Current Poll (Religion)

[novium]

No, you just argued that my stars thing wasn't enough. That it wasn't incontrovertible proof. I am saying that there is no such thing as incontrovertible proof.

My star thing...I went over in great detail how it would not be considered incontrovertible proof. There is no such thing as incontrovertible proof in the realm on interpretation. It only seems that way if you've already made your decision/assumption.(Like yours: that all there is can be tested...that everything can be falsified. Fine. But that's a belief. That requires a leap of faith).
Deconstruct your beliefs for a change! Then we can stop going around in this endless circle. Recognizing you have made an assumption does not mean that you have to believe you are wrong!

I believe many things- for example, in the sovereignty of the individual, or that women are not lesser beings- which are a fundamental part of my world view. If I examine these beliefs, I can find my assumptions, and work from there reason them out to their logical conclusions. I recognize that I am making an assumption. I still believe my assumption- my interpretation - is right, but I can at least recognize that it may not necessarily be True. I take it on faith though, that I am right. And I know this. Why can you not do the same? That is all I have been arguing for.

As to conversion: I already went over conversion, back in my post to Frank. I will not go over it again.

As to the emperor's new clothes: that's circular logic, as I've already said.

Quoting Haunted from 14:09, 17th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 13:39, 17th Aug 2007
I can't imagine such a thing in reality, can you?

We just did! The stars, moving, that thing. We imagined it. We can comment about whether we think it's likely to happen or not but that's beside the point.

Besides, it's kind of a silly question to ask in any case. Why do we need an example of something that can be explained without invoking a supernatural intelligence?

Because it would be proof of god. Why are avoiding this?
You keep saying you can't prove an interpretation, I argue that god is not an interpretation, I offer an example of proof of god and you file it away as "silly" (it doesn't matter if it's silly) without addressing it.

That's an issue of proof, of which there can never be, as I have argued.

The star thing! undeniable proof of god. How many times?

Even if such a thing could exist, and magically be accepted by every one...it would not "prove" anything, because as I have repeated many times now, you can't prove an interpretation.

It would prove (beyond all reasonable doubt) that there is a supernatural intelligence. Not an interpretation.

There would never just be one interpretation, do you get what I am saying?

Only with regard to whether its YHWH saying hi or Shiva testing my faith.

I mean, think about the fish with the names "allah" and "Muhammad" written on them with their scales in arabic. I don't see that as proof of anything, do you? But then again, I'm not inclined to. I see what I expect to see.

A useless example, APOPHENIA yet again. Such a thing is entirely plausible. Stop avoiding the issue.

LASTLY: your world view can't be falsified. World views can't be falsified by definition.

The star thing, again. That happens, atheism is falsified (beyond all reasonable doubt).

you've looked out at the world, and within yourself, and sensed nothing more.

There is no proof of anything more. Hypothesising that is something more is a positive claim that needs evidence. Maybe that something more cannot interact or be detected in which case whats the use? FSM cannot be detected should we give him the same priviledge?

Fine. But you assume that you are correct about this, that what you sensed is True.

Until I am falsified.

On top of that first belief, you've looked around you, and pulled from the world you see support and justification. But it's only support and justification because you've viewed them through the lens of that first interpretation, you see?

Say I started off with belief in god (as so many must do). I would look around the world for evidence of his creation, I could look into the patterns of flowers and go "So beautifal, god is truly magnificent". Of course, I could further investigate this and take courses in biology and realise that god has nothing to do with the patterns on flowers. And so on with everything I could think of subscribing to god until I'm left with nothing but a 'gut feeling' that god is just testing me, and that if I stay true to him I will survive my own death.

You'll never convince your opposite to believe as you do, because from that first thing, they interpreted it differently and view the world through a different lens. Your support and justifications will always seem wrong to your opposite, because they see those things differently than you do. They might even seem flawed, where, working from your original interpretation, the logic is sound. They will see different things in the same images. And vice versa.

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
Read at your own leisure.

His theology is very wrong, in the assumptions he makes about how those things are used and interpreted.

Emporers wardrobe.

his is why he remains so unconvincing, except to people who already agree with him.

See above link

That's why, for example, all the teapot analogies in the world fall flat. Because he, like you, misses the point about world views and *meaning*. He's trying to prove/disprove a world view. How pointless is that?

The teapot idea has to be credited to Bertrand Russell; you have beef with him too I imagine?
And it seems it is you who has missed the point about the teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
For reference.

[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]

1)you have a very narrow conception of what belief is, or what people tie it to. You believe only in the God of the Gaps. But that is not the case for everyone, do you see?
On that NPR page that had the penn thing, there was also an article about a woman who took a science class on human anatomy. This included going to an autopsy. The more she learned about how it worked, the more she became convinced that God existed... her belief in God was not rooted in "the god of the gaps"...but then, her world view was so different from yours, that the same thing you would see as arguing against belief, she saw as arguing for it.

2)Your assumption is that God must exist in a materialist fashion.... because you have a materialist point of view, do you see? That's an assumption, though. That's an interpretation. Just like my individual sovereignty thing, or feminism.

[b]Quoting Haunted from 14:09, 17th

2)There is no proof of anything more. Hypothesising that is something more is a positive claim that needs evidence. Maybe that something more cannot interact or be detected in which case whats the use? FSM cannot be detected should we give him the same priviledge?


1)Say I started off with belief in god (as so many must do). I would look around the world for evidence of his creation, I could look into the patterns of flowers and go "So beautifal, god is truly magnificent". Of course, I could further investigate this and take courses in biology and realise that god has nothing to do with the patterns on flowers. And so on with everything I could think of subscribing to god until I'm left with nothing but a 'gut feeling' that god is just testing me, and that if I stay true to him I will survive my own death.

His theology is very wrong, in the assumptions he makes about how those things are used and interpreted.

Emporers wardrobe.

his is why he remains so unconvincing, except to people who already agree with him.

See above link

That's why, for example, all the teapot analogies in the world fall flat. Because he, like you, misses the point about world views and *meaning*. He's trying to prove/disprove a world view. How pointless is that?

The teapot idea has to be credited to Bertrand Russell; you have beef with him too I imagine?
And it seems it is you who has missed the point about the teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
For reference.

[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]

No,no, no, because as I've said time and time again, that relies on materialist assumptions. That's a philosophy. It can't be falsified.


And this is *close* to our fundamental disagreement. you will not accept that a materialist world view is still a philosophy.

I read your PDF link, and I found it amusing. Just in that you never fully escape your roots. He's kind of a baptist atheist, you know? I guess that's not surprising, because your roots shape how you think about things...so even when you struggle against them, the shape of your struggle is going to be set by your roots.

Quoting Haunted from 14:47, 17th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 14:41, 17th Aug 2007
To move away from agnosticism (in any direction) requires a leap of faith.

And this is where I think our fundamental disagreement is.
To move away from strict unknowingness (agnosticism) logically and without emotion, takes evidence, not faith. Testable, repeatable experiments and observations. Where do such things currently swing us? Atheism, undoubtably.

[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

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 14:51, 17th Aug 2007
No, you just argued that my stars thing wasn't enough. That it wasn't incontrovertible proof. I am saying that there is no such thing as incontrovertible proof.

Talk about circles! This is back to absolute knowledge. By incontravertible I, technically, mean proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Is the star thing not scientifc proof beyond all reasonable doubt of god?
Clue: It is/would be

Like yours: that all there is can be tested...that everything can be falsified. Fine. But that's a belief. That requires a leap of faith.

This boils down to whether I can trust my own senses or not. Call that a belief if you want to.

I can find my assumptions, and work from there reason them out to their logical conclusions. I recognize that I am making an assumption. I still believe my assumption- my interpretation - is right, but I can at least recognize that it may not necessarily be True. I take it on faith though, that I am right. And I know this. Why can you not do the same? That is all I have been arguing for.

My assumption would be that, unless under chemical influence (or such), I can trust my senses. From this, it follows that I can observe and experiment on the natural world. From this I can formulate mathematical descriptions which describe the natural world. I can also observe that there is nothing supernatural.
Of course, we could get into the complete acid trip debate about the senses and reality or whatever. But that would get us even further away from the issue.

As to conversion: I already went over conversion, back in my post to Frank. I will not go over it again.

Don't know what your referring to here. Possibly the link I posted to Converts Corner, try it out, you seem to have free time.

As to the emperor's new clothes: that's circular logic, as I've already said.

No you didn't say, until right there just then. The point was/is, theology is a non-subject about nothing.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Senethro]

Quoting novium from 15:03, 17th Aug 2007
No,no, no, because as I've said time and time again, that relies on materialist assumptions. That's a philosophy. It can't be falsified.


And this is *close* to our fundamental disagreement. you will not accept that a materialist world view is still a philosophy.

Quoting Haunted from 14:47, 17th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 14:41, 17th Aug 2007
To move away from agnosticism (in any direction) requires a leap of faith.

And this is where I think our fundamental disagreement is.
To move away from strict unknowingness (agnosticism) logically and without emotion, takes evidence, not faith. Testable, repeatable experiments and observations. Where do such things currently swing us? Atheism, undoubtably.

[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

Surely asserting the existence of god is necessarily a factual claim?

And while materialism may be a philosophy, its not one frequently prone to invoking unsubstantiated supernatural entities.

[munchingfoo]

I love you Senethro.

[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]

Stating the existence of god is no more a factual claim than stating the non-existence of god. Both are founded in belief.

As I've argued through this entire thread.
I wonder why you keep challenging me on God, as if I were arguing from a theistic point of view. if you examine my arguments carefully, the only stance they could possibly be construed as supporting is agnosticism.

Quoting Senethro from 15:11, 17th Aug 2007

Surely asserting the existence of god is necessarily a factual claim?

And while materialism may be a philosophy, its not one frequently prone to invoking unsubstantiated supernatural entities.

[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

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 14:59, 17th Aug 2007
1)you have a very narrow conception of what belief is, or what people tie it to. You believe only in the God of the Gaps. But that is not the case for everyone, do you see?
On that NPR page that had the penn thing, there was also an article about a woman who took a science class on human anatomy. This included going to an autopsy. The more she learned about how it worked, the more she became convinced that God existed... her belief in God was not rooted in "the god of the gaps"...but then, her world view was so different from yours, that the same thing you would see as arguing against belief, she saw as arguing for it.

Actually I think that was a god of the gaps.
She couldn't accept that all she was was a collection of cells. That her 'soul' was nothing more than a physical manifestation in a biological organ. Because consciousness has yet to have a satisfactory explanation.

2)Your assumption is that God must exist in a materialist fashion.... because you have a materialist point of view, do you see? That's an assumption, though. That's an interpretation. Just like my individual sovereignty thing, or feminism.

If you are defining materialism as the physical universe, then yes, god would have to exist there in order to exist at all.
This boils back to my assumption that I can trust my senses.

The idea of materialism (only the physical being real) is rooted in the assumption (granted it is an assumption) that our senses work and we can trust them. From them, evidence of the physical is all around us. We can also make agreements on what we both see aswell (so I suppose we'll have to assume that other people are real too), e.g. the sky is blue.
From this starting position, the picture of the natural world slowly builds up. The picture is entirely testable and we can all agree on whats happening in it (e.g. what causes the planets to revolve). Currently, it is not complete and so a form of educated guessing appears to take place, theories that have yet to be proved it you will.

This seems to build up a more complete and accurate picture (and from less starting assumptions perhaps) than anything else I can think of.

If we can't trust our senses then what?

[novium]

Ah, see, NOW we're getting somewhere, and no, it wouldn't get us further away from the issue. That is exactly the point! Philosophy! Epistemology!

How is "it's a nonsubject about nothing" (And thus not worthy of actual refutation) not circular logic? Your/his argument boils down to this: since I know I'm right, all arguments that I am wrong are wrong, so I don't need to argue against them. Thus proving that I am right.

Quoting Haunted from 15:10, 17th Aug 2007
My assumption would be that, unless under chemical influence (or such), I can trust my senses. From this, it follows that I can observe and experiment on the natural world. From this I can formulate mathematical descriptions which describe the natural world. I can also observe that there is nothing supernatural.
Of course, we could get into the complete acid trip debate about the senses and reality or whatever. But that would get us even further away from the issue.

No you didn't say, until right there just then. The point was/is, theology is a non-subject about nothing.

[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]

ok, I think we are getting somewhere.


I don't feel like looking up the article again to double check, but the fact remains that not everyone believes in the God of the Gaps. There are plenty of people whose conception of deity does not require that deity to be turning some large gear that keeps the universe operating. But that's besides the point I was going to make.

Or rather, the question I was going to ask:
Do you agree then, that you are making an assumption? An assumption that, by definition, can never be tested, and is in fact, one of the big philosophical questions?


[please please please agree. I really need to get back to my dissertation. And yet threads like these are horribly addictive]

Quoting Haunted from 15:22, 17th Aug 2007

Actually I think that was a god of the gaps.
She couldn't accept that all she was was a collection of cells. That her 'soul' was nothing more than a physical manifestation in a biological organ. Because consciousness has yet to have a satisfactory explanation.

If you are defining materialism as the physical universe, then yes, god would have to exist there in order to exist at all.
This boils back to my assumption that I can trust my senses.

[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

[Senethro]

Can we please not reduce this thread to hurr durr hurr what if were all in da matrix guyz

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 15:34, 17th Aug 2007
ok, I think we are getting somewhere.

I don't feel like looking up the article again to double check, but the fact remains that not everyone believes in the God of the Gaps. There are plenty of people whose conception of deity does not require that deity to be turning some large gear that keeps the universe operating.

I have yet to find someone whose belief in a god cannot be reduced to a gap problem, a social dilemma or a fear of death.

Or rather, the question I was going to ask:
Do you agree then, that you are making an assumption? An assumption that, by definition, can never be tested, and is in fact, one of the big philosophical questions?

I will admit that you personnaly have to accept what your senses tell you. Otherwise you would get nowhere, call that an assumption if you must. Is it testable? To a certain extent, you can check it's consistency. If there is no consistency then it is reasonable to state that something is messing with you, e.g. LSD.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 15:25, 17th Aug 2007
How is "it's a nonsubject about nothing" (And thus not worthy of actual refutation) not circular logic? Your/his argument boils down to this: since I know I'm right, all arguments that I am wrong are wrong, so I don't need to argue against them. Thus proving that I am right.

It is as much a non subject as crystal healing-ology or fairyology or ology.
Until there is factual evidence, they will all be held in the same league. One could argue that we don't need factual evidence, in which case they are all legitimate realms of study.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

No, it's not in the realm of psuedo-science. It's in the realm of philosophy. Now, you can say that philosophy is mere navel gazing and is ueless, but that's a value judgement.

Quoting Haunted from 15:44, 17th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 15:25, 17th Aug 2007
How is "it's a nonsubject about nothing" (And thus not worthy of actual refutation) not circular logic? Your/his argument boils down to this: since I know I'm right, all arguments that I am wrong are wrong, so I don't need to argue against them. Thus proving that I am right.

It is as much a non subject as crystal healing-ology or fairyology or ology.
Until there is factual evidence, they will all be held in the same league. One could argue that we don't need factual evidence, in which case they are all legitimate realms of study.

[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

[Senethro]

Quoting novium from 15:25, 17th Aug 2007
Ah, see, NOW we're getting somewhere, and no, it wouldn't get us further away from the issue. That is exactly the point! Philosophy! Epistemology!

How is "it's a nonsubject about nothing" (And thus not worthy of actual refutation) not circular logic? Your/his argument boils down to this: since I know I'm right, all arguments that I am wrong are wrong, so I don't need to argue against them. Thus proving that I am right.

Quoting Haunted from 15:10, 17th Aug 2007
My assumption would be that, unless under chemical influence (or such), I can trust my senses. From this, it follows that I can observe and experiment on the natural world. From this I can formulate mathematical descriptions which describe the natural world. I can also observe that there is nothing supernatural.
Of course, we could get into the complete acid trip debate about the senses and reality or whatever. But that would get us even further away from the issue.

No you didn't say, until right there just then. The point was/is, theology is a non-subject about nothing.

[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

Why is the theology of Scientology bunk?

Yes, I'm asking a serious question.


Edit: this thread moves too damn fast

[novium]

Epistemology is a valid subject.

Quoting Senethro from 15:39, 17th Aug 2007
Can we please not reduce this thread to hurr durr hurr what if were all in da matrix guyz

[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

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 15:46, 17th Aug 2007
No, it's not in the realm of psuedo-science.

Niether is fairyology

It's in the realm of philosophy. Now, you can say that philosophy is mere navel gazing and is ueless, but that's a value judgement.

Theology is the study of the gods. Fairyology is the study of fairies. Celestial teapotology... etc.

We rightly think the latter two as worthless because there is no proof for fairies or teapots out by mars anywhere, but of course, the first one doesn't suffer from trivial things such as proof.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

If you have time, read through this:
http://www.phdcomics.com/proceedings/vi ... sc&start=0

You'll find plenty of people who are not God of the gaps types, or believe out of fear of death.

I have not discussed my own beliefs, because I wanted to follow the philosophy argument, not a "does god exist?" argument. But let me say now that I am a theist... and I do not believe in the god of the gaps. Neither do I believe out of a fear of death.
As cicero had cato put it:
"But if when dead I am going to be without sensation (as some petty philosophers think) then I have no fear that these seers, when they are dead, will have the laugh on me!" (i do love cicero)
and
"Again, if we are not going to be immortal, nevertheless, it is desirable for a man to be blotted out at his proper time. For as Nature has marked the bounds of everything else, so she has marked the bounds of life. More over, old age is the final scene, as it were, in life's drama, from which we out to escape when it grows wearisome and, certainly, when we have had our fill."

Quoting Haunted from 15:40, 17th Aug 2007


I have yet to find someone whose belief in a god cannot be reduced to a gap problem, a social dilemma or a fear of death.

Or rather, the question I was going to ask:
Do you agree then, that you are making an assumption? An assumption that, by definition, can never be tested, and is in fact, one of the big philosophical questions?

I will admit that you personnaly have to accept what your senses tell you. Otherwise you would get nowhere, call that an assumption if you must. Is it testable? To a certain extent, you can check it's consistency. If there is no consistency then it is reasonable to state that something is messing with you, e.g. LSD.

[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]

"fairyology"? To be fair, I've never heard of it. You basically used new age concepts: but new age concepts are fundamentally rooted in pseudoscience. They aren't philosophies. They try to make things into science. Now, if you wanted to bring up theosophy...

I believe it would be more correct to say that theology is the study of religion. Check out the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
The key bit is "philosophical analysis". And the key bit about philosophical analysis is..you guessed it..logic.

Religion fits under *philosophy*. Your fairy thing fits under "psuedoscience". The approaches and aims of the two things are fundamentally different.

Quoting Haunted from 15:50, 17th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 15:46, 17th Aug 2007
No, it's not in the realm of psuedo-science.

Niether is fairyology

It's in the realm of philosophy. Now, you can say that philosophy is mere navel gazing and is ueless, but that's a value judgement.

Theology is the study of the gods. Fairyology is the study of fairies. Celestial teapotology... etc.

We rightly think the latter two as worthless because there is no proof for fairies or teapots out by mars anywhere, but of course, the first one doesn't suffer from trivial things such as proof.

[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

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 16:00, 17th Aug 2007
If you have time, read through this:
http://www.phdcomics.com/proceedings/vi ... sc&start=0

21 pages, you'll have to forgive me if I don't. Surely you have another, source?

But let me say now that I am a theist...

Somehow I think we all knew.

and I do not believe in the god of the gaps. Neither do I believe out of a fear of death.

Then, if you wouldn't mind, please share your reasons for belief and then the reasons for that particular god above all others?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn