posted
Wow - I leave this alone for a few hours...
OK. Here we go.
Tom - Yeah, fine. I know that there's not a proof sitting on a shelf in the library. The observables exist, as I can verify - but as I said before, there is no way I can pass that directly to you, given the present state of affairs. I think we've all run into that difficulty. I can also tell you about quarks, and how to build an accelerator to test them. It's hard, takes a lot of belief and repetitive work. Lots of people don't get it right. Most people only believe in them 'cause others say they work. Knowing about them doesn't necessarilty make you happy. You see my point, I'm sure, despite the flaws in the analogy. Fin.
Dog - While I understand you have Doglike powers, I don't know where you got your statistics. Yeah, children die all the time. It's tragic. Life is tough. Prayer hasn't ever been intended to be a gizmo that gets you divine favors if you grovel. It helps you come in line with God's will and perhaps act in His name. I know you're being a devil's advocate (hellhound? ), but I think the point must be addressed. God seems to have a problem with lotteries, as far as I can tell - doubt he helps people win them much. Can't see how it's much of a blessing. Countries where they don't pray to any God? Don't think they exist.
Frisco - you're still trying to hit me for points. Sorry you didn't get an answer. Mine didn't come through praying 30,000 times, or whatever. Look in other directions, and keep working.
Unohoo - Zealots occur in all human pursuits and disciplines. The religious ones are taking some heat right now - it's a skewed viewpoint. As an aside,“A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts” - Finley Peter Dunne. Religion (as I know it) does more to root them out than any other discipline I know of - they're too damaging to the goals we espouse.
Ellen/DOG - Pluto is questionable as a planet, just FYI. The debate is ongoing, and reputable places list the number of planets as 8.
Mac - Yeah, everything changes when you swap a few basic postulates. Can you toss me a link? It's hard to Google for it - too many results.
Mike - I just thought the way you put it was cool. Yeah, it's one heck of a construct - but if the postulates work, I think the rest of the logic hangs together pretty well. I'm pretty sure of the postulates, myself, but that's individual. Besides, is there really anything that has a simple explanation?
Hobbes - Point well made - and an important clarification. I think the other cases are also semi-included - harking back to the idea of truth is truth wherever you find it.
quote: I know that there's not a proof sitting on a shelf in the library. The observables exist, as I can verify - but as I said before, there is no way I can pass that directly to you, given the present state of affairs. I think we've all run into that difficulty. I can also tell you about quarks, and how to build an accelerator to test them. It's hard, takes a lot of belief and repetitive work. Lots of people don't get it right. Most people only believe in them 'cause others say they work.
One of the biggest differences between the accelerator analogy and the faith reference is that everyone who's followed the instructions to build an accelerator has come up with the same result, and says the same things about the accelerator. That makes it easy for people who HAVEN'T built accelerators themselves to, in fact, trust those people who say they have; it would require some kind of accelerator conspiracy, otherwise, and people conclude that this is unlikely.
However, people who often follow the exact same instructions to contact God DO come up with different and often mutually contradictory results. If one guy building an accelerator according to the numbers said he fired an atom and got a canary at the end, and the other guy said he fired an atom and a fish fell out of the sky onto his desk, how do we know which of them did it right? Do accelerators make canaries or fish?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is a great observable -- and to that one specific person, of course, it might be all the evidence he needs. But it's lousy as a recruiting tool, or as the basis of any logical argument with people who don't already accept the premise.
No, it's actually a great recruiting tool. It worked for me for two years. "God told me, and he'll tell you, too." Lots of people got baptized that way.
quote: However, people who often follow the exact same instructions to contact God DO come up with different and often mutually contradictory results.
That's right, they do. And that's why it's impossible for anybody, anywhere to rely on anybody else for thier knowledge of God. My own feelings about what I "know" do you absolutely no good at all, and they never will. The only thing you have to go by is the degree to which you trust the people telling you about experiences they had, and those are only valuable insofar as they cause you to go off and perform the experiments yourself.
As for subsequent lack of results, my own judgements of the scenario of your experiments is as worthless to you as my own recounting of my experiences. It's your experiment, you are free to perform it however you wish, and weigh the results however you wish.
posted
How can you know the same instructions have been followed? Really? Those instructions involve something that is subjective: humility. It involves a little commitment on the individual's part before they know the results. Is it true commitment, or is it to look good for the people around you, or is it an if/then proposition?
And the results allegedly involve not a natural law whose results can be reasonably predicted, but an intellegent divine being who alledgely knows you better than you know yourself and has access to knowledge you don't have.
These are the reasons why this kind of inquiry is not within the method of science, but still remains a valid way to search out certain truths. Not all truths can be proven by science. Prove to me that you love your spouse (or mother, sibling, best freind, etc etc). It is true and you know it, but there is no way that scientific methodology can prove it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is true and you know it, but there is no way that scientific methodology can prove it."
I would argue that you're wrong. Scientific methodology would first establish a definition of "love," then describe common indicators. It would also then work to establish blind standards that could be used for observation and interrogation on the topic.
The problem that we have with this God thing is that the same standards which apply to hearing the voice of God are generally the ones that we use to determine brainwashing and self-delusion. So it's hard to tell the difference, and it's considered offensive to even point this out.
quote: Laurenz, you believe in god and yet not free will, didn't god (certainly the christian god) give us the gift of free will?
Proteus,
I never said the christian God. I am not a christian. I tend to think the bible is bogus in the sense that it can be manipulated into anything you want it to be by just deciding what parts to take literally.
But no. I am a religious person in the sense I believe in god. I don't claim to know anything about this god and what he wants therefore I do what I feel is right which is much easier for me than some book where half of it was written before christ was born, and the other half not much after.
Anyway, no. I don't believe god gave us freewill. I think we are like any other species who makes decisions based on how they feel about something. HOw they feel about something is based on they're DNA structure combined with their personal experiance.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that science could determine lust and brain chemicals. But love? You really think we could break it all down into equations and predictable observations?
That is a whole lot of faith, there.
Right at the synapses, the uncertainty principle is hard at work. In higher brain activity, there is no way to determine if a brain synapse will fire or not. It may or may not. There are probabilities, sure, but what happens can't be exactly predicted.
I think it is interesting that our very thought processes are undeterminable.
posted
If you can't define a thing, then how can you ever say whether it exists or not?
"I sort of saw some thing--some guy, I think, but maybe it was one of those inflatable kiddie pools, blowing in the wind--hanging around my car last night..."
Question: What color were the guy's eyes?
--DOG (curled up at MANKIND's feet, gnawing on FILLETED's bone, drooling on MANKIND's shoes)
posted
Then I'm going to say it again, Tom. You are a man of great faith. You just place your faith in something different.
Except this is interesting: "Sure, if the definitions are tight enough."
Definitions are based on human assumptions. Assumptions are not scientifically verifiable, by definition.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ASSUMPTIONS are not verifiable, but the assumptions frame the testability of the hypothesis.
For example, let us define "love" as "a feeling of great adoration." Clearly, this is insufficient to establish any scientific verification of "love" as a physical process. In order to scientifically verify that one loves a family member, it is necessary to define "love" in such a way that it CAN be measured or demonstrated.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom> Quite true. Unfortunately the futility of such endeavors should be clear. I believe Postman used the example of measuring "beauty" by the size of a woman's breasts (is Dolly Parton really prettier than Heidi Klum?), and love is even less tangible than beauty. More than likely by the time you achieve a definition capable of scientific scrutiny it will also fail to accurately describe the subject.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Here's a good basic FAQ, which will explain why I find the LDS amusing and intriguing: FAQ
A somewhat detailed analysis of our beliefs, by Alexander Campbell: The Christian System
I'm still hunting for a useful text on God's current activity; I have some at home but can't find them on the web. Feel free to browse through the other texts linked from TCS; just be warned that some may be offensive. (Especially Delusions: An Analysis of the Book of Mormon by A.C.)
posted
A word on definitions. According to modern geometry, the words: point, line, incident, between, and congruent are undefined terms.
We can attempt to define them, but we wind up using circular arguments, so we simply leave them undefined.
Instead we use these terms within axioms (which this thread has so far referred to as assumptions), such as:
For any two disinct points, there is a unique line that is incident with both of them.
Every line is incident with at least two points.
There exist 3 noncollinear points.
Then, using these axioms, we attempt to prove geometries which appear to be true. We accept the geometry as true if there are no contradictions in the argument. We call these theorems. In this way, we get a sense of what the undefined terms mean.
We accept the axioms as valid if a set of axioms are not internally inconsistent. That is, as soon as we find that one axiom contradicts another (or itself), we cannot accept that axiom anymore. The biblical axiom: "The bible is infallibly true" cannot be accepted on this basis.
Sometimes statements which we have accepted as axioms can be proven from the other axioms in the set, at which point they are elevated from axioms to theorems.
And sometimes axioms which are consistent in one system are invalid in another. The three axioms listed above are consistent in any geometry, but Euclid's "Given any line and any point not on that line, there is exactly one line through that point which is parallel to that line" is not valid in elliptical or hyperbolic geometries.
The axiom "there is a God" is an axiom of this type. It is perfectly valid in theist logic, but completely invalid in atheist logic. Hence, to bridge communication between the two groups, we are forced to accept the tautology: "There is a God, or there is not a god."
Like it or not, that statement is the best tool we have for the two groups to live with each other, and it's not much to go on.
[ August 06, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:define "love" in such a way that it CAN be measured or demonstrated.
Love is subjective. People feel it and express it in very different ways. There are aspects of it that can be put under the microscope, but that doesn't even begin to encompass the human experience of love.
There are simply things in this world that defy observation. I can give you three specifics that the scientific community recognizes is beyond observation:
What happened at the moment of the big bang and before?
What is in the middle of a black hole?
Just exactly where and just how fast (at the same time) is the little electron?
These are no "god of the gap" things. These are simply things which we cannot scientifically observe, at all, but which we know exist. Why? Because we see the results. We can observe the results, but not the actual occurance.
Glenn,
I like what you said, a lot. That axiom is really all we can definately say. Whatever you choose to accept, that there is a god or that there is no god, is a leap of faith.
Don't tell me that you can't have faith that something doesn't exist. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying you have faith that the world is as you believe it to be. There are only natural rules, there is no consequence that you can be aware of after death (so you must therefore consider that this life is all that you experience and make judgements based on that), and many go so far as to believe that it is all just one very large and complicated reaction to the big bang that can, when we have the tools, be fully predicted. That everything, eventually, can be known by scientific methodology. That is a lot of faith.
posted
"Love is subjective. People feel it and express it in very different ways."
Then I would argue that they're not all feeling the same emotion.
If two people, looking at two completely different shades of blue, can call them both the same color, it's clear that we haven't sufficiently defined the shade for the purposes of identification. By the same token, there are clearly more specific behaviors and emotions that fall under the SUBSET of "love"-type emotions that can, on their own terms, be identified and classified.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Some people think wanting hoochie is love. Some think that sacrificing your desires for the needs of your partner is love. Some people don't love at all, but lie about it in order to get something else they want.
I submit that experience with God is as complicated to define as love is.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, yet, being able to determine whether or not someone has actually communicated with God -- as an example -- does NOT really pose much of a definitional problem; it's more of a situational one, in this case.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please don't assume this is a troll post - it really isn't.
I am just curious if it is true that Mormons believe that Jews came to North America hundreds of years BEFORE Jesus of Nazarath's birth? I had heard something about there being some tie with Native Americans and Mormonism? Are Native folks supposedly these Jews decendents?
I was raised in an agnostic/atheist environment where being Christian was kind of looked down as being ignorant and needing a crutch - so I have no "faith" instilled in me like the majority of Americans = especially in my area of the country!
Mormons were always just "The Osmonds" to me until OSC. While I was in love with Donny Osmond as a nine year old, it didn't exactly inspire any desire to understand his religion. I've been reading OSC for years - before he moved here to my home town. I've known he was a Mormon and there were Mormon themes to his work - and I own most all of it. Unlike Donny, OSC has made me curious about Mormonism. Since the only Mormon church here is the Church OSC attends, I don't really feel comfortable going that route for answers. Kind of seems too stalkery to go to the mans church because I'm curious about his religion. I love his books and the columns in our local paper but I'm not out to follow him around town.
Most sites that I've found are either by Mormons for Mormons or by folks who definitely hate Mormons. Can any of you recommend a site (or book) that gives good BALANCED OBJECTIVE info on Mormonism? Posts: 19 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
I sense a bit of a science vs. religion/god undertone in some of the posts here. I object, as a scientist, to references to The Scientific Method, as the scientific activity is often a lot of creeping around in the dark of intuition and being surprised by random or unforeseen events, observations, and measurements.
There's been a bit of back and forth on the nature of assumptions in mathematics and science, and the relation of this to having "faith". This is partially accurate, but only half the story. The "faith" that is involved here is the faith to carry out the experiment (or derivation and proof) based on the plausibility of the assumptions. It doesn't end here, though. That faith only lasts until results are obtained.
"Faith" in science doesn't rest on the plausibility or narrative capacity of the unprovable assumptions and definitions. It rests on predictability. If my assumptions, and my particular niche model of the natural universe have predictive capacity, I have faith that I'm on the road to understanding. If my model (understanding) doesn't report the answers I find in my measurements, then that disagreement sends me back to the black board to revisit my assumptions.
If my understanding (model) can predict something about the world (potentially obscure and only of interest to those voyeurs of the sex lives of sea urchins), I have faith that my understanding is somewhere in the regime of truth and I'm on the right road.
posted
I think a lot of people get blind faith and faith confused. I do not, hope to never excerise blind faith. I know I certainly always did this, and so do most people I know, think of blind faith whenever they (I) hear the word faith. They are not the same at all. Faith is believing something is true based on previous experience where blind faith is just believing something because you want to.
I don't have a problem with the "atheism takes faith" argument, although I know a lot of atheists who do.
A lot of evangelical types use it as a sort of "you're another!" type comeback, meaning that if we can accuse them of being wrong because they base their beliefs on faith, that we are wrong because we base our beleifs on our faith in science. But it's not the same thing.
My feeling is that it's less important to convince others to believe as we do (this works for both sides) but to accept that both sides are entitled to our beliefs, and that it doesn't imply animosity.
The Churches are doing that more and more. Interfaith councils and reconciliation between churches, and so forth. But the bridge between theism and atheism seems unbreachable.
I tend to look at what gays have done to find acceptance, the most important being to define themselves rather than accept the definition imposed by others (it used to be classified as a mental illness). Theists tend to define atheists as being immoral, and belligerent. In fact they seem to define us as evangelical, which is pretty ironic.
So I'll say it once again: Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Filetted: Well, I get a sense that you are both a scientist and a theist (this from previous posts, not the current one), and that you find it upsetting that people on both sides seem to see science as being the nemesis of religion.
Without microanalyzing your post line for line, My guess is that you see science as seeming to verify your position. But I didn't want to respond to your post because I'm afraid that might not be what you are really saying. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
The last two paragraphs are particularly muddy to me.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this was taken care of on the last page. I like to skip through posts rather than read them all when there are so many. I read Stradling's response and his response to a response to his response. And, I still don't understand the ability to prove creation myths. Maybe I'm just not up to snuff intellectually with the rest of you guys, but it makes no bloody sense! Verifying based on assumptions based on assumptions? 1. I assume God participates in humanity because of His/Its love and care for us. 2. I assume God gave certain men theophanies allowing them to tell others about Himself. 3. I assume the men who wrote it all down got the whole message right.(Or that they weren't deceiving themselves.) And, those who edited and preserved the message never changed anything. 4. I assume the validity of 1 and 2 based on the validity of 3, since the message is how we know God's loving and caring, and that God is the one who gave the message to them. And I assume the validity of 3 based on 1 and 2, since a loving caring God who really wanted us to know about Him would not let His word go astray. (That is assuming He's a loving, caring God!) Don't mind that last bit. Just a bit of fun. I love listening to myself think! But, seriously, how do we say creation myths are provable, and on an individual basis???? This sounds like another argument for the universe and reality being non-existent except in relation to our perceptions.
posted
No, because I believe in Richard Dawkins' theory about memes... Nobody could ever prove his/her certain god to me (and a lot of tries were just ridiculous, because it all worked like: "if you just open your heart/mind to god, he will come" - I don't like to manipulate myself, thanks...), so I believe it is one of the biggest memes in human history... I don't believe in a "soul" as well, I believe in brains, nerves, hormones etc. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh - and I hope I didn't offend any believers, but that's how I think... Still I find various religious concepts interesting, regarding how they change or how they could change society, in positive and negative ways.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I tend to think the science/religion conflict is ficticious and it upsets me. Not so much the conflict, but the lack of understanding that leads to the proposal of the conflict in the first place. I think the questioning impulse is inherent (in both), and the dichotomy is born of insecurity regarding culture and education. That's a damn shame.
posted
I think about GOD a lot (since DOG spelled backwards is GOD, just like GOLDFISH spelled backwards is HSIFDLOG), and I've come to an amazing realization;
I don't think that anyone really believes that GOD exists. I think that most of us want him to exist, and that some of us really want him to exist, but that no one in the world thinks that he really does exist. He's a fiction.
You can't invite Him over for dinner. You can't have Him come over and help you clear your property of large stones (some of them might just be too big..) He is not a physical thing. He is not real.
Does anyone here think that GOD is a physical thing? What does he look like? What color are his eyes? More importantly: what does he smell like? Even more important than that: where does he keep the Snausages?
As a DOG, you all know that me and my kind are always barking at spirits, right? Wrong. DOGs can see spirits--it's just that there aren't really any spirits to see. It's sort of a foolish gift.
We're actually barking at imaginary rabbits. Sorry.
I reckon the canine theologians have been chewing the fat (err.. rawhide) over that one for quite some time.
quote: Even more important than that: where does he keep the Snausages?
In heaven, duh! (stale kibble is kept in hell, where water dishes are scarce, shedding is not allowed, and panting is strictly limited to accompaniment by "gnashing of teeth")
quote: We're actually barking at imaginary rabbits.
I thought it was squirrels. I have so much to learn in the ways of DOG.
posted
"Dog, how are we to tell the difference? Should we eradicate the squirrels, the rabbits, or... the.... you know... those self-grooming pompous slit-eyed things?"
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do hope that you are NOT referring to felines . . .
And just to throw some twigs on the embers here - my pastor said today that "faith requires imagination" . . . chew on that!
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your right Dog, some people do believe in God because it makes their lives so much more comforatable and easy. Some people believe because their parents told them, some because their parents told them not to. But some people have spent years trying to find out if He does, and have come to the concluesion that He exists. I know that for a long time I assumed (as you do) that people believe in God and an after life because they couldn't deal with death as the end. But many people believe because they have proven to themselves that God has touched their lives, and they are comforted by it.
posted
But *how* did they prove god to themselves? Is/are these proof(s) objective? Would these proofs convince any atheists?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I don't know, depends on the Athiest. For myself, I've found that before I could be convinced that there was such a thing as the Holy Spirit that can influence and answer me, I had to do some very intense self analysis to make sure it wasn't just me talking to me.
Some Thiests do think that they're proof should be good enough for everyone else, but most realize that it is something that can be proved to yourself but not to others. Because when you ask a question, God will normally just answer you.
posted
When I was about 7 or 8 I thought about death. I realizied that my entire conciousness would end and my being would cease to exist. I tried to contemplate the virtual end of the world, sleep from which there was no waking. It was night time then and I got pretty badly scared by it. I was afraid that one day I'd walk into school and get shot through stomach, all my plans and ideas an realizations would be wiped out copmletely and my life would become meaningless in its non-existance. But I still got up the next morning and went to school, and kept doing it despite the fact that I knew no matter what I did, nothing would matter.
In fact, that has been my number one fear, that nothing I do will matter. That 10 years down the road I'll just be a distant memory to people I knew, and 100 years after I die I'll just be a statistic in a goverment database some where. I was deathly afraid that my life would mean nothing and I would accopmlish nothing of importance. But that didn't make me believe that God exists, I lived with it for years without changing my mind just to ease my worries. And I am not very strong in that department, so if I can do it, others can do it. And others do do it, many people live their lives constantly in the face of that realization because they wont bend to it and admit to something they don't believe just to make it go away.
I now believe something that has made it receed a little, but I am very confident that I did it not to ease my pain but because I believe the truth. Can it be proved? Not likely, but that is what I believe.
posted
Like you Hobbes, I struggled with these concepts and eventually came to accept that there is no God or afterlife. I didn't go through the fear part, but I had a really weird dream one night while I was working through this stuff that I was stabbed (in the stomach, coincidentally) and while waiting for the ambulance, I died. Well, as I'm quite alive (to my family, friends, and co-workers), not only did I explode the myth that you will die by dreaming you died, but I also exploded the myth of God for me as the end of that dream was absolutely blank. I woke up, and thought, 'So that's it, there is nothing after death.'Now obviously, regarding the existance or not of God, this is my conclusion. And, in times of crisis or danger, I do not pray. I really am an atheist.
Bottom line: You cannot scientifically prove that God exists. Some people have anecdotal evidence that is sufficient for them that God exists, but this will not hold up under Scientific scrutiny as the obversation is not repeatable. There are just too many observations available to disprove the existance of God. That is why this is a matter of faith. You either believe in God or do not believe.
I'd like to recommend a book that talks about scientific theory. It is called "General Systems Thinking" by Gerald Weinberg. I think it is out of print, but you may be able to find it in the library or on half.com.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
), but I think the point must be addressed.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Can you toss me a link? It's hard to Google for it - too many results.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Yeah, it's one heck of a construct - but if the postulates work, I think the rest of the logic hangs together pretty well. I'm pretty sure of the postulates, myself, but that's individual. Besides, is there really anything that has a simple explanation?![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
