Current Poll (Religion)

[Frank]

Quoting Rilla from 15:10, 16th Aug 2007

Did none of you take MT1007 or ID2003?

I see your MT1007 and your ID2003 and now raise you ID2004.

In other news:

I did read the Penn essay, I found it quite an interesting viewpoint. Certainly there is very little I can quibble on it.

Quoting Haunted from sometime on the 16th Aug 2007

Incidentally, as a catholic, would you have felt the same way at a jewish/muslim ceremony?

Probably not. In my religious viewpoint, it was always sides of the same thing (a coin, say). I found it very easy to relate to other religions as I suspected that none'd be perfect yet, and the actual practice of religion was probably quite flawed, if not the idea of it.

Now, from some sort of mad and unsure athiest/agnostic aspect, I really still see them as two sides of the same coin...but it's a coin that I don't feel I'm on a face of. If that is at all useful. The point is that I feel a bit awkward. As I had been very religious beforehand, but now amn't, it feels a bit dubious to even speak of God in anything other than a sceptical setup.

Still, it's only the first week, I've faith I'll figure it out eventually.

Regarding the current discussion between Haunted and Gubbins:

- Haunted's case that there is good reason is intriguing, to me. I would say that it is good reason not to come up with the hypothesis that some omnipotent being done it all.
- Conversely, I still agree (now with Gubbins) that once the hypothesis is posed there's no good case against it. But the reason there is no good case again relates back/forward to Haunted's point! In a manner of speaking, I suppose, I would ask now (and I suspect it'll be Novium who picks up the answer to this):

If science itself isn't a useful worldview, is it safe to start your worldview only at the first place that science ends (not the 'current limit' of science, but the things that we expect scence never to grapple with) and then build up from that, but as steadily as possible?

So, in that respect, whilst it is valid to note there is no overarching reason that prevents a supreme creator type superbeing/deity, there is similarly (and more usefully, in such a worldview) no reason to really be considering that idea (with a nod towards then adding it to your worldview) in the first place ?


A SNEAKY WEE EDIT: Regarding a 'proof' of god. If there was consistently irrational and inexplicable things cropping up, we'd be in a safer place to suggest that "Yeah, this is probably God" (e.g. lots of 'It's really God here!' written in the stars, maybe a 'God made this' marked on a spontaneously appearing new moon which is actually made of cheese...). We wouldn't, however (as best I can ruminate), be able to distinguish it from God or the FSM-pretending-to-be-God (or vice versa).


[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Senethro]

Quoting campbell from 16:14, 16th Aug 2007

Quoting Senethro from 22:42, 15th Aug 2007

I can only believe in stuff that is fact.

do you believe in anything else?

Now, given that I've rejected atheism what should I believe in, given my terrible disease? Please fill the void in my life kthx

that sounds kind of like you just called atheism a 'belief'

LOLZ

ok i get it you're a worhtless hit and run poster who never backs up any of the half baked drivel you spew

[novium]

Now now, you don't want to put yourself in a position of being the pot calling the kettle black

Quoting Senethro from 00:00, 17th Aug 2007

Quoting campbell from 16:14, 16th Aug 2007

Quoting Senethro from 22:42, 15th Aug 2007

I can only believe in stuff that is fact.

do you believe in anything else?

Now, given that I've rejected atheism what should I believe in, given my terrible disease? Please fill the void in my life kthx

that sounds kind of like you just called atheism a 'belief'

LOLZ

ok i get it you're a worhtless hit and run poster who never backs up any of the half baked drivel you spew

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[novium]

Ok, first, bear with me here, because given the vagueness of terms sometimes, I want to start from the top and work my way down so that what I intend to say is why people hear. I also wish a philosopher friend of mine were here, because she explains it so much better.

First, accept that science is not a world view, that it's a method of understanding the mechanics of the universe.
World views/ideologies/meanings/philosophies/religions
are ways of interpreting the information that is presented to us about the world around us in ways that have wider implications, that we apply to life in general

But such interpretations are at the end, a product of ourselves. Some of them aren't going to be very good interpretations, because the people who hold them aren't really bothering to sit down and reason everything out... in other words, to completely support and build up their philosophy. Instead, they cobble together bits and pieces of other philosophies,and glue them together with fuzzy warm feelings. This works, but it's not optimal, and it doesn't hold up under close examination.
But, there are quite a few well reasoned philosophies (and I'm using philosophy here in an almost unforgivably vague sense to encompass pretty much any world view belief, including religion) that are whole and consistent, and can withstand examination. You can disagree with them, think they have *misinterpreted* things, but you can't prove them wrong, or pick apart their logic.

It's a bit like debates over topics like abortion. No matter how well reasoned, and calm, and eloquently argued... eventually the debaters stumble across the fundamental disagreement between them that can't be reduced any further or deconstructed. it is just the point where either you interpret it one way, or the other. There's no way to tell who is right, and both arguments are completely logical if you accept their interpretation of the root thing.

And the world view thing is the same. The two ideal people, one a theist, one an atheist, stand next to each other looking out at the world. The theist looks out, and searching their own mind, thinks "The world has greater meaning. The divine in me senses the divine in it." The atheist looks out, and searches their own mind, and thinks, "this is all there is. I sense only what is there. There is nothing more."
Everything else- and I do mean everything, appeals to the beauty of the universe, FSMs, science, love, scriptures, contradictions in religion- are justifications after the fact. They are justifications built around faith. The faith that, when they looked out and within, that they found there was true.

It's not about 'the most reasonable decision', or most reasonable starting place, because that's part of the justification.

The starting question is not, "do I believe in ?"
That comes later. The starting question ie, "which of the two people am I, seperate from everything else?"
And after you know the answer to that, then you start searching and building your philosophy(your interpretation)...building the justifications, setting up the structures of reason.

And just because I feel like giving you an absolutely straight answer to your question: "no reason to really be considering that idea (with a nod towards then adding it to your worldview) in the first place?"

There is never a reason to not consider either, but if your default feeling (like the ideal atheist in the example) is disbelief, then that is your default. (Unless, some day you are examining your beliefs and realize that your default has shifted).

Quoting Frank from 19:49, 16th Aug 2007

If science itself isn't a useful worldview, is it safe to start your worldview only at the first place that science ends (not the 'current limit' of science, but the things that we expect scence never to grapple with) and then build up from that, but as steadily as possible?

So, in that respect, whilst it is valid to note there is no overarching reason that prevents a supreme creator type superbeing/deity, there is similarly (and more usefully, in such a worldview) no reason to really be considering that idea (with a nod towards then adding it to your worldview) in the first place ?

[/i]

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Alistair]

I have read the God Delusion and it is rubbish. I can't imagine it turning anyone atheist, since even some of my atheist friends think it lacks any decent argument.

[munchingfoo]

You treat

First, accept that science is not a world view, that it's a method of understanding the mechanics of the universe.

like its an axiom, but I would suggest that the support for this is hardly clear.

I can't see how science is not a world view? It may not be correct, it may be fundamentally to flawed, it may just be wrong completely but - given the following definitions.

Wikipedia
implies a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it.

Principia Cybernetica Web
What we need is a framework that ties everything together, that allows us to understand society, the world, and our place in it, and that could help us to make the critical decisions which will shape our future. It would synthesize the wisdom gathered in the different scientific disciplines, philosophies and religions. Rather than focusing on small sections of reality, it would provide us with a picture of the whole. In particular, it would help us to understand, and therefore cope with, complexity and change. Such a conceptual framework may be called a "world view"

SouthEastern Baptist Theological Seminary
the system beliefs of a person that determines how they approach and judge things that they encounter, whether in the form of beliefs, knowledge, and experiences.

science is acceptable as a world view.

Surely a world view is completely subjective. If a person choses to believe that everything in their view of the world can be shown to interact by science then who are you (who believes in an all powerful (non-)being) to tell them their view isn't a world view.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Haunted]

Ah there you are. I have questions for you on page 5 that have gone unanswered.

Quoting Alistair from 08:29, 17th Aug 2007
I have read the God Delusion and it is rubbish. I can't imagine it turning anyone atheist, since even some of my atheist friends think it lacks any decent argument.

1. My atheist friend(s) doesn't like book
2. Atheist book is rubbish if atheists don't like it.
3. Book is rubbish because of 1 and 2.

The only criticisms I have heard (apart from heathen) are that he focused too much on christianity and didn't bother addressing Islam or Hinduism or whatever. If he had done the book with Islam as the focus instead of christianity, he would've achieved exactly the same thing but sold less books (and probably have a fatwa out on him, if he doesn't already).

The other critiscism was that he got some of his theology mixed up, which at first looks like treason on a book about debunking god. But in his own words "The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings."

Or in the word's of a Prof. PZ Meyers, "...that being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to discuss the finer points of the Emperor's wardrobe while arguing that the great man is, in fact, naked."

i.e. Theology is a non-subject about nothing.

Yet a whole book has been released as a criticism of The God Delusion (Alistair McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion"), but focusing entirely on the theology and thus completely missing the point.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[flarewearer]

that sounds kind of like you just called atheism a 'belief'

LOLZ

I was under the impression that atheism was believing that god doesn't exist. Never mind, I could be wrong. I just don't care. Apatheism all the way!

[hr]

[novium]

"A framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.
That's not science. But i believe I've walked through this several times. Several, several, several times.

I suggest you go back and read through my entire post again...this time carefully.

Quoting munchingfoo from 08:35, 17th Aug 2007
You treat

First, accept that science is not a world view, that it's a method of understanding the mechanics of the universe.

like its an axiom, but I would suggest that the support for this is hardly clear.

I can't see how science is not a world view? It may not be correct, it may be fundamentally to flawed, it may just be wrong completely but - given the following definitions.

Wikipedia
implies a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it.

science is acceptable as a world view.

Surely a world view is completely subjective. If a person choses to believe that everything in their view of the world can be shown to interact by science then who are you (who believes in an all powerful (non-)being) to tell them their view isn't a world view.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[novium]

No, I think it's Dawkins who missed the point. The reason those people were able to write the Dawkins Delusion was because Dawkins did nothing but construct strawmen and refuse to actually deal with the subject matter.

The arrogance of that man always astounds me. He is the same as those strident creationists. They do the same damn things.

Quoting Haunted from 09:58, 17th Aug 2007
Ah there you are. I have questions for you on page 5 that have gone unanswered.

Quoting Alistair from 08:29, 17th Aug 2007
I have read the God Delusion and it is rubbish. I can't imagine it turning anyone atheist, since even some of my atheist friends think it lacks any decent argument.

1. My atheist friend(s) doesn't like book
2. Atheist book is rubbish if atheists don't like it.
3. Book is rubbish because of 1 and 2.

The only criticisms I have heard (apart from heathen) are that he focused too much on christianity and didn't bother addressing Islam or Hinduism or whatever. If he had done the book with Islam as the focus instead of christianity, he would've achieved exactly the same thing but sold less books (and probably have a fatwa out on him, if he doesn't already).

The other critiscism was that he got some of his theology mixed up, which at first looks like treason on a book about debunking god. But in his own words "The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings."

Or in the word's of a Prof. PZ Meyers, "...that being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to discuss the finer points of the Emperor's wardrobe while arguing that the great man is, in fact, naked."

i.e. Theology is a non-subject about nothing.

Yet a whole book has been released as a criticism of The God Delusion (Alistair McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion"), but focusing entirely on the theology and thus completely missing the point.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[munchingfoo]

So it isn't possible for me to interpret the world using science and interact with it using my knowledge of science?

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "an individual". Are you telling me that you know the way in which every individual interprets the world - and none of them rely only on science?

Seriously, are you retarded or what?

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[novium]

I didn't miss the point. I didn't create a straw man.
It'd be the same as...oh, I don't know, a man seemingly raising another man from the dead, wouldn't you say?

Whether or not people believed it (even if they were present) would depend on what they already believed. No interpretation can be proven, remember? So with the stars in the sky, even if they changed very suddenly... it wouldn't mean anything. People would believe what they would.

It wouldn't be "proof" of anything. It's just be one more thing, like the sun coming up every morning, or the fact that there exists an "I" to ask these questions. Or miracles... and yes, even today there are unexplained things that people call miracles.
So how do we interpret them? Well, some people take these things as sign that God exists, or that their philosophy is fundamentally right. People whose philosophies don't see things that way don't see it as "proof" that they are wrong. And they are quiet right to do so.

I've read long passages from it. It was enough to convince me not to read more. It's haranguing, filled chock full with fallacies, and so smugly self righteous that if I saw the man, i'd want to punch him. I feel much the same way about angry smug books by creationists. So I've read the reviews, and the wikipedia pages.
Separate note: Creationists, though, tend to at least try to be persuasive...which means toning it down, avoiding outright insults, trying to make their position look attractive. It is a much more effective writing style. Funny that the brilliant man wouldn't realize that, huh?

And I might note that not knowing about be theology has not stopped him, or you, for that matter. But that's the beauty of strawmen, isn't it? You never actually have to question your world view. You can just smugly go on making assumptions about, oh, I don't know, why people aren't just atheists when it's so obvious.

Quoting Haunted from 18:07, 16th Aug 2007
No! You missed my point. I think you made a straw man even.
Proof of god would be something that had no rational explanation. Take you star example, if it then suddenly reconfigured to say "No, really, it's me." And this was observed by countless millions and observatories.
There is proof of god!
Such motions could never be accounted for by rational explanation!

With your canals and toast examples you refer to apophenia. The 'seeing' of patterns where there aren't any. Think of all the toast that has ever been made, and all the possible canal configurations on Mars. Of course you will find things that your brain will interpret as faces or whatever. Just look at the clouds even.

With scientific proof of God (for which there is no possible rational explanation) how many people do you still think would maintain that such proof was irrelevant? Whereas with all the proof we have against god, it doesn't matter one bit because god exists outside of science (or insert whatever reason here).

And for someone who still hasn't read The God Delusion (I presume, or indeed any of his works) you still presume to know all about it and conclude that it's rubbish.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[munchingfoo]

Quoting novium from 11:21, 17th Aug 2007

The arrogance of that man always astounds me.

Pot - Kettle

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[novium]

Munchingfoo:

Really. For the love of god. Try to focus here:

you can take a "scientific" world view: basically, a materialist world view, and believe that this is all there is, nothing more. This is fine! Great! really. But:

That is not science. that is inrepretation. That is not science. That is interpretation.
That is not science. That is interpretation.
It cannot be proven or disproven, because it is intepretation.
Science tries to understand the mechanics of the universe. That can be quantified, measured, observed, tested.

You can believethat there is nothing more than the above, and from that construct your world view, which is something "that allows us to understand society, the world, and our place in it, and that could help us to make the critical decisions which will shape our future." to use one of your own quotations.

but it is still an interpretation, just as every other person's world view is.
Interpretations are subjective. When you boil down *any* big disagreement- over abortion, over god, whatever - you will eventually hit the point that's beyond all argument. The fundamental core, which one person interpreted one way, and the other person interpreted another. They can argue until they are blue in the face, but neither one of them is going to suddenly "see the light" as long as their fundamental interpretations of that one thing are different, as all their reasoning, justifications, and logic is built up around that one point.

And that is my point. That is the only thing I have been saying over and over and over again, and yet you cannot get it through your head. I suspect you just aren't paying attention. My original point with all this was to show that the argument: "my world view is scientific, therefore it can be proved right" was fundamentally logically flawed. World views CAN'T be proved right. That was my only point.

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[novium]

no, but I am beginning to have my doubts about you.

Really. For the love of god. Try to focus here:

you can take a "scientific" world view: basically, a materialist world view, and believe that this is all there is, nothing more. This is fine! Great! really. But:

That is not science. that is inrepretation. That is not science. That is interpretation.
That is not science. That is interpretation.
It cannot be proven or disproven, because it is intepretation.
Science tries to understand the mechanics of the universe. That can be quantified, measured, observed, tested.

You can believethat there is nothing more than the above, and from that construct your world view, which is something "that allows us to understand society, the world, and our place in it, and that could help us to make the critical decisions which will shape our future." to use one of your own quotations.

but it is still an interpretation, just as every other person's world view is.
Interpretations are subjective. When you boil down *any* big disagreement- over abortion, over god, whatever - you will eventually hit the point that's beyond all argument. The fundamental core, which one person interpreted one way, and the other person interpreted another. They can argue until they are blue in the face, but neither one of them is going to suddenly "see the light" as long as their fundamental interpretations of that one thing are different, as all their reasoning, justifications, and logic is built up around that one point.

And that is my point. That is the only thing I have been saying over and over and over again, and yet you cannot get it through your head. I suspect you just aren't paying attention. My original point with all this was to show that the argument: "my world view is scientific, therefore it can be proved right" was fundamentally logically flawed. World views CAN'T be proved right. That was my only point.

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[novium]

You know, I might actually have been insulted, but I just can't be...since you have obviously never gotten what I am actually arguing.
It's just so hard to take offense when you know someone isn't attacking anything you've truly argued.

Quoting munchingfoo from 11:46, 17th Aug 2007
Pot - Kettle
[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[munchingfoo]

I would argue that you have never truly argued. Perhaps, if everyone can't "GET THE POINT OF WHAT [YOU'RE] SAYING", its because you aren't very good at wording your point of view.

Quoting novium from 12:00, 17th Aug 2007
You know, I might actually have been insulted, but I just can't be...since you have obviously never gotten what I am actually arguing.
It's just so hard to take offense when you know someone isn't attacking anything you've truly argued.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 11:21, 17th Aug 2007
No, I think it's Dawkins who missed the point. The reason those people were able to write the Dawkins Delusion was because Dawkins did nothing but construct strawmen and refuse to actually deal with the subject matter.

And you still haven't read the book.

EDIT: Read your next post.
Passages can be taken out of context and can be quote mined.

Post an example so I can see where your coming from

The arrogance of that man always astounds me. He is the same as those strident creationists. They do the same damn things.

As I've said, on the surface, comparisons can be drawn. But look deeper (i.e. why they know the things they know) and you'll see why it isn't so.



[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

Are you saying then that Dawkins has really bothered to know his theology and philosophy?

Let me ask you this: do you remember that book "The bell curve"? The horrible, fallacious thing, arguing basically for old fashioned eugenics and racism? Would you feel the need to read it from cover to cover, having skimmed through it, read a few passages, noted the fact that it was bullshit, and read the reviews and criticisms?
I certainly didn't. I wasn't going to be convinced by it. I could already spot the flaws, and I could read how other people responded to to it. That satisfied my curiosity, and thus I felt no need to suffer through the rest of it.

Quoting Haunted from 12:50, 17th Aug 2007
As I've said, on the surface, comparisons can be drawn. But look deeper (i.e. why they know the things they know) and you'll see why it isn't so.



[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[novium]

Passages can be taken out of context while you're skimming the book?

Quoting Haunted from 12:50, 17th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 11:21, 17th Aug 2007
No, I think it's Dawkins who missed the point. The reason those people were able to write the Dawkins Delusion was because Dawkins did nothing but construct strawmen and refuse to actually deal with the subject matter.

And you still haven't read the book.

EDIT: Read your next post.
Passages can be taken out of context and can be quote mined.

Post an example so I can see where your coming from

The arrogance of that man always astounds me. He is the same as those strident creationists. They do the same damn things.

As I've said, on the surface, comparisons can be drawn. But look deeper (i.e. why they know the things they know) and you'll see why it isn't so.



[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen