Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:The Borg are Taoist?

"I am Lao Zi of Borg, Resistance is futile..."

del'Vhar wrote:Fair enough, I know very little about Taoism beyond the name.

So is it something similar to Fate/Destiny?

Taoism is not an atheistic system..... according to the tao te ching there is a mysterious, feminine source of all reality. one might fairly describe that as god, though it is not, as is typical in chinese thought, a strictly personal god. in addition taoism has a big "folk religion" element to it that has alot to do with gods spirits etc. Describing it as atheistic is a gross misrepresentation. AF

SmackCakes wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:The only proof for the non-existence of Spider-Man is the complete lack of evidence for his existence.

There is also the lack of 'need' which could be seen as evidence against something existing. There are lots of things that people can't prove or disprove the existence of. Certain theoretical particles for example... However these particles are thought to exist because they are needed to explain certain phenomenon. Over time there has become less and less need for God to exist. Supernovas and gravity helped to explain the formation of the Earth, evolution explained the existence of complex life, charges particles explained thunder storms. And it looks as though a singularity might explain the beginning of the universe. God could himself be described as a singularity... albeit an infinitely more complex one than is needed for the universe to come into being. As such there is really no 'need' to assume there is a god in order to explain anything. This does not bode well for his chances of existing.

A counter point to this that I personally enjoy:

Is it not possible that science has merely shown *how* God/s did things?
For example, creating man may have been an iterative process that was gradually refined = Evolution.

If you consider the creation stories(and many others) in the Bible to be largely metaphorical, then I consider this conclusion to be reached fairly naturally.

If God exists, theres no reason to assume he just magic-ed everything from thin air.

The Tao is the way
it is not really fate or destiny.

The Tao Te Ching iirc is a sort of negative philosophy in that it cannot be described (not negative as bad)
Neti neti as I think it says in the Upanishads. ie Not this, not this.

He who knows knows not
All I know is I haven't a fethin' clue



Automatically Appended Next Post:

feminine source of all reality. one might fairly describe that as god

because a source is described as feminine it is a mistake to equate it with divinity.
This is why there is the negative philosophy, because of the way the mind works and it gets caught out by semantics.
The problem ironically is pretty much the same as that of religion.

We use concrete images to enable us to talk about the undescribable.

As I pointed out earlier however, there are forms of popular or Folk belief that tend to worship as you say

del'Vhar wrote:Fair enough, I know very little about Taoism beyond the name.

So is it something similar to Fate/Destiny?

If the world is a lazy river, then the Tao is the current of the river. You can swim against it, but you will find your experience of the river more pleasant if you just float and let the current take you with it. It is not fate, destiny, god, or any other thing. It is the tao, the flow of existence, and it you can resist the flow or go with the flow, but no matter what you do, the flow will continue to flow.

It doesn't flow for a reason, it doesn't have a goal, it isn't going anywhere. It just flows because it flows.

So you see, the feminine energy entity's name is Flo.

Or maybe the feminine energy's flow was....nevermind, thats a joke that I dont need to finish.

@ Gailbraithe: It sounds vaguely similar to the Wheel of Time/The Pattern from the Wheel of Time series, I guess.
Although even that has some alliteration to destiny/purpose.

The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist. thats more or less where gailbraithe is coming from. ("show me god on a gps," "define it," "give me proof") etc. I think that the idea that rationality is the only means of perceiving truth is absurd so ofcourse I'm not interested in trying to prove the existence of God on rational grounds. That doesnt seem to be your position though so I guess I dont really disagree with you here.

Yeah, and as I've tried to explain to Galbraithe that line of approach doesn't work. Demanding material evidence of a thing that by definition exists outside the material world doesn't work. I think we agree on this.

which is equally applicable to invisible cannibal bunnies flying spaghetti monsters etc. what those illustrations show to me is not that the idea of God is absurd, but that the idea of rationality as a sole means of proof is absurd. Rationally those things are equally likely and equally unlikely to exist, as you say of God. So if rationality leads you to that place, then what does it tell you about rationality? Obviously its not the sole means of arriving at truth - that belief is a reductionist absurdity.

Yeah, that's pretty sound reasoning, I think. I'd stop before you go on to claim that your thinking beyond rationality is 'common sense' - I don't think that's the word for it. I don't know what's better, but I don't think that's the right term.

There's a difference in the sense that you more readily belive the scientist than the prophet mystic shaman whatever.

No, there is a qualititative difference in the methodologies of the scientist and the prophet/mystic/shaman. Science is established through the scientific process - you form a hypothesis, test that through experiment, comment on the results, refine or discard the hypothesis, and the publish this for other scientists to assess the methodology and aim to replicate.

Religion does not have any such methodology. This is no criticism of religion, as it is dealing with questions that are entirely unsuited to solving with scientific methods. But it means that trying to compare the acceptance of a statement from a scientist and a statement from prophet/mystic/shaman is nonsense.

Such belief has been used from our earliest history to order the lives of individuals and of states with good results. If an atheist hasnt personally experienced the benefits of those beliefs, or has experienced them as a negative, that doesnt necessarily invalidate them. the poor people at hiroshima and nagasaki undoubtedly experienced scientific progress as a negative, not a positive - but we dont ditch science as a result, do we?

The truth of a piece of science doesn't depend on it's usefulness. Not at all. Whether nuclear science is used to blow up a city or to have power plant run supply a city, the science remains true. Even if a point os science is completely useless and has no real world application, it would still be true.

The effects of religion on peoples lives are real and largely beneficial - on that basis I'm willing to listen to what the people who make a specialty out of religious practice have to say. Its not as far fetched as modern prejudices may lead one to believe - I'm applying the exact same kind of reasoning to prophets that we all blithely apply to scientists, and for pretty much the same reasons.

There's an anecdote they tell in leadership courses about a Swiss Army reserve unit out in the Alps. Poor weather comes in quickly and the team tries to return to camp but becomes lost, and panic sets in, they're arguing about what to do. Fortunately the leader finds a map and says he can get the team out, they stop panicking, build a camp and wait out the storm. In the morning, in the clear weather they see they're not too far from base camp. They march home, explain the story and the leader shows everyone the map - at which point they realise the map was for a completely different mountain range.

The point of the anecdote is to show how simply producing a plan can get everyone working, building the camp to wait out the storm, which had a beneficial result even though the plan itself is rubbish.

Now consider that I never saw any source for that anecdote, it could have been made up by some leadership guru, and told and retold by hundreds of people. Whether it ever actually happened or not, it is still useful because it demonstrates a point.

Do you see how it can also apply to spiritual truth?

I dont conclude that something is absolutely factually true because it is useful. Its a good rough guide, thats all.

And I'm saying that it's an incredibly rough guide, at best.

Ka is a wheel also, IIRC.

Gailbraithe wrote:Modern theists are forced to define God in ways that are untestable, because otherwise we would test them -- and since all previous attempts to define God in a testable manner have left egg on theist's face, one can understand why they would be loathe to do so. But when you define God as a thing that can never be tested, as a thing that can defy logic and sense, then you are defining god as a thing which -- by its nature -- cannot be understood. So then what does it mean to say you believe in God? It means you believe in something which, by definition, you can know nothing about and cannot comprehend.

Yes, of course it does. It's God, the cause of all creation. How would you or anyone else be able to understand Him?

Instead you take it as a spiritual, instinctive truth. Or you don't, if you have no such instinct. I don't have that instinct but I accept others do.

To which I think the best response is "Did you know that God's name is Eris and the He is a girl?" Because seriously, if we're going to embrace God because it makes us happy, why should we embrace a stuffy, judgmental and arrogant god like Yahweh, when we could embrace the Goddess of Chaos, a smoking hot bitch goddess who knows how to have a good time and laugh at a joke?

If that's the God you instinctively feel to be true, then it's the one you should follow.

Seriously why this...



When you could make the equally absurd leap to this?

Because one doesn't choose what God one believes in.

sebster
well ok I'm glad we agree about a couple things.... just a nice feeling. whatever.

There's a difference in the sense that you more readily belive the scientist than the prophet mystic shaman whatever.

No, there is a qualititative difference in the methodologies of the scientist and the prophet/mystic/shaman. Science is established through the scientific process - you form a hypothesis, test that through experiment, comment on the results, refine or discard the hypothesis, and the publish this for other scientists to assess the methodology and aim to replicate.

yes, and that process is pretty good for discovering physical truths. in the absence of any similarly effective methodology for discovering metaphysical truths, I think its fair to look at the likely outcomes of beliefs as a guide to their trustworthiness. I'd argue that in the case of (world-spanning) religions those outcomes are on the whole favorable, both for individuals and for societies, so on that basis I'd say there's probably somthing to them, just like I'd say there's probably something to newtonian physics if it accurately predicts the trajectories of moving objects.

here's another way to look at it. If your A/C in your home needs to be replaced, do you replace it yourself or call in an expert? You call in an expert right? Well what if you find out that you have cancer? You don't try to administer chemo yourself - you go find an expert. Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever. Is there anything wrong with seeking out some expert advice in that field? I dont think there is. Well who has the training? A large number of people with specialty in metaphysical problems are people whose lives are devoted to the study of religion. I dont think there's anything wrong with going to those people for advice rather than trying to do it yourself, for the same reason you wouldnt try to install an A/C unit yourself or administer chemo yourself - they're specialized fields that require training to master, if you try to do it yourself you're likely to screw it up.

Religion does not have any such methodology. This is no criticism of religion, as it is dealing with questions that are entirely unsuited to solving with scientific methods. But it means that trying to compare the acceptance of a statement from a scientist and a statement from prophet/mystic/shaman is nonsense.

well its not systematized like science is. The proof is whether it works or not. Science does. thats why we've embraced it. Does religion? For alot of people it does. If I believe in science because it works, why not religion too?

The effects of religion on peoples lives are real and largely beneficial - on that basis I'm willing to listen to what the people who make a specialty out of religious practice have to say. Its not as far fetched as modern prejudices may lead one to believe - I'm applying the exact same kind of reasoning to prophets that we all blithely apply to scientists, and for pretty much the same reasons.

There's an anecdote they tell in leadership courses about a Swiss Army reserve unit out in the Alps. Poor weather comes in quickly and the team tries to return to camp but becomes lost, and panic sets in, they're arguing about what to do. Fortunately the leader finds a map and says he can get the team out, they stop panicking, build a camp and wait out the storm. In the morning, in the clear weather they see they're not too far from base camp. They march home, explain the story and the leader shows everyone the map - at which point they realise the map was for a completely different mountain range.

The point of the anecdote is to show how simply producing a plan can get everyone working, building the camp to wait out the storm, which had a beneficial result even though the plan itself is rubbish.

Now consider that I never saw any source for that anecdote, it could have been made up by some leadership guru, and told and retold by hundreds of people. Whether it ever actually happened or not, it is still useful because it demonstrates a point.

Do you see how it can also apply to spiritual truth?

sure. The factual content of the map wasnt what mattered - the psychological content, that it got people to stop panicking, was what mattered. The map was a lie, but the deeper truth - that if we stop panicking we'll probably get through this - was not. I'm not claiming that how something makes you feel is necessarily a good guide to the factual accuracy of a statement. obviously it isnt alot of the time. What I'm saying is that belief in God can communicate some higher truths. Even if God didnt exist, those truths would be worth having on their own right.

Making a factual error about the existence of God is a small price to pay for access to some deeper, life affirming truths, if thats the only way you can get them. The human mind works through symbols that it often conflates with facts. The most compact and intimate form of communication is, in fact, symbols. Does God factually exist? I think so, although not in a way that I can explain. I accept it as beyond the power of my mind to fathom the deep mysteries of the universe. I just accept that its beyond my understanding. In a way the arrogance of some rationalists just astounds me. I mean they're people who would have a hard time passing a biological chemistry course at university, or learning to speak ancient greek, but here they come to explain all the mysteries of the universe in 500 words or less? It's pretty absurd.

Anyway.... that there's something beneficial about believing in God seems pretty evident to me, so I believe. Leap of faith. Whatever. So just like the reservists were factually wrong about the map but metaphysically right about the need to stop panicking, I may be factually wrong about the existence of God, but metaphysically right. that's a risk I'm willing to take, although like I said I think that God does in fact exist, albiet in some way I dont entirely understand.

I dont conclude that something is absolutely factually true because it is useful. Its a good rough guide, thats all.

And I'm saying that it's an incredibly rough guide, at best.

I can accept that. asking whether god exists or not is after all a big question. Its the best approach to the problem I can think of.
AF

sebster wrote:Yeah, and as I've tried to explain to Galbraithe that line of approach doesn't work. Demanding material evidence of a thing that by definition exists outside the material world doesn't work. I think we agree on this.

I think you haven't understood my position. It is certainly possible to define God in such a way that God is unfalsifiable, in a way that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. But does an unfalsifiable definition of God matter?

An unfalsifiable definition of God is not an argument in favor of any belief system. It doesn't compel any kind of action. Maybe this unfalsifiable God exists, maybe he doesn't. Without something else to add to that, it's trivial.

But what if God says we have to stone homosexuals to death? I don't want to stone homosexuals to death. It seems sick, cruel and barbaric. But who am I to deny God? If God says I must kill homosexuals, then I must kill homosexuals. Right? If God is real, then homosexuals have to die. But that's a pretty big leap, right? It would seem insane to kill homosexuals based on the fact that someone was able to craft a definition of God that is unfalsifiable. Killing homosexuals in the name of God would seem to demand a greater proof of God's existence than "You can't prove God doesn't exist if I define God in this completely unfalsifiable way!"

And that's my point. Let's say I accept this argument that Unfalsifiable God exists. Now what? What happens next? What does it mean that this unfalsifiable God exists?

::crickets::

The truth of a piece of science doesn't depend on it's usefulness. Not at all. Whether nuclear science is used to blow up a city or to have power plant run supply a city, the science remains true. Even if a point os science is completely useless and has no real world application, it would still be true.

That's completely wrong. The truth of a scientific theory is entirely based on it's utility (usefulness) -- specifically its usefulness in making predictions about the world. A theory that an be used to make accurate predictions is true until such time as evidence comes forth that contradicts the predictions of the theory.

What you mean is that the truth of science is not dependent on the purposes that technological applications of the theory are put to. Nuclear theory is true because it predicts a tremendous amount of energy bound in matter, and all evidence points to that prediction being true. Nuclear theory is true because it predicts that a bomb or power plant built a certain way will unleash that energy, and these technological applications work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever.

Neither of those examples are metaphysical problems.

del'Vhar wrote:Is it not possible that science has merely shown *how* God/s did things?

Anything is 'possible' but that has not mean it is probable or even needed. Evolution is a real proven phenomenon that stands up on its own without the need for God. Here we start to get into Ockham's razor-

Ockham's razor states that with two competing theories, the theory which depends on the least assumptions is generally the correct one. If (for example) I go to my door and find a letter on the floor, directly under the letter box; I could theorize that during the night aliens escaped from area 51 but were shot down over my house, so came into my house down the chimney with a letter that was (blah blah intricate conspiracy) and placed it by my door. But this theory relies on an awful lot of wild assumptions that may even defy physics.

Or I could theorize that the postman put it through the door on his rounds. This is most likely correct as it offers a complete explanation while only really depending on one highly probable assumption.

Maybe god does help evolution along, or maybe the flying spaghetti monster helps evolution along, or maybe Joe Pesci helps evolution along... All these theories could be postulated as 'possible'. But since evolution works fine without help there is really no justification for adding in further redundant assumptions.

God might be possible, but he is still not required to explain anything.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Some of them might not believe in God. I guess its possible. The exception that proves the rule if you ask me.

I'm fairly strict in my interpretation of what makes someone an atheist. If you believe in a higher power, but don't call it God, then I'm probably going to call you an atheist. In my experience New Age philosophy tends towards a sort of freely associated 'higher power' that resembles Spinoza's God, but is never consistently called God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:
All babies are atheists.

I've heard this argument before, and I've never really liked it. Until they can form discernible beliefs babies are atheists in essentially the same way that dogs are. That is, they don't have beliefs and so cannot believe in God.

I mean, I understand the attraction of the argument. It dovetails nicely into the supposition that the only way to conclude that there is a God is to assume that one exists, which in turn links up nicely with the belief that theist parents tend to indoctrinate their children; thus holding back all of society. (disclaimer: I don't actually believe this)

However, because I like to assume that everyone can reason to some degree, I think its more honest to at least presume that individual belief is at least partially founded on the standard of evidence that the believer is willing to accept with respect to God. Individuals accept theism because of the way they learned to engage with the world, just as considered atheists (as distinguished from technical atheists, like babies and dogs) reject theism because of the way they learned to engage with the world.

well..... the new age movement is so nebulous that its kind of hard to get a grip on just what those people believe. I can point to some prominent new age leaders who clearly do believe in god.... neale diamond walsh for instance, or sylvia browne. My experience with new agers is that they arent particularly careful about what they believe - its all pretty vague. I think they like it that way. Anyway without knowing which new agers you're talking about in particular its hard for me to discuss their beliefs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
babies are no more atheists than dogs or plankton are. they dont have the mental capacity to evaluate the claims of theists or atheists. the idea is absurd.

If atheism means not believing in god
then it is not absurd to say that babies are atheists.
Unless you are going to suggest that they do believe in god?

And we all know that dog is god backwards.
which could be why they spend so much time sniffing their jacksies. or is that a circular arguement

I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:And we all know that dog is god backwards.

vox populi vox canine?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.

That's just making things up to suit.

I can equally suggest that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God.
In anycase, prove that babies don't positively believe there is no such thing as God.

maybe. atheists make things up to suit as welll; if atheism is merely a lack of belief then they can demand proof from others without providing any of their own. sure is convenient. Its just a debating tactic. when someone says "God does not exist" that sounds like a positive assertion of fact to me, not merely benign ignorance.

babies dont have the mental capacity to understand what god is. they are therefor incapable of any belief about god whatever, that he exists or does not, that he lives in the sky or under the earth, or whatever. They havent even learned to talk yet give them a break!
AF

Atheism is a choice as much as religion is. You look around and say "That is a load of hooey". If you lack the capacity to choose you can not be part of something requires a choice to be made. A baby is hungry, not by choice, but by biological necessity.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
well ok I'm glad we agree about a couple things.... just a nice feeling. whatever.

I think we've been agreeing more than disagreeing, it's been an interesting chat.

yes, and that process is pretty good for discovering physical truths. in the absence of any similarly effective methodology for discovering metaphysical truths, I think its fair to look at the likely outcomes of beliefs as a guide to their trustworthiness. I'd argue that in the case of (world-spanning) religions those outcomes are on the whole favorable, both for individuals and for societies, so on that basis I'd say there's probably somthing to them, just like I'd say there's probably something to newtonian physics if it accurately predicts the trajectories of moving objects.

Yes, but we're back to where we started, it can be useful but not true.

here's another way to look at it. If your A/C in your home needs to be replaced, do you replace it yourself or call in an expert? You call in an expert right? Well what if you find out that you have cancer? You don't try to administer chemo yourself - you go find an expert. Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever. Is there anything wrong with seeking out some expert advice in that field? I dont think there is. Well who has the training? A large number of people with specialty in metaphysical problems are people whose lives are devoted to the study of religion. I dont think there's anything wrong with going to those people for advice rather than trying to do it yourself, for the same reason you wouldnt try to install an A/C unit yourself or administer chemo yourself - they're specialized fields that require training to master, if you try to do it yourself you're likely to screw it up.

Oh, you should absolutely talk to spiritual leaders. A friend of the family is a Father and I talk to him about all kinds of stuff, and he's got tremendous insight, even for an atheist like me.

well its not systematized like science is. The proof is whether it works or not. Science does. thats why we've embraced it. Does religion? For alot of people it does. If I believe in science because it works, why not religion too?

No, because science isn't 'it works'. There is the scientific method, it is a real and very important thing, I described it in my previous post and it is a lot more rigorous than 'it works'.

It is no criticism of faith that it doesn't use this, it can't and shouldn't be expected to, but that doesn't mean you can replace it with something as vague as 'religious societies that I haven't described or listed have lasted longer than non-religious societies that I haven't described or listed'. The potential for self-confirmation bias alone is too great for that to be properly considered.

sure. The factual content of the map wasnt what mattered - the psychological content, that it got people to stop panicking, was what mattered. The map was a lie, but the deeper truth - that if we stop panicking we'll probably get through this - was not. I'm not claiming that how something makes you feel is necessarily a good guide to the factual accuracy of a statement. obviously it isnt alot of the time. What I'm saying is that belief in God can communicate some higher truths. Even if God didnt exist, those truths would be worth having on their own right.

Absolutely, and I agree, belief in God has informed some people of some very powerful truths. Even though I don't believe in God, I can agree on many of those truths.

But what I'm saying is that just because a thing helps, it doesn't necessarily make it true. The properties of a thing that make it useful can be entirely unrelated to it's truth.

Making a factual error about the existence of God is a small price to pay for access to some deeper, life affirming truths, if thats the only way you can get them.

Sure, if it helps them then let them believe. I've never argued that belief isn't useful, I believe faith is very useful. I've just said that just because it's useful, it doesn't make it true.

The most compact and intimate form of communication is, in fact, symbols. Does God factually exist? I think so, although not in a way that I can explain. I accept it as beyond the power of my mind to fathom the deep mysteries of the universe. I just accept that its beyond my understanding.

Sure, and I believe there is no God in a way that I can't fully explain. All I can do is tell people the world that makes sense to me is one that doesn't have a God.

In a way the arrogance of some rationalists just astounds me. I mean they're people who would have a hard time passing a biological chemistry course at university, or learning to speak ancient greek, but here they come to explain all the mysteries of the universe in 500 words or less? It's pretty absurd.

Oh, absolutely. But there's plenty of creationists trying to tear down the foundations of science based entirely on a Kent Hovind lecture they saw in the mid-90s. It's people that absurd, not just atheists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:I think you haven't understood my position. It is certainly possible to define God in such a way that God is unfalsifiable, in a way that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. But does an unfalsifiable definition of God matter?

To the person who believes in God their faith sure does matter.

And that's my point. Let's say I accept this argument that Unfalsifiable God exists. Now what? What happens next? What does it mean that this unfalsifiable God exists?

The person finds their personal, spiritual truth, and then goes about their life finding the truths that matter to them. As do the rest of us. And we all accept than any truth on something as unknowable as God would be impossible to even begin to prove, so we all accept whatever the

And remember that acceptance doesn't mean letting them do whatever. When the guy starts going on about stoning homosexuals I explain to him that I believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, and if he wants to continue his plans to stone homosexuals then I'm going to cave his head in with a star picket.

That's basically what life is.

That's completely wrong. The truth of a scientific theory is entirely based on it's utility (usefulness) -- specifically its usefulness in making predictions about the world. A theory that an be used to make accurate predictions is true until such time as evidence comes forth that contradicts the predictions of the theory.

You've put a completely ridiculous definition onto my use of the word 'useful' in order to disagree with me. That's a ridiculous thing, and I'd ask you to never do it again. It will only make you look bad and reduce your ability to have interesting conversation.

AbaddonFidelis pointed out that despite science doing harm to people at Hiroshima, we don't ditch science. I pointed out that science remained true regardless of it's positive or negative uses - and that it didn't have to be useful at all to still be true. The word 'useful' obviously meant 'useful', as in 'useful in real world applications'. For instance, forumlas were created that predicted black holes, and then we went and found them. We have no use for these black holes, they're really far away for one thing, but they are still real, and the formulas predicting them are true.

What you mean is that the truth of science is not dependent on the purposes that technological applications of the theory are put to.

What I meant is exactly what I said. The only thing that stopped you understanding it was the ridiculous interpretation you put onto the word 'useful', an interpretation you contrived seemingly just to find disagreement.

That was kind of my point
You were merely making an assertion by defining something

If babies don't have the capacity to believe

Why do unbaptised children go to Limbo?
What sort of Bastard treats babbies like that?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That was kind of my point
You were merely making an assertion by defining something

If babies don't have the capacity to believe

Why do unbaptised children go to Limbo?
What sort of Bastard treats babbies like that?

lol idk - a mid eval catholic theologian I guess.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.

That's just making things up to suit.

I can equally suggest that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God.
In anycase, prove that babies don't positively believe there is no such thing as God.

Because they have little to no capacity for belief, they can't believe there is no god if they can't believe at all. Is a blade of grass athiest

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:If atheism means not believing in god
then it is not absurd to say that babies are atheists.
Unless you are going to suggest that they do believe in god?

No, atheism requires believing there is no God. That is, a person has decided that he personally believes there is no God.

That is entirely different to a person who hasn't decided, or never even considered the question.

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
well ok I'm glad we agree about a couple things.... just a nice feeling. whatever.

I think we've been agreeing more than disagreeing, it's been an interesting chat.

yeah.

yes, and that process is pretty good for discovering physical truths. in the absence of any similarly effective methodology for discovering metaphysical truths, I think its fair to look at the likely outcomes of beliefs as a guide to their trustworthiness. I'd argue that in the case of (world-spanning) religions those outcomes are on the whole favorable, both for individuals and for societies, so on that basis I'd say there's probably somthing to them, just like I'd say there's probably something to newtonian physics if it accurately predicts the trajectories of moving objects.

Yes, but we're back to where we started, it can be useful but not true.

well ok let me ask - do you think that science is a good way of understanding the physical world? If so, on what basis?

here's another way to look at it. If your A/C in your home needs to be replaced, do you replace it yourself or call in an expert? You call in an expert right? Well what if you find out that you have cancer? You don't try to administer chemo yourself - you go find an expert. Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever. Is there anything wrong with seeking out some expert advice in that field? I dont think there is. Well who has the training? A large number of people with specialty in metaphysical problems are people whose lives are devoted to the study of religion. I dont think there's anything wrong with going to those people for advice rather than trying to do it yourself, for the same reason you wouldnt try to install an A/C unit yourself or administer chemo yourself - they're specialized fields that require training to master, if you try to do it yourself you're likely to screw it up.

Oh, you should absolutely talk to spiritual leaders. A friend of the family is a Father and I talk to him about all kinds of stuff, and he's got tremendous insight, even for an atheist like me.

ok.... I'm surprised you answered that way.... never had anyone agree with that before... dont know what to say. Usually it comes back "you're letting other people do your thinking for me." well of course I am. the doctor the mechanic and sure the priest too. dont let them do all my thinking for me but alot of it, sure I do. just surprised me that you agreed with that. lol.

well its not systematized like science is. The proof is whether it works or not. Science does. thats why we've embraced it. Does religion? For alot of people it does. If I believe in science because it works, why not religion too?

No, because science isn't 'it works'. There is the scientific method, it is a real and very important thing, I described it in my previous post and it is a lot more rigorous than 'it works'.

well its inferrence based on experiment. the theory that yields the best predictive results tends to be accepted. that sounds like utility to me. not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.

It is no criticism of faith that it doesn't use this, it can't and shouldn't be expected to, but that doesn't mean you can replace it with something as vague as 'religious societies that I haven't described or listed have lasted longer than non-religious societies that I haven't described or listed'. The potential for self-confirmation bias alone is too great for that to be properly considered.

sure I can provide examples..... I'm talking about the elite and middle classes here, when I say religious or secular. the lower class is always religious.

Rome lasted as a pagan state from about 750 bc (near as anyone can tell) to about 100 bc, about 400 years as a secular state (I'd take the conversion of constantine as a convenient marker here), then 1200 as a christian one, so about 2000 years as a religious vs about 400 years as a secular state.

Athens lasted as a pagan state from about 14-1100 bc (dates are uncertain) to about 500 bc (where the transition took place is hard to pin down - the birth of euripides, who was a frank atheist, in 480 bc seems like as good a point as any), then lasted about 150 years after that until it was conquered by alexander the great and ceased to be an independent state. so about 9-600 years as a religious state and about 150 years as a secular state.

For both Rome and Athens their secular periods were periods of extreme turbulence in domestic politics and often in their foreign relations too. For Rome it's a series of civil wars lasting about 60 years, then a string of more or less corrupt and oppressive despots, then a shorter string of more or less enlightened despots, then another string of corrupt and oppressive despots. Tacitus and Juvenal both wrote in the 1st century AD and agreed that Rome was rotten right down to the core. That's a secular society they're describing. Anyway stability at the upper echelons of the roman social order isnt really restored until the 4th century, which is, incidentally, a period where secular romans are getting scarce and religious ones more abundant.

Its hard for me to be as specific with Athens but about 500-400 bc there were several coup attempts against the govt, class warfare was rampant, and Athens was constantly involved in wars having basically to do with the desire to set up a pan-hellenistic empire. This goes on until Alexander conquers them in the 4th century BC. those are the rough outlines as I understand them.

I'm not as familiar with chinese or indian history but I do know that they went through secular periods that didnt last anything like as long as their religious (in the case of china, more or less) periods. But I think those two examples demonstrate my point. I only chose states whose history is known from beginning to end. Obviously Russia has been a predominantly religious country since the very beginning, but only has about 100 years as a secular one behind it. since it hasnt reverted back to a religious state it might not be fair to discuss it under the same heading as athens or rome, where the scenario played out completely.

sure. The factual content of the map wasnt what mattered - the psychological content, that it got people to stop panicking, was what mattered. The map was a lie, but the deeper truth - that if we stop panicking we'll probably get through this - was not. I'm not claiming that how something makes you feel is necessarily a good guide to the factual accuracy of a statement. obviously it isnt alot of the time. What I'm saying is that belief in God can communicate some higher truths. Even if God didnt exist, those truths would be worth having on their own right.

Absolutely, and I agree, belief in God has informed some people of some very powerful truths. Even though I don't believe in God, I can agree on many of those truths.

But what I'm saying is that just because a thing helps, it doesn't necessarily make it true. The properties of a thing that make it useful can be entirely unrelated to it's truth.

well maybe truth isnt the best word I could have chosen. it implies factual, emperical accuracy. that's not really what I'm getting at. I mean true in a mythological sense, of conveying meanings to a person that might otherwise be overlooked. a short cut to the psyche to get them to act in adaptive ways. the factual truth isnt always what matters. the psychological truth matters too. I cant think of any thing that is plainly, profoundly, psychologically false, that is at the same time useful. Someone who persists in holding onto beliefs that do not serve, but in fact hinder their life, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary, is unstable at best, insane at worse. That would not adaptive at all so I think it fails the utility test. Can you think of an instance where someone would believe something that is false both factually and metaphorically, that would at the same time be useful for him to believe? that might help to clarify things a bit...

I'm just kind of working this idea out as I go along. It's been in the back of my mind for a long time but I never tried to discuss it in detail, so I may be a bit sketchy here. From what Gailbraithe was saying I guess it already occurred to some pretty smart people so mb I should just look them up and see what they had to say.

The most compact and intimate form of communication is, in fact, symbols. Does God factually exist? I think so, although not in a way that I can explain. I accept it as beyond the power of my mind to fathom the deep mysteries of the universe. I just accept that its beyond my understanding.

Sure, and I believe there is no God in a way that I can't fully explain. All I can do is tell people the world that makes sense to me is one that doesn't have a God.

well no one can gainsay that.

In a way the arrogance of some rationalists just astounds me. I mean they're people who would have a hard time passing a biological chemistry course at university, or learning to speak ancient greek, but here they come to explain all the mysteries of the universe in 500 words or less? It's pretty absurd.

Oh, absolutely. But there's plenty of creationists trying to tear down the foundations of science based entirely on a Kent Hovind lecture they saw in the mid-90s. It's people that absurd, not just atheists.

yeah I agree with that. no group has a monopoly on arrogance. I guess my real gripe is against the kind of militant, fundamentalist atheism that I see play out on the internet all the time.... just as I'm sure what irks alot of atheists is the fire and brimstone bible thumping believe and be saved variety of christianity that you all get to deal with. You have a much more nuanced approach so alot of my criticisms really dont apply.

And to be frank I dont find many of the theistic arguments being advanced particularly helpful or illuminating either. I wish christians would understand their own tradition better. The whole project of trying to prove that god exists because the universe needs an intelligent designer or a first cause etc is IMO ridiculous. That's not what the founders of christian theology said - what they said was, in essence, that sometimes the heart is wiser than the mind, and that its ok to take leaps of faith based on what you feel. You cant get at the fundamental mysteries of the universe by debating - you need the help of your intuition. If your intuition is pulling you one way then recognize the limitations of the rational mind and embrace your intuition. Once you've made the leap of faith you'll start seeing changes in your own life that powerfully evince the work of God. Thats an argument that I can respect because it describes what I have personally seen happen in my life and in the lives of others. I dont posit God because I cant understand my world without him - I dont understand my world one way or another. Even science contains some whacky stuff that no one really understands. Like how a particle can be in two places at once or how particles on seperate sides of the universe can adjust their physical characteristics to conform to whats happening to its opposite members; these things are beyond my capacity to comprehend. Anyway once a theist admits rationality as the basis for his belief he's doomed - rationally he doesnt have any grounds for belief. What he ought to do is question the premise that the attack on his faith is predicated on - that rationality is the one true basis of learning the truth. I guess thats a little too involved for your hell fire and brimstone types though.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.

That's just making things up to suit.

I can equally suggest that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God.
In anycase, prove that babies don't positively believe there is no such thing as God.

Because they have little to no capacity for belief, they can't believe there is no god if they can't believe at all. Is a blade of grass athiest

yes exactly. thankyou. This.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.

In other words, you're going to commit a strawman fallacy and ignore what I've said. That's cool. From here on out I'm going to suggest that AbaddonFidelis isn't just saying god exists, he's saying god is a dude with a white beard and a golden throne who lives on Mars. Because you know, that's a lot easier claim to deal with than you're "the question of God is immune to logic" argument.



Your entire argument is such spurious nonsense. To insist that atheism is the "postive belief that there is no such thing as god" is too presume the case for theism. It's just a cheap parlor trick to avoid reality: you are making the positive claim! You are the one claiming god exists! That's the case you have to prove. No matter how much you try to insist that we're in Backwards World where denying a positive claim is a postive claim, and thus people must prove negative claims but not positive ones.

And what's so ridiculous about this is that you won't accept the same lack of logic for faeries. Or unicorns. Or the flying spaghetti monster. And why? Because in all of those cases you can clearly recognize the lack of logic, you can clearly see that such arguments mock common sense and reason, but when we turn to the question of God...blinders on!

Look dude, you can pull the wool over your own eyes to your heart's content, but don't delude yourself into thinking you can turn that choice into a persuasive argument. You've admitted that your belief in God is self-justified by the emotional utility of the belief, and I don't have to justify my choice to not follow you down the rabbit hole.

9/10... and now I know when the Jewish Sabbath begins.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well ok let me ask - do you think that science is a good way of understanding the physical world? If so, on what basis?

Because the requirement for repeatibility means that science says things we know to be true. It says if you release an object in a vacuum it will fall to the Earth at 9.8 m/s, and we can repeat this over and over again.

ok.... I'm surprised you answered that way.... never had anyone agree with that before... dont know what to say. Usually it comes back "you're letting other people do your thinking for me." well of course I am. the doctor the mechanic and sure the priest too. dont let them do all my thinking for me but alot of it, sure I do. just surprised me that you agreed with that. lol.

Yeah, I'd never just accept advice blindly, but it can be very illuminating to hear someone else's POV, especially if they've come at something from a very different place.

well its inferrence based on experiment. the theory that yields the best predictive results tends to be accepted. that sounds like utility to me.

It might sound like utility but it isn't.

not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.

A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.

This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.

sure I can provide examples..... I'm talking about the elite and middle classes here, when I say religious or secular. the lower class is always religious.

Your methodology is very loose. There's no definition of secular or religious. I'm very curious on the grounds on which Russia is considered a reigious state now, there is formal seperation of church and state, and a wide range of religions are freely practiced.

That's where I'm talking about self-selection bias. You have your theory, and you've gone looking for examples to prove it. I could make the argument that a secular state is more successful, and I could point out the US formally seperating church and state - they seem to be doing pretty well. I could point out that faith is much lower in the wealthier, more stable developed nations.

But all of that would be me going out to pick examples to prove my theory, it wouldn't mean anything. There are too many things involved in the rise and fall of civilisations to isolate faith, it's an essentially unknowable point.

well maybe truth isnt the best word I could have chosen. it implies factual, emperical accuracy. that's not really what I'm getting at. I mean true in a mythological sense, of conveying meanings to a person that might otherwise be overlooked. a short cut to the psyche to get them to act in adaptive ways. the factual truth isnt always what matters. the psychological truth matters too.

Yeah, I can accept that.

I cant think of any thing that is plainly, profoundly, psychologically false, that is at the same time useful. Someone who persists in holding onto beliefs that do not serve, but in fact hinder their life, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary, is unstable at best, insane at worse. That would not adaptive at all so I think it fails the utility test. Can you think of an instance where someone would believe something that is false both factually and metaphorically, that would at the same time be useful for him to believe? that might help to clarify things a bit...

Santa Claus?

yeah I agree with that. no group has a monopoly on arrogance. I guess my real gripe is against the kind of militant, fundamentalist atheism that I see play out on the internet all the time.... just as I'm sure what irks alot of atheists is the fire and brimstone bible thumping believe and be saved variety of christianity that you all get to deal with.

Oh yeah, there's militant jerks on both sides. Thing is, I get it to an extent, I was never raised with religion forced down my throat so I never had any reason to be hostile. But lots of people were and they're bitter, so they take the opportunity to sound off about and tell off religious people when the topic comes up. Then you get religious people who keep having these atheists yell at them over something that's very personal to them, so I can see why they build resentment towards atheists. So on that level I get what's going on.

And then of course, some people are just jerks.

And to be frank I dont find many of the theistic arguments being advanced particularly helpful or illuminating either. I wish christians would understand their own tradition better. The whole project of trying to prove that god exists because the universe needs an intelligent designer or a first cause etc is IMO ridiculous. That's not what the founders of christian theology said - what they said was, in essence, that sometimes the heart is wiser than the mind, and that its ok to take leaps of faith based on what you feel.

Good point. It always surprises how small, how narrowly defined the God of the creationists is. Your version is cool.