Richard Dawkins Vs Religion

[Another God]

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) has just written a new book called "The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion)" and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

[ray b]

I wish religion was held to the russia ideal
trust BUT VERIFY

and of course no one can verify any belife

[arildno]

It is an excellent program, I've seen it before.
In particular, Dawkins' clear analyses and unremitting stance that religion IS irrational, and for the most part, im-MORAL is definitely needed in our world today. It is also about time that a prominent scientist says flat out what religious indoctrination of children is:
It is child abuse.

There are too many cowardly scientists about. Thanks to all non-existing gods that Dawkins is not one of them.

[selfAdjoint]

Anyone's reaction to Dawkins' anticrusade seems contingent only on his or her prior conceptions of religion. I mostly agree with him myself, but gee! we don't need another pro and con thread on the rationality of religion. There's one already down on Philosophy; it's called So basically. In my opinion that's where it belongs.

[MeJennifer]

In particular, Dawkins' clear analyses and unremitting stance that religion IS irrational, and for the most part, im-MORAL is definitely needed in our world today.
A bit of nonsense if you ask me. :smile:
While I do not disagree that the belief in supernatural powers including deities is actually irrational I strongly disagree that we can judge under the pretense of science that something is moral or immoral.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder IMHO.

[Another God]

What do you think would happen in a world where Dawkins was essentially successful though? Lets say the worlds major religions were proven to be wrong, what would the religious of the world do?

I'm worried that many of them, without faith in God, would turn immoral. I have heard that argument do many times in anti-evolution threads, Christians saying that without a god there is nothing to stop them from raping etc. It sounds ludicrous to us atheists that anyone would be so morally retarded, but I wonder if religion actually does stiffle the moral development of people by using absolutes and a father like figure version of morality. Suddenlt losing their only concept of morality may indeed leave them not knowing how to behave, and result in a huge increase in criminal behaviour. Serious criminal behaviour.

[Doc Al]

While I do not disagree that the belief in supernatural powers including deities is actually irrational I strongly disagree that we can judge under the pretense of science that something is moral or immoral.
Dawkins says no such thing. But he does argue that religion provides no rational basis for morality.

I'm worried that many of them, without faith in God, would turn immoral. I have heard that argument do many times in anti-evolution threads, Christians saying that without a god there is nothing to stop them from raping etc. It sounds ludicrous to us atheists that anyone would be so morally retarded, but I wonder if religion actually does stiffle the moral development of people by using absolutes and a father like figure version of morality. Suddenlt losing their only concept of morality may indeed leave them not knowing how to behave, and result in a huge increase in criminal behaviour. Serious criminal behaviour.

Read the book! Dawkins addresses this issue and much more.

Dawkins kicks ***... with class.

[Another God]

LOL, i intend to read the book. I only just found out about it!

[MeJennifer]

But he does argue that religion provides no rational basis for morality.

Well I can agree with that. :smile:
But why would it need a rational basis anyway?

There is no rational basis for morality IMHO.

[PIT2]

I watched one of the videos, and found it somewhat dissappointing. For instance, he rumbled over the issue of consciousness in a matter of seconds. During an interview, some guy claims that "we can be faily sure that consciousness is produced by the brain", after which Dawkins replies: i completely agree. It is no surprise that after making such a huge assumption, that some of the things religion claims (god, survival after death) can be dismissed. I fully understand however that he didnt want to make a long philosophical tv program. He had a purpose with this show, and had to decide what to keep in and what to keep out of it, and at the same time have it remain interesting for viewers. Its probably an eyeopener for religious people who have never really thought about reality very deeply.

Also, in the same video: he suggests our morality evolved because altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary advantage for the individual. What he doesnt mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious. Instead, the video only showed a group of chimpansees interacting with eachother. While this obviously is aimed at convincing religious people that we evolved from common ancestors, i think he should have explored our evolutionary origin a bit further, instead of just the part that serves his goal (attacking religion). Even though he may perhaps do this in his books or elsewhere, the videos could give a wrong impression to its viewers (im not familiar with his books).

I havent watched the other videos yet.

[arildno]

A bit of nonsense if you ask me. :smile:

Since I didn't ask you, your comment is just irrelevant and uncalled for. :smile:

[selfAdjoint]

Since I didn't ask you, your comment is just irrelevant and uncalled for. :smile:


Her assertian that there is no rational basis for morality is at least a positive, if slightly OT, contribution to this thread, and it seems to me a legitimate topic for a social sciences forum.. What does Dawkins say about this? Any studies?

[arildno]

I was commenting the sub-part of her post that my post was a bit of nonsense, which I didn't ask for, and hence, makes that comment irrelevant by her own words "if you ask me" .

[MeJennifer]

I was commenting the sub-part of her post that my post was a bit of nonsense, which I didn't ask for, and hence, makes that comment irrelevant by her own words "if you ask me" .
I was not suggesting that your posting was "a bit of nonsense" but instead that Dawkins' alledged claim was.

I took from your statement that Dawkins in his book has a clear analysis that religion is for the most part immoral.
That I find a bit of nonsense.
Now if he actually claims that in his book is yet another issue, I don't know, since I have not read the book.

:smile:

[arildno]

That immorality bit is a slight interpolation of mine over Dawkins' view.
Feel free to regard that bit of nonsense to come from me. :smile:

[LJM]

Dawkins misrepresents science as an agenda, remember he is considered as an authority. I think what he's doing is frankly disgusting, and using tired arguments such as 'evidence' to dispel belief are obvious and easy.

If you base your arguments on the current climate of religious ideals, and use science as an anchor, then it's completely flawed. The scientific method is irrelevant to 'belief' and the only notion spurring Dawkins 'is' current climate, which is not a reflection of belief outside of science. It is a daft and misguided premise that is prompting conflict between religious factions and science. Such things do have an effect, and I think it's a gross misrepresentation of science if such publications are presented to the public.

I'm not religious, before anybody asks.

[selfAdjoint]

Dawkins misrepresents science as an agenda, remember he is considered as an authority. I think what he's doing is frankly disgusting, and using tired arguments such as 'evidence' to dispel belief are obvious and easy.

If you base your arguments on the current climate of religious ideals, and use science as an anchor, then it's completely flawed. The scientific method is irrelevant to 'belief' and the only notion spurring Dawkins 'is' current climate, which is not a reflection of belief outside of science. It is a daft and misguided premise that is prompting conflict between religious factions and science. Such things do have an effect, and I think it's a gross misrepresentation of science if such publications are presented to the public.

I'm not religious, before anybody asks.

I repeat, the duelling preconceptions have no place in a serious forum. Dawkins means to be provocative and he is. Can't we all just deal with that without consuming Greg's bandwidth to fume in?

[MeJennifer]

That immorality bit is a slight interpolation of mine over Dawkins' view.
Feel free to regard that bit of nonsense to come from me. :smile:
No problem, I realize that more than occasionally I am not nonsense free either :biggrin:

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Dawkins is an amazing scientist. I am immediately skeptical of any religious individuals ability to think rationally. It's always refreshing to see members of the scientific community reveal religion to be the disorder that it is.

[Another God]

What he doesnt mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious.
That is a wild assumption without basis. 'Moral' behaviour is not based upon consciousness. In fact 90% of the time morality is driven by emotions, which are genetically programmed if-then statements. Bacteria can quite clearly benefit from assisting their nearest rneighbours because usually their nearest neighbour is an offspring with virtually identical DNA. Thus any DNA which programs a phenotypic behaviour which promotes an altruistic behaviour in Bacteria (whatever that is) will inevitably be at the benefit of that one piece of coding.....

Consciousness is not required in the least.

The only application for consciousness in morality is in revising our emotional instincts. Evolution has trained us for a pre-industrial world. Has the invention of contraceptives changed the reality of sexual intercourse, and thus our hundred thousand year old instincts are now no longer relevent? ETC Plus the individual application of those instincts may change, so consciousness may allow individual consaiderations....

[PIT2]

'Moral' behaviour is not based upon consciousness. In fact 90% of the time morality is driven by emotions, which are genetically programmed if-then statements.Since when are emotions not experienced?

Bacteria can quite clearly benefit from assisting their nearest rneighbours because usually their nearest neighbour is an offspring with virtually identical DNA. Thus any DNA which programs a phenotypic behaviour which promotes an altruistic behaviour in Bacteria (whatever that is) will inevitably be at the benefit of that one piece of coding.....I merely pointed out the conflict between some of Dawkins speculations. If bacteria act altruisticly, and if they are not conscious, then obviously altruistic behaviour can exist without consciousness. However, if Dawkins wants to believe that morality is a product of evolution because altruistic behaviour is beneficial, then he should also explore the roots of altruistic behaviour.

Consciousness is not required in the least.
The idea that someone can have morals without any experience, is a purely speculative concept. Look at what happens in sociopaths.

Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, sociopaths cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

[Another God]

Since when are emotions not experienced?Its not an exclusivity. To say experience is not required does not mean that morals cannot be experienced. It is simply true that experience is not 'required' for 'moral' behaviour.

Afterall, a pacemaker can save a life without requesting any recompense. Isn't that moral behaviour? I guarantee the pacemaker doesn't experience the morality of its actions though....

I merely pointed out the conflict between some of Dawkins speculations. If bacteria act altruisticly, and if they are not conscious, then obviously altruistic behaviour can exist without morality. However, if Dawkins wants to believe that morality is a product of evolution because altruistic behaviour is beneficial, then he should also explore the roots of altruistic behaviour. Altruism is entwined with morality in a way that I can't see how they can be seperated. Morality does not require concious decision, it simply requires doing 'the right thing'. The right thing can only ever be determined subjectively, and that subjective determination may/may not come from the acting object.


The idea that someone can have morals without any experience, is a purely speculative concept. Look at what happens in sociopaths.
I think we need to establish what "morals" actually means before we bother discussing whether it can exist without existing.

For instance, talking about 'someone having morals' begs the question, because you have already assumed a subjective consciousness into the equation (someone needs to exist in order for them to have morals). So of course there must be experience in order for 'someone to have morals'.

However, for some action to be moral...well, this is actually tricky. Morality is entirely subjectively determined. There is nothing objective about "good and bad" "right and wrong". So there must be experience in order for the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action to be assumed. However, that does not mean that those actions cannot be performed by any possible number of unthinking automaton.

In other words, conscious thought is not required for moral action. It is only required for the moral judgement. A judgement, btw, which is entirely subjective and meaningless in reality.

[PIT2]

It is simply true that experience is not 'required' for 'moral' behaviour.This is just an assumption. Moral behaviour is behaviour that is driven by morals. Obviously morals need subjectivity, u admit so urself, and thus moral behaviour does too.

I think we need to establish what "morals" actually means before we bother discussing whether it can exist without existing.I think this one will do:
"Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"

However, for some action to be moral...well, this is actually tricky. Morality is entirely subjectively determined. There is nothing objective about "good and bad" "right and wrong". So there must be experience in order for the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action to be assumed. However, that does not mean that those actions cannot be performed by any possible number of unthinking automaton.No it doesnt rule out unconscious automatons acting like that. However, there is no evidence that this is the case. We can only go with what we observe in humans, and we observe that our moral actions are driven by our experiences. Its entirely possible that some day someone will built Data from Star Trek and an altruistic android society will arise, but so far this is science fiction.

And suppose it is possible that altruistic behaviour arose without morals, then this takes away the evolutionary function of morals which Dawkins claims they have. Its like saying an organism only needs his eyes, and not his vision, to react to the environment. This takes away the evolutionary function of vision. Similarly, if we only need behaviour for altruism, and not morals, then this takes away the evolutionary function of morals.

...conscious thought is not required for moral action. It is only required for the moral judgement. A judgement, btw, which is entirely subjective and meaningless in reality.Subjective judgements are not meaningless in reality. Look at the world around u, it has transformed the planet and created the very computer u are typing on.

[Another God]

This is such an extensive topic that I don't think I will be able to reply adequately...
This is just an assumption. Moral behaviour is behaviour that is driven by morals. Obviously morals need subjectivity, u admit so urself, and thus moral behaviour does too.

I think this one will do:
"Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"

OK then, this is where the problem lies. If you want to define morals that way, then of course it involves consciousness. Once again the assumption of willful (conscious) action is in the definition.

However I have to remind you why we are discussing this, earlier you said:
he suggests our morality evolved because altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary advantage for the individual. What he doesnt mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious
You have assumed altruistic behaviour = morality, and that morality is defined by its conscious motivations. Altruistuc behaviour is any behaviour which benefits another (an action commonly regarded as 'moral'), yet not necessarily involving conscious motivation. Altruism is entirely based on the improvement of others.

So, altruistic behaviour in bacteria is entirely appropriate with views of evolution, and in no way contradictory to bacteria lacking consciousness. Just like a pacemaker altruistically saving someones life without conscious thought, bacteria may altruistically assist their neoghbours without any moral appraisal of their own actions... the altruistic behaviour being no more than a mechanistic program that they are following.


One more thing, consciousness is the brain.. they are inseperable. You can't deny all of the evidence for it, and the complete lack of evidence against it. Dawkins isn't assuming anything in that statement above the usual assumptions of reality.

[PIT2]

You have assumed altruistic behaviour = morality, and that morality is defined by its conscious motivations. Altruistuc behaviour is any behaviour which benefits another (an action commonly regarded as 'moral'), yet not necessarily involving conscious motivation. Altruism is entirely based on the improvement of others.No, i dont assume it, i think (based on what we see happening in humans) that it is a perfectly plausible possibility that morals cause altruistic behaviour. The connection between morals and altruism was made by Richard Dawkins and I of course agree that there is a connection. I do not agree that this connection suddenly stops at some point back in evolution, while altruism continues back further on its own, and that suddenly morals do not only not cause altruism anymore, but that altruism causes morals. Of course Dawkins is allowed to assume that, but basing the origins of morality on such an assumption is no different from basing it on some spiritual entity.

Also like i said earlier, if altruism can exist without morals, then this robs morals of their evolutionary advantageous function.

bacteria may altruistically assist their neoghbours without any moral appraisal of their own actions... the altruistic behaviour being no more than a mechanistic program that they are following.We cant know. We can only look at ourselves and see that there is a connection between altruism and morals. From this it does not in any way follow that bacteria act altruistically without morals (right/wrong experiences).

One more thing, consciousness is the brain.. they are inseperable.The brain isnt some magic machine, it consists of the same matter and forces as the rest of the universe. Currently, in science, the brain is used as a box where consciousness has been shoved into and should stay inside. Once we figure out how the box works, then we will also have figured out how consciousness works - or so it is assumed. In reality, all bets are off and the locked-box may be nothing more than contemporary delusion.

[0TheSwerve0]

Dawkins is an amazing scientist. I am immediately skeptical of any religious individuals ability to think rationally. It's always refreshing to see members of the scientific community reveal religion to be the disorder that it is.

Now that you mention it, I do like to get my head x-rayed to stimulate my brain. No wait, that was Tesla (here, around 8:30 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1010570)). Many accomplished scientists have held irrational beliefs and "suffered" from disorders, especially Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. Mathematician Paul Erdős spoke of "The Book," an imaginary book in which God had written down the best and most elegant proofs for mathematical theorems. Lecturing in 1985 he said, "You don't have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book." He himself doubted the existence of God, whom he called the "Supreme Fascist" (SF), but accused the SF of hiding his socks and Hungarian passports, and of keeping the most elegant mathematical proofs to himself. When he saw a particularly beautiful mathematical proof he would exclaim, "This one's from The Book!".

Sounds like you mean something more by the term "religious" than just someone who subscribes to a certain religion.

But maybe I should bring this argument to my teachers, tell them I have "special needs" because I'm a Catholic.:rofl: Though if Mendel could discover the laws of inheritance, though he was so severely handicapped, maybe I'll be able to get through undergraduate classes.

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Now that you mention it, I do like to get my head x-rayed to stimulate my brain. No wait, that was Tesla (here, around 8:30 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1010570)). Many accomplished scientists have held irrational beliefs and "suffered" from disorders, especially Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. Mathematician Paul Erdős spoke of

Sounds like you mean something more by the term "religious" than just someone who subscribes to a certain religion.

But maybe I should bring this argument to my teachers, tell them I have "special needs" because I'm a Catholic.:rofl: Though if Mendel could discover the laws of inheritance, though he was so severely handicapped, maybe I'll be able to get through undergraduate classes.

See. My methods do not fail me. Before I saw the end of your response, I thought you were religious. An atheist would have been far less likely to misinterpret my post as you did.

Being skeptical of someone's ability to think rationally is not the same as denying that they may have that ability. Furthermore, having a disorder does not prevent someone from accomplishing great things - but it can make it more difficult or less probable.

[0TheSwerve0]

So you're just being offensive in general...

An atheist would have been far less likely to misinterpret my post as you did.

You mean less likely to challenge them.

Do you actually believe subscription to religion is a disorder?

[Dooga Blackrazor]

So you're just being offensive in general...



You mean less likely to challenge them.

Do you actually believe subscription to religion is a disorder?

No. I mean a clear misinterpretation (or twisting around) of what I actually said. Terminology is semantics. Religious belief is the result of mental illness and could be cured through psychiatric methods - if that is what you mean. Religion itself isn't the disorder but a byproduct. I don't know if he was the first to suggest it, but Freud saw that religion was the result of mental disfunction.

I might concede, if convinced that it is possible, that some people are religious for reasons outside mental disfunction, but I would certainly say the vast majority of people are not.

[0TheSwerve0]

hehe, I don't think appealing to Freud as an authority will lend any support to your claims.

I concede - you aren't making any real claim, you're just being offensive. Is it the case that most non-religious people you encounter are rational? Seems to me that people in general are most often irrational. Though I guess you could explain even this by saying that most people in the world follow some religion.

Wikipedia 1. Christianity 2.1 billion
2. Islam 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Atheist/Irreligious/Agnostic/Nontheist 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism 900 million
5. Buddhism 708 million (see also Buddhism by country)
6. Chinese folk religion 394 million
7. Primal indigenous ("Pagan") 300 million
8. African traditional and diasporic 100 million
9. Sikhism 23 million
10. Juche 19 million
11. Spiritism 15 million
12. Judaism 14 million
13. Bahá'í Faith 7 million
14. Jainism 4.2 million
15. Shinto 4 million (see below)
16. Cao Dai 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism 1 million
20. Unitarian Universalism 800,000
21. Rastafari movement 600,000


What of cultural beliefs in general, of which religious belief is just one example? Some say is comparable to religion in this way, as a cultural belief in its own way.
The following statistics show the number of adherents in all known approaches, both religious and irreligious worldwide. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are the largest world religions today. Approximately 75% of humanity follows one of these four religions. Christianity is the religion with the largest number of professed religious adherents, followed by Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism respectively. However, the third-largest "group" of approximately 1 billion people adhere to irreligious approaches which include Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, and Agnosticism.(my bold)
These are treated as just another human approach to life, just as historically and culturally contexualized as well as human as religous approaches.

And is Dawkins an amazing scientist? He's a great thinker, philosopher even, but is he an amazing scientist? (Honestly asking here)

[Another God]

And is Dawkins an amazing scientist? He's a great thinker, philosopher even, but is he an amazing scientist? (Honestly asking here)
I would say that an amazing philosopher is at least half of being an amazing scientist, and certainly the most important because no amount of facts will reveal the answer. It requires a well constructed theory to make sense of the facts so that we may attain understanding.

I have no idea how good Dawkins is at measuring stuff, organising experiments, and no idea if his aseptic technique is above average, but at the end of the day it is the thepries which are remembered, and that is what generally stands the test of time as measuring the 'amazing scientists'.

Darwin wasn't remembered for his tests on the affects of salt water on seedpods, and einstein was certainly not remembered for his experiments on the travel of light.. they are both remembered for their theories of evolution and relativity. As newton implied with his quote about being able to see far by standing on the shoulders of giants, the great scientist need not do the work..they only need to have access to the facts which can be re-assembled into a logical story of how it might actually work...

And hence Dawkins has the theory of the selfish gene, which I think is a brilliant insight into biology, although it isn't earth shattering. Time alone will really reveal his 'brilliance' or not.

[0TheSwerve0]

His selfish gene theory certainly fits in with physical anthropology's position on culture as an adaptive strategy, though the cultural anthropologists try to keep it from taking over their field.

[Another God]

His works have influenced my perspectives on evolution and biology immensely. I do tend to define life (in a strict philosphical sense) as any accurately replicating unit. And yes, this easily extends to all sorts of 'dead' things like computer viruses et al. I just accept that life is just dead things organised in a way which allows for replication...

So the selfish gene makes perfect sense because life is dna replicating. The dna controls everything, and everything is for the DNA!

but anyway, I think I am getting off my own topic.

BTW, Firefly rocks! How can we force them to continue the series, or start making serenity 2 serenity 3 etc?

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Yes. Dawkins (outside his religious views) is an amazing scientist. He contributed a lot to his field. I am not an expert when it comes to determining whether someone is an "amazing" scientist - in fact the idea is quite subjective. However, Dawkins' contributions are hard to overlook regardless of belief.

[0TheSwerve0]

His works have influenced my perspectives on evolution and biology immensely. I do tend to define life (in a strict philosphical sense) as any accurately replicating unit. And yes, this easily extends to all sorts of 'dead' things like computer viruses et al. I just accept that life is just dead things organised in a way which allows for replication...

So the selfish gene makes perfect sense because life is dna replicating. The dna controls everything, and everything is for the DNA!

but anyway, I think I am getting off my own topic.

BTW, Firefly rocks! How can we force them to continue the series, or start making serenity 2 serenity 3 etc?

Seems ones definition of life could be expanded or contracted depending on precisely what they want to talk about (i.e. defining it in those terms). I'm not particularly interested in non-organic things, so I don't normally consider them as constituting life. In my biology class, we had a checklist of what constituted life, so no on the computer viruses and bubbles:tongue2: Of course, they didn't want to talk about such things so this makes sense.

I think it's too late for Firefly, been over for 2 years now and Joss has moved on to other projects. Serenity was meant to be a wrap-up of what he wasn't allowed to finish in the tv series. He's now working on "Wonder Woman" (2007):rolleyes: and "Goners," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goners) I think using James Marsters aka Spike:surprised

Whedon has said the new movie will be "very dark" and not unlike the Whedonverse he created in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

yay!

[Another God]

Seems ones definition of life could be expanded or contracted depending on precisely what they want to talk about (i.e. defining it in those terms). I'm not particularly interested in non-organic things, so I don't normally consider them as constituting life. In my biology class, we had a checklist of what constituted life, so no on the computer viruses and bubbles:tongue2: Of course, they didn't want to talk about such things so this makes sense.

To quote douglas adams, "without a God, life is only a matter of opinion." And I agree completely. Life is just something we instinctively recognise, but when we push ourselves to define it, it is clearly not obvious. (like everything in nature..)

The only consistency I can find is self replication. Once that is established, then that thing is free to evolve..and in the end, that is all life *really* is.

But I don't see much point arguing the matter.

[0TheSwerve0]

Dawkins on Colbert Report (http://richarddawkins.net/article,210,Stephen-Colbert-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-Colbert-Report) with selected comments from visitors to Dawkins' website (he's like a British pop star:tongue2: ).

[metacristi]

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) has just written a new book called "The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion)" and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane


I think he does a very good job by exposing the dogmas propagated by existing religions but I don't think that he succeeds in his main task, namely showing that atheism (at least weak atheism) is the only rational position for all would-be rational people (because hypothesis God can be safely ignored). He can easily be accused of scientism here, unfortunately science is not the infallible / unassailable monolith (surely approaching at least approximate Truth, in absolute) which some claim it is.

I'm rather closer to Wittgenstein who, during his discussions with some of the members of the so called Vienna Circle, dismissed Carnap's view that mystical experiences are necessarily mere figments of human's imagination (in Wittgenstein's view mystical experiences can be used to support a belief in God, though they cannot be expressed meaningfully in words they may be the expression of a transcedental reality, God)...This is not to say that Carnap was necessarily wrong, no, but neither do we have now sufficient reasons from science to strongly underestimate hypothesis God (merely defined as the Creator of our universe, even the omni-all variant is still viable).


Here are some of my thoughts regarding Dawkins worldview (from a post of mine on another forum some time ago):

I think it would be interesting to comment some characteristics of Dawkins' worldview. I may be mistaken in interpreting his views in some parts but I don't think this will affect crucially my further comments.

R. Dawkins' view:

1. Science is characterized by methodological naturalism.


2. Very probably there will never exist a proof, decisive demonstration, for God’s existence / nonexistence (the transcendental omni-all type - capable of intervention in our universe).


3. The current scientific methodology (or scientific methodologies if you wish) is the best existing methodology at our disposal to make sense of observed facts and this will very probably stay the same at all further times.


4. There is nothing in the actual science which to suggest the existence of a God (Darwinian Evolutionism is one of the best examples here; gradual changes over long periods of time are enough to explain how existing species appeared).


5. Fideism (God’s existence does not need justification, God cannot be an object of study for science) is not acceptable because hypothesis God is amenable to scientific scrutiny (being capable of truth or falsity).


6. None of the existing logical 'proofs' (deductive or inductive) for God’s existence is sound, they cannot ground a rational belief in a Deity.


7. Anyway the omni-all concept of God needs ad-hoc auxiliary hypotheses (to save internal coherence) so that basically God’s actions become unintelligible to human beings. Something which means that he’s not worth of worship.


8. Given that the actual scientific methodology proved very reliable in the past, whilst other methodologies - religious, common sense etc - had proved very unreliable, all would be rational people are always obliged to interpret any subjective experiences via naturalistic explanations (mystical experiences are among them). Subjective experiences cannot assure justification for a belief in a Divinity. Even if no explanation is found in short or medium term all scientists (rational people in general) must continue to seek naturalistic explanations. Basically no significant paradigm shift is ever expected here.


9. Conclusion: ‘Hypothesis God’ is never a reasonable explanation. Thus rational people are basically forced to not believe in God.


My comments



1. Science is characterized by methodological naturalism.


1. The most rational solution now. This means, in my interpretation, that supernatural is not discarded because naturalism has only a provisional status. In other words the possibility to find extraordinary evidence 'pros' God is accepted.




2. Very probably there will never exist a proof, decisive demonstration, for God’s existence / nonexistence (the transcendental omni-all type - capable of intervention in our universe).



2. If this ‘proof’ involves certitudes then I agree but if this means that an important paradigm shift (which to make hypothesis God a provisional part of science) is never possible then I totally disagree. Indeed for example when people are told by a fire in the sky - pretending to be the omni-all Creator of our universe - that the usual laws of nature will be changed on Earth for 48 hours (for example the gravitational interaction will change, measurable inter-subjectively) or that the Andromeda Galaxy will suddenly disappear forever (and things happen exactly subsequently) then it's clear that 'God hypothesis' should become the first choice program (the 'normal paradigm' of those days) in science.




3. The current scientific methodology (or scientific methodologies if you wish) is the best existing methodology at our disposal to make sense of observed facts and this will very probably stay the same at all further times.



3. Nothing can guarantee such a thing, science should always be considered fallible in a non trivial way, its currently accepted basis and methodologies included (I think that a form of externalism based on a neo-popperian critical philosophy, non foundationalist, is the best approach to the problem of infinite regress - diallelus - in epistemology).




4. There is nothing in the actual science which to suggest the existence of a God (Darwinian Evolutionism is one of the best examples here, gradual changes over long periods of time are enough to explain how existing species appeared).



4. Hypothesis God is not necessary yet in science indeed. But neither does this mean that a God does not exist or that he is less probably to exist.




5. Fideism (God’s existence does not need justification, God cannot be an object of study for science) is not acceptable because hypothesis God is amenable to scientific scrutiny (being capable of truth or falsity).



5. In my view is acceptable as much as fideists do not make open claims that their alternative system of knowledge (having God as one axiom) is now at least on a par with the actual scientific system (having the assumption methodological naturalism). The epistemological problem of justifying the basis for our 'web' of knowledge is far from being solved once and forever so we must be rather reserved here, all we can say is that a system based on methodological naturalism has currently more arguments 'pros' than a system having God at basis (we can still say however that we deal with underdetermination here, a system having God at core - as a fixed axiom - vs a system based on methodological naturalism) .




6. None of the existing logical proof (deductive or inductive) for God’s existence is sound, they cannot ground a rational belief in a Deity.



6. While this is true it can be argued that some of these arguments (coherent logically) are acceptable for justifying a purely personal belief (here the argument from design has some weight, after all the argument from analogy for example is used even by modern science - though usually having also a probabilistic support), especially if accompanied by some personal subjective experiences. Of course this as much as no open claims are made and, preferably, if the possibility of being mistaken in the interpretation of facts is acknowledged.

Indeed the fact that those logical arguments are not yet sound does not mean that they are also logically invalid or in real contradiction with all existing evidence .




7. Anyway the omni-all concept of God needs ad-hoc auxiliary hypotheses (to save internal coherence) so that basically God’s actions become unintelligible for human beings. Something which means that he’s not worth of worship.



7. Maybe some parts of the ‘worship’ involved by some religions can be attacked but fact is that the core of Abrahamic religions, an omni-all God, is still viable logically. Moreover it does not follow from here that all of God’s actions must be unintelligible for us.




8. Given that the actual scientific methodology proved very reliable in the past, whilst other methodologies - religious, common sense etc - had proved very unreliable, all would be rational people are always obliged to interpret any subjective experiences via naturalistic explanations (mystical experiences are among them). Subjective experiences cannot assure justification for a belief in a Divinity. Even if no explanation is found in short or medium term all scientists (rational people in general) must continue to seek naturalistic explanations. Basically no significant paradigm shift is ever expected here.



8. I’ve encountered often this stance among ‘skeptics’ and ‘atheists’. The problem is that science is neither infallible nor unassailable, those well accustomed with philosophy know probably how difficult is to settle the problem of epistemological infinite regress once and forever and even to fight relativism (though many scientists usually consider philosophy as irrelevant the hard fact is that the roots of science (still) lies in philosophy).


Science’s actual methodology is merely our best way so far to make sense of observed facts and the possibility of strongly non trivial paradigm shift here must never be underestimated. Even the methodologies used may change in time (the fact that science ‘works’ does not automatically mean that it approaches Truth, in absolute, or that it will ever be only cumulative with only small possible detours).


I don't think that the existing evidence requires from the part of all rational people to identify the so called 'mystical experiences' with brain functioning, nothing more than mere illusions without any real epistemological content. If there is no claim that the 'theistic' interpretations must be now part of science or that all rational people should believe the same I don’t think that such a personal belief, based on mystical experiences, is necessarily irrational (as some atheists claim).


In my view mystical experiences can provide support for a personal belief though, of course, we do not have now the sufficient justification to accept theistic interpretations inside science (theistic interpretations being part of an alternative program, basically a personal 'research program', which the believer hope to become progressive, in an inter-subjective fashion, sometime in the future - in spite of being rather stagnant for the moment).




9. Conclusion: ‘Hypothesis God’ is never a reasonable explanation. Thus rational people are basically forced to not believe in God.



8. Seems to be saying "I accept methodological naturalism and thus I remain open to the possibility of supernaturalism but at the practical level hypothesis God is never an acceptable solution so it should always be ignored (moreover all would be rational people should do the same). The only alternative left for rational people is thus to not believe in such a God." Well if this is the case then I don't see any difference between such a stance and supporting metaphysical naturalism, they are indistinguishable at the practical level. For the reasons presented above I don't think we are entitled now to underestimate hypothesis God in such a manner. Neither is the underestimation of 'hypothesis God' benefic for a real freedom of science, why block (still) legitimate directions of research when basically no known facts really impose this on us? Though I admit that a science dominated by dogmatic atheists is a better solution than a science dominated by Religion finally the best path is the middle way...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know the questions in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that!"
(Paul A. Moody, PhD. (zoology) (Emeritus Professor of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont) in Introduction to Evolution, Harper & Row, New York, second edition, 1962, p 513)

"Certainly science has moved forward. But when science progresses, it often opens vaster mysteries to our gaze. Moreover, science frequently discovers that it must abandon or modify what it once believed. Sometimes it ends by accepting what it has previously scorned."
(Eiseley, Loren C., [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Firmament of Time," The Scientific Book Club: London, 1960, p.5)

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (J. Robert Oppenheimer)

[metacristi]

I forgot to talk of Dawkins main argument [from 'God Delusion'] pro (strong) atheism (God has to be very complex, this complexity require an explanation for we cannot automatically justify something very complex and seemingly improbable - our ‘fine tuned’ universe - with something even more complex - God; a possible creator of the universe is very probably the creation of a process similar to our Darwinian Evolution, therefore we can conclude that the omni-all God is very very improbable). Well I find his argument 'from complexity' weak, far from being sound (not because science cannot investigate ultimate questions but simply because we are not entitled for the moment to draw such strong conclusions about possible different levels of Reality - which could be ‘guided’ by totally different laws, if there really are laws).

Dawkins says that God is not exempt from requiring an explanation. This is correct in principle but I don't think his pro-atheist case become stronger, after all there are enough theoretical constructs in science which are merely posited as existing (and considered fundamental at least provisionally) but not testable in isolation (some of Holton's 'themata' for example).

These theoretical constructs are indeed absolutely necessary to explain the empirical success of the theories they are part of (something which God hypothesis is not currently; though it can be argued that in Berkeley's version God hypothesis is absolutely necessary, being very coherent with the rest of assumptions).

But nothing we are aware of really impede God hypothesis to become necessary in the above mentioned sense sometime in the future. At most we can say that God hypothesis is not necessary to explain observed facts, its introduction in science being ad-hoc and redundant currently (thus methodological naturalism is the best methodology to use currently in science).

Even if all existing religions disappeared now (assuming ceteris paribus in all other parts) I'm afraid there would still be room for theism, in a form or another, in the future (even without dogmas, after all there is no need of dogmas in order to believe in a God). And some of these forms of theism would still be rational (though rather at limit)...not to mention 'weak' agnosticism (I agree with Dawkins that 'strong' agnosticism, a la Huxley, is not the most rational solution, for example if a successful Theory of Everything (in physics) is ever found that will certainly lower the probability which we can assign to a omni-all God, interested in human affairs; in other words it is conceivable a time when God hypothesis could become as plausible as some theoretical constructs accepted within current science or as implausible as our today's expectation of finding life on Jovian, gaseous, planets).

Finally it is debatable that the existing (Abrahamic) religions are really 'the roots of all evil', I am even less convinced that the [refined] forms of theism of tomorrow will be so...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know the questions in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that!"
(Paul A. Moody, PhD. (zoology) (Emeritus Professor of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont) in Introduction to Evolution, Harper & Row, New York, second edition, 1962, p 513)

"Certainly science has moved forward. But when science progresses, it often opens vaster mysteries to our gaze. Moreover, science frequently discovers that it must abandon or modify what it once believed. Sometimes it ends by accepting what it has previously scorned."
(Eiseley, Loren C., [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Firmament of Time," The Scientific Book Club: London, 1960, p.5)

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (J. Robert Oppenheimer)

[arildno]

First of all, Dawkins himself didn't like the title "ROot of all evil". That's a catchy phrase the production company decided upon.

Furthermore, I don't see that your objections amount to more than that one in response should moderate the statement to "any rational person TODAY should be "forced" into an atheist position." ("forced" is not the word I'd use here)
The fact that surprising evidence MIGHT be unearthed in a 1000 years or so cannot be used as a justification for the rationality of a position depending crucially upon such evidence.

Being convinced that at some point of space&time there exists a human with eyes in the place of fingernails is not the attitude of a rational person today.

Whoever has said that rational beliefs are necessarily TRUE beliefs, or that irrational beliefs are necessarily untrue? :confused:



As for "inner visions", that's what they are. Inaccessible, and hence DISMISSABLE, for others.

Rationality has to do with your METHOD of truth-seeking more than anything else.
In that regard, ALL religions fail to begin with.

[metacristi]

It is clear from the title (Root of all Evil?) that the documentary is not asserting that religion is the root of all evil (that question mark makes a difference indeed). However from Dawkins' approach results enough clearly that in his view religion is at least the main source of evil in the world. I'm afraid it is not so, sadly we have many other sources of huge evil, all stemming from dogmatic approaches, some of them much more harmful for the future of humankind, capitalism for example. And yes here we can enumerate scientism too (though only at a lower level), it’s not at all so clear that we have a 'bedrock solid' basis for current science and that it surely approach at least approximate Truth - in absolute - as some claim.

It’s not at all my intention to defend existing religions (or religion in general). But, as I said, while Dawkins does (in my view) a very good job by exposing religious dogmas and defending Science-Religion and State-Religion separations he utterly fails in his main task (evident in all he says), namely showing that rationality is compatible only with atheism (at least with weak atheism). While current science is one of the pillars of rationality (the current scientific methodology is the best methodology we know so far to make sense of observed facts) I don’t think that a rational belief [especially in a problem where science does not have a clear answer] have necessarily be close to accepted science at a certain moment in time (thus I don’t think that atheism is the ‘default position’ or that atheism is the only compatible stance with being an open minded scientist).

If I had for example a close encounter in a remote place with a strange spacecraft [totally different from what our technology could produce now], with strange creatures flying around, it would be patently absurd to argue (as much as I do not make open claims that all others should believe the same) that my interpretation of facts (it was a alien ship, hence a provisional belief that Aliens, visiting Earth, do exist) is necessarily irrational and that, as a would be rational person, I should necessarily interpret those facts via explanations closer to established science (hallucinations, Chinese, Russians etc) or at least remain agnostic. You are of course rational to not accept my interpretation but this does not automatically make my belief in Aliens irrational (merely asserting reliabilism is not enough).

As far as I am concerned I’d say that we should wait first for a much more detailed theory of consciousness before jumping to dismiss mystical experiences…till then a ‘metaphysical research program’ (to quote Popper) interpreting those subjective experiences as links to a God is fully valid if some degree of fallibilism is retained (as purely personal ‘research program’ of course whilst still accepting methodological naturalism as the first choice methodology for current science, simply because that assumption ‘worked’ well so far).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'To attempt to bolster it up [capitalism] is a useless diversion of energies which might be expended upon building something new. Whether the new thing will be Bolshevism or something else, I do not know; whether it will be better or worse than capitalism, I do not know. But that a radically new order of society will emerge, I feel no doubt. And I also feel no doubt that the new order will be either some form of Socialism or a reversion to barbarism and petty war such as occurred during the barbarian invasion. If Bolshevism remains the only vigorous and effective competitor of capitalism, I believe that no form of Socialism will be realized, but only chaos and destruction. This belief, for which I shall give reasons later, is one of the grounds upon which I oppose Bolshevism.' - Bertrand Russell, 'The practice and theory of Bolshevism' 1920


„...we have nowhere really overcome what Thomas Veblen called 'the predatory phase’ of human development” – A Einstein

[arildno]

I don't really think there is a lot of disagreement between us, a few points:
It is not my impression that Dawkins thinks religion is THE main source of evil in the world (in which case I would strongly disagree with him), rather he seems to mean that religion is A major source of evil (with which I concur).


Since any individual's personal experiences constitute his set of immediate evidence for whatever he might believe in, every such experience he might have that cannot be "reasoned away" may constitute a basis for a RATIONAL belief.
However, he cannot reasonably demand that others are to believe in his belief, or even respect his belief, if that experience is wholly at odds with the set of intersubjective experiences (which, really, is just the set of experiences a proper science can deal with).

As for possibly rational belief systems:
Considering the actual, existing alternatives to atheism, though, I cannot see any one of them having the degree of rationality that atheism has. So, today, atheism seems to be the best possible rational choice of belief.

[metacristi]

Considering the actual, existing alternatives to atheism, though, I cannot see any one of them having the degree of rationality that atheism has. So, today, atheism seems to be the best possible rational choice of belief.


This depends also on the definition of rationality (a fuzzy term indeed) one uses. Alvin Plantinga for example presents in his book 'Warranted Christian Belief' a model of rationality close to fideism, named by him 'the Aquinas/Calvin Model', where belief in God appears fully justified (an inbuilt 'sense of divinity' - 'sensus divinitatis' - appears as a basic postulate; the A/C model of rationality rejects the view that God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis competing with naturalism):

"....awareness of God is natural, widespread, and not easy to forget, ignore, or destroy. Seventy years of determined but unsuccessful Marxist efforts to uproot Christianity in the former Soviet Union tend to confirm this claim. Second, it also sounds as if Calvin thinks knowledge of God is innate, such that one has it from birth, “from his mother's womb.” Still, perhaps Calvin doesn't really mean to endorse either of these suggestions. The capacity for such knowledge is indeed innate, like the capacity for arithmetical knowledge. Still, it doesn't follow that we know elementary arithmetic from our mother's womb; it takes a little maturity. My guess is Calvin thinks the same with respect to this knowledge of God; what one has from one's mother's womb is not this knowledge of God, but a capacity for it. Whatever Calvin thinks, however, it's our model; and according to the model the development of the sensus divinitatis requires a certain maturity (although it is often manifested by very young children)."

"According to the A/C model I am presenting here, theistic belief produced by the sensus divinitatis can also be properly basic with respect to warrant. It isn't just that the believer in God is within her epistemic rights in accepting theistic belief in the basic way. That is indeed so; more than that, however, this belief can have warrant for the person in question, warrant that is often sufficient for knowledge. The sensus divinitatis is a belief-producing faculty (or power, or mechanism) that under the right conditions produces belief that isn't evidentially based on other beliefs."

"On this model, our cognitive faculties have been designed and created by God; the design plan, therefore, is a design plan in the literal and paradigmatic sense. It is a blueprint or plan for our ways of functioning, and it has been developed and instituted by a conscious, intelligent agent. The purpose of the 'sensus divinitatis' is to enable us to have true beliefs about God; when it functions properly, it ordinarily does produce true beliefs about God. These beliefs therefore meet the conditions for warrant; if the beliefs produced are strong enough, then they constitute knowledge."

Personally I accept that God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis and that current scientific methodology represents the best ‘tool’ we have so far to make sense of observed facts (one of the pillars at the base of rationality). However, while I don't deny that probably most natural facts have natural causes, I don't think that we are entitled, currently at least, to adopt a position close to metaphysical naturalism as a basic assumption of science. In other words the assumption of naturalism in science is still largely heuristic (methodological naturalism implies merely that scientists should look first for naturalistic explanations but ‘supernatural’ should not be underestimated as a possible explanation). Current science is rather silent in the problem of God's existence/inexistence.

Further, in my view, there is still plenty of space for the rationality of some variants of theism even when it is accepted that God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis + scientific methodology is at the basis of rationality (in other words scientism has to be rejected for the moment: interpretations of subjective experiences far enough from what is accepted by current science, even when acquired with methodologies far from methodologies used by current science, may still appear justified now).

My justification stems primarily from the fact that we lack a sufficient reason to think that science has a 'bedrock basis' and that it surely approach at least approximate Truth in the absolute (with only minor possible detours). Sure such a view is certainly very controversial among scientists but it is way less so among philosophers (though there are of course plenty of philosophers who think, wrongly in my view, that doing something of real value implies necessarily backing the epistemology promoted by scientists).

I have yet to see a strong enough argument pro the assumption that 'science has a ‘bedrock’ basis, surely approaching at least approximate Truth, with only minor possible detours'…till then I don't think that atheism has any sort of privilege (a critical approach - non foundational – is in my view the best way to stay out of all types of dogmas; Laudan’s account of scientific practice is one example). Of course I don't think that atheism is irrational (as much as fallibilism is retained) however if God is defined merely as the Creator of our Universe I'd say that a strong atheism - belief that such a God does not exist - is far away from being the most rational solution).

[metacristi]

I want to make some further comments against the assumption that atheism is somehow superior, being the 'default position' at the moment.

I will begin from the observation that science is not really a monolith, in fact we can make a clear difference between different parts of the so called ‘normal science’: for example the confidence in let’s say Inflation Theory is not the same as that in GR.

This is even clearer in the case of those problems where science does not have a clear answer (the problem of consciousness for example), clearly we cannot put a very incomplete ‘working hypothesis’ to the same level with a theory which is already part of the ‘normal science’ even if it respects the requirements of reliabilism.

Of course some of these ‘working hypotheses’, constructed with methodologies close to those used by the currently accepted science, may look very promising [progressive] at a certain moment in time; no one denies this fact. Here falls for example Dennett’s physicalist account of consciousness, relevant for the case of mystical experiences, based entirely on the statements and methodologies used by currently accepted science.

However this does not entitle us to say that Dennett’s hypothesis is anywhere near the level of Inflation Theory for example; work is still in progress and we are still far from having a theory of consciousness which to really deserve the status of ‘normal science’. Moreover Dennett’s account (based on the currently accepted science and methodologies) may be progressive for the moment (in some aspects, rather limited though) but this does not mean automatically that all parts of his account will become ‘normal science’ eventually; as a matter of fact the parts of his account which are corroborated are fully compatible with let’s say Chalmers view (and his ‘first person’, rather new, methodology):


We just need to add something else, some new fundamental principles, to bridge the gap between neuroscience and subjective experience. Actually, I think my view is compatible with much of the work going on now in neuroscience and psychology, where people are studying the relationship of consciousness to neural and cognitive processes without really trying to reduce it to those processes. We are just getting much more detailed knowledge of the associations and correlations between them. Things are still in early stages, but one can imagine that as we build up and systematize our theories of these associations, and try to boil them down to their core, the result might point us toward the sort of fundamental principles I advocate. Of course that's a long way off yet.”


So far no existing explanation [naturalistic] of mystical experiences really succeeds to impose as ‘the right path’…

To this we have to add the fact that there is reasonable justification for holding that mystical experiences are analogous to usual sensory experiences. Thus I’d say that a theistic interpretation of mystical experiences is not really inferior at all [there is no ‘naturalistic normal science’ here, though there are some physicalist attempts to ‘explain away’ these experiences] and even if we accept that a theistic interpretation is not the first choice approach in science [not of real help so far] we cannot conclude from here that a naturalistic explanation is more probable to be the right answer (or that it will be the ‘winner’ in the long run). If a certain level of fallibilism is retained I’d say that a personal belief in God based on mystical experiences (especially first hand) appears justified, moreover for the moment it is not really inferior to atheism.

I was saying that there is some justification for holding that mystical experiences are analogous to usual sensory perception (not beyond criticism of course but we must remember that even the basic assumptions of science are not really beyond rational criticism), indeed we find for example in “The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion” that:



1. Experiences of God have a subject-object structure, with a phenomenological content allegedly representing the object of the experience. Also, subjects are moved to make truth claims based on such experiences. Furthermore, as with sense perception, there are mystical procedures for getting into position for a mystical experience of God, and others can take up a suitable mystical path to try to check on the subject's claims (Bergson). In all these ways, experiences of God are like sense perception.

2. Perception-like experiences count as (at least some) evidence in favor of their own validity. That a person seems to experience some object is some reason to think he or she really does have experiential contact with it (Swinburne). So, experiences of God count as (at least some) evidence in favor of their own validity.


If this is so then we have enough justification for using the normal epistemology of perception (that used in the case of usual sensory perception: for example a statement like ‘there is a tortoise in that chamber’ is at least partially justified if my visual perception indicates me that something, having the attributes of a tortoise, is crawling in that chamber. Of course it may be only a robot, imitating very well a tortoise, or even a form of idealism may be true - without knowing it - but as I said above I do have at least a partial justification to prefer provisionally my interpretation, hence a rational belief at that moment). In such a case the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences appears at least partially justified.


.

It is tempting to adopt the view that a ‘normal science’ ('obejctive knowledge') is more probably attainable using only methods that at least approximate those used by currently accepted science…of course if this form of scientism is accepted then belief in a God appears inferior now indeed [in the sense that we are entitled to assign a greater ‘objective' probability for naturalism].

But for the reasons already presented in my posts here I don’t think this is the most rational solution to adopt now. Unfortunately there is no sufficient reason yet to think that science will be only cumulative, with small possible detours, from now on; at most we can use the existing methodologies as the first choice approach in science, based on their previous ‘successes’ in the last 100 years, but this in no way means that all methodologies used by current science are more probable to remain progressive in the future (this does not amount to say that this cannot be the case).

It may be very well that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [not necessarily implying the omni all God] will eventually have the edge, more generally some of the ideas of some religious doctrines may be of help in an extended science of the future. We should not underestimate such a possibility. This is valid even at the level of the methodologies used by science; some of those ideas in religion – though possible not many - might at least enrich some of the methodologies used by current science (even if such methodologies, used by religions, do not seem to be particularly progressive now they might become so in the future when the ‘background’ assumptions will become enough prepared for their rise).

I do not claim that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [involving a personal God] will have ‘the edge’ one day, I do not know, but while intellectual honesty make me oppose any form of religious dogmas (as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins demand, of course I am not an activist) the same intellectual honesty oblige me to let things open enough: such a hypothesis is still fully viable [we can produce some justification for it] hence neither is irrational to believe in a God [as a personal belief] nor is this belief really inferior to, let’s say, atheism.

[Another God]

So far no existing explanation [naturalistic] of mystical experiences really succeeds to impose as ‘the right path’…

To this we have to add the fact that there is reasonable justification for holding that mystical experiences are analogous to usual sensory experiences. Thus I’d say that a theistic interpretation of mystical experiences is not really inferior at all [there is no ‘naturalistic normal science’ here, though there are some physicalist attempts to ‘explain away’ these experiences] and even if we accept that a theistic interpretation is not the first choice approach in science [not of real help so far] we cannot conclude from here that a naturalistic explanation is more probable to be the right answer (or that it will be the ‘winner’ in the long run). If a certain level of fallibilism is retained I’d say that a personal belief in God based on mystical experiences (especially first hand) appears justified, moreover for the moment it is not really inferior to atheism.

If this is so then we have enough justification for using the normal epistemology of perception (that used in the case of usual sensory perception: for example a statement like ‘there is a tortoise in that chamber’ is at least partially justified if my visual perception indicates me that something, having the attributes of a tortoise, is crawling in that chamber. Of course it may be only a robot, imitating very well a tortoise, or even a form of idealism may be true - without knowing it - but as I said above I do have at least a partial justification to prefer provisionally my interpretation, hence a rational belief at that moment). In such a case the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences appears at least partially justified.

It is tempting to adopt the view that a ‘normal science’ ('obejctive knowledge') is more probably attainable using only methods that at least approximate those used by currently accepted science…of course if this form of scientism is accepted then belief in a God appears inferior now indeed [in the sense that we are entitled to assign a greater ‘objective' probability for naturalism].

But for the reasons already presented in my posts here I don’t think this is the most rational solution to adopt now. Unfortunately there is no sufficient reason yet to think that science will be only cumulative, with small possible detours, from now on; at most we can use the existing methodologies as the first choice approach in science, based on their previous ‘successes’ in the last 100 years, but this in no way means that all methodologies used by current science are more probable to remain progressive in the future (this does not amount to say that this cannot be the case).

It may be very well that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [not necessarily implying the omni all God] will eventually have the edge, more generally some of the ideas of some religious doctrines may be of help in an extended science of the future. We should not underestimate such a possibility. This is valid even at the level of the methodologies used by science; some of those ideas in religion – though possible not many - might at least enrich some of the methodologies used by current science (even if such methodologies, used by religions, do not seem to be particularly progressive now they might become so in the future when the ‘background’ assumptions will become enough prepared for their rise).

I do not claim that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [involving a personal God] will have ‘the edge’ one day, I do not know, but while intellectual honesty make me oppose any form of religious dogmas (as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins demand, of course I am not an activist) the same intellectual honesty oblige me to let things open enough: such a hypothesis is still fully viable [we can produce some justification for it] hence neither is irrational to believe in a God [as a personal belief] nor is this belief really inferior to, let’s say, atheism.
It was difficult to trawl through your post, but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that
1. Past performance of Science is no indication of future performance
2. Religious experience is akin to visual, auditory etc sensation, and so should be considered evidential on that basis.
3. Science hasn't provided adequate explanation for these experiences, therefore they shouldn't be dismissed.

Is that right?

[metacristi]

It was difficult to trawl through your post, but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that
1. Past performance of Science is no indication of future performance
2. Religious experience is akin to visual, auditory etc sensation, and so should be considered evidential on that basis.
3. Science hasn't provided adequate explanation for these experiences, therefore they shouldn't be dismissed.

Is that right?


More or less, you're close anyway. Even if I concede that induction is used by science fact is that the problem of consciousness (and of mystical experiences) is not one of those where we can produce a probabilistic justification for the view that naturalistic explanations, close to currently used scientific methodologies, are more probable to be successful. Only if we adopt scientism (not at all justified here) does atheism really appear superior.

[metacristi]

It was difficult to trawl through your post, but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that
1. Past performance of Science is no indication of future performance
2. Religious experience is akin to visual, auditory etc sensation, and so should be considered evidential on that basis.
3. Science hasn't provided adequate explanation for these experiences, therefore they shouldn't be dismissed.

Is that right?


More or less, you're close anyway. Even if I concede that induction is used by science [anyway probabilistic justification is not a sufficient indicator that science really approach Truth, in absolute] fact is that the problem of consciousness (and of mystical experiences) is not one of those where we can produce a probabilistic justification for the view that naturalistic explanations, close to currently used scientific methodologies, are more probable to be successful. Only if we adopt scientism (not at all justified now) does atheism really appear superior.

[Another God]

More or less, you're close anyway. Even if I concede that induction is used by science fact is that the problem of consciousness (and of mystical experiences) is not one of those where we can produce a probabilistic justification for the view that naturalistic explanations, close to currently used scientific methodologies, are more probable to be successful. Only if we adopt scientism (not at all justified here) does atheism really appear superior.
I think atheism is superior regardless of the method you use to assess the universe because atheism does not rely on any illogical leaps. Atheism is the default position, and most importantly, ignorance is NEVER a good argument for something. Just because scientism "might be wrong", and maybe we don't know the answers...maye our entire world construct is wrong... Not knowing is a terrible argument FOR the existence of God.

You might as well say "I've never been to the North Pole, so I don't know for sure that Santa Claus doesn't exist, therefore I will assume he does"

[PIT2]

I think atheism is superior regardless of the method you use to assess the universe because atheism does not rely on any illogical leaps. Atheism is the default position, and most importantly, ignorance is NEVER a good argument for something. Just because scientism "might be wrong", and maybe we don't know the answers...maye our entire world construct is wrong... Not knowing is a terrible argument FOR the existence of God.But 'god' is not just a word or an object that does or does not exist, it represents a bunch of general ideas about reality, like "there is an intelligent cause to the universe". Atheism in that sense is (usually/always) coupled with opposing ideas, such as that an intelligent cause isnt necessary, or that intelligence can arise out of non-intelligence. There is nothing superior or more logical to those ideas than the ones god represents.

[selfAdjoint]

But 'god' is not just a word or an object that does or does not exist, it represents a bunch of general ideas about reality, like "there is an intelligent cause to the universe". Atheism in that sense is (usually/always) coupled with opposing ideas, such as that an intelligent cause isnt necessary, or that intelligence can arise out of non-intelligence. There is nothing superior or more logical to those ideas than the ones god represents.

Valhalla also represents a cluster of general ideas and Norse mythology gives its own answers to life questions. Should we then adopt it as superior to our scientific ignorance about life or consciousness? The point of your god priors is that you only assume the ones you do because you have been culturally conditioned to those memes. Many others are conditioned otherwise and there is no way of bringing them and you into full agreement. On the other hand people from all cultures can agree that abandoning culturally imposed god-memes is refreshing, and the enterprise of science, incomplete as it is at this moment, is superior to blind assumptions.

[PIT2]

Valhalla also represents a cluster of general ideas and Norse mythology gives its own answers to life questions. Should we then adopt it as superior to our scientific ignorance about life or consciousness? ...

On the other hand people from all cultures can agree that abandoning culturally imposed god-memes is refreshing, and the enterprise of science, incomplete as it is at this moment, is superior to blind assumptions.Science isnt atheism is it? And the one claiming superiority wasnt me.

[Another God]

Science isnt atheism is it?
It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.

[PIT2]

It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.Maybe science is atheistic, in the sense that god-ideas arent allowed in scientific theories. But science is only a method for humans to investigate reality. If the method is atheistic, then it doesnt logically follow that reality atheistic too (unless u define reality by the capabilities of the scientific method).

[Another God]

hmmm good point.

But any theory which is flawed on its metaphysical level can be disproven by its own findings. So even if Science assumes no God and then goes looking for stuff expecting no God to ever interfere...then if there was a god, it would eventually become apparent in the evidence.

[sneez]

But any theory which is flawed on its metaphysical level can be disproven by its own findings. So even if Science assumes no God and then goes looking for stuff expecting no God to ever interfere...then if there was a god, it would eventually become apparent in the evidence.

In limited degree yes. In absolute sense, no.

If spiritualist (like Buddhists) postulate that 'Brahma/super consciousness/..' is beyond physical and description of limits of logic then it hardly will disprove itself of this concept.

Just like science (physicalism) which postulates/assumes that only physical things exists can never prove itself wrong on this postulate.

So it is really about one method being superior in certain circumstances to the other. To learn correctly apply them when appropriate is wisdom.

As far as Dawking's 'crusade', it is pathetic concept to begin with. HE is eventually starting the same nonsense like mid-evil-age Christians practices of being just 'one-dogmatic-official-truth' to be enforced (isn’t this what he is trying to fight against as far as religions? Well, he is using the same method to do so).

Yes, to withhold/suppress exposure to such ideas as god/non-physical is really disgusting in concept and should be abhorred by rational ppl.

I think that soon enough adherents of this non-sense crusade will behave just like psychopaths of 11th century totally devoid of reasoning just sticking to the dogma. IMHO this concept of getting away with religion (just to replace it with another one), is very old in humanity and never produces anything nice to be looking forward to. Scientific ppl/community who really know what science is , should put Mr. Dawking back on earth.

[Hurkyl]

I think atheism is superior regardless of the method you use to assess the universe because atheism does not rely on any illogical leaps.
Pray tell, how did you logically leap to the conclusion that no god or gods exist?

Oh, and incidentally... you believe in empiricism, right? Then you have no legs to stand on here, since you too rely on an "illogical leap".


ignorance is NEVER a good argument for something.
Of course. In particular, ignorance of evidence for a god or gods is not a good argument that they do not exist.


It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.
It works as a theist too. Science is agnostic; a priori, it neither assumes nor denies the existence of a god or gods.

[Rade]

Hurkyl,

I do not follow your argument above. If science a priori does not deny the existence of gods, and the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural), then one must conclude that science a priori is a way to knowledge of the supernatural, which is of course a false premise. Thus, as I see it, science does a priori deny any attempt to "knowledge" of the existence of god. Now, you are correct that science does not a priori assume the existence of the supernatural. But please do let me know where my thinking fails.

As to Dawkins, he is but one of a long line of humanists. That he is a scientist with an interest in pushing forward the humanist philosophy to the general public head-to-head against organized religion worldwide makes him unique in the history of science. In many ways Dawkins rivals all great religious figures, somewhat ironic that Dawkins and Jesus both preach the virtues of the absolute. Perhaps the truth lies in the dialectic union of both their positions.

[Hurkyl]

I do not follow your argument above.
Which one? I'm presuming the last point I made.

Well, go look at the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). Is "deny the existence of deities" one of its procedures? Nope.

What about scientific theories? Is "deities do not exist" one of the axioms of Newtonian mechanics? Special relativity? General relativity? Quantum mechanics? Nope.

What about the study of biology? Economics? {insert scientific field here}? As far as I know, none of them take "deities do not exist" as one of their fundamental tenets.

In any of those topics, can the nonexistence of deities be rigorously logically deduced? Again, to the best of my knowledge, no.

Thus, it follows that, a priori, science does not deny the existence of deities.


If science a priori does not deny the existence of gods, and the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural), then one must conclude that science a priori is a way to knowledge of the supernatural, which is of course a false premise.
I don't see how, from
(1) science a priori does not deny the existence of gods
(2) the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural)
you intend to conclude
(3) science is a way to knowledge of the supernatural.

I suspect you've made a fallacy of the excluded middle: you've confused "does not deny" with "does affirm", forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something.


Now, mind you, I disagree that (3) is a false conclusion. If you have two theories of the supernatural that wind up having mundane differences, or you have a way of gathering supernatural evidence, then science can, in fact, be used to accumulate knowledge of the supernatural.

Of course, (3) is only true if you assume you can do one of those things, or something similar... but the point is that you have not given sufficient premises to be able to conclude (3) must be false.

[selfAdjoint]

Well, go look at the scientific method. Is "deny the existence of deities" one of its procedures? Nope.

What about scientific theories? Is "deities do not exist" one of the axioms of Newtonian mechanics? Special relativity? General relativity? Quantum mechanics? Nope.

Ah, but philosophical monism IS one of its founding principles. There is, for science, only one source of movement and life in the universe, and that source is the proper study of science. Any concept that can not be consistently introduced without appealing to dualism (or polyism) can not coexist amicably with science.

This is not to say that the source has to be seen as simple or mechanical; but it must be one in its role as cause of all.

[Rade]

... forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something....?? confused. Are you saying the scientific method does not allow one to falsify a null hypothesis ? -- how so ? On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ? I realize this is off topic of Dawkins, but the statement just caught me as being odd.

[Another God]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU

[Hurkyl]

Are you saying the scientific method does not allow one to falsify a null hypothesis ?
I don't see why you would think that.

On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ?
Nor that.

[Hurkyl]

Ah, but philosophical monism IS one of its founding principles. There is, for science, only one source of movement and life in the universe, and that source is the proper study of science. Any concept that can not be consistently introduced without appealing to dualism (or polyism) can not coexist amicably with science.

This is not to say that the source has to be seen as simple or mechanical; but it must be one in its role as cause of all.
Would you care to elaborate? There are at least two points I'd like to hear you say more about:

(1) When I think "science", I think "the process of gaining knowledge via the scientific method". What additional meaning are you ascribing to the term?

(2) Could you spell out how monism applies here? In particular, in what sense science is monistic, while any concept of deity must be pluralistic?

[Astronuc]

Perhaps some relevant articles.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

The New Unbelievers
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061105/13atheism.htm

I think the matter is more the clash of thoughts, beliefs and ideas. Take religion out of the picture, and one will still have conflicts among humans, and just as often, groups of humans, who share similar thoughts, beliefs and ideas.

Then the matter becomes - how to develop rational behavior that is peaceful and productive (i.e. positive) rather than negative (i.e. with attritubes such as aggression, hostility, greed, vanity, . . . ).

As for morality and ethical behavior, that ultimately comes down to one's choice (internal influence or direction - guided by one conscience), even when there is an external influence.

Then there is the matter of the individual vs the community (e.g. clan, tribe, nation, religion, race, . . . . ) How does one choose between conscience vs deferrence to the group thought or belief?

[ValenceE]

hello to all,

Astronuc, imho, I think that in order to start anything on the proper path, you have to really pay attention to the massive emotions that are part of the equation. Emotions will throw off and derail any rational set of laws, however 'good for mankind' they could be, and that's ashame...

[Rade]

Rade Quote:
On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ? Hurkyl Reply : I don't see why you would say thatSee your post # 58 where you state as a conclusion of an argument that I have somehow made the error of...forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something. So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything--which I take to also mean your own existence. Hopefully all is now clear.

[Hurkyl]

So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything
How so? :confused:

[VonWeber]

I haven't watched his films yet or read his book. The only thing I am familiar with is his notion of memes. After Sept 11 he said:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

At first I thought this was sage, but after a while I thought since when has he ever had any respect for religion or thought it was harmless.

So one possible way of reading Dawkins is that he is trying to create nonreligious memes and send them out into the population.

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) has just written a new book called "The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion)" and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

[Chris Davison]

When I was around age 6 a teacher said that a some guy
was turned into a pillar of salt by God. I am now 67 and have taken
religion with a "pinch of salt" since then. Have I missed something?

I am reading Dawkins's book The God Delusion, of course
he is right but I am frustrated by the fact that we are now
in the 21st century and such a book is needed. Perhaps
humans will always have some who believe in a God, my advice
is keep out of high buildings.

[Garth]

Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.

Garth

[Hurkyl]

Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.
Of course, one wonders whether that's because Dawkins wrote a convincing book, or because they want to believe in its conclusion.

[Chris Davison]

I do not "want to believe" anything. Wanting to believe is a religious
non scientific state of mind.


Religion is the early dawn of man's thinking: Bertrand Russell

[Hurkyl]

Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.
Now why would you believe that?

[Chris Davison]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realise this.

[Hurkyl]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realise this.
I don't see what any of this has to do with your assertion that

Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.

Shall I assume that you are retracting this assertion? Or shall I go with the more likely possibility that you cannot back your statements up with logic, so you resort to red herring and ad hominem instead?

[Garth]

God simply does not exist
Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.

Garth

[Doc Al]

Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.


I assume you meant that as a putdown? :wink:

[Garth]

I assume you meant that as a putdown? :wink:

I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '

To explain the anthropic fine tuning of the physical universe that makes ours a fecund universe requires either faith in the existence of some kind of creator or in a multitude of other universes. Both responses requires belief in the existence of entities that cannot be observed by scientific means. I cannot see how one response is derided as 'metaphysical' and the other not.

Garth

[arildno]

I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.



No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

[sneez]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realise this.

Im glad you think that way. Let me put you into the group of religious fanatics who are ultimatelly right, no tolerance of other opinions allowed.

You r replacing one belief for another, applying the same irrational sense to it.

Really, wonder anyone who reached adulthood thinking this way.

[sneez]

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '


Garth

Thank you.

[Garth]

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. 'No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Thank you for providing such a good example.

Garth

[arildno]

Again, the same intellectual dishonesty is shown by an apologist of religion:

My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.

[sneez]

My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.

If one wants to belief in god or fairy or no god thats his choice. He will find arguments to support his/her choice. If i meet such person i give him my belief if he/she is interested. If mine argument makes sense to them i they will accept it or reject. The same goes the other way.

Thats the end of it. Long gone are the age when we needed spiritual leaders to think for us. (be it atheistic or religious priests)

Each one of us has mind on his/her own. Thats the end of it. Why do 'priests' feel like 'saving' lost souls? If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!

[do not be mad when if taliban would in the name of them being right start repressing atheism, christianity, any other way of thinking by means of intolerance you call for]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?

[arildno]

If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!
Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.

[selfAdjoint]

Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.

Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.

[Hurkyl]

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.
Are you saying that God does not exist?

[sneez]

Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.

Man vs woman marriage issue can be held by atheist as well or budhist or whatever.

Im NOT protecting religions (do not feel like you need to justfy atheism to me). I HATE RELIGION with utmost hatered!!!! I just have enough honesty to admit that my opinions are limited as well as my knowledge to say somebody DO NOT BELIEF in this or that. All i can tell them fault in their reasoning or inconsistencies. Education is best weapon against ignorance.

So whatever religious ppl or their religions demand im not protecting. I will be the first on the front line to protect freedom of belief! But i hate to see Mr. Dawkings attacking religions on something that he and his followers are guilty of as well!

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! (not against the some of the demands of the institutions of that belief ) is clear proof that atheism as Dawkings conceives it is religion belief replacement.

[Astronuc]

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, So the 'existence or non-existence of God or gods is nontestable - so one is left to 'believe God or gods exist' or 'believe God or gods do not exist' - either way, one is left 'believing'. :rofl:

I am satisfied with what I know and I know that there are many things I don't know yet - but I enjoy discovering new things - and sharing those discoveries with those who are interested in such things. :smile:

Don't worry - Be Happy!

Also, religion doesn't necessarily imply mythology or belief. It does however involve living life with due deliberation as to the consequences of one's actions. There are many believers who are not religious.

[arildno]

Are you saying that God does not exist?

Not at all.
The hypothesis "God exists" is as LOGICALLY VALID as "God does not exist", since whatever reality MIGHT be, either one of the hypotheses must be true (neither of the statements can be regarded as self-contradictory).

Similarly, the hypothesis "pink unicorns exists somewhere" is as logically valid as its negation.

However, it does not follow that all logically valid statements are equally rational.

Whereas every illogical statement is irrational, not all logical statements are rational.

[arildno]

I am satisfied with what I know and I know that there are many things I don't know yet - but I enjoy discovering new things - and sharing those discoveries with those who are interested in such things. :smile: .

Of course. As long as it is DISCOVERED, rather than merely purported to exist, which is something quite different. :smile:

[arildno]

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! .

Who are you talking about???
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)

[sneez]

Who are you talking about???
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html (Crusaide against religion?????) what do you call that?

Read dawkins's 'New Atheism'

quote:"Yes, there could be a rational religion," Dennett says. "We could have a rational policy not even to think about certain things." He understands that this would create constant tension between prohibition and curiosity. But the borders of our sacred beliefs could be well guarded simply by acknowledging that it is pragmatic to refuse to change them.
"

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)
Dear, i could shool ppl in religious oppressions, irrationalities. Thats why i recognize one when i see one. And new atheism is religion of hate and violence. Irrational in its demans and higly non-tolerant. All that you so much complain about.

And like i said, im not protecting religion or ahteism. Im protecting the freedom to belief in whatever you want to as long as you let other do so as well. However, when some belief comes, even when some contemporary respected ppl, that is irrationaly absolutistic i speak against.

If this thread was about christian fanatics i would be here speaking of crimes they commit. But this thread is about Dawking and his new religion, which HE calls it!!

[arildno]

Well, I've read the article. I didn't see anyone of the New Atheists, including Dawkins advocate a ban on religion.
The closest thing was this:
How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children?

This is a very important question Dawkins raises.
Why, indeed, do we have to accept parents as competent care takers who frighten small children with tales of eternal torture if, for example, you prefer to have sexual relations with someone of your own sex?

We are EMBARASSED and ASHAMED today that a staple ingredient of earlier times' child raising was physical "correction".

The mental hells conjured in quite a few children due to their parents' religious ravings is not something we "have to" accept, because it is in accordance with the "sincere and deep" religious beliefs of the parents.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).



Furthermore, the article writer is in evident confusion:
He is so accustomed to the idea that we MUST show respect for other persons' religious beliefs, that he regards the New Atheists denial of the existence of such a duty as the result of unwarranted scorn.


However, NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.
For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.
Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

That is, I do not REQUIRE that others respect my belief, because that, in my opinion would be an infringement of their rights as sovereign intellectual beings.

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

[ModernBaroque]

The most annoying thing about some atheists is not their atheism but their inconsistency.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism.

NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.

Nobody is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.

For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.

First you present some evidence or your "private fantasy", then you claim there's no evidence for it? :confused:

If, on the other hand, there really is no evidence for your idea, then it would be stupid of you to believe it. Isn't that exactly what you are claiming about religiuos people?

Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

People don't get offended by atheism, you're getting it all wrong. Atheists have always existed and always will. People do get offended for being labeled idiots.

If I tell you you are dim-witted for believing "everything in the world is fundamentally discrete", would not that be offensive?

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

You can dismiss an idea as ridiculous without insulting the people who profess it - all it takes is civility, something Dawkins and his followers do not seem to have.

[Evo]

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism. You are incorrect, the quote specifically states "opinions". Religious beliefs are merely opinions. It has nothing to do with educating them about "real, factual" information. You should not put words into people's mouths.

is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.What do your comments have to do with Arildno's post?

And you continue to misread what he wrote.

If you're going to quote someone's words then your following response needs to address what they wrote.

[Hurkyl]

Not at all.
*phew* I was worried that you were making that mistake.


We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing
Would you agree that someone who has seen what appears to be evidence of "this God thing" would be scientifically compelled to believe in it? At the very least, to have more confidence in God's existence than the agnostic stance would have?


And on a completely different note...

nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.
Where do you get off saying that Science is the only source of truth?

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. :wink: Ponder that a moment)

Secondly, why should anyone believe that there can be no other source of truth?

Obviously your core beliefs include that Science is the only source of truth, and that's fine for justifying things to yourself. But it gives you no logical footing whatsoever when debating with company that doesn't share that core belief. And thus I reject this argument; it can only be valid when you are, pardon the phrase, preaching to the choir.

[Another God]

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. :wink: Ponder that a moment)

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises....

need I continue?

[Hurkyl]

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises....

need I continue?
Ah, empirical evidence. :wink: Ponder that a moment.

[Another God]

through empirical studies science has provided information which has benn applied to create empirical solutions to empirical problems allowing for empirical improvements in longevity, health, wellbeing etc.

Better or worse can't be empirical, but stats can. Stats show science improves stuff.

[sneez]

That is, I do not REQUIRE that others respect my belief, because that, in my opinion would be an infringement of their rights as sovereign intellectual beings.

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

You do not require respect for your belief? Do you realize that your belief(s) is what you are? All you know is a belief!

how can you let such thing to come out of your brain out loud, that you call for NOT RESPECT of another person's belief?

Pls, next time you have conversation with someone in work place of any other place tell the person straight in the eye "I do not respect your belief"! (and i mean when you discuss nature of matter, or science, or biology, or what ever that person is expressin his opinion-belief about, not just religion)
See, how long your conversation will hold. NExt, imagine that this pathetic belief is of everyone around you, hmmm, what a place to live in.

Surelly, you seem to be smart, able to rationalize your fallacies, but with no wisdom ( on this issue). To win an argument does not make you right. Stop trying to win an argument and let concentrate on the meaning of what you're (Dawking) talking about.

Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color.....you get the idea.

[arildno]

You are making the same fallacy as muslim fanatics when you say that your beliefs are what you are. They're not.
For example, I have a body, and have wishes that no one is to intrude upon my body space unless I want it myself.
This is not a "belief", and if you haven't any respect for my set of beliefs (and being entitled to that), it does not follow that you are entitled to intrude upon my body space.

The muslim fanatic, however, thinks that he is entitled to murder,maim and burn any bodies belonging to persons disrespectful of his beliefs.

[sneez]

You are making the same fallacy as muslim fanatics when you say that your beliefs are what you are. They're not.
For example, I have a body, and have wishes that no one is to intrude upon my body space unless I want it myself.

arildno, All you know, all you say, all your opinions are your beliefs. Do you agree. Therefore, i say you are your belief. You are what you think. What you think is your belief. What you just wrote is your belief. You cannot get out of it.

The moment you take respect for a belief out of the equation tell me what is left? What is there when respect is gone?

and please let me know your opinion on:]
Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color, sex, rights,property.....you get the idea.

You see, mistake is made by dawkin the not agreeing is the same is not respecting. Humanity was trying to learn for centuries to respect another belief through religious wars and etc.(well almost when ppl had it, and even put it in constitution) Now, some person tries to say we dont need it as long as we BELIEF in no god. (hope you see the keyword).

Do you see that it has been long recognized by ppl that to respect another's belief is to respect the being?
Can you respect me if you do not respect my belief? (And i do not mean disagree with an belief, i mean to not respect an belief. That is a world of difference).

[Doc Al]

You seem to conflate "respect" for a person--extending common courtesy towards fellow human beings--with respect for a person's beliefs. Sorry, but just calling a thought or idea a "belief" does not make it any more rational, evidence-supported, or worthy of respect. Propositions about the world must earn respect. This doesn't mean you must be nasty to people, but it surely doesn't mean that any crackpot, off-the-wall, nutball idea should get "respect" just because someone "believes" it. Enough is enough. One of Dawkin's (and Sam Harris's) points is that religious ideas are statements about the world and should be subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other proposed idea.

[selfAdjoint]

You do not require respect for your belief? Do you realize that your belief(s) is what you are? All you know is a belief!

how can you let such thing to come out of your brain out loud, that you call for NOT RESPECT of another person's belief?

Pls, next time you have conversation with someone in work place of any other place tell the person straight in the eye "I do not respect your belief"! (and i mean when you discuss nature of matter, or science, or biology, or what ever that person is expressin his opinion-belief about, not just religion)
See, how long your conversation will hold. NExt, imagine that this pathetic belief is of everyone around you, hmmm, what a place to live in.

Surelly, you seem to be smart, able to rationalize your fallacies, but with no wisdom ( on this issue). To win an argument does not make you right. Stop trying to win an argument and let concentrate on the meaning of what you're (Dawking) talking about.

Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color.....you get the idea.

But this is a two-way street. The Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago used to take a bull horn (perhaps he still does) and stand across he street from an abortion clinic and thunder at the women who might be going in. The only reason he was across the street was that the law made him be. His coreligionists (my ex-coreligionists) used to impinge on these women waving rubber fetuses.

Do I have to respect his belief, their beliefs? If they had regularly respected the beliefs of the women, things like Dawkinism would never arise.

[ModernBaroque]

One of Dawkin's (and Sam Harris's) points is that religious ideas are statements about the world and should be subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other proposed idea.

That is not what Dawkins is saying. Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

What Dawkins is really saying is that religious ideas are statements about the world, and as such should be subject to critical scrutiny by people who scrutinize things from the premise that religion is false. In other words, as a philosopher Dawkins is not particularly bright.

[arildno]

. Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

This is sheer insanity. You have just shown yourself to be incapable of rational discourse.

[siddharth]

Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html)
and a nice appeal to belief (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html)

[ModernBaroque]

This is sheer insanity. You have just shown yourself to be incapable of rational discourse.

I'm confused. What's wrong with what I said? I think it's a fact that people have scrutinized religion for thousands of years. I do it myself and so does everyone here, it seems. Some reject it, most accept it.

What did I say that prompts the charge of insanity?

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html)

Good, I see you took Philosophy 101 and are already familiar with the jargon. Can you do some thinking now?

I didn't say even say religion is right, I just said its claims are accepted by most people. Do you want to deny that?

I think Dawkins is not particularly bright on the subject of religion, and he provides plenty of evidence for it. For instance, someone quoted him saying that he thought religion was harmless but changed his mind after 9/11. Where is this guy from? Had he never heard of the Spanish Inquisition?

[arildno]

arildno, All you know, all you say, all your opinions are your beliefs. Do you agree. Therefore, i say you are your belief. You are what you think. What you think is your belief. What you just wrote is your belief. You cannot get out of it.

The moment you take respect for a belief out of the equation tell me what is left? What is there when respect is gone?

and please let me know your opinion on:]
Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color, sex, rights,property.....you get the idea.

You see, mistake is made by dawkin the not agreeing is the same is not respecting. Humanity was trying to learn for centuries to respect another belief through religious wars and etc.(well almost when ppl had it, and even put it in constitution) Now, some person tries to say we dont need it as long as we BELIEF in no god. (hope you see the keyword).

Do you see that it has been long recognized by ppl that to respect another's belief is to respect the being?
Can you respect me if you do not respect my belief? (And i do not mean disagree with an belief, i mean to not respect an belief. That is a world of difference).

Doc Al made an excellent post on how you conflate issues.
Wherever have you gotten the strange notion that "statements of the world", "expressions of your mental states", "judgments of what is beautiful", "statements on what makes me happy/unhappy", "definitions&deductions within a logical system" should be lumped together as "belief", and furthermore, that it is meaningful to have a single, unvarying attitude to each of the elements within this sack of yours??

[arildno]

Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion..

I'm confused. What's wrong with what I said? I think it's a fact that people have scrutinized religion for thousands of years. I do it myself and so does everyone here, it seems. Some reject it, most accept it.

What did I say that prompts the charge of insanity?


You have twisted, beyond recognition, the meaning of "critical scrutiny".
That is, you have made up a "private meaning", inaccessible to others and totally at odds with standard usage, and it happens to be highly symptomatic of schizophreniacs, for example, that they develop new and secret meanings to just about every word they utter.

[ModernBaroque]

You have twisted, beyond recognition, the meaning of "critical scrutiny".
That is, you have made up a "private meaning", inaccessible to others and totally at odds with standard usage, and it happens to be highly symptomatic of schizophreniacs, for example, that they develop new and secret meanings to just about every word they utter.

So, in other words, you're a troll?

[siddharth]

Good, I see you took Philosophy 101 and are already familiar with the jargon. Can you do some thinking now?

I didn't say even say religion is right, I just said its claims are accepted by most people. Do you want to deny that?


My post was in response to
Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

I wanted to point out that the majority of the people "validate" religion like


Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?

God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God.

This thread is rapidly going downhill with all the personal attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's locked soon.

[arildno]

This thread is rapidly going downhill with all the personal attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's locked soon.
Well, anyone who chooses, as ModernBaroque does, to "discuss" things by twisting all words into his own private meanings rather than those of standard usage, shows through that so little respect for others that he ought to be banned.

[ModernBaroque]

My post was in response to

I wanted to point out that the majority of the people "validate" religion like

Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?


In this case you are right, this would definitely be an argument from authority if the poster were arguing for the existence of God. I didn't read the original post, but he seems to be simply saying that he accepts religion on the basis of authority. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with that. If we had to question every single piece of knowledge we are exposed to, we would end up in total skepticism.

I don't know about you, but I don't have a particle accelerator and a telescope array in my backyard. I have to accept modern physics strictly on the basis of my respect for the authority of physicists.

Many people claim to have accepted religion as a result of critical scrutiny. It's their scrutiny and their claim, I have no say on the matter. It just seems irrational to dismiss them out of hand. But the majority of people accept religion on the basis of authority, because they respect the people who teach them about religion: their parents.

This thread is rapidly going downhill with all the personal attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's locked soon.

We can still try and rescue it. It's an interesting discussion.

[arildno]

That is not what Dawkins is saying. Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by BILLIONS of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion..

. But the MAJORITY of people accept religion on the basis of authority, because they respect the people who teach them about religion: their parents.
This is a flat contradiction.

[ModernBaroque]

This is a flat contradiction.

It does look like it. My apologies for the sloppy writing. I'd be happy to clarify in case someone cares (I doubt it)

[arildno]

But your response to Doc Al was that BILLIONS of humans had performed a critical scrutiny of religion, and that HENCE, Doc Al's premise for what type of beliefs was worty of respect was, in fact, fulfilled in the case of religion.

What is your position now, I wonder?

[ModernBaroque]

But your response to Doc Al was that BILLIONS of humans had performed a critical scrutiny of religion, and that HENCE, Doc Al's premise for what type of beliefs was worty of respect was, in fact, fulfilled in the case of religion.

Look, you accuse me of keeping private meanings to concepts, but what exactly do you mean by "respect"? My understanding is that you can respect people, and you do so by acting and talking to them in manners conventionally accepted as respectable. But, ideas? How do you "respect" an idea?

Now because, contrary to what you believe, everyone does speak a private language, I'm forced to guess what each person means by every word they say. I conclude that respect for an idea means considering the possibility that it is a valid idea, an idea worth thinking and talking about. But that notion is so far from my notion of "respect" as to make any argument meaningless.

(I suspect "respect" in the case of ideas should really be replaced with "interesting". Dawkins would make more sense if he said "religion is not an interesting idea" meaning "an idea not worth thinking about". But that would expose the fact that what he is presenting as a rational argument is really no more than his personal opinion)

Why can't we concentrate on the fact that it is disrespectful, in any reasonable sense of the word, to disparage people as intellectually inferior for holding certain beliefs?

What is your position now, I wonder?

My position regarding what????

[arildno]

Look, you accuse me of keeping private meanings to concepts, but what exactly do you mean by "respect"? My understanding is that you can respect people, and you do so by acting and talking to them in manners conventionally accepted as respectable.
Fine by me. You use "respect" here in one of its standard meanings, namely restricted to persons.
But, ideas? How do you "respect" an idea?
Well, evidently, if "respect" is restricted to a personal sense, then it is meaningless to "respect" an idea.
However, you can still form judgments as to whether a particular idea is "silly", "well thought out", "rests on evidence or not"

Now because, contrary to what you believe,
What do you know of what I believe?
everyone does speak a private language,
To some measure. That is one of the reasons why it is extremely difficult to build up a science within the humanities; the natural sciences DO have a couple of tools to get around this problem, most importantly experiments and mathematics.
.

Why can't we concentrate on the fact that it is disrespectful, in any reasonable sense of the word, to disparage people as intellectually inferior for holding certain beliefs?

Wherever does it follow that holding ONE silly opinion makes a person silly?
That amounts to saying that because one number is negative, then summing that number with other numbers necessarily gives a negative result?

However, and this is important, negative numbers do "exist" (in maths, at least), and so does silly opinions.
Nor should it be regarded as preposterous to point at some opinion held by a person as being silly.

As for your position on what:
It should be evident:
Have BILLIONS of people performed a CRITICAL SCRUTINY of religion, or not?

[ModernBaroque]

Well, evidently, if "respect" is restricted to a personal sense, then it is meaningless to "respect" an idea. However, you can still form judgments as to whether a particular idea is "silly", "well thought out", "rests on evidence or not"

Certainly, but before you reach judgement you have to make sure you understand the idea. In the case of religion, you can't dismiss the idea based on what you stereotypes notions of it, both pro and against. There are a lot of religious fools and a lot of people who take their notions of religion from those fools.

How would you feel if someone only visited crackpot sites on the internet and concluded science is nonsense?

What do you know of what I believe?

I actually meant "what you seem to believe". I thought it was rather strange that you accused me of schizophrenic behaviour for assigning private meanings for words. I assumed you were ignorant of the problem of conveying precise meaning through ambiguous words. Apparently I was wrong, but I still don't understand your earlier posts.

That is one of the reasons why it is extremely difficult to build up a science within the humanities; the natural sciences DO have a couple of tools to get around this problem, most importantly experiments and mathematics.

I'm not sure I agree here. Most people don't have labs at home and are not particularly proficient in mathematics. Whatever the reason is that most people agree that the earth orbits the sun, it seems to have little to do with experiments and mathematics, and far more to do with authority. I for one have never owned a telescope and cannot verify that observation for myself.

Wherever does it follow that holding ONE silly opinion makes a person silly?

So how many silly opinions does it take before we can say someone is silly? Three? Fifteen? Come on, don't be silly.

Nor should it be regarded as preposterous to point at some opinion held by a person as being silly.

It can be preposterous if you have one silly person pointing the silliness of another.

Have BILLIONS of people performed a CRITICAL SCRUTINY of religion, or not?

In my calculations, throughout history the number of believers in one form of religion or another is in the range of billions. So let's stop fussing about the number. Now have those people critically scrutinized their religion? That really depends on your own idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes critical scrutiny. And I fear that your notion implies that critical scrutiny of religion necessarily leads to its rejection. In which case you are right, but only in a tautological way.

Now it's quite silly to argue against a tautology. The sensible thing to do is dismiss it as meaningless.

[arildno]

So, your position seems to be:
Billions of persons have critically scrutinized religion, AND the MAJORITY of persons have accepted religion on basis of authority?

[sneez]

This thread proves that education is nothing without thinking. To aldrino, you choose to turn your brain on and off accordance with your prconceived ideas and beliefs. You know very well what i made an issue about. You turn off your brain and produce blunt such that im for all relative belief.

I would recoomend a deep introspection on your internal modes motives why you belief what you belief. Trust not many ppl have done it. You seem one of them.

TO doc, you know very well what i meant. To turn off your brain and be dumb is your choice.

I know im gonne get all that define this and that, and relativity of this and that. But thats for philosophy, not such a serious issue like this.

[ModernBaroque]

So, your position seems to be:
Billions of persons have critically scrutinized religion, AND the MAJORITY of persons have accepted religion on basis of authority?

Yes. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Let me turn the question around: do you reject religion because you have critically scrutinized it, or because you don't trust the authority of the church?

It's clear to me you can't, or shouldn't, accept an idea if it's not backed by a trustworthy authority. That is what crackpots do. All the same, you can't accept an idea if it doesn't withstand scrutiny. I fail to see why it has to be an either/or issue.

[arildno]

Hmm..do you have to eat the whole egg to discover whether it is rotten, ModernBaroque?

[Evo]

Yes. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Let me turn the question around: do you reject religion because you have critically scrutinized it, or because you don't trust the authority of the church?You forgot "do you reject religion because it's based on a mythical entity and superstition?"

It's clear to me you can't, or shouldn't, accept an idea if it's not backed by a trustworthy authority.An authority on something that's basically "make believe"? Don't get me wrong, if you want to believe in supernatural dieties, as long as you don't try to push your belief on me and your belief doesn't affect how I live my life, I don't care. It's when people start trying to push their made up rules on others that it becomes wrong.

[arildno]

Yes. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Let me turn the question around: do you reject religion because you have critically scrutinized it
Yes, I haven't seen, felt, smelt or heard God, for example.
Nor has he appeared as a solution of a differential equation.
Among other reasons, that is.

It's clear to me you can't, or shouldn't, accept an idea if it's not backed by a trustworthy authority.
Well, the only trustworthy authority I know of that can help me to decide whether or not accept the statement "I like oranges", happens to be myself.
That is what crackpots do. All the same, you can't accept an idea if it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Sure you can. Religious people do that all the time. By avoiding to perform a scrutiny.

[ModernBaroque]

arildno, Evo, I'd like to ask a question: how do you manage to discuss religion on this forum, in clear violation of its rules?

If the topic goes back to Dawkins, I will rejoin. But I don't care for this "why I believe/why I'm skeptical" thing, it's soooo boring.

[Evo]

arildno, Evo, I'd like to ask a question: how do you manage to discuss religion on this forum, in clear violation of its rules?It's not, you can't compare one religion to another (stating one religion is better than another) or discuss specific beliefs of religions.

[Hurkyl]

You are making the same fallacy as muslim fanatics when you say that your beliefs are what you are. They're not.
For example, I have a body, and have wishes that no one is to intrude upon my body space unless I want it myself.
This is not a "belief", and if you haven't any respect for my set of beliefs (and being entitled to that), it does not follow that you are entitled to intrude upon my body space.

The muslim fanatic, however, thinks that he is entitled to murder,maim and burn any bodies belonging to persons disrespectful of his beliefs.
Why bring up Islam? Violent extremism is not the exclusive property of Islam, or even of religon in general. Given the context, this sounds like you intend a fallacious guilt by association.

[SF]

The whole point of fighting for imposing your POV was denounced by Howard Bloom as primitive tribalism.

[arildno]

Why bring up Islam? Violent extremism is not the exclusive property of Islam, or even of religon in general. Given the context, this sounds like you intend a fallacious guilt by association.

St. Cyrus and his mob of Christian fanatics that killed Hypatia (NOT our PF member!) have been dead for quite a while.
So has the Crusaders.
Jews have stopped persecuting Samaritans.

While there exists some Jewish and Christian fringe groups also today who espouse violent extremism (for example Fred Phelps&co), they do not have the same extent as their Islamic counterparts.

As for non-religious violent extremist group (typically Marxist/Maoist), like Rote Armee Fraktion, Illuminated Path (?, Peruvian group), most of these are also defunct today.

[loseyourname]

Personally, I'm going to have to side with Dawkins to at least this extent: I could care less what any one person believes metaphysically and morally so long as these beliefs do not cause them to behave in a manner that might harm others, but I have never seen any rational justification for holding to the doctrines of any religion I've ever heard of. If you think the preponderance of evidence is in favor of some organizing principle or intelligence being responsible for the arising of our universe, whatever. I don't really see much evidence either way. I don't believe that myself, but there may very well be decent enough reasons to lead a rational person to such a belief from different suppositions about the way the world works than I personally hold to.

There can, however, be no rational basis for believing that the human incarnation of the universe's creator willingly allowed himself to be killed two thousand years ago, his body subsequently rising from the grave three days later before being lifted into the sky. There can be no rational basis for believing that Joe Smith was visited by an angel with golden scrolls and that the size of a man's family will dictate the size of his heaven. There can be no rational basis for holding the belief that how one behaves while alive will determine the circumstances for a future incarnation of the same person into another body. Really, there is no rational reason to believe any culturally specific sacred narrative on its own merits, nor based on the fact that it has traditionally been believed by the propagators of the culture in question. Every single one of these religions answers the questions that empirical, naturalistic investigations cannot answer equally well; whatever reasons one has to choose one religion over the other may or may not be good reasons, but they are certainly not rational. Even amongst the best of religious philosophers, the arguments for Christian particularism are flat-out ridiculous, and I'm not sure the apologists of other religions even bother trying.

[0TheSwerve0]

Seems the world's response to rationalist arguments is "So what?"

Good arguments by Dawkins, but what's the point? Is he trying to effect some change or critique religion/culture/humans? Dawkins is bright and contributes a lot to philosophical and scientific thought, but it seems pretty arrogant and ethnocentric to assert superiority of one way of life over another. Criticism is very useful and essential, but he seems to go beyond this.

The physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, writing in Nature, says that although a "fan" of Dawkins, "I wish that Dawkins ... had continued to play to his strengths". Krauss suggests that an unrelenting attack upon people's beliefs might be less productive than "positively demonstrating how the wonders of nature can suggest a world without God that is nevertheless both complete and wonderful." Krauss remarks, "Perhaps there can be no higher praise than to say that I am certain I will remember and borrow many examples from this book in my own future discussions."

ohn Cornwell states in The Sunday Times "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography, save for Richard Swinburne – himself an oddity among orthodox theologians". He also complains that: "Dawkins sees no point in discussing the critical borders where religion morphs from benign phenomenon into malefic basket case. This is a pity, since his entire thesis becomes a counsel of despair rather than a quest for solutions."

Alister McGrath, a Christian theologian, describes The God Delusion as "his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available". He suggests that "All ideals – divine, transcendent, human, or invented – are capable of being abused. That’s just the way human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion."

[Hurkyl]

Seems the world's response to rationalist arguments is "So what?"
Yes, "so what?" is, more or less, the point I'm trying to convey. (though maybe not in the sense you intended) AFAIK, pure rationalism has been rejected for centuries, at least in this particular community if not philosophers in general. So I find it very curious to see scientifically minded people argue so vehemently against religion on the basis that it's not pure reason, since their argument applies equally well to their own beliefs.

[0TheSwerve0]

Seems to be a culture war. I notice it's not too often that aboriginal, or even popular beliefs such as Buddhism and Hinduism, are directly implicated or addressed. Seems they aren't culturally salient enough to be used in these arguments.

[SF]

Probably because there are no buddhist/aboriginal fundies with their finger over the "NUKE" button :)

[0TheSwerve0]

Probably because there are no buddhist/aboriginal fundies with their finger over the "NUKE" button :)

There's always some "Other" in one's culture that threatens to one's way of life.

[Astronuc]

There's always some "Other" in one's culture that threatens to one's way of life. I wonder how much of that, 'the fear of the unfamiliar and different', which motivates the behavior of many cultures. Fundamentalists seem unable to comfortably accept a different view of the world.

Take away religion, and one still has xenophobia, or ethnophobia, or some other aversion to those who one sees as being 'different'.

I grew up with people from many different nations, societies, religions, cultures visiting our home. My father, a minister, worked for the World Council of Churches, and he had spent some time traveling through SE Asia. I thought it rather natural to meet people of different backrounds, and I was intrigued by the variety of experiences.

I was troubled when I arrived in the US and found the segregation by race and ethnicity. Of course, I have subsequently learned that such segregation is rather common Australia and England, and many other countries.

[0TheSwerve0]

I wonder how much of that, 'the fear of the unfamiliar and different', which motivates the behavior of many cultures. Fundamentalists seem unable to comfortably accept a different view of the world.

I've heard fundamentalism described as a restorative movement that claims the authority of tradition while ironically developing out of a “vortex of radical modernization.” Essentially, people overcompensating for change.

Take away religion, and one still has xenophobia, or ethnophobia, or some other aversion to those who one sees as being 'different'.

Quite often they create difference just to have an "Other." Makes sense if you think about the fact that the ultimate cause for most violence is competition over resources - land, food, mates. Which is why most violence occurs with people pretty similar to each other occupying the same space/niche (which nowadays isn't just physical space). E.G. The Irish/British fights, Eastern European countries fighting amongst themselves, Europe in general, the castes in India, warring native tribes/chiefdoms...you've gotta create a feeling of difference, dehumanization really, to be ok with killing someone.

I grew up with people from many different nations, societies, religions, cultures visiting our home. My father, a minister, worked for the World Council of Churches, and he had spent some time traveling through SE Asia. I thought it rather natural to meet people of different backrounds, and I was intrigued by the variety of experiences.

Sounds like a great experience. Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok?

[Curious3141]

Has anyone mentioned the South Park take on Dawkins anticrusade taken to its (il)logical extreme?

Science damn all of you!! :rofl:

[0TheSwerve0]

hehe, no *checking out now*

[kant]

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) has just written a new book called "The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion)" and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

I don t think science is any more solid than religion. In religion, there is a god, and in physics, there is the laws of nature. They are both logical necessity in there respective believe system.

[Another God]

I don t think science is any more solid than religion. In religion, there is a god, and in physics, there is the laws of nature. They are both logical necessity in there respective believe system.

One is observable and measurable. The other is a convenient fiction?

[Hurkyl]

One is observable and measurable. The other is a convenient fiction?
*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?

[Another God]

*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?
Well, if we want progress in the real world, you have to use real world tenets. The metaphysics of science may not be infallible, but at least it has had inumerous practical applications since it was applied, unlike every other metaphysics ever described.

If people want to live in a dream world, fine, thats their problem.

[Hurkyl]

Well, if we want progress in the real world, you have to use real world tenets. The metaphysics of science may not be infallible, but at least it has had inumerous practical applications since it was applied, unlike every other metaphysics ever described.

If people want to live in a dream world, fine, thats their problem.
*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.

What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.

[SF]

Since when is reality a tenet of science?
Reality would be there even if there was no science to study it.

The "battle" between science and religion is simply a confrontation of which one better describes reality - reality that is independent of religion or science.

[navneet1990]

SF i think youve got your a problem in the understanding of the word religion....
thats acceptable considering the fact that some people have completely misguided most in the way they define and understand religion...that what your talking about is not religion its blind faith...

what me to define religion for you SANSKRIT /INDIAN style..????


ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what ive read from the reviews

[ if i am wrong at any stage where what ive read about him is incorrect please correct me]

ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all

ohk fine ill tolerate him for just a second before i make my point..

when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you dont altougether..

what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"????

from what ive read there isnt
so what i infer is that he is some pussy who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler....
but then again those are my views from the facts that ive got to know
then again my facts maybe wrong..
do correct me if they are

[arildno]

Some delusions are harmless, others are not.
What was the point again, navneet?

[navneet1990]

which point??

[navneet1990]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them
while attacking the others with full vigour....
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong....
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...

[Another God]

*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.

What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.
Empiricism is measurable observable, directly inferable facts about our world. The world which affects us. The one thing which matters to us all...reality. Anything which isn't measurable, observable or directly inferable can only be described as 'imagined' and hence part of a dream world.

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself. The only real goal of science, naturalism, empiricism etc is to find out facts about our existence. We do this by looking at our existence. Everytime we learn something new, we apply it, and it produces results. Circular? Sure, why not. Practical? Absolutely.

Better than living in a dream world where 'praying' for answers does stuff only because you believe it does.

[Another God]

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what ive read from the reviews
Actually he quite clearly explains what his objectives are. They are not to target extremist religions (although obviously he uses them in his discussion of the consequences of religion). He isn't just trying to target christianity judaism etc. He is systematically arguing that any belief system, ANY belief system, is a scientific statement.

There is a God. That is a scientific statement. We are reincarnated after death. Scientific statement. We must induce trance like states and worship gods or else they will be displeased with us.... Scientific Statement.

Everything that any religion says about our universe is a statement which should be critically analused and tested. A universe created by an intelligent God would clearly be very different from a Universe which arose without intelligent design.

Thus, Dawkins point is that while we may not be able to completely disprove the existence of God (just as you can't disprove an assertion that there is a fine china teacup orbitting the sun between mars and Jupiter), we can look at all of the evidence and reasonably conclude that God doesn't exist, and pretty much every religious claim is irrelevent.



ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all
Organised religions bring about toleration of irrational precepts which allow extreme people to build up extreme ideas, therefore opening up much greater possibility for fundamentalist murderers, suicide bombers etc.

If people were less accepting of irrational beleifs, maybe these suicide bombers would have had their beliefs challenged before they got to the "When I suicide, I will go to eternal bliss with the virgins and the clouds and the best everything..bla blah". Clearly that belief is irrational and ridiculous, but they only formed it because it was the conclusion of their slightly less irrational belief system. Question it from the beginning, and they will never reach the "Suicide is a cool option because I will be rewarded" stage.



when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you dont altogether..

what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"????
Yes. But he does spend most of his energy on christianity because that is the civilisation we live in, the dominant religion of the english language, and the most popular religion. But all religions are treated equally, and the point is the same across the whole table. Christianity is as unlikely as hinduism is as unlikely as Apollo and Zeus.


so what i infer is that he is some pussy who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler....

Wrong. Simply wrong.

[Another God]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them
Actually its quite the opposite. Religion is the eternally avoided question. People just assume the answer everytime they get into it. Dawkins is actually tackling one of the most difficult questions ever because it is about time someone stood up and did it.

while attacking the others with full vigour....
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong....
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...
No, nothing wrong with the definition of religion, infact it has nothing to do with the definition of religion. Dawkins is a scientist and he is dedicated to the truth. So forget religion, lets talk about the truth. Does God exists? In reality? No.

If you want to 'believe' God exists, then fine, 'believe' it, but DO NOT say that your belief is real, because you have no basis for that.

[Hurkyl]

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself.
Okay, good. Now, to move onto a stickier question...

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?

[SF]

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?Trying to use philosophy? Extra, extra, ask Feynman all about it :D
It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate himHe discusses the general idea of "gods", and sais that the probability of existance of any "gods" is very little.. as little as the existance of ogres and tooth fairies. This applies to all supernatural religions.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.

The talk about dangerous religions is indeed an argument to appeal to the majority of his readers, who will be Christians (less jews, less muslims, but it applies to them too - and almost no buddhists or whatever).

Further more, he tries to make a case for atheism, to create a proper brand.
Currently, calling yourself an atheist is the end of your political career, etc, etc. He hopes to change that.

Here is a nice collection of Dawkins videos, selected from YouTube and Google Video: http://physicshead.blogspot.com/search/label/Dawkins
(NOT SPAM!)

[Gib Z]

Lol i thought Richard Dawkins was a fictional character, he appears in a 2 Recent South Park episodes that I believe you may find interesting. It basically pictured Dawkins Lobbying for Atheism and then, well..i dont want to ruin the ending for you :D If you want the south park edisodes, here they are:

http://movies4.viettunes.com/1fileprotection/southpark/

The Dawkins Episodes are a 2 parter, named Go God, Go! and Go GOd, Go, II!, episode numbers 1012 and 1013, theyre around the bottom and hilarious, although you don't want your kids seeing it...

[Hurkyl]

It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.
(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on) That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.

[Tony11235]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

[Math Is Hard]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

Why not just "not believing in God(s)?" You're loading up the definition to suggest that anyone who is not an atheist is irrational.

[Hurkyl]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.
Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

[Another God]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.

[Hurkyl]

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.
I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

[Tony11235]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

To be agnostic is to hold the position that something cannot be proved or disproved. When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic. But that doesn't mean either way is equally likely. Like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend. So one might as well lean towards the likelihood of non-existence.

[Another God]

I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism goes into the problems with the term agnosticism. I don't know if there are attempts to redefine it into atheism, if anything someone agnostic is more theist than atheist (since they qualify the concept of God with a chance of existence).

Dawkins does talk about it somewhat in TGD, and he simply argues that to be agnostic towards theism is not a reasonable opinion because you are saying that there is just as much chance of there being a God as there is of there not being a God. That implies that there is evidence for and evidence against. The argument then of course proceeds to claim that there is no evidence for Gods... afterall, if there was, why sit on the fence over the matter? If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.

[Hurkyl]

When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic.
...
But like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend.
Now why do you think that?

I assume that it is because you believe that reason and experiment are the only sources of knowledge. Can you justify that belief?

So one might as well lean towards the likelihood non-existence.
Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

[Tony11235]

Now why do you think that?

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being? If so, then I can certainly lean towards there not being a god.

[Hurkyl]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?
Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being?
I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

[Tony11235]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:


I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

Unknowable isn't the right word. Not disprovable would better describe it. From a scientific standpoint at least. Say something is not disprovable, does that imply that I have zero knowledge on or about it?

[PIT2]

If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition. Here's a suggestion for judging arguments 'against' and 'for' the existence of god:

Notice of the paralels between 'god' and human mind. Whenever someone talks of god and assigns a probability to it, ask urself if his reasoning doesnt equally apply to human mind.

[Astronuc]

Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok? In some areas, the progress has been significant. In other areas, I don't see much progress. :frown:

This commentary reasonably describes the current situation regarding persistent elements of segregation in the US (and it is certainly not unique to the US, but is generally the case world wide).
The Last Race Problem
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Published: December 30, 2006

Accompanying public integration has been the near complete isolation of blacks from the private life of the white majority.

Another area where the US seems to be digressing is the rise of fundamentalist religious views - in which 'critical scrutiny' of beliefs and ideas is excluded, especially the exclusion of contradictory ideas - and the concommitant intolerance of alternative or contradictory beliefs and ideas.

Religion is not the problem - it's the people and the belief in the supremacy of one's beliefs which are the problem. The problems ascribed to religion are not because of religion, but the misuse or misappropriation of religion.

[Another God]

What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition.
I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

[SF]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.I'm fond of the Burning Bush, myself. =)

(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on) That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.Boy, boy, don't you know that strawman argument is illogical? :)

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existance of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.

[Hurkyl]

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existance of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.
It wasn't meant as an analogy. You explicitly assume that experiment is the only source of truth. (I'm surprised you don't accept reason!) And thus, your argument means absolutely nothing to someone who assumes that there are other sources of truth. The devout ancient Greek doesn't suppose that Zeus exists: it's a fact he's learned from his religous teachings.

Basically, when you start with the hypothesis that empiricism is the only source of truth, you have assumed what you're trying to prove.

Incidentally, I don't think "proof" is the word you wanted to use -- I'm used to that word specifically meaning what you do when you use reason to get evidence for something. Experiments give you (experimental) evidence.

[Hurkyl]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena.
Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? :cry: (mathematician)

[Another God]

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? :cry: (mathematician)

Its not rejected, but it cannot be accepted as truth until it is verified :)

Maths is great as a way of creating theories, and theories ultimately become factual or erroneous, but they must be formulated first. Their formulation absolutely requires reason, but without evidence that reason is baseless, prone to error, prone to bias and most likely outright wrong.

Only evidence can be relied upon.

[SF]

Incidentally, I don't think "proof" is the word you wanted to use -- I'm used to that word specifically meaning what you do when you use reason to get evidence for something. Experiments give you (experimental) evidence.I am not a native English speaker and in my native language they are much more similar.

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)Nobody claimed that math created the universe, or that there is a Guardian Differential Equation for each of us.
Not that I know of :)

[Hurkyl]

Its not rejected, but it cannot be accepted as truth until it is verified :)

Maths is great as a way of creating theories, and theories ultimately become factual or erroneous, but they must be formulated first. Their formulation absolutely requires reason, but without evidence that reason is baseless, prone to error, prone to bias and most likely outright wrong.

Only evidence can be relied upon.
Really?

(*) if {postulates of QM} then {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle}

Certainly (*) is a true statement? If {postulates of QM} is false, then (*) is automatically true.

The only way (*) can be false is if

(1) {postulates of QM} is true,
(2) {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle} is false.

But if we have evidence for both, then isn't that evidence for a contradiction in mathematical logic? (And if mathematical logic is self-contradictory, then (*) is automatically true) So, no matter what the empirical evidence actually is, it must be evidence for the truth of (*).

Of course, that's a rational argument, so you're going to reject on the basis that it's not empirical. :wink:


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

(@) If {postulates of classical mechanics} then {Bell's inequality}

Now, suppose you performed an experiment that yielded evidence that {Bell's inequality} is false. Wouldn't you say that you have experimental evidence that {postulates of classical mechanics} is false? But how can you do that without Accepting (@) as a true statement?


(in both (*) and (@), I'm assuming that the hypothesis actually includes enough assumptions so that the conclusion can be mathematically proven)

[Another God]

Really?

(*) if {postulates of QM} then {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle}

Certainly (*) is a true statement? If {postulates of QM} is false, then (*) is automatically true.

The only way (*) can be false is if

(1) {postulates of QM} is true,
(2) {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle} is false.

But if we have evidence for both, then isn't that evidence for a contradiction in mathematical logic? (And if mathematical logic is self-contradictory, then (*) is automatically true) So, no matter what the empirical evidence actually is, it must be evidence for the truth of (*).

Of course, that's a rational argument, so you're going to reject on the basis that it's not empirical. :wink:


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

(@) If {postulates of classical mechanics} then {Bell's inequality}

Now, suppose you performed an experiment that yielded evidence that {Bell's inequality} is false. Wouldn't you say that you have experimental evidence that {postulates of classical mechanics} is false? But how can you do that without Accepting (@) as a true statement?


(in both (*) and (@), I'm assuming that the hypothesis actually includes enough assumptions so that the conclusion can be mathematically proven)

I don't really understand the specifics of what you are trying to say, but I do get the concept, and the answer is as simple as a littl bit of Aristotelian logic.

A statement can be said to be true if it is sound and valid. It must be logical, and it must be accurate with respect to reality. Simple. So if a statement is absolutely logical, then it is true if its premises are true. If the premises are wrong, then the statement is false, regardless of how logical it is.

Simple no?

[Hurkyl]

I don't really understand the specifics of what you are trying to say, but I do get the concept, and the answer is as simple as a littl bit of Aristotelian logic.

A statement can be said to be true if it is sound and valid. It must be logical, and it must be accurate with respect to reality. Simple. So if a statement is absolutely logical, then it is true if its premises are true. If the premises are wrong, then the statement is false, regardless of how logical it is.

Simple no?
No wonder you reject rationalism: you have logic wrong! If I wanted to assert that both {postulates of QM} and {HUP} were true, I would say

{postulates of QM} and {HUP}

which has an entirely different meaning than the implication

if {postulates of QM} then {HUP}.

See Wikipedia's article on vacuous truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth).

[Another God]

...but that statement shows nothing other than what would be the case IF {postulates of QM} was true. I don't know that they are true. Nor do I even know that HUP follows from them if they are...

In this instance, assuming the statement is accurate, we still need to validate the premises.

There is nothing 'wrong' with what I said. Being vacuously true, is still just vacuous...it is far from 'Real' which is all that 'really' matters.

[Doc Al]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.
Exactly. Claims of "God" are claims about the world, which require empirical evidence to take seriously. They deserve the same skeptical treatment as do similar outlandish claims one sees every week in the supermarket tabloids.

Of course, what we need is rational empiricism--collections of statements must "hang together" logically. But, unlike pure mathematics, religionists are making claims about the actual, physical world--if they were just constructing abstract, theoretical models, who would really care?

[PIT2]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway.Asking for something 'that cannot be part of physics' equals asking for proof that that god doesnt exist. But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.

But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.A stable, predictable continuity says zero about whether some god is involved. Human minds can create objects that behave according to stable and continuous patterns also (such as a computer chip), but a computer chip is no argument that humans dont exist. Also, our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.

See how easy it is to slice through some atheistic arguments when one lets them loose on our human minds (as opposed to god)? Actually... im not aware of any good atheistic arguments at all.

[Hurkyl]

Exactly. Claims of "God" are claims about the world, which require empirical evidence to take seriously. They deserve the same skeptical treatment as do similar outlandish claims one sees every week in the supermarket tabloids.
Can you make an argument that would be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence?

[Doc Al]

Can you make an argument that would be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence?
Why would anyone waste time providing reasons for someone who doesn't appreciate reasons? And whether "reason and experiment" are the only source of knowledge is interesting, the issue at hand is does religion provide some secret source of knowledge not accessible to reason and experiment? (Or, less formally, clear thinking and experience.) If you believe so, state your reasons! :smile:

I'm curious as to what field of knowledge you are imagining where reason and experiment (where possible) are not relevant? (Please don't say theology! :rolleyes: )

[Interposer]

...our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.

Where does that leave both human consciousness and this supposed entity’s consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena?

See how easy it is to slice through this argument?

[PIT2]

Where does that leave both human consciousness and this supposed entity’s consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena?

See how easy it is to slice through this argument?Human consciousness certainly is still here. What are u trying to say?

[Interposer]

sorry, goof up, please read edited post, thanks

[Hurkyl]

Why would anyone waste time providing reasons for someone who doesn't appreciate reasons?
I don't know. But I didn't ask you to prove a rational argument that would convince someone who rejects rationalism.


And whether "reason and experiment" are the only source of knowledge is interesting, the issue at hand is does religion provide some secret source of knowledge not accessible to reason and experiment? (Or, less formally, clear thinking and experience.) If you believe so, state your reasons! :smile:
Less formally? You mean more loaded? :wink:

I don't know. But I presume that you believe pure reason and experiment do not yield evidence that, say, the Holy Trinity exists. So for the sake of argument, I'll assume that.

We also know that there is Biblical evidence that the Holy Trinity exists. (Whether or not you believe Biblical evidence is valid, surely you agree that it exists?)

So, it seems like we should conclude that religous sources do, in fact, provide evidence that cannot be attained through reason and experiment alone.

This seems a curious point to raise, though -- I suspect that the question you asked was not the question you meant to ask.


I'm curious as to what field of knowledge you are imagining where reason and experiment (where possible) are not relevant? (Please don't say theology! :rolleyes: )
Huh?

I was imagining, for example, someone who adpots reason, experiment, and the Vedas as sources of truth.

I suppose that people who accept the Vedas as truth, but reject reason and experiment, would fall under the category of people who don't accept that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence.

If it makes you happy, we can limit this line of thought to people who accept reason and experiment and at least one other source of evidence as valid. (We can even limit the other sources to religous sources, if you like)

[PIT2]

sorry, goof up, please read edited post, thanksIm afraid im not getting ur point.

Mine was that in the proces of denying god, some atheists use arguments that would equally deny the existence of our own consciousness.

[Another God]

in the proces of denying god, some atheists use arguments that would equally deny the existence of our own consciousness.
I don't mind that. Ever heard of Eliminative materialism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
That is pretty much what you are describing, and it is one of the few 'popular' philosophies of mind.


Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?
I would contend that the mind (consciousness et al) is an illusion created by the very real world phenomenon of our brains. In fact I have long drawn a strong correlation between our mind and God, where the evolutionary justification for our supposing others have minds is so beneficial (it allows us to empathise, relate, predict and so on with other people and animals) for our societal selves, that the process of imposing mind on objects is a constant side affect. Thus we start to suppose the rain has a mind "Please rain god, rain for us", "Please god of the wind, blow for us", "Please god of thunder, don't be angry", "Please god of pestilence, don't kill my baby" etc etc etc.

Gods come about because of this supposition that other intentional beings have minds, and thus we misplace the 'mind' phenomenon onto greater phenomenon.

This doesn't mean mind actually exists, Brains exist, and brains can quite accurately be manipulated to have the effects of "mind" doing just about anything.


Asking for something 'that cannot be part of physics' equals asking for proof that that god doesnt exist. But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.
rubbish. I probably should explain why...but I can't be bothered. Maybe try again later and I will.


A stable, predictable continuity says zero about whether some god is involved. Human minds can create objects that behave according to stable and continuous patterns also (such as a computer chip), but a computer chip is no argument that humans dont exist. Also, our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.
Humans aren't God. Humans are bounded by the limitations of our brain which is completely subject to the experiences of its past and the predictable chemical reactions driving it.

God must surely be completely creative, and thus able to do anything. Well so some religious folk believe.


See how easy it is to slice through some atheistic arguments when one lets them loose on our human minds (as opposed to god)? Actually... im not aware of any good atheistic arguments at all.
You don't need to be. I know of plenty, but you are right, they are irrelevent. It is up to the religious ot have good arguments. Atheism is the default position, and you should be convinced otherwise away from atheism, not the other way around.

[SF]

So, it seems like we should conclude that religous sources do, in fact, provide evidence that cannot be attained through reason and experiment alone.Why would that "evidence" be anything more than an unfounded claim?:)

But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.They don't "defy" physical explanations, they just haven't been explained as easy as 1, 2, 3 (we don't even know if that's possible). Anyway, the "appeal to ignorance" is not an argument.

Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?Counsciousness interacts 100% with brain functions (a real world phenomena).
See: loss of counsciousness, black-out :)
that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.Nope, it does not demonstrate that.
What you stated there is just a supposition as good as any other supposition without evidence to back it up. Not very good at all :)

What's the difference between your entity and Russel's teapot? About 50 years :) That's it.

[Hurkyl]

Why would that "evidence" be anything more than an unfounded claim?:)
Why would that evidence be an unfounded claim?

[Gokul43201]

I was imagining, for example, someone who adpots reason, experiment, and the Vedas as sources of truth.And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?

[Hurkyl]

And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?
Why would it be any different than when a strict rationalist-empiricst arives at a contradiction?

[PIT2]

They don't "defy" physical explanations, they just haven't been explained as easy as 1, 2, 3 (we don't even know if that's possible). Anyway, the "appeal to ignorance" is not an argument.In other words, u have faith that one day there will be a physical explanation. How is this faith different from the one that one day god will be proven to exist? While im not appealing to ignorance (i was merely stating the fact that there is no physical explanation), u do seem to be appealing to faith.

Counsciousness interacts 100% with brain functions (a real world phenomena).
See: loss of counsciousness, black-out :)I agree completely, but u cannot show to anyone that u are conscious. Do u see the parallels between all conscious entities, and the demands for 'evidence' that they exist?
Nope, it does not demonstrate that.
What you stated there is just a supposition as good as any other supposition without evidence to back it up. Not very good at all :)Yes it is a supposition, but it is a logical one backed up by accepted evidence.

[Gokul43201]

Why would it be any different than when a strict rationalist-empiricst arives at a contradiction?The rationalist-empiricist who arrives at a contradiction must accept that at least one of the two contradicting claims is incorrect. S/he then goes on to figure out which it is, and having done that (metaphorically, of course, for I'm refering to the body of people, rather than the individual), abandons it.

What does the rationalist-empiricist-vedist do?

Thousands of internal contradictions have been resolved by the body of rationalist-empiricists. Have, or even can the r-e-vs resolve contradictions through some kind of process other that having to convert to pure r-es or pure vs?

[SF]

In other words, u have faith that one day there will be a physical explanation.Nope, you aren't even reading what I said, so attacking the straw-man will do you no good :)

There is no _complete_ explanation of counsciousness yet but we know a great deal about it.
There is no _complete_ (or easy) explanation because of the complexity involved (how the brain works, lol) but it's a falsifiable scientific field nonetheless. You can either prove or disprove things and we have an idea of how to do that, we just don't have the tools yet.

We know it's created in certain areas of the brain and this can be tested. (anesthetics have been known to affect counsciousness for several decades now, alcohol for even longer longer :))

And please! If you want to go on this ground: define counsciousness.
Vagueness is a characteristic of pseudoscience, so I'd expect you to move beyond that.

How is this faith different from the one that one day god will be proven to exist?How is a rhetorical question an argument?:)
For once: we can observe counsciousness (more details later in this post) and we know it exists, but to this day no one has observed god(s) much clearer than they observed fairies :)

While im not appealing to ignorance (i was merely stating the fact that there is no physical explanation), u do seem to be appealing to faith.Nope, "faith" by definition sais you are always right and there need not be any evidence.
My trust in science is in fact the opposite: i aquire evidence in order to prove myself wrong.
When I'm not wrong, the theory continues to live on to face another experiment.

I agree completely, but u cannot show to anyone that u are conscious.Perhaps you can't, but I can :)
Again, define counsciousness.
To me, if you are a human and you can make voluntary decisions (move, talk, listen, act), you are a counscious human - the only experience I can relate to.
We have no idea if other creatures or devices have "counsciousness". It might very well exist in animals but surely in different forms.
We aquired this feat by evolution so it's obvious to accept that it evolved too.

Do cats and apes have counsciousness? We don't know, we're not cats or apes. What should counsciousness look like in a cat or an ape or an iPod?
Yes, please tell me that so I'll know what I'll be looking for.
What is counsciousness to you? I predict a pseudoscientific redefinition of terms :)
And don't restrict the definition to our form of counsciousness which is "human counsciousness".

Yes it is a supposition, but it is a logical one backed up by accepted evidence.Just because PID2 states it on PF doesn't make it true :)
Now quit the weasel wording and tell me:
- why is it logical? What are the logical arguments behind it?
- what is that evidence you reffer to?

And hey, while you're at it: prove the "counscious creator entity" is more real than the "giant spagetti monster" or the "invisible pink unicorn".
You can even try to define your "counscious creator entity" and tell me: why should it be as counscious as humans are? We created the term and assume all other forms of "counsciousness" should be defined in relation to ours. I find that a bit biased.
Perhaps there is indeed a "counscious creator", but it's as counscious as a mouse. What do you think about that?

It should be easy for you to clear this out with all that evidence and logic you're hiding there :) Heheh.

[Another God]

Perhaps you can't, but I can :)
Again, define counsciousness.
To me, if you can make voluntary acts (move, talk, listen, act), you are counsciouss.
What is it to you? I predict a pseudoscientific redefinition of terms :)

Actually, it is technically far more difficult than that. That describes 'Behaviourism' which, I, and most other philosophers of mind would all agree is a terrible theory of mind. To say that something behaves as if it has a mind is acurate, and a good enough reason (in our day to day lives) to assume said thing has a mind, but their actions are not their mind.

This is easily understandable through introspection. I have consciousness and as such I know what green is like, and what f sharp sounds like, and what hot feels like etc. But that experience colour is not equal to my reaction to experienceing that colour. Hearing f sharp is independent to reacting to hearing f sharp. etc

Consciousness is defined differently by just about every philosopher of mind, so don't be too hard on the definition of it, but in general everyone agrees that reference to consciousness is a reference to the perceived experiences which don't seem to be 'physical' in themselves.

And just as this problem has so plagued philosophy (and hence science) for the last several thousand years, PID2 has targetted it as a problem, much like all "God of the Gaps" philosopher/theologians do.

God forbid humans admit to not understanding something!

[SF]

There is no indication to consider consciousness as more than a result of brain activity through the organism's interaction with the world. Thus, it's prone to scientific theories and research.

Descartes started from "I think therefore I am" and ended up proving god exists. Feynman showed him wrong.
Mind philosophers are not known for scientific research, but they are known for psychobabble :)

Consciousness is defined differently by just about every philosopher of mind, so don't be too hard on the definition of it, but in general everyone agrees that reference to consciousness is a reference to the perceived experiences which don't seem to be 'physical' in themselves.Well, I know for once that christendom has had fights over their definitions for 2000 years. This doesn't mean that just because something has had strong controverses over it, then it's automatically hard to explain.

I have consciousness and as such I know what green is like, and what f sharp sounds like, and what hot feels like etc. But that experience colour is not equal to my reaction to experienceing that colour. Hearing f sharp is independent to reacting to hearing f sharp. etcSensations are the brain's language of the senses.
Give the brain lots of stimuli (psychedelics such as DMT, etc) and it will begin to "speak in tongues" :)

We might never find a way of "decoding" the brain due to it's sheer complexity.
I'll make an analogy but I don't know if it holds (it's not an argument, just an example). Just look at computers: a Hard-Drive is full of random electric potentials that mean nothing when you look at them, but plug it in and together with the other devices you get yourself the OS, music, communication, everything.
Similarry, we might not be able to "play" the brain unless it's "plugged in".

This does not make consciousness more special than any other piece of software.

[PIT2]

There is no _complete_ explanation of counsciousness yet but we know a great deal about it.
There is no _complete_ (or easy) explanation because of the complexity involved (how the brain works, lol) In other words, there is no explanation. U are clearly appealing to faith: "we dont know yet, but we will!".
You can either prove or disprove things and we have an idea of how to do that, we just don't have the tools yet.In other words, it cant be measured. Again u appeal to faith: "in the future, we will have the tools!".

We know it's created in certain areas of the brain and this can be tested. (anesthetics have been known to affect counsciousness for several decades now, alcohol for even longer longer :))False. We do not know how it arises, and the idea that it happens in the brain is an unproven assumption. Of course we know anesthetics and alcohol affect consciousness, but this only demonstrates interaction. I dont see how interaction between consciousness and the material world is an argument that god doesnt exist?

And please! If you want to go on this ground: define counsciousness.
Vagueness is a characteristic of pseudoscience, so I'd expect you to move beyond that.Im talking about phenomenal consciousness here: to experience something (seeing red, feeling joy, tasting bread, etc. ).

For once: we can observe counsciousness (more details later in this post) and we know it exists, but to this day no one has observed god(s) much clearer than they observed fairies :)Every conscious being experiences that it is conscious yes. And actually, there are many people that do claim to have experienced 'god'. They can do so repeatedly, on demand, and others who have tried their methods report the same.

Just because PID2 states it on PF doesn't make it true :)
Now quit the weasel wording and tell me:
- why is it logical? What are the logical arguments behind it?
- what is that evidence you reffer to?I mentioned the logic and evidence in the same sentence as where i claimed it was logical:our brains are shaped by experience (aka consciousness) (source here (http://www.physorg.com/news74251628.html)). Just like one can infer a big bang from observing the expansion of the universe, one can also infer a conscious influence in the ogirin of the universe, from known conscious influences in the evolution of it.

And hey, while you're at it: prove the "counscious creator entity" is more real than the "giant spagetti monster" or the "invisible pink unicorn".I dont know who invented the spaghetti monster, or who came up with the idea that it is somehow impossible, implausible or illogical that consciousness can create, but i sure am suprised that so many people buy into it, because guess what... humans are conscious creators aswell!

Have u ever considered how ridiculous our own existence is when one holds such views? Just imagine a bunch of aliens having a conversation on zeta reticuli:

"Are u mad??!! U dont seriously believe that there exist pink-skinned two legged beasts that fly through the sky in metallic cones while watching fairy movies on spinning discs with laserbeams? Thats ridiculous!"

Thats the same reasoning as the spaghetti monster, and it turns human beings into paranormal creatures, instead of giving them a place in nature.

[SF]

In other words, there is no explanation. U are clearly appealing to faith: "we dont know yet, but we will!".In your words, not "other words". :)

And please define faith, or tell me to which definition of faith you subscribed to.. or else I can accuse you of equivocation and using vague terms.

Here's my definition:
Religious "faith" by definition requires no evidence (and has no evidence to begin with).
My belief in science (which you erroneously call "faith") is based on evidence.

In other words, it cant be measured. Again u appeal to faith: "in the future, we will have the tools!".Perhaps you don't know, but science doesn't claim it has the answer for everything.
Right now, "consciousness" is one of those things science doesn't say many things about (but it sais enough, as opposed to suppernatural gods).

Are you trying to imply that just because science doesn't have the answer to everything, god(s) MUST exist? LOL :)

False. We do not know how it arises, and the idea that it happens in the brain is an unproven assumption.Ipse dixit, buddy, sorry.
Just because YOU don't know much about it, it doesn't mean other people are clueless too.

Researchers have studied people whose brains were injured in accidents.
- There are people who no longer recognise faces (a part of consciousness) and we know what area of the brain is responsable with that.
- There are people who can't coordinate their left and right side of the brain (a part of consciousness) and such we know what area of the brain is responsable for that.
- And many, many others.

All the evidence points that mind processes are intimately related to brain functions and unless you've got a better alternative this one stais for good.
Where can the mind rezide in, the "soul"? LOL.

Im talking about phenomenal consciousness here: to experience something (seeing red, feeling joy, tasting bread, etc. ).Feelings of joy and such can be stimulated by low doses of certain substances (they naturally occur because of hormones).

Psychedelics that act strongly on the audio and visual parts of the brain will generate strong visual and auditory hallucinations.
No magic, just chemistry.

If the body is flooded with the stress hormone cortisol, you will feel sad, etc.

Again, we got tonnes of evidence pointing to the fact that mind processes and brain functions are closely related, but just because we haven't figured out HOW certain substances produce certain sensations, you are ready to believe God exists?

Of course we know anesthetics and alcohol affect consciousness, but this only demonstrates interaction. I dont see how interaction between consciousness and the material world is an argument that god doesnt exist?Nop, I'm not trying to prove god(s) does not/don't exist. I can't do that. I can't disprove fairies either, so I'm not even going to try.
Instead, i'm going to let god(s) and fairies disprove themselves through sheer lack of evidence :)

Aww, and you think cunsciousness is not part of the "material world"? Hehe, since all matter is also energy please tell me what other "world" is there.
The "spiritual world"? Cute. But wrong :) Where is it?

Every conscious being experiences that it is conscious yes. And actually, there are many people that do claim to have experienced 'god'. They can do so repeatedly, on demand, and others who have tried their methods report the same.OOh, i can spot the scientific authority from faar away this time.
The "crowds", lol.

Which god(s)? Define it! Many people have claimed they experienced allah, yahweh and jesus... and just these three are contradictory. They can't all be true! Either allah is valid or jesus/yahweh is valid.

Further more, people have experienced the curse of the black cat, the luck of the four leaf clover, friday 13, ogres, goblins, leprechauns and the loch ness monster.
I'd say science disproved them pretty good :) Nope, evidence (and not claims) is the only valuable authority and no evidence to date has brought proof of the beings listed above.

Just like one can infer a big bang from observing the expansion of the universe, one can also infer a conscious influence in the ogirin of the universe, from known conscious influences in the evolution of it.Nope, bad analogy - sorry. It doesn't work that way.

"Are u mad??!! U dont seriously believe that there exist pink-skinned two legged beasts that fly through the sky in metallic cones while watching fairy movies on spinning discs with laserbeams? Thats ridiculous!"

Thats the same reasoning as the spaghetti monster, and it turns human beings into paranormal creatures, instead of giving them a place in nature.I'm glad you agree the talk about bogus beings is ridiculous... because you've just described religion :)

[SF]

A nice discussion about "consciousness": http://www.godless.org/science/machine-of-the-soul.htm

[PIT2]

And please define faith, or tell me to which definition of faith you subscribed to.. or else I can accuse you of equivocation and using vague terms.Not knowing something for certain, but believing it to be true. Thats what i call faith. I dont think there is anything special about religious faith that sets it appart from any other type of faith.

Right now, "consciousness" is one of those things science doesn't say many things about (but it sais enough, as opposed to suppernatural gods).

Are you trying to imply that just because science doesn't have the answer to everything, god(s) MUST exist? LOL :)Quote me where i said that :smile:
U were appealing to ur faith in science, and i simply pointed out that u were doing it. Note also that the only claims about god i have made, is that the idea is logical, and that there are people who claim to experience 'it'.

U state that god is supernatural, but this is not something u can decide. U cant define what is supernatural without first finding out what constitutes 'nature'. God (to me) represents a number of ideas about reality, such as "the universe was created by an intelligence" and "life was created by an intelligence".

Feelings of joy and such can be stimulated by low doses of certain substances (they naturally occur because of hormones).Eyes can be stimulated with light. So what? Does it mean the sun doesnt exist?

just because we haven't figured out HOW certain substances produce certain sensations, you are ready to believe God exists?How can u use an argument of ignorance ("we dont know"), as an argument against god? It doesnt make sense.

Aww, and you think cunsciousness is not part of the "material world"? Hehe, since all matter is also energy please tell me what other "world" is there.How much mass does the number 9 have? What is the size of joy? Matter and experiences are so different from eachother that even a comparison becomes meaningless. I realise that u believe that experiences are material, but there is no secret experiment that has been carried out by some genius-ahead-of-his-time-scientist which has demonstrated this to be the case. Dont jump to conclusions, just accept that we do not know.

Which god(s)? Define it! Many people have claimed they experienced allah, yahweh and jesus... and just these three are contradictory. They can't all be true! Either allah is valid or jesus/yahweh is valid.Go to the search section on this forum, and read through some topics opened by les sleeth. He (and i think someone else on this forum) seem to have experienced 'god' (they dont usually call it god) through meditation. Many other people throughout history and all over the world have had similar experiences.

Some people instantaneously reject their claims, because they cannot be demonstrated through usual experiment. But this is an invalid argument, because no experience can be (u cannot prove that u love ur mother, that ur happy, etc.).

[SF]

Not knowing something for certain, but believing it to be true. Thats what i call faith. I dont think there is anything special about religious faith that sets it appart from any other type of faith.Almost.
Religious faith is the same as the "faith" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Religious faith is not the same as my knowledge that the earth is round even if I haven't actually been into space to see it with my own eyes.

U state that god is supernatural, but u cannot define what is supernatural without first finding out what constitutes 'nature'. God (to me) represents a number of ideas about reality, such as "the universe was created by an intelligence" and "life was created by an intelligence".The only intelligence we know has evolved - from lower forms (bacterias) to us (humans).

Do you have any proof that an intelligent being(s) exist(s) ? You stated it, you have to prove it.
We don't need to disprove anything. It's only after you bring some evidence that we can debate on them.

There is a possibility open for everything, but when the probability is so small (we're talking ~0.(..0..)1..% here) then it's not worth taking into consideration over the rest 99.(..9..) %
I'm all open for evidence though. Evidence can be both direct (apples fall) and indirect (planet Mars has a solid core).
Without evidence, i could say something is as if it didn't exist.
My position is: why try to disprove something that doesn't exist?:)

How can u use an argument of ignorance ("we dont know"), as an argument against god? It doesnt make sense.I'm not trying to disprove god(s) as I have already stated.
I'll let god(s) disprove him/themselves by lack of evidence :)

Eyes can be stimulated with light. So what? Does it mean the sun doesnt exist?Nope, what I was trying to prove is that we have found brain areas that correspond to certain mind processes.

Your theory sais that there is something extra "out there" (soul?), so now you have to make two things
1) Show it exists.
2) Explain the findindgs of the scientists about the relation between sensations and brain areas.

How much mass does the number 9 have? What is the size of joy?Rhetorical questions are not arguments.
Does number 9 have to have a mass? Why is that? You must show me before you ask me what you just did.
The same about the size of joy.

Here's a question for you: what is the weight of your mouse cursor? :)

Matter and experiences are so different that even a comparison becomes meaningless. I realise that u believe that experiences are material, but there is no secret experiment that has been carried out by some genius-ahead-of-his-time-scientist which has demonstrated this to be the case. Dont jump to conclusions, just accept that we do not know.The theory that experiences are natural is a scientific theory that can be falsified.
You can falsify it by showing another possible cause. Not just showing it as in telling me on the forum about it. I mean bring forth evidence supporting the claim.

Meanwhile, neurology and psychiatry have made strong connections between experiences and brain functions, connections that must be explained by your theory.
- where is this "soul" located?
- what is it made of?
- how does it interact with the "material world"?

You can't just say that my "faith" that counsciousness is a result of natural processes is the same thing as your faith that we have a soul.
Why?
- there is no evidence for souls
- there is tons of hard evidence linking consciousness and the brain and absolutely no evidence that sais otherwise.
- in fact, Bayesian statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem) have pretty much narrowed the probability of the supernatural's existance to a minimum.

The problem is not of posibility (yes, we can't disprove spagetti monsters, god(s) or souls) but of probability (yes, they are indeed highly unlikely).

Go to the search section on this forum, and read through some topics opened by les sleeth. He (and i think someone else on this forum) seem to have experienced 'god' (they dont usually call it god) through meditation. Many other people throughout history and all over the world have had similar experiences.I don't doubt they think they did.

Let's say I get high on crack, and experience the fact that god doesn't exist (because we know that "spiritual" phases just enhance what's on the person's mind).
What does that say? :)

I don't doubt les sleeth thinks he's experienced god(s), but as far as I know: the appeal to the ipse dixit of a false/anonymous authority is illogical.

Further more, many of those experiences are contradictory (as in the case of allah and god). They can't all be true, now can they?

But this is an invalid argument, because no experience can be (u cannot prove that u love ur mother, that ur happy, etc.).Wrong analogy.
You can prove you love your mother by measuring your levels of cortisol (stress hormones) if she dies. (We could turn this into a little experiment, but I doubt your mother would agree :)).
You can prove you're happy by measuring the levels of dopamine and other "happiness" hormones in your head.
That was just to show you how science stands on those issues.

Now, returning to your "argument": Just because certain things are true without being proven does not mean all things that can't be proven are true :)).

[Another God]

In other words, there is no explanation. U are clearly appealing to faith: "we dont know yet, but we will!".
In other words, it cant be measured. Again u appeal to faith: "in the future, we will have the tools!".
I can't finish reading your post when you start by saying such nonsense.

You don't understand what faith is do you? Or more importantly, what the problem with it is....

Not knowing the answer, but hoping, or even expecting an answer is not faith.

<<Personal insult deleted by mentor. Please read the Physics Forums Global Guidelines (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374).>>

[Hurkyl]

I'll let god(s) disprove him/themselves by lack of evidence :)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

- in fact, Bayesian statistics have pretty much narrowed the probability of the supernatural's existance to a minimum.
I didn't realize theology was a subfield of mathematics!

[PIT2]

You don't understand what faith is do you? Or more importantly, what the problem with it is....

Not knowing the answer, but hoping, or even expecting an answer is not faith.
I mentioned my definition of faith in my previous post. I dont think religious faith has anything special that sets in apart from any other type of faith. There is no god required for someone to have faith in something. Of course i am familiar with the problems of religious faith, and im not argueing for the acceptance of certain behaviour associated with it, but sadly i see shimmers of the exact same behaviour on the other side of the fence.

U deny that he appeals to faith, only to replace it with 'hope' and 'expectations'. Someone can hope and expect jesus to return, and appeal to this as much as he wants, but that doesnt make it true.

[PIT2]

Religious faith is the same as the "faith" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
Religious faith is not the same as my knowledge that the earth is round even if I haven't actually been into space to see it with my own eyes.Tell me the difference. Is 'faith' in the invisible pink unicorn actually created by a real invisible pink unicorn?

Do you have any proof that an intelligent being(s) exist(s) ? You stated it, you have to prove it.Look in the mirror.

Your theory sais that there is something extra "out there" (soul?), so now you have to make two things
1) Show it exists.
2) Explain the findindgs of the scientists about the relation between sensations and brain areas.The something 'extra' (as u call it), is called consciousness. And like i said before, of course there is interaction between consc. and brain. So what? Light can interact with a prism (http://www.cglapocatiere.qc.ca/techno/banque%20de%20photos/prism.jpg) also, but that doesnt make the prism the creator of light. Also, music comes from a radio, but that doesnt mean there is an orchestra inside ur radio. There are plenty of examples in nature that provide analogies for other options.

Does number 9 have to have a mass? Why is that? You must show me before you ask me what you just did.
The same about the size of joy.Actually, u were making the claim that consciousness is material. Please demonstrate this.

The theory that experiences are natural is a scientific theory that can be falsified.
You can falsify it by showing another possible cause. Not just showing it as in telling me on the forum about it. I mean bring forth evidence supporting the claim.This entire sentence is really meaningless unless u can define what u mean by 'natural'.

Further more, many of those experiences are contradictory (as in the case of allah and god). They can't all be true, now can they?Neither can all scientific theories be true, does that mean that are all false?

You can prove you love your mother by measuring your levels of cortisol (stress hormones) if she dies.This is simply false, experiences cannot be measured. U can measure a whole bucket of cortisol, but that doesnt mean the bucket loves u :wink:

[SF]

Tell me the difference. Is 'faith' in the invisible pink unicorn actually created by a real invisible pink unicorn?No, YOU tell me the difference.
Is faith in god(s) created by real god(s)?:)
It's your belief, you must prove it somehow in order for me to take it into consideration.

Look in the mirror.Stop the wordplay, you know what I ment.

The something 'extra' (as u call it), is called consciousness. And like i said before, of course there is interaction between consc. and brain. So what? Light can interact with a prism also, but that doesnt make the prism the creator of light. Also, music comes from a radio, but that doesnt mean there is an orchestra inside ur radio. There are plenty of examples in nature that provide analogies for other options.Nope, I'm afraid analogies simply don't mean anything.
We know where light comes from, we know where radio signals come from

Actually, u were making the claim that consciousness is material. Please demonstrate this.We have no indication that it comes from anywhere else, so we won't consider it does!
Appeal to ignorance is illogical.

We can't prove that muscle strength DOESN'T come from some "immaterial soul" we can't disprove, but we won't consider it does with no indication towards that point.

This entire sentence is really meaningless unless u can define what u mean by 'natural'.Natural as in naturalism/materialism/scientism.

Neither can all scientific theories be true, does that mean that are all false?Scientific theories don't claim they are absolute truth. Religions do.
Scientific theories are tested all the time. Religions aren't.
Scientific theories embrace contradictory evidence and correct themselves. Religions don't.
When scientists disagree, they confront evidence and arguments untill they agree which one describes reality. When religions confront, they would rather annihilate eachother over the existance of nonfalsifiable (or downright false) god(s) than admit they are wrong.

This is simply false, experiences cannot be measured. U can measure a whole bucket of cortisol, but that doesnt mean the bucket loves u Nope, because bucket + cortisol = nothing, however, human being + cortisol = stressed out human being.

Btw, cortisol is the stress hormone, not the love hormone :)

[PIT2]

No, YOU tell me the difference.I dont think there is a difference, u do... remember?

Stop the wordplay, you know what I ment.U asked for evidence of intelligent beings, i have shown u the evidence. My entire point all along was that many atheistic arguments against god would also argue against humans.

Nope, I'm afraid analogies simply don't mean anything.
We know where light comes from, we know where radio signals come fromAnd we dont know where consciousness comes from. Analogies are very useful in science aswell as outside of it, btw.

We have no indication that it comes from anywhere else, so we won't consider it does!Just for ur information, the brain is not 'something else' than the rest of the universe. It consists of the same ordinary matter and forces as the rest of the universe does. Now please demonstrate what makes the brain 'special' and how this 'specialness' creates consciousness, whereas the rest of the universe doesnt.

Scientific theories don't claim they are absolute truth. Religions do.
Scientific theories are tested all the time. Religions aren't.
Scientific theories embrace contradictory evidence and correct themselves. Religions don't.
When scientists disagree, they confront evidence and arguments untill they agree which one describes reality. When religions confront, they would rather annihilate eachother over the existance of nonfalsifiable (or downright false) god(s) than admit they are wrong.So what? Im not defending religions, im simply exposing atheistic reasoning to be similar to them :smile:

U have tried to use some strong claims about mind and reality as atheistic arguments, and i have subsequently shown these claims to be based on faith.

[Doc Al]

I mentioned my definition of faith in my previous post. I dont think religious faith has anything special that sets in apart from any other type of faith.
All you've done is twist and dilute the meaning of "faith" so that statements such as:
(1) I am confident that the chair I'm sitting on probably won't collapse any time soon.
(2) I believe that Elvis is outside my window riding a flying pink elephant.
are equal examples of "faith". I reject such a dilution of meaning. If you insist upon such wordplay, all you've done is shift the burden to a different point. (I suppose by your definition, even atheism is a "religion".)

But religious faith is clearly belief in things that go against reason and knowledge, or at least lack rational justification. As Voltaire put it, "Faith consists in believing what reason does not believe". Tertullian stated clearly (speaking of Christian faith) that religious dogma was to be believed because it was absurd.
There is no god required for someone to have faith in something.
Well, that's certainly true! :rofl:

[PIT2]

All you've done is twist and dilute the meaning of "faith" so that statements such as:Of course i have diluted the meaning, since it is being used here (aswell as in popular language) as if it is a completely novel property of the human mind that only arises when religion is involved. I dont believe in fairytales, whether religious people claim their faith is different from other faiths, or whether atheists claim the same of them.

Do religious people like christians not believe in their religion, because they read the stories in the bible (which mention observations by persons in the past) or are told them by their parents? Is this not (to some extend and however weak) a rational basis for their belief?

Btw i view faith as a continuum, going from that which is minimally backed up by logic and evidence, to that which is maximally backed up by logic and evidence.

[SF]

All you've done is twist and dilute the meaning of "faith" so that statements such as:
(1) I am confident that the chair I'm sitting on probably won't collapse any time soon.
(2) I believe that Elvis is outside my window riding a flying pink elephant.
are equal examples of "faith". I reject such a dilution of meaning. If you insist upon such wordplay, all you've done is shift the burden to a different point. (I suppose by your definition, even atheism is a "religion".)Hell yeah! \m/ >_< \m/.
That should put an end to all the linguistic nonsense.

U asked for evidence of intelligent beings, i have shown u the evidence. My entire point all along was that many atheistic arguments against god would also argue against humans.Yeah, except we can observe humans, but no god(s) have been observed to date :)

And we dont know where consciousness comes from.It has been showed in the previous posts that counsciousness is inseparable from the brain.

We haven't observed consciousness outside the human brain, so we're not going to keep "all options open". When we'll study consciousness we'll consider it comes from the brain.

A rock may be conscious (whatever a "conscious rock" may mean) but we're not going to treat the rock as conscious unless evidence is brought forth of that fact.

Analogies are very useful in science aswell as outside of it, btw.Yeah, when a scientist is using illogic instead of logic :)
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

Analogies are based on vague similarities between objects. Analogies are fake examples.

Just for ur information, the brain is not 'something else' than the rest of the universe. It consists of the same ordinary matter and forces as the rest of the universe does. Now please demonstrate what makes the brain 'special' and how this 'specialness' creates consciousness, whereas the rest of the universe doesnt.You got my point.
The brain is just what we see, a bunch of neurons in a certain pattern. A result of these neurons is consciousness. That's all I'm saying, I'm not trying to prove it's special. It's special to us, yes, but not to the rest of the universe.

So what? Im not defending religions, im simply exposing atheistic reasoning to be similar to them Nope, you're weasel wording.
Let's see how this discussion went.
- You asked me if I believe consciousness comes from the brain.
- I, a rational being automatically said "yes" since no other possible traditional sources of consciousness (like souls or whatever) are backed up by evidence.
- You now made it look like my belief that consciousness occurs in the bunch of atoms we call the brain is the same as the faith in god(s) by using vague definitions of "consciousness". Sometimes you ment sensations, sometimes you ment something else.
- If you would have asked "how do you know tomorrow apples won't fall up?" no one would have taken you seriously, and we might even have laughed, but instead you insisted on playing with the vague notion of "consciousness".
- You are trying to say that just because we don't know EVERYTHING about something, making suppositions about it is wrong. But what suppositions did we do?
That sensations occur in the brain? Sensations have been linked to brain chemestry and there is NO REASON to think otherwise.
That thoughts occur in the brain? When different areas of the brain are affected by trauma, some thoughts can't be processed (like recognising faces).

The huge piles of evidence give me a high chance that I am right.
Let's say 99.9% due to the fact that there is NO evidence for alternatives and such they do not deserve more than 0.1%.
What about god(s)? What is the chanse for the existance of god(s)? Since no god(s) have been proven by evidence yet, we'll still give them 0.1% (and I'm being kind because they would deserve much less).

What does all this add up to?
99.9% vs 0.1%.
Well excuse me for trusting statistics :).. because faith in distrusting statistics is just that. Illogical irrational blind faith.

[PIT2]

Yeah, except we can observe humans, but no god(s) have been observed to date :)This is false. Read my earlier post towards u in this topic.

It has been showed in the previous posts that counsciousness is inseparable from the brain.If u can demonstrate that consciousness is inseperable from the brain, then u deserve a nobelprize. Go ahead :wink:

We haven't observed consciousness outside the human brain'We' havent observed it in the brain either.

The brain is just what we see, a bunch of neurons in a certain pattern. A result of these neurons is consciousness. That's all I'm saying.U might aswell say that god exists. Im sorry, but ur arguments are just not credible, and many of ur statements are simply false. U misportray the achievements of science in a gross manner and this type of misrepresentation (which i can assure u is not unique to ur being) is damaging to science as a whole.

[arildno]

Cling to your silly Bronze Age myths if you want to, PIT2.
Just don't expect others to respect your intellect for doing that.

[PIT2]

Cling to your silly Bronze Age myths if you want to, PIT2.Such as...

[arildno]

Well, I don't know which particular Bronze age myth you happen to be clinging to, nor is it very relevant.

What IS relevant, is that you engage in pointless word-play so as to "save" a place for such beliefs as a rational strategy..
Therefore, it is more probable that you yourself cling to some such myth than that you don't cling to any such one.

[PIT2]

Well, I don't know which particular Bronze age myth you happen to be clinging to, nor is it very relevant.

What IS relevant, is that you engage in pointless word-play so as to "save" a place for such beliefs as a rational strategy..
Therefore, it is more probable that you yourself cling to some such myth than that you don't cling to any such one.Im sorry, but all i have claimed so far, is that god is not an illogical or irrational concept, and that people claim to have experienced god directly.

I dont think these two statements are myths. If u disagree, tell me what is illogical about the concept of god (the second statement is a simple fact), which i have described as:

God (to me) represents a number of ideas about reality, such as "the universe was created by an intelligence" and "life was created by an intelligence".

Also, if u disagree with any other point ive made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. Im not wordplaying. I have been trying to get across the parallels between human mind and the concept god, and the fact that atheistic arguments are rendered invalid when let loose on the former. It exposes the double standards and flaws in atheistic reasoning.

[Hurkyl]

Cling to your silly Bronze Age myths if you want to, PIT2.
Just don't expect others to respect your intellect for doing that.
Because information age myths are preferable?

[arildno]

Nobody has said that the God concept is il-LOGICAL, however, all the evidence in the world shows that it is ir-RATIONAL.

Within topics like maths&logic the irrational attitude is equivalent to the illogical attitude.

But then again, statements within maths or logic are NOT "statements about the world".
Which happens to make all the difference.

A crucial component in any RATIONAL attitude towards the world is that your statements ABOUT the world is backed up with OBJECTIVE evidence.
Mere intrapersonal evidence don't count, in any situation.

[PIT2]

Nobody has said that the God concept is il-LOGICAL, however, all the evidence in the world shows that it is ir-RATIONAL.Good, i disagree with u on this point. How is it irrational? For people who directly experience god, is it irrational? For people who see that intelligence only comes forth from other intelligence, is it irrational to bring this observation right back to the origin of the universe? For people who see that consciousness can shape the brain, and that the brain appears to be composed of the same matter and forces as the rest of the universe, is it irrational to then also bring this observation to the rest of the universe? For people who observe intelligence as the sole thing in the entire universe that is capable of producing complex and highly functioning systems (ive borrowed these terms from another topic on here, so it may sound familiar), that it is THE most creative force ever observed, is it irrational to bring this observation right back to the origin of life?

Tell me, what is irrational about the two ideas ive described? The mere fact that something is not falsifiable, does not make something irrational.

A crucial component in any RATIONAL attitude towards the world is that your statements ABOUT the world is backed up with OBJECTIVE evidence.
Mere intrapersonal evidence don't count, in any situation.Oh yes, intrapersonal evidence does indeed count. It is in fact irrational to ignore this kind of evidence because of a method which is demonstrably flawed when it comes to the very subject.

[Interposer]

...For people who directly experience god, is it irrational?
What is your justification for supposing it is actually god these people have directly experienced?

[Interposer]

Also, if u disagree with any other point ive made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. Im not wordplaying.
No need for argument, here is your own admission;
Of course i have diluted the meaning,…
satisfied yet?
…………………………..
You have defined faith as;
Not knowing something for certain, but believing it to be true. Thats what i call faith.
Then added;
Btw i view faith as a continuum, going from that which is minimally backed up by logic and evidence, to that which is maximally backed up by logic and evidence.
But have also stated;
I dont think there is anything special about religious faith that sets it appart from any other type of faith.
And this demonstrates more contradiction and wordplay because all faith clearly is not the same or you would not have described differences using your continuum and yet go on to say there is nothing to set religious faith apart from any other type of faith.

[Interposer]

Because information age myths are preferable?
If you must call it thus then, yes; it is preferable to look forward to scientific advancenments then to look back into an abyss of superstition, ignorace, and fear.

[Interposer]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I didn't realize theology was a subfield of mathematics!

Make up your mind; do you wish to complain when your your profession is first ignored and then again later when it is used ! :smile:

[PIT2]

And this demonstrates more contradiction and wordplay because all faith clearly is not the same or you would not have described differences using your continuum and yet go on to say there is nothing to set religious faith apart from any other type of faith.I dont see any wordplay or contradiction? Notice i spoke of 'the continuum of faith'. Dont u agree that people can have faith in things that are not religious?

[Interposer]

To begin you have yet to address this;
Also, if u disagree with any other point ive made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. Im not wordplaying.
No need for argument, here is your own admission;
Of course i have diluted the meaning,…
If dilution of the meaning of a word cannot be considered wordplay then please spell out what does?
…………………………..
Going on, your continuum is also a demonstration of nonsensical wordplay because a continuum may be defined thus;
Meaning #1: “a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct of distinguishable from adjacent parts”
The above may be found at dictionary.com; http://www.answers.com/continuum%2C

Because no part is distinct from any other part then it may be considered wordplay when you attempt to show distinction by “going from that which is minimally backed up by logic and evidence, to that which is maximally backed up by logic and evidence.”
…………………..
Lastly, please address my post#224

[SF]

This is false. Read my earlier post towards u in this topic.I have succesfully refuted them. Just read my replies to your posts :)
Then again, wait here, i'll do it again at the end of this post.

If u can demonstrate that consciousness is inseperable from the brain, then u deserve a nobelprize. Go ahead :wink: I don't even have to demonstrate it's inseparable for the brain since there is no other alternative to begin with.
Where else would it take place? In the soul? LOL. In order for "human consciousness" to be experienced it has to happen in a human brain or something that works like that brain (and we haven't found such a thing yet).

'We' havent observed it in the brain either. Vagueness.
What do you mean by observing? Looking at it with our own eyes? ..lol. That can never be done so we need to rely on other observations.

It has been shown that by affecting the brain with chemical and mechanical factors we can severely alter different properties of "consciousness".
Further more, all the other things a human is capable of have been linked to physical/chemical origins, there is NO reason to doubt consciousness would behave differently.

Because of this, I can state with enough certainty that consciousness "happens" in the brain.
I have already showed you that the chanse for consciousness to arise anywhere else is extremely little, and if trust in statistics is faith, then be it.
I'll take my 99.9% to your 0.01% :)

And stop trying to "prove" by analogy that the brain just "filters" a stream consciousness coming from "the soul" like light prisms filter light from the sun. Analogies are wrong and souls don't exist. (0.0000000000000000000001% thing).

U might aswell say that god exists. Im sorry, but ur arguments are just not credible, and many of ur statements are simply false. Piggyheadness argument is illogical. Sorry bud.

U misportray the achievements of science in a gross manner and this type of misrepresentation (which i can assure u is not unique to ur being) is damaging to science as a whole.And belief in god(s) and soul(s) is here to rescue science from naturalists. :))

Im sorry, but all i have claimed so far, is that god is not an illogical or irrational concept, and that people claim to have experienced god directly.

I dont think these two statements are myths. If u disagree, tell me what is illogical about the concept of god (the second statement is a simple fact)God's existance is illogical. It's an ipse dixit :) ...unless you can bring forth evidence of the existance of god(s).

Also, if u disagree with any other point ive made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. Im not wordplaying. I have been trying to get across the parallels between human mind and the concept god, and the fact that atheistic arguments are rendered invalid when let loose on the former. It exposes the double standards and flaws in atheistic reasoning.Parallels are analogies and are thus illogical. (As has been shown to you).

Because information age myths are preferable?What myths? Ipse dixit :)

What is your justification for supposing it is actually god these people have directly experienced?He doesn't have any. :)
He desperately clings to anything he can - now it's "what people say".

First believers burned people on the stake.
Then they said god(s) don't require people to do so any more.
Then they said god(s) accepted gays and other religions.
Then they switched the burden of proof and said you can't disprove god(s) (therefore they must exist).
Then they oversimplified god(s) by giving them vague definitions so people couldn't disprove the ancient god(s) like allah and yahweh who were falsified by the same book(s) that created them.
Then they said that me knowing that the next time i let an apple go it will fall requires the same faith as believing in god(s) (and floating Elvises as one guy here added).
The final argument was that "people experienced god".

Well, after they experienced god(s), what did they do?
They told us about it! Ipse dixit - illogical argument.
Not only they can't prove god(s), they disagree on god(s).
One experiences "allah", but "allah" is in direct contradiction to the "jesus" experienced by another.

He claims that the simple fact that god(s) are "experienced" by people makes them true. Not all god(s) can be true at the same time since they are contradictory => it automatically follows that some people are wrong.
If people can be wrong about the god(s) they "experience", than just the fact that one "experiences" god(s) is not evidence that god(s) exist, which was the initial statement.

Too bad :) Ipse dixit on their behalf.

Dont u agree that people can have faith in things that are not religious?Irrational faith can exist about many things, sure, but belief that a scientific theory backed up by evidence will yield valid results is NOT one of things.

[Hurkyl]

What myths? Ipse dixit :)
I wonder -- did you understand my point, or did you only pick up on half of it? :tongue:

[SF]

I wonder -- did you understand my point, or did you only pick up on half of it? :tongue:I got it and it was indeed funny :).. but let's just say that "Information-age myths" love being falsifiable and and adore being tested :)

Oh, and:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.No it isn't. No one claims nonfalsifiable god(s) have 0% chance of existance, just that it's a meaningless pseudotheory that doesn't even have to be disproved.

Any "arguments" brought forth for the existance of god(s) (such as the people "experiencing" them) have been proven false, and thus - by modus tollens we can conclude that the god(s) that were "experienced" don't exist.

Why?
Deists (or whatever) say: if god(s) exist then people experience them.
People don't experience them => god(s) don't exist.

[PIT2]

Meaning #1: “a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct of distinguishable from adjacent parts”
The above may be found at dictionary.com; http://www.answers.com/continuum%2C

Because no part is distinct from any other part then it may be considered wordplay when you attempt to show distinction by... Sorry if i gave u the wrong impression. I dont really care if u think im wordplaying. Have fun with it :wink:

Also, please reread the last 2 pages. Im the one that was saying religious faith has nothing special that sets it apart from any other type of faith (the continuum quote u give above clearly fits well, see the bold part).

[PIT2]

I have succesfully refuted them. Just read my replies to your posts :)So far u have claimed that there is no evidence for consciousness outside the brain, or of a god. Both are of course false. People have been reporting out of body experiences for a long time. People have also been reporting direct experience of god. This is evidence. Of course im aware that u and some other people reject the evidence, because it cannot be demonstrated objectively. However, this is an irrational position to hold. U cannot show objectively that mothers love their children, and more such obvious truths. Yes, in science there is demand for objective evidence. Fine. But dont mistake science for a religion. Science is not scientism, and is demonstrably not the only path to truth.

Also, im aware of the possibility of inducing OBE's, and the various experiments that have been carried out (what did u expect on 'the physicsforums', that u could simply fool the other guy with bogus arguments?), but please let Deepak Chopra show u the skewedness of using such experiments as 'proof' that it is all just the brain:

It may be curious that stimulating some area of the brain can induce out-of-body experiences or the feeling of sinking into a bed, or that Buddhist monks have low activity in their Orientation Association Area (OAA), as cited by Shermer. Unfortunately, these experiments have little bearing on the afterlife. Induced states are quite feeble as science. I can put a tourniquet on a person’s arm, depriving the nerves of blood flow, and thereby eliminate the sensation of touch. This doesn’t prove that quadriplegics with paralyzed limbs aren’t having a real experience. I can induce happiness by giving someone a glass of wine and having a pretty girl flirt with him. That doesn’t prove that happiness without alcohol isn’t real.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

How can u defend an assumption with interpretations of experimental results whose existence depends on it? Thats like trying to make an upside down pyramid more stable by stacking extra blocks on it.

Why?
Deists (or whatever) say: if god(s) exist then people experience them.
People don't experience them => god(s) don't exist.Uve got to work on ur logic skills a bit more :wink:

if I study twenty mothers who smile when shown their baby’s picture, anyone can find twenty others (suffering from post-partum depression, for example) who don’t. But that doesn’t prove that mothers don’t love their babies.

[SF]

People have been reporting out of body experiences for a long time. People have also been reporting direct experience of god. This is evidence. No it isn't. It's an unproven statement just like there is "evidence" for the loch ness monster of fairies.

However, this is an irrational position to hold. U cannot show objectively that mothers love their children, and more such obvious truths. Proof by analogy. Illogical.
It still remains rational to accept that no everything people report is true in spite of your refusal to accept it :)

Science is not scientism, and is demonstrably not the only path to truth.What other paths are there? Random guessing? Religion? LOL.
Science is, quote:

Tell the truth, and try not to fool yourself. It is less a "method" than an ethical position. As Jacob Bronowski put it, "We ought to act in such a way that what is true can be verified to be so." It doesn't guarantee that we will find the truth, but it does at least give us a chance to identify those theories which are more probable than the alternatives, and it is the only method I know of that has any hope of even approaching the approximate truth.

I can put a tourniquet on a person’s arm, depriving the nerves of blood flow, and thereby eliminate the sensation of touch. This doesn’t prove that quadriplegics with paralyzed limbs aren’t having a real experience. I can induce happiness by giving someone a glass of wine and having a pretty girl flirt with him. That doesn’t prove that happiness without alcohol isn’t real.Wrong analogies = the mark of pseudoscience, and Deepak Chopra is a faithful practitioner of that. Junk science.

We know many other ways to obtain happiness, but we only know one place where to find consciousness.
We also know only one place where breathing takes place - the LUNGS, so we're not going to look for it anywhere else!

if I study twenty mothers who smile when shown their baby’s picture, anyone can find twenty others (suffering from post-partum depression, for example) who don’t. But that doesn’t prove that mothers don’t love their babies.Yeah, anecdotal evidence again, as I said: pseudoscience.
To date no one has found god(s), and the "evidence" consisting of people "experiencing" god(s) works the same for Fairies, Hob Goblins, Leprechauns and Yeti.

Occam's Razor does away nicely with all that.

Uve got to work on ur logic skills a bit moreYeah, I shouldn't even logically consider improbable god(s), it's a waste of time :)

[PIT2]

Yeah, anecdotal evidence againDid u just say it is evidence, thereby contradicting urself and admitting that what ive been saying all along is true? :wink:

as I said: pseudoscience.
To date no one has found god(s), and the "evidence" consisting of people "experiencing" god(s) works the same for Fairies, Hob Goblins, Leprechauns and Yeti.Dont forget love, joy, sadness, anger, etc. Why use double standards?

Also, experiences are not science, nor a pseudoscience: science is based on experiences, not the other way around. Truth can only be found through experience (whatever that truth is, god, round earth, etc.).

[arildno]

Since you are unable to distinguish between "statements about the world" and "emotions felt", you have just shown yourself incompetent to participate in any rational discussion of various truth criteria.

[PIT2]

Since you are unable to distinguish between "statements about the world" and "emotions felt", you have just shown yourself incompetent to participate in any rational discussion of various truth criteria.Yes i have trouble distinguishing between the two. Are emotions not part of the world?

[arildno]

And I assume you have difficulties distinguishing between your *** and your brain. After all, they're both parts of your body, right?

[PIT2]

Please go on and explain ur point?
Are u saying that experiences do not say something about 'the world'? Or something else?

[arildno]

The point has already been explained to you.

And that's another thing:
Do you think you sound cool by writing "u" rather than "you"?
You don't.
All your posts show a degree of childish petulance to which the appropriate reply is "Shut up until you have grown up".

[PIT2]

The point has already been explained to you.

And that's another thing:
Do you think you sound cool by writing "u" rather than "you"?
You don't.
All your posts shows a degree of childish petulance to which the appropriate reply is "Shut up until you have grown up".Writing 'U' is simply a habit of mine, which i havent changed because it is entirely irrelevant in online discussions. U can keep on insulting me, but really it doesnt bother me and so its a bit pointless.

There is a difference between claiming there is no evidence, and admitting that there is evidence but that science does not have the tools to evaluate it. Not being able to evaluate evidence through science doesnt imply that the evidence is false either.

[Interposer]

Sorry if i gave u the wrong impression. I dont really care if u think im wordplaying. Have fun with it :wink:
I don't really care if you care; I'm simply doing what you insisted must be done and note your unwillingness to concede any point or answer questions now asked in two separte posts. I will therefore continue;

The wordplay is found because to admit a difference between “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” actually sets faith(s) up to not all be the same (illogical to state differences yet also claim sameness). Your ‘continuum’ errs to exclude faith based on no logic and/or evidence whatsoever and must therefore be dismissed as presently worded, thank you.

Put another way, tactical maneuvers at work seem to be; find common agreement/concession not everything is to be understood by science, introduce article of faith, ‘dilute the meaning’ so difference between that which is “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and that which is “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” may be lumped together in bizarre ‘continuum’ where even the most outlandish personal belief system must become indistinguishable from, say, hope that science may yet develop cure for the bald head following partial success of Rogaine and Propicia…
This is not science (makes bad philosophy too, but as now thinking back makes me laugh, thank you again).

As if not enough; To state that ‘hope’ and ‘expectations’ are appeals to faith (as previously stated to another forum member) does injustice to definitions and is further evidence the charge against you of wordplay has merit. Perhaps best to simply call it another act of dilution, yes?

[SF]

Did u just say it is evidence, thereby contradicting urself and admitting that what ive been saying all along is true? ;)Anecdotal evidence is evidence like junk science is science :)

Dont forget love, joy, sadness, anger, etc. Why use double standards?We can all experience love, joy, sadness and anger, and they can also be triggered by certain substances.

Why use the same standard?:)

[PIT2]

We can all experience love, joy, sadness and anger, and they can also be triggered by certain substances.Good point, and the same point can be made about the people who claim to experience god during meditation. Many others throughout the world and over a timespan of thousands of years have tried it and reported similar experiences. Even u could experience it urself, though it apparently takes many years of practice.

[Interposer]

…People have also been reporting direct experience of god. This is evidence.
Yes, it is evidence; evidence you simply take the word of others when told of something you [no doubt] wish to hear. It is hearsay;
hear•say (hîr'sā')
n.
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
Of course im aware that u and some other people reject the evidence, because it cannot be demonstrated objectively.’Some other people’?! How quickly the scientific method and all those who practice it are brushed aside.
However, this is an irrational position to hold.
Allow me to testify; I have seen the face of god. This is evidence, yes, and you would be irrational to not accept is as such.
But dont mistake science for a religion. Science is not scientism, and is demonstrably not the only path to truth.
Now you show complete misunderstanding; you actually claim that science is a path to truth when in fact truth has nothing to do with science. Religion has to do with truth and for your abuse of yet another word ‘demonstrably’, pathetic! As I have claimed to see the face of god so you are obligated to accept this as evidence else is charged with accusation of irrationality.
You sir, are ‘demonstrably’ a huckster peddling dubious ware better suited to a non-science forum.

I should inquire of administrator; how such as this finds home at science based/biased physics forum?

[PIT2]

The wordplay is found because to admit a difference between “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” actually sets faith(s) up to not all be the same (illogical to state differences yet also claim sameness).

Faith is a an activity the human mind engages in (believing something to be true without knowing for sure). However, people can have faith in different things. When people have faith in their non-collapsing-chair, this faith is still an activity of the human mind. When people have faith in god, this faith is still an activity of the human mind.

As for the amount of evidence and logic that backs up the faith, see it as the continuum ive described before(with minimally backup up on the left, to maximally backed up on the right). Religious faith can be in one place of the continuum(for instance, somewhere on the left), and non-religious faith (in whatever) can be ahead of it, it can be at the same spot, or even far further to the left on the continuum. Yet it is all in the continuum of faith, just like we all are living in the spacetime continuum :smile:

[PIT2]

Allow me to testify; I have seen the face of god. This is evidence, yes, and you would be irrational to not accept is as such.Go ahead and describe it. Then tell how u have managed to do it. Then find many thousands of others, spanning back thousands of years, who have also seen the same thing u have, using the same method u have used.

Who invented the fable that evidence that cannot be tested objectively, cannot be tested and judged according to other criteria?

you actually claim that science is a path to truth when in fact truth has nothing to do with science. Religion has to do with truthOf course science leads to truths. Truths can be found only through experience, and experience plays a MAYOR role in all of science. However, that does not mean science is the ONLY path to truth.

I should inquire of administrator; how such as this finds home at science based/biased physics forum?Be careful not to confuse science with scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism).

To quote a little bit:

# Scientism can also mean the couching of religious, untestable beliefs in the cloak of science. For example, if one believes that life extension will produce 1,000-year life spans within the next 20 years, such a belief may be couched in scientific ideology but actually lack the scientific basis of testing. Hence, "scientism" can also be taken to mean "science as religion."[9]

[Doc Al]

Faith is a an activity the human mind engages in. However, people can have faith in different things. When people have faith in their non-collapsing-chair, this faith is still an activity of the human mind. When people have faith in god, this faith is still an activity of the human mind.

As for the amount of evidence and logic that backs up the faith, see it as the continuum ive described before(with minimally backup up on the left, to maximally backed up on the right). Religious faith can be in one place of the continuum(for instance, somewhere on the left), and non-religious faith (in whatever) can be ahead of it, it can be at the same spot, or even far further to the left on the continuum. Yet it is all in the continuum of faith, just like we all are living in the spacetime continuum :smile:
So... why use the word "faith" if what you really mean is "mental activity"? I suspect your not-so-hidden agenda is to promote the idea the everything is "faith-based", just in different amounts. Nice try! :rofl:

If you have no hidden agenda, then I assume you will readily agree to drop the contentious word "faith" and say what you really mean. Right? :rolleyes:

[Interposer]

More wordplay;
Of course science leads to truths. Truths can be found only through experience, and experience plays a MAYOR role in all of science. However, that does not mean science is the ONLY path to truth.
Notice alteration of meaning of original quote to now include ‘truths’?
Go ahead and describe it. Then tell how u have managed to do it. Then find many thousands of others, spanning back thousands of years, who have also seen the same thing u have, using the same method u have used.
Oh, so it is in the method is it? But not the scientific method promoted on this physics forum, correct? I suppose this method is the ‘true’ way then, yes?
Who invented the fable that evidence that cannot be tested objectively, cannot be tested and judged according to other criteria?
Who can truly prove it a fable when objective testing is thrown out as requirement?

[PIT2]

So... why use the word "faith" if what you really mean is "mental activity"? I suspect your not-so-hidden agenda is to promote the idea the everything is "faith-based", just in different amounts. Nice try! :rofl:I was specifically talking about believing something to be true, but not knowing it for sure. When people on here claim that consciousness can be explained by physics (some day in the future), or that it has been demonstrated that it originates in the brain, or that it is inseperable from the brain, that there is no evidence for consciousness as something else than the brain, then these are absolutely statements of faith. I didnt even say religious faith, but now that ive seen more comments from SF, it actually is starting to look like religious faith(scientism). Personally i am no great fan of religion, the godly type or the scientism type.

Btw ur correct that i think almost all of our concepts can be seen as 'faith', except maybe the ones which we are sure about (that which we experience directly).

If you have no hidden agenda, then I assume you will readily agree to drop the contentious word "faith" and say what you really mean. Right? :rolleyes:What hidden agenda would i have? Im not religious if thats what u mean, otherwise uve lost me. I have been saying what i wanted to say.

[PIT2]

Notice alteration of meaning of original quote to now include ‘truths’?1 truth, 2 truths. Anything wrong with that?
I see my computer screen, and i also see a whole pack of snickers on my desk. Statements 1 is true, and statement 2 is also true.

Oh, so it is in the method is it? But not the scientific method promoted on this physics forum, correct? I suppose this method is the ‘true’ way then, yes?It is currently not part of the scientific method, that is correct. Yes, the other method may lead to truths aswell. I dont claim that this other method is the only way to truth. There is nothing shocking in what i claim.

[Interposer]

Then despite the denial of agenda made to Doc Al it is a method you wish to promote, yes?

[Interposer]

I believe you have been exposed as masquarade fraud with agenda, yes?

[SF]

Good point, and the same point can be made about the people who claim to experience god during meditation. Many others throughout the world and over a timespan of thousands of years have tried it and reported similar experiences. Even u could experience it urself, though it apparently takes many years of practice.Which god(s) would I experience?

people have experienced alii, yahwii and jesii all the time, but those myhical figures contradict eachother.
allah sais jesus is not his son, but jesus claims he is.. and so on and so forth.
Contradictory! => something is wrong. Either the people are lying or the god(s) don't exist. I suspect both.

[PIT2]

Then despite the denial of agenda made to Doc Al it is a method you wish to promote, yes?Are u joking?

[PIT2]

Which god(s) would I experience?U can read Les Sleeths his own experience here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=883156#post883156

[Interposer]

At last we have the agenda and ware being promoted;U can read Les Sleeths his own experience here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=883156#post883156


Are u joking?

You are joke; I testify to see god and response is;
Go ahead and describe it. Then tell how u have managed to do it. Then find many thousands of others, spanning back thousands of years, who have also seen the same thing u have, using the same method u have used.
Thus you turn table to establish requirement of ‘method used by thousands of others for thousands of years’ and so forth. Who says there must be a method at all and what method must it now be for acceptance as evidence?
Don’t be irrational, you must believe me. It’s all faith, it all evidence, it all good, remember?

[Interposer]

You are a complete utter fraud who dare to ask if it a joke made about having agenda in post#256 and then in very next post#257 gives agenda for all to see. How simple to expose non-science/nonsense!

[PIT2]

At last we have the agenda and ware being promoted;Thats called a 'hyperlink' :wink:

[Interposer]

You are candidate worthy of ban consideration; promote non-science/nonsense, belittle what this physics forums represents and what science minded members value. Trouble stirrer who enjoy the torment, yes?
This should be possibly my last post in thread so hopelessly off topic no small thanks to yourself wishing to promote hidden agenda at last revealed. I have done what needed doing to expose your wordplay games and pseudo science silliness, thank you.

[Evo]

This thread has been going in circles too long.