The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Nancy Allen``]

A question. Is there any reason that people cannot put aside theist\atheist diffirences for the sake of making the world a better place?

[John Galt]

A question. Is there any reason that people cannot put aside theist\atheist differences for the sake of making the world a better place?

 

Frankly, I think this debate will go on as long as somebody is trying to push his beliefs on someone else.

[Achilles]

Frankly, I think this debate will go on as long as somebody is trying to push his beliefs on someone else.

Agreed. However if the past is any indication, we still have a very long way to go. The good news is that it seems that many of the more liberal christian sects appear to be a little more open-minded and interested in rational discourse. Similarly, it seems as though it is becoming marginally easier to speak out against islam as well and some brave individuals are vocally breaking ties. Perhaps we only need decades instead of centuries.

[Nancy Allen``]

If people are so obsessed with their intolerance of religion; whether it be Christianity demonizing Daewinism Islam's assault on the world to force submission or atheists that are kicking their heels in glee over how much they can upset theists, that they cannot get over it then I rather find that sad.

[Jae Onasi]

If people are so obsessed with their intolerance of religion; whether it be Christianity demonizing Daewinism Islam's assault on the world to force submission or atheists that are kicking their heels in glee over how much they can upset theists, that they cannot get over it then I rather find that sad.

 

I'm having trouble understanding what Christianity demonizing Daewinism Islam's assault is supposed to be about.

[PoiuyWired]

If people are so obsessed with their intolerance of religion; whether it be Christianity demonizing Daewinism, Islam's assault on the world to force submission, or atheists that are kicking their heels in glee over how much they can upset theists; that they cannot get over it then I rather find that sad.

 

Just trying to semi-translate N/A's post.

[Pho3nix]

A question. Is there any reason that people cannot put aside theist\atheist diffirences for the sake of making the world a better place?

 

In my opinion, no. Why? because of human nature.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm having trouble understanding what Christianity demonizing Daewinism Islam's assault is supposed to be about.

 

Ah. An important lesson there, never ever EVER post after a night on the town. It should actually read 'whether it be Christianity demonizing Daewinism, Islam's assault on the world to force submission or atheists that are kicking their heels in glee over how much they can upset theists', each wrongdoing I've described the main players in the religious debate being the singular rather than the continuous. By that I mean we should not; regardless of what holy texts or applauded thinkers say, be focusing our lives on singling out, criticizing and condemning those on the basis of their beliefs or lack of them. Those who do, I think the right thing to do is to feel a great sense of pity for those poor souls, provided of course you believe in such a thing.

 

In my opinion, no. Why? because of human nature.

 

Do you think we should try and put aside theist\atheist diffirences for the sake of making the world a better place?

[Prime]

Do you think we should try and put aside theist\atheist differences for the sake of making the world a better place?

Great idea. How do get that to happen exactly? Some people with be convinced they will go to hell if they do...

[Nancy Allen``]

For Christians it should be easy, Jesus' command to love yourself, love others, love thy neighbour, love the enemy as yourself. Admitably that last one most if not all of us would fail at but what follower would question the word of god? I cannot speak for other religions but do they have similar messages? Regardless it's a good one for them, atheists too, to hear regardless of who said it or how much truth there is to who did. Better than 'wage war on unbelievers, show them no mercy' at any rate.

[PoiuyWired]

For Christians it should be easy, Jesus' command to love yourself, love others, love thy neighbour, love the enemy as yourself. Admitably that last one most if not all of us would fail at but what follower would question the word of god? I cannot speak for other religions but do they have similar messages? Regardless it's a good one for them, atheists too, to hear regardless of who said it or how much truth there is to who did. Better than 'wage war on unbelievers, show them no mercy' at any rate.

 

Until you get to the part where saying "may god have mercy on their souls" is also a kind of love as you throw that torch at the bonfire under that screaming heretic burning at stick stick...

 

Thing is, even loving people would sometimes support terrible acts thinking that it is "for the best" of the victims.

 

And, it is not religion alone, but also ideals of different people. Like some would support for allowing "self termination" for people with terminal illness, while some would want to "protect" these people by disallowing it.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

If people are so obsessed with their intolerance of religion; whether it be Christianity demonizing Darwinism, Islam's assault on the world to force submission, or atheists that are kicking their heels in glee over how much they can upset theists; that they cannot get over it then I rather find that sad.

 

corrected. Didn't understand the Daewinism bit till looking at it again, w/PW's comma in place. Simple apparent misspelling of darwinism. Never drink and type, Nancy .Thought maybe Daewinism was some sect of Isalm from the original reading.

 

The main problem w/"diversity" is that it is sometimes mutually exclusive in nature. Given people's desire to control things around them, it is natural that they will try to force some kind of conformity on their fellow man, through violence, ridicule or some combination. Should organized religion fall to the wayside w/in 2-3 generations, it would merely be replaced with some other philosophy/ideology and the cycle would continue. Same game, but the names would have changed.

[Achilles]

This is a response to posts in this thread.

 

Between Camus, Sartre, Neitsche, B.F. Skinner, John Stuart Mill and Ayn Rand, only the latter two had a view that the world was generally positive.

Atheism does not have a central doctrine, therefore the views expressed by them are not those of all atheists. Furthermore, I think that you and I will probably need to operationally define "positive world view". I would consider most atheistic philosophers' world views to be neutral at worst, which (IMO) is a far cry better than the negative world view of religion (i.e. invisible man watches you and monitors your thoughts every second of every day and if you ever do or think something he doesn't like, you get to spend eternity wailing and gnashing your teeth in a lake of fire). My 2 cents.

 

But all of them other than Rand didn't think that there could be meaning in life other than personal meaning from what I've read.

Right. What's wrong with personal meaning? I find it far more enriching than the canned, one-size-fits-all meaning provided by religion.

 

Rand put that meaning intrinsically in reason itself, the virtue of survival for it's own sake and enlightened selfishishness as the highest value.

Right, hence my "neutral at worst" comment earlier. I don't necessarily agree with Rand, but even if I did her world view is better than that "gnashing teeth/lake o' fire" bit.

 

If you prefer more modern thinkers Steven Jay Gould was ambivalently positive, but Richard Dawkins was negative both interpersonally and his interpretation of the whole doomed by our genes thing.

I'm assuming that you're referring to the selfish gene which detractors typically confuse with selfish organisms?

 

 

Sorry for stereotyping you. You come across as fanatical as some of the fundies in the opposite direction with some of your posts to the extremist in the Christianity is a religion of tolerance thread (though less aggressive), so I lumped you in with them in a way.

Mistake understandable and apology accepted. I think if my posts were read without bias, you'd see that I spend a fair amount of time defending religion from overzealous atheists. Unfortunately, I only do this so that I can turn around and undermine it again with arguments which are much more sound

 

I'm not fundamentally against religion. I am fundamentally against irrational thinking, which is a prerequisite for religious faith. Since there is no evidence for god and therefore no sound basis for religion, there is no rational reason to accept it. I do not equate a lack of undeserved acceptance with being fundamentally against religion (nor do many atheists). I've said before and I'll say again, the moment that I have evidence of gods existence, I'll become a believer.

 

I really do hope this helps to clear up any misunderstanding. I always want to let you know that I deeply appreciate your apology (it takes a great deal of integrity to admit to a mistake publicly and apologize and I respect that).

 

No. I was saying that someone who was an atheist, and became a theist as described in the title of the thread would not have come to the decision to turn toward theism because they were scared into it.

Fair enough, though I don't think that was clear to me from our last exchange. I do still contend that it is fear that keep them though.

 

It would be the way you'd approach coming to any religion now, not necessarily the way that a theist might approach becoming a different kind of theist similar to their own type. Cautiously, with a lot of skepticism, and requiring a high burden of proof to personally satisfy them.

I respectfully disagree. Any application of the burden of proof would intrinsically disolve someone's conversion to theism. Almost every case of atheism is an application of the burden of proof

 

I don't believe that a purely rational arguement exists. Some truths have to be experienced to be relevant to a person's life. Or at least that's been my experience is that some things in reality are very personal.

Ok and if you die and go to Valhalla and find that the experience you mistook as god trying to reach out to you was in fact Odin? What happens if you find out that by worshipping the wrong god all of your life, you missed the proverbial boat? Spiritual experiences are only evidence of our spiritual nature. They do not, nor can they, make any accurate and/or reliable statements about the imaginary sources that we falsely attribute them to.

 

I do think that "the God of the gaps" isn't sufficient as a rational explanation.

I agree, especially considering that there are so few gaps left for god to hide in.

 

I also believe that there are definite limitations to the questions that science can ask.

Possible, I suppose, but I don't see how considering that science is nothing more than a systematic way to ask questions. The only limitation I can imagine is us eventually discovering that we've learned everything there is to know. Unfortunately, I picture us dying out long before that happens though.

 

Science looks for a proximate cause.

I respectfully disagree. If this were true then science would be "done" after each discovery. The reality is that each discovery seems to lead to more questions, so I cannot see how your argument can possibly be correct.

 

Religion and philosophy look for ultimate causes.

I respectfully disagree again. Religion presumes to have already found the ultimate cause.

 

Explaining the cause of the proximate cause of something, you might get an explaination of a chain of events that leads to the first action, and still miss the meaning of that event. Different methodologies to answer different questions.

I don't think "how" and "why" are as divorced from one another as you seem to think.

 

Thanks for your post!

 

How do you work that one out?

The laws of supply and demand. When supply is high, demand is low. When demand is high, supply is low.

 

Therefore, if you have one finite life it automatically has more value than two lives, especially if one of them is infinite.

 

By acknowledging that this time is all you have, it tends to give you a deeper appreciation for it.

 

I presume you are going to bring up religious wars. But I would contend that most wars are because; the masses in most countries are poorly educated and easily manipulated by greedy powerful leaders for their own ends. Also I feel history has proved that theist and atheist countries can be just as violent as one another.

Nope because such an argument wouldn't have actually support my point. But I'm am saddened to see that you've picked up the Stalin/Mao standard. I suppose I'll have to expose that strawman for you as well?

 

Wonder if there have been any psychological studies to compare depression levels of theists and atheists... *Heads off to research*

heh

[Jvstice]

This is a response to posts in this thread.

 

Atheism does not have a central doctrine, therefore the views expressed by them are not those of all atheists. Furthermore, I think that you and I will probably need to operationally define "positive world view". I would consider most atheistic philosophers' world views to be neutral at worst, which (IMO) is a far cry better than the negative world view of religion (i.e. invisible man watches you and monitors your thoughts every second of every day and if you ever do or think something he doesn't like, you get to spend eternity wailing and gnashing your teeth in a lake of fire). My 2 cents.

As you said, there is no single atheist world view. Everything from certain strains of Budhist philosophers to scientific reductionism can all be described as atheists. You have made mention of being american, and converting from Christianity, mormonism, and paganism to atheism, so my assumption is that your biases were more in line with those of western thought. Did I ere in this?

 

Did I ere in citing some of the most widely acknowledged in the western world and diverse atheist philosophers figuring somewhere in there that one of them would prove relevant to your point of view?

Right. What's wrong with personal meaning? I find it far more enriching than the canned, one-size-fits-all meaning provided by religion.

It's both a strength, and a weakness, like everything else.

 

Right, hence my "neutral at worst" comment earlier. I don't necessarily agree with Rand, but even if I did her world view is better than that "gnashing teeth/lake o' fire" bit.

If fear of judgement had anything to do with my motivations, I'd have to concede you were right, and those whose faith comes down to this, I'd agree that their faith is mostly a chain around their neck, rather than a life jacket, if that's your point. Otherwise, I don't see what you're saying.

 

I'm assuming that you're referring to the selfish gene which detractors typically confuse with selfish organisms?

Well, it is just another form of determinism. Just like John Calvin, Isaac Newton, and B.F. Skinner before him. He just places the cause of our destiny inside our genetic code, and points out that they could be doing things very much against our personal or even species interest if the individual genes benefited (though that latter scenario seems very unlikely).

 

 

Mistake understandable and apology accepted. I think if my posts were read without bias, you'd see that I spend a fair amount of time defending religion from overzealous atheists. Unfortunately, I only do this so that I can turn around and undermine it again with arguments which are much more sound

Fair enough.

 

I'm not fundamentally against religion. I am fundamentally against irrational thinking, which is a prerequisite for religious faith. Since there is no evidence for god and therefore no sound basis for religion, there is no rational reason to accept it. I do not equate a lack of undeserved acceptance with being fundamentally against religion (nor do many atheists). I've said before and I'll say again, the moment that I have evidence of gods existence, I'll become a believer.

Rationalism isn't the same thing as empiricism. Much of what you say is actually closer to the latter than the former, at least in the area of personal belief.

 

I really do hope this helps to clear up any misunderstanding. I always want to let you know that I deeply appreciate your apology (it takes a great deal of integrity to admit to a mistake publicly and apologize and I respect that).

It's enough to keep up with what's relevant. I don't need to defend a view that's been discredited, any more than I need to defend truth. The former destroys credibiity. The latter is something that's redundant anyway.

 

Fair enough, though I don't think that was clear to me from our last exchange. I do still contend that it is fear that keep them though.

Perhaps, but I'm a bit unclear on how or why. Of course, I've only claimed that it wouldn't be the same fears that a lot of the churches promote. Lack of meaning and fear of mortality here, or do you mean something else?

 

I respectfully disagree. Any application of the burden of proof would intrinsically disolve someone's conversion to theism. Almost every case of atheism is an application of the burden of proof

There you go with the absolute statements. Any? Intrinsically? You make it seem as though your mind is entirely closed that someone could rationally (not empirically) come to a conclusion different than yours.

 

Ok and if you die and go to Valhalla and find that the experience you mistook as god trying to reach out to you was in fact Odin? What happens if you find out that by worshipping the wrong god all of your life, you missed the proverbial boat? Spiritual experiences are only evidence of our spiritual nature. They do not, nor can they, make any accurate and/or reliable statements about the imaginary sources that we falsely attribute them to.

I guess we'd both go to Niffleheim, the land of the dishonored dead, and wait until Hela followed her daddy and Surtur into battle, and chose to load us onto Naglfar and be her army to slaughter the Norse gods in Asgard at Ragnorok. Other than that, we'd have a pretty miserable afterlife.

 

And your point?

 

I agree, especially considering that there are so few gaps left for god to hide in.

If God is defined as that which we have not found a rational explanation for, then yes.

 

If God hides in the gaps, explaining is explaining away, and God has less and less realm with every scientific advance. This seems to be your premise, and one I hear some of the fundamentalists espouse time to time.

 

If God created the natural laws of the universe, and a rational universe is a reflection of God's being rational, then in a way yes, in a way no.

 

Possible, I suppose, but I don't see how considering that science is nothing more than a systematic way to ask questions. The only limitation I can imagine is us eventually discovering that we've learned everything there is to know. Unfortunately, I picture us dying out long before that happens though.

Yes. It's a tool, and an invaluable tool with limitations in what can be asked based on certain features of it's definition, as well as the instruments of measurement used to standardize it's theories and laws. For instance, for something to be science it must be replicable (not a unique event), it must be lawful, it must be observable. If one of those traits is missing, what you have by definition is not science.

 

To this day, there are a lot of people who both praise and demonize Sigmund Freud. He said a lot of things about human nature, that were not observable, nor were they replicable. Also, in many cases, he tried to attribute all human behavior based on an extremely small sample size of people who were mentally abberant examples of a very specific race and gender within one country within a 1 - 2 decade period. It's no wonder he still is a polarizing figure. He did some good in that he inspired a lot of people to really look at what human nature is, but it was not science.

 

I respectfully disagree. If this were true then science would be "done" after each discovery. The reality is that each discovery seems to lead to more questions, so I cannot see how your argument can possibly be correct.

Perhaps I overstated for the layman, but science does start with the most proximate cause, and works it's way back, extremely slowly only incorporating what works. Whatever mistakes are present in the models have to still allow for a generalization that's closer to the truth than what came before, because less true = something that doesn't work when you try to apply the science to either create a technology or art.

 

Otherwise, what use would Occam's Razor be in all scientific assumptions. Actually, I'd argue that much of the debate in the theist vs atheist circles apart from the dogmatists argue over whether Occam's razor is relevant to THIS discussion, not whether a creator can exist. So far as I've seen, science can only tell whether our understanding of scientific law is sufficient to cause x condition (examples: creation of a universe, movement from nonlife to life), not whether such occurance actually might have occurred.

 

I know you might see this as semantic hair splitting. I don't. It was why I wa saying that you seem more an empiricist than a rationalist though in that a rationalist would admit that the possibility exists. An empiricist would not.

I respectfully disagree again. Religion presumes to have already found the ultimate cause.

 

As do individual atheists and individuals who claim to be non-religious, but that doesn't make their claims less a matter of faith. As you said, atheism is very individual and nebulous, with many brands and flavors. For the most part, I'll concede that this point is true with certain exceptions on both sides.

 

I don't think "how" and "why" are as divorced from one another as you seem to think.

I don't think they are divorced from one another, but they are different questions. Looking at a set of dominoes and seeing what happens when you push the first one, or even what force and direction would need to be put into pushing the first domino (a metaphor looking at natural law) is a different question than what imparted that force, and just like you might need a discipline other than physics to answer to answer what may have caused the first domino to fall

[Achilles]

Did I ere in citing some of the most widely acknowledged in the western world and diverse atheist philosophers figuring somewhere in there that one of them would prove relevant to your point of view?

To my point of view specificially? Yes. I'd say Russell and Harris have had the most significant impact on my way of thinking.

 

It's both a strength, and a weakness, like everything else.

So therefore there's nothing wrong with it (at least insofar as "everything else" goes)? If you're saying that personal meaning is just as significant as the canned meaning offered by religion, I'll let you have the point because we're speaking subjectively, but I would disagree.

 

If fear of judgement had anything to do with my motivations, I'd have to concede you were right, and those whose faith comes down to this, I'd agree that their faith is mostly a chain around their neck, rather than a life jacket, if that's your point. Otherwise, I don't see what you're saying.

My point is that while fear does not always lead somone to theism (although I think I could argue that it does depending on how fine you'll let me split hairs), it is what keeps people believeing once they're in. Overcoming that fear is hard.

 

Well, it is just another form of determinism. Just like John Calvin, Isaac Newton, and B.F. Skinner before him. He just places the cause of our destiny inside our genetic code, and points out that they could be doing things very much against our personal or even species interest if the individual genes benefited (though that latter scenario seems very unlikely).

Again, I think this speaks to the strawman, not the actual argument that he was making. Dawkins meanderings on the gene were not meant to be applied to entire organisms. It was not a treatise on hedonism or social darwinism. But perhaps I am getting hung up on your use of "determinism" and "destiny" and am subsequently missing your point.

 

Rationalism isn't the same thing as empiricism.

Indeed it is not, but neither do they play in separate schoolyards.

 

Much of what you say is actually closer to the latter than the former, at least in the area of personal belief.

Well hopefully I'm not to be found guilty of using either out of context.

 

Perhaps, but I'm a bit unclear on how or why. Of course, I've only claimed that it wouldn't be the same fears that a lot of the churches promote. Lack of meaning and fear of mortality here, or do you mean something else?

Fear of life with no safety net. Fear of life without extrinsic rewards for moral behavior. Fear of being wrong about god and suffering eternal damnation for not believing. The list goes on.

 

There you go with the absolute statements. Any? Intrinsically? You make it seem as though your mind is entirely closed that someone could rationally (not empirically) come to a conclusion different than yours.

No, not closed at all. If someone could provide one, I'd be more than happy to entertain it.

 

Perhaps I just lack the required imagination, but I don't see how something for which there is no evidence can be accepted as true by a rational person. Do you?

 

I guess we'd both go to Niffleheim, the land of the dishonored dead, and wait until Hela followed her daddy and Surtur into battle, and chose to load us onto Naglfar and be her army to slaughter the Norse gods in Asgard at Ragnorok. Other than that, we'd have a pretty miserable afterlife.

 

And your point?

My point is that you cannot use spritual experiences as evidence for the existience of one god or set of gods over another. This is also why Pascal's wager falls apart everytime.

 

If God hides in the gaps, explaining is explaining away, and God has less and less realm with every scientific advance. This seems to be your premise, and one I hear some of the fundamentalists espouse time to time.

Interesting. I don't recall ever hearing fundamentalists espousing the god of the gaps.

 

Yes. It's a tool, and an invaluable tool with limitations in what can be asked based on certain features of it's definition, as well as the instruments of measurement used to standardize it's theories and laws. For instance, for something to be science it must be replicable (not a unique event), it must be lawful, it must be observable. If one of those traits is missing, what you have by definition is not science.

I think your characterization is flawed but essentially correct.

 

To this day, there are a lot of people who both praise and demonize Sigmund Freud. He said a lot of things about human nature, that were not observable, nor were they replicable. Also, in many cases, he tried to attribute all human behavior based on an extremely small sample size of people who were mentally abberant examples of a very specific race and gender within one country within a 1 - 2 decade period. It's no wonder he still is a polarizing figure. He did some good in that he inspired a lot of people to really look at what human nature is, but it was not science.

I'm not an expert on Freud, so I may have to deferr to you on this, however I will argue that if he sought to use empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, then what he did was absolutely science. Whether or not any of his hypothesis bore fruit is another matter entirely.

 

Perhaps I overstated for the layman, but science does start with the most proximate cause, and works it's way back, extremely slowly only incorporating what works. Whatever mistakes are present in the models have to still allow for a generalization that's closer to the truth than what came before, because less true = something that doesn't work when you try to apply the science to either create a technology or art.

Science starts with observations and fact and then attempt to hypothesize a cause which is then tested for accuracy against the facts/observations which started the whole thing. If this is what you said but in a different way, then my apologies for muddying the waters.

 

Otherwise, what use would Occam's Razor be in all scientific assumptions.

Occam's Razor essentially says that it's not prudent to accept a complicated answer when a simpler answer is available.

 

Actually, I'd argue that much of the debate in the theist vs atheist circles apart from the dogmatists argue over whether Occam's razor is relevant to THIS discussion, not whether a creator can exist.

Of course it'a applicable. The question isn't whether or not a creator exists, rather if one is necessary. And since a supernatural explanation will always be more complicated than a natural one...

 

So far as I've seen, science can only tell whether our understanding of scientific law is sufficient to cause x condition (examples: creation of a universe, movement from nonlife to life), not whether such occurance actually might have occurred.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I see where you're going with it.

 

I know you might see this as semantic hair splitting. I don't. It was why I wa saying that you seem more an empiricist than a rationalist though in that a rationalist would admit that the possibility exists. An empiricist would not.

I don't think I've ever denied that the possibility exists. What I have said repeatedly is that until there is sufficent evidence to cause me to think that such an explanation is rational, I will not accept it. I know that doesn't play nicely with your preferred rationalist/empiricist cookie-cutters, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it

 

As do individual atheists and individuals who claim to be non-religious, but that doesn't make their claims less a matter of faith. As you said, atheism is very individual and nebulous, with many brands and flavors. For the most part, I'll concede that this point is true with certain exceptions on both sides.

How does someone without faith come to such a state of mind by faith? It seems to me that no faith is involved whatsoever.

 

I don't think they are divorced from one another, but they are different questions. Looking at a set of dominoes and seeing what happens when you push the first one, or even what force and direction would need to be put into pushing the first domino (a metaphor looking at natural law) is a different question than what imparted that force, and just like you might need a discipline other than physics to answer to answer what may have caused the first domino to fall

Poor example because we could empirically observe that the force exterted by a finger moving on x trajectory and using y amount of force caused the first domino to fall

[Jvstice]

Achilles: Thanks for getting back to me so quickly and thoroughly. I'll try to be as thorough where I can. You've given me a lot to sharpen my thinking.

To my point of view specificially? Yes. I'd say Russell and Harris have had the most significant impact on my way of thinking.

Fair enough.

 

So therefore there's nothing wrong with it (at least insofar as "everything else" goes)? If you're saying that personal meaning is just as significant as the canned meaning offered by religion, I'll let you have the point because we're speaking subjectively, but I would disagree.

 

Largely I'd agree that for the individual, if they find such personal meaning, there is value in it in getting through life.

 

My point is that while fear does not always lead somone to theism (although I think I could argue that it does depending on how fine you'll let me split hairs), it is what keeps people believeing once they're in. Overcoming that fear is hard.

I'm puzzled where you're going with this and don't think it speaks to everyone who is a theist, or everyone who is a Christian for that matter, though I'll accept your arguement that it's the motivation of many.

 

Again, I think this speaks to the strawman, not the actual argument that he was making. Dawkins meanderings on the gene were not meant to be applied to entire organisms. It was not a treatise on hedonism or social darwinism. But perhaps I am getting hung up on your use of "determinism" and "destiny" and am subsequently missing your point.

It was my understanding that Dawkins' meanderings were primarily about the individual genes evolving to their own benefit, secondarily for the benefit or harm of the species as a whole, tertiarily to the benefit or harm of the individual, not that benefit of the species or individual were irrelevant, but of secondary importance.

 

I didn't take it as a treatise on social darwinism, but a view that we are predestined by our genes in some cases for oblivion, in other cases for sickness, in yet other cases for mediocrity of ability isn't hopeful on the whole. That's not saying that charity isn't a good thing nor attributing such a viewpoint to him, or that other factors don't come in, but intrinsic to his arguement, is a view that is much less positive than Darwin, S. J. Gould, Matt Riddley, Bryan Sykes, Chris Bearde, and a lot of his philosophical forebears and colleagues.

 

Indeed it is not, but neither do they play in separate schoolyards.

Similar, but not the same.

 

Well hopefully I'm not to be found guilty of using either out of context.

Perhaps not.

 

Fear of life with no safety net. Fear of life without extrinsic rewards for moral behavior. Fear of being wrong about god and suffering eternal damnation for not believing. The list goes on.

 

Yet the consideration that someone is motivated by gratitude just for being alive and again/still surrounded by people one loves doesn't enter into it? As far as eternal damnation for being wrong about God, it's what Jesus said that's important. As far as I'm concerned, he's the only one who's actually seen the afterlife and reported at all what it's like or knowingly on the standards for getting there. He never chastised people for being wrong or for not knowing, except where they claimed to know and to claim glory for themselves, and then misled others.

 

Everybody else is just guessing, or if they have some message from God are hoping that they are getting the message the way it was intended.

 

Example: How to take much of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Is it intended as literal history? A parable that gives some insight on why God created humankind and our relationship to that God? A book where the stories are only set as specific examples of application of the laws spread throughout the pentateuch? Interpretive history? A recipe book so that people can go back and create their own heaven, earth, and humanity?

 

There are groups that believe each of these things.

 

No, not closed at all. If someone could provide one, I'd be more than happy to entertain it.

A bit of a problem. I've got plenty of arguements I think are suggestive of the truth, but none that are knock down unassailable. Of course, I don't think that there's such an arguement in favor of atheism, antitheism, or agnosticism either.

 

Perhaps I just lack the required imagination, but I don't see how something for which there is no evidence can be accepted as true by a rational person. Do you?

 

My point is that you cannot use spritual experiences as evidence for the existience of one god or set of gods over another. This is also why Pascal's wager falls apart everytime.

That is where we are at an impasse. You can only believe what can be broken down and digested so that it's something that everybody has experienced, where I have been influenced by personal experiences that even I believe cannot be put under a microscope like that. I'll be the first to admit that without those experiences and my perceptions of them, if I were forced to ONLY go by what everyone agreed had been proven, I wouldn't believe either.

 

Interesting. I don't recall ever hearing fundamentalists espousing the god of the gaps.

If you spelled it out to some of them what that actually is, they'd be against the concept if you pointed out the logic of how with every scientific discovery you explain more and God's domain get's smaller, but in the absence of that thought occuring to them and yo cornered them on it. That's essentially what they preach though.

 

I think your characterization is flawed but essentially correct.

Where's the flaw? What is it?

I'm not an expert on Freud, so I may have to deferr to you on this, however I will argue that if he sought to use empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, then what he did was absolutely science. Whether or not any of his hypothesis bore fruit is another matter entirely.

 

He formulated a hypothesis that was based on actual case studies of patients he worked on. That much is true. His hypotheses was so esoteric in some regards that to this day there has never been a way of operationalizing some of his definitions to an applicable real-world example that could either be falsified or not. He based all of his opinions of religion on both his patients who were all severely neurotic middle class housewives in Austria during Hitler's generation, and the culture where the religious people were swept up in tides of extreme emotion to elect such a man to power. If that were a person's sole basis for an opinion, I can see why it would be a negative one.

 

Science starts with observations and fact and then attempt to hypothesize a cause which is then tested for accuracy against the facts/observations which started the whole thing. If this is what you said but in a different way, then my apologies for muddying the waters.

I wasn't disputing that, but you have to operationalize your definitions in such a way that they are observable or testable for it to have some relevancy beyond being a hypothesis that was suggested somewhere in the wreckage of history. If an idea can't be tested, it's worthless to science. It doesn't guarantee it's not true, but it doesn't serve to advance human knowledge in it's own right, unless it inspires others to do actual science.

 

Occam's Razor essentially says that it's not prudent to accept a complicated answer when a simpler answer is available.

Yes. We agree on the definition.

 

Of course it'a applicable. The question isn't whether or not a creator exists, rather if one is necessary. And since a supernatural explanation will always be more complicated than a natural one...

And then once you have the simple explanation, and no one ever tests further, you'll be happy with never knowing for sure? Since it was the not knowing that caused your existential crisis that led to your atheism in the first place? You say soon we'll have all the answers, but then you say that you'd be happy when if such a situation developed that you knew all the universe's processes, but were not 100% sure that's all there is. To me this seems a double standard you're holding religion to, but not your own point of view.

 

Religion >> must explain everything correctly, or it's all false.

Science >> it's okay if we discover all the phenomina in the universe if we don't have absolute proof that's all there is.

 

Not that I think we'll reach that point, but Im being extremely optimistic and for the sake of arguement granting that all your hopes come true in the areas of the sciences and that all questions eventually are answered as far as how things work.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I see where you're going with it.

Ok. Occam's razor is important, but what you take as the simplest explanation may not be, depending on how you phrase the questions.

examples:

 

1. How did all the laws of the universe, as we know them arise?

atheist - through a variety of unrelated processes that are unpredictable with physics, particularly string theory and M theory as we know it, but that we may eventually figure out.

theist - they unfolded from a single source, the same source as the universe itself.

winner: Theism is simpler because it posits a single source, where atheism posits multiple sources. Not to say that is sufficient explaination, but that if simpler is better always...

 

2. Why is the universe conducive to life?

atheist - the many world's hypothesis suggests that all the worlds that could exist actually do somewhere, and we ask these questions in this universe because it's the only universe in which we could exist to do the asking.

theist - this universe's purpose may have been to nurture intelligent life.

winner - again, it looks to me that it's simpler to posit a single reason for the universe being conducive to life rather than a plethora of universes in which life could not grow, evolve, or exist if it were transplanted there.

 

3. When/If the phenomina in the universe are explained, will that explain everything?

atheist - of course. what more is there to explain?

theist - no, but there's no proof.

winner: atheist

 

So it really depends how you define your questions and world view as to which explanation is simpler. Not making the point in some hopes that ID is taught in schools alongside science *shudders* because it's not. It's philosophical arguement, which I think would still have it's place even when /if we reach a point where all phenomina are explained. Again back to perceptual salience and what's deemed important.

 

I don't think I've ever denied that the possibility exists. What I have said repeatedly is that until there is sufficent evidence to cause me to think that such an explanation is rational, I will not accept it. I know that doesn't play nicely with your preferred rationalist/empiricist cookie-cutters, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it

Ok

 

How does someone without faith come to such a state of mind by faith? It seems to me that no faith is involved whatsoever.

What do you mean? Could you expand on this?

 

Poor example because we could empirically observe that the force exterted by a finger moving on x trajectory and using y amount of force caused the first domino to fall

Well as a metaphor it only goes so far.

[Achilles]

Achilles: Thanks for getting back to me so quickly and thoroughly. I'll try to be as thorough where I can. You've given me a lot to sharpen my thinking.

Thank you for the compliment.

 

I'm puzzled where you're going with this and don't think it speaks to everyone who is a theist, or everyone who is a Christian for that matter, though I'll accept your arguement that it's the motivation of many.

I don't know that I am particularly trying to go anywhere with this. My contention is that when it comes to change, people are typically motivated by fear. Compound this with the "fire and brimstone" propaganda that is frequently found in religion and I'd say there's a pretty strong chance that my argument stands. I will admit though that this is all highly nuanced. Recognizing this fear might be difficult for those that aren't terribly introspective to begin with.

 

It was my understanding that Dawkins' meanderings were primarily about the individual genes evolving to their own benefit, secondarily for the benefit or harm of the species as a whole, tertiarily to the benefit or harm of the individual, not that benefit of the species or individual were irrelevant, but of secondary importance.

Hmmm. I think this argument might make sense if evolution was a deterministic process (i.e. the end goal of making a human being, etc), however since we know that evolution is not a deterministic process, I'm not sure how well this model holds up. Benefit happens after the fact. It is not an intended product, per se.

 

I didn't take it as a treatise on social darwinism, but a view that we are predestined by our genes in some cases for oblivion, in other cases for sickness, in yet other cases for mediocrity of ability isn't hopeful on the whole.

Yes, some mutations will not be beneficial and as a result natural selection will eventually cause that line to die out.

 

That's not saying that charity isn't a good thing nor attributing such a viewpoint to him, or that other factors don't come in, but intrinsic to his arguement, is a view that is much less positive than Darwin, S. J. Gould, Matt Riddley, Bryan Sykes, Chris Bearde, and a lot of his philosophical forebears and colleagues.

Aside from Darwin and some selected readings by Gould, I must profess ignorance of the other authors listed here. It may be that Dawkins' view is darker, but I suppose that might be a matter of opinion or personal taste (i.e. half empty/half full, etc).

 

Yet the consideration that someone is motivated by gratitude just for being alive and again/still surrounded by people one loves doesn't enter into it?

I'm not asking that we exclude all the possible positive motivators, I'm only asking that we not ignore the negative ones. And while all the possible permutations of positive influences are probably far too pervasive to post here, I'll postulate that the negative ones are pretty uniform.

 

As far as eternal damnation for being wrong about God, it's what Jesus said that's important.

With respect, that is only one interpretation among many. There is no empirical evidence to show that this one is any more (or any less) valid than the others. This is why I don't have a taste for religion: it is far too subjective about matters it professes to be objective about.

 

As far as I'm concerned, he's the only one who's actually seen the afterlife and reported at all what it's like or knowingly on the standards for getting there.

Again, one interpretation. How do we validate your argument against that of a devout muslim or a follower of asatru?

 

He never chastised people for being wrong or for not knowing, except where they claimed to know and to claim glory for themselves, and then misled others.

I'm sure you and I could probably have a lengthy go at cherry-picking scripture to support our opposing arguments. Rather than do so, let's agree that the scripture is not clear on many things and that a great deal of christ's message is open to interpretation based on which anonymous author we seek to quote.

 

Example: How to take much of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Is it intended as literal history? A parable that gives some insight on why God created humankind and our relationship to that God? A book where the stories are only set as specific examples of application of the laws spread throughout the pentateuch? Interpretive history? A recipe book so that people can go back and create their own heaven, earth, and humanity?

 

There are groups that believe each of these things.

Indeed, it depends on who you ask.

 

A bit of a problem. I've got plenty of arguements I think are suggestive of the truth, but none that are knock down unassailable. Of course, I don't think that there's such an arguement in favor of atheism, antitheism, or agnosticism either.

Well I agree that anti-theism and agnostisicm are their own unique brands of sillyness, but I guess I'm not sure how to take your comment with regards to atheism. I don't agree that atheism requires an argument because it is simply a neutral state.

 

But your comment does raise an interesting point: assuming that both atheism and theism require an argument and both are on shaky ground, why is it that theism is deemed the superior choice? I know I'm going to regret asking this because it will open a floodgate of supporting arguments that I will have to refute (again ), but I guess I'm interested in hearing your take on the answer.

 

That is where we are at an impasse. You can only believe what can be broken down and digested so that it's something that everybody has experienced, where I have been influenced by personal experiences that even I believe cannot be put under a microscope like that. I'll be the first to admit that without those experiences and my perceptions of them, if I were forced to ONLY go by what everyone agreed had been proven, I wouldn't believe either.

Kudos to you for this confession. There is hope for you

 

I think it important to remember that spiritual experiences are part of the human condition. I think many theists often incorrectly assume that atheist either don't have them or choose to ignore them.

 

Where's the flaw? What is it?

You said:

 

Yes. It's a tool, and an invaluable tool with limitations in what can be asked based on certain features of it's definition, as well as the instruments of measurement used to standardize it's theories and laws. For instance, for something to be science it must be replicable (not a unique event),

Kinda sorta. If science can reproduce a unique event, then it can explain it.

Think of someone trying to hum a song that two people know but only one person remembers the name of. Eventually the person doing the humming will be able to reproduce enough of it so that the other person recongizes it and provides lyrics instead of humming. Maybe the two of them involve a third person that add more lyrics. Eventually they may end up with all the lyrics but not the name of the song or perhaps they find the name before hand. It's a rough analogy but it's the best one I could come up with to explain my point.

 

it must be lawful,

Not sure what you meant by that.

 

it must be observable.

Again, not entirely true, but not entirely false. If you walk into your house and find muddy footprints on your carpet, you don't need to have seen someone walking through your living room with muddy shoes to be able to determine that someone did walkthrough your living room with muddy shoes. This is why scientist don't need to be able to reproduce evolution or the big bang (or abiogenesis) in a lab to know that it happened.

 

If one of those traits is missing, what you have by definition is not science.

This conclusion is what led me to post what I did. Your characterization is flawed but essentially correct.

 

I wasn't disputing that, but you have to operationalize your definitions in such a way that they are observable or testable for it to have some relevancy beyond being a hypothesis that was suggested somewhere in the wreckage of history. If an idea can't be tested, it's worthless to science. It doesn't guarantee it's not true, but it doesn't serve to advance human knowledge in it's own right, unless it inspires others to do actual science.

Pretty sure I agree with everything you said here.

 

And then once you have the simple explanation, and no one ever tests further, you'll be happy with never knowing for sure?

No, I don't think that's what I was arguing at all. Occam's razor is best used to cut the crap (pun very much intended) not necessarily to declare a winner. Between this and that, occam's razor may favor this, but once some other thing is introduced, it may favor that instead.

 

Since it was the not knowing that caused your existential crisis that led to your atheism in the first place?

I don't know. That may have been the seed. What eventually led me to atheism was the culmination of nearly a decades study of history, religion/mythology, philosophy, and science. But that's another story for another time.

 

You say soon we'll have all the answers, but then you say that you'd be happy when if such a situation developed that you knew all the universe's processes, but were not 100% sure that's all there is. To me this seems a double standard you're holding religion to, but not your own point of view.

I'm not sure I follow. It seems that you may be assuming that I'm not skeptical when it comes to scientific discovery. I idolize the process, but not necessarily the results.

 

Religion >> must explain everything correctly, or it's all false.

Operational definition: religion = belief in god (aka theism)

Nope, for a couple of reasons. First, I only require proof before belief (gets "One of the Three" by James stuck in his head for the rest of the evening).

Second, I do not presume to know one way or the other whether god exists. I don't assume the religion (as I have defined it above) is false. I only recognize that I have no reason to accept it as true without any evidence.

 

Science >> it's okay if we discover all the phenomina in the universe if we don't have absolute proof that's all there is.

I'm trying, but I just can't follow. Would you mind taking another stab at this part?

 

Are you trying to say something like "it's okay to assume that we've discovered everything even though we have no way of confirming that we truly have"?

 

Ok. Occam's razor is important, but what you take as the simplest explanation may not be, depending on how you phrase the questions.

examples:

 

1. How did all the laws of the universe, as we know them arise?

atheist - through a variety of unrelated processes that are unpredictable with physics, particularly string theory and M theory as we know it, but that we may eventually figure out.

theist - they unfolded from a single source, the same source as the universe itself.

winner: Theism is simpler because it posits a single source, where atheism posits multiple sources. Not to say that is sufficient explaination, but that if simpler is better always...

Occam's razor is not a slave to arithmatic. One step is not preferable to two steps if one step is more complex than the two step answer. Hopefully my following responses will expand on this thought.

 

2. Why is the universe conducive to life?

atheist - the many world's hypothesis suggests that all the worlds that could exist actually do somewhere, and we ask these questions in this universe because it's the only universe in which we could exist to do the asking.

theist - this universe's purpose may have been to nurture intelligent life.

winner - again, it looks to me that it's simpler to posit a single reason for the universe being conducive to life rather than a plethora of universes in which life could not grow, evolve, or exist if it were transplanted there.

Neither is occam's razor immune to garbage in/garbage out. A naturalistic process that results in many worlds existing in multiple universes is orders of magnitude more simplistic than an explanation that first begins with supernatural first cause that is capable of willing such a model into existence.

 

Let's use your monitor as an example. Suppose I came to you and proposed that your monitor had magically sprung into being without a creator. You'd probably think this is ludicrious, but which explanation is more complex: A complicated monitor magically springing into existence all by itself, or a highly intelligent designer (capable of imagining such a contraption, building the plan, and the actually creating it) springing into existence all by itself? Yes the monitor is complex, but anything capable of designing something so complex is going to be inherently significantly more complex. The simpler answer in this example is that the monitor created itself.

 

So it really depends how you define your questions and world view as to which explanation is simpler.

Indeed, which is why I'm such a stickler about intellectual honesty.

 

What do you mean? Could you expand on this?

You had said: "As do individual atheists and individuals who claim to be non-religious, but that doesn't make their claims less a matter of faith."

 

I'm not sure how atheism is a conclusion that can be reached via faith, when atheism itself is an absence of faith.

 

Well as a metaphor it only goes so far.

Fair enough. Thanks for your post.

[Jvstice]

Hmmm. I think this argument might make sense if evolution was a deterministic process (i.e. the end goal of making a human being, etc), however since we know that evolution is not a deterministic process, I'm not sure how well this model holds up. Benefit happens after the fact. It is not an intended product, per se.

True. But this post wasn't about what the actual science was, but about Dawkins' interpretation of evolution.

 

If you wanted a really positive evolutionary writer, I'd direct you towards Lynn Margullis, the widow of Carl Sagan, and the creator of the Serial Endosymbiosis Hypothesis. Most micro texts attribute her the idea that chloroplasts and mitochondria are descended from primordial bacteria that invaded eukaryotic/Archea cells and formed symbioses rather than being eaten. She's also found some evidence for Lamarckian evolution taking place among some families of protists.

 

Yes, some mutations will not be beneficial and as a result natural selection will eventually cause that line to die out.

IIRC, Dawkins went a little beyond this in saying that the actual genes act to serve the individual genes' continued interest and survival, at the expense of the host. Thats' a bit different than saying "the survival of the fittest," or even "the survival of the fittest for a given environment."

 

Aside from Darwin and some selected readings by Gould, I must profess ignorance of the other authors listed here. It may be that Dawkins' view is darker, but I suppose that might be a matter of opinion or personal taste (i.e. half empty/half full, etc).

Gould's got some very thoughtful commentaries from when he wrote for the AMNH. I used to love to read his column when I came across it for a few years before he retired, then died. He always gave me a lot to consider at the least. Didn't always see eye to eye, but he always challenged me mentally, and almost always made the most obscure artifacts from history, biology, anthropology, etc come alive with some very contemporary lessons he applied from history.

 

I'm not asking that we exclude all the possible positive motivators, I'm only asking that we not ignore the negative ones. And while all the possible permutations of positive influences are probably far too pervasive to post here, I'll postulate that the negative ones are pretty uniform.

So you're saying that this is a half-empty, half-full situation among the theists, just like in your camp? So why paint the view you don't have as so much darker than yours? You sound like you're describing something you're ambivalent at this point, but seem more against theism as a whole from your other posts

 

With respect, that is only one interpretation among many. There is no empirical evidence to show that this one is any more (or any less) valid than the others. This is why I don't have a taste for religion: it is far too subjective about matters it professes to be objective about.

 

Again, one interpretation. How do we validate your argument against that of a devout muslim or a follower of asatru?

I have faith, because I know what has worked in my life. I know what I depended on, and what got me through hard times. I have no idea what gets them through, or if they lean on their beliefs as I've leaned on mine. What wasn't real has had plenty of chance to fall away for me, and will get many more chances to fall away in the rough and tumble of life.

 

So other than experience in life, and willingness to trust and see how badly I fall on my face, I know of no other test. Of course science also tests by doing. The main difference is where the skepticism comes into the process.

 

I'm sure you and I could probably have a lengthy go at cherry-picking scripture to support our opposing arguments. Rather than do so, let's agree that the scripture is not clear on many things and that a great deal of christ's message is open to interpretation based on which anonymous author we seek to quote.

Fair enough.

 

Indeed, it depends on who you ask.

Ok then. We're on the same page as far as the main point at least.

 

Well I agree that anti-theism and agnostisicm are their own unique brands of sillyness, but I guess I'm not sure how to take your comment with regards to atheism. I don't agree that atheism requires an argument because it is simply a neutral state.

 

But your comment does raise an interesting point: assuming that both atheism and theism require an argument and both are on shaky ground, why is it that theism is deemed the superior choice? I know I'm going to regret asking this because it will open a floodgate of supporting arguments that I will have to refute (again ), but I guess I'm interested in hearing your take on the answer.

I've always understood the schism between atheism and agnosticism to be that agnostics had not made up their minds, and were reserving judgement though not committed or believing in anything, where atheists had already closed their minds to the idea of belief in God. Anti-theists were atheists with an axe to grind against theists or theism.

 

The questions you seem to have about my former comments seem to stem from a different operational definition for those categories. But if you like I can attribute atheism to reserving judgement with a slight predisposition against, for the sake of this discussion.

 

I think it important to remember that spiritual experiences are part of the human condition. I think many theists often incorrectly assume that atheist either don't have them or choose to ignore them.

Ok. I've heard several atheists who have claimed never to have had such an experience. I've never heard from any who claimed to have had a spiritual experience, other than maybe Budhists (you can be a Budhist and an atheist at the same time. There is no requirement that you attribute an intelligence to a higher power, and many don't.)

You said:

 

Kinda sorta. If science can reproduce a unique event, then it can explain it.

Think of someone trying to hum a song that two people know but only one person remembers the name of. Eventually the person doing the humming will be able to reproduce enough of it so that the other person recongizes it and provides lyrics instead of humming. Maybe the two of them involve a third person that add more lyrics. Eventually they may end up with all the lyrics but not the name of the song or perhaps they find the name before hand. It's a rough analogy but it's the best one I could come up with to explain my point.

That would most likely make it a non - unique event if two people had heard the song before and there were a record of the song outside of the two people that one of them could retrieve when that person recognized what the other was trying to reproduce.

 

And there are limits. Having a creator create Artificial Life may show part of the picture of the characteristics inherent in how life evolved, or inventing a machine that can pass the Turing Test may show some insight into essential characteristics of consciousness, but the recreations might miss something of the substance of the original. That's not something that should be taken for granted to be one and the same. I do think, however, that it will be taken for granted by the scientific community as though it explained everything.

 

Perhaps if they were able to derive a predictable law from such an exercise for how life or sentience might arise in complex systems, but absent such a law, they've just shown how life or intelligence could be created by a creator, and not proven these are the simple outflow of a natural process.

 

Not sure what you meant by that.

 

Laws, theories, principles, predictions, etc or some such must be derivable from observation of the phenomina.

 

Example: Behaviorism (both the new and old forms of it) began as a means of attempting to study and categorize human and animal behaviors. The original behaviorism looked at lower brain functions like stimulus response reactions (dogs salivating because they're going to get fed. New behaviorism was based on motivating "forces" of things likely to make you repeat a behavior, or things likely to make you less likely to repeat a behavior. Then once we had a realistic picture of how people and animals actually behaved, the sciences of social psychology, personality psychology, developmental psychology, sociology, and anthropology could actually thrive beyond just "armchair philosophies".

 

Again, not entirely true, but not entirely false. If you walk into your house and find muddy footprints on your carpet, you don't need to have seen someone walking through your living room with muddy shoes to be able to determine that someone did walkthrough your living room with muddy shoes. This is why scientist don't need to be able to reproduce evolution or the big bang (or abiogenesis) in a lab to know that it happened.

You see the mud prints with the track marks of shoes, but do you know that someone actually wore the shoes, or maybe they pressed the shoes into the carpet with their hands to make a deliberate impression. Admittedly, it's far less likely, and you could test if you thought to look, but how many people would make it a point to test the assumption that someone's feet were in the shoes when the shoeprints crossed the carpet? Most would see the footprints and draw conclusions about the method without further investigation.

 

 

This conclusion is what led me to post what I did. Your characterization is flawed but essentially correct.

Then I'd say we can only respectfully disagree at least in part on this. It's what I was taught in both a biology and psychology double major.

Pretty sure I agree with everything you said here.

Good we're on the same page.

 

No, I don't think that's what I was arguing at all. Occam's razor is best used to cut the crap (pun very much intended) not necessarily to declare a winner. Between this and that, occam's razor may favor this, but once some other thing is introduced, it may favor that instead.

So is it criteria enough to declare a winner in and of itself? You seem to be hedging and not quite willing to commit either way.

 

I don't know. That may have been the seed. What eventually led me to atheism was the culmination of nearly a decades study of history, religion/mythology, philosophy, and science. But that's another story for another time.

Fair enough. We can leave it for other things.

 

I'm not sure I follow. It seems that you may be assuming that I'm not skeptical when it comes to scientific discovery. I idolize the process, but not necessarily the results.

Starting assumptions skew results. If you are satisfied with the answers you have, most people quit looking. I've actually seen a quote 4 - 5 years ago where some guy in the sciences was claiming that all the major discoveries were made, and what was left was just detail work. No major new principles or discoveries were left.

 

In a discussion on a different board I'm a member of, one of the other posters was telling me about the Alcubierre drive, something that's not made it beyond the conceptual stage, but would allow for non-relativistic, FTL travel. Does it sound remotely like we've exhausted the possibilities yet?

 

Operational definition: religion = belief in god (aka theism)

Nope, for a couple of reasons. First, I only require proof before belief (gets "One of the Three" by James stuck in his head for the rest of the evening).

There are a lot of members of eastern religions in good standing that would be offended by that definition, but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion and it is true far more than not.

 

Second, I do not presume to know one way or the other whether god exists. I don't assume the religion (as I have defined it above) is false. I only recognize that I have no reason to accept it as true without any evidence.

This is what I've always understood agnosticism's position to be throughout my life.

 

I'm trying, but I just can't follow. Would you mind taking another stab at this part?

 

Are you trying to say something like "it's okay to assume that we've discovered everything even though we have no way of confirming that we truly have"?

I don't think it's remotely okay, but I wouldn't be surprised if by and large the scientific establishment reached that conclusion then stopped looking for new knowledge in the assumption that they already knew everything.

 

Occam's razor is not a slave to arithmatic. One step is not preferable to two steps if one step is more complex than the two step answer. Hopefully my following responses will expand on this thought.

Okay.

 

Neither is occam's razor immune to garbage in/garbage out. A naturalistic process that results in many worlds existing in multiple universes is orders of magnitude more simplistic than an explanation that first begins with supernatural first cause that is capable of willing such a model into existence.

I don't know that I agree with this assessment that it's simpler at all.

 

Let's use your monitor as an example. Suppose I came to you and proposed that your monitor had magically sprung into being without a creator. You'd probably think this is ludicrious, but which explanation is more complex: A complicated monitor magically springing into existence all by itself, or a highly intelligent designer (capable of imagining such a contraption, building the plan, and the actually creating it) springing into existence all by itself? Yes the monitor is complex, but anything capable of designing something so complex is going to be inherently significantly more complex. The simpler answer in this example is that the monitor created itself.

I see the point now. I don't agree that 1 creator is a order of magnitude greater complex explanation than a literal infinite number of universes. It seems to refer back to your example that at least hypothesizing a computer factory might be in order.

 

Indeed, which is why I'm such a stickler about intellectual honesty.

Likewise.

 

You had said: "As do individual atheists and individuals who claim to be non-religious, but that doesn't make their claims less a matter of faith."

 

I'm not sure how atheism is a conclusion that can be reached via faith, when atheism itself is an absence of faith.

Again. Back to our different operational definitions before last post.

Atheists decided that theists are wrong and place some faith in the assertion. If they had no opinion, or were fence sitters, they'd be agnostic. They have an opinion, that they rely on to be representative of reality.

 

Thanks for posting!

[Arcesious]

Long ago, before mankind, God existed in heaven. There are two heavens now. God created the firs theven before he created man, the second heaven when he created man, and the third one will be after the tribulation is over. with who knows how many angels- maybe octiquadrillions or just billions, who knows? The greatesat angle ever created by God was Lucifer, an angel who was pretty much the second most powerful being ever next to God, God of course still being infinitly more powerful than Lucifer. All angels had free will. Lucifer one day became jealous of God's power, and tried to overthrow God, but unsuccessfully. 1/3rd of all the angels in heaven followed lucifer, and God cast lucifwer out of heven and renamed him Satan. God created Man not only for his own pleasure but also as a 'jury' to put Satan on trial in the end times. He decieved Even and Adam into eating of the tree of life- eating of it gave knowledge of good and evil. God said not to eat of this tree, but i think their eating of this tree was intentional in God's plan.

Satan has lost since Jesus saved us from our sins on the cross and rose again, but the angelic conflict is still going. Satan influences the Human race now, trying to make it seem like he is winning, but he is not. he has already lost, and all he is doing is trying to take everyone he can down with him before the final judgement is passed on him. I will post more info on Satan himself in the angels/demons thread.

The fallen angels infulence you to do evil things- but you are think thw whole time that is is your own decison. it is, but Satan's influence is actually what is making you make that decision, whether you want to believe that or not is your deision, but i made this post as a wakeup call to those of you who haven't realized what Satan has been doing all this time. You don' have to believe this, so i'm not forcing it on you. just consider the possibility of it. have you ever wodnered where that little evil suggestion in the very back of your mind was coming form? have you ever wanted to blurt out curse words or something out of some suggestion going through yuor head that you did not formulate? think of it that way, just a suggestion.

[Ray Jones]

Do you think we should try and put aside theist\atheist diffirences for the sake of making the world a better place?

Yes.

 

But what exactly are the theist/atheist differences that seriously keep us from making the world a better place?

 

As I see it, the big battlefields on earth are mainly due to theist/theist differences, or are not of religious nature at all.

[Achilles]

True. But this post wasn't about what the actual science was, but about Dawkins' interpretation of evolution.

*confused* But you're attributing Dawkins' interpretation with determinism, which I don't believe he did. Do you have some evidence to the contrary that I am not aware of?

 

If you wanted a really positive evolutionary writer, I'd direct you towards Lynn Margullis, the widow of Carl Sagan, and the creator of the Serial Endosymbiosis Hypothesis. Most micro texts attribute her the idea that chloroplasts and mitochondria are descended from primordial bacteria that invaded eukaryotic/Archea cells and formed symbioses rather than being eaten. She's also found some evidence for Lamarckian evolution taking place among some families of protists.

*shrugs* I guess I don't feel compelled to view evolution as a postitive thing in order to accept the evidence that supports it.

 

IIRC, Dawkins went a little beyond this in saying that the actual genes act to serve the individual genes' continued interest and survival, at the expense of the host. Thats' a bit different than saying "the survival of the fittest," or even "the survival of the fittest for a given environment."

Without actually reading the part that you're referencing, I can only venture a guess, but it appears that you might be confusing random mutation (gene's continued interest) with natural selection (survival of the fittest).

 

Gould's got some very thoughtful commentaries from when he wrote for the AMNH. I used to love to read his column when I came across it for a few years before he retired, then died. He always gave me a lot to consider at the least. Didn't always see eye to eye, but he always challenged me mentally, and almost always made the most obscure artifacts from history, biology, anthropology, etc come alive with some very contemporary lessons he applied from history.

I'll have to get over my prejudices again his concept of NOMA and give his stuff a whirl then. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

So you're saying that this is a half-empty, half-full situation among the theists, just like in your camp?

I'm saying it's intellectually dishonest to portray religion as only beneficial.

 

So why paint the view you don't have as so much darker than yours?

Could you please rephrase the question? I'm not sure I take your meaning.

 

You sound like you're describing something you're ambivalent at this point, but seem more against theism as a whole from your other posts

I'm against the fact that people have accepted a conclusion for which there is no evidence; a conclusion that has a very real impact on everyone in the world.

 

We have multiple problems:

1) Does a god or gods exist?

2) If yes, how do we know?

3) If yes, has he/she/they/it communicated with us?

3a) If yes, how and when?

3b) If yes, what was the message/were the messages?

4) If yes, are any of our current religions true?

4a) If yes, which one?

4b) If no, then what does that mean for us?

 

...and I'm sure I can think of more.

 

To clarify, I believe that we will never have an answer for #1, therefore we can accept neither yes nor no as an answer. Without an answer to #1, the rest of the questions kinda have to sit there and wait. But religious people claim to have the answer to all the question (except possibly 4b) and it doesn't matter that different groups have different answers because each group believes that their answers are the right ones. I consider this to be a dangerous proposition, therefore I am very much against theism while remaining neutral about the existence of god. Does that make sense or did I simply complicate matters?

 

I have faith, because I know what has worked in my life.

Well, if I went outside and did a rain dance everyday in the spring, rain would eventually come. Would that validate my belief in a rain god?

 

I know what I depended on, and what got me through hard times.

I'm not sure how this becomes an argument for the validity of god.

 

I have no idea what gets them through, or if they lean on their beliefs as I've leaned on mine.

But their beliefs are very different from yours. Surely if god is real and true, one of you has to be wrong, correct? How do you reconcile that?

 

So other than experience in life, and willingness to trust and see how badly I fall on my face, I know of no other test. Of course science also tests by doing. The main difference is where the skepticism comes into the process.

See rain dance analogy above.

 

I've always understood the schism between atheism and agnosticism to be that agnostics had not made up their minds, and were reserving judgement though not committed or believing in anything, where atheists had already closed their minds to the idea of belief in God. Anti-theists were atheists with an axe to grind against theists or theism.

Agnostism presumes that the existence of god is as likely as it is unlikely, or I suppose you could also say "considers the question completely unanswerable". I consider this wishy-washy fence sitting because I don't think that both scenarios are equally likely and I do think that god could be revealed if he/she/it/they choose to do so. Anti-theism adamantly against the idea of a god or gods. I consider this foolish because I don't believe that the existence of god can ever be ruled out (same goes for invisible pink unicorns, Russell's teapot, etc). Atheism refuses to budge without evidence. It neither promotes the god hypothesis nor rejects it (although it does acknowledge that the need for such a being is so small that its existence wouldn't be that exciting anyway). I think this is wise because seems the most realistic of the options. Of course, I am probably biased toward atheism as it is the positon that I've adopted.

 

The questions you seem to have about my former comments seem to stem from a different operational definition for those categories. But if you like I can attribute atheism to reserving judgement with a slight predisposition against, for the sake of this discussion.

That sounds reasonable.

 

Ok. I've heard several atheists who have claimed never to have had such an experience. I've never heard from any who claimed to have had a spiritual experience, other than maybe Budhists (you can be a Budhist and an atheist at the same time. There is no requirement that you attribute an intelligence to a higher power, and many don't.)

Well we probably need to be careful with what we mean by "spiritual". Spiritual != contact from god. Spiritual means transcended consciousness (aka a feeling of connectedness).

 

That would most likely make it a non - unique event if two people had heard the song before and there were a record of the song outside of the two people that one of them could retrieve when that person recognized what the other was trying to reproduce.

You're absolutely right, but I think you're missing where I was going with it. If someone claims to see the image of the flying spaghetti monster mysteriously appear and scientists can offer a repeatable hypothesis for why that sighting happened, then science happened even thought the event was unique.

 

And there are limits. Having a creator create Artificial Life may show part of the picture of the characteristics inherent in how life evolved, or inventing a machine that can pass the Turing Test may show some insight into essential characteristics of consciousness, but the recreations might miss something of the substance of the original. That's not something that should be taken for granted to be one and the same. I do think, however, that it will be taken for granted by the scientific community as though it explained everything.

But going back to our occam's razor discussion, why should the more complex answer be preferable to the simpler one? If we can show that such processes can arrise naturally, why should we artificially shoe-horn in a supernatural process? What do we gain?

 

Perhaps if they were able to derive a predictable law from such an exercise for how life or sentience might arise in complex systems, but absent such a law, they've just shown how life or intelligence could be created by a creator, and not proven these are the simple outflow of a natural process.

I think we're using the scientific term "law" here, when it is neither applicable or necessary.

 

You see the mud prints with the track marks of shoes, but do you know that someone actually wore the shoes, or maybe they pressed the shoes into the carpet with their hands to make a deliberate impression. Admittedly, it's far less likely, and you could test if you thought to look, but how many people would make it a point to test the assumption that someone's feet were in the shoes when the shoeprints crossed the carpet? Most would see the footprints and draw conclusions about the method without further investigation.

I think you're being too literal with my example. The point is that you don't need to witness something to be able to determine that it occured. Muddy shoes being pressed into the carpet by some means does not need to be witnessed in order to determine that it happened.

 

If we're going to hit up big bang, evolution, or abiogenesis, we can probably dispense with the anaology and discuss the actual science to avoid any more confusion.

 

Then I'd say we can only respectfully disagree at least in part on this. It's what I was taught in both a biology and psychology double major.

Science is what it is. If you feel I am wrong, then I can only benefit from a correction. Therefore, I am not content to let the matter drop. Please correct me where I am wrong.

 

So is it criteria enough to declare a winner in and of itself? You seem to be hedging and not quite willing to commit either way.

Not hedging at all. You still appear to be stuck on "winning/losing" when I was attempting to point out that's not what occam's razor does at all. There's no finality inherent in occam's razor.

 

It would be like sticking a car and an elephant on a scale and declaring the car the lightest thing in the universe. The car might be lighter in that show-down, but if we were to repostulate using a car and a mouse, the mouse would the lighter thing. Make sense?

 

Starting assumptions skew results. If you are satisfied with the answers you have, most people quit looking.

"Achilles' arguments against religion" for $1000, Alex

*hopes everyone has seen Jeopardy! at least once*

 

I've actually seen a quote 4 - 5 years ago where some guy in the sciences was claiming that all the major discoveries were made, and what was left was just detail work. No major new principles or discoveries were left.

Heh, those statments always amuse me. I think I've seen similar quotes from figures from ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.

 

There are a lot of members of eastern religions in good standing that would be offended by that definition, but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion and it is true far more than not.

I was operationally defining it for that part of my response and nothing more.

 

This is what I've always understood agnosticism's position to be throughout my life.

I contend that there are some subtle and some not so subtle differences (hopefully, I outlined them adequately earlier in the post).

 

I don't think it's remotely okay, but I wouldn't be surprised if by and large the scientific establishment reached that conclusion then stopped looking for new knowledge in the assumption that they already knew everything.

It's an interesting hypothetical.

 

I see the point now. I don't agree that 1 creator is a order of magnitude greater complex explanation than a literal infinite number of universes. It seems to refer back to your example that at least hypothesizing a computer factory might be in order.

Sure it is, because whatever created those multiple universes had to be sufficiently complex to create them, and therefore more complex than the universes themselves. The supernatural explanation will always be orders of magnitude more complex than the natural explanation. 3 of something will always be more than 2 of something.

 

Again. Back to our different operational definitions before last post.

Atheists decided that theists are wrong and place some faith in the assertion. If they had no opinion, or were fence sitters, they'd be agnostic. They have an opinion, that they rely on to be representative of reality.

 

Main Entry: 1faith

Pronunciation: 'fAth

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

 

Which of these definitions are you seeking to apply to atheism?

 

Take care.

[Nancy Allen``]

Yes.

 

But what exactly are the theist/atheist differences that seriously keep us from making the world a better place?

 

There are things wrong with religion no question. If Christians attack the issue of abortion, if they ignore their duty to aid others even through the use of scientific methods they disagree with, then the conflict turns against them. And if antitheists adopt the stratergy of seeking and sowing conflict then for them the battle is already lost, for any support they might garner is turned away by their attitude and that support is instead given to those who some see as the enemy, as the aggressors, therefore theists are seen as the victims and they are given aid against this threat.

 

On that matter do you blame religion for some of the wrongs that have occured? If so then how far does this accountability spread? Is every Christian guilty for the Crusades for example? Are we to look at Islam as evil based on the actions of a few of it's members? If so then maybe looking at how I place the blame for how antitheists act on the majority will go some way to show whether or not we should go down this path.

[Jvstice]

*confused* But you're attributing Dawkins' interpretation with determinism, which I don't believe he did. Do you have some evidence to the contrary that I am not aware of?

They affect us without our being aware of them, and whether we acknowledge their acting for their own interest, often against our own, it still works. That sounds like determinism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#.22Selfish.22_genes

 

*shrugs* I guess I don't feel compelled to view evolution as a postitive thing in order to accept the evidence that supports it.

I wasn't getting at this, but ok.

 

Without actually reading the part that you're referencing, I can only venture a guess, but it appears that you might be confusing random mutation (gene's continued interest) with natural selection (survival of the fittest).

You never actually read the selfish gene. Have you? Dawkins doesn't talk about evolution at an organism or even a species level, but as though the genes themselves evolve for their own benefit, and makes it a point to specify that's his main thesis. Individual genes act to the benefit of individual genes, and quite often act to screw over their host or the local population of which the host is a member.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Evolutionary_biology

 

I'll have to get over my prejudices again his concept of NOMA and give his stuff a whirl then. Thanks for the recommendation.

Nothing should be beyond criticism for the ideas it represents, but I do think there is some truth to the position that they answer different questions.

 

I'm saying it's intellectually dishonest to portray religion as only beneficial.

I've never said theistic points of view were only beneficial. It can be just as much an anchor about your neck as a life raft to keep you from sinking, depending on both the specific message and the individual.

 

Could you please rephrase the question? I'm not sure I take your meaning.

See previous. Not you doesn't mean that there's no merit in the position whatsoever.

 

I'm against the fact that people have accepted a conclusion for which there is no evidence; a conclusion that has a very real impact on everyone in the world.

 

We have multiple problems:

1) Does a god or gods exist?

2) If yes, how do we know?

3) If yes, has he/she/they/it communicated with us?

3a) If yes, how and when?

3b) If yes, what was the message/were the messages?

4) If yes, are any of our current religions true?

4a) If yes, which one?

4b) If no, then what does that mean for us?

 

...and I'm sure I can think of more.

 

To clarify, I believe that we will never have an answer for #1, therefore we can accept neither yes nor no as an answer. Without an answer to #1, the rest of the questions kinda have to sit there and wait. But religious people claim to have the answer to all the question (except possibly 4b) and it doesn't matter that different groups have different answers because each group believes that their answers are the right ones. I consider this to be a dangerous proposition, therefore I am very much against theism while remaining neutral about the existence of god. Does that make sense or did I simply complicate matters?

 

3 automatically takes care of 1 & 2. If you encounter someone or something, you can be pretty sure that it exists because you encountered it, so that's circular. People may not believe you encountered it insisting they personally have not, but are you supposed to change your answers because they have no common ground to understand?

 

You've put 4, 4a, and 4b in such extreme terms. Who fully agrees with the church they attend, other than the people that run it at least? I don't know anyone that does.

 

Well, if I went outside and did a rain dance everyday in the spring, rain would eventually come. Would that validate my belief in a rain god?

 

I'm not sure how this becomes an argument for the validity of god.

Extreme example goes far beyond the actual scenario. Of course you don't see the relevance, because there is none.

 

But their beliefs are very different from yours. Surely if god is real and true, one of you has to be wrong, correct? How do you reconcile that?

If that's true, there are degrees of rightness and degrees of wrongness like anything else. Like when Charles Darwin and Russel Wallace published their theory of descent with modification. Before that there were theories of evolution, before them who had some truth to them. Darwin described a process that we can observe to this day.

 

In the generation before Darwin, Cuvier said that there were mass extinctions on earth, that led to whole species dying off never to be heard from again, but he didn't admit to creatures evolving. His contemporary, Lamarck believed in a form of evolution where animals adapted through their lifetimes, and the changes they aquired passed on to their offspring. Both had some truth to them, but were less true than picture that emerged with the whole context.

 

I don't think that either one was wrong for striving to get closer to the truth though, even if they proved disasterously wrong in certain aspects.

 

 

Agnostism presumes that the existence of god is as likely as it is unlikely, or I suppose you could also say "considers the question completely unanswerable". I consider this wishy-washy fence sitting because I don't think that both scenarios are equally likely and I do think that god could be revealed if he/she/it/they choose to do so. Anti-theism adamantly against the idea of a god or gods. I consider this foolish because I don't believe that the existence of god can ever be ruled out (same goes for invisible pink unicorns, Russell's teapot, etc). Atheism refuses to budge without evidence. It neither promotes the god hypothesis nor rejects it (although it does acknowledge that the need for such a being is so small that its existence wouldn't be that exciting anyway). I think this is wise because seems the most realistic of the options. Of course, I am probably biased toward atheism as it is the positon that I've adopted.

A lot of people claim that God has been revealed. They just argue about the nature of that God. So yeah, I'd say you're just as biased in the direction of your own point of view as everyone else.

 

 

Well we probably need to be careful with what we mean by "spiritual". Spiritual != contact from god. Spiritual means transcended consciousness (aka a feeling of connectedness).

Fair enough. So your assumption is that the traditions that point to such states of being have no validity? So what are they built on? Not sure where you're going with this.

 

You're absolutely right, but I think you're missing where I was going with it. If someone claims to see the image of the flying spaghetti monster mysteriously appear and scientists can offer a repeatable hypothesis for why that sighting happened, then science happened even thought the event was unique.

 

A lot of emphasis on an if that has never happened. No repeatable hypothesis has been put forth that explains away theism, though there are certainly attempts to do so.

 

Besides, if God really is a superior omniescient being, and people attempt to test whether faith in God is wasted or worthwhile in sick people, why would they think that God would fall for a trick that could only fool a retarded 3 - year - old?

But going back to our occam's razor discussion, why should the more complex answer be preferable to the simpler one? If we can show that such processes can arrise naturally, why should we artificially shoe-horn in a supernatural process? What do we gain?

Proving sufficiency to cause something, isn't the same thing as proving the actual cause of something. It is suggestive, but not in and of itself, proof.

 

I think we're using the scientific term "law" here, when it is neither applicable or necessary.

I disagree. Behaviorism is described in terms of laws of behavior, and I've had professors tell me that the laws of behavior are as inexorable as gravity.

 

Either derive laws from the exercise of inventing the technology, or you haven't proven a law or theory of evolution of new forms of life. In the absence of a scientific model, all you'll have proven is how a creator can create life or intelligence, not demonstrated a law of abiogenesis. Not saying that such an act would be worthless, but forming a model that generates predictions is something that a real science would attempt to do. Without attempts to generate such a model...

 

So yeah, I'd say that gets to the heart of the debate.

 

I think you're being too literal with my example. The point is that you don't need to witness something to be able to determine that it occured. Muddy shoes being pressed into the carpet by some means does not need to be witnessed in order to determine that it happened.

 

I never said there was nothing we could tell with science, but that unless you believe in some sort of "preservation of information" built into the very nature of the universe, there are some things that can't be known so easily. Heisenberg would say that some things are absolutely unknowable by definition at the quantum level. Many have hypothesized that the human brain is an advanced form of quantum computer, so it's entirely possible for example that internal states of human thought and emotional processes at least to some degree is encompassed by this.

 

Doesn't mean that the attempt is worthless. Our understanding of the universe and standard of living have risen with all our attempts, but we find at least as many questions as answers with every step.

 

If we're going to hit up big bang, evolution, or abiogenesis, we can probably dispense with the anaology and discuss the actual science to avoid any more confusion.

I have showed you in several threads why I don't think there are absolute arguements that overwhelmingly prove a point of view, just suggestive ones, though admittedly I did post too tired in the wrong thread, I'd still stand behind what I said.

 

Science is what it is. If you feel I am wrong, then I can only benefit from a correction. Therefore, I am not content to let the matter drop. Please correct me where I am wrong.

 

Science can only legitimately address what it can observe at least in principle. Science can only move beyond hypotheses when something is replicable, at least in application.

 

For example:

You can say that "x is sufficient to create condition y if the situation was z." You can't always say that this is proof that "x created condition y, BECAUSE OF situation z." Situation z is a pressuposition, and as long as it is true, then x and y are legitimate assumptions of cause and effect.

 

But there may be conditions under which x and z are irrelevant. Also, situation z may actually be an indicator of the presence of something more important to the process, but that we never knew to look for.

 

Not hedging at all. You still appear to be stuck on "winning/losing" when I was attempting to point out that's not what occam's razor does at all. There's no finality inherent in occam's razor.

 

True, but that hasn't stopped you from making it a basis for your point of view on it. Not that there's definitive evidence of theism, but that Occam's Razor makes .... yadda yadda ... "more likely.." in your eyes. So why is it a stretch to think that other people will try to carry your logic a step further in future centuries.

 

It would be like sticking a car and an elephant on a scale and declaring the car the lightest thing in the universe. The car might be lighter in that show-down, but if we were to repostulate using a car and a mouse, the mouse would the lighter thing. Make sense?

False analogy, but ok.

 

"Achilles' arguments against religion" for $1000, Alex

*hopes everyone has seen Jeopardy! at least once*

 

Heh, those statments always amuse me. I think I've seen similar quotes from figures from ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.

Then you haven't considered all the possibilities. If the evidence is ambiguous, you'll decide personally in the direction you're already biased, but you say that there's no logical basis for deciding between them.

I was operationally defining it for that part of my response and nothing more.

Fair enough.

 

I contend that there are some subtle and some not so subtle differences (hopefully, I outlined them adequately earlier in the post).

Again, fair enough.

 

It's an interesting hypothetical.

As threatened as you are by people placing faith in what they think they know, I'm surprised you aren't more worried about the possibility.

 

Sure it is, because whatever created those multiple universes had to be sufficiently complex to create them, and therefore more complex than the universes themselves. The supernatural explanation will always be orders of magnitude more complex than the natural explanation. 3 of something will always be more than 2 of something.

Then how do you deal with the people who say that the universe IS God? By their definition, there are an infinite number of gods who are self creating.

 

 

Main Entry: 1faith

Pronunciation: 'fAth

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

 

Which of these definitions are you seeking to apply to atheism?

 

Take care.

Faith is trust. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Ray Jones]

On that matter do you blame religion for some of the wrongs that have occured? If so then how far does this accountability spread? Is every Christian guilty for the Crusades for example?

Counter question: do you blame religion for the rights that have occurred? If so, where do you draw the line? Is the religious person good because something good was done in the name of religion?

 

 

Are we to look at Islam as evil based on the actions of a few of it's members?

Counter question: are all drunken drivers supposed to cause a crash or why is it that it is not allowed to drink and drive? Are all weapon owners hijackers, or why are no weapons allowed on a plane? Do some propagate abstinence because every teen gets STD'd and impregnated whenever they have sex?

 

 

If so then maybe looking at how I place the blame for how antitheists act on the majority will go some way to show whether or not we should go down this path.

I have trouble to number but one event where anti-/atheists incited an act of violent nature against theists over the matter of beliefs. I have a hard time to count the events where theists incited acts of violence against all possible atheist *and* theist parties over the matter of beliefs.

 

 

---

 

Besides, if God really is a superior omniescient being, and people attempt to test whether faith in God is wasted or worthwhile in sick people, why would they think that God would fall for a trick that could only fool a retarded 3 - year - old?

I'm not sure but do superior omniscient beings invent religions and require faith? Is "superior omniscient being" another term for "low self esteem"?

 

 

Proving sufficiency to cause something, isn't the same thing as proving the actual cause of something.

Sure, where is the point?

 

 

Either derive laws from the exercise of inventing the technology, or you haven't proven a law or theory of evolution of new forms of life. In the absence of a scientific model, all you'll have proven is how a creator can create life or intelligence, not demonstrated a law of abiogenesis.

Except maybe I'll also have proven that *everyone* can create life, not just the 'creator'.

 

 

Not saying that such an act would be worthless, but forming a model that generates predictions is something that a real science would attempt to do. Without attempts to generate such a model...

I doubt we knew about Pi when the first kind of wheel was used. I doubt we knew something about 'rapid oxidation' when we first used fire from a burning tree.

 

 

Our understanding of the universe and standard of living have risen with all our attempts, but we find at least as many questions as answers with every step.

Correct. And?

 

 

Science can only legitimately address what it can observe at least in principle.

What else would I want to address?

 

 

Science can only move beyond hypotheses when something is replicable, at least in application.

That's why we know so much about invisible electro magnetic radiation, and almost nothing about the conductivity of invisible pink unicorns.

 

 

For example:

You can say that "x is sufficient to create condition y if the situation was z." You can't always say that this is proof that "x created condition y, BECAUSE OF situation z." Situation z is a pressuposition, and as long as it is true, then x and y are legitimate assumptions of cause and effect.

Okay, X *and* Z are needed to create Y. Example. Ice. Water freezes at 0°C at normal pressure. Change the pressure and water won't freeze at 0°C.

 

 

But there may be conditions under which x and z are irrelevant.

Oh? So you need a certain pressure/temperature combination to make water go ice, and suddenly it doesn't depend to these parameters at all? Ooookaaay.

 

 

Also, situation z may actually be an indicator of the presence of something more important to the process, but that we never knew to look for.

That's right because sometime water doesn't freeze even at -17°C. God at work? Or rather another parameter W, additional stuff in the water like dirt or minerals?

 

 

Then how do you deal with the people who say that the universe IS God? By their definition, there are an infinite number of gods who are self creating.

I'd doubt these gods have made us after their image then, eh?

 

However, how about the idea that god is just a synonym for universe?

 

 

Faith is trust.

No. Trust is when you *know* you can rely on something.

 

Faith is, when you *say* you trust, and you know you cannot rely on it, but want to anyway.

[Achilles]

They affect us without our being aware of them, and whether we acknowledge their acting for their own interest, often against our own, it still works. That sounds like determinism

You seem to be using this in the context of self-determinism, which is impossible because it would imply that genes have a will (which would mean that they would first have to have consciousness). Determinism means a belief in predestination. As I have already pointed out, evolution does not work toward a specific goal. It is a process and the outcome is unknown to all.

Genes replicate. Sometimes those replications contain errors (mutations). Sometimes those mutations give the organism a benefit, sometimes a detriment. The genes with detrimental mutations are replicated just like those with a benefit (and just like those without any mutation at all).

 

I wasn't getting at this, but ok.

I'm afraid I missed the point then.

 

Dawkins doesn't talk about evolution at an organism or even a species level, but as though the genes themselves evolve for their own benefit, and makes it a point to specify that's his main thesis.

Yes, genes replicate. That's not a point I've denied. Where things seem to be getting muddy for you is that you seem to have mistaken Dawkins' argument to somehow support the idea that genes are imbued with consciousness, which is evidenced by your repeated use of the words "determinism" and "destiny". This just isn't the case and is not Dawkins' argument.

 

Individual genes act to the benefit of individual genes, and quite often act to screw over their host or the local population of which the host is a member.

Yes, genes with detrimental mutations will be replicated just as much as those beneficial mutations, provided that natural selection doesn't take over or artificial selection interferes. However this is not done consciously on the part of the gene.

 

I think we're pretty much in agreement on the mechanics. The part I think we're hung up on is how much consciousness to attribute to the gene. My answer is none. Your answer, based on what I've read so far, would be something other than none. Am I interpretting you correctly?

 

Nothing should be beyond criticism for the ideas it represents, but I do think there is some truth to the position that they answer different questions.

I think that's patently false, but I'd be very interested in hearing your take on how this is true/possible.

 

I've never said theistic points of view were only beneficial.

I don't recall implying that you did. You asked me to clarify my position, not comment on yours.

 

See previous. Not you doesn't mean that there's no merit in the position whatsoever.

Sorry, this doesn't help. I'm still not sure what you're trying to address. I'm not trying to be obtuse. I think there might be words or punctuation missing which is throwing me off.

 

3 automatically takes care of 1 & 2. If you encounter someone or something, you can be pretty sure that it exists because you encountered it, so that's circular.

Indeed your argument is very circular

Encountering "something" just means you encountered "something". In order to determine what "something" is, you need to be able to validate it.

 

Primitive man might have defined "something" as animal spirits. Ancient man might have matured into believing that "something" is a god or gods. Modern man might be able to determine that "something" is a region in the brain that developed via chance mutation and was selected naturally for social and personal benefits.

 

Arbitrarily deciding that "something" equals the christian god does not meet the minimum qualifications for this "intellectually honest" thing we keep talking about.

 

People may not believe you encountered it insisting they personally have not, but are you supposed to change your answers because they have no common ground to understand?

So the intellectually rigorous option is to jump to a conclusion and refuse to alter your opinion no matter what evidence is presented that contradicts what you think?

 

You've put 4, 4a, and 4b in such extreme terms. Who fully agrees with the church they attend, other than the people that run it at least? I don't know anyone that does.

"Extreme terms"? They are very simple questions. There are no baited terms or emotionally charged language. I'm afaid I'll need some help understanding what you consider "extreme" about those questions.

 

Extreme example goes far beyond the actual scenario. Of course you don't see the relevance, because there is none.

Not extreme in the slightest. Your earlier assertion was that spiritual experiences should be considered evidence for god existence. If that's the case, then getting rain after a rain dance would similarly be evidence of a rain gods existence. Unfortunately, we find that there is no statistically defendable relationship between dancing for rain and getting it. Similarly, there is not evidence that a spiritual experience is caused by (and therefore evidence for) the christian god (or the muslim god, the greek pantheon, the flying spaghetti monster, etc).

 

If that's true, there are degrees of rightness and degrees of wrongness like anything else.

On what objective criteria have you determined then that your god is "more right" and "less wrong" than any of the other gods? If there is some degree of "right" for the other gods, doesn't that kind of poke a few holes in modern christian theology?

 

Like when Charles Darwin and Russel Wallace published their theory of descent with modification. Before that there were theories of evolution, before them who had some truth to them. Darwin described a process that we can observe to this day.

Mmmm...not sure how to feel about the theology/science comparison in this context.

Yes, scientists accept that their hypothesis and theories may be changed from time to time as new evidence becomes available. And yes, religion often finds itself having to change its stance from time to time based on pressure to do so, however I do not agree that this makes religion the intellectually honest institution that science tries to be. Religion claims to have access to absolute truths. "Absolute" means unchanging. The fact that many "truths" have changed is evidence that it is not "absolute". Therefore if we are left with nothing more than objective truth, I'll take the side that can at least be honest about what it does and does not know.

 

In the generation before Darwin, Cuvier said that there were mass extinctions on earth, that led to whole species dying off never to be heard from again, but he didn't admit to creatures evolving. His contemporary, Lamarck believed in a form of evolution where animals adapted through their lifetimes, and the changes they aquired passed on to their offspring. Both had some truth to them, but were less true than picture that emerged with the whole context.

Yes, they had some very interesting hypothesis that needed time before they could be correctly tested. As new evidence became available, many hypothesis were altered and some were scrapped.

 

I don't think that either one was wrong for striving to get closer to the truth though, even if they proved disasterously wrong in certain aspects.

Indeed they were not, but neither did either man claim to have the key to eternal salvation or swear bearers of opposing hypothesis to eternal damnation for failing to worship unerringly before their ideas.

 

In other words: what's your point?

 

A lot of people claim that God has been revealed. They just argue about the nature of that God. So yeah, I'd say you're just as biased in the direction of your own point of view as everyone else.

And in the 1970's a lot of people thought that bell-bottoms and disco was really cool too. Not sure how a majority opinion automatically becomes the correct one. What happens in a few decades when Islam outpaces Christianity? Will the muslim god be the right one then? A lot of people will be claiming that their god has been revealed and their god will be more popular than yours.

 

But I'm afraid you digress. The section that you quoted was my opinion on atheism vs. anti-theism/agnosticism. But I acknowledge the barb, nonetheless

 

Fair enough. So your assumption is that the traditions that point to such states of being have no validity? So what are they built on? Not sure where you're going with this.

Yes, my argument is that until we have some reason to believe that spiritual experiences are the product of a deity and not simply chemical reactions in our brains, then they are not valid arguments for the existence of said deities.

 

Keep in mind that we can reproduce such experiences with experiments in a lab, but we can't test for god. Therefore we have a supernatural explanation and a natural explanation. I'll let you chew on the implications

 

A lot of emphasis on an if that has never happened.

Religion? Yes, I agree.

 

No repeatable hypothesis has been put forth that explains away theism, though there are certainly attempts to do so.

I'm afraid you're making a common mistake with regards to the burden of proof. It is up to religion to prove its arguments, not up to science (or any other institution) to disprove it.

 

Besides, if God really is a superior omniescient being, and people attempt to test whether faith in God is wasted or worthwhile in sick people, why would they think that God would fall for a trick that could only fool a retarded 3 - year - old?

So god intentionally decieves his followers? He reveals himself sometimes (by casting holy images into bowls of soup), but hides himself from the general public when tested?

 

I know, I know - "god works in mysterious ways". Sorry I brought it up.

 

Proving sufficiency to cause something, isn't the same thing as proving the actual cause of something. It is suggestive, but not in and of itself, proof.

I'm not sure this answers my question or addresses my point.

 

If we have two possible explanations, what do we gain by accepting a complex answer that has no means to be validated over a simple answer that can be validated?

 

I disagree. Behaviorism is described in terms of laws of behavior, and I've had professors tell me that the laws of behavior are as inexorable as gravity.

You weren't discussing behavior. You were discussing life origins.

 

I'm sure your argument is perfectly applicable to the point you are now making, but it is completely unrelated to the point you were making (and the one I responded to) before.

 

Either derive laws from the exercise of inventing the technology, or you haven't proven a law or theory of evolution of new forms of life. In the absence of a scientific model, all you'll have proven is how a creator can create life or intelligence, not demonstrated a law of abiogenesis. Not saying that such an act would be worthless, but forming a model that generates predictions is something that a real science would attempt to do. Without attempts to generate such a model...

I'm not quite sure what any of this means. What is your argument?

 

So yeah, I'd say that gets to the heart of the debate.

 

I never said there was nothing we could tell with science, but that unless you believe in some sort of "preservation of information" built into the very nature of the universe, there are some things that can't be known so easily.

Who added the "easily" qualifier? If scientific discovery were easy, I imagine we'd be much further along by now. Heck, it's been a few hundred years since the Enlightenment.

 

Heisenberg would say that some things are absolutely unknowable by definition at the quantum level.

Well, it is his "principle of uncertainty" after all.

On a side note: Since you appear to be interested in Heisenberg, I happen to be reading a book on him right now. If you're looking for some relatively light reading, let me know and I'll PM you the title.

 

Many have hypothesized that the human brain is an advanced form of quantum computer, so it's entirely possible for example that internal states of human thought and emotional processes at least to some degree is encompassed by this.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that you've incorrectly asserted that science can only validate things that can be observed (i.e. the muddy shoe prints on the carpet vs. a witness).

 

Doesn't mean that the attempt is worthless. Our understanding of the universe and standard of living have risen with all our attempts, but we find at least as many questions as answers with every step.

Indeed. Is this being posed as an argument for religion?

 

I have showed you in several threads why I don't think there are absolute arguements that overwhelmingly prove a point of view, just suggestive ones, though admittedly I did post too tired in the wrong thread, I'd still stand behind what I said.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is within the context of the discussion we were having. I was inviting you to forego analogies and discusses specific scientific theories/hypothesis.

 

Science can only legitimately address what it can observe at least in principle. Science can only move beyond hypotheses when something is replicable, at least in application.

I think at this point we're arguing in circles. This appears to be nothing more than a point that I've already refuted (back in #276, IIRC).

 

For example:

You can say that "x is sufficient to create condition y if the situation was z."....

This would appear to be a testable hypothesis.

 

...You can't always say that this is proof that "x created condition y, BECAUSE OF situation z."...

Of course not because this statement assumes that there is sufficient evidience to promote the hypothesis to theory or law. These are, of course, different things.

 

Situation z is a pressuposition, and as long as it is true, then x and y are legitimate assumptions of cause and effect.

"Presuposition" implies a lack of evidence, therefore, assuming it to be true puts us back at the hypothesis stage (case depending). Therefore x and y may be legitimate assumptions but are probably not the only ones available. Hence why sciences seeks to "rule out" explanations that don't make sense.

 

But there may be conditions under which x and z are irrelevant. Also, situation z may actually be an indicator of the presence of something more important to the process, but that we never knew to look for.

Such as?

 

True, but that hasn't stopped you from making it a basis for your point of view on it.

We're still talking about occam's razor, right? If so, then not at all. Please show me which part of my argument you're having difficulty understand so that I can clarify further. Thanks.

 

Not that there's definitive evidence of theism, but that Occam's Razor makes .... yadda yadda ... "more likely.." in your eyes.

Indeed. It seems that you may have understood my argument afterall, which makes me wonder if the above was an attempt to mischaracterize what I said.

 

So why is it a stretch to think that other people will try to carry your logic a step further in future centuries.

I certainly hope that they do. I don't see what negative impact being more rational is going to have on the future of mankind. Especially when we have centuries of superstition to compare it against.

 

False analogy, but ok.

Not even slightly. Perhaps you would like to explain how occam's razor works in your mind so that we can begin isolating the source of our misunderstanding.

 

Then you haven't considered all the possibilities. If the evidence is ambiguous, you'll decide personally in the direction you're already biased, but you say that there's no logical basis for deciding between them.

Funny, I agree with your point, and then you disagree with me (which means you are now contradicting/arguing against yourself?).

 

In the mean time, I don't see where you're actually refuting anything I'm saying here. Yes, I agree that people that "start with certain assumptions" are going to stop looking. I agree that they haven't considered all the possibilities. I also agree that many people will jump to a foregone conclusion when they don't have sufficient evidence. And yes, I am saying that this is not a logical decision.

 

Not sure what your contention is. Is it that I see it for an argument against theism (specifically considering it to be intellectually honest)?

 

As threatened as you are by people placing faith in what they think they know, I'm surprised you aren't more worried about the possibility.

Possibility for what? That we might eventually figure everything out? I'm sure it's bound to happen provided that we are around long enough, but as I think I said earlier (apologies if I didn't) I'm pretty sure the human race will have been wiped out long before there's even a chance of that happening. Do you really want me to lose sleep at the prospect that *gasp* humans in the future will have more knowledge than we do now?

 

Then how do you deal with the people who say that the universe IS God? By their definition, there are an infinite number of gods who are self creating.

Err...I categorize them will all the other people that claim to have unverifiable hypothesis about the nature of our universe and the existence of god. I guess you could says I'm an a-whateveryouwanttocallthatbelief.

 

How do you deal with people that say that Zeus built the universe out of the remains of the titans?

 

Faith is trust. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I don't disagree with the definition. You haven't answered my question though .