| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2010 07:55:04 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yes, it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but honestly, the speculation of how it all came about is just that.......speculation, no matter how sound your theory is. So although slightly flippant, you don't have an answer, do you? |
Of course not. Would I be expected to? Does anybody?
I would submit that the Universe has a cause. If that's what you mean by "egg", then that would be my answer. But we've had that conversation lots. In fact I think it was the conversation that was being had when you asked the question.
BTW, I didn't mean anything derogatory with the word "silly". I was referring to your "slightly flippant" way of asking the question. The question itself, of course, is profound and one all humans ask. How did it all start? |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 09:33:01 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't find anything offensive (meaning aggressive, antonym defensive) about Jac's pulling up a two month old post in a one month old thread to say "Remember as a child how Santa Claus meant so much to you? Go back there and continue the dream because that's exactly what the faithful do each and every day of their lives". That doesn't reinforce the "default assertion that the atheist is on the offensive"? |
You've been offended by the comparison to Santa Claus several times now. This is really intriguing. WHY? I certainly used to believe in Santa, and you probably did, too (note that I am specifically referring to the modern reindeer-piloting, breaking-and-entering concept since a Saint Nicholas who gave secret gifts WAS a real historical figure). I can only surmise that you can't get over the idea of Santa as a fantasy of children, but is this really any different from other beliefs we no longer hold? Were the Greeks childish or ignorant (and comparisons equally offensive) because we no longer believe in their gods? You seem to be taking the analogy as a 9 year old who still believes in Santa might be offended by a comparison to belief in monsters under the bed: empirically accurate, but outrageous to a believer who has outgrown the former myth.
The similarities between God and Santa Claus are uniquely comparable, especially since the stories are generally perpetuated within the same cultures— we learn from our parents and peers about a benevolent entity, unbound by the laws of physics and assisted by magical helpers, who works unseen (and therefore unprovable). Though we might question this illogical premise very early, we are bombarded by reinforcing messages, we witness the "proof" beneath our pagan evergreens and plates of half-eaten cookies, and we know that we really did hear bells on the roof or see a red light in the sky— personal experiences that validate the belief. Only when our parents and peers finally acknowledge our growing suspicions can we give up this faith. Where religion diverges is that the "proof" is supposedly deferred until after death, so it doesn't have to be supplied annually by parents, and the faithful just know that one day they'll get the gifts promised. Any suspicions are quelled by social pressures, cultural saturation, respect for others who share our faith, and self-reinforcing rationalizations. Unlike jolly Saint Nick, religious doubts are never confirmed by the people who taught us to believe in the first place. THAT sort of change is either imposed by armies and dictators, or requires the courage to disagree with so many of the people we otherwise respect. Under the same conditions, belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy would also continue indefinitely.
Real conversation between a psychologist who played mall santa for 18 years and a tentative young girl:
“Santa, some people are saying they don’t believe in you,”
“Well, what do you say to them?”
“I tell them they haven’t met you.”
This is a girl who wants to believe, and it's a familiar refrain in these threads. |
|
|
|
06/16/2010 09:50:40 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So which came first......the universe, or the egg? |
If you stop to think about it, this sort of question invalidates itself since neither actually pops into existence in its final form. They develop over time (or in the case of the universe, concurrently WITH time). For example, the classic "chicken or egg" question has a straightforward answer, but most people don't think beyond the examples posed by the question: eggs existed in reptiles before they ever evolved into chickens, and both forms developed gradually over many eons. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 10:34:58 AM · #204 |
The santa analogy feels satisfying, but it only tells us a category exists of things believed that are not true. Whether or not God fits into the category remains unanswered. The reason the idea of God persists beyond that of Santa is the concept has utility while Santa does not. Over millenia thinkers of all cultures have concluded that God helps explain a worldview. The atheist ultimately decides the concept does NOT have utility and that is why they disbelieve.
Perhaps the analogy should be that of God and the Multiverse. The two ideas are uniquely comparable. Both help explain aspects of our world, but neither is directly provable. Both ideas will persist only as long as they have utility. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 11:21:04 AM · #205 |
It is impossible for every religion to be accurate in its every tenet - many are mutually exclusive - nor for every believer's personal version of their religion to be accurate. Accordingly, the vast majority of specific and personal religious beliefs are fundamentally and undeniably inaccurate.
Added to this, in the total absence of any demonstrable evidence of any god, that there is an overwhelming likelihood that there is no god interfering with our physical environment.
The only real question is whether there is one undetectable non-interfering god who might exist or have existed at some time. As well as being unnecessary and unlikely, this is almost a complete irrelevance.
Conversely, we might consider other reasons why people believe in gods etc. If humans were, say, highly imaginative but suffered an incomplete understanding of their surroundings, if they were self-aware of their mortality, if they were motivated by power and a fear of death, and if they were to form a society composed of leaders and manipulable followers, then perhaps we'd have grounds to find other, demonstrable and more obvious reasons as to why humans believe in gods.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 11:27:50 AM · #206 |
I think that is a succinct summary of why you do not believe Matthew. Others do not hold the tenets that your conclusions are based on and thus do not share your convictions. You and I know this already.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 11:55:35. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 11:31:59 AM · #207 |
| Others don't hold what? That it is impossible for any religion to be accurate in its every tenet? That there is a total absence of demonstrable evidence for god? That a non-personal god disinterested in its own creation is irrelevant? Or that there are clear and compelling reasons for people to believe in gods that have nothing to do with whether or not evidence could ever be found? |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 11:38:03 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Nullix:
People of faith don't ignore reality, they are a product of it. In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God. |
How does one know this? I ask out of genuine curiosity. |
How does one know this? I'm not certain except when it happens you know it. I'm sure every encounter is different.
I don't want to sound like I didn't put much thought into this, but I came up with many responses to this and they all came off wrong.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 11:44:35 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Others don't hold what? That it is impossible for any religion to be accurate in its every tenet? That there is a total absence of demonstrable evidence for god? That a non-personal god disinterested in its own creation is irrelevant? Or that there are clear and compelling reasons for people to believe in gods that have nothing to do with whether or not evidence could ever be found? |
There are people that likely don't hold each of those (except maybe the third one, I'd have to think about that). We know there are people who believe "there are many paths to God". The idea that there is a total absence of demonstrable evidence is obviously not held by many. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 11:55:14 AM · #210 |
I shouldn't be getting into it today because I will not have time to properly reply. Grass season has hit hard this week and the patients are stacking up.
Consider another analogy. Think about the person who does not believe the moon landing was real. These people are presented with all the available evidence, evidence that compels the rest of us and still do not believe. In fact, at times the very evidence presented serves to reinforce the idea of conspiracy.
If theists are compared to Santa believers, atheists are moon landing conspiracists. I don't mean it any more or less derogatorily than the original analogy. Some people can be presented with evidence that is convincing to many other people and reject it as conspiracy. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 12:38:21 PM · #211 |
Two words, one concept:
..
Occam's Razor
..
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 12:40:22 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps the analogy should be that of God and the Multiverse. The two ideas are uniquely comparable. |
They're not even in the same universe, so to speak. You're trying really hard to provide a parallel to a model with some logical credibility, but nobody indoctrinates their kids into the idea of a multiverse from birth. They are not surrounded by media and social messages reinforcing the theory every day. They don't go to multiverse temples and participate in multiverse rituals. They are not required to live or behave in certain ways dictated by the multiverse under threat of punishment or reward. Belief in a multiverse is not culturally specific or handed down through generations. No, Santa Claus is a MUUUUCH closer analogy.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If theists are compared to Santa believers, atheists are moon landing conspiracists. |
N/A. The moon landing is not a supernatural being, and no more comparable to atheism than not believing you had french fries for lunch. If you want a valid comparison, then you'd have to look at disbelief in fairies, dragons, leprechauns, sorcerers and other gods. The vast majority of you very likely do not believe in those or any of the thousands of other gods worshipped by man, so it shouldn't be so unthinkable to add one more to such an extensive list. It makes no sense to me that people are perfectly willing to wave off thousands of deities as silly mythology, yet cling to a personal favorite (often indistinguishable from the others) as inviolate.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The idea that there is a total absence of demonstrable evidence is obviously not held by many. |
Those would be the same people who generally believe an anonymous author's account or personal vision qualifies as credible proof. Demonstrable evidence of any god, much less evidence of a specific version of god, simply does not exist. It actually CANNOT exist since demonstrable evidence is anathema to religion because it could be disproven, and would have quickly resulted in a single dominant world religion.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 12:42:33. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 12:46:37 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Two words, one concept:
..
Occam's Razor
..
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem |
Well, that's as may be, but explore a little deeper:
Originally posted by wiki:
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein[14][15], the development and application of the principle of least action by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[16] and the development of quantum mechanics by Louis de Broglie, Richard Feynman, and Julian Schwinger.[5][17][18] In chemistry, Occam’s razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[19][20] However, while it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown to fail as a criterion for selecting among published models.[5]
In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[6][7][8][9] As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.[4][7] Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.[6][7][8][9]
When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it only has meaning in a very specific context of inquiry. A number of background assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem. The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter.[9]
As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[8] |
and, interestingly:
Originally posted by wiki:
The version of the Razor most often found in Ockham's work is Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[12] For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason.[12] |
R.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 12:52:12 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
“For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.” For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Those would be the same people who generally believe an anonymous author's account or personal vision qualifies as credible proof. |
"God did it" may be the simplest explanation, but it generally fails verification, repeatability, and logic while not actually explaining. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 12:52:46 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Two words, one concept:
..
Occam's Razor
..
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem |
Well, that's as may be, but explore a little deeper:
Originally posted by wiki:
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein[14][15], the development and application of the principle of least action by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[16] and the development of quantum mechanics by Louis de Broglie, Richard Feynman, and Julian Schwinger.[5][17][18] In chemistry, Occam’s razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[19][20] However, while it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown to fail as a criterion for selecting among published models.[5]
In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[6][7][8][9] As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.[4][7] Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.[6][7][8][9]
When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it only has meaning in a very specific context of inquiry. A number of background assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem. The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter.[9]
As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[8] |
and, interestingly:
Originally posted by wiki:
The version of the Razor most often found in Ockham's work is Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[12] For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason.[12] |
R. |
What I find amusing is that both sides of this divide will still believe that this is in favor of their argument, even after your post :) |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 12:53:40 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Two words, one concept:
..
Occam's Razor
..
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem |
Cory, I say this in a friendly way, but just bringing up Occam's Razor is quite ignorant. It is a hugely misapplied concept.
Shannon, you miss the point of the moon landing analogy. The point is to show there is a category of things calls "truths that are disbelieved". The analogy is exactly as powerful as the Santa one. If one holds as a valid logical argument, the other does as well. If you tear one down, the other falls as well. The only difference is a preference for one over the other given one's worldview. Note that neither actually answers whether the belief in God falls into one of the other categories.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 12:54:53. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 01:03:01 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Two words, one concept:
..
Occam's Razor
..
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem |
Cory, I say this in a friendly way, but just bringing up Occam's Razor is quite ignorant. It is a hugely misapplied concept.
Shannon, you miss the point of the moon landing analogy. The point is to show there is a category of things calls "truths that are disbelieved". The analogy is exactly as powerful as the Santa one. If one holds as a valid logical argument, the other does as well. If you tear one down, the other falls as well. The only difference is a preference for one over the other given one's worldview. Note that neither actually answers whether the belief in God falls into one of the other categories. |
Don't worry, I think Bear "got" it.. :) It's nothing more than stick poking.. Don't worry I actually take none of this seriously.. The entire conversation is, in my opinion quite ignorant... As we try to compare fact to belief.
In all seriousness, and not just stick poking, I would argue that the two are incompatible, absolutely and entirely. I don't have faith in anything, and I try not to allow myself to "believe" anything without at least some examination.
*shrug* I don't feel there's any real point in discussing this, as neither side can actually win - although people will likely continue to argue and start wars over this stupid shit forever.. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 01:07:00 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon, you miss the point of the moon landing analogy. The point is to show there is a category of things calls "truths that are disbelieved". |
Still N/A. That's like not believing you had french fries for lunch. Unless you establish that deities are a truth, this falls into the category of superstitions that ARE believed. As an indoctrinated Western superstition that involves unseen benevolent entities working magic for the benefit of the righteous, God and Santa are uniquely analogous. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 01:10:24 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
As an indoctrinated Western superstition that involves unseen benevolent entities working magic for the benefit of the righteous, God and Santa are uniquely analogous. |
You're saying GOD is an "indoctrinated Western superstition"? Sigh...
R.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 01:15:22 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
As an indoctrinated Western superstition that involves unseen benevolent entities working magic for the benefit of the righteous, God and Santa are uniquely analogous. |
You're saying GOD is an "indoctrinated Western superstition"? Sigh... |
Nullix and Achoo's version, yes. The Eastern varieties would be myths from their point of view (and vice versa). |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 01:24:01 PM · #221 |
I frankly just see your reply Shannon as "I don't like your analogy so reject it". I do agree that analogies never fit perfectly, but then that applies to Santa as well.
It will do us no good to play the game "your analogy breaks down because God fits/doesn't fit in regard to this characteristic". That's why I didn't bother with it to start with and just pointed out the fundamental truth you were trying to convey (which turned out to be nothing surprising to anybody). If you would like, we can just drop analogies. No moon landing conspiracists. No Santa. But you come across as immature if you insist that the Santa analogy should stick while the conspiracists does not. At heart they convey the same type of truth. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 02:21:48 PM · #222 |
They don't convey the same thing at all. It's demonstrably irrational to believe in a moon landing conspiracy -- too many eye-witness accounts of the launch, verifiable scientific data retrieved from the trip to the surface, and so on. Here's five good reasons, for example. For similar reasons, it's quite irrational to be a holocaust denier.
You can't compare such a verifiable event as the moon landing (or the holocaust) with such a non-verifiable claim as the existence of god.
Your analogy really does break down. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 02:31:46 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Louis:
They don't convey the same thing at all. It's demonstrably irrational to believe in a moon landing conspiracy -- too many eye-witness accounts of the launch, verifiable scientific data retrieved from the trip to the surface, and so on. Here's five good reasons, for example. For similar reasons, it's quite irrational to be a holocaust denier.
You can't compare such a verifiable event as the moon landing (or the holocaust) with such a non-verifiable claim as the existence of god.
Your analogy really does break down. |
The point is the conspiracist would deny all that. Of course it makes sense to you and me, but we aren't part of his delusion. A disbelief in God could fall in the same category and I would expect you to say exactly what you are saying. That's my only point and that's the same point the Santa analogy raises. Santa tells us that firmly held beliefs can be wrong. Conspiracists tell us that firmly held denials can be wrong as well.
Your answer, though, does reveal a truth that can infect both sides of the argument. You would attempt to show the conspiracist the error of his ways because you believe that any rational person thinking clearly would come to the same answer: we landed on the moon. The God question does not follow this. Very wise and intelligent and rational people who have given long and hard thought to the problem have come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Some believe in God. Some do not. The arrogance of many atheists on this thread, and one I personally take great pains to avoid (although theists can certainly be guilty as well), is to assume that all the rationality falls on their side. That anybody who comes up with the opposite conclusion is indoctrinated or just not thinking hard enough or clearly enough or isn't intelligent enough to see what is obvioius. Often my most "nasty" replies are provoked by such hubris. I utterly reject this proposition and forever will.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 14:33:12. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 03:03:02 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
They don't convey the same thing at all. It's demonstrably irrational to believe in a moon landing conspiracy -- too many eye-witness accounts of the launch, verifiable scientific data retrieved from the trip to the surface, and so on. Here's five good reasons, for example. For similar reasons, it's quite irrational to be a holocaust denier.
You can't compare such a verifiable event as the moon landing (or the holocaust) with such a non-verifiable claim as the existence of god.
Your analogy really does break down. |
The point is the conspiracist would deny all that. Of course it makes sense to you and me, but we aren't part of his delusion. A disbelief in God could fall in the same category and I would expect you to say exactly what you are saying. That's my only point and that's the same point the Santa analogy raises. Santa tells us that firmly held beliefs can be wrong. Conspiracists tell us that firmly held denials can be wrong as well.
Your answer, though, does reveal a truth that can infect both sides of the argument. You would attempt to show the conspiracist the error of his ways because you believe that any rational person thinking clearly would come to the same answer: we landed on the moon. The God question does not follow this. Very wise and intelligent and rational people who have given long and hard thought to the problem have come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Some believe in God. Some do not. The arrogance of many atheists on this thread, and one I personally take great pains to avoid (although theists can certainly be guilty as well), is to assume that all the rationality falls on their side. That anybody who comes up with the opposite conclusion is indoctrinated or just not thinking hard enough or clearly enough or isn't intelligent enough to see what is obvioius. Often my most "nasty" replies are provoked by such hubris. I utterly reject this proposition and forever will. |
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 15:06:08. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 04:16:10 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer. |
Come on, Richard. Don't play word games. You are merely using the word "rationalization" to denote the psychological process that is often opposite "rationality". It is not what I mean at all. |
|
