Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

A Primal Nut

kelly1 wrote: »

That is such a silly argument because we have no idea how many "things" lie ourside our universe. By that reasoning the probability that you exist approaches 0, wouldn't it?

I do exist therefore the probability is one.

Of course at the start of the universe the probably I would exist is probably close to 1/infinity and there are plenty of organisms who didn't make it because of that low probability. You and I got lucky.:D

Its possible God got lucky too but until we observe its the same chance that one of us would exist...which was very unlikely...but of course for humans to exist some people would have to get lucky; for Gods to exist he would have to get lucky but as we can't observe it its remains 1/infinity.

The anthropic principle explains this well.

ChocolateSauce

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The anthropic principle explains this well.

I'm a little rusty on this one; could you please explain it?

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Socially, what's interesting is that there are so few people involved in what you refer to as the "new atheist" group, and how much consternation and chatter they've caused in the vast religious community which has yet to produce a best-seller in response.

The religious community in the UK and Ireland (where these authors have recieved most attention) is not vast.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

The religious community in the UK and Ireland (where these authors have recieved most attention) is not vast.

85% of people say they are religious in Ireland, and in Britain they number in the tens of millions. Pretty vast IMO...

Fanny Cradock

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm a little rusty on this one; could you please explain it?

In a nut shell: I believe that the anthropic principal states that the universe happens to adhere to the physical constants that are appropriate to human life. If these constants were any different, well, we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to know any better. This has lead people to theorise about a 'finely tuned' universe or the existence of multiple universes.

Morbert

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I didn't realise. So in this consideration, what existed outside of the ball of dust that went bang was also 'our' universe?

Well this is beyond my level of expertise, but I'm sure some of the regulars will be along to explain it. The point is though concepts such as time may not have been applicable preceding this point.

I'm sure if you're interested in getting the answers to this and other facts about the origins of the universe (if any) either the space or science forums would be the place to ask. Any time I've had queries they've either provided a laymans answer or given pointers to assist in getting the answer myself.

Just spotted this.

Yar, the big bang is a prediction of General Relativity, which did away with the intuitive notion of time that we all hold. Einstein discovered that space and time are facets of the same thing (imaginatively called spacetime) and that space and time, as an absolute reference, doesn't exist. Time, like space, is warped by mass and energy, and is relative to the observer.

This meant that the Big Bang wasn't simply a pregnant dot (to borrow Bill Bryson's term) floating in nothing for infinity before exploding. It was a singularity that 'contained' both space and time. To put it another way, it is perfectly valid to say that there was never a point in time when the universe didn't exist, and to point to a time before the big bang is like pointing to a place north of the north pole.

Of course, the major problem with out Cosmological model is its failure to incorporate Quantum Mechanics, so we can't, by any stretch, say we have a complete picture of the 'beginning' of the universe yet.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In a nut shell: I believe that the anthropic principal states that the universe happens to adhere to the physical constants that are appropriate to human life. If these constants were any different, well, we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to know any better. This has lead people to theorise about a 'finely tuned' universe or the existence of multiple universes.

Actually it is sort of the other way around, it is an argument against proposing a "finely tuned" universe.

The argument is that what ever way the universe is it will produce life that reflects the way it. Our universe produced human life because human life is the type of life that is produced in our universe. It is not surprising that we therefore find human life in the universe. The universe isn't fine tuned to produce human life, we are a result of our particular universe.

If the universe was different then it simply would have ended up producing a different type of life (if any life at all).

The analogy that is often used, and one I think is a good one, is the puddle of water in a hole in the ground.

The puddle (assuming puddles are sentient now) may well ponder at how finely tuned the hole it finds itself in is. The hole fits the puddle perfectly, there is no gaps between its water and the edges of the hole anywhere, and the puddle comes right up to the top of the hole without going higher.

The puddle may think that the puddle has been specifically designed for the puddle to live in, as it fits so perfectly.

Of course we know that if the hole was a different shape it would in fact cause the puddle to be a different shape. If there was too much water it would simply over flow until it fits the hole. The water will ways fill the hole perfectly no matter what shape the hole is.

So there is no point in the puddle thinking that the current shape it is is some how the shape it is supposed to be and then thinking how curious it is that the hole would some how produce that shape so perfectly, almost as if someone designed the hole on purpose.

The puddle's shape and volume reflects the hole it finds itself it, not the other way around. The hole is not fine tuned for the puddle, the hole could be any shape imaginable. The shape of the puddle is a product of the hole.

That is basically the gist of the anthropic principal. As human life (a particular shape of the puddle) we should not look back at the universe (the hole) and ponder about how the universe is fine tuned to us, because it all likelihood if the universe was different so would we be.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

85% of people say they are religious in Ireland, and in Britain they number in the tens of millions. Pretty vast IMO...

If they do not go to any church then they are not participating in a religious community. Better to look at church attendance figures.

People who are simply 'ethnic Catholics' or Anglicans do not count if they are not part of a believing community.

Rev Hellfire

Húrin wrote: »

If they do not go to any church then they are not participating in a religious community. Better to look at church attendance figures.

To be religious does not require participating in a religious community. Hermits for example need not participate in any community and yet are considered religious.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes it's an assumption we have to make or there would be no progress made. But it's still an assumption and unprovable.

You don't quite seem to get this. Everything is an assumption and nothing is provable. Everything, from the clothes you are wearing not spontaneously combusting, to the moon not cracking open and revealing the flying spaghetti monster inside are assumptions and no one can prove them because no-one can see the future. All we have are consistent observations and models that agree with the assumptions. but they are vigorously tested assumptions, that have to agree with (or at leats not be contradicted by) reproducable observations, they can adapt to include new data, but its not like they are still kept if anything comes along and probably disproves them. Sciences prefers no answer to a wrong answer, as all you will get from wrong answers is other wrong answers.

kelly1 wrote: »

The big question is who does the known universe obey laws at all and why are we able to describe these laws in mathematical terms.

(I'm assuming you mean why does the universe obey laws at all). Well science doesn't have the answer yet for why does the universe obey these laws at all, but really the best thing to say is why not? If the big bang was as explosive as the name suggests, then its possible that all existence that came out of it, came out quick and had to settle quick, and just settled in the most balanced state it could. There's no real reason to think if it happened again, we would get the same universal laws (or any at all). And I'd imagine we can express them in mathematical terms because we designed those matematical terms in such a way as to describe those laws in the first place.
(NB: as I'm not a physicist, what I just wrote could be (and very possibly should be) considered as so much waffly nonsense:))

kelly1

Thanks Mark. Much of what I'm saying is based on popular lay material and I've no scientific qualification (engineering background). Like all of us here I'm trying to make sense of the world that I live in.

The comments I make are often based not on the latest discoveries in science but on "educated" guesses and sometimes misunderstandings. But I try.

I just can't get my head around the suggestion the "I" who is writing this post is nothing more than the result of electro-chemical interactions. Does the "self" exist in matter or is it an immaterial substance. I'm strongly inclined towards the latter explanation. But I digress...

Rev Hellfire

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Everything is an assumption and nothing is provable.

There's a mathematicians jihad coming your way

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

I just can't get my head around the suggestion the "I" who is writing this post is nothing more than the result of electro-chemical interactions. Does the "self" exist in matter or is it an immaterial substance. I'm strongly inclined towards the latter explanation.

This is an attractive and comforting perspective. And - I suspect - one of the core reasons for culture after human culture inventing religions to 'explain' our existence. Unfortunately, it isn't supported by anything other than wishful thinking. Everybody has this 'sense' of something bigger than themselves. A 'feeling' of destiny and greater purpose. A horror at the idea of just rotting away to nothing after death.

But this, when it comes right down to it, is by far the most likely scenario. It's just hard to get your head around.

I saw a fascinating experiment once. A roomful of people were told that the door would only open if they could find and complete a specific mystery task or tasks which would 'unlock' it. Outside was a large sum of money which they would get to keep and share if they could find the 'key' within five minutes. A counter on the wall kept them informed of their progress.

It was funny but kind of painful watching them create from scratch and repeatedly perform all kinds of elaborate rituals they believed would win them the money. Some kept sitting down and standing up, some moved things from one side of the room to the other and back again. Some chanted incantations. Not one person figured out the truth: the door was open all the time, they only had to pull the handle. The counter ticked at random, creating the illusion of an association between their actions and its progress. In reality there was no connection whatsoever between anything anyone did and the outcome, but every single person convinced themselves there was such a connection with no difficulty at all.

As humans we seem to have evolved to consider ourselves part of something greater; to believe that we and our actions have some kind of meaning or effect on the wider universe. It seems to be an almost-universal conviction. But that doesn't make it true.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I just can't get my head around the suggestion the "I" who is writing this post is nothing more than the result of electro-chemical interactions.

I never get why people say things like this

Why do you think your sentience being produced by electro-chemical interactions isn't totally utterly amazing and cool?

Why do you need to imagine that it is something else, something ultimately non-defined and quite wishy washy, something that to my mind is far less interesting and wondrous than the natural explanation.

To use a possibly confusing analogy, it is like in a film, when you see a stunt actor (or even better the actor themselves) performing a stunt that you know is real, rather than CGI, that is far more wondrous, far more awe inspiring, than them faking it with a blue/green screen.

The former is hard, the latter easy. The former is wondrous (that guy really did jump of that crane!!) the later just makes you feel cheated (I lighting is all wrong, its obvious he is on a sound stage!!

Perhaps this analogy doesn't map exactly to the idea of what is the mind it is more just to highlight that to me "God did it" removes the coolness, the wonder, the magic of something like the human mind

"God did it" is easy. There is no wonder in that, there is nothing to be amazed at, in fact my first question would be why did he do such a bad job if he can do anything with as much ease as anything else.

If God made us we aren't special, we are just something God made and God can make anything. Nothing God makes is special because he makes everything with as much ease as anything else.

Where as the idea that the human brain evolved, and that "I" is actually the product of billions of neurons, that is freaking cool man

That is wondrous, that is truly amazing!

For people to say they can't believe we are just this, to me it is like saying I can't believe i'm just the most amazing thing ever

ChocolateSauce

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't believe i'm just the most amazing thing ever

:pac:

Mark Hamill

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

There's a mathematicians jihad coming your way

Everything is an assumption and nothing is provable. (except in maths)
I hope that placates the mathematical fundamentalists (lowest common denominationalists?):pac:

(seriously though, I should have said "almost nothing is provable", what with proofs by induction, and proving things wrong which can be done)

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you think your sentience being produced by electro-chemical interactions isn't totally utterly amazing and cool?

It would be cool/amazing if neurons could produce a mind. I seriously doubt that matter can produce consciousness and I think rather that brain activity accompanies thoughts produced by the mind.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you need to imagine that it is something else, something ultimately non-defined and quite wishy washy, something that to my mind is far less interesting and wondrous than the natural explanation.

Because I think we're far more than machines. Reductionist ideas repulse me. The implications that we're advanced machines has horrible implications e.g. that we have no true free-will, that the "I/self" will be annihilated at death, that things like love, justice, mercy, emotions etc are nothing more than illusions.

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps this analogy doesn't map exactly to the idea of what is the mind it is more just to highlight that to me "God did it" removes the coolness, the wonder, the magic of something like the human mind

To my way of thinking, the idea that we have an immaterial, immortal mind/soul that continues to exist after we die, is far more wonderful than any materialistic explanation of mind.

Wicknight wrote: »

If God made us we aren't special, we are just something God made and God can make anything. Nothing God makes is special because he makes everything with as much ease as anything else.

If it is true that we have immortal souls, that animals don't and that we are destined to spend eternity in perfect happiness with God in heaven thanks to God sending His only Son to die for us, then God must think we're special!

Wicknight wrote: »

Where as the idea that the human brain evolved, and that "I" is actually the product of billions of neurons, that is freaking cool man

If there was no life after death and no God, yes it would indeed be cool. But then I don't think the self disappears at death.

Amazing how two human beings, supposedly made of the same material, can think so completely differently. Our views are worlds apart!

kelly1

rockbeer wrote: »

This is an attractive and comforting perspective. And - I suspect - one of the core reasons for culture after human culture inventing religions to 'explain' our existence. Unfortunately, it isn't supported by anything other than wishful thinking. Everybody has this 'sense' of something bigger than themselves. A 'feeling' of destiny and greater purpose. A horror at the idea of just rotting away to nothing after death.

Isn't it also intriguing that the majority of us human beings on this planet think there's life after death? I don't think there's a single civilization on this planet that doesn't believe in an after-life. Isn't this quite remarkable for something that is supposely composed of pure matter?

The question of mortality certainly seems to be something innate and of central importance to us. As you said yourself "It seems to be an almost-universal conviction". I think the reason for this conviction really isn't propery addressed by atheists.

leaba

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't it also intriguing that the majority of us human beings on this planet think there's life after death? I don't think there's a single civilization on this planet that doesn't believe in an after-life. Isn't this quite remarkable for something that is supposely composed of pure matter?

Do you not think it would be the obvious thing to think for a being that has never experienced non existence?

I don't understand why being made of matter makes this remarkable.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I seriously doubt that matter can produce consciousness and I think rather that brain activity accompanies thoughts produced by the mind.

What do you actually base that assessment that it is "seriously doubtful" on?

kelly1 wrote: »

Because I think we're far more than machines.

Define what "far more" means. What do you think we are that a machine can't be?

kelly1 wrote: »

The implications that we're advanced machines has horrible implications e.g. that we have no true free-will, that the "I/self" will be annihilated at death, that things like love, justice, mercy, emotions etc are nothing more than illusions.

What??

Firstly (and rather off topic), if God exists and created us then we have no true free-will, as I've often argued. How can you have free will if God already knows what you are going to do? The argument that you can choose what to do but God just knows what you choose is ridiculous, because God knows before you choose, so what are your options? Free will becomes an illusion. You guys just say we do have free will, it says so right here (Christian points to Bible), which isn't very convincing :pac:. So I really do think we should be getting into a debate about how materialism means we don't have free will. In my view materialism is the only way we can have free will (assuming we do at all).

Secondly, not wanting to be "annihilated" at death has nothing to do with the question of if you will be or not. If the whole reason for thinking we must be "more" than biological machines is that biological machines die and you don't want to die so you assume we must be "more" (by more I assume you mean different), well that isn't a very good argument.

Thirdly, love, justice, mercy, emotions etc are not illusions. This hold whether we are machines or not, it is unrelated to either position.

Some of you guys have really weird ways of looking at things, and why you think you need your religion to be true :P

kelly1 wrote: »

To my way of thinking, the idea that we have an immaterial, immortal mind/soul that continues to exist after we die, is far more wonderful than any materialistic explanation of mind.

Why? How is that wondrous? How is that awe inspiring?

Or do you simply mean comforting, which is completely different feeling (my bed is comforting but it ain't wonderous and awe inspiring. The grand canyon isn't comforting but it is awe inspiring)

kelly1 wrote: »

If it is true that we have immortal souls, that animals don't and that we are destined to spend eternity in perfect happiness with God in heaven thanks to God sending His only Son to die for us, then God must think we're special!

I really don't understand this thinking.

It doesn't make any difference to God (being a god) either way. There was no effort involved on God's part either way. So how do you infer we are special?

kelly1 wrote: »

Amazing how two human beings, supposedly made of the same material, can think so completely differently. Our views are worlds apart!

Awe inspiring :P

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't it also intriguing that the majority of us human beings on this planet think there's life after death? I don't think there's a single civilization on this planet that doesn't believe in an after-life. Isn't this quite remarkable for something that is supposely composed of pure matter?

Why?

What do you think something composed of pure matter should think?

kelly1 wrote: »

The question of mortality certainly seems to be something innate and of central importance to us. As you said yourself "It seems to be an almost-universal conviction". I think the reason for this conviction really isn't propery addressed by atheists.

Yes it is, and it is evolution. And in fact you can study just how innate this conviction is and why we have it (what evolutionary purpose does it serve) And shockingly things we struggled to understand before evolution (such as altruism or homosexuality) only start to make sense only when put in an evolutionary framework.

(and before anyone says it, the Fall does not explain homosexuality)

kelly1

leaba wrote: »

Do you not think it would be the obvious thing to think for a being that has never experienced non existence?

Yes, true. You could say it's the fear of the unknown. But in most cases of experiencing the unknown, there's a very good chance we will survive afterwards! Otherwise we would avoid the unknown.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't it also intriguing that the majority of us human beings on this planet think there's life after death? I don't think there's a single civilization on this planet that doesn't believe in an after-life. Isn't this quite remarkable for something that is supposely composed of pure matter?

In a being capable of contemplating its own mortality, the ability to assume that we are immortal is probably essential.

On the one hand we must fear death or we won't tend to survive long enough to reproduce. On the other hand, we must not fear our death enough to make us catatonic. A fine balance of survival instinct and self delusion. Of course it's common, generally speaking the people who don't display these characteristics are dead.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't it also intriguing that the majority of us human beings on this planet think there's life after death? I don't think there's a single civilization on this planet that doesn't believe in an after-life. Isn't this quite remarkable for something that is supposely composed of pure matter? [...] I think the reason for this conviction really isn't propery addressed by atheists.

Are you saying that, as a group, atheists are mystified about why some people want to believe that they're immortal?

.

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't it also intriguing that the majority of us human beings on this planet think there's life after death? I don't think there's a single civilization on this planet that doesn't believe in an after-life. Isn't this quite remarkable for something that is supposely composed of pure matter?

Not really, it reflects an inability to conceive of nothing. But the popularity of a view has nothing to do with its truth. If you place so much weight on popularity maybe you should consider that far and away the vast majority of humans to have lived on the planet have not been christians. The most popular faith historically is almost certainly the various animist/pagan beliefs.

kelly1 wrote: »

The question of mortality certainly seems to be something innate and of central importance to us. As you said yourself "It seems to be an almost-universal conviction". I think the reason for this conviction really isn't propery addressed by atheists.

Not sure it's up to 'atheists' to address any such thing. But the issues you raise have been widely addressed by anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and historians. Religion's cultural role has been thoroughly investigated. Surely the fact that, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, each culture believes in a different kind of afterlife suggests that such beliefs perform cultural roles rather than necessarily being based in any truth.

leaba

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, true. You could say it's the fear of the unknown. But in most cases of experiencing the unknown, there's a very good chance we will survive afterwards! Otherwise we would avoid the unknown.

I might go even further than fear of the unknown, rather inability to comprehend. With regard to your question about the self, I'm going to again recommend Jeff Hawkins' book On intelligence. You seem very interested and this guy really makes an interesting stab at how our brains work.

One of the things that I find inspiring and impressive about the human "spirit" is that we can accept our own mortality and lack of grand purpose and still enjoy life and help each other out even though we may get nothing in return.

http://www.onintelligence.org/

<Apologies for going off topic>

Morbert

kelly1 wrote: »

It would be cool/amazing if neurons could produce a mind. I seriously doubt that matter can produce consciousness and I think rather that brain activity accompanies thoughts produced by the mind.

It is true that, although we have a wonderful (but very incomplete) model of the brain, we only have correlations. I.e. We can relate brain functions to consciousness/stimulus and response but we can't *derive* consciousness from brain functions; however, that doesn't mean we can therefore assert that the brain merely "accompanies" consciousness. In fact, all evidence supports the idea that suffering brain injury can affect your personality. If the brain is not fundamentally responsible for the mind then our mind's specific dependancy on it seems strange.

Because I think we're far more than machines. Reductionist ideas repulse me. The implications that we're advanced machines has horrible implications e.g. that we have no true free-will, that the "I/self" will be annihilated at death, that things like love, justice, mercy, emotions etc are nothing more than illusions.

To my way of thinking, the idea that we have an immaterial, immortal mind/soul that continues to exist after we die, is far more wonderful than any materialistic explanation of mind.

If it is true that we have immortal souls, that animals don't and that we are destined to spend eternity in perfect happiness with God in heaven thanks to God sending His only Son to die for us, then God must think we're special!

If there was no life after death and no God, yes it would indeed be cool. But then I don't think the self disappears at death.

Amazing how two human beings, supposedly made of the same material, can think so completely differently. Our views are worlds apart!

Well you might be able to argue that the idea of a supernatural soul is more optimistic, but that can't really have any bearing on whether or not it is true.

Morbert

oops, double post

ChocolateSauce

kelly1 wrote: »

It would be cool/amazing if neurons could produce a mind. I seriously doubt that matter can produce consciousness and I think rather that brain activity accompanies thoughts produced by the mind.

But you're made of matter and you are aware. Clearly, matter can.

Zombrex

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

But you're made of matter and you are aware. Clearly, matter can.

It is just that sort of logic that will get you kicked out of this place you ruffian!

Believer - Matter can't be self aware
Atheist - But you are matter, you are self aware .... does that not tell you something?
Believer - No, there must be more because we have already established that matter can't be self aware
Athesit - We have?
Believer - Yes, please keep up
Atheist - ?
Believer - Now if matter can't be self aware, but I am self aware, there must be something other than matter making me self aware
Atheist - Wait, hold on a minute go back to the first bit ...
Believer - Shush! I'm on to something big here. If there is something that is non-matter making me self aware, and there has to be, then that must be non-material
Atheist - Er .. <puzzled look on his face>
Believer - And what else could that be, what else can be non-material yet make me self-aware
Atheist - Umm, photons?
Believer - No you dingbat. The spirit of course! I've just proved the spirit has to exist, nothing else can explain why I'm self aware
Atheist - Yeah, I'm just going to go stand over here now and throw rocks at you if that is ok ...

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

It is just that sort of logic that will get you kicked out of this place you ruffian!

Yeah, this is the Christianity forum, the last bastion of logic and reason! :pac:

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote:

It would be cool/amazing if neurons could produce a mind. I seriously doubt that matter can produce consciousness and I think rather that brain activity accompanies thoughts produced by the mind.

I've got to thinking about this and wondering where non-human animals fit into this picture. Obviously christians believe animals have no soul. Does that mean they are not animated by the 'spirit' (or whatever you call this thing that you believe gives us consciousness).

So, does the consciousness and self-awareness of animals come from only matter? If so, how come it works for them and not for us? And if not, why should they not be as entitled to all the same benefits of the spirit as us humans?

Hope you see what I'm getting at. I realize this probably isn't very well worded. I just switched out of motherboard-reviewing mode to post this thinking-aloud ramble.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Obviously christians believe animals have no soul.

Why 'obviously'? I believe the soul (Greek 'psyche') denotes the mind, emotions and will. I certainly think animals have a psyche.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Why 'obviously'?

Maybe not obviously. I was under the impression most christians believe that the human soul is the difference between us and animals. Maybe I've got that wrong, in which case could someone please tell me what is the difference?

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Maybe not obviously. I was under the impression most christians believe that the human soul is the difference between us and animals. Maybe I've got that wrong, in which case could someone please tell me what is the difference?

Ah, that would be the spirit (pneuma). The spirit is the part of us that can communicate with God, and that is dead prior to conversion.

kelly1

rockbeer wrote: »

I've got to thinking about this and wondering where non-human animals fit into this picture. Obviously christians believe animals have no soul. Does that mean they are not animated by the 'spirit' (or whatever you call this thing that you believe gives us consciousness).

I can't find a source for this, but afaik, the RCC teaches that all living things have souls. Non-human creatures have mortal souls and humans have spiritual and immortal souls.

Maybe animals souls consist of "life-force" or chi/ki/prana as many eastern philosophies teach? Just guessing.

The Mad Hatter

rockbeer wrote: »

I've got to thinking about this and wondering where non-human animals fit into this picture. Obviously christians believe animals have no soul. Does that mean they are not animated by the 'spirit' (or whatever you call this thing that you believe gives us consciousness).

So, does the consciousness and self-awareness of animals come from only matter? If so, how come it works for them and not for us? And if not, why should they not be as entitled to all the same benefits of the spirit as us humans?

Hope you see what I'm getting at. I realize this probably isn't very well worded. I just switched out of motherboard-reviewing mode to post this thinking-aloud ramble.

B-b-b-but all dogs go to heaven! Don't they?

Seriously though, I don't think all Christians believe that. I'd go so far as to say that there's practically nothing that all Christians believe.

Húrin

rockbeer wrote: »

Not really, it reflects an inability to conceive of nothing.

Most humans are capable of conceiving of nothing. Don't be so conceited as to think it is the privilege of some elite minority. You have no more insight than most people who have witnessed death.

But the popularity of a view has nothing to do with its truth. If you place so much weight on popularity maybe you should consider that far and away the vast majority of humans to have lived on the planet have not been christians. The most popular faith historically is almost certainly the various animist/pagan beliefs.

I don't think he was suggesting something so simple as popularity. He was showing that humans have a yearning, even a need, for spiritual fulfilment. Thus, it is likely that spiritual fulfilment is possible. Just as it is possible to satisfy the yearning for food, and hunger would make no sense otherwise.

It is true that most people have not been Christians. However, I think that most religions contain a good bit of truth, but Christianity contains more of it than any other. I also doubt that most people have been animists, given that pagan societies tend to have much lower populations than monotheistic societies.

Surely the fact that, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, each culture believes in a different kind of afterlife suggests that such beliefs perform cultural roles rather than necessarily being based in any truth.

If it was not based in a truth why would it always be an afterlife? Also, if you want to really have credibility as an open-minded person, then you need to give up this notion that there's "no evidence whatsoever" for religious beliefs. I know it's an atheist article of faith, but evidence does not mean mathematical-style proof. Atheists have got to stand outside the Eurocentric cage of Cartesian deduction, and take perception more seriously, if they are to understand where others are coming from.

rockbeer

Húrin wrote: »

Most humans are capable of conceiving of nothing. Don't be so conceited as to think it is the privilege of some elite minority. You have no more insight than most people who have witnessed death.

I think no such thing and claim no special insight, but you can hardly deny that nothing is a difficult thing to imagine. As a child weren't we all fascinated by the idea of the Universe being unable to be infinite - how could it be? - but at the same time unable to end. What's beyond it? How can there be nothingness?

What I do say is that our collective difficulty in imagining nothingness - mine included - doesn't justify accepting fairy stories to fill up the empty space. Or at least not believing their somehow true.

Witness how many people on this forum - christians especially - have a major problem with the idea of nothingness before the big bang.

Please note: I'm not saying I don't have such problems myself, you presumptious fool.

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think he was suggesting something so simple as popularity. He was showing that humans have a yearning, even a need, for spiritual fulfilment. Thus, it is likely that spiritual fulfilment is possible. Just as it is possible to satisfy the yearning for food, and hunger would make no sense otherwise.

Lovely of you to leap to his defence.

A 'need for spiritual fulfilment' bears as much relation to the truth of any given faith as a 'need for art' has to do with liking Metallica. It's self-fulfilling. Besides, how then do you account for us humans who don't have a need for spiritual fulfillment?

Húrin wrote: »

It is true that most people have not been Christians. However, I think that most religions contain a good bit of truth, but Christianity contains more of it than any other.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on that. I would have kind of assumed that as a christian you would think something like that.

Húrin wrote: »

I also doubt that most people have been animists, given that pagan societies tend to have much lower populations than monotheistic societies.

We're talking about an awful lot of animist societies over an awful lot of years.

Húrin wrote: »

If it was not based in a truth why would it always be an afterlife?

Because of the difficulty people have with the finality of death.

Húrin wrote: »

Also, if you want to really have credibility as an open-minded person, then you need to give up this notion that there's "no evidence whatsoever" for religious beliefs. I know it's an atheist article of faith, but evidence does not mean mathematical-style proof. Atheists have got to stand outside the Eurocentric cage of Cartesian deduction, and take perception more seriously, if they are to understand where others are coming from.

Oh give me a break. There's no evidence that would be acceptable in any other context. Everything that's wheeled out as evidence is uncorroborated hearsay. What value is perception when so very much of it is unreliable and contradictory? If you want to accept perception as evidence then you must accept it all, (or reject large amounts of it on the arbitrary grounds that it doesn't support your hypothesis). It very quickly becomes clear that perception is evidence for contradictory and competing claims. That is the very problem with it, and why no great value is placed on it in what you term 'the Eurocentric cage of Cartesian deduction'.

Morbert

Húrin wrote: »

Also, if you want to really have credibility as an open-minded person, then you need to give up this notion that there's "no evidence whatsoever" for religious beliefs. I know it's an atheist article of faith, but evidence does not mean mathematical-style proof. Atheists have got to stand outside the Eurocentric cage of Cartesian deduction, and take perception more seriously, if they are to understand where others are coming from.

As I have said before, rhetoric is unhelpful. If you feel that atheists have an article of faith which prevents them from taking 'perception seriously' then please please please *explicitly state where and how* atheists have an article of faith which prevents them from taking 'perception seriously'. I want you to explicitly state why cartesian logic is relevant to this discussion, and why it prevents atheists from 'taking perception seriously'.

Sometimes I wonder if people are being deliberately vague in this forum.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.

Skip Hitchen's, it's a load of absolute rubbish. Worse than C.S. Lewis.

I don't think there is one complete atheist book. It's too complicated a subject to cover all the angles in one book.

Did you not find the points Dawkins makes about morality challenging?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Skip Hitchen's, it's a load of absolute rubbish. Worse than C.S. Lewis.

I don't think there is one complete atheist book. It's too complicated a subject to cover all the angles in one book.

Did you not find the points Dawkins makes about morality challenging?

Wait! Atheism is simply the non-belief in God or Gods. What's complicated about that? Surely the only (or the main) complications arise when the books attempt to refute faith (typically Christian faith).

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Wait! Atheism is simply the non-belief in God or Gods. What's complicated about that? Surely the only (or the main) complications arise when the books attempt to refute faith (typically Christian faith).

Super post.

The problem is it's difficult to refute something objectively if it isn't objectively defined.

God isn't objectively defined, nor is Christianity. Dawkins could refute beliefs that many Christians have and other Christians could simply go, that's not Christianity and look at his arguments as straw men.

Because of this, it's impossible to cover all the angles, you can only cover some of the more common ones.

The second reason is because it's very hard to argue if religion is on the hole good or bad for people and / or society irrespective if it's true, irrespective if it's illogical, irrespective if it's irritating.

There's no doubt there's been some good things and some bad things but on the hole is it better for society to give it up? That's a tough question.

anatalist

If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

The Mad Hatter

anatalist wrote: »

If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Because you're an idiot.

Or, if you're not joking - firstly, we're not descended from monkeys - we have a common ancestor with them; secondly, even if this understanding of evolution was correct, that question is similar to asking 'if we are descended from our parents, then why are they still around?'

anatalist

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Because you're an idiot.

Or, if you're not joking - firstly, we're not descended from monkeys - we have a common ancestor with them; secondly, even if this understanding of evolution was correct, that question is similar to asking 'if we are descended from our parents, then why are they still around?'

if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D

rockbeer

anatalist wrote: »

if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D

By the look of it, apes aren't the only thing not to have evolved

Fanny Cradock

Not exactly a nice introduction to the forum, Rockbeer.

anatalist, I believe this would be to do with common ancestry - we shared a common ancestor with monkeys. However, this would be best discussed in the Bible Creationism and Prophecy thread.

rockbeer

Fanny, Anatalist is obviously trolling, to judge by the big stupid grin after the inane ape remark.

There's plenty of real information about evolution out there - if people still keep throwing around this kind of baseless nonsense what sort of response do they expect? You're just as quick to react when people make spurious allegations about Christianity. "Let he who is without sin", and all that...

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote: »

Fanny, Anatalist is obviously trolling, to judge by the big stupid grin after the inane ape remark.

There's plenty of real information about evolution out there - if people still keep throwing around this kind of baseless nonsense what sort of response do they expect? You're just as quick to react when people make spurious allegations about Christianity. "Let he who is without sin", and all that...

Listen, it should not be a difficult concept for you to grasp: if you suspect someone of trolling then use the report function. This way all the mods can take an informed decision on the post in question and you won't have to resort to sarcastic posts. OK?