|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "Richard Dawkins has done us a big favour..."
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@ Squibs.OK, condensed version.
Me: Gnu Atheism came about as a result of a various shenanigans at the turn of the century – 9/11, the rise of right wing fundamentalism in the US, teach the controversy etc. If it wasn’t for that, most atheists, while still liable to argue the toss about what they see as your touchingly irrational faith in sky daddies/transcendent entities/grounds of all being, wouldn’t be especially interested in dissing religion overmuch.
You: But Dawkins and co are so horrible to us.
Me: Well, they’re atheists, you and them disagree about stuff. But as I said, their current public profile is mostly a reaction against anti-secularism.
You: And Steven Pinker wrote something nasty about Francis Collins.
Me: (Sotto Voce) Actually that was because of Pinker’s( probably misplaced) fears that for Collins there would be a tension between the role of public advocate for science and his high profile advocacy for Christian evangelism, in the public mind at least. But the really interesting thing here is how any criticism of religion is such a big deal in a way that other criticisms never are. Ingo’s got a post up - I’ll kill two birds with stone.
You: (If I’d have said all that out loud.) There you go. You want to kill us. I knew it.
Edited due to inaccuracy - greater than usual that is.
[ 08. November 2012, 23:11: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Dafyd.
Busy night tonight.
In my dictionary nominal means in name only. IMO, Brown will give up journalism soon and join a monastery. His hysteria was of the cumulative kind- there was a time when the man was positively obsessed, he could barely let a article out without some reference to Dawkins. I've not read him for a while, but he used to get regularly trounced by his commenters - not by me I hasten to add.
The worst thing about him, though, was that he deleted a whole bunch of my comments once because I called someone batshit insane. The arse. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I don't think I've got the time or energy to shout down all criticism of Dawkins even if I wanted to. For the record, I think The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and the Ancestor's Tale are pretty good books and the God Delusion is a bit shit, but for reasons already given, nothing like as militantly vicious as the godded all seem to think it is.
And Ditchkins? You really want to defend that?
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Dafyd
One more thing. In the atheism+ elevatorgate thing, Dawkins's intervention was both stupid and boorish.
Excuse me while I go and excoriate myself.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just to be clear - when I mention 'B]evidence[/B], I'm talking of evidence for a fine tuned universe made thus by design rather than it being natural.
What's your "evidence" for the universe being "natural" rather than designed?
I'll try and come back on that question later, but that short post was just added as a clarification to my comments on the essay. I look forward to your response to that one!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Grokesx
I am reading your posts with much interest!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
In my dictionary nominal means in name only. IMO, Brown will give up journalism soon and join a monastery.
I repeat my question. How do you be an atheist 'in name only'? I was under the impression that it's sufficient to be an atheist to deny the existence of God. You can even go to church; Dawkins goes to church to sing Christmas carols. There is no need to ritually denounce the Pope three times a morning. You don't have to recite passages from Bertrand Russell before going to bed. You don't have to think that the differences between Dawkins and Hitchens are so gaping as to make the word 'Ditchkins' a heinous offence against decency, reason, and sanity. Denying the existence of God is sufficient. Which, you know, Andrew Brown does.
You do not seriously believe Brown is about to join a monastery. (*) You're just saying that because he doesn't agree with the approved line on religion.
quote:
His hysteria was of the cumulative kind- there was a time when the man was positively obsessed, he could barely let a article out without some reference to Dawkins.
I imagine that's a bit closer to reality than the bit about a monastery.
Given that he's a journalist and The God Delusion was a bestselling book for a while, it would be odd if he didn't talk about it while it was a bestseller.
Are you prepared to describe the people who bought the God Delusion as acting out of mass hysteria? No?
I've seen a number of atheists post some variant of the following: 'I admit that Dawkins' book is a bit shit and he's arrogant, but how dare you Christians say Dawkins is shit or do anything other than roll over and bask in his radiance, and all the actual examples of Dawkins' arguments are flawless and we hates you we hates you my precious what about 9/11!!!'
quote:
I've not read him for a while, but he used to get regularly trounced by his commenters
In your unbiased opinion.
(*) You do? Tell you what: it's a testable prediction. If Brown's joined a monastery before January 1 2014, you get bragging rights and I'll agree with you about hysteria. If he hasn't, you concede that your description of Brown is itself hysteria motivated by a need to circle the atheist wagons. Accept or decline?
[ 09. November 2012, 10:43: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@ Squibs.OK, condensed version.
Me: Gnu Atheism came about as a result of a various shenanigans at the turn of the century – 9/11, the rise of right wing fundamentalism in the US, teach the controversy etc. If it wasn’t for that, most atheists, while still liable to argue the toss about what they see as your touchingly irrational faith in sky daddies/transcendent entities/grounds of all being, wouldn’t be especially interested in dissing religion overmuch.
You: But Dawkins and co are so horrible to us.
Me: Well, they’re atheists, you and them disagree about stuff. But as I said, their current public profile is mostly a reaction against anti-secularism.
You: And Steven Pinker wrote something nasty about Francis Collins.
Me: (Sotto Voce) Actually that was because of Pinker’s( probably misplaced) fears that for Collins there would be a tension between the role of public advocate for science and his high profile advocacy for Christian evangelism, in the public mind at least. But the really interesting thing here is how any criticism of religion is such a big deal in a way that other criticisms never are. Ingo’s got a post up - I’ll kill two birds with stone.
You: (If I’d have said all that out loud.) There you go. You want to kill us. I knew it.
Edited due to inaccuracy - greater than usual that is.
Yes, that's a version of our conversation all right. In casting yourself as the voice of reason you should have reduced my responses to grunts. It would have been a fine finishing flurry.
To clear up matters, I have not mentioned anything about killing people, denying atheists the freedom to criticise religion, secularism or any other red herring you care to toss into the conversation. So lets ignore that part of your post.
My claim is that atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Pinker and others are passionately interested in what role religion plays in public and even private life. I've given an example of how two prominent atheists expressed their concern about the appointment of an individual to a position of authority because he was a Christian. No other reasons for their deep concern were apparent. Again, I'll ask you to show me how I am wrong. (And please note that an edited account of our conversation doesn't count.)
You have failed on numerous occasions to deal with the basic criticism I made our your initial post. Your latest post is no different. Inaccuracies still exist. Please edit more thoroughly next time.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you think I'd have done better to wait for decisions to sort of materialise in my brain and then think, ah, that must have been God telling me what to do?
Let me just cover this off since you were so kind as to ask me twice. When you said you used to believe in God I'm not sure what that meant in practice. For me, believing in God is more than assent to a set of propositions or just a logical conclusion from the way the universe is constructed, the otherwise inexplicable rise of Christianity from C1 Judaism and the evidence of Jesus's resurrection. Someone could make a mental assent to all that but it still not make one whit of difference to the way they live their life.
Being a Christian is far more profound than that - God, in particular in the person of Jesus Christ, is someone I know. I love Paul's comment the church in Ephesus "Find out what pleases the Lord". So when it comes to making decisions, no I don't wait around for an idea to come into my head and wonder if it's God. I make hundreds of decision every day, most without conscious reference to God at all. Many of these decisions are made out of habits developed whilst being a Christian. I know from reading the Bible, and the life of Christ himself, what sorts of things will "please" or disappoint him. That's the way relationships work generally.
There are other decisions that I make with explicit reference to God. These will be decisions made on the basis of general considerations about what God does and doesn't like, made after discussion with friends who's wisdom I value (believers and non believers) and always through prayer. What I discovered after giving up atheism and embracing Christianity was access to whole new dimension of experience - the experience of the spiritual world, and of God in particular. Some of the major decisions I made in life have been, to people who aren't believers, quite irrational and contrary to any empirical evidence available. Yet they have resulted in the outcomes I anticipated. For me the reason's very simple - God knows more about what's happening in his universe that anyone I could enquire of, and his guidance was consequently better.
I don't know if you were ever confident that you had this sort of relationship with God through Jesus. If you believed in a God who, for all practical purposes, never did anything you could recognise, I would wonder what the point would be of believing in him as well. But God isn't like that. He's there to be known and to be experienced. And after discovering that, atheism is a poor alternative and not one to which I could see any sense in returning.
[Code fix
Gwai Purg Host]
[ 09. November 2012, 14:22: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I have to say I find that experience you describe completely alien, Ramarius. I'm left holding onto belief in a God, who, in your words, never does anything I can recognise. At least not for certain. There are events I can interpret as God's activity, but I'm far from certain that it's anything other than wishful thinking and pattern recognition - humans are so good at recognising patterns that we often recognise ones that don't exist, which is why people still believe in horoscopes.
So I think I know where SusanDoris is coming from. A belief in a God who despite our deepest desires, seems absent to the point you wonder if he's just not there at all. I do not know what your "whole new dimension of experience" means at all.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting stuff - I'm not sure about knowing God, or how we would know that we know him. But I have often had the experience of being known and loved. Of course, this could be a brain fart, or whatever the current expression is, but that experience for me certainly carries with it the 'numinous' and 'transcendent' feelings, which one might expect.
All of this leads me to a sort of cautious skepticism - I don't think I can know the truth, or reality. However, I can practise Christian practice, and it works for me. Anything more strikes me as going beyond what I have at hand.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
My claim is that atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Pinker and others are passionately interested in what role religion plays in public and even private life.
And that's the nub. They are interested in the role religion plays in public life, becoming very publicly so after... well, I won't bother repeating it all again.
But in private life? Passionately so? Do you really think so? Examples would be good.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
My claim is that atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Pinker and others are passionately interested in what role religion plays in public and even private life.
And that's the nub. They are interested in the role religion plays in public life, becoming very publicly so after... well, I won't bother repeating it all again.
But in private life? Passionately so? Do you really think so? Examples would be good.
Again, you haven't actually responded to my criticism.
As for private lives, I would think that anyone who equates Roman Catholicism to child abuse potentially worse that sexual abuse (Dawkins) is saying something about the private decision parents make to bring their children up in that particular tradition.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just to be clear - when I mention 'B]evidence[/B], I'm talking of evidence for a fine tuned universe made thus by design rather than it being natural.
What's your "evidence" for the universe being "natural" rather than designed?
I'll try and come back on that question later, but that short post was just added as a clarification to my comments on the essay. I look forward to your response to that one!
Post number two today Susan (don't miss my preceding one!).
I was a little unclear about one point you were making earlier, so just to say I'm assuming that you're OK with the idea that the universe is fine-tuned to be life-permitting, but don't think that constitutes evidence for a designer. The two points are distinct.
The scientific community is generally happy with the evidence for the universe being fine-tuned for life. Stephen Hawking summarises quite nicely when he says "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron...The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Now when he says "finely adjusted" it's difficult to find superlatives to describe just how fine the adjustments are. To take one example, cosmologist Alan Guth reckons that if, at 10 to the power of minus 43 seconds after the origin of the universe, if at that time the ratio between expanding and contracting forces differed by as little as 10 to the power of 55 the result would have been either a universe expanding too rapidly (no galaxies forming) or two slowly (resulting in a rapid collapse). And we could multiply examples about the tuning of the constants of nature (the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity and the electromagnetic force). To that we can add the very precise way these constants balance each other, and the tiny variables that would result in a universe that wouldn't permit life.
So there's plenty evidence as established by science and cosmology. The question then arises why is the universe fine tuned for life. Now to answer that one, we need a methodology other than science, since we are asking what created the very laws on which the scientific method is based. Here we move from science to philosophy. So when you ask for evidence of God fine tuning the universe, you're making what's known in the trade as a category error - a statement that says of something in one category what can only intelligibly be said of something in another. You can't answer the "why" question through the scientific method. We have the science which presents us with fine tuning, we then need to consider how we might explain it.
Now there's essentially three approaches to this. The first is that universe is the way it is because it has to be this way, and couldn't exist in any other way. If that were the case it would, in my view, be a strong argument in favour of naturalism. But the universe doesn't have to be this way. The constants of nature could be quantified differently so as to produce a universe which is not life permitting. We need large and small stars for a life permitting universe. But we could have a universe with just large stars. We could have a universe configured for different forms of life - non-interactve agents. So our universe is not fine-tuned by necessity. So what are we left with?
Well the other options are the universe is the way it is by chance, or by design. The reason people go for the design option is that fine tuning of the constants of nature constitutes improbability multiplied by further massive improbability. Physicist Paul Davis writes "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it as brute fact."
So what does a designed universe tell us about the designer? Well it would tell us that the cause of the universe must be unimaginably powerful (since all matter and energy came into existence by its agency), rational (given the astonishing complexity which gives rise to the life-permitting nature of the universe) and personal (since the universe is not past eternal, its designer must have decided to create it - the universe doesn't exist as a necessary consequence of the designer's existence in the same way, say, that water freezes when its temperature reaches zero degrees celsius).
Interestingly, when the late Christopher Hitchens was asked about the 'best argument' he came up against from 'the other side' he said "I think every one of us picks the 'fine-tuning' as the one most intriguing. It's not trivial - we all say that."
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s just that I find misleading to label any of these non-personal (which is not the same as "beyond personal") "gods" as "God". If "God" is not an intelligent creator, doesn´t have a purpouse, etc, why call it "god"? It´s like calling the law of gravity "god". You don´t pray for the laws of nature. And while people might call this a "god" I would still classify them as atheists, since their use of the term is misleading and has nothing to do with the Christian God that spoke to Moses and the prophets. A living God, not merely a principle or a feeling.
Would you class Daoists as atheists? AIUI the Dao exists but is not personal.
I think it is quite likely that the majority of people who believe in some impersonal force - whether or not they call it God - probably belong to Eastern religions, rather than being post-Christian crypto-atheists.
quote:
This liberal "god" that so many theologians insist he doesn´t care "who we sleep with", certainly has nothing to do with the God that delivered a lot of do´s and don´t do´s to Moses. So why call it "god" since it has nothing to do with what average people in our culture refer to as God?
I think you're conflating different kind of liberal. Certainly the majority of Christians I've encountered who hold liberal views on sexual morality would nonetheless hold that God is either personal or beyond-personal.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s just that I find misleading to label any of these non-personal (which is not the same as "beyond personal") "gods" as "God". If "God" is not an intelligent creator, doesn´t have a purpouse, etc, why call it "god"? It´s like calling the law of gravity "god". You don´t pray for the laws of nature. And while people might call this a "god" I would still classify them as atheists, since their use of the term is misleading and has nothing to do with the Christian God that spoke to Moses and the prophets. A living God, not merely a principle or a feeling.
Would you class Daoists as atheists? AIUI the Dao exists but is not personal.
I think it is quite likely that the majority of people who believe in some impersonal force - whether or not they call it God - probably belong to Eastern religions, rather than being post-Christian crypto-atheists.
I don´t know much about eastern religions, but... do budhist and daoist believers and thinkers use the word "god" to describe this impersonal force? Do they claim to be theists? And most of all, do they clame this force is the same as the abrahamic God? Most certainly no. They might not be atheists, since an atheist is a person who actually denies the existence of a god, and not someone who merely ignores it or has not even faced the question ever.
It´s not the same case with western clergymen and religious thinkers who actively deny the existence of the abrahamic god but are still happy labelling themselves christians and earning church stipends. They could just join a denomination like the Unitarian Universalist Church, that fits their beliefs better, but of course that small denomination´s clergy are not well paid and prestigious like the ones from historic mainline churches.
quote:
quote:
This liberal "god" that so many theologians insist he doesn´t care "who we sleep with", certainly has nothing to do with the God that delivered a lot of do´s and don´t do´s to Moses. So why call it "god" since it has nothing to do with what average people in our culture refer to as God?
I think you're conflating different kind of liberal. Certainly the majority of Christians I've encountered who hold liberal views on sexual morality would nonetheless hold that God is either personal or beyond-personal.
I´m not talking about people who hold liberal views on sexuality, politics, etc, but theological liberalism. That is something most lay christians, even in mainline denominations, are not even aware of. Most lay church people don´t read theological books and articles. They assume that when their bishops say "god" they are referring to the abrahamic God, and their bishops let it be since they know it´s necessary that their parishioners think they are being led by someone who is sort of christian.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Speaking as one of those dodgy liberals in both senses, I wouldn't say God doesn't care who we sleep with. I do question whether he's really into arbitrary rules about the gender of that person regardless of what actually makes us tick as a person.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Dafyd
quote:
You do not seriously believe Brown is about to join a monastery. (*)
Nothing gets past you, does it?
quote:
You're just saying that because he doesn't agree with the approved line on religion
I’m saying that because his, “Atheism is just another myth and why do you evidence daleks have to be so militant?” schtick is identical to much religious argument. You’re not him, are you, BTW?
quote:
I've seen a number of atheists post some variant of the following: 'I admit that Dawkins' book is a bit shit and he's arrogant, but how dare you Christians say Dawkins is shit or do anything other than roll over and bask in his radiance, and all the actual examples of Dawkins' arguments are flawless and we hates you we hates you my precious what about 9/11!!!
Yep. That’s me. Just as when I said the Ditchkins thing was not a clever move, I actually meant it was a heinous offence against decency, reason, and sanity, and when I said “stupid and boorish” I actually meant Dawkins is infallible.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just to be clear - when I mention 'B]evidence[/B], I'm talking of evidence for a fine tuned universe made thus by design rather than it being natural.
I don't know enough to assess the soundness of the fine-tuning argument for God, but it seems to me to be unfair to ask for evidence that God is responsible for the fine-tuning. If my understanding is correct, the term "fine-tuning" refers to the precise values of the physical constants that appear in the mathematical formulas physicists use to describe the forces that determine how the universe works. As such, they represent, by definition, empirically determined values for forces which cannot be derived from other values: they are the values for which there is no known cause. Therefore, they represent the very concepts for which (it appears) there can be no evidence!
Now I realize that asking for evidence that God is responsible for them is simply a rhetorical device to point out that there can be no evidence for God (which I agree with), but keep in mind that science has identified them as representing the boundary of what can be explained. You don't have to accept my claim that God caused them to be what they are, but I am equally free to dismiss the alternative possibility that they simply are what they are without any cause. In the end, there can be no evidence for why the physical constants are what they are and everyone is free to speculate on why. Neither theism nor atheism can claim to be more logically reasonable about what the evidence suggests in that regard because there can be no evidence to suggest anything one way or another.
So why do I choose theism over atheism? Let me answer that in response to the following:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE][qb]...and to bring more to the fore scientific evidence to support premises which form the bases for arguments in favour of God's existence.
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
You could have a look at
this - try item 4 on the list.
Thank you! When I said the link must be tenuous, I can see I did not make it clear that I was thinking of the lack of logical steps from one to the other; to arrive at god you have to have one step which is faith without evidence!
I acknowledge that the link can seem very tenuous if one is not already inclined to believe in a personal God, but my dilemma is that the alternative seems to me to be even more tenuous. I regularly review my own belief in God to see if I really want to keep believing in him. However, whenever I am tempted to embrace atheism, I keep coming up against what I see as a logical conclusion of atheism that I find far more difficult to accept than the existence of God:
If there is no God who created the universe, then absolutely everything in the universe is essentially nothing more than a machine with inert parts or particles that interact mechanistically. So what we perceive as our life, our thoughts, and our emotions can be nothing more than "emergent"* properties of inert matter, albeit extremely complex matter. If I choose to believe that, though, then it seems that I would have to believe that other extremely complex mechanisms capable of similar behavior could potentially experience these same "emergent" properties that I experience. Since the difference between the complexity of my brain and that of current computers is only one of degree, I have to accept that computers can theoretically become at least as complex as my brain (e.g. past the point where they can pass the Turing Test) and could therefore theoretically become sentient. However, I find it far more difficult to believe that a computer could ever possibly experience things at all similar to the way I do than that my own sentience is simply a gift from God. I see no way to extrapolate from complex behavior to get to sentience as I experience it.
So I'm very interested to know how you, and anyone else, thinks about this: do you believe that a computer could even theoretically experience its own "life" and "thoughts" the way people do? Or do you see a hole in my thinking that leads me to see that as a logical conclusion of atheism?
* I use scare quotes around "emergent" because the very fact that I experience them as an observer means that they are more than mere properties to be observed.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Squibs
I don’t really know what to say. Your original comment (apart from bemoaning the state of Dawkins’s knowledge of Aquinas, which is in the same territory I addressed in a reply to Ingo) just states your opinion that the gnus want to extinguish all religious faith. I don’t believe that to be the case and have offered a few thoughts on the matter from my side of the fence.
Which are: gnu atheism came about as a response to certain factors which I won’t bother to repeat; it’s a few books, blogs, conventions and telly programmes ffs; they are atheists and don’t think or feel the same as you do; they are more concerned with the public face of faith, not the private one. Finally, the reaction from certain quarters seem to me to be out of all proportion to the actual material in the books, suggesting that for some people criticism of religion should be off limits.
And on the public/private divide – Francis Collins was, at Biologos and in his published work, an advocate for Christian evangelism, espousing views that would have to be left at the door of any science post, certainly as a public advocate for science as head of NIH.
My kids have a private life of their own, which is separate from mine. Having said that, the rather outré idea that their religious instruction or lack of it in the home should be considered to be of interest to the authorities in the same way that their overall education and welfare is, has not exercised my interest overmuch, to be honest.
[ 10. November 2012, 10:25: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
“Atheism is just another myth and why do you evidence daleks have to be so militant?” schtick is identical to much religious argument. You’re not him, are you, BTW?
I haven't read about this Brown guy before, but I'm fascinated by this line. It seems to parallel the Christian's world of "you're not a real Christian even though you say you believe in God and Jesus because you don't have the right doctrine on transubstantiation".
Now we have an atheist saying that a guy who claims not to believe in God isn't really an atheist because of doctrinal weakness and overly-resembling a religious argument on some point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Let me just cover this off since you were so kind as to ask me twice. When you said you used to believe in God I'm not sure what that meant in practice.
Thank you for answer! Belief in God, always there, caring and watching, listening and helping, was an integral part of my first 20 years. There was no doubt. I went to Sunday School (Angel Gabriel in Nativity play - I was the only one who could remember all the words!) and then Communion regularly and heard the bible stories and readings. However, I had also grown up with the sure understanding that these were stories to help people learn what to do for the best in life and Jesus was a real person - not actually son of God but only symbolically so - to provide an example to follow. The answer to my 'Is this TRUE?' i.e. God, was strongly affirmative.
quote:
For me, believing in God is more than assent to a set of propositions or just a logical conclusion from the way the universe is constructed, the otherwise inexplicable rise of Christianity from C1 Judaism and the evidence of Jesus's resurrection.
Did you know when you were young, as I did not, that the virgin birth/resurrection/etc stories were based on more ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and Greek stories, which were it must be assumed based on even older ones? That's the human brain's creative ability and positive response to the colourful narrative which must have been one of the principal factors that kept human groups close and enabled them to pass on acquired knowledge and survive.
quote:
Someone could make a mental assent to all that but it still not make one whit of difference to the way they live their life.
Agreed.
quote:
Being a Christian is far more profound than that - God, in particular in the person of Jesus Christ, is someone I know. I love Paul's comment the church in Ephesus "Find out what pleases the Lord". So when it comes to making decisions, no I don't wait around for an idea to come into my head and wonder if it's God. I make hundreds of decision every day, most without conscious reference to God at all. Many of these decisions are made out of habits developed whilst being a Christian.
I understand, but I doubt if you would have become an immoral person if you had remained an atheist, as co-operative and carefully considered actions keep us safe and within the law.
quote:
I know from reading the Bible, and the life of Christ himself, what sorts of things will "please" or disappoint him. That's the way relationships work generally.
My version of that would be that by reading the Bible you know how wisdom passes from generation to generation and what people have thought God is like, wants etc; so I give the credit where it's due, i.e. to evolved humans, not to their imagined God. I'd also say that all the credit for all the decisions you have ever made is yours ... and the responsibility of course! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
There are other decisions that I make with explicit reference to God. These will be decisions made on the basis of general considerations about what God does and doesn't like, made after discussion with friends who's wisdom I value (believers and non believers) and always through prayer.
One atheist poster I know would say, and I know it might sound a little cynical but I think he's right, something llike, 'Funny how what God likes happens to be the way of behaving that is the culture of the people saying this.'
quote:
What I discovered after giving up atheism and embracing Christianity was access to whole new dimension of experience - the experience of the spiritual world, and of God in particular.
It is very interesting to think that you felt this. When you were an atheist, I presume you had a variety of experiences of all sorts which you might not have called spiritual, but when you embraced christianity, you decided that they were attributable to God. As an atheist, I know that all the thoughts and experiences I have, whether spiritual or not, are entirely from my brain; from its ability to think and create.
quote:
Some of the major decisions I made in life have been, to people who aren't believers, quite irrational and contrary to any empirical evidence available. Yet they have resulted in the outcomes I anticipated. For me the reason's very simple - God knows more about what's happening in his universe that anyone I could enquire of, and his guidance was consequently better.
Same response - the credit is all yours and that of the friends whose wisdom is also all theirs. Just because you think that some decisions which appeared to be irrational, either to friends or to you, turned out as you wished shows how well your brain functions!
quote:
I don't know if you were ever confident that you had this sort of relationship with God through Jesus.
Not 'through' Jesus, but thinking what he'd said (or as I later realised, is reported to have said) to help us make better decisions.
quote:
If you believed in a God who, for all practical purposes, never did anything you could recognise, I would wonder what the point would be of believing in him as well.
'god helps those who help themselves,' was a favourite saying in my family, but I certainly thought God was in on the process, did pray and have 'conversations' in my head.
quote:
But God isn't like that. He's there to be known and to be experienced. And after discovering that, atheism is a poor alternative and not one to which I could see any sense in returning.
It is here that one comes to the fact that God and the divinity of a person believed to be his son, are the only things for which faith without evidence is required. In my opinion, to ascribe so much to God constrains rather than expands greater and extensive understanding.
And thank you so much for the chance to respond as above. I have probably waffled on a bit too much as usual...
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I don't know enough to assess the soundness of the fine-tuning argument for God, but it seems to me to be unfair to ask for evidence that God is responsible for the fine-tuning. If my understanding is correct, the term "fine-tuning" refers to the precise values of the physical constants that appear in the mathematical formulas physicists use to describe the forces that determine how the universe works. As such, they represent, by definition, empirically determined values for forces which cannot be derived from other values: they are the values for which there is no known cause. Therefore, they represent the very concepts for which (it appears) there can be no evidence!
No disagreement there! (And I'm going to copy that paragraph into documents or something and quote it when necessary - with proper attribution of course!)However, as soon as there `is an implication that the way the Earth and the universe are had a prior intention, then that is where the thinking has taken a wrong turning I think. Everything in the universe happened as a logical consequence of what had already happened, and there isn't a plan laid out for it to follow. Of course, had there been even a very small difference, then life would not have begun at all.
quote:
Now I realize that asking for evidence that God is responsible for them is simply a rhetorical device to point out that there can be no evidence for God (which I agree with), ...
So why do you think the idea of God/god/s arose in people's minds in the first place?
quote:
...but keep in mind that science has identified them as representing the boundary of what can be explained. You don't have to accept my claim that God caused them to be what they are, but I am equally free to dismiss the alternative possibility that they simply are what they are without any cause.
But as I do not suppose a God, I know we don't know what came before the 'big bang' or 'bounce' but will probably workit out one day later if not sooner. If you suppose a god, then you have immediately supposed a whole set of complexities such as purpose, however hard you try not to do so, I think.
quote:
In the end, there can be no evidence for why the physical constants are what they are and everyone is free to speculate on why. Neither theism nor atheism can claim to be more logically reasonable about what the evidence suggests in that regard because there can be no evidence to suggest anything one way or another.
Yes, but as time has gone on, more and more theories about the science and maths of the univers have been produced, tested and found to be independently verifiable about the way things happened and actual evidence for God has not risen above zero, has it?
quote:
So why do I choose theism over atheism? Let me answer that in response to the following:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE][qb]...and to bring more to the fore scientific evidence to support premises which form the bases for arguments in favour of God's existence.
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
You could have a look at
this - try item 4 on the list.
Thank you! When I said the link must be tenuous, I can see I did not make it clear that I was thinking of the lack of logical steps from one to the other; to arrive at god you have to have one step which is faith without evidence!
I acknowledge that the link can seem very tenuous if one is not already inclined to believe in a personal God, but my dilemma is that the alternative seems to me to be even more tenuous. I regularly review my own belief in God to see if I really want to keep believing in him. However, whenever I am tempted to embrace atheism, I keep coming up against what I see as a logical conclusion of atheism that I find far more difficult to accept than the existence of God:
If there is no God who created the universe, then absolutely everything in the universe is essentially nothing more than a machine with inert parts or particles that interact mechanistically. So what we perceive as our life, our thoughts, and our emotions can be nothing more than "emergent"* properties of inert matter, albeit extremely complex matter. If I choose to believe that, though, then it seems that I would have to believe that other extremely complex mechanisms capable of similar behavior could potentially experience these same "emergent" properties that I experience. Since the difference between the complexity of my brain and that of current computers is only one of degree, I have to accept that computers can theoretically become at least as complex as my brain (e.g. past the point where they can pass the Turing Test) and could therefore theoretically become sentient.
I'm going to have to read that a few more times, but initial response is: but all computers are made by humans and it would be humans who would supply the coding or whatever it is which would enable computers to become independent of humans.
quote:
... However, I find it far more difficult to believe that a computer could ever possibly experience things at all similar to the way I do than that my own sentience is simply a gift from God.
Why does that make it more relevant or of more value than if it evolved naturally? (which is 'the Magic of Reality')
quote:
I see no way to extrapolate from complex behavior to get to sentience as I experience it.
So I'm very interested to know how you, and anyone else, thinks about this: do you believe that a computer could even theoretically experience its own "life" and "thoughts" the way
people do?
Only if programmed to do so by humans and I have every confidence that humans will always be ahead of computers..
quote:
Or do you see a hole in my thinking that leads me to see that as a logical conclusion of atheism?
No, not a hole; more like an additional, unnecessary complexity, I think!
quote:
* I use scare quotes around "emergent" because the very fact that I experience them as an observer means that they are more than mere properties to be observed.
But it is your clever, infinitely complex evolved brain which thinks the thought that the 'emergent properties' aare more than mere properties to be observed.] All events which occur outside our brains are known through the senses and we list the properties, examine them, see how they interact with the universe, how they have adapted as the universe changes, etc.
Very interesting - thank you!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
So why do you think the idea of God/god/s arose in people's minds in the first place?
quote:
But it is your clever, infinitely complex evolved brain which thinks the thought that the 'emergent properties' are more than mere properties to be observed. All events which occur outside our brains are known through the senses and we list the properties, examine them, see how they interact with the universe, how they have adapted as the universe changes, etc.
Perhaps you've answered your own question?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think I'm okay with that - that the idea of a first cause can be considered from many points of view but if there is no evidence for any of those points of view, then they are not independent ideas I think. Hmmm.
The point was that the "first" in "first cause argument" is not a temporal "first", so it doesn't really matter what if anything was the first cause in time. Perhaps one should call it "primary cause" instead to avoid confusion. Physical cosmology just doesn't really feature in this discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The word 'metaphysical' always seems to blur clarity a bit in my opinion. I'm probably quite wrong, but only having come across it when I was older, I avoid it!
Unfortunately, if you reject metaphysics, then there's basically nothing left to argue about as far as God's existence is concerned. Modern natural science is by design incapable of telling us anything about God, since it merely concerns itself with regular relationships between observable entities. If you conclude from modern natural science to atheism, for example, then you are necessarily making a metaphysical move, whether you acknowledge that or not.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As soon as one starts thinking of the god idea and applying our evolved human reason to nature instead of observing and recording directly and checking that such things are indeed independently verifiable, then one loses the impartiality needed to come to a true conclusion.
Well, your own statement right there is of course nothing but applying human reason to nature instead of observing and recording directly. Hence by your own assertion what you have just said does not have the impartiality needed to come to a true conclusion. You cannot measure that only measuring is valid. That something you conclude by thinking about nature in a more fundamental sense. It is hence a metaphysical claim. And as it happens, it is a self-defeating metaphysical claim.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
May I suggest that, rather than 'charmingly', which could sound just the teensiest bit condescending! the word 'evidentially', might work better?!
How about 'jeeringly'? That would be closer to what I was trying to express.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There used to be in my brain a spot that had a Godd in it, but rationality, evidence, etc etc meant that I erased it and was complete. ... Looking baqck, I realise that I was the child who always asked, 'Why?' and , 'Is this TRUE?' I suppose I have a natural (and that of course is genetic) confidence, and have never, for example, felt shy!
It is great that you are such a wonderful person. The question is: can you deal with the fact that other people come to different conclusions than you, without being irrational, disregarding evidence, ignoring 'why' questions, lacking interest in truth, lacking confidence or being shy? Or do you have to believe that people disagree with you because they are less than you?
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
He said there was an 'intuitive implausibility' about fine tuning ... well, that intuition is correct! the idea of a fine-tuned universe, particularly one supposedly created by A. N. Other, is just that, completely implausible.
The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact. Or perhaps better, it is a conclusion from currently available data using current scientific theory. The question is not whether the universe is fine-tuned or not - on the best of current knowledge it is - but whether one requires a fine-tuner to explain this.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, amongst all those many thousands of words (I would be interested to know approx how many actually!) there wasn't one which provided evidence for the God/mind/power/whatever. If you think they are there and ccan quote the words or section, please let me know.
The article has 10,166 words, by Microsoft Word's counting. It does a fair job of summarising the scientific evidence for a fine-tuned universe (in section "Introduction"), and then argues the probability of various hypotheses that attempt to explain this evidence. Among those hypotheses is that the universe was created by God. The article argues at length that this hypothesis is by far the most likely given the available fine-tuning evidence. This one would normally consider as a valid way of "providing evidence for God". Since you do not, I think we need to hear from you a very clear definition of what you would consider as actually providing evidence for God.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A phrase that kep coming up was'the atheist single universe hypothesis'. A phrase which jarred on me every time it occurred. ... What do you think about the phrase?
It is perfectly fine name for the hypothesis "that there is only one universe, that there is no god, and that hence this one universe was not created by a god".
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Did you know when you were young, as I did not, that the virgin birth/resurrection/etc stories were based on more ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and Greek stories, which were it must be assumed based on even older ones?
You shouldn't uncritically swallow even the claim that there are clear parallels. See for example this article. But to say that the Christian gospel is based on such stories goes even further, it implies an intentional copying. There's precisely zero evidence for this.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One atheist poster I know would say, and I know it might sound a little cynical but I think he's right, something llike, 'Funny how what God likes happens to be the way of behaving that is the culture of the people saying this.'
An obvious falsehood in particular in the case of Christianity, which so clearly started its career as a counter-cultural movement and at least in Europe and for traditional Christianity has reached this point again. This stupid statement can be "defended" only by considering counter-cultural Christianity as expressing the "culture" of these Christians. However, if living one's faith in God is considered as culture, then obviously God is believed to approve of that culture. That's perfectly trivial.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As an atheist, I know that all the thoughts and experiences I have, whether spiritual or not, are entirely from my brain; from its ability to think and create.
Perhaps you "know" that as a materialist, but not as an atheist. Also, as a professional computational neuroscientist, I would be rather keen to hear how you came to "know" this. After all, by your own supposed standards you must have unequivocal evidence for this claim. I am not aware that such evidence exists.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
So why do you think the idea of God/god/s arose in people's minds in the first place?
quote:
But it is your clever, infinitely complex evolved brain which thinks the thought that the 'emergent properties' are more than mere properties to be observed. All events which occur outside our brains are known through the senses and we list the properties, examine them, see how they interact with the universe, how they have adapted as the universe changes, etc.
Perhaps you've answered your own question?
Yes, but I was asking W Hyatt for his/her answer.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Susan Doris. You asked
Did you know when you were young, as I did not, that the virgin birth/resurrection/etc stories were based on more ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and Greek stories, which were it must be assumed based on even older ones? That's the human brain's creative ability and positive response to the colourful narrative which must have been one of the principal factors that kept human groups close and enabled them to pass on acquired knowledge and survive.
I didn't know this when I was young. After four years academic study of ancient religion I know now this is complete nonsense. I see IngoB has given you something to read on this.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
There is one part where I haven't quite got the 'quote's and 'qb's right, but I think it is clear.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Physical cosmology just doesn't really feature in this discussion.
I appreciate that linear time is not absolutely defined, but I don't see how you can leave 'physical cosmology' out of it. We're physical beings in a physical universe and any other universe, while apparently theoretically possible with maths and string theory, is imaginary, or hypothetical? for the moment.
quote:
Unfortunately, if you reject metaphysics, ...
I'm not rejecting it, but since it's a 'branch of philosophy', and the phrase 'abstract concepts' seems to crop up rather a lot. I am not qualified in philosophy and abstract concepts are of the human brain and imagination. I choose not to attempt to become even an amateur in philosophy at my age.
quote:
then there's basically nothing left to argue... about as far as God's existence is concerned.
True, if 'argument' is to be in the 'language' and terms of philosophy, but I think that brings us back to the God, belief in which requires faith without (testable, measurable) evidence.
quote:
Modern natural science is by design incapable of telling us anything about God,....
What do you mean by 'by design'? That sounds as if you think the scientific method deliberately rejects any reasonable hypothesis and associated experiments which might show objectively the existence of God.
quote:
... since it merely concerns itself with regular relationships between observable entities.
It would be very interesting if a theologian came up with a good hypothesis which could be tested!
quote:
...If you conclude from modern natural science to atheism, for example, then you are necessarily making a metaphysical move, whether you acknowledge that or not.
I'm quite happy to acknowledge that is a metaphysical move; however, it's not just modern natural science that is able to explain more and more of the world and human thoughts and behaviours, this is based on accumulated knowledge, isn't it? Are you using the word 'modern' to include work of the last five centuries or so?
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As soon as one starts thinking of the god idea and applying our evolved human reason to nature instead of observing and recording directly and checking that such things are indeed independently verifiable, then one loses the impartiality needed to come to a true conclusion.
Well, your own statement right there is of course nothing but applying human reason to nature instead of observing and recording directly.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes, I can see that I expressed that badly. 'Applying human reason to nature' is not what scientists do, is it? They observe and record.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
May I suggest that, rather than 'charmingly', which could sound just the teensiest bit condescending! the word 'evidentially', might work better?!
How about 'jeeringly'? That would be closer to what I was trying to express.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Well, I'm sorry you felt like jeering!!
quote:
It is great that you are such a wonderful person.
That's not what I was intending, i.e. to sound in any way conceited, I was simply stating facts which, at my age I certainly should, and do, have no illusions - or delusions, about!!
quote:
The question is: can you deal with the fact that other people come to different conclusions than you, without being irrational...
Well, of course! I have friends I've known almost all my life who are believers, are church attenders (and some who are not of course) who want their funerals to be Christian ones (and several who have already had them, I am sad to say). I fully understand their still having the belief that I once had and we're all still the same people, believers or not and since we know we agree to disagree, no problems arise. I know that I am lucky to have the love and friendship of family and friends and never take it for granted.
quote:
Or do you have to believe that people disagree with you because they are less than you?
An unnecessary I think and entirely wrong remark.
quote:
The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact. Or perhaps better, it is a conclusion from currently available data using current scientific theory. The question is not whether the universe is fine-tuned or not - on the best of current knowledge it is - but whether one requires a fine-tuner to explain this.
Agreed - please see one of my posts above referring to this.
quote:
The article has 10,166 words, by Microsoft Word's counting. It does a fair job of summarising the scientific evidence for a fine-tuned universe (in section "Introduction"), ...
thank you for the word count! I'll listen to the first part again, but the prolific use of the word 'if' demonstrates a need for conjectures.
quote:
This one would normally consider as a valid way of "providing evidence for God". Since you do not, I think we need to hear from you a very clear definition of what you would consider as actually providing evidence for God.
That sounds like a different way of putting the request for ' please prove the negative.'
If God were the 'most likely' answer, then that means that all the non'God explanations have to be demolished first.
quote:
You shouldn't uncritically swallow even the claim that there are clear parallels.
On what grounds do you think I 'uncritically swallow' such ideas? That is in fact a completely wrong suggestion.
quote:
Perhaps you "know" that as a materialist, but not as an atheist.
Okay, I don't mind whether you think I should have said materialist rather than atheist - I'm happy with either word.
quote:
...I would be rather keen to hear how you came to "know" this.
I could say every time something like, I am 99.9% certain, but I realise there is room for something that might turn up in the future to conv ince me of the opposite,'but 'know' takes up less space.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
SusanDoris, might I suggest that instead of using multiple quotes - you assume folk following the thread will have read the relevant posts, and only quote when you really need to.
Conversely, Ramarius, please use the quote function - which you do by going to the post you want to quote - then clicking on the quotation marks. You will then end up in a window where you complete your post.
The UBB thread is available for practice in the styx.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I don't see why causality can't be circular. I'm pretty sure it isn't but it is no more logically difficult to imagine than causality extending back infinitely. Imagine a circular train track, train A hits train B which, going round the track, hits train A again. In an imaginary, friction free world it would go on for ever.
Nonsense. Causality does not become circular just because of a reoccurring sequence and/or some things physically moving in a circle. Causality in your example follows clearly a time-ordered sequence. Train A getting hit by train B at say 11 am is not the same event as train A getting hit by train B (again) at 11:01 am. They happen at different times. In an infinite series of temporal causes, each cause remains distinct from each other cause by virtue of happening at a different time. As it happens, that's also true for Gödel's stuff that I will briefly address next. However I was not thinking of temporal causes, but explanatory ones, i.e., not the "time" direction but the "depth" one. It makes no sense to explain A by B, and then B by A.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Godel showed that the General Theory of Relativity did not forbid circular time see wiki. Godel's metric is weird. 40 years ago I sort of understood this stuff but my time hasn't gone in a circle yet so I don't now! Godel's metric allows an exact solution to the field equations and depends on wholly unlikely boundary condition but it makes the point that there could universes in which time is circular. Once you've found one solution to a set of equations there could be others we have yet to find. I think Godel invented this to annoy Einstein but it still persists as a problem. Careful theoretical physicists sometimes prefix their proofs with 'assuming no causal anomalies'.
Gödel's result have zero practical value, since no part of the actual universe can be sufficiently isolated in order to set up his metric. Furthermore, it is wrong to say that closed timelike curves can exist just because Gödel has shown that they exist as solutions to Einstein's theory. Since CTCs have not been observed in any form or fashion, there is no empirical evidence. And since they make no sense, this primarily suggests that Einstein's theory is wrong. Where "wrong" does not mean "wrong in all aspects" but simply "insufficient beyond certain limits". Hence "wrong" in the same way that Newton's theory was shown to be wrong by Einstein (while continuing to be used for most practical applications). Therefore Novikov's self-consistency principle is best understood as a rescue operation against Gödel proving Einstein's theory wrong in principle. However, I do not personally believe that the solution offered holds water. I think this mostly shows a contradiction between time being used as a kind of spatial marker and time being used as tracking causal changes. Be that as it may be, even if Novikov-style CTCs could exist, causality would be associated with distinct spacetime markers. And we still could ask in the same way about explanatory "depth" causality, which cannot itself be circular. (For example, we can ask what caused the Gödel metric to be, within which the CTC runs its course.)
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Your examples are carefully worded to avoid howlers like protons being made from quarks and quarks from .... which wouldn't involve any causation but might involve infinite complexity (which again seems logically possible).
Far from being "howlers", these are perfectly legitimate (though approximate) statements of current physical theory. And they illustrate nicely the distinction between "temporal" and "explanatory" causality that I'm getting at. A set of two up and one down quarks (plus gluons and virtual quark - antiquark pairs etc., I will ignore the complications) does not cause a proton to exist in a temporal sense. It is not like the quarks do something at one time, whereupon a proton happens to come into existence at another time. Rather, at all times the proton can be considered as a consequence of the (inter)actions of these quarks. It is explanatory causality, we explain the proton in terms of these quarks. For example, the proton has a charge of +1 be-cause the two ups each have a charge of +2/3 and the down has a charge of -1/3. In some sense, the quarks are a "deeper" reason for the behaviour of this part of the universe than the proton. And I do not mean merely "more highly resolved in spatial terms". For example, if I hammer a nail into the wall, then we can draw a series of rather high-level explanatory causes: the nail is driven into the wall because the hammer strikes it, the hammer strikes it because my arm swings the hammer, my arm swings the hammer because I will it. The "proximate" reason for the nail being driven into the wall is the hammer striking it, but the "deeper" reason is me willing this to happen. Here looking "deeper" did not lead us into the subatomic domain, quite to the contrary.
There cannot be "infinite" or "circular" explanatory causality. The latter is obviously illogical (leading to circular reasoning). The former precisely because we have no time label. If the quarks made the proton at a specific time, then perhaps something else made the quarks at an earlier time, etc. But now we are saying that a proton can be explained in terms of these constituents, it is caused by quarks in the sense of quarks explaining what a proton is and does. Say there is substructure to the quarks that similarly explains quarks. Then necessarily a proton can be explained by this substructure (via quarks), in principle. And perhaps so on through several levels. But if this went on infinitely, then there would never be anything that supports this whole superstructure of deep explanation. There would never be anything that says: this is, in fact, what happens here and now. But then all the higher, dependent explanatory causation fails. If there is no reason or the quarks to be in a specific way, then there is no reason for the proton to be in a specific way, even though - or rather precisely because - the proton's way is dependent on the quarks.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
However statements like the resistance against gravity that the table offers, which is caused by molecular forces could be rephrased the molecular forces are the resistance against gravity that the table offers. Do we have any logical grounds for denying infinite depth of causation in this form? I can't see why, obviously you would have to drop the speed of light as upper limit of information flow but that is a contingent fact which may only apply at certain 'levels' of existence.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of light, which is a limit to temporal causation. The point is that when we say that the molecular forces are the resistance against gravity we have not merely assigned a fancy name to that resistance. We imply an actual causation there, one that allows us to understand why there is such a resistance. We have discovered a "deeper reason" for this resistance. But if there were no molecular forces, then there would not be a resistance to gravity. And if there were no electron clouds then there would not be molecular forces, and hence no resistance to gravity. And if there were no first cause, then there would be none of this.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
As indeed could many things. The first cause, as you say, may be wholly alien to us: perhaps so peculiar we can't even begin to understand it in our terms. I would be very surprised if it was quite so anthropomorphic as many people seem to imagine (having a 'personal' nature for example).
Well, yes and no. It clearly is not wholly alien to us, since we actually have named it by virtue of our conceptual understanding. And we can derive quite a few apparently understandable features of it. On the other hand, the sort of understanding we have is a weird one. It both works and is broken. Like for example "eternal", we sort of know what that word means, but we also sort of don't know. And that certainly becomes true of the word "personal" as well, if we apply it to the First Cause.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Well I don't see 'being' as a predicate. No being, no entity I'd say.
So? Those that do exist still must have been caused to exist, if they don't exist necessarily.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Of course the UFC could have made independent entities with the power to create other entities out of nothing maybe. And if UFC gave them free will the sense in which every thing comes from the UFC while still true becomes deeply tangled up in what we mean by 'caused'.
Well, no, they don't. There are good reasons to assume that this is anyhow not possible, see here, but even if it were possible there would never be a question where the First Cause would be located. Because without the First Cause these other causes of "creation from nothing" would not be, hence they are not first causes.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
IngoB, that is the clearest long technical post I have ever read by you. Thank you.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
So why do you think the idea of God/god/s arose in people's minds in the first place?
Since I believe that God exists, I think the idea of God came from Him. If I were to believe that there is no God, then I would think that people came up with the idea on their own to satisfy some need or desire.
quote:
quote:
...but keep in mind that science has identified them as representing the boundary of what can be explained. You don't have to accept my claim that God caused them to be what they are, but I am equally free to dismiss the alternative possibility that they simply are what they are without any cause.
But as I do not suppose a God, I know we don't know what came before the 'big bang' or 'bounce' but will probably workit out one day later if not sooner. If you suppose a god, then you have immediately supposed a whole set of complexities such as purpose, however hard you try not to do so, I think.
I'm pretty sure physicists have already worked out that there can never be any information about before the Big Bang, and even that time itself started with the Big Bang (but I'm always happy to be corrected).
As far as the complexities that come with supposing that there is a god, I agree, but supposing that there is no god would present an even bigger problem for me (as I described in my previous post).
quote:
quote:
In the end, there can be no evidence for why the physical constants are what they are and everyone is free to speculate on why. Neither theism nor atheism can claim to be more logically reasonable about what the evidence suggests in that regard because there can be no evidence to suggest anything one way or another.
Yes, but as time has gone on, more and more theories about the science and maths of the univers have been produced, tested and found to be independently verifiable about the way things happened and actual evidence for God has not risen above zero, has it?
That's half my point: as long as you are limiting yourself to evidence that can be independently verified, then of course you're not going to find evidence of God. That's like looking for evidence of a book's author by studying the words in the book. God is not (currently) a character in his own creation.
quote:
I'm going to have to read that a few more times, but initial response is: but all computers are made by humans and it would be humans who would supply the coding or whatever it is which would enable computers to become independent of humans.
I agree, but do you think they could become sentient and experience their own "life" the way we do ours (even theoretically)?
quote:
quote:
... However, I find it far more difficult to believe that a computer could ever possibly experience things at all similar to the way I do than that my own sentience is simply a gift from God.
Why does that make it more relevant or of more value than if it evolved naturally? (which is 'the Magic of Reality')
It doesn't make it more relevant or of more value, it's a matter of which is easier for me to believe. "God" is easier for me to believe because it explains more (as far as I'm concerned) than "no God."
quote:
quote:
I see no way to extrapolate from complex behavior to get to sentience as I experience it.
So I'm very interested to know how you, and anyone else, thinks about this: do you believe that a computer could even theoretically experience its own "life" and "thoughts" the way
people do?
Only if programmed to do so by humans and I have every confidence that humans will always be ahead of computers..
That may be, but do you think computers can be programmed to experience sentience and self-awareness the way people do?
quote:
quote:
* I use scare quotes around "emergent" because the very fact that I experience them as an observer means that they are more than mere properties to be observed.
But it is your clever, infinitely complex evolved brain which thinks the thought that the 'emergent properties' aare more than mere properties to be observed.] All events which occur outside our brains are known through the senses and we list the properties, examine them, see how they interact with the universe, how they have adapted as the universe changes, etc.
I would have to accept that idea to become an atheist, but that's my very problem with atheism: how did our brains evolve to acquire the ability to be aware of and observe their own activity and the world around us if they are essentially nothing more than inert matter? That's far more difficult for me to accept as fitting the evidence compared to the idea of God being the source of it all. For me to believe otherwise would require some evidence that complexity by itself can be sufficient to give rise to awareness. Without such evidence, though, I find that idea just as ludicrous as you find the idea of God.
quote:
Very interesting - thank you!
I agree - thank you!
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
SusanDoris, might I suggest that instead of using multiple quotes - you assume folk following the thread will have read the relevant posts, and only quote when you really need to.
Thank you. However, I rely on using S/N* and being able to put the section I am responding to immediately above my response and deleting the bits which don't apply is, I have found, the most efficient way of doing this.
*DolphinUK SuperNova 13 software with magnification, good ol' Synthetic Dave screen reader and an automatic virtual focus.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[qb] @Susan Doris. You asked
Did you know when you were young, as I did not, that the virgin birth/resurrection/etc stories were based on more ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and Greek stories, which were it must be assumed based on even older ones? That's the human brain's creative ability and positive response to the colourful narrative which must have been one of the principal factors that kept human groups close and enabled them to pass on acquired knowledge and survive.
One might also point out that believing in the resurrection of Jesus severely limited the "survival" chances of early Christians.
[ 11. November 2012, 07:47: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
SusanDoris, might I suggest that instead of using multiple quotes - you assume folk following the thread will have read the relevant posts, and only quote when you really need to.
Thank you. However, I rely on using S/N* and being able to put the section I am responding to immediately above my response and deleting the bits which don't apply is, I have found, the most efficient way of doing this.
*DolphinUK SuperNova 13 software with magnification, good ol' Synthetic Dave screen reader and an automatic virtual focus.
Fair enough, whatever works.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Since I believe that God exists, I think the idea of God came from Him. If I were to believe that there is no God, then I would think that people came up with the idea on their own to satisfy some need or desire.
Thank you for response. How do you think God gave people the idea? Was it an idea in their heads? I agree with you that it almost certainly a need, an evolved brain had this need to wonder why and ask questions; so they couldn't stop themselves!
quote:
I'm pretty sure physicists have already worked out that there can never be any information about before the Big Bang, and even that time itself started with the Big Bang (but I'm always happy to be corrected).
I bet there will always be someone who is still beavering away, trying to solve the problem as our sun gradually becomes a supernova!
quote:
supposing that there is a god, I agree, but supposing that there is no god would present an even bigger problem for me (as I described in my previous post).
Yes, I'm still pondering about that and will come back on it asap, also on the sentient computers question.
quote:
...how did our brains evolve to acquire the ability to be aware of and observe their own activity and the world around us if they are essentially nothing more than inert matter?
But multi-millions of years is long enough for it to have happened; as someone said on an 'In Our Time' prog a few weeks ago, 'Bacteria were around for millions of years, just being bacteria.'
quote:
That's far more difficult for me to accept as fitting the evidence compared to the idea of God being the source of it all.
Yes, I used to say to people who said there wasn't a God, ' But there must be!'
quote:
For me to believe otherwise would require some evidence that complexity by itself can be sufficient to give rise to awareness. Without such evidence, though, I find that idea just as ludicrous as you find the idea of God.
I can assure you that I certainly do not think of the idea as ludicrous'. Having stepped outside the invisible, but still quite strong barrier which kep me just inside the God-belief circle, the last, tiny, but important question was answered, but I understand belief completely- been there, done that, got the tee shirt! One of the delights of being human is that we can believe whatever we want to, as long as we stay within the law. Wherever that freedom is threatened, there are always people who will resist.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
P.S. to W Hyatt: See my post in UB practice thread!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you for response. How do you think God gave people the idea? Was it an idea in their heads? I agree with you that it almost certainly a need, an evolved brain had this need to wonder why and ask questions; so they couldn't stop themselves!
From the abstract Deist/Theist/Pantheist God-like thing of the first cause type arguments.
Kind of in their heads. But in a way much more like we invented/discovered 'Infinity' rather than like inventing/discovering 'Harry Potter'.
From any specific religious perspective though we have interaction and reporting of said interaction.
If the bible is to be believed, we have a people that had 40 years of national direct revelation of God, plus more indirectly via the judges and prophets.
Mind you if the book of Mormon is to be believed then we have some golden spectacles... so one of the evidences is fraudulent/mistaken/etc...
And for pretty much anything there's multiple alternative more or less unlikely explanation*.
And once you've decided there is no God concept, then one of those alternatives for each has to be true. Although once you settle on one God concept, you have to do the same (though you do have some politer options).
But you can't (legitimately) then use that as a predicate to prove God's non-existence (or existence in a nature), actually you have to be extremely careful even using it to compute reasonable doubt.
It just means in that respect you're being self consistent, which is good and reassuring and fine for intra-group debates.
You can of course debate the texts/etc...
If,say, you find that God must be diverting raw sewage from a stature and adding tears. Then you've got a very good case, even as a believer, to prefer the mundane explaination and not the miracle proposed.
Lourdes on the other hand, is a bit closer, it could be atheist-chance (I'm not sure what the odds are, especially as people mess up the test by praying for non-goers )/fakery. It could be providence.
The Dead Sea event (if you were an eye-witness and it happened as described) you need to postulate something odd. But note even as recorded the Israelites still managed to forget it and pass it off. I bet me, Rowan, Dawkin's, and you would too.
*There's a quote, I think by Pratchett that's on the tip of my tongue and I can't quite recall it.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I appreciate that linear time is not absolutely defined, but I don't see how you can leave 'physical cosmology' out of it. We're physical beings in a physical universe and any other universe, while apparently theoretically possible with maths and string theory, is imaginary, or hypothetical? for the moment.
I don't think that you are getting this, which is why I keep asking. It is crucial to understand this. The First Cause argument is about the causality of all entities at every moment of time. Of this real universe, not of some imaginary or hypothetical one. The first moment of time and the entity "big bang" (if they existed) are just examples among a near infinite number of times and entities this argument applies to. Hence it does not really matter what happened "at the beginning of time". The argument runs just as well on what happens to SusanDoris sitting at her computer now, or to a spaceship cruising in the Andromeda nebula in a million years from now (if there will be such an entity). The First Cause argument is about causation at all times, in all places, for all things, it does not rely on what happened in the beginning, at the origin, for the first thing. (It is valid there also, but its validity is based on the general causal structure of everything, not on the specific causal structure back then.) So physical cosmology, proposing big bangs, big bounces, inflations and whatnot, is neither here nor there for this argument. Whatever may turn out to be true for the temporal origin of the actual universe, the First Cause argument applies to that as much as to anything. What is important is simply that contingent entities require an (explanatory) cause.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
True, if 'argument' is to be in the 'language' and terms of philosophy, but I think that brings us back to the God, belief in which requires faith without (testable, measurable) evidence.
You seem to have a false conception of "evidence". What we can measure is data. If we have data and a hypothesis or theory, then we can use the data to test the hypothesis or theory. This then provides evidence from the data for or against the hypothesis or theory. But you cannot measure evidence, just data. Neither is evidence testable, only hypotheses and theories are. There is a serious point here. There is invariably a process of interpretation required in testing a hypothesis or theory with data, i.e., gathering evidence is not some mechanistic process, it is an exercise of human understanding. And as such it can and does come under skeptical scrutiny itself, and where this happens systematically, this is part of philosophy.
As it happens, the argument I have presented to you uses observed data ("contingent entities require causes") to provide evidence for a theory ("God exists"). The particular exercise of human understanding involved in this is metaphysical, not "modern scientific". If you reject this particular exercise of human understanding as such, i.e., if you do not say that my argument was badly executed but rather that its very principles are flawed, then you are making a philosophical statement. Most likely, you reveal yourself as a kind of "positivist" in philosophical terms. But then philosophical arguments apply, and frankly, positivism is pretty hard to defend these days even on purely secular terms.
Whether you like it or not, your choices concerning what is evidence imply certain philosophical stances, and these can be attacked. And it will do you no good to say that you never intended to do any philosophy.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What do you mean by 'by design'? That sounds as if you think the scientific method deliberately rejects any reasonable hypothesis and associated experiments which might show objectively the existence of God.
If you ask a geographer what reaction could produce hydrochloric acid, he will tell you to go see a chemist. That is (normally) outside the scope of things his own science, geography, considers. My point is simply that God is outside the scope of things modern science considers. There is nothing sinister in that, it is simply a choice of focus. Actually, the fine-tuning arguments we were looking at are about as close as one can get. But note that modern science merely provided the "raw materials" for that argument, the various unexplained "fine-tunings" that have been observed. The probabilist argument suggesting that therefore God is the most likely hypothesis sounds more science-like than most philosophy, but it is not science itself.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Are you using the word 'modern' to include work of the last five centuries or so?
Newton is a good figure to attach the beginnings of modern science to, so it's more like 300 years. It's not just the "scientific method", pioneered by Francis Bacon of the Order of Friars Minor, that is important here, but rather also the crucial impact of mathematics. Constructing formulas is a different mental process from thinking about essences, and it is the strengths and limits of mathematics that have shaped modern science (even where it is not all that mathematical).
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
'Applying human reason to nature' is not what scientists do, is it? They observe and record.
You seem to confuse scientists with detectors.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This one would normally consider as a valid way of "providing evidence for God". Since you do not, I think we need to hear from you a very clear definition of what you would consider as actually providing evidence for God.
That sounds like a different way of putting the request for ' please prove the negative.' If God were the 'most likely' answer, then that means that all the non'God explanations have to be demolished first.
First, I'm not asking you to provide evidence for the existence of God, I'm asking you to state clearly what you would count as evidence for the existence of God. Since you demand such evidence, but are obviously picky about accepting the evidence offered by the article, it is entirely fair to ask you to specify what precisely it is that you are demanding. Second, one does not need to "demolish" alternate theories to show that one theory is "most likely", one merely needs to show that the alternate theories are less likely. And this the article did attempt to do.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
On what grounds do you think I 'uncritically swallow' such ideas? That is in fact a completely wrong suggestion.
You made claims, and that was the most friendly interpretation of why you would make those claims.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
If the bible is to be believed, we have a people that had 40 years of national direct revelation of God, plus more indirectly via the judges and prophets.
It's that little word 'if' at the beginning of that sentence that's the problem, isn't it?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@ mdijon
quote:
I haven't read about this Brown guy before, but I'm fascinated by this line. It seems to parallel the Christian's world of "you're not a real Christian even though you say you believe in God and Jesus because you don't have the right doctrine on transubstantiation".
Now we have an atheist saying that a guy who claims not to believe in God isn't really an atheist because of doctrinal weakness and overly-resembling a religious argument on some point.
Well, atheism is a broad church and I can only speak on the doctrine of my denomination of one, but the nearest comparison of Brown I can think of was in Father Ted, when Dougal said something like, "All that stuff they taught in seminary about hell and eternal life, you're not meant to take it seriously, Ted."
I'm not sure I'm going too far out on a limb in my opinion that Brown may be on some sort of journey towards the light - he said in his comments section once (I've not got a link, you can believe me or not) that the more he heard atheist arguments against the existence of God, the less convinced he was.
Mind you, I used the word "schtick" for a reason - I'm not sure how much of what goes out under the name of Andrew Brown, editor of the Guardian's Belief section and anxious for page views and comments reflects the views of Andrew Brown the man.
Crikey, when I typed the word "nominal" I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
If the bible is to be believed, we have a people that had 40 years of national direct revelation of God, plus more indirectly via the judges and prophets.
It's that little word 'if' at the beginning of that sentence that's the problem, isn't it?
And if atheism is to be believed then the universe came into existence by nothing, and out of nothing. In which case, Susan, on the basis of your your own argument it is resonable to ask what evidence you have to show that is the case.
But of course, as IngoB so elegantly put it, you have been confusing evidence with data. There is a body of data about the origin of the universe, used equally by theists and atheists. Both draw conclusions from that data which have a consequences. There is also a body of data relating to our understanding of time and space, from which the first cause argument (which again, as per IngoB is broader and deeper than the origin if the universe) derives.
Whether you are an atheist or a theist, you have to cinsider the repercussions of your interpretation of the data.
The little word "if" follows from the conclusions of atheists as much as for theists..
[ 11. November 2012, 15:37: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Crikey, when I typed the word "nominal" I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
But that's the point me old salt - no-one expects the Spanish Inquisiton ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
If the bible is to be believed, we have a people that had 40 years of national direct revelation of God, plus more indirectly via the judges and prophets.
It's that little word 'if' at the beginning of that sentence that's the problem, isn't it?
[/QUOTE]
Kind-of (and indeed the next sentence was building up on that).
It's metastable, there's two circular arguments. Each at a centre of a whirlpool of other arguments.
No God->Anything that describes a God-like interaction is trivially false->No evidence for God.
Something Koran/Church like -> Our God (and not theirs*)-> all scripture God breathed (and all wrong scripture not).
*the exact words to use are debatable.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the "scientific method", pioneered by Francis Bacon of the Order of Friars Minor
To correct a slip of your keyboard: I suspect you meant (Friar) Roger Bacon, not (Lord Chancellor) Francis Bacon. Though both have been alleged as pioneers of 'scientific method'.
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
W Hyatt
I have just sent you a pm.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have to say I find that experience you describe completely alien, Ramarius. I'm left holding onto belief in a God, who, in your words, never does anything I can recognise. At least not for certain. There are events I can interpret as God's activity, but I'm far from certain that it's anything other than wishful thinking and pattern recognition - humans are so good at recognising patterns that we often recognise ones that don't exist, which is why people still believe in horoscopes.
So I think I know where SusanDoris is coming from. A belief in a God who despite our deepest desires, seems absent to the point you wonder if he's just not there at all. I do not know what your "whole new dimension of experience" means at all.
Interesting. On another forum I sometimes challenge those who claim they have 'reached a higher level of consciousness', or have 'expanded' their consciousness; this is done because of various supernatural powers and writings of mystics, etc. They can never explain what or where these 'levels' are, but know that they can 'reach' them, but atheists cannot! Those who think this, achieved through special interpretation of mystic texts - which, when quoted, read more like psychic babble, etc, seem unable to consider that they are not more special than those of us who interpret things in a more practical way! I think that's 'special pleading'?
****
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Susan Doris. You asked
Did you know when you were young, as I did not, that the virgin birth/resurrection/etc stories were based on more ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and Greek stories, which were it must be assumed based on even older ones? That's the human brain's creative ability and positive response to the colourful narrative which must have been one of the principal factors that kept human groups close and enabled them to pass on acquired knowledge and survive.
I didn't know this when I was young. After four years academic study of ancient religion I know now this is complete nonsense. I see IngoB has given you something to read on this.
I know some people who would be able to back up their disagreement with this with citations, and if I have time, I'll see if I can ask them.
Ramarius - Thank you for responses. As far as I can see I don't think I've missed any posts to which I should respond, but will go through again tomorrow to check.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Squibs
I don’t really know what to say. Your original comment (apart from bemoaning the state of Dawkins’s knowledge of Aquinas, which is in the same territory I addressed in a reply to Ingo) just states your opinion that the gnus want to extinguish all religious faith. I don’t believe that to be the case and have offered a few thoughts on the matter from my side of the fence.
I suggest you reread my original post. I did not make a categorical claim about what all New Atheists think. Rather, I said that some prominent New Atheists have made their feelings perfectly clear about religion and, in some cases, about the religious.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Interesting. On another forum I sometimes challenge those who claim they have 'reached a higher level of consciousness', or have 'expanded' their consciousness; this is done because of various supernatural powers and writings of mystics, etc. They can never explain what or where these 'levels' are, but know that they can 'reach' them, but atheists cannot! Those who think this, achieved through special interpretation of mystic texts - which, when quoted, read more like psychic babble, etc, seem unable to consider that they are not more special than those of us who interpret things in a more practical way! I think that's 'special pleading'?
The field of mysticism has always been overrun with charlatans and fools. People claim more than they can and should, either for personal gain or because of self-deluding pride. Yet it is also true that (in my estimate) about half of the population has some talent for contemplation, and that (in my experience) they will typically have some mystical experience within a year or so of none too strenuous contemplative practice. It's a bit like being musical and learning to play an instrument, really.
The nice thing about specifically Christian mysticism is that it is not gnostic. Mystical knowledge is not necessary for one's salvation, and it does not reveal anything beyond the Divine revelation accessible to all. Again, it's a bit like music. There's a difference between listening to music and playing it, but Beethoven remains Beethoven.
Anyway, it is quite true that no atheist can have mystical experiences. But not because atheism gets in the way of mystical experience, but because mystical experience gets in the way of atheism. (Note that here I'm thinking of the typical materialist Western atheism, not of the kind of spiritual atheism that Buddhism represents.) Contemplation represents a challenge to atheism: it is something that probably about 50% of atheists could get seriously into, yet if they would, they would not remain as they are. Of that I am sure...
So, if it seems at all attractive to you to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing: do. Say every other day, for at least half an hour, for a year or so. Consider that as an experiment in mysticism. What can half an hour of quiet do, after all? Oh, what can it do...
I should probably advise that you seek skilled counsel in doing this. But then, who would an atheist turn to without compromising their beloved "objectivity"? So, in all fairness, be warned that you may find things in silence that are ... not easy to handle. FWIW, for this sort of rather heads-on contemplative approach, the Cloud of Unknowing and the Book of Privy Counsel provide good Christian manuals.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
As others referred to elsewhere, IngoB's comment about silence was the message from the The Big Silence - that spending time in silence did change people. It didn't make all of them religious, but it did open their minds. There are still episodes on Youtube
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, if it seems at all attractive to you to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing: do. Say every other day, for at least half an hour, for a year or so. Consider that as an experiment in mysticism. What can half an hour of quiet do, after all? Oh, what can it do...
I should probably advise that you seek skilled counsel in doing this. But then, who would an atheist turn to without compromising their beloved "objectivity"? So, in all fairness, be warned that you may find things in silence that are ... not easy to handle.
I think m'learned friend meant to say, "Don't blame us if things happen that makes you feel like your brain's been in a blender and is now dribbling out of your ear."
Superb post, IngoB.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
