Miscellaneous comments not having much to do with FrG's bible study
Quote: ikilledjerryloganIts no use father. Credible medical circles have already determined that there is no God. Since they have never been wrong, resistance is futile.
That's a huge LEAP of logic going from "medical circles say being Gay is not a choice" to "God is dead". I don't think that's how Nieztche came to his conclusions anyways.
Here's one thing I could never figure out.Quote: MathExtremistJust to clarify, it's a lot more than just gay people who consider themselves born gay. The idea that you can "cure gayness" doesn't have much weight in credible medical circles. It's like suggesting that you can "cure straightness" or "cure lefthandedness".
If you buy into the notion that being gay is a medical condition, along with the possibility of a cure, why would you try? I would think you'd be happy that they're taking themselves out of the gene pool.
Quote: ikilledjerryloganGotta love those credible medical circles.
I qualified that to distinguish between proper medicine and the quackery that leads to
parents praying while their children die rather than taking them to the doctor.
Quote: DJTeddyBearHere's one thing I could never figure out.
If you buy into the notion that being gay is a medical condition, along with the possibility of a cure, why would you try? I would think you'd be happy that they're taking themselves out of the gene pool.
No, because that reasoning is based on accepting genetic evolution. And we all know who doesn't accept evolution.
She may be out of bounds but you may not even be in the stadium. Why is her belief more insulting to him than his belief is to her?
But, I'm not sure how one becomes certain there cannot be some sort of superior being, ie who created the world. Even Bill Maher admits he just doesn't know.
Admin note: removed image www.djteddybear.com/images/homer_doh.jpgQuote: MathExtremistNo, because that reasoning is based on accepting genetic evolution. And we all know who doesn't accept evolution.
Quote: dmWhy is her belief more insulting to him than his belief is to her?
Thanks.
But I don't find beliefs insulting. wrong, misguided, in some cases even ridiculous, but not insulting. The problem lies with the people who puch their beliefs on the rest of us. Nor is this problem confined to religious people. It's just that, all too often, the believers will claim to oppress and beat the rest of us into submission out of love.
Quote:But, I'm not sure how one becomes certain there cannot be some sort of superior being, ie who created the world. Even Bill Maher admits he just doesn't know.
Again? :)
Ok. To begin with those making a claim must supply the proof to go with it. So there's this claim: there's an omnipotent deity who created the universe. Very good. What proof is supplied? The Bible. Ok, but how does that refute, say, the Popol Vuh, or any other beliefs in otehr supernatural, very powerful deities, who created all or part of the universe? It's all been discussed before.
But there's more. As we learn about the nature and workings of the universe, we have not seen any evidence indicating that a consciousness of some sort is acting upon the universe.
To be sure any scientist stuck with an intractable problem can say "God did it!" But that's not an explanation. And as noted earlier, there is no proof either that a) god did it or b) there is even a god who could have done it. Further, it doesn't even eplxian which god did it.
We're not going to find any proof of God existing. That's what faith is all about.
Here's a quote attributed to L. Ron Hubbard: " Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man wanted to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."
Quote: boymimboWe're not going to find any proof of God existing.
I would caution you about all those things we'll "never" find, or be able to do, but in this case I agree.
Quote:That's what faith is all about.
And that's a big problem. In the end any person or organization or group can claim whatever they want, or more reasonably whatever they can get away with. But that's not all. The various religious books and traditions are so vague in parts, that any group can also find support for whatever they want in it. For example, the Bible was famously cited by both sides in the Slavery vs Abolition debates. Others have called, successfully, for henious acts against people they don't like, as happened in NYC, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001.
But I've ranted about that elsewhere.
"It may help, then, to turn briefly to the different modes of truth. Most of them depend upon immediate evidence or are confirmed by experimentation. This is the mode of truth proper to everyday life and to scientific research. At another level we find philosophical truth, attained by means of the speculative powers of the human intellect. Finally, there are religious truths which are to some degree grounded in philosophy, and which we find in the answers which the different religious traditions offer to the ultimate questions." (#30)
I think I know why myself and many of us like scientific truth - it is pretty clear cut and black and white. You can scream show me the proof and in the scientific mode you have to be able to do that. It is very much like fundamentalist Christians who don't enjoy the beauty of grey that is found in arguments of philosophy. We all want to see it clearly and see the tangible and physical evidence, it is not that simple in the higher forms of knowledge.
Quote:To be consonant with the word of God, philosophy needs first of all to recover its sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life. ...
The word of God reveals the final destiny of men and women and provides a unifying explanation of all that they do in the world. This is why it invites philosophy to engage in the search for the natural foundation of this meaning, which corresponds to the religious impulse innate in every person. A philosophy denying the possibility of an ultimate and overarching meaning would be not only ill adapted to its task, but false.
The problem I have with that statement is that it assumes there is an ultimate and overarching meaning of life. Starting from that basis and then reasoning that philosophy must therefore be suited to finding that meaning is circular.
One can have a philosophy that affirms the possibility for an ultimate and overarching meaning of life without affirming that such a meaning actually exists, just as one can have a theology that affirms the possibility of God (or the FSM) without affirming that God actually exists. To put it in mathematical terms, 0 < p(God) < 1. Strong atheism says p(God) = 0. The Church says p(God) = 1.
A more interesting question is what is the relationship between p(God) and p(meaning of life). The Pope says they're both equal to 1. But what if they are not, and what would each being greater imply?
Quote: FrGambleI don't understand why it seems like people equate proof or truth to scientific evidence.
How about simply any objective evidence?
Consider history. We rely on a lot of sources to learn it. One source consists of documents writen at the time, not only about what was going but on the everyday business of the time. That's why the letters of notable people are important in historical research. We also rely on artifacts from the time, and on eyewitness accounts, etc.
All of that is also lacking when it comes to god.
Look, Christians and Jews would both claim to believe in, and pray to, the same god. Yet their written accounts of what god is like, what we call the Old and New Testaments, vary as much as nigth and day. Not only do you not get confirmation about the Bible elsewhere, you don't even get it within the Bible.
BTW, it's not me who demands scientific evidence, it's you who make it necessary. If you claim god created the universe, that requires a scientific explanation as to how he did it. Further, when you claim the existence of existence as proof of the existence of god, that, too, requires hard, tanglible, microscope-grade proof that ther is a god and that he created everything out of, well, out of whatever he used.
Quote:"It may help, then, to turn briefly to the different modes of truth. Most of them depend upon immediate evidence or are confirmed by experimentation. This is the mode of truth proper to everyday life and to scientific research. At another level we find philosophical truth, attained by means of the speculative powers of the human intellect.
That's flawed. It's true that's how philosophers work, but they also must look at the subject of their study, and most important they must evaluate their thought against reality, in particular when applied to other people. Otherwise you get dangerous nonsense like Communism, National Socialism, "Sceintific" Socialism, etc. One good thing that can be said about Capitalism is that it arose before any philosopher advocated it; there's a reason for that.
Quote:We all want to see it clearly and see the tangible and physical evidence, it is not that simple in the higher forms of knowledge.
"Higher"? I beg to differ.
But you knew I would.
Well, it finds witches, supposedly.
Quote: FrGambleI think I know why myself and many of us like scientific truth - it is pretty clear cut and black and white.
Yes, eventually.... Scientists can fight over interpretation of evidence to a degree that's hard to belive sometimes. Even such staples of modern physics like Ralitivity and Quantum mechanics faced opposition. Remember Einstein's quotation to the effect that "God doesn't play dice with the universe"? or "Spooky action at a distance"? Those were in relation to Quantum theory.
In fact, you remind me of an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" where Leonard and Leslie break up, with some prompting from Sheldon, because they back different views on the Unified Theory.
Quote: MathExtremistJust to clarify, it's a lot more than just gay people who consider themselves born gay. The idea that you can "cure gayness" doesn't have much weight in credible medical circles. It's like suggesting that you can "cure straightness" or "cure lefthandedness".
Not to take sides, but there are many things that are neither congenital nor curable.
Speaking of lefthandedness, on the other hand, don't know what exactly your definition of "cure" is, but I was totally and completely lefthanded until about seven, and then got "cured" (or whatever you like to call it). I am an absolute "righty" now, can't write or draw or hammer or anything like that with my left hand (I used to use it exclusively for all these activities before), my right hand is also stronger, and most other traditional "symptoms" of a lefty are gone. I mean, I don't know about my brain activity by hemisphere, but "externally", I am completely righthanded now. And love it too :)
Also, most things, that cannot be cured, can be suppressed if you really want to. It's all in your head (or most of it anyway) :)
Quote: MathExtremist
The problem I have with that statement is that it assumes there is an ultimate and overarching meaning of life. Starting from that basis and then reasoning that philosophy must therefore be suited to finding that meaning is circular.
One can have a philosophy that affirms the possibility for an ultimate and overarching meaning of life without affirming that such a meaning actually exists, just as one can have a theology that affirms the possibility of God without affirming that God actually exists.
A more interesting question is what is the relationship between p(God) and p(meaning of life). The Pope says they're both equal to 1. But what if they are not, and what would each being greater imply?
You give voice to what is called the "crisis of meaning" in the begining of the very same section you quote from. It does need to be a given that there is indeed meaning to life. I kind of assumed this was understood, but like my old football coach used to say, "Son, assuming makes an ass out of u and me."
You do a great job pointing out that this overarching meaning of life is essential to belief in God, you can't have one without the other. Here is my attempt to answer your interesting question as to what would happen if you tried to seperate the two.
If p(God)>p(Meaning of Life) then God would be a divine watchmaker in which we are created but there is no purpose, goal, or meaning to our existence and no intrest or investment in us by a God who is off making other watches. This to me would be the same as not believing in God because it wouldn't matter. The idea of a personal God is what appeals to me and I have no intrest in a god who has no interest in me.
I believe that it is an impossibility to have p(Meaning of Life)>p(God). This would be a recipe for relativism or nihilism in which there was no ground or foundation to the meaning of life beyond ourselves. Your meaning of life would be different than mine but just as valid (A cannot also be non-A). There would also be no appeal to morality and no one could be right or wrong in a fundamental sense. As people attempt to pull God out of the tapestry of life they will find that the very fabric of society and the meaning of life begins to unravel.
Based upon the order and beauty of the world, the dignity of the human person, our own beauty and order, our longings for the infinite, our questions about ourselves and God's existence they all converge and convince me that there is meaning to life because there is obviously a God. Using the light of human reason and the world we experience I believe that the only correct answer is p(God)=p(Meaning of Life).
Quote: Fides et Ratio #81
One of the most significant aspects of our current situation, it should be noted, is the “crisis of meaning”....
In consequence, the human spirit is often invaded by a kind of ambiguous thinking which leads it to an ever deepening introversion, locked within the confines of its own immanence without reference of any kind to the transcendent. A philosophy which no longer asks the question of the meaning of life would be in grave danger of reducing reason to merely accessory functions, with no real passion for the search for truth.
They find themselves on their knees before the figure of God to be judged.
God points to the atheist, and says in a thunderous voice, "You were wrong." and then to the religious man, "You were right."
The atheist trembles violently with fear of what is about to happen.
God then address the religious man. "You believed in me."
"Yes, Lord, with all my heart!" says the believer.
"WHY?" says the Lord. "I provided no evidence!" The Lord then incinerates him in a blinding flash.
"Now you." he says to the atheist, "stop groveling and get up and get me a pack of Marlboros from the 7 Heaven Eleven down that majestic hallway. "Yes, that's right, smoking is allowed and there's no cancer. What, do you think I'm Satan. He doesn't allow smoking, just burning and he has no ventilation."
Further, I find the following statement to be a contradiction:
Quote: rxwine"WHY?" says the Lord. "I provided no evidence!"
The scripture is chock full of evidence. Albeit, it's all spiritual evidence, requiring a leap of faith to believe.
But that's what faith is all about.
Mind you, this is coming from a non-believer. The difference is, I have a lot of respect for those people that chose to believe.
Quote: ikilledjerryloganAre you sure you're not still a little lefthand-curious sometimes?
LOL!
I knew I have described it in a little too much detail.
Quote: FrGambleBased upon the order and beauty of the world, the dignity of the human person, our own beauty and order, our longings for the infinite, our questions about ourselves and God's existence they all converge and convince me that there is meaning to life because there is obviously a God.
What is the meaning of life?
Quote:Using the light of human reason and the world we experience I believe that the only correct answer is p(God)=p(Meaning of Life).
You're making free with the term reason. You start with an evaluation (the world is beautiful and orderly), add an observation, then reach a conclusion which, somehow, leads to your assumtpion.
Let's assume the world is as you paint it to be and let's assume there's some sort of "meaning" to life. How does that prove there is a god? Specifically, how does that prove the specific god you worship?
Quote: Nareed
Let's assume the world is as you paint it to be and let's assume there's some sort of "meaning" to life. How does that prove there is a god? Specifically, how does that prove the specific god you worship?
The important point you seem to be missing is that not everything can/should/needs to be proven. Specifically the word "faith" implies the absence of proof. If there was proof, or even a theoretical possibility of having a proof, faith would be pointless. You keep asking for something you know does not and cannot exist.
Note, that this situation (absence of proof) is not specific to religion. You cannot prove for example that there is exactly one line. parallel to the given line, and containing a given point. It is an axiom, unprovable by definition. You either accept it or you don't. Same as God. There is nothing to argue about here.
A rational argument between people who use different axiom systems is impossible to begin with.
Quote: NareedWhat is the meaning of life?
Uh ... there is no "meaning," per se, but let's see what happens when we rephrase the question.
"What is the PURPOSE of life?"
Easy!
To reproduce and nurture your progeny.
Go ye forth and multiply.
Quote: weaselmanThe important point you seem to be missing is that not everything can/should/needs to be proven.
Please, no package deals. Not everythign can be proven, true. Not everything needs to be proven, also true. But proof should be obtainable for everything, otherwise it remains uncertain at best and presumed false at worst.
Quote:Specifically the word "faith" implies the absence of proof.
I agree. I've said so, too. But the good father said it didn't. That's why I keep pressing him for proof.
Quote:If there was proof, or even a theoretical possibility of having a proof, faith would be pointless.
I think faith is pointless to begin with. As I said before, it means free reign to claim whatver you can get away with.
Quote:You keep asking for something you know does not and cannot exist.
Again, I agree, but see two paragraphs up. In any case, why should I be expected to believe in something that cannot be proven to exist?
Quote:Note, that this situation (absence of proof) is not specific to religion. You cannot prove for example that there is exactly one line. parallel to the given line, and containing a given point. It is an axiom, unprovable by definition. You either accept it or you don't. Same as God. There is nothing to argue about here.
There's a difference. Mathematical axioms lead to tools that can be proven to be true and accurate, with actual real-world applications. simply stated, if Euclid's axioms were faulty or inadequate, then geometry would be an abstract study divorced from reality, like religion.
Quote:A rational argument between people who use different axiom systems is impossible to begin with.
And yet we've been having one.
Quote: NareedPlease, no package deals. Not everythign can be proven, true. Not everything needs to be proven, also true. But proof should be obtainable for everything, otherwise it remains uncertain at best and presumed false at worst.
You contradict yourself. "Not everything can be proven" - the statement you agree with is in direct contradiction with "but proof should be obtainable for everything" - the assertion you make.
Quote:I agree. I've said so, too. But the good father said it didn't. That's why I keep pressing him for proof.
Ah, I have to apologise for not having read the whole discussion then. If he indeed said it, then I think he was simply wrong on that point.
Quote:I think faith is pointless to begin with.
Perhaps, I used a wrong word. What I meant was that the word "faith" has no meaning when you apply it to something that can be proven. There already is another term to describe that - "knowledge".
Whether or not faith as a category is pointless is a matter of personal opinion, but I don't quite see any reason for anyone to consider faith any more "pointless", than art or poetry, or literature, or love etc. If you consider all those things pointless, I find your position consistent, but I pity you as a human being. If you don't, then again I must conclude that you are in contradiction with yourself.
Quote:As I said before, it means free reign to claim whatver you can get away with.
Same exact thing can be said about literature. Does it make it pointless?
Quote:Again, I agree, but see two paragraphs up. In any case, why should I be expected to believe in something that cannot be proven to exist?
You are not expected to believe it. You are just expected not to attack others that believe it, because they cannot prove it to you.
On the other hand, do you believe the axiom of induction? I assume you do. Why? It cannot not be proven ....
Quote:There's a difference. Mathematical axioms lead to tools that can be proven to be true and accurate, with actual real-world applications. simply stated, if Euclid's axioms were faulty or inadequate, then geometry would be an abstract study divorced from reality, like religion.
So what? There are lots of abstract fields in math and science, that are quite divorced from reality. Take complex numbers for example, or Riemann geometry, particularly, Minkovsky space. The field (pretty abstract, and not corresponding to anything "real") was developed way before Einstein figured out that that (and *not* Eucledian geometry) was the true geometry of space time.
If scientists thought more like you do, and refused to study anything "divorced" from reality, we'd never discovered irrational numbers, let alone relativity.
Or, if you prefer physics, think of string theory. Most of it (like 99%) describes possible universes, that (at least as far as we know) have nothing whatsoever to do with our own, and ever confirming or denying their existence is a theoretical impossibility.
Quote:And yet we've been having one.
Nope. You were having an argument, but it was not rational. Each opponent just keeps pounding their own point over and over ... There is nothing rational about it.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI find no humor in the joke rxwine posted.
Further, I find the following statement to be a contradiction:
The scripture is chock full of evidence. Albeit, it's all spiritual evidence, requiring a leap of faith to believe.
But that's what faith is all about.
Mind you, this is coming from a non-believer. The difference is, I have a lot of respect for those people that chose to believe.
The scripture-did Twain write that? Franklin? Max Brand?
Quote: weaselmanYou contradict yourself. "Not everything can be proven" - the statement you agree with is in direct contradiction with "but proof should be obtainable for everything" - the assertion you make.
Indded. I apologize for the mistake.
I should have said "not everything needs to be proven."
Now, in principle there is evidence existent for everything. In practice some of this evidence may be destroyed or lost before it can be examined, and some is rather elusive. So not everything can be actually proven, but potentially everything can be proven and is subject to proof.
Quote:Whether or not faith as a category is pointless is a matter of personal opinion, but I don't quite see any reason for anyone to consider faith any more "pointless", than art or poetry, or literature, or love etc.
You're engaging in a fallacy. Art (of which poetry and literature are branches) does not serve the same purpose as philosophy or religion, nor should it. We use art for enjoyment, enlightment, for the emotions it rises, for beauty, and other things. We don't uee it as a guide for living, as a system of belief, etc. Nor is proof an issue in art. Nor is faith a requirement to enjoy or value art.
Love requries no faith either. As for proof, we spend our lives finding it.
Quote:Same exact thing can be said about literature. Does it make it pointless?
It's understood that fiction is fiction. It's also understood an author wants to say something when she writes a story. You may learn something from it, you may find enjoyment, beauty, etc. But you're not required to believe the characters are real, the events are real, or to worship the central character under threat of an eternity of hell.
Quote:You are not expected to believe it.
If only that were so.
Quote:You are just expected not to attack others that believe it, because they cannot prove it to you.
As I've pointed out before, I haven't attacked anyone here for their beliefs. I have attacked religious beliefs, yes, but that's different. It's the difference between telling a system poster "the system si worthless" to telling him "you are worthless."
Quote:So what? There are lots of abstract fields in math and science, that are quite divorced from reality. Take complex numbers for example, or Riemann geometry, particularly, Minkovsky space. The field (pretty abstract, and not corresponding to anything "real") was developed way before Einstein figured out that that (and *not* Eucledian geometry) was the true geometry of space time.
If scientists thought more like you do, and refused to study anything "divorced" from reality, we'd never discovered irrational numbers, let alone relativity.
Einstein based his theories on observation and the result of experients conducted by others. he did not just pull realtivity out of a hat and badgered the world into accepting it as revealed truth.
As for the rest, it's amazing what uses can be found for things that seem useless. I don't know much about math, so I won't comment on that. The point of science isn't finding aplications, but figuring out how the universe works. Math is a potent tool in that respect. So if scientists thought as I did, and I assume some do, they'd be studying what fields and subjects they find satisfaction, happiness or fulfillment in, and they'd know no part of science is to be taken on faith.
Quote: Nareed
Now, in principle there is evidence existent for everything.
But this is just not true. Even in the exact fields, like math, basic axioms are not provable.
Beyond axioms, it can actually be proven that every consistent formal theory containing math is incomplete, meaning that it includes at least one true, but unprovable statement.
Again, if you prefer physical examples, because they are "less divorced from real life", consider the uniformity and homogeneity hypothesis, claiming that the universe on large scale is roughly the same on large scale everywhere, and is driven by the same set of physical laws with the same set of fundamental constants.
Pretty much all modern cosmology is based on this hypothesis, which is not only unproven, but also unprovable.
Quote:Art (of which poetry and literature are branches) does not serve the same purpose as philosophy or religion, nor should it.
Oh? I thought you said that religion served no purpose.
Are you changing your opinion now? Are you saying you know which purpose it serves? If so, what it is? Do you think it is one purpose, or could there be several? Do you think everyone must agree with you on the question of purpose of religion and philosophy, or is there a possibility that other people might find a different purpose in it?
Also, while we are on the topic, what is the (different) purpose that art and literature (which is technically *not* a branch of art BTW) is supposed to serve in your opinion?
Quote:We use art for enjoyment, enlightment, for the emotions it rises, for beauty, and other things. We don't uee it as a guide for living, as a system of belief, etc.
I am not seeing the difference.
Don't we use religion for enlightenment too? Do you deny that some people find religious experience enjoyable, and get emotional over it?
On the other hand, we certainly do use works of literature and art (at least some of them) as a guide for living.
As for "using it as a system of belief" ... we are not "using" religion this way either ... such statement is akin to saying that we are using literature as a collection of books.
Quote:Nor is proof an issue in art.
Right. But my point is that it is not an issue in religion either.
Quote:Nor is faith a requirement to enjoy or value art.
That is correct. But so what? Different things require different abilities or traits to enjoy their value.
If you don't possess faith, you can't enjoy the value of religion, that's fine.
I don't particularly enjoy Japanese poetry, probably, because I lack some ability or knowledge, necessary to enjoy it. But does it make Japanese poetry pointless?
Quote:
It's also understood an author wants to say something when she writes a story. You may learn something from it, you may find enjoyment, beauty, etc. But you're not required to believe the characters are real, the events are real, or to worship the central character under threat of an eternity of hell.
Again, I am not seeing the difference. You are not required to believe that Christ is real either. Who requires you to believe that?
Quote:If only that were so.
It is exactly so.
Quote:As I've pointed out before, I haven't attacked anyone here for their beliefs. I have attacked religious beliefs, yes, but that's different.
Ok, maybe, I said it wrong. Let me rephrase ... You are not expected to attack beliefs on the basis that they cannot be proven.
Quote:Einstein based his theories on observation
Yes. But I am not talking about Einstein. I am talking about Cauchy, and Riemann and Minkovsky, and Hilbert, who did not have any observation whatsoever to base their theories on. They based them entirely on their imagination, and unreal, completely artificial axioms they simply made up. Yet, if not for those "divorced from reality" theories, Einstein would never be able to discover the relativity.
Quote:The point of science isn't finding aplications, but figuring out how the universe works.
Yes. And your position on scrutinising the evidence, and requiring proof for everything is perfectly valid and reasonable in that domain.
Your mistake however is attempting to extend that position, rigidly unmodified, to other domains, that are not science. It (the criteria you are using) simply is not applicable there.
Quote: weaselmanBut this is just not true. Even in the exact fields, like math, basic axioms are not provable.
Beyond axioms, it can actually be proven that every consistent formal theory containing math is incomplete, meaning that it includes at least one true, but unprovable statement.
Quite right. One of my math classes at UCSB was on logic and proofs. The thrust of the class was that all of mathematics was ultimately based on Peano's Nine Axioms. There are very obvious, like if A=B then B=A. Ultimately, you have to take such a statement on faith or that it is self-evident, and the other eight, to prove anything in mathematics.
Quote: Wizard
Quite right. One of my math classes at UCSB was on logic and proofs. The thrust of the class was that all of mathematics was ultimately based on Peano's Nine Axioms. There are very obvious, like if A=B then B=A. Ultimately, you have to take such a statement on faith or that it is self-evident, and the other eight, to prove anything in mathematics.
Well, the ninth (induction) axiom isn't particularly obvious or self evident.
But the incompleteness theorem goes much further than that. It states, even if you do take these nine axioms on faith, and build a theory, that includes them, any such theory (which would be all the math and physics, as well as the rest of science) will still contain another statement that is unprovable. Now, you can take that statement, and make it a tenth axiom, but then there will be another one ... and so on.
Basically, you always have to take something on faith to prove anything, but regardless of how much you take on faith, it will never be enough to prove everything else.
Quote: weaselmanAgain, if you prefer physical examples, because they are "less divorced from real life", consider the uniformity and homogeneity hypothesis, claiming that the universe on large scale is roughly the same on large scale everywhere, and is driven by the same set of physical laws with the same set of fundamental constants.
Pretty much all modern cosmology is based on this hypothesis, which is not only unproven, but also unprovable.
We have observed other parts of the Universe and they obey the same laws as our particular corner of it. We may not have solid proof for the whole universe, but we have reason, based on observation, that it is so.
But that's not relevant. The universe, as a whole, exists and has certainc haracteristics. The evidence to prove or disporve that hypothesis is, therefore, out there. we can't access it all, but it's still there.
Quote:Oh? I thought you said that religion served no purpose.
I said it's based on myth and whim. Not that it has no purpose. Religion has been useful as a means to keep the masses subservient, at times, and rousing them to action, at other times, for example.
Quote:Do you think everyone must agree with you on the question of purpose of religion and philosophy, or is there a possibility that other people might find a different purpose in it?
Do you think someone can strongly and steadfastly express a controversial opinion, and not assume she intends to take over the world because of it?
Quote:Also, while we are on the topic, what is the (different) purpose that art and literature (which is technically *not* a branch of art BTW) is supposed to serve in your opinion?
Look at the post you replied to.
Quote:Don't we use religion for enlightenment too?
How can you, when it's all made up, contradictory and arbitrary?
Quote:Do you deny that some people find religious experience enjoyable, and get emotional over it?
No. but some people enjoy and get emotional over all sorts of things. That doesn't make them art.
Quote:On the other hand, we certainly do use works of literature and art (at least some of them) as a guide for living.
If you do, I suggest you stop.
Quote:As for "using it as a system of belief" ... we are not "using" religion this way either ... such statement is akin to saying that we are using literature as a collection of books.
You must have an odd definition of belief system, then.
Quote:Ok, maybe, I said it wrong. Let me rephrase ... You are not expected to attack beliefs on the basis that they cannot be proven.
I'm not attacking religion because there is no proof for it. I'm attacking religion because it's, on the whole, a harmful influence on human life. One line of attack, out of many, is the lack of proof to back religious beliefs.
Quote:Yes. But I am not talking about Einstein. I am talking about Cauchy, and Riemann and Minkovsky, and Hilbert, who did not have any observation whatsoever to base their theories on. They based them entirely on their imagination, and unreal, completely artificial axioms they simply made up. Yet, if not for those "divorced from reality" theories, Einstein would never be able to discover the relativity.
So they were so divorced from reality they ahd practical, provable, real world applications?
Quote:Yes. And your position on scrutinising the evidence, and requiring proof for everything is perfectly valid and reasonable in that domain.
Your mistake however is attempting to extend that position, rigidly unmodified, to other domains, that are not science. It (the criteria you are using) simply is not applicable there.
I don't demand the kind of proof sicence does outside of science. But reasonable, objective evidence is necessary for everything else. Especially for somethig as important as religion is for many of those who adopt it.
Quote: weaselman
Yes. And your position on scrutinising the evidence, and requiring proof for everything is perfectly valid and reasonable in that domain.
Your mistake however is attempting to extend that position, rigidly unmodified, to other domains, that are not science. It (the criteria you are using) simply is not applicable there.
And your criteria is?
That crazy guy on the corner in the tin foil hat? Who am I to question?
Those 9/11 hijackers? Why doubt they have a direct line to Allah?
The domain of science is physical reality; all the rest is merely riffing on ways to cope with that reality.
Quote: NareedWe have observed other parts of the Universe and they obey the same laws as our particular corner of it. We may not have solid proof for the whole universe, but we have reason, based on observation, that it is so.
Actually, no, not at all. You see, because the speed of light is limited, there are areas of the universe, distant enough from each other to not have had any chance to have communicated since Big Bang, so there is absolutely no reason to assume identical conditions in those areas.
Quote:But that's not relevant. The universe, as a whole, exists and has certainc haracteristics. The evidence to prove or disporve that hypothesis is, therefore, out there. we can't access it all, but it's still there.
Same can be said about God. Heaven (or lack thereof) is "out there". We can't access it, but it's still there.
Quote:I said it's based on myth and whim. Not that it has no purpose.
No, you said it was pointless. That's what led us into the art and literature discussion (because I said they were equally (non-)pointless).
Quote:Do you think someone can strongly and steadfastly express a controversial opinion, and not assume she intends to take over the world because of it?
Take over the world - no. Dismiss the possibility of all other viewpoints - happens all the time.
Quote:How can you, when it's all made up, contradictory and arbitrary?
So is literature. So is art.
Quote:No. but some people enjoy and get emotional over all sorts of things. That doesn't make them art.
Of course not. I never said religion was art. Just that it is equally pointless (if it is pointless).
Quote:If you do, I suggest you stop.
And I suggest you start ;)
Quote:You must have an odd definition of belief system, then.
You think? Well, let's compare them. What's yours?
Quote:I'm not attacking religion because there is no proof for it. I'm attacking religion because it's, on the whole, a harmful influence on human life.
That's just your subjective opinion though. I happen to think that "gayness" has a harmful influence on human life, yet, I do not think, that mere having an opinion gives me any right to attack other people's beliefs.
Besides, your phrase that triggered my first response to you in this thread, was specifically the assertion that religion cannot prove the existence of God, with an implied assumption that it somehow invalidates it.
Quote:One line of attack, out of many, is the lack of proof to back religious beliefs.
All I am saying is that this particular line seems to be inconsistent and self-contradictory. I have never seen any of your other lines if they exist, so I cannot offer any opinion about them.
Quote:So they were so divorced from reality they had practical, provable, real world applications?
Nope. They did not have any applications for decades while they were being developed by some of the greatest minds of their time, as well as decades (sometimes, even centuries) more after the development was completed.
Some of them (Hilbert spaces, most of String theory and lots and lots of other stuff) still do not have any practical application or even a way to be interpreted in the context of the "reality".
Quote:I don't demand the kind of proof sicence does outside of science. But reasonable, objective evidence is necessary for everything else.
No, it is not. Art does not need any evidence, it does not even need to be objective, and that is just one example.
Quote: RaspberryCheeseBlintzAnd your criteria is?
I don't offer a criteria. I don't pretend to have it, I don't even think it actually exists.
Japanese poetry bores me to sleep, while some people find it extremely enjoyable and enlightening. Who is right? Do we need a criteria?
The point is, outside of realm of science it is not always binary, so that each point of view is either right or wrong, and there is exactly one of the former. Rest of the world works differently, it is very possible, that two, three, four hundred opinions are different, yet all of them are right.
Quote:The domain of science is physical reality; all the rest is merely riffing on ways to cope with that reality.
So? Does it make everything else, that is not science, bad?
Quote: weaselmanQuote: Wizard
Quite right. One of my math classes at UCSB was on logic and proofs. The thrust of the class was that all of mathematics was ultimately based on Nine Axioms. There are very obvious, like if A=B then B=A. Ultimately, you have to take such a statement on faith or that it is self-evident, and the other eight, to prove anything in mathematics.
Well, the ninth (induction) axiom isn't particularly obvious or self evident.
But the incompleteness theorem goes much further than that. It states, even if you do take these nine axioms on faith, and build a theory, that includes them, any such theory (which would be all the math and physics, as well as the rest of science) will still contain another statement that is unprovable. Now, you can take that statement, and make it a tenth axiom, but then there will be another one ... and so on.
Basically, you always have to take something on faith to prove anything, but regardless of how much you take on faith, it will never be enough to prove everything else.
And now we are talking axioms... I warned you all that would be where we got to :)
What I think Godel was saying that any sufficiently expressive system is necessarily incomplete, and there will be unprovable statements within it. But that's okay, you can possibly use another system instead and prove/disprove statements, and have unprovable statements that can be proven in your other system. Except you started from a different set of axioms, so it's not necessaily the same statement after all. I've only read Hostadter's work on it a few times, so might have missed a few details (Godel, Escher, Bach is probably one of my favourite books ever written).
And eventually there is still some statements that cannot be proven.
Possibly much like, say "God exists"... :)
Quote: DJTeddyBearI find no humor in the joke rxwine posted.
Comedy is hard. (someone said)
Quote:Mind you, this is coming from a non-believer. The difference is, I have a lot of respect for those people that chose to believe.
Respect. I'm doing the best I can, really.
Christianity used to include eternal damnation for people like me? Did they take it out?
Is he not talking about Christianity? If he's not talking about Christianity, he just needs to say so.
Quote: rxwine
Christianity used to include eternal damnation for people like me? Did they take it out?
Actually, for people like you, it's just death, which, I think, is pretty aligned with your own view.
Quote: weaselmanActually, no, not at all. You see, because the speed of light is limited, there are areas of the universe, distant enough from each other to not have had any chance to have communicated since Big Bang, so there is absolutely no reason to assume identical conditions in those areas.
Stop nitpicking. I'm not going to go blow by blow, but I will just say "we've observed other parts of the universe." I never claimed we've observed it all.
Quote:Same can be said about God. Heaven (or lack thereof) is "out there". We can't access it, but it's still there.
Prove it. I can prove there are planets around other stars, btu as yet we can't access enough data from them to get detailed views. I can rpove there are galaxies thousnads and millions of light years away, but as yet we can't access enough data to determine whether any of those galaxies ahve planets.
See the difference?
Quote:No, you said it was pointless.
I said faith is pointless. Not that religion is without prupose. Do you think anything would be kept around for thousands of years if it was completely useless?
Quote:Take over the world - no. Dismiss the possibility of all other viewpoints - happens all the time.
So? Do I have to take all viewpoints seriously? Please.
Quote:That's just your subjective opinion though.
My "subjective" opinion is backed by the horrors of the Inquisition and well over 6 million murdered in the Holocaust. I've said this before, too.
Quote:Besides, your phrase that triggered my first response to you in this thread, was specifically the assertion that religion cannot prove the existence of God, with an implied assumption that it somehow invalidates it.
Religion is based on worshipping and observing absolute obedience to a being that cannot be proven to exist. How does that not render all religion invalid on the face of it?
Quote:Nope. They did not have any applications for decades while they were being developed by some of the greatest minds of their time, as well as decades (sometimes, even centuries) more after the development was completed.
So? A child does nothign productive for decades, either. That's not an excuse for wanton infanticide.
Quote:No, it is not. Art does not need any evidence, it does not even need to be objective, and that is just one example.
Do understand plain English? The existence of art, of the discipline itself and of any work in aprticular, can be objectively proven with evidence.
As for being objective, all variants of "abstract" so-called art, including the infamous Dung Mary and Piss Christ, are not art.
Quote: NareedStop nitpicking. I'm not going to go blow by blow, but I will just say "we've observed other parts of the universe." I never claimed we've observed it all.
You said there was a reason to believe that other, unobserved parts look the same. It is not so.
Quote:
Prove it. I can prove there are planets around other stars, btu as yet we can't access enough data from them to get detailed views. I can rpove there are galaxies thousnads and millions of light years away, but as yet we can't access enough data to determine whether any of those galaxies ahve planets.
See the difference?
Nope, I don't. I can prove there are daisies on my balcony, and I can prove that there are clouds in the sky, but as of yet, I cannot access Heaven to determine whether it exists.
Note, that the issue is not whether other galaxies have planets, it is a much, much bigger, deeper issue. It is whether the conditions in other parts of the universe even allow galaxies (or anything else at all) to exist there and/or to look and behave anything like what we are used to seeing over here, and in those places that we can access.
Quote:I said faith is pointless. Not that religion is without prupose. Do you think anything would be kept around for thousands of years if it was completely useless?
No, I don't. But I am not the one who thinks it is pointless either ...
Quote:So? Do I have to take all viewpoints seriously? Please.
Not all of them. Only those, that are held by people you want to be taken seriously by, and to have a meaningful conversation with.
Quote:My "subjective" opinion is backed by the horrors of the Inquisition and well over 6 million murdered in the Holocaust. I've said this before, too.
Do you have any prove that religion is direct cause of those horrors, and that in the absence of religion the total amount of horrors would actually be less, and not more? Hitler was not religious, and certainly was not killing Jews in the name of religion.
Lenin and Stalin were both atheists, and arguably have killed and tortured even more people than Hitler and Inquisition combined. If that's not enough, add Pinochet and Chaushesku to the picture. I can go on and on ...
Inquisition was first and foremost a political organisation. Yes, they did horrible things in the name of religion, but do you have any proof that, if religion did not exist, they would not invent another reason, in fact, can you prove that they would not do even more horrible things if they were not religious?
What makes you so sure that an abstract idea is what's making people do bad things? In my opinion, a much more reasonable, and logical assumption would be that those people are just bad to begin with. Do you have any evidence to support your view?
Quote:Religion is based on worshipping and observing absolute obedience to a being that cannot be proven to exist. How does that not render all religion invalid on the face of it?
I don't know "how" ... it just does not :)
The same way as shedding tears after being exposed to certain harmonic vibrations in a particular sequence does not render all music invalid.
Quote:So? A child does nothign productive for decades, either. That's not an excuse for wanton infanticide.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What child?
My point was that a scientific theory does not need to be directly describing anything real to be useful.
Quote:Do understand plain English? The existence of art, of the discipline itself and of any work in aprticular, can be objectively proven with evidence.
The existence of art can be proven, sure. Just like existence of religion can be proven.
Yes, I understand English. Do you have a problem expressing your thoughts coherently, perhaps?
Quote:As for being objective, all variants of "abstract" so-called art, including the infamous Dung Mary and Piss Christ, are not art.
Picasso is not art? Dali is not art? How about Mozart? Is Mozart art?
BTW, speaking of understanding English ... do you understand the difference between "objective" and "concrete" (not abstract)? You seem to be mixing these two concepts pretty badly...
Quote: weaselmanPicasso is not art?
Of all your post, this was the only part that was neither nit-picking, reductio ad absurdum or plain invented. So I'll answer:
Picasso was not art. He was a man.
If you mean his work, the early portions are. The rest isn't.
Quote: Nareed
Picasso was not art. He was a man.
Well ... if this is your idea of "not nitpicking", I guess, your logic is too different from mine to ever hope to have a conversation.
Quote: weaselmanThat's just your subjective opinion though. I happen to think that "gayness" has a harmful influence on human life, yet, I do not think, that mere having an opinion gives me any right to attack other people's beliefs.
Then that's an important difference between you and religious zealots. Religious zealots seem to think that their strongly held opinions justify them in attacking other people's beliefs -- and their families, neighbors, cities, and countries. When you strip away the religious justification for hatred, much of it falls away. You could never have justified the Crusades or the Inquisition on non-religious grounds. Without speaking out of turn, I think this is the basis for Nareed's disfavor of religion in general.
For example, what would be the non-religious justification for homophobia, given that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom? If you couldn't point to some line in a religious text, how could you cogently make an argument that homosexuality is bad?
Quote: weaselmanWell ... if this is your idea of "not nitpicking",
No, that was my idea of payback.
Have a nice life.
Quote: MathExtremistYou could never have justified the Crusades or the Inquisition on non-religious grounds.
I just addressed that point in my previous post.
Consider Lenin, and Stalin, and Pinochet, and Chaushesku, and ... etc., etc.
While religion can be used to justify bad things, pretty much anything else can just as well. Justification is secondary, the reason for people wanting to kill and torture other people is inside those people themselves. And once the reason is present, a justification will be found.
Religion happened to conveniently be around to justify the Crusades, so it got used. If every one was an atheist back then, something else would be thought of. There is no reason to believe it would not. Most wars in history were not in the name of religion.
Quote:For example, what would be the non-religious justification for homophobia, given that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom? If you couldn't point to some line in a religious text, how could you cogently make an argument that homosexuality is bad?
I am not sure, it is a good place and time to start that conversation, but since you asked ...
One possible justification I can offer, that has nothing to do with religion is that homosexuality is detrimental to the reproduction of the species. The fact that it occurs in the animal kingdom is irrelevant. Just because something occurs in the animal kingdom, it does not mean it's a good thing.
Let me ask you a question too. Do you think incest is bad? If you do, how do you justify that?
