Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Mr. Tweedy on May 18, 2007, 04:00:51 PM
-
Palimpset: First, I want to say that you haven't offended me. I dig candor and I love when everybody says what they really think. I love candor so much that sometimes I make stupid, thoughtless posts that get people (rightfully) pissed off at me. :'(
So don't include me on the list of offended parties if you feel the need to appologize. If you think my beliefs are cow feces, then it doesn't offend me (personally) for you to say so.
You disagree that the Christian bible doesn't match up with reality, but I presume that you agree that other people's religions don't? You, as a Christian, can't argue about revealed truth on the basis of objective reality with -- say -- a Buddhist or Zoroastrian or animist, any more than I can argue with either of you.
If revealed truth is objectively provable, then why does it enter conversations? Why talk about "God said so" at all? If God would only say that which can be externally confirmed, then why don't we confine ourselves to talking about those things? Certainly it's the only way that you, me, the Zoroastrian, a quintet of Jainists, and the living embodiment of the sacred goddess (insert name here) can have a discussion in which we'll all agree on the terms.
I would say that all religions have some truth in them. An idea that is totally divorced from reality won't last very long, so the fact that these religions have endured shows that they all have something going for them. I think it's valuable to learn about other religions so that I can see what that something is.
About objective truth, I’ll turn to science for an ecxelent analogy.
I understand that water freezes in crystals because the H20 molecule is polar: The “O” side of the molecule has a negative charge relative to the “H2” side. This causes them to line up in rows, which leads to crystalization.
This is like revealed truth: I have no means to confirm, for myself, that water molecules actually are polar and that there isn’t something else going on in my frapuccino when I leave it in the freezer too long. I am taking the world of Discover magazine that it is true.
While I cannot directly test the polarity claim, I can see if it matches up with observed reality. I can see that the water does indeed crystalize, and hence I have evidence (but not proof) that the claim is true.
Similarly, if God is God, then there will be things He can see and know that we can’t. Hence He may reveal things that we could not discover or infer on our own, but the revelations will always be in line with our observation.
My principle is this: Revelation will not contradict reality. It is quite possible that revelation will not be verifiable by logic, but it will not be in conflict with logic either.
-
My principle is this: Revelation will not contradict reality. It is quite possible that revelation will not be verifiable by logic, but it will not be in conflict with logic either.
Hypothetically speaking, what would you do if you discovered that something you considered to be revelation actually conflicted with reality?
-
I would think and study (and pray) to try to determine where the error was, and it might take a long time.
Getting to the meat of your question: Yes, I would be willing to lay asside something that I had previously considered to be revelation if I found it to be incompatible with reality. I.e. if my Book said that the Earth is flat (which it doesn't), then all the satelite dishes in my neighborhood would force me to resonsider and conclude either that 1.) the Book is wrong or 2.) I have no idea what the Book really means on this point.
-
One of many lists:
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
-
I would think and study (and pray) to try to determine where the error was, and it might take a long time.
Getting to the meat of your question: Yes, I would be willing to lay asside something that I had previously considered to be revelation if I found it to be incompatible with reality. I.e. if my Book said that the Earth is flat (which it doesn't), then all the satelite dishes in my neighborhood would force me to resonsider and conclude either that 1.) the Book is wrong or 2.) I have no idea what the Book really means on this point.
I'm glad to hear that. I've talked to many people who are not willing to.
I've never studied the bible. I can only go by what I was taught. Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination. I was taught that God was all-knowing. If God is all knowing then he knows what happens in the future. (Since the bible is full of prophecies, then that would seem to make sense.) However, if God knows the future, then he knows every decision I am ever going to make. That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will. I am merely an actor in the play that God has written (assuming that God did make the universe). If I do not have free will, and I cannot freely make choices, then the idea of receiving eternal punishment for my sins makes no sense since I could not actually choose to sin. I only did what God has pre-ordained me to do.
Logically, the means that either a) God is not all knowing or b) God is creating people for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal damnation. If a) is true, then what I was taught was wrong. If b) is true, well, I guess nothing else really matters :P
-
<edit> Ok. Sorry everyone. That's what I get for cutting and pasting indiscriminantly at work... thankfuly it wasn't the whole 8,000 drawings.
I've never studied the bible. I can only go by what I was taught. Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination. I was taught that God was all-knowing. If God is all knowing then he knows what happens in the future. (Since the bible is full of prophecies, then that would seem to make sense.) However, if God knows the future, then he knows every decision I am ever going to make. That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will. I am merely an actor in the play that God has written (assuming that God did make the universe). If I do not have free will, and I cannot freely make choices, then the idea of receiving eternal punishment for my sins makes no sense since I could not actually choose to sin. I only did what God has pre-ordained me to do.
Logically, the means that either a) God is not all knowing or b) God is creating people for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal damnation. If a) is true, then what I was taught was wrong. If b) is true, well, I guess nothing else really matters :P
If I may:
It's because god is God, and mortal limits of reason, logic, and reality do not apply. Your question can be reduced to a very simple one "Can god make a stone so heavy that even it can't lift it?" The answer is "Yes. And it can still lift it."
The problem comes in to us applying human limits to a god. We only see one reality, the one that comes from the choices we make. Each choice, nay, each moment is full of billions of possibilities. Each of those possibilities forks off in to billions of related possibilities, and so on and so on. Strings of possibilities form paths. We, sad creatures that we are, only get to go down one of these paths.
A (I say "A" because there are many people and I don't mean to offend by playing favorites) god who is omniscient can see all of these infinite paths in totality. We get to pick which path we take, which reality we create, while god can see all paths and where they lead. Or, it can make a rock too heavy to lift while at the same time altering reality to where it can lift it. God(s) can create, exist in, and resolve paradoxes.
That, I'm pretty sure, is one of the things that makes it a god.
-
I've never studied the bible. I can only go by what I was taught. Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination. I was taught that God was all-knowing. If God is all knowing then he knows what happens in the future. (Since the bible is full of prophecies, then that would seem to make sense.) However, if God knows the future, then he knows every decision I am ever going to make. That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will. I am merely an actor in the play that God has written (assuming that God did make the universe). If I do not have free will, and I cannot freely make choices, then the idea of receiving eternal punishment for my sins makes no sense since I could not actually choose to sin. I only did what God has pre-ordained me to do.
Logically, the means that either a) God is not all knowing or b) God is creating people for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal damnation. If a) is true, then what I was taught was wrong. If b) is true, well, I guess nothing else really matters :P
If I may:
It's because god is God, and mortal limits of reason, logic, and reality do not apply. Your question can be reduced to a very simple one "Can god make a stone so heavy that even it can't lift it?" The answer is "Yes. And it can still lift it."
The problem comes in to us applying human limits to a god. We only see one reality, the one that comes from the choices we make. Each choice, nay, each moment is full of billions of possibilities. Each of those possibilities forks off in to billions of related possibilities, and so on and so on. Strings of possibilities form paths. We, sad creatures that we are, only get to go down one of these paths.
A (I say "A" because there are many people and I don't mean to offend by playing favorites) god who is omniscient can see all of these infinite paths in totality. We get to pick which path we take, which reality we create, while god can see all paths and where they lead. Or, it can make a rock too heavy to lift while at the same time altering reality to where it can lift it. God(s) can create, exist in, and resolve paradoxes.
That, I'm pretty sure, is one of the things that makes it a god.
I've heard the "Rock so heavy" example many times. That's really an example of "God is all powerful" instead of "God is all knowing". The two are not necessarily the same. An easier hypothetical to argue against omnipotence is "Can God create a being more powerful than itself." If yes, then God is not all powerful because there is something God cannot do. If no, then God is not all powerful because something can be more powerful than God.
I've also heard the alternate realities solution to predestination but it does nothing to solve the logic problem. It only means that God knows all the outcomes that may occur and which version of me will pick each decision. That only changes the answer to B) to be "God has created and infinite number of versions of me and predestined them each to either heaven or hell and each of them has a predestined fate." If it is merely that God knows the outcome of every possible decision but lets me choose my own path, then God is not all knowing because God does not know which decision I will make.
Once you say that God is beyond logic, then not only can you not apply logic to God, you can't even logically claim that you can't apply logic to God because then you would be applying logic to God.
-
An easier hypothetical to argue against omnipotence is "Can God create a being more powerful than itself." If yes, then God is not all powerful because there is something God cannot do.
The answer to this is that God creates the being and then grows in power Himself.
Let me bring up the issue that bothered me the most - predestination.
My answer to this is that predestination only exists if you know what will happen yourself. If I come to an intersection and turn left then run over some glass and blow a tire. You could see how my decision resulted in the blown tire(predestination), but clearly I would have taken a different route if I was aware of the consequences - we all have free will when our decisions are not made for us.
When you think about it, our future is someone else's past - be it my Great Great Great grandson (assuming on will exist) or some other creature from the future). Columbus' future is my past.
The general concept that the future is "in flux" while the past is written is stone to be flawed. The future is just as solid - we just don't see it yet. The analogy I use is about a pre-recorded "live" football game.
You are watching a copy of a game you know nothing about. As you watch it, it is completely new to you - for all you know it is being broadcast live. You could even place bets with friends as none of you have any idea about the outcome. There is however, nothing at all you can do to change the results. Whether you fast forward or rewind.
Now imagine the entire history of the universe from beginning to end(?) is pre-recorded, and we are watching (living in) it. Everything has happened "already", all our decisions have been made, but we are just haven't got there yet, and don't know what decisions we will make or their results - hence free will.
"You can choose not to decide, but you still have made a choice." - Rush from the song Free Will (from the album Permanent Waves).
-
The predestination thing used to bother me, especially since the Bible seems to variously advocate free will and predestination.
I think the answer is ontological: We understand, in modern physics, that time is a dimension of the Universe, not independent from the three spatial dimensions. If we posit that God created the Universe, then God created time, and if God created time, then He must be outside of time. God does not exist on a linear timeline like we do. He's outside of it, and so he can see everything along its length simultaneously. To God, all events are in the present. Do we have free will? Yes. Does God know what's going to happen? Yes. If we understand that our frames of reference are radically different, then I don't think this is a contradiction.
This analogy works for me: You're watching a movie. The characters in movie make their choices and do their thing, which drives the plot along to its conclusion. At any moment, you can skip ahead and see what happens, or you can skip back and see what happened. You're outside the timeline. The people in the movie aren't affected by your observations. You observation of the end doesn't moot the choices they make in the middle and the fact that you can rewind and see the past again doesn't mean they can. Their freedom is not effected by your knowledge, owing to your different viewpoints.
...And that's pretty much exactly the same as slic's analogy above.
-
Honestly, Clintmemo? I struggle with the freewill thing too, and not just in a religious context. I'm not comfortable enough to go into it all here (nor do I believe there is enough interest for it to be warranted, plus yadda yadda thread drift) but I definitely consider it a recurring life-question.
Like you, I've heard about a gillion arguments and counterarguments, and I'm not all that interested in them. Heard Thomas Aquinas' God stands outside of time explanation, been told God's like the master chessplayer who knows all the pieces' potential moves all the way to end game, and if I had a dime for every time someone explained the concept of "middle knowledge" to me I'd be a wealthy woman, not to mention the slippery God can know all things but it doesn't mean he does argument of the inherent omniscient folk. Answers that do a bunch of mental gymnastics or follow some long convoluted threaded logic to arrive at their conclusion violate my sense of how I derive meaning from my existence.
I want the Occam's razor answer: the one that is simple, yet makes sense and gives me inspiration instead of explanation.
All that explaining strikes me as rationalization, and feels hollow. I'm not saying that it's incorrect to go there, nor that it doesn't help other people on their faith journey to think of it that way, but for me, personally, it's deeply unsatisfying -- even tiring.
I'll get back to you if I've ever got an answer, but don't wait up for me.
-
I don't think you're alone, Ana.
The moderately famous philosophy prof. I had at Sarah Lawrence more or less said that predestination and free will had never been satisfactorily reconciled. (He moderated an NYC-based debate series on it while I was taking from him.)
-
I don't think you're alone, Ana.
The moderately famous philosophy prof. I had at Sarah Lawrence more or less said that predestination and free will had never been satisfactorily reconciled. (He moderated an NYC-based debate series on it while I was taking from him.)
They are reconciled as far as I am concerned. ;)
Thanks for link to the errors list. I'll check it out over the weekend.
-
I want the Occam's razor answer: the one that is simple, yet makes sense and gives me inspiration instead of explanation.
Here's my tiny little stab at it:
Do you feel like you have free will?
Yes? Then either you have free will, or God wants you to act like you have it. And isn't that functionally the same as having it?
I'm sure there's a flaw in this, and welcome any criticism. Really, though, I've never found the question interesting enough to stop doing anything that I was doing. >8->
-
And isn't that functionally the same as having it?
I think there's no flaw in this.
However, it's not actually a reconciliation; it's bowing over to the predestination side.
-
And isn't that functionally the same as having it?
I think there's no flaw in this.
However, it's not actually a reconciliation; it's bowing over to the predestination side.
You mean potentially, right? Because the way I look at that quote, you still might have it.
-
And isn't that functionally the same as having it?
I think there's no flaw in this.
However, it's not actually a reconciliation; it's bowing over to the predestination side.
Saying that free will and no free will are the same is a denial of free will?
*thinks*
...No, I'm sorry, ma'am. I don't get it.
-
Right. I mean, it's still one or the other. Either real free will, or predestination + fake (but good enough, because can you notice you don't have it?) free will. Which is, IIRC, sort of the mainstream position on it at this point.
Rusty memory, but I think the metaphor is -- if you're in a locked room, and you never try to leave, has your free ability to leave really been constrained?
-
I guess I assumed you were implying a logical jog in there that wasn't overt.
I mean, point A, it's not even a problem if you don't believe in an omniscient God -- or, conversely, a predictable universe. So, if you believe in a God that isn't omniscient, or in a fundamentally chaotic universe, then you get out scot free, right? I assumed this is what you meant by real free will.
But if you're taking a predictable universe, or an omniscient God, then you're trapped into point B) predestination. At which point, what your compromise gains is an illusion of free will which is as good as the real thing.
But you still don't end up with A (real free will) + B (predestination), you end up with B (predestination + approximation of free will which is as near the real thing as makes no difference)
I'd heard this argument before, and assumed you were referring to it (it's actually what I believe when I'm not thinking too deeply about chaos theory). Sorry if I misread.
-
There's another way of looking at it that C.S. Lewis brought up in his very excellent book "The Great Divorce." He offers a theory (which he admits is just a theory, not necessarily what he was sure to be true) that the human soul exists outside of time and is itself without a linear beginning or end. Like God, the soul is off the timeline. Our lives on Earth are the expression of the soul. Life is like a book the soul write to express itself.
The actual metaphor he used was this: A number of figures are sitting around a chess board, all of them still and unchanging. On the chessboard, each has an avatar which expresses the will of the figure to which is coresponds. The figures are the souls, which never move but simply are, while the pieces on the board are their representation in linear time.
It sounded a lot cooler the way he wrote it, though... Read the book!
To me, that is a handy union of free will with predestination. The scenario is free will if you look at it from the inside, from on the chessboard, and predestination if your perspective is outside, with the still figures. Thus, the two are simply different words for the same process.
-
I've read the book.
He's a good writer. I find his theology unconvincing (not suprisingly).
-
Do you feel like you have free will?
Yes?
Actually, not so much. If I felt like I had free will, then I almost certainly wouldn't worry about whether I have it.
I don't feel like I'm being mind-controlled or anything, but sometimes, when I analyze my actions, I find they all follow pretty predictably from what went before...sort of like...the flow of water, I guess. If I can't jump the bank, or flow backward, or be condensed in a cloud that will rain elsewhere then...it looks awfully predestined.
Incomplete and awkward analogy, of course, but I find it's difficult to explain inside the setting of a rational discourse. It's mumbo jumbo in my head, too.
I appreciate you giving it a shot, though. If you could have solved in one five minute post what I've been wrestling with for two decades, I would have been more impressed with you than I am already.
And thanks, palimpsest, for the "you're not alone" acknowledgement. Even unsolved, the mystery is less onerous by being shared. I'm glad the skilled philosophers are still working on it, maybe someone will ultimately be able to put me at ease on this issue.
-
I'm not getting the problem. What do you mean by/define as predestination?
I don't feel like I'm being mind-controlled or anything, but sometimes, when I analyze my actions, I find they all follow pretty predictably from what went before...
This sounds like being in a rut, not that you have no control over your actions. We are all constrained by our own choices and our environment - as much as I am capable of empting my bank account and driving to Texas, I won't. But that doesn't mean there is no Free Will.
My arguement is that the future is not in flux. Just because we don't know it, doesn't mean it can change. That's not predestination, that's history - just history for people in the future. My theory is that the Colts winning SuperBowl XLI was true before it happened and after. In the case of before, we just hadn't "uncovered" it yet, as our memory only works backwards in time.
That would mean that my destiny is already set. I do not have free will.
These are not mutually exclusive. If, just before the last SuperBowl game, a little bird had whispered the aforementioned victory into Peyton Manning's ear and had given him irreputable proof that it was true, Manning would still have had to choose who to pass to, when to run, etc. Granted he may have been more cocky, certainly would never have been stressed about the score, but nevertheless he would still have had to put in the work, so to speak. Not knowing obviously made it much harder, but that's Lifetm as we know it ;)
It's like your sig quote "Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided. You have to go and find them before picking the best one." Whatever happens at the end of the test, you are the one answering all the questions. How you decide to pick those answers is entirely up to you - study, roll a die, pray to a god, cheat off of someone else, always choose C because that is what you've done in the past or because that's what is expected of you, whatever. You still end up being the person putting the mark on the paper.
-
While this discussion is great and all, tis WAY off topic, but would make for a great topic of its own, so thats just what i did!
Do i feel like i have free will?
yes, personally I don't think about predestination. If my life is predestined, thats just fine with me too, but as long as I feel like I can control my life, I'm in great health.
to use a psychological term (recently learned in class), I have a high internal locus of control.
I am wondering this though: those of you who don't believe you have free will, does it prevent you from doing things? does it leave you with no motivation or do you still work hard? This is not to insult you guys or anything im just generally curious.
what im getting at is that im wondering if the fact that you believe your life is predestined effects you daily.
-
Well, no.
The issue of whether or not one possesses free will is largely abstract, and really only comes up because of A) theological implications, and B) implications for whether or not it is moral to punish people for their behavior if it is not the result of free will.
I suppose the theological implications are still valid, but I think in the post-psychology era we should all be aware that our thoughts and actions are the result of both conscious and subconscious processes not always in our control. In essence, I don't think this is the kind of issue that keeps people up at night the way it did in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when it was a Hot Topic of Discussion; the paradigm shift has been significant enough that Free Will and Predestination are things that exist, mostly, in a state of abstraction.
I mean, from a psychological perspective -- no, you don't have free will. Isn't there a lot of research suggesting that the brain activity for justifying decisions only occurs after the actions have already been carried out?
But since the various impediments to free will are part of our self-definition, there's no realistic difference in introspection or interaction between a predestined behavior or a free one. If we're to use a more modern psychological model for analyzing behavior, then of course we're looking at diathesis/stress -- an interaction of propensity and actual decision-making. Free will and predestination as cosmological opposites are replaced, in a more social science oriented view, with an interaction of will and tendency that rejects the archaic binary frame.
This only functions on an individual level, of course. The predestination question gets at more cosmic truths. If we rewind time and replay it, will it replay out the same way again? Chaos theory might suggest otherwise. But if we agree that it does, then reality is predestined -- from first cause, all other actions and reacitons are predetermined; they exist within the potential of first cause. And if that's the case, then free will -- as it is theologically defined as the possibility for a person to make moral or immoral decisions without constraint -- is a logical impossibility.
There are easy theological outs from this, including, but not limited to, Calvinism.
[Edited for clarity.]
-
I don't feel like I'm being mind-controlled or anything, but sometimes, when I analyze my actions, I find they all follow pretty predictably from what went before...sort of like...the flow of water, I guess. If I can't jump the bank, or flow backward, or be condensed in a cloud that will rain elsewhere then...it looks awfully predestined.
I've read some of your fiction. For me it's a great big QED.
But, of course, you know what was going on in your head better than I do. If you say, for instance, that "The Way Before" was simply an inevitable output of accumulated inputs, and that there was no spark or magic inside you that synthesized the inputs to put those words in that order... Well, I don't have the data to contradict you.
I can choose not to believe you, however. That story had soul. By inheritance, I conclude its author does too.
And by induction, the rest of us.
-
This only functions on an individual level, of course. The predestination question gets at more cosmic truths. If we rewind time and replay it, will it replay out the same way again? Chaos theory might suggest otherwise. But if we agree that it does, then reality is predestined -- from first cause, all other actions and reacitons are predetermined; they exist within the potential of first cause. And if that's the case, then free will -- as it is theologically defined as the possibility for a person to make moral or immoral decisions without constraint -- is a logical impossibility.
Hmm i dont know, replaying time with the same outcome might be explained by psychohistory
:) i just recently finished Foundation, and honestly the concept of psychohistory makes a whole lot of sense. Would history repeat itself because of predestination or because of human nature? or is that the same thing? is human nature the agent of predestination?
-
And if that's the case, then free will -- as it is theologically defined as the possibility for a person to make moral or immoral decisions without constraint -- is a logical impossibility.
Still lost. If you are saying that any decision you make that is constrained by other factors is not free will then none of us will ever have it. Here is a ridiculous example: I cannot fly under my own power therefore because of that constraint, I lack free will to decide how to get downtown.
It smacks of the "he's not bad, he was just raised that way" kind of arguement. Absolutely, enviroment is a large factor in a person's attitudes/behaviour, peer pressure will likely cause someone to behave in ways they know they shouldn't, but that is what free will is all about, it's your answer to that multiple choice question, "What do I do now?"
Isn't there a lot of research suggesting that the brain activity for justifying decisions only occurs after the actions have already been carried out?
I just read "Second Person, Present Tense" by Daryl Gregory that touched on that. So I went looking for more info (one of the main reasons I love sci-fi - all the new ideas).
So this is a tough one - my subconscious mind tells me I'm thirsty and starts my arm moving towards the glass. I'm only consciously aware after this has started, but still feel I consciously made the decision to move my arm. Did I really decide?
For me the rub is whether I continue in the action. There is little that I can't change in the half second or so between the act and being aware of it. I think of when I'm on the soccer field, and I'm very thirsty, I don't immediately leave the field to get something to drink. Or when it hurts to walk the next day (I'm old :(), I override my brain's desire to just sit with my legs up watching old World Cup games.
In regards to God's all-knowingness and my mortal sins, my wife came up with an excellent anology:
When our kids were learning to walk there were times when they were teetering and it was pretty clear they were about to fall down. We let them fall down. We knew they would fall, but chose not to interfere - otherwise how would they learn? To take it a step further, when my first daughter was born, I knew she would learn to walk, and I knew that she would fall down doing so. Does that mean I should have done something to prevent her from falling, like padding the floors or letting her only ride in a cart - should I have never let her try to walk? Being all-knowing doesn't mean I have to interfere.
Would history repeat itself because of predestination or because of human nature? or is that the same thing? is human nature the agent of predestination?
My quick take is that predictability is not predestination. If I always ask for an extra slice of cake, that doesn't mean I have no free will, just no will power ;)
I've always felt that psychohistory is a "refinement" of things like Chaos Theory. My thumbnail understanding of Chaos Theory is that there randomness in a system - but isn't that more because there isn't enough refinement of understanding. Think of how much better weather prediction has become.
-
I think we're arguing from different definitions, which is more or less how it always goes.
The question is in essence theological because of certain claims which were made by the church regarding free will, which someone eventually figured out contradicted other claims made by the church regarding omniscience.
Hobbes and Bramhall: http://www.diesel-ebooks.com/cgi-bin/item/0511034938/Hobbes-and-Bramhall-on-Liberty-and-Necessity-eBook.html
I was hoping to find it online for free since it's in the public domain, but unfortunately, it looks expensive.
-
I would say that all religions have some truth in them. An idea that is totally divorced from reality won't last very long, so the fact that these religions have endured shows that they all have something going for them.
I disagree on that one, not only on the scope of religions but on the scope of ideas in general. I think there are a lot of ideas that have endured for a really long time, but that I don't view as something positive. Xenophobia, blind obedience, the desire to dominate weaker ones.
I don't think just because an idea (or a religion) has been capable of surviving for a long time it gets any more true or false than it were if it had just lasted a week.
-
*12378411*.drw
*12378419*.drw
*12378420*.drw
...
???
-
I would say that all religions have some truth in them. An idea that is totally divorced from reality won't last very long, so the fact that these religions have endured shows that they all have something going for them.
I disagree on that one...
Sirana is exactly right on that one. And I strongly feel that the Mr. Tweedy's belief is terribly dangerous. How long did we believe the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth? What could be more divorced from reality than that?
-
With respect to Mr. Tweedy, I doubt he entirely believes what he's saying. Lots of ideas have survived that I doubt he'd endorse simply because they've been around for a long time. Slic's example of the sun revolving around the world is one example. FGM (female genital mutilation) is another -- would Tweedy argue that there's a core of truth to the idea that women with intact genitalia are unable to birth healthy children, simply because this is an idea which has survived for milennia, often in a spiritual context? Or that removing women's external genitalia as a good reflects some kind of "truth", simply because it's a tradition -- often spiritual -- which has endured?
--
Ideas don't travel just because of veracity or non-veracity. The author of Stumbling on Happiness talks about it more or less like this:
Some concepts are super-replicators. They replicate because they have some function. That function may or may not be overt.
Let's talk about it with genes. If there were a gene for making people enjoy orgasms, then that gene would replicate like mad, because it would make people more likely to have sex, and thus more likely to reproduce. If that gene were to carry bad things -- say, tooth decay -- it would still replicate because if there's a population of healthy, fertile toothy people but don't enjoy sex, and a population of healthy, fertile toothless people who love sex, who's going to reproduce?
So, a gene can replicate like crazy, producing benefit A (so positive that it needs to be replicated), but having side-effect B (which is negative).
(This is not a real gene; however, it's a description of a real process.)
We can see the same things happen with ideas. Stumbling on Happiness brings out a hypothetical game to prove the example. Imagine you have two teams that were in phone contact, and told them that there was a game where they had to pass ideas along by phone, and that the team that had the most correct ideas at the end of the game will win. One point will be given for each correct idea, and one point taken away for each incorrect idea. One team, the Perfects, only passes on correct ideas. The other team, the Imperfects, passes on correct and incorrect ideas.
You expect the Perfects will win, but they won't necessarily. Stumbling on Happiness suggests that an idea like "Talking on the phone all day will make you healthy" would help the Imperfects win. Although it's not a true idea, the falsehood will probably have the effect of getting the Imperfects to share more ideas (in bulk). Thus, by the end, they may have so many correct ideas, that even with the incorrect ones deducted, they still have more points than the Perfects team. The idea is false, but its side effect is to facilitate the task at hand.
So, it's not necessary for a religious concept -- or any concept -- to be truthful in order for it to be widely replicated. It only has to address some need, whether covert or overt.
-
An idea that is totally divorced from reality won't last very long
The idea that blacks are inferior to whites was probably the most divorced idea from reality ever, yet it survived for centuries.
the sun example is weak. to our point of view at the time, in our reality, we could not see the earth revolving around the sun. yes it was divorced from reality, but we can only have the reality we percieve. "Truth is but the shadow of artificial things."
-
That means that any argument is weak, bdoomed, including yours about racial disparities in intelligence. If truth is only in perception, then white people perceived black people as unintelligent, and so that was true. (And black people perceived white people as unintelligent, cruel asshats in return, and that was true*)
*and you can't really say "cruel" and "asshats" are off the mark.
-
I chose the example of the Sun and Earth for exactly the reason you pointed out, Bdoomed. Unfortunately, I often get pulled away from the 'puter for various reasons, and don't explain my thoughts completely. Palimpsest touched on it, somewhat but let me explain.
In the case of the Sun revolving around the Earth, it couldn't be more obvious to my senses that it travels through the sky while the Earth remains unmoving. However, the fact that the planet Earth rotates around the Sun is a cosmic, no, a universal, truth. Anyone except the few bodies on this mudball can clearly see that is the case. How much more parochial can an idea get?
So if our senses trick us about something as "obvious" as the rotation of the planet, how can we believe them when it comes to something as esoteric as an invisble god? Or other ideas that purport to be "Truth"?
The foundation of our reality is based on what we believe. I stay away from absolutes and anything that tells me one group/species/whatever is supposed to be better than another.
-
I step away from my computer for the weekend and I miss way too many posts. :(
Let my try and catch up.
This is what I think:
Predestination means that some event or events WILL occur in the future and cannot be stopped or changed.
Predestination and free-will are mutually exclusive. If my path is predetermined, it doesn't matter if I can see it or not. I still can't get off of it. All the theories involving time and multiple dimensions may muddy the waters but they change nothing. If something is fated to happen then I lack the ability to choose otherwise.
If I only *think* I have free will then God is deluding me. (and what that would be saying about God is another topic :P )
Asimov's fictional Psycho-history only applied to masses. There were several places in the trilogy where someone warned about applying the equations to an individual (yet he always did and it almost always worked out - except for when the mule showed up). It was statistics applied to psychology.
The sun is an interesting example. IIRC, the Greeks knew that the earth revolved around the sun. One of them even measured the diameter of the earth fairly accurately using some clever geometry (sorry - don't remember the details). It was the Europeans of the middle ages that got things so fouled up.
-
This is what I think:
Predestination means that some event or events WILL occur in the future and cannot be stopped or changed.
Predestination and free-will are mutually exclusive. If my path is predetermined, it doesn't matter if I can see it or not. I still can't get off of it. All the theories involving time and multiple dimensions may muddy the waters but they change nothing. If something is fated to happen then I lack the ability to choose otherwise.
Well, I certainly can't tell you what you think is wrong, and I think our difference in the definitions is semantics - I see free will as being able to make my own choice. This means to me that predestination and free-will are not mutually exclusive.
So let me ask you this - if the future is not set, how is it that the past is? Although you and I are seeing this part of the timeline as the present, my grandchildren are seeing this part of the timeline as the past.
-
Do you have the physics to back up the assertion that your grandchildren are, in some kind of quasi-temporal now, viewing these events as past?
-
No, I don't have any mathematical equation to prove that time is a fourth dimension extending backwards as well as forwards, that cause leads to effect or that my children will actually grow up and have children. But take any historical figure, including "unfamous" ones like relatives, and use their perspective. Let's try my paternal Grandfather - if we could go back in time to October 15, 1935 and ask him where is son would be living in September 23, 2005, he would not know. He wouldn't know how many grandchildren he would have.
He couldn't see that part of the timeline from his perspective in 1935, but I can in 2007. Does that mean the timeline didn't exist then that it is built as we go, or is it more likely (Occam's Razor likely) that the timeline is like a road already built and we are just travelling along it.
Just before you crest a hill and see a city laid out before you, was it built just before you saw it or had it already been built and you just hadn't got there yet?
-
It's no clearer with historical figures than it is with hypothetical grandchildren. It's a compelling metaphorical construction, but I am not convinced that the initial assumptions are correct.
We may think of time as being like space, but the two aren't identical. The question is whether time unfolds, or is simultaneous, or whether our metaphors for it are broken. I'm sure any physicists hanging out can clarify.
-
IANAP (physicist), but well, I read, and from the last I knew there's no widely accepted theory/law why the arrow of time is only going one way. Best bet's Wikipedia, which doesn't have a good quick explanation so you'll have to read the articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
~~~~~~~
I hold that life without free will, or with an omnipotent being that takes an interest in mortal affairs, is a meaningless exercise. Which is the last I'll say because I'm taking a break from debates due to their tendency to suck me in and I'm summer-job-hunting due to unforeseeable circumstances in relation to a planned job.
-
No, I don't have any mathematical equation to prove that time is a fourth dimension extending backwards as well as forwards, that cause leads to effect or that my children will actually grow up and have children. But take any historical figure, including "unfamous" ones like relatives, and use their perspective. Let's try my paternal Grandfather - if we could go back in time to October 15, 1935 and ask him where is son would be living in September 23, 2005, he would not know. He wouldn't know how many grandchildren he would have. He couldn't see that part of the timeline from his perspective in 1935, but I can in 2007.
And he were not predestined to have those children, then you would not be here now to go back and ask him. If his path is set, then he has no ability to choose not to have children. He has no free will.
Does that mean the timeline didn't exist then that it is built as we go, or is it more likely (Occam's Razor likely) that the timeline is like a road already built and we are just travelling along it.
How is that in any way a simpler and more likely explanation?
It seems much more likely that the future is not set (which coincides nicely with my observations) and that traveling back in time is not possible. Since all the theories on time travel that I have seen are based on abilities that are themselves not theoretically possible (like traveling at the speed of light), it seems likely that traveling back in time is not possible.
Just before you crest a hill and see a city laid out before you, was it built just before you saw it or had it already been built and you just hadn't got there yet?
You are confusing space and time. Moving over the crest of the hill is traveling through space.
-
No, I don't have any mathematical equation to prove that time is a fourth dimension extending backwards as well as forwards, that cause leads to effect or that my children will actually grow up and have children. But take any historical figure, including "unfamous" ones like relatives, and use their perspective. Let's try my paternal Grandfather - if we could go back in time to October 15, 1935 and ask him where is son would be living in September 23, 2005, he would not know. He wouldn't know how many grandchildren he would have. He couldn't see that part of the timeline from his perspective in 1935, but I can in 2007.
And he were not predestined to have those children, then you would not be here now to go back and ask him. If his path is set, then he has no ability to choose not to have children. He has no free will.
Again this is semantics - you feel that not being able to chose removes free will ipso facto there is no free will unless the timeline is made up as we go.
Does that mean the timeline didn't exist then that it is built as we go, or is it more likely (Occam's Razor likely) that the timeline is like a road already built and we are just travelling along it.
How is that in any way a simpler and more likely explanation?
It seems much more likely that the future is not set (which coincides nicely with my observations) and that traveling back in time is not possible. Since all the theories on time travel that I have seen are based on abilities that are themselves not theoretically possible (like traveling at the speed of light), it seems likely that traveling back in time is not possible.
One theory relies on the idea that the timeline is constantly in flux reacting to the decisions of billions of people (not to mention other alien life spread throughout the universe), being built pico second, by pico second (or smaller). The other theory is that it is a complete line, and we are travelling along it, only able to percieve it in one direction. Which is simpler?
Just before you crest a hill and see a city laid out before you, was it built just before you saw it or had it already been built and you just hadn't got there yet?
You are confusing space and time. Moving over the crest of the hill is traveling through space.
No, it was a metaphor.
[/quote]
-
And he were not predestined to have those children, then you would not be here now to go back and ask him. If his path is set, then he has no ability to choose not to have children. He has no free will.
Again this is semantics - you feel that not being able to chose removes free will ipso facto there is no free will unless the timeline is made up as we go.
Well since Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices (if it isn't, then what is it?), then lacking the ability to make choices clearly means lacking free will.
One theory relies on the idea that the timeline is constantly in flux reacting to the decisions of billions of people (not to mention other alien life spread throughout the universe), being built pico second, by pico second (or smaller). The other theory is that it is a complete line, and we are travelling along it, only able to percieve it in one direction. Which is simpler?
It is only simpler if you are trying to reconcile predestination and free will. The simplest explanation is the unlisted "option c) the future is not set."
Just before you crest a hill and see a city laid out before you, was it built just before you saw it or had it already been built and you just hadn't got there yet?
You are confusing space and time. Moving over the crest of the hill is traveling through space.
No, it was a metaphor.
Ok, just to nitpick. It is a bad analogy because it requires both space (over the hill) AND time (before). I'm not sure how a good analogy could be constructed using just a single dimension since time is like no other dimension.
-
Got my nitpick comb out so here goes:
And he were not predestined to have those children, then you would not be here now to go back and ask him. If his path is set, then he has no ability to choose not to have children. He has no free will.
Again this is semantics - you feel that not being able to chose removes free will ipso facto there is no free will unless the timeline is made up as we go.
Well since Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices (if it isn't, then what is it?), then lacking the ability to make choices clearly means lacking free will.
I have always been saying in my theory that people still have the ability to make choices. That is why I see them as not mutually exclusive. Where people disagree with me is that they feel it is an illusion. "How is it free will, if the outcome is already known (to God, future people, whomever)?" And I say it is free will because the decider doesn't know the outcome. Take Columbus deciding which ship to sail in - he freely chose to ride in Mariagalante of his own will - from his vantage point ten minutes before he made the choice he doesn't know what he will chose, from my vantage point in the future, I can still look into the past and see what it was - before he himself made that choice.
For the record, my wife feels that the future is also "not set".
One theory relies on the idea that the timeline is constantly in flux reacting to the decisions of billions of people (not to mention other alien life spread throughout the universe), being built pico second, by pico second (or smaller). The other theory is that it is a complete line, and we are travelling along it, only able to percieve it in one direction. Which is simpler?
It is only simpler if you are trying to reconcile predestination and free will. The simplest explanation is the unlisted "option c) the future is not set."
How is that not the same as A? The future is not set in A, it is being built as we move forward in time. At some point Future becomes the Present.
Just before you crest a hill and see a city laid out before you, was it built just before you saw it or had it already been built and you just hadn't got there yet?
You are confusing space and time. Moving over the crest of the hill is traveling through space.
No, it was a metaphor.
Ok, just to nitpick. It is a bad analogy because it requires both space (over the hill) AND time (before). I'm not sure how a good analogy could be constructed using just a single dimension since time is like no other dimension.
I won't argue this - you understand the point.
-
IANAP (physicist), but well, I read, and from the last I knew there's no widely accepted theory/law why the arrow of time is only going one way. Best bet's Wikipedia, which doesn't have a good quick explanation so you'll have to read the articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
The definitive layman's version of this is of course Hawking's A Brief History of Time, but Brian Greene had a shorter and pretty clear explanation for it in his book The Fabric of the Cosmos. I can't do it justice, but in a nutshell it runs like this:
There is no physical law says time can only happen in one direction (in theory, all physical processes are completely reversible) but entropy creates an overwhelming statistical force that pushes time in one direction. Entropy isn't a fundamental force, it's just statistics: any time a system changes, it's far more likely to become more disordered than more ordered. This is true because there are far more disordered states than ordered ones. (As a simple example, consider shuffling a deck of cards. They come out of the box in sorted order, right? It is not physically impossible that shuffling it many times could put them back in sorted order, but it never happens. The number of unsorted combinations exceeds the sorted ones by many orders of magnitude. Once the deck is highly unsorted, it tends to stay highly unsorted.)
From an entropy perspective, reversing time would simply mean moving from a disordered system to an ordered one. The cards are resorted, the pieces of the shattered cup come back together again, the gas pours back into the smokestack and condenses into coal. None of this stuff is physically impossible. For any process, it's conceivable that the energy lost due to the process's inefficiencies (i.e., creation of disorder) will eventually come back and undo the process exactly. But it doesn't happen on the whole. Once energy becomes waste heat it tends to stay wasted. It doesn't have to, but the probability is overwhelming.
Obvious conclusion from this? Well, if the universe moves statistically toward more and more disorder all the time, then it must have started with the highest degree of order (the lowest entropy) it will ever have. This is backed up by cosmology and Big Bang theory. If gravity ever pulled things back into that "cosmic egg" singularity again, then we'd move back from higher entropy to lower entropy and time would in fact be reversed during the compression. Right now our best observations indicate that this is not the fate of the universe; instead, the universe will likely just keep diffusing forever and becoming less and less ordered. We can have some interesting local reversals of entropy (I like to call that "life") but they never last, and they very rarely undo anything.
I personally like this idea a lot: that time and its immutability are not strictly a physical reality at all, but rather a sort of statistical illusion. Time, then, is just the thing that allows us to perceive the difference between order and disorder.
What does this say for free will? ...No idea. But I thought it was cool. >8->
-
Can this question of predestination vs. free will ever have a real answer?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we have free will than the answer is "yes" but we may not ever be able to prove it empathically (so the answer could be "yes" or "no"). However, if we don't have free will, we will reach whichever answer we were predestined to reach (either "yes" or "no"), and think we reached it all on our own.
If we have free will, than laws are an important to guide society.
If we don't have free will, than laws aren't necessary, but we are (apparently) predestined to write, enforce, and re-write them.
If we have free will, we'll make our own decisions.
If we don't have free will, we'll never know we don't make our own decisions.
-
Got my nitpick comb out so here goes:
And he were not predestined to have those children, then you would not be here now to go back and ask him. If his path is set, then he has no ability to choose not to have children. He has no free will.
Again this is semantics - you feel that not being able to chose removes free will ipso facto there is no free will unless the timeline is made up as we go.
Well since Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices (if it isn't, then what is it?), then lacking the ability to make choices clearly means lacking free will.
I have always been saying in my theory that people still have the ability to make choices. That is why I see them as not mutually exclusive. Where people disagree with me is that they feel it is an illusion. "How is it free will, if the outcome is already known (to God, future people, whomever)?" And I say it is free will because the decider doesn't know the outcome. Take Columbus deciding which ship to sail in - he freely chose to ride in Mariagalante of his own will - from his vantage point ten minutes before he made the choice he doesn't know what he will chose, from my vantage point in the future, I can still look into the past and see what it was - before he himself made that choice.
For the record, my wife feels that the future is also "not set".
If you abstract that more, it looks like "I am defining A and B as two mutually exclusive things that can exist at the same time. This is allowable because I am defining it that way."
One theory relies on the idea that the timeline is constantly in flux reacting to the decisions of billions of people (not to mention other alien life spread throughout the universe), being built pico second, by pico second (or smaller). The other theory is that it is a complete line, and we are travelling along it, only able to percieve it in one direction. Which is simpler?
It is only simpler if you are trying to reconcile predestination and free will. The simplest explanation is the unlisted "option c) the future is not set."
How is that not the same as A? The future is not set in A, it is being built as we move forward in time. At some point Future becomes the Present.
Doh!
Sorry - I misread that originally.
-
Part of the problem lies with the definitions.
"all powerful" and "all knowing" are logical impossibilities. Predestination aside, something can't know everything because some things are false and cannot be known - for example, a four sided triangle. The temptation is to define all knowing as "knows all that is knowable", but that just begs us to define all powerful as "can do all that can be done."
Getting back to predestination,
if God is all knowing and all powerful by the revised versions above, then maybe God does not know the future exactly. That leaves predestination out of it an free will is intact. (and for those wondering about biblical prophecies, maybe God is really good at God's version of psycho-history. :P )
-
If you abstract that more, it looks like "I am defining A and B as two mutually exclusive things that can exist at the same time. This is allowable because I am defining it that way."
This is why terms need to be defined in an arguement. You are doing the same thing, by basically saying Free Will cannot exist if the future is set.
And since the nitpick comb is still out, I'm saying that Free Will and a Set Future are not mutually exclusive.
What I have also found is that this topic is almost like religion - you can't really argue the facts and some people find comfort in the idea that the future is always open to change, while others find comfort in the idea that the timeline is static.
-
Steve, that is fascinating! I love it! Sorry I have don't any comments to add to it at the moment...
-
Sorry if it seems like I'm running a rut here, but I want to bring up the idea of perspective again.
Anybody with more than a passing interest in science-fiction is familiar with the idea of time-dialation. Simply put, when you go really fast, time slows down for you. The "twin paradox" is usually used as an analogy: You have two twins, say Joe and Jane. Joe stays on Earth while Jane goes zooming around the galaxy at light speed. When Jane comes back, Joe will be older than than she is, because she has experienced time-dilation and he has not. (I'm sure you've all heard this example a million times.) Let's say Joe ends up being 100 and Jane is still just 10.
Now, by my understanding of Relativity, there is no arbiter between Joe and Jane's clocks. The fact that Joe has experienced the passage of 100 years and Jane has only experienced 10 might tempt us to ask the question "Whose clock is right? Was it really 100 years or was it really only 10?" The answer to that question is "Yes." As much as it offends our sensibilities, it really was 100 years and it also really was 10.
Relativity produces lots of other similar effects. "Is the mass of this brick 1 kg or 10 kg?" "Is this rod one foot long or three?" "Yes" to both questions.
I don't know that it will satisfy anyone else, but I think the answer to free-will vs. predestination is along similar lines. I think both are ultimately different terms for the same thing. When you ask "either or" the answer is "yes," although that answer is counterintuitive. The answers don't contradict each other: It's just a matter of where one is standing when one asks the question.
Someone in the timeline says "I have free will" and he is right. Someone outside says "his future is fixed," and that is also right.
And no, I can't really wrap my mind around that idea myself. But, if we're dealing with eternity and infinity and the nature of being, would you really expect to be able to totally grasp it? Because we do not have access to an "outside" view, the best we can do is resort to metaphors, and they will never be exact.
-
If you abstract that more, it looks like "I am defining A and B as two mutually exclusive things that can exist at the same time. This is allowable because I am defining it that way."
This is why terms need to be defined in an arguement. You are doing the same thing, by basically saying Free Will cannot exist if the future is set.
And since the nitpick comb is still out, I'm saying that Free Will and a Set Future are not mutually exclusive.
I'm interested in how you would define "Free Will" and "fate" such that they are not mutually exclusive without including that in the definitions. :P
...some people find comfort in the idea that the future is always open to change, while others find comfort in the idea that the timeline is static.
Oh, I can definitely agree with that. I've read essays by atheists claiming they felt great relief in knowing they were masters of their own destiny and others who felt great sadness in knowing that their was no one above looking out for them. It very much depends on the person and their outlook. A positive "freewiller" might think they can do anything while a negative one might take an attitude of "everything's all their fault." A positive fatalist might feel saved while a negative one might feel doomed.
-
Are you looking at this from a religious or an atheistic pov, Clint? If you don't mind saying? (I have a number of atheistic-minded arguments that I haven't brought in, as I have the sense I'm the only atheist actively participating in the conversation.)
-
Are you looking at this from a religious or an atheistic pov, Clint? If you don't mind saying? (I have a number of atheistic-minded arguments that I haven't brought in, as I have the sense I'm the only atheist actively participating in the conversation.)
I was raised a Catholic. (I used to joke that "I was raised Catholic, but I'm in recovery now.") I've always been a bit of a doubter.
These days I'm about two baby steps from becoming an Atheist, but I'm not sure how much of that is an emotional reaction to all the bad things I see being done in the name of religion combined with the lack of seeing any evidence that God exists.
Right now, I put myself firmly in the "undecided" camp.
I think the "official" atheist position is that God may exist, but they won't believe it until someone shows them evidence as such. I have two very good friends who are what I jokingly refer to as "devout atheists." They not only believe that there is no God, but will argue to try to prove their point. I also have other friends that are Christians with varying degrees of devoutness (is that a real word? :P ).
I would also point out that almost every week, I get together with a group of friends to play D&D which includes one of the atheists, his teenage daughter (whom he is allowing to decide for herself), a devout Christian/Former minister, two baptists, and two others who are not religious and we all get along just fine.
-
These days I'm about two baby steps from becoming an Atheist, but I'm not sure how much of that is an emotional reaction to all the bad things I see being done in the name of religion combined with the lack of seeing any evidence that God exists.
Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism. Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system.
I think the "official" atheist position is that God may exist, but they won't believe it until someone shows them evidence as such.
I think the word for that is "agnostic." An atheist disbelieves in God. An agnostic isn't sure.
-
I'm interested in how you would define "Free Will" and "fate" such that they are not mutually exclusive without including that in the definitions.
The same way I've defined it in previous posts.
Free will of an individual is when that person makes a choice - whether it is to stay home or go to work, answer this post or not. Even deciding that there is no Free Will, by my definition, is free will. It doesn't matter to the definition if someone else already knows what you will decide.
I think the "official" atheist position is that God may exist...
I thought an atheist didn't believe in God at all. And Merriam Webster agrees: "one who believes "that there is no deity
I think, ClintMemo, that you an agnostic:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
out-posted by Mr. Tweedy, but I've already typed it so it stays ;)
-
Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism. Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system
I think you are muddying the waters here. People in Russia or Cuba didn't take up arms in the name of atheism - it wasn't like the Crusades. In the case of Stalin, in my humble opionion, it was in a large part a way removing competing authority, namely the Church.
-
Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism. Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system.
Good point. It was an atheistic *system*. That's different from being in the name of atheism, for the same reason that the actions of the Catholic church are supposed to be different from the actions of the American government.
And devout + atheist is a linguistic oxy moron which is used as a rhetorical formation to minimize the atheist position by suggesting (through the contradiction in the words) that it's hypocritical. Don't think I don't notice.
Now, we can either stop talking about this, or it can move to another thread, but if you're going to repeat unsubstantiated memes, then it's unlikely to be a pleasant conversation.
-
Let's not forget all the bad things that have done in the name of atheism. Communism killed many millions of people in the 20th century, and it was a devoutly atheistic system.
Good point. It was an atheistic *system*. That's different from being in the name of atheism, for the same reason that the actions of the Catholic church are supposed to be different from the actions of the American government.
And devout + atheist is a linguistic oxy moron which is used as a rhetorical formation to minimize the atheist position by suggesting (through the contradiction in the words) that it's hypocritical. Don't think I don't notice.
Heh heh. Funny you noticed, because I hadn't. I don't think atheism is hypocritcal: There are plenty of honest atheists out there. I don't mean to "minimize" anything. What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion and that you can be devout or you can flirt with it, just like with any other belief system. You probably know (and are probably annoyed by) people who call themselves atheists but still toss up a prayer now and then. Such people are not devout. They aren't wholly committed to their atheism. I'm assuming you are committed, in which case, good for you. I like when people really believe what they claim.
I think you are muddying the waters here. People in Russia or Cuba didn't take up arms in the name of atheism - it wasn't like the Crusades. In the case of Stalin, in my humble opionion, it was in a large part a way removing competing authority, namely the Church.
The Crusades weren't really about religion either (as I understand them). They were about power and ecconomics and politics: Religion was just an excuse to go kill people and take their stuff. Just goes to show that any religion can be explioted by bad people to justify their bad deeds.
And now we're way off topic. Appologies, everyone. Predestination...
-
I've been down the "killing in the name of God" vs "killing in the name of Atheism" road before and I don't really want to revisit it. He-who-must-not-be-named-for-fear-of-invoking-Godwin's-law was Catholic, Stalin was raised as some version of Christian. China's leader (Mao?) was an atheist. In the "who killed more" contest, let's call the 20th century a draw.
btw, I know that "devout atheist" is an oxymoron. I used to call my friends that simply to push their buttons. Sorry if I pushed anyone else's.
The position of "I believe there is no God" is stronger than "I do not believe there is a God." There is a subtle but distinct difference.
Maybe "Agnostic" is how I should refer to myself, though other definitions I've seen don't exactly coincide with Webster.
-
What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion
Yes, I know. That's what's implied in the word "devout."
However, atheism is not a religion. Atheism has been politically constructed as a religion for the purpose of making it out to be hypocritical -- atheism is the absence of religion, so to refer to it *as* a religion is to suggest that atheists are hypocrites who actually do possess religion. That implication is embedded in the linguistic construction itself.
-
btw, I know that "devout atheist" is an oxymoron. I used to call my friends that simply to push their buttons.
Not really. The joking context came through.
-
A positive "freewiller" might think they can do anything while a negative one might take an attitude of "everything's all their fault."
I find it remarkable that some people would look at a the concept of being the only one responsible for their actions, and deem that to be a negatative trait.
-
Heh heh. Funny you noticed, because I hadn't. I don't think atheism is hypocritcal: There are plenty of honest atheists out there. I don't mean to "minimize" anything. What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion and that you can be devout or you can flirt with it, just like with any other belief system. You probably know (and are probably annoyed by) people who call themselves atheists but still toss up a prayer now and then. Such people are not devout. They aren't wholly committed to their atheism. I'm assuming you are committed, in which case, good for you. I like when people really believe what they claim.
To repeat an atheist saying - "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
"Devout" has a religious connotation and is the wrong word to use when describing atheists. "Committed" is a better choice.
Just goes to show that any religion can be explioted by bad people to justify their bad deeds.
At the risk of going further off-topic, I'll add that one of "bad things I've seen done in the name of religion" is people who are non-believers (because they obviously don't "practice what they preach"), pretending to be believers, manipulating believers into doing what they want. When those actions were merely "send me money" (like the televangelist scandals of the late 1980's), I didn't get that upset because I just thought is was a case of fools being taken by a con artist. Today, it's far more than that. I'm sure that has happened throughout history, but I haven't experienced it until the lat decade or so.
And now we're way off topic. Appologies, everyone. Predestination...
It was destined to happen...:P
-
A positive "freewiller" might think they can do anything while a negative one might take an attitude of "everything's all their fault."
I find it remarkable that some people would look at a the concept of being the only one responsible for their actions, and deem that to be a negatative trait.
Oh, I see it all the time. It depends on their self-image and how much they dwell on their failures. Convincing yourself that you are not capable of doing anything right can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you are primarily concerned with what you've done wrong, adding the idea that all the mistakes you make are no one's fault but yours only makes you feel worse. If you can blame your mistakes on someone else, you give yourself an out.
I think dodging responsibility is epidemic in the U.S. but that's another topic.
-
To repeat an atheist saying - "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Ah you beat me to it...
I'll still offer my version:
"If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."
-
Heh heh. Funny you noticed, because I hadn't. I don't think atheism is hypocritcal: There are plenty of honest atheists out there. I don't mean to "minimize" anything. What I am saying is that I think atheism is a religion and that you can be devout or you can flirt with it, just like with any other belief system. You probably know (and are probably annoyed by) people who call themselves atheists but still toss up a prayer now and then. Such people are not devout. They aren't wholly committed to their atheism. I'm assuming you are committed, in which case, good for you. I like when people really believe what they claim.
To repeat an atheist saying - "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
"Devout" has a religious connotation and is the wrong word to use when describing atheists. "Committed" is a better choice.
Just goes to show that any religion can be explioted by bad people to justify their bad deeds.
At the risk of going further off-topic, I'll add that one of "bad things I've seen done in the name of religion" is people who are non-believers (because they obviously don't "practice what they preach"), pretending to be believers, manipulating believers into doing what they want. When those actions were merely "send me money" (like the televangelist scandals of the late 1980's), I didn't get that upset because I just thought is was a case of fools being taken by a con artist. Today, it's far more than that. I'm sure that has happened throughout history, but I haven't experienced it until the lat decade or so.
And now we're way off topic. Appologies, everyone. Predestination...
It was destined to happen...:P
This is me siding with Mr. Tweedy, saying ya'll might want to pause and think really hard about where this thread is going.
We've been down this slippery slope before. Recently.
-
quickly turning the ship back on course...
I'm interested in how you would define "Free Will" and "fate" such that they are not mutually exclusive without including that in the definitions.
The same way I've defined it in previous posts.
Free will of an individual is when that person makes a choice - whether it is to stay home or go to work, answer this post or not. Even deciding that there is no Free Will, by my definition, is free will.
I submit that there is a difference between "deciding" something and "recognizing" something. I could recognize that I lack free will, just as I would recognize that the screen is gray.
It doesn't matter to the definition if someone else already knows what you will decide.
Each definition on it's own is allowable, just not taken together.
It's no different than "an immovable object" vs "an irresistible force" or a "universal solvent" vs an "indestructible substance."
-
Recently we implemented forums on our website (http://www.11alive.com (http://www.11alive.com)). Being in the Bible Belt, there's a lot of religious people here. Interestingly, and SFEley may be able to shed more light on this, the farther you get from the exact center of Atlanta the more religious people are, at least within the Georgia boundaries.
If you skim through some of the forum entries about news where someone died or a crime was committed, you see a lot of eye-for-an-eye commentary and a lot of posts along the lines of "Jesus loves you, (fill in deceased person's name here), and God has a plan".
That whole setup was just so I could get to this point, which I just thought of after moderating about 200 posts on our forums and then reading this thread:
The people who believe most fervently in their religion -- usually, but not always, Christianity, at least in my experience -- are the most likely to say "God has a plan". But the more stringently one follows Christian beliefs, the more one should believe in the literal tenets of that faith. The being Christians call God endowed humanity with free will. But they don't want to accept that things aren't happening because they chose them to happen; they'd prefer to believe that the being they call God is guiding them on their path.
I don't think it's possible to have it both ways.
"I don't care what you believe. Just believe." -Shepherd Book
-
quickly turning the ship back on course...
hard a port, bearing 270
I submit that there is a difference between "deciding" something and "recognizing" something. I could recognize that I lack free will, just as I would recognize that the screen is gray.
I could recognize the screen is gray and decide to call it white. This is starting to become an argeument more along the lines of Perception versus Absolute Truth (see below). I say if you freely decide things, you have free will - the end. If God has the Big Book of Everything and my entire family tree is in there from ape to space faring colonist, it make not a whit of difference to my free will/decision making self.
If I have a universal solvent, by definition, it's a universal solvent until I find something that it can't dissolve. There is little point worrying about the stuff it can't dissolve until we find some. I'm not going to worry about Aliens planting thoughts/decisions into my mind until there's some proof of it happening,
In the arguement of Perception versus Absolute Truth, I strongly feel that there is no Absolute Truth - outside of our own senses we have no idea what goes on in the world - therefore everything is perception. When a colour-blind guy and I can see the same colour sky then you can start talking Absolute Truth.
-
In the arguement of Perception versus Absolute Truth, I strongly feel that there is no Absolute Truth - outside of our own senses we have no idea what goes on in the world - therefore everything is perception. When a colour-blind guy and I can see the same colour sky then you can start talking Absolute Truth.
If there's no Absolute Truth, then what are you and the color-blind guy percieving? Perception requires some input, correct?
"Blue" is just a description of the sky, not the sky itself.
-
Z minus 10000 meters.
quickly turning the ship back on course...
hard a port, bearing 270
I submit that there is a difference between "deciding" something and "recognizing" something. I could recognize that I lack free will, just as I would recognize that the screen is gray.
I could recognize the screen is gray and decide to call it white.
Yes, you could, the point being that you know the difference.
[/quote]
I say if you freely decide things, you have free will - the end.
[/quote]
I can go with that.
If God has the Big Book of Everything and my entire family tree is in there from ape to space faring colonist, it make not a whit of difference to my free will/decision making self.
so it's not the end? :P
If I have a universal solvent, by definition, it's a universal solvent until I find something that it can't dissolve. There is little point worrying about the stuff it can't dissolve until we find some.
The difference between "dissolves everything that we know of" and "dissolves everything" is the same as the difference between "knows all that is knowable" and "knows everything"
In the arguement of Perception versus Absolute Truth, I strongly feel that there is no Absolute Truth - outside of our own senses we have no idea what goes on in the world - therefore everything is perception. When a colour-blind guy and I can see the same colour sky then you can start talking Absolute Truth.
Well, I'll admit that I've never gotten into a debate about Perception versus Absolute Truth but my immediate thought is "how can someone who believes in an all knowing/infallible God NOT believe in an Absolute Truth, since anything God knew would be true (by definition) and therefore be absolute?"
-
Anybody seen "Minority Report?" It gives a very interesting treatment to this topic. (And it's really cool.)
-
Cap'n someone's taken ahold of the wheel ag'in
If there's no Absolute Truth, then what are you and the color-blind guy percieving? Perception requires some input, correct?
Let's make sure we've got our definitions right.
Absolute Truth is something that is true for me, you, the cat, a tree, etc.
As for inputs, there are Physical Truths - the colour of the sky, gravity, pretty much all the hard science facts that we know. But we have no idea that this Truths/Rules are the same everywhere.
Can an Absolute Truth change, is it conditional? What about the sky and blind people?
-
I don't think this really off-topic: If there is no single, absolute truth, then this whole topic is kind of meaningless. If everybody doesn't live in the same Reality, then it's silly to even discuss what Reality is like, since we'll each have our own equally-valid version: I could say something like "You might have free will, but my life is predestined."
The sky is not blue because people call it "blue." It is what it is. "Blue" is just an arbitrary label to describe what we see. A blind man will not have a name for it; the word "blue" means nothing to him, but his lack of a name does not change the sky itself. The sky is the same color no matter who is or is not looking at it at any given time.
-
So many threads, so little time:
The difference between "dissolves everything that we know of" and "dissolves everything" is the same as the difference between "knows all that is knowable" and "knows everything"
Yes, we agree.
Well, I'll admit that I've never gotten into a debate about Perception versus Absolute Truth but my immediate thought is "how can someone who believes in an all knowing/infallible God NOT believe in an Absolute Truth, since anything God knew would be true (by definition) and therefore be absolute?"
This is getting blurry because of a lack of definition. We still haven't defined what we mean by Absolute Truth. And for the record, I'm a spiritual agnostic - I don't believe in the Christian-Judea-Muslim All Father type.
If there is no single, absolute truth, then this whole topic is kind of meaningless
It all depends on your perception ;)
It's already obvious that everyone perceives the world differently. The question is, are their any Truths that remain unchanged Absolutely. We have formulas that express how objects react (gravity from mass, phase changes in water, visible light spectrums, etc) but we also see that Newtonian physics doesn't work in Einsteinian space or at the quantam level, so they are not Absolute either.
So, yes, the sky is blue even if you close your eyes, unless you are travelling at near light speed :P
-
Ah you beat me to it...
I'll still offer my version:
"If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."
LOL
I have two friends I need to send that to.
-
I don't think this really off-topic: If there is no single, absolute truth, then this whole topic is kind of meaningless.
A couple of years ago, I had an email debate with one of my atheist friends and in the argument, I was on the side I suspect you would be on. I tried to explain to him that if he denied the existence of God, then he was denying the existence of an absolute definition of Good and Evil because, without an absolute being to create these definitions, there can be no "absolute" to it. Everything was relative because it would be a matter of perception. He was unwilling to accept that, but also unable to come up with any kind of counter argument.
-
He was unwilling to accept that, but also unable to come up with any kind of counter argument.
he should read parts of the Tolerance thread. Specifically the parts around the Darleks ;)
-
The sky is not blue because people call it "blue." It is what it is. "Blue" is just an arbitrary label to describe what we see. A blind man will not have a name for it; the word "blue" means nothing to him, but his lack of a name does not change the sky itself. The sky is the same color no matter who is or is not looking at it at any given time.
But see, that color (blue, green, whatever) has no meaning to our hypothetical blind man. You saying that the sky is blue--or even, that there is a sky at all--has no use to him. Because it is outside his perception it is useless to him. It may comfort him if you say it's there, it may annoy him, but he does not have any use for it in his practical life.
Likewise, if an almighty being exists, and if it has a plan for everything, and if that plan is outside our comphrension--and why wouldn't it be? This is plan involving every living thing on every planet in the entire universe, after all--it has as much relevence to our lives as the color of the sky to blind man. Whether it's there or not is irrelevent. It cannot possibly affect our conscious decision-making as we go through our lives, becuase it is beyond our comphrension. We can look at it after the fact, say a car accident is part of "god's plan" the same way a blind man says the water hitting his head is rain. But it could just as easily be water spilling off a roof.
I tried to explain to him that if he denied the existence of God, then he was denying the existence of an absolute definition of Good and Evil because, without an absolute being to create these definitions, there can be no "absolute" to it. Everything was relative because it would be a matter of perception.
Naturally. Nature has no absolutes, so why should we believe there are any?
-
Nature has no absolutes? How about e=mc2? I'm not sure what you mean: It seems to me that the whole "science" thing is all about discovering the absolutes in nature.
The plan of God is interesting because you can decide to opt out of it. It's like a train you can jump on, or not. Do as you please, the train goes on regardless. The fact that humans cannot comprehend the whole plan is unimportant: I do my job here at the newspaper without knowing all the details of how the paper is run. I understand how to do my part here in advertising; it isn't my job to worry about what they're doing downstairs in the newsroom or across the hall in marketing.
It wouldn't do me any good to understand the whole Plan of God. I've only got a little part to play, and knowing everything would not help me play my part any better, even if I were able to understand it all.
-
Nature has no absolutes? How about e=mc2? I'm not sure what you mean: It seems to me that the whole "science" thing is all about discovering the absolutes in nature.
Well, this is science, and all evidence shows that e=mc2 or something very close, there's some internal debate in the physics community that the 2 might be a little off, but I haven't seen it published/widely publicized. And if tomorrow some experiment comes along that shows definitively that instead of the speed of light you need the gravitational constant, well, that's ok. Or if it's a 2.5 or 1.5 or 300. It changes, and science continues on. Everything is based on observations, and if a new observation comes it that chucks a theory out the window, well, it's expected.
In religion, if something is proved to be wrong... Well, the initial reaction has been fairly uniformly to deny whatever is proving something wrong and keep going with that something.
That is what is meant by absolutes. Religion has thought A, and if a thought B is right-er and contradicts A, than B is thrown/suppressed/burned/censored instead of A changing. In science, no A is above being supplanted by a B if B is right. If gravity is indisputably found to be caused by invisible greenish aliens holding us down by our feet, well, goodbye theory of gravity.
If someone goes back in time, proves that there was no immaculate conception by showing Mary sleeping with a shepherd (and then DNA testing Jesus against that shepherd), I doubt the Catholic Church (or any other) is going to accept that prima facie. In any time before ours they'd be suppressing it with a great deal of speed and ability. These days they would have a lot more trouble doing that.
Science has laws. They can be disproven. They are not absolute. They are not above question. Same goes, even moreso, for theories.
-
Saddly, your criticism of religion is apt, generally speaking. I wish it weren't. There are many exceptions to that rule, though, even if we have not been the historical majority.
But I would extend your criticism out to belief in general, not just those beliefs classified as religious. People are very, very reluctant to give up ideas that they have believed for a long time, espcecially when those ideas are a source of pride or identity for them. Often, abandoning an idea means admitting that you, your friends and you ancestors have all been badly mistaken, and thay you've been teaching you own children a lot of nonsense. That's a tough pill to swallow and many decline to do so, no matter how demonstrably wrong they might be.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with me about absolutes in nature. You examples actually show that there are absolutes, because our theories have to change to accomodate them. Reality is concrete and our explanation of it must adapt to meet the facts. That is what science is all about. Science is about pruning and refining belief so that belief matches truth. Religion is (regretably and avoidably) often used as an excuse to believe in spite of truth.
-
First, id like to say... YAY this thread is alive again!!! I like this thread!
and second,
Religion is (regretably and avoidably) often used as an excuse to believe in spite of truth.
which is one reason why i've opted out of religion. I'll find my own truth if i want to, and i dont need anyone telling me what to believe. I believe in God, but ill do it in my own way.
Nature has no absolutes? How about e=mc2? I'm not sure what you mean: It seems to me that the whole "science" thing is all about discovering the absolutes in nature.
but see, as sure of ourselves that that is true, we cannot ever know for certain. there are allways [at least] 2 perspectives to everything. Who knows, some alien species in some distant galaxy might think of energy differently than we do, and they might be just as right or just as wrong as we are. we'll probably never know.
-
Wow, I could go so many places with that. Um...
I have heard it argued that because we cannot perfectly perceive or know reality, it means there is no reality; because our descriptions of reality must necessarily be approximations, it shows that there is nothing concrete behind them. This is counter-logical. Rather, I see our inability to perfectly understand as proof that things do have objective, absolute existence.
Take the example of physics: There are absolute Natural Laws which guide the movements of celestial objects. We used to not have any idea what those Laws were. Then Newton came along and gave us a very good approximation, an approximation so good that 's it's still all we need most of the time. Then Einstein came up with a better theory that more accurately described the Law, and for a while we thought it was a perfect description. Now Heradel tells us that Einstein's perfection is in doubt and we might eventually get a new theory that is even better.
In this process, we see theories advancing, getting better with time. This progress is an advance toward understanding the Law which has always been there, acting, keeping the universe working long before anyone thought to look for it. The Law is absolute and objective. The fact that our theories change over time is evidence of this. If the Law were not absolute, we would have nothing to advance towards; there would be no criteria by which to classify one theory as superior to another.
If we could describe reality perfectly, that would be an indication that is was mutable. If we could simply make up our own laws, then every description would be perfectly accurate and every theory would be totally true. Our inability to pin nature down shows that it is real, and this it true (it seems to me) of all things. Things which are made-up we can understand. Things which are real are always just a little beyond our grasp. I don't completely understand my wife, and I never will: That's part of the fun. Perpetual discovery, always learning more but never quite getting everything.
As an outgrowth from that idea, I say the notion of finding one's own truth about God is not credible. If God actually exists–if God is real–then there are facts about Him just like there are facts about the universe, and we are not free to just make up our own ideas, anymore than we are free to just make up our own ideas about how physics works. I exist. I go by "Mr. Tweedy," but there's a real Josh Hugo sitting here, typing this stuff. Because I am real, you can't just make up your own conception of me: You have to deal with the facts of my existence or else be wrong, incorrect and mistaken. God is no different. If He is real, then you've got to deal with Him as He is.
The only way we are free to make up our own truth about God if we first posit that God does not actually exist. If God is a fictional character, just an imaginary friend, then of course we can make anything we want, because there isn't any Fact to measure our fancy against. If God is real, then our freedom to do this disappears.
I hold that there are only two credible options when it comes to God: We can say He exists, in which case it is our job to learn about Him. Or we can say he does not exist, in which case there is nothing to learn and we are free to make up whatever idea tickles our fancy. I don't see any logical room for a middle ground, one that says "I believe in God but I will make up my own idea of Him." That's like saying "I believe that Josh Hugo exists, but I believe he is a telepathic purple octopus." Sorry, that's wrong: I'm nothing so exotic or interesting. The only way you can say I am a purple octopus is you deny that I have any real existence. If you accept that I exist, you've got to deal me as I am.
-
I don't see any logical room for a middle ground, one that says "I believe in God but I will make up my own idea of Him."
umm isnt that the ENTIRE basis on EVERY theistic religion? Their own interpretations of God? To say that means your saying that only your religion is right and everyone else is plain wrong and thats all there is to it. Who knows, maybe your religion IS right, but maybe its wrong. But it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. The central idea is the same: there is a God/are gods. From there it will branch out depending on the religion.
-
Things which are real are always just a little beyond our grasp...
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but on it's face this is ridiculous. What do you mean by real, what level of understanding are you meaning? What do I have to know about my tablecloth to understand it?
That's like saying "I believe that Josh Hugo exists, but I believe he is a telepathic purple octopus." Sorry, that's wrong: I'm nothing so exotic or interesting. The only way you can say I am a purple octopus is you deny that I have any real existence. If you accept that I exist, you've got to deal me as I am.
Sure, but what about me believing that Josh Hugo is a white guy who likes comic books and goes to church every Sunday? Probably not 100% true, but close enough that it would be very hard to convince me otherwise.
How can I tell the difference btwn what I "Know" to be true, and what I have learned incorrectly. This is exactly why I will never follow an organized religion - too many people are sure they Know God - and turn out to be hypocritical lying jerks (just check the news). Why spend time "trying to get to know Him"? Just live your life, follow the rules as best you can and let others do the same.
-
For the people who are not members of organized religions but still believe in God, why do you believe in God?
This is not intended to be pejorative, I really want to know.
-
If God actually exists–if God is real–then there are facts about Him just like there are facts about the universe, and we are not free to just make up our own ideas
If one grants this, then one would expect there to be concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about God, in the same way that one uses concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about nature.
Which is to say: if God existed, and existed in the same way as physical law, then he would be researchable.
There is no evidence that such a god or gods exist; there is no evidence that any god or gods exerts influence on the universe in the ways claimed by religion. (Frex: prayer does not work more than placebo.)
So, if you're going to say that God can be known in teh same ways as scientific knowing, then you end up binding God within that paradigm of knowledge. Within that paradigm of knowledge, your position as a theist is extremely tenuous, unless you worship the non-interventionist watchmaker version of god.
You're better off arguing from faith sans scientific metaphors.
-
Once again I find myself seemingly alone in disagreement with everyone, which is cool: I'm used to that, but it makes the logistics difficult. I'm going to pick slic's post to respond to because I like his references to comic books and tablecloths. I own neither of these items, so they strike me as slightly exotic :)
Things which are real are always just a little beyond our grasp...
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but on it's face this is ridiculous. What do you mean by real, what level of understanding are you meaning? What do I have to know about my tablecloth to understand it?
I simply mean that we can't know everything. I think it's what Carl Sagan means when he talks about the "wonder" of the universe. There is always more to find out, and that's a big part of what makes the universe so cool. We are blessed with infinite potential for growth and discovery: You can keep learning, every day, for the entire 80+ years of your life and never run out of material.
Take your tablecloth for exmample. You can take it as merely functional, and that's fine, but you if take the innitiative to really study your tablecloth, myriad paths of learning unfold. You can go from there out into ecconomics and trade: How did my tablecloth get here? History: Who first used these? How have they evolved over the centuries? Textiles: What is this made of and how? Physics: Why does this weave hold together? Etc. Every topic, even one so mundane as a tablecloth, offers great depth, if one exerts themselves to learn about it.
God is like this also: I never expect to know everything about God, and I think anyone who claims to know everything about God is fooling themselves quite baddly. But that isn't the same as saying that I know nothing about God. I do know something, and I expect to continue learning more, forever.
Sure, but what about me believing that Josh Hugo is a white guy who likes comic books and goes to church every Sunday? Probably not 100% true, but close enough that it would be very hard to convince me otherwise.
How can I tell the difference btwn what I "Know" to be true, and what I have learned incorrectly. This is exactly why I will never follow an organized religion - too many people are sure they Know God - and turn out to be hypocritical lying jerks (just check the news). Why spend time "trying to get to know Him"? Just live your life, follow the rules as best you can and let others do the same.
You can assume that I'm a white church-goer who likes comic books. That's fine, as long as you keep in mind that your assumptions are just that. Keep a distinction in mind between what you know about me (which is simply that I have published certain statements on the web) and what you speculate. If you really want to know me better, you can take steps to do so, or you can decline to take those steps and not know. But you can't just make up stuff about me and pretend like it's true. That, I think, is the fault many of your see in "organized religion": You're expeceted to swallow a bunch of made-up stuff and not question it.
Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up. Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system? Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference? (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)
If God actually exists–if God is real–then there are facts about Him just like there are facts about the universe, and we are not free to just make up our own ideas
If one grants this, then one would expect there to be concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about God, in the same way that one uses concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about nature.
Which is to say: if God existed, and existed in the same way as physical law, then he would be researchable.
There is no evidence that such a god or gods exist; there is no evidence that any god or gods exerts influence on the universe in the ways claimed by religion. (Frex: prayer does not work more than placebo.)
So, if you're going to say that God can be known in teh same ways as scientific knowing, then you end up binding God within that paradigm of knowledge. Within that paradigm of knowledge, your position as a theist is extremely tenuous, unless you worship the non-interventionist watchmaker version of god.
You're better off arguing from faith sans scientific metaphors.
And as to that, I'll simply have have to say I disagree. I see ample evidence of God, in all spheres of my experience, and I think He has provided us with the means to do a little research, should we be so inclined. You deny my evidence and my sources of information, and so we are are at a simple impasse.
-
For the people who are not members of organized religions but still believe in God, why do you believe in God?
I believe in God because I feel It in the world around me. I don't know what it is I feel, but I do - always - have a sense of overall greatness that I can't quite grasp but that I can't ever get away from (not that I'd want to). The sense of scale that tells me, both how tiny I, and everything in my perception, is compared to the universe, and at time how significant every little thing is. Since there is so much and all of it is important, then for me the only way to conceptualize that is by naming it something, and God is as good a name as any.
I do not belong to any organized religion because I am unwilling to take the next step and ascribe motives and actions or values to God. Religions are a way to reduce God into everyday terms we can handle. I have no need to handle God, I just know It is there.
I don't know if this is a helpful response, but it is the only one I can give. Religious people, like Mr Tweedy above, have the ability to say things like "[God] has provided us with the means to do a little research, should we be so inclined" - that makes no sense to me, because for me there is nothing that is *not* evidence of God, and as such research is meaningless; God is not something I am capable of questioning, nor do I have any desire to do so. And at the same time, I don't have any desire to convince anyone else of the correctness of this - how you respond to your experience of the universe is your business, not mine. If you can feel the same things I do and choose to name them something else, that doesn't matter. If you truely can't feel the same, then I don't know why, nor do I particularly care - even if I am totally deluded about the nature of the universe, I don't see how I can change that without becoming a totally different person, and I like being me.
-
Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up. Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system? Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference? (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)
How is my fabricated system baseless? You have no idea what I am basing my beliefs in. How is it you know so certainly that the 2000 year old dead guy isn't full of balony?
This is where we will forever disagree because from my perspective you may very well have swallowed a bunch of made-up stuff. The very definition of Faith is that you don't question it - in fact, I'd go so far as to say that Proof negates Faith. I don't have Faith in gravity working, it just does. I don't worry that gravity has foresaken me as I jump into the air.
-
Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up. Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system? Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference? (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)
How is my fabricated system baseless? You have no idea what I am basing my beliefs in. How is it you know so certainly that the 2000 year old dead guy isn't full of balony?
This is where we will forever disagree because from my perspective you may very well have swallowed a bunch of made-up stuff. The very definition of Faith is that you don't question it - in fact, I'd go so far as to say that Proof negates Faith. I don't have Faith in gravity working, it just does. I don't worry that gravity has foresaken me as I jump into the air.
I do not presume to know whether or not your beliefs are baseless. I was making a general statement. Sorry if it sounded like a criticism of you specifically, because I didn't mean for it to be.
I was criticizing the idea that making up your own ideas is somehow better than accepting someone else's made-up ideas. Unless you are appealing to an absolute Truth and saying "my ideas are right," then you're just adding your own fantasy to the already heaping pile of fantasies, and I don't see any point in that. If there's no Truth to be known, then making up your own ideas is not better or different than swallowing someone else's.
As to faith, I'd say you're 180 degrees wrong; at least, your description of faith and my understanding of faith bear no relation to each other. I don't remember where, but I once read the statement, "Faith, by definition, is impervious to fact." I remember thinking, "Wow, this writer doesn't get it."
I understand faith in the sense of being faithful, like a faithful spouse or a faithful dog or the Marine slogan, "semper fidelis." It means you stick with something through thick and thin. It means loyalty. Anyone's who read many of my posts probably knows by now that I think C.S. Lewis was just about the smartest guy who ever lived. I can't improve on the way he put it so: "I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us."
And that definition goes right in line with what I see in the Bible. I am never asked, by God or anyone, to put my mind aside and believe something that I know to be untrue. No one in the Bible is ever asked to believe something in spite of the evidence. What you do see is persistent demands for people to stick with what they know to be true and not dump out the moment things get rough.
It can be very difficult to retain an unpopular belief, in anything, not just in religion. It's easy to go with the flow and believe what is convenient or expedient at the time. It's hard to be steadfast and continue to believe in what you are convinced is true in the face of opposition. I think that's what faith is about. Faith is not credulity combined with stubbornness. Faith is faithfulness.
-
I was criticizing the idea that making up your own ideas is somehow better than accepting someone else's made-up ideas. Unless you are appealing to an absolute Truth and saying "my ideas are right," then you're just adding your own fantasy to the already heaping pile of fantasies, and I don't see any point in that. If there's no Truth to be known, then making up your own ideas is not better or different than swallowing someone else's.
True enough.
But the question remains - you and I (for a conrete example) both believe different things. Both of us, in this thread, have appealed to an absolute truth. I happen to think that what you think is an absolute truth is wrong. Which means you must think the same about me (since otherwise you'd have to share the belief that you are wrong). However, your belief, at least from what I can gather from this thread and others on these forums, is one that is shared by others and has an established history, while mine does not, or at least I'm not aware that it is. Yet, still, I maintain that I am right, in the absolute sense. And I am not just making a rethorical point, I truely believe this, with the sort of faith you describe so well in the rest of your post.
So, what now? We can't both be right, so (at least) one of us must have a mistaken notion of what is an absolute truth. Obviously, my ideas are not preferrable *because* they are not part of an organized religion. But the point I think slic is trying to make - is that just because yours *is*, that doesn't make it more likely to be the right one. I don't know whether or not you disagree with this, actually - you and slic, at least, seem to be arguing somewhat at cross-purposes, or at least that's what it looks like to me from reading the thread.
-
Looking up Faith at dictionary.com yields (among others, including loyalty)
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
In other words, faith means believing something even when there is no evidence to support it. I think the problem is that people take that a step too far and continue to believe something despite all evidence to disprove it. If they don't like the evidence, they either ignore it or discount it.
And that definition goes right in line with what I see in the Bible. I am never asked, by God or anyone, to put my mind aside and believe something that I know to be untrue. No one in the Bible is ever asked to believe something in spite of the evidence. What you do see is persistent demands for people to stick with what they know to be true and not dump out the moment things get rough.
but people are asked to believe in things that are in the Bible, in spite of the evidence. They are also told to believe things that may not be in the bible, but are would have to be true if what the bible says is true. For example, they just opened a creationist museum not too far from where I live, where, apparently, the guides think that T-Rexes ate coconuts.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts?page=5
-
Ah! Sweet refreshment! Finally, someone understands the point I am trying to make. Thanks, eytanz!
I agree with you totally: The fact that a belief is popular or old does not make it more likely to be true. It has to stand on its own merits in the here and now.
So, we disagree, but we both, at least, agree that there is an Answer to be found. We now have solid ground on which to discourse. We can talk to each other. Where do we go from here? We talk. We reason. We learn. It might take a long time, but that's okay, because the journey is rewarding.
I don't want to start that journey here: My point here was that we need to agree that there is an Answer before we try to find out what it is, and, at last, someone seems to get what I'm talking about.
-
For example, they just opened a creationist museum not too far from where I live, where, apparently, the guides think that T-Rexes ate coconuts.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts?page=5
Ouch. That's a bit embarrassing. :(
I, for one, am confident that T-Rex ate overconfident paleonologists and lawyers. ;)
-
There is an evil part inside of me that really wants to go visit that museum, just for that laugh factor. :)
-
I waited too long and everyone pretty much made my answers for me - thanks eytanz and ClintMemo.
"I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us."
In response to Mr. Lewis' quote - it's a personal definition of cogent, so, clearly, you could believe whatever the heck you want. This is the arguement of supremicists who say - "I believe These People to be superior to These Others, and here are my documented reasons for believeing so. I will believe this until you can prove otherwise." Whether this is Catholic vs. Protestant, Jew vs Muslim, White vs Black, Yellow or Red.
I get the feeling you are a good person, who tries hard at do good things, so please don't take this the wrong way.
I really have trouble with people who blindly believe something so powerful. I fear what they might do in the sense of righteousness. I love the fact that you are happy that eytanz has an Answer, however the subtext is you can now more work to convince him how wrong he is.
On a previous thread you talked about the immorality of homosexual behaviour; you also mentioned how you we friendly and got along with gay people - that's great. But how little would it take for you to decide you shouldn't be friendly, then shouldn't even associate with them - that they shouldn't be in your neighbourhoods, etc. etc.
You've already decided their behaviour is immoral and after all you are Right - you have learned this from God.
It's the external validation/rationalization that I find disturbing. "I do whatever I do because of God, even though I'm pretty much interpreting /guessing as to what He wants based on some stuff some guys wrote down a long time ago. But I know I'm Right!"
Strangely enough, all this talk makes me believe more in the atheist's symbol of the invisible pink unicorn. How is it any less believable/realistic?
-
Two answers for slic:
What (I think) eytanz and I have is not a common belief but a common understanding what belief itself is. Because we understand what belief is, we have a platform to discuss which beliefs are right or wrong. And yes, I surely believe things that contradict with things he believes, but that doesn't mean the goal of discussion would be nothing other than to make the other guy say "uncle." If we are mature and honest, each of us should try to understand what the other believes. This understanding will allow us not only to criticize the beliefs of the other person, but to reflect upon and question our own. Even if we don't walk away having come to the same conclusions, we will have grown and learned from the experience, and have gained reason to respect each other. I can respect any honest person. Dishonesty I do not respect.
I would hope that he would come to my point of view and become a Christian: I want everyone to become a Christian. But I would still enjoy and learn from discussion and friendship, even if he never came around, and I would surely find that I had been mistaken about some things on my end. If nothing else, we would both understand our own beliefs better, and that is something of worth.
As to your specific question about homosexuality, one of the core tennants of my religion is that I, personally, am a sinner. If I decided to go evicting all the sinners on my block, I'd have to move out myself. I am no better than any sinner. I am saved by grace. For me to call for the eviction of the local gay couple would require that my religion be turned on its head, because I am instructed by Christ to love sinners, with the understanding that I am one myself.
I don't think anyone here gets what I mean by that: My religion is based around the idea that I am fallible. I am wrong. I am bad. I am a sinner. I, Josh Hugo, am personally prone to grevious error. That's why I need Jesus. Anyone who gets some sort of superiority complex out of Christianity has totally missed the point.
And that's why it shouldn't scare you, slic, that I appeal to an external source of Truth. By doing so, I am necessarily admitting that I don't know everything. If I did not appeal to something external, if I felt free to make up what whatever "truth" I saw fit, then that would be scary, because I'm not a good person, and I could make up some awful things.
-
I find it frustrating that you're telling Slic what should scare him.
-
For the people who are not members of organized religions but still believe in God, why do you believe in God?
Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God. There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that. When the evidence comes to not believe in God, we'll see then. Until then tho, I believe in God. I belive that God exists, I believe that God set the laws of physics and let nature run its course afterwards.
eytanz puts my other reasons quite perfectly!
I do not belong to any organized religion because I am unwilling to take the next step and ascribe motives and actions or values to God. Religions are a way to reduce God into everyday terms we can handle. I have no need to handle God, I just know It is there.
-----------------------
Once again I find myself seemingly alone in disagreement with everyone, which is cool: I'm used to that
haha awww its okay Mr. Tweedy
-----------------------
Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up. Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system? Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference? (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)
well opting out of a religious system because its baseless just to make your own baseless system is simply done because it will make that person more content with his/her beliefs. I could opt out of Judaism to believe that God is a rabid moose with bigfoot riding on its back if it helps me sleep better at night. The logic is simply to make you feel better about life. Tweedy, you belive in your religion in part because, im sure, it gives a sense of knowledge and security. Im not sayin thats the ONLY reason but im sure its part of it. It gives people something to latch on to, something to be backed up by. If someone like me disagrees with the religion, and feels better believing what they want to believe, then thats what they'll do. And whether I'm right, your right, or the guy who believes in the moose is right, doesnt really matter, because we dont know anything yet. (makes me think of the South Park episode where there are a bunch of people in heaven and the angels say "Im sorry people it turns out the Mormons were right this year, sorry" --not an exact quote-- and the Mormons go to heaven and everyone else is sent to hell... oh well...)
-
So, Mr. Tweedy (Josh), you are just reinforcing my belief that you are a good person, certainly the "let ye without sin cast the first stone" idea is part of your core belief - if only all "true believers" had your humility - I recall the "Life of Brian" bit where the same command was given only to have the poor fellow stoned before he could get out of the way.
But then Bdoomed, and forgive me for singling you out, goes and says the one thing that reinforces my fear - it a good thing for me that Bdoomed wasn't raised believing that Italians, or did I mean spics, are untrustworthy, lazy people who shouldn't be given any responsibility. Or rather that God didn't say that.
If I did not appeal to something external...
I commend you on your frankness, but I didn't argue that your belief system should be internal, just that it should be questioned. What bothers me is not that you believe that homosexuality is immoral, per se, it's that you believe it unconditionally, with blind faith, "to be steadfast and continue to believe in what you are convinced is true in the face of opposition".
-
But then Bdoomed, and forgive me for singling you out, goes and says the one thing that reinforces my fear - it a good thing for me that Bdoomed wasn't raised believing that Italians, or did I mean spics, are untrustworthy, lazy people who shouldn't be given any responsibility. Or rather that God didn't say that.
may i ask what you meen by this? you seem to be makin me out to be some sort of blind faith radical...?
But also, how do you know that Tweedy believes homosexuality is immoral with blind faith? Has he explicitly stated such or is it more of a supposition on your part? He could believe this based on the morals he was raised with. there are millions of reasons why he could believe it, not JUST because God says so but also maybe because he truly believes it. Sure i'm in disagreement with him on the subject, but i'm not about to accuse him of believing it with blind faith. everyone has their reasons....
-
But then Bdoomed, and forgive me for singling you out, goes and says the one thing that reinforces my fear - it a good thing for me that Bdoomed wasn't raised believing that Italians, or did I mean spics, are untrustworthy, lazy people who shouldn't be given any responsibility. Or rather that God didn't say that.
may i ask what you meen by this? you seem to be makin me out to be some sort of blind faith radical...?
In a recent post you wrote, "Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God.
There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that. When the evidence comes to not believe in God, we'll see then. Until then tho, I believe in God."
It is believing the default that frightens me.
Allow a minor substitution to make my point:
""Truthfully, I believe Green People are Inferior because I was raised believing Green People are Inferior , and I see no evidence that would make me not believe Green People are Inferior . There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that. When the evidence comes to not believe Green People are Inferior , we'll see then. Until then tho, I believe Green People are Inferior ."
Not too long ago many people around the world were raised believing Blacks were less than Whites, and they saw no evidence to disprove it. Is that blind faith? Well in this forum where semantics rule, and people have seemingly wildly different dictionaries, I can't say. But it is accurate to call it an unquestioned common belief.
Believing the default frightens me.
And when it comes to God - that scares me the most because there is no empirical evidence that I can provide you with to counter your arguement. Now, I don't mean to imply you are a Bible literalist or a "radical" of any sort. I haven't heard exactly what your belief in God entails. Or how what you family taught you, but I think it is a fair assumption that by calling Him God (and not Jehovah, Allah, Zeus or Odin) that you hold some belief in what the Bible says. And there are many things written in the Bible some that you may agree with and some that you may not.
But also, how do you know that Tweedy believes homosexuality is immoral with blind faith? Has he explicitly stated such or is it more of a supposition on your part?
I will try and track done the post on this forum and provide a link so you may draw your own conclusions, but as I recall, it was basically that homosexual acts are immoral because the Bible says so.
-
(In a part of Leviticus, which he's also said he doesn't follow.)
-
Not clear on what specifically palimpsest is quoting, but looking back at the Tolerant / Intolerant I can't find an explict statement (but man that thread is loooong). The closest is Mr. Tweedy's posting at http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=816.80
For the record, I'm not trying to slam anyone, just citing my source material.
-
I believe in God because I feel It in the world around me. I don't know what it is I feel, but I do - always - have a sense of overall greatness that I can't quite grasp but that I can't ever get away from (not that I'd want to). The sense of scale that tells me, both how tiny I, and everything in my perception, is compared to the universe, and at time how significant every little thing is. Since there is so much and all of it is important, then for me the only way to conceptualize that is by naming it something, and God is as good a name as any.
Is this different from feeling awe? If you took God out of the picture, would your feeling of awe be any different? Does your God have a consciousness?
Tweedy, what happens to people who have not accepted Christ when they die?
Others, do you believe in an afterlife?
Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God.
It's commendable that you are this honest with yourself. Respectfully, I think this is the wrong way to go about believing in something. Would you believe that there are Pizza Huts on Pluto until you see evidence of the contrary, even if you were raised that way?
-
I believe in God because I feel It in the world around me. I don't know what it is I feel, but I do - always - have a sense of overall greatness that I can't quite grasp but that I can't ever get away from (not that I'd want to). The sense of scale that tells me, both how tiny I, and everything in my perception, is compared to the universe, and at time how significant every little thing is. Since there is so much and all of it is important, then for me the only way to conceptualize that is by naming it something, and God is as good a name as any.
Is this different from feeling awe?
It's different, because it is an ever-present feeling. Awe is a reaction to a particular stimulus, and it lasts a short amount of time. This doesn't - it's always there, for me to tap into, no matter where I am or what I'm doing.
If you took God out of the picture, would your feeling of awe be any different?
I don't understand this question. How can I take God out of the picture? Go to your kitchen and pour a glass of water, and drink it. I can ask you what drinking the water is like, and you can answer me. But if I ask you "think back to when you were drinking the water, and take the hydrogen atoms out of the picture. What was your reaction to drinking the oxygen atoms that were in the glass?" I doubt you'll be able to come up with an answer.
Does your God have a consciousness?
I doubt it. Certainly not anything that resembles human consciousness. I cannot answer the question of what It *does* have, because I am human and have finite capacity to perceive and understand, and It is infinite.
Others, do you believe in an afterlife?
I don't. I find it a silly notion on the philosophical level, and a hugely disturbing on the sociological level.
-
It is believing the default that frightens me.
Allow a minor substitution to make my point:
""Truthfully, I believe Green People are Inferior because I was raised believing Green People are Inferior , and I see no evidence that would make me not believe Green People are Inferior . There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that. When the evidence comes to not believe Green People are Inferior , we'll see then. Until then tho, I believe Green People are Inferior ."
i see what you mean, but NEVER FEAR, my parents raised me well. But really I only apply the "see no reason to not believe" to God, nothing else. Im sure anyone can find PLEANTY of evidence showing that Italians aren't lazy good for nothings. Im talking about the completely intangible.
God is not a part of my daily life by ANY stretch of the imagination, but when someone asks me if i believe in God i say yes. (its also easier than saying no and having that person ask me what the hell is wrong with me)
Lately i've been debating the existence of god, just to myself. Not often of course because god is, again, not part of my daily life by ANY stretch of the imagination. ive been seeing less and less reason to believe in him/her/it. I mean, if god isnt an intricate part of my life, what is holding me back from not believing in him/her/it? It wont change anything about me whether or not i believe or not, and i guess i MOSTLY say i believe because i just dont know and dont care enough to find out, so why not take the easy way out of the convorsation and say yes. For those of you who DO feel god's presence, all the more power to you, but i dont see much reason in MY believing in god lately. its not really doing me a service or disservice. I could go on exactly the same without believing in God, but, at least to me, to think that life and everything happened purely by chance, and physics are physics because they are is kind of a stretch. I believe God set physics and let the rest happen.
And when it comes to God - that scares me the most because there is no empirical evidence that I can provide you with to counter your arguement. Now, I don't mean to imply you are a Bible literalist or a "radical" of any sort. I haven't heard exactly what your belief in God entails. Or how what you family taught you, but I think it is a fair assumption that by calling Him God (and not Jehovah, Allah, Zeus or Odin) that you hold some belief in what the Bible says. And there are many things written in the Bible some that you may agree with and some that you may not.
raised Jewish, so i guess youd say Torah rather than Bible, but i use "God" because its a conveniant term to get my point across. Yahweh, Adonai, Lord, etc... i dont care. For all i know his name is Jim.
never read the Bible, maybe i should just too see what everyone else is thinking... but i'd probably get incredibly bored with it FAR too quickly. Its probably also very similar to the torah... but i dont know.
I also dont believe most things said in the Torah. I can wrap my head around the Jews fleeing Egypt, but i'm assuming it was coincidence that brought the plagues. i dont believe anyone ever talked to a burning bush. Unless they were on some kind of hallucinogen. I also bet im pissing a LOT of people off by saying this stuff, i dont know, its just my beliefs (or lack thereof)
I'm more of a scientific explanation guy. I enjoyed the History Channel's explanation for the parting of the Sea of Reeds.
But also, how do you know that Tweedy believes homosexuality is immoral with blind faith? Has he explicitly stated such or is it more of a supposition on your part?
I will try and track done the post on this forum and provide a link so you may draw your own conclusions, but as I recall, it was basically that homosexual acts are immoral because the Bible says so.
alright, as long as you are basing your statement on something *semi* concrete
Tweedy, what happens to people who have not accepted Christ when they die?
Dont start this. Just dont.
Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God.
It's commendable that you are this honest with yourself. Respectfully, I think this is the wrong way to go about believing in something. Would you believe that there are Pizza Huts on Pluto until you see evidence of the contrary, even if you were raised that way?
just makin sure ya know i addressed this, i said it earlier on. I only apply this to god, i cant say i have the same ideas for anything else.'
and as to the afterlife part, i really dont know. I think its a great way to get people to be nice and not simply go around filling their own selfish needs, but after that it just seems far fetched. But contrastly, the idea of nothing is way too hard to grasp. Try to imagine not feeling, thinking, ANYTHING... you cant. Its completely impossible to imagine what death will be like, because you will never actually experiance being dead, that is unless there is an afterlife. Id LOVE to believe that there is an afterlife, and that I will go to heaven or whatever youd want to call it, but i dont really think so.
-
(In a part of Leviticus, which he's also said he doesn't follow.)
Actually, it's in lots of places. Romans 1 (toward the end) is another example. As for "following" Leviticus, I believe that Leviticus is true, that is, it's statements are accurate; it is a valid source of information about God and about history. But there is no mandate for Christians to obey the laws written there. I don't go outside my camp and dig a hole to crap in, but I appreciate that God told the people then to do that, and appreciating that tells me something about God.
-
So either God is not omniscient and has learned tolerance along with the rest of us, or you're fine with a
God that's homophobic?
-
So either God is not omniscient and has learned tolerance along with the rest of us, or you're fine with a
God that's homophobic?
Hey now, that belongs on the Tolerance/Intolerance thread - this is Predestination thread man ;)
-
So either God is not omniscient and has learned tolerance along with the rest of us, or you're fine with a
God that's homophobic?
Ha! That's a strange way of putting it. I'm fine with God being whatever God is. It's not up to me tell God what things are sins and what aren't. He wouldn't be God if I got to pick and choose his qualities.
God says that all sex that is not between husband and wife is immoral, and, yes, I'm perfectly fine with that. But I don't want to talk about sex anymore. It's a big digression from the main topic.
-
Thank you Tweedy for not picking that up, lets not go into that topic. Cant we just agree to disagree?
-
Look, the prohibition in Leviticus against gay sex is teh only place where such prohibition exists in the bible. It exists alongside the prohibition against wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish.
In valuing one and not the other, you are being hypocritical.
-
And no, bdoomed, not really. Why would a conversation about the ... frighteningness of religious belief leave out two of the ways in which Christianity is most frightening: its theology of hellfire, and its repeated historicla willingness to endorse bigotry (though the current conversation focuses on homosexuality, let us not ignore the endorsement of slavery via Biblical text, the spanish inquisition, the witch hunts).
Its disingenuous to begin a conversation like this, asking someone to justify his religious beliefs, and then to bar some of those justifications from the conversation.
I think there are only two reasonable moderation options from here: 1) a conversation which doesn't cut off the streams of thought which are controversial (as a conversation that restricts any arguments about Christianity's historical faults will, perforce, make it less viable to justify a position opposiing organized religion -- basically, it biases the conversation in favor of one result), or 2) acknowledge that the conversation includes topics which the moderator does not want on the board, and close it down.
-
Palimpsest, I really don't want to go there. I was enjoying the discussion about epistimology, and I don't want to get sucked into the fight that you're trying bait me into. I'll respond to you here, briefly, and then I'm not going to mention homosexuality again: That's not what this thread is about.
Leviticus is most certainly not the only place in the Bible homosexuality is metioned as being bad: Sorry, you're wrong. If you think it is, it can only be because you haven't read much of the Bible and don't know what you're talking about. Read Romans 1. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. There are other explicit mentions too, and lots where the idea is implicit.
Your charge of hypocrisy again rises from ignorance: Christians are not bound by Old Testament law, whether that law concerns sex, slaves or shellfish. The OT is history, as every Christian I have ever spoken with understands.
Finally: Yes people have done really, really evil things in the name of Christ. I would make no effort to deny that the Bible has been maliciously misused in the past: I'm as appalled as you are. As I've mentioned before, every belief system has been explioted for evil, atheism most deffinately included. I'm not trying to defend every idiot who ever waved a cross over his head. Jesus himself said that lots of phony, bad people would come along claiming to be Christians who weren't, and He was right. Everyone thinks the Inquisition was bad, and your trying to associate it with my beliefs makes exactly as much sense as me associating you with Chairman Mao simply because he was an atheist.
If we're going to have a reasonable discussion/debate, we can't slip to the low level of insult that you seem to be aiming at. Please consider my ideas on their merits instead of trying to dismiss me as a witch-burner, and I'll consider yours on their merits without dismissing you as a Stalinist.
Please stop trying to pick fights with me now. I'm not interested.
-
If I did not appeal to something external...
I commend you on your frankness, but I didn't argue that your belief system should be internal, just that it should be questioned. What bothers me is not that you believe that homosexuality is immoral, per se, it's that you believe it unconditionally, with blind faith, "to be steadfast and continue to believe in what you are convinced is true in the face of opposition".
Okay, I think this is getting someplace, slic, and I totally see your point and agree with you. One of my personal motos is "question everything," and I do, and I think everyone should.
What is scary to all of us is, I think, closed-mindedness. I define that as the unwillingness to consider new evidence. When someone's mind is closed, evidence bounces off their skull unheard and unconsidered. Going back to Lewis's definition of faith, a closed-minded person is one who proactively labels any contrary opinion as non-cogent without bothering to consider it. That's scary. That's dangerous. But it doesn't take being religious to be closed-minded. People can be (and are) closed-minded on any number of issues. You don't have to think you ideas are from God in order to hold to them unreasonably.
As an aside, I recommend everybody to read "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Although I don't agree with every last line in it, it's a great book about reasonable and unreasonable belief. Very thought-provoking.
-
In valuing one and not the other, you are being hypocritical.
In palimpsest's defence, it's also unclear to me (and most non-Christians, I believe) how it is that parts of the Bible have different merit.
First there is the difference btwn Old and New Testament - and from what Mr. Tweedy says, it's all the word of God, but no one takes the Old Testament seriously? Did I get that right? And if I did, I can give some personal, fairly recent examples of the opposite of this.
And then what about the "Deuterocanonical" Books?
And, as I understand it, beyond the different versions (King James', etc), Protestants and Catholics have some very different versions from each other.
The one trouble I have with Mr. Tweedy when he talks of Christians, is that the group is so very very large.
So I don't think it's entirely unfair to ask that you clarify what parts you hold close to your heart. From your confirmation of faith, I would have though it was all consider literal to you - I was surprised when you said the the OT is considered history.
And I didn't see that she was linking your personal belief to the Spanish Inquisition or the justification of Slavery - just that others had used passages of the Bible to justify their belief, and I extrapolate from that, the idea of knowing what passages you use.
I'm not arguing your belief, I'm just trying to understand how you manage what appear to me as contradictions of "do onto others" and "homos shouldn't marry because"
I'm just hoping for see how you came to your interpretations - "...and lots where the idea is implicit." This is what I'm interested in, and I really hope to not offend. I appreciate the candor and the openness.
Okay, I think this is getting someplace, slic, and I totally see your point and agree with you. One of my personal motos is "question everything," and I do, and I think everyone should.
Now this is where you continue to prove to me that we could easily get along. While I agree that many people are closed minded about many things, I will point out that I find that most people are the most closed-minded about their religion. And that my understanding/def'n of Faith plays a large part in that.
-
In valuing one and not the other, you are being hypocritical.
In palimpsest's defence, it's also unclear to me (and most non-Christians, I believe) how it is that parts of the Bible have different merit.
First there is the difference btwn Old and New Testament - and from what Mr. Tweedy says, it's all the word of God, but no one takes the Old Testament seriously? Did I get that right? And if I did, I can give some personal, fairly recent examples of the opposite of this.
And then what about the "Deuterocanonical" Books?
I'm not a Christian, but I have close friends who are and we've discussed this in the past, and I have also taken a course in Christian theology back in college (it was that or Jewish theology and, growing up in Israel, at least Christianity had the benefit of being exotic). So let me try answering this: Basically, take the names "the *new* testament" and "the *old* testament" seriously. The testaments were basically contracts between humanity and God. While it's not entirely clear to me what Christian think the first one was for, it is clear that it was annulled and replaced by the new one.
Of course, the books that contain the Old Testament also contain a lot more, such as historical descriptions from the creation of the world to the establishment and eventual destruction of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, hymns and poetry, and prophecy. These are still of value to Christians, even if the old contract is not. So, basically, for most Christians, everything in the so-called "Old Testament" is the word of God, but some of it is outdated by later words of God, while the rest isn't.
This gets more complicated since Christianity is very splintered and different Christian denominations draw the line differently between what parts were annulled and what is still valid. Not to mention that there are plenty of crazy Christian and semi-Christian groups that seem to basically ignore the distinction and just take whatever supports their view as Law and ignore the rest. But I think the basic notion behind the division of the bible in mainstream Christianity is both sane and sensible.
Not that I believe any of it, mind you. But it seems to me perfectly reasonable that some - indeed, many - people do.
-
You're right, it is very hard trying to talk about this stuff with so much water under the historical bridge. Terms get very muddy, which is part of the reason why it's important to articulate and discuss beliefs, not just go by labels.
When I say "Christian" I mean "one who believes in Christ as He is described in the Bible." I could care less if people call themselves Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or Church of Bob: "What do you believe?" is what I'm interested in, and one's beliefs are demonstrated far more saliently by one's actions than by what label is attached to oneself. For my part, I attach no label to myself but "Christian," because I have faith in Christ, not in any particular preacher or historical tradition.
First there is the difference btwn Old and New Testament - and from what Mr. Tweedy says, it's all the word of God, but no one takes the Old Testament seriously? Did I get that right?
Yes and no. The Old Testament is taken very seriously: It is the word of God and it is true, but the commands it contains are not aimed at us. The OT is a valid and vital source of information, and it tells us lots of important things about God, but it's specific rules were for the ancient Jews to follow, not for Christians, who follow the New Testament. It's like if you're dad is giving instructions to your older sibling: The specific instructions are not for you to follow, but you can learn a lot about who your dad is, what he's like and what he values by listening. Take it seriously, take it as fact, but understand that the "thou shalts" are not spoken to you. You're overhearing someone else's conversation.
And then what about the "Deuterocanonical" Books?
And, as I understand it, beyond the different versions (King James', etc), Protestants and Catholics have some very different versions from each other.
Not sure. Never made much study of them, but I understand that their historical validity is far less certain than the cannonical books, and that they don't really say much anyway. They're a very short segment of the Bible in any case, and the Catholic/Protestant versions are identical except for the ommission of those few short books.
From your confirmation of faith, I would have though it was all consider literal to you - I was surprised when you said the the OT is considered history.
I take it litterally and I take it as history. I don't see how that's a contradiction. It's a factual recounting of what happened back then, same as any accurate historical work.
I'm not arguing your belief, I'm just trying to understand how you manage what appear to me as contradictions of "do onto others" and "homos shouldn't marry because"
Take it this way: If I view a thing as a sin, then I am doing a diservice to others by sanctioning it. If I believe that a person is making a dangerous mistake, then the loving thing to do it to inform them of their error and help them correct it. To see someone in error and lie to them and tell them they were okay would be hateful, not loving. If someone saw me making a mistake, I'd want them to tell me. I am doing nothing good for a sinner by telling them that they aren't one.
Does that clarify my perspective?
...And eytanz seems to have decent idea of where I'm coming from also.
-
You misread me, I'm not talking about homosexuality, only using it as an example of contradictions between both old/new Testament and Bible/modern day life. It's hard to accept that the new only supplants the old when it comes from God/his progeny.
There are numerous arguments I need to respond to, I'll get them later tonight.
-
Others, do you believe in an afterlife?
This was a good question that I forgot to answer. So, from my own self-important ego, I like to think there is a continuation of spirit. What form that takes is pretty much dependant on my mood ;)
I like to think that "heaven" has everyone I ever wanted to talk to, every book I'd ever want to read, and every opportunity I'd want to try, and stuff I didn't even know I'd want to know, along with all the time to enjoy them.
This makes me wonder though - in the traditional sense of the concept of heaven, essentially that all your heart's desires come true, how do people/souls get along? Imagine someone from 1935 or Victorian England with very strict views of dress and deportment and someone from a Californian commune hanging out - wouldn't they drive each other to distraction?
Does that clarify my perspective?
For the most part it helps, but your lack of interest in the other Books seems backwards. You want to learn about your God, and yet these accounts are somewhat ignored. Who is it that decided their historical validity is far less certain?
-
For the most part it helps, but your lack of interest in the other Books seems backwards. You want to learn about your God, and yet these accounts are somewhat ignored. Who is it that decided their historical validity is far less certain?
I could go into a spiel about the cannon canon and how it got made and process of textual criticism, but that really isn't what convinces me. This is stepping further out from plain logic than most of my previous statements and fits more closely into the "I choose to believe this" category:
If god wanted us to know about Him, he'd have to tell us somehow. And if he wanted to tell us, the only logical way would be to leave a book, something that is external to any single human mind against which we can measure our ideas about Him and do research, should we be so inclined. If God really wants to talk to us, then something like a Bible is necessary, and so God would make sure that a book was preserved. (Why not give everybody a personal revelation? Well, then we'd just be arguing about whose revelation was better than whose and people could lie about they'd had revealed, and it really wouldn't be any better than if there were no revelations at all.)
Which book? Why not the Koran? (I'm not finished reading the Koran yet, but I'll get there eventually.) I'm trying to concise, so I'll just say that in reading the Bible, you see a number of unique qualities not present in any other book that I'm aware of.
High among these is the fact that all of its characters (with the exception of Jesus) are flawed, usually very flawed. Bible "heroes" are seldom heroic: They actually spend a lot of their time sort of bumbling around, screwing things up, and not one gets everything right. No one was writing this for their own glory or benefit. In contrast to the Koran, in which I've read passages that are very pro-Muhammad, the Bible is very seldom nice to the people about whom it is written. One of the key points of the Bible, Old and New Testaments both, is that it cuts down the people (like me) who claim to follow it: It calls us all sinners and tells us not to be proud of ourselves. That's not what you'd expect from self-serving human propoganda.
Most of you haven't read the Bible much, I gather, but, from my perspective, the message of the Bible is radical. It turns the world on its head: The greatest is the least. The strong serve the weak. The whore is more righteous than the cleric. The Bible says things that are totally out-there in comparrison to anything else I know about, but all that crazy out-there stuff makes total sense, once you really start to understand what it's saying. Lots of things seem plausible until you get into them. The Bible is the opposite: It seems crazy until you read into it, and then it makes sense.
Again, I'm trying to be concise, so sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but I don't see, really, what else the Bible could be but a message from God. It is, at least, something very unique, and if you put on your sci-fi hats and think about what a message from God would be like, it would have to be something like this. Although there is historical evidence that the Bible is at least as accurate as any other ancient writings, the qualities of the book itself do more to convince me of its authenticity than does that evidence.
-
Again, I'm trying to be concise, so sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but I don't see, really, what else the Bible could be but a message from God. It is, at least, something very unique, and if you put on your sci-fi hats and think about what a message from God would be like, it would have to be something like this. Although there is historical evidence that the Bible is at least as accurate as any other ancient writings, the qualities of the book itself do more to convince me of its authenticity than does that evidence.
I respect this a lot. Good on ya.
My challenge to you is this: if you never have, have a sincere conversation with a Buddhist. Find out why they believe in the Buddha's teachings. Think as objectively as possible about whether their reasons for conviction are any different from your reasons for conviction.
Wisdom comes in a lot of forms. Religions vary widely in their specifics, speculations, and spirits, but the most successful ones all have core messages that are similar and positive: Be good to others. Respect your elders; treasure your family; value your community. Reduce suffering. Care for others because they are all fundamentally like you. If you have much, share it with those who have little: not because you must, but because you can. Give of yourself to make the seen world better, and the sacrifices you make will be rewarded in the unseen world.
If anyone can name an extant religion that doesn't have these messages in one wording or another, I'd like to hear about it.
Whether you get them through one religion, another, or no religion, these are good messages. That's why I like religion. I've had my share of mystical experiences in the past from several different sources, and while I'm skeptical now about the external reality of any of them, I don't think it matters. The internal reality of them, the experience, is very powerful. And while religion does cause a lot of harm and waste and suffering in the world, it can also do a lot of good.
If Christianity works uniquely well for you, to make you a better person, that's terrific. It doesn't make it unique to me. But I wouldn't want to argue with you about something that clearly works.
(...And by the way -- no, I'm not going to moderate this thread, barring unexpected viciousness. Anyone still in this topic has got to still be here because they want to be here. There's no code in the forum scripts forcing anyone to read this.)
-
Again, I'm trying to be concise, so sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but I don't see, really, what else the Bible could be but a message from God. It is, at least, something very unique, and if you put on your sci-fi hats and think about what a message from God would be like, it would have to be something like this. Although there is historical evidence that the Bible is at least as accurate as any other ancient writings, the qualities of the book itself do more to convince me of its authenticity than does that evidence.
:P makes me think of EP 107: Eight Episodes. The 'aliens' were trying to give a message to the humans, ignoring all theatrics and actual entertainment value.
Take it this way: If I view a thing as a sin, then I am doing a diservice to others by sanctioning it. If I believe that a person is making a dangerous mistake, then the loving thing to do it to inform them of their error and help them correct it. To see someone in error and lie to them and tell them they were okay would be hateful, not loving. If someone saw me making a mistake, I'd want them to tell me. I am doing nothing good for a sinner by telling them that they aren't one.
I see what your thinking, but I hope you also think of what the people you would be saying this to would be thinking. A stranger walking up to them and telling them that what they feel at heart is sinfull. Now try to imagine that same person accepting what you said without any argument, just accepting that what they think is sinfull and they should stop. No matter what good intentions you may have/think you have, its not going to look good to anyone but those who fully share your ideas. Lets say suddenly everyone becomes part of Religion x, and religion x teaches that Christianity is sinfull, and EVERYONE believes it. How would you feel being told that what you believe is sinfull and you should stop? How would you feel being barred from going to church because of it? Now i know its a far fetched example, and not exactly the same, but just try to put yourself in their shoes, and you'll see why some people are hostile towards your ideas.
-
Now this is where you continue to prove to me that we could easily get along. While I agree that many people are closed minded about many things, I will point out that I find that most people are the most closed-minded about their religion. And that my understanding/def'n of Faith plays a large part in that.
I think that the "closed-minded" opinion of religious defence is unfounded. You'll find that many Christians appear this way on a first glance. However as conversations like this prove they are open to debate. The main difference in my opinion is that the Christian enters the conversation from a heart felt and reason/Bible based logic. Non religious often approach the same issues from a fuzzy "lets all be good to each other" stance with their own definitions of what that means.
Then you have to figure human nature into the equation. Man ( especially men ) likes black and white answers, clear line of demarcation. So having studied the Bible and reached conclusions and or clear ideas the human mind says "Ah ha! A black and White answer, yes!!!!!!" Then they stick to that point like glue and appear as close-minded. yet I think if you dig around that point using the same terminology and understanding of the base arguements you'll find that they are able to have the conversation and "open" their mind.
It's this close-minded approach that many organised religions have, especially in relation to teaching. You'll find laws and points taught constantly but without understanding. This kind of approach is teaching close-mindedness. It the basis of the whole ID debate in fact. ( I'm not trying to start an ID debate here just making a point ). In this context Evolution is taught and no other option allowed to be considered. That leads to close-mindedness.
I've just argued myself in a circle. Doh!
-
I realize this is a bit of a hot button issue in the US so I want to clarify that the comments below are not meant to immflamatory, I just think this is a good example.
Spending any time learning Intelligent Design in Biology class is akin to spending time learning how to microwave frozen dinners in Home Economics class. It's just lazy science, and by it's very nature it restricts scientific enquiry. "What do you mean you want to study cells that are sensitive to visible light to see how they relate to the human eye? We all Know that God made the eye, there is no point in your study."
As FNH pointed out, if people think they already have an answer, especially one provided by an infalliable Almighty, it's pretty hard to provide any proof strong enough to counter that.
-
My challenge to you is this: if you never have, have a sincere conversation with a Buddhist. Find out why they believe in the Buddha's teachings. Think as objectively as possible about whether their reasons for conviction are any different from your reasons for conviction.
If only I were so fortunate as to know any sincere Buddhists; they would surely be full of interesting things to say. Sadly, All the Buddhists I have know were of the "I only say I'm a Buddhist to aviod offending my parents, but I really don't give a rip" variety. Lots of Christians are the same way. Until I started posting here, all the atheists I have known were of the "I call myself an atheist to piss my parents off but I really haven't given it much thought" type.
Not going anywhere with that; just a bit sad that people take their own beliefs so flippantly.
-
Not going anywhere with that; just a bit sad that people take their own beliefs so flippantly.
They don't. They take other people's beliefs flippantly, and feel that they can adopt the label without really adopting the associated beliefs. Which is sad, but I don't take it as a negative comment on the people, but rather as a negative comment on society which is not usually content to accept "I never really developed any beliefs" as an acceptable answer from people.
-
I realize this is a bit of a hot button issue in the US so I want to clarify that the comments below are not meant to immflamatory, I just think this is a good example.
Spending any time learning Intelligent Design in Biology class is akin to spending time learning how to microwave frozen dinners in Home Economics class. It's just lazy science, and by it's very nature it restricts scientific enquiry. "What do you mean you want to study cells that are sensitive to visible light to see how they relate to the human eye? We all Know that God made the eye, there is no point in your study."
As FNH pointed out, if people think they already have an answer, especially one provided by an infalliable Almighty, it's pretty hard to provide any proof strong enough to counter that.
I see what you mean, but I disagree. Starting from the viewpoint that a things was designed does nothing to discourage you from studying it. Saying that God made the eye does not keep me from being curious about how He did it and how it works, just the opposite, really. Saying that God invented everything does not imply that each thing will be utterly distinct from each other: Rather, you might expect an inventor to use similar methods and tools in many different works. Learning how an inventor solved a problem in one instance provides insight into how he/she might solve it another. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, saying "These organisms are all related by their common design" is just as useful as saying "They are related by a common ancestor." I don't think there is any inherent antagonism between ID and biological study (sorry, Richard Dawkins).
Wisdom comes in a lot of forms. Religions vary widely in their specifics, speculations, and spirits, but the most successful ones all have core messages that are similar and positive: Be good to others. Respect your elders; treasure your family; value your community. Reduce suffering. Care for others because they are all fundamentally like you. If you have much, share it with those who have little: not because you must, but because you can. Give of yourself to make the seen world better, and the sacrifices you make will be rewarded in the unseen world.
If anyone can name an extant religion that doesn't have these messages in one wording or another, I'd like to hear about it.
Extant religions? As I understand it, Hinduism has a whole "untouchable" class who are doomed to poverty from birth. Helping these people is something like a sin because it violates their carma: I.e. their oppressed state is a judgement for bad deeds in a previous life, and hence no one should help them. Extremeist Muslims think everybody who is not an Extreme Muslim should be killed. I don't about others extant, but there are lots of historical religions in which a general reduction of human suffering was of no interest at all. (Human sacrifice, anyone?) While all religions have some kind of moral code, that moral code rarely behooves the pious to universal charity, or even to be generally nice. What you usually see is rules saying that you should be nice to the people who are members of certain groups, but people outside those groups are afforded less (or no) respect. Religions calling for universal respect or for a general decrease in human suffering are rare, I think.
What all religions do have is a sort of survival-assurance mechanism. This is Darwinian: If a religious system requires ritual suicide of all converts, then the religion isn't going to be around very long. If the religion helps its adherents survive and do well, it'll stick around in some form. If a religion is stupid and inhibits its adherents' ability to survive and progress, it won't be very popular and will probably vanish quickly.
That's why I figure there is some truth in all religions: If these ideas are sticking around, then obviously they must have useful qualities. There must be some wisdom to be found in any idea that persists for 1000 years. If there weren't people would forget about it. The amount of wisdom and the amount of foolishness attached to it varies with each individual case.
-
As FNH pointed out, if people think they already have an answer, especially one provided by an infalliable Almighty, it's pretty hard to provide any proof strong enough to counter that.
I dont think Science has to be anti-religious. It's a question of perspective. Investigating how the world works is not against Christianity as I understand it. Atoms, DNA etc are simply bits of the whole.
You can be amazed and astounded by the majesty in microcosm but still appreciate the bigger picture.
-
I dont think Science has to be anti-religious. It's a question of perspective. Investigating how the world works is not against Christianity as I understand it. Atoms, DNA etc are simply bits of the whole.
I do get slightly annoyed with the idea that religon and science can mix. Science and faith only mix from religon´s point of view, where it can take whatever science it wants and express it as "evidence" of a god. Science does not take parts of the Bible and use that as evidence of the scientific method.
As such, I get annoyed by scientists who are religious. Being a scientist means approaching the world with a logical and critical gaze; it means creating hypotheses based on observations, testing them and discarding them if need be. If a scientist believes in an "almighty being" then he is not approaching the world in that way. I do not understand how people can split their ideologies so cleanly down the middle: Here I will be logical and scientific, demanding evidence and experimental support for any hypothesis; but here I´ll just believe it ´cause I was brought up to.
-
I do get slightly annoyed with the idea that religon and science can mix. Science and faith only mix from religon´s point of view, where it can take whatever science it wants and express it as "evidence" of a god. Science does not take parts of the Bible and use that as evidence of the scientific method.
As such, I get annoyed by scientists who are religious. Being a scientist means approaching the world with a logical and critical gaze; it means creating hypotheses based on observations, testing them and discarding them if need be. If a scientist believes in an "almighty being" then he is not approaching the world in that way. I do not understand how people can split their ideologies so cleanly down the middle: Here I will be logical and scientific, demanding evidence and experimental support for any hypothesis; but here I´ll just believe it ´cause I was brought up to.
Your post betrays your bias - you are essentially saying "there's no evidence here, so scientists must believe the same thing I do". However, there is no scientific evidence here, positive or negative. You can't prove that God exists by scientific methods, because there is nothing about the world that cannot be explained without invoking God. You can't prove that God doesn't exist by scientific methods, because adding God to the system influences nothing directly, because God by definition can emulate anything created by any natural law.
Occam's Razor, then, tells us that we must leave God out of our scientific theories, since there is no need for it.
But Occam's Razor is not a principle of what's *true*. It's a principle of what belongs in a scientific theory. A scientist is under no obligation to assume that just because something cannot be proven, it is false. On the contrary. A "perfect" scientist for you, one that lives all her life under the scientific theory, would be agnostic - refusing to accept God's existence without proof, but also refusing to accept God's lack of existence. Atheist scientists are just as "bad" as religious ones, since they take the leap from "there's no way to prove whether this exists" to "this must certainly not exist". But I don't accept your definition of a scientist. I agree that a scientist must approach the world critically. But I think that before the scientist need to start creating hypotheses, she must first ask herself if it is even a question that can be tested scientifically.
Two scientists may debate for hours whether "Star Wars" is better than "Star Trek" or vice versa. Should they be approaching this scientifically? The question "does God exist" is much like "Which of the two fandoms should I belong to". There is no scientific answer to this, and therefore any answer is valid - as long as the scientist keeps it out of the actual science.
-
Your post betrays your bias - you are essentially saying "there's no evidence here, so scientists must believe the same thing I do".
That´s trying to reduce what I said into a question of belief, which, as palimpsest has pointed out previously, is incorrect. Science (and atheism) is not about belief.
A "perfect" scientist for you, one that lives all her life under the scientific theory, would be agnostic - refusing to accept God's existence without proof, but also refusing to accept God's lack of existence. Atheist scientists are just as "bad" as religious ones, since they take the leap from "there's no way to prove whether this exists" to "this must certainly not exist".
You are writing as if both are equally valid probablities. Scientists researching cancer could include in their theory that little green men are responsible for swollen prostates. But that would be ridiculous and go against our knowledge of biology. Simply stating "I believe God exists" is not enough to consider it an equal hypothesis. To use Bertrand Russell´s example: if I said "I believe there´s a teapot orbiting the sun which is too small for us to detect" you would say I was wrong- but based on what? Your faith or your understanding of the natural world? Can you disprove it? If not, would you hold it in equal weight to the theory that there isn´t a teapot orbiting the sun?
But I don't accept your definition of a scientist. I agree that a scientist must approach the world critically. But I think that before the scientist need to start creating hypotheses, she must first ask herself if it is even a question that can be tested scientifically.
Why should God be exempt from the same kind of analysis that everything else has?
Two scientists may debate for hours whether "Star Wars" is better than "Star Trek" or vice versa. Should they be approaching this scientifically? The question "does God exist" is much like "Which of the two fandoms should I belong to". There is no scientific answer to this, and therefore any answer is valid - as long as the scientist keeps it out of the actual science.
No, this is like "To which strain of faith, Catholic or Protestant, do I belong". You are making an argument based on inaccurate analogys. Both Star Trek and Star Wars have evidence of their existence. A more appropriate argument would be "Which is better: Star Wars or this other show which neither of us have seen but is definately out there?"
-
Your post betrays your bias - you are essentially saying "there's no evidence here, so scientists must believe the same thing I do".
That´s trying to reduce what I said into a question of belief, which, as palimpsest has pointed out previously, is incorrect. Science (and atheism) is not about belief.
Science isn't. Atheism is. If you think otherwise, you're as deluded as a creationist is.
Science and faith are orthogonal to each other. Neither validates the other, nor invalidates it. Both rely on belief to some extent, but very different kinds of belief.
I agree with you completely that it is total fallacy to introduce God as a factor in science. I also agree with you totally that science not only doesn't, probably probably cannot, provide evidence for the existence of God. But the conclusion from this is that science cannot support *any* conclusions about God, positive or negative.
-
Science isn't. Atheism is. If you think otherwise, you're as deluded as a creationist is.
No, as has been stated elswhere in these forums, atheism is the absence of belief. Absence of belief does not equal belief (definition:conviction that something is true regardless of evidence) of the opposite idea.
However my comments were about the mixing of science and religon, so I´ll get back to that.
Science and faith are orthogonal to each other. Neither validates the other, nor invalidates it. Both rely on belief to some extent, but very different kinds of belief.
Firstly, that´s in direct contradiction to your above comment, where you agreed that science isn´t about belief. Secondly, faith relies on belief to all extent. Faith is not in a position to validate or invalidate anything as it supplies no evidence and does not rigorously address the known world taking all data into account.
I agree with you completely that it is total fallacy to introduce God as a factor in science. I also agree with you totally that science not only doesn't, probably probably cannot, provide evidence for the existence of God. But the conclusion from this is that science cannot support *any* conclusions about God, positive or negative.
Actually, I stated that God should be held to the same analysis as everything else. Again you have thrown up the idea that both hypothesis have equal validity which, as I already pointed out, is not the case.
-
No, as has been stated elswhere in these forums, atheism is the absence of belief. Absence of belief does not equal belief (definition:conviction that something is true regardless of evidence) of the opposite idea.
I would say the absence of belief is simple vacuity. Even to state that "knowledge is impossible" is a statement of belief concerning the nature of knowledge: You can't even be agnostic without claiming to know something. The only way to have no beliefs at all is simply to have not thought about anything, which is not a claim I think anyone is going to make about themselves.
Atheism is a statement of belief, even if the belief cannot be technically classified as religious. "I do not believe in a supernatural realm. I believe in a naturalistic explanation for all phenomenon." If a person does not hold these beliefs, they are not an atheist.
-
Science isn't. Atheism is. If you think otherwise, you're as deluded as a creationist is.
No, as has been stated elswhere in these forums, atheism is the absence of belief. Absence of belief does not equal belief (definition:conviction that something is true regardless of evidence) of the opposite idea.
No, it isn't. Belief that there is no god is not the same as lack of belief that there is one.
In 1995, it was discovered that the star 51 Pegasi has a planet revolving around it (the first non-Solar planet ever discovered). As far as I know, astronomers have no current way of knowing if this planet has any moons.
Based on current scientific knowledge, neither the belief that there is at least one moon, nor the belief that there are 0 moons, is justified. Only the lack of belief - saying that there may or may not be moons - is currently justified.
I am saying that the same applies to God. Believing that the number of gods is 1 is no more or less scientifically justified than believing it to be 0. Both assign values to the number of gods. The only scientifically valid position is that the number of gods may be 0, 1, or more.
Science and faith are orthogonal to each other. Neither validates the other, nor invalidates it. Both rely on belief to some extent, but very different kinds of belief.
Firstly, that´s in direct contradiction to your above comment, where you agreed that science isn´t about belief.
I never said that science isn't about belief. It just has different criteria for what can be believed.
Secondly, faith relies on belief to all extent. Faith is not in a position to validate or invalidate anything as it supplies no evidence and does not rigorously address the known world taking all data into account.
I agree.
Actually, I stated that God should be held to the same analysis as everything else. Again you have thrown up the idea that both hypothesis have equal validity which, as I already pointed out, is not the case.
I agree with this too, but where I disagree is with the interpretation of what the valid hypothesis is. You seem to think that scientific knowledge is subject to the law of excluded middle - that not being able to prove "A" means that you proved "not A". But that's not how it works.
Now, obviously, many things can't be fully proven, because we lack full knowledge. Part of my work is in cognitive neuroscience, and there we have very little direct evidence for any claim we make. That is why we use statistical tools to show that the explanation we propose is considerably more likely than competing hypotheses. This is also what rules out the teapot example - it's not possible to prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. It is possible to show that that is highly unlikely.
The problem with the existence of God is that there is no idnependent way of assigning a likelihood to the existence of God. There are two competing hypothese, "There is a god" and "there isn't a god". Which one is more likely cannot be determined by scientific tools. Which is why I say science cannot answer questions about God - there is no valid way to evaluate the hypotheses. In your posts, you bring in a pre-determined bias - you think the "no god" position is more likely, because you already believe in it. That's not science.
-
The only science-driven/derived God is a God of the Gaps. Nowhere in science is the proof of a God, or a place where he/she/it/they would fall into the equations. Thus God must exist in those gaps that science has not yet explained.
But as human knowledge expands, and science uncovers more, then those gaps get smaller, and thus God does as well.
You can't use science to define a God, because science will end up stripping that God of all it's potency.
-
as long as the scientist keeps it out of the actual science.
I think I agree... kinda. If you take science in the context of only studying what you can see and making deductions about what you see.
However some Scientists can look at "a thing" and think , "this can't have appeared by chance". So a scientist can make deductions and put forward theories and still have belief as seperate things. We can not say that a scientist should not have faith.
-
However some Scientists can look at "a thing" and think , "this can't have appeared by chance". So a scientist can make deductions and put forward theories and still have belief as seperate things. We can not say that a scientist should not have faith.
Considering the great beauty and utility found in entirely random chance events known to science (supernova, evolution, etc.) I wouldn't say that that scientist had any great familiarity with chaos theory. Or, well, modern science really.
I'm not saying you can't believe in God and be a scientist, but there is a reason the National Academy of Science is something like 85% non-believing in a god/god-like figure.
-
there is a reason the National Academy of Science is something like 85% non-believing in a god/god-like figure.
Peer pressure.
(Hey sweet! I'm using Apple's Safari 3 browser, and it spellchecks what I type in this box. Red underline just like in a word processor, with suggestions when you right-click. Get it, y'all.)
-
Peer pressure.
(Hey sweet! I'm using Apple's Safari 3 browser, and it spellchecks what I type in this box. Red underline just like in a word processor, with suggestions when you right-click. Get it, y'all.)
Found a link (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) to the survey (and some general trending). I doubt peer pressure accounts for the numbers, especially in a field where you're supposed to be contrarian to a fault. Peer pressure is a cop-out answer, especially when it's easier to believe that it's what they're studying and how they're made to think that causes them to question belief in god to a greater extent than the general public.
And while I'm using Safari beta 3/OS X, I do have to note that Firefox has had inline spell checking for a while now. And that I believe Safari got it through the KHTML/Konqueror project it forked for Safari.
-
Peer pressure.
(Hey sweet! I'm using Apple's Safari 3 browser, and it spellchecks what I type in this box. Red underline just like in a word processor, with suggestions when you right-click. Get it, y'all.)
Found a link (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) to the survey (and some general trending). I doubt peer pressure accounts for the numbers, especially in a field where you're supposed to be contrarian to a fault. Peer pressure is a cop-out answer, especially when it's easier to believe that it's what they're studying and how they're made to think that causes them to question belief in god to a greater extent than the general public.
Peer pressure goes both ways - there might be peer pressure from within the scientific community, but there certain is also a lot of peer pressure in religious communities to avoid becoming scientists.
A better answer, though, is not peer pressure but societal pressure. These days, in most of the world, science is lodged pretty firmly in the secular tradition. This was not always the case, and there are places in the world where the seperation is not nearly as clear-cut as in the US.
That said, I'm perfectly happy to grant that there's a correlation between the type of person who is likely to be a scientist and the kind of person who is likely to be atheist or agnostic. What I'm not accepting is that being a scientist and belief in God are contradictory - they're not. Rather, science is contradictory to many simple minded views of God and its relation to the world. Since it is these simple minded views that are currently by far the dominant ones -at least in terms of visibility - in both religious and anti-religious populations, it is not surprising that many people choose to reject them as they become better educated.
-
Found a link (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) to the survey (and some general trending). I doubt peer pressure accounts for the numbers, especially in a field where you're supposed to be contrarian to a fault. Peer pressure is a cop-out answer, especially when it's easier to believe that it's what they're studying and how they're made to think that causes them to question belief in god to a greater extent than the general public.
It's not a cop-out; it's an expression of cynicism. There is a strong tendency among scientists and laymen alike to regard scientists as purely rational, as bearers of truth who speak nothing unless it is proven beyond doubt to be fact. That's not the case: Scientists are vulnerable to many pressures, and peer pressure is high among them.
There is a long-standing conceit in Western culture that atheism and naturalism are more rational and logical than their religious competitors. Atheism has the allure of seeming intellectual, and so an image-conscious scientist would naturally feel drawn to it: It's what the smart people believe. Knowing that your fellows think your beliefs are dumb is a strong incentive to change them.
This is not to argue that no scientist has come to be atheist through honest reasoning, as that is surely not the case. But we should never make the dangerous mistake of assuming that scientists (or anyone else) speaks with complete freedom from influences political, social and financial. If most scientists are atheists, that does not in itself indicate that atheism is scientific: There is far more to consider.
And, as usual, eytanz has some very good points.
Alas, but I must go. Phooey.
-
Peer pressure goes both ways - there might be peer pressure from within the scientific community, but there certain is also a lot of peer pressure in religious communities to avoid becoming scientists.
Or to become it for the wrong reasons. I don't want to bring up the unintentionally hilarious Creation Museum, but, well, it is religious pseudoscience. Same thing happens in politics. Science is science, and though there is disagreement, it comes (hopefully) from evidence and/or the lack thereof.
Ultimately, training in strict adherence to a code is not a good place for a scientist to come from. Many of the theist scientists are of the Clockmaker variety of Deism.
A better answer, though, is not peer pressure but societal pressure. These days, in most of the world, science is lodged pretty firmly in the secular tradition. This was not always the case, and there are places in the world where the seperation is not nearly as clear-cut as in the US.
Which is where — Atrocities is too strong a word, but I'm not sure what the right one is — things like the Creation museum come from. A religious scientist has an implied obligation to not report/find against things that contradict parts of his or her religion. And they often twist data to support their worldview (ID). Now, I'm not saying it's all religion, but it exists.
That said, I'm perfectly happy to grant that there's a correlation between the type of person who is likely to be a scientist and the kind of person who is likely to be atheist or agnostic. What I'm not accepting is that being a scientist and belief in God are contradictory - they're not. Rather, science is contradictory to many simple minded views of God and its relation to the world. Since it is these simple minded views that are currently by far the dominant ones -at least in terms of visibility - in both religious and anti-religious populations, it is not surprising that many people choose to reject them as they become better educated.
Well, yes, but once you give me that high-level religion that manages to side-step the science issue, I still have to firmly state that I find any world with a Heaven or Hell black and white devision between people rather... restricting. Bleak. Unworthy of living in. I think people have to be the masters of their fate, and that cannot coexist with an omnipotent/omniscient being. Knowing all that was and will be makes it impossible to live in a world and have a free life. It's simply not human.
Chaos is a far better creator of beauty, random chance, delight and despair, than an intelligence could ever be. Life is far too short/precious/human/amazing to believe that this is only the run-up to something longer and better.
To Tweedy — Smart people also believe in religion. I've debat(ed/ing) with them. I'm not saying that belief in a God is an indicator of brains, just that it's not my cup of tea. At this level of conversation, the non-kneejerk atheists do have a good knowledge of various religions, and they don't find belief dumb, just wrong. There is a difference.
Also, while scientists can be seen as having pressures to become atheists from inside their tent, outside of that tent the overwhelming pressure (this is badly stated, but true) is to conform into religiosity. And as to financial, well, look at the current administration's funding, and non-funding, of scientific projects. It can hardly be said to favor atheist scientists.
In the end, any pressure to be atheist is countered to nil by the outside pressures to be theist.
-
Well, yes, but once you give me that high-level religion that manages to side-step the science issue, I still have to firmly state that I find any world with a Heaven or Hell black and white devision between people rather... restricting. Bleak. Unworthy of living in. I think people have to be the masters of their fate, and that cannot coexist with an omnipotent/omniscient being. Knowing all that was and will be makes it impossible to live in a world and have a free life. It's simply not human.
Chaos is a far better creator of beauty, random chance, delight and despair, than an intelligence could ever be. Life is far too short/precious/human/amazing to believe that this is only the run-up to something longer and better.
You'll find no arguments from me here. I believe in something I call God, as I have said earlier in this thread, but I am not a religious person - and I subscribe wholeheartedly to everything you say in the quote above.
-
I've been thinking, a dangerous occupation.
The Nuclear scientists in Iran believe in God.
So this shows that the Science-Atheist concept is a culture inspired rather than an established phenomena.
-
Sorry for the shortish post, life has again conspired to keep me very busy. Unsurprisingly, I think Heradel made some very good points (which I agree with), and that the counter posts have been well thought out and food for thought. However, to clarify my position I'd like to try an analogy
You guys (FNH, Mr. Tweedy, eytanz) are like the Happy Drunks at a Party. You hold your liquor, your funny and the worst you might do is fall asleep on my couch. However, there are a huge number of people at this party and a very large amount of them are Vicious Drunks. They get into fights, they wreck my stuff, they throw up everywhere, and say things to people that are rude and offensive. Having dealt with many Vicious Drunks, you can understand why I don't much like Alcohol. There are many great things about it - I've been known to Drink myself - but on the whole I think it's not worth it to get rip-roaring Drunk, it impairs my judgement.
Can I reinstate Prohibition? No, I shouldn't even try, but I would like to limit the impact that Vicious Drunks have on my Party.
The Nuclear scientists in Iran believe in God.
So did the ones in the US in 1940's, so did the pilots of the Enola Gay. Just as scary to me.
-
Again, slic, what you are afraid of is not religion. It is irrationality. It is closed-mindedness, and I reject the conceit that an atheist or agnostic in inherently more open-minded or rational than a person with religious convictions. I find atheism to be irrational: It does satisfactorily explain the phenomena I observe. Maybe the thoughts of others have not gone the same places mine have, but I could not be an atheist without stifling my mind and selling my brain. I see evidence for God: I believe in Him with my whole mind, and for me to buy the idea that He is not real would require setting my own thoughts aside and adopting a belief based upon authority. And that, I think, is the very thing you are afraid of.
For myself, I do my best to be utterly rational and totally open-minded (do my best; nobody's perfect). I do not suppress my reason in order to believe in my religion: My reason and my religion complement one another. Indeed, my religion informs me of my great capacity for error, which leads me to question myself and look for errors in my thinking.
As to the assertion that chaos is beautiful: That's just silly. Turn your TV on to static. Stare at it. That's chaos. Is it beautiful? What you both mean, I think, is that designs which incorporate a degree of randomness can be beautiful, but that beauty is contingent upon a framework of design. In other words, chaos can be beautiful when it used as an element of design, but chaos of itself is not beautiful.
-
I see evidence for God:
Example?
As to the assertion that chaos is beautiful: That's just silly. Turn your TV on to static. Stare at it. That's chaos. Is it beautiful? What you both mean, I think, is that designs which incorporate a degree of randomness can be beautiful, but that beauty is contingent upon a framework of design. In other words, chaos can be beautiful when it used as an element of design, but chaos of itself is not beautiful.
just to be nit-picky...
Chaos is associated with randomness. TV static is dispersion. Most people see dispersed patterns and think of them as random. If TV static were random, it would probably have clumps of light and dark areas and they would probably move around. The "beauty" of chaos comes in the form of "happy accidents" - especially if it is bounded chaos, in which something is trapped within a set of parameters but not predictable inside that range. Improvisational jazz is a good analogy to bounded chaos.
-
away for a day and there´s another ten posts...
Now, obviously, many things can't be fully proven, because we lack full knowledge. Part of my work is in cognitive neuroscience, and there we have very little direct evidence for any claim we make. That is why we use statistical tools to show that the explanation we propose is considerably more likely than competing hypotheses. This is also what rules out the teapot example - it's not possible to prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. It is possible to show that that is highly unlikely.
The problem with the existence of God is that there is no idnependent way of assigning a likelihood to the existence of God. There are two competing hypothese, "There is a god" and "there isn't a god". Which one is more likely cannot be determined by scientific tools. Which is why I say science cannot answer questions about God - there is no valid way to evaluate the hypotheses. In your posts, you bring in a pre-determined bias - you think the "no god" position is more likely, because you already believe in it. That's not science.
I am biased towards considering the validity of a hypothesis based on evidence. That´s my bias. That is science. You are happy to state that one hypothesis, the teapot, is statistically unlikely and yet you appear to consider that the hypothesis of God doesn´t warrant the same intellectual treatment. This is something I cannot understand, and what led to my initial post about religious scientists. I do not understand how people who should be logical can simply say that God is out of the bounds of analysis and will draw a line beyond which they do not think. If one can form an opinion of the teapot hypothesis (or scientology or the flying spaghetti monster) based on logic and likelihood why do these same individuals fail to give the hypothesis of God a similar treatment? That is bias. That´s not science.
-
I do not understand how people who should be logical can simply say that God is out of the bounds of analysis and will draw a line beyond which they do not think. If one can form an opinion of the teapot hypothesis (or scientology or the flying spaghetti monster) based on logic and likelihood why do these same individuals fail to give the hypothesis of God a similar treatment? That is bias. That´s not science.
So?
I'm not getting something basic here - Why is a scientist obligated to approach the question of God as if it were scientific?
Earlier when I brought up the Star Trek vs. Star Wars example, you said it was a bad analogy. It is, if you take it as an analogy, but I wasn't offering it as one - I'm offering it as a domain in which I'm assuming you're perfectly content to let scientists be non-scientific. If scientists are allowed to have a personal taste in television, movies, and literature, without having to analyze each work based on scientific methods, why can't they have other aspects of their lives in which science plays no role?
Do scientists need to apply the rules of hypothesis testing and deduction to their choice of a sexual partner? Of pets? Of how to name their children?
Is a scientist with claustrophobia a bad scientist, as his fear is irrational?
What is special about religion that separates it from other aspects in the personal life of a scientist?
-
The existence of God isn´t about personal taste. Oh, the choice of religon is when you come down to the details of do I want the catholic or anglican varieties, but belief in God is not a statement of personal preference. It is an evaluation of how the universe works.
-
The existence of God isn´t about personal taste. Oh, the choice of religon is when you come down to the details of do I want the catholic or anglican varieties, but belief in God is not a statement of personal preference. It is an evaluation of how the universe works.
Aye, and yet, how does one evaluate the existence of a God without using personal tastes/lens? Math is free from these, but it does not show God. Logic has as many paths to no God as to God, and many of the ones to a God are flawed.
Your very evaluation is one influenced and driven by your personal tastes. Everyone's is.
-
I see evidence for God:
Example?
I see myriad evidence, in all spheres of experience. The most obvious piece of evidence is the existence of life. 150 years after The Origin of Species, there has still been no viable theory proposed as to how life can come from non-life (aside from ID, of course). The evolutionist's explanation for the creation of the first organism has never been anything more robust than "It must have happened somehow." No one has ever come up with a working theory of how primordial soup works. With the lack of any alternative explanation, the most logical, rational belief for the origin of life is that life was invented by Somebody.
just to be nit-picky...
Chaos is associated with randomness. TV static is dispersion. Most people see dispersed patterns and think of them as random. If TV static were random, it would probably have clumps of light and dark areas and they would probably move around. The "beauty" of chaos comes in the form of "happy accidents" - especially if it is bounded chaos, in which something is trapped within a set of parameters but not predictable inside that range. Improvisational jazz is a good analogy to bounded chaos.
You are agreeing with me precisely: Randomness is only beautiful when it is incorporated into a design, like in jazz, where a limited degree of randomness is used to deliberate effect.
It might be easy to mistake pattern generated by fractals or cellular automata for chaos, but they are not. The beauty of something like falling snow or crashing waves comes more from the subtle order that emerges, not from disorder.
-
The existence of God isn´t about personal taste. Oh, the choice of religon is when you come down to the details of do I want the catholic or anglican varieties, but belief in God is not a statement of personal preference. It is an evaluation of how the universe works.
Then you don't understand what faith is.
-
Again, slic, what you are afraid of is not religion. It is irrationality.
You are correct, in the same way, to follow my analogy, that I'm not afraid of the Alcohol. I am not afraid of Nuclear Missles either, just the guys who get to decide when and where to launch them.
People who use religion to be assholes will probably still be assholes. However the power of religion gives them even more strength and influence, mainly because there are so many people out there willing to believe in something that has no proof.
I don't like dropping the other N-Bomb, but it's alot like Nazism. Any restrictive absolute belief system is going to cause unnecessary fractures in society.
As someone posted in this forum, religion is the ultimate My Team vs Your Team schism, and as irrational as that delineation is, it is a fundamental part of religion.
I'm glad you get along with gay people - however, it is obvious that many of your peers do not (peers in the same general meaning as a jury of your peers). So I'm sure you'll understand if I'd rather keep my Party Alcohol free so the Vicious Drunks don't end up killing people over an impaired delusion.
-
I see evidence for God:
Example?
I see myriad evidence, in all spheres of experience. The most obvious piece of evidence is the existence of life. 150 years after The Origin of Species, there has still been no viable theory proposed as to how life can come from non-life (aside from ID, of course). The evolutionist's explanation for the creation of the first organism has never been anything more robust than "It must have happened somehow." No one has ever come up with a working theory of how primordial soup works. With the lack of any alternative explanation, the most logical, rational belief for the origin of life is that life was invented by Somebody.
This is the first irrational thing I've seen you post. How is it rational or logical to say "We don't know how this happened, so it must have been God"? You are proving my point completely. Even though there is a formula to calcuate the strength of Gravity, there is no real understanding of how Gravity works. I suppose it's just Somebody holding us down? What about Magnetizm? Before we understood electricity, was it just God working the buttons?
What happens when all the mysteries are explained, does God just disappear?
-
just to be nit-picky...
Chaos is associated with randomness. TV static is dispersion. Most people see dispersed patterns and think of them as random. If TV static were random, it would probably have clumps of light and dark areas and they would probably move around. The "beauty" of chaos comes in the form of "happy accidents" - especially if it is bounded chaos, in which something is trapped within a set of parameters but not predictable inside that range. Improvisational jazz is a good analogy to bounded chaos.
You are agreeing with me precisely: Randomness is only beautiful when it is incorporated into a design, like in jazz, where a limited degree of randomness is used to deliberate effect.
Not necessarily.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I could take balls of paint and randomly toss them at a piece of parchment producing an entirely random effect. Eventually, I would produce one that someone found pleasing.
I said that chaos is more associated with randomness, but I realized later that that's not entirely true. Chaos is also associated with things that seem to be random, but are often non-linear. By non-linear, I mean something in which a small modification here and now produces a huge result somewhere else or later. Weather is the perfect example. A small change in wind patterns can make a huge difference the next day. Weather is not random. There are rules that determine what the weather will be. We just don't know what all the rules are and cannot measure conditions as well as we need to.
-
This is the first irrational thing I've seen you post. How is it rational or logical to say "We don't know how this happened, so it must have been God"? You are proving my point completely. Even though there is a formula to calcuate the strength of Gravity, there is no real understanding of how Gravity works. I suppose it's just Somebody holding us down? What about Magnetizm? Before we understood electricity, was it just God working the buttons?
What happens when all the mysteries are explained, does God just disappear?
You misunderstand me. Evidence is not the same as proof. If there is a mystery for which only one explanation is plausible, then it is evident that that explanation is correct. There is no explanation for life other than a Creator, and that is evidence for a Creator, not indisputable, beyond-the-shadow-of-doubt proof, but evidence.
Does God disappear? No, of course not. God is not some animating force making everything work. He's the one who made it all to work. The inventor does not cease to exist because the invention is understood. If anything, understand the invention gives a greater appreciation for the inventor, not less.
-
I see myriad evidence, in all spheres of experience. The most obvious piece of evidence is the existence of life. 150 years after The Origin of Species, there has still been no viable theory proposed as to how life can come from non-life (aside from ID, of course). The evolutionist's explanation for the creation of the first organism has never been anything more robust than "It must have happened somehow." No one has ever come up with a working theory of how primordial soup works. With the lack of any alternative explanation, the most logical, rational belief for the origin of life is that life was invented by Somebody.
I'm not sure I'd include coconut eating T-Rexes as a viable theory. :P
There are all kinds of things that science has not been able to explain. Assuming that anything we don't yet understand must be the work of God seems very closed minded.
-
I see myriad evidence, in all spheres of experience. The most obvious piece of evidence is the existence of life. 150 years after The Origin of Species, there has still been no viable theory proposed as to how life can come from non-life (aside from ID, of course). The evolutionist's explanation for the creation of the first organism has never been anything more robust than "It must have happened somehow." No one has ever come up with a working theory of how primordial soup works. With the lack of any alternative explanation, the most logical, rational belief for the origin of life is that life was invented by Somebody.
Felt the need to jump in to this debate as a trained geologist. It has always stuck in my craw a little that creationists have a real obsession with 'evolution' but not the rest of the discipline... The whole concept of Uniformitarianism (the founding principle of my discipline) is just as strong at undermining the biblical time line, but for some reason its evolution that sticks up as the nail... Follow this logic through as geology is so fundamentally invalid that we shouldn't be using it to hunt for oil, or resources.
The problem with the primordial soup is the complete lack of a geological record of the appropriate era, not a problem of explanation. Think of it this way, the Earth has passed through 7 full Wilson Cycles (a supercontinent forms on one side of the planet, is shattered by the heat produced beneath this insulating layer, and bounces across to the other side to form another supercontinent. A cycle takes roughly 500 million years) since the original emergence of life. This process has completely chewed up any rocks from the 4 G.A period we are talking about for the emergence of life. Any units of that age are likely to have been metamorphosed repeatedly, and also likely only to be found in a highly eroded cratonic area.
Basically, this material has had the geological hell beaten out of it.
Add that to the fact that this material is likely fossil based, so retains the morphology of the original organisms but absolutely none of the original chemistry required to understand how it formed.
It is absolutely outstanding that we have any idea at all about how life formed in this situation. Its like taking a car, crushing it, melting it down, crushing it again, (lets add a few more cycles of this) and expecting to be able to work out how to build an engine from the block.
All our information from the 1st billion years of Earth's history comes from a few carefully analysed grains of sand and zircon that happened to still exist in the sandstones we found later on, and later from some utterly mangled rock beds in highly eroded and preserved landscapes such as Greenland, Antarctica or Canada. It is not that this problem cannot be resolved (it can, and it is absolutely fascinating) but geology is not a suitable tool for the job.
-
You misunderstand me. Evidence is not the same as proof. If there is a mystery for which only one explanation is plausible, then it is evident that that explanation is correct.
Why is that the only explanation?
How is an explanation that requires the existence of a omniscient being (which would violate our understanding of the universe) even plausible at all?
I can think if two much more plausible explanations.
1) There is a process for creating life and we don't know what it is.
2) Our definition of "Life" is flawed (meaning that we are looking for the wrong thing or for something that does not exist.)
-
The existence of God isn´t about personal taste. Oh, the choice of religon is when you come down to the details of do I want the catholic or anglican varieties, but belief in God is not a statement of personal preference. It is an evaluation of how the universe works.
Then you don't understand what faith is.
Okay, now we´ve gone a circle back to my initial post, where I said I don´t understand a scientist that can split his picture of the world with faith on one side and science on the other and be perfectly happy within himself that never the twain shall meet.
I know the definition of faith. I understand that. Telling me I just don´t get it because I´m not a true believer doesn´t address the point.
-
You are correct, in the same way, to follow my analogy, that I'm not afraid of the Alcohol. I am not afraid of Nuclear Missles either, just the guys who get to decide when and where to launch them.
People who use religion to be assholes will probably still be assholes. However the power of religion gives them even more strength and influence, mainly because there are so many people out there willing to believe in something that has no proof.
I don't like dropping the other N-Bomb, but it's alot like Nazism. Any restrictive absolute belief system is going to cause unnecessary fractures in society.
As someone posted in this forum, religion is the ultimate My Team vs Your Team schism, and as irrational as that delineation is, it is a fundamental part of religion.
I'm glad you get along with gay people - however, it is obvious that many of your peers do not (peers in the same general meaning as a jury of your peers). So I'm sure you'll understand if I'd rather keep my Party Alcohol free so the Vicious Drunks don't end up killing people over an impaired delusion.
Then, slic, you are being closed-minded. You are proactively refusing to consider the cogency of certain ideas because they offend your sensibilities: "Religion is bunk and evidence by damned." Ironically, that is exactly what you were hoping to avoid.
What you are doing here is making religion into a universal scapegoat. You can have my team/your team without religion: Take ultranationalism that led up to WWI. You can have oppressive orthodoxy without religion: Take communist Russia (and I'm assuming you've read "1984"). You can have bigotry without religion: The Nazis killed Jews because they were considered sub-human. Wars are usually caused by plain-old greed, and you don't need religion for that.
Thinking you can opt-out of human evil by opting-out of religion is very short-sighted.
-
The existence of God isn´t about personal taste. Oh, the choice of religon is when you come down to the details of do I want the catholic or anglican varieties, but belief in God is not a statement of personal preference. It is an evaluation of how the universe works.
Then you don't understand what faith is.
Okay, now we´ve gone a circle back to my initial post, where I said I don´t understand a scientist that can split his picture of the world with faith on one side and science on the other and be perfectly happy within himself that never the twain shall meet.
I know the definition of faith. I understand that. Telling me I just don´t get it because I´m not a true believer doesn´t address the point.
I don't think you don't get it because you're not a true believer, I think you don't get it because you say things like "belief in God is not a statement of personal preference". You don't need to be a true believer in order to see why that is wrong.
In any case, you're right that we came full circle, and you're right that nothing I said seems to be helpful in furthering your understanding of religious scientists, so I'm not going to debate this further unless you really want to.
-
How about everyone take a breather and go outside for a bit?
-
You misunderstand me. Evidence is not the same as proof. If there is a mystery for which only one explanation is plausible, then it is evident that that explanation is correct.
Why is that the only explanation?
How is an explanation that requires the existence of a omniscient being (which would violate our understanding of the universe) even plausible at all?
I can think if two much more plausible explanations.
1) There is a process for creating life and we don't know what it is.
2) Our definition of "Life" is flawed (meaning that we are looking for the wrong thing or for something that does not exist.)
Don't put words in my mouth. The existence of life is only evidence for a Creator. That Creator could be Mathias of "Door Beyond Your Sky." Life does not, of itself, imply that the Creator is the God of the Bible or omniscient, only that there is a Creator.
Your two alternative options are not distinct: You're just saying "we don't know," in two different ways. You then make the arbitrary choice of labeling "we don't know" as more plausible that ID..
-
You misunderstand me. Evidence is not the same as proof. If there is a mystery for which only one explanation is plausible, then it is evident that that explanation is correct.
Why is that the only explanation?
How is an explanation that requires the existence of a omniscient being (which would violate our understanding of the universe) even plausible at all?
I can think if two much more plausible explanations.
1) There is a process for creating life and we don't know what it is.
2) Our definition of "Life" is flawed (meaning that we are looking for the wrong thing or for something that does not exist.)
Don't put words in my mouth. The existence of life is only evidence for a Creator. That Creator could be Mathias of "Door Beyond Your Sky." Life does not, of itself, imply that the Creator is the God of the Bible or omniscient, only that there is a Creator.
Your two alternative options are not distinct: You're just saying "we don't know," in two different ways. You then make the arbitrary choice of labeling "we don't know" as more plausible that ID..
Sorry - didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
How is existence of Life evidence of a creator? I find it plausible as a hypothesis but I see no evidence to indicate that a creator was involved.
I also find evolution as a plausible hypothesis. Since I find/read about evidence for evolution fairly often, it seems like a more likely hypothesis than a creator.
-
Sorry - didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
How is existence of Life evidence of a creator? I find it plausible as a hypothesis but I see no evidence to indicate that a creator was involved.
I also find evolution as a plausible hypothesis. Since I find/read about evidence for evolution fairly often, it seems like a more likely hypothesis than a creator.
I also read up on Evolution often (and never in creationist sources). I don't want to get into it's many flaws and holes here: Huge digression.
For clarification, my argument that life is evidence of a Creator was only meant to apply to the origin of life, not to subsequent developments. Evolution purports to explain how life developed, progressed and diversified, but it provides no explanation at all as to how life can come about in the first place. Biology has demonstrated with fair conclusiveness that non-living things do not spontaneously become living (unless, of course, a satellite returning from Venus irradiates them, in which case they rise to feed on the living). Therefore, something well outside of the normal operation of nature must have happened to get things going, and the theory that explains that is intelligent design.
That does not prove that ID is true, but ID is the only theory out there. You have to pick between ID and "we don't know." There is no competing naturalistic theory at this time.
-
Then, slic, you are being closed-minded. You are proactively refusing to consider the cogency of certain ideas because they offend your sensibilities: "Religion is bunk and evidence by damned." Ironically, that is exactly what you were hoping to avoid.
I didn't say religion was bunk - simply that it is dangerous (in the way booze and nukes are dangerous), and I'd prefer to not have it around. And it's not close-minded to keep loaded bazookas out of my house, either, regardless how useful it is at clearing trees or whatever good things it can be used for.
What you are doing here is making religion into a universal scapegoat....You can have bigotry without religion: The Nazis killed Jews because they were considered sub-human.
True enough, I used the Nazi example myself, remember? What I said was "...the power of religion gives them even more strength and influence..." And I will further explain by adding that it's sometimes easier to use religion because most people follow it blindly.
Religion is certainly not the only reason for the World's ills. But uranium is only a component of an ICBM, as well.
-
That does not prove that ID is true, but ID is the only theory out there. You have to pick between ID and "we don't know." There is no competing naturalistic theory at this time.
Doing a quick search on "Origin of Life" on Wikipedia turned up a fairly lengthy article listing several theories. I admit that I only skimmed through part of it and did not understand lots of it (not a chemistry guy) but to say that there is "no competing naturalistic theory" is simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
-
Religion is not what is dangerous.
What is dangerous is blind loyalty.
...and before someone says "What about blind loyalty to science?". Blind loyalty to science would be an oxymoron since science dictates that you question everything.
-
Religion is not what is dangerous.
What is dangerous is blind loyalty.
Sure enough, but Religion by it's requirement of Faith (my old def'n not Mr. Tweedy's) engenders some blind loyalty, so ipso facto religion is dangerous.
Uranium is not what's dangerous, it the radioactive particles it gives off....
-
That does not prove that ID is true, but ID is the only theory out there. You have to pick between ID and "we don't know." There is no competing naturalistic theory at this time.
Doing a quick search on "Origin of Life" on Wikipedia turned up a fairly lengthy article listing several theories. I admit that I only skimmed through part of it and did not understand lots of it (not a chemistry guy) but to say that there is "no competing naturalistic theory" is simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
I'm familiar with most of these. None of them is a theory (or even a hypothesis) in the the technical sense. They are speculative suggestions: They are not testable by the scientific method and none of them offers anything approaching a useful explanation.
I can make up anything. Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano. The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them. Living cells rained down. That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested. None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.
A competing theory would have to actually demonstrate how an organism could be built by natural processes, and no one has come within a hundred miles of such a demonstration, much less proven that it actually occurred.
But if we're going to debate evolution, that would surely require its own thread, and I don't really feel like going there today. I've made way too many posts today as it is.
-
I'm familiar with most of these. None of them is a theory (or even a hypothesis) in the the technical sense. They are speculative suggestions: They are not testable by the scientific method and none of them offers anything approaching a useful explanation.
That was not at all the impression I got.
Did we skim the same article? :P
I can make up anything. Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano. The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them. Living cells rained down. That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested. None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.
which makes them no different than ID, so why would you consider ID a theory?
A competing theory would have to actually demonstrate how an organism could be built by natural processes, and no one has come within a hundred miles of such a demonstration, much less proven that it actually occurred.
My impression from the article was that several groups have tried experiments over the years to test various steps in various speculated processes with varying degrees of success.
But if we're going to debate evolution, that would surely require its own thread, and I don't really feel like going there today. I've made way too many posts today as it is.
same here
-
Mr. Tweedy, the problem with a real-world experiment for these conditions is that well, we don't have a test tube the size of the world's oceans, lighting bolts and acid rain, and several eons to let it fester. We don't know rightnow how life came to be, but that does not mean that a perfectly naturalistic explanation will not be found.
And what if the creator happened to be an alien that stopped by to shave and cut himself? A few drops in the ocean, and well, panspermia. There are, in all likelihood, a very large number of earth-like planets that could prove the starting ground for life in the universe, surely you don't dispute that given a few million years and even a one in a billion chance, well, life is going to happen.
And your argument breaks down once we abstract it one more level. Where did the creator come from? Do we have a Russian Doll of creators?
-
I can make up anything. Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano. The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them. Living cells rained down. That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested. None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.
which makes them no different than ID, so why would you consider ID a theory?
Hmm... I think I may have overstated my case. How embarrassing. :'(
-
I can make up anything. Here: Life originated when a comet fell into a volcano. The resulting steam bubbles trapped organic materials from the volcano and carried them into the stratosphere, where solar radiation zapped them. Living cells rained down. That doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. It doesn't give a useful explanation and it cannot be tested. None of the speculations out there is any more substantive.
which makes them no different than ID, so why would you consider ID a theory?
Hmm... I think I may have overstated my case. How embarrassing. :'(
But you get full credit for being being adult enough to reply and admit. It's why I like "talking" with you.
And thank you for providing some insightful comments that have me seeing things differently.
-
But you get full credit for being being adult enough to reply and admit. It's why I like "talking" with you.
Ditto
-
Just to nudge us back towards the topic....
(http://timothysburden.com/wp-content/uploads/foxtrot.gif)
-
It depends on who killed Batman.
Sorry couldn't help myslef - major comic geek.
-
It depends on who killed Batman.
Sorry couldn't help myslef - major comic geek.
My favorite Batman moment - from Justice League Unlimited
(Batman bails out of the batplane. His parachute is destroyed. He activates his com link.)
"Batman to all points. I need close air support.
Because I have no actual ability to fly.
At all."
(The ground approaches.)
"Now would be good."
-
Not to take this thread too far off topic, but the whole JL/JLU series was some of the best TV out there. Excellently written on different levels, great dynamic style - all round awesome!
To bring it back somewhat, I was listening to the CBC (simialr to NPR in the States) show called Ideas (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/), and they had a very enlightening show about René Girard. He has written a number of books about how the Bible is the progenitor, the basis almost, for modern day civil society - in a way like LOTR is to modern day fantasy.
It talks about how Human Psyche needs a scapegoat, and this first was handled by human sacrifice, then "downgraded" to animal and then finally with the Final Sacrifice of Jesus.
It gave me a new respect on how the teachings of Jesus showed a way "out of the woods" for ancient civilization. This doesn't change my feelings about God or following the Word of the Bible, but further cements my belief that Jesus was an exceptional man - especially for his time. He's up there with Einstien, Ghandi, Newton and Martin Luther King Jr.