Mike

OK, so the wedge is simply that you haven't yet seen evidence of God. I agree that this shouldn't be a problem. People should be allowed to believe what they want. And I agree that forcing one's beliefs upon another is problematic, but such a condition is not exlusively the domain of theism. As you know the pervasiveness of Christianity's peculiar breed of theism is somewhat unique to Europe and America. Other societies, governments, and cultures have used similar or even more aggressive tactics to enforce other paradigms, including atheism.

But I was trying to get away from that, since there are endless variations of interpretations of both atheism and theism, with a few peculiar cross breeds such as Buddhism and Taoism, and atrocities have been committed by supposed adherents to all of these variations.

So I was suggesting instead that all of this is beside the point, and wondering what it was about the two competing philosophies that was creating such a ruckus on this and other boards.

Frankly, I think all of this appeal to naturalism on this board is bogus. Many believers appeal to naturalism as well. There are many things for which I can show you no evidence, but for which you must find evidence on your own or on the authority of someone else, but you believe in them. For example, unless you do the experiments yourself, how will you have conclusive evidence of the structure of an atom, or the genetic makeup of a human? You are left to simply rely on the authority of someone else.

Which is of course relevant to your claim that your only moral authority is your own sense of morality. Which unless you were raised in a vacuum is based on the collective moralities of whatever authorities you have read, heard, seen, etc. throughout your life, and accepted. The key word here is ACCEPTED.

You and I have been exposed to many of the same moral, scientific, religious, etc. authorities. We have also been exposed to some very different authorities. But along the way we were both faced with choices about which authorities we accepted. We have made different choices, you and I. And I submit that our choices were in a large measure based on our perceptions of the implications of accountability inherent in our choices.

Simply put: The difference between you and I is not in our reliance on authority (evidence, testimony, etc. common to both science and religion and not mutually exclusive), but in which authorities we have chosen to rely upon. And our respective choices stem largely from our perceptions of what would bring greater freedom (choice), and what sort of accountability came with that freedom.

We are both cynical about different things, and we are both exercising faith in different things. But our cynicism, and our faith aren't that much different qualitatively.

phlebas

I'm actually not aware of any Buddhist atrocities, but that's beside the point

I don't think all atheists claim to be naturalists, either.

*please* tell me you aren't waving the "we both believe in things that can't be proved so atheism is just like theism" flag. Speaking for myself, I tend to adopt the simplest explanation of the phenomena from the available evidence. I'm aware that any scientific theory is quite likely to be changed or even discarded by the things we learn later, so I'm prepared for that. And to me a complex natural solution is always simpler than an easy supernatural solution. That's what Occam's Razor is all about.

That's not authority. Secular humanism tends to reject truth claims based on authority. (And I'm aware that secular humanism and atheism are different. I just happen to be both.)

If a scientist tells me about genetics, I can look over the data, and I could, if I chose, get the education required to understand it. But that's not necessary. When a scientist posits a theory, all the other scientists work to rip it apart. Whatever survives that crucible (and the future crucibles) is believed to be true because it *fits*. I don't accept the findings of a single scientist as truth because a scientist says it's true -- I *conditionally* accept it as true if it has been tested and retested and reviewed by the scientific community as a whole.

If religion had error checking mechanisms like that built in, we'd all be much better off.

Believing something is true because it says it in the Bible -- that's authority, and that is anathema to an inquiring mind.

Not true. We have genetic coding which inclines us to behave in certain ways. That behavior can be overriden by our big brains. The reason I agree with people who tell me how to be moral is because they agree with me about what moral behavior is.

You've lost me.

I don't agree that I rely on "authorities" for my truth.

I hope you don't expect a lot of agreement here. I think your definition of "faith" and mine are very different.

Autonemesis

Nope. I said science proceeds under the assumption that we can learn new things that are not handed to us by authority. I didn't say it only considers things not handed to us by authority.

Your argument will fail. All scientific knowledge is subject to revision. The way science is taught in public schools would leave a student to think otherwise, but this is a problem with public education. It is not a feature of scientific inquiry that knowledge passed on from earlier investigators is taken as sacrosanct. The biggest scientific advances of the last century came about when the investigators discarded received wisdom, and questioned anew the fundamental assumptions of their discipline.

I completely agree that this is the difference. Scientific authority is subject to being overturned when better knowledge is obtained. Religious authority is not. Don't agree? Then tell me, what is the procedure for getting a factual or doctrinal error recognized and corrected by the publishers of the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, or the Quran?

You don't need to answer: there is none. This is the crucial difference that leads me to reject "revealed" knowledge. It is not subject to revision under any circumstances, even when it is blatantly, obviously, excruciatingly WRONG. Scientific authority is derived from the accuracy, integrity and explanatory power of the body of knowledge. Religious authority is derived from ... what?

I don't know how you got here. If humanists are insecure existentialists, then theists must be really insecure. Humanists may be, as you imply, uncomfortable with the answer, but theists are uncomfortable with the question.

But the question of god's existence is also of the same intractable class of problems, hence your reasoning is circular.

You wish to assert that the only thing god has on us is "inside knowledge"? That's a rather weak god concept.

Which is once again unknowable, and so you're right back there with the existentialists, afraid to admit that all meaning is ultimately invented by humans, even the ones that prefer to believe they perceive it as originating from outside of themselves.

Mike

I think the Buddha himself was a dead-beat dad. He left his family to pursue enlightenment if I remember correctly. But that IS beside the point.


Not exactly, they are not "just like" each other. We believe in different things, but the quality of that belief is very similar. I also tend to adopt the simplest explanation from available evidence. My understanding of the mathematical probabilities, the observed archeological evidence, and ongoing observations and discoveries both scientific and religious prompts me to believe that the simplest explanation is that there is an intelligent design to the natural universe. This does not imply a supernatural explanation, natural processes have been manipulated by intelligent designers from the beginning of recorded history. My assumption just requires a bit more intelligence in the designer.

Pardon my parody:

What IS authority? Organized religion tends to reject truth claims based on secular authority. (And I'm aware that organized religion and theism are different. I just happen to be both.)

If a theologin tells me about God, I can look over the data, and I could, if I chose, get the education required to understand it. But that IS necessary. When a theologin posits a theory, all the other theologins work to rip it apart. Whatever survives that crucible (and the future crucibles) is believed to be true because it *fits*. I don't accept the findings of a single theologin as truth because a theologin says it's true -- I *conditionally* accept it as true if it has been tested and retested and reviewed by the religious community as a whole (or if I have checked it myself).

If science had error checking mechanisms like that built in, we'd all be much better off.

Believing something is true because it says it in a scientific journal -- that's authority, and that is anathema to an inquiring mind.

By the way, christianity has a simple error checking mechanism by which individual seekers can assertain truth in religion. It's called the Holy Ghost (he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance). No need to make fun of the Holy Ghost here simply because it is a subjective experience. I understand that you don't believe in him, but there are many who don't believe there is such a thing as objectivity either. You'd be hard pressed to get them to interpret scientific data the way the rest of the scientific community does.

This is all theoretical. You are asking me to accept it on authority. There are many (in the scientific community) who do not think our genetic coding can be safely or permanently over-riden (hence the ethical debate about "curing" homosexuality), there are many others who think the genetic influence on behavior can and should be over-riden in some cases (hence the fact that we do therapy with alcoholics). Who decides when and how genetics gets over-riden? Authority, that's who (in this case, the APA). There are others who would question the construct of genetic "predispositions" or "inclinations." What do those words mean anyway?

Me neither. I examine the claims, look for consensus, and/or test the claims myself.

I don't expect a lot of agreement, and our respective definitions of words are not what is most relevant. What is relevant is how we (respectively) came to know what we know (or believe what we believe). Our behavioral (observable) manifestations of our truth seeking quests can be compared, and even quantified.

One more comment on this quote: Everyone is a scientist to the extent that they use their senses to aquire truth. We all gain knowledge in similar ways that involve some combination of the following: 1. Examining a body of knowledge (authority) 2. Mental exertion (reasoning, logic, faith, whatever you want to call it). 3. Empirical experience (using the five senses). 4. Intuition (internal moral sense, conscience, the Holy Ghost, collective consciousness, genetic inclination, whatever you want to call it). What differs is not our observations, but our interpretations. The vast majority of the people (including, but not limited to scientists) in this world believe in some kind of God. This is what has "survived the crucible." You're a fringe movement, even among scientists.

Autonemesis

It also occurs to me that you are confusing "refuted" with "proven false." That is not the case. One way in which a refuation may succeed is when it proves the claim to be false. A refutation may also succeed when it shows the question was improperly formed. That is the case here. I have shown the question is badly formed because it assumes its own answer in the asking, and is therefore circular. In other words, it is a nonsensical proposition.

It may very well be that there are things we can never know. But I am not satisfied with that as an answer. Even if it is so, why should we accept revealed wisdom instead? We have no way of verifying that either, so it leaves us none the better, and perhaps much worse off, depending on which authority we accept (necessarily, accept on faith). Better to simply try to know as much as we can, and when we don't know, admit we don't know, and work with what we do know.

Mike

Darn, I thought I was done for the evening, but then returned to see that Kind Bud had posted.


I didn't say "sacrosanct," but knowledge is used as a steping stone. All revisions and discarding are reactions to some existing knowledge. We tested that, our tests failed to reject the null hypothesis. Let's test something else. Where do we get the idea for something else? From our collective wisdom that we have developed from aquiring knowledge from existing sources. Creativity is combining old things in new ways. Even our empirical evidence is seen through the lense of history. Observation is of limited use without interpretation. It's in the interpretation that we rely on authority.

The Book of Mormon and the Quran ARE attempts at getting a factual or doctrinal error recognized and corrected. So was the abandoning of the Apocrypha. The idea that the Bible is a closed book is only a relatively recent idea in some religions. You'll find the same thing in the eastern religions. Take a look at the vast body of religious literature in Hinduism. They keep on addin' on. And then Buddhism took what was relevant to Buddhism and left the rest.

The history of religion IS the history of revision. Question: What was the reformation? Buddhism:Hinduism as protestantism:Catholicism. Yes, even Mormons have their splinter groups.

Intractable if you don't believe God can be found. Less relevant if you believe he can be found. Irrelevant if you have found him.

No, that's not ALL he has on us, but it is incredibly significant even standing alone. What keeps us from creating liveable spheres in space? What keeps us from extending the life span? What keeps us from traveling at near light speed? If you said "we don't know how" give yourself one point. Knowledge = power. If you said "limited resources," then answer this: What keeps us from discovering new and better resources? Repeat, "we don't know how." Now if we knew all that would you call us "weak?"

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Autonemesis

OK, reactions to some existing knowledge, sure, I can follow that description. But "we" tested what, exactly? The "null hypothesis" is atheism, I presume?

Yes, but scientists don't rely on it based on authority. I know it appears that way, and in too many cases public school's efforts at science education largely ARE that way (as in "Here it is, there's a test on Friday." This is a problem long before we get into creationism vs evolution nonsense). But knowing the historical context and relying on previous work to build new work is not the same as taking it on authority. Not in the religious sense of authority, that is.

Wait a minute, you congtinue with creativity, and wind up with reliance on authority? I'm sorry, but this seems to me a jumble of unconnected statements. I'll grant that creativity is combining old things in new ways and with new things (you left that part out). I'll grant that empirical evidence is evaluated in light of historical experience, among other things. It's also evaluated in light of the current concern, which may or may not have any historical inspiration, but may be a new idea altogether, or a novel synthesis of previously unrelated ideas.

As for whether observation is of limited use without interpretation, I am not sure what you mean. There is no observation until the data is reduced. Before that, the activity is data collection. So the observation is the interpretation of the data collected - the empirical "fact." Now, for an eyewitness, fact and observation are intricately intertwined, because the instrument for data collection and data reduction are intricately intertwined. I don't have any conscious awareness of photons being refracted through the lens of my eye, striking the retina where the interaction with dyes produces a spatially related neural signal that my brain interprets as the cloudtops of Jupiter viewed through my telescope. I just see Jupiter, and bands and belts of what look like clouds and storms and eddies. But those processes of data collection and reduction are going on, unawares. So where do you draw the line between data collection and reduction, and observation? What about when you're detecting solar neutrinos with the Japanese Super Kamiokande Neutrino Observatory. You don't "observe" a neutrino until you reduce mounds of data recording the electrical signals from thousands of photomultiplier tubes with precise timing, plow all that data through your graphing program to produce a 3-dimensional representation of the dectector tank and the location, signal level and timing of each photomultiplier tube, and from that deduce the mass, speed, trajectory and other properties of the particle or particles that caused the interaction that produced the burst of electrons that originated the Cherenkov radiation that the photomultiplier tubes detected. Only then can you distinguish between debris from a cosmic ray interaction high in the atmosphere, a photon or neutron from natural radioactive decay in the surrounding rock, and a neutrino interaction.

But if we had an organ that worked like Super Kamiokande, we'd just say "I saw a neutrino" in the same sort of casual way as I say "I saw Jupiter through my telescope." You have to be very careful when you try to draw a line between observation and interpretation, because they are two sides of the same coin.

So I can't conclude with you that the interpretation of our observations - which is the same thing, really - relies upon authority. That doesn't even make any sense to me. It seems to me that this claim of yours implies that I can make you see a sofa instead of a hot dog if I am sufficiently authoritative.

Then why don't you believe in the Quran?

And how DO I go about correcting the errors in the Book of Mormon? You think the GA's will accept this new revelation I had last night, and publish it to the membership? No? Why not? Is it because:

1. My revelation is not harmonious with prior revelation? (Then what of your claim that revealed truth can be revised? If not through new revelation, then how?)

2. My authority is not sufficient to accept my revelation? (Then how do you establish authority? Producing revelation worked for Joseph Smith.)

3. Something you will undoubtedly find more clever, because I will allow you to think it up. (I got an answer for everything )

How do we tell god from an incredibly advanced alien with benevolent intentions and lofty ethics derived from a deep understanding of the nature of things? Is there really any difference?

What keeps Israel in the middle of constant turmoil?

Religious objections to medical research.

It is doable according to current knowledge, with current technology. All that remains is the will to engineer it and do it.

Weak relative to what? Entropy? Yes, quite probably, approaching no doubt, really. A supernova? At least it is conceivable that an advanced race could harness that immense eruption of energy. It doesn't seem likely to me that anything we'd recognize as human could be capable of such a feat. That seems millions of years off, if it is possible at all. So I'd vote no on the "we" part of that proposition. Perhaps we'd learn how to master planetary scale phenomena and send expeditions to nearby stars before we evolved past all recognition, but that's still pretty weak on a godly scale, yet it would seem to be more than enough to convince most Christians - even contemporary believers - that the second coming had arrived. White guy with a beard, white robes, coming out of the clouds with angels attending... not too hard a feat to arrange for a race that can travel between the stars. You'd buy it, wouldn't you? If they sprayed a neurochemical into the atmosphere that stimulated religious ecstasy, how could you not?

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Mike

This fancy mouse somehow deleted my post, so this will be much shorter than the original:

Your response was very technical and impressive, but if I understood it you simply clarified the point I was trying to make.

I like that you made a connection between authority and history. All of us have a history, and before we did, we did very little interpretation (eg. a baby making observations of the delivery room). But as we aquired language (which we first took on authority eg. Mom says that big long thing is a sofa, and that little long thing is a hot dog, the first she says wouldn't be good for food, but the second she says I can chew on) we gained a more complex ability to interpret our observations, until observation and interpretation SEEMED to be the same thing. But most respectable cognitive scientists will tell you (on authority) that there is a difference between sensation and perception, and a difference between perception and long or short-term storage in memory (which requires interpretation, classification, etc.). A flash of light in the corner of my eye is sensed, the fact that the light is attached to an approaching semi is perceived, the possibility that the semi will crush me if I don't move is an interpretation (which is based on authority, unless I have been crushed by a semi before, or seen someone crushed by a semi before).

You and an uneducated aboriginal aquaintance looking through a telescope at Jupiter will observe the exact same thing, but you will understand very different things about your observation based on the authorities you have experienced. But neither of you have been to Jupiter. Which interpretation is correct?
If you say you see Jupiter, and he says he sees a multicolored sphere, who's description relies less on authority?

The process of making changes in religion has never relied on convincing an authority to change his/her mind. You simply start a new church. And although different churches have diverse interpretations about the same observations, there are many common elements. Perhaps these common elements are tantamount to what is left in phlebas' crucible. And similarly, if this scientific journal won't publish your results because they don't like your interpretation do you throw up your hands? No. You look for another journal. If you can't find one that will publish you, and you believe strongly in your interpretation, then you self-publish. And maybe start your own journal. And although there are diverse interpretations of what is observed in science, there are many common elements....

Why do I believe the Book of Mormon and not the Quran? Let's say I don't disbelieve the Quran, but based on my experience, I believe the Book of Mormon to be a more correct interpretation. And why do you believe your college science instruction over your public high school science instruction? Why do you prefer Rand over Marx, or Marx over Rand? Why do you live in the U.S.A.? Why do you believe the universe will stabilize/collapse/continue to expand vs. the alternatives?

I've got a copy of the Quran from which I am gleaning truth. I've read the Hindu Gita (which, by the way, was another attempt at religious reformation). I've studied the Tao. I've found truth in all of them. Just like I found truth in my high school science classes. But I've found something that I believe is a more complete interpretation. If I someday believe that I've found something better, then I suppose I will act on that assumption, as others have done. Just looking at the last 500 years, I see religion and science growing (up) together, not apart.

And as for your "weak" concept of god. Both your understading of the adjective "weak" and your standards of what constitutes impressive godliness are based on your acceptance of authoritative definitions. What could be stronger than the strongest of all living things? Regardless of whether or not he can make a rock too big for himself to lift. What could be smarter than the smartest of all living things, regardless of whether he retains the ability to learn something new? What could be more impressive than the most impressive of all living things? Regardless of whether he is as impressive as you imagined. Whether or not you think my conception of God is impressive or weak--that is interpretation and it's based on an understanding of our language that was handed to you by authority.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

phlebas

And that's pretty much where science stops.

The problem with using an intelligent designer as an answer to anything is that it only opens more unanswerable questions. Where did this designer come from? Why did something this powerful design anything at all? Why did he go through such trouble to make it look natural? (And, for Christians, why does this designer have to be the one in the Bible?)

You might think that simplifies things. I don't.

If that were true, there would be a lot fewer atheists. Not all of us were always atheists, you know. If the Holy Ghost wanted me to be a Christian, he could have saved us both a lot of trouble by showing himself when I was 16.

That's the beauty of the scientific method. You can look at the data gathered and draw your own conclusions. If the conclusion fits all the available data, it could be the truth. For any set of data, there could be an infinite number of explanations, which is where Occam's Razor comes in.

Example: Someone is working in her kitchen and she notices the shadow of a cross on the floor, but she's too busy to investigate. Is the cross a sign of some sort from God, or did something cross-shaped get between the floor and the sun? Later on, she goes outside and notices the frame of a new house next door has gone up, and it has several boards positioned perpendicular to each other. But the sun has moved and she can no longer see if it casts any cross-shaped shadows. What would you assume?

Not at all. I'm merely asserting my current belief, which is based on my own observations and thoughts. (I happened to discover later that others have studied what they call "evolutionary ethics.")

How could I possibly ask you to accept it on my authority? What authority do I have?

I'm not talking about altering our genes. I'm talking about doing something that goes against our instincts. A normal dog is not going to willingly jump into a fire. Similarly, a normal human would not be inclined to put his hand into a fire, but he can force himself to.

Now you seem to be confusing "Authority" (meaning "something that asserts the truth") with "the authorities" (meaning "those who make and enforce the laws.")

I was using them to be roughly synonmyous with instinct. I'll strive to be more precise.

Where did you get your reasons for believing in God peer reviewed?

I don't know about that, because I haven't heard about your truth-seeking quest. You've asserted that the universe appears to you to be a constructed thing. It doesn't appear that way to me.

First of all, I'd have to see data showing that scientists are mostly theists. That's not what I've heard. But I guess disagreeing with your assertion is an appeal to authority on my part?

Secondly, point me to any scientific study of God's existence? The existence of God is outside the realm of science, since it is not testable, falsifiable, etc etc. What science has shown time and time again is that most of the things humans have called "miracles" throughout history do actually have simple, natural explanations. Things like rainbows and eclipses.

Or is that another appeal to authority? Maybe rainbows are not really refracted light, but fringe scientists assert it is? Perhaps a solar eclipse is a sign from God, but we foolish humans think it's just the moon passing in front of the sun because some intelligent-looking man in a lab coat told us that? (And by "miracle," I mean something that contradicts the laws of nature. I don't mean "the miracle of life" or "the love of a child is a miracle" or any other bumper-stickers.)

Lastly, who says I'm part of a movement? I am an atheist because I lack a belief in any gods. I'm not passing out blazer buttons or teaching secret handshakes.

Pomp

phlebas,

Where did you get your reasons for believing in God peer reviewed?

Er...church?