BS: The God Delusion 2010

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 12:59 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: John P
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM

Ron, people who love power seek it, and often become totalitarians. Religion or atheism isn't really part of it, even if the totalitarian says so.

Ron's response: Sorry, that's drivel.

Are you saying that people who don't want power end up in positions of power? Are you saying that people who like to boss others around don't seek the power to do so? Are you saying that any atheist who gets power becomes a murderous monster? Are you saying that religious folks with power are always benign? Are you really that clueless, or are you just feeling rude these days?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 01:31 PM

And PLEASE don't get into the history of secular vs. religious atrocities. Almost every religious discussion on Mudcat devolves into that and it is really, really, pointless. This discussion has been very interesting so far, partly because the biased history lessons have been minimal.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 01:58 PM

Apparently, Ron thinks my music is inferior because I don't believe in God. Sadly, the rules of the forum don't allow me (and quite rightly) to state my true feelings on that, but I trust those with more than two brain cells can work it out for themselves.

Given that I have no choice whatsoever in my non-belief, should I be claiming invalidity benefit for my loss of earnings due to an obviously debilitating mental condition?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM

...Or should I just pretend to be religious, as have, I suspect, countless people throughout history?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Historically I think we owe a lot to religion for a great amount of various styles of music. We also 'owe' religion a fair amount for the wars that have lead to a great many great songs. But not all...

I remember years ago some Archbishop or other stating that Atheists could not be true altruists. I thought it then and I still think it now. Hogwash! It seems some think that Atheists could not make great songs. Again: Hogwash!

Whether your life is under, what I will call, 'positive religious control', or not, will not make you a great singer or lyricist. Ultimately what is in your heart and head will be what influences what you do and so anything that follows comes from your life experience, not just spirituality or absence from it.

I had ti resist putting "surely" on the end of that last sentence asit is not my wish to call anyone Shirley! ;-)

Religious or not... none of it can take place without YOU! Never forget the part you play in that and outcomes of anything. Believing in God or not... there is good and bad in everyone.

In honesty I actually thing the altruistic atheist has a kind of upper hand. They are not looking to do anything for some higher reward after death. But that is an entirely different thread and I do know not all believers actually look for reward that way.

With the fullest respect to all who believe in God. When did God ever issue an edict for us to have ONLY a relationship with him without a relationship with each other? When I listen to a singer it matters not what religion, colour, creed, sexuality or gender they are. If I enjoy them I enjoy them

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:31 PM

"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"

There may not be a question in your head, Ron, but it is a question that has been asked many times in history by a great many rational people.

Charles Darwin turned his back on God and religion, but not without respect to those he knew did believe. Indeed, he made himself ill worrying about upsetting people if he disclosed what his life work had shown. Evolution is hardly irrational. I do think though that Darwin, along with his friend Huxley who coined the term, was actually agnostic

Giuseppe Verdi was also atheist. His operas, and in particular his Requiem and the religious music within his operas, are sublimely beautiful (IMHO). He, too, questioned deeply his stance on God. Again, hardly an irrational man.

History is full of men who chose, often through personal experience or circumstance, to live in a world which to them could have no religion.

It's not a fair question. It is like asking to live in a world without art or culture. What good does that do us all? Yet, it absolutely does a great deal of good. It's not always apparent but the world would be poorer without it.

Had the world never had religion I doubt we would miss that which we never knew. We never met a dynosaur but can still be facinated by their fossils. We cannot have a world without religion or atheism. They are the two sides of the same coin.

Just my opinion. Am I being irrational?

Don't answer that! lol

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:34 PM

There is a large catalogue of sublime music which was written by church sponsored composers, but the private beliefs of the composers aren't really known to anyone, nor do they matter.

For a daft example, take a look at Hitler's paintings; do they look as if they were painted by a fascist dictator? I think not.. He was a much better painter than me, and I hardly ever want to rule the world. Much.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:47 PM

LOL, Smokey.

The biggest confusion I think occurs in this field is the notion that God is an external. The gets people into all sorts of tizzies because they think, like other parts of the shared universe, it should be possible to agree on what is there, just like a mile or a stone in a field.

But the fact is God and all his ilk are internally generated from the same realm all subjective assessments come from.

That's why the separation of Church and State is critical to a nation's success--it inserts a true division between the commons and the temple, the same division that exists in nature between opinions about beauty and the objective measurable frequency of green.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM

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

Is there such any such person? Our very humanity is defined by such experience. Like orgasm - how do we measure that? Or pain? Constipation? Fear? Joy? Cramp?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 03:28 PM

Ron's response: 'Sorry, that's drivel'..... Are you saying that people who don't want power end up in positions of power...

No, he's saying he has all the answers, and no-one else matters.

Thou Shalt Not Contradict the Simple Seeker.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM

Quote: 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'." (unquote)

I haven't really come across this alleged dichotomy. There is little or no real motivation in science to test for a God. The latter is more the case, and it reflects what I said about science being generally unconcerned about God. It can't really be any other way. I have never seen any paradox in the fact that many scientists believe in God. In nearly every case a belief in God will not impinge in any way in their everyday work. Science is generally not about people philosophising in ivory towers. It's about earning a crust. And let's not forget that Newton, that guru quoted above, was frequently wrong and was a self-centred, opinionated, arrogant prick!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 05:15 PM

I certainly found it hard to shake off in later life

Yes, clearly you're still a Catholic and tied to that belief system forever. ::rolleyes:: A quick look at the actual numbers of kids who are raised in Christian homes and then "fall away" i.e. cease to be Christians in later life, would indicate your despair over kids being raised as Christians is misplaced.

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.

You don't know where my evidence bar is; this is bluster. And "almost certainly not true" is not based on any obtainable objective register of probability (there is none) but on your own beliefs. In short, you believe one way, I believe the other. The difference is I'm not trying to slander you for your beliefs, or denigrate your atheism, or insult your decsion-making abilities.

>>"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" ~

You are neglecting the word "total" in his claim. He's not saying that religion has not led to disasters. He's saying that it has also led to good, so the sum total is not 100% disaster. Whereas for atheism, he is saying the sum total is 100% disaster. Whether or not this is the case, I do not know. But you two are talking past each other and I think the word "total" is the reason why. I don't know any religious person who would want to claim that everything done in the name of Christianity or in the name of Christ has been an unmitigated blessing to humanity.

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.

This is delerium. Please, see a brain care specialist right away. Zappa doesn't stand anywhere in their neighborhood. Although a quick google finds that Verdi, Berlioz, and Brahms were at least agnostic if not atheist (apparently Berlioz stated outright that he was atheist). John Cage of course was an atheist but no right-thinking person believes he's a good composer.

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

Faith steps in where the evidence is inconclusive either way. It is not irrational, which means against reason; it is arational. Amos says "metarational" but I"m not sure what that means.

to BillD: you are equating "good thinking" with "scientific thinking." As a philosopher, I cannot agree. There are some questions that are worthwile and meaningful that are not scientific questions.

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

What unit is love measured in? By what instruments?

I remember years ago some Archbishop or other stating that Atheists could not be true altruists. I thought it then and I still think it now. Hogwash!

I agree with you. However at least in the United States, it is a pretty well established fact that Christians and other religious people give a lot more to charitable causes than Atheists do. An Atheist on another forum I frequent bemoaned this fact and worked hard to raise levels of giving to charitable causes by Atheists. More power to him.

to mauvepink: it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Darwin's loss of faith had a lot more to do with his daughter's death than his evolutionary theories.

Like orgasm - how do we measure that? Or pain? Constipation? Fear? Joy? Cramp?

You appear to agree, then, that scientific evidence is not the only kind that matters?

Science is generally not about people philosophising in ivory towers. It's about earning a crust.

How I would love to earn a crust philosophizing in ivory towers. Many do. They are university professors of philosophy for the most part. I think it is important that we think about what it means to think. And it was their thinking that gave rise to what we call "science" in the first place.

And let's not forget that Newton, that guru quoted above, was frequently wrong and was a self-centred, opinionated, arrogant prick!

Would that I, frequently wrong, self-centered, opinionated, and prickoid as I am, could have done what he did for the future of human knowledge!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,BS = Briceida Santiago
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM

Captured! Psycho! What the heck is this? Kiss my Ass!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:05 PM

Mousethief is right about my use of "total".    My critic might want to take a course in reading the English language. And another in logic.

It doesn't even matter if Berlioz said he was atheist.   What I would refer to if I mentioned him would be his stirring and majestic Requiem,( which is wonderful to sing and which I have been lucky enough to sing one of my group's Italian tours--we were part of the Spoleto festival and also sang in the Sistine Chapel that year.)   And the music in the street and after midnight when I hooked up with the cultural center of Spoleto after midnight was one of the musical high points of my life.   Too bad the rest of the chorus just wanted to sleep.

My point is that without Christianity the Berlioz Requiem--like the other music I have cited--would not have been written.

It's fine with me if atheists write Christian music--as long as they honor the actual tradition and take it seriously, as Berlioz did.   He is in fact very convincing--if any Mudcat atheist had actually listened to the piece.   Not that that's likely to happen.   It would take away from important Zappa time.

Somehow I tend to doubt a Mudcat atheist's efforts along those lines would be similar.

I can't help but think that I could exist--quite happily, in fact--without ever hearing another Zappa song.   It was fun in Paris to yell "A bas les flics!" when Zappa didn't show up for his concert.   But I suspect the live participatory street theater was more of a kick than his actual concert would have been.   Though I was glad not to be arrested--and the tear gas was unexpected.

So this does not change the fact that it is Christianity--(and probably capitalism, since Berlioz was probably paid for his work)-- and not atheism which is responsible for the glorious Berlioz Requiem.

Therefore my point remains that music due to atheism is, shall we say, not worth the time of any serious music lover.   Not that I would want to call it trash.   Of course not.

Ergo atheism is still virtually worthless as a contributor to culture--unless, as I said, you get off on nihilism. Perhaps all the sales of Being and Nothingness and similar bleak pinnacles of achievement are due to sales to Mudcat atheists.

And of course I have also said that agnosticism is an eminently sensible stance for a thinking person to take.

It's only atheism which has been a disaster for the world and close to a dead loss for culture.   So, as noted earlier, if forced to choose between no atheism and no religion, I'll stay with religion. Thanks for asking.

I can tell you point blank that Brahms was no atheist.   Neither, by the way, was Darwin.
So I'll keep Darwin and you atheists can have Dawkins.   Seems fair.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:10 PM

Verdi was also not atheist. Mistreated by the Church, he had every reason not to be a strong Catholic, may well have been agnostic.   Again his Requiem is a true pinnacle of music--with no trace of atheism whatsoever.   (And a glorious experience to sing.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM

I think that this is not true about Verdi.

Remember, when these men were writing music, the only patrons they could find to support their works were either rich people or members of the clergy.

Christian power and money may have been responsible for some of the great works flying under the church banner but just as Da Vinci and Michelangelo have shown, they were not big fans of the clergy in their lives. The clergy paid the bills, that's all.

These composers were great and would have been even if they hadn't written liturgical
music. They were great because they were great and that's all.

As for any trace of atheism, this can't be established through the liturgical words that they
were kind of forced to write. Remember, heretics could easily be burned at the stake.
You knew which side your "bread was buttered on".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:37 PM

See? Simply infallible in matters of faith, morals, and whatever other BS he chooses to splash around.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:54 PM

Y'know, Amos... your reply to my long post was essentially your USUAL reply to some of the issues I often discuss at other times. I am not sure what you 'thought' you read that made you plug in the usual mind/body dichotomy and revert to the 'babies & bathwater' metaphor, but I was not 'throwing out' anything in that post. I said nothing about "bio-mechanics of the brain", and was not even trying to approach that debate... and my real point about how to achieve that 'bridge' between different approaches seems to have been lost.


mousethief: ": you are equating "good thinking" with "scientific thinking."
   No, that's not exactly what I am doing at all. I DO suggest that they are related, because you can't have 'good science' with 'bad thinking'.
As a matter of fact, I agree that "There are some questions that are worthwhile and meaningful that are not scientific questions.", and I alluded to that within my post.
All I was trying to do (besides the historical perspective ON science and logic) was to show that ... lemmee see.... that IF one employs 'bad thinking'...that is, starts with premises that are obviously false or gratuitously subjective and then are linked in a logically fallacious manner, it follows that the conclusions have limited ....*long pause*.... limited ..ummm... relevance and 'substance'. They have less *power to convince*.
Everyone will see this if we use examples they agree with and see the sequence....whether it's about gardening, geology, sanitation or map reading.... but when the topic is a personal 'sacred cow', they suddenly don't LIKE to look directly at the logical fallacies involved.
   Now, let me state clearly that I do realize that it IS possible to achieve either a true conclusion or a valuable, relevant one even if the method employed is flawed... "even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes"... or "even a blindfolded darts thrower hits the target now & then"...etc. But there ARE more efficient & productive ways to achieve goals, and I flatly assert that using demonstrably 'bad thinking' is more likely to produce questionable answers.

I am not sure how anyone can dispute the basic sense of this claim, but I sure notice that the more specific the topic is, the easier it seems to be for people to harrumph and refuse to even consider that their coveted 'answer' is either exempt from analysis, or that the analysis is wrong.
Nietzsche once illustrated this succinctly with a 'quote' from an old woman, saying "Of course it was a just war! My son died in it!"
She simply could not cope with any logical or factual analysis of the 'justness' of the war.
   Today we see this happening with 'global climate change', with disputes over what taxes are justified, with how immigration should be handled, with disputes over Obama's birth certificate,...and we see 'denial' among smokers, among the obese over why they ARE obese, and in people who choose to live in areas which are subject to flooding or landslides or fires. They just insert premises that they like and link them so that they reach the decision that is comfortable for them. It is often obvious why they DO resort to 'bad thinking', but anyone who is NOT emotionally committed to their position can usually see the flaws in their reasoning.

....see? I rest my case... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:04 PM

1)   If you think Verdi was atheist, not agnostic, let's have some actual evidence.   Burden of proof is on you.

2) You are still not reading very carefully.   It makes no difference to me if he were atheist--point is that without Christianity his Requiem would never have been written.

As I've said, atheists are welcome to write Christian pieces as long as they are respectful of the tradition. Verdi was more than that--this piece, as I've said, is a peak of choral music.




In fact it was not written, as the poster seems to cynically assume, solely for a commission--and it was not the Church which commissioned it-- but also to honor several men Verdi deeply respected, one who had in fact asked him to write a Requiem for him.

Verdi, after finishing the Requiem, said he had written it "...to the greater glory of God."

Far from Verdi's showing atheist tendencies, the actual problem at the start was with the Milan city council:'   Verdi:   A Biography, by Mary Jane Phillips-Matz p . 607: "At a meeting of the city council in Milan, some members protested that the Messa da Requiem would cost the City too much money; others said the authorities should not underwrite a religious event.   Boito, then a city councillor, defended Verdi and won the day."

No surprise that an Mudcat atheist would suspect the worst of people.   Atheists' sunny good humor and upbeat humanism are always a joy. Or maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:35 PM

Oh...and just for further record, I agree with Ron about the influence of Christianity on music...and art of many other types. I sing some Pentecostal and other gospel songs...just because they are great music, and I really am awed by Gothic cathedrals and stained glass windows...and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel....and the paintings of the Italian masters who represented angels dancing...and, and...
   These things are part of our history and culture and are a very essential part of who & what we are in Western civilization. We MUST retain some perspective on why people were inspired to create such masterpieces....no matter what we 'feel' about the ultimate 'truth' or causality of the Universe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:36 PM

I suspect that that Archbishop might actually have been saying that true altruists cannot actually be true atheists, even if they think they are.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:38 PM

quote]I certainly found it hard to shake off in later life

Yes, clearly you're still a Catholic and tied to that belief system forever. ::rolleyes:: A quick look at the actual numbers of kids who are raised in Christian homes and then "fall away" i.e. cease to be Christians in later life, would indicate your despair over kids being raised as Christians is misplaced.[unquote]

Oh dear. I'm surprised at your lack of imagination in trotting out this standard, formulaic, banal riposte. Every person who's now an atheist but who was once a Catholic has heard this rubbish dozens of times. You can do better. Seems you can't be an ex-Catholic without being a militant, bitter, conscience-ridden, still-a-Catholic-deep-down-inside, ex-Catholic. You've sort of proved my point about one of organised religion's standard big ideas: to make it bloody tough to get out. Some of us made it, though I'm sure you'll disapprove. Did you not see where I said it wasn't exactly oppressive?

"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.

You don't know where my evidence bar is; this is bluster. And "almost certainly not true" is not based on any obtainable objective register of probability (there is none) but on your own beliefs. In short, you believe one way, I believe the other. The difference is I'm not trying to slander you for your beliefs, or denigrate your atheism, or insult your decsion-making abilities."

No bluster. You don't want evidence because you have faith. Your faith is what stops you from seeking evidence. The search would be far too inconvenient, not to say fruitless. You're way down the evidence register and way up the faith register (though, like fossil missing links, there isn't a lot between the extremes). It's strange (ironic?) that you should resort to bringing objectivity into this argument. I would be interested to know what objective measure you apply to your belief in God. I have plenty of objective measures I can apply to my dismissal of God. I could start by saying that, by having your God at the heart of things, you are trying to explain the world by resort to something far more complex, rule-busting and inexplicable than anything the world contains. Tell me where your objectivity lies in all that. And yes, there is an objective measure of probability. A measure you can't exactly put a number to, but that's mainly because that number, were it to exist, would be vanishingly small.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:50 PM

You seem to know an awful lot about the private thoughts of composers, Ron. Do you happen to know whether Mussorgsky believed in Baba Yaga?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:22 PM

Bill:

Babies and bathwater; and what I was addressing was your usual admirable paean to rationality and the rules thereof. I was very simply making the point about the need to be careful about exclusionary data definitions. True, we've batted this back and forth before, but it was completely relevant to a discussion of religiosity vis-a-vis rational rules of thought.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:39 PM

I DO try to be careful, Amos. The babies are safe when I bathe them.

It may be 'relevant' in some sense, but it didn't address the point I was making. I guess I gotta pare my points down a bit......

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:55 PM

Well, Bill D, I don't want to interfere with you amazing magnum opus (correct, since opus third declension, neuter) postings, which are some of Mudcat's best entertainment, but you used a rhetorical trick by suggesting that someone who refues to accept the theory of "climate change" is a denier, just like a smoker or an alcoholic et al is a denier, therefore he is wrong.

The fact is that these cases have their own facts and must be judged separately on factual evidence. You can't get away with suggesting that "he believes that smoking is not bad for your health therefore his belief that 'global warming' is also a fraud is wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM

"to mauvepink: it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Darwin's loss of faith had a lot more to do with his daughter's death than his evolutionary theories"

Agreed

However, whatever the cause of his atheism/agnosticism, he still had a respect for those who did believe and had no wish to upset or injure them. He knew he was sitting on a timebomb and what it would likely do if it exploded.

I was just trying to put in place some people's atheism and that they had produced extremely rational works by being so

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:07 PM

I cannot say whether Verdi was an atheist or an agnostic with conviction. I do know Giuseppina Streponi worried a great deal for his soul. The biographies I have read on Verdi stated he was atheist and there are many referebnces to his atheism if you Google "Verdi + Atheism"

I certainly will not argue the point. In the end, even on this, people will believe as they wish.

I did believe my statement was well founded though when I wrote it.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:15 PM

"I suspect that that Archbishop might actually have been saying that true altruists cannot actually be true atheists, even if they think they are"

I am going back to around 1988-1990 Michael. I am almost sure it was in the Times. And I assure you, what he said was that Atheists could not be alruists. Myself and several other biologists at the time were quite affronted at the arrogance of such a statement. Some of them were Christian and some were atheists.

I cannot find no reference to it on the web however.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM

Yes, and Bush said we couldn't be patriots or in all likelihood citizens...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM

Remember, heretics could easily be burned at the stake.

Verdi was 1813-1901. Berlioz was 1803-1869. Brahms was 1833-1897. Not a lot of heretics getting burned in western Europe at that time.

to BillD: But if the charge of 'bad thinking' is going to stick, it requires more than assertion.

Seems you can't be an ex-Catholic without being a militant, bitter, conscience-ridden, still-a-Catholic-deep-down-inside, ex-Catholic.

Your irony meter needs recalibration. I was being sarcastic. I do not think you're still a Catholic.

You don't want evidence because you have faith.

I have evidence, just not evidence that you would accept. Indeed, you don't even accept that it's possible that I have evidence, because of how narrowly you have defined evidence.

Your faith is what stops you from seeking evidence. The search would be far too inconvenient, not to say fruitless.

This is just bulverism.

And yes, there is an objective measure of probability

For the existence of God? I'm all ears.

I was just trying to put in place some people's atheism and that they had produced extremely rational works by being so

I don't understand what you mean. Darwin produced his theories because he was atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:22 PM

pdq... a "denier" can be one who insists on HIS version of facts while denying the version that the scientific community generally accepts. Sometimes they win... Galileo did...sometimes they lose...like smokers.

I do NOT assume nor did I claim that any belief in contradiction to the majority is automatically wrong; merely that certain types of denial share certain types of fallacious thinking. One CAN even end up being 'right' with bad reasoning....but that's not the way to bet.


But I'm glad I have kept you, at least, entertained.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:10 AM

"And yes, there is an objective measure of probability

For the existence of God? I'm all ears."

Well, a lot hinges on whether you demand that I put a figure on it (as you don't care to demand evidence of the verifiable kind I assume you won't insist). I can neither find verifiable evidence for, nor put a probability number on, the existence of sixteen-legged, seven-eyed little blue men skating on Saturn's rings every Friday, but I can say with, er, considerable confidence, tinged with objectivity, that they almost certainly don't exist. The word "almost" is vital (and most atheists would agree to a similar characterisation for their dismissal of God. In contrast, believers deal in cast-iron certainties. It's never "Our Father, who almost certainly art in heaven...). The reason for my confidence is that I would have to ditch a very large amount of the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the universe painstakingly accumulated by humans over many millennia in order to accept the little mens' existence. Most of what we understand about life and the laws of physics would have to be abandoned. Worse, I'd have to come up from scratch with an alternative explanation for their existence and provenance, along with a whole clutch of new laws never dreamed of until now. As I wouldn't be able to do that, I'd have to have a last resort, which would be faith. Now I doubt that most people would allow me to to get away with this, except to smile benignly and say that as long as I kept it to myself and tried to not waste anyone's time with it I would be treated as no more than a harmless old duffer. And they certainly wouldn't allow me to put my belief on school curricula, etc.
   
The only real difference between my little men and the just-as-improbable God is that God has been going for a lot longer. That is scarcely a good reason, when you really think about it, for clinging on to him. Longevity is not good evidence for veracity, as with the idea that the sun went round the Earth, though I can see that, as with many traditions, it would comfort many a believer.

So there is objective evidence/reasoning for the non-existence of God. He's up against all the science and maths that we've objectively accumulated. Wackily, he has to break all the rules he himself created in order to exist at all. On the other hand, the evidence ~for~ his existence is, well....faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:13 AM

"And yes, there is an objective measure of probability

For the existence of God? I'm all ears."

The Probability of God

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:49 AM

If it is true that no atheists are altruists, it logically follows that anyone who is a true altruist cannot be a true atheist, even if they think they are.

Similarly if no cats bark, than any creature that barks is not a cat.

Of course in both cases the initial premise might be challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:38 AM

"Ergo atheism is still virtually worthless as a contributor to culture--unless, as I said, you get off on nihilism. Perhaps all the sales of Being and Nothingness and similar bleak pinnacles of achievement are due to sales to Mudcat atheists."

Hmmm . . . seems you've not been reading all the posts here Ron. I don't count myself as a nihilist but then I'm wondering if we're all even talking about the same thing here.

From dictionary.com:

a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So far so good . . . we all agree on that then. The synonym section continues:

—Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Now, as I've said earlier I consider myself a deeply spiritual person, and I certainly believe that in a scientific sense we are mere children, still gazing in wonder at rainbows and lightning . . . well, essentially. Because I still feel the awe and the sense of the sublime that pervades our arts, our sciences, our very existence. However, I am also an empiricist and this presents problems, because there is no way we have at our disposal the means and methods we need to understand the universe fully - not by a long stretch. Heck, we don't even know what consciousness is, although we can appreciate the state itself and the incredible implications of being a conscious being; we are now realising there are more type of consciousness than our own, and one day we'll hopefully understand consciousnesses that perhaps only some of our fellow humans have had insight into (and I mean that in a non-religious, physical sense).

The problem with Ron's arguments is it's a solely Christian viewpoint. There is of course nothing wrong with that, but to all intents and purposes this seems to lump all non-Christians in with Ron's 'atheists'. So despite the fact as an atheist (in short - the rest of the human race who don't subscribe to Christianity is what people here seem to be saying) you could come from many walks of life, backgrounds etc by lumping them all together you sort of miss the point - the rest of the human race can be thinkers, artists, scientists etc etc and that is a group whose opinions will be vastly varied and whose contributions to our civilisation is as equally relevant and valuable as any Christian (no more, no less). Even if we include all those who are not by definition atheists many will refute the concept of the Christian/Hebrew/Islamic God.There are plenty of other faiths which don't have any concept of God in the Christian sense; Australian aborigines, Buddhists, Massai tribesman, Native American, uncontacted Amazonian tribes etc. To all intents and purposes these people are atheists, except of course, they're not. So how do you treat their denial of a Christian God, because it might be as emphatic as a true atheist's?

So the statement I've quoted above from Ron is at best a result of blind faith, ignorance or prejudice. Now although I'm pointing the finger at Ron here I don't mean to be personal (honest!), but the above statement seems to indicate a very blinkered, and in fact erroneous world view, and that is the problem with this debate. What we need to understand is that perhaps the pantheists, Christians, Waiwai etc are all talking about the same thing, but it's not actually the same thing they're talking about (!).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:11 AM

"..the private thoughts of composers." Gee, if I did not know better, I'd think that was meant sarcastically.

1)   I have a substantial library of books on serious topics--lopsidedly music and history.   I'm hopelessly addicted to reading--always nonfiction. I do not reject any source out of hand--including Wiki, though it always needs outside corroboration.   But I do not just pillage the Net for a phrase that will support my point.    I try to give exact sources--as anybody can do.

2) Obviously nobody can know 'private thoughts'.   All we can do is read what a person has said--and how he or she has acted.   I try to give exact quotes, and sources.   Anybody else is invited to do the same.

3)   This poster also, it seems, needs a course in reading English.   I've said more than once that it bothers me not in the least if an atheist writes a Christian piece, as long as the composer is respectful of the tradition.

To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:32 AM

By the way, I'd be curious to know the poster's own view on Mussourgsky and Baba Yaga.

4)    As I've mentioned before, I've been a member of an excellent choral group for about 20 years. Our usual venue is the Kennedy Center Concert Hall but we have sung all over the world.   In this group I've sung huge numbers of choral masterpieces.

Just as it's possible for an atheist to write a wonderful Christian piece, in our group we have Jewish singers, agnostics, and probably also atheists. But every singer can and does belt out a "Credo" when the music calls for it. It's a question of serving the music.

Our conductor has told us the words should be out front on a 'neon sign'--the audience should hear every word if the music demands that at a given point--regardless of the language.



I find that just being in such a group doing these wonderful pieces can itself be a mystical experience--and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I've just recently heard that one of the reasons people climb mountains is for the mystical experience. I'm glad I don't have to climb K-2 for a similar result.



But acting convincingly is part of a good performance--regardless of your own personal views and background-as anybody who has sung "Sam Hall" for instance should know.



I find that music--especially making it yourself--is endlessly satisfying.

And tends to make you less cynical.

Or maybe it's just not being an atheist which makes you less cynical.

Sure is interesting that the most bitter, nihilistic cynics on Mudcat seem to be without exception also the strongest atheists.

That in itself is a powerful argument against atheism--if any more arguments were needed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:49 AM

Ron, I think the thing that is bothering people here is that your view of atheists seems starkly black and white, all or nothing. You use phrases like "athiests do this" or "what I might expect from Mudcat athiests". Lumping everyone together and making judgements about them makes you sound like you have an axe to grind, and that you don't really want to take part in the actual discussion. I find it fascinating that the only person in this thread who is consistently bashing atheists is you, who claim to have no religious convictions. The Christians have, for the most part, been polite and seemingly more interested in the conversation than in treating all atheists the same. Perhaps you could tone down the rhetoric a bit.

As for comparisons (which are off topic here and kind of silly in the first place), it seems obvious that artists make art, power-seekers seek power, spirtiual people have revelations, Christians have faith, and atheists don't. It's not really that complicated.

Thanks,
John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM

Respect the constitution and its wisdom for allowing the freedom of religion and by inclusion the freedom from religion.

One of George Washington's letters after the war stated that his hopes of the new Constitufion allowing for the freedom of religion are being dashed by overly zealot Christians who still insist upon causing trouble in the name of their one true religion.

Its hard to see past ego for most people. I assure you it is a beautiful vista once you learn to see beyond your personal or religious ego. It is not easy, but with practice and frequent relapses, it can be done.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:31 PM

Been away a few days and catching up on this thread..

I heard a comic in a show in London last night, and one of the things he said reminded me of this thread, (sad I know, but who needs a life when your Mac is waiting at home for you?)

"Religion is like a dog. When it is yours, it is warm and cuddly. When it is someone else's, it is dangerous and threatening. In either event, children need protecting from it."

Oh, and I remember now, reading a term of reference that suits me and my stance (or lack of stance.) I am not atheist nor indeed agnostic. I am (like 90% of The UK population) irreligious.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM

No, what is bothering people is that Ron the Omniscient and Infallible Simple Seeker believes himself to be the ultimate authority on all matters bar none & will brook no opposition.

His delusions of godhood are most appropriate in a thread about the god delusion, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:59 PM

Those aren't synonymns, they are words with associated meanings, what you find in a thesaurus. A synonym is a word that has the same meaning. For example snake and serpent.

You do rather repeat yourself Greg. Even more than most of us do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM

The point is worth repeating, Kevin, if only as a public service.