Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ah, a world without religion

Ah, a world without religion (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
This isn't exactly the most hospitable setting for such a discussion.
I can certainly see how that would be true. I'm curious, nonetheless. Curious enough to entertain alternatives. A private forum would not be hard to arrange. Perhaps you, me and ebuddy? We could agree to report back our progress to the rest of the community later.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
I can certainly see how that would be true. I'm curious, nonetheless. Curious enough to entertain alternatives. A private forum would not be hard to arrange. Perhaps you, me and ebuddy? We could agree to report back our progress to the rest of the community later.
I agree with Big Mac that this is not the most hospitable place to have such a discussion, but that's okay IMO. Just ignore the flame-baiting. When I say fundamental evidence, I suggest there is evidence that will beg two differing conclusions; both founded on belief and not direct observational evidence.

- The origin of the universe; continued study of our universe suggests that it had a Genesis moment. It is generally accepted that its birth occurred about 15 billion years ago. All current theories regarding this beginning (even including notions of parallel universes) are not directly observable, and remain unfalsifiable. Aspects of it sure, but not the cause of the effect. You can say; "matter just always existed" and that would be no different than saying; "God just always existed". Remember, the latter is a statement of faith, why not the former? We would have to assume the cause was natural, but only because of an emotional attachment to the notion. Matter cannot exist from nothing. Both Stephen Hawking and Einstein acknowledged this problem while not believing in a personal god. There's simply no way of getting around the question of supernatural cause. This is compelling evidence to me.

- The origin of order; Most aspects of science are successful due to the calculable nature of matter. The fact that certain laws exists allows us to calculate and make predictions on similar outcomes birthed from similar circumstance. In most cases we're able to use the precision of mathematics to overcome these problems. This does not necessitate purpose mind you, but it does imply direction. A deist may key on examples of order while a naturalist may key on examples of chaos, but the fact remains that order exists and is generally calculable. You may personally feel this is a feeble argument and the examples of chaos greatly outnumber the examples of order, but even the pitch blackness of a coliseum is broken by a single lit match. Only an emotional attachment can determine the degree of certainty in either view.

- God in the mind or the mind of God; I was told more or less that this is a tautological argument when in reality it is ontological. i.e. The ability to conceive of is evidence of. I openly admit it has problems, but suffice it to say that we as humans no doubt appear to have an augmented degree of self-awareness and curiosity. This degree of curiosity has led to achievement the likes of which no other species is capable. More developed neocortex? Maybe, but little is known of it. Deeper studies into reason essentially remain in the realm of pseudo-science. To me, this is interesting in light of our discussion on rationale and the degree of certainty in the claims made by those arguing me. In other words, the very foundation of logic as the core of rationale. You may answer the question of what by finding out how, but there is a limit to observation. Upon reaching this limit, the human mind will invariably ask why which begs the question of who. Granted, according to the fathers of this argument, if God did exist he'd likely be more than what we can envision. (crudely)

Personally, I cannot shake the question of why and who. I've tried to ignore God, but I cannot. I realize this is not so for everyone, but I cannot consider myself irrational by any measure in any other aspect of my life. This is likely why I insist on convincing others that this is not irrational, but has consumed a great deal of my mind in employing the most fundamental logic.

- Laws of human nature/Moral law; We've defined one without this sense as being flawed; a sociopath. The reason we can confidently assign a disorder, is because of what is generally regarded as order. One can suppose that moral laws have formed from social evolution. The need to survive and propagate the species will invariably lead to cooperation and this cooperation enabled fitness, but this does not account for the giving of one's life for another. It does not account for the fact that these laws transcend action and enter into feeling.

We observe order in a wealth of disciplines, but the notion of whether or not there is an organizer is subject to an emotional attachment or predisposition either for or against. Using the most fundamental of logic based on the most fundamental evidences, I find in favor of the former. In this I might in fact be irrational, but I do not see why the latter must therefore be any more rational. From this I maintain that the observation is without a control. It is meaningless and worse, generally founded from antagonism.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- The origin of the universe; continued study of our universe suggests that it had a Genesis moment. It is generally accepted that its birth occurred about 15 billion years ago. All current theories regarding this beginning (even including notions of parallel universes) are not directly observable, and remain unfalsifiable. Aspects of it sure, but not the cause of the effect. You can say; "matter just always existed" and that would be no different than saying; "God just always existed". Remember, the latter is a statement of faith, why not the former? We would have to assume the cause was natural, but only because of an emotional attachment to the notion. Matter cannot exist from nothing. Both Stephen Hawking and Einstein acknowledged this problem while not believing in a personal god. There's simply no way of getting around the question of supernatural cause. This is compelling evidence to me.
I lack the patience to do the cut-paste required to parse up responses as I see others do, so I hope you don't mind if I just take these in turn through separate posts.

Let us, for the moment, assume that you are right and that we can never completely eliminate the "supernatural," i.e. the unfalsifiable, from our explanation of the origin of the universe.

Is there any other standard that we might apply to assess these two separate propositions of "faith?" Is there anything we might say of them that could distinguish the extent to which one or the other is more or less rational?

edit: Damn job getting in the way of my posting. I'll come back and touch on the other points as soon as I can.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- The origin of order; Most aspects of science are successful due to the calculable nature of matter. The fact that certain laws exists allows us to calculate and make predictions on similar outcomes birthed from similar circumstance. In most cases we're able to use the precision of mathematics to overcome these problems. This does not necessitate purpose mind you, but it does imply direction. A deist may key on examples of order while a naturalist may key on examples of chaos, but the fact remains that order exists and is generally calculable. You may personally feel this is a feeble argument and the examples of chaos greatly outnumber the examples of order, but even the pitch blackness of a coliseum is broken by a single lit match. Only an emotional attachment can determine the degree of certainty in either view.
Is not the ability to quantify order based on the scientific principles of entropy? Would not citing this as evidence require you to accept the fundamental principle of entropy, that it is constantly increasing? If so, this seems like a self-defeating justification for the existence of a creator, as he would have only created order to exist in a death-dance with chaos.

You say it implies direction...why do you feel "direction" indicates the presence of the divine? Many things have direction but operate solely according to chance.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy;3715632- God in the mind or the mind of God; I was told more or less that this is a tautological argument when in reality it is ontological. i.e. The ability to conceive of is evidence of. I openly admit it has problems, but suffice it to say that we as humans no doubt appear to have an augmented degree of self-awareness and curiosity. This degree of curiosity has led to achievement the likes of which no other species is capable. More developed neocortex? Maybe, but little is known of it. Deeper studies into [I
reason[/I] essentially remain in the realm of pseudo-science. To me, this is interesting in light of our discussion on rationale and the degree of certainty in the claims made by those arguing me. In other words, the very foundation of logic as the core of rationale. You may answer the question of what by finding out how, but there is a limit to observation. Upon reaching this limit, the human mind will invariably ask why which begs the question of who. Granted, according to the fathers of this argument, if God did exist he'd likely be more than what we can envision. (crudely)
Maybe this splitting up the thread wasn't such a good idea. Sorry. Let me regroup later. I simply have too much work to do now. Drat.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 01:29 PM
 
ebuddy: I actually agree with most/all of what you said there. I have no problem with the idea that there might be such a thing as 'God'---though I'm unconvinced that any of the currently in vogue religions actually have an accurate idea of what that God is---especially when 'God' is defined as something along the lines of the organizing principle of the universe. There are any number of scenarios that I find completely palatable in which there might be a God such as that, or even a more Judeo-Christian style God, or a polytheistic panoply of gods. I devote a not insignificant amount of my time to pondering this question and attempting to pursue the truth of the matter (though I would still consider myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, not because I deny the existed of a deity/deities but because I consider it irrelevant in the sense that life is as it is regardless of why it is).

I still do, however, consider it irrational to profess the existence of a thing in absense of actual evidence that points specifically to that thing. Basically I think that the evidence points to the possibility of a God or gods, but since it is, as you say, unfalsifiable at this point there's not justification to actually claim that a theistic explanation is more likely or more correct than an atheistic one.
     
Lava Lamp Freak
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
ebuddy: I actually agree with most/all of what you said there. I have no problem with the idea that there might be such a thing as 'God'---though I'm unconvinced that any of the currently in vogue religions actually have an accurate idea of what that God is---especially when 'God' is defined as something along the lines of the organizing principle of the universe. There are any number of scenarios that I find completely palatable in which there might be a God such as that, or even a more Judeo-Christian style God, or a polytheistic panoply of gods. I devote a not insignificant amount of my time to pondering this question and attempting to pursue the truth of the matter (though I would still consider myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, not because I deny the existed of a deity/deities but because I consider it irrelevant in the sense that life is as it is regardless of why it is).

I still do, however, consider it irrational to profess the existence of a thing in absense of actual evidence that points specifically to that thing. Basically I think that the evidence points to the possibility of a God or gods, but since it is, as you say, unfalsifiable at this point there's not justification to actually claim that a theistic explanation is more likely or more correct than an atheistic one.
I agree. I can understand the belief that something was responsible for the origin of it all. After reading ebuddy's post, the only difference in what most atheists think just seems like a difference in semantics. He is applying a word to it when I would say "I don't know how or what started it". In that manner, I think that is a perfectly rational belief as long as it is left as undefined. Once you say that this something loves us, has a plan for us, and sent us his son Jesus who was born of a virgin and died on the cross and arose on the third day forgiving our sins so that we can live forever in heaven with him, but everyone who doesn't accept him or wasn't lucky enough to be born into a nation that is even aware of him will suffer for eternity -- that is when you have crossed the line to being irrational. Then there is the issue of predestination and the elect that is completely absurd, but I won't get into my arguments about theological issues or the historical blunders in both the Old and New Testament -- I've tried that with my Christian friends and have learned people will believe whatever they want to.

This debate has been going on since before any of us here were even born. There are expert theologians and expert scientists -- both atheist and Christian -- who all have their own opinion on the topic and won't agree. The last debate I watched was between Alister MgGrath and Richard Dawkins. Both believe in evolution, but McGrath is a Christian. I thought McGrath sounded like a blooming idiot. A Christian friend of mine thought Richard Dawkins sounded like an idiot -- although my friend doesn't even agree with McGrath on evolution since he is a young earth creationist. The Christian faith requires wishful thinking. Obviously there must be some type of difference in brain chemistry that allows this difference in thought. Perhaps it can be fixed with proper medication.
( Last edited by Lava Lamp Freak; Aug 29, 2008 at 03:28 PM. )
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- God in the mind or the mind of God; I was told more or less that this is a tautological argument when in reality it is ontological. i.e. The ability to conceive of is evidence of. I openly admit it has problems, but suffice it to say that we as humans no doubt appear to have an augmented degree of self-awareness and curiosity. This degree of curiosity has led to achievement the likes of which no other species is capable. More developed neocortex? Maybe, but little is known of it. Deeper studies into reason essentially remain in the realm of pseudo-science. To me, this is interesting in light of our discussion on rationale and the degree of certainty in the claims made by those arguing me. In other words, the very foundation of logic as the core of rationale. You may answer the question of what by finding out how, but there is a limit to observation. Upon reaching this limit, the human mind will invariably ask why which begs the question of who. Granted, according to the fathers of this argument, if God did exist he'd likely be more than what we can envision. (crudely)

Personally, I cannot shake the question of why and who. I've tried to ignore God, but I cannot. I realize this is not so for everyone, but I cannot consider myself irrational by any measure in any other aspect of my life. This is likely why I insist on convincing others that this is not irrational, but has consumed a great deal of my mind in employing the most fundamental logic.
If you'll forgive me for saying so, your very questions presuppose the existence of a God. You cannot shake the notion of a God because you've built your reasoning upon the idea. There is no logical connection from "why" to "who" I can see except an anthropocentric assumption that all causes must originate with intelligence. This assumption is, as far as I can see, unfounded.

This relates to our understanding of the brain, which I think is something that you may want to read about further. The way you characterize research into cognition as "pseudoscience" leads me to believe that you may not be up on some of the research that's out there. We have quite a bit of scientific evidence from evolutionary and cognitive psychologists that gives us a view of the brain as a network of decision-making systems that have evolved for the specific contexts in which we live. We are social beings. A lot of our brain power is dedicated to interacting with one another. It stands to reason then, that human thinking is naturally inclined toward a "who" explanation for events. Science, though, points us in another direction. What we have learned enough about the still-mysterious world of quantum dynamics to know that things just happen. At the fundamental level, our intelligence designed to appreciate cause-and-effect, is confronted with the staggering reality that the universe is actually probabalistic.

I say these things because I think your reasoning here really shows the very kinds of bias I mentioned much earlier in this thread--the kind of rationalization we are all vulnerable to simply because of the way our brains are put together. I think you might find some of that reading--guys like Marcus and Newberg--interesting, and I hope you'd agree it is definitely beyond the scope of pseudo-science, even if ultimately you disagreed with them.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- Laws of human nature/Moral law; We've defined one without this sense as being flawed; a sociopath. The reason we can confidently assign a disorder, is because of what is generally regarded as order. One can suppose that moral laws have formed from social evolution. The need to survive and propagate the species will invariably lead to cooperation and this cooperation enabled fitness, but this does not account for the giving of one's life for another. It does not account for the fact that these laws transcend action and enter into feeling.
Evolution fails to account for altruism only if we fallaciously subscribe to optimality through natural selection. If the behavior patterns that cause us to work together allow us to work together for commons survival and propagation more often then they lead individuals to sacrifice themselves for others or for an ideal, then there is no discrepancy requiring us to look for supernatural explanation.

As for feeling...they are feelings, no?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We observe order in a wealth of disciplines, but the notion of whether or not there is an organizer is subject to an emotional attachment or predisposition either for or against. Using the most fundamental of logic based on the most fundamental evidences, I find in favor of the former. In this I might in fact be irrational, but I do not see why the latter must therefore be any more rational. From this I maintain that the observation is without a control. It is meaningless and worse, generally founded from antagonism.
Certainly there are people whose existing beliefs powerfully motivate them to react antagonistically against those who believe differently. There are numerous controlled experiments that demonstrate how common this effect is. Even if researchers create a false belief--i.e. present a false source of evidence leading subjects to generate a belief about a previously neutral topic--and then actually explain that the evidence was falsified, the subjects tend to continue to believe and actively defend the belief they generated based on the false data.

That's earth shattering for me: the insight that we are believing machines, not rational machines as we might have imagined.

You argue that the two sides of this issue are both emotionally attached to their perspectives. One could easily argue, from the atheistic point of view, that there's no reason to be emotionally attached to atheism. After all, why would one be? No after life. No divine forgiveness. No definitive answers. It seems a no brainer. But science tells us now that we will be emotionally attached to a belief in atheism simply because we do believe in it.

Again, earth shattering. So I'm trying to restrain myself. I'm trying to ask, instead of tell here. Sometimes, though, I'm confident enough that I see gaps in your logic that I've tried to point them out. They seem obvious and apparent to me...but will you see them? And if not, does it mean you're not being rational or that I'm only seeing the gaps because of my own motivated reasoning? Is there any end to the uncertainties produced by accepting this model of the mind?

So let us come back to the dichotomy you present. You claim that you have arrived at your conclusion based on "fundamental" logic. How can you be sure? How do you know you've stepped away from your emotional attachment to the idea of God?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak View Post
Obviously there must be some type of difference in brain chemistry that allows this difference in thought. Perhaps it can be fixed with proper medication.
I've come to believe that it is very much the same brain mechanisms at work in both cases.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
I still do, however, consider it irrational to profess the existence of a thing in absense of actual evidence that points specifically to that thing. Basically I think that the evidence points to the possibility of a God or gods, but since it is, as you say, unfalsifiable at this point there's not justification to actually claim that a theistic explanation is more likely or more correct than an atheistic one.
In what way do you feel the evidence points to the possibility of a god?
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 06:22 PM
 
Sorry, I should probably rephrase that to say that the evidence doesn't point to the impossibility of a god. I don't think there is positive evidence suggesting that there probably or even may be a god, but neither is there negative evidence suggesting that there isn't or couldn't be. So, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently no evidence that rules out the possibility of a god, or really anything that says it's less likely that some god caused the big bang than that it was the natural consequence of an 'old' universe collapsing, or whatever. There's even theories out there suggesting that it's possible that someone could create a universe within our own that could then be used for computation, which brings up the question of whether or not we could possibly live in such a universe created not by a god or gods, but by some scientists who just thought it would be cool or useful to create a universe (although from our perspective is there any meaningful difference between those scientists and gods?).
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Sorry, I should probably rephrase that to say that the evidence doesn't point to the impossibility of a god. I don't think there is positive evidence suggesting that there probably or even may be a god, but neither is there negative evidence suggesting that there isn't or couldn't be. So, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently no evidence that rules out the possibility of a god, or really anything that says it's less likely that some god caused the big bang than that it was the natural consequence of an 'old' universe collapsing, or whatever. There's even theories out there suggesting that it's possible that someone could create a universe within our own that could then be used for computation, which brings up the question of whether or not we could possibly live in such a universe created not by a god or gods, but by some scientists who just thought it would be cool or useful to create a universe (although from our perspective is there any meaningful difference between those scientists and gods?).
Oh, I see.

It seems to me the scenarios you toss about are as plausible as any religious narrative about creation, and they suffer from the same problem. If the universe requires a God to create it, then wouldn't a God also need a God to create it? Is God somehow less complex than his own creation? If so, then doesn't that also implicitly accept that complexity can arise from something simple? At some point don't we have to accept somethings simply are what they are? If so, what is more reasonable to accept as simply existing in its own right--the universe which we can observe around us or some invisible being?

The other thing that mystifies me is why people, even assuming there is a "God" or whatever, would assume it should be worshipped. Why even assume this being is benevolent? In human affairs, power doesn't equal righteousness (often quite the contrary) so why should it be so with our anthropomorphic deities? I've seen a bumper sticker that says, "Next time you think you're perfect, try walking on water." It raised in me the whimsical thought, "And what if I succeeded? Would you then worship me?" Even if the stories about Jesus performing miracles were true--and frankly the historical record would seem to indicate they are not--that would hardly be proof that this powerful being was who he says he was.

The whole notion seems problematic to me, but you never know...one must try to keep an open mind.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
It seems to me the scenarios you toss about are as plausible as any religious narrative about creation, and they suffer from the same problem. If the universe requires a God to create it, then wouldn't a God also need a God to create it? Is God somehow less complex than his own creation? If so, then doesn't that also implicitly accept that complexity can arise from something simple? At some point don't we have to accept somethings simply are what they are? If so, what is more reasonable to accept as simply existing in its own right--the universe which we can observe around us or some invisible being?
I agree, to say that there is a god raises exactly those issues. On the other hand, if it's possible for the universe to arise out of nowhere, then it could also be possible for a god to do so who might then go on to create the universe. Occam's razor suggests that this wouldn't be the case, however that doesn't make it impossible.

So while I don't deny the possibility of a god, I don't personally think there is one (short of redefining the word god as some sort of organizing principle to the universe).

The other thing that mystifies me is why people, even assuming there is a "God" or whatever, would assume it should be worshipped. Why even assume this being is benevolent? In human affairs, power doesn't equal righteousness (often quite the contrary) so why should it be so with our anthropomorphic deities? I've seen a bumper sticker that says, "Next time you think you're perfect, try walking on water." It raised in me the whimsical thought, "And what if I succeeded? Would you then worship me?" Even if the stories about Jesus performing miracles were true--and frankly the historical record would seem to indicate they are not--that would hardly be proof that this powerful being was who he says he was.

The whole notion seems problematic to me, but you never know...one must try to keep an open mind.
I definitely agree with this. This is basically what I was getting at when I said that God, if such a thing exists, is irrelevant. Certainly any being with the power necessary to create the universe is worthy of respect, but I don't see that worship is necessary or even worthwhile. Furthermore, any deity that had all that power, then created humans and demanded to be worshiped strikes me as a bit juvenile and even more unworthy of worship.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
I agree, to say that there is a god raises exactly those issues. On the other hand, if it's possible for the universe to arise out of nowhere, then it could also be possible for a god to do so who might then go on to create the universe. Occam's razor suggests that this wouldn't be the case, however that doesn't make it impossible.

So while I don't deny the possibility of a god, I don't personally think there is one (short of redefining the word god as some sort of organizing principle to the universe).



I definitely agree with this. This is basically what I was getting at when I said that God, if such a thing exists, is irrelevant. Certainly any being with the power necessary to create the universe is worthy of respect, but I don't see that worship is necessary or even worthwhile. Furthermore, any deity that had all that power, then created humans and demanded to be worshiped strikes me as a bit juvenile and even more unworthy of worship.
Yes, yes, it seems like it would be a sign of a rather fragile ego, don't you think? Of course, I think that, if there were such a being, the "worship" might be more for our benefit, to maintain humility and all. It's like when you teach your kids self-control through your authority. It's not that we, as parents, want our kids undying and unquestioning obedience. We want them to be able to control themselves when they grow up. So, I imagine one could make that argument about a lot of what "God" asks of human kind.

The question that naturally stems from that is...well, just when do we "grow up" in our relationship with God?

Of course, from our end, that's all very hypothetical.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Is there any other standard that we might apply to assess these two separate propositions of "faith?" Is there anything we might say of them that could distinguish the extent to which one or the other is more or less rational?
This is a good question and really cuts to the core of why I define rational in terms of the individual. If for example I suggested that you'll burn in hell for implying that God doesn't exist, I might not be rational. In fact, many of those who could bring themselves to this place would say; "Fine, I'm not rational. Rational is the wisdom of man, but righteousness is the way of the Godly." or some such thing. God has endowed me too much pride to relent on this.

I would say the degree of stress behavior demonstrated by the one considering the likelihood of each could be one measure. Has the subject closed his mind to reason? Have they allowed their degree of certainty in any one thing, hinder their ability to even see another?

A particular measure of rationale might be the length of time we're able to keep a civil discussion like this alive. Other than that to be honest, "rationale" is a somewhat nebulous topic.
ebuddy
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 09:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
It seems to me the scenarios you toss about are as plausible as any religious narrative about creation, and they suffer from the same problem. If the universe requires a God to create it, then wouldn't a God also need a God to create it? Is God somehow less complex than his own creation?
This problem exists for both religion and science. Religion seems to say that it's not important where God came from, only that He is ("I am"). Science points to the big bang, but it's fuzzy for me how nothing suddenly becomes a whole lot of something. Where did the stuff in the big bang come from? Where did the stuff that made that stuff come from?

Neither really answers this question.

If so, then doesn't that also implicitly accept that complexity can arise from something simple? At some point don't we have to accept somethings simply are what they are? If so, what is more reasonable to accept as simply existing in its own right--the universe which we can observe around us or some invisible being?
I see no harm in questioning everything, including this. We might even turn up information that has practical value. Perhaps it will solve the energy problem. To me, accepting that things are the way they are without understanding them is quitting, and there is the possibility of gain from not quitting.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Is not the ability to quantify order based on the scientific principles of entropy? Would not citing this as evidence require you to accept the fundamental principle of entropy, that it is constantly increasing? If so, this seems like a self-defeating justification for the existence of a creator, as he would have only created order to exist in a death-dance with chaos.
Depends on what you consider a death dance. By matter achieving equilibrium contingent upon its environment, does it not allow for higher probability? When considering positive and negative entropy, when does it matter? Some may view living forever as positive, some may view it as negative. Our aging process is one such place where entropy matters, but what is the alternative and can our system sustain otherwise? i.e. is this chaotic "death dance" necessarily a bad thing? Maybe God would like to sell us an upgrade and if this thing lasts too long, it will have outlived its usefulness.

You say it implies direction...why do you feel "direction" indicates the presence of the divine? Many things have direction but operate solely according to chance.
Cause and effect. There is a cause for each of the examples of direction you'll cite. When considering origins not of species, but of matter, there should be a cause. We know much and in this knowledge we know for certain nothing will come of nothing. Something cannot come from nothing. At some point, we will come to an impasse of intellect and the unthinkable must become thinkable. Shall we just continue to push back the genesis event? Each time we come closer to answering time, we push it back a little further? This hardly seems more reasonable to me.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
This problem exists for both religion and science. Religion seems to say that it's not important where God came from, only that He is ("I am"). Science points to the big bang, but it's fuzzy for me how nothing suddenly becomes a whole lot of something. Where did the stuff in the big bang come from? Where did the stuff that made that stuff come from?
I think there are some things to keep in mind here. Big Bang does not propose that the universe as we know it came from "nothing," but from a singularity, space folded into itself like in a black hole that then began to expand. It's true that this theory proposes an origin we can investigate, but for very different reasons than the reasons we cannot investigate the origin of a deity. Instead of "God is inscrutable," we cannot look past Big Bang because of the nature of matter and the limited predictive power of the theories of quantum mechanics and gravitation.

So the "problem" with religion and the "problem" for science are not the same problem. The problem with the Big Bang theory is that we just don't know yet, whereas the problem with religion is that we just can't know.

What's more, we have arrived to the two "problems" through completely different routes. The "problem" of religion comes to us through tradition, but the "problem" of science come from the limitations of theories which have been built up through empirical investigation.

So I really don't think it's appropriate to shrug our shoulders and say, "neither can be sure," or "they're the same," when really it is apples and oranges.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 09:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is a good question and really cuts to the core of why I define rational in terms of the individual. If for example I suggested that you'll burn in hell for implying that God doesn't exist, I might not be rational. In fact, many of those who could bring themselves to this place would say; "Fine, I'm not rational. Rational is the wisdom of man, but righteousness is the way of the Godly." or some such thing. God has endowed me too much pride to relent on this.

I would say the degree of stress behavior demonstrated by the one considering the likelihood of each could be one measure. Has the subject closed his mind to reason? Have they allowed their degree of certainty in any one thing, hinder their ability to even see another?

A particular measure of rationale might be the length of time we're able to keep a civil discussion like this alive. Other than that to be honest, "rationale" is a somewhat nebulous topic.
I'm afraid that doesn't really sound like a reasonable test. Each individual's patience and emotional make-up is different, so the emotional response of an adherent would not necessarily say anything about the rational limits of the ideas, merely of the person. Considering that I've been arguing that human nature disinclines us from being able to be reasonable most of the time, this doesn't sound like a very fair test of the ideas at all.

Besides, if either of us were arguing on an unrelated issue against someone with a very irrational belief who nevertheless had complete confidence in his irrationality, we could easily become frustrated before this third party. Let's say you had to try to convince someone that the Earth was round, but that someone was stubbornly and placidly self-assured that the Earth was flat and rejected out of turn all the evidence you tried to use to demonstrate the spherical nature of the planet. You might very well become irritated despite the fact that your ideas were undoubtedly the more rational of the two.

That scenario gives me an idea. Might we be able to agree to a recourse to analogy? Is there some way we might construct a hypothetical scenario which might speak to the logic of your two propositions? I'll try to think of one...
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Depends on what you consider a death dance. By matter achieving equilibrium contingent upon its environment, does it not allow for higher probability? When considering positive and negative entropy, when does it matter? Some may view living forever as positive, some may view it as negative. Our aging process is one such place where entropy matters, but what is the alternative and can our system sustain otherwise? i.e. is this chaotic "death dance" necessarily a bad thing? Maybe God would like to sell us an upgrade and if this thing lasts too long, it will have outlived its usefulness.


Cause and effect. There is a cause for each of the examples of direction you'll cite. When considering origins not of species, but of matter, there should be a cause. We know much and in this knowledge we know for certain nothing will come of nothing. Something cannot come from nothing. At some point, we will come to an impasse of intellect and the unthinkable must become thinkable. Shall we just continue to push back the genesis event? Each time we come closer to answering time, we push it back a little further? This hardly seems more reasonable to me.
Yes, the unthinkable must become thinkable, such as the quantum example I referred to somewhere else (I am coming to regret fracturing this discussion...sorry). It seems unthinkable that the universe we see as ordered and grand may simply be the product of probabilistic mechanics. That conclusion, however, is rationally derived from empirical investigation.

Now here's a notion I've had: What if the universe is a created thing from the mind of a God, and life is the instrument of its design in this universe. The whole of this creation is a grand symphony whereby life eventually finds the means to side-step or short circuit the laws of entropy, escaping the tragedy of heat death against all odds, leaving the universe to exist on its own terms beyond those physical limits. Beautiful, no?
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
So the "problem" with religion and the "problem" for science are not the same problem. The problem with the Big Bang theory is that we just don't know yet, whereas the problem with religion is that we just can't know.
I disagree. It's possible to figure it out either way. Religion isn't a statement of the end of knowledge. You also seem to speak as if the two are opposites - they're not. Religion is not some alternate explanation to science, and positioning it as such is not useful to a productive discussion.
     
Lava Lamp Freak
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
I disagree. It's possible to figure it out either way. Religion isn't a statement of the end of knowledge. You also seem to speak as if the two are opposites - they're not. Religion is not some alternate explanation to science, and positioning it as such is not useful to a productive discussion.
While there are scientists who believe in God and say they don't see opposition in the two, even they state that God and is unprovable because he exists outside of our universe and is therefore untestable. This very notion is set up in a way that it could never be tested to be confirmed or denied. I do think we can arrive at a firm conclusion if our religions are the revelation and inspiration of a god, and I think it has already been done. Most people would agree with that, with the exception of the one god they do believe in.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
If you'll forgive me for saying so, your very questions presuppose the existence of a God. You cannot shake the notion of a God because you've built your reasoning upon the idea. There is no logical connection from "why" to "who" I can see except an anthropocentric assumption that all causes must originate with intelligence. This assumption is, as far as I can see, unfounded.
This assumption will have to be considered at some point. At that point where we reach the absolute limits of understanding, the unthinkable must be considered. Something cannot come from nothing. Certainly, there is no intelligent agent behind all causes, but all causes cannot be said to be random either. I fail to see how a naturalistic assumption is more reasonable.

This relates to our understanding of the brain, which I think is something that you may want to read about further. The way you characterize research into cognition as "pseudoscience" leads me to believe that you may not be up on some of the research that's out there. We have quite a bit of scientific evidence from evolutionary and cognitive psychologists that gives us a view of the brain as a network of decision-making systems that have evolved for the specific contexts in which we live.
Perhaps you could cite some of it. I'm at times guilty of not giving science its proper respect and invariably someone will pop up to encourage my education while providing what I could only regard as a fallacious degree of optimism. For example; are you prepared to explain what science has concluded on the following;
- Can mental states be phenomenally-conscious without also being functionally-conscious?
- Can phenomenal consciousness even be explained in functional and/or representational terms?
- Did self-awareness evolve in humans as a regulatory mechanism?
- Do we have specific consciousness neurons?
- Is consciousness just a controlling gateway to unconscious mechanisms?
- Shall we consider the Higher-Order Perception Theory? Inner-sense theory? Intrinsicalism? Global-workspace theory?
- What cortical resources subserve specific thoughts?

This science remains in its infancy as I stated before.

We are social beings. A lot of our brain power is dedicated to interacting with one another. It stands to reason then, that human thinking is naturally inclined toward a "who" explanation for events. Science, though, points us in another direction. What we have learned enough about the still-mysterious world of quantum dynamics to know that things just happen. At the fundamental level, our intelligence designed to appreciate cause-and-effect, is confronted with the staggering reality that the universe is actually probabalistic.
This is only a reality in our ability to measure it with scientific methodology. When two basic premises are at odds such as "something cannot come from nothing" and "it always has been" or worse; "it just happened that something should come from nothing", the question is begged and we're returned to our baser logic. That which as social beings we are destined to conclude.

I say these things because I think your reasoning here really shows the very kinds of bias I mentioned much earlier in this thread
I say the exact same of you unfortunately which is likely the irreconcilable impasse.

the kind of rationalization we are all vulnerable to simply because of the way our brains are put together.
Interesting you should use terminology that at its core suggests an intelligent agent. Perhaps you're not as far removed from this bias as you might think.

I think you might find some of that reading--guys like Marcus and Newberg--interesting, and I hope you'd agree it is definitely beyond the scope of pseudo-science, even if ultimately you disagreed with them.
There are aspects of the study that in fact employ the scientific method, but at the end of the day they collectively remain untestable. In many respects this discipline lacks precepts, definitions, and conclusions on its most fundamental characteristics. Multiple theories on this field abound. I maintain that any such haste or optimism regarding this science is due to a bias of another kind, an emotional attachment to a presupposition; no more or less reasonable than a "god hypothesis". Of course, any "hypothesis" that regards a "who" should never consider this question more important than the "what" and "how". Historically, (unless you consider thought-suppression by a power hungry establishment) this has not been the case as we can plainly see in science today.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Yes, the unthinkable must become thinkable, such as the quantum example I referred to somewhere else (I am coming to regret fracturing this discussion...sorry). It seems unthinkable that the universe we see as ordered and grand may simply be the product of probabilistic mechanics. That conclusion, however, is rationally derived from empirical investigation.
Here again, two of the most fundamental aspects of empirical investigation cannot be at odds. It is difficult to say with any non-emotional degree of certainty that probability mechanics ( a measure of entropy primarily employed in engineering to overcome it) can in any way explain something from nothing science.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
I'm afraid that doesn't really sound like a reasonable test. Each individual's patience and emotional make-up is different, so the emotional response of an adherent would not necessarily say anything about the rational limits of the ideas, merely of the person.
The person is what is in question however.

Considering that I've been arguing that human nature disinclines us from being able to be reasonable most of the time, this doesn't sound like a very fair test of the ideas at all.
I was admittedly being a little tongue in cheek here, but this discussion only affirms the nebulous nature of the subject matter.

Besides, if either of us were arguing on an unrelated issue against someone with a very irrational belief who nevertheless had complete confidence in his irrationality, we could easily become frustrated before this third party. Let's say you had to try to convince someone that the Earth was round, but that someone was stubbornly and placidly self-assured that the Earth was flat and rejected out of turn all the evidence you tried to use to demonstrate the spherical nature of the planet. You might very well become irritated despite the fact that your ideas were undoubtedly the more rational of the two.
I would define this as a perfect example of irrational. One's certainty in a notion suppresses or cannot allow any data to the contrary. An immovable degree of rigidity. They are no longer availing themselves of information from which reason could exist.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
I disagree. It's possible to figure it out either way. Religion isn't a statement of the end of knowledge. You also seem to speak as if the two are opposites - they're not. Religion is not some alternate explanation to science, and positioning it as such is not useful to a productive discussion.
I was responding to a post that centered on the perception that neither science nor religion can offer certainty about the big questions of existence, specifically the origin of the universe. The line of discussion is the question of whether or not belief in God is "rational" and this is where that question has brought us. It was not my doing.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This assumption will have to be considered at some point. At that point where we reach the absolute limits of understanding, the unthinkable must be considered. Something cannot come from nothing. Certainly, there is no intelligent agent behind all causes, but all causes cannot be said to be random either. I fail to see how a naturalistic assumption is more reasonable.


Perhaps you could cite some of it. I'm at times guilty of not giving science its proper respect and invariably someone will pop up to encourage my education while providing what I could only regard as a fallacious degree of optimism. For example; are you prepared to explain what science has concluded on the following;
- Can mental states be phenomenally-conscious without also being functionally-conscious?
- Can phenomenal consciousness even be explained in functional and/or representational terms?
- Did self-awareness evolve in humans as a regulatory mechanism?
- Do we have specific consciousness neurons?
- Is consciousness just a controlling gateway to unconscious mechanisms?
- Shall we consider the Higher-Order Perception Theory? Inner-sense theory? Intrinsicalism? Global-workspace theory?
- What cortical resources subserve specific thoughts?

This science remains in its infancy as I stated before.


This is only a reality in our ability to measure it with scientific methodology. When two basic premises are at odds such as "something cannot come from nothing" and "it always has been" or worse; "it just happened that something should come from nothing", the question is begged and we're returned to our baser logic. That which as social beings we are destined to conclude.


I say the exact same of you unfortunately which is likely the irreconcilable impasse.


Interesting you should use terminology that at its core suggests an intelligent agent. Perhaps you're not as far removed from this bias as you might think.


There are aspects of the study that in fact employ the scientific method, but at the end of the day they collectively remain untestable. In many respects this discipline lacks precepts, definitions, and conclusions on its most fundamental characteristics. Multiple theories on this field abound. I maintain that any such haste or optimism regarding this science is due to a bias of another kind, an emotional attachment to a presupposition; no more or less reasonable than a "god hypothesis". Of course, any "hypothesis" that regards a "who" should never consider this question more important than the "what" and "how". Historically, (unless you consider thought-suppression by a power hungry establishment) this has not been the case as we can plainly see in science today.
I know you've said a great deal, so my response to this is likely to seem anemic. My apologies. I do want to try to address the many questions you posed, but there are two problems: One, I think many of them are based upon assumptions about the shall we say, special nature of consciousness that I'm not sure I'm comfortable with (but we shall see) and Two, I don't have any resources that would be useful in responding lying around. So, I will have to delay addressing those for the moment. Sorry.

There is one thing that stands out for me in your post: "Something cannot come from nothing."

To which I have two questions: Why not? and What about God?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2008, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The person is what is in question however.


I was admittedly being a little tongue in cheek here, but this discussion only affirms the nebulous nature of the subject matter.


I would define this as a perfect example of irrational. One's certainty in a notion suppresses or cannot allow any data to the contrary. An immovable degree of rigidity. They are no longer availing themselves of information from which reason could exist.
Perhaps you've struck upon a test. Though I'd hoped to try to remain neutral, we both know that's impossible and that I'm obviously arguing not from tabula rasa but from my standpoint as a nonbeliever.

So, perhaps each of us should share what it would take to convince us we were wrong.

I will answer: What could turn me into a believer?

And you: What could make you a nonbeliever?

I also think we should write this out independently. I should compose mine without having seen yours and vice versa. If I had any idea how to do that SPOILER thing I've seen other people do, I'd do that right now. Since I don't, I'll just type my response now and wait for yours to post it. Sound fair?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2008, 11:32 AM
 
So, has anyone changed, or had their beliefs influenced by, this thread?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2008, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
So, perhaps each of us should share what it would take to convince us we were wrong.
I appreciate the exercise, but I have a fundamental problem with it. Simply put, I'm not entirely convinced I'm right in the first place. There are those who are 100% convinced they are right, but I am not one of them. In short I'll preface my submission with some honesty; I'm not certain there's anything that can entirely convince me either way. I lean in one direction and I'll give you some means of how perhaps I might lean the other. I hope this will suffice, but I have a hunch you'll be disappointed. Please understand that this exercise is likely as old as mankind itself.

 
ebuddy
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2008, 08:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- You'd have to first strip me of my childhood to convince me I'm wrong.
- You'd have to strip me of any teaching about a god.
This is why I maintain that children should be brought up with the ability to make their own choices. We don't enrol our children into a political party when they are born (although I

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2008, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
This is why I maintain that children should be brought up with the ability to make their own choices. We don't enrol our children into a political party when they are born (although I
... couldn't finish the thought?

There are a great many aspects of Church that are healthy for children. It is not simple indoctrination as many would like to believe. Besides, if they're going to decide against Christianity, they should at least know what they're against.

My wife grew up in a household that didn't attend Church. She often begged her parents to take her and eventually had to go with her friends. You might not like the choice they make. What then? Make them play Wii tennis at gun point?
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2008, 10:18 AM
 
Ok, ebuddy, here's what I wrote Saturday:

I am fairly confident that if I saw some empirical evidence suggesting the existence of the supernatural that I would become much more open to the idea of God. For example, if that show Ghost Hunters ever had more than floor boards creaking (I’ll admit I’ve only watched it once) and there was some hard evidence that ghosts existed, then I would be more open to the possibility of a God. I can be confident because I’ve experienced upheavals in my worldview many times when I would come across something that excited me and made me think that I had the world all wrong. I remember that in college I read a book about Roswell from somebody who, at first, seemed to make a solid case about aliens. Upon further research, though, he proved to be a megalomaniac who couldn’t even keep his facts straight. I read that book about a vast pre-Ice Age civilization with advanced technology and thought it was very compelling, but again, when I cross checked its sources, found the evidence was much less compelling than the author had claimed. Much more recently, when someone (was it you?) posted links to a study demonstrating the effects of remote prayer, I was really intrigued. I mean REALLY intrigued. I won’t go so far as to say that I thought if it panned out it would “prove” the existence of God, but I was certainly excited at the idea that our consciousness could be extended beyond our minds. Unfortunately, when I found the time to actually read up on it, I found that further study had essentially debunked the linked research.

So I know that I am open to changing my views about the supernatural. That, though, is admittedly a far cry from believing in God. What if Jesus appeared to me right now in my dining room and said, “Helmling, I come to you so you might know I am the way and the life. I am the son of God who died for your sins. Follow me, so that you might live forever,” would I then believe in God?

No, but damn, would I be open. There exist, though, so many other explanations for that experience. My first thought would be that I’d gone completely off my nut. But let’s say I was quick enough and turned my iSight on to independently verify that I really was seeing something, so that we can dispel that one. Now, I’d obviously be engaged in an encounter with a being or technology far beyond my understanding. But just as Descartes wondered if he might be the victim of some cruel deceiver, why should I assume a powerful being is truthful?

Hopefully Jesus would stick around and let me ask him a few questions...hell, a lot of questions. Even if he answered satisfactorily about what it was he wanted of me, I still think it would take a leap of faith to accept that this being is what he claims to be. Would I, after all this, convert and call myself a Christian? I do think there are things Jesus might say that would convince me to do so. (“You’ll go to hell otherwise,” would NOT be one of them.)

In the end, though, I suppose I could be turned into a believer, but as you see, it would take something very profound. I could be opened to the possibility of God much, much more easily. At present, though, for all my reading and all my experiences in life, I still would have to say that there is nothing that even suggests such a possibility to me.
( Last edited by Helmling; Sep 1, 2008 at 11:05 AM. )
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2008, 10:50 AM
 
I think Helmling's post suggests an interesting question.

Would a non-believer suddenly start believing in God if the non-believer had incontrovertible proof for the existence of God? This would suggest that belief in a deity is based on empirical evidence for the existence of said deity. A secondary question would then question what constitutes "empirical evidence for the existence of a deity". I wonder if non-believers would continue to not believe in God, while simultaneously acknowledging his existence, or would they suddenly convert to a belief in God after obtaining proof for God's existence.


As for me, I would be in the former category of non-believers who would continue to not believe in God, while simultaneously acknowledging his existence. My lack of belief in God has nothing to do with whether or not I have proof God exists and everything to do with my feeling that the idea of a god and belief in a god is limiting human potential. In other words, for me, whether or not evidence for God exists is irrelevant to my belief in (the Christian) God or any other god.


to Helmling and ebuddy for a very interesting debate.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2008, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
So, has anyone changed, or had their beliefs influenced by, this thread?
Highly unlikely. I haven't, and I've had a lot of religious training, including several years as a church youth group leader, and a year as a Sunday School teacher.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2008, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I appreciate the exercise, but I have a fundamental problem with it. Simply put, I'm not entirely convinced I'm right in the first place. There are those who are 100% convinced they are right, but I am not one of them. In short I'll preface my submission with some honesty; I'm not certain there's anything that can entirely convince me either way. I lean in one direction and I'll give you some means of how perhaps I might lean the other. I hope this will suffice, but I have a hunch you'll be disappointed. Please understand that this exercise is likely as old as mankind itself.
Yes, it is. I've read many "proofs" of the existence of God and I've always felt they were cases of rationalizing an existing idea that always fell short of "rational" in my book. As you'll see from my own response, I'm not 100% sure of myself, though frankly, it's pretty close to that, and what's more, it would take something beyond extraordinary to bring me close to 100% belief in a concept as elaborate as an intelligent being responsible for creation.

- You'd have to first strip me of my childhood to convince me I'm wrong.
That's certainly a tall order, but I'd like to point out simply that childhood indoctrination is not proof of rationality.

- You'd have to strip me of any teaching about a god.
See above.

- You'd have to convince me that our fate is entirely our own and that we are in control.
Aren't we? Aren't we endowed with free will according to Christian theology? What I never understood is, if we're supposed to be making a free choice of whether to follow God or not, how come some people (the folks we read in the Bible or those folks who see Jesus in potato peels) get to experience the presence of God directly, while the overwhelming majority of us have just books and loudmouths (that Olsteen guy on TV) to judge by? Why doesn't Jesus pay everyone a visit once (like in my scenario) and say, "You have freewill, but here's what I hope you'll do. See ya later!"

Anyway, I sense I'm losing my focus.

- You'd have to convince me that my personal spiritual experiences were merely coincidental.
I read this thing about how researchers were able to directly trigger "spiritual" experience like a near-death tunnel vision through brain stimulation. They've done MRI studies of Buddhist monk in deep meditative states and identified the extremely focused patterns of brain activity these mystics are able to achieve. I know I've had experiences, almost out of body moments, where I felt a transcendent connection to the world around me, but I wasn't able to convince myself that these weren't manifestations of activity in my brain.

In general, I don't see why people feel the import of our spiritual experiences are lessened if they come from within us. The experience and where it took our thinking and how it made us aware of our place in the cosmos is the same, regardless of origin.

- You'd have to establish with empirical proof, the origin of matter.
Your problem with this one is what mystifies me the most. You have a problem with the origin of matter...but logically, wouldn't adding a God just remove that problem one link down the chain? Wouldn't your problem simply become the origin of God?

- You'd have to explain why code and information shouldn't imply design.
Anthropocentrism. It's basically Paley's Watchmaker argument. There is order, therefore there must be someone putting things in order. But order in the mathematical sense does not require intelligence. Dung beetles add order to a system with their activity, but we don't assume they're conscious. How can order come from nonorder? I suspect you know how I would answer at length with terms like natural selection and such, but the bottom line is that even as life is going about its business, the total disorder of the system as a whole is still increasing.

- Why common descent cannot simply be common design.
Because it would indicate a crappy designer. Natural selection eeks by with obviously imperfect solutions all the time. But if the design flaws are outweighed by overall fitness, then the organism and its lineage continues. The human spine and birth canal are classic maladaptions, but other creatures are blighted with such flaws too. Heck, all vertebrates have a backward eye design. Why would an intelligent designer face our retina the wrong way? Particularly when mollusks have their eyes pointing the right way.

- Why laws do not require a law-maker.
But what if...we're the law makers?

- You'd have to establish with empirical proof, the origin of morals.
Is this the old universal morality concept? I've heard people argue before that the universal nature of human morality proves there must be some higher force dictating our notions of right and wrong. The sad fact, though, is that there is no universal human morality. Standards vary widely across cultures. Thou shalt not kill may seem universal, but the exceptions don't prove the rule. In fact, what is and is not moral under Christianity has varied widely throughout its history.

If you ask me, morality is a changing nexus of social practices that grow out of our changing relationships with one another. i.e. we have social instincts that rig us to interact within certain parameters which our evolving social structures mediate.

Now, could I ever empirically prove that to you? At present, I doubt there's enough compelling evidence and no matter where psychology and sociology takes us, it will likely never pass your standards for reasonable doubt, since you are assuming that there's an alternative explanation.

- You'd have to explain how it is in a world of "fitness", selflessness in all its forms would be regarded as virtuous.
Again, it's not. There are many different cultures with many different beliefs. However, I do find it interesting that, for example, almost every major spiritual system argues that putting the Self aside is the route to enlightenment. Jesus tells us to think of others. Buddha tells us to release our desires. Allah tells us to submit our will to his.

But the logical and rational conclusion of these commonalities is, if you'll forgive me, not that there is some overarching intelligence, but rather that we all have something in common that allows our collective wisdom to point toward the same truth.

- You'd have to motivate in me a rebellion or anger against the very notion of a god and/or those that believe in one.
- You'd have to strip me from all those I've communed with who believe including their stories, their testimonies, evidences of their lives changed through faith.
And who would want to do that...but the discussion was not about whether you'd found your religion socially and personally validating, but about whether it was rational. I would argue that the simple fact so much of your reasoning for your faith is subjective and contextual argues that, in fact, it is not.

For me, religion just violates parsimony too flagrantly to be considered rational. I can't imagine that anything could convince me that skepticism isn't invariably more rational than credulity.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2008, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
... couldn't finish the thought?

There are a great many aspects of Church that are healthy for children. It is not simple indoctrination as many would like to believe. Besides, if they're going to decide against Christianity, they should at least know what they're against.

My wife grew up in a household that didn't attend Church. She often begged her parents to take her and eventually had to go with her friends. You might not like the choice they make. What then? Make them play Wii tennis at gun point?
My wife is Catholic and we went into our marriage with an understanding about religion. She could teach them about her faith, but I insisted on being able to try to influence them to have open minds. We've told the kids they are going to learn about Catholicism and when they're adults they'll decide how to live their lives. My daughter, who has started catechism, knows there are many different ideas out there about God. She knows her father doesn't believe in any of it. She has, at the tender age of eight, declared, "I believe in Jesus."

That's the problem with freedom, of course.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2008, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
My wife is Catholic and we went into our marriage with an understanding about religion. She could teach them about her faith, but I insisted on being able to try to influence them to have open minds. We've told the kids they are going to learn about Catholicism and when they're adults they'll decide how to live their lives. My daughter, who has started catechism, knows there are many different ideas out there about God. She knows her father doesn't believe in any of it. She has, at the tender age of eight, declared, "I believe in Jesus."
I must admit my respect for you has jumped a whole bunch of notches. I don't expect that to mean anything though.

That's the problem with freedom, of course.
I really do admire your ability to allow for freedom of thought and choice in your household. While my children have regularly attended service and youth groups, they have very good questions. Questions that at times I'm forced to admit; "I don't know". That's the problem with faith. I don't think this makes religion or belief in god irrational. I thought we had moved slightly away from the question of whether or not faith is rational, but I'll get back to that later.

For what it's worth, I for one think you have an extremely healthy perspective and am interested in continuing this conversation. I gotta get off this desk and enjoy the day.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2008, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I must admit my respect for you has jumped a whole bunch of notches. I don't expect that to mean anything though.


I really do admire your ability to allow for freedom of thought and choice in your household. While my children have regularly attended service and youth groups, they have very good questions. Questions that at times I'm forced to admit; "I don't know". That's the problem with faith. I don't think this makes religion or belief in god irrational. I thought we had moved slightly away from the question of whether or not faith is rational, but I'll get back to that later.

For what it's worth, I for one think you have an extremely healthy perspective and am interested in continuing this conversation. I gotta get off this desk and enjoy the day.
Of course it means something. I hope this discussion and how cordial it's been can serve as an example for all our hot-tempered fellow denizens. As a matter of fact, I can probably stand to learn a lesson myself.

Yes, we have moved a bit away from the start. In fact, I'm afraid, as much as we've enjoyed the discussion, there's probably not much ground left to cover. We'll see, though. Do enjoy the day...me, I've got to enjoy some reading for class.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2008, 02:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
... couldn't finish the thought?

How odd. I wrote a very long paragraph and suddenly it is gone.

Gist of it was:
- I admire your willingness to admit "I don't know". This is the base of the scientific principle.
- What Helmling said about indoctrination (albeit slightly less eloquent)
- That stripping knowledge of god should not be necessary. Knowledge is good.
- Following on that I explained that I have a deep interest in religion for reasons of history, politics, psychology and literature and my studies into it forms my world views (of atheism).
- Selflessness is observed in many species and is vastly advantageous as a means to forward the species. Darwinism is not about the individual as you know

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,