you abandon these turkeys. Unless you think that the Graveyard of Propositions contains a bunch of neglected truths. Where do you get the idea that un-disproven things need to have their status finely tuned this way. They aren't false, they are banana! _{(is it cheating if we know what banana means?)}

     This reminds me of A.J. Ayers assertion that he wasn't an atheist because unfalsifiable propositions, not even false, don't rise to the level of something to be disbelieved. He wouldn't dignify them to that extent. I share his disdain (one thing I appreciated about him :D), but if this isn't picking philosophical nits I don't know what is.

Quote from: PSmith08 on August 23, 2008, 04:39:31 PM
Your empiricism and materialism have nothing to say about an abstract entity whose existence can never be certain. That's just how it works.

     Gosh, you are persistent (good for you)! Why would I need to say anything about these nonmathematical, nonlogical, plays-no-role whatever abstractions other than they just sit there not taking up space. It's as though my inability to say anything about them somehow enables an argument on their behalf, which I notice you don't make!  _:)Anyway, I think I've covered this. These entities don't suffer from my inability to specify what they are, they suffer from the inability of anyone who tries to describe them. Some ideas are so bad it's a shame to try to hold them.

My point is that you cannot assume anything about this question, absent some deft move to bridge the gap, since that assumption requires an answer that is definitionally excluded. Standing in a vacuum, there is no argument to be made either for or against a solution to this question. Such a status, in my view, necessarily precludes - absent my much-loved deft move - a value judgment like good or bad. We're talking about a hole where human reason cannot go.

Short of starting over, in which case, 1.e4, I'd say we've reached our stalemate.

Quote from: mahler10th on August 23, 2008, 01:33:18 PM
DAVID ROSS said:  "You are confused about the difference between knowledge and belief...and also about the difference between something--God, gravity, beauty--and concepts about the thing itself."

Hmm...I am sorry David, that you choose to 'believe' I have no 'knowledge' on the difference between belief and knowledge.  Let me explain some more.
Knowledge has a number of definitions, none of which can be applied to a 'knowledge' of God because all existing 'knowledges' on deity(s) are in conflict. Many God(s) are 'believed' with certainty as 'knowledge' to exist.  These certain 'knowledge(s)' of so many divided and individual God(s) become unbelievable on such analysis because these 'knowledge(s)' are not what those who have them think they are...
They are just belief ...belief is something unproven and not universally recognised as being true on the scale of its assumed polarity.  An assumption or construct of belief coming from 'knowledge' of a 'true' God from a matrix of 'certain' and 'true' Gods Worldwide which in itself is a belief is nothing short of nonsense, but continues to be the posit of religious fundementalists.  :P

NORBEONE said: "I've argued with you before that theists cannot 'know'."
Precisely. ;D

I see you also are confused about the difference between learning and knowledge.  And note that Norbeone may be entitled to his belief that theists cannot know, but it is logically incorrect and cognitively nothing more than an expression of his unreasoning prejudice.

Quote from: drogulus on August 23, 2008, 02:20:31 PM
    Scientifically (hard-headedly, you might say), the regularity of nature supports no more than what we agree it supports. At the level of beliefs (soft-heartedly, following William James) it supports the beliefs you hold. How convenient.

Scientifically (hard-headedly, you might say), the regularity of nature supports no more than what we agree it supports. At the level of beliefs (soft-heartedly, following William James) it supports the beliefs you hold. How convenient indeed, Drogulus.

As PSmith08 points out, both atheism and theism go beyond the actual scientific evidence. Both are philosophical positions, not scientific ones *).

Somehow you, like other atheists, still suffer from the mistaken assumption that your position is somehow "the more scientific one". Yet, how can your position be "more scientific" when it is not a scientific one in the first place? Again: it is a philosophical position, just like the theists'.



*) Apart from the fact that there is no scientific evidence for a naturalistic origin of the universe, science holds no views on the ultimate origin of the natural world and the laws of nature. The working model of science is methodological naturalism, not metaphysical (or philosophical) naturalism. Atheist who don't acknowledge this distinction and its importance are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest (it is a fact, not an opinion, look up any mainstream definition of science). Individual scientists may or may not adhere to philosophical naturalism, yet not science itself, which is just a tool to study the natural world, nothing more.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 24, 2008, 08:27:34 AM
As PSmith08 points out, both atheism and theism go beyond the actual scientific evidence. Both are philosophical positions, not scientific ones *).

Except that atheism, unlike theism and agnosticim, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

How would the following statement fit into that scheme of arguments and counter arguments?

Quotefaith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

.

Another translation reads:

Quotefaith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Things hoped for may be real or imaginary or simply conceptual ("eternal bliss"). Then things not seen ... How can they appear as evidence or produce certainty in the believer?

Are we not in the realm of the unprovable and undisprovable?

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 24, 2008, 08:31:18 AM
Except that atheism, unlike theism and agnosticim, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

You mean (i know you don't mean) strict atheism and theism, unlike agnosticism, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

Also, like i've said before, most atheists don't claim to be omniscient, since they are usually agnostics anyway. The word atheist is used more for handiness.

Theism is an extrememly arrogant stance to take, on the other hand.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 24, 2008, 08:27:34 AM


Somehow you, like other atheists, still suffer from the mistaken assumption that your position is somehow "the more scientific one". Yet, how can your position be "more scientific" when it is not a scientific one in the first place? Again: it is a philosophical position, just like the theists'.

    It is a philosophical position. It's also the most conservative position to take which preserves the truth of empiricism as asymptotic modeling and grants a sort of quasi-realist status to abstractions that perform useful work. Anything whose function and definition can be fused in this way will survive. I don't, for instance, question a "center of gravity" What's that? Of course if some hardcore realist tried to convince me they were objects and not just abstractions I'd be a bit leery. So we can accept abstractions precisely on the grounds that it's only the use made of them that's really being invoked and not some puzzling existence in some other unspecifiable (but somehow worshipful) way. So until the other shoe drops and the killer affirmative argument comes along, I'll keep to my old fashioned scepticism and let the entities prove themselves.

Quote from: Norbeone on August 24, 2008, 10:35:04 AM
You mean (i know you don't mean) strict atheism and theism, unlike agnosticism, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

Also, like i've said before, most atheists don't claim to be omniscient, since they are usually agnostics anyway. The word atheist is used more for handiness.

Theism is an extrememly arrogant stance to take, on the other hand.

Again, your thinking is completely upside down.  The atheist claims that God does not exist.  To be valid, such a claim would require omniscience--knowledge of everything that exists, in and out of the universe.  The preposterousness of the claim is self-evident.  This is something quite different from a claim not to believe in God's existence, which is a reasonable position for one to take who does not know whether God exists--as is belief. Those who do not know--agnostics--may choose to believe, not to believe, or to disbelieve, whatever makes them feel most comfortable.

Most people in my experience who describe themselves as atheists fall into this class.  They are really agnostics who find it hard to believe that God exists as presented according their understanding of one or more religious traditions.  Rather than rejecting the idea of God as The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or recognizing that Quetzalcoatl is but a metaphor to describe one aspect of something the totality of which is beyond comprehension, they simply reject the notion of God altogether and close their minds tight.  On the other hand, there are a significant number of agnostics who truly don't know, but who accept not knowing and then choose to believe because it makes more sense to them than disbelief. 

Omniscience is not implicit in the theist's claim to know that God exists.  He hardly need know everything, but only that God exists.  He doesn't have to know everything (or even anything) about the various theological systems developed by different cultures, doesn't have to know what color of socks God wears or even if he wears socks.  He need only know that God exists.  Such knowledge is relatively commonplace, as are reports of epiphanic experiences, which you are free to believe, to investigate with skepticism, or to reject out of hand due to unreasoning bigotry, whichever you wish.

The fact remains, regardless of your beliefs, that both agnosticism and theism are reasonable and logically supportable positions, but atheism is not. 

     

Quote from: Norbeone on August 24, 2008, 10:35:04 AM
You mean (i know you don't mean) strict atheism and theism, unlike agnosticism, is logically insupportable without omniscience as a premise.

     What a wild goose chase this is! Why would omniscient persons need to make arguments for the existence of anything? And why would an empiricist claim an impossible attribute? It's ridiculous, and it drags us away from arguments back to the character of persons. Sticking to arguments, is it possible to make existence claims without perfect evidence? Yes, it is, and arguments don't even make sense otherwise. An argument goes from imperfect evidence to the adequate or otherwise grounds for accepting the premise it supports. I don't know why "logically supportable" would matter except as a bottom of the barrel standard any proposition would have to meet. Theistic propositions which involve omniscient and/or omnipotent beings don't meet even this dreadfully low standard. The claim is made that the empiricist who disdains these notions must be claiming omniscience instead of consistency about the meaning of what is said, which we should all respect.

As we are addressing evolution and we have seen it in action, with new species created in our time, the argument is surely not so much with God as with those diehards who cannot accept that there may be more to learn about Him. Paradoxically, by believing that the Bible or some other religious book is the final arbiter on every matter, one is really expressing the view that God is dead and has nothing further to say. I cannot accept this and believe new revelations are constantly being made through our pursuit of science.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 24, 2008, 10:01:36 AM
How would the following statement fit into that scheme of arguments and counter arguments?
.

Another translation reads:
Things hoped for may be real or imaginary or simply conceptual ("eternal bliss"). Then things not seen ... How can they appear as evidence or produce certainty in the believer?

Are we not in the realm of the unprovable and undisprovable?

Faith is when you visit the Doctor with an ailment and he prescribes a remedy - you leave with a prescription and no question in your mind that the Doctor has prescribed something that will make you better.  You then take your medication in FAITH.

Happy 1000 posts David.
Keep the faith. ;D

Thanks, Mahler 10th! :D

It was my naive belief that the concept of faith had something to do in a discussion about evolution vs ID, theism and all other isms, so I'm glad to see there is indeed a theory (of sorts) for that concept. But you're right: if I go to the doctor I want to believe he can and will cure me!

From which I derive a theory: is there a predetermined state of mind that predisposes one to believe ? Does a happy, untroubled mind have any need to believe? Are believers only abnormal, sick, troubled souls? Are unbelievers (atheists) the only normal, untroubled, healthy and sane minds around? Then obviously only an atheist can lead the US ? Err... for some reason this last bit doesn't seem to fly...

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 24, 2008, 01:25:05 PM
As we are addressing evolution and we have seen it in action, with new species created in our time, the argument is surely not so much with God as with those diehards who cannot accept that there may be more to learn about Him. Paradoxically, by believing that the Bible or some other religious book is the final arbiter on every matter, one is really expressing the view that God is dead and has nothing further to say. I cannot accept this and believe new revelations are constantly being made through our pursuit of science.

Excellent point. It's always seemed to me that creationism was as indefensible on theological grounds as it is on scientific ones.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 24, 2008, 03:50:11 PM
From which I derive a theory: is there a predetermined state of mind that predisposes one to believe ? Does a happy, untroubled mind have any need to believe? Are believers only abnormal, sick, troubled souls? Are unbelievers (atheists) the only normal, untroubled, healthy and sane minds around? Then obviously only an atheist can lead the US ? Err... for some reason this last bit doesn't seem to fly...

If you are an atheist, and you believe in the theory you propose, then you can't have the mind that qualifies you for atheism. :P :)

I'm not an atheist. But I don't have set answers on most subjects. I'm not a doubter, but I feel that questions need to be asked. Everybody has to make their own mind about what's important to them. And keep it at that (IOW no proselytising, one way or another).

Lilas: a lot of people never get the chance to make up their own minds because they grow up in environments which seek to indoctrinate them. Like Mr Campbell, who is awfully young to have found all the answers to the cosmic questions but who has never had the chance to arrive at his own conclusions because he has been thoroughly indoctrinated at an early age. So the intelligence he no doubt displays goes to waste for making smartipants remarks like

Quote from: JCampbell on August 24, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
If you are an atheist, and you believe in the theory you propose, then you can't have the mind that qualifies you for atheism. :P :)

because it is not free to actually reflect the raised questions. Or even really raise them.

Quote from: DavidRoss on August 24, 2008, 12:15:06 PM
Again, your thinking is completely upside down.  The atheist claims that God does not exist.  To be valid, such a claim would require omniscience--knowledge of everything that exists, in and out of the universe.  The preposterousness of the claim is self-evident.  This is something quite different from a claim not to believe in God's existence, which is a reasonable position for one to take who does not know whether God exists--as is belief. Those who do not know--agnostics--may choose to believe, not to believe, or to disbelieve, whatever makes them feel most comfortable.

Most people in my experience who describe themselves as atheists fall into this class.  They are really agnostics who find it hard to believe that God exists as presented according their understanding of one or more religious traditions.  Rather than rejecting the idea of God as The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or recognizing that Quetzalcoatl is but a metaphor to describe one aspect of something the totality of which is beyond comprehension, they simply reject the notion of God altogether and close their minds tight.  On the other hand, there are a significant number of agnostics who truly don't know, but who accept not knowing and then choose to believe because it makes more sense to them than disbelief. 

Omniscience is not implicit in the theist's claim to know that God exists.  He hardly need know everything, but only that God exists.  He doesn't have to know everything (or even anything) about the various theological systems developed by different cultures, doesn't have to know what color of socks God wears or even if he wears socks.  He need only know that God exists.  Such knowledge is relatively commonplace, as are reports of epiphanic experiences, which you are free to believe, to investigate with skepticism, or to reject out of hand due to unreasoning bigotry, whichever you wish.

The fact remains, regardless of your beliefs, that both agnosticism and theism are reasonable and logically supportable positions, but atheism is not. 

Your first two paragraphs show that you misunderstand what I said in my post.

The last one shows once again your insistent advocation of the ridiculous notion that anyone can KNOW that God exists. How can anyone know, when there has been no good, testable evidence? Apparent 'epiphanic experiences' certainly aren't good evidence. Even if someone really did have such an experience (a real one, not a deluded one), it still cannot be used as good evidence, or evidence at all, since it cannot be subjected to any testable experiment or empirical analysis.

So once again (and I know [sorry....believe] this will annoy you), I say that anyone who claims actual knowledge (and not just humble belief) of God's existence is, in doing so, also claiming omniscience. No matter how much apparent experience someone has with their 'God', they can still merely believe in it, and not know it, the way I know i'm alive, or that evolution is a good explanation for life as we 'know' it.

0:)

Norby--

Apparently I understood the post you refer to better than you, for I took the time to correct your fundamental error in logic.  Yet you've chosen to repeat the error directly above.  Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of omniscience?  Obviously you want to think your prejudices are rational.  They are not--and claiming otherwise does not make it so.  There's nothing extraordinary, however, in your effort to rationalize your beliefs—that is, after all, what most people do.  Few have what it takes to critically examine their own most basic assumptions.

BTW, I enjoyed your self-correction above, changing "know" to "believe."  That shows you're on the right track.  You're wrong again, however, about the particulars.  ;)  I'm not annoyed but rather sympathetic and sad yet bemused.  You simply don't know what you don't know.  And when you're hostage to the god of your own intellect, it's very hard to understand that intellectualism condemns you to learning slowly, if at all.

Here is a goup of people who also know that God exists and, in fact, have met him directly:

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/06/princephilip030606_228x302.jpg)

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-388901/Is-Prince-Philip-god.html

The people of the Yaohnanen tribe on the Pacific island of Tanna worship HRH Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, as a god.  They seem as certain of this as any Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc. theist is of his belief. The people of Yaohnanen, however, seem to have an advantage in that there is little debate over whether their object of worship exists.

Is the Yoahnanens' belief rational?  If not, why is it less so than that of any other theist?

Quote from: Shrunk on August 24, 2008, 04:21:35 PM
Excellent point. It's always seemed to me that creationism was as indefensible on theological grounds as it is on scientific ones.

Yes, Ten thumbs made an excellent point indeed, and I agree with what you say as well.

Knowing God? Depends on what you mean by "knowing". I prefer to be conservative and simply say that I believe in God.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 25, 2008, 04:10:22 AM
Knowing God? Depends on what you mean by "knowing". I prefer to be conservative and simply say that I believe in God.

I agree, that seems more sensible.  I was responding more to DavidRoss, who said:

QuoteTheism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

EDIT: I should probably add that I draw a distinction between the belief in the existence of a god as a concept (I believe, Al, you've referred to this as "the god of philosophy") and the belief in a specific religious doctrine regarding the nature of that god.

Quote from: Shrunk on August 25, 2008, 03:55:56 AM

Is the Yoahnanens' belief rational?  If not, why is it less so than that of any other theist?

Perhaps because we really are omniscient in that particular matter  0:)

Quote from: Shrunk

Quote from: AlKnowing God? Depends on what you mean by "knowing". I prefer to be conservative and simply say that I believe in God.

I agree, that seems more sensible.  I was responding more to DavidRoss, who said:

Quote from: DaveTheism--Claiming that God is.  A perfectly rational position for those who know God exists.

Well, but your response appears actually to misuse what Dave said.  I don't find it at all difficult to harmonize Al's remark (preferring to speak of belief in God, rather than knowing God — for it is plain to me that both Al and Dave understand that one's knowledge of God has its limitations and imperfections) with Dave's remark that some of us know that God exists.

It seems that you're trying to construct a strawman by ignoring the distinction between knowledge of God, and knowledge that He exists.

Please explain, Karl, the distinction between knowledge of God, and knowledge that He exists.  What is this distinction?  And what is it that makes you think God is a 'HE' - the Bible?
0:)

Quote from: Shrunk on August 25, 2008, 04:30:03 AM
EDIT: I should probably add that I draw a distinction between the belief in the existence of a god as a concept (I believe, Al, you've referred to this as "the god of philosophy") and the belief in a specific religious doctrine regarding the nature of that god.

Important distinction, yes.

I would add that all the attributes of the God of philosophy are contained in the concepts of God of the three great monotheistic religions, but obviously, not the other way around.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2008, 04:45:33 AM
It seems that you're trying to construct a strawman by ignoring the distinction between knowledge of God, and knowledge that He exists.

I guess I don't understand the distinction.  Could you explain?

Quote from: Shrunk on August 25, 2008, 05:13:12 AM
I guess I don't understand the distinction.  Could you explain?

You're serious?

And you're how old?

It's related to the distinction between knowing milk, and knowing that milk exists.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2008, 05:17:25 AM
And you're how old?

Hey, no need to unnecessarily insult one of the most reasonable atheists here.

Sorry.

Quote from: mahler10th on August 25, 2008, 05:02:16 AM
And what is it that makes you think God is a 'HE' - the Bible?
0:)

What is it that makes you think that referring to God as He carries the same sexual information that referring to a man as he does?

Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2008, 05:17:25 AM
You're serious?

And you're how old?

It's related to the distinction between knowing milk, and knowing that milk exists.

OK, so lets say I was abandoned at birth on an island that was inhabited only by a race of intelligent reptiles, who raise me as one of their own.  I have never encountered the legendary substance "milk", but I have heard tales describing what it is believed to look, feel and taste like.  I form an image in my mind of what it might be.  One day, a bottle washes ashore containing a white fluid.  I drink it, and it is exactly what I imagined milk would taste like.  I am now convinced that I not only know that milk exists, but that I "know" milk.  Problem is, the bottle was actually filled with sweetened water and white dye.  I have still never actually encountered milk, yet I am convinced that I have.  How would I ever know I was wrong?

Am I still not getting it? 

Quote from: Shrunk on August 25, 2008, 05:47:55 AM
OK, so lets say I was abandoned at birth on an island that was inhabited only by a race of intelligent reptiles, who raise me as one of their own.  I have never encountered the legendary substance "milk", but I have heard tales describing what it is believed to look, feel and taste like.  I form an image in my mind of what it might be.  One day, a bottle washes ashore containing a white fluid.  I drink it, and it is exactly what I imagined milk would taste like.  I am now convinced that I not only know that milk exists, but that I "know" milk.  Problem is, the bottle was actually filled with sweetened water and white dye.  I have still never actually encountered milk, yet I am convinced that I have.  How would I ever know I was wrong?

Am I still not getting it? 

First: I'll say again that I'm sorry, but will add that perhaps if you were a little less derisive towards DavidRoss in this discussion, you might have inspired less scorn upon yourself.

Second:  I admit to finding the distinction between a thing (or a person) and knowledge of that thing (or person) so glaringly obvious, that that apparent gap in your knowledge, and your readiness to put DavidRoss down, suggested to me a degree of immaturity.

Third:  No, it appears that you still aren't getting it.  How about the difference between knowing Philip Glass, and knowing that he exists?  Don't get hung up on how you can make that a matter different to knowledge either of God or of His existence;  I may possibly be aware of those differences, too.  Reflect on the difference which I am here pointing out.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2008, 05:36:13 AM
Sorry.

What is it that makes you think that referring to God as He carries the same sexual information that referring to a man as he does?

My concern is that referring to God as He give additional ammunition to males to feel that they should be at the top of the chain while females receive the signal that they are on a lower rung.

There is no point in holding debate with Theists.  I do not know Philip Glass, nor do I have an intimate and full knowledge of milk.  It exists and I know it because it is palpable and I can see it and drink it.  Unfortuantely, no matter what, I have not met God in person, he has not manifest himself unto me in a way that I recognise as something I can 'know' or even believe in.  I have not heard him, seen him, saw a photograph, shook his hand - there is nothing but a cobbled up series of grossly edited books called the Bible to 'introduce me' to 'him'... (referring here mostly to the NT).  Instead of banging the drums of one known God out of so many thousands of 'known' Gods across the World, perhaps a better posit than mine against such nonsense will help. :-*

NB:  I use the gender 'him' as that is how God is percieved by Christians, Jews, Musilims, et al.,

Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2008, 05:59:42 AM
First: I'll say again that I'm sorry, but will add that perhaps if you were a little less derisive towards DavidRoss in this discussion, you might have inspired less scorn upon yourself.

Thanks for the defense, Karl, but I don't take any of the derision personally, but recognize it for what it is.  Many contributors here--at least, if the interest implied by their participation is sincere--might better be able to grasp some of the issues and their implications were they to complete at least an introductory course in epistemology. 

Quote from: mahler10th on August 25, 2008, 06:19:54 AM
...milk...exists and I know it because it is palpable and I can see it and drink it.  Unfortuantely, no matter what, I have not met God in person, he has not manifest himself unto me in a way that I recognise as something I can 'know' or even believe in.  I have not heard him, seen him, saw a photograph, shook his hand -

Thus you can reasonably and honestly say that you do not know whether God exists, and have not yet examined evidence compelling your belief in God's existence.  To go beyond that and say that therefore God does not exist, or that no one can know God or whether God exists, is to move beyond reason and into the realm of logically insupportable speculation every bit as irrational as some of the peculiar religious pronouncements about God's nature that distress you so much.

And note, before I take my leave here, that this thread started as a discussion about evolution, and that there is no incompatibility whatsoever between evolution and most rational concepts of God that I'm acquainted with.

Cheers, all!

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 24, 2008, 05:46:08 PM
I'm not an atheist. But I don't have set answers on most subjects. I'm not a doubter, but I feel that questions need to be asked. Everybody has to make their own mind about what's important to them. And keep it at that (IOW no proselytising, one way or another).

I think that's perfectly fair. However, I think what is perfectly unfair is to suggest that all religious people in the world somehow suffer from some mass delusion based on a psychological predisposition.

Btw, sorry if I unintentionally pigeon-holed you; perhaps you can understand my reaction to your idea?

Quote from: JCampbell on August 25, 2008, 07:24:56 AM
I think that's perfectly fair. However, I think what is perfectly unfair is to suggest that all religious people in the world somehow suffer from some mass delusion based on a psychological predisposition.

Agreed, and it is equally unfair to suggest that all atheists are thinking irrationally and in a close-minded fashion.

As I've stated before, the important thing here is for individuals to feel free to possess and practice their particular beliefs without being belittled by those of different beliefs.  In this respect, a few of the posters here are behaving badly.

Quote from: JCampbell on August 25, 2008, 07:24:56 AM
However, I think what is perfectly unfair is to suggest that all religious people in the world somehow suffer from some mass delusion based on a psychological predisposition.

Even if it is true?

It has certainly been demonstrated from an anthropological point of view that man has an instinctive need to believe in god.  Every aboriginal culture on every isolated Pacific atoll believes in a god that made the world.  Now you must convince yourself that the religion your mommy taught you is the one true religion, and the other million distinct religions believed by the other 4 billion people in the world are delusions.   How much intelligence does it take to realize that the religion your mommy taught you is no different than the others.  If you are a Christian, you have to figure out why god decided that most of the human beings he created have never even heard that Jesus lived, and are therefore denied the possibility of salvation.  If you god exists, he is either evil or incompetent.

Quote from: Don on August 25, 2008, 06:10:15 AM
My concern is that referring to God as He give additional ammunition to males to feel that they should be at the top of the chain while females receive the signal that they are on a lower rung.

A valid concern.  Without disregarding the fact that there've been patches of Christendom which imperfectly grasped the idea that the Supreme Being is 'asexual', I think that history speaks for Christianity having been (again) a force for the fostering of intellect, the cradle of an unprecendentedly widespread environment of intellectual inquiry, and the source for centuries of the betterment of woman's condition.  This has not been the case in cultures where (what seems to be more "woman-friendly") there are female gods as well as male;  today's Washington Post on-line has the timely headline: In India, Opportunities for Women Draw Anger

QuoteA powerful male backlash has accompanied women's revolution, an upwelling of resentment that has expressed itself in sexual violence and harassment.

To be sure, the 'women's revolution' has not always been a peaceable affair in the West (in significant part, it has);  but one might justifiably question whether there would be anything like a women's revolution in India today, were it not for the West.  And again, the West would not be the West as we know it, without Christianity.

Quote from: scarpia on August 25, 2008, 08:17:36 AM
Even if it is true?

Oh, that really is funny, especially on the heels of Don's remark:

Quote from: Don on August 25, 2008, 07:50:04 AM
As I've stated before, the important thing here is for individuals to feel free to possess and practice their particular beliefs without being belittled by those of different beliefs.  In this respect, a few of the posters here are behaving badly.

But the scarpster is nothing, if not a belittler of those of different beliefs.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2008, 08:33:25 AM


But the scarpster is nothing, if not a belittler of those of different beliefs.

But he's just one of the members doing it, and it's coming from both sides of the aisle as it always does regarding religious discussions on the board.

Then again, insults appear to inform just about every thread on the board.  Humans are wonderful creatures.

A most even-handed appeal, Don.

It is certainly true that I cannot know that God exists. I believe in Him as a matter of faith. It seems likely that we cannot know whether or not strings exist although many scientists believe in them as a matter of faith even though their is not a shred of evidence for their existence.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2008, 08:33:25 AM
But the scarpster is nothing, if not a belittler of those of different beliefs.

I have no desire to belittle anyone's beliefs.  In fact, if someone tells me that they believe in the Easter Bunny, I will give their beliefs just as much respect as I would yours.

Quote from: scarpia on August 25, 2008, 09:29:31 AM
I have no desire to belittle anyone's beliefs.  In fact, if someone tells me that they believe in the Easter Bunny, I will give their beliefs just as much respect as I would yours.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but I do believe that there's a little Santa Claus in each of us.

Quote from: scarpia on August 25, 2008, 09:29:31 AM
I have no desire to belittle anyone's beliefs.

You expend much effort in that for which you say that you have no desire, then.

Quote from: scarpia on August 25, 2008, 09:29:31 AM
I have no desire to belittle anyone's beliefs.  In fact, if someone tells me that they believe in the Easter Bunny, I will give their beliefs just as much respect as I would yours.

Indeed. There are many farmers who will tell you that there a far too many Easter bunnies.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 26, 2008, 04:15:41 AM
Indeed. There are many farmers who will tell you that there a far too many Easter bunnies.

...and too few eggs

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 25, 2008, 09:18:33 AM
It is certainly true that I cannot know that God exists. I believe in Him as a matter of faith. .

This is a completely reasonable approach to take. Granted, I probably wouldn't agree with the reasons you have for believing in God, but at least you have the humility to admit that you cannot know, something i've been trying to get across to DavidRoss for the last while.


David, if you're still at least viewing this thread, could you explain to me (in as simple a way as you feel i'd need) how anyone can KNOW that God exists -God, the designer of the universe - not just the idea, not just the word? Thanks.

Quote from: Norbeone on August 26, 2008, 01:47:01 PM
This is a completely reasonable approach to take.

    Let me show why it's not. The only approach believers consistently acknowledge is belief as a matter of faith, as opposed to any arms-length evaluation of evidence. There are also some efforts, not very convincing ones as I've pointed out, to use pure reason as a method for bolstering a pure faith approach. I find this puzzling not just for the strange disjunction of both recognizing and not recognizing the weakness of faith by itself, but also because it's a kind of argument in the alternative which is curiously blind to how the approaches don't actually support each other.

     1) God exists as a matter of faith. But if that's too much to accept we'll give you:

     2) Reason can demonstrate this as well (versions of Ontological and Design arguments).

      Two such flawed approaches can't reinforce each other since they fail on their own, and no cumulative power is obtained by combining them (if it makes any sense at all, which it doesn't. No faith argument is necessary nor would it be invoked if a strong argument for gods could be made on the grounds of reason).

      The faith idea fails because it's endorses the existence of anything (and, in fact, everything. So it follows that ones faith in the nonexistence of gods is exactly equal in truth value to faith in their existence). No principle limits it to one kind of entity. What is believed in exists and that's it. To accept this is to accept that the concept of error has no basis. How do you correct an error with no means recognized to do so (you have removed the means by disregarding sense data and reasoning about it as the basis for existence claims)? As Thomas More might have said: "Where do you hide from the devil, the laws being flat for the sake of your angel?".*

      Any faith operation that supports your god supports mine as well, as well as any nongod, antigod, or anything that human intuition can come up with. The only corrective for this combinatorial explosion of fanciful beasties is gone. This is no time to start saying: "Well, now you're just being silly!". The thoughtlessness was baked in from the beginning with the idea that faith is autonomous with respect to reasoning about experience. It's not.

      Deductive arguments from an initial premise depend for their plausibility on some standard other than that of pure faith. If you need faith at the beginning you've lost before you've started. It's a faith argument with logical window dressing. If any premise can be granted, any logical argument that follows can be accepted as true, if it passes the test of noncontradiction. Yet right away it's apparent that no argument for the existence of entities has ever succeeded on this basis. Mathematical arguments to demonstrate the consequences of abstract relations don't give you a proton or a quark or any other real object without observations, however indirect, that make a confirmable theory possible. The observation can precede the theory and inspire it, or follow as a fullfillment of a prediction the theory makes, but it can't be dispensed with.

      If intuitions are true because you have them, then it follows that the whole empirical exercise is delusional. You can't simultaneously need and not need to confirm your ideas to consider them facts. The supposed separation of the world into material and spiritual realms is itself an anti-empirical fantasy that exemplifies the dilemma. Dualism divides the world in two and embarks on an endless series of weak justifications, one unconfirmable rationale after another, each one designed to patch a defect that occurred at the beginning of the series when certain ideas were exempted from the normal vetting process before that process itself had arrived at its mature form.

     _{*There are also the "Monsters of the ID" of Professor Morbius in the sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet. Robbie the Robot, when told to destroy the intruder who menaces our heroes, has a nervous breakdown because the order conflicts with his prime directive never to harm a human being. Robbie knows that the invisible beast is Morbius himself, his dark imaginings given almost limitless power by the vast machine of the Krell. I wish I had a robot like that. I'd have to keep it away from churches, though, just in case the prime directive failed and Robbie really started to "Stamp out Satan". :P}

Quote from: Norbeone on August 26, 2008, 01:47:01 PM
David, if you're still at least viewing this thread, could you explain to me (in as simple a way as you feel i'd need) how anyone can KNOW that God exists -God, the designer of the universe - not just the idea, not just the word? Thanks.

Uh uh, now you're making the same mistake I did.  He doesn't say he knows God exists; he says he knows God.  The distinction seems to be important, though how one can know something and yet not know it exists remains beyond me.

Quote from: Shrunk on August 26, 2008, 05:02:58 PM
Uh uh, now you're making the same mistake I did.  He doesn't say he knows God exists; he says he knows God.  The distinction seems to be important, though how one can know something and yet not know it exists remains beyond me.

    That's because you don't know. Have faith and then you will. How do I know this? I don't, but I have faith.

I'm pretty sure he did say that many people know God exists...

Quote from: JCampbell on August 25, 2008, 07:24:56 AM
I think that's perfectly fair. However, I think what is perfectly unfair is to suggest that all religious people in the world somehow suffer from some mass delusion based on a psychological predisposition.

Btw, sorry if I unintentionally pigeon-holed you; perhaps you can understand my reaction to your idea?

Just catching up on this thread - God, things evolve with such speed and unpredictability!

Of course I understand, I actually agree 100%. I'm still nonplussed to see the almost seismic collective brainstorming that erupts whenever that Go/no god debate resurfaces. And how the same arguments keep coming back, with seemingly definitive arguments from each side, proferred with unflappable aplomb. But they are like the chaff which the wind drives away (that's not from me, as some will have recognised ;)). I suppose the wind makes a full circle every four or five months :D.

On the other hand, nobody knows that god does not exist. So what is atheism based on if not faith?

Never underestimate the power of faith.  I think it has much more going for it than trying to use logic and common sense to come up with the answers.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 27, 2008, 04:58:54 AM
On the other hand, nobody knows that god does not exist. So what is atheism based on if not faith?

Atheism, as far as I understand it, requires nothing to base itself on - atheism is faithless.  The only thing it might be based on is the posit that there is something called God and it exists.  No faith is required whatsoever have an atheist outlook.  One does not need faith to believe that Superman does not exist or ever existed.  Without palpable evidence, I for one 'know' Superman doesn't exist.
Anyway, I DO believe in God, but not as organised religion of any type would recognise.

"It's God Jim, but not as we know it."

Quote from: mahler10th on August 27, 2008, 06:23:16 AM
Atheism, as far as I understand it, requires nothing to base itself on - atheism is faithless. 

Incorrect. Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that *). Thus, atheism is based on faith.

*) the working of the world according to laws of nature is an entirely different matter; this would also be expected from as theistic perspective -- in fact, this was the perspective of the scientists who started the scientific revolution and who all were theists.

Quote from: Don on August 27, 2008, 05:51:31 AM
Never underestimate the power of faith.  I think it has much more going for it than trying to use logic and common sense to come up with the answers.

Simply said, and good sense.

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 27, 2008, 06:44:18 AM
Incorrect. Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that *). Thus, atheism is based on faith.

Science is based on skepticism, the notion is that you don't believe something unless there is evidence for it.  The notion is not that you believe something unless you can prove it is wrong.  There is no empirical for the existence of "god"  so the scientific attitude would be to assume it does not exist, pending further evidence.  That is closer to the attitude of what is commonly called an agnostic, rather than an atheist.  On the other hand,

Quote from: scarpia on August 27, 2008, 06:54:19 AM
Science is based on skepticism, the notion is that you don't believe something unless there is evidence for it.  The notion is not that you believe something unless you can prove it is wrong.  There is no empirical for the existence of "god"  so the scientific attitude would be to assume it does not exist, pending further evidence.  That is closer to the attitude of what is commonly called an agnostic, rather than an atheist.  On the other hand,

I agree with you on science proper. However, as we have seen, atheism, just like theism, is a philosophical position that goes beyond scientific evidence and thus science.

Quote from: mahler10th on August 27, 2008, 06:23:16 AM

Anyway, I DO believe in God, but not as organised religion of any type would recognise.

That is an interesting concept to me.  Is a notion of God, completely outside of religions and socially accepted dogmas, possible?
I know there are some approaches that take energy or the cosmic force or things like that as their bases for God, but the problem with them generally is that such a God would be completely irrelevant. God has to include a consequence as part of its properties. Otherwise, why would it matter if it existed or not?

As for evolution, here is a neat little software that is good for passing time, above everything else  >:D
www.swimbots.com

Quote from: orbital on August 27, 2008, 07:44:33 AM
That is an interesting concept to me.  Is a notion of God, completely outside of religions and socially accepted dogmas, possible?

Of course it is possible.  Religions and dogmas are created by humans.  The existence of God is independent of what humans are up to.

Francisco Ayala interviewed in HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) Bulletin

http://www.hhmi.org/bulletin/aug2008/perspectives/creationism.html

From the NCSE website:
A Supporter of NCSE since its founding, Ayala is University Professor, the Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. Among his contributions to the defense of the integrity of science education are his testimony for the plaintiffs in the challenge to Arkansas's 1981 "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (McLean v. Arkansas) and his lead authorship of the recent publication from the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (National Academies Press, 2008). His latest book is Darwin's Gift: To Science and Religion (Joseph Henry Press, 2007).

Quote from: HHMIALMOST HALF OF AMERICANS, ACCORDING TO RECENT GALLUP POLLS, SAY THAT EVOLUTION AND RELIGION CANNOT COEXIST.

I am aghast.

Quote from: Francisco AyalaMaterialism is a philosophical position, affirming that nothing exists beyond "matter," that which we can experience with our senses. I would say that science is methodologically materialist: it can deal only with the world of matter. But it is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses, as religion requires. One can accept scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs.

But, many people are ignorant of science and just assume it is contrary to their religion. Of course, the proponents of intelligent design and creationism are also spreading a lot of propaganda. The only way to deal with the problem is education and specifically science education, which is unfortunately lacking, by and large, and not only in this country.

The Voice of Reason! Hallelujah!

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 27, 2008, 06:44:18 AM
Incorrect. Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that *). Thus, atheism is based on faith.

*) the working of the world according to laws of nature is an entirely different matter; this would also be expected from as theistic perspective -- in fact, this was the perspective of the scientists who started the scientific revolution and who all were theists.

There is not a atheist in the World who would stand up and say "I am an atheist because I have certain assumptions."  Why don't people get it?  The only thing athesits 'know' for themselves is that God does not exist.  It is really that simple.
No assumptions, beliefs or other, need be heaped upon an atheist because he does not believe in God.  These things get heaped upon the faithless by the faithful because they do not understand the simplicity of "God does not exist."
Why bombard them with what you think is their 'assumptions' etc?  They say deity does not exist.  Period.  They don't have to back that up with posits and theories because they have no concept or mindest
of the God they're supposed to think doesn't exist.
"You must assume this because you think that - and that is wrong."  This is nonsense.  Atheists don't believe anyhing about God - they spend their time trying to figure out what the hell thy're supposed to be arguing against because for them it doesn't exist anyway.
Why do the faithful want to complicate this by saying atheists must assume or believe something else because they don't believe in deity?

It is so simple, complicated only by the idea from the 'faithful' that:  "You must think this because you think that - and that is wrong." 

I am now away to say a prayer.   0:)

Quote from: orbital on August 27, 2008, 07:44:33 AM
As for evolution, here is a neat little software that is good for passing time, above everything else  >:D
www.swimbots.com

This is a superb little piece of software.  I love it!

Quote from: mahler10th on August 27, 2008, 08:43:18 AM
Why do the faithful want to complicate this by saying atheists must assume or believe something else because they don't believe in deity?

No complication, just simple logic.

As I said: "Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that. Thus, atheism is based on faith."

Quote from: Al Moritz on August 27, 2008, 08:55:18 AM
No complication, just simple logic.

As I said: "Atheism assumes that the world has naturalistic origins. There is no scientific evidence for that. Thus, atheism is based on faith."

Logic which arises out of ones own assumptions, perfectly valid.

My swimbots current status.   :P

Quote from: scarpia on August 27, 2008, 06:54:19 AM
Science is based on skepticism, the notion is that you don't believe something unless there is evidence for it.  The notion is not that you believe something unless you can prove it is wrong.  There is no empirical for the existence of "god"  so the scientific attitude would be to assume it does not exist, pending further evidence.  That is closer to the attitude of what is commonly called an agnostic, rather than an atheist.  On the other hand,

As I pointed out earlier, science has fallen away from these ideals in some areas. Although I am not an atheist that standpoint seems to me to be perfectly valid. In mathematics there are theorems that are believed to be true but not only are they unprovable but we have proved them to be unprovable. In real life proof is not quite as clear-cut.

Quote from: Francisco Ayala

QuoteMaterialism is a philosophical position, affirming that nothing exists beyond "matter," that which we can experience with our senses. I would say that science is methodologically materialist: it can deal only with the world of matter. But it is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses, as religion requires. One can accept scientific principles and also hold religious beliefs.

But, many people are ignorant of science and just assume it is contrary to their religion. Of course, the proponents of intelligent design and creationism are also spreading a lot of propaganda. The only way to deal with the problem is education and specifically science education, which is unfortunately lacking, by and large, and not only in this country.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2008, 08:16:29 AM
The Voice of Reason! Hallelujah!

     Ayala doesn't explain materialism here correctly, at least the kind I define operationally as anything that's found. When scientists find something new they don't cease to become materialists, they make room for the new phenomenon in their framework, altering it to accommodate what they've found. Open-architecture processes are not exposed to the kind of dichotomizing that Ayala attempts here, and I've pointed out that the anti-empirical prejudice which splits the world preemptively produces this blind spot.

     So materialists aren't "affirming that nothing exists beyond "matter,". They behave, properly in my view, as though "nothing" was itself a far-fetched philosophical posit which they don't need to be concerned about. From the point of view of the open minded investigator, materialism contains the only options that matter, the ones that can in principle be detected. They see, even if they don't say it like this, that nothing isn't a different kind of something, and giving it a name doesn't change that.

     Ayala says that science:

Quote...is not philosophically materialist; it does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we experience with our senses

     That's right. It does not imply that nothing can exist beyond what we can experience. It doesn't imply that anything can exist that can't in principle be found. It's the dualist, not the materialist, that's making assumptions here, taking them for granted, and then puzzling over why materialists don't share their prejudices. That's a blind spot.

     If science could correctly be described as "philosophically materialist", it would be in the non-dichotomizing sense I describe, neither affirming nor denying philosophical posits the "truth" of which will never be put to the test. Is there something out there we'll never find? Put that way, the answer is yes, because we never find it, and no, because how much less "there" can it be?  _:)

Quote from: mahler10th on August 27, 2008, 10:17:55 AM
My swimbots current status.   :P

It is fun to subsidize two varieties in different areas of the space, increase the food supply somewhere in the middle of the field and then see which one is more fit to survive  0:) >:D

Quote from: Don on August 27, 2008, 07:48:28 AM
Of course it is possible.  Religions and dogmas are created by humans.  The existence of God is independent of what humans are up to.

That God would be an irrelevant one. As long as it/he/she does not have human characteristics we would not have to worry about whether it existed or not, no?

Quote from: Don on August 27, 2008, 07:48:28 AM
The existence of God is independent of what humans are up to.

    The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to. Until this changes, scientists and sensible people generally are entitled to consider such questions as non-questions. You have to give words stable meanings in order to decide if something exists. If you don't, then you won't even start looking. So statements like "whatever you think God is, He's not", in addition to being half-clever nonsense, are in fact a position chosen to obfuscate the vacuity hiding behind it. The puzzlement such statements produce is now portrayed as a lack of understanding. There's nothing to understand.

Quote from: orbital on August 27, 2008, 01:29:31 PM
That God would be an irrelevant one. As long as it/he/she does not have human characteristics we would not have to worry about whether it existed or not, no?

Why worry about God's existence?  It won't do you any good.

I don't really know where you're going with your above statement.  Why would a God without human traits be irrelevant?

Quote from: drogulus on August 27, 2008, 01:58:47 PM
The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to.

That only applies if humans created God.

Quote from: drogulus on 27 August 2008, 22:58:47
The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to.

Well, as we know:
Theists who believe in God believe what you say here.
Deists who believe in God do not - they see God as the creator of all things, but that is all.  God for the Deist has no involvement in the care or affairs of humans.
Pantheists believe God is omniscient in everything and through everything (more naturalist) - they in particular do not believe God will intervene or even be interested in human affairs, or in punishing the wrong-doers, etc. 
Only one of these 'religious models' follow your statement drogulus.

Quote from: Don on August 27, 2008, 08:46:06 PM
Why worry about God's existence?  It won't do you any good.

I don't really know where you're going with your above statement.  Why would a God without human traits be irrelevant?

Don, I don't worry about God at all. Whether it exists or not, it flies right over my head for some reason  :P
But, I find it interesting to talk about people's beliefs. When mahler10th mentioned his version of God which was outside of religions' shaping, I was curious about how a God that has nothing to do with religion/dogmas could make a person 'believe' in it.

All versions of mainstream Gods have had human characteristics, that's how people are able to identify with them. If a God has no human characteristics at all, which means it is not about love, compassion, vengeance, punishment, rewards, etc.. his existence would be completely outside of us and would carry no relation to us whatsoever. The only reason to believe in it would be to feel good about oneself, which is not a small thing but then it would not be that much different from, say, yoga.

The question is whether god is interested in people.  Does god care if you go into a building with stained glass windows and say a little poem every seven rotations of the earth?  Does god care if you have sex without going into a similar building and reciting another little poem?  Does god care if you touch yourself in the wrong place?  That is where the bronze age superstitions we call religions become absurd.  Of course the universe seems to be ordered and can be described by simple mathematical formulae.  If you define that as "god" then I have no argument.  If god says that if you follow a little book of rules you will live forever in some vaguely defined paradise, well they would put you in a mental hospital for that belief system, unless you say your god is called "Jesus."

Quote from: orbital on August 28, 2008, 06:46:39 AM
All versions of mainstream Gods have had human characteristics, that's how people are able to identify with them.

It's not surprising that humans give God human traits; whether God actually possesses those traits is up for grabs.  We humans like to think that we are the center of the universe (not surprising either).

Quote from: scarpia on August 28, 2008, 06:57:20 AM
The question is whether god is interested in people.  Does god care if you go into a building with stained glass windows and say a little poem every seven rotations of the earth?  Does god care if you have sex without going into a similar building and reciting another little poem?  Does god care if you touch yourself in the wrong place?  That is where the bronze age superstitions we call religions become absurd.  Of course the universe seems to be ordered and can be described by simple mathematical formulae.  If you define that as "god" then I have no argument.  If god says that if you follow a little book of rules you will live forever in some vaguely defined paradise, well they would put you in a mental hospital for that belief system, unless you say your god is called "Jesus."

The question is, who is interested in your puny caricature of religion?

Quote from: karlhenning on August 28, 2008, 07:04:34 AM
The question is, who is interested in your puny caricature of religion?

You are, evidently.

Quote from: scarpia on August 28, 2008, 06:57:20 AM
The question is whether god is interested in people.  Does god care if you go into a building with stained glass windows and say a little poem every seven rotations of the earth?  Does god care if you have sex without going into a similar building and reciting another little poem?  Does god care if you touch yourself in the wrong place?  That is where the bronze age superstitions we call religions become absurd.  Of course the universe seems to be ordered and can be described by simple mathematical formulae.  If you define that as "god" then I have no argument.  If god says that if you follow a little book of rules you will live forever in some vaguely defined paradise, well they would put you in a mental hospital for that belief system, unless you say your god is called "Jesus."

The purpose of the little book of rules is to prevent civilization from collapsing. The main problem with holy books is that these rules are crystallised in a way that prevents them evolving in changed circumstances. The difficulty with not having them attributed to a god is that we, especially as children, tend to question these rules. We tend to forget that the majority are not intellectually minded and need strong guidance. God acts as a strong guide who cannot be questioned. Another alternative is an authoritarian state. If the rules break down so does society.

Quote from: Don on August 27, 2008, 08:48:23 PM
That only applies if humans created God.

     The part that shows up is the part we made. The assumption that there's another part beyond space and time is just that, an assumption, and we made that, too.

Quote from: mahler10th on August 28, 2008, 12:01:45 AM
Quote from: drogulus on 27 August 2008, 22:58:47
The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to.

Well, as we know:
Theists who believe in God believe what you say here.
Deists who believe in God do not - they see God as the creator of all things, but that is all.  God for the Deist has no involvement in the care or affairs of humans.
Pantheists believe God is omniscient in everything and through everything (more naturalist) - they in particular do not believe God will intervene or even be interested in human affairs, or in punishing the wrong-doers, etc. 
Only one of these 'religious models' follow your statement drogulus.

     All of them do, and all other ones. All the models are assumptions without evidence. You need evidence for something to be other than just what you think. Stating you "believe" otherwise doesn't change that.

     

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 28, 2008, 12:29:34 PM
The purpose of the little book of rules is to prevent civilization from collapsing. The main problem with holy books is that these rules are crystallised in a way that prevents them evolving in changed circumstances. The difficulty with not having them attributed to a god is that we, especially as children, tend to question these rules. We tend to forget that the majority are not intellectually minded and need strong guidance. God acts as a strong guide who cannot be questioned. Another alternative is an authoritarian state. If the rules break down so does society.

     I think you're right that this rationale undergirds the resistance to merely explaining gods in the most efficient manner, as holdovers from a prescientific past. The modern view isn't so much wrong as dangerous. Obviously this can't be explicitly acknowledged since institutions can't turn on a dime like that, after 2,000 years of commitment to "don't tell the kids". The swerves towards "who's being good" that take place in these discussions are motivated in part by concerns like this, and are not just the usual ad hominem attacks. The issues about truth get tangled up in this fear of the consequences.

     If this is true then the one possibly (or at least arguably) verifiable fact in the religious arsenal is that the beliefs are useful as a means of social cohesion, and that a scientific/philosophical standpoint suitable to a small class of educated persons can't serve in this capacity, and that it would be utopian to believe otherwise. I don't think this argument is a knockdown, but it's not fanciful, and it might turn out to be difficult to refute from historical examples. It doesn't change the value of the kind of arguments I make, because they are existence arguments and not value of religion arguments. But such considerations have a hidden effect.

Funeral rites seem to have been common in Neanderthal culture. There is also some evidence of religious rituals (that's between 60000BC to 25000BC). Long before any sacred book was written. The Great Beyond seems to be an inbred feature of human (in this case proto-human) mind.

That's what I find so interesting and fascinating about religion from an anthropoligical point of view. People most likely have had religions for a very, very, very long time, and some echoes of these earlier religions are probably resonating in the known currently exisiting or at least documented (like the ancient Egyptian) religions, echoes from a deep, deep past way beyond anything that has been historically recorded. Of course, that also makes the current religions look all the smaller because they are all very recent inventions.

Although it's a very long article about Native Spirituality (http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions23_e.asp), I recommend reading it to understand the difference between spirituality and religion.

Here are a few excerpts for those discouraged by the length of the text:

QuoteNative spiritual traditions are passed down orally through generations. Although North American Indian traditions vary considerably across the continent, they still have much in common. Central to many cultures is a belief that the Great Spirit created the Earth and its people. Others believe that humans came from a sky-world, that the Earth is the Mother of all life, and that plants and animals have spirits that must be respected, honoured and cared for. It is a holistic concept of not only human life but also the life of the world and all things in it, both animate and inanimate, wherein all things are related and interconnected through a "circle of life." The concept is reflected and explained by the shaman's medicine wheel.

The medicine wheel demonstrates how all life is interconnected and embarked on in a circular journey. The four cardinal directions, each of which has a guiding spirit and unique attributes, symbolize the stages of the life journey. The East, direction of the daily birth of the sun, represents a child's birth and first few years of life. The South relates to childhood and intellectual growth. The West is symbolic of adulthood and introspection. And the North represents the elder phase of life and the spiritual aspects of it. The centre of the wheel is symbolic of Mother Earth and the Creator and their role in the beginning and continuation of life.

QuoteMany North American Indian traditions revolve around spiritual and personal development, an understanding of the Great Spirit and Mother Earth, and an appreciation of the nature of life and surrounding environment.

QuoteNative spiritual and cultural traditions are passed down orally. First Nations have generally avoided writing down details of rituals in the belief that doing so counteracts the very meaning of a ceremony.

QuoteAlthough there is no specific moral code, some aspects of belief and behaviour are common or widespread:

    * The Earth is understood to have intrinsic value, and humans must care for it as its custodian.
    * All living things and objects have a spirit.
    * Families are valued greatly, including extended families and other individuals who may be considered family.
    * Respect must be shown to every individual, especially adults and children.
    *While individuals control their own behaviour, they should do so in consideration of the community in which they live.*
    *A person should strive to be good, and this can be achieved in part through participation in ceremonies.
    *All sacred objects must be treated as such by anyone touching them.
    *All individual spiritual beliefs should be respected.

These are very ancient beliefs that predate all of today's organized religions.

I must say that the Theory of Evolution does not seem to pose much of a threat to codes of morality.

There are some that think that though. Their view is that if there is no "higher authority", then there are no absolute values. I have always found it interesting that those people who have so much "faith" in some sort of deity do not have any "faith" in the moral qualities inherent in us human beings. Sure, we are full of contradictions and the potential for enormous cruelty and violence, and it is easy to see that at some point in our development, it was necessary to control these elements of our behavior - or at least steer them in the desired direction, namely against the neighbors - by telling the people that the world order is god-given and that those in charge of applying it are therefore not to be questioned.
But I think we should be beyond that stage in our cultural development. We have civil laws now and people should be able to develop a moral code of behavior out of themselves and their interactions rather than simply following some rules from old books, interpreted for them by whoever is in charge at that point. All that is nothing but hypocrisy anyway since declaring to be a good follower of the true faith has nothing to do with actually behaving morally (whatever exactly that may mean).

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 30, 2008, 01:21:04 PM
I must say that the Theory of Evolution does not seem to pose much of a threat to codes of morality.

      If evolution can produce social beings with high intelligence then moral codes will develop, too. It's inconceivable that humans could exist without codes of some kind to regulate reproduction, raising of children, rules of the tribe, warfare, property. You don't need a UFO to come down and give us these things.

Quote from: M forever on August 30, 2008, 01:35:43 PM
There are some that think that though. Their view is that if there is no "higher authority", then there are no absolute values. I have always found it interesting that those people who have so much "faith" in some sort of deity do not have any "faith" in the moral qualities inherent in us human beings. Sure, we are full of contradictions and the potential for enormous cruelty and violence, and it is easy to see that at some point in our development, it was necessary to control these elements of our behavior - or at least steer them in the desired direction, namely against the neighbors - by telling the people that the world order is god-given and that those in charge of applying it are therefore not to be questioned.
But I think we should be beyond that stage in our cultural development. We have civil laws now and people should be able to develop a moral code of behavior out of themselves and their interactions rather than simply following some rules from old books, interpreted for them by whoever is in charge at that point. All that is nothing but hypocrisy anyway since declaring to be a good follower of the true faith has nothing to do with actually behaving morally (whatever exactly that may mean).

    The only point where I would differ is the relative weight of tradition. I think there are good reasons for morality to "lag" behind the most advanced views. A great number of people with "progressive" views a century ago endorsed eugenics programs that would horrify similar progressives today. Not all moral innovations should be welcomed, and not all "old-fashioned" values should be discarded. Just because a god is believed to be the source of a rule doesn't mean it isn't a good rule.

Sorry, but I thought this thread had gone beyond the narrow focus of 'evolution'. True, what I posted has nothing to do with the initial subject. Sorry about that. Really, really sorry.

Regarding 'moral codes', the subject has been broached very simply by the apostle Paul 2000 years ago. He recognizes that Man has an inbred 'moral law' that requires no religious beliefs or God-given order to enable a functional behaviour. I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right? A last twist of the evolutionary process, then? ;)

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 30, 2008, 03:08:21 PM
Sorry, but I thought this thread had gone beyond the narrow focus of 'evolution'. True, what I posted has nothing to do with the initial subject. Sorry about that. Really, really sorry.

Regarding 'moral codes', the subject has been broached very simply by the apostle Paul 2000 years ago. He recognizes that Man has an inbred 'moral law' that requires no religious beliefs or God-given order to enable a functional behaviour. I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right? A last twist of the evolutionary process, then? ;)

     It's an oversimplification to say unlike animals. The more developed the brains of social beings, the more hardwired behavior is handed off to learned behavior, then rule-governed behavior. I don't think chimps have all the features of a moral code, because they don't have the abstract thought that a "rule" suggests. When one chimp steals from another and the victim yelps in outrage we recognize the gestures, and know the meaning we attach to them when we use them, though chimps don't have all these meanings. The meanings arrive later with bigger brains and language.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 30, 2008, 03:08:21 PM
I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right?

Dunno. I don't think that follows necessarily. I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence. Saying that moral qualities might be inherent has nothing to do with faith in the conventional sense. Not even faith in humans or in evolution. If that is really inherent or if morals are simply a result of evolving intelligence is hard to say. The whole point of morals is to behave in ways which are effective for us and the group we live in. The ability to see beyond that is obviously not yet fully developed in us.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 30, 2008, 03:08:21 PM
I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right? A last twist of the evolutionary process, then? ;)

Just shows how far you are from understanding any of these arguments.  Of course, animals have "moral"  behavior programmed in the form of instincts.  Birds feed their young, lions hunt in prides, elephants, defend each other from attack, etc.  Man has its own set of instinctive "moral" behaviors, but since man also has rational judgment superimposed on this set of instincts, he needs something to justify instinctive behavior.  That something is god, which is commanding him to do what he is actually programmed to do by his instincts.

Quote from: drogulus on August 30, 2008, 03:35:34 PM
The meanings arrive later with bigger brains and language.

Don't you think that is a bit of an oversimplification?

Dolphins have bigger brains and a quite complex language.

Yea...something went awry ages ago, and now we unfortunately exist as well. :D

Quote from: scarpia on August 30, 2008, 07:17:00 PM
Just shows how far you are from understanding any of these arguments.  Of course, animals have "moral"  behavior programmed in the form of instincts.  Birds feed their young, lions hunt in prides, elephants, defend each other from attack, etc.  Man has its own set of instinctive "moral" behaviors, but since man also has rational judgment superimposed on this set of instincts, he needs something to justify instinctive behavior.  That something is god, which is commanding him to do what he is actually programmed to do by his instincts.

Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 30, 2008, 08:41:31 PM
Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

That's the beauty of it.  Religion allows the faithful to behave morally towards friends and demonize enemies.  Afterall, the Nazi's derived their demonization of the Jews from Catholic theology.  The Serbians thought their conduct in Bosnia and Kosovo were justified to preserve their holy sites.  Religion justifies the highest and basest instincts of man.  It is civilization which suppresses the base aspects of the human nature.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 30, 2008, 08:41:31 PM
Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

Instinct in nature is diverse.  Some of it we see as good, some of it we see as bad.  Our human instincts thankfully can tell the differece.  That is what makes us a cut above the rest of the animal kingdom.  Looks like you have selectively chosen some percieved 'bad' ones to put forward a counter argument.  Thankfully, in the main, human behaviour from instinct is not that of a Cuckoo or a Mantis.  They are encoded with their own insticts and behaviours.  And so are we.
I hope that is exactly what Scarpia meant, although he used the word God to describe what it is to be human, which I can't possibly agree with.  >:(

Quote from: mahler10th on August 30, 2008, 08:58:12 PM
I hope that is exactly what Scarpia meant, although he used the word God to describe what it is to be human, which I can't possibly agree with.  >:(

Why not?

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 30, 2008, 08:41:31 PM
Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

Yes, this is the trap. To look at morality with human eyes. The behaviors of the mantis and the cuckoo are moral in the sense that they promote the individual specie. Humans continually kill millions of other creatures every day and we call that moral (and I don't mean just for food) and we will happily turn birds out of their nests if we want to build on the site of them.

Quote from: M forever on August 30, 2008, 09:43:50 PM
Why not?

Because these things are intrinsically human.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on August 31, 2008, 04:15:59 AM
Yes, this is the trap. To look at morality with human eyes. The behaviors of the mantis and the cuckoo are moral in the sense that they promote the individual specie. Humans continually kill millions of other creatures every day and we call that moral (and I don't mean just for food) and we will happily turn birds out of their nests if we want to build on the site of them.

Precisely.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 30, 2008, 08:41:31 PM
Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

I'm not actually sure what you're arguing in your last few posts.  Are you saying that evolution, or any other scientific theory, cannot explain the existence of human morality, and that it can only be explained as resulting from supernatural causes, such as God?

Quote from: Shrunk on August 31, 2008, 09:36:10 AM
I'm not actually sure what you're arguing in your last few posts.  Are you saying that evolution, or any other scientific theory, cannot explain the existence of human morality, and that it can only be explained as resulting from supernatural causes, such as God?

    That would be like "irreducible complexity" like an eye or a wing, which can't work unless it's perfect. Is that the idea, charitably speaking?

     

QuoteFor some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral.

     For some reason you fail to see that you do see them as moral, and that's the problem.

     Why would instinctive acts fall under moral guidance? These creatures are using the earlier simpler system.

     So insects are not moral beings, therefore nature can't equip us to be? I would think that the more complex the creature, the more dynamic and multifaceted the control system would be, which would have to develop in parallel. So you should expect that as brains get bigger there would be more things to learn, lot's of show and tell for the babies and not just instinct. You'd have more choices under internal guidance, and eventually conceptual rule making to replace action directives. Instead of "when A happens, do B" you'd get "the Great Spirit says do this" and then a story with a narrative about why B is good to do. At every stage of development these are useful elements of a control system once the creature reaches the stage when they can appear. They don't have to be perfect.

Quote from: drogulus on August 31, 2008, 10:12:15 AM
That would be like "irreducible complexity" like an eye or a wing, which can't work unless it's perfect. Is that the idea, charitably speaking?

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.  But I don't know for sure if that's what Lilas Pastia is claiming. 

Researchers are making significant progress in understanding the neurological basis for moral reasoning (one example here (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/study-sheds-light-on-neurological-basis-of-moral-decision-making_10046806.html)), such that it is clear that morality is perfectly explicable in biological terms, without the need to introduce the idea of any magical or supernatural processes.  Of course, this doesn't disprove the idea that God is reponsible for morality, if one still chooses to believe that.  However, one will have to agree that God has created morality by providing human beings with a brain capable of generating moral thought.  And the method He used to create that brain was evolution.  (To be clear, not what I believe, but not a claim that can be falsified.  The God part, that is, not the evolution part.)

No, yes, yes, no and maybe. In no particular order. What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

That's what I referred to by alluding to Paul a few posts ago - in one of the most oft-quoted passages of his Epistles (Romans 2:15). But nobody seems to be interested in (or able to) dig and check. I find it interesting to find that 'morals' are defined by Paul (of all people: usually seen by atheists as an arch enemy) as a law that's written in the heart and minds even though the person may have never heard of the Law (implying any system of religious do's and dont's). IOW men are responsible for their choices, whatever their beliefs - or absence of beliefs. Up to there I don't think there's much of an argument. For me (that's my personal opinion), larger brains and evolutionary process cannot explain that ability.

So, in the end, I just don't understand why these threads recur every so and so. Except maybe for the fun of it.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 31, 2008, 05:34:49 PM
No, yes, yes, no and maybe. In no particular order. What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

That's what I referred to by alluding to Paul a few posts ago - in one of the most oft-quoted passages of his Epistles (Romans 2:15). But nobody seems to be interested in (or able to) dig and check. I find it interesting to find that 'morals' are defined by Paul (of all people: usually seen by atheists as an arch enemy) as a law that's written in the heart and minds even though the person may have never heard of the Law (implying any system of religious do's and dont's). IOW men are responsible for their choices, whatever their beliefs - or absence of beliefs. Up to there I don't think there's much of an argument. For me (that's my personal opinion), larger brains and evolutionary process cannot explain that ability.

So, in the end, I just don't understand why these threads recur every so and so. Except maybe for the fun of it.

I actually found that quote from Paul very interesting, though perhaps not in the way you intended it.  To me, it represented an early recognition of the fact that morality can result from inherent biological processes, without the need for any intervention from a supernatural being.  It seemed more a deist, rather than theist, view, though I won't pretend to be conversant with the source material.

And, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I wonder why you find it so hard to accept that morality could result from a big brain that developed thru evolution?  If there was/is a God, He doesn't seem to operate thru magical processes, but through naturalistic processes that are discernible and comprehensible to the human mind, so why should human behaviour be an exception?

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 31, 2008, 05:34:49 PM
What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

     If you're an absolutist it makes sense to be absolute about explanations, like "cannot explain what the world is" when what we're talking about is how moral systems get started. So you invalidate explanation by explaining why and missing the fact that the explanations operate under the same "good enough" principle as the creatures we're explaining. And then the punch line, you explain things in exactly the terms used by your opponents, this time as a reason for ignorance and not knowledge.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 31, 2008, 05:34:49 PM
That's what I referred to by alluding to Paul a few posts ago - in one of the most oft-quoted passages of his Epistles (Romans 2:15). But nobody seems to be interested in (or able to) dig and check. I find it interesting to find that 'morals' are defined by Paul (of all people: usually seen by atheists as an arch enemy) as a law that's written in the heart and minds even though the person may have never heard of the Law (implying any system of religious do's and dont's). IOW men are responsible for their choices, whatever their beliefs - or absence of beliefs. Up to there I don't think there's much of an argument. For me (that's my personal opinion), larger brains and evolutionary process cannot explain that ability.

So, in the end, I just don't understand why these threads recur every so and so. Except maybe for the fun of it.

     You can't quote Paul to confirm inborn morality and then use this to damn the whole approach of finding out more about it, can you? I guess you can.

      And how does the non sequitur about the recurrence of these threads relate to the rest?

      The absolutist never deviates far from the principle that only the perfect matters, and not the functional or useful. From this blinkered position it's possible to miss evolutions true import, that if everything develops on a sufficiency basis (what it is is what it does) the model of perfect essences created by a perfect being that wants us to be perfect is shown to be a collection of fantasies unrelated to how anything actually works. Bad models don't need to be disproven, because their lack of resemblance to real processes is all you need to give up on them. You can't actually make anything with them.

      So, the point of all this is that the explanations offered here actually produce the kind of imperfect morality that you see in humans, with its misattribution to gods who, perfect beings themselves, created us imperfectly. The fantasy of perfection now can be seen to operate as a misdirection, helping to cloud the issue in more ways than one.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 31, 2008, 05:34:49 PM
No, yes, yes, no and maybe. In no particular order. What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

Is this perhaps a maybe? There is no way that you can know that animals do not make choices. This is mere supposition. Granted evolution has given a whole range of animal types from the simplest to the complex but we have no idea where the cut-off lies between pure instinct and choice.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 01, 2008, 02:53:31 PM
Is this perhaps a maybe? There is no way that you can know that animals do not make choices. This is mere supposition. Granted evolution has given a whole range of animal types from the simplest to the complex but we have no idea where the cut-off lies between pure instinct and choice.

    Thermostats make choices. What's the problem? What kind of purist fantasy can't see a gradient between a switch and a fully conscious choice? More absolutism at work: It isn't really a choice unless blah blah blah. There is no barrier separating full consciousness with musings about free will on the one hand and unconscious "decisions" made by little beings with tiny brains. Our "as if" consciousness is much more convincing than a frogs because it convinces us that we're conscious while a frog never thinks about it at all. _:)   

    I don't think there's any way for a frog to develop this ability with the limitations it has and with no need for such a talent anyway. Decision making at the frog level can remain largely instinctive with a little learning thrown in. All the second-order "thoughts about thoughts" that convince us we're conscious are beyond the frog. So it makes decisions with it's equipment and that's been sufficient for hundreds of millions of years. Does that mean a frog doesn't really choose? No, it means that there's no such thing as a real choice over and above the various ways they are made by creatures equipped differently to make them.

Hey! Watch what you are saying!

(http://images.greenfroginternet.us/Critters/KermitTheFrog/GangstaKermit.jpg)

Quote from: Shrunk on September 01, 2008, 03:17:12 AM
I actually found that quote from Paul very interesting, though perhaps not in the way you intended it.  To me, it represented an early recognition of the fact that morality can result from inherent biological processes, without the need for any intervention from a supernatural being.  It seemed more a deist, rather than theist, view, though I won't pretend to be conversant with the source material.

And, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I wonder why you find it so hard to accept that morality could result from a big brain that developed thru evolution?  If there was/is a God, He doesn't seem to operate thru magical processes, but through naturalistic processes that are discernible and comprehensible to the human mind, so why should human behaviour be an exception?

I didn't say such a thing. Rather the opposite, actually. I mentioned that Paul verse simply because it acknowledges that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is common to all mankind, regardless of any religious background. Whether that ability is the result of evolution or not I cannot tell. I don't think that evolution is a process that is fully agreed on by scientists. I don't deny evolution exists. Life is an ongoing process of transformation. I actually agree with what you just wrote (If there is a God he operates through naturalistic processes etc). But I don't think you can do more than hypothesize one way or another. That's what I said all along - not very clearly, from what I gather. And that's where beliefs come into play. If you can't be sure, you can still believe. You don't need to prove it. Evolution can't be proven, intelligent design can't be proven, God's existence can't be proven, but if the concepts exist, clearly they can be believed in.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on September 01, 2008, 06:07:39 PM
I didn't say such a thing. Rather the opposite, actually. I mentioned that Paul verse simply because it acknowledges that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is common to all mankind, regardless of any religious background. Whether that ability is the result of evolution or not I cannot tell. I don't think that evolution is a process that is fully agreed on by scientists.

I'm sad to say you're very misinformed on this subject.  Evolution is probably the most well-supported theory in all of science, and whatever disagreement there may be among legitimate scientists over it is limited to details of how the process occurs, not the process itself.  There is, however, a religious and political movement to spread misinformation on this fact to which, it seems, you have fallen victim.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on September 01, 2008, 06:07:39 PM
I don't deny evolution exists. Life is an ongoing process of transformation. I actually agree with what you just wrote (If there is a God he operates through naturalistic processes etc). But I don't think you can do more than hypothesize one way or another. That's what I said all along - not very clearly, from what I gather. And that's where beliefs come into play. If you can't be sure, you can still believe. You don't need to prove it. Evolution can't be proven, intelligent design can't be proven, God's existence can't be proven, but if the concepts exist, clearly they can be believed in.

I hear what you're saying but, again, you're wrong when you say "Evolution can't be proven."  Well, technically speaking, you're right.  Scientific theories are never "proven" in the literal sense that "proof" is possible in mathematics.  However, scientific theories can be supported by such an overwhelmng amount of evidence that there be no room for reasonable doubt about their accuracy.  This is the case with evolution.  To put it on the same level as a philosophical concept like "God" or, worse, an actively disproven idea like "intelligent design" is erroneous.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on September 01, 2008, 06:07:39 PM
I mentioned that Paul verse simply because it acknowledges that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is common to all mankind, regardless of any religious background. Whether that ability is the result of evolution or not I cannot tell.

Maybe it is the belief in god that distinguishes us from other animals. We know that some of them are able to understand the concepts 'good' and 'bad'.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 02, 2008, 04:28:03 AM
Maybe it is the belief in god that distinguishes us from other animals.

It's probably more the other way around.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on Today at 13:28:03
Maybe it is the belief in god that distinguishes us from other animals.

M Forever: It's probably more the other way around.

So then...it is the belief in animals that distinguishes us from other Gods?   ???   :P  I would agree with that.  ??? :P :-\

Quote from: Shrunk on September 02, 2008, 02:51:28 AM
I'm sad to say you're very misinformed on this subject.  Evolution is probably the most well-supported theory in all of science, and whatever disagreement there may be among legitimate scientists over it is limited to details of how the process occurs, not the process itself.  There is, however, a religious and political movement to spread misinformation on this fact to which, it seems, you have fallen victim.

I hear what you're saying but, again, you're wrong when you say "Evolution can't be proven."  Well, technically speaking, you're right.  Scientific theories are never "proven" in the literal sense that "proof" is possible in mathematics.  However, scientific theories can be supported by such an overwhelmng amount of evidence that there be no room for reasonable doubt about their accuracy.  This is the case with evolution.  To put it on the same level as a philosophical concept like "God" or, worse, an actively disproven idea like "intelligent design" is erroneous.

I understand your sadness and appreciate your concern. I hadn't realized I had fallen victim of a disinformation spreading politico-religious movement :P. I hope there is a way out? Thank God there are concerned citizens like you to enlighten us about what's right and what's wrong :-*. Please let me know next time I stray. I just can't bear the thought of disappointing you.

Quote from: Lilas Pastia on September 02, 2008, 04:56:13 PM
I understand your sadness and appreciate your concern. I hadn't realized I had fallen victim of a disinformation spreading politico-religious movement :P.

I know you're speaking tongue in cheek, but the fact is that this movement actually exists.  I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but in this case the conspirators actually happened to put their plans in writing:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

You might also want to look at this documentary if you have the time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

...not to mention the article that started off this whole thread.

Origin of the specious

AC Grayling dissects a new defence of Intelligent Design

    Grayling is responding to an argument by Steve Fuller in his new book, which says that we have no reason to believe that science works if we don't think a creator god is behind it. Read the Grayling article here (http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856).

     Edit: Fixed the link.

Quote from: drogulus on September 05, 2008, 12:10:55 PM
. . . Grayling is responding to an argument by Steve Fuller in his new book, which says that we have no reason to believe that science works if we don't think a creator god is behind it.

If that is really what Fuller is saying (and for all I know, it may be) . . . yes, it's a peculiar thing to say.

     What would be evidence that atheism really is a religion? The Onion points the way:

     Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AhyUwuEeWDlU9o2GIzeWm1dG2vAI;_ylu=X3oDMTFnbm42cXA4BGlpZAMxMzMxNjI3OTUyMjg4MDEwNzQ1NQRub2gDNARwb3MDMQRyaWQDMzkxNzYyNg--/SIG=12sq2sc03/**http%3A//feeds.theonion.com/~r/theonion/weekly/~3/384179796/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin)

     Capitalizing on the influx of empirical believers, street vendors have sprung up across Dayton, selling evolutionary relics and artwork to the thousands of pilgrims waiting to catch a glimpse of the image. Available for sale are everything from small wooden shards alleged to be fragments of the "One True Beagle"—the research vessel on which Darwin made his legendary voyage to the Galapagos Islands—to lecture notes purportedly touched by English evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace.

     News that's better than true. _:)