173 replies to this topic

[Connor MacLeod]

But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does)...

Everything violates all currently known physical laws; you don't need science to determine that.

So do you deny that showing levitating buddhist monks or some interventionist force breaking the laws of physics would constitute a proof of an anomaly?

An anomaly in what sense? If the measuring stick is currently known laws of physics then everything is an anomaly. That you consider some anomalies miraculous and others just small errors in current theory, really comes down to your limited perspective as a human being -- from a scientific point of view it is really quite arbitrary.

[mentatpsi]

But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does)...

Everything violates all currently known physical laws; you don't need science to determine that.

So do you deny that showing levitating buddhist monks or some interventionist force breaking the laws of physics would constitute a proof of an anomaly?

An anomaly in what sense? If the measuring stick is currently known laws of physics then everything is an anomaly. That you consider some anomalies miraculous and others just small errors in current theory, really comes down to your limited perspective as a human being -- from a scientific point of view it is really quite arbitrary.

This is another interesting thing i wanted to mention prior. That which we experience daily is thought of nothing more than fact. We no longer seem to be in awe of it all, as if since it follows mundane physical laws it requires no more than a fleeting side note. This is the difference with those that have some spiritual side, though there might be no deity underlying the motions of the cosmos, there is still beauty inherent in the system. I'm getting tired of those who criticize spirituality in the same manner they criticize religion. There is no dogma in spirituality, it is open minded and yearns to find deeper meaning, even if it becomes agnostic or atheist in its own pursuit. How can someone criticize something that remains free to flow as it chooses based on experience, for is that not in the same manner as empiricism.

[kismet]

But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does)...

Everything violates all currently known physical laws; you don't need science to determine that.

I think you lost me there, although, I cannot but notice that you are dodging the question I asked. Ok, I'm curious what macroscopic objects do move faster than light in a context that violates relativity? Which objects disobey gravity in a meaningful context? And which of those phenomena are not explained by a plausible hypothesis building on currently defined laws?

An anomaly in what sense? If the measuring stick is currently known laws of physics then everything is an anomaly. That you consider some anomalies miraculous and others just small errors in current theory, really comes down to your limited perspective as a human being -- from a scientific point of view it is really quite arbitrary.

No, many 'miracles' as you call them, require per definiton a violation of the laws of physics that can never be resolved (in the context of this thread: for instance an omnipotent or almost omnipotent being). OTOH that is exactly my point, the 'miracles' and gods are hiding in the gaps and shortcomings of our models and thus slowly they're dying as we close the gaps. However, I thought russianBEAR defined spirituality exactly as something beyond, something different than science, which will always remain unexplained. So I have to assume that you disagree with him in that regard?

mentatpsi -- Why criticise?
Because spirituality is not real? Either you are giving a different label to philosophy, psychology, physics, writing, etc and claiming it is something different and outstanding, while it's not. Or you are claiming that spirtuality, similarly to the idea of omnipotent gods, encompasses phenomena which will remain unexplained forevermore and which are per definition outside the realm of reality (and is important because it does so). Then you deserve all the ridicule that religion deserves.
Furthermore, I cannot fathom how you could misconstrue the motives of pursuing science that badly. No awe? Mundane? Science is the ultimate form of awe, at least pure science is. Physical laws are everything but mundane.

But then again, who's saying that you're right? Why have I no right to disagree, if I find your bias against nihilism astounding, unfair and wrong? Who's saying awe is required and deeper meaning exists in the first place?

Edited by kismet, 11 September 2009 - 07:39 PM.

[mentatpsi]

But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does)...

Everything violates all currently known physical laws; you don't need science to determine that.

I think you lost me there, although, I cannot but notice that you are dodging the question I asked. Ok, I'm curious what macroscopic objects do move faster than light in a context that violates relativity? Which objects disobey gravity in a meaningful context? And which of those phenomena are not explained by a plausible hypothesis building on currently defined laws?

An anomaly in what sense? If the measuring stick is currently known laws of physics then everything is an anomaly. That you consider some anomalies miraculous and others just small errors in current theory, really comes down to your limited perspective as a human being -- from a scientific point of view it is really quite arbitrary.

No, many 'miracles' as you call them, require per definiton a violation of the laws of physics that can never be resolved (in the context of this thread: for instance an omnipotent or almost omnipotent being). OTOH that is exactly my point, the 'miracles' and gods are hiding in the gaps and shortcomings of our models and thus slowly they're dying as we close the gaps. However, I thought russianBEAR defined spirituality exactly as something beyond, something different than science, which will always remain unexplained. So I have to assume that you disagree with him in that regard?

mentatpsi -- Why criticise?
Because spirituality is not real? Either you are giving a different label to philosophy, psychology, physics, writing, etc and claiming it is something different and outstanding, while it's not. Or you are claiming that spirtuality, similarly to the idea of omnipotent gods, encompasses phenomena which will remain unexplained forevermore and which are per definition outside the realm of reality (and is important because it does so). Then you deserve all the ridicule that religion deserves.
Furthermore, I cannot fathom how you could misconstrue the motives of pursuing science that badly. No awe? Mundane? Science is the ultimate form of awe, at least pure science is. Physical laws are everything but mundane.

But then again, who's saying that you're right? Why have I no right to disagree, if I find your bias against nihilism astounding, unfair and wrong? Who's saying awe is required and deeper meaning exists in the first place?

I apologize for the ambiguity in my statements. I wasn't calling physical laws or science mundane, i find it cause for awe in the very sense that order prevails over chaos to create life, that evolution created more advanced sentient beings rather then simple cell organisms. That mankind has the ability for such discussions rather than following just primitive drives. This is what i meant by "there is still beauty inherent in the system". By system i meant the laws of physics or any underlying laws which make up the universe. I know you agree with me on this because i've read some of your writings and find that you propose nihilism; no underlying purpose and a sense of existantialism. We probably got off at the wrong foot because I have the same underlying beliefs.

In regards to the either or statement, i suppose the former. I do not know if they will be unexplained forever, such as the ability of the monks to engage in outside of norm neurological activity. But i do think that we take the time to see the accomplishments of those buddhist monks (as i believe we are currently doing), and admit there is more to learn and to be discovered.

I will write more later as i must get moving, but thank you for asking the questions that peered at the ambiguity of my statements. I wasn't being clear.

[Connor MacLeod]

But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does)...

Everything violates all currently known physical laws; you don't need science to determine that.

I think you lost me there, although, I cannot but notice that you are dodging the question I asked.

Because my personal reaction to a levitating Buddhist monk is about as relevant to science as is my opinion of Star War IV.

Ok, I'm curious what macroscopic objects do move faster than light in a context that violates relativity? Which objects disobey gravity in a meaningful context?

You are surprisingly imprecise in your language for someone who claims to hold science in such high regard. Please define what you mean by "meaningful?"

And which of those phenomena are not explained by a plausible hypothesis building on currently defined laws?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. It is clearly not the case that there is a finite and known set of hypotheses that can provably account for all discrepancies between predictions based on current theory and actual observation. On the other hand, if you asserting that for all such discrepancies between current theory and actual observed phenomenon, there exist some plausible scientific explanation (even though nobody has yet articulated it), then that is a non-falsifiable claim -- really no different from intelligent design: welcome to the faith based community!

[mentatpsi]

But, yes, science can e.g. prove that something violates what we consider current physical laws (if it does)...

Everything violates all currently known physical laws; you don't need science to determine that.

I think you lost me there, although, I cannot but notice that you are dodging the question I asked.

Because my personal reaction to a levitating Buddhist monk is about as relevant to science as is my opinion of Star War IV.

Ok, I'm curious what macroscopic objects do move faster than light in a context that violates relativity? Which objects disobey gravity in a meaningful context?

You are surprisingly imprecise in your language for someone who claims to hold science in such high regard. Please define what you mean by "meaningful?"

And which of those phenomena are not explained by a plausible hypothesis building on currently defined laws?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. It is clearly not the case that there is a finite and known set of hypotheses that can provably account for all discrepancies between predictions based on current theory and actual observation. On the other hand, if you asserting that for all such discrepancies between current theory and actual observed phenomenon, there exist some plausible scientific explanation (even though nobody has yet articulated it), then that is a non-falsifiable claim -- really no different from intelligent design: welcome to the faith based community!

In other words, faith in empiricism or determinism is still faith. There's a quote from HP Lovecraft that seems to hover on top of such inquiries:

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." - Call of Cthulu (HP Lovecraft)

Still, I must proclaim, I'm guilty of holding that understanding through science will in turn arise more understanding. I however do think that we must evolve, from a transhumanism standpoint, through whatever medium we find both safe and effective.

[Connor MacLeod]

In other words, faith in empiricism or determinism is still faith.

That seems to be the case to me. Of course, I don't have a problem with people's faith, but I don't really care for the stridency and even anger that seems to crop up. I can't really see the point in that; especially here at imminst where the vast majority of people who do embrace some form of spirituality tend to be open-minded and very science-friendly. But I suppose there are fundamentalists of all stripes, some even with scientific bents. For me personally, I like to embrace all the faculties I have been endowed with as a human being; to enjoy them and use them to my advantage. I have never found the experiments I have conducted in the internal laboratory of my soul to diminish my capacity for scientific and mathematical research; on the contrary, it is those times when I am most in harmony with my spiritual nature, that I am also most productive in terms of my academic work.

There's a quote from HP Lovecraft that seems to hover on top of such inquiries:

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." - Call of Cthulu (HP Lovecraft)

I like it! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

For obvious reasons science tends to focus on those phenomenon which are highly compressible, i.e. for which a concise mathematical formula can give a good approximation to observed experimental results. But the view that all phenomenon must be susceptible to such compression (or that we can eventually achieve loss-less compression) is simply a result of selection bias. There are likely vast swaths of phenomenon (and mathematical truth) which are either entirely incompressible, or effectively the consequence of computations so deep and long-running, that the resulting patterns are and forever will be indistinguishable from pure randomness.

[mentatpsi]

I can somewhat understand it. I kind of associate it with a jealousy, a belief in science and overall skepticism doesn't allow for the comfort that a belief in some deity or a purpose would have. In addition, a lot of people associate the conflicts that arise between theists and scientists, which derail and disrupt progress, with the dogmatic and primitive holding of a religious thought.

I tend to think that spirituality is something different, i don't think it requires a god and when i was a more spiritual man, I felt almost liberated when i began to question such dogmatic views and acknowledged more so the uniqueness of life. I felt that without the superstition my thoughts were allowed to venture into areas more diversified and for once were not stuck in a world of abstraction but yet at the present moment... what we have right in front of us. Perhaps we are all intertwined, the effects of one man can resonate throughout our species.

What do you make of spirituality, or better asked... how would you define it?

[Connor MacLeod]

I can somewhat understand it. I kind of associate it with a jealousy, a belief in science and overall skepticism doesn't allow for the comfort that a belief in some deity or a purpose would have. In addition, a lot of people associate the conflicts that arise between theists and scientists, which derail and disrupt progress, with the dogmatic and primitive holding of a religious thought.

I tend to think that spirituality is something different, i don't think it requires a god and when i was a more spiritual man, I felt almost liberated when i began to question such dogmatic views and acknowledged more so the uniqueness of life. I felt that without the superstition my thoughts were allowed to venture into areas more diversified and for once were not stuck in a world of abstraction but yet at the present moment... what we have right in front of us. Perhaps we are all intertwined, the effects of one man can resonate throughout our species.

What do you make of spirituality, or better asked... how would you define it?

I don't try to define it. For me it is an experience, integral to the way that I relate to and experience the world -- both inner and outer. It seems not everyone is born with the same capacity for this sort of experience, though I think it can be cultivated.

[Reeve Treaty]

Did you just come out of negative philosophy/spirituality kindergarten? What the $&%@ do you consider "pondering" if it takes you years to come up with one-dimensional arguments like that? You sound like a disgruntled atheist teenager who is pissed at god because some perverted sinful priest molested him as a child. Go meditate and travel the world for a few years and then come back and apologize to this forum when you realize how stupid this topic is. Seriously, you don't belong among the intellectual world yet. Go be a normal person for a while. You would be much more useful to that group.

I apologize for my hostile words. I don't hate the world, I just have high expectations. Most people don't seem to meet them. I'm tired of it.

[mentatpsi]

Did you just come out of negative philosophy/spirituality kindergarten? What the $&%@ do you consider "pondering" if it takes you years to come up with one-dimensional arguments like that? You sound like a disgruntled atheist teenager who is pissed at god because some perverted sinful priest molested him as a child. Go meditate and travel the world for a few years and then come back and apologize to this forum when you realize how stupid this topic is. Seriously, you don't belong among the intellectual world yet. Go be a normal person for a while. You would be much more useful to that group.

I apologize for my hostile words. I don't hate the world, I just have high expectations. Most people don't seem to meet them. I'm tired of it.

Directed at?...

[Connor MacLeod]

Did you just come out of negative philosophy/spirituality kindergarten? What the {:content:}amp;%@ do you consider "pondering" if it takes you years to come up with one-dimensional arguments like that? You sound like a disgruntled atheist teenager who is pissed at god because some perverted sinful priest molested him as a child. Go meditate and travel the world for a few years and then come back and apologize to this forum when you realize how stupid this topic is. Seriously, you don't belong among the intellectual world yet. Go be a normal person for a while. You would be much more useful to that group.

I apologize for my hostile words. I don't hate the world, I just have high expectations. Most people don't seem to meet them. I'm tired of it.

Directed at?...

Presumably the OP. The title of the thread, and that poster's post in general, are quite sophomoric in my opinion.

[Shiroe]

There is no God oh noes!!!!!!!

BS. And here is why.

First of all, we as human beings are stuck in this humano-centric idea that we are the most important life form in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. I would expect everyone at a place like this to really think about that for a moment and see exactly how egotistical it is. Then consider how most deities of most religions are human or anthropomorphic, but always with human traits. More ego. Is there a god like that? Probably not. But there are whole lot of other concepts out there that cover the existence of a god-like force that are completely separate from this humanocentric thinking.

Taoism, for example, is primarily a philosophy which looks to natural forces of the universe as "god," although some have made this into a religion worshipping Lao Tze in a guise as The Yellow Emperor. Pure, philosophical Taoism recognizes many forces at work in each individual and in our environment but does not have any central authority figure regulating them; the forces ARE the authority. Quite frankly, Taoism was the basis for Jedi religion in the Star Wars movies, so anything you need to know, consult old Ben Kenobi.

However, as a result, these forces, collectively, are what I call God Itself. God doesn't care? Of course not, it's a FORCE and has no emotion. People suffer? Well, our planet is made up of many organisms, some of which are at odds with one another besides human versus human - people are maimed by animals or even by microscopic diseases who have their own survival in mind, even if they don't have a mind large enough to be sentient. Show you a miracle? Look outside at the trees and the sky; look within to your own life. Miracles exist so commonly around us that we fail to notice them anymore. Science is no more than the process of observing miracles so we can understand them, and I firmly believe science is incomplete.

I forget who the poster was but someone correctly pointed out that too often, religion and spirituality get lumped together. This is very true. Furthermore, about 90% of spitiuality is OBJECTIVE. Spirituality is not just sitting in a quiet room with your eyes closed saying "ohm....ohm....ohm." If you do physical exercise that demands you to focus your mind on your body, you are practicing spirituality. If you consciously change your breathing pattern for no other reason than you can, you are practicing spirituality. If you are the type of person (and I am) who sees a flower and always stops to smell it, you are practicing spirituality. Spirituality is the conscious process of optimizing yourself on several levels of existence - physically, mentally, personality-wise (aka the soul), and environmentally (including other people as well as animals, structures, growths, the atmosphere, on out to the universe). It does not require a religion. Most modern organized religions have spiritual messages that seem to have been lost on the wayside by (again, same poster correctly pointed this out) the hierarchy of socially-organized religion. As soon as people figured out that they could control others by using God as the overseer, of course they took advantage of it.

Back to the topic of suffering for a moment - good and evil DO NOT exist. They are purely subjective terms that change with each person. For example, I think stagnation and wilfull ignorance are evil, but the person next to me might say racism is evil, and the person next to him might say that overeating is evil. Millions of Arabs thought the bombing of the World Trade Center was a good thing, while we considered it evil. This is something that people need to learn to accept, an area in which humanity stagnates because we are so hung up on it. However, if you remove the timeline and look at segments of history, or even our entire history, as one single unit, you will find that what we really have are forces which create, and forces which destroy; sometimes creation has a negative effect (such as the overpopulation of malaleuka trees draining the Everglades dry) and destruction has a positive effect (such as a hurricane blows underbrush from the floor of the forest so new seeds can grow and animals can populate it).

What it boils down to is altering and updating our thinking on this topic. It's not so much that God doesn't exist, but that our ways of understanding God are primitive and humano-centric. Religion, the dogma and mythology that accompany spirituality, is full of stories and ideas that have overcome spirituality, and without spirituality, people are dissociated from their own lives anyway. The Singularity is coming, and with it major social upheaval, and it is spirituality, not religion or even God, that will keep it from being deadly to those not prepared.

[WeGonaLive4ever]

"I hate to break it to you, but... THERE IS NO GOD!,"

No shit.

[fatboy]

"I hate to break it to you, but... THERE IS NO GOD!,"

No shit.

Duh.

Edited by fatboy, 22 October 2009 - 05:10 AM.

[kismet]

Because my personal reaction to a levitating Buddhist monk is about as relevant to science as is my opinion of Star War IV.

Empirical observation forms the basis of many a hypothesis, so, yes, it's certainly relevant (to some extent).

Ok, I'm curious what macroscopic objects do move faster than light in a context that violates relativity? Which objects disobey gravity in a meaningful context?

You are surprisingly imprecise in your language for someone who claims to hold science in such high regard. Please define what you mean by "meaningful?"

Unsurprisingly, you're still being obtuse on purpose, but at least you're doing a good job with those insults. Like 'em, very creative. "Meaningful", i.e. not made up, but an actual object in the real world; or just ignore the word (we'll see what then you'll use to evade the question). If I remember correctly (it has been quite some time), what I meant was to point out that a lot of spirituality and religion requires clear, defined in-your-face violations of well-established theories (as some people clearly demonstrated in this thread) - while more general philosophies like deism still require an unjustified preference for a certain idea over others which are equally plausible, which I described using an analogy to the "null hypothesis" (and after having pondered the issue, I think it was a good comparison afterall). Nevermind!

And which of those phenomena are not explained by a plausible hypothesis building on currently defined laws?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. It is clearly not the case that there is a finite and known set of hypotheses that can provably account for all discrepancies between predictions based on current theory and actual observation. On the other hand, if you asserting that for all such discrepancies between current theory and actual observed phenomenon, there exist some plausible scientific explanation (even though nobody has yet articulated it), then that is a non-falsifiable claim -- really no different from intelligent design: welcome to the faith based community!

I'm not asserting. It was an empirical observation. 4/5 for this dodge leading up to another (kinda) insult (buhu I'm being compared to a believer, run for your lives!)

For obvious reasons science tends to focus on those phenomenon which are highly compressible, i.e. for which a concise mathematical formula can give a good approximation to observed experimental results. But the view that all phenomenon must be susceptible to such compression (or that we can eventually achieve loss-less compression) is simply a result of selection bias. There are likely vast swaths of phenomenon (and mathematical truth) which are either entirely incompressible, or effectively the consequence of computations so deep and long-running, that the resulting patterns are and forever will be indistinguishable from pure randomness.

Can you give examples? And I don't think the fact was really disputed, what we do, however, dispute is that people think their own interpretation of this pseudo-randomness is the "truth" (while the concept can be hardly applied to such a thing or can it?)

Edited by kismet, 23 October 2009 - 08:50 PM.

[AdamSummerfield]

Or, if there is one, he surely doesn't give a damn about us.

Yes, so, if there is one it must be the deist God.

[mentatpsi]

You do realize that he's talking about faith in empiricism, in observation. Is it possible you study the world to such precision that dwelling into anything fantasy is just wrong for you?
People intrepret the world in different ways and it seems redundant to have this discussion.

There have been artists, mathematicians, and scientists throughout time who have been inspired by the idea of some divinity, and composed works of brilliance many of which paved the road for modern science. I point again to the age enlightenment. What of Da Vinci for instance?

Anyways, it's impossible to say definitively if there is or isn't a god. It seems moronic that someone even believes they can formulate a methodology for completely denying.
Hello god are you there? Oh wow there's no response, therefore nothing most be there. Bloody brilliant.

And I'm kind of wondering if you guys are merely following the herd or really believe without a doubt that there can be no god. That the universe is devoid of any higher intelligence, that it was created in the epitome of randomness and you now have life so you can go on imminst, and belittle whatever person you find doesn't match your idea of the world. Now you have consciousness so you can interpret the myriad colors and sensations that the earth has to offer, but it was all random without a doubt. Have you no mind to contemplate that it is impossible to deny completely, that any true skeptic leaves room for doubt? Or are you merely a little sheep that feels content at following the whims of various others who believe that their fight is with religion and thereby can be automatically translated to anything that has the words god or higher power in it?

I don't mean to offend, but the herd mentality shouldn't exist on a forum of intellects. I understand statistically speaking this forum is more likely to have agnostics and atheists who believe there's nothing afterward, but every human being should have some form of scrutiny over his own beliefs... without it people are just a bunch of fanatics.

[Ben Simon]

You do realize that he's talking about faith in empiricism, in observation. Is it possible you study the world to such precision that dwelling into anything fantasy is just wrong for you?
People intrepret the world in different ways and it seems redundant to have this discussion.

There have been artists, mathematicians, and scientists throughout time who have been inspired by the idea of some divinity, and composed works of brilliance many of which paved the road for modern science. I point again to the age enlightenment. What of Da Vinci for instance?

Anyways, it's impossible to say definitively if there is or isn't a god. It seems moronic that someone even believes they can formulate a methodology for completely denying.
Hello god are you there? Oh wow there's no response, therefore nothing most be there. Bloody brilliant.

And I'm kind of wondering if you guys are merely following the herd or really believe without a doubt that there can be no god. That the universe is devoid of any higher intelligence, that it was created in the epitome of randomness and you now have life so you can go on imminst, and belittle whatever person you find doesn't match your idea of the world. Now you have consciousness so you can interpret the myriad colors and sensations that the earth has to offer, but it was all random without a doubt. Have you no mind to contemplate that it is impossible to deny completely, that any true skeptic leaves room for doubt? Or are you merely a little sheep that feels content at following the whims of various others who believe that their fight is with religion and thereby can be automatically translated to anything that has the words god or higher power in it?

I don't mean to offend, but the herd mentality shouldn't exist on a forum of intellects. I understand statistically speaking this forum is more likely to have agnostics and atheists who believe there's nothing afterward, but every human being should have some form of scrutiny over his own beliefs... without it people are just a bunch of fanatics.

Bravo.

[exapted]

You do realize that he's talking about faith in empiricism, in observation. Is it possible you study the world to such precision that dwelling into anything fantasy is just wrong for you?
People intrepret the world in different ways and it seems redundant to have this discussion.

But the discussion was never about different ways of seeing the world. The fact is that religions make specific claims which are, to a currently very limited extent, empirically testable. Read "The God Hypothesis", and note that in all cases the experimental data negate the empirically verifiable claims made by theists.

Intellectuals do NOT generally just reject theism. I and many others thought about it deeply, because I didn't want to simply reject an idea that is so important in society. Actually what most intellectuals notice is that people believe in god mostly for specious reasons. The genealogy of religion is transparent. Note the following words by Nietzsche:

Historical refutation as the definitive refutation.-- In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God - today one indicates how the belief that there is a God arose and how this belief acquired its weight and importance: a counter-proof that there is no God thereby becomes superfluous.- When in former times one had refuted the 'proofs of the existence of God' put forward, there always remained the doubt whether better proofs might not be adduced than those just refuted: in those days atheists did not know how to make a clean sweep.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 95, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

There have been artists, mathematicians, and scientists throughout time who have been inspired by the idea of some divinity, and composed works of brilliance many of which paved the road for modern science. I point again to the age enlightenment. What of Da Vinci for instance?

This works both ways. The vast majority of brilliant intellectuals are atheists. Scientists and other intellectuals have generally been less theistic than non-scientists/intellectuals. In the past, denying god either seemed unintelligible or would invoke distrust by peers. Of course intellectuals of Europe were theists through most of the past 2000 years, until it became (relatively) socially acceptable to be an atheist. Now at least most scientists and philosophers are atheists. Also, science and religion influence each other. Science is winning, and for good reason.

In my view you are in support of an arcane cult of the obtuse.

Anyways, it's impossible to say definitively if there is or isn't a god. It seems moronic that someone even believes they can formulate a methodology for completely denying.
Hello god are you there? Oh wow there's no response, therefore nothing most be there. Bloody brilliant.

Most atheists are Bayesian. You totally set up a straw-man.

And I'm kind of wondering if you guys are merely following the herd or really believe without a doubt that there can be no god. That the universe is devoid of any higher intelligence, that it was created in the epitome of randomness and you now have life so you can go on imminst, and belittle whatever person you find doesn't match your idea of the world. Now you have consciousness so you can interpret the myriad colors and sensations that the earth has to offer, but it was all random without a doubt. Have you no mind to contemplate that it is impossible to deny completely, that any true skeptic leaves room for doubt? Or are you merely a little sheep that feels content at following the whims of various others who believe that their fight is with religion and thereby can be automatically translated to anything that has the words god or higher power in it?

Religion *is* represented in the intellectual world. It just doesn't get the kind of fan-fare that the general public usually thinks it should. That makes sense, because religious institutions are generally very slippery and don't actually want to make their claims empirically verifiable.

We could get into talking about the generality of intelligence, and whether there is some inherently invariant structure of intelligence, such that any evolving complexity of any significance would share such intelligence (the whole "god made man in the image of god" idea). In other words, there is the argument that believing in god is sort of.... arbitrary. And there are arguments that go the other way.

The most common intellectual atheist view at this time is that generally the specific claims of theism are of low likelihood, when considered with an open mind. So, I don't think there is a god, and I bet there is not a god. There are many competing hypotheses. The god hypothesis doesn't automatically get attention in the intellectual world.

I don't mean to offend, but the herd mentality shouldn't exist on a forum of intellects. I understand statistically speaking this forum is more likely to have agnostics and atheists who believe there's nothing afterward, but every human being should have some form of scrutiny over his own beliefs... without it people are just a bunch of fanatics.

That is exactly why I think religion is problematic. It is NOT simply bad philosophy. It is "other worldliness" which tends to clamor for "another world" and overlook or avoid the real world. It is weariness. It is actually the impulses of our evolutionary psychology reacting to the realities of a global social hierarchy, taken at face value. In this world today theism is, almost by definition, like a grand collective solipsism with frauds and shills.

Reality is that the proto-religions that we are biologically evolved for were not replaced by modern religion. Modern religion is a parasite.

Edited by exapted, 26 October 2009 - 03:45 AM.

[Ben Simon]

The fact is that religions make specific claims which are, to a currently very limited extent, empirically testable.

Perhaps you are interpreting the texts too literally.

[mentatpsi]

Part 1: Bayesian
You mentioned that most atheists are bayesian. I looked it up, as I don't recall the term.

Here's what I found:

For theism vs. atheism we have two hypotheses: ``God exists'' (H1=G) and ``God doesn't exist'' (H2=notG). U is the sum total of our observations of the universe and I is whatever constraints are placed on the universe before looking at it. One such constraint could be that life form in order for someone to pose the question. As I see no convincing argument for the existence of life to be more consistent with a god existing than one not existing I set p(G|I)=p(notG|I)=0.5. In the end, so long as one doesn't put the constraint that life is inconsistent with a godless universe (p(notG|I) is very near 0), the weightings won't significantly affect the result. We are therefore left with the calculation of p(U|GI) and p(U|notG,I) (the probabilities of the universe we observe occurring if God does and does not exist) determining the probabilities of the two hypotheses.

The question now becomes how many universes are consistent with a god and how many are consistent with no god. Because a god can always create a naturalistic universe the number of god universes must be equal to or greater than the number of godless universes. In addition I think it is obvious that a god greatly expands the number of possibilities over the no god case. A 6000~yr old Earth is allowed with a god but not without. Violations of the conservation of energy is allowed with a god but not without. The same goes for virgin births, `burning bushes', flying reindeer, faith healing, magic carpets, Santa Claus, etc. A godless universe must be limited to a narrow range of possibilities each based on natural laws while a universe with a god has no such restriction. Therefore, p(U|GI) is a very broad function of U with a very small value for any particular U. For an omnipotent god, p(U|GI) goes to zero since all universes are possible. Our universe appears to fall into the category of being run by natural laws so
...

One can illustrate this with the following symbolic figure in which the area under each curve is 1.

[ASCII illustration]

Now if this is your definition, then let the focal point be the bold text. This claim, or negation, is based on a creationist viewpoint. It is based upon a god who meddles. More importantly, an extremely weak god. Because honestly, if we admitted some level 9,000 god then we can include a matrix/dark city like universe where memories can be messed around with and reality is but a well designed computer program. Now I'm not going to follow that particular route because I can't imagine it hasn't been done, and more importantly it seems a waste of time because we might as well just write sci-fi novels at that point. Let's take for instance, a deistic god. This whole use of probability and empiricism is entirely bollex because order, life, consciousness is a feature represented in a Deistic Universe as much as it is in a godless universe. So yes, you can probably negate religions with this, but that's easy target practice.

Part 2: The Artist's and Mathematician's Muse
My whole point with this, is like everything in life, there comes a good and a bad. Did not Descartes believe in a god after his accident, or Newton with his possible manic-depressive episodes? Now sure, you can probably find atheist scientists who have contributed greatly to the progression of the human species, but each person finds a means by which to live, and only through various needs (Maslow's) does one reach actualization and perhaps contribute something to the human race. Now, I realize you're intelligent, but why deny people who need hope their needs. It's like taking away the muse of writers. People need inspiration at times. This is irrelevant to whether or not there is a god, relevant to whether humanity has a suspectibility to believing in a divine, and relevant to whether starting a full out war on something that's too complex for Bayesian probability is a good idea.

Part 3: Nietzsche
I would have went with the overman, nay-sayers, and poison makers quote myself .

Part 4: The Hierarchy
It is probably quite likely, in both the views of Marx and Sigmund Freud, that religion is both a form of childhood neurosis and an opiate for the people. However, this is not a refutation of a higher power, but a bold statement saying that belief becomes an opiate, an escape which dulls the senses. That we might grow content of our stature in the world out of a belief that through the act of modesty and self-loathing, we may find our way to some opened gates. This to me is more a warning than an argument as to whether there can be a higher power. Yes it might be the origin of the belief, yes it is quite destructive as we interlace the hologram of divine intervention with the workings of chaos theory, but what simple and easy game you guys seem to aim at.

Comments
I do not mean to suggest that all people are following the herd mentality with this, only that it provides a rudimentary grid by which beliefs follow. That free thought should be exercised and consciously observed, as ideas hold sway over the path beliefs move.

[mentatpsi]

Part 5 [my comments don't count as a part]: My support for the awesome arcane cult of the obtuse
I'm sorry, I do think it's quite possible that we're becoming a product of left hemisphere dominated education, lack of free thought, extremist viewpoints and surface level scanning. Of course there are objective truths to the universe, truths we seek to uncover, but man must at time proclaim there are things I do not know, and perhaps I have not the senses to know. If the drum-bangers of the atheist drum understood what lies within the heart of men, in the hope that it gives the dying then perhaps the drums would be a bit more gentle. Yes, that hope should go towards the funding of anti aging research in order to more directly assist it, but gently and not with the force of war.

Perhaps they'd offer some method by which to show that even without god there is beauty in the world. But that's not what you hear, you hear belittling, egotistical rants, and comments devoid of any sentiment. Of splitting between groups; the intellectuals and the feelers. Not everyone merely thinks, some people feel more.

Edited by mentatpsi, 26 October 2009 - 05:06 AM.

[mentatpsi]

btw, thanks Ben

[exapted]

Part 1: Bayesian
You mentioned that most atheists are bayesian. I looked it up, as I don't recall the term.

Here's what I found:

For theism vs. atheism we have two hypotheses: ``God exists'' (H1=G) and ``God doesn't exist'' (H2=notG). U is the sum total of our observations of the universe and I is whatever constraints are placed on the universe before looking at it. One such constraint could be that life form in order for someone to pose the question. As I see no convincing argument for the existence of life to be more consistent with a god existing than one not existing I set p(G|I)=p(notG|I)=0.5. In the end, so long as one doesn't put the constraint that life is inconsistent with a godless universe (p(notG|I) is very near 0), the weightings won't significantly affect the result. We are therefore left with the calculation of p(U|GI) and p(U|notG,I) (the probabilities of the universe we observe occurring if God does and does not exist) determining the probabilities of the two hypotheses.

The question now becomes how many universes are consistent with a god and how many are consistent with no god. Because a god can always create a naturalistic universe the number of god universes must be equal to or greater than the number of godless universes. In addition I think it is obvious that a god greatly expands the number of possibilities over the no god case. A 6000~yr old Earth is allowed with a god but not without. Violations of the conservation of energy is allowed with a god but not without. The same goes for virgin births, `burning bushes', flying reindeer, faith healing, magic carpets, Santa Claus, etc. A godless universe must be limited to a narrow range of possibilities each based on natural laws while a universe with a god has no such restriction. Therefore, p(U|GI) is a very broad function of U with a very small value for any particular U. For an omnipotent god, p(U|GI) goes to zero since all universes are possible. Our universe appears to fall into the category of being run by natural laws so
...

One can illustrate this with the following symbolic figure in which the area under each curve is 1.

[ASCII illustration]

Now if this is your definition, then let the focal point be the bold text. This claim, or negation, is based on a creationist viewpoint. It is based upon a god who meddles. More importantly, an extremely weak god. Because honestly, if we admitted some level 9,000 god then we can include a matrix/dark city like universe where memories can be messed around with and reality is but a well designed computer program. Now I'm not going to follow that particular route because I can't imagine it hasn't been done, and more importantly it seems a waste of time because we might as well just write sci-fi novels at that point. Let's take for instance, a deistic god. This whole use of probability and empiricism is entirely bollex because order, life, consciousness is a feature represented in a Deistic Universe as much as it is in a godless universe. So yes, you can probably negate religions with this, but that's easy target practice.

Of course there are bayesians with different conclusions. Theism belongs in philosophy; even science to the extent that it is at all productive.

My point obviously wasn't that being a bayesian 100% negates theism, but it almost seems like you are implying that that is what I was implying (or something like that).

My point was actually that you created a straw man when you expected that atheists claim god to be either an impossibility or of such low probability as to be a priori non-existent. It's a parody.

Lastly I think a multiverse could produce just as many different kinds of universes as a theistic god, so it's just a competition among various prior probabilities, theism, multiverse, simulation, Omega point, etc. Bayesians obviously disagree sometimes.

Part 2: The Artist's and Mathematician's Muse
My whole point with this, is like everything in life, there comes a good and a bad. Did not Descartes believe in a god after his accident, or Newton with his possible manic-depressive episodes? Now sure, you can probably find atheist scientists who have contributed greatly to the progression of the human species, but each person finds a means by which to live, and only through various needs (Maslow's) does one reach actualization and perhaps contribute something to the human race. Now, I realize you're intelligent, but why deny people who need hope their needs. It's like taking away the muse of writers. People need inspiration at times. This is irrelevant to whether or not there is a god, relevant to whether humanity has a suspectibility to believing in a divine, and relevant to whether starting a full out war on something that's too complex for Bayesian probability is a good idea.

Well in my view nothing is reprehensible, it accomplishes very little to simply say something is reprehensible.

But I have very good reasons to conclude that, in general, modern religion is parasitic and not beneficial in the ways that you are alluding to. I think there are better ways to fulfill needs, for the majority of humans, than to believe in a theistic god. I think modern religion is a poor replacement for the proto-religions that were naturally selected across groups of hunter-gatherers. I think science actually replaces certain aspects of such proto-religions, and some sporting events do too (just a few examples).

Part 3: Nietzsche
I would have went with the overman, nay-sayers, and poison makers quote myself .

Part 4: The Hierarchy
It is probably quite likely, in both the views of Marx and Sigmund Freud, that religion is both a form of childhood neurosis and an opiate for the people. However, this is not a refutation of a higher power, but a bold statement saying that belief becomes an opiate, an escape which dulls the senses. That we might grow content of our stature in the world out of a belief that through the act of modesty and self-loathing, we may find our way to some opened gates. This to me is more a warning than an argument as to whether there can be a higher power. Yes it might be the origin of the belief, yes it is quite destructive as we interlace the hologram of divine intervention with the workings of chaos theory, but what simple and easy game you guys seem to aim at.

Actually the point of my Nietzsche quote is to say that a historical refutation, in a Bayesian sense, is quite powerful. You have a prior probability for theism. Then you discover that the basis of your prior probability is generally explainable in terms of social hierarchies and memetics - it sort of takes the bite out of theism. For example have you read any papers by Susan Blackmore on alien abduction claimers/victims? She explains why they believe they were abducted, which should lower your credence in the hypothesis that such people really were abducted by aliens.

Also, there is the idea that 'knowledge' in the absolute sense is non-existent because the criteria for such truth is a fantasy. A real definition of truth describes the conditional relationships which comprise observations and how the memes of explanation operate, while a nominal definition of truth is something like correspondence theory. A historical refutation of theism is a real refutation. It is more complete because it explains the origins of the idea. Only a historical explanation is a real explanation of theism (this is my opinion obviously).

Comments
I do not mean to suggest that all people are following the herd mentality with this, only that it provides a rudimentary grid by which beliefs follow. That free thought should be exercised and consciously observed, as ideas hold sway over the path beliefs move.

I don't think you will disagree that my points are valid. I don't claim I am absolutely correct and I believe there is room for theistic ideas.

Also, I would claim that theism has been instrumental in actually creating the mind-body problem in the western world. While living in asia I found, by asking people, that people didn't generally have trouble with the idea of brain emulation and SAI, while westerners tend to be very dismissive of the idea. I think that's partly because theism tends to lead people to believe that there is a god and that there is a soul.

Edited by exapted, 26 October 2009 - 08:03 AM.

[exapted]

Part 5 [my comments don't count as a part]: My support for the awesome arcane cult of the obtuse
I'm sorry, I do think it's quite possible that we're becoming a product of left hemisphere dominated education, lack of free thought, extremist viewpoints and surface level scanning. Of course there are objective truths to the universe, truths we seek to uncover, but man must at time proclaim there are things I do not know, and perhaps I have not the senses to know. If the drum-bangers of the atheist drum understood what lies within the heart of men, in the hope that it gives the dying then perhaps the drums would be a bit more gentle. Yes, that hope should go towards the funding of anti aging research in order to more directly assist it, but gently and not with the force of war.

I read a book by Daniel Dennett called Breaking The Spell. I highly recommend it. I also recommend Thus Sprach Zarathustra. I'm not suggesting that you need to read these books, but I bring them up because both recognize that there are many aspects of religion of which we don't understand the functions. I don't think atheism is necessarily left-brain, but I do think theism is very "other worldly". I think this world could be just as amazing as "other worlds". I think we can grow this world into something better. Therefore I think theism represents weariness, not right-brain creativity.

However I do think ideas such as Omega point theory are quite interesting and positive.

Perhaps they'd offer some method by which to show that even without god there is beauty in the world. But that's not what you hear, you hear belittling, egotistical rants, and comments devoid of any sentiment. Of splitting between groups; the intellectuals and the feelers. Not everyone merely thinks, some people feel more.

But the theists started it. Seriously, I know that sounds like something a toddler would say, but it is spot on. Theism, as a meme-plex, is "designed" to be obtuse with regard to criticism. Science is not, because the strength of science is in verifiability. Anyone with a scientific idea can present it and, if it makes any sense, it is possible for that idea to really make a difference. Religion doesn't generally allow for such flexibility, even when it is claimed.

Edited by exapted, 26 October 2009 - 08:03 AM.

[exapted]

The fact is that religions make specific claims which are, to a currently very limited extent, empirically testable.

Perhaps you are interpreting the texts too literally.

I interpret them in a variety of ways. In the end I am looking for verifiable claims. Not always directly verifiable, but conditionally related to something real, somehow, however indirect. The verifiable claims keep changing - it's the "god of the gaps".

[Ben Simon]

It's the "god of the gaps".

What's wrong with that?

[exapted]

It's the "god of the gaps".

What's wrong with that?

Actually my point was that, in order to evaluate religious claims, we need a set of claims to evaluate in the first place. They have to be specific claims, and by that I mean claims that have consequences such that they are falsifiable or clearly philosophically relevant.

To be a believer and admit that your god is a "god of the gaps" is to suggest that your beliefs are defined according to whatever science hasn't figured out. If I have a prior probability for theism based on the idea that, hey, theism is a plausible idea, then I discover that my prior probability is inspired by "whatever science hasn't happened to figure out by now", that lowers my credence in the god hypothesis.

Also it just seems a poor strategy to let your beliefs be defined by "the gaps".

Edited by exapted, 26 October 2009 - 01:49 PM.

[mentatpsi]

Thanks exapted, I've been meaning to read that book for awhile, where that overman, poison makers quote came from. I'm a bit behind in my readings so haven't gotten around to it. I mentioned the left brain dominated education because it seems that if one wants, one can construct just as many hypothesis for the existence of a god, as for without one. It's a game of creativity, connecting reality with story telling and mythos formation. The omega point theory is also extremely cool, I've had a feeling awhile ago that this point existed. I've always constructed my own omega point, as life seems to be best surrounded by progress and mental exercises.

I'm agnostic myself, but the main reason I defend theism is because some of its teaching represent a culimination of the merger of health and religious thought. Much like the experiments being done on buddhist monks to see what they've been able to develop in terms of control over the brain. I think there can be a very positive relationship between science and religion, rather than allowing science to become the anti-thesis of religion and vice versa. I am reading a book called mega brain about mind machines for instance, and one of the neuroscientists mentioned how much he hated the new age quackery yet whenever he spoke of the prospects of the brain he couldn't help but feeling like he was one of them. The reason i mention this is because stigma affects funding as does whether something works or not. I'd prefer humanity explore as many avenues as possible, rather than creating a funnel.

Btw that observation as far as asian thought is rather interesting. Which areas did you visit that seemed to have a higher acceptance of monism rather than dualism (mind-body)?