quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Unless it's true.
Fair enough. if (a religion is true){ move past 99.99% of religions as harmful anachronisms } else { move past religion as a harmful anachronism }
But seriously, depending on *which* religion is true. The god/gods probably need a serious talking to, thats another problem I have with the whole "does god exist" arguments. Even if he existed it always seems like a big jump to actually respecting, let alone worshipping him.
At least if what Buddha said was true (at least the parts of heard of), I probably would respect his teachings and him.
If you take God from the Old Testament alone, the best I can say about him is that at least he's a step up from Zeus/Jupiter. He kept it in his pants and only impregnated one human female Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are many other exceptions to the no violence rule other than self-defense.
Please, find me some that aren't frequently prohibited by the New Testament. I won't say all examples will be, but most certainly will.
How many will it take?
You said, "Given that violence is explicitly condemned in all but cases of self-defense by Christianity..."
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since, as you point out, religion is inextricably tied up to everything around us through the people that create or cause the things, then it is impossible to tease out religion as the cause of anything either...
The inability to have concrete assurance of causation doesn't make correlations any less important or insightful. It's easy, for instance, to observe what role religion had in, say, 'the crusades.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is, Samprimary, because most people either don't know or don't care about anything BUT religion's role in the Crusades. Economics, internal political bickering, and a whole lot more went into that equation.
It's just not very cool to blame the Crusades on things like spices.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Because I can guarantee you, with total certainty, that for every passage you could by any stretch point to as condoning violence in cases other than self-defense, in the NT, I can find more that condemn it and preach forgiveness, love, and mercy.
Edit: And yes, I realize that I should have been more clear earlier. I did not mean to say that the NT never condones violence in cases other than self-defense. I mean overall.
*sigh* But, I expect that the overall message of the NT will be ignored for the purpose of this discussion, leading to further cherry-picked condemnation of religion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you could find an NT passage that conflicts with every OT passage I could bring up; especially since many NT passages advocate forgiveness and condone violence in a broader virtue-based sense while many imperatives in the OT are legalistic and narrow.
You've conceded that there is a conflict, and you've chosen to err on the side of the NT passages (which to me are much more congenial). I don't see how that isn't cherry picking from a conflicting set of statements.
Edit to respond to edit: Appealing to an overall message doesn't let you skip over contradictions in the religion. And it's debatable exactly what the overall message is; a lot of Christians don't agree there.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've conceded that there is a conflict, and you've chosen to err on the side of the NT passages (which to me are much more congenial). I don't see how that isn't cherry picking from a conflicting set of statements.
So...um, Christians shouldn't "choose to err" as you put it on the side of the New Testament?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there is faith, and then there is FAITH. My faith that the pencil is a solid enough object in my hand, and that the sun will rise tomorrow are simple beliefs, simple matters of faith.
But to ask a person to believe that there is some all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, time-transcendent invisible all-father somewhere out "there"...well, that's a unicorn of a different color.
Yes. And there can be a great deal of legitimate debate over which colors of unicorn are acceptable and which are unacceptable. But no matter what we decide, it is still true that unicorns exist in almost every one of our beliefs - and thus it is not wise to reject a belief solely because you cannot figure out how to support it without resorting to unicorns.
Faith or trust beyond the limits of pure logic is a necessity. So the criteria for belief cannot be "What can we prove to be true?" Instead it must be "What do we think the evidence most supports?"
And therein lies the conflict for humanity. If we had proof then we could resolve all of these questions once and for all. But instead we have to rely on what "we THINK the evidence most supports", a judgement call that differs from person to person. Conflict is inevitable from that.
quote:When you feel the need to deny the validity of reason to defend your theory, you're in sorry shape indeed.
Perhaps, but I would never deny the validity of reason. But I would also not deny that it has inherent limitations too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If you take God from the Old Testament alone, the best I can say about him is that at least he's a step up from Zeus/Jupiter. He kept it in his pants and only impregnated one human female
That's not the OT God. That's the NT reimagining of the OT God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where do you want to stop along the causality chain?
At a place where there is a legitimate discriminating criteria. This is really not hard.
What you are blaming (Religion as a whole) clearly does not accurately discriminate between those who commit atrocities and those who do not. There are religious who don't commit atrocities, who in fact do basically the opposite. There are non-religious who do commit atrocities. If you removed Religion as a whole, you would be removing both non- and even anti- atrocity folk/structures while leaving behind pro-atrocity folk/structures.
This isn't a matter of going down the causal chain. It's about your incorrect attribution of causality to a wider context than is warranted. The statement that Religion as a whole causes these things is wrong and not merely at a high level on the causal chain.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But no matter what we decide, it is still true that unicorns exist in almost every one of our beliefs..."
I'm not really sure what you mean by that (if you really mean anything at all)
"...and thus it is not wise to reject a belief solely because you cannot figure out how to support it without resorting to unicorns."
Meaning...what? That if I can refute a belief without needing to resort to unicorns, then I can reject it? or that if I have to bring unicorns into the picture, then you will reject my attempts at refutation?
"Faith or trust beyond the limits of pure logic is a necessity. So the criteria for belief cannot be "What can we prove to be true?" Instead it must be "What do we think the evidence most supports?" "
I tend to agree with you on that. I have noticed, however, that a theistic person's level of acceptance of "evidence" is far different than a atheistic person's. A theistic person will accept a heck of a lot more stuff, with a lot less meaningful proof. Well, they start out by making one of their core beliefs the belief in an giant, invisible, impossible entity that isn't really "there," anyway, and then they resort to all sorts of proof-free gyrations attemting to explain it to "non-believers."
quote:"...and thus it is not wise to reject a belief solely because you cannot figure out how to support it without resorting to unicorns."
Meaning...what? That if I can refute a belief without needing to resort to unicorns, then I can reject it? or that if I have to bring unicorns into the picture, then you will reject my attempts at refutation?
No, neither of those. What I mean is that you can't reject a belief just because you can't prove it. Accordingly, if you demand absolute proof for a belief and nobody can offer it, that doesn't mean the belief is the wrong thing to believe. I think many beliefs are well-suppored by evidence, yet cannot be proven.
quote:I tend to agree with you on that. I have noticed, however, that a theistic person's level of acceptance of "evidence" is far different than a atheistic person's. A theistic person will accept a heck of a lot more stuff, with a lot less meaningful proof.
Rather, I have noticed that theists and atheists disagree on what constitutes meaningful evidence. Theists tend to count religious texts, personal experiences, other authoritative sources, etc. as meaningful evidence - whereas atheists often do not.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So...um, Christians shouldn't "choose to err" as you put it on the side of the New Testament?
No, I didn't say that.
The question you've been evading is; why have they chosen the new testament rather than the old? Based on what criteria are they selecting certain passages while not others?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
Faith or trust beyond the limits of pure logic is a necessity.
Why? Pure logic doesn't demand that you do nothing until there is proof; that would be highly illogical.
quote:
quote:When you feel the need to deny the validity of reason to defend your theory, you're in sorry shape indeed.
Perhaps, but I would never deny the validity of reason. But I would also not deny that it has inherent limitations too.
Oh? So where does it apply and where doesn't it?
You denied the validity of reason in this discussion:
quote:The truth is, the world doesn't work like this. It would be helpful if we could have solid, absolute evidence of things, but reason alone simply cannot give it to us. We could argue for days over whether this pen in my hand exists and you would never be able to solidly prove to me that it does. There are many people who claim they have solid proof for the things they believe (people like Dawkins, religious leaders, politicians, Hatrackers on this board, etc.) but the truth is that in almost all of these cases what they are calling "solid" is actually not.
The example regarding your pen is superfluous. It's possible that you and everyone in the room with you is hallucinating and imagining a pen, and that the ink on the paper isn't really there.
Probability.
It's highly improbable that that would be the case, and absent any reason for the hallucinations to take place, you can be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that the pen is in your hand.
That's what you're getting at though, isn't it? The 'beyond reasonable doubt' part? Sure, it's possible that god exists and that satan planted fossils in subsoil strata to deceive us. It's hardly probable though, and while there is no evidence for that theory (religious arguments are often constructed in such a way that they don't appear to need substantiation), there is plenty in favour of evolution.
It's also possible that we live in a computer program. Again, highly improbable, no evidence to indicate that is the case, and posits more questions and unknowns that the original question of the origin of this world does (i.e. now we need to explain who or what created the program, and the world that the programmer is in; an infinite regress).
quote:But instead we have to rely on what "we THINK the evidence most supports", a judgement call that differs from person to person.
So we can't overcome our subjectivity and employ deductive logic to reach a conclusion we can be certain of beyond all reasonable doubt? Does 1 + 1 really = 2? Does the house I'm in really exist?
If you want to get technical, you could argue for the latter point using quantum mechanics, and you'd be right that this world is one of probabilities; shades of grey rather than black or white.
Unfortunately, you'll find that this doesn't make god any more probable than the invisible pink unicorn.
(And as a side note, doesn't it bother you that to defend your world view from counterargument, you have to cast doubt on all human knowledge and posit that there is a possibility that your view is correct?)
quote:Faith, or trust in unproven beliefs if you prefer to call it that, is a necessity for us. It is the glue that allows us to construct firm conclusions upon incomplete evidence.
Then most religions are built almost entirely out of glue.
Why do we have to draw conclusions on things when we only have weak, circumstantial, or incomplete evidence? Why can't we say, "I don't know" until the day we do know? (That day would be when there is enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that __________ is true.)
quote:Theists tend to count religious texts, personal experiences, other authoritative sources, etc. as meaningful evidence - whereas atheists often do not.
There are very good reasons for that. Religious texts have been known to be historically inaccurate and often contradictory. The miracles contained in them, and personal experiences, can be explained in much simpler terms than by god influencing human affairs. You know, Occam's Razor.
As for 'authoritative sources', church authority has no influence on the truth value of religious claims, as you must already know.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: This isn't a matter of going down the causal chain. It's about your incorrect attribution of causality to a wider context than is warranted. The statement that Religion as a whole causes these things is wrong and not merely at a high level on the causal chain.
The thing is, moderate religion supports a belief system which, when put into practice fully, brings about much evil (not just violence, but the cognitive dissonance, the association of worldly sensuality with sin, the inherited guilt from the concept of original sin, et cetera as discussed on previous pages). I think a lot of Christians are reasonable people who don't practice everything their doctrine teaches. But by supporting Christianity they are obfuscating the truth and supporting a belief system which isn't reasonable at all.
And there are plenty of examples where religion is hardly a proximate or irrelevant cause; an Islamic fundamentalist's suicide bombing, for example.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If you take God from the Old Testament alone, the best I can say about him is that at least he's a step up from Zeus/Jupiter. He kept it in his pants and only impregnated one human female
That's not the OT God. That's the NT reimagining of the OT God.
Sorry, my terminology is confusing.
When people say "God" they can a lot of different things, even if we limit it to Christians, but two stick out in my mind.
A) The "God" that played a starring role in the OT and then played a cameo role in the NT fathering a child. B) The "God" that comes out of the NT comprised of the union between the father, son, and holy ghost. The "nice parts" from Jesus seemingly dominant, (but equal?).
By "Old Testament God" I meant the former while trying to avoid the rather neutered latter. You're right in that he's different from the Jewish "God". I suppose a better term would be the "Father" but the Trinity has always puzzled/bemused me.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
The question you've been evading is; why have they chosen the new testament rather than the old? Based on what criteria are they selecting certain passages while not others?
I've been evading it because--and this sounds snarky, but I was genuinely baffled--I didn't imagine you actually were wondering why Christians "choose the NT" rather than the OT. The New Testament is the portion of the Bible which contains the story of Jesus, His sermons, philosophies, and that of the Apostles. Christians worship Christ as the Son of God.
Isn't this self-evident? You're asking why a Christian, who by definition worships Christ, selects the New Testament, over* the Old Testament. Pardon me for saying so, but that's a pretty darned ridiculous question.
*The NT does not completely 'overwrite' the OT.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Why, oh why, is Occam's Razor brought up in religious discussions? Ultimately it comes down to a question of, "Which is the simplest explanation? That the entire universe, including intelligent life, sprang into being entirely on its own, or that it was somehow made by the will of something?"
That is question whose answer is impossible even to guess at. We're not, and probably will not ever be, in the ballpark. Heck, we're not even on the ballpark's continent on that question, that is, "Which is simpler?"
Occam's Razor does not seem well-suited to this sort of discussion at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is extremely well suited, because you can point out that if a complex universe 'must have' a creator, then that complex creator must likewise have a creator; there is nothing about this explanation that can possibly be simple.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [Isn't this self-evident? You're asking why a Christian, who by definition worships Christ, selects the New Testament, over* the Old Testament. Pardon me for saying so, but that's a pretty darned ridiculous question.
No it's not; that just puts the question at a further remove. Why choose Jesus over Jehovah?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Isn't this self-evident? You're asking why a Christian, who by definition worships Christ, selects the New Testament, over* the Old Testament. Pardon me for saying so, but that's a pretty darned ridiculous question.
No it's not self-evident, and I don't think my question was ridiculous. Especially since the new testament is also beset with contradictions, Jesus himself has contradicted his words, and he has said that god's law is unchanging:
quote:I can guarantee this truth: Until the earth and the heavens disappear, neither a period nor a comma will disappear from Moses' Teachings before everything has come true.
Matthew 5:18
Though he later changed his mind about certain foods being unclean.
The idea that mosaic law is "ceremonial" was introduced later on by the church.
There is actually another good reason for a theist to evade my question, which is that acknowledging any cherry-picking of biblical passages and laws obliges the theist to explain what criterion for selection is so important that it may overrule god's law.
quote:Occam's Razor does not seem well-suited to this sort of discussion at all.
This is exactly the kind of discussion Occam's Razor is best suited for. Positing that god, who must be unfathomably complex to have created the universe, exists, and further that he is interested in and interferes with human affairs, is hardly a simpler explanation than that the bible is historical fiction. Who or what created god? That's an even bigger question. 'Outside of time' and 'always existed' are convenient rhetorical devices.
There is evidence to support the latter claim that Christianity is false (the historical inaccuracies, the contradictions, the implausibility of the miracles; apart from the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence in Christianity's favour), and human history is full of mythologies and other religions which you and I are both atheist about; it's not a far stretch to see that Christianity is a man-made moral code.
As an example; if an evangelical Christian tells you that he saw archangel Gabriel in his dreams, the simplest explanation is that his fervent belief in religion and an active imagination has caused him to dream of the angel. The alternative hypothesis is that a superbly complex being and a host of other spirits exist in a metaphysical heaven and would choose to contact this one person (who happens to be an evangelical; it's not often that Nepalese monks dream of Gabriel) out of billions of others.
Similarly with scripture and other miracles; Occam's Razor can dispense with all evidence for Christianity.
Well, now you're actually asking the question I was pretty sure you were going to jump to in the first place. You weren't really asking why a Christian would choose to place more importance in the NT than the OT, you were asking why someone would choose any given religion at all.
That's a bit frustrating, I'll be honest. I'm not a fan of such obvious traps.
quote:Especially since the new testament is also beset with contradictions, Jesus himself has contradicted his words, and he has said that god's law is unchanging:
Not all Christians believe the Bible is perfectly translated.
quote:There is actually another good reason for a theist to evade my question, which is that acknowledging any cherry-picking of biblical passages and laws obliges the theist to explain what criterion for selection is so important that it may overrule god's law.
Given that I have said at least three or four times in this thread, not all Christians believe the Bible is perfectly translated, this argument does not really hold much water with me.
quote:This is exactly the kind of discussion Occam's Razor is best suited for. Positing that god, who must be unfathomably complex to have created the universe, exists, and further that he is interested in and interferes with human affairs, is hardly a simpler explanation than that the bible is historical fiction. Who or what created god? That's an even bigger question. 'Outside of time' and 'always existed' are convenient rhetorical devices.
I did not bring into the question a God who is interested and interferes with human affairs. I was pretty specific about why I had a problem with Occam's Razor being applied to this sort of conversation.
quote:Similarly with scripture and other miracles; Occam's Razor can dispense with all evidence for Christianity.
You are still brought back, as I said originally, to the question, "Which is simpler? The universe somehow...ummmm...created itself from nothing? Or it was created by something?"
You do not know the answer to that question. Nobody does.
This conversation is beginning to get frustrating. I don't like obvious trap-questions, especially not when they're asked with supposed sincerity. It's also frustrating to have my point re: Occam's Razor be so blatantly sidestepped, and twisted into a statement I didn't make at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is extremely well suited, because you can point out that if a complex universe 'must have' a creator, then that complex creator must likewise have a creator; there is nothing about this explanation that can possibly be simple.
Tell me what can possibly be simple about the entire freaking universe amazingly just creating itself from nothing. Please.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tell me what can possibly be simple about the entire freaking universe amazingly just creating itself from nothing. Please.
The point is that this, while not simple, is still simpler than a being capable of creating the "entire freaking universe" amazingly creating itself from nothing, and then creating the universe. You're stuck with one amazing self-creation in either model, but the religious model adds a second (and possibly unnecessary) step.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is that this, while not simple, is still simpler than a being capable of creating the "entire freaking universe" amazingly creating itself from nothing, and then creating the universe. You're stuck with one amazing self-creation in either model, but the religious model adds a second (and possibly unnecessary) step.
You've got a point, Tom, but we're still left with trying to gauge the simplicity of the universe self-creating. Since we have no real idea how that could have happened, how can we judge if it's simpler than anything else or not?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, now you're actually asking the question I was pretty sure you were going to jump to in the first place. You weren't really asking why a Christian would choose to place more importance in the NT than the OT, you were asking why someone would choose any given religion at all.
I've already asked you that question and you responded to it. I honestly was asking; why do Christians only follow some of the precepts of Christianity?
quote:That's a bit frustrating, I'll be honest. I'm not a fan of such obvious traps.
What part of my post was a trap?
Is it this question? "Why have they chosen the new testament rather than the old? Based on what criteria are they selecting certain passages while not others?"
Of all the questions I've asked, I think that's the most likely to be construed as a "trap." I've repeated it many times, and you evaded it until I framed it in the context of the OT vs the NT. Then you responded by saying that Christians, being followers of Jesus, will side with his teachings in the NT where there is a conflict. You know, I think that's a fair enough call, based on the premise that Jesus is (the son of) god. If god contradicts himself by running counter to the laws he gave to his flock through Moses, I would accept the later teachings.
Now all I'm asking is; what about the other conflicts, and the moral imperatives being ignored by most Christians today?
The reason I think that can be viewed as a trap is, like I said, because the Christian upon admitting to selecting parts of doctrine and rejecting others is then obliged to explain what selection criteria was used to consider some imperatives applicable, but others not. That's a slippery argumentative slope for a Christian.
quote:
quote:Especially since the new testament is also beset with contradictions, Jesus himself has contradicted his words, and he has said that god's law is unchanging:
Not all Christians believe the Bible is perfectly translated.
Has Matthew 5:18 been accurately translated? Are all the moral imperatives being ignored by most Christians today the result of poor translation?
quote:I did not bring into the question a God who is interested and interferes with human affairs. I was pretty specific about why I had a problem with Occam's Razor being applied to this sort of conversation.
Wouldn't you consider sending Jesus to Earth to be "interfering with human affairs"? I didn't say for better or for worse.
Any definition of the Christian god can't exclude the fact that he is very much interested in humanity; why the moral precepts otherwise?
If you believe in a god who created the universe but is not interested in human affairs (and it would follow that you don't believe most of the bible) you would be more accurately described as a deist.
I don't think you identify as a deist, so I don't see why I can't bring such a god (one that is interested in and interferes with human affairs) into the discussion.
quote:You are still brought back, as I said originally, to the question, "Which is simpler? The universe somehow...ummmm...created itself from nothing? Or it was created by something?"
You do not know the answer to that question. Nobody does.
No, I really don't.
But Christianity does not become truth or even more probable a priori. Further, Occam's Razor states that in hypothesising an explanation for a phenomenon we don't understand, the chances of you being correct are better the fewer ungrounded premises you make.
It's a rule of thumb, and doesn't always turn out to be true; weird coincidences and complex causal changes do occasionally cause phenomena which could be explained using simpler hypotheses, which is why it can never be used as absolute proof that __________ is not true. More often than not though, it turns out to be sound advice to follow.
God must be incredibly complex, to be able to create the universe in 7 days. Positing his existence doesn't really explain the origins of the universe at all; it only poses more questions.
Take the big bang theory; it won't explain the ultimate origin of the universe (neither does Christianity), but the solution to the problem it posits relies largely on verifiable laws of physics and on evidence we've gathered through astronomical studies. It doesn't rest on as many untried premises as Christianity does (such as the possibility of planets being magicked into existence in a day, or of the rest of the stars being created in the same amount of time, of Eve being created out of Adam's rib, et cetera).
It's fair enough if you see Genesis as metaphor, but putting god into the equation (especially one that is fairly specifically described and documented as the Christian god) only lessens the probability of a theory being correct. Which is why the hypothesis that god started the big bang along is so weak.
So no, I don't have an answer to the question of the origin of the universe. Most Christians claim to, and they don't become correct by fiat. The fact that atheists don't have an answer doesn't make their hypothesis any more probable than the hypothesis that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe.
quote:It's also frustrating to have my point re: Occam's Razor be so blatantly sidestepped, and twisted into a statement I didn't make at all.
I addressed your question, which I interpreted as meaning; How can you know which hypothesis is simpler?
If that's not what you meant, please rephrase it and I'll do my best to answer it.
You've got a point, Tom, but we're still left with trying to gauge the simplicity of the universe self-creating. Since we have no real idea how that could have happened, how can we judge if it's simpler than anything else or not?
The self-creation of an entity capable of creating this universe and who has taken an active part in human history is a bigger question mark; we really don't know how such a thing could happen either.
On the other hand, the big bang theory, based on solid but not flawless evidence, derives the origin of the universe to a singularity which doesn't break the known laws of physics. As Tom said, the origin of that singularity is already a big question mark, and adding god to the mix just adds another one. In fact conflating rather than explaining the origin of the universe.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your creator is of greater complexity than the Universe. It had to come from somewhere. Therefore, the total complexity of the creation scenario is greater than that of the no-creator scenario. This is really trivial logic.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I now have the God Delusion, and I am reading it. It is dedicated in memory of Douglas Adams.
The book starts with a quote from Adams: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
And that really seems to sum up the whole work. It is an attack on supernatural beliefs everywhere, especially the belief in a theistic God. He stresses the prevalence of naturalistic thinking in atheism, and the general awe atheists feel at the beauty in the world.
I find the book to be interesting, and so far the tone is personable, polite, good-natured, and even light-hearted. But then, I've only read the first two chapters.
I couldn't possibly explain the care that went into presenting this material. I would also like to apologize for an earlier comment where I said Dawkins is responding to religious extremism with scientific extremism. So far that is not the case.
quote:Tell me what can possibly be simple about the entire freaking universe amazingly just creating itself from nothing. Please.
The point is that this, while not simple, is still simpler than a being capable of creating the "entire freaking universe" amazingly creating itself from nothing, and then creating the universe. You're stuck with one amazing self-creation in either model, but the religious model adds a second (and possibly unnecessary) step.
OK then how about the premise that God was not always the complex being he is today and was also created by his own father/god ad infinitum.
I feel that is a simple explanation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're still putting in an additional set of quite un-necessary entities; the evolved god still had to come from somewhere, so at some point you get back to the uncreated universe. Since that's exactly what you started with, why bother with the intermediate steps of gods?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK then how about the premise that God was not always the complex being he is today and was also created by his own father/god ad infinitum.
How is creating an infinitely long string of created gods simpler? It's actually infinitely more complex.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite series needed to provide such support could not be completed.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Simple, yes...
Depending on which definition of "Simple" you wish to use...
(strokes grey beard thoughtfully)
Boothby, your ridicule isn't needed here. It seems there are people trying to have a serious conversation about an important topic. Do you intend to contribute anything other than snide comments?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The simplest explanation of the universe is that only I and my thoughts exist, that everything beyond my immediate perception does not really exist, that even I only popped into existence a moment ago, that all my memories never really happened, and that there is neither any explanation for any of this nor any explanation needed for any of this. This is simple because it avoids the need to posit the existence of any physical things (other than perhaps me), any past or future things, any causes or effects, etc.
Unless you believe the above absurd scenario is truly the best explanation for the universe, it is wrong to say the simplest explanation for the universe is the best.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, the big bang theory, based on solid but not flawless evidence, derives the origin of the universe to a singularity which doesn't break the known laws of physics. As Tom said, the origin of that singularity is already a big question mark, and adding god to the mix just adds another one. In fact conflating rather than explaining the origin of the universe.
Yup, you're right, using the same standards of evidence used for the Big Bang Theory, adding God into it is more complicated, if you pursue the question back into the infinite past. But then again, that's not really what I was comparing, now was it? I was comparing the proposition that this universe was created, versus it not being created...but be honest. What possible rational evidence do you have for stating that it is simpler that the universe somehow stemmed from nothing, than it involves, at least somewhere along the line, a supernatural creator-figure?
You have none. There is no evidence or theory for what happened before the Big Bang (itself a theory, as you say, based on substantial but flawed evidence) that isn't an old-fashioned Wild Assed Guess. We don't have any rational standards for gauging what is and isn't simple or likely or even rational with regards to that particular question.
All you've got is logic and rational science to apply to that question...and how, exactly, do those two tools apply to guessing what happened before there was anything to apply them to?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you believe the above absurd scenario is truly the best explanation for the universe, it is wrong to say the simplest explanation for the universe is the best.
I think a truly scientific mind, Tres, will freely admit that this is a possibility, and then proceed on the assumption that it is not -- since, after all, it makes all further science moot. In other words, Occam's Razor isn't concerned purely with "simplicity," but also with a certain level of predictive utility.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Your scenario is not the simplest explanation (magicked into existence with intact memories?), it's the most nihilistic one. And nobody said that the "simplest explanation is the best," especially if "simplest" is equated with "most nihilistic."
To dispel the confusion: Occam's Razor is a scientist's rule of thumb which states that in hypothesising an explanation for a certain phenomenon with an unknown cause, one should make as few assumptions as possible.
Rakeesh,
I'm a temporary agnostic about the origin of the universe; which means I'm saying "I don't know" until there is evidence to convince me that I do know.
Yes, I have no theory as to what created the conditions necessary to set off a big bang. That doesn't mean that a sentient supernatural creator figure isn't a highly complex premise which sets the question off into an infinite regress. If you take that supernatural creator figure to be the Christian god, which we were debating about, the specificity of the deity makes the premise even more complex and unlikely.
Your sticking point is that there are no articulated pre-big-bang creation theories put forward by science (which receive anything resembling consensus). Occam's Razor still applies. Make as few assumptions as possible; and a creator figure involves a multitude. The only way to justify having made those untried assumptions (in the eyes of Occam's Razor) is to state that no simpler explanation is possible. Wouldn't that be speaking too soon? This argument could just as easily have been used by a creationist against an advocate of evolution.
Just to note again: I am not trying to use Occam's Razor as 'proof' that god does not exist. I am defending its applicability to the question of god's existence.
If you do want to posit that god is the most elegant solution to the problem though, consider how much simpler god would be if he were not Christian-specific and was deistic?
What reasons do you have for wildly guessing that there was nothing to apply reason to before the big bang?
Also, could you clarify your point on biblical mistranslations? I don't see how they account for the cherry-picking of moral imperatives by Christians. And specifically, is the above quoted translation of Matthew 5:18 somehow deeply skewed, so that the original text somehow excluded mosaic law from that clause?
quote:To dispel the confusion: Occam's Razor is a scientist's rule of thumb which states that in hypothesising an explanation for a certain phenomenon with an unknown cause, one should make as few assumptions as possible.
Yes, and it so happens that the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions is the most nihilistic one. By simply asserting that nothing exists beyond what we absolutely know to exist, and that no additional explanation is needed for anything, we reduce the number of assumptions down to just a few.
quote:I think a truly scientific mind, Tres, will freely admit that this is a possibility, and then proceed on the assumption that it is not -- since, after all, it makes all further science moot. In other words, Occam's Razor isn't concerned purely with "simplicity," but also with a certain level of predictive utility.
Which means the absolute simplest explanation is not really always the best, right? At least in this one case, a far more complicated yet more useful theory is better than an extremely simple yet mostly useless theory.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
By simply asserting that nothing exists beyond what we absolutely know to exist, and that no additional explanation is needed for anything, we reduce the number of assumptions down to just a few.
That is not the "simplest explanation" but a refusal to offer an explanation. Occam's Razor does not preclude you from waiting on more evidence before answering; it just states that as a rule of thumb, the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct. As Tom said, our entire existence could possibly be some kind of illusion, and the world around us might not actually exist. But we are bombarded every day with information that requires us to behave as if the world does exist; since there is no way to disprove a perfect illusion, we are compelled to move on.
What do we "absolutely know to exist" and where do you draw the line?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that when we say "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", the word "necessity" is not just talking about logical necessity, but rather more broadly about utilitarian necessity too. If there is some real value or usefulness to positing a more complicated theory over a more simple theory, then it would make sense to choose the more complicated one.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You're still putting in an additional set of quite un-necessary entities; the evolved god still had to come from somewhere, so at some point you get back to the uncreated universe. Since that's exactly what you started with, why bother with the intermediate steps of gods?
Not at all. You are operating under the assumption that at one instant there was nothing and in another something. I just do not see how that could ever be possible.
It makes far more sense to my brain that there has never been a beginning to the universe, rather it has always existed.
No beginning eliminates the need to explain how something came from nothing.
It does not follow that if the universe is infinite in age that therefore that explanation is itself infinite in complexity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it just states that as a rule of thumb, the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct.
It doesn't state this. Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what is or is not likely to be true.
I suppose we could go back and do a study to count the number of theories that turned out to be more simple than the truth, and the number of theories that turned out to be more complicated than the truth - but my hunch is that historically we oversimplified, and that our modern theories are more complicated than those of ancient science.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I have no theory as to what created the conditions necessary to set off a big bang. That doesn't mean that a sentient supernatural creator figure isn't a highly complex premise which sets the question off into an infinite regress. If you take that supernatural creator figure to be the Christian god, which we were debating about, the specificity of the deity makes the premise even more complex and unlikely.
That's what you are debating about. I've tried to make clear that, for this particular question, I was not stipulating a Christian God for the sake of the argument, but any supernatural being. I'm not sure why you keep drawing it back to that, since it was not a point I was trying to make. I may have failed to communicate myself adequately, though...I'm not sure. I don't have time to go back and review my posts to see if I did.
quote:Just to note again: I am not trying to use Occam's Razor as 'proof' that god does not exist. I am defending its applicability to the question of god's existence.
Thank you for not trying to use Occam's Razor to prove anything. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Someone watches Contact and think Occam's Razor is a scientific theory or something.
quote:What reasons do you have for wildly guessing that there was nothing to apply reason to before the big bang?
So what was there, then?
quote:Also, could you clarify your point on biblical mistranslations? I don't see how they account for the cherry-picking of moral imperatives by Christians. And specifically, is the above quoted translation of Matthew 5:18 somehow deeply skewed, so that the original text somehow excluded mosaic law from that clause?
My particular faith adheres to the Bible, and believes it is God's word insofar as it has been accurately translated. Given that most Scripture is-for my faith-thousands of years old, subjected to unknown (but very large) numbers of translations, arguably by at least some of those translators with an axe to grind...well, I don't view the Bible as an immutable moral authority is all I'm saying.
Now, I'm sure I've said more than once that I'm not going to speculate as to why other Christians--in your words--'cherry-pick' their morality.
As to Matthew 5:18, I am no biblical scholar, all I've got is what my faith enlightens me towards, and that is that we should love God, and love our neighbors as we love God. That's a simplistic way of looking at it anyway, and it's also-to me-the two most important Commandments we've got. Those two, for me, come in ahead of Mosaic law.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, so "necessity", or how well statement A fits in with a person's agenda or desires, is a reflection of the probability of A being true?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
It makes far more sense to my brain that there has never been a beginning to the universe, rather it has always existed.
Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the truth value of your claims. Before learning about gravity and air pressure, it made far more sense to my brain that a bowling ball would fall faster than a feather in a vacuum.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:it just states that as a rule of thumb, the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct.
It doesn't state this. Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what is or is not likely to be true.
It does very clearly by implication. Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity; don't make untried assumptions when trying to explain something. Obviously, because it renders you less likely to be accurate. Not a law, just a rule of thumb.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you believe the above absurd scenario is truly the best explanation for the universe, it is wrong to say the simplest explanation for the universe is the best.
I think a truly scientific mind, Tres, will freely admit that this is a possibility, and then proceed on the assumption that it is not -- since, after all, it makes all further science moot. In other words, Occam's Razor isn't concerned purely with "simplicity," but also with a certain level of predictive utility.
What predictive utility does a theory regarding what happened before the Big Bang have?
...
Considering we might be able to create a black hole ourselves, the idea of something having created our universe is really not that outrageous. And while it may not be the simplest explanation, it's hardly close to being one of the most complex ideas being pursued.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
camus, what are these explanations which are more complex than an all-powerful god creating the universe?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What reasons do you have for wildly guessing that there was nothing to apply reason to before the big bang?
So what was there, then?
None of us know what preceded the big bang, so please don't write as if you do: "do those two tools apply to guessing what happened before there was anything to apply them to?"
quote:As to Matthew 5:18, I am no biblical scholar, all I've got is what my faith enlightens me towards, and that is that we should love God, and love our neighbors as we love God. That's a simplistic way of looking at it anyway, and it's also-to me-the two most important Commandments we've got. Those two, for me, come in ahead of Mosaic law.
Not all mosaic law conflicts with those commandments. Do you observe the ones that don't?
Are those commandments the essence of Christianity to you (only asking about your own views here)? If so, isn't your belief system is a highly selective and convenient mutation of Christian doctrine?
[Edit: Good night for now. It's 3am after a 12 hour day at uni on 3 and a half hours of sleep. I'm buggered.]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
