BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM

"Love is something we can get a measure of on an intra-personal level"

How do we measure it so that the impersonal observer/skeptic can be convinced?

I have heard 'Christians' say: "he claims to be a Christian but I have my doubts..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

Love is something we can get a measure of on an intra-personal level; it's a human thang & lives / breathes according to how we experience it. Thus Love, unlike God, or similar supernatural conceits, is manifestly Empirical.

Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best... - Frank Zappa

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:32 PM

How much do I love thee? If you are not capable of measuring my love, can it possibly be true that I love?

Me thinks some things are not certifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:23 PM

Wal, Bill, the channels of perception which generate religious experience are psychological channels, about which we know so little we can't even offer a clear explanation of what's data and what ain't. Cf. James. While your adherence to rationality is always admirable, one insidious form of irrationality is mixing up data types in such a way that babies and bathwaters get thrown out together. WHen this happens rationality shoots itself in its own foot, so to speak.

The scientific method (in pure form) takes this into account by learning over time what kinds of data can be used in what context. Thus some kinds of surveys are acceptable measurements of sociological phenomena, but never would do for non-organic chemistry evidence.

The trend to reduce thought to bio-mechanics in the brain is this sort of mistake, because it ignores the far more important issues of understanding thought itself, what it is actually capable of and what its innate dynamics are as thought. A psychological event is farmore interesting than its chemical or electronic antecedents, in general; this is why we have rhetoric, poetry, and flashes of insight, and also why we generate unstoppable intentionality sometimes. Confusing the biophysical concomitants of these things with the things themselves is (IMHO) a fatal flaw of narrowmindedness and a betrayal of true scientific method.

And considering subjective personal viewpoints and thoughts to be outside the realm of rational science is a treacherous slope to walk down because it uses the power of thought to nullify thinking in an insidiious way.

Babies and bathwater, baby....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 11:42 AM

mousethief brought up an interesting point:

"There is good argument, some of it by atheists, that science as we know it got a good jump-start from religion, in the form of belief that the world is predictable because it is made by a rational God. The scientific method of iterative experiment and hypothesis, as first proposed by Roger Bacon, follows immediately from the philosophy of the Scholastics. Experimental science is the daughter of Abrahamic religion and Greek philosophy. It can be reasonably argued that without both, it would not have arisen, or would have arisen at a much much later date, after the intellectual framework was built up from some other source. Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. Many of those giants were Christian philosophers."

This is quite true-- centuries ago, most/many 'scientists' were also religious. There was an underlying theme to much of 'scientific' thought of "Let's learn all we can about the wonders God has given us", and much of what was learned was guided by, and interpreted in terms of, how it fit with religious texts. Nothing very surprising about that.
   But in the process of studying nature (plants & animals), the stars, physics, chemistry, geology....etc., the major thinkers were also codifying the rules for making sense OF scientific discovery. That is, they were gradually inventing the scientific method as a tool for accurately doing experiments, testing hypotheses, and using careful language to minimize misunderstandings among their peers & students. Gradually, as mathematics and rules for 'good science' were integrated, many became aware that they were defining not only 'good science', but also 'good thinking'.
Now...what happens when a dedicated scientist...such as Galileo... finds that 'good thinking' requires him to dispute or question certain religious precepts... like Heliocentric universe or age of the Earth? Several things happen.... Some 'rationalize' and try to make scientific theories 'fit' the religious concepts they cannot emotionally doubt. Some just try not to deal with it and simply do the science and let others do the arguing or questioning.... and some begin to see the rules of 'good thinking' as a separate, but guiding principle for ALL concerns.
Fast forward to today's dichotomy: the dispute between those who argue that "science, when done properly, has no place for a 'god' which cannot be tested in standard scientific method" and those who reply that "issues about God are not IN the realm of science, and simply not subject to 'testing'."

This seems to be a chasm that defies any effort to build a bridge. On the one hand, many assert that it is irrelevant whether religious topics are subject to 'testing' ala 'scientific method', because the 'rules of good thinking' always are relevant, and positing metaphysical realms and 'gods' EITHER violates certain rules of 'good thinking' and logic, OR is only internally and circularly consistent.
On the other hand, opponents assert that because gods and metaphysical concepts can be conceived of at all, they are 'possible' and simply involve 'different' forms of evidence & reasoning and it is not even fair or useful to suggest they be required to submit to testing or analysis common to the physical world.

   ...but there is a 'sort of' other position which may be about as close to a bridge as we will ever get, and which can be held in some form by those on both sides of the chasm. It holds that because religious thought is so ancient and embedded in human culture throughout history, it has 'value' over & beyond any reference to its absolute 'truth'. These people hold that we can & should find within religious contexts...lessons about our 'selves', beauty, guidance about morals, respect for tradition...and many other subjective concepts.

I **tend** to think that the 'good thinking' position IS the most reasonable one... but *smile*...perhaps some will say that is as circular & subjective as any religious orientation. To me, it is just "reasonable to BE reasonable" in all things, and that the rules of 'good thinking' are, in fact **objective** if properly understood....but I do cross a mite over halfway on that shaky bridge of respect for the values I can see on 'the other side'.


The details & complex implications of the position I take is even longer than THIS rambling attempt to say something new on this topic...but maybe they are obvious to some.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM

Greater things than I have done, ye shall do.

And,

The Kingdom of HEaven is within.

Faith is not irrational IMHO, but you might call it metarational. Optimistic extrapolation over the long term, based on a clear insight into the fundamentals. Whatever you call it, it is perfectly rational when it is done knowingly, not as a kind of black-box hopeful ignorance. Big difference.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:45 AM

But faith IS irrational; if it were rational it would be a conclusion from evidence.

LOVE the battleground game, but would of course argue that since I have no religious beliefs, mine are not irrational, so I spit out one of the bullets, I think. If I had any, I would agree that they were irrational.

I have HOPES, myself, rather than faith, in humanity - I have known since I was a very small child and was learning about people's gods that if real people would just work together, we would be AS gods, in the sense of being able to accomplish anything.

I am reminded of that every time I am in a huge crowd of people all experiencing something together, like waiting outside the bookstore for the last Harry Potter book, or Obama's inauguration, or something else not directly working against, oh, say, poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM

Methinks Ron is taking the Michael, Michael.

Absolutely not! Simple Seeker firmly believes in his own omniscience & infallibility.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:59 AM

Will do, SJ - these days we limit ourselves to one big buffet blow out every three months or so, so once we've got The Fylde out of the way I think we'll ready & perhaps a little overdue!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:56 AM

Oh, no question Frank Zappa puts Mozart, Brahms,, Tallis, Byrd, etc. to shame. Whatever you say.

I never said he put them to shame, Ron - rather that he carried on in the same tradition and stands as an equal to each of them. Your overtly reactive stance is such that it either deliberately avoids the points raised (as you have with earlier posts from myself & MtheGM) or else you're missing the point entirely. I could name countless Atheist composers & musicians - and many others who've devoted their lives to performing the music of the composers you mention, not because of some transcendent spiritually you feel is somehow inherent in the music, but because of its human beauty which remains even when removed from its religious context.

To the Atheist such things aren't an issue; all is seen in human terms (even Religion) of both the positive and the negative which rests at the heart of the grand paradox that is the Human Condition. Whilst the Atheist is all too aware of the lessons of history, like the Anarchist, their abiding faith is that one day we'll be able to live succesfully without Religion or Government. You seem to be suggesting we need the oppression, the lies, the myths & the hoo-hah to function; maybe we need the jack-boots too, eh? Here in the UK we have a largely secular atheist society that works just splendidly. The same might be said for other parts of the world. Religion lingers as Folklore & Seasonal Festival - even Atheists might partake on such grounds (no one loves Xmas more than I & I even might go to Mass at Easter) but for the most part the pervading faith is in the goodness of the people around us whilst being aware that none of us is perfect. Note the word Faith there - Good Faith in Humanity, which is not a religious belief, but a Humanist Certainty, one founded entirely on Empirical Gnosis.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:30 AM

Methinks Ron is taking the Michael, Michael.


"Sorry, not atheism."

Wot then Ron? Wot?


Suibhne - I can recommend Tai Wu on Oxford Road. It's close to The Cornerhouse (excellent bookshop as well as first-class cinema) and if you go downstairs rather than in the restaurant situated at ground level, you'l find a real gem.

Go for the evening service, it's £10.50 for all you can eat, and start with the duck - it really is very good. Best buffet in Manchester!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:05 AM

There you go again, making assertions of certitude.

What else would one expect from His Simple Seeking Supreme Omniscience?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM

OK McGrath ~~ I will substitute the word 'evasive', which I would happily address directly [as I would, in any case, what I said last time with my 'either...or... formulation ~ but you appeared to find this offensive for some reason]. I reiterate the following, which I posted yesterday 0114 am, in response to R Davies, which he has not seen fit to reply to, but just gone on asserting his idiocies [as I perceive them] about religion being entirely benign & atheism totally malignant ~~

>>"atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples." [R Davies]

& you have had some pretty exact examples back of where it HAS, for all your "has not" ~~ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St Bartholmew's Day Massacre, the Holocaust, the concept of jihad leading to current militant Islamism, &c &c &c: but in typically fair-minded 'religious' fashion you have elected to ignore those bits.<<

These seem to me valid points. So, if he is not being evasive, how about an answer.


~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM

If we were able to set aside proving the existence of god for awhile, lets take a look at when and how the existence of god in the minds of people is a good thing and when does it go bad.

As simply put as I can...

Lets go back 40,000 years. Kids then knew what it was like to be watched by their mother. Feeling that you are being watched is a transmutable emotion that can be transferred into a god like observance. It was a valuable experience for a tribe when someone did a bad thing that deserved punishment. When a fellow tribesman did the punishment, a vendetta or revenge cycle was established to the detrement of the tribe. If however a god was respondible for the punishment, the tribe could be insulated from personal in fighting. This was a good thing.

When it goes bad for the tribe of long ago or today, is when the punishment by god, delivered by man, is prescribed for things like having the wrong god or usurping "god's judgment" for your own advancment of personal gain at the expense of the tribe.


Enter Glen Beck...or fill in the blank with your favorite crack pot, reverend or dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:17 AM

I suggest that discussions are best carried out if we restrain ourselves from saying things about other people posting which we would not be willing to say to their face in the same room.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:59 AM

I have no desire to be offensive to anyone [fingers crossed? maybe!] ~~ but am I alone in getting the impression that this Ron Davies character either doesn't want to listen or is not right bright?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:27 AM

" 'passing off myth as truth to children'

There you go again, making assertions of certitude. Really, if you have a disproof of the existence of God, I'd love to see it. I don't want to believe something that isn't true."

A good deal of what's in the Bible is mythology under another guise. Parting the waters, bloke talking to God up a mountain and coming down with a clutch of laws, all those miracles, Jesus coming from the dead. That is mythology, but the near-certainty (sorry, that's the best I can do) that these things are no more than made-up yarns emanating from tendentious authors (and very childish yarns at that, clearly intended to strike awe into believers and keep an ever-tightening grip on them) is never relayed to children. As for what you believe, your evidence bar is set very low, which means that, whilst you don't want to believe something that isn't true, you don't mind believing something that is almost certainly not true.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:12 AM

Oh, no question Frank Zappa puts Mozart, Brahms,, Tallis, Byrd, etc. to shame.

Whatever you say.

Look, it's painfully obvious to anybody who can think:   atheism is worse than useless.

When in power it has resulted in more deaths than anything else in human history.

And virtually nothing worthwhile culturally has come from it.

If a rational person had to choose between a world without religion and a world without atheism, no question which he or she would choose.

Sorry, not atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:05 AM

" 'otherwise you are leaving yourself seriously open to accusations of immorality.'

I don't follow. How is teaching my children what I believe immoral? I assume you teach your children (if you have any) what you believe?"

Of course it isn't immoral to teach your children what you believe. But they have to know that it's just what you believe, and not universal truth. Religion, in its prayers and its written word, deals in certainties. Our Father, who art in heaven... that is certainty, and by enforcing endless repetition you are instilling this spurious sense of certainty in kids. I was brought up a Catholic and I remember few, if any, caveats about the "truths" we were bombarded with. It wasn't repressive but, looking back, I think I might have been brainwashed into believing the total truth of what I was being told and, worse, into being very reluctant to question those truths. I certainly found it hard to shake off in later life. Looking back, I kind of think that was one of the big ideas of the approach. That can't be right. Education is not about bombarding people with truths but enabling children to find truth for themselves, by asking questions, being constructively sceptical and demanding evidence. I think that religious education is very poor at doing that. There's a very good harmonica player in Seattle, by te way. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:56 AM

"some of the finest music ever realised. "
Prove it...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 04:26 AM

Frank Zappa was an atheist, which accounts for some of the finest music ever realised.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:04 PM

"No secret why the Left has the unchallenged..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:56 PM

Oh but then, Smokey, the all-knowing and all-seeing Simple Seeker is most assuredly NOT most people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:44 PM

Ah well.. some people know everything :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:36 PM

Most people don't bother asking whether a tune was written by an atheist or not..

They know what the odds are. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM

Most people don't bother asking whether a tune was written by an atheist or not..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:48 PM

OMG look at how they muck about with words even in the explanations: "[If it is] good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God?"

Hello?! The rapist was a believer in "God." (Have these philosphers heard of Venn diagrams?)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:43 PM

I took two hits but I protest on both - yes on semantics. Maybe I should have read the instructions and still should, but:

"You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God?"

Answer: I "meant" it is not objectively justifiable to knowingly and intentionally reach conclusions against all evidence known to you (they have misstated what I actually "claimed" here, btw), but once someone has formed a set of beliefs about God, by whatever processes, he would be subjectively and objectively justified in following God's orders as he hears them.

They asked me all these questions about what God can or can't do. Since I knew they wanted me to be consistent, I slid through. Thankfully, though, they didn't ask me if God could make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:39 PM

"people who love power..."

Sorry, that's drivel.   The power Stalin, Mao, and Hitler each had was in large part due to the status of each of being a God-substitute.   That is, each one headed an atheist state--with the leader standing in for God. And that was a major foundation of the totalitarian state each headed. With the results I described.

In Hitler's case, for instance, the parallel is made blazingly obvious in the songs I quoted. Except of course to those who for some reason--gee I wonder what it could be-don't want to see it.

I can't imagine why atheists are not willing to claim Hitler, Mao and Stalin as their own.    And are probably unwilling to admit there has ever been an atheist state.   Correction:   just not the 'kinder, gentler' atheist state Mudcatter atheists envision in their cute, absurdly soft-focus neverlands.   Which easily rival any talk about the 'next life' in degree of rationality.

No secret why the Left has such the unchallenged reputation for fuzzy thinking which it enjoys particularly in the West.

Interesting that in each case, the atheist state needed to be accompanied by a police state.
That certainly however does cut down on the chances of criticism of the leader.

And we still have an atheist state in North Korea--another Leftist paradise.   And folks are just overjoyed in Cuba--another one.



Re:   Sartre's Being and Nothingness

1)   I can't imagine how the world would go on without that bit of literature.   Interesting that the poster seems to think it offsets all the religious works--in all religions.

2)   The poster has managed to miss the point.   Point was not how many books had been written by atheists, but how many had been preserved by atheists against efforts to destroy them.   Seems that Hitler, for instance was actually a bit on the other side of the issue.


Once more with feeling:   atheism has been a total disaster for the world.   Particularly when in power.   But also creations by atheists are not exactly anything to write home about. Unless of course nihilism turns you on. Who knows, perhaps it does turn Mudcat atheists on. I wouldn't want to deprive you.

Just leave me Mozart, Brahms, Tallis, Byrd---and countless other composers.   And leave me the literature written by religious people--of all religions---and by agnostics.

You're more than welcome to all the literature and music written by atheists.   Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:31 PM

Steve, I like you and I hope we can agree to disagree on areas where we disagree and be, if not friends, then friendly. Come to Seattle and I'll buy you a beer and we can play music. I'd love to show you my instrument. Um, musical instrument (my lovely hand-made-in-the-USA Tacoma Chief). Get your mind out of the gutter.

On to your most recent post.

A hard man would hold you to the view that it is indeed a "scientific question." But it isn't really, even though you would apparently like me to think so.

I don't understand what you're saying. I want you to think that it isn't a scientific question, inasmuch as I think that's true and I think people should believe what's true.

Forget court, which is something you raised, not me. No-one's on trial here.

Non sequitur. I never said anyone was on trial. I brought it up as an area in which a different kind of evidence -- personal/eyewitness testimony -- is allowed. (I.e. different from scientific evidence.) Do you agree with that assessment?

I wouldn't give a second thought to what religious people thought if only they'd keep it all to themselves.

I completely understand. And if it is brought up, you are well within your rights to ask for evidence/arguments that you find convincing. But what you are doing (or seem to be doing) is telling other people that they should apply scientific "rules" of evidence (for want of a better word) to the question, even though it is not a scientific question.

passing off myth as truth to children

There you go again, making assertions of certitude. Really, if you have a disproof of the existence of God, I'd love to see it. I don't want to believe something that isn't true.

otherwise you are leaving yourself seriously open to accusations of immorality.

I don't follow. How is teaching my children what I believe immoral? I assume you teach your children (if you have any) what you believe?

Actually, science doesn't confront religion. It proceeds in spite of it.

There is good argument, some of it by atheists, that science as we know it got a good jump-start from religion, in the form of belief that the world is predictable because it is made by a rational God. The scientific method of iterative experiment and hypothesis, as first proposed by Roger Bacon, follows immediately from the philosophy of the Scholastics. Experimental science is the daughter of Abrahamic religion and Greek philosophy. It can be reasonably argued that without both, it would not have arisen, or would have arisen at a much much later date, after the intellectual framework was built up from some other source. Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. Many of those giants were Christian philosophers.

Religion, on the other hand, loves to confront science.

Does it? Some religious people seem to love to confront science, although I think they would argue they are compelled to confront science. Many other religious people do not. A little reading into the history of Creationism (a good book is The Creationists by Ronald Numbers) shows that religion was getting along pretty well with Darwinism and the new archaeology until the late 1800s when six-day or "young earth" creationism was invented (belief that creation literally took place in six 24-hour days, leading to the absurd date of 4004 BC for the creation of the world).

Although this started out a minority belief, unfortunately it has come to be embedded in many strands of Protestant fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, to where denying the earth is very young is considered a heresy. The belief has worked its way into the non-church-going populous of the US, alas alas, affecting the same people who think that there was no moon landing, the 9/11 attacks were made by agents of the US government, and Barak Obama is a Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:51 PM

"But really the problem is that you have defined all of the types of evidence that Christians have for their religion as out of court, mostly because the only evidence you accept as in court is scientific evidence. At which point all I can do is throw up my hands and admit, no, we don't have any scientific evidence for the existence of God. But, as I said, it's not a scientific question."

A hard man would hold you to the view that it is indeed a "scientific question." But it isn't really, even though you would apparently like me to think so. I might want to set the evidence bar a little higher than you'd like, but I'm not throwing the scientific bit at you. Basically, you are trying to force the evidence/faith conundrum to a sort of breaking point here. Forget court, which is something you raised, not me. No-one's on trial here. And I wouldn't give a second thought to what religious people thought if only they'd keep it all to themselves. I have a fairly stern set of conditions for that. The fact that big religion likes to go big public and big proselytising makes it seriously vulnerable to opposition, and you can hardly blame those opponents for requiring religion to validate itself, especially in the light of its predilection for passing off myth as truth to children (you can probably see what my big gripe is with religion by now). You want to tell kids that there is a God and that he is high and mighty? Good, but your evidence had better be better than good, otherwise you are leaving yourself seriously open to accusations of immorality. This is an issue that religion has set up for itself, not an issue that science confronts religion with. Actually, science doesn't confront religion. It proceeds in spite of it. Religion, on the other hand, loves to confront science. It never learns though. Talk about cruising for a bruising!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:24 PM

Yep... the art of phrasing a true/false question is...well, an art.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:09 PM

I did just the same, VTam. The issue lies with the semantics of the last question, which implies that God is of the external world. Easily a problematic proposition.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM

John P...as to your question: "How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?


The God Gene"

Do *I* accept it? *shrug*... Anything like that will need a lot more study...but...what IF it turns out to be true, and that gene also makes it impossible for the bearer to accept that it exists?.. *wry grin*

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:44 PM

Hi, John - re: your reference to this: I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me:

I wonder if we specify because of the spiritual tradition we come from. If we come from the Muslim tradition, we see things as coming from Mohammed, who is our chief prophet of the Spiritual Source, or Jesus as chief prophet (and incarnation) of that same Spiritual Source.

If we study the mystics of various spiritual traditions, we often find that their mystical experiences are very much the same, and don't have much denominational differentiation. And mystical experiences are usually beyond doctrine and competition and all that nasty stuff. Peace and a sensation of unity are two things common to many mystical experiences.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:40 PM

Dan, the presence of a skunk and the non-presence of tobacco are more than enough to explain any ill humor! My heart has been warmed by the fact that ALL the religious folk in this discussion have proved themselves to be amongst those who don't want to take over the world and control the minds and bodies of other people, or even to blather at them about religion without invitation. Thank you!

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:35 PM

Mousethief: I mentioned above that the type of evidence that most Christians have for their faith/belief breaks down into (a) historical documents, (b) testimony of trusted persons, and (c) personal experience of the divine. The problem is that when anybody presents any of this evidence, they are pounced on because it's "not conclusive" or "not rigorous and repeatable" or what have you.

I'm glad to say I'm not one who insists on scientific, repeatable proof. Spiritual experience can't (yet) be defined in that way, and yet it exists. My question: Why do these experiences lead anyone to believe in the divinity of Jesus, or in the specific details of any religion?

Historical documents are meaningless in this context and no conclusions can be drawn from them. Anyone can write anything they want to. Testimony of trusted persons and personal experience of the divine are, to me, admissible evidence, but I don't see them adding up to anything other than "people can have spiritual experiences that cause them to become enlightened" and "there are good, inspirational, enlightened people in this world".

How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:20 PM

Me too. I bottled on the last question. I thought I would have been shot down much earlier, because I had to reread several questions to understand them.

"You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM

"When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?"

Stalinist Russia. Not all of the people killed under Lenin and Stalin were killed because of their religion, but many were. Churches were looted and burned, nuns were raped and killed, priests and bishops and monks and laypeople were killed because they were Christians by people whose motivation for doing so was their atheism.

They were killed in the name of communism, as were the victims of Mao. Religion was not seen as a threat to atheism, but to communism. Not the same thing at all. Correlation is not causation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:03 PM

My result:

"You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:01 PM

hmmm...well, I got to the last question in that game with NO flaws before I misread something and made some sort of logical contradiction about the circumstances where it is "justifiable" to believe in a God....serves me right for hurrying.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 04:46 PM

There is no reason some data cannot be compared as data without getting too deeply into imponderables. The provenance of a certainty that comes from an individual experience may not be as valid to a physicist as a rock-solid repeatable lab experiment, but it strikes me as more valid than, say, a decree about damnation based on the querulous notion that a single ancient book contained nothing but unquestionable truth and therefore all interpretations of it were binding. Experiential perception is certainly senior to mere blind compliance to dogmatic authority.

There are some experiences, also, which although they may not be religious could be classified as spiritual which ARE more repeatable, even if not completely so, than others; for example, the ingestion of psilocybin or LSD makes for pretty standard psychic experiences, and the map of things one encounters undergoing certain kinds of meditation has been fairly well mapped at least in general terms. Accurate, but not precise, you might say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 04:46 PM

This is a fun "game" that some people might enjoy playing: it's merely a series of true/false questions about religion/god, and the "game" tells you if you believe one or more things that are not logically consistent with one another. (fwiw: I took 1 hit and bit 0 bullets, but I believe they were drawing an equivalence that I disagree with.)

Battleground God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM

What's more, it would be foolish to overlook the tendentious nature of many of these texts. Mostly, they're hardly neutral, are they?

True. Then again as CS Lewis pointed out, all of the contemporary accounts about Napoleon were written either by the French, who idolized him, or by the English/Germans/etc., who despised him. There are no neutral sources. From this we do not conclude, however, that we don't know anything about Napoleon.

Of course a flaw in this analogy is that we don't have many contrary sources about Christ. Mostly we have the canonical NT writings, a bunch of gnostic texts, and a reference in Josephus which appears to have been garbled or mangled (or just straightforward embellished) in the process of being handed down.

But really the problem is that you have defined all of the types of evidence that Christians have for their religion as out of court, mostly because the only evidence you accept as in court is scientific evidence. At which point all I can do is throw up my hands and admit, no, we don't have any scientific evidence for the existence of God. But, as I said, it's not a scientific question.

I mentioned above that the type of evidence that most Christians have for their faith/belief breaks down into (a) historical documents, (b) testimony of trusted persons, and (c) personal experience of the divine. The problem is that when anybody presents any of this evidence, they are pounced on because it's "not conclusive" or "not rigorous and repeatable" or what have you. Well, yes. It's not a scientific question. It's a matter of looking at the existing evidence, and deciding if one finds it convincing or not. It's not a mathematical proof or scientific validation. It is, as some of the more calm and reasonable people on both sides of the fence have stated, something about which good and rational people can go either way on.

The ugliness starts when either side starts flinging poo at the other. The religious side tends to fling (a) eternal damnation, and (b) accusations of immorality; whereas the areligious side tends to fling (c) accusations of irrationality and stupidity. Leaving (a) aside for the moment, neither (b) nor (c) are really fair.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 03:56 PM

A_ theism is a far far cry from anti-theism. To be anti- something you have to contemplate and oppose its existence, not believe it existeth not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM

I wrote ...it's really difficult to have a rational conversation on personal beliefs without some strong emotion, because if the beliefs are not the same then at some level you have to believe that the other person is wrong (in the sense of "mistaken") -- and also understand that the other person believes you are wrong. It's difficult to have the words that come out of that conflict not cause some distress.

This ignores these conversations where someone's going to flat out say "you're wrong and here's why"... is it possible to have light in those without heat? I suppose it's a case of if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. We have the option here of not engaging in the conversation -- don't participate in the thread. Or if you must, figure out how to reassure yourself that that assault to your beliefs is not necessarily an assault on you as a person.

~ Becky in Tucson
realizing that once you get yourself involved, sometimes it's hard to get out clean...

and contemplating conversation and metaconversation...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM

McGrath, the lack of a Constitution would be disaster for this country as it turns out to have been for others. There is nothing divine about it and it should be flexible enough to be changed if certain articles don't work...ie: slavery, prohibition etc. I think the Equal Rights Amendment for women is long overdue.

"Non-theist" is the same as "a-theist". It just doesn't have the loaded implication for some people.

Science may discover through psychology and the manipulation of the human brain why some people are inclined toward religion. I don't think that this subject should be taboo.
Already, brain specialists can simulate a "religious" feeling by massaging certain temporal
lobes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

"The historical Gnostics had some pretty strange beliefs of their own."

Maybe? But then history is always written by the victors. And something we do know for sure, is that the Catholic Church successfully demonised and burned the historical Gnostics.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:13 PM

"Yep, and that's why belief in God isn't a scientific belief, and subjecting it to scientific tests/procedures is naff. Sorry, that's rude. It's a category error."

That is not the issue. Believers broadcast their message to the heathen world and pass on their beliefs to their children as truth. It is not unreasonable under these circumstances to be sceptical and ask what their evidence is, and it is equally not unreasonable to put what they call their evidence (and they do use the word) under scrutiny. They have no right to immunity from awkward questions, considering what they do.

"How does one verify independence of sources? One way is to show that they disagree on some details -- if they agree on everything it's probable that one is copying the other. And the gospels do disagree on a lot of fiddly details (Matthew has 2 animals on Palm Sunday, for instance, where Luke has 1). Of course the response to this will be that this just proves that they're not accurate and so can be dismissed! We can't win."

Well, not all the conflicts are fiddly, but we'll leave that aside for now. Good point about disagreement on detail pointing to authenticity - I like that. But it does go to show that the gospels, and all the rest, should not be taken as, er, gospel. What's more, it would be foolish to overlook the tendentious nature of many of these texts. Mostly, they're hardly neutral, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM

Some poeople seem to see the US CO(nstitution as having quasi-divine authority...
...................

The historical Gnostics had some pretty strange beliefs of their own.