Here is an old, but interesting story. It should be a familiar story to our Christian readers. Deanna Laney was commanded by God to stone her children to death as poof of her devotion to Him. Unlike the Biblical story of Abraham, God didn’t pull any punches at the last minute. He did not stop Laney from hitting her sons, ages 8, 6, and 1, with rocks weighing up to 14 pounds. Maybe He was out of sacrificial goats to use as replacements. She fulfilled God’s will by killing the two eldest, but failed Him by only permanently injuring the one-year-old. Perhaps that is why He abandoned her to the Texas ‘justice’ system.
While this story is not new, I recently had a couple of thoughts regarding this issue. First, how is Laney’s claim that God spoke to her any different from Akiane Kramarik’s claim? Christians cannot claim that God would never command a parent to perform such a horrendous act because He’s done it before. If the two situations are any different, what is the criteria? How are we to determine the validity of future claims of messages from God?
Secondly, since Laney ended using an insanity plea, how do we know that Abraham wasn’t suffering from similar delusions? Maybe, like Laney, Abraham only thought that God told him to kill Isaac. Claiming he was crazy would certainly go a long way to removing this problematic feature of Christian theology. Then again, it would admit that there is an error in the Bible.
–Sidfaiwu
No related posts.
May 26th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Mike, I wouldn’t travel 12000 miles to get choked on a guiness! So what is the point of atheists arguing about God if He is non existent? Might just as well argue about hobbits and elves.
Brian, if naturalism, materialism and scientism were an adequate account of reality, things would be so much easier. There would be more definite boundaries to our enclosure and we wouldn’t get our knickers in a twist about what is outside the box because there is no outside to think about.
Sid, You seem to imply that God as a “metaphysically necessary being” could not exist without the prior existence of matter. I don’t understand your thinking on this.
Could not logic, numbers, qualia, shape, virtues, etc., exist prior to their material instantiation? Also it appears that most of these can refer to other such immaterial substances.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
To The Supreme Being!
Does anyone apart from you and me realise the futility of all this? If we lived a little closer together i’d buy you a beer. The point of atheists arguing about God? Get another round in!
May 24th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hi guys, how are we going?
Metaphysics, way out of my league. I have to be honest, it seems largely outside of reality. Without being dismissive or arrogant, it seems to me that I can imagine or postulate just about anything and say it exists or potentially exists because I can conceive of it or some quality of it.
To call this evidence, even if it becomes an accepted folk myth or full blown religion doesn’t seem to me to affect it’s reality. It just means that a lot of people share the same concept.
As for science, I think the thing here is does science explain something in a logical and useful way that concurs with nature? We may not understand the details, but so long as it is understood and continuously questioned by those who do and not taken as “gospel” then we can accept it as explanation, until a better one arrives. Religion just states such and such is so, in a concrete factual sense. It offers no evidence past scripture, and theological musings which all state god did it. Now, for me to accept that, you will have to convince me that there is no natural explanation, and no natural explanation is possible. This is because even a tortuous natural explanation is simpler than explaining a god. Further to explain an active, aware god like the god of the bible increases that complexity by many magnitude in my opinion.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hello Everyone,
I hope all are well. I’m caught up at work but still damn busy at home prepping for Memorial Day weekend.
MAPK L,
You are right, evidence increases the chances that a group will be correct about a binary guess. Also, as you already know, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that God exists. But I can only know It as the Ultimate Cause. Extrapolating that to the God of Christianity (or any other religion) is not based on any evidence. Returning to the marble under a cup example, I believe that the marble is under cup A, but Christians go further and claim to know the exact colors, size, weight, and composition of the marble even though they’ve never seen it.
Science-of-the-gaps doesn’t even make sense. If a better and verifiable explanation for a phenomenon becomes available, it is adopted by and becomes a part of science. Scientific explanations do not claim to only explain that which other systems of thought fail to explain (or fill the gaps, if you will). In contrast, religious hypotheses have always been proffered when no natural explanation is available and retreats (usually) once one becomes available.
You are right, though. God and science can coexist. They just cannot offer two competing explanations for the same phenomenon. God-of-the-gaps refers to the explanatory power of theism. God is only used to explain real and perceived gaps in natural explanations.
I just noticed that you made a new comment while I was typing this that mentions this point. Your example of the beauty of a butterfly having two explanations is interesting. However I think there are actually two different phenomenon explained separately here. One, there is a natural explanation as to how the butterfly came to appear the way it does (evolution), but not for why we experience the sight of the butterfly as ‘beautiful’. Just a thought.
Neando,
How I do love metaphysics, despite the fact that I am bad at it. I actually flip-flop on my metaphysical views. It just involves questions that I don’t feel adequately equipped to definitively answer.
I do know that numbers and logic have no meaning without the existence of matter, but think that they are universal to every possible universe. In other words, if anything exists at all, then logic and numbers apply. I believe this is what is meant by being ‘metaphysically necessary’. Thus their existence is contingent on matter even though they are universal truths.
By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Hi Sid and Brian,
One other point I meant to add is that, so as not to impose my view on others, when I present something as evidence for God, however I may percreive it personally, I leave it open to others to accept it as pointing to the possibility, or as a probability, trusting it will not be denied altogether, as evidence. I understand that more than one possibility exists for the existence of beauty and butterflies. Starting with no evidence, beauty could–as you say, Sid–be a factor in natural selection, or it could be a gift from God. It all depends on which side of the evidence-scale one perceives as the heavier.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Hi Sid,
Would you not say that numbers also apply to immaterial objects or are merely a property of matter? Would not threeness exist even if there were never three objects to count or any persons to count them? This would also apply to logic. The law of non-contradiction is true prior to there being particular statements or propositions.
So do not these immaterial substances exist independent of the material particulars to which they apply? In our theorising we apply principles of logic and numbers to theoretical entities that do not materially exist as much as we do to material particulars.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Please allow me rephrase this query: And why cannot the God-of-the-gaps argument BE alternately exchanged for…and so on?
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Hi Sid,
I take it, then, that my original understanding of the term “binary guess,†ie.–zero probability for or against a particular position–was correct. But any type of theist must maintain greater evidence being available for the existence of a first cause of things, than for the non-existence of it. And concerning matters involving the existence of God, a binary guess, therefore, would be the claim of the agnostic alone.
And where a group is predisposed to choosing one particular position, it entails an indication of some yet unspecified evidence for such a predisposition. Thus it is no longer a mere binary guess.
And why cannot the God-of-the-gaps argument not be alternately exchanged for a scientific-theory-of-the-gaps? It seems to me that the balance can go either way. With evolution, it may be that no God is required, but it also stands that with God, whether or not evolution actually occurs, it is not especially required. I can see no reason to assume or insist that either position specifically mandates a ruling-out of the other.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hi MAPK, Sid and Neando, very productive thoughts while I was away sleeping.
So, the scriptures, miracles etc were really bunk? So much for revalations…. ;)
With not a single revelation, what have you observed? Just teasing.
That fact that you cannot comprehend the equating the existence of things that you deem fanciful to others you deem non-fanciful only betrays your prejudices towards these entities. The ancient Greeks believed in their gods, as did the Romans in theirs, the Vikings in theirs, etc. Do you not consider these gods fanciful? Do you consider them “true” gods that exist? I would venture that you consider them myth. Why? There is as much evidence to suggest these other belief systems are correct as yours. They have founding myths, holy books, priests, etc. If you hold your god to be real, in fairness you have to hold their gods to be real. Otherwise, there would seem to be a lot of intellectual dishonesty, as you’ve already stated you have no evidence of your god.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Hey Neando,
To answer your question, yes, I consider software ‘real’, but not independent of matter. Sure, the exact same program can run on entirely different sets of matter (two different computers), but programs in particular and information in general is still dependent on matter for existence. A program is a separate entity from any particular set of logic gates, but still dependent on some set of logic gates.
Did I understand what you were asking correctly?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Sids, the onto arg is not a route I would take, probably because I don’t feel competant to do so. One of my old profs thougt Plantinga nailed it but very few theists think that route is very productive. Certainly, I think, pop versions and rebuttles accomplish little. Plantinga’s chapter mentioned above is ch 10 in a book on modality de re. It’s been a very long time and I have forgotten much of what I might have understood.
On a side note, you mentioned “information.” In computer talk we call it software. Do you believe software is real? If so, what do you think is the nature of of its existence? What is its origin? Hardware is a bit easier. We can easily conceive of the bits coming together and flying apart when an IT guy gets mad. We can also conceive “By arranging molecules of silicon (and other molecules) in particular patterns and running electrons through them we create highly ordered information. Clearly the programs that run your computer are greater than just a bunch of silicon and electrons.” But we talk as if this complex arrangement of little on/off switches produces another entity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Hey MAPK L,
I should clear up what I mean by ‘binary guess’. What I mean by that is when people guess at a property that can have only one of two possible states. My overturned cup is one such example. There are only two possibilities, the marble is under cup A or under cup B. The existence of God is another example. Either a God exists or one does not.
Groups maybe very good at guessing the number of jelly beans in a large jar, or the weight of an ox since there are many possible guesses. Averaging out these guess often results in a great approximation of the truth. This is because the errors tend to be normally distributed about the mean. We have no such luxury with binary variables. Average out the guesses as to where the marble is and you’ll likely get that 1/2 the marble is under A and 1/2 is in B. This is far from the truth.
Now suppose the group trying to find the marble are predisposed to believing cup A has the marble and 90% claim that the marble is under it. Does that make it any more likely that the marble is actually under cup A? No. Similarly, if we have a predisposition to believe in a ‘higher power’, than that would explain the consensus but utterly fail to provide proof or even evidence for the existence of God.
How is that not a God-of-the-gaps? In other words, simply because we don’t currently have a scientific explanation for somethings doesn’t mean ‘God did it’. Not to mention many of the human qualities you mentioned, our urge to discover, creativity, productivity, reason, wonder, imagination, etc., all have survival value and thus have an evolutionary explanation. No God is required.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Hi Brian…hi Sid,
I hope you will not think me egotistical in crediting myself for also pointing out that majorities are not always correct, but I think evidence shows they are rarely wrong, and almost never wrong in judging matters of the greatest importance. And so it seems highly unlikely that a mass majority would be wrong in judging whether or not God exists. And for what it’s worth, I took my definition of God directly from John Hick, a university professor. I didn’t make it up myself. It is based on the ontological argument, which I know very well is not proof of anything, but to me, evidence and proof are not the same. Requiring proof of God is altogether a lost cause—at least until he chooses to reveal himself to the world.
With zero evidence, would it seem reasonable to you to insist that there is no God, based on the opinion of a fourteen per-cent minority? Personally, I would follow the reported eighty-six per-cent, based also on my own observations of reality.
Just as a side point, what would make one banana-split greater than another? And who’s to say that a greatest one doess not exist? But regarding matters of importance, I simply cannot comprehend equating the existence of fanciful things as pink unicorns and super-banana-splits (which are of no consequence whatsoever) to the existence of a divine creator. It seems to me as if logic is being re-defined, or dynamically dumbed-down.
To elaborate on the meaning of a word is not to define, or re-define it. It is to provide clarity of meaning in a discussion of mattters of particular importance. I have already explained what I mean by omnipotent, or all-powerful, as holding absolute authority to control all actions and events or not; and omniscient; all-knowing, as knowing all there is to be known, not as knowing all that is and is not to be. Contrary to conventional authority, reason tells me it is not imposing limitations on God to say he is not outside of time. Time is a mere concept; a standard of measurement, like feet and inches; it holds no substantial existence, either physical or spiritual.
“If the group does have evidence then they would be more likely to be correct on binary guesses….â€
It’s not quite clear to me, Sid, what you mean by the term, binary guess. I assumed it meant having no evidence for or against an idea.
As non-scientific evidence for the existence of God, I include anything not scientifically discernable, pointing to the possibility or probability of a supernatural creator: all formal arguments, the fact of the existence of anything at all, a humanly-inherent urge to discover the meaning of life, the human capacity for creativity and productivity through reason, wonder and imagination, love, beauty, the ability to conceive of infinity, the unfathomable complexity of the universe and everything in it; genetic reproduction and catrepillars-to-butterflies seem particularly wondrous examples…. I expect you’ll say I’m now sounding too much like Chesterton, so to spare you possible agony, I’ll end here.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 am
Ah, good old Plantinga. He’s a religious philosopher that deserves some respect. Thanks for the reference, Neando. I’ve heard him defend the cosmological argument before but not the ontological argument. I may have to pick that book up someday.
The version of the ontological argument that I am most familiar with is Descartes. Though I suggest reading his Meditation 5, the Wikipedia short-hand version of his argument is this:
1. I exist.
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept through my own thoughts.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.
Like Bertrand Russell, I was briefly convinced by this argument in college. But almost as soon as I believed the argument, I saw its fundamental fallacy. Premise 3 is incorrect. Brian’s ‘greatest banana split’ is good counter example, but my thoughts took a more roundabout approach.
Implicit in this premise is that nothing can be greater than the sum of its parts. In this case, Descartes’ claim is that an infinite idea (the idea of God) cannot be caused by a finite mind. This is an understandable conclusion in his time but it turns out to be incorrect. What Descartes was unaware of is that information of the whole can be created by the relationship of the parts. A simple example would be a universe with only two particles. In addition to just having two particles, the universe also has an additional property, the distance between the two particles. The information created by the two particles, distance, makes that universe greater than, say two universes consisting of only one particle apiece.
Another example is sitting right in front of you, a computer. By arranging molecules of silicon (and other molecules) in particular patterns and running electrons through them we create highly ordered information. Clearly the programs that run your computer are greater than just a bunch of silicon and electrons. This is due to the clever relationship between the silicon molecules that give rise to a lot of information.
Our brains are similar. The cleaver arrangement of neurons create information in the form of thought and ideas. One of these ideas is God. But as my analogy points out, the cause of this idea need not be infinite.
I have other objections to the ontological argument, but this was the first and, for me, the most convincing counter-argument I thought of.
On the question of majority belief I would ask you, MAPK L, what non-scientific evidence does your faith entail? If the group does have evidence then they would be more likely to be correct on binary guesses, unless someone or is actively deceiving the group. Thus your evidence would be quite relevant to this question.
But you are right that no one should base their theology solely on consensus. Brian correctly pointed out that the majority can be, and has been, incorrect.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 am
FYI: A modern revamp of the ontological argument has been done by philosopher Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame in his book The Nature of Necessity, CH.10 “God and necessity”
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Necessity-Clarendon-Library-Philosophy/dp/0198244142
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Hi MAPK,
Is that the same Anselm who postulated the ontologial argument? If so, then you are on unsound ground. Just because you can imagine a being, that would be greater if it were real, doesn’t make it real. After all, I can imagine the greatest bannana split, but if it were real, it would be greater, but that doesn’t make it exist.
Are you redefining words to allow your definition of god to make sense? Omni means all, omnipotent means all powerful. It isn’t defined logically. At least not to my knowledge?
Sid would have a better explanation of the ontological argument and meanings of words.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Hi Brian,
“it seems to me you’re presenting a bit of a moving target with your definition of god.â€
If this is so, I can only account for it based upon reliance on my own finite mind to describe an infinite being.
The nearest I can come to defining what I mean by God (which I think the Bible does not actually do; it only describes God) is to base my definition on Anselm’s argument. My understanding of God is: that than which nothing more perfect is logically possible; the “sum of all perfection.†I have taken this idea from a small book called “Arguments For The Existence Of God,” by John Hick.
In my opinion, such terms as omnipotent and omniscient applied to God, themselves, require defining. Omnipotent cannot mean, for example, the ability to move an immovable mountain; omniscient cannot mean knowing all that has not–nor will not–come to pass, as well as all that has come to pass. These two examples, to me, seem equally absurd. I believe God does guide human actions and events, but, in that he is omnibenevolent, he clearly does not minutely manipulate all things. For to do so would make all human love impossible.
Whether it has—or requires—any use (not forgetting the uses listed by Doug) I perceive all the universe, not only as magnificently beautiful, but even offering a virtually limitless potential for hospitability as a living environment. and not as cruelly indifferrent. I mean, Brian, I just would like to be positively sure we’re both optimists.
Once again, I want to point out that all faith is not religious. By faith, I mean nothing less than satisfactory evidence of anything not provable or yet unproven. I take the existence of anything finite as evidence that something other than itself brought it into being. Evidence of a first cause of all other things is faith. What, to offer another example, is your view on the power of intuition in women? Do you think it is on a par with superstition, and to be categorically rejected as anything real? Insight from a few women you know may help in your choice of answers to this question.
Finally, according to my understanding, only living entities, at least in a formal sense, can be said to have literal needs. Consequently, the universe could not possibly have any actual need for human beings.
Hi Sid,
I have observed that in the game show referred to, when the majority of the audiences have chosen incorrect answers, they are almost always negligible majorities, and the questions are of very little importance, even within a scope of social trivia. The more important the question, therefore, I would suggest the more people, generally, are likely to consider the possibilities and probabilities, ie.; to weigh the evidence, before making choices. And take into account that the audiences’ choices are made, for the most part, I would think, independently, not as a group.
Given your example of the over-turned cups, you, like Brian, indicate an assumption that faith involves zero evidence, while I insist that it is a form of (not anti-, but non-scientific) evidence; evidence of things that stand, temporarily or permanently, outside science.
I don’t mean to suggest that anyone should base theological decisions solely on that of a majority, but, as in the game show, a majority opinion will greatly increase the probability of acquiring the correct answer. Once the answer is given, the contestant must then also possess some additional personal insight—sometimes a mere hunch is all that is required–to estimate how likely the majority is to be correct in their answer. In any case, as a deist, you are among the majority I spoke of in my example to Brian.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Ops, forgot to end my blockquote. The second quote above is my own words.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:10 am
Hello MAPK L,
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 am
Mike, I’ve lived among religious freaks most of my life and have a fair idea of how they tick and why people get freaked out at them. It could be that I am one too ;-)
Our view of Abraham is determined largely by the world view we find ourselves in. This will influence our moral, emotional and rational starting point, and even whether there can be a starting point.
Assuming that we all agree that Ab was a bad dude and a freak (which we don’t), could it be that our condemnation of his actions arises purely from within ourselves; our emotions? Or could it be that our condemnation accords with a transcendant standard that is universal and part of the “furniture of the universe?” If the former, then perhaps we are just having a rave and a vent that may or may not have some psychological or social benefits but is otherwise meaningless and trivial.
If the latter then we are absolutists. The problem is that this position is queer or rather odd in a naturalistic universe. Moral absolutes by their very nature are binding and universal, but how can they be when there is nothing higher than man and man is the final arbiter of his own destiny?
In ourselves we know that murder/infanticide is morally reprehensible and it is natural (and reasonable) for us to condemn it. But can a naturalist do this and be consistent with his world view? Or is it that there is still a hangover from our cultural heritage that yet needs to be deconstructed?
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Hey MAPK, it seems to me you’re presenting a bit of a moving target with your definition of god. Can you please state what you believe god to be and not to be. What qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc does he possess? I’ve been arguing against the god of the bible. If the god you believe in is different, please say how. Thanks.
Again you equate your belief, faith, in a being with no evidence, to me accepting that we live in a universe that all evidence demonstrates has no need of us and could only be described as cruelly indifferent to our existence. It’s not a contests of faith. You have faith, I don’t.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Hi Brian,
I had a nice, fairly leisurely weekend.
And I think I want to just try to keep things short for now, too–as much as posible.
“so the flateathers and earth centrics have got it right? Billions of people have quite clearly been wrong and still are.â€
My example of the game show is only to demnostrate that majorities are usually (not always) right (I made that point in my example) particularly in matters of importance. And when it involves matters of the meaning of life, belief in a benevolent, personal God allows a means of being right. Belief in a universe, supposedly useless for the most part, and which is the best of all possible realms of existence provides no knowable possibility, nor any probability of eventual human perfection, nor any standard upon which to base it.
I can deciper no essential difference in meaning between my (so-called silly) comment: “God…cannot be non-existent for you, impersonal for Sid and personal for me all at once.†and your own: “Just because you believe he exists, doesn’t mean…anything about the reality of his existence.â€
And Mike,
I would like to point out again, that, to God, no one is a “toss-pot,” and also, that we have never moved away altogether from the main subject; it’s just been enlarged upon.
If God exists, if he is personal and benevolent, and if the story of Abraham and Isaac is true, then, without question, God had a particular purpose for commanding a demonstration of sacrifice to Abraham, not merely as a test of his faith. Knowing God’s promise, given prior to the event: “for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.†(Gen. 21:12) Abraham knew, and even assured Isaac, that a sacrifice would be provided, and so it was. Genesis 22:7-13. This does not compare with the Laney case.
On the other hand, if the Bible is only a collection of myths, then the story fulfills its symbolic meaning, in pointing to Christ’s later (accordingly would-be mythical) sacrifice, without an actual father being commanded to murder his child. The question is moot. And so, again, would not compare with the Laney claim.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Neando, I like your style. Devil’s advocate and all that. Maybe I should be a little more restrained in my language.
We are, I believe, concerned about Religious Freaks and their actions - which is why we frequent this esteemed forum. My point, lost as it was in a torrent of vitriolic abuse, was that belief in a God who would demand human sacrifice is in itself grotesque and certainly ‘of its time’. In the same era the Mediterranean nations were in the grip of Odin, Osiris, Woden, Thor, you name it. And there was plenty of human sacrifice, much of it self-inflicted. c/f The Golden Bough by Sir James Frasier. Personally, and for the sake of my family and friends, I would really rather not return to the ethics of the Iron Age. Abraham, by any standard of human/animal decency, was out of order. Shame on him.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:09 am
There are a variety of species of relativism. I loosely was referring to the idea that what values one holds within a particular culture and time are relative to that culture and cannot be transferred to another culture and time. What is right and wrong is determined by one’s cultural environment and thus changes as the culture changes.
Thus it could be argued that in ancient Mesopotamia it was the practice that babies were offered as sacrifices to various deities. It was thought perhaps that this would bring greater fertility to the land, etc. Thus given this belief, it was rational and morally acceptable to conform to the cultural and religious mores that were in accord with their world view.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:13 am
Hi guys, hope you had a good weekend.
I’m not really up for posting much, so I’ll say this and be done with it for the moment.
There may be many worlds out there in the galaxies. But this is the one we know of. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if you judge it best or not I think. It is the one we have. I try to be optimistic with the bounds of what we can interact with or know.
Really? so the flateathers and earth centrics have got it right? Billions of people have quite clearly been wrong and still are.
That’s silly. Just because you believe he exists, doesn’t mean he anything about the reality of his existence. Or else there really are fairies at the bottom of the garden and that sort of thing…..
Anyway, have a good one.
I
May 20th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I am unfamiliar with the cultural moral relativism.
I know cultural relativism and moral relativism but the combination is totally unfamiliar to me, sorry.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Jags, you still have gone beyond my questions. While I MAY well agree with your definitions of “sane, decent and good” as far as they go, I was not asking what actions are right or wrong but whether there really is a right and wrong, and, if there is, how do such entities fit in the kind of universe we (perceive we)have, and how is it that they are binding on us? Do they evolve over time or are they fixed? Could Abraham’s actions have been “sane, decent and good” 4000 years ago but not today? You said “I have to base my values on the criteria I can live with and most people agree with where I live.” If you lived in Ab’s day and moral environment where child sacrifice was the norm, would your principle still apply? Your above statement indicates cultural moral relativsm. Is it rational?
May 20th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I do not say you cannot judge but you cannot reserve that right for only to those people you agree with. I judge people by their actions but I also expect to be judged by them. It is a two way street, you judge and thus you are judged.
I define the qualities sane, decent and good in the following manner
Sane; Someone who is mentally healthy, is able to show good judgment, one who is being rational and reasonable.
Decent; someone who shows standards of propriety, who is kind and obliging person
Good; One that is positive of nature, worthy of respect and benevolent person.
Now these are what I have learned to expect from the concepts of sane, decent and good. During life I have met people who fill the criteria and many who strive to meet them, the obliging and benevolent parts are often great tripping stones. So I base my criteria on what I have seen in people and these qualities I strive to follow but I keep falling short on them also.
I cannot base my value judgments solely on the values of other people or writings as that would be like being a Tartuffe in the play by Moliere, a hypocrite. I have to base my values on the criteria I can live with and most people agree with where I live.
You might disagree with the definitions as is your right.
So by my definition Abraham was not good, no one willing to kill his son is worthy of respect and benevolence is far from such act. He was not decent as once more killing a son is not kind act, one might argue on the propriety at that time as sacrifices were made then. Abraham was not sane as willingness to kill a son based on voices he heard is not rational.
Abraham was seriously deranged individual who is on par with Deanna Laney on the delusional scale. The glorification of his actions is one of the great travesties in the bible.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Jagannath, none of your comments rightly apply to my post. I did little more that ask questions concerning the basis of his judgements.
I might ask you, what criteria do you use for “Being sane, decent and good human”? These are all value judgements based on what you deem normative. On what grounds?
May 20th, 2007 at 6:15 am
@Neando
Why one is not allowed to lash out, demean and ridicule Abraham from 4000 years ago? Is he a protected species? He is not around, if he ever existed even.
Judging a primitive man who heard voices and wanted to kill his son because the voices told so. Being sane, decent and good human is good enough reason to pass personal judgment on him.
Who are you to judge the legal system of countries and fellows personal view of Abrahams insanity? You cannot pass judgment without allowing others to respond in kind.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Mike, what exactly is it to be a human being? (Or a “toss pot”?)
In your “neck of the woods any sort of murder (homicide) is not a good thing.” In my neck of the woods, at least up to 150 years ago when your neck of the woods took control of it, people killed each other like they were playing football, then ate each other’s remains in the after match. They stopped that when the Christian missionaries from your neck of the woods spoilt their sport and taught them reading, writing, and right and wrong and stuff. What right did they have to be such spoil sports?
Going back a bit further, we are told that all our ancient cousins did that sort of stuff. Mothers ate their young (now its OK for mothers to snuff their young before they get young.) We are told that, going back a bit further from when our ancestors first started having blood (somewhere after the bactarial stage), that survival, bloody survival was good because life and things would thereby get better. And we are are all proof of it.
So why are you knocking a 4000 years ago semitic Ab? On what grounds are you judging his actions? How do you get to be a judge of what is good and evil?
May 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Can we please be Human Beings and not Toss Pots? I would hate to bring the whole discussion back on topic, but in my neck of the woods any sort of murder (homicide) is not a good thing. We tend to disagree with this. Even King Charles I. I know. Just don’t kill people, it’s simple. Abraham was obviously a fucking nutter. No questions. Bloody Jewish fool (Killing your son for “God”?). And that’s not racist, just a judgement on his judgement. Peace be upon me (I wish;)) Anyone, in my view, who would kill their son FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER deserves the ultimnate sanction. So there. Peace be upon everyone and Bollocks be upon religion.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Oops, looks like you really got me now.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Getting back to posts 158-59 (in reverse order):
You did pretty much answer my question, Brian regarding universal truth, in asking how truth is defined. By universal truth, I mean fixed truth: “A†does not equal “non-Aâ€. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. He cannot be non-existent for you, impersonal for Sid and personal for me all at once.
I would suggest that where reason is the vehicle, emotion is the steering.
Before my existence began, I couldn’t have cared whether I exist forever. But as I do exist now, I don’t want to cease existing. And so I have hopes-—eventually–of reaching “the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns.â€
Remember that Jesus also told his disciples that only the Father knows the day of Christ’s return, found in Mark 13:32. Is that one of the contradictions you alluded to before?
I think that, because, Jesus claimed divinity, and in light of his offer and warnings, and the impact his claim and what eye-witnesses claimed of him has had world-wide ever since, that his teachings, at least, ought to be considered potential evidence to a sceptic, in a pursuit of God and/or the meaning of life.
And, Sid, you say:â€the more that any religion claims about God, the less chance there is that it is a correct description.†This is why I take no membership in formal religious organizations; because the Bible itself, in conjunction with my own observations of reality around me, reveals…or if you prefer, seems to reveal God to me personally. I take the church and church leadership as a point of reference, not as a point of higher authority. I can take the entire Bible as truth, because I trust Jesus’ claims for himself. What doesn’t seem to make sense within a scientific framework, I trust, at some point, will be revealed to me, somehow; scientifically or otherwise, by means yet unavailable to us.
And finally, in reference to your comment, Brian, it could be said that formal religion is man-made, but I would say that the spirit of it, or if you prefer, the notion of it, is inherent in human nature. That’s what keeps the discussion on-going, and involving thinkers of all positions, including some who believe in the impossibility of knowing truth about the existence or non-existence of God, and even write books about it.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
HELLO MIKE! BLESS YOU FOR LIVENING UP THE PARTY. I ALWAYS ENJOY A GOOD LAUGH!
May 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Oh come on God - do something, anything. We’re bored.The whole argument is stagnant. For Your sake, just bloody DO SOMETHING!!! You can’t, though, can you? You’re knackered and you can’t do a damn’d thing! Got you! Honestly, though, if God had anything about Him/Her at all, He/She would have struck me dead long ago for my unbelief. Please don’t blame me for my unbelief. It’s alcohol induced. No, actually, the post is alcohol induced but the belief isn’t. Anyway - any miracles tonight? I thought not - bollocks. Anyone got a beer?
May 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I hope someone…everyone found at least fragmental amusement in my perhaps-too-spontaneous verbal amble. My purpose was not to put down anyone…nor any position. I only suggested what might follow if I, personally, were a pessimist. What I said was meant no more as a put-down, I trust, Brian than is meant by the term “straw man,†which you must admit crops up quite often here.
I think a true realist should consider, if only as a remote possibility, that something outside nature brought nature about. And you reverse what I actually said. I cannot accept this as the best of all possible worlds, because I am an optimist, not the other way around. Someone who does accept this world as the best one possible, it seems to me, is less optimistic than someone who believes in a real and measurable hope of human perfection.
Are you going to deny that saying, “Religion offers false hope…†presupposes no God? And I hope you recognize by now that I am not among the one billion you count who insist that others believe what they believe, just because they say so. Anyway, it would seem no less true to say that billions of people can be right as to say they can be wrong. Take, for instance, the television game show, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; if you’ve seen the programme often, you’ll notice how seldom the majority of the audience chooses the wrong answer. I’m not associating a majority with Christians in particular, but I think it cannot be denied that the vast majority of human beings since the dawn of humanity (however one chooses to interpret the expession) have held some concept of a supreme being. How probable does it seem that so many would be wrong, and a comparatively miniscule minority right?
More than once, I’ve referred to the poetic nature of books in the old testament. As I see it, God is not a manipulator of nature or what comes to pass in people’s lives; he only oversees his plan for people. To hold absolute authority over all things does not necessarily require directly causing every specific activity of all things in the universe; it means having the power to do so or not. The analogy of the potter and the clay might relate here (though it is not in the generally understood context; it is actually kinder, in that it shows God cares for all the “potsâ€). Because we cannot see the grand picture visible only to God, we have no option but to trust his judgement, even when things look bleak. The bleakness will pass, and evntually come to an end altogether. I have known pain and suffering throughout childhood myself, incidentally, so I’m not just talking through my hat. I suspect, however, that this will raise questions about hell, to which, whether or not satisfactory to all, I can offer an explanation, but I’d rather leave that for another time.
Finally, in the name of The (as yet un-established, though I think ought to be) John Steed International School Of Decency, to spare any further frustrations in the future, I’ll try to be dilligent in not offending anyone. My apologies, Brian.
I was amused, Sid, by your comment about the compound terms. Maybe some sort of acronym would serve.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Perhaps ‘atheism’ is too limiting of a word to describe the beliefs of many of the people here. The type of atheists that frequent this site not only disbelieve in God, but also Satan, demons, angles, and just about anything supernatural. The label ‘naturalist’ (as opposed to a ’supernaturalist’) already has a different meaning. ‘Asupernaturalist’ and ‘nonsupernatruralist’ are too damn long. I think the term ‘brights’ has been used by some, but it seems to be failing to catch on. I often use ’skeptic’, but not all atheists are skeptics. Some still believe in alien abductions, ghosts, psychic abilities, and other unlikely phenomena.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:32 am
People who claim to be atheists but merely mean of not believing in a (christian) god probably make up the bulk of atheists.
Sadly that bulk is also a source of much of the misinformation regarding atheism as they are vocal, aggressive in their stance and lacking in knowledge of what they claim to be.
Just last week I met with such a oxymoron and could not have distinguish her from a religious zealot from afar.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Hey MAPK, your lodger believes in supernatural entities, by definition he’s not atheist. But I guess you knew that.
I find it a bit frustrating that believers seem to put down people who don’t share their belief. You declare yourself and optimist because you have a need to feel there’s got to be more than what you can sense in this world. And you seem to declare that people who don’t share your ideal of life and some perfection that you only get from a book are pesimists. I’d say I’m a realist. But I get great joy out of the world. I’m an optimist too. But I don’t accept things just because a book, or 1 billion people say they know. Books can be wrong, and billions of people can be wrong. Science inspires and helps people understand the world. Religion offers false hope, because it’s quite obviously man made. Whether god exists or not, you have no idea of his “powers” or qualities. The god of the bible is a human projection, all that anger, jealousy, repression. He’s not even omnipotent, I mean he couldn’t event defeat a group of people who had iron chariots:
Anyway, peace.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I have just been talking to one of my lodgers who, by the way, professes atheism, but nevertheless believes in spirits, including Satan, who he claims to have met. Well, I suppose that is easily explained by the fact that he has a volatile, artistic temperament and drinks lots of beer. Anyway, I explained to him that the simple reason I believe in a benevolent creator is because I cannot accept this one as the best of all possible worlds. Well, why do I say that? It’s because I’m an optimist. Why am I an optimist? Perhaps I just inherited the tendency from my mother. Anyway, if I were a pesimist, I expect I might accept whatever turns up at any given time as the best that is to be had, and so I should strive to be happy trying to make the best of a condition that, being initially imperfect, and having no definitive standard for measuring perfection, is likely to remain imperfect. And even if perfection were achieved no one would ever know it.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Hey MAPK, Doug and Sid. How are we today? Quite a bit to respond to since I last checked. My responses may not be fantastic as I didn’t get much sleep last night. Anway, here goes….
I think love and beauty are things we all understand and are not ephemeral as we can appreciate beauty of ancient art. But I don’t see how we can claim that anything is eternal. We have no way of knowing that at all time that ever has been or ever will be that an observer of something we love or find beautiful would agree with us.
Wow, how do we define truth so that we’re discussing the same thing? What may seem true to you I may disagree with. You’ll have to help me there. I’m not philosopher so I could easily trip over myself with epistemology. I do however think there are things such as gravity that seem to be universal, but then I’ve never been in a blackhole to check. So, there are probably places or moments when the universal isn’t universal…If that makes any sense.
Well, I have seen data that supports evolution. The pepper moth in England I believe is one celebrated example. Also there are plenty of fossils that show changes consistent with evolution. I take the evolutionary biologists on their word because science is self correcting. An up and coming young scientist would love nothing more than to prove someone like Richard Dawkins mistaken and become the latest “superstar” of the science world. Keeps the buggers honest.
Isn’t that the genesis (pardon the pun) of all religions? I am conscious, I feel my mind is separate to my body. Will my mind continue after my body is gone? It seems wrong to have all the thoughts and emotions I possess for this to be ephemeral…..I would say that you had no consciousness before you were born that you know of, and it didn’t hurt you. Having no conscious existence after you pass away will no hurt you either as far as I can see.
I would posit that the primary purpose of emotions is that they helped us survive and procreate. We are not the only creatures that feel, think and have consciousness. Higher primates, farm animals, etc to some degree share our mental abilities. We may have them more acutely and be able to project them into the future for example, but we are not unique in anyway. I think the fact that we can use reason, especially in science, is what makes humans unique. Reason would seem to be human. But I will agree with tempering it. After all, it’s a tool, not a master. Did that in anyway make sense? I’m pretty poor at philosophy, but I’m slowly learning.
I’m glad Sid was able to share his thoughts. Very interesting. Belief is a word I avoid, because it almost always conflated with religious belief or faith. If I say I believe the scientific method is useful. Some person who has religious faith will claim that I too have a dogma, the dogma of science. So I say I accept that science has up to this point been very useful at explaining and predicting. The latter religious faith is terrible at. I mean Jesus told his disciples that he’d be back in their life time according to the bible. That prediction flopped big time. That’s been reinterpreted to some unknown time in the future. It’s not a valid prediction, not testable.
Anyway, what do I mean by belief? I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I base this on my observation that it has done so each day of my life. I have no proof that it won’t go supernova on us when I’m sleeping tonight, but I believe I’ll see it again. That to me is belief, I have no proof of a future event so it’s a supposition based on experience. Faith is something else, it has no evidence and any reported experience is something personal that can’t be tested and shown to be divinely inspired as opposed to an easily explainable physiological brain function. So, it can’t be empirically measured and understood like science as far as I can see…..
Anyway, that’s my thoughts, not sure if that explained anything. Over to you guys…..
May 17th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hello Brian, MAPK L, and (if he’s still reading) Doug,
I have been reading your comments. I haven’t joined in primarily because I’ve been too busy at work and at home. I just got back from vacation this week and am just now catching up at work. At home, I’m attempting my first solo remodeling job which I need to complete in one week now.
So far, the discussion has been great. I especially liked Doug’s comments about how the vast, largely inhospitable universe is still a benefit to humans. it is a perspective I have not heard before. It still doesn’t imply that the universe was created specifically for us or even with us in mind. Even if there were an intelligent creator, the universe may be primarily for a different intelligent species elsewhere and that we are a creationary by-product. There is no way to know.
Also, Brian was right on when he pointed out that the Bible does not qualify as evidence since it inevitably results in circular reasoning. One would need to first establish it’s legitimacy via external evidence and/or reasoning before I can be used.
Also, I can almost see the 50-50% chance of God’s existence if it were not applied to any particular God, like the God of the Bible. But since all religious people aim at a proving one (or a few) of all possible creators, the likelihood would be much smaller. Let’s consider some made-up probabilities for various aspects of God. I’ll even be generous with my probabilities.
God created all of existence 50%
God is all powerful 50%
God is all knowing 50% (will ignore the problems with the consistency of these last two properties for now)
God cares about humans 5%
God cares about the actions of humans 1%
God intervenes in It’s creation 50%
God sent an offspring to earth 70% (this happens a lot in mythology)
God’s sent offspring was Jesus 1%
God has a favorite people 1%
Okay, let’s stop here and ignore all the other aspects of God claimed by the Bible. Okay, now to calculate the probability of this particular God, multiply all the probabilities together and you get 0.00000021875% chance that this God exists. Compare this with the assumed chance of a Creator and we see that the more that any religion claims about God, the less chance there is that it is a correct description.
Now I’d like to put these numbers in the context of faith. MAPK L suggests that atheists have faith. I happen to agree but, when compared with any religious person, the amount of faith is negligible. The atheist claim that there is no supernatural creator is picking one side of a 50-50 guess (again, this number is arbitrary but suffices for illustration). As a deist, I take the other ‘half’ of this bet. Both require very little (but some) faith. A Christian, on the other hand, takes the unlikely side of an extremely small probability. They take on faith the belief of a very specific God which when viewed probabilistically is highly unlikely to be true. That is an act of faith that I cannot stomach.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Ok Brian, I don’t want to load too much on to your plate all at once, and once Doug is settled into his new castle (as you describe it) I’ll do my best to resist the temptation to monopolize the discussion.
After a couple more-careful readings I think I can see more clearly what you mean by faith. I don’t see that all faith is religious. Pre-Copernican belief about the cosmos, so I understand, was based, untested, on the authority of Aristotle alone. As far as I can see, concrete verification of evolution is as untestable as the concept of higher, multiple dimensions. Maybe God’s dimensions are exponential, and reach even to infinity. What do you think about that?
Is not all currently unavailable knowledge tentative knowledge? Whether pink unicorns exist on a higher dimension or anywhere is of little interest to me, personally. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone ever actually pondering the reality of their existence. But I, like the vast majority of human beings(so I suspect), do hope for first-hand knowledge of God eventually. Because I find in my being, an irresistable urge for eternity and, not infinite perfection, but truly human perfection, (how, according to the Bible, God intended us to be, and what we can be) the notion of my eventual non-existence seems to make nature into a cruel prankster. Belief in the infinite love of a divine creator, on the other hand, offers inherent significance and inherent integrity to the individual. I would like to hear what hope, if any, for the individual, and ultimately for collective humanity, is to be found in atheism?
From all you say about it, your perception of God’ sovereignty and character in the Bible is very far removed from the way I understand things. If I saw what you do in it, I would certainly reject it, too.
Finlly, I do not claim that my Christian faith is grounded in reason alone—clinical reasoning, let us say; I believe the primary purpose of our emotions is to temper reason after its forging and before its being acted upon.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:19 am
And another question: Do you say truth…universal truth is objective or subjective?
May 17th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Hi Brian, To put it another way, atheism is a belief in the absence of (a) supernatural creator(s). Any unprovable belief involves faith.
A question for you Brian: Do you think love and beauty are eternal, merely a result of chemical reactions or maybe originate from something else?
May 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Sorry MAPK, you’e made a big mistake there.
I don’t have faith in atheism. It’s not a faith. It’s lack of belief in supernatural creator(s).
It seems you’re trying to equate the pursuit of knowledge via the use of logic and accepting the simplest and most reasonable explanation with religious faith.
Religious faith holds it knows the world and has unchangeable laws handed down by a god. This seems the height of hubris.
I know I don’t know all there is to know and the explanations thrown up by science and reason are very good where there is evidence (evolution) and tentative where there isn’t (did the universe begin?).
But they will always be approximations, never truths in the religious sense. That’s enough for me, I don’t need to believe.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Neither do I, Brian, “see any of your reasons or evidence as anything more than the way you choose to frame your world view, which is inspired by and desirous to rationalize your faith in” atheism.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
MAPK let’s review your “evidence”
The Bible: a good read? perhaps. Not a an accurate account of anything. It it circular. It says god exists and posits that it’s proof of god. I could write a book saying the same.
The Universe: It exists. That lends no evidence to creation (which implies a creator). It may always have existed or not. We don’t know. If it began, it still doesn’t imply a creator, much less the god of Christianity.
All beauty: anything that is pleasing or valuable, or interesting to us has beauty. This doesn’t mean anything more than that. It could simply be that because these things are advantageous that we view them as beautiful. Evolutionary explanations for this are simpler than inventing a god.
Love: Love is a powerful emotion, but it doesn’t imply anything. It is obviously good to have a vested reason for caring for certain things, such as family, friends and mankind. Evolutionary explanations for having affect toward things that increase our genes survival would work here and be simpler.
The universal human urge for eternity and perfection:
What? no one told me about this. I am not particularly interested in being dead, but I know it’s part of life and accept it as such. I like doing my best (sometimes), but don’t wish to attain it as life would be mind numbingly boring. Once you’re perfect you no longer think or feel or learn, as you are no longer able to change (perfect means complete).
I honestly don’t see any of your reasons or evidence as anything more than the way you choose to frame your world view, which is inspired by and desirous to rationalize your faith in god.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Sorry Brian…sorry Doug, I just overlooked the quotation marks.
Whether or not one accepts it as such, there is evidence (I don’t mean conclusive evidence) for the existence of a supreme being: the Bible, for example, the universe itself, all beauty, love, the universal human urge for eternity and perfection…. I see no evidence for the non-existence of a supreme being.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
MARK, you’ll have to show me your how you came up with the assumption that of 50% either way. A 50% probability suggests 2 equaly likely outcomes. Like the tossing of a coin. We can examine the coin to see that this is likely. We have evidence it is 50% likely to come up either side each toss.
Now the existence of god has no evidence whatsoever to suggest any more likelihood than any other supernatural thing that can be imagined. Only a person who already assumes a god (a-priori reasoning) would say it’s equally likely.
Maybe you got your idea from Unwin’s book which I saw a reference to on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Probability_of_God
which only uses the 50%-50% split because he thinks it’s reasonable. On top of the he plugs in a lot of woolly data that he plucks from nowhere like goodness, evil, miracles.
As for Doug’s answer, yes it was comprehensive, eloquent and articulate. The national academies should be congratulated. With no disrepect to Doug for cutting and pasting it.
However, as I said above, it is only in hindsight and changing of a lot of dogma that you can twist it to say the universe was created so that cosmology would be undertaken in the distant future. That didn’t answer at all my question as to why almost all creation is useless to us here stuck on Earth.
Hey Sid, if you’re perchance reading this little conversation, I’d be interested to have your philosophical take on the different reasoning used herein. Thanks.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
And may I say, Doug, your response is very comprehensive, eloquent and articulate.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
HI Brian,
Technically speaking, a fifty per-cent probability means no evidence whatsoever for or against something and does not negate the possibility of it. More than fifty per-cent probability one way or the other indicates evidence for or against it, however real or unreal it may be in one’s opinion.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Hey Doug, I’d love to help, but I’d have to find my passport and then get a plane over to the US (I assume you’re from there, apologies if you’re not), then find your location. So, please understand my not wanting to share the warmth and work with you. ;-)
I know cosmology is beneficial to humanity. Are you saying that the whole vast universe was created just so that thousands of years later, people would throw off the shackles of religious belief (poor old Gallileo), and realize that the Earth wasn’t the center of creation as the Bible states? That they’d want to know more about the universe not mentioned in the bible, with the side effect of benefits to humanity?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that really seems to be after that fact reasoning. Claiming something after it is realized it’s beneficial. Why wasn’t there a prophecy that cosmology would be undertaken in the distant future? Why did the church(es) persecute it as heretical if it’s supportive of creation? Seems a difficult argument to sustain.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Brian,
Wanna help with the move? It was around 109 here today. Felt very inhospitable indeed:^)
May 15th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Brian,
The science of cosmology is not just “interesting” it is extremely beneficial to humanity. This is a direct benefit of the universe’s existence.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Good luck with the move too! Always a pain in the butt. At least you’ll have your own castle to relax in.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Doug, my statment was that the universe is largely hostile and non useful to us, the supposed purpose of creation. You don’t answer, you just put in an impressively large quote about why cosmology is interesting and how it has flow on effects that have benefited us. How is that an answer?
It’s like you’re setting up a strawman arguing that I said the science of cosmology is of no use to you, me or anybody else. I said no such thing. I think it’s very useful. I asked you what is the use of the overwhelmingly vast and nearly empty universe to you, me and anybody else if it was created for us. If you can’t answer, please say so.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Hey Brian,
Sorry for the delay in response but I am in the middle of buying a house. We close tomorrow and move in on Friday, so I may not be back in for a week or so. Hope we can continue the conversation though.
Now, I’ll try to address your responses.
You said, “If there is a use for all the universe concerning you, me or any other human please tell us.”
From the National Academies web site http://www.nas.edu/
“…far from being impractical, cosmological research produces important benefits for the nation and the world. First, it has unique technical spin offs. Forefront research in cosmology drives developments in instrumentation for the collection, manipulation, and detection of radiation at radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and -ray wavelengths. The understanding and application of such types of radiation are the foundation for many important technologies, such as radar, communications, remote sensing, optics, medical radiology, and many more.
Modern astronomical instruments are usually one-of-a-kind developments pioneered by teams of specialists who set out to achieve the best possible performance from their instrumentation. Instrument teams involve astronomers, physicists, and engineers from observatories, universities, and industry. This process produces a high return in new ideas, devices, and methods in the general areas of radiation technology. Some of these projects are models for effective technology transfer.
Another technical driver in cosmology is large-scale computing. Theorists push the state of the art by demanding the largest, fastest machines to run programs that model the universe. Such computer programs, or codes, model the evolution of systems of millions of gravitationally interacting particles. Codes for following the hydrodynamics of galaxy formation are among the largest such codes in existence. Computers are severely taxed by the gigabytes of data streaming in from modern astronomical sensors. Indeed, large cosmological projects are now driving innovative hardware and software developments.
For example, a new sky survey joins university astronomers with physicists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the latter contributing their special expertise in, and computer capability for, high-speed data processing.
A second benefit of cosmology is its unique ability to probe matter under extremes of density and temperature that can never be achieved in laboratories on Earth. The conditions in the early universe can be used to test physical theories against the measured results of nature’s highest-energy experiment the Big Bang. Pressures, temperatures, and densities in the early universe are extremes beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination and physical theories.
A third reason to pursue cosmology is its tremendous intellectual appeal. Few areas of the human endeavor excite the human imagination as much as curiosity about the universe. How did it start? Why is it here? What is our role? How will it end? Throughout human history one finds this desire for knowledge about the heavens and human existence, and virtually all periods of enlightenment and progress have been times of rapid discovery in astronomy and physical science. Future generations will look back and evaluate our era’s contributions similarly.
Finally, our cosmology-every culture’s cosmology-serves as an ethical foundation stone, rarely acknowledged but vital to the long-term survival of our culture. Cosmological knowledge affects religious beliefs, ethical choices, and human behavior, which in turn have important long-term implications for humanity. For example, the notion of Earth as a limitless, indestructible home for humanity is vanishing as we realize that we live on a tiny spaceship of limited resources in a hostile environment. How can our species make the best of that? Cosmological time scales also offer a sobering perspective for viewing human behavior. Nature seems to be offering us millions, perhaps billions, of years of habitation on Earth. How can we increase the chances that humans can survive for a significant fraction of that time? Cosmology can turn humanity’s thoughts outward and forward, to chart the backdrop against which the possible futures of our species can be measured. This is not irrelevant knowledge; it is vital.â€
Now, I’m not a cosmologist, but I think this means that the universe and the study of it is indeed beneficial to mankind.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
No, that is pretending that the possibility of god existing is as likely as the possibility of no god. The fact is, god is as likely as a pink unicorn that we can’t see, the flying spaghetti monster or anything else the human imagination can throw up. It’s so close to impossible as not to be worth consideration. The likelyhood that an unevidenced supernatural creator doesn’t exists is overwhelming. They are not equally likely. You must provide some evidence to change this, else a supernatural creator is meaningless and pointless.
The fact we have an urge to explain things and understand them is easily explained by an evolutionary need to survive and an be better equipped against our environment than resorting to extremely improbably explanations that explain nothing.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Hi Brian,
To demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being as you’ve described would seem to me the same as providing proof of God’s existence. My thought is that there is no proof of any divine power, and so, no way to demonstrate God conslusively. But I would say the existence of anything at all can be taken as reasonable evidence for the possibility of a supernatural creator. And one’s belief or disbelief need weigh no more than by fifty-one percent. Since it is a universal urge to question how the universe came into being (even by the top astro-physisists), it seems probable even more so than that fifty-one percent, that the universe did/does have a cause.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Hi MAPK, I fully concur with the need to define god.
I believe Doug subscribes to a supernatural creator who can and does intervene in the natural world. Such as Jesus being son of god, miracles, power of prayer. Please correct me if I’m wrong Doug.
Defining god as the cause of the universe assumes the answer in the question. That is, that the universe has a cause. This is not necessarily the case and you have to demonstrate that. It seems like a weak form of creationism. Remember whatever hypothesis or conjecture you propose needs evidence. You can’t just say the universe exists, it seems designed, therefore there is a designer as you’ve made many assumptions that need to be defended.
If however you define god as the laws of nature, then you are no longer religious and on the turf of Deism, I believe. If this is the case, why not just call nature what it is and don’t use a term that for 1000s of years has meant a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent guy who gets jealous and terribly punishes those who don’t follow his arbitrary rules? Defining god as the cause of
Thoughts?
May 14th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hi Brian and Doug,
If I may interject for a moment: This is just a suggestion, but it would seem necessary that, before anyone can attempt a demonstration of God’s existence, the demonstrator and the demonstratee (if you will) must establish a common understanding of what is being demonstrat-ed. For example, if by God, or god, one means the cause of the universe existing, then the existence of the universe is a decisive demonstration of Him/it. Can atheism admit any formal definition of the term? I mean, from an atheist’s viewpoint, are we really discussing nothing more than an imaginary, invisible friend? I don’t see any point doing in that.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hey Doug, how was your weekend? I’m back to see what’s going on.
“The universe is vast and almost completely of no use†(and how exactly have you uncovered this amazing info?)
What use do you have for the universe apart from the small portion of land and little bit of ocean that you extract sustinence from Doug? That is on this minute planet in an insignificant solar system on a spiral arm of one of innumerable galaxies. If there is a use for all the universe concerning you, me or any other human please tell us.
““Most of this Earth is completely inhospitable to humans. Just try and live under water for a while (the major part of the Earth’s surface)†So this is a completely inhospitable planet where diverse life has somehow managed to flourish (including human life) despite those nasty oceans.”
Again with the strawmen. please read the comment; mostly inhospitable for humans, who are supposed to be the point of creation, no? As I said if you find it so hospitable go live in a deep sea trench.
““The designs of everything are way less than perfect
surely god, being omnipotent could’ve designed us better, no?)†If God exists, then you are going to critique how he made you? You’re not perfect enough? If you were more perfect, would that compel you to thank God?”
So, god is deliberately crappy. I don’t believe in him, but you do and thus you presume to know that it’s part of his plan, you presume to know the mind of god.
“You didn’t explicitly claim this, so correct me if I am wrong in assuming that you believe that life came from non life.”
I didn’t and I don’t believe it. It seems a logical explanation. Quite improbable yes, but it only had to happen once in the universe, which has billions of stars with, obviously, billions of opportunites for life to coalesce from the requisite replicating chemicals. So, it may seem super improbable, but when you so many opportunities it will actually happen, simple probability. No so extraordinary after all.
““So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
And here’s where your argument fails. You’re putting the horse before the cart. By assuming that a god exists you are arguing that he must harden hearts. But until you show that he exists it’s all pointless pondering.
Demonstrate God exists, then we’ll discuss seriously his qualities.
Take care.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Hey Brian,
I’m swamped with work and can’t take time to rejoin the discussion right now, but I would like to ask you to give me a few of your best examples of the Gospels contradicting one another.
A few of your incredible claims:
“The universe is vast and almost completely of no use” (and how exactly have you uncovered this amazing info?)
“Most of this Earth is completely inhospitable to humans. Just try and live under water for a while (the major part of the Earth’s surface)” So this is a completely inhospitable planet where diverse life has somehow managed to flourish (including human life) despite those nasty oceans.
“The designs of everything are way less than perfect
surely god, being omnipotent could’ve designed us better, no?)” If God exists, then you are going to critique how he made you? You’re not perfect enough? If you were more perfect, would that compel you to thank God?
You didn’t explicitly claim this, so correct me if I am wrong in assuming that you believe that life came from non life. Seems incredible to me.
This last one of your quotes sums up your problem with God’s sovereignty. You said,
“He keeps an eye on us constantly, knows all we do, taking away any free will (he already knows what we’ll do, so our life is predestined). He wants to punish us for breaking rules he made up and predestined us to break. And he sent himself down (the son) to die for the rules that he predestined us to break”
I’m not sure if you were aware of it, but you echo what the apostle Paul said in Romans 9:18-23,
“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory–”
O.k. this was longer than intended. I’ll check back tomorrow night.
Have a good night Brian.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hi Brian,
I always find it refreshing when some point of agreement comes into a discussion such as this. My point above is really this: in terms of the meaning, purpose and cause of life, we all must and do choose priorities (pre-suppositions) for the basis of our faith, whether it is God, scientific theories (evolution, the Big Bang…) or what you will.
Are you familiar with a book called Who Moved The Stone?, by Frank Morrison? The author, an English journalist, set out to disprove the credability of the gospels, and through his research, came to believe it true. It can work both ways. I haven’t read that book or the one you recommended, by Erhman, but I may eventually. And I’ll have a look at the website you mentioned.
Traditional authority says the gospels were written by two of Jesus’ own disciples, Matthew and John, very likely, younger men than Jesus, himself; Luke and Mark, were both involved in Paul’s missionary journies. I see no reason to insist that they were not eye-witness accounts, later preserved in Greek. As far as I know, no hand-written manuscripts by Shakespeare exist, either. But I suppose that’s another kettle of fish.
I would venture to say that the majority of Bible historians are Christians, and that the majority of non-Christian historians don’t expressly take a stand on the Bible. Only the outspoken ones do.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Mohamed,
Your claim that Mohammad never knew about the stories in the Bible is untrue unfortunately. I thought every devout Muslim knew that Muhammad traveled to Syria, where Christianity was prominent, and had contact with people there. Furthermore, Khadija took Muhammad to a her Christian cousin when revelation started to come to him. Finally, Judaism was all over the place in the region where Muhammad grew up, so he could also learn all the stories from the Jews.
I’ll quote some paragraphs from Wikipedia for your convenience:
Please read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
And stop spreading lies. Thanks.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:59 am
i am afraid that history supports the gospels, certainly there is more evidence for jesus than caesar - there are almost 30,000 historical references to Jesus outside the Bible and only 20 for caesar. it would appear unlogical fools reject the gospels, while people who know the truth accept them. Interesting….though not unexpected - “The fool says in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14v1)
May 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Hey MAPK , it seems to me that you’re more or less spot on: either you have faith or you don’t. I think that was part of your point.
Here’s a quote from B. D. Erhman, who was a christian historian trying to prove the historical accuracy of the gospels and ended up becoming agnostic. Which in my view makes his evidence a bit more compelling than someone who arrives at the point they set out to arrive at.
“The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death—35 or 65 years after
his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were
written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation.
They’re not written by Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers. They’re written by people living 30,
40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from?” … “These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they
get their stories from?” … “Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed.
How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the
stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be
reconciled with one another.”
There’s plenty more at this link, it is a well done debate.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
It would appear most historians reject the gospels, while NT scholars who are christian accept it. Interesting….
May 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
All that can be said with one hundred percent certainty, by anyone, is that the Bible seems to be mythical or that it seems to be factual. This is so, I believe, because it deals with matters beyond what is knowable through the physical senses; through scientific method. Therefore in order to arrive anywhere, historical evidence, however useful, is necessarily secondary to an individual’s personal spiritual quest. It is a choice that must be taken one way or the other, using the available evidence; firstly, the evidence contained within the Bible, itself which, though not exhaustive, is to me, nevertheless, sufficient; bearing in mind that the Bible is not one, but a collection of books composed by many authors, over many centuries, carefully assembled by the world’s finest theological scholars. Arguments over the reliability or unreliability of authorship, transcriptions and translations seems to me a virtual free-for-all bash.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“I mean, if evolution can turn a prehistoric wolf into a whale, surely it should be able to take care of a little problem like weak abdominal walls.”
Hey Doug, I think your quote demonstrates your misunderstanding of evolution. It is not a process that leads to better design as seen by us. The fittest are the ones that have what it takes to survive and procreate more then the less fit specimens. In fact, weak abdominal walls support evolution not design, because it mean that they weren’t a problem that lead to species wide lack of fitness, but only in specific cases. Hence why we have vestigial bits and pieces like the appendix, they generally cause no problem, so there is no adaptive pressure to “loose” it, the fact that a few die isn’t important to survival of genes. Only if you see evolution as a “natural” designer, who is designing for what we perceive as good could you say it dropped the ball. I wouldn’t seriously say it was a shoddy job by a creator, as it is not necessary to invoke a creator. I just use that to point out the lack of sense in invoking one.
As for responding my one example from the gospels, feel free but I’d prefer if you’d just explain why the gospels disagree between themselves on so many vitally import parts? If it was all an accurate historical record, why do they contradict?
What are my incredible claims by the way? I don’t invoke evolution as truth. I use it as the best explanation we have for the varied forms of life we see. I don’t claim that a ancient old collection of contradictory texts are the inerrant word of an unseen, unknowable, omniscent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator.