The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match!

POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Friday, August 24, 2007 16:50
VIEWED: 27784
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CAUSAL

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:21 PM

OK, so here is where we move on from the Evolution, Faith and Science thread ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29385). From that thread, Rue and I (and others) began talking about the world, the nature of that world (concerning what types of entities exist), how and what we can know about the world, and other interesting little tidbits. Here is what we are assuming anybody in this thread agrees to:

1) I exist
2) Other minds like mine exist
3) The external world exists

Note also, that for the purpose of this discussion, we are not agreed on the nature of that external world.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CAUSAL

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM in the last thread:
Can I inject $0.02 here? As far as I can tell there really are several assumptions that one must make w/ the benefit of proof.

I think this is an interesting statement, because it certainly does seem to be the case. Take for instance, the Uniformity Principle (UP): nature works according to natural laws which remain (essentially) consistent over time (in both directions). This is what allows us to make inferences about the future based on past experiences. The famous philosophical puzzle of the Problem of Induction (first set forth by David Hume) shows that any attempt to validate such inferences is viciously circular (that is, it will commit the fallacy of Begging the Question). But the UP seems to be a safe belief to have, even though one cannot prove it. Furthermore, there seem to be other things for which firm and final proof cannot be given. Rue takes one's own existence as such a belief (though I disagree on that count). The existence of an external world is another. Philosophers call these "properly basic beliefs." Such beliefs aren't based on other beliefs one has, but rather stand as the very foundation of a person's belief system. More significantly, properly basic beliefs aren't the result of chains of logical argument--rather they are known as brute facts of existence (I would assert that "I exist" merely is a brute fact of my existence and that I can be justified in believing it, even though I have not arrived there via chains of reasoning).

One interesting question might be this: what sorts of beliefs must simply be assumed without proof? Surely religious believers will put the existence of God in this category--and just as surely, atheists will argue against that. Another interesting question might be: why are we justified in believing certain things in spite of a lack of evidence, and not believing certain other things?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

RUE

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:52 PM

Interesting post.

I need to get some laundry done, stop into work on my day off and a few other things. I'll be back tomorrow !

"Ahhll be baaa ck"

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
why are we justified in believing certain things in spite of a lack of evidence, and not believing certain other things?

I think we need to make the distinction between lack of evidence and lack of proof. Certainly the Uniformity Principle has plenty of evidence to support it. There's no proof, and we can't really deduce it from more basic premises, but we do see evidence every waking day that UP holds.

I do wonder about the urge to believe certain things (usually religious convictions) that have no evidence. You can argue that emotional predilection (it just feels right) is a type of evidence, but it doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as direct experience.

Another fundamental question that colors these kinds of discussions is just what "I exist", or rather what "I", means. Put another way, are you a product of your body, a "thinking machine", or a supervening entity that connects to your body somehow? The supervening entity proposition generally assumes a type of dualism and dualism is something I've never been able to make any sense of.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

One interesting question might be this: what sorts of beliefs must simply be assumed without proof?

That life is valuable, that love makes it so, and that animals and the Earth are all connected to us through our devine spirit.

Quote:
Another interesting question might be: why are we justified in believing certain things in spite of a lack of evidence, and not believing certain other things?

Might gives us our justification, otherwise logical and emotional debate (like this) would take the place of various written gospels...

Lee-like Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Might gives us our justification, otherwise logical and emotional debate (like this) would take the place of various written gospels...

Ah, I think you may be mistaking moral justification for philosophical justification. When I speak of justification, I mean only this: in virtue of what can I properly call some belief knowledge? That is to say, there may be no firm and final proof that there is an external world; yet nearly everyone believes that that is so, and furthermore thinks that they "know" it to be so. In virtue of what, then, are we justified in holding that we "know" certain things for which no proof can be given?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NVGHOSTRIDER

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:24 PM

Caught my interest Casual.

Growing up in a culture with implied spirituality I half heartedly accepted many things just because they are. But after growing into my own views and perceptions it seems that the natural laws have more bearing on my everyday functioning. The circle, though seemingly vicious, is one of the few truths offered to those of us left wondering. Sure there are things that seem off the path of the circle, but they all flow in the same direction. Some call it a downward spiral. But after a little understanding is found most people can comprehend the onward movement in spite of what we think or feel.

Believers and nonbelievers alike should (at the very least) enjoy the world around them on occasion without question. To have the simple feeling of being and connectivity to all that surrounds us helps answer questions more for ourselves outside of the rules and laws of others.

No matter what the worlds rules and laws say nothing is the truth unless we can perceive the truth and accept it as our own.

Death is not death unless you accept it.

CAUSAL

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think we need to make the distinction between lack of evidence and lack of proof. Certainly the Uniformity Principle has plenty of evidence to support it. There's no proof, and we can't really deduce it from more basic premises, but we do see evidence every waking day that UP holds.

Yes, but how would one argue that it will continue to hold? We can give evidence upon evidence that the UP has held in the past. But we have to assume that it will continue to hold in the future, because any argument to that effect will be viciously circular. So, given the Problem of Induction, we are basically always in the exact same position when making arguments from past experience to future expectations: that is to say, we can only assume that it will work again.

Quote:
I do wonder about the urge to believe certain things (usually religious convictions) that have no evidence. You can argue that emotional predilection (it just feels right) is a type of evidence, but it doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as direct experience.

To be fair, you'd have to say something like, "no evidence that I would accept." Because many a religious believer would tell you that their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah), but that they have changed utterly since their conversion experience. They will point to the effect of a changed life and say that that is evidence for their beliefs. I daresay that you would explain the effect as being caused by something else, but that only means that you don't accept their experience as having evidentiary value, not that there is no evidence at all. It's not as if there is some one objectively true standard for what constitutes evidence and what does not. Unless, like Plantinga, you think that we have epistemological duties in somewhat the same way as we have ethical duties?

Quote:
Another fundamental question that colors these kinds of discussions is just what "I exist", or rather what "I", means. Put another way, are you a product of your body, a "thinking machine", or a supervening entity that connects to your body somehow? The supervening entity proposition generally assumes a type of dualism and dualism is something I've never been able to make any sense of.

Well, again, what I find interesting here is that while your views are in keeping with the 3 basic premises that we've all agreed to (cf. the first post of the thread) you can't derive material reductionism from those basic beliefs alone. The fact that you can't make any sense of dualism and that you don't see that there is any evidence for theism indicates to me not a fundamental disagreement with our three basic beliefs, but rather some other belief(s) which render dualism and theism untenable for you. But I am both a theist and a (mind-body) dualist and I agree whole-heartedly with the three basic beliefs we've laid out.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In virtue of what, then, are we justified in holding that we "know" certain things for which no proof can be given.

Er...no.

But who needs justification Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 23, 2007 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, but how would one argue that it will continue to hold?... that is to say, we can only assume that it will work again.

True, but it can be an informed assumption. I was pointing out that beliefs can be characterized by on how much evidence supports them. Some beliefs have so much evidence we accept them as givens, others are more debatable.

Quote:
To be fair, you'd have to say something like, "no evidence that I would accept." Because many a religious believer would tell you that their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah), but that they have changed utterly since their conversion experience. They will point to the effect of a changed life and say that that is evidence for their beliefs. I daresay that you would explain the effect as being caused by something else, but that only means that you don't accept their experience as having evidentiary value, not that there is no evidence at all...

Actually this is evidence I would accept, but it's evidence of the effects of their belief, not evidence that the thing they believe in is true. There's lots of evidence supporting the transformative nature of religious belief.

The other thing I'm curious about is how a lack of belief fits into this framework. Are we assuming that lack of belief and belief are the same thing? This is the proposition generally put forward by the ID people. They want to equate not believing in god with believing in god - they want to us to accept that each is a matter of faith.

The dictionary often contains both definitions of atheism:
1. A belief that there is no god. and
2. A lack of belief in a god or gods.

Most atheists I've met are of the second variety and it's a distinctly different position than the first. They don't deny the possibility that a god could exist, but they haven't seen any evidence compelling enough to prompt such a belief.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Monday, July 23, 2007 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
2. A lack of belief in a god or gods.

Most atheists I've met are of the second variety and it's a distinctly different position than the first. They don't deny the possibility that a god could exist, but they haven't seen any evidence compelling enough to prompt such a belief.

Isn't that generally referred to as Agnostic?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:07 AM

And here's another word for y'all, redundant. Or how about superfluous, another good word.

RUE

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:13 AM

How about unimportant, trivial, inconsequential, irrelevant, insignificant ... all of which describe your contribution ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Isn't that generally referred to as Agnostic?

Agnosticism is the idea that we can't know whether god exists or not. This is often misconstrued, and used popularly, to refer to those who are undecided on the issue. A real agnostic makes the point that the existence of a god can never be proven or disproven. That conviction doesn't necessarily imply a belief, or lack of belief.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about unimportant, trivial, inconsequential, irrelevant, insignificant ... all of which describe your contribution ...

As opposed to your own post, or Citizen's.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
To be fair, you'd have to say something like, "no evidence that I would accept." Because many a religious believer would tell you that their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah), but that they have changed utterly since their conversion experience. They will point to the effect of a changed life and say that that is evidence for their beliefs. I daresay that you would explain the effect as being caused by something else, but that only means that you don't accept their experience as having evidentiary value, not that there is no evidence at all...

Actually this is evidence I would accept, but it's evidence of the effects of their belief, not evidence that the thing they believe in is true. There's lots of evidence supporting the transformative nature of religious belief.

Well, but see that's just the thing. If I point to my profoundly changed life and say, "See? The effects of God. That's evidence." You'll just say, "No, that's evidence of religious belief." Take prayer, for instance. It seems to be the case that prayer really does have a a positive impact. There's a memory floating around the cranium to the effect that people who profess to pray regularly are in generally better health. The religious believer (though not this one) might say, "See? Evidence for God." But if I may be so bold, I imagine that you'd offer some sort of psychological explanation. The trouble here is that I'm not sure there is anything that you would accept as having evidentiary value for spiritual beliefs. Your presuppositions won't let you. It's not that you're inherently more rational--it's that your worldview is shaped by presuppositions buried so deeply into the substrata of your thinking that you can hardly see that there might be any alternative at all! Not, of course, that anyone else is any different. But you do have the choice to unbury and examine those presuppositions critically. Even if you don't change your mind, you'll still be better equipped to argue your case (and, I might add, to be sympathetic to those who disagree with you) (not that you're doing a bad job on that count, so far; just saying).

Quote:
The other thing I'm curious about is how a lack of belief fits into this framework. Are we assuming that lack of belief and belief are the same thing? This is the proposition generally put forward by the ID people. They want to equate not believing in god with believing in god - they want to us to accept that each is a matter of faith.

I'm not sure about which ID proponent you're thinking of. Which article/book did you draw that conclusion from?

In any event, it does happen to be true that both the assertion "some non-physical things exist" and the assertion, "no non-physical things exist" are beyond firm and final proof. At the end of the day, both the believer in dualism and the believer in material reductionism must do one of two things: 1) accept their belief blindly; or, 2) make justificatory arguments which, while not conclusively settling the issue, convince them that theirs is the right position. I obviously accept the proposition "some non-physical things exist." And I've also thought through some arguments both for and against my position. And I've come to the conclusion that my position is the more likely of the two. If anyone differs, that's OK. But if you differ, I'll be much happier if you have counter-arguments (rather than more rhetoric) and if you respect my autonomous right to choose on my own what constitutes evidence and what arguments I find compelling.

It's instructive to me that most of the highly trained and respected philosophers on both sides of this issue can discuss their respective positions amiably, and without rancor, and can at least respect that the other side has autonomy and valid (though not necessarily sound) arguments. It seems to be the less-well-educated amateurs that get angry over

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

1) I exist
2) Other minds like mine exist
3) The external world exists

Don't forget 4) The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists....

Nice thread title Casual. Gave me a chuckle.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CAUSAL

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Nice thread title CaUSal. Gave me a chuckle.

Thanks! The first half was Rue's idea--that second half is all me. Ho-yeah!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, but see that's just the thing. If I point to my profoundly changed life and say, "See? The effects of God. That's evidence." You'll just say, "No, that's evidence of religious belief." Take prayer, for instance. It seems to be the case that prayer really does have a a positive impact. There's a memory floating around the cranium to the effect that people who profess to pray regularly are in generally better health. The religious believer (though not this one) might say, "See? Evidence for God." But if I may be so bold, I imagine that you'd offer some sort of psychological explanation.

I might. But what I'd really want to ask is how you'd attribute the evidence to the existence of a god in such a case. Evidence needs a logical link to be taken seriously. Otherwise you could just as easily claim your transformation was because you ate your spinach.

I will agree that testimonials of this nature are evidence of something, and while I'm doubtful of supernatural explanations, I'm willing to take the existence of gods as the source of such changes at face value. If you're defining god by the effects he/she has on believers, I'll grant that god is a real entity, one that I might describe as a powerful meme in the minds of followers, but no less real for that.

Quote:
Your presuppositions won't let you. It's not that you're inherently more rational--it's that your worldview is shaped by presuppositions buried so deeply into the substrata of your thinking that you can hardly see that there might be any alternative at all! Not, of course, that anyone else is any different. But you do have the choice to unbury and examine those presuppositions critically. Even if you don't change your mind, you'll still be better equipped to argue your case (and, I might add, to be sympathetic to those who disagree with you) (not that you're doing a bad job on that count, so far; just saying).

I totally agree. This is advice I gave my oldest such just three days ago. Most of my friends are religious so we have this discussion at various levels frequently.

Quote:
Quote:
... - they want to us to accept that each is a matter of faith.

I'm not sure about which ID proponent you're thinking of. Which article/book did you draw that conclusion from?

Just observation. Mostly in discussions like this one. It seems to be the first thing they want to do is level the playing field by presuming every conviction or proposition to be, ultimately, a matter of blind faith. I suppose it's possible to paint yourself into some dark corner of epistemology where you see everything is equal valid and unprovable, but no one lives that way. We test our beliefs against experience and make guesses likewise. Some more sound than others.

Quote:
At the end of the day, both the believer in dualism and the believer in material reductionism must do one of two things: 1) accept their belief blindly; or, 2) make justificatory arguments which, while not conclusively settling the issue, convince them that theirs is the right position.

-or- 3) accept their belief tentatively, remaining open to evidence for or against.

Quote:
I obviously accept the proposition "some non-physical things exist."

This is interesting because this statement seems obviously true to me. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'non-physical'?

Quote:
It seems to be the less-well-educated amateurs that get angry over this stuff.

What are you trying to say??

Quote:
Yeah, I'm with Citizen: I'm pretty sure that #2 should properly be called agnosticism.

Whichever. As long as we're clear on what the terms mean when we use them. It's probably the case that most people who self identify as agnostics mean 'unsure'. But I do hold to my observation that most self identifying atheists are in the 'without belief' camp. Here's a link I just found. (first google hit for 'definit

CAUSAL

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
It seems to be the less-well-educated amateurs that get angry over this stuff.

What are you trying to say??

Given the nice calm tone and the well-thought-out nature of your posts, I'm not sure we can put you in either the angry camp or the uneducated camp!

Anyway, just wanted to get that out, 'cause that made me smile. I'll make an effort to get 'round to the rest of the post later today.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:57 PM

Angry camp all the way here... sorry about that....

Like to think that I'm not uneducated though, and not by public school cirriculum standards anyhow, though I've already jumped through those hoops too...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:01 PM

"NOTHING UNREAL EXISTS."

The Vulcan Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:55 PM

Hi, catching up slowly. I have to get tangent-y on a few little bits that came up on the old thread. But it does seem to apply to the psychological effects of belief issue, so maybe it's not so off topic...

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
And how would you account for the fact that thousands of years ago, nearly every human being on the planet "intuitively thought" that there were gods?

Because all humans, in all eras from prehistoric to now, live in the natural world, and the natural world does some funky stuff. Scary stuff. I submit that it's comforting to attribute that funky stuff to powers that are like us. It makes us feel more important and less helpless if nature is controlled by "gods," and those gods are in our image.

The way I see it,

Human psychology + scary nature = religion

And I haven't drawn that conclusion purely from science. It's funny how these debates focus purely on science, but never get into the things in religion that make it seem, to me anyway, a creation of human beings. I don't think it's a bad thing. Religious beliefs have done us good. Done us bad too, but hey - we're not perfect. Neither is anything we create. (I'm so gonna get flamed LOL!)

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im not sure you can accurately explain every aspect of human nature, simply by making inferences of natural selection processes and environmental factors.

Hey, I'm also freaked out by the incredible complexity of life. I mean - look at the structure of the inner ear! It's amazing! How in the hell did that come about? It boggles the mind...

But saying that only a being who is like us (but a whole lot more powerful) could be behind it is rather a limited point of view, and also, I say, self-centered. Human-race-centered. How about the idea that nature itself is God? It's an engineering machine that operates completely differently than us, and doesn't have the kind of consciousness we do (emotions and such), but it's acheived a whole lot more than we can ever hope. How's that for a Higher Power?

(So, maybe there is a sentient being that set up the natural system. Now, that I could see...)

IMHO, it's our inability to accept that creation can happen in a far different way than we would do it that leads to so much resistance to evolution. Why is it so hard to accept that the physical and chemical structure of the universe have set up an environment that, in the right conditions and over eons and eons and eons, made us? Inner ears and all? I mean - can you even conceptualize how long a time evolution has had to work? How complicated the chemical system involved? Amazing things surely could come of that.

But, then, seeing it that way, seeing God as something completely non-human, doesn't make us Special and better than everything else. It's not particularly comforting. It also doesn't give believers any right to tell other people who to sleep with and what to eat and how many days of the week to work and stuff like that, which would be a nice improvement, I say...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Agnosticism is the idea that we can't know whether god exists or not. This is often misconstrued, and used popularly, to refer to those who are undecided on the issue. A real agnostic makes the point that the existence of a god can never be proven or disproven. That conviction doesn't necessarily imply a belief, or lack of belief.

Ok, thanks.

RUE: I don't sweat the trolls no more, they're too stupid to make a meaningful contribution.

If they had the basic human decency they'd have let their mothers kill them as children instead of fighting back.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
IMHO, it's our inability to accept that creation can happen in a far different way than we would do it that leads to so much resistance to evolution. Why is it so hard to accept that the physical and chemical structure of the universe have set up an environment that, in the right conditions and over eons and eons and eons, made us? Inner ears and all? I mean - can you even conceptualize how long a time evolution has had to work? How complicated the chemical system involved? Amazing things surely could come of that.

Reminds me of the weak and strong Anthropic principles.

If the univerese wasn't exactly the way it is, if it's physical laws were even slightly different, we wouldn't be able to survive, so the universe must have been made to produce us.

Or

We evolved in this universe, so we evolved to live in this universe, so we don't need to survive in any other.

Is the universe the way it is because of us, or are we the way we are because of the universe?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If the univerese wasn't exactly the way it is, if it's physical laws were even slightly different, we wouldn't be able to survive, so the universe must have been made to produce us.

I had a physics teacher say that if gravity didn't go as 1/r^2, if it was 1/r^2.000001, or 1/r^1.999999, the universe couldn't exist as it does. Not even close; the forces would be all out of balance.

I can't quit wrap my head around it, but it's a cool idea. (Though I could argue that indeed there's no other way, because you can get to that law by integrating or deriving, so it's got to be a whole number... sorry, you guys talk technical philosophy, right? So I can talk physics

)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

KANEMAN

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:02 AM

My GOD you fools have nothing left to talk about....Should I come back more often to tell you to eat shit, die, bang your mom, hang upside down and get your balls slapped? I mean....Jeez! What is going on? When a thread title names a PHILOSOPHER!!!( which Causal must point out in every post he is a part of) and the biggest cunt on the planet........Things have SSSSLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.............DOWN.

Where is CITZ when we need him?

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:23 PM

Can I just point out the delicious irony of being insulted by a troll, and then having that troll use the word "slown"? That's good stuff.

Well, the thread's died down a mite, so I thought I'd add this, if anyone is still interested. I'm reading a book co-authored by theist William Lane Craig and atheist Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, in which they debate about the question of God's existence. Craig attempts to use the Big Bang as indirect evidence of God (after all, he thinks, if the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the universe must have had a cause, and that cause is God--remember, this is Craig's argument). Armstrong says this just won't work. A causal statement is supposed to tell you why something happen when and why it did, as opposed to at another time and in another way. Merely positing God as the creator doesn't satisfy that requirement for causal explanations. "God," Armstrong says, "adds nothing to the scientific explanations."

Thankfully, Armstrong has given me an "in" on a subject that has been brewing (though subconsciously). It seems to me that science, if elevated to the status of unquestioned comprehensive worldview, can become awfully imperial in its aims. I refer to those who think that given any question, science can answer that question, or those who think that the scientific method is the only way to discover truth. I refer to those who hold out science as the last, best hope for mankind to have a brighter tomorrow. It seems clear to me that science cannot live up to such expectations. Science seems to be of much better use as a tool than as a comprehensive way of understanding everything. Take one example: scientific explanations (at least the ones that I've seen) for morality seem to be utterly uncompelling. I've yet to see a scientific explanation for why I ought to do some thing and not do another. Morality (or Ethics, if you prefer) seem to be a subject best left to philosophic or religious inquiry (depending on your other metaphysical views).

The criticism I have for Armstrong, I guess is this: who says scientific explanations are the only explanations that carry any weight? Science is great at telling us the "how" of things (that is, great at discovering descriptive truths) but it doesn't seem to have any ability to discuss the "why" of things (that is, prescriptive truths). And I submit that the mere fact that science can't speak to prescriptive truth does not mean that there is not any such truth to be had.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:33 PM

In the interest of discussion, I have a question for you--and anyone else here, of course, who has any thoughts on the matter:

Who says God is all powerful anyway? Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.

But there are a lot of other ways of looking at reality and, therefore, god.

In shamanistic animism, f'rinstance, there is no centralized authority in the sky, only an infinite field of consciousness. Within all things there is what I might call a "consciousness drive" which propels us all toward higher and higher awareness and meaning.

So in the place of "God," we could say there was a Universal "consensus" of experience. Consciousness has tendencies and we here can ally ourselves with this "Universal Consciousness" or we can cling to our private illusions.

Where it will all end is up to us. Do you like human nature or not? Do you like yourself or don't you?

I'm a big fan of human nature. In my own life I have found that the healthy human subconscious is a wondrous and powerful tool for survival. Unfortunately, all too often we ignore and debase our subconscious selves to the point that many of us fear our subconscious--fear our impulses and our instincts. Trouble is, such an ignored and abused subconscious can indeed be dangerous. When we stop listening to our intuition we must rely on very strict rules and formulae and things can go pretty badly for us in spite of our "best laid plans."

The shamans teach that during the era when the world's "Great Religions" were formed, consciousness was going to sleep on a wide scale. That is, the clarity of meaning which the Universe offered was becoming more opaque. That's when religions grew up around drug cults--wine, mead, peyote. The drugs were used as a way of bringing the old awake consciousness closer again so the world still made sense even as we were beginning to forget. And so, in those twilight days of consciousness, the great religious books were written; but by the time they were completed, human consciousness was sound asleep, so a lot of what we read in these books is gobbeldigook.

Anyone reading the Holy Bible can see that it points toward some deeper wholeness, some kind of awesome vision, but when we examine the text closely such vision fades before the gobbeldigook. A lot of folks cling to the vision by blanking out the gobbeldigook, denying it, but it is the power of the text that such denial tends to drive folk a little nuts.

So the God that we get out of all that is an anti-intuition God. A God of blanking out what doesn't fit. A God that will take the place of intuition and self-knowledge. "You shall have no gods before Me." A God of rules and repression. A God that teaches you that Nature is "the other," a "thing" to be used. A God that teaches you that alien ideas are dangerous, and evil.

So, Causal, though I see that a lot of religious folks worship this kind of God, I see also that plenty of scientific people worship at this arrogant God's altar as well (thankfully, none of them on this board); the God of Being Right, of Being Better, of Being Alone.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:54 PM

Whew! Lots of anger coming off that post. Were I a betting man I'd say you'd had some deeply personal hurt perpetrated against you by somebody in the name of religiosity. In any event, I'm not sure how to approach this in a non-defensive way, because I just feel lots of hostility in your post. It's not that I think that someone couldn't hold any or all of these positions rationally; it's just that I think that you hold them and dammit, you're mad about all this! I'm afraid that if that's the case, no amount of reply is going to move you a single iota--not even in the direction of being a smidge more tolerant toward those of us who do believe in a monotheistic religion. I am, therefore, going to decline to answer most of what you've said because I started the thread with the intent of discussing these issues calmly and philosophically, and not from a heated emotional base. That being said...

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Who says God is all powerful anyway? Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

I don't recall making the proposition anywhere above that God is all-powerful, but I suppose I might have. I do, of course, hold the philosophical position that God can do any logically possible thing, which is how most philosophers of religion define "all-powerful" (though there are a few interesting cats who claim that God isn't even limited by what is logically possible--i.e. God could make a round square it he wanted). In any event, if I presented God as all-powerful at any point, that is because that's what I consider him to be. I'm not sure that I'm at fault for presenting my own views (as opposed to some sort of philosophy of religious omnibus). I'll leave the "other views" to others. Omnipotence is certainly not "the only model for consideration"--but why would I discuss in depth something I don't believe? I'll leave it to others to broach alternative models and then talk about them as necessary.

Quote:
So, causal, though I see that a lot of religious folks worship this kind of God, I see also that plenty of scientific people worship at this arrogant God's altar as well (thankfully, none of them on this board); the God of Being Right, of Being Better, of Being Alone.

Did I do something at some point in the past to offend you? Because I get the impression (and I mean no snark here) that I'm having a finger wagged at me as I read this. If I've done something that's hurt you in some way, I'd be glad to hear your grievance and deal with it.

In any event, as far as the Being Right things goes, hell yes I want to be right--but not in the sense of beating others down. When I say I want to be right, I mean that I want to hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as I can. I take truth to be that which corresponds to the way things really are. That is to say, "I have a cell phone on my desk" is true if and only if it really is the case that there is a cell phone on my desk. I think that knowing the way things really are is about the best way to successfully navigate the hazards of life, so I place quite a high premium on truth, indeed. And I also place quite a high premium on knowing what the truth is on a matter. If that makes me a bad person on your view, I regret to have made you sad, but I'll not be moved merely because you think that I should.

As far as the "being better" and "being alone" see my comments at the top of the thread. This post is one made in anger, not the spirit of inquiry for which I started the thread in the first place. You are airing your views, not engaging in dialogue. And that's interesting as far as it goes, but not quite what I had in mind.

Also, serious: if I've done something to make your personal hit list, let me know. I'd like to have the chance to work that out.

________________________________________________________________________

RUE

Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:59 PM

BTW - I went away for a day - and got SO far behind on this thread. I'm going to need some time to do my homework.

***************************************************************
The dog ate it.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:01 PM

By all means. I like talking calmly with you way better than yelling back and forth, btw. We should do more of the former and none of the latter.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Who says God is all powerful anyway? Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

Christian dogma holds God to be all-powerful, most of the people on this board who want to argue about it are Christian or atheists brought up in a country steeped in Christian tradition, therefore most people on the board either believe in an all-powerful god or disbelieve in an all-powerful god but have said god as the greatest influence on their opinion of religion.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:15 PM

I'm terribly worried about Kaneman. He still holds those deep seated feelings for me, unrequited love can really screw someone up.

On the matter of where the universe comes from, it makes no sense to try and prove Gods existence by the idea that the Universe has to have come from somewhere. The problem is that it doesn't answer the question, it off lays the question somewhere else.

For an attempt to give a logical reasoning for the existence of god, it's kinda illogical.

When people say they think Science will someday answer all questions, I think they're not including metaphysical matters. I think there's a disconnect because some people accept that answering all questions means only those that science poses, which doesn't necessarily mean all pose able questions.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Whew! Lots of anger coming off that post.

What? Who should I be angry at and what did they do?

Folks, I'm genuinely surprised at this assessment. Do any others of you reading this share Causal's feeling that I was all kinds of pissed off when I wrote my last post?

I felt pretty happy as I was writing it, thought I was making a lot of sense. I thought I got to the bottom of what, to my mind, is wrong with monotheism as it is practiced in the world today. I thought I'd distilled it down, you know, to its essencials. I was so happy, in fact, that I decided to take the risk of including the material on consciousness "going to sleep" which I was afraid folks would just laugh at and dismiss as whimsical nonsense, 'cause that's what folks so often seem to do. Generally I avoid posting such patently "woo-woo" stuff, but I was in a particularly good mood and decided to let it stand.

I don't feel at all Christopher Hitchensy about any of this. It's just that the more I think seriously about an "Almighty God" as He is discussed in threads like this one, the more disfunctional the whole proposition looks.

I can see that my anti-monotheism puts you on the defensive, Causal, but good gravy, you're calling out the atheists here, so why should my thoughts about monotheism be such a big deal? I'm really just trying to take you seriously and ponder the issues you bring up and discuss them calmly and clearly.

It occurs to me that you might take my characterizing the God of the Bible as a "psychopath" as just something one would say in anger. It's not. It's my considered opinion. And I take it pretty much for granted these days. I'm a pretty irreverent person, I guess.

(btw, have you read "God: a Biography?")

If anything annoys me about this thread it's the false dichotomy of God/no God at its center. I will grant you that it was this annoyance that inspired me to put in my 2 cents in the first place. I'm not a big fan of false dichotomy and this God (as you define Him)/no God (as anyone defines the idea) business is pretty dang false.

I'm sorry. As you yourself observed, the thread was dying. I came here to see if my "minority report" could liven things up. I did not intend to shut you down.

(Edited to add: I wasn't wagging my finger at you, Causal, with my final comments. I was referring to religious fundamentalists and I do not include you in that category.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CAUSAL

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:40 PM

Just have to put this up there before I finish it--sorry to have misread your tone! The knife of bad experience cuts both ways, I guess. I suppose I was on the receiving end this time! I'll read through the rest and respond in a minute.

My favorite part of your post was this:

Quote:
I wasn't wagging my finger at you, Causal, with my final comments. I was referring to religious fundamentalists and I do not include you in that category.

Thank heavens for that! I try to represent what I think is, unfortunately, a dwindling population: deep-thinking, calm, rational Christians. And of course, I confess that I don't do that perfectly. I just hope that people will attribute my screw-ups to my own stupidity, and not to my religion.

In any event, I guess what saddens me is your perspective that monotheism inevitably leads to all those horrible consequences you mentioned. I can't see that monotheism is sufficient for those effects in a strictly logical sense. That is to say, I'm not sure that the proposition, "If there is one God, then the world will be an awful place" is actually true. Of course, I make no excuse for the excesses that have been perpetrated in the name of religion. But as with my own screw-ups, I attribute most of those as being the result of nasty humans, not a monotheistic God. For goodness sake, Jesus was a monotheist, and even if you don't think he is who Christians say he is, he certainly wasn't all those terrible things that you said would come of monotheism. I know nearly no one who says Jesus was a bad guy--and he was a Jew, the original monotheists! In any event, philosophically I think you'd have a tough time establishing the string of entailments that you want to propose come from monotheism. But that is you opinion, and I'm not sure that you're trying to put forth a philosophical argument so much as you're just trying to toss out a new subject for discussion.

I guess where I get shaky with respect to your opinions is the implications of those opinions. You think that it's not the case that God exists--that's fine. I respect many atheists more than many theists, because typically atheists have actually reasoned through their positions. But where it gets tenuous to me is this: if you think that the God I claim to worship is a psychopath, you can't have a very high opinion of me or any other believer. And that frightens me a little. You may not be going Chris Hitchens on me, but those folks have a growing voice. Richard Dawkins has strongly implied that religious parents should have their children taken away--or at the very least they should be prevented from "indoctrinating" their children in religious teachings ( http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1914). There is something ominously Orwellian in that. Perhaps that's not what you're suggesting, but on these very boards I've heard the suggestion that all Christians ought to be burned at the stake--and the poster said he'd enjoy the spectacle. This obviously goes pretty far afield of where I started, but suffice it to say that when I hear that someone believes that I'm not only incorrect, but the worshipper of a "psychotic" God, I have to wonder if I'm even respected as a person. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not you can respect me and my freedom to choose for myself irrespective of my choice for a "psychotic" God.

Quote:
If anything annoys me about this thread it's the false dichotomy of God/no God at its center. I will grant you that it was this annoyance that inspired me to put in my 2 cents in the first place. I'm not a big fan of false dichotomy and this God (as you define Him)/no God (as anyone defines the idea) business is pretty dang false.

Well, I guess it depends on how you see the question. You could be right--some of us might see the question as monotheist God or no supernatural anything of any kind. Obviously, we would be committing the fallacy of False Dilemma ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html). But I don't th

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Whew! Lots of anger coming off that post.

What? Who should I be angry at and what did they do?

Folks, I'm genuinely surprised at this assessment. Do any others of you reading this share Causal's feeling that I was all kinds of pissed off when I wrote my last post?

IMO you did sound a bit confrontational and angry.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
...most of the people on this board who want to argue about it are Christian or atheists brought up in a country steeped in Christian tradition...

Yes, certainly, but the more unexamined assumptions one has cluttering up their mind about a subject the harder it is to discuss it in any meaningful way, don't you agree?

In Causal's paper, he talked about the three assumptions:

(1) God is wholly good
(2) God is all-powerful
and
(3) Evil exists

And I wanted to question the necessity of #2. I was put in mind of the many aboriginal and shamanistic cultures world wide which don't need an "all-powerful" god to protect them from or explain away the evils of the world.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
IMO you did sound a bit confrontational and angry.

Confrontational? Absolutely, wholeheartedly. Angry? I'm sorry you got that impression. I hope my subsequent comments have clarified my feelings for you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CAUSAL

Friday, July 27, 2007 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm terribly worried about Kaneman. He still holds those deep seated feelings for me, unrequited love can really screw someone up.

I couldn't help but notice that myself. Curious, isn't it? Some people he insults, some he sends Valentine's to. Either way, I reckon his aim is to piss off as many people as possible. But all things considered, I'd rather be in your shoes. Valentines are nicer, even when they come from raving nutters like him.

Quote:
When people say they think Science will someday answer all questions, I think they're not including metaphysical matters. I think there's a disconnect because some people accept that answering all questions means only those that science poses, which doesn't necessarily mean all pose able questions.

What do you take to be the questions that science poses?

Do you think that there are some questions that stand in need of answering that aren't the ken of scientific inquiry? If so, what might they be?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

RUE

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:21 AM

Well, not on the question of the nature of reality ...

I guess I'd be an agnostic.

As far as god/ no god (in the traditional sense) over a number of threads we had sort-of parsed out where is god in the scheme of things. By definition (that kind of) god is about faith. The minute a matter has evidence then it falls out of the metaphysical realm of faith and into the realm of science.

HKC, I didn't think you sounded angry. And I appreciate your post. It did bring up a different way of looking at things and gets past the scheme: 'a', 'b', 'a and b' and brings up a credible 'neither a nor b'

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:32 AM

Causal,

Debating proof of religion with SergeantX - when you said some people who had found religion experienced a profound change, you mentioned several different religions: "their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah)".

Technically, Buddha isn't a god, merely a teacher who points the way. Others have found transformation in Zen Buddhism, which doesn't reference a god (or gods) at all.

And I have had my own personal transformation which is not about god, but human thought.

So I'd have to say that while this kind of experience may point to the power of the human mind, it doesn't address the nature of any particular god, or any god at all.

Anway, I have to get on with my evening.

Be back later.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
By definition (that kind of) god is about faith. The minute a matter has evidence then it falls out of the metaphysical realm of faith and into the realm of science.

Yes, but there are some beliefs that are fundamental to science that are beyond proof. Take, for instance the rules of logic, the Uniformity Principle, and Material Reductionism. All (except maybe Material Reductionism) are fundamental to the scientific enterprise. But none can be proven. So it seems that no matter what you believe, some of it is going to be beyond proof.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, but there are some beliefs that are fundamental to science that are beyond proof. Take, for instance the rules of logic, the Uniformity Principle, and Material Reductionism.

They're beyond proof, but they aren't matters of 'faith', at least not in the same sense that religion is. Belief in these principles is of a distinctly different character than religious belief, where faith - even in the face of contradictory evidence - is the point. If we find significant phenomena that contradict logic and UP our understanding of reality will change.

I hope you can at least acknowledge this difference. If the kind of 'faith' involved in religion were truly the same as that required for science, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CAUSAL

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, but there are some beliefs that are fundamental to science that are beyond proof. Take, for instance the rules of logic, the Uniformity Principle, and Material Reductionism.

They're beyond proof, but they aren't matters of 'faith', at least not in the same sense that religion is. Belief in these principles is of a distinctly different character than religious belief, where faith - even in the face of contradictory evidence - is the point. If we find significant phenomena that contradict logic and UP our understanding of reality will change.

I hope you can at least acknowledge this difference. If the kind of 'faith' involved in religion were truly the same as that required for science, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

You are right about one thing: religious belief is "about faith" in a pretty significant way. Science, on the other hand, isn't about faith, it's about empirical verifiability. So you're on the right track when you say that where religious belief is concerned, "faith is the point" and right to draw a distinction between that and science.

I'm not sure that I can agree with you regarding the character of faith. It seems to be taken for granted that "faith" means something like, "belief in the face of contradictory evidence" or "belief in the plainly illogical" (in the strictly philosophical sense of the word "illogical"). But that's not exactly what I take faith to be. I take faith to be the acceptance of some proposition for which firm and final proof cannot be given (e.g. "There is a God"). Obviously, no such proof can be given for the existence of God nor for many of the claims of religion. But one of the things that has motivated me to stay engaged on the boards and in these sorts of discussions is the desire to show that one can be a calm rationally-minded person and still believe the claims of religion. Now, there may be things that I believe that you think that are plainly false or plainly irrational. And if that is the case, I'd love to discuss those with you, because I think that's wrong. But I'm not ready to say that my beliefs are of an inferior category to scientific beliefs.

To be fair to my science-minded friends, I do not apply the term "faith" to the foundational beliefs of science because that would obviously cause them great distress. But I think that is true to say that there are some things that must be accepted even though they cannot be firmly and finally proven. What I am curious about is what differentiates the sorts of acceptances that I hold (in spite of a lack of final proof) from the sorts of acceptances you hold (in spite of a lack of firm and final proof). Please recognize that I'm not saying there isn't any difference. I just want to know what you think that difference is. Because your plea for me to acknowledge the difference tells me that you have some obvious difference in mind, and I'm curious to know what it is.

Congrats to everybody, by the way, for the continued calm in the thread!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

MAL4PREZ

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:39 PM

HK - I didn't get anything angry from your post. Not at all! I was very confused at Causal's reply. But I note that those who tend to debate on the side of Believers are the ones who read anger in your post. Interesting, but it makes sense. Belief is a very personal and emotional thing, and any statement against it would seem like an attack.

I thought your post was reasonable in tone and quite insightful. I love the idea of the human subconscious being a powerful thing that is ignored at our own peril. I totally believe this. Example: when a pianist is thundering through Rachmaninov's 2nd, do you really think they are consciously aware of each key being hit? Of the slight variations of tempo and level that make the music so expressive and divine? Of course not! They've trained these patterns into their subconscious. That's the part of the artist that can speak so wonderfully - it requires shutting down conscious thought so the inner voice can speak.

The flip side: these public leaders who rally against gay rights and then we find out that they've been having gay affairs. Or high school students who are cast aside because they don't fit the norm, and they're unable to be themselves and the hate piles up until they lash out. It's a scary thing.

Anyway, I enjoyed the post HK. I hope the discussion continues... I never heard anything back about the idea of the universe as God. Strange how trying to move the discussion away from bashing science made it kind of dry up... or is that just my own talent for thread killing?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Do any others of you reading this share Causal's feeling that I was all kinds of pissed off when I wrote my last post?

I gleaned a small resentment at the sillyness of it all, but no bile or anything. Heck, as far as irreverant goes, I challenged the all-powerfull God to a fistfight when I was a kid, and I won (He didn't show).
To be fair, I also challenged big D. He punked out too.
I'm with ya on the false dichotomy thing, HK. I don't believe in a Bible-like Big Dude, nor do I believe there's nothing metaphysical out there (and in here); I absolutely don't like absolutes...

Modified Buddhist-boy Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
HK - I didn't get anything angry from your post. Not at all! I was very confused at Causal's reply. But I note that those who tend to debate on the side of Believers are the ones who read anger in your post. Interesting, but it makes sense. Belief is a very personal and emotional thing, and any statement against it would seem like an attack.

In my defense, I'm not the only one to whom that posted sounded angry--and I'm not sure that I would put Fred in the category of Believer!

It's not that any statement against what I hold to be true reads like an attack to me. Many, many people have contradicted my beliefs in this thread alone, and HK's was the only post that seemed hostile to me. I think that that is the combination of two things: an utter lack of respect for the things I believe (e.g. "God is a psychopath" seems to be pretty plainly a confrontational thing to say) and the attendant implication that anyone who believes the things I do is stupid, crazy, or evil--or some combination thereof. There's quite a good deal of ugliness of both sides of the God debate--and it's not just religious folk that can perpetrate wrongs. Thus I approach anyone who makes the kinds of comments that HK did very cautiously indeed because I've had enough experience with the disciples of Richard Dawkins et al to know that they are fighting dirty, and for keeps (though it remains an open question for me whether HK falls into that camp).

By the way, the interpretting according to your beliefs knife cuts both ways, you know. Someone predisposed to agree with HK's assessment might read it as wholly innocent and inoffensive--but mere agreement doesn't entail correctness. Were the situation reversed, and religious believers in the majority, someone might make an attack on you using similar language about atheism. And to someone who professed a lack of belief (or a different belief) such an attack would be offensive. But to someone already convinced of the correctness of their theism, such an attack would make good plain sense. Try this, if you're up for it. Try to get yourself into my metaphysical headspace (theism) and read the post again. Tell me if it doesn't come off as angry and hostile to you. I'm just not sure how else to interpret, "Your God is a psychopath." That seems like a blatantly inflammatory sort of a remark to make.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I never heard anything back about the idea of the universe as God.

As I believe the Earth to be a living being, so too would I hold with the idea that everything IS God.

Thinks-too-much Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Were the situation reversed, and religious believers in the majority, someone might make an attack on you using similar language about atheism. And to someone who professed a lack of belief (or a different belief) such an attack would be offensive.

Ummm...no.
Tell me Buddha was a fat, lazy jerk. Won't offend me. Attacking my personal beliefs would be pointless as they are MY beliefs, and as such, are immune to being offended (like sayin' Serenity's a bad movie

). Bush sending kids off to war? Now THAT offends me. But in terms of personal beliefs...it's my experience that the most easily offended are the ones who have the most fragmented foundation to their beliefs.

Un-offendable Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Were the situation reversed, and religious believers in the majority, someone might make an attack on you using similar language about atheism. And to someone who professed a lack of belief (or a different belief) such an attack would be offensive.

Ummm...no.
Tell me Buddha was a fat, lazy jerk. Won't offend me. Attacking my personal beliefs would be pointless as they are MY beliefs, and as such, are immune to being offended (like sayin' Serenity's a bad movie). Bush sending kids off to war? Now THAT offends me. But in terms of personal beliefs...it's my experience that the most easily offended are the ones who have the most fragmented foundation to their beliefs.

So...does that mean you think I have a fragmented foundation my beliefs?

My point with the whole HK debacle (which threatens to overwhelm the thread) is that I just don't see any way around the statement "your God is a psychopath." Such a statement doesn't seem to be in keeping with the tone of calm discussion that I was hoping to keep with the thread. There are others way to say such a thing (if in fact that is what he believes) that would not be as inflammatory as that. I regret that my off-handed interpretation has led to such a mound of criticism. I'm just not sure how else to react to "your God is a psychopath." I guess I just wish that people had concentrated on the way I responded to him, instead of the way I read his post. Because IMHO, my response was fairly calm and measured, given what I had to work with.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CAUSAL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Strange how trying to move the discussion away from bashing science made it kind of dry up... or is that just my own talent for thread killing?

I'm curious--what did you take as science bashing? I'm actually a big fan of science (though not in the same way or for the same reasons as many here). I'm actually a little sad that you perceived something as science bashing. What was it?

Also out of curiousity...

Quote:

The flip side: these public leaders who rally against gay rights and then we find out that they've been having gay affairs. Or high school students who are cast aside because they don't fit the norm, and they're unable to be themselves and the hate piles up until they lash out. It's a scary thing.

What do you take this to establish against religion? It seems that you take this to have some underlying significance, especially when you contrast it with an alternate view of spirituality. What do you take the significance of such things to be?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 27, 2007 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

So...does that mean you think I have a fragmented foundation my beliefs?

No. Unless, you know, you do...

Kidding, and what I think ain't important in such matters, actually.

Quote:

My point with the whole HK debacle (which threatens to overwhelm the thread) is that I just don't see any way around the statement "your God is a psychopath."

HK wrote:
Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.
Your characterization of how he actually phrased it seems defensive to me. 'Such a' and 'your' are very different IMO.

Quote:
Because IMHO, my response was fairly calm and measured, given what I had to work with.

Totally, C.

Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 27, 2007 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But I'm not ready to say that my beliefs are of an inferior category to scientific beliefs.

This is at the heart (I think) of the efforts to equate believers and non-believers - i.e. assuming each of their convictions as equally matters of faith. So many of the religious folks I've met seem to have an inferiority complex about their beliefs and I don't see why. They seem to think they can gain credibility if they can equate their beliefs to the assumptions of science.

A good friend of mine, a devout Catholic, shares my view that it's a mistake to characterize the decision in this way. His point is that the faith required for religious belief is an exalted, higher-order mental state. To compare it with the basic assumptions of the scientific mindset is to rob the concept of it's spiritual power and meaning.

Quote:
What I am curious about is what differentiates the sorts of acceptances that I hold (in spite of a lack of final proof) from the sorts of acceptances you hold (in spite of a lack of firm and final proof).

Mostly the motivation and power of the convictions. Naturalism, or science, asks the we accept logic and UP because they continue to hold up to scrutiny. When they no longer pass that test, science allows, even insists, that the assumptions be readdressed.

In religion, as I mentioned earlier, faith is the point. The mental, or spiritual, state provoked by such faith is the end goal and it's not really important how much proof or evidence support the object of the faith, or how much explanatory power a particular doctrine represents.

I haven't been religious since high school, so I'm not sure I'm representing the religious pov fairly. I've mostly gathered my understanding through discussions with religious friends and reading.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In my defense, I'm not the only one to whom that posted sounded angry--and I'm not sure that I would put Fred in the category of Believer!

If you did that would be one of those false beliefs that you don't want to have so you probably shouldn't.

Quote:
I've had enough experience with the disciples of Richard Dawkins et al to know that they are fighting dirty, and for keeps

In defense of the Dawkinites many of them are probably following Dawkins over from the evolution "debate" and in the evolution "debate" their opponents fight dirty and for keeps. It's only natural that they end up fighting back the same way and then get used to doing things in that manner.

Quote:
By the way, the interpretting according to your beliefs knife cuts both ways, you know. Someone predisposed to agree with HK's assessment might read it as wholly innocent and inoffensive

I agree with him for the most part (specifically the psychopath part) but I still felt he sounded angrier then was necessary. I do believe though that he wasn't angry and was actually simply trying to be confrontational which, i suppose, works to get his point across.

Quote:
Were the situation reversed, and religious believers in the majority, someone might make an attack on you using similar language about atheism.

In my experience atheism doesn't arouse nearly as much zeal as theism, in fact atheism seems to arouse more zeal in theists than atheists.

MAL4PREZ

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm curious--what did you take as science bashing? I'm actually a big fan of science (though not in the same way or for the same reasons as many here). I'm actually a little sad that you perceived something as science bashing. What was it?

Well, maybe that was a strong statement. It's just that most (all?) of this science/religion discussion has focused on science and its weaknesses. "What is the REAL evidence of evolution? What was the big bang REALLY? How do you explain such and such, huh?

" etc etc. So it's been a whole lot of looking at where science is incomplete as if that could prove the existence of god. My point with my post up above (cosmology and all) was that the fallacies of science are just a natural part of the process. Trying to work out what happened billions of years ago and billions of light years away - of course things will be incomplete!

So, how about a break in bashing the weaknesses in scientific theory to look into the fallacies of religion? Science-bashing, religion-bashing, both fun and both necessary for a well-rounded debateisall.

Quote:
Also out of curiousity...
Quote:

The flip side: these public leaders who rally against gay rights and then we find out that they've been having gay affairs. Or high school students who are cast aside because they don't fit the norm, and they're unable to be themselves and the hate piles up until they lash out. It's a scary thing.

What do you take this to establish against religion? It seems that you take this to have some underlying significance, especially when you contrast it with an alternate view of spirituality. What do you take the significance of such things to be?

This was a little pseudo-tangent regarding human subconscious. (I tangentialize badly. Sorry!)

To better explain - I believe that a whole whole lot of evil done in this world is because people ignore their subconscious urges, and I believe religion can further this by labelling very natural things - such as attraction to the same gender - as evil and wrong. (Yes, I believe it is natural, but that's for a different thread, please!)

So, an upstanding kind of public figure may believe that his affair with a male prostitute is Evil (hmm, when did this happen?

) And he may form an idea of what gay love is based on his own guilty, shameful, *dirty* experiences. He may then work very hard on legislation to limit gay rights, and try to squash all those vile gays. He can base his argument on some words written in the Bible, but it is really coming from a battle with his own urges.

Which is not AT ALL to say religion is wrong, but that it can be misused in such a case. Science can surely be misused in a similar way, but here's the thing: I believe that religion lends itself to this kind of abuse so much more readily, because it is based in faith. Blind faith, without question, to an authority figure (who also happens to be pretty much a white male, and yes, this image of God has been held before me as a statement about power dynamic...)

Please don't see this as an attack! Relgious belief can be a beautiful thing. It can also be ugly, depending on the person welding it. It can discourage free self-discovery, shun those who behave outside some limiting norm, and - worst of all, I say - stop us from asking very important questions of ourselves and out world.

So, the connection there was this proposal: religion can be twisted into something that stomps on the human subconscious - and the human spirit - more easily than science. That is my opinionized hypothesis, of course, and I certainly don't mean to imply this of your personal religion!

As for HK's post, Chrisisall made the point that HK talks of "a" God. Not to be argumentative

I'm just saying - some folks seemed to automatically interpret that to mean their own particular God and then to apply as an attack on themselves. Yes, easy to do - but if someone says something degrading about atheism

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:34 PM

mal4prez, you're a f***ing pyschopath because you're an atheist!

Nothing personal Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
mal4prez, you're a f***ing pyschopath because you're an atheist!

If only I could reach through the computer and deliver a little bitchslap...

arm... not... long... enough......

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

FREDGIBLET

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Well, maybe that was a strong statement. It's just that most (all?) of this science/religion discussion has focused on science and its weaknesses. "What is the REAL evidence of evolution? What was the big bang REALLY? How do you explain such and such, huh? " etc etc. So it's been a whole lot of looking at where science is incomplete as if that could prove the existence of god. My point with my post up above (cosmology and all) was that the fallacies of science are just a natural part of the process. Trying to work out what happened billions of years ago and billions of light years away - of course things will be incomplete!

The simple reason for this is that there is no positive evidence (at least that I am aware of) for ID or creation, thus proponents of those views have to attack the existing views instead of promoting their own. Additionally it looks better in the public eye to have your side putting the other side on the defensive then to try weakly to shore up your own arguements.

Quote:
Which is not AT ALL to say religion is wrong, but that it can be misused in such a case. Science can surely be misused in a similar way, but here's the thing: I believe that religion lends itself to this kind of abuse so much more readily, because it is based in faith. Blind faith, without question, to an authority figure (who also happens to be pretty much a white male, and yes, this image of God has been held before me as a statement about power dynamic...)

This is the same argument that I used in a previous thread, many religions (particularly organized religions) lend themselves to abuse and, just like any other power structure, attract those who want to abuse power.

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Blind faith, without question, to an authority figure (who also happens to be pretty much a white male, and yes, this image of God has been held before me as a statement about power dynamic...)

Well, she's black, but let's not get into that....

Yeah, the whole 'His only son' thing is pretty tranparently patriarchal, and a true maker-of-all-things would be beyond being defined as one sex or the other, IMHO. There's where the whole Bible routine falls apart for me, looking beyond the writing, it's a primitive mess. Like if you had those peeps back then describe a rocket ship that landed, the wording would be strange "..a large silver-hued cylander with bursts of angry fire..." but the point would come across. The way the Bible goes, God approves of MEN IN CHARGE, and that's clearly primitive misogenistic thinking. Dated fantasy at best.

Sulu: screens and shields!

Waiting for it Chrisisall

Edit to add: Don't be offended anyone, remember, all's fair- call Buddhism retarded if you want, our beliefs should be stronger than a few big-mouthed morons....not that I AM one...

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
or is that just my own talent for thread killing?

I seemed to have borrowed it..

Wanted for thread murder Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
or is that just my own talent for thread killing?
I seemed to have borrowed it..

Wanted for thread murder Chrisisall

They must be out gathering ropes and clubs to beat you with...

Me? I'm going to obey my subconscious urges and go have a burger and a guinness.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wanted for thread murder Chrisisall

Are you tag-teaming with Kaveman?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HKCAVALIER

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:39 PM

Causal,

I did not simply say "God is a Psychopath" and I most certainly didn't say "Your God is a psychopath." That would indeed be disrespectful and hostile. You insist on taking my very unfavorable assessment of this idea of an "all-powerful God" as some kind of personal focused attack on you. You're fine with people disagreeing with that concept supposedly, but you object to how strongly I disagree with that concept?

I don't get it, you seem to crave a debate about the legitimacy of your concept of God, but when you come up against someone who has serious issues with that concept, you call foul.

I said:

Quote:
Looks to me like belief in such [an all-powerful] God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.

Here I list a series of psychological flaws and fallacious premises which I perceive to be inherent in modern monotheism, if not Western Culture as a whole. Do you believe these characteristics describe the God of your understanding? If not, there's a conversation to be had. Can you point to any of Almighty God's actions or prescriptions that speak against hierarchy, control and intolerance?

The hierarchical thing, the control thing, the denigration of the innocent and the ignorant (i.e.: children and the non-human species with whom we share the planet)--these are deadly serious problems we can see in the "big three" religions, in government, in the family system, in personal psychology. These problems are real.

I would say that the sayings of Jesus, for instance, can go a fair distance toward counteracting a lot of this stuff, but, at least in the way St. Paul and St. John (and thereby the Church and tradition) have interpreted His life, Jesus still gives lip service to the power and righteousness of the Authoritarian God. And I, for the reasons stated--not whimsically, not prejudicially--have a serious problem with that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Many, many people have contradicted my beliefs in this thread alone, and HK's was the only post that seemed hostile to me. I think that that is the combination of two things: an utter lack of respect for the things I believe (e.g. "God is a psychopath" seems to be pretty plainly a confrontational thing to say) and the attendant implication that anyone who believes the things I do is stupid, crazy, or evil--or some combination thereof. There's quite a good deal of ugliness of both sides of the God debate--and it's not just religious folk that can perpetrate wrongs. Thus I approach anyone who makes the kinds of comments that HK did very cautiously indeed because I've had enough experience with the disciples of Richard Dawkins et al to know that they are fighting dirty, and for keeps (though it remains an open question for me whether HK falls into that camp).

This kind of gloss is very dispiriting to read, Causal. You apparently have lumped me with everyone who has ever disagreed with your religious beliefs to the point where you can't see any difference between my position and that of a Richard Dawkins. This is exactly the kind of false dichotomy I'm talking about. It turns any discussion of these issues into a framed debate between you and the heathen hordes that seek to tear you down; I either endorse your God or I'm a rabid atheist. I posted specifically to offer a third option (neither atheist nor monotheist) and you missed it completely. What am I supposed to do with that, man?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
If you're interested, you can read my term paper on Plantinga's solution to the logical problem of evil here: http://calebkeller.blogspot.com/2007/05/plantinga-and-problem-of-evil.
html. My professor gave me quite a good grade indeed, even though I argued against one of his own journal articles!

Interesting read! I've never really felt that the Problem of Evil proved much at all anyway. Accepting the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god would seem to counter any attempt to apply human logic to the infinite. To put it another way, why would God be bound to our conception of logic?

But as long as we are constraining ourselves to logic, I did notice one thing about Plantinga's argument. It seemed to be firmly set on the notion of 'free will'. Free will is one of those concepts I've never been able to wrap my head around. What does it even mean? If we're really talking about being free from causation then what does that mean? If our volition isn't caused by anything, how does it happen? Is it purely random?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CAUSAL

Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Interesting read! I've never really felt that the Problem of Evil proved much at all anyway. Accepting the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god would seem to counter any attempt to apply human logic to the infinite. To put it another way, why would God be bound to our conception of logic?

The standard answer to this question given by most theistic philosophers is that it isn't "our logic" at all--it's God's logic. Basically, the view is that the rules of logic are what they are in virtue of who God is. This avoids the problem that if he didn't create them then God is "bound" by them; it also avoids the difficulty that if he did create them they're arbitrary. Essentially, we say that God can't do the logically impossible because to do so would be to violate his essential nature--and he can't not-be what he is; he can't be what he is not. Logic obtains (on some theistic views) in virtue of the fact that God exists and is what he is. That's my view, anyway.

Quote:
But as long as we are constraining ourselves to logic, I did notice one thing about Plantinga's argument. It seemed to be firmly set on the notion of 'free will'. Free will is one of those concepts I've never been able to wrap my head around. What does it even mean? If we're really talking about being free from causation then what does that mean? If our volition isn't caused by anything, how does it happen? Is it purely random?

Well, the view of free will he works with is Libertarian freedom, which is the view that every human decision is fully and finally determined by the human agent himself, and is not constrained by any causal factor. Essentially, it is the view that humans are fully responsible for their own choices. Of course that view is hotly contested (I don't even know if I want to commit myself to so extreme a vision of human volition). The beautiful thing about Plantinga's solution to the problem of evil is that it doesn't have to be true that libertarian freedom obtains--it only has to be possibly true. And I can't see why it's not at least possible.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CAUSAL

Saturday, July 28, 2007 1:02 AM

Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one. I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism. I can't begin to describe how disappointing that is to me, because I started the thread with the intent of having discussion around the issue that didn't devolve into this kind of ugly name-calling. And I've failed utterly. Another reason, I guess, to avoid RWED entirely. I can't possibly continue the discussion from this point with any kind of credibility for two reasons. In the first place, the thread has become emotional (and I don't exclude myself from that assessment; but I definitely don't limit that assessment to myself), and that's not exactly the most conducive environment for rational inquiry. In the second place, the thread has become evaluative, and that is also not a conducive environment for discourse.

And it is that assessment that the thread has become evaluative that is the source of all this trouble. I finally figured out what irked me so bad about HK's original post. It's this: he's not making arguments-as-such for his case as much as he is making evaluative claims about my beliefs. I'll talk to him all day long (and anyone else, for that matter) if what he's saying is, "Your beliefs are false." But that's not what his post was all about--or at the least not just what they were about. Rather, he engaged in evaluative discourse. "Such a God would be a psychopath" is an inherently evaluative statement, because some of the very traits that he decries (e.g. power) are ones that I don't dislike. He dislikes certain features about God as I conceive Him as existing and doesn't simply argue that there is no such being, but further says that such a being is bad. And that's what bothered me. I think that that's why I read him as being upset in the first place.

In any event, I don't feel like there's any profit for me in continuing the thread, because it just isn't fun anymore. I feel like I can talk with Rue--and she disagrees with me on nearly every point. But I don't think I have a voice in the thread anymore, and that's disappointing.

No doubt, my exit will be met with exultant cries with respect to my defeat or my inability to argue further. I assure you, I'm not going for either of those reasons, but because I'm just not enjoying the discussion anymore. Thanks to those with whom I've been able to talk profitably--to the rest, thanks for the object lesson about how not to put my foot in my mouth.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 28, 2007 1:43 AM

Quote:
Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one. I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism.

When did this all happen? looks like I'm gonna have to work my way upstream, like a spawning salmon.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 28, 2007 3:18 AM

Hmmm, yes I see. What is so all-fired good about being in TOTAL CONTROL? What paradigm does that point to in our own culture and belief? It doesn't seem like a healthy choice to be either totally "free" (as in "free will" or outside of causation) or completely controlling. I'm not sure that shamanistic religions are as you say... I'm not really familiar with those religions... but you've really pointed to a new direction.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, July 28, 2007 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one.

Oh good grief. Can't you just ignore the dramatics and focus on the conversation? It's pretty easy to tell when someone is just trying to get under your skin. Even if they aren't trying to, if they bug you, just don't read their posts.

I guess that's harder to do than it sounds, but it seems worth a try.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure that shamanistic religions are as you say... I'm not really familiar with those religions...

Signy, you do know that I've studied and practiced Native American Shamanism for many years, don't you? I've also been friends to practitioners of Hawaiian Shamanism and Celtic Shamanism and done a ton of research besides. I'm not just picking animism out of the hat, it's my personal orientation to spirituality.

Is that why Causal thought I was a big ol' atheist, because he assumed that I was picking animism just to antagonize him? I'm with Sgt. X, good grief!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 28, 2007 1:55 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Well, regrettably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one. I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism

Well FWIW I didn't get that out of the thread. I think it's just another avenue to explore. It does seem to me that much of our current religion has to do with control. It's a little like the early naturalists steeped in a culture of class and hierarchy: What did they see when they looked at animal behavior? Hierarchy! The struggle for dominance! They missed 95% of animal behavior and we are JUST beginning to undo the damage.

Anyone who can point out our deep assumptions is to be blessed not cursed. It doesn't mean we agree with that person willy-nilly. It means we think... and perhaps feel... our way to greater understanding and insight.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, July 28, 2007 4:35 PM

Wow. Bummer. Causal - I'm sad to see you go. But - who called you a name? I honestly don't see it. Sure, HK got frustrated over being misunderstood, but his post seems to focus on explaining himself better, not on putting you down. (He called you "man." Was that the insult? )

I don't really understand what you mean about evaluative arguments. You obviously know much more than me about logic and philosophy and methods of debate, so there's a fine distinction there that's over my head. What I do understand is that it may be difficult for a theist to have an emotionally detached discussion about how certain of God's traits might be seen as unhealthy. After all, religious belief is closely tied to emotion. Detachment isn't part of it.

Thing is - doesn't this kind of illustrate my earlier point? Religious belief can hinder discussion, end questions. In the end, all HK did was introduce a new topic for debate: Is God as an authoritarian figure a bad thing? To me, this is just another topic. For you, it's an attack. It's emotional. It becomes too unpleasant to be continued.

Contrast this to earlier topics: Is evolutionary theory a bad thing? For me, not an attack. Though it questions my own world view, it isn't tied to my emotions, and I can debate it without getting upset and bowing out.

The scientific approach invites questions - it needs to be doubted. Blind faith? Not so much. When it gets questioned too closely, it fights or runs away. That's been my experience, anyway.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

ANTIMASON

Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The simple reason for this is that there is no positive evidence (at least that I am aware of) for ID or creation

1 Corinthians 2
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. "

so Jesus, Judiasm, the Canaanites, and the rest of the ancient world.. thats not 'positive evidence' to you? but aside from that, take a look around.. it should be obvious

Romans 1
"..what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Quote:
proponents of those views have to attack the existing views instead of promoting their own. Additionally it looks better in the public eye to have your side putting the other side on the defensive then to try weakly to shore up your own arguements.

if your argument has holes it in, they deserve to be exposed. a completely absent fossil record of missing links is one of them. matter exploding from nowhere, arising from nothing to design and evolve itself is another

Quote:
This is the same argument that I used in a previous thread, many religions (particularly organized religions) lend themselves to abuse and, just like any other power structure, attract those who want to abuse power

fair enough.. but so does secular atheism. you are not immune to corruption either

LEADB

Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The simple reason for this is that there is no positive evidence (at least that I am aware of) for ID or creation

1 Corinthians 2
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. "

so Jesus, Judiasm, the Canaanites, and the rest of the ancient world.. thats not 'positive evidence' to you? but aside from that, take a look around.. it should be obvious

Romans 1
"..what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

There's a fair ton of folk who have interpreted the bible differently and such that it allows acceptance of evolution (even to create a new 'archetype'); what you present is an interesting interpretation, but is not 'evidence' in the sense of scientific definition. As such it may be the reason you believe what you do, but is not scientific evidence (and ID purports to be science) per se.

LEADB

Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, regretably, I have to say that I'm pretty convinced that I'm going to have to bow out of this one.

O crud, I was on vacation and just got caught up too! Not sure I had anything to contribute at this point, but a lot of interesting material.

Quote:

I've been pretty well painted into a corner here--and I'll admit that some of it is my doing. Apparently I'm now perceived as the mouthpiece of unthinking rabid theistic imperialism.

Well, no one manage to convince -me- of that; but I certainly cannot speak for all parties.

Quote:
{...}
I assure you, I'm not going for either of those reasons, but because I'm just not enjoying the discussion anymore.

Ah, rats... well, it's not exactly your job, so if it's lost it's charm, can't say I blame you. Perhaps it may settle out and you'll find your way back to this thread. Otherwise, catch in the next one!

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

LEADB

Sunday, July 29, 2007 3:37 PM

Well, Causal having bowed out, I'm going to take a shot at a logical discussion of HK's comments (here's hoping I don't regret this!!!!)

HK,
First, a bit of back ground. I'd say I'm a deist; I believe there's a being of 'first cause'; but probably what most would call a 'weak deist' (some might even call me a 'working atheist'), as I don't necessarily believe the Creator has 'kept a hand' in the on-going activities of the universe (though I don't necessarily deny it).
On the other hand, I spent my youth in a Christian household, spent 10 years in various Catholic schools (and thus attendant 'religion class') including high school. As a young adult, I attended various Christian denominational churches until I 'wandered off' to my rather odd spot. So, I'm hoping my past experience with various Christian forms coupled with the 'distance' of past practice rather than current will allow me to approach logically your statements which to me came out as evaluative rather than logical; but perhaps we can dig back to the logic.
O, and while it may not matter to our topic of discussion, I hold fairly mainstream scientific views on such matters as evolution, etc. I see science as the means to understand how the world was designed by the Creator.

I will caution I likely won't do as well as Causal on the logic end; I'm only an amateur philosopher.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Who says God is all powerful anyway?

Most Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects do; based on the common ground of the old testament. I'll call this the Abrahamic God or just AG for short. Obviously, there's other positions; however, since the core of this sub-thread was started between Rue and Causal, this is the currently discussed position pair. One of the draw backs of philosophical discussions is trying to 'keep in mind' exactly what one is discussing, so it is easy to lose track if you start throwing around multiple 'models', but I'll try.

Quote:
Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

Actually, we've discussed other options at times; however, I will concede that's been the bulk of this particular sub-thread.

Quote:

Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical,

That's the first point you need to prove; that an 'all powerful god' requires a deeply hierarchical construct. I've met any number of Christians, though clearly a minority, who believe all you need is a bible and time to contemplate; nothing more. Most of these would state AG is all-powerful. On flip side, you have things such as the Catholic Church, which can't get much more hierarchical. I suggest you either re-qualify your original blanket statement to either restrict your self to an additional premise of 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure' or support the blanket statement with additional evidence.

Quote:

judgemental

Again, not all adherent of AG are judgmental. A 'good' Baptist for instance will often take a stance that the relationship between you and your god is between you and your god; it is not appropriate for another to assess. Of course, they have beliefs, and given half a chance will try to convert you to them; but my experience with this sect has been pretty positive overall (again, note my personally held beliefs above). So, again, you need to either support your position with additional logic or add additional assumption: 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure and if judgmental'

Quote:
and hostile to innocence,

Ouch! Almost all Christian sects that I've done any digging into provide some form of relief for the innocent; from babies who die not going to hell; to provisions for ...

Quote:
ignorance

of the Bible from going to hell. I've also run into some Fundamentalists who are as you

ANTIMASON

Sunday, July 29, 2007 6:28 PM

Quote:
LeadB-

There's a fair ton of folk who have interpreted the bible differently and such that it allows acceptance of evolution (even to create a new 'archetype')

thats true, but the extent to which is very important. if anything, i think the bible proposes 'devolution', rather then progressive evolution.. as we are in a period of death and decay, which has effected all creation(from the beginning). a strict evolutionists view truly has nothing in common with the Abrahamic beliefs, because it negates or relegates any work done by God to something which happens purely randomly, by chance, with no higher purpose or guidance or design. elements come together to create an object.. so did the elements intelligently guide themselves to form the objects function? thats what i mean by design.. a scientist can tell you how something works, but not how it got to that point, which to me is where evolution and the atheistic view falls short

Quote:
what you present is an interesting interpretation, but is not 'evidence' in the sense of scientific definition. As such it may be the reason you believe what you do, but is not scientific evidence (and ID purports to be science) per se.

i agree, although discrediting strictly evolution does benefit my position. the point above, with the quote from Romans, is that the 'order' and 'design' of Creation may just be completely obvious, only maybe we are simply too stubborn(or shortsighted) to acknowledge what is right in front of us. this makes sense to me.. especially in light of recorded history

LEADB

Sunday, July 29, 2007 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
only maybe we are simply too stubborn(or shortsighted) to acknowledge what is right in front of us.

I think we are at the agree to disagree point. I agree with what you say; but in the opposite direction. I feel the science supporting evolution -is- that obvious and 'right in front of us'.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:15 PM

On the subject of religion, specifically Christianity, being used to control people, establish the primacy of authoritarian hierarchy, etc, I think there's truth to this. But I don't think it was a deliberate choice.

Arguably the religions that we have today are the ones that spawned the most successful civilizations. Within recent history (last few thousand years) civilizations have been rewarded greatly for being aggressively expansionist. The religions best suited for driving expansion seem to be those that feature the concept that there is one righteous way to live. That makes it possible to dehumanize those who are in the way of the expansion and justifies conquering other nations to show them the shining light of the 'one' truth.

That 'feature' is my principal beef with Christianity (and most of the other revealed, evangelical religions). I honestly think it's a strength that's become a weakness. If we haven't already crossed it, we're rapidly approaching the point where 'aggressively expansionist' is no longer what's called for.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, July 29, 2007 11:18 PM

Heya leadb,

Thank you for demonstrating that a conversation can arise out of my contribution to this thread. I am sorry that Causal felt he had to go, no "exultant cries with respect to (his) defeat" here (no concept of his defeat, for that matter). I'm sure everyone who has contributed to this thread would be glad to see him return.

So, on to the topic at hand. O' course, my "Who says God is all powerful anyway?" was not intended as a formal opening of a debate. I was simply announcing that I, for one, wasn't a big fan of the idea.

That said, I don't know that the epithet "all-powerful" is really very helpful in discerning God's nature, Abrahamic or not. I find it very interesting that God's conduct in the very first book of the Bible announces the limits of his power. "Don't eat of the tree" he says, and they do. Whoopsie! Yeah, yeah, free will, I know--but then when they've eaten, discovered shame and hidden themselves at God's return, he says a very peculiar thing for an all-powerful, omniscient being to say:

"Where are you?"

So unless he's just a sadistic creep sarcastically rubbing their noses in their shame, he doesn't know where they are or what they've done.

Yeah, I know, "literature," but it's interesting.

To pick up on a comment from Signy from a few posts back, I think Free Will in the context of an "all-powerful God" is a bit of a paradox. God seems to have granted humans the power to step outside God's awareness and to alter the Universe directly and conclusively. There's something lovely and poetic about a God abdicating power in this way, bequeathing to us mortals the power to shape reality as we will, but if we swallow this "Almighty God" stuff whole, we miss out on such poetry. Sometimes, it seems to me that "all-powerful" is simply an honorific that His worshipers apply to Him out of awe and respect and not to be taken literally.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
That's the first point you need to prove; that an 'all powerful god' requires a deeply hierarchical construct. I've met any number of Christians, though clearly a minority, who believe all you need is a bible and time to contemplate; nothing more. Most of these would state AG is all-powerful. On flip side, you have things such as the Catholic Church, which can't get much more hierarchical. I suggest you either re-qualify your original blanket statement to either restrict your self to an additional premise of 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure' or support the blanket statement with additional evidence.

Yeesh, "prove." That has got to be one of the most cringe-worthy terms in human discourse (outside of mathematical theory, of course). Most of us humans manage to live our entire lives without proving a damn thing--proof doesn't feed us, nor clothe us, nor delight our children. Mostly it just sits over there on the other side of possibility with nothing to say.

Mostly what I got for you is existential psychology. Psychology: hardly the most provable stuff on earth. One's concept of God is equivalent to one's ideal self--ideal, not necessarily possible. God is the ideal being, the purest expression of self-hood. So, psychologically, one's concept of God reflects one's idea of the perfect identity. So it follows that whatever characteristics we ascribe to God will reflect our own highest values. In the case of those folks who describe God in hostile or frightening terms, he embodies not so much their avowed ideals as their sense of that which is unalterable; the ultimate might that is definitively right--tough luck if you don't like it.

So a God that sits at the top of the world looking down on His creation describes a particular fantasy of power--of what constitutes majesty and perfection. Such a God does not require a "deeply hierarchical construct," He is a deeply hierarchical construct.

I gotta interject something at this point. The vast, vast majority of Christians I have known, good and bad, have been very inconsistent in their

ANTIMASON

Sunday, July 29, 2007 11:58 PM

Quote:
LeadB-
I think we are at the agree to disagree point. I agree with what you say; but in the opposite direction. I feel the science supporting evolution -is- that obvious and 'right in front of us'.

thats fair... i dont, but we are entitled to our differences. i can see the microchanges within a particular species archetype(or phenotype), but i do not see the 'evidence' for these dramatic changes, that supposedly guided us from a primordial soup, to our current state. but only time will i guess..

ANTIMASON

Monday, July 30, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
On the subject of religion, specifically Christianity, being used to control people, establish the primacy of authoritarian hierarchy, etc, I think there's truth to this. But I don't think it was a deliberate choice.

thats true, if you really study the bible you learn that authoritarianism is not conducive with christianity.. but it has become so, IMO due to the frailties of the human charachter, and less so by Gods choice or instruction. a careful reading of Ephesians makes it clear that it is the 'dark forces in the heavenly realms' that guides world government(during this age), and less God himself(or obedience to his doctrines). but thats a very long and complicated discussion.. ill spare you by saying that the book of Samuel makes it clear by explaining how government originated to begin with, by a rejection of Gods supreme authority

ANTIMASON

Monday, July 30, 2007 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
One of the more insidious qualities of Christian dogma (from the standpoint of mental health) is the notion of man's essential sinfulness. Christians therefore can see God as a hard-ass without admiring or condoning those qualities within themselves. In psychological terms, the idea that one is essentially sinful is an artifact of low self esteem. When one describes one's self as a "sinner in the eyes of God" one definitively esteems one's self pretty low.

i disagree... i believe it is essential for man to accept that by nature we are are imperfect, sinful beings... if we dont acknowledge this, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, especially in one critical aspect: government. we HAVE to recognize that human beings by nature are imperfect, or we are setting ourselves up for disaster when this global government is ushered in, to 'protect us from ourselves'. understand how human beings by nature are sinful and unruly, and we can preempt this absolute tyranny, by all future authorities elected to represent us. the bible, if anything, speaks of the frailties of the human character and the danger of forsaking God for the wisdom of men, which to me is crucial to peace and independence

LEADB

Monday, July 30, 2007 2:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
(...} I don't know that the epithet "all-powerful" is really very helpful in discerning God's nature, Abrahamic or not. I find it very interesting that God's conduct in the very first book of the Bible announces the limits of his power. "Don't eat of the tree" he says, and they do. Whoopsie! Yeah, yeah, free will, I know--but then when they've eaten, discovered shame and hidden themselves at God's return, he says a very peculiar thing for an all-powerful, omniscient being to say:

"Where are you?"

So unless he's just a sadistic creep sarcastically rubbing their noses in their shame, he doesn't know where they are or what they've done.

Yeah, I know, "literature," but it's interesting.

To pick up on a comment from Signy from a few posts back, I think Free Will in the context of an "all-powerful God" is a bit of a paradox. God seems to have granted humans the power to step outside God's awareness and to alter the Universe directly and conclusively. There's something lovely and poetic about a God abdicating power in this way, bequeathing to us mortals the power to shape reality as we will, but if we swallow this "Almighty God" stuff whole, we miss out on such poetry. Sometimes, it seems to me that "all-powerful" is simply an honorific that His worshipers apply to Him out of awe and respect and not to be taken literally.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
That's the first point you need to prove; that an 'all powerful god' requires a deeply hierarchical construct. I've met any number of Christians, though clearly a minority, who believe all you need is a bible and time to contemplate; nothing more. Most of these would state AG is all-powerful. On flip side, you have things such as the Catholic Church, which can't get much more hierarchical. I suggest you either re-qualify your original blanket statement to either restrict your self to an additional premise of 'all powerful god as worshiped under a hierarchical structure' or support the blanket statement with additional evidence.

Yeesh, "prove." That has got to be one of the most cringe-worthy terms in human discourse (outside of mathematical theory, of course). Most of us humans manage to live our entire lives without proving a damn thing--proof doesn't feed us, nor clothe us, nor delight our children. Mostly it just sits over there on the other side of possibility with nothing to say.

Foul! Foul! Where's the umpire! ;-) Ok, you come to a thread called 'Philosophical Grudge Match!', and decide to not play by the rules. That's somewhat like showing up at a chess tourney and insisting on playing cribbage. A fine game, but throws a javelin in the spokes.

Quote:

Mostly what I got for you is existential psychology. Psychology: hardly the most provable stuff on earth. One's concept of God is equivalent to one's ideal self--ideal, not necessarily possible. God is the ideal being, the purest expression of self-hood. So, psychologically, one's concept of God reflects one's idea of the perfect identity. So it follows that whatever characteristics we ascribe to God will reflect our own highest values. In the case of those folks who describe God in hostile or frightening terms, he embodies not so much their avowed ideals as their sense of that which is unalterable; the ultimate might that is definitively right--tough luck if you don't like it.

Well, now you've gone right out of Philosophy into arm-chair psychology (or, if you are a pro, genuine psych); with just a tad of theology thrown in for good stride.
I don't know how to assess the psych of what you have up there, other than to respectfully disagree. Some folk will do exactly as you say, while other will seek out a father or mother figure. Some want a savior. Others will portray whatever they feel will frighten those they wish to control. I fear you will end up with a genuine mishmash if you take this approach. In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any pr

SIGNYM

Monday, July 30, 2007 2:43 PM

Anti I think it's amusing and kind of weird that I can hopscotch thru your posts and agree wholeheartedly with about 50% and disagree just as completely with the other 50%.... and sometimes all within one sentence!

Quote:
for man to accept that by nature we are are imperfect, sinful beings

Can you describe the "perfection" of God? Is it within human comprehension? If not, can you at least describe how a "perfect" human should behave? Quite honestly I'm leery of anyone who claims the concept, especially as the agent of some higher universal power. Seems a little controlling. As far as "sin"... that's another concept that I don't really "get".

Quote:
if we dont acknowledge this, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, especially in one critical aspect: government. we HAVE to recognize that human beings by nature are imperfect, or we are setting ourselves up for disaster when this global government is ushered in, to 'protect us from ourselves'.... how human beings by nature are sinful and unruly,

It's a good thing to acknowledge mistakes. But calling mistakes "sinful", "unruly", "evil", "prideful" is LESS likely to get people to acknowledge them because it associates mistakes with so much negative emotion (guilt, hopelessness) that it tends to create avoidance.

Quote:
and we can preempt this absolute tyranny, by all future authorities elected to represent us. the bible, if anything, speaks of the frailties of the human character and the danger of forsaking God for the wisdom of men, which to me is crucial to peace and independence

We can preempt this absolute tyranny ... how? By creating a different tyranny, a world-wide government of men who claim to represent God? Or are you proposing that individual but widespread "changes of heart" would eliminate the need for government altogether? From your posts, it seem to me that you're promoting the former but I could be misunderstanding your intent.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 30, 2007 3:03 PM

Quote:
Thats fair... i dont, but we are entitled to our differences.

You liking tomato soup and me disliking it is a "difference". But to get back to the philosophical underpinnings of this thread:

Do you accept that there is only one reality?
Do you accept that we are all part of it?
Do you accept that our senses tell us something about it?

If you do, then you have a very deep chasm in your mentation. It's one thing to conceptualize about that which cannot be sensed. It's another thing to reject that which can be demonstrated through the senses. You my friend are in category number two.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, July 30, 2007 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
From a philosophic perspective, I feel the weakest part of your discussion above is a failure to recognize that there is only one truth, and damaging to the frail human psyche or not, the truth is as it is.

Wow, speaking of assumptions...

As far as scientific matters, yes, I believe there is one truth, one "right answer" that is consistent everywhere. Our observations back that up. But religious and spiritual matters are outside the realm of logic and direct observation. They may be purely creations of the human psyche and hence not exist outside ourselves, or they may be human interpretations of a spiritual realm that very alive, and will be still be there when we're gone. In either case, I don't see religion as something with only one truth. No one religion is right, not in my worldview anyway!

So - how are you sure that there is only one truth?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

SIGNYM

Monday, July 30, 2007 3:13 PM

Quote:
In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any projection becomes meaningless, and the quest is not to entertain what people will -project- onto AG, but instead, what is the reality of AG. How does one successfully peel off the projections to understand the truth? That becomes the question, which I surely don't have the answer to.

What if Zeus is real? What if Moloch is real? What if Gaia is real? There are so many gods and goddesses that it seems limited to discuss the potential reality of only one.

Quote:
Yet if one varies too far, lacks too much in self-judgment, does this not lead to amorality and lack of self control? Show me someone lacking any form of self judgment and I'll be running the other way.

You're mixing up two very different concepts: morality and self judgment. It is possible to have someone who is is self-judging AND amoral. For example, the person who kicks themselves for not having committed the "perfect" murder would be self-judging but (in our vew) amoral.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREDGIBLET

Monday, July 30, 2007 5:59 PM

Anti, I'm going to respond over in the old evolution thread so as not to pull a threadjack.

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29385

LEADB

Monday, July 30, 2007 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
From a philosophic perspective, I feel the weakest part of your discussion above is a failure to recognize that there is only one truth, and damaging to the frail human psyche or not, the truth is as it is.
Wow, speaking of assumptions...

As far as scientific matters, yes, I believe there is one truth, one "right answer" that is consistent everywhere. Our observations back that up. But religious and spiritual matters are outside the realm of logic and direct observation. They may be purely creations of the human psyche and hence not exist outside ourselves, or they may be human interpretations of a spiritual realm that very alive, and will be still be there when we're gone. In either case, I don't see religion as something with only one truth. No one religion is right, not in my worldview anyway!

So - how are you sure that there is only one truth?

A good philosophic question! There is a single reality (feel free to disagree, if you don't that's ok, we'll have to start at an earlier point), and when I say there is only one truth, it is the 'accurate description of this one reality.' In this particular case, either there is or there is not an 'all powerful' Abrahamic God. The truth of this is not affected by the 'fact' that if HK is correct (and I do not agree that he is) such a god is damaging to the frail human psyche.

As far as is there any one 'right' religion; I personally happen to believe there's a whole stack of 'rightness' in many religions. However, we were discussing a particular point, and on that point I feel fairly comfortable that either one of these two things is true:
1) There is an (I'm personally willing to concede there may be multiple, if that pleases anyone) all powerfull god.
2) or there isn't.

LEADB

Monday, July 30, 2007 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any projection becomes meaningless, and the quest is not to entertain what people will -project- onto AG, but instead, what is the reality of AG. How does one successfully peel off the projections to understand the truth? That becomes the question, which I surely don't have the answer to.
What if Zeus is real? What if Moloch is real? What if Gaia is real? There are so many gods and goddesses that it seems limited to discuss the potential reality of only one.

If one or more of them are 'real', it does not impact the reality of the existence (or the lack thereof) of the 'all powerful AG' (though -additional- descriptions normally attached to AG would; however, I have not (yet) attempted that hurdle, and frankly -I- probably will not ;-) )

Quote:
Quote:
Yet if one varies too far, lacks too much in self-judgment, does this not lead to amorality and lack of self control? Show me someone lacking any form of self judgment and I'll be running the other way.
You're mixing up two very different concepts: morality and self judgment. It is possible to have someone who is is self-judging AND amoral. For example, the person who kicks themselves for not having committed the "perfect" murder would be self-judging but (in our view) amoral.

I said that lack of self-judgment leads to amorality (especially if that lack is complete). I did not say (or if I did, I'll hastily retract it) that the presence of self-judgment would ensure morality. Sorry if I was not clear.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 30, 2007 11:49 PM

leadb- Self judgment- necessary but not sufficient for morality. Got it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:
Signym-

Anti I think it's amusing and kind of weird that I can hopscotch thru your posts and agree wholeheartedly with about 50% and disagree just as completely with the other 50%.... and sometimes all within one sentence!

that's funny.. me too! i know we differ on our religious views, but otherwise politically i think we're on the same page

Quote:
Can you describe the "perfection" of God? Is it within human comprehension?

its beyond my comprehension personally, but the NT equates good and evil to 'light' and 'darkness', and many times it says that nothing dark exists within God because he is infinitely just. i believe because we exist within Creation, that we and subsequently God have become distanced by the 'darkness', which cannot exist within God.

1 John 1:5
And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

Ephesians 5:7-9
Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places

Quote:
If not, can you at least describe how a "perfect" human should behave?

to start, we have to acknowledge that God established moral absolutes. we believe that the ten commandments, and Jesus commandments, and the '7 deadly sins'(in principle), are universal rules that were established by God, to restore 'harmony'. Jesus in some ways was what Adam should have been, sinless and in harmony with God. this is the reason he dies for our sins, because we are in a 'fallen' state, and incapable of perfection. when we fall, we need to acknowledge fault and 'repent' for our mistakes

Quote:
Quite honestly I'm leery of anyone who claims the concept, especially as the agent of some higher universal power. Seems a little controlling. As far as "sin"... that's another concept that I don't really "get".

i think we should be 'leery' about our desire to become in essence our own 'gods'. appropriately, we should acknowledge that we will never be perfect(which would be egomaniacal). the fundamental truth is that God established moral absolutes, that morality is not 'relative', and our actions have eternal consequences.

Quote:
It's a good thing to acknowledge mistakes. But calling mistakes "sinful", "unruly", "evil", "prideful" is LESS likely to get people to acknowledge them because it associates mistakes with so much negative emotion (guilt, hopelessness) that it tends to create avoidance.

this is something we all should understand. when the bible refers to behavior as 'sinful', this is from Gods vantage point of infinite perfection. we should acknowledge 'in principle' that certain behavior does have negative consequences. i dont ever point my finger at someone and judge them for behavior that every one of us exhibit regularly, because Jesus speaks a lot about this kind of hypocrisy

Quote:
We can preempt this absolute tyranny ... how? By creating a different tyranny, a world-wide government of men who claim to represent God?

technically it cant be preempted(according to prophecy)... but no, i have never proposed a theocracy, im actually philosophically opposed to one, since the bible itself says that this age belongs to Lucifer, that man is imperfect, and that Gods message cannot be reconciled with 'the world', and its vices(like the Catholic church)

Quote:
Or are you proposing that individual but widespread "changes of heart" would eliminate the need for government altogether? From your posts, it seem to me that you're promoting the former but I could be misunderstanding your intent.

yes. the whole concept behind the 'rule of law' is that we, mankind, accept certa

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
However, we were discussing a particular point, and on that point I feel fairly comfortable that either one of these two things is true:
1) There is an (I'm personally willing to concede there may be multiple, if that pleases anyone) all powerfull god.
2) or there isn't.

3) "God" or any system of deities is an invention of the human mind, a concept created out of our need to understand the world we live in, to make us feel less helpless, to give meaning to death, and to give us guidelines to live by. As such, the concept of "God" will differ according to each believer's needs, and no single image of God is truer and righter than any other.

I'm just saying, that is an option. Whether you agree or not, omitting option 3 means you've made an assumption - one easily made by those who believe in the independent existence of God. But you can't expect a non-believer to base a philosophical argument on only the two choices you presented.

And may I add: I personally believe option 3, and I hope that doesn't insult you. I actually find it quite beautiful. This "conceptual god" is, in my mind, an ideal image of ourselves, of what we want to be. It can help us get to those good things in our subconscious, to understand ourselves and live good lives and have positive effects on the people around us.

So, yeah, it has a real effect, and is therefore a very real force acting on humanity. But I don't believe it's real in that it exists without us. And I certainly don't think that there can be only one relgious truth.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:27 PM

Quote:
Mal4prez-

3) "God" or any system of deities is an invention of the human mind, a concept created out of our need to understand the world we live in, to make us feel less helpless, to give meaning to death, and to give us guidelines to live by.

ok.. so think about that for a moment. to begin, which aspect of evolution created this need, deep in our physche, to understand a greater truth or higher power? then, nearly simultaneously, beginning about 6k years ago, human beings from all continents began to invent this same (or related)concept, out of necessity? doesnt that seem unlikely to you?

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This "conceptual god" is, in my mind, an ideal image of ourselves, of what we want to be. It can help us get to those good things in our subconscious, to understand ourselves and live good lives and have positive effects on the people around us.

So, yeah, it has a real effect, and is therefore a very real force acting on humanity. But I don't believe it's real in that it exists without us. And I certainly don't think that there can be only one relgious truth.

That's pretty much my take on the issue as well. Gods are real, and while they may exist only in the minds of believers, they're obviously still very powerful things. The interesting thing is the way they can, in a very real sense, be everywhere at once, or at least everywhere there are believers.

If you haven't read any of Daniel Dennett's books on consciousness and religion, I highly recommend it. He makes the point that our minds, our selves really, are by-products of the human brain - essentially self-aware 'software modules' (my term, not his) that develop in the OS of the human brain. The interesting bit, in relation to this conversation, is that he sees gods as special types of this 'software module' that have evolved to spread from human brain to human brain. They're just as real as you or I, but where we are tied to only one brain, their existence is spread across many.

It's worth noting that religions, or gods, evolve to the same criteria as physical creatures - survival. So the 'needs' of a god might be at odds with the needs of it's hosts. In other words, a relgion exists on it's ability to spread and maintain itself in the minds of followers. Whether this is good or bad for followers, or the rest of humanity, is debatable. I think that ultimately this will depend on our ability to understand how religions work and choose those that serve our needs well.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
[Bwhich aspect of evolution created this need, deep in our physche, to understand a greater truth or higher power? then, nearly simultaneously, beginning about 6k years ago, human beings from all continents began to invent this same (or related)concept, out of necessity? doesnt that seem unlikely to you?

Religion was evolutionarily advantageous because it allowed us to increase our ability to coordinate activity. It developed hand in hand with a new mode of human survival called 'civilization'. Religion paved the way by getting us "all on the same page", so to speak.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
ok.. so think about that for a moment. to begin, which aspect of evolution created this need, deep in our physche, to understand a greater truth or higher power?

I believe the need for God follows from self-awareness, from being small creatures in a big world. Now, the step of first becoming self-aware, of being able to observe nature and ask "why?", is a larger question, and I'm no expert. My guess is that those who study this hypothesize a gradual process of increasing intelligence in humans. From learning to make tools and hunt, to developing language, to having agriculture. And then we had time to sit in our huts and talk to each other and think, and stuff started really happening.

And it's still changing. 500 years ago, logical thought didn't exist as it does now. Read some stuff about Sir Francis Bacon - he pretty much introduced inductive reasoning. This was completely a new thing at the time. And even now, the computer and technology boom has changed our attention spans, our ability to process information. The point being - the process of thinking is not static.

Quote:
then, nearly simultaneously, beginning about 6k years ago, human beings from all continents began to invent this same (or related)concept, out of necessity? doesnt that seem unlikely to you?

You'll need to be backing up this idea that it all happened at the same time, because I'm not seeing it. In fact, what I see of history (though, again, I'm certainly not an expert!) are early gods who were closely tied to nature - one for water, one for air, one for death, one for the crops, etc... which have been largely replaced by a White Male in Charge figure. Interestingly, this shift has happened since we got more control and understanding of nature. (Our gods fit our needs, is how I interpret that.)

Anyway, perhaps there was a single span of time when these "nature gods" sprung into existence. But that would be because the human race had evolved to the point of sufficient awareness to ask those "why?" questions.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Religion was evolutionarily advantageous because it allowed us to increase our ability to coordinate activity. It developed hand in hand with a new mode of human survival called 'civilization'. Religion paved the way by getting us "all on the same page", so to speak.

A much shorter and much better answer LOL!

I totally agree with the idea that religion evolves and must survive. In fact, I see religious/spritiual beliefs as viruses. Now - don't get mad folks! Viruses aren't inherently bad things. Some stay put, and are quite helpful. Maybe they're even necessary for survival. But some are like ebola - they eat up the host and can only survive by spreading. These are the ones to watch out for...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE