»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
a higher power
| Philosophy 101 |
|
a higher power |
|
|
The Great Onion Junior Member
since 2008-06-05
Posts 40 |
This week's topic will be on gods and such like ganesha, god obviously, baal, Quetzalcoatl, and ect.. in other words, do you believe in a higher power? and even so, did the higher power have any choice in creating us? remember that people have their own opinions, and you have yours. stick to those opinions because this thread is a debate battleground; don't let others convince you of their own opinions (though we have many ideas that others agree on). also if you dont feel comfortable debating on this topic, see my other thread on predestiny at the poetry challenge board and debate on that. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 The Great Onion - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
The Great Onion Junior Member
since 2008-06-05
Posts 40 |
P.S. i will debating as well. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Onion: quote: Not to peel your skin  but why is it necessary to encourage inflexibility at the outset? Some would argue that convictions / beliefs of a religious nature tend to go that way anyhow. (Though I would say that this is not only characteristic of religious belief, but of human belief in general, religion simply being particularly subject to excessive zeal by nature of its weightiness). So I would rather see you encourage consideration of the respective strengths of different arguments, and allow that to be the essence, rather than bolstering some kind of a priori tenacity. If there are beliefs let them be weighed and considered by all.What I'm trying to say is that I think you may be encouraging something that is already in over-supply, like selling refrigerators to Eskimos. Not that firmness of conviction isn't a good thing. There is certainly a need for it. But usually it is already dominate; So I think it's better to simply let argumentation (not in the negative sense of 'contention') speak for itself. A firm openness, or an incredulous openmindedness is what I'm suggesting. (lol, I know those seem contradictory, but I don't think they need be) quote: Okay, I'll start. Though the word 'choice' for God is way simplistic, my answer is Yes and Yes. Stephen |
||
|
The Shadow in Blue Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493EL, Michigan |
This reminds me a lot of a thread I started two years ago where I spurred a debate about a "higher being" by questioning God. And now, at this time, I can answer my question and yours. So,I guess I'll throw my gloves into the proverbial ring. My answer to your question posed is...no and no- which really makes my beliefs rather conflicting now in comparison with my family's. So fun... *rolls eyes* **I understand believers and their faith as a baptised Catholic, but I just can't bring myself to belief in similar concepts anymore. ~Jill JNS "I celebrate myself, and sing myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you."-WW |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I believe in many representations of a "higher power", for there are many representations that are admireable and beautiful, regardless of how warped the mirror may be or how homely or heavenly the being or object is of which there is such a unique reflection. Who may say for sure who or what the being or thing actually is? Not I. But when the reflection is very admireable and beautiful, I can't help but believe in it. |
||
|
The Shadow in Blue Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493EL, Michigan |
With regards to your previous statement then yes I would believe in a higher power of sorts, but not the typical definition of higher power (ie: Allah, God, etc.) I don't know. I'm skeptical. But their has to be something spurring the world on, be it of a more earthly nature or not. Hmmph. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Although, I have wavered in my convictions from time to time, all I need to do is to hear my daughter say I Love You as she wraps her arms around me to say thank you for something I did or a present I gave her, and my crisis of faith is over. All I have to do is to remember the times where, as an EMT/firefighter, I was able to pull of stunts that I was not good enough to pull, or the times I saved patients that were dead by any other name, and who were injured beyond my capabilities to heal, and I know I get trhe credit for someone else's work. Thinking of the day my father died, and I had to explain to his grand daughter, and the video "The Circle Of Life" comes on VH1 (which my ex-wife NEVER watched) to help me explaion- and having a single white cloud on an otherwise comepletly clear day where she could wave at her Grandfather (after being told that he joined the Greatr Kings In The Sky...) proves to me that I am not totally in control of the world around me... and that priveledge is saved for someone of much greater intelligence. Yes, I believe (although, my belliefs do not really coincide with any major organized religion). What would you attempt to do...if you knew you could not fail?. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Shadow in Blue, if I may use your quote to illustrate a general statement, that may or may not describe your own personal beliefs ... It seems to me that the second question this thread asks "did the higher power have any choice in creating us", depends upon the question of whether God is in some sense personal. Unless the word "God" refers to a mind of sorts (albeit different than ours superlatively) then there is no further discussion about whether or not there is/was choice for God. I am glad that many have an awareness of a "higher power". However, I would like to ask them to consider whether it is tenable to think that an impersonal force could give rise to thinking choosing beings as ourselves. If these qualities (in some sense) are not first present in the Creator then where do they come from and why? Or more importantly for this thread, in what sense could such a power be called "higher" if not personal? What does "higher" mean? I would have a hard time thinking of the sub-personal as being "higher". The Judeo-Christian belief that God is in some superlative sense personal does not ignore the problems introduced by a transcendent God being personal. But the problems faced here are less profound than the problems of living in a universe where the living products (we) are seemingly greater and more interesting than the nature and destiny of the impersonal whole. Could a mannequin create music? Is the Telos all a sham, or something we've projected from some kind of doomed subjectivity fraught with wish fulfillment? I would suggest that it is far more wise to not hastily toss out our own inferential insights, even if we've found it helpful to question assumptions in our search for Truth. For I have observed that even most of our objections to believing in a personal God have been themselves based upon the trust of rationality that otherwise we would be forced to part with. Statements like "Religious people have not been moral", or "God does not seem just", or "I've been hurt too many times", or "This doesn't make sense" are all firmly rooted in a Telos that is much more at home in a worldview that accepts a personal God. It reminds me of what Nietzsche was getting at when he wrote "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." At any rate, I hope that those of you who recognize something more may be open to idea that God is in some sense personal. Once one comes to this conclusion, the process of determining what is tenable among the few main headings of this kind begins. Is it not reasonable to think a personal God might speak in some fashion. And if so how? Is there any evidence that he has / does? More later, Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Surely the question "did the higher power have any choice in creating us" ultimately depends on whether a higher power actually exists. I have a problem with the second question because I can’t answer no without lending some credence to the proposition that a higher power exists, so I’ll just answer the first question. No, I don’t believe in god(s). |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, The original dual question was "do you believe in a higher power? and even so, did the higher power have any choice in creating us?". You are right in saying that the applicability of the second question is wholly dependent upon how you answer the first. The sentence might have read better with "if so" rather than "even so". I, however, was addressing those who say yes to the first question. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, But by saying "God" and "he" you are already trying to move this to the particular representation that you believe in, the Christian representation. But not all of us partake in that representation, or only or wholly in that one. For there are many others, and in which "she", "they" or even "it" may bespeak more accurately a "higher power". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Since I believe in the God of the Bible, I would naturally speak that way. That doesn't forbid anyone else from speaking of what they consider to be their own "higher power" in whatever terms they choose. I'm quite sure (though the author can tell me if I'm wrong), the point of this thread was that a discussion about comparative religion would ensue, which would naturally involve the discussion of particular deities. I certainly won't protest anyone's language concerning this (I'm not exactly sure why you would want to either), though I may challenge ideas, make statements, and ask questions in a manner suited to this type of topic. My pointing out the tension in attributing "choice" or the epithet "higher" when talking about an impersonal force, as opposed to a personal God, flows naturally out of the questions this thread asked at the beginning. This thread is very broad and open-ended thus far, and I'm not sure where "The Great Onion" wanted to go with this. Kind of waiting on his input as well. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I see what you mean. But I am not sure we may share a common discussion about a higher power in general if we speak in specifications. For the moment I or anyone else specifies "God" (capitalized) or "he", how is it still relevant for those that don't believe in (the Christian) God or that the higher power is a "he"? The only thing that is common is that we both believe in a higher power, but once we make different specifications, such as "he" , "she", "God", "Venus", are we still "on the same page"? I also question the virtue of "comparativeness" between "higher powers". For example, If God and Venus are compared, and as I imagine you shall demonstrate how "God" represents much more authority and depth, nevertheless, "Venus" may simply be a much more nurturing part of my life, like the influence of a mother, and therefore, no matter how powerfuller "God" is, I still cherish, and believe, and care about Venus more. In fact, that may be the only higher being I wish to speak about. Therefore, the comparativeness, that usually seems about proving this or that as "better" or "worse" may not mean much. For in the end, whether one "higher power" has more power or does better things than another, it is still the one that we are closest and most sentimentally attached to that we usually believe in most. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-25-2008 02:51 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But unless specifications are made about what "higher power" means, then there is nothing to talk about. I can't think of a more vague phrase. And yet it might be a good phrase to commence a discussion of comparative religion. And remember Ess, that even in the Judeo-Christian revelation, it is suggested that the attributes of other gods (strength, wisdom, virility, etc...) are not so much wrong in themselves, but attributed to the wrong source. My point is, there may be commonalities even when particulars are discussed in detail. quote: But aren't you already partaking of "comparative religion" yourself? You are comparing the Judeo-Christian concept of God who is said to be Lord over all, and of whom all other gods are broken reflections, with the beliefs of ancient Roman polytheism which involved an entirely different concept of deity. The Roman Venus was never believed to be a transcendent deity who created the Cosmos and humanity. As much as you may not relish such comparisons, (and no one is bound to such discussions) you are already participating in it. PS From Ess the wordsmith, powerfuller?  Stephen |
||
|
The Great Onion Junior Member
since 2008-06-05
Posts 40 |
when i mean by a higher power, i mean by a god or someting like that. basically a supernatural being that has control over humans and everything lower of superiority to humans, sorry i didn't clarify that for you people  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: But arguing about specifications doesn't seem to make much sense when we don't/can't know the specifications. No one's argument is more or less supported by the specifications, for none of them may be proven. For example, if this " higher power" were a "world", how do we prove whether it is round or flat, close or far, big or small, the elements of it, the weather conditions, etc? It may be more fruitful to try to describe the weather of a planet on the other side of the universe. At least we could use the evidence of the weather on our planet as distant likeness of what the weather of another may be. But what do we use as a "basis" for trying to make specifications about a higher power? quote: This thread was opened for debate, so if we debate about comparativeness I have no doubt that it is more or less going to be about people arguing their religion or "higher power" as being more legitmate or worthy than others. But as far as that goes, that is such as different people from different houses bringing different suppers to one house, so instead of enjoying their own suppers in their own houses, they can argue about the differences of their suppers in one house. Wouldn't it be healthier just to stay home? I guess I am losing my lust for these kind of threads and arguments. quote: I find "powerfuller" eloquentior than "more powerful". |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The same thing we use for a basis when exploring all the other things in this universe that can't be directly observed. Seen the nucleus of an atom lately, Essorant? Or an electron? How about a quark or a lepton? Don't feel too bad, Ess. No one else has ever seen them either. The existence of many, many, many things can only be observed indirectly, through the effects those things have on the rest of reality. In my opinion, religion is no different. If your current hypothesis makes you happy and a better person, and it doesn't contradict other observable phenomenon, then you're good to go. If not, your hypothesis needs to be adjusted. Science is constantly discovering new truths about electrons and quarks and leptons in large part because it is willing to adjust to new observations. Of course, in spite of that there is absolutely no proof (of the sort you seem willing to accept) that atomic particles actually exist. We have inferred their existence and built a better world on the back of that inference. So long as religion is founded on cause and effect, it should be approached no differently. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sorry to be pedantic, however the second question, even with your edit, is no better. It still begs the question, allowing no alternative that avoids the presumption that the higher power created man. Anyone who answers yes or no to the second question has automatically accepted that the higher power created man. In that case doesn’t the question also depend on whether the higher power actually created man? quote: Do you mean a single non-natural being or do multiple non-natural beings apply, also does the being, or beings, in question have to control humans or is free will allowed? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: We can't? That we can know nothing of God, or that God cannot make himself known you seem to take for granted. But there are reasons to think otherwise. quote: To me it sometimes seems that an absolute egalitarianism (and therefore an absolute leveling) of all views seems to be part of your philosophy, moreso than a conclusion born of weighing arguments. But I could be misreading you. The nice part about it is that you want to extend honor and admiration to most points-of-view. And I myself recognize much truth in other religions, and am sure that I may learn from them. And cordiality (even in debate-style talks) should be the rule. But the usual difficulty in our talks is that there seems to be for you no room for exclusivity, no admittance of forks in the road, or ontological divergence. It's like the light and darkness argument, where you have had a hard time admitting that absolute darkness can never be light. I appreciate the greys, but we can't have them without some degree of black and white. quote: Well now you're asking the right questions. But they can't (or shouldn't) be rhetorically asked as if it were blatantly true that God and nature do not intersect. The Christian affirmation is that God has acted in Space/Time. Therefore the question would naturally arise concerning historical evidence. Are there any good reasons to think that it is true? Not only so, but the creation itself, including humanity, holds properties which bear some resemblence to God as art may bear some kind of resemblance to an artist (the weather on this planet, to use your analogy). There is evidence of design, evidence of determinate law (physical and moral) which speaks of intelligence. Arising from these laws are philosophical considerations which also are signposts to God. And these are only a few considerations. But you're right in saying these are not strict proofs, in a once-for-all laboratory sense. But there are so many things we accept and believe without that kind of proof. Proofs and evidences are two different things altogether. Discussions are fitting for evidences, but only controlled tests are fitting for proofs. quote: Then by all means, feel free to "stay home" as regarding threads like this. But not everyone interprets or experiences such discussions as unhealthy or even unpleasant. Argumentation and debate (actually one of the major historical forms of philosophical dialogue from Socrates forward) need not be unfriendly or unprofitable. quote: In my neck of the Gawgia woods this kind of eloquenter talkin' is much mo' common than you might think, along with a few double negatives. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: You've got a point. It does seem that Onion's conception of a "higher power" is quite defined in some ways from the outset. For example, the Greek/Roman deities were never credited with transcendent creation ex nihilo. They seemed to be as much bound in space/time/nature as we are, with the cosmos itself as the only absolute. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: But isn't the foundation of your religion (God) the very thing without a secondary causal agent? Religion may proceed on the track of cause and effect (because that track was provided for mortals and nature itself), but I'm less sure about applying such to the foundation. What are your thoughts here?Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, quote: I agree. But for some reason the question still seems to stay almost the same: For how do we specifiy which specific "effects" indicate a higher power? What do we go by as indicating "higher power" or "god", or to say something specific about god, "he", "she", "it" "personal" "impersonal" "omnipotent" etc. There are things that people scientifically go by for distinguishing "proton", "electron" etc. More importantly there are things we go by to describe much more obvious things, but which are the things/points/effects that we go by for distinguishing a higher power and things about a higher power? It seems to me it is just coming to the same point again: there is no effect that we know of that we may prove as distinguishing a higher being from anything else. What stops anyone from pointing at anything and calling it "an indication of a higher power/god"? May not one basically point at anything and call it god? What thing/point/source, etc, proves or disproves it? Point at a rock, a tree, a star, point at your arse. What is stopping everything and anything from being called the "higher power"? Probably only the limitations of our preferences. We don't usually prefer everything but prefer some things over other things, and therefore also prefer fancying some things as indicating a higher power more than other things. Stephanos, quote: Well, how can I weigh arguments when they have no weight? Or else, when I am not sure where and what exactly is the weight? I may weigh morals based on how they help life, artisticness based on how it helps the art. But how or by what do I weigh what a higher being or what someone says about a higher being? How may I weigh the accuracy of saying "a Fairy created the universe" as more or less accurate than saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-27-2008 03:48 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, excuse me for taking liberty to respond to questions you asked of Ron. I figure its better to ask forgiveness than permission. This is a public forum; I hope you don't mind. quote: Essorant, do you see any evidence for intentional design in something like a DNA molecule which is more complex than any automobile and contains a myriad of encoded information? quote: These two questions are quite different. To answer the first, anyone may call anything they want as evidence for God. But naturally some things would be more compelling and striking than others. For me, anything made of atoms speaks of a designer, since atoms obey complex physical laws raising the question of how complex laws became part and parcel of the universe. But things like the additional complexity of a certain double-helix molecule packed with encoded instructions for building a human being, capture my attention even more. It's easier to ignore the atoms in an arid expanse of desert, chalking their laws up to some kind of distant and innate property of nature. Of course, anyone can do that with DNA too, if for no other reason than not caring about the implications. And that brings us to your point which I have already conceded, that nothing is "proof" in a strict sense. There is only inference to the best explanation. The second question is simpler to me. Not many ascribe intelligence or consciousness to a rock, therefore it is much more difficult to think of it as a "higher power". This goes back to what I said about the difficulty of sub-personal deities. How can something which is sub-personal reasonably be thought of as a higher power? And more importantly, a rock is itself a finite physical object bound in space-time that will one day pass away. In short, it is a part of nature. But it is nature itself which so poignantly invites the question of origin or creation. A mere part of nature (an impersonal unintelligent part at that) cannot be credited with the whole. quote: Some of the things that people say about a higher being can only be measured by going beyond what theologians have called "natural theology" into the realm of revealed theology. For example, God's name YHWH as revealed to Moses at the burning Bush. That is something one would have to take on authority as a matter of revelation. But there is a long way that inference may take a person as well in the area of natural theology. Inferring that the universe requires a transcendent and intelligent maker is one of them. Once a person is thinking along the lines of natural theology, they may become more open to special revelation as well. (But it is important to note that special revelation is not antithetical to reason, it just can't be reached by reason alone). For example, the belief in the ressurrection of Jesus Christ is a matter of revelation. And yet it is also the most historically sound regarding the data we are left with. On rejecting that premise, historical revision gets pretty "inventive" and no less incredible than what was reported. quote: Well that's easy if you think about it for a moment. Our understanding of a fairy is as a mythical creature. And even in cases where believed in, she is within space-time. No matter how enchanting or wondrous she is, she is a creature, real or imagined. I've never even heard of a claim that a fairy is the transcendent creator of the universe ... which would be a radial redefinition of "fairy" wouldn't it? It's the problem again of attributing the whole of nature to something within nature itself. Even Big Bang cosmology attributes the beginning of the Universe to something outside it ... not within the continuum of space-time. It is highly interesting that the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only one that has affirmed the very same thing since ancient times. Again, not strict proof, but the inference to the best explanation. Gee, you sure do ask a lot of questions for someone tired of these threads. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I don't know. You may talk about DNA, but basically anything looked at from exceedingly small aspects is complex in various manners. Considering how common complexity is in nature, one may just as well say it is inherent in nature itself, rather than instilled by any supernatural power. Likewise, if one believes in a supernatural being, he may may just as well say that a supernatural being is within nature too, rather than outside or beyond it. Therefore, just in these sentences, we may find three equally possible possibilities: -Nature has complexity because complexity is inherent in Nature. -Nature is complex because a higher power from beyond instilled the complexity. -Nature is complex because a higher power is inherent in Nature and instills complexity. How do you prove that one is more legitimate than the other? Arguing one as better or worse doesn't make any sense. I think it is better just to admire them in their own spheres and appreciate them for their artistic virtues and how people deal with them, rather than try to make them out as if they any of them are anything such as saying "the Earth is round" compared to "the Earth is flat". We simply don't have anything we know for sure about a "higher power" that we may judge any statements or specifications people make (or make up) about him/her/they/it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: Right. That's why I said that the atoms of sand would warrant the idea of design also; It's just that DNA is of greater interest concerning the question of design since it is complexity added on top of complexity, with the added phenomenon of coded information and instruction. A small scribbled note might be a sign of real romantic love, but a ring would be more indicative wouldn't it? Whenever there is coded informational systems, in our day to day encounters, we normally think intelligence. I don't see support for thinking differently in this field. That doesn't mean that you can't think of it otherwise as you've pointed out. The veracity of thinking so is another matter. quote: The question would then arise, is nature then intelligent / personal? If the answer is "no", then I would ask whether attributing complex informational systems to non-intelligence is reasonable. If the answer is yes, then one would have to examine Pantheism (Everything is God) as a whole and to ask whether it is reasonable. The problems that arise from a Patheistic outlook are more profound than those of a Theistic outlook. I know you would disagree based upon your belief that there can't be an answer, or that we can't know an answer (oddly enough an absolute statement). But is that belief a result of your earnest consideration of the answers, or of some kind of tacit philosophical agnosticism? You grant that mathematical answers may be either correct or incorrect. I see no reason why religious answers (though they are of a different sort than math) cannot reasonably fall into the same categories of truth and error. I would be willing to discuss the strengths/ weaknesses of the options you've presented if I felt that agnosticism wasn't a first-principle with you; or that your motto regarding these questions isn't "I know that I know that we cannot know". quote: They key to this is that you "think it is better just to admire them in their own spheres and appreciate them for their artistic virtues and how people deal with them rather than try to make them out as if they any of them are anything such as saying 'the Earth is round' compared to ...'...flat'. In that statement you are placing religion wholly in the realm of "art" (the same root of the word artificial), and thus removing it from the world of Space/Time/History. Either Christ rose from the dead or he did not. Either God put reasonable evidence of his handiwork in creation or he did not. I bring up specifically Christian ideas to suggest to you that not all religion is in the world of ideas. If God acted/acts in history, then your entire assumption about not being able to know for sure, and of religion being wholly in the realm of art is suspect. The most telling fact is that you are not exactly excited about discussing particulars, but of expressing your philosophy about what religion must be, ie totally subjective. But until you at least question that view, then no amount of evidences, or discussion of them, will matter. But that doesn't mean that there is no good reason behind the arguments. You said that argumentation about these things makes no sense. But I am suggesting to you that it makes no sense only in view of a certain agnostic philosophy which says it can't. I love to discuss evidential apologetics, as much as I am able, but before I would begin I'd like to ask you if it is true that to you religion can only be subjective like art, a contrived thing rather than an objectively true situtation, intersecting time/space/history? I'm not denying the subjective element (there is a strong subjective element in science as well); It's just that I would like to address your philosophy first, or it's not worthwhile to talk about things like history and evidences. In short, your philosophical leaning seems almost prima facie. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Perhaps, Stephen. However, I'm not sure I would agree that God is the foundation of human religion. That might be true if He just pushed the Create Universe button and then walked away, but then we'd have a "religion" that more closely resembled the Greek or Roman religions you keep calling myths. I don't think the existence of God, albeit without a causal agent, is the foundation of any modern religion. It is, rather, the interaction between God and Man upon which we base our religions. Without that interaction (cause and effect) there is no religion beyond blind belief. quote: The answer to that question, Essorant, ultimately lies in another, much deeper question. What do you want from God? If you believe God will put a quarter under your pillow in exchange for a tooth, your hypothesis is testable. If you don't consistently get the quarter, then you have to adjust your hypothesis accordingly. It's still all about cause and effect. Of course, that's doesn't mean it's easy either. If physics is a hard science, and psychology is a soft science, then religion is a truly mushy science. In each case increased complexity results in decreased repeatability; we don't understand human behavior as well as we understand electrons, and I suspect we understand God's motivations even less. However, while cause and effect aren't always obvious, that doesn't mean that stuff just happens randomly. That way lies insanity. Religion isn't that much different than science. It either works for you or it doesn't. The biggest problem I see is that too many people expect their television to keep their food cold. Their expectations lead them to think their TV is broke. Instead of jumping from one television set to another, or worse, buying a radio because they've lost confidence in the existence of TV, they should adjust their expectations. Only when they figure out what a TV should do for them can they correctly decide if it's working. Incidentally, no religion should be solely (or even primarily) about life after death. That's faith, not religion. quote: What stops anyone from pointing at anything and calling it cold fusion? Again, Essorant, it either works for you or it doesn't. quote: Complexity is NOT inherent in nature, Ess. On the contrary, the most fundamental laws of science dictate that in a closed system order will always give way to disorder. You can call that entropy or Murphy's Law, but either way complexity can only arise when energy is input from outside the system. In the case of Earth, we are not strictly a closed system and so everything that is complex on this planet depends on the energy of the sun. Unlike Stephen, I would never dream of pointing at a DNA molecule and calling it evidence of a higher power. Such evidence, in my opinion, is too flimsy, the lines between cause and effect too blurred. You don't need intelligent design to create very complex crystals, after all. You just need a little sugar, a bit of heat, and sufficient time. However, while the Earth isn't a closed system, by definition, the Whole of Creation is. And, again, complexity can only arise when energy is input from outside the system? (The latter may not be strictly true. Energy can also "glob" within a closed system, potentially giving rise to temporary order. Without more energy, however, that order will inevitably decay. Which I guess still leaves it up to the individual to decide the fate of their own Universe.) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, I wasn't merely referring to DNA's complexity, per se, but to the existence of coded information. Of course it's not knock-down proof, but a strong clue. I don't have enough faith to think that happened without a mind. A little sugar, a bit of heat, and sufficient time gives rise to replicating molecules? And to think that I could have created life myself if I had a little more time. While I know that something like this is part of the dogma of scientific naturalism, it wasn't arrived at empirically. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m ignoring the urge to question the definition of “the whole of creation” and where the boundaries lie. But I can’t let this one go by without comment: quote: A closed system that can have energy input from outside! That doesn’t sound very closed to me - is Homeland Security involved somewhere along the line? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think it’s fair to suggest that the theory of a crystalline missing link precursor as the original replicator isn’t supported by empirical evidence, however that’s only one tiny part of the argument that nature doesn’t require an un-natural creator. In comparison the whole argument for religious dogma seems totally devoid of any acceptable empirical evidence as far as I can see, so much so it‘s even described as being reliant on faith. As I see it there’s absolutely no empirical evidence that a higher power exists. You could of course use the standard counter - that there’s no empirical evidence that a higher power doesn’t exist - but doesn’t a total lack of empirical evidence one way or the other simply strengthen the argument that there is in fact nothing there? And isn’t it the responsibility of those proposing that a higher power exists to put forward the evidence to that effect rather than challenging all dissenters to find evidence to disprove the theory? There’s no empirical evidence that fairies don’t exist. There’s no empirical evidence that unicorns don’t exist. There’s no empirical evidence that gods don’t exist. Why should we believe something exists simply because we don’t have evidence that it doesn’t - is that a sound basis for belief? If someone insisted that fairies really existed surely you’d expect some empirical evidence before joining the “friends of the fairies” party. Higher powers though seem to be immune to this simple test, instead we are asked to prove that they don’t exist and accept that they do when no evidence of their non-existence is forthcoming. It’s just a grandiose version of the kings clothes I may of course be wrong, perhaps there’s some empirical evidence I’ve overlooked, if you know any I’d love to hear it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Whereas, Stephen, I wasn't referring to coded information, but rather to complexity and order. Pretty much everything is coded information, after all. Just look at a Periodical Table of Elements. quote: Ah, and therein lies the conundrum. Science deliberately sidesteps the fact that any theory of creation, including the Big Bang theory (of which there is no empirical evidence, btw, hence we still call it a theory), is necessarily a paradox no less frustrating than anything resulting from omnipotence. Humanity's faith in cause and effect precludes the possibility of any first cause because, of course, any cause ultimately must be an effect. quote: Okay. When I follow the precepts of my religion my life is demonstrably better than when I don't follow those precepts. For me, it works. If dropping a hammer on your foot is empirical evidence for the existence of gravity, then a better personal life is equally valid evidence for the existence of God. Both are demonstrations of cause and effect. And just as importantly, in my opinion and experience, both are repeatable. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Does the first law of thermodynamics require your omnipotent creator to be part of the closed system? Come to think of it doesn’t the first law also provide a suggested natural solution to the first cause conundrum, could it be that the first cause doesn‘t actually exist? If the total energy of the closed system universe is a constant it must be the same now as it was in the beginning as it will always be in the future. Saying that it will always be the same allows the possibility that it has always been the same. If the energy of the universe has always existed there is no first or last cause, the best presumption would be a cyclical and continuous series of cause and effects. quote: Is life demonstrably better for all people who follow the precepts of their religion? What definition of “better” are you using? Is it possible that there’s a comparable Ron out their who doesn’t follow the precepts of any religion and believes that that his life is demonstrably better because of that? quote: Your definition of repeatable is too limited to be accepted as empirical evidence and more importantly different in the two examples cited. Everyone can repeat the hammer experiment under the same circumstance and get the same results but following your religious precepts may only yield a resultant “better life” for you. I may find the opposite is true, the scientific definition of repeatability requires that the resultant effect is constant on multiple samples by multiple testers and measurable. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Neither the first law nor the second, nor any other modern law of physics, existed during the first few microseconds of the Big Bang. And prior to the Big Bang? Even time couldn't exist. When asked what came before the Big Bang, most scientists will look puzzled and say there was nothing before. Some few, in recent years, are hypothesizing a collapsing Universe (possibly very different from our own) that became the singularity that became the Big Bang. So, uh, where did that Universe begin? quote: And you find that satisfying? In spite of the fact that in a deterministic universe, you can name no other cause that isn't someone else's effect? It just always was? Personally, Grinch, I find that no less mystical than most religions. quote: Yes (though I can't speak to "their" religion, only to mine). Which, I believe, answers all the rest of your questions under that heading? Especially those regarding repeatability? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Would that be the same big bang for which we have no empirical evidence? Is there a need to abandon the first law in a closed system where cyclical expansions and contractions negate the need for a first cause. Where expansion would diffuse the energy of the universe as it’s volume increased until the energy had insufficient concentration to fuel expansion. At that point wouldn't a contraction begin fuelled by the same energy until all matter and energy is contained in a singularity to start the process all over again. quote: Yes. The chances are high that I’m a tiny conglomeration of matter in a fairly insignificant galaxy during an expansion cycle. I didn’t see the beginning of the present universe and I’m unlikely to witness the end. I have no purpose in this universe other than that which I choose to impose on myself and I’m willing to accept the responsibility for those choices and my own actions and face the consequential results. However there’s still a real sense of satisfaction to be gained knowing that everything you are or have is all down to one person - yourself. quote: quote: Are you suggesting that a person without a religion be better with one? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's certainly possible that our universe is a closed one (as opposed to an open or flat universe). For that to be true, roughly 95 percent of the universe would have to consist of "dark matter," that is, matter that doesn't interact in any way with the electromagnet spectrum and which, so far, has escaped any direct detection. In my opinion, while dark matter and God certainly aren't mutually exclusive, if I had to believe in only one there seems to be a lot more evidence for the latter than for the former. Not incidentally, I'm probably being a little more optimistic than most. NASA would answer your question differently. quote: I had to insert a word into your question, Grinch, to make darn sure I understood what I think you meant. If that's not what you meant, please ignore my answer and rephrase the question. Even putting aside that it's a loaded question, my answer has to be no, the person would not be a better person. From where I sit, there was nothing wrong with the person, so there was nothing to make better. What I said, Grinch, and continue to maintain, is that a person's life is better with religion than it is without religion. Not sometimes, not mostly, but every single time. When you drop the hammer, it falls to the ground without fail (in a quantum universe that's not strictly true, but I think we can call it true enough for human purposes). That's what I mean by repeatability. I don't think I can be any more clear than that? Please don't take that out of context, though. What I said in the paragraph above rests on what I said earlier in the thread. If the hammer doesn't fall to the ground when you drop it, you have to be willing to adjust your hypothesis about gravity. You haven't got it right, yet. Of course people who are hesitant to pick up the hammer will never know if it would have fallen or not. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: What is your definition of empirical Grinch? As Ron already pointed out, someone's experience of God in their own life is indeed empirical. Of course that would seem too subjective to you to believe. What about reported miracles in history, and their grammatico-historical analysis of plausibility? But I suspect your philosophy holds that they can't be true because miracles can't happen (already presupposing nothing beyond nature). What about the appearance of design, such that Dawkins had to remind his readers to remember that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” It’s not that there hasn’t been, or isn’t empirical evidence, it’s that you are free to make in inference to atheism anyway. And that’s where faith comes in, for you and me. In addition to what may be called "empirical" are the existential evidences. Why does the Biblical worldview it square so well with our experience of the moral problems of humanity, of guilt? We do most share a feeling that life is a gift, and of the feeling that there is an obscenity imbedded somehow in death and disease? Why the conviction that things are often not as they ought to be, as if "ought" could be anything more than opinion (even though philosophers have pointed out the impossibility of getting "ought" from "is" in a naturalistic system) Why do we all share the delight of feeling that humanlove is more significant than a cloaked mechanism to splay more genetic material? Why do we feel that those who maltreat us have sometimes really done us wrong, and not just violated custom, or made a wrong calculation? Why are ethical systems of thought more alike than dissimilar, with their differences being so glaring only by virtue of their immense common ground? Why are even atheists drawn to philanthropy and a desire to be a "good person"? Why is there a prevailing feeling among humanity that death is not all there is to the story? Why has most of humanity shared a desire to worship something, and belief in a "higher power"? I mention all these things, empirical or not, to remind you that you already believe in many things, which have good and sufficient evidence, but are not strictly empirical in a test-tube sense. When you say there is no empirical evidence for God, I feel like you have some once-for-all kind of test in mind. Yet that is not your criteria for many historical beliefs, nor for many present realities. To demand this kind of evidence for God is a category mistake. quote: The fact that you can't prove a universal negative, isn't the crux of my argument at all ... in fact I agree with you that it isn't an argument. quote: You do realize that a singularity is where all laws break down? Then Ron is right to point out that the cyclical view is just as mystical as any religious explanation. And we haven't talked about the implications of the anthropic principle and the fine-tuned-universe, and the even more mystical multiverse theory used to explain it (away). Ronster: quote: But the situation we have with DNA and the human genome is much closer in directly mimicking design scenarios in intelligent human life. Yes chemicals have properties which interact to produce new Chemicals. But DNA is literally encoded information for the assemblage of life by micro-machines within the cell, a full production line. You may say there is no essential difference. But I would say that one yells for the inference of design quite stronger than the other. quote: Ron, I do appreciate what you're saying about the experiential aspect (or evidence) of God. However, many I'm sure would ask you if that's all there is to it, or if there are some more objective criteria. (Grinch has already pointed this out, more or less) After all, the question of what constitues a "better personal life" is quite subjective in nature. Are there other evidences for God that exist in a less Ron-or-Stephen-dependent way? Do you have an apologetic that extends beyond yourself, even if it may include the subjective? Does the creation itself give any evidence of God, as Paul seems to suggest in the 1st chapter of the book of Romans? Stephen |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Well from past comments on your topic's, You'd prolly know that I'm a christian. So as such I keep my religion tomyself. And am pretty easy going with other people and they're faith and beliefs. So I don't shove my beliefs down other peoples throughts. Yes in a right of sence I can see other peoples beliefs (Allaha, Budda, ext.) can be real. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not only don't I see it that way, Stephen, I don't believe it happened that way. If DNA were a poem, it would need a LOT of work. Besides, change the Periodic Table by so much as an electron and DNA couldn't exist. The design didn't start with Life, it culminated with it. quote: Nope. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: I never said it started with life. The idea of culmination would be exactly my thoughts too. As I said, the question of design merely becomes more poignant with the arrival of life. How can you say design culminates with life if said life does not demonstrate design? quote: Just "Nope"? Well that's convincing. Then how do you avoid complete fideism? Or how do you account for St. Paul's words without trivializing them at best, or out-and-out denying them at worst? Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, You make it sound as if dark matter doesn’t exist, most astrophysicists would disagree, even the page your link leads to notes that the existence of dark matter isn’t contested it’s what dark matter is that’s unknown at present. ”We know of its presence because of the gravitational effects it has on objects that we can see.” An intelligent man once wrote: “Seen the nucleus of an atom lately? Or an electron? How about a quark or a lepton?” I think he could, quite easily, have included dark matter in his list. quote: You got my meaning spot on, the irony is I edited it three times before posting to ensure the meaning was clear and somehow managed to eviscerate a word in the process. I took what you were saying to mean that religion is to some people like insulin is to diabetics - if you need it it’s good for you - I just wanted to clarify. Stephen, quote: Evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses, measurable and consistently repeatable and are capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. quote: Only in the same way that someone seeing a fairy can claim to have empirical evidence that fairies exist. quote: It depends on your definition of miracles, I can accept that the statistically improbable can happen but not the scientifically impossible. quote: The appearance of design doesn’t require a designer, there is empirical evidence that natural selection can create the appearance of design and no evidence, beyond personal belief, that a designer exists. quote: Is it because it was written by men with experience of the moral problems of humanity? quote: Because we are hardwired by evolution to react in certain ways to certain stimuli, what you’re describing is the human condition, not evidence of a creator. quote: Should I? After all there’s no empirical evidence to support that notion and certainly no reason to disbelieve that some laws, the first law of thermodynamics for instance, can’t hold true in a singularity. In fact the very nature of the first law suggests that it has to remain within a singularity, singularities are in effect described by the first law being the sum total of all mass and energy in the universe. |
||
|
SimonG New Member
since 2008-06-28
Posts 3CA |
if God is the foundation of human religion. I shall say yes. Human, not only search for higher power when observe unexplainable phenomenon and when feel hopelessly unfairness of the nature world but also try to find spirit support to anchor our tiresome mind and calm the anxiety from our unpredictable life. The desire to look for high power is same whether the imagined high power is you, her, He, a tree, a rock, a star, myself, or my mind. But the truth is God –searching. The desire, I believe, is build-in by God. Without that interaction (cause and effect) there is no religion beyond blind belief. Cause and effect in religion That tree gives me shade, so I worship it. But what if the tree was stroked by lightning and fell on my roof and ruined my house? Shall I worship it based on human logic? If I worship a star and my wish has never got granted, shall I continue? “Cause and effect” is logic thinking and it belongs to human wisdom. Higher power must have higher level wisdom, Right? If DNA were a poem, it would need a LOT of work. Besides, change the Periodic Table by so much as an electron and DNA couldn't exist. The design didn't start with Life, it culminated with it. Electron/neutron---Atoms----molecule----DNA---life, this chain is not randomly crashed out or evolved out. One can always ask why it is P not S in DNA. Why double helix? Why RNA? Why protein does not do self-replicate? No matter how wide and deep we imagine, we imagine with our limited human mind And Nope Many people agree. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There's clearly a whole lot of people who don't agree, Stephen. I think if it wasn't already poignant enough before the arrival of life, a few self-replicating cells aren't likely to change anyone's perspective. Life was pretty much inevitable. Now, water? THAT was an incontrovertible miracle! quote: I didn't know you wanted to be convinced? quote: Complete fideism? As opposed to incomplete fideism? I'm not trying to be difficult, Stephen, but that word means different things to different people. If you mean it in the sense that religion relies primarily on faith and revelation, then my answer has to be that I don't avoid it, I embrace it. If you mean it in the sense that faith is antithetical to reason, then I fail to see the contradiction. I believe reason can indeed by used to see God (which isn't necessarily the same thing as finding a god). But it also seems fairly self evident to me that reason can just as easily be used to hide God. I tried to be succinct and answer the spirit of your question (I really didn't believe you wanted to be convinced), but let me provide a bit more detail. Evidence? Sure, there's evidence of God in His creation. It's absolutely all around us, and that's part of the problem. Everything is evidence of God. And that essentially means that nothing is evidence of God. It's just the way things are. quote: Sorry, no, I didn't mean to suggest dark matter doesn't actually exist. Only that it goes against intuitive common sense and can only be inferred by its effects on the world we see.. quote: Everyone needs insulin, Grinch. Not just some. I would be more inclined, I think, to compare religion to exercise. Everyone has some (even if they don't know they have it), most of us could use a great deal more, and there's always going to be a few who carry a good thing to harmful extremes. quote: And if they told you where to go so you could see the fairy? It seems to me that refusing to make that journey, perhaps because it's too long and arduous, or perhaps just because you don't "believe" you'll find anything at the final destination, is a poor reason to decry a lack of evidence. Those seeking evidence have to go where the evidence is. quote: Actually, there is empirical evidence. It's called math. One of Einstein's more famous thought experiments centers on two elevators. He proposed that one elevator remain at rest on the surface of Earth and another be accelerated through the void of space at a rate equal to one Earth gravity (32 feet per second per second). These thought experiments led to his Equivalence Principle, which would become the foundation for General Relativity. The principle states there is no experiment a person could conduct in such circumstances that could distinguish between a gravitational field and uniform acceleration. In other words, whether you fall from an airplane or are shot out of a very big cannon, the phenomena are the same. Behind the event horizon of a singularity, the gravitational pull is so intense that light can't escape. Hence, the term black hole. Now, apply the Equivalence Principle to that statement: Anything trapped by a black hole will accelerate into the singularity as a speed exceeding that of light (though it will ultimately do so one sub-atomic particle at a time). You just divided by zero, and as I detailed almost nine years ago that means "anything is possible." Using math, scientists can trace our known universe right back to a few micro- micro-seconds after the Big Bang. But their math breaks down utterly and completely when they try to go back further. When I was just a young'un (1968 and 1970), Stephen Hawking, along with George Ellis and Roger Penrose, wrote papers extending Einstein's General Relativity to include measurements in space and time. Their calculations show that space and time had a finite beginning that corresponded to the beginnings of matter and energy. The singularity that was the Big Bang didn't exist within space and time, but rather space and time existed within the singularity. There essentially was no such thing as physical laws before the singularity began expanding, and whatever laws existed in the few micro- micro-seconds after the expansion began are apparently nothing like what we see today. Both laws of thermodynamics, of course, rely on the passage of time if they are to have any meaning. It's actually interesting, Grinch, that you so want to preserve the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, as we've already discussed, states that closed systems invariably move from order to disorder over time. Science calls this entropy. One of the biggest questions about the initial conditions of our universe is why did entropy start out so low. Had our universe started in absolute disorder, there would be no arrow of time, no effects of entropy, and certainly no life. Fancy that. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: I am not wholly placing it in the realm of art, Stephanos, because art itself is not wholly in the realm of art. It is in space, time, and history too. What knowledge we may have of a spiritual "higher power" seems inevitably confused with whatever we imagine and artistically represent as a "higher power". They are both spiritual and both of a "higher power", so how may we distinguish one spiritual (the spiritual being), from the other spiritual (what we imagine and artistically represent as the spiritual higher power)? I don't think we may with any certainty. But there is some consolation. What we know more directly from Nature may be one thing. But what we imagine, is not the opposite of knowing at all. It is artistically altered and altered to reflect what we believe, an importance, an overall "role", etc. but it still includes and is based on native knowledge. . Therefore this business of art and imagination, is not the opposite of knowledge, but instead it is the artistic presentation of knowledge to include futher things, such as a special meaning, a belief, etc. Artistic virtues are very important because they inspire people to keep in touch with knowledge, as it is presented in manifold forms, whether they believe it or not. The better religion is presented in art, the the more anyone and everyone may be persuased to appreciate it more. Surely Grinch may even enjoy a poem about God when it is very well written? However, when something is presented in a horrible, distasteful, disrespectful, way, then even the believers will and ought to shun it. Good art brings people from all corners to appreciate and enjoy something, whether or not they believe in it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, It was the first law I was trying to retain - that young fellow Hawking is the one trying to retain the second. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
First, Grinch, Hawking's (et al) calculations deal exclusively with the event horizon of a black hole, not with the actual singularity. That may be picking a nit, but I think it's an important distinction if one is to understand black holes. Second, and most importantly, while it's convenient to talk about the Big Bang in terms of black holes and singularities, they are definitely not the same thing. For example, the Big Bang didn't have an event horizon, nor did it rotate, both of which are vital factors in Hawking's work. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, quote: It did right before it went Bang if the Big Bounce theorists are correct, Martin Bojowald’s recent work in loop quantum gravity comes to mind. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
How recent? I haven't heard anything about event horizons for the Big Bang singularity, nor would I expect to. Event horizons, almost by definition, are four dimensional entities within space-time. With all of space-time-matter-energy enclosed within the BB singularity it's a bit hard to imagine anything outside it. Since this thread is about so-called higher powers (I so dislike that term), we should point out that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang it predicted was a strong argument for creation and the Judeo-Christian God. There had to be a beginning and every beginning has to have a cause. The work by Ashtekar and later Bojowald, on the other hand, which led to the Big Bounce, is much more akin to the endless cycles of Hinduism. In any event, quantum gravity (which leads to quantum space and quantum time) is still highly speculative, with no known physical manifestations and no predictions that can be validated. By comparison, I think believing in fairies is a whole lot easier. |
||
|
SimonG New Member
since 2008-06-28
Posts 3CA |
Does quantum gravity lead to the energy of higher power? Where does the original energy come from? If black whole is soooo powerful, why do we still see many stars in the sky? Who holds them away from the light swallowing ogre? Do we find high power from the anatomy of Einstein's brain? If we could calculate out a high power, can math solve that 5 loaves+2 fish fed 5000 people and 12 basket left over? One can believe in a fairy tale but wouldn't it be better just to write one's own and grant power on it? Simon |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: His last paper was released in May this year. Why would the singularity not have an event horizon? After all according to the standard definition the universe has one. For arguments sake though let’s take it that the singularity doesn’t have one, that still doesn’t mean that the first or second law of thermodynamics are defunct. The first law basically says that energy is neither gained nor lost, that the total energy of the universe remains the same. As the singularity would contain all the energy the first law is evident. The second law says that in a closed system entropy will occur unless, and until, there is equilibrium. A singularity is about as clear a state of equilibrium imaginable - it's one object in one unified state. quote: That’s a little misleading, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and the Big Bang theory added weight to the first cause argument. It didn’t specifically lend credence to the existence of god. In the same respect loop quantum gravity and Big Bounce theory, which removes the need for a first cause, doesn’t lend any credence to the argument that god or fairies don’t exist. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The existance of existance, however, may include the Big Bang, but it wasn't brought about by the Big Bang. It may include God/gods, but it wasn't brought about by God/gods. It was already being or becoming Big Bangs or Gods, and anything else that ever existed. It was already there because existance was never not there. Existance always existed and always shall exist because that is all it can do. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron: Re: "What I said, Grinch, and continue to maintain, is that a person's life is better with religion than it is without religion." What Joseph Campbell says, per one of John's posts and quotes, is that human life is impossible without religion and rites. Campbell says it's biology. History seems to bear him out. As a species, we are religion prone, or maybe religion inevitable. Which does not point to the validity of any religious belief, only to a common necessity. Marx, that sullen son of a gun, declared that "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Campbell would seem to agree. You, Campbell, and Marx would seem to be saying something similar, but the debate, to my mind, turns on whether "we" are "better off" with it or without it To the extent that it might be biologically inescapable, "better" or "worse" has nothing to do with it. A desire for religiosity may be just an "isness." not subject to judgement. Per Grinch, it might be possible to reject this "isness" intellectually through a concentration on the "isness" of physical realities. I would tend to agree, except that so far, his arguments do not address things like the pineal gland etc, which are "there." My thought is that we don't have a biological choice in the matter. Whether our "beings" are God/religion subject may have nothing to do with theological concerns. I wonder where the questions of "ethics and morality" come up. Is this "religiosity" in a shade of words?" Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Were that true, Grinch, all it would mean was that the universe and its even horizon were contained within the Big Bang singularity. You're essentially trying to put "something" outside of "everything." Are you sure you don't believe in miracles? quote: And I would contend that "added weight" is misleading. The Big Bang, should it prove true, pretty much cements the first cause argument. Einstein didn't much care for that either, so he invented a new force of physics to cancel out the expansion and deceleration predicted by his own calculations. Later, when Hubble confirmed that the Universe was, indeed, expanding as predicted, Einstein gave grudging acceptance to "the necessity for a beginning" and to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." He didn't like it, and he never found a use for a personal god, but he recognized that his own calculations allowed no other conclusion. quote: Jim, you're taking what I said in one post out of context from what I said earlier in the thread, just as I asked Grinch not to do. My debate certainly doesn't turn on whether we're better off with or without religion. In science there is typically one right answer, a lot of partially right answers, and an almost infinite variety of wrong answers. Why should religion be any different? Form an hypothesis, test it, adjust as necessary. The role of religion shouldn't be to simply explain the past or make promises for the future. Religion is about the here and now, and THAT is the way it should be tested. If your religion doesn't better your life, change it until it does. Debate ended. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hey guys, I've been following the thread, but I had to make-a-livin' for a few days, with no time for a decent reply. quote: Would you concede there is much that you believe that is not exactly repeatable via experiment, or doesn't fall into your definition of "empirical"? ... and that many of our best inferences (including yours) are not verifiable via the strict criteria of epistemology that you describe? quote: Or in the same way someone could have been sick without secondary human verification, or in love, or any number of things. Or in the way anything might have been truly experienced where without-a-doubt verification is difficult or impossible. And since this is the case, there is much that you yourself know for sure that isn't "empirical" according to your own requirements. quote: You do realize that holding your philosophy, literally anything could happen before your eyes and it would have to be called merely "statistically improbable"? As I've suggested to you before, when what is "empirical" is filtered through certain presuppositions, even the inference-to-the-best-explanation must be missed if it doesn't fit your philosophical schema. And for the atheist, the certain uncertainties of dialectical materialism rule out divinity, even if it were the inference to the best explanation. That's why Richard Dawkins needs to remind his readers so dogmatically that their inference is invalid about biological systems that look as if designed. Pardon me if I think this more closely resembles "The Emperor's New Clothes". quote: But you're discounting what would lead to the inference of design (high complexity and specification), based upon your assertion of no evidence. Its as if you're saying "Of course that can't qualify as evidence, since there is no evidence", begging the question. quote: I think you've missed the point of my question. I'm not marvelling that the Bible describes the existential or moral problems of humanity, (that would be a fine addition to literature, but no profound insight) but that it also explains them. And that it explains them in a way that makes sense of our psychological response and deepest feelings toward them. Whereas atheism coupled with Darwinian ideas can only describe, saying finally that they are only different genetic expressions in the race for survival. One gives a reason for, while the other explains away and trivializes humanity's deepest convictions. quote: See, the explanation you give for our existential / moral experiences (actually only a description) is nothing more than that we are bound to have them, because of certain enduring genetic anomalies. And for that reason, given your view there is no notion that these tendencies have any correlation to reality. quote: I suppose you're right Ron. Someone who doesn't want to appreciate a master artist doesn't have to. There are those who don't 'get it', and maybe never will. Of course, that's no argument that his background canvas is little different than his magnum opus. quote: Well, regardless of what you think I want, I 'm just making sure that your replies didn't really belong in "announcements". Ron: quote: And maybe that's where you and I diverge. I certainly embrace "faith" as well. Though I would have to insist that any reasoning that hides (or refuses to see) God's reality is well, unreasonable ... not just alternate form of reason. Or maybe we could say like Chesterton did, that it is reason and nothing more that makes a madman. quote: Well I don't think that everything holds the same weight of evidence. That there are varying levels of significance in the world seems to be theologically and experientially sound. Therefore your conclusion that "nothing is evidence for God" doesn't seem to hold up. quote: Your statement could be taken to support both an extreme individualism and a utilitarian philosophy where religion (or its object) becomes secondary ... a means to one's own ends. Though I feel that's not how you're intending it. Secondly I would point out that knowing the promises of the future is part of what makes a better life now. We all gotta die sometime. But death has this way of permeating the whole, if one suspects (or fears) that it is the only absolute. But Ron, I'm with ya on that Big Bang Cosmology! Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-02-2008 11:48 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The sparks of Knowledge first so small Soon spread the flames of Art o'er all. |
||
|
SimonG New Member
since 2008-06-28
Posts 3CA |
If your religion doesn't better your life, change it until it does. Debate ended. If one can change one's religion as changing clothes in a fashion show, then the religion must be a tool. Tool does not have higher power. The user has. A higher power, I think, is something one can not manipulate and one is under control of it. such as, whatever started human breath and heart beat and human logic thinking. The sparks of Knowledge first so small Soon spread the flames of Art o'er all. But the wisdom stands heavenly tall, Denying the call led heavily fall Simon |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I heard the Gods debate all day And Big Bangs too attend the fray, Wondering if, and why, and when The Universe was made by Men! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
If I were to dream man formed this place from highest star to lowest seed then need I deem the human race a pantheon of gods indeed But how can mankind have such rule If this specimen were such a fool? [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-03-2008 01:09 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
For all we know the gods may be Of much inferiority Which leaves us humans fitter fools To be the rulers of the rules. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
“None can know” is quite ambitious a philosophy, and thus suspicious, especially when one claims to know that all can never ever know of one no matter what is said or done a certain doubt that’s certainly to fall But let me now get to the point For my poem shouldn’t twiddle You're not too much agnostical but contrarily too little. (Hey, if you get to make up words, so do I.) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Without our art, if knowledge turned to flint, With foremost spark, the first part and the hint, Would unicorns turn back to mares and horns, Centaurs to men and horses art adorns? Since gods as well in nativeness would be, Of gods, without our art, what would we see? A mote, a man, the earth, the sea, the sun, Confused and named as persons or the One? Or else a God himself, in nakedness, That art reflects in manifoldedness, In many gloves and gauntlets, would it stand, That there would be the same and only Hand? Who knows for sure, the bottom and the ground, Of all this mighty growth in which we're wound? Who wants the crops removed, for naked roots? Not I, for without crops, there are no fruits. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Let me pull back into prose for a moment, since I feel that you want me to address your thoughts about how religion relates to art. I have no problem with recognizing (even celebrating) that much of religion is art, or even that historical events may be described in an artful way. But I don't think all art is based in history to the same degree or in the same way. We have all heard and appreciate wonderous stories about the cow jumped over the moon, probably based on many human experiences with cows and gazing at the sky. In spite of the realness of the origins, we don't think the story is historical. Sometimes in religion, we also need someone to tell us what really happened. So in the former is much imagination, charm, and beauty, but little by way of reflecting what really happened. The more historically based tale may be told in a beautiful or even fanciful way, but has a different form and purpose altogether. What you seem to be denying (as far as I can tell) is the possibility for religion to also relate acts of God in time space, in a manner of simple reportage. Of course anything claiming to be such would have to be examined on its own laurels and veracity. But if such claims exist in religion at all (in addition to the mythical), it doesn't make much sense to insist that it's all in the other category. If all religion (by one's philosophy) is automatically placed in the category of human contrivance and creativy, then you're forced to the same conclusion that you expressed earlier: That we can't know anything for real about God. And therefore the gods may not be great. But when it comes to more historically based religion, examining the "roots" is not at all damaging to the spirit or appreciation of the whole. Just ask N.T. Wright. Whenever very real and specific historical claims are made, they are subject to be examined from that standpoint. The Christian claim is that in the person of Jesus Christ, God entered Space Time and acted in the world. As Francis Schaeffer once put it: You could have gotten a splinter in your finger from the cross that day.What I am saying in no way undermines art. But I am saying that a tale about a Leprechaun's Rainbow is different in a significant way from a personal letter about Kevin Rainbow. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: Not at all Stephanos. I am just saying that there is no way to confirm it. Whether you talk about the gods influence on the Trojan War, God coming to earth as Christ, or God talking to you right now, none of it may be confirmed and it is yoked to the imagination in a way that may not be sundered from the imagination. Consider the difference between words such as "god" and "earth". When we say "earth" we have something physical and distinct from the imagination of the earth, but when we say "god" what do we have present and distinct from the imagination of a god, to distinguish the body itself from the imagination? As historical events go, many of those are taken by belief and trust as well, not by evidence of the events themselves. But if the kind of events described in one way or another is similar to the kind that is familiar and present today, then there is evidence for the kind of event, and therefore we may be the more persuaded to believe them. But events such as a god creating a universe, or becoming a man, or taking part in a war, etc. are kinds of events that may not be confirmed as happening today, let alone confirmed as happening yesterday. Those are extaordinary things that people believe in and artistically build upon. As beforesaid, I think art is like a reflection from a mirror that may be more or less warped. But no matter how warped the mirror is, the mirror still always reflects something that is actually there. But when we can't confirm for sure what being or thing the mirror is reflecting, how do we determine how truly it is reflecting the being or thing? [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-05-2008 11:23 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. If God came out of the sky and said: “Here I am” and then: “Oh, and by the way, I long ago decided when you’re dead you're dead.” it might, (though I doubt it), save on a lot of discussion. Because all this is about death and the fear of it. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Really, John? I guess I must not have meant anything I said in my posts then. I thought I did. Clearly, though, you believe you know otherwise. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Any honest reading of scripture should conclude that Christianity is not "all about death". But since death is the most enigmatic part of life (so to speak) it is only right that it should be addressed. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Great Onion, If you ask the question in terms of "a Higher Power," you've already cooked the books. That doesn't mean the answers people give you have to be wrong. It simply means that the likelihood of them being right is about the same as if you'd asked, "How tall is up?" To suggest there is "a higher power" means you have already agreed there are "Powers" at all. This is called "begging the question." "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy, and is generally enough to bring discussions to a screaming halt until the the statement can be rephrased in a logically acceptable fashion. One you permit begging the question to go unquestioned, people will try to get all sorts of absurdities past you, hoping you won't notice. Stephanos: quote: Now Stephanos is a bright, kind and sensitive guy. And his religious feeling is deep and genuine. He doesn't seem to understand, however, that impersonal forces have no obligations at all. Whether it is tenable for us to think of them as giving rise to thinking choosing beings such as ourselves, to nothingness, to pure chaos or to vodka martinis is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is what those impersonal forces have actually done, and this is something that neither Stephanos nor I can say. It is more beautiful for me and probably for Stephanos if a personal God intervenes along the way; and I confess a weakness for beauty. But impersonal forces have no obligation to serve my weakness for beauty, either. And other people have other notions of beauty that I find austere at this point in my life. I'd ask you, Oh Great Onion, to see if there might not be some way of asking your question that doesn't presuppose God as an answer simply by the way you ask. And to answer Stephanos' question, It's probably as tenable to imagine an impersonal force, such as rampaging chemistry, coming up with local yahoos like us as it is to imagine a God so myopic as to care about micromanaging the affairs of over active sadists like us. Surely the dogs are kinder and more interesting, and the porpoises have a better sense of humor. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Where ya been? I'll look forward to giving a reply in a day or so. No time now. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob Just wanted to point out, that Great Onion worded his question thus: quote: I don't think that presupposes god as an answer, but it just asks if we believe a god is the answer or an anser (Latin for "goose") if you please? There is already a reference of things existing, therefore we have things which we may say include, are, or are evidence of a "god". Not only that but we may alter and exaggerate references to things. As long as there is something, there is something that we may believe is "god", even a winged anser. I think the more important question is how we determine whether what we call "god" actually is a "god" or not, a god as literally as earth is earth, air is air, Bob is Bob, etc? The only problem with that question is that there may be no way to have any sure answer or confirmation. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-06-2008 07:29 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If we are going to use terms like "Higher Power," I believe the discussion is meaningless unless the term is defined. It simply has no referent. Thus far, the discussion can mean pretty much whatever anybody wishes it to mean because there is no agreement on that term. Some of us can be talking about single-tusked benevolent Elephant deities traditionally painted blue in Hindu action comics and others of us can be talking about the Living God of Nowhere and Nothing, still others of us can be talking about the gnostic God of Revelations while acquaintances can be talking about Ixion crucified upon the wheel. All of these folks will be convinced they are talking about the true higher power, when only I actually know the truth, and I'm not going to tell any of you out of sheer perversity. Perhaps we might get together and remedy this problem. Despite Essorant, whose wisdom is great, I don't believe that there needs to be a higher power, either in terms of reality or in terms of this discussion. It looks to me that the question has been carelessly framed to presupposed a God and, beyond that, a God the Creator. No No, I say to that. There may be such a situation, I have no idea, but to go there without earning the way there concedes too many things. I would no more stand for these concessions than I would stand for concessions that would include the assumption of a completely materialistic universe in which there is no possibility of such a thing as spirit. That may be the case as well, but that too would have to be a conclusion that was argued and earned. No assumptions need apply. If there is "a higher Power," how does "it" come to be endowed with such an attribute as choice. This sounds an awfully lot as though there are other powers capable of endowing such attributes. And if there are, and if they are capable of endowing this "Higher Power" with choice, does that mean they are "higher powers" still? Has The Great Onion created not only one God but many in the way that he has framed his discussion? Some of them are capable of endowing other powers with attributes they apparently had not previously had. What hath The Onion wrought? It brings tears to the eyes. And yet, if we follow the metaphors and the Language that The Onion has given us to work with here, these are the questions that must emerge and that must be addressed. If we choose not to address the question the Onion has addressed to us, then we ought, in all decency, decide what the question actually is that we are addressing. The alternative most likely for us to follow, otherwise, is for each of us to wander off on our own individual track, talking to ourselves, though under the impression that we're talking to each other. So what are we trying to get at, folks? Huh? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Really, Bob? Then why do you, in the very next breath, ask: quote: Your question assumes that cause and effect applies both universally and eternally. Not only haven't you "earned" that assumption, science would argue that, in the absence of time, there can be no cause and effect. Assumptions are pretty hard to avoid. Impossible, I suspect. The best we can really do, I think, is to point out when we are operating under different assumptions. After all, if we all started out with the same assumptions we would theoretically end at the same conclusions. Where would be the fun in that? p.s. As much as I dislike the term Higher Power, I think most people recognize it as a euphemism for deity. I don't think either term necessarily presupposes the existence of what they define. Following your logic, we would also have to define Fairies before Grinch could use them for comparison. You might be thinking of Spenserian faeries of old, after all, while I'm envisioning those that, in today's world, reside at Hogwarts? Don't worry too much though, because I really don't think it will matter a lot. While our definitions will never quite converge, I suspect we're still in the same ball park. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Hello, Ron, A pleasure, as always. I confess I am a bit unclear on your comment. I am uncomfortable with "higher powers" to start off with. There is no necessity to posit them. I don't say they aren't there; I don't say they are there. I simply don't know. The Onion did the positing here, not I. The onion also asked the question about choice. It's in his opening at the beginning of the thread. I am paraphrasing here, if not particularly well, and assuming—as I shouldn't do—that others follow. Once the Onion has set the rules, it's a bit difficult to overlook the conflict inherent in those rules. It's even more difficult for me to avoid pointing this out. I certainly do make assumptions, of course, Ron. It's almost impossible not to, and I think, if I understand you correctly, we may be in agreement about this. The best you can do given the state of affairs with language and my inability to speak mathematics, is to attempt to be as straightforward about the the suppositions as I can be. I'm better about this in political discussions because the labels tend to be more clear cut there. I'm not sure how I would define my pre-suppositions here, beyond saying agnostic, and attempting to be respectful of what other people say and think. As for Cause and Effect, I'm not sure I could say what science says about them. Apparently there are matched quarks that communicate at faster than light-speed; when one identifies itself as a Top Quark the other is able to identify itself as a Bottom Quark beforehand, though the identity of the Quarks was previously indeterminate. This means that the second Quark "knows" the answer before the answer is revealed. You may be correct about the absence of Time and causality. I really know very little about physics. But most of the situations where I've seen that point of view proposed are on the level of quantum mechanics, where tourists don't get return tickets. You're probably right about the theory, but how it actually affects the discussion is something I'd be very interested in seeing you develop. You could have some very useful insights, but I don't see the connection to the discussion at this point. What I'm interested in is a set of discussion points about "higher power(s)" that we can all use with reasonable comfort and assurance that we're all talking about the same thing. This may not be worth the effort for other people. But when Stephanos talks about a "higher Power" I usually understand him to mean a personal Christian God that is different than a personal Islamic God or a Personal Jewish God in ways that Stephanos feels makes his Personal Christian God right and meaningful and, yes, correct in ways that other personal monotheistic God concepts are not. Other folks who've been to Alcoholics Anonymous may feel it's fine to have a personal "higher Power" that they can "put in a light bulb" so long as it is something greater than The Self. The Onion appears (I can't say I know) to be working elements of this out. Huan Yi (forgive me, Huan Yi for any mistakes here) seems to have a stoic's notion of God as something that gets in the way of bears the pains of the world without getting distracted from the business of the honor of the world. The Shadow in Blue is trying to see the whole notion of God from a place of her own making for the first time in her life. I think it's impossible for us to get to the same conclusions; as people we've started off too differently, and we have too many interesting things to say to each other. But it may be possible for us to learn things where we least expect it. I don't agree with Stephanos, for example, but I've learned a lot from him about compassion. The shadow is always willing to look at things freshly. She constantly takes me by surprise. Huan Yi's politics and mine aren't the same, but his sense of honor and honesty are always impressive. I can't say I've connected as much with everybody here, but I'm not complaining. We probably won't get to the same conclusions, but the company is good. Best from LA, Bob K. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: My argument had little or nothing to do with obligation. Neither is God (according to Christian Theology) obligated to us. Whatever is offered is gratuitous. My question was whether it is reasonable to think that impersonal forces gave rise to individual, rational (mostly ), emotional, and existentially earmaked beings like yourself. Your answer, in keeping with agnosticism, is neither "yes" nor "no". Instead, it is a denial of the relevance of the question itself (as best I can tell). But more on that in a bit ...quote: Sorry, I'm not really following you here. Didn't we already establish that something gave rise to we ourselves? So whether or not we say it is personal or non-personal, we can indeed "say" at least one astounding thing those forces have done. And if we can say that much, then my original question is still quite apropos. quote: This raises some interesting questions. Is your preference for beauty then a weakness rather than a strength? You may have been using the word "weakness" for literary flair. But even in that usage, there is the connotation of a foible or failing. From my perspective, accepting an ultimate reality that is impersonal has implications for things like beauty and morality, forcing them into the category of "hopelessly subjective". And I'm sure you'll respond by pointing out that regardless, our ideas of such are already fraught with subjectivity. But there is still so much common ground within our common notions of beauty, that we can still be reasonably convinced that there is something to it other than our own cerebral cortex. So, while you can argue beauty as perceptively subjective, the implications of dialectical materialism would suggest a more radical kind of subjectivity, where it would be just as fitting to call beauty delusional. And so, I find it interesting that while you attempt a reasonable justification (even if not total) for what I'm arguing against, your own dearest and deepest convictions begin to be undermined. quote: That's fine. When the lens isn't perfect, there is wiggle room. But surely that doesn't imply that a person who thinks it beautiful to torture children isn't blind, or that some can't see better than others, or that beauty itself doesn't have ontological credibility. It seems to me that once you begin to use things like beauty to argue against the reasonableness of God, you've conceded a whole lot, since beauty is something that is very real and very present, but very unprovable in a test tube or by mere syllogism. quote: Hey Bob, which kids usually get the most attention, unruly ones or the well behaved? Seriously, I think you're presenting a false disparity between God's approach to humanity and other forms of life. Why should God not be concerned or involved with the whole creation? That he would approach different aspects of his creation differently seems reasonable if differences mean anything. Whatever your critique of Christian Theology (which does not make a thoroughgoing distinction between humanity and the animal world), it doesn't present us with the kind of gulf involved in believing that mad molecules made men with minds. (pardon the alliteration). quote: I too don't like the term "higher power", nearly as ambiguous a term as you can get. And yet, in order for any discussion of comparative religion to ensue (which was obviously the intent of the originator of the thread), it can be a useful opening term. Things get defined along the way. For example, I have asked the question of how impersonal or naturally-bound versions of "god" can reasonably be thought of as "higher"? What about them would justify such a description? "Higher Power" is an open door to discussion and nothing more. But like Ron said about the word "god", it is perhaps suggestive enough to move into a discussion of comparative religion where things may be more defined as we go. quote: While I respectfully disagree with your view of the non-necessity of a "higher power" as it pertains to reality, (and I'm sure we'll continue to explore that question) I don't think you should make the same kind of denial in regard to this discussion or thread. If the thread has to do with objects of worship, adoration, or origins, then speaking of such is entirely proper to the discussion. If you don't think so, then all you had to do was answer "No." to Onion's initial question. quote: Just to clarify, there are arguments that would suggest the existence of a personal God, that would apply to all the monotheistic religions (of which there are only a few main categories). I've never said that other conceptions of God or reality are wrong through and through. The question of what would make one particular monotheism more correct than another would take us into a whole different area of consideration than the philosophical ground we're in. It would take us into the historical and into higher/lower textual criticism. I'm quite sure that there are practically agnostic people who are beginning to see the necessity of a personal God, who have no idea about where to go from there or even if they want to. These kinds of discussions to me are mostly about the journey to that initial point. Anthony Flew is a good example of someone who abandoned atheism for theism. And yet, he hasn't been sure about the nature of the God he has come to believe in. But he's been rubbing elbows with people like N.T. Wright and Gary Habermas, who are courteously presenting the case for Christian Orthodoxy. My point is, if conceptions of God are not hermetically sealed but share commonalities, then even starting from different perspectives may yield a productive interaction. I'll certainly not be shooting those who disagree. Stephen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Yes, I’m Agnostic. Agnostic means without knowledge, it doesn’t mean without opinions. When I say I don’t know what the answer is to many of the questions around God, I mean exactly that, I don’t KNOW. I’ve noticed that most of the people who say they do know, substitute other forms of knowledge, such as faith or such, to substitute for evidence-based knowledge, The kind we use to tell whether to walk over the edge of a cliff or not. The answer is ‘No,” gravity forbids, and to depend of miracles assumes a theological status it would be presumptuous for most of us to claim. Not knowing cuts both ways. I am skeptical of other people’s claims of special knowledge, and I am even more skeptical of my own. I can fool myself more completely than I can fool other people. If you see me as undermining my own positions from time to time, then you see me doing what I consider to be my job. I am furious at the so-called skeptical magazines, The Skeptic, and The Skeptical Inquirer, in case you are not familiar with them, because they are not skeptical of themselves and their own rigid positions. This doesn’t mean I don’t read them all the time, simply that I throw them at the wall and swear at them frequently, and discount much of what they say. I said nothing at all about God having obligations to us. I’m sorry you felt the need to defend yourself against something I didn’t say. I would still say that impersonal forces, by definition, are under no obligation to follow rules, specifically the imaginary rule that they act reasonable in doing anything, even in giving rise to phenomena that we are most often comfortable ascribing to a loving and personal God. Reasonability is a human attribute. I suspect that the term you may be looking for is “Orderly” or perhaps “”Predictably.” There is some data that is suggestive that this may in fact be the case. I believe you have yourself referenced the Urey-Miller experiments at some point or another. The data is not more than interesting an suggestive at this point, as you are probably well aware. You may be more plugged into Brane Theory than I am right now, but that seems to provide some very interesting theory on creation. There may be some possibility for model making there and Predictability and Order. Does that mean that the idea of a personal Christian God is wrong? Not as far as I’m concerned. First of all, I don’t believe there is any amount of data that would ever convince you or other sincere and convinced Christians. Second, the nature of the data for the discussion of the two problems is different. Proof for one is not necessarily proof for the other, even the walking off the cliff, clear as gravity type. There is a confusion of tongues here. This is why I keep going back to the formulation of the questions. I know this frustrates you in particular, and I’m sorry about that, but a question that is only well formed to the religious ear yields results only rarely outside that audience, despite the occasional well publicized convert. Should you read the Skeptical magazines, you’d see the same group of people in reverse, disillusioned ministers, former choirboys, ex-priests, lapsed Catholics and the like ready to stand up and be counted for their new faith—Athiesm. How much actual difference there is between the two sorts of stories isn’t really very clear to me. They’re both sincere enough. You ask, “Is my preference for beauty a weakness rather than a strength? may have been using the word "weakness" for literary flair.” I don’t know. I have spent long portions of my life among ugly people and things, and I’ve found a lot of these things in myself. Yet I see myself as needing to extend compassion to others and to myself, especially to those parts of people that are ugly. I love beauty, but in many ways it takes me away from the compassion that is more important and difficult. I’m not using Beauty to argue against the reasonableness of God. I’m saying that talking about the reasonableness of God at all is Begging the Question, as though there was universal agreement on the existence of God, and now all that remained with to iron out a few of the remaining details. Please tell me who made that concession for the Atheists I know who haven’t yet been informed of their new position. Maybe we could send them festive cards. Stephanos: “Whatever your critique of Christian Theology (which does not make a thoroughgoing distinction between humanity and the animal world), it doesn't present us with the kind of gulf involved in believing that mad molecules made men with minds. (pardon the alliteration).” Bob: [i]Meet My Maker, The Mad Molecule, J.P. Donleavy ? The unconscious strikes again! Bob says, quote: Stephanos replies, quote: Stephanos: quote: Bob: I could have done so, but chose not to. I chose to have my own opinion. I chose to state that opinion, because I thought then and still think it was a reasonable one. And I choose to believe that I have as much right to state such an opinion here as anyone. It adds to the conversation, it is polite, and to state that there is no logical necessity for positing a Higher Power is a well recognized and reasonable position. It is not the same as saying, “NO,” despite your conflation of the two. If the thread was only open to people who were Deists, The Onion should have said so to Grinch on page one. If the thread has to do with objects of worship, adoration, or origins, and speaking of such is entirely proper to the discussion, then raising questions about such things and the necessity of their presence in a discussion of the universe is surely proper to the discussion as well. Bob |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: I still think you're demonstrating the popular secularized definition of "faith" whenever you talk about it, which goes something like this: believing what you know isn't true. But faith isn't belief contrary to evidence. It may however represent belief apart from strict empiricism, or belief apart from the possibility of simplistic verification. And since there are a host of such beliefs that you and I both hold without a shred of agnosticism, religious faith can be thought to fall within that same category. Consider C.S. Lewis' summary of Christian Faith: "... Reason may win truths; without faith she will retain them just so long as Satan pleases. There is nothing we cannot be made to believe or disbelieve. If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth." (From the essay "Religion: Reality or Substitute") This of course does not automatically exonerate all types and examples of "religious faith". It does however inform us that there are many motivations to doubt other than evidentiary. quote: I wasn't defending myself. I was pointing out that my argument was whether it was reasonable to think that impersonal nature made someone like yourself. Your reason-based argument (strangely) isn't that it is. Rather than answering "yes" or "no", you say that the ultimate reality may indeed be irrational, regardless of our own tryst with reason. And while this is possible in the barest sense of the word, I think it takes a person into a much more mystical position than the Christian answer, since it makes reason itself an accident or illusion. It undermines the deepest of our convictions and assumptions. It reminds me of Francis Schaeffer's statement that when Man loses God, he loses himself. I'm not saying that its never good to explore or question assumptions. But by making human life a sheer accident, we have a kind of clean sweep. I suppose I can be glad that you seem wise enough to doubt your doubts as well. And I do appreciate your earnest and thoughtful replies. quote: By mentioning the likes of Anthony Flew, C.S. Lewis (among other converts from professing atheism to theism), I am not making an appeal to majority. I am merely pointing out what my purpose and aim is: namely to encourage people who have seen something more than atheism, to pursue it. And also to suggest that Faith in God is reasonable. The difference between the two kinds of stories (as final choices) I will address below. quote: And so you have recognized the truth that beauty is hierarchical in nature. Moral beauty (ie showing compassion) is "more important" than physical beauty or comfort. Still beauty itself is a reality that goes beyond the molecules in your own cerebral cortex. Beauty (like God) is not proveable via strict empiricism, and that was my point. quote: Of course there is not universal agreement. But there are pervasive tendencies to believe in a "higher power". (cringe). For those who have thoroughly convinced and argued themselves out of a belief in God, I'm not sure that I have much to offer. But I can explain to you my belief about the universality of God's general revelation by referring to Paul's words in the book of Romans: " ... For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:18-22) This of course can be taken wrongly to mean that all men automatically know that Christianity is true. But then how could one make sense of Paul's own attitude and practice of evangelism and apologetics? In a much more general sense I think it asserts that everyone sees, at some point and in some fashion, some evidence for the reality of God even if only as the undefined "higher power". When Paul says they are "without excuse", I think he is referring to the responsibility of exploring or pursuing the inklings of God already possessed ... of seeking the truth. The reference to becoming "fools", may be insulting to those who have honest questions or doubts (and I do believe many do). I don't think Paul however is addressing that situation. How else could he write elsewhere to "be merciful to those who doubt" (Jude 1:22)? He is speaking of the end of a long process, and of final resolves: Either the intentional denial of a once seen conclusion, or the apathetic procrastination of beginning the expedition in light of insights (however fleeting) with religious implications. I know this view will not sit well with some, since every sure atheist insists on absolute integrity and objectivity in their denial. But I suspect that's the fixed gulf that must be between these two worldviews. I the deluded, and they the rebel. Kirkegaard wrote much about the subjective element of belief and unbelief. And I too think that while reason enters the picture, deeper realities are present as well falling along the lines of love, autonomy, shame, rebellion, and devotion. The kind of realities and motivators which Dostoevsky observed are quite "beyond" reason. quote: If you'll revisit my words here, you should see that I was not addressing your argument that "there is no logical necessity " for a higher power. (though again I think it is more accurate to say you are arguing that logic need not apply to the question at all) I was addressing your seeming suggestion that speaking of a "higher power" was somehow unsuited to the discussion. I was merely pointing out that that was (beyond dispute) the subject matter of the thread. Of course I guess in the philosophy forum nothing is "beyond dispute" . But Bob, I probably misunderstood you here. But what is indisputable to me is that your replies are polite and thoughtful. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
