How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

robindch

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes but most theists are just as narrowminded (if not more so) as Atheists.

The Oracle is amused at your presumption and orders you to chill a bit and not to say 100 Hail Maries.

philologos

OP: Admittedly, I wonder why intelligent, critical thinkers would even pose this question.

raah!

Ignorance of any reading or philosophy outside of Richard Dawkins? Misconceptions about the implications of science? It makes them feel good about themselves?

Nemi

raah! wrote: »

This system of chemical rewards/punishments is only a moral system if you say "things that feel good are Good, things that feel bad are Bad"

And if we want to hover over why that isn't a reliable system of what we would culturally expect to be 'morality', we need only consider that well known quote from Genghis Khan (which, I think, also features in Conan the Barbarian)

The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.

Isn't that how Dawkins' concludes his re-issue of the Selfish Gene? (I don't mean by quoting Genghis Khan - but by addressing this point) His point is not just that evolution is not a moral system, but that morality needs to be found elsewhere, as it is not present in the natural forces that gave rise to humans.

Because Dawkins is, I think, both an intelligent and a decent man.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

So, most people act morally because of those chemical rewards for doing so. They do it automatically.

I wouldn't say they do it automatically, but there are chemical rewards and punishments for doing so. In most people that is, as I said some people these systems don't work like they do in the rest of us, either due to genetic factors or environmental factors.

raah! wrote: »

This is "moral action" only from the point of view of someone with a pre-existing moral system. In a previous th read I went to bring out the definition of morality a million times, and perhaps I could link to this. But "doing good" requires a definition of what good is, "moral action" requires a set of rules which state what moral action is.

We already have a basic pre-existing moral system, it is instinctive. We layer more context and detail on top of it thanks to our rational and social brains. But this builds upon what is already there. So we rationally think high finance fraud is morally wrong because it is linked back to a far more basic instinct of fairness and stealing.

raah! wrote: »

This system of chemical rewards/punishments is only a moral system if you say "things that feel good are Good, things that feel bad are Bad"

Good and bad don't exist outside of the context of what we think is good and bad, and what we think is good and bad is defined by these systems. In essence they are our morality.

raah! wrote: »

Indeed there is scope for variation within this evolutionary plan of action. We feel less bad for hurting people we like less.

But it would be silly to say that this is the only thing dictating anyone's actions. There are people out there who think it is morally wrong to touch a religious statue, or something.

Like I said above I don't believe these systems are automatic. Feeling guilty at stealing something doesn't mean no one ever steals things.

raah! wrote: »

Emotions make sense in a naturalistic/evolutionary system, morality does not really. Especially when we apply reason to it. For example, if the ideal good, is feeling good. Then the ideal good is heroine.

Feeling good or bad is some what of an inaccurate way of describing emotions like guilt. We don't simply feel bad, we feel what we did was bad. It is not like the emotion is an electric shock when you steal something. We understand that we feel something was wrong.

raah! wrote: »

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beutiful universe.

Of course it does. I appreciate the beauty of the universe far more the more I actual understand it. A maths solution becomes beautiful when you understand it.

philologos

Wicknight, what about selfless moral action? - I.E Putting up your own life to save others. Surely there is no benefit, chemical or otherwise in doing so?

raah!

raah! wrote: »

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beautiful universe.

Bollocks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28

Nemi

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say they do it automatically, but there are chemical rewards and punishments for doing so. In most people that is, as I said some people these systems don't work like they do in the rest of us, either due to genetic factors or environmental factors.

I think this is a little short of the situation. Breaking Godwin's Law, isn't Hannah Arendt's point in "The Banality of Evil" that perfectly awful things are done by perfectly normal people. The Rwandan Genocide wasn't carried out by a mass invasion of serial killers. It was carried out by people who, the day before, said 'hello' as they passed their neighbours.

I think you're not addressing a set of concerns that have been acknowledged and debated for quite a long time. Its the theme of Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', just to pick one well-known text, and 'Apocalypse Now'.

Now, people do generally co-operate. If they didn't, the world around you would look like Zombie Attack. But to pretend that some 'natural' system of morality prevents us from doing bad stuff is unrealistic. What our minds actually do is filter bad stuff. So the massacre of a wedding party in Afghanistan is nothing to do with US troops passing through Shannon Airport, where they could do with a little business anyway. But if an Irish aid worker goes missing, suddenly its 'exterminate all the brutes', if that's what it takes to secure a release.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, what about selfless moral action? - I.E Putting up your own life to save others. Surely there is no benefit, chemical or otherwise in doing so?

Well first of I never said that morality is all selfish, nor that morality is based around doing what feels good (see my reply above for clarification). Feeling good or bad in the sense of pure pleasure is not what I meant by emotions like pride or guilt.

But to answer your question the "benefit" of a selfless moral action (ie why we would evolve the instinct for these) depends on the context.

Something like laying down your life to save your offspring clearly has evolutionary advantage since your genes (and thus the genetic instinct to do this) survive.

This leads to a more general instinctive sense to protect children, even if they aren't our own. The evolutionary benefit to your genes direct is less, but it is not difficult to see this as a by product of the original instinct, or the instinct to empathy and social cohesion (ie if I save your child your are more likely to save or help mine)

Moving away from children there are general instincts towards social cohesion and "brotherhood" produce selfish acts. We have no rational expectation of reward but we help others because this forms bonds between people that, over time, help all involved. You don't have to consciously require that someone pay you back if you give them money. If you are interested in a social bond with them you instinctively feel it is good to do this. This creates this social bond which can benefit you in the future.

This can be taken to extreme. A solider with a strong social bond with his commanding officer may lay down his life for him. There is no evolutionary benefit to doing this, but that is only because it is an extreme. There is an evolutionary benefit for the instinct to form these strong social bonds in the first place and to protect each other in tehse social bonds, so the instinct survives in humans because 99.99% of the time the social bond does not put the person in the position of having to lay down their lives.

Or to put it another way the benefit of these social bonds from an evolutionary point of view far out weights the negative. For every 1 soldier who dies protecting his buddies there are a thousand people who form equally strong social bonds but have the full benefit of these bonds into old age.

Nemi

Wicknight wrote: »

There is an evolutionary benefit for the instinct for form these social bonds in the first place and to protect each other in tehse social bonds, so the instinct survives because 99% of the time the social bond does not put the person in the position of having to lay down their lives.

But this doesn't work, as I think Dawkins even explains in 'The Selfish Gene'. Natural selection would favour the free rider - the person who accepts your protection of his child, but who doesn't reciprocate.

Now, clearly it happens. We even have the social insects, which are hard to account for as it requires the inheritence of the feature of sterility. But I'm not sure anyone has done more than account for why this might arise. No-one has yet discovered a real dynamic to account for it as, conceptually, the dynamic should work the other way.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say they do it automatically, but there are chemical rewards and punishments for doing so. In most people that is, as I said some people these systems don't work like they do in the rest of us, either due to genetic factors or environmental factors.

Well, here when i said automatically, I meant without reflection.

We already have a basic pre-existing moral system, it is instinctive. We layer more context and detail on top of it thanks to our rational and social brains. But this builds upon what is already there. So we rationally think high finance fraud is morally wrong because it is linked back to a far more basic instinct of fairness and stealing.

You are saying we have an instinctive definition of good? There's a difference between feeling bad and having a distinctive notion of that which is morally undesirable.

And your second point is that we can build up moral systems from what feels bad and good. From those chemical bases. I agree here, but those moral systems aren't necessarily going to be of the type you are suggesting.

Examples of things acceptable in this system: Raping people you don't like, killing people you don't like and stealing their money etc. both of these fill the ultimate categories of feeling good, and then not feeling bad. Also note that the more one does somethign, the less bad one feels each time it is done.

Another thing to be said here is when these sorts of systems are looked at rationaly. And I'll use guilt as a good example. You feel guilty if you think you've killed someone, then you can , through rational argument overcome this guilt by convincing yourself you infact did not kill the person.

So, for a moral system based on what feels good, if we possess the suitable mental faculties, we can minimise what feels bad, and maximise what feels good.

Also, with reference to the ghengis khan quote, it's silly to think that emotions and thigns lead us to be civilised and moral as those words are used today. There are many social, ideological factors in play.

Good and bad don't exist outside of the context of what we think is good and bad, and what we think is good and bad is defined by these systems. In essence they are our morality.

Well this is why i used the capitals. There is a difference in saying that something "feels unpleasant" and that it is morally Good.

Feeling good or bad is some what of an inaccurate way of describing emotions like guilt. We don't simply feel bad, we feel what we did was bad. It is not like the emotion is an electric shock when you steal something. We understand that we feel something was wrong.

At the end of the day, it's an unpleasant feeling due to a transgression committed against another person.

Of course it does. I appreciate the beauty of the universe far more the more I actual understand it. A maths solution becomes beautiful when you understand it.

Again, it becomes beautiful only through active use of things like emotion. In a purely rational case, it would not appear anything, it would appear to be what it is. It could make sense or not make sense. But the minute you use the word beautiful you are talking about emotions, and subjective appreciation. It then is your subjective opinion that understanding things adds to one's aesthetic appreciation of those things.

raah!

Nemi wrote: »

His point is not just that evolution is not a moral system, but that morality needs to be found elsewhere, as it is not present in the natural forces that gave rise to humans.

Well it seems that many people here would disagree with this sentiment.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, what about selfless moral action? - I.E Putting up your own life to save others. Surely there is no benefit, chemical or otherwise in doing so?

Jakkass can you please explain why this happened?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Or does God also give morals to Buffalo?

philologos

Wicknight, it still seems to leave a little bit of a blank. What about laying down your life for people you don't know?

There are clear situations where we do things without any expectation of reward for others.

Ickle Magoo

King Mob wrote: »

Jakkass can you please explain why this happened?
....
Or does God also give morals to Buffalo?

I was just about to ask the same & post the one about elephants that go after a lion...

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Bollocks!

I completely fail to understand why people who do not study and do not understand the physical universe feel they can claim to be more amazed by it than those of us who spend our lifetimes doing so.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

I completely fail to understand why people who do not study and do not understand the physical universe feel they can claim to be more amazed by it than those of us who spend our lifetimes doing so.

Because they have never watched Carl Sagan.

Dades

raah! wrote: »

Ignorance of any reading or philosophy outside of Richard Dawkins? Misconceptions about the implications of science? It makes them feel good about themselves?

Atheism doesn't require Dawkins or science as far as I'm concerned.


Step (1) (For us products of the Irish school system)
Take the Christian story and sum it up on a single piece of paper. Read it out loud. In a blinding flash of logic it becomes abundantly clear how absolutely barmy it is, how it is simply a half-baked human creation with mythical characters and a human-like God.

Step (2)
Repeat for any other religion someone tries to peddle you.

Zombrex

Nemi wrote: »

I think this is a little short of the situation. Breaking Godwin's Law, isn't Hannah Arendt's point in "The Banality of Evil" that perfectly awful things are done by perfectly normal people. The Rwandan Genocide wasn't carried out by a mass invasion of serial killers. It was carried out by people who, the day before, said 'hello' as they passed their neighbours.

That wasn't quite my point. Normal people certain do really bad things, I touched on that in the bit about sense of distance to people and whether the person is in your "tribe" or seen as a danger to it.

I just meant more in terms of countering the inevitable If we have evolved to be nice to each other how do you explain serial killers type questions

raah!

robindch wrote: »

I completely fail to understand why people who do not study and do not understand the physical universe feel they can claim to be more amazed by it than those of us who spend our lifetimes doing so.

King Mob wrote: »

Because they have never watched Carl Sagan.

The pont made was unaffected by this. It doesn't matter how much you understand something. A purely rationalistic account of the unvierse is "purely rationalistic". Of course, the more you understand the more there is to appreciate, that's not the point.

I don't know that that's a proper way to use the word amazed either. The word has connotations of surprise with it, and surely the more you understand somethign the less surprised you'll be.

Just a further point with regard to morality. To say that it is evolved is to say we are born with innate ideas. Because that is what it is, a set of ideas and definitions concerning how we ought to act.

raah!

raah! wrote: »

The pont made was unaffected by this. It doesn't matter how much you understand something. A purely rationalistic account of the unvierse is "purely rationalistic". Of course, the more you understand the more there is to appreciate, that's not the point.

Excuse me, that's exactly the point.
You said:

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beautiful universe.

Can you explain how understanding and adding more to try to understand and appreciate does not add?

raah! wrote: »

I don't know that that's a proper way to use the word amazed either. The word has connotations of surprise with it, and surely the more you understand somethign the less surprised you'll be.

Then you do not understand science, in any sense.
Constantly the more I learn about the universe through that horrible cold rationalism and science the more and more I am surprised.

Zombrex

Nemi wrote: »

But this doesn't work, as I think Dawkins even explains in 'The Selfish Gene'. Natural selection would favour the free rider - the person who accepts your protection of his child, but who doesn't reciprocate.

There is no long term way that can work.

Natural selection will de-select the people who mind other people's children but never gets anything back (since that is all disadvantage and no advantage), and with them gone the free rider has no one to mind his children. Such a system is an evolutionary cul de sac

With evolution you can't simply think what gives me the most benefit in the immediate short term. Evolution doesn't work like that, we are talking about traits surviving hundreds of thousands of years.

raah!

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain how understanding and adding more to try to understand and appreciate does not add?

Of course if you include the word appreciate in your sentence like that you will have more to appreciate. If you look to the sentence, wicknight had a problem with "cold rationality", and he said he couldn't understand the term. I explained it. Rational and emotional responses are generally seen as separate. Rartional responses alone preclude aesthetic appreciation.

Then you do not understand science, in any sense.
Constantly the more I learn about the universe through that horrible cold rationalism and science the more and more I am surprised.

This is saying "the more you understand the more you realise you don't understand, and therefore the more there is to surprise you". This is quite different from simply understanding something more. This is thinking you understood something and then realising you do not. Note the wonder or surprise here comes from what you do not understand.

The only sense in which to understand science is that it is a methodology using mathematical modelling and empirical observation. "Understanding beauty" has got nothing to do with science.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

I don't know that that's a proper way to use the word amazed either. The word has connotations of surprise with it, and surely the more you understand somethign the less surprised you'll be.

Surprise is about the unexpected. The more we learn about the universe the more the answers we get back are unexpected, thus the more surprising and amazing they are.

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

Surprise is about the unexpected. The more we learn about the universe the more the answers we get back are unexpected, thus the more surprising and amazing they are.

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

Ah now, harken ye back to that thread on the complex subject of the simplicity of god, and the lively discussion generated from that. Surely those ideas of Aquinas and those other fellows were not in the same category as a Katy Price novel.

Anyway, If we continue in our discussion of morality, then even if what you are saying is correct, I think you will be able to view it in a different light.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Ah now, harken ye back to that thread on the complex subject of the simplicity of god, and the lively discussion generated from that. Surely those ideas of Aquinas and those other fellows were not in the same category as a Katy Price novel.

Of course they are. Aquinas didn't come up with anything amazing or surprising. People can say things like God is all powerful and ultimately simple all they like, it is just words with no meaning or context in the real world. It was purely mental masturbation, like asking what a round square is, or supposing all the different ways Darth Vadars mask might work. All entirely limited by the human imagination.

Take a single discovery from quantum physics within the last 100 years and it is more surprising and amazing than the entire history of Christian theology.

A lot of people don't like that. They want things limited by the human imagination because if things can only be what humans can imagine then they can relate to it. They want amazing within the context of what they can relate to, surprising within the range of what they can easily understand. Which is where religion and theology comes in.

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, If we continue in our discussion of morality, then even if what you are saying is correct, I think you will be able to view it in a different light.

What is "it" in this sentence?

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course they are. Aquinas didn't come up with anything amazing or surprising. People can say things like God is all powerful and ultimately simple all they like, it is just words with no meaning or context in the real world. It was purely mental masturbation, like asking what a round square is, or supposing all the different ways Darth Vadars mask might work. All entirely limited by the human imagination.

Well saying things are limitted by the human imagination is a bit silly. I see what you are getting at, that material things are not. But if they were not we would be completely unable to comprehend them.

Also, does this mean you think maths is only useful insofar that it is applicable to physics? And that physics is only so usefule insofar as it is applicable to technology. I'll tell who else said this sort of thing... the nazis!!!

And another thing, pointing out that someone has mentioned the nazis isn't much of a statement. The reason people do it is because it is an objective standard of badness or wrongness, that's how good or bad works. We compare them to some arbitrarily bad thing.

Take a single discovery from quantum physics within the last 100 years and it is more surprising and amazing than the entire history of Christian theology.

Well that really is a matter of opinion. Something which would not be surprising to you would be very surprising to a christian theologian.

A lot of people don't like that. They want things limited by the human imagination because if things can only be what humans can imagine then they can relate to it. They want amazing within the context of what they can relate to, surprising within the range of what they can easily understand. Which is where religion and theology comes in.

Well, if you read the thread I mentioned, you'll see the things being discussed were far less possible to imagine that anything we've discussed so far.

What is "it" in this sentence?

Theology. Or all other branches of philosophy that do not have a direct bearing on things like atoms and stones. People go on about emperor's new clothes and then make theological arguments (yourself in that thread for example), people go on about evolutionarily derived morality (this is actually an impossibility by the way, hume's gap) and then make tacit appeals to moral absolutes.

Turtwig

Firstly the idea, or concept, that the view of the world as truly rational would be cold and desolate is only ever going to be academic. Not because the idea is right or wrong, but because Human Nature simply doesn't allow us to make decisions using the "rational" part of our brain. People tend to think the scientific view of the world is cold and detached, the way science gathers its data may be, but the scientific view of the world is purely subjective and depends on the individual. Most people, simply don't find the view of the universe as atoms, physicals laws enticing or poetic. I'd argue not because it isn't beautiful, but because at its core science goes against our own intuition nearly all the time. It is so much easier for humans to visualise supernatural agents, e.g Nobody here should have any trouble visualising an angel healing somebody. At the same time everyone, not one person here, can visualise a light wave as a stream of discrete packets of photons. Visualising the supernatural stuff just comes easier, much easier. This leads to the undeniable fact that when it comes to the supernatural we are nearly all experts, we can all discuss it, feel it, proclaim its transcendence. When it comes to science we can only see logical and mathematical approximations attempting to explain stuff. These nearly always appear cold and abstract to the majority so we have to construct analogies, but in doing so we lose the details. Regardless of the analogy we use, the supernatural stuff is simply always going to be more beautiful and exciting. Does something being beautiful mean it is true though? I think this is fruitless and shallow exercise to try and argue that something is beautiful than something else. In my mind, beauty is something that is subjective.

Secondly, morality is really bloody complicated. Suggesting it is a evolutionary mechanism ignores the stark reality that social evolution of humans has been in effect for thousands of years. That said, the idea that empathy is something all mammals share with one another is pretty much scientifically demonstrated. Of course, the thing that I think both the proponents and critics of that as the basis for morality missed was that evolution doesn't deal in absolutes. Evolution deals in percentages of a population and as long as that percentage is high enough a specific trait will be passed on. It doesn't require every single organism in that species to adhere fully to the trait. - it just requires a significant number.

Des Carter

Dades wrote: »

Atheism doesn't require Dawkins or science as far as I'm concerned.


Step (1) (For us products of the Irish school system)
Take the Christian story and sum it up on a single piece of paper. Read it out loud. In a blinding flash of logic it becomes abundantly clear how absolutely barmy it is, how it is simply a half-baked human creation with mythical characters and a human-like God.

Step (2)
Repeat for any other religion someone tries to peddle you.

Ok this is exactly what I mean when I say a closed-minded Atheist you just go oh there is no proof of God therefore he mustn't exist and will refuse to believe in one unless there is certain proof.

for step 1 of your argument the main thing that hit me is that you believe all the characters are fictional. This is completely false and even Atheists admit this as there has been proof that Jesus did infact exist.

as for it being "barmy" I agree with you but this is down to the failings of the Catholic Church pushing their own agenda and failing to interpret the bible in anyway apart from the literal way, with the best example being the man-like God. Im a Christian yet I believe that God is not like a man all yet no one (either Atheists or Catholics) will even entertain this notion.

As for step 2 thats another example of your ignorance as you do not know a thing (im assuming) about the vast majority of religions yet you already dismiss them.

Its statements like these that give Atheists a bad name.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Well saying things are limitted by the human imagination is a bit silly. I see what you are getting at, that material things are not. But if they were not we would be completely unable to comprehend them.

I wouldn't say our comprehension is limited by our imagination. We can comprehend things we could not have imagined ourselves. It is very hard, granted, but still possible.

raah! wrote: »

Also, does this mean you think maths is only useful insofar that it is applicable to physics?

I'm not sure what you mean. Maths is useful in any area that it provides use. Ultimately everything is physics, but I assume you mean the scientific disciple of physics. In which case I would say no, I use maths in computer science all the time and it is very useful.

raah! wrote: »

And that physics is only so usefule insofar as it is applicable to technology. I'll tell who else said this sort of thing... the nazis!!!

Haven't you heard, we aren't doing that any more :pac:

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

raah! wrote: »

Well that really is a matter of opinion. Something which would not be surprising to you would be very surprising to a christian theologian.

That is why they are still Chrsitian theologians :P

raah! wrote: »

Well, if you read the thread I mentioned, you'll see the things being discussed were far less possible to imagine that anything we've discussed so far.

No they weren't. They were, as I said, mental masturbation, putting illogical words and concepts together and then saying it was all unimaginable. We can't imagine what God is like because he is all these contradictory things I've just imagined and slammed together to stand back and think I've discovered something new.

That isn't what I'm talking about with relation to science, which is actual discovery. A blue green thing is unimaginable but only because it is nonsense. A round square like wise. They all fit within the realm of easy to imagine concepts, they are just slammed together to form nonsense terms and saying how wondrous it all is (which is basically all theology is) is not a serious exploration of reality.

If you find that amazing more power to you. I personally find it idiotic.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok this is exactly what I mean when I say a closed-minded Atheist you just go oh there is no proof of God therefore he mustn't exist and will refuse to believe in one unless there is certain proof.

Do you believe in every concept it is possible to imagine?

Or do you believe only in the things you have reason to believe in?

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

Why do you assume God is human like I mean by being Atheist Im assuming you are saying institutionalised religion is wrong yet you still hold the same irrational views as them when it comes to God (something that is seoperate from any 1 religion)

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you believe in every concept it is possible to imagine?

Or do you believe only in the things you have reason to believe in?

I believe in the things I have reason to believe in but I also believe that every concept should be examined with an open mind before it is ruled out.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Why do you assume God is human like

I don't, religion does. Can you name me one world religion with gods where the God or gods are not human like? Judaism, Christian, Islam, Hinduism, Greek, Norse all have human like gods

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

Surprise is about the unexpected. The more we learn about the universe the more the answers we get back are unexpected, thus the more surprising and amazing they are.

Contrast this with say religion which produces "answers" only within the range of limited human imagination. God is human like and does human like things for human like reasons because the 4th millennium farmers who came up with the idea couldn't imagine anything else. It is about as surprising and amazing as a Katy Price novel.

The problem is though that you taking a very pragmatic approaching to deciding which method of enquiry is the best. I don't think one should judge a philosophy on the basis of how practical it has turned out to be. It should instead be judged on how logical and rational it is. There are atheist theologians who take time to understand the subject and criticise it, simply stating that it hasn't produced practical outputs is unfair. The subject and method of study itself needs to be shown as logically unsound and irrational.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

I believe in the things I have reason to believe in but I also believe that every concept should be examined with an open mind before it is ruled out.

Since they all probably grew up in religious societies I would imagine most if not all atheists examined religious claims before ruling them out.

Your objection seems to be that we can't prove God doesn't exist so we must continue to believe he does. How does that work? You don't do that I imagine with the infinite number of other things we can imagine, can't disprove, yet don't believe are real.

When was the last time someone disproved the existence of the Native American spirit guides? You think they exist? Or what about the traditional Irish fairies? You believe they are real?

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say our comprehension is limited by our imagination. We can comprehend things we could not have imagined ourselves. It is very hard, granted, but still possible.

I could equally say we can imagine things not comprehensible to us. Or perhaps think of some abstract concept which is inherently un-understandable. (that thread gives a taste of this)

I'm not sure what you mean. Maths is useful in any area that it provides use. Ultimately everything is physics, but I assume you mean the scientific disciple of physics. In which case I would say no, I use maths in computer science all the time and it is very useful.

It seems you missed the point somewhat. There are many parts of mathematics that have yet no application. My point was, if you think that the only use of science of maths is it's application then you are saying somethign which the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians would disagree with. See Einstein's thing about the different reasons people do physics.

Haven't you heard, we aren't doing that any more :pac:

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

Well I didn't read all of this, but are you saying that my exclamation mark there was like shouting? If so I'd rather we don't stoop to such a level in this discussion, although I know that can be hard for some people in this forum.

I guess I'll reply to the rest in a while.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

The problem is though that you taking a very pragmatic approaching to deciding which method of enquiry is the best. I don't think one should judge a philosophy on the basis of how practical it has turned out to be. It should instead be judged on how logical and rational it is. There are atheist theologians who take time to understand the subject and criticise it, simply stating that it hasn't produced practical outputs is unfair. The subject and method of study itself needs to be shown as logically unsound and irrational.

Not in relation to how amazing or surprising it is. If a person is only working with their own mind then the only thing they can come up with is what they can imagine. It doesn't matter if this is practical or impractical, logically sound or unsound. It will still only be what they can imagine.

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't, religion does. Can you name me one world religion where the God or gods are not human like?

Not off hand but Im sure some do exist. Also I believe most gods are portrayed as human like because it is the easiest way for humans to understand God. I see the whole idea of God being a human as an analogy for God (a simplified version thats easier to comprehend).

Also you are referring to the failings of organised religion or the Catholic Church which should base its teachings on the word of Jesus but instead teaches concepts from the old Testament. For example Jesus never said God was like a human (or anything similiar) yet the Catholic Church teach this idea from the old testamont ("and God created man in his likeness" (not exact quote))

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

I could equally say we can imagine things not comprehensible to us. Or perhaps think of some abstract concept which is inherently un-understandable. (that thread gives a taste of this)

True but that isn't relevant to the point. We can imagine a blue green thing simply by getting the concept of a blue thing and a green thing and combining the parameters. We can imagine a small big thing, or a heavy light thing. But none of those things are amazing or surprising.

Same with theology. Theology just slams concepts together and sees which ones they like the best. None of that is amazing or surprising. It just produces incoherent nonsense, because people pick the concepts to keep not based on how they relate to reality (since there is no way to examine if any of the theological concepts are actually real) but on how pleasing to the eye ear or mental faculties they are. As such it is the exact opposite of surprising or amazing.

So you end up with nonsensical concepts like "infinite love", which mean nothing at all on proper examination but sound really nice (if I love my wife this amount then God loves me an infinite amount, ah that is nice)

And the vast amount of people are happy with that because the true nature of reality is not the motivation for any of this, it is to be comforted and warmed by nice concepts.

raah! wrote: »

It seems you missed the point somewhat. There are many parts of mathematics that have yet no application. My point was, if you think that the only use of science of maths is it's application then you are saying somethign which the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians would disagree with.

I never said that the only use of maths was its practical application, did I?

raah! wrote: »

Well I didn't read all of this, but are you saying that my exclamation mark there was like shouting?

No, I'm saying comparing things to the Nazi's is so 2009. If you don't watch the Daily Show with John Steward you probably won't get the reference.

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you belive in coincidence?luck?chance/randomness.

Yes, no, yes yes

I don't believe in fate or luck or pre-destiny.

Ok so you believe in randomness/coincidence/chance yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists yet you still believe in it but you dont believe in a God?

is this not an accurate statement?

however I do not believe in randomness/coincidence/chance in that I believe that things happen as a result of previous things happening in the past.

For example if I flip a coin the result will not be random, it will be determined by a large number of factors (the size,weight of the coin, the direction the coin is facing before its flipped, the velocity at which its flipped, the angle it hits the ground at etc).

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Not off hand but Im sure some do exist.

Why?

The concept of gods in nature is the produce of the human instinct to see human agency in nature. We evolved this instinct to help us more easily process the chaotic natural world, since so much of our brain is given over to human to human interaction.

Des Carter wrote: »

Also I believe most gods are portrayed as human like because it is the easiest way for humans to understand God. I see the whole idea of God being a human as an analogy for God (a simplified version thats easier to comprehend).

Again why do you believe that? You are basing that on what reasoning?

Des Carter wrote: »

Also you are referring to the failings of organised religion or the Catholic Church which should base its teachings on the word of Jesus but instead teaches concepts from the old Testament. For example Jesus never said God was like a human (or anything similiar) yet the Catholic Church teach this idea from the old testamont ("and God created man in his likeness" (not exact quote))

Jesus also said that the Old Testament was infallible. This comes back to the question of why you pick and choose what bits of Jesus' words you believe.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok so you believe in randomness/coincidence/chance yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists yet you still believe in it but you dont believe in a God?

There is no proof anything exists (see philosophy of science), there is how ever strong evidence that randomness exists from quantum mechanics.

Randomness can also be used in layman terms for systems that are far far to complex to make predictions, or where there is no direct involvement from an intelligence. For example if I get hit by a piano because the rope some guys were lifting it up by snapped at the moment I was walking under it I would call that a random coincidence, despite it actually being probably possible to predict that was going to happen if you modeled every element of the system (ie the universe).

raah!

raah! wrote: »

Of course if you include the word appreciate in your sentence like that you will have more to appreciate. If you look to the sentence, wicknight had a problem with "cold rationality", and he said he couldn't understand the term. I explained it. Rational and emotional responses are generally seen as separate.

No you said:

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beautiful universe.

I gave you a very valid part it plays in appreciating the beautiful universe.
Separated but not exclusively so or at odds with each other.

raah! wrote: »

Rartional responses alone preclude aesthetic appreciation.

Unless of course you're rationally examining the concept of aesthetics.
Or in the example of art, learning about the life and times of the artist to understand his work.
Or any of nearly endless other examples.

raah! wrote: »

This is saying "the more you understand the more you realise you don't understand, and therefore the more there is to surprise you". This is quite different from simply understanding something more. This is thinking you understood something and then realising you do not.

Actually it's more along the lines of "Oh! phenomenon A exhibits behaviour X, this can explain phenomenon B, and that's pretty awesome."

Or in the example given by Richard Feynman in the video which you apparently didn't watch, rationality lets you understand the processes that lead to the flower and the processes still going on in the flower, and appreciate both these as well as the amazing fact that they led to the flower in the first place.

Now the question is how does the absence of rationality in this add anything?
Or worse, saying the equivalent of "a wizard did it!"?

raah! wrote: »

Note the wonder or surprise here comes from what you do not understand.

The only sense in which to understand science is that it is a methodology using mathematical modelling and empirical observation. "Understanding beauty" has got nothing to do with science.

Again showing a complete lack of understanding on your part.
Go watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

robindch

Des Carter wrote: »

yet there is no proof that randomness/coincidence/chance exists

Fail.

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

Not off hand but Im sure some do exist.
Why?

Because of the sheer volume of religions that exist for example I think wikka doesnt believe in a human like god.

Wicknight wrote: »

Also I believe most gods are portrayed as human like because it is the easiest way for humans to understand God. I see the whole idea of God being a human as an analogy for God (a simplified version thats easier to comprehend).

Again why do you believe that? You are basing that on what reasoning?

Because If God exists then surely he would be far more complex than humans and so it would be/is impossible fior humans to understand God so they explain him through an analogy of a human.

Im not sure about other religions but I know that in Christianity etc these analogies and parables are very common (God as the shepard/king/etc also all the Old Testament).

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus also said that the Old Testament was infallible. This comes back to the question of why you pick and choose what bits of Jesus' words you believe.

I really dont think he did I think thats what the Catholic Church wants you to believe but if you can give me the quote or show me where he said that I will have to reconsider all my views!

Des Carter

Wicknight wrote: »

For example if I get hit by a piano because the rope some guys were lifting it up by snapped at the moment I was walking under it I would call that a random coincidence, despite it actually being probably possible to predict that was going to happen if you modeled every element of the system (ie the universe).

so your saying randomness doesnt exist

Des Carter

robindch wrote: »

Fail.

Please explain. Can you prove randomness exists?

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

so your saying randomness doesnt exist

I'm saying that literal randomness does seem to exist at a quantum level, but also people commonly call randomness when describing very large chaotic systems.

Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you are asking me. How are you using "randomness" in this context.

robindch

Des Carter wrote: »

Can you prove randomness exists?

The concept of random exists because it has been defined in the mathematics of probability. Behaviour which is essentially random exists in many places in nature -- fluid-flow, weather, behaviour of markets etc, etc -- despite the causal properties of the physical world at a non-quantum level. At the quantum level, random behaviour appears to be an intrinsic property of nature.

I think if you defined what you mean by "randomness" and "exists", there might be less confusion.