Peak Religion

[sentiententity]

have stated, more than once, that I'm sitting on the fence

I should have been clearer: I wasn't including you in that. As you say, you have been watching the debate and asking the odd question. But there is another cohort that finds bits of the scienific description that are incomplete (e.g. consciousness), and...that's it. I think we are supposed to conclude that there will be some things that will never be known, and that therefore any idea ("infinite list of entities more or less like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or god") is perfectly valid. This is what I meant by my acerbic comments on "a veil of open-mindedness" - the idea being that if I rule out (for now) an idea on the grounds that there is no evidence for it I am the one being arrogant and closed-minded. Sorry again-you weren't included.

Godel's theorem is relevant to some areas of science but not all areas of science

Godel's theorem talks about maths, not science. This is inescapable. If some maths is proven (say, a statistical test used by biologists in a drug trial), that is good enough. WRT p-adic maths, I don't know. You seemed to take it as an insult, but I meant what I said about people who know what they are on about talking about higher maths and quantum physics. I don't have a PhD in either field either, so consider myself not an expert and would have to abide by the same restriction.
Not read Paster's book, have read the Penrose book.

It turns out that their faith [in the reductionist paradigm]

It's not faith. Science is the "art of the possible". Reductionist techniques have proven themselves to be very powerful. WRT consciousness, I don't think we can say yet-it's too early. As I said before, we have only been doing science for a few centuries, and already have much more to show for it than religious methods of thought.
WRT last point-it's not dismissing or deriding whatever doesn't fit with their belief system. It's a request for evidence (did I say that before, sounds familiar? )! People really seem to have a hard time with this.

Must go now as have to drive to Shropshire and back this weekend to pick up some of the wife's kit, so won't be posting for a wee while.

Have a good weekend-

s.

[goslow]

The Bible makes many claims that the evidence disproves - for example, heliocentrism, the age of the earth, Noah's flood.

I already indicated I don't use the book of Genesis as a precise scientific textbook, that is my personal position. Its a book about the God-man relationship. However, I do accept everything post-Genesis should be taken seriously as historical evidence (and much of Genesis too, even the early chapters have some kind of historical basis I believe).

Whether you think the Bible is reliable or true or not is up to your judgement, but I see no reason why it should be treated any different from other historical documents at the time, against which you could make claims of bias etc....Christians have a bit of a broader view of the Bible as being just a historical document of course, we believe its also used by God to speak to us today as we read it.

It does not come out well as a historical document: even the earliest Gospels were written almost a century after the death of Jesus, making claims such as his magical healings at a minimum of third hand, and realistically more. Not to mention that there was no convincing description of the patient's condition before "treatment".

Sorry you were misinformed, who told you that? The gospels were written all before 100 AD. The earliest surviving fragments are from soon after that. That is the analysis according to the standard method for judging the reliability of historical documents, and similar assessment of other documents upon which historians rely comes out with a lower score...

Many of the miracle accounts in the Bible give precisely a detailed description of people's condition before the healing! Not in modern terms of course but quite clear I think. Have you actually read the gospels?

The decision of what became the canon and what became the Apocrypha was taken even later - what rules of evidence were used to decide?

I don't see what the problem is in leaving out books which written by a group with a substantially different set of beliefs compared with the Church at that time, i.e. the Gnostics.

Why were significant events recorded in the Bible not recorded by others? E.g. the saints rising from the dead and walking the streets of Jerusalem, as related in the gospel of (?memory) Matthew? Surely such a remarkable event would have been of interest to Roman and Jewish chroniclers of the time?

That would have been nice, of course. But again, you are assuming "a priori" that that Bible cannot be used as a historical source!

In the modern era, why do miraculous healings occur so arbitrarily, at about the rate expected by statistics, and only for conditions which do occasionally clear up anyway? What does god have against amputees, for example?

Its up to God when he heals and how. I see God always doing _something_ when we pray. I have not heard of legs growing back, but have heard and experienced many other miracles that are hard to explain any other way than supernatural intervention after prayer.

This is the point...following your own logic, you are obliged to accept all sorts of ridiculous possibilities.

Ridiculous?! Well, to expand, from science I would think it rather unlikely that a sentient fairy could exist, no space for a brain of sufficient size! So I think its quite unlikely. If they did exist, then they might be supernatural. A good point to mention is that as a Christian I also inform my worldview from the Bible and Christian traditions. Therefore I believe angels exist even though I have not seen one myself. Plenty of other people have in the past and present, and its recorded in the Bible. Since I trust these sources, I believe angels exist. Everything else that other people might believe in (Odin, fairies, UFOs etc) I don't think about existing, but can't rule out their existence (at least in some form), based on the logic I have discussed. But where an idea goes directly against what it says in the Bible, I will tend to be skeptical. E.g. the existence of a creator God that is not the same as the Christian God.

Hearing voices would disturb me. I wish George W. Bush and Tony Blair had not had a personal experience of God telling them to kill the Iraqis and get the oil.

I don't think they really claimed that _exactly_. Anyway, its not usually an audible voice, any Christian will tell you that for free. But I can report its great having a friendship with one's Creator!

Nice to debate this with you s!

[snow hope]

I am an agnostic, in other words I have not seen sufficient evidence to make me believe in a God, not do I have evidence that a God does not exist. I respect people who believe in God as much as I respect people who do not.

But I consider that my position is a more logical position than somebody who dogmatically states that there is no God - how do they know? What evidence do they have?

I believe there may be a higher power, although I don't think it is like the God discussed in the Bible. I think it may exist in our cosmic surroundings, it may be part of the undoubted multiple civilisations that must exist in other solar systems and galaxies. This is what I think I mean by spirituality.

Ultimately, there is nobody posting in this thread who has the right to say whether their position is right or somebody else's position is wrong. We are all simply stating our own thoughts and opinions, which may be right or wrong, including mine of course.

[biffvernon]

It's all a delusion.

[syberberg]

I should have been clearer: I wasn't including you in that. As you say, you have been watching the debate and asking the odd question. But there is another cohort that finds bits of the scienific description that are incomplete (e.g. consciousness), and...that's it. I think we are supposed to conclude that there will be some things that will never be known, and that therefore any idea ("infinite list of entities more or less like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or god") is perfectly valid. This is what I meant by my acerbic comments on "a veil of open-mindedness" - the idea being that if I rule out (for now) an idea on the grounds that there is no evidence for it I am the one being arrogant and closed-minded. Sorry again-you weren't included.

Apology accepted, sorry for misconstruing what you meant. Yes, I can see how that would get very exasperating very quickly. I'm rather pleased you understood what I meant by "throwing stones into the pond."

Godel's theorem talks about maths, not science. This is inescapable. If some maths is proven (say, a statistical test used by biologists in a drug trial), that is good enough.

I agree. Godel's theorems have no application whatsoever when talking about science on the macro level, and on the micro level as well, except in certain, very specific areas, like the development of AI, but what it can't be used to do is refute any findings that can be reduced to simple maths, instead it should be used to further define and clarify those findings.

At least we've sensibly dealt with that one. (And there was much rejoicing).

Do you think we've got enough room to deal with the misuse of quantum theory next?

WRT p-adic maths, I don't know.

Nor do I, I was hoping you'd have a bit more knowledge of it than me as I've not done enough study of it to say with any honesty that I completely understand it, or it's wider implications and uses. Ho-hum, back to the gridstone

You seemed to take it as an insult, but I meant what I said about people who know what they are on about talking about higher maths and quantum physics. I don't have a PhD in either field either, so consider myself not an expert and would have to abide by the same restriction.

Fair enough, I take back the "arrogant, condescending and rude" comment then. Sorry about that

It's not faith. Science is the "art of the possible". Reductionist techniques have proven themselves to be very powerful.

I suppose it's all down to the definition of "faith" and the context within which it's used. In this case, because of the previous successes of the reductionist paradigm, they had "faith" that their model/methodology would work. It didn't and the "faith" was misplaced. Hence the "back to the drawing board" comment at the end as neuroscience showed what was actually happening in the brain, so a better model/explanation can be worked upon. I should've made what I meant clearer the first time around, nevermind.

As I said before, we have only been doing science for a few centuries, and already have much more to show for it than religious methods of thought.

I agree, science is/has been/will continue to be extremely good at describing and showing how the physical universe works, from a quantum level up and a macro level down.

WRT last point-it's not dismissing or deriding whatever doesn't fit with their belief system. It's a request for evidence (did I say that before, sounds familiar? )! People really seem to have a hard time with this.

Ah, but that's where it all breaks down. Science is asking for hard physical evidence, which is a bit difficult to provide considering science (or anyone else for that matter) has yet to invent a "metaphysical thermometer". And what really doesn't help the religion/occult/metaphysical/spiritualism side of things is the sheer volume of charlatans out there. Yet there is plenty of evidence that there is certainly something out there, it's just that science doesn't find that kind of evidence acceptable, and so dismisses it.

Must go now as have to drive to Shropshire and back this weekend to pick up some of the wife's kit, so won't be posting for a wee while.

Have a good weekend-

s.

Ok mate, take care and I look forward to continuing our discussion and doing more mental gymnastics jumping from one side of the fence to the other in the same post. Again, sorry about the misunderstandings earlier and if there's anything you feel I've not been clear enough about, feel free to ask me to expand on those points.

[mikepepler]

Well said goslow, I agree with all of your last post. The "evidence" for (the Christian) God is partly the Bible, partly Creation, but most importantly a direct personal relationship between the believer and God - that's what brings the rest of it alive, and results in it all making sense. Without God's Spirit, none of it will make sense, as Paul said in Corinthians 1:18-25

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

What that (combined with other passages) says to me is that the most intelligent person ever can not figure out the simplest thing that God has done by pure reasoning and logic. It simply will not make sense. To get it, they have to have their heart and mind open (really open, not just "I'm doing this to prove it doesn't work"), ask God to help them understand, and then go ahead and read His word. That is when you fund the "evidence" that is asked for so often, but that is the barrier for people - if they are not prepared to accept that there might be a God, and His existence can only be proved to them in this way, then they will never get to know Him, except after they die, which is a bit late...

I find it all a bit like people finding out about Peak Oil, where there are:
- deniers who believe science and technology will save humanity.
- new "converts" who get emotionally taken over by the whole thing.
- "evangelists", some who get the message across, and others who go on about PO so much they drive away their friends and even family.
- etc.
and we all probably know people who simply refuse to accept the message of Peak Oil, no matter what "evidence" is offered them, as it is simply too far outside their mental paradigm.

See the similarity with religion?

[Keela]

Playing Devil's advocate here:

To get it, they have to have their heart and mind open (really open, not just "I'm doing this to prove it doesn't work"),

A scientist could of course use your sentence (with only a minor mod) to describe the view from the other direction:

To get it, they have to have their heart and mind open (really open, not just "I'm doing this to prove it really is God that does work"),

This I think is the essence of the difference between the two groups. It's the mind set . . . .

Anyway I'm not really jumping into the debate here, or at least only so far as to say that in the end folk will probably end up "agreeing to differ".

Thankfully we live in a free world where our opinions can be openly stated without risk of physical retribution from those who see our views as a threat.

Good points, fairly made by both viewpoints I think. I've enjoyed following this thread.

[Bozzio]

What that (combined with other passages) says to me is that the most intelligent person ever can not figure out the simplest thing that God has done by pure reasoning and logic. It simply will not make sense. To get it, they have to have their heart and mind open (really open, not just "I'm doing this to prove it doesn't work"), ask God to help them understand, and then go ahead and read His word. That is when you fund the "evidence" that is asked for so often, but that is the barrier for people - if they are not prepared to accept that there might be a God, and His existence can only be proved to them in this way, then they will never get to know Him, except after they die, which is a bit late...

So if the whole concept is about a personal relationship between god and yourself then why do we need so many different religions, churches and religious texts? And how do you know that the religious texts are the words of god when clearly they are the words of human beings? (In fact there are quite a few gospels which are not included in the christian teachings such as the Gospel of Mary so which texts should we follow according to god?). And if all creatures are god's creations then how can a dog or a hamster or a pig understand god if they cannot read or have sufficient conscience to make that connection? Does this mean they won't go to heaven? Isn't it exactly because we have such amazing imaginations and highly developed and emotional brains, different to the brains of animals, that has led us to create religion and god in the first place? And because our brains are so complex isn't this why some humans interpret their feelings as a connection with a god and others to assume no connection at all, like myself. As a recovering alcoholic of many years I can say that I understand my feelings very well but have never had a desire to make a connection with a godly being or higher power which is probably why I was unable to cope with AA where recovery is promoted by asking people to do just that. Since I don't believe in god then I don't see that I will be sorry when I die other than to have to say goodbye to my family (which I hope I'll be able to do). After death, I expect to know nothing just like I did before birth when everything was just nothing to me.

[mikepepler]

This is an interesting thread to follow and contribute to, but something just occurred to me - what are people's motivations in discussing God and religion?

For me personally, my motivation is that I believe in judgement, heaven and hell, and don't want any of my fellow human beings to suffer the latter, while at the same time recognising that they will have to make their own choice and I can't force them.

What I wonder is: why would an atheist want to convince me *not* to believe what I do? Or do they really not mind, and this is just an interesting chat? I suppose the test would be: if I suddenly announced I had rejected Christianity as a result of this discussion, would an atheist be pleased, sad or indifferent?

[EmptyBee]

Interesting question, Mike.

I'm not speaking personally, but after reading the work of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists I would say that they believe that religion is some kind of contagious mental illness that gives people a flawed view of reality that can lead to (in their view) all sorts of nonsensical and even dangerous behaviour. So they want to bring you over to the "true" way of looking at the world, for your own good. In their own way they can be every bit as sanctimonious as the evangelists they claim to oppose.

Personally I regard any view of the world that shackles our minds in dogmatic unquestionable beliefs, and includes claims to certainty about the fundamental nature of the universe as highly suspicious. But I'm certainly not looking to "convert" anyone. I would like to think everyone's entitled to find their own path in this life, so long as it doesn't involve denying that same right to others.

[Blue Peter]

No...nothing happens in the rock, right enough, but in the latter example interesting things do happen. For example, if you think about the Kreb's Cycle, as well as "C" you get some energy out that the cell can use for any purpose it likes. And new material ("a" goes into the cycle and reacts with "A" to generate "B". So it's just chemistry admittedly, which you may or may not think is clever, but the system is not at equilibrium (as the rock is), and the material and energy transformations do achieve things for the cell.

For instance, the atoms/molecules of a living system are constantly changing. Viewed in those terms, the self is not constantly replicating, because it?s a different self each time

This is just nit-picking. Selection acts on the individual organism. So who cares if a particular carbon atom at a particular position of a particular pyrimidine at a particular position in a gene is changed for an indistinguishable carbon atom between the times the organism was born and replicates?

s.

No, I don?t think that this is nit-picking. What I?m hoping that you, or anyone, can do is to tell me what this replicating self, non-equilibrium system, individual organism is. What makes it a self, a system or an individual in itself, as opposed to us seeing a bit of the universe as a self, system or individual i.e. something objective rather than subjective? I don?t really expect you to explain things in terms of particular atoms, because, as you point out, it won?t work. But, on the other hand, what other terms have you got?

In general, in answering this question, you need to be rather careful. For instance, it?s not clear to me whether the universe has a natural scale, but presumably if it had, it would be that of the most fundamental particles. Anyway, I think that you do need to justify viewing things at a particular scale, objectively, rather than subjectively.


Peter.

[sentiententity]

I believe in judgement, heaven and hell, and don't want any of my fellow human beings to suffer the latter, ?

I find it hard to understand why one would worship such a cruel, insecure and vicious entity, except out of fear. And why would one want to live in fear? That is no more than slavery. And even worse, indoctrinate one's children into that fear from the very day of their birth?

What I wonder is: why would an atheist want to convince me *not* to believe what I do? ... if I suddenly announced I had rejected Christianity as a result of this discussion, would an atheist be pleased, sad or indifferent?

Well, speaking for myself, I'd be delighted for you. Being an atheist is wonderful. How could liberation from bronze age goat herders' superstitions and irrational fears of the dark, to live a good, moral life, not be wonderful? It seems to me that my life will be limited to a few decades, so I want to make the best of it.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins says that Christians already know what it is like to be an atheist, because they are azeusists, or aquetzalcaotlists, for example. Atheists just believe in one god fewer. Whilst he's right, he doesn't get to what it feels like, and so doesn't really respond to the belief that there is actually a relationship with something else. So here's a parable ( ), describing what it is really like:

A group of children play together. They go everywhere in the village, and have a great time, except they never visit the tumbledown cottage at the end of the village. As they all know, the old woman who lives there, who hardly ever comes out, is a witch. Any child who entered her garden even, or much less her house, would be taken away to a dreadful fate and never seen again.

One day, for a dare, a little boy goes into the witch's garden, walks shaking up to her door, and knocks. When the witch answers, he says hello, and they have what turns out to be a long and fascinating talk. She gives him cake and juice, and become friends. He visits her a lot over the next few years, as it is obvious that she is not evil, not a witch, just a nice old lady with a lot of interest to say.

Going from religion or would-be theist to atheist is like that.

s.

[sentiententity]

What I?m hoping that you, or anyone, can do is to tell me what this replicating self, non-equilibrium system, individual organism is. What makes it a self, a system or an individual in itself, as opposed to us seeing a bit of the universe as a self, system or individual i.e. something objective rather than subjective?

OK...I think I see what you are getting at. I reckon you can think of it as the level at which selection works, and not go too far wrong. I used the term "self-organising system" originally, because I was trying to exclude non-living things, and yet include all living things from bacteria, up to protists, animals, and plants. So there are two features to bear in mind, most obviously: (1) There is always a division between the organism and its environment: this might be a cell wall or even just a membrane, or in our case the skin. This is important: if there was no such division, it would be impossible to keep the system out of equilibrium with its environment (which we more catchily refer to as "death"). (2) Ask yourself at what level does replication occur? Is it the individual cell (bacteria), or a conglomerate of cells (e.g. the human body)? Non-germ cells (e.g. liver), are really only there to get the germ cells (sperm/egg) to the next generation.

Food for thought: It occurs to me that (2) has exceptions the way I have phrased it: the beehive would be the unit, not the individual bees. There are always exceptions in biology! But I think you will get what I mean. I'm hurriedly writing this in my lunchbreak; perhaps I'll come up with something a bit "cleaner" later on.

s.

[sentiententity]

do accept everything post-Genesis should be taken seriously as historical evidence (and much of Genesis too, even the early chapters have some kind of historical basis I believe)

Well, that's quite surprising to hear, I admit. I suppose you are strong evangelical?

is I see no reason why it [Bible] should be treated any different from other historical documents at the time

Absolutely. My problem with it is that if one does this, it is not convincing. See for example, the Exodus story - 600,000 men apparently left an Egypt (ruled my an oddly unamed pharoah) on the same day. With women and children, this would be somewhere between 1 and 2 million people at least. They then spent 40 years in the little desert of Sinai (that is one badly malfunctioning GPS unit! ) and yet with all of those mouths to feed in a desert, neither starved nor left any evidence of their presumably-huge camps...
As to other stories...e.g Noah's Flood: this can be completely ruled out: we know there was no global flood within the last 6000 years. Where would all the water have gone? How would the crew have prevented the animals eating each other, why do we only really find marsupials on Australia if their ancestors were on the Ark as per the rest of mammalia, etc, etc, etc, etc...

The gospels were written all before 100 AD. The earliest surviving fragments are from soon after that.

I believe that most scholars date the writing to late in the first century AD (e.g. 70-90 AD), and the very earliest fragments are from about 125 AD. Christians, who may well be biased, often put them earlier. But a couple of them mention the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD, so were presumably written after that. If Jesus existed and died in 30-40 AD, this is a serious problem in an age when life expectancy was poorer than in our age.

I don't see what the problem is in leaving out books which written by a group with a substantially different set of beliefs compared with the Church at that time, i.e. the Gnostics.

Well, I think there is. How do you know "the" Church was right? (Actually, at the time, there were many churches which all used different texts. This was codified quite late-I'll have to go and look it up). Many of the apocryphal gospels are attributed to characters in the biblical story as well-Peter, Judas, Thomas, Mary...They seem to have been selected more on their political usefulness for building a solid and united church, rather than on their historical authenticity.

Not in modern terms of course but quite clear I think. Have you actually read the gospels?

Yes. I've read all of the NT up to Corinthians (when I lost the Gideon's I was working my way through) and bits and bobs elsewhere.

you are assuming "a priori" that that Bible cannot be used as a historical source!

No, I'm holding it to the standards of any historical source. The problem is it comes out looking more like fiction than a chronicle.

This is the point...following your own logic, you are obliged to accept all sorts of ridiculous possibilities

I should have added that this makes me think that there may be a flaw in the logic. Perhaps it is accepting the Bible as factual?

I am enjoying this debate as well.

s.

[Blue Peter]

OK...I think I see what you are getting at. I reckon you can think of it as the level at which selection works, and not go too far wrong.s.

What's a level, ontologically speaking?


Peter.