49 replies to this topic

[boundlesslife]

Per prometheus:

If seasoned, peer-reviewed scientists who model mathematical reality can resort to such algorithmic crutches why should not the average person be permitted to seek comfort, hope and a sense of order through their faith?

They are going to seek such comfort, hope and a sense of order, to the extent (if necessary and possible) of evangelizing all who disagree with their particular form of such a quest, and (as exemplified by the inquisition) burning those who disagree at the stake, if they can get away with it. Eliminating all manifestations of non-belief in their vicinity maximizes the 'comfort, hope and sense of order' of those who believe, and suppressing opposition and even intelligent counterpoint thus becomes a priority for them.

Yet, as the implausibility of such beliefs grows, the faith of those who hold them tends to weaken, and some of them now seek a more reality-based pathway to avoiding oblivion at death, death that still comes so quickly due to our (we humans, as we are now) very short lifespans. Life-extension as a scientific pursuit can ultimately provide a viable alternative to mystical beliefs, except for remnant pockets of believers who preserve them, by way of isolated cults.

A century or two from now, those living then may look back on us as we are now, from a position of having achieved very long lifespans, and marvel at how (short a time) we lived at this time, and to what extent we (at this time) attempted to achieve "comfort, hope and a sense of order" by beliefs in implausible beings and realms.

boundlesslife

[peterragnar]

The author of the above article defines a meme as "a subconsciously assepted and spread conviction or idea". Then goes on to say, " The people who accept honest arguments then replace their convictions; either they become total sceptics, or, more likely, they acquire new convictions, which are retained unless replaced with better perspectives."

I certainly think some of the above posts offer a better perspective than insisting to defend the belief in the unprovable. I'm curious Prometheus, where did you get this belief about god? Did someone else tell you about it or did you discover concrete evidence on your own? If you did, then you're welcome to provide that evidence. Do you think this invisible thing is going to save you or would you choose to embrace a more scientific solution to an obvious biological problem?

Consider this, you walk into a room and everyone in the room says, "God is in this room". Most people never question the allegation. But, if I walk into the room and confess that a Martian who happened to be floating around in the room, just told me that the women on Venus have triple breasts, I'd be a candidate for the loony bin. Why? Because there is no difference between the two unfounded statements, except content. Beliefs are not tools of cognition! And faith does not erase reality.

An honest mind will be forced to draw the conclusion that a blind hope that some god will come to the rescue is simply what the author calls a meme, a subconsciously accepted and spread conviction or idea. There is nothing original about this primitive belief. There are no alternatives to reality based reason.

[peterragnar]

Mind, I just went to the link you provided. Thank you so much! I'm still holding my side laughing. This is great! I'd love to see a discussion about this sometime.

[peterragnar]

Dear Prometheus, I really do appreciate your willingness to debate issues like this. Please bear in mind, that in no way do I believe that you are not sincere in your views. I only wish that you think about my questions in greater depth. The reason it is so vital is that one cannot hold conscious or subconscious contradictions and prosper. We are on the same team, wanting the same thing. I simply have no evidence for expecting a mystical solution to aging and death. Nor do I find that embracing any belief or faith devoid of tangible benefits worth my time.

Now, to addressing your question. If I told you that there were green men with pink party hats living on Mars, and I told you to prove that it wasn't so, you'd think I was a complete idiot. The burden of proof, as in any courtroom is upon the one who asserts a claim. The reason is that no one can prove a negative. You can't verify that which doesn't exist. So back to the article which sparked this debate, If there is but one possible solution to the problem of aging and death, that found in science, why are you looking into the sky for answers?

[DJS]

Prometheus

As I have often said, faith, to me is a personal matter. Furthermore, my objective is not to "convert" you or anyone else. In my household, and amongst our close friends, exist numerous variations of faith ranging from reasonably orthodox to atheistic. We all get along famously. I do, however, enjoy debating with those who whether they realise it or by adopting the doctrines of atheism also adhere to a "faith".

If faith is defined as unfounded suppositions then, yes, we all possess faith to one degree or another. For instance, unlike the Buddhist, I have faith (ie, an intuition) that there is an objective reality waiting to be discovered. The key, I believe, is to minimize the suppositional content of our minds. Unfortunately, religions do not abide by this heuristic.

I would challenge you, if you will, to prove that God does not exist.

Russell would counter by asking you to "prove" that there isn't a china tea pot orbiting around the sun. )

Excluding the notion of an anthropomorphic, eat-me-I'm-tasty, fairy tale God, we are left with only logic as our guide.

"If God created the universe, then what created God?"

"Nothing, God is infinite. God is the uncaused cause."

"Why not just say that the universe is infinite, that the universe is the uncaused cause and spare yourself the violation of logic via Occam's razor?"

"Believing in God is a leap of faith. As such, William of Occam can kiss my grit."

"This is fine, but why do you have this article of faith? What psychological need does it fulfill? What value(s) does it uphold? For instance, I have "faith" in an objective reality because its existence is necessary for technological progress. In turn, technological progress aimed at the enhancement of Being provides my life with a purpose.

Everything boils down to values, and values are determined by Will. What is Will determined by?

[FunkOdyssey]

"If God created the universe, then what created God?"

I first asked that particular question when I was about 7 or 8 years old. It marked the beginning of the end of my faith in religion.

[DJS]

What is Will determined by?

....cosmic force.... [glasses]

Are we debating semantics, Prometheus?

Is Being Reality's way of comprehending itself? Creating itself?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic

If one devalues the inherent worth of self/intelligence/being by embracing a traditional materialist perspective, then intellectually justifying death will come as second nature.

[DJS]

FO

I first asked that particular question when I was about 7 or 8 years old. It marked the beginning of the end of my faith in religion.

Oddly, I can't ever remember having been religious. Even with an overly religious mother it always seemed like so much silliness to me.

[FunkOdyssey]

My nursery school was held in a Catholic church, and I began attending CCD classes (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) soon after. You believe whatever you are told to believe at 4 years old.

[boundlesslife]

Quoting FunkOdyssey:

My nursery school was held in a Catholic church, and I began attending CCD classes (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) soon after.  You believe whatever you are told to believe at 4 years old. 

Exactly so! And if you had been raised (about a hundred years ago) in a primitive Tibetan town, you would have believed in reincarnation (karmic rebirth), astrology, the emergence of humans from the mating of a monkey in the mountains and a she-devil from the canyon, etc., etc., etc.

The best and deepest principles of Buddhism would have been reduced to a chaotic jumble of scriptures, dogmatically taught and debated, and from a distance the whole affair might not have seemed so different from the debating of how many angels could stand on the head of a pin, by the Catholics in Rome.

Based on such 'beliefs', people have built pyramids in Egypt, stone heads on Easter Island, and temples all over South America, Central America, and the Far East, yet the bottom line is that, as you say, "You believe what you're taught to believe, at the age of four," and there's little to it more than that.

Perhaps the world will someday (soon) emerge from this jungle.

Perhaps the Internet will have contributed to that.

The pace is accelerating.

Good!

boundlesslife

[boundlesslife]

Response deleted. Those who choose 'spirituality' over rationality are better left undisturbed, it seems to me.

[lanky]

Response deleted. Those who choose 'spirituality' over rationality are better left undisturbed, it seems to me.

You can't choose spirituality over rationality. They are not related. But I could see how someone as yourself could confuse "someone with different beliefs" and "irrational".

[DJS]

Man without spiritualism is both a sad and terrifying being.

Perhaps. But spirituality certainly doesn't require a belief in God.


Naturalistic Spirituality

[peterragnar]

Prometheus,
One small bit of clarity, the difference between a theist and an atheist is the difference between faith and facts. Therefore, the atheist can't adopt a faith. The theist simply has one additional belief about the universe that the atheist doesn't share.

In facing one's death, faith will not disolve its finality. I'd suggest that you'd have better odds winning your states lottery, than waiting for an unprovable god to come to the rescue. Sad to say, millions still wait in vain! But hey, they still have faith...