(August 11, 2014 at 5:10 am)Michael Wrote: Pocaracas. You won't give me the satisfaction of backing up your accusation of dishonesty? Well, I have no interest in, and no respect for, ad hom argumentation and those that pursue it. I shall leave it there.

EVERY THEIST EVER: you guys only read the first sentence.

Whateverist,

In responding to your reply let me first say that I fully realise anything that I say following this could be wrong. I lay no claims to certainty; I am a much more faithful and hopeful Christian than a certain one.

Let me just add a few words of background as I realise that the child is frequently father to the adult, and so I think I would be missing something important by not acknowledging something of my childhood. I was brought up by non-believing parents who nevertheless sent me to Sunday school (whether that was because they thought it would do me good or because it gave them a couple of hours quiet time on a Sunday morning, I'm not entirely sure). So I learned the usual bible stories. I don't mind admitting that in my young teenage years I was very moved by the BBC series "Jesus of Nazareth" when it was first shown, and that inspired a child's faith in me that lasted until university days (I equally remember being inspired by Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' series when that was shown; I hope I'm always a person with catholic tastes). At university I became interested in other ways of seeing the world, and atheism seemed an attractive approach for a scientist to explore and embrace. This was in the days before the 'new atheism' and I struggled my way through Russell's 'Why I am not a Christian' which seemed to be the atheist bible of the day (a brilliant thinker but with none of the literary panache of Christopher Hitchens). So I settled into being what I and others called a 'freethinker' (this seemed to be to be cooler than simply being an atheist; it had more of a revolutionary feel to it, casting off the bondage of something or other, as if I were carrying on the spirit of 18th century France). Anyway, then followed a settled period of about 15 years of content atheism despite marrying a devout Catholic.

There is little much that can be said about the 'conversion experience' itself other than something led me to sit quietly in a church most days, and over the course of several weeks an increasing sense of the numinous developed that could not easily be ignored.

So you ask whether what I call 'God', or the numinous, could be within us; that we create God rather than vice versa. The short answer is 'yes' that could be the case. The Quakers sometimes talk of God as the 'Light within', which I think allows them more flexibility in allowing for God as either entirely internal or external. I have some sympathy with that view. But I don't go there myself.

What raised your question was my 'conversion experience' (albeit a rather undramatic one, simply sitting quietly with a growing sense of the numinous over several weeks). When thinking about that I am aware that since it happened I have had much time to reflect on it, and so I have a more formed view of things now than I had at the time. Your question certainly occurred to me at the time - could it all be being generated by my mind? And that led perhaps to the only clear decision I really made in the whole process. I remember thinking 'I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, and I'll see where that takes me'. In many ways that is still my approach, but 10 years on it has taken me on a journey that has been rewarding and life changing. I don't mean life changing in dramatic ways, but they have been significant to me. Perhaps the three things my youthful friends would notice is that I gave up the habit of drinking prodigious quantities of beer for a life of abstinence, I adopted vegetarianism (and am now mostly vegan) as part of trying to 'live more gently in a violent world' (as Jean Vanier describes Christian living), and I follow a monastic pattern of prayer as a lay member of a monastic community. So, for me, giving faith 'the benefit of the doubt' has led to a life that makes sense to me, and has been fulfilling. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that if I had taken the alternative path and given doubt the benefit, that it would have led anywhere particularly, other than an ever deepening solipsism. I suspect it would have not 'scratched the itch' that I had. And this is what I think Kierkegaard describes, but more dramatically in his own life, that when we reach a point where we find nothing is sure we either stay there with an ever-deepening sense of the futility of everything (as was the case for Nietzsche) or we take a leap and embrace something we cannot be certain of at the time (and, I suspect, can never be truly certain of).

That's a bit long-winded, but I suspect it still raises many more questions than it raises (I haven't talked much of the step from the sense of the numinous to Christian belief, for example). In essence, when confronted with the question of whether the sense of the numinous reflected the presence of a real numinous external to myself, I took a risk, said "let's assume this is real and see where it leads", and 10 years on it makes more sense now than it did at the time, feels less risky (though still uncertain), has challenged me and has led to what I look on as positive changes in my life, and has been immensely satisfying.

(August 11, 2014 at 5:27 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 5:10 am)Michael Wrote: Pocaracas. You won't give me the satisfaction of backing up your accusation of dishonesty? Well, I have no interest in, and no respect for, ad hom argumentation and those that pursue it. I shall leave it there.

EVERY THEIST EVER: you guys only read the first sentence.

ok, that was an over-generalization... my bad.

Statler Waldorf addresses every single point in a post, often leading to half an hour, or more, of me addressing his posts back.
Who else?.... hmmmm... can't think of any...


Anyway, Michael, if you had bothered to read past the first sentence, you would have seen I never did any ad hom argumentation.
An Ad hom is when I dismiss your argument, based on my perception of your persona. What I did was ask how can you live with the intellectual dishonesty which should arise from bridging your scientific self from your believer self.

But you're not going to read this... it's too far down the post... nvm

This topic is always thought provoking, I have a few points I'd like to raise, I apologise if they have already been raised as I've not managed to read through all the replies yet.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: A common belief is that religion is perfectly compatible with science. The argument I will put forth is that they are not reconcilable by rational means. It is philosophically possible for a person to be a scientist and religious, but it is not philosophically possible for a person's religious faith to be derived from the scientific method, and in fact it is antithetical to the very practice of science. That's not to say that a person cannot have rational arguments that are not demonstrable by the practice of science, but it is to say that his/her rational arguments fall in the realm of speculation, and unless one can demonstrate that the given rational argument is the best available--applying Occam's Razor--the simplest, most probable--that is, it coheres with the known facts (and apart from evoking the scientific method, one cannot meaningfully apply OR), then the argument cannot even claim to be speculative science--it is merely philosophical speculation, which history serves to conclude its worth: very little.

It is a common mistake for people to misuse Occam's Razor, as you have done here. Occam's Razor is a model of economy in method. It simply states that if a choice has to be made between competing hypothesises then the one with the least assumptions should be selected. Occam's Razor does not say this must (or even should) be the simplest nor is it an arbiter of what is 'most probable', that would be most unscientific.

Scientific data does not provide us with any absolute proof of future events, the perception that it does is a conceit most people buy into unknowingly, in fact it has become so ubiquitous as to be considered the norm. Scientific evidence is, by it's nature, historical. Empirical evidence is precisely documented records of historical events. Of course experiments can be repeatable and used to predict future events with considerable accuracy, but the fact it is probably going to repeat is not, in and of itself, empirical.

You can use statistics (in particular standard deviation) to demonstrate the level of uncertainty in these predictions, and it usually comes out exceptionally low, but it can never be zero.

All science is speculative to some degree.

On the issue of falsifiability, science has in history played fast and loose with this concept, it's only recently that it has become the new watchword of scientific theory. Two of the greatest theory papers in science were not falsifiable when published, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and Darwin's Theory of Evolution. They have since proved to be true but that was long after they were adopted by the scientific community at large.

Speculation is all we have about future events, no matter how small the uncertainty, it is still present. I don't want to denigrate how successful we have been as a species at utilising this and developing our knowledge about the Universe and technology, but we should never forget uncertainty underpins everything we think we know.

Science is a philosophy, historically it used to be called natural philosophy, a fact we seem to have conveniently forgotten.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 1. It is not philosophically possible for a person's religious faith to be derived from the scientific method, and in fact it is antithetical to the very practice of science.

The very definition of the scientific method demands evidence by which we can demonstrate a particular relation between the cause and effect we are making claim to.

This is a very odd sentence. Scientific method is a loosely branded collection of elements that not all scientists agree on.

Mass is a good example of how this falls down. Any reference to mass in a theory paper refers to an accepted standard, which is a kilogram of platinum-iridium kept in a laboratory in France. Seems fairly arbitrary and yet is considered a universal standard in most scientific papers. Any quantum physicist will tell you we don't actually know what mass is or where it comes from, although we do know it is linked to the speed of light and energy, hence E=MC2. When we talk about mass in most scientific papers we are talking about a characteristic of an entity that relates to a pre-set characteristic of a human-made object (namely the French kilo). In QP there is the relationship between mass and the speed of light, etc. but we still know very little about its cause.

I think your presentation of scientific method is over-simplified to justify your point and in that respect is misrepresentative.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The more evidence available, the more ways it can be tested under various conditions, the more precise our understanding of its relation to causes and effects, and the more certain we are of its scientific truth.

How certain we may or may not feel about these 'scientific truths' is an arbitrary philosophy. It has nothing to do with the scientific method at all.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The relation of cause and effect that lie at the heart of all religious claims, including purported miracles throughout history, cannot be verified in this manner whatsoever. The traditional arguments for God's existence ...

Sorry, got to jump in here. not all religions require a god, is this a argument against science and religion or science and god? These are two different debates. You seem to be conflating them.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: ... --Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological--all reply upon sophistic word games that pretend to be logical,

Exactly like science (see above).

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: all the while conflating definitions (for example, "causes" and "design"),

or 'religion and god' or 'scientific method and cause and effect'

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: utilized to apply to the Universe itself without any basis in science or philosophy (both of which must be grounded in our sensations in order to bear fruit).

Of course it's based in philosophy, it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. If a religious person tells you they 'feel' god what philosophy or science do you have that proves this wrong?

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 1) Observed causes and effects within space-time are instead turned on to space-time; this is conceptually messy and scientifically without basis. 2) Natural "design," which is best explained from the bottom up, through Darwinian principles of chance and necessity, with no apparent intentionality involved, is conflated with human design, which necessarily involves planning and purpose. The most we can say about the laws of the observable Universe which allow for Darwinian evolution to occur on certain planets in the Cosmos is that they began to exist. It is unscientific to suggest a cause outside of space-time unless we can hypothesize a mechanism by which this process may occur--a description of an existing state, a "meta"-law--one that requires less complexity than the thing we're trying to explain in the first place.

Here is a paper on spacetime as an emergent property and not a Universal constant a theory I have championed for a number of years(you can find it in my post about a One-Dimensional Universe).

Emergent Spacetime in Stochastically Evolving Dimensions

There are a number of theories on emergent spacetime and emergent gravity, and study in this area of physics is increasing.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: A being that acts outside of time is not less complex nor is it sensible to speak of action outside of time, hence time is either uncaused or eternal

Possibly neither, see above.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: --which many physicists have stated is not incompatible with the Big Bang theory if we differentiate between time in our Universe and something akin to meta-time which operates under a different set conditions, in other Universes; the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics could also best explain an eternal multiverse, though this is admittedly in the domain of speculative science.

I think you mean, Theoretical Science. All science is speculative (see above).

It is possible time simply did not exist. There is no Universal Law that prohibits this theory, in fact the known laws of physics are entirely consistent with a Universe full of nothing, no time, no space, no matter and no energy.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The Teleological argument fails in a similar way in that it presupposes the conclusion, which, instead of the nature of causality outside of space-time, is the nature of design, conflating human intentionality with the natural processes of matter and energy in motion.

Causality is itself a form of teleology. Inserting an artificial origin and terminus into a continuous process of energy in motion (matter and energy are interchangeable) is an intentional attempt at dissecting the universe into discrete measurable/observable chunks that fall between the arbitrary labels of 'cause' and 'effect'. You cannot escape it.

Scientific philosophy (and practice) requires the use of teleology, otherwise it cannot happen.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The difference between the description of natural laws, say, Genetics or Gravity, is that these are observed to be lawful causes that effect many different entities in motion, which result in a mind-blowing number of competing configurations, some appearing to us to serve a purpose while the overwhelming majority do not, hence resulting in their immediate demise (conversion into other forms of matter and energy that continue "stirring the pot"). "To us" is a very important phrase here as purpose can only be intelligibly applied to beings who think in such terms, beings that do not appear in the Universe, as far as we know, until perhaps roughly 200,000 years ago. If one minor change in the past 13.6 billion years could have effected my own personal existence as it inevitably does for many other entities that die out almost as soon as they appear, the configurations that matter and energy motion create can be called, based on observation, ostensibly random, not designed. At best, if determinism is true as far back as the initial moments in time are concerned, we can either re-orientate our preconceived ideas of matter and energy to weave intelligence directly into their fabric (which seems shaky on both scientific and philosophical grounds), or we can content ourselves with the methods we possess to continue investigating the nature of the Cosmos, with the hope that one of the many naturalistic theories will be better understood, and perhaps confirmed, through further testing of incoming, additional evidence, as our tools improve. In no way does this method or argument logically lead to a personal Creator God, nor any sovereign Being for that matter, as religions largely contend.

As demonstrated above, scientific endeavour itself is 'designed', it is an anthropocentric expression of our perceptions of the Universe.

I think determinism and indeterminism are misleading concepts, the Universe is today the only way it can be, it cannot have 'evolved' any other way (if it could it would have) and it will continue to 'evolve' the only way it can, but this is not Universal determinism. Humans cannot possibly perceive every quantum event in the Universe in order to establish if there is or is not a repeatable pattern, but this does not make it Universally indeterminate. We exist in a superposition of uncertainty, like Schrodinger's Cat on a macro scale, the only thing we achieve by attempting to sieve the Universe through one of these concepts is to destroy the other, which is nonsensical.

It is equally nonsensical to use these concepts as an argument for or against a god.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 2. That's not to say that a person cannot have rational arguments that are not demonstrable by the practice of science, but it is to say that his/her rational arguments fall in the realm of speculation, and unless one can demonstrate that the given rational argument is the best available--applying Occam's Razor--the simplest, most probable--that is, it coheres with the known facts (and apart from evoking the scientific method, one cannot meaningfully apply OR), then the argument cannot even claim to be speculative science--it is merely philosophical speculation, which history serves to conclude its worth: very little.

If God is nothing more than philosophical (rather than scientific) speculation, is it rational? Considering the incomprehensibility often attributed to this deity, the obvious answer is no. Incomprehensibility is not compatible with rationality, as rationality implies comprehension.

You clearly can comprehend a god, you are writing about it.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: If God is irrational, then we have gotten ourselves no where that the Universe herself could not have led us to (the whole point of arguments for God's existence is to rule out what are perceived as irrational alternatives). If God can be comprehended in some way and put forth in terms that one can intelligibly describe, is it the simplest explanation that Occam's Razor demands?

This is not what Occam's Razor means, see above. Even if it was, Occam's Razor is not an arbiter of what is reasonable.

This entire line of argument is based on a misrepresentation of Occam's Razor.

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: This question largely depends on what attributes our definition of God is required to meet. If existing outside of the known Universe is sufficient, than a fluctuating quantum vacuum can be called "God," though perhaps unfortunately (since it confuses the thousands of other entities humans have given the same title). If God requires the attributes traditionally ascribed to him by monotheists, then in no way is this a simple being--one who acts outside of time and space (and hence, causality), has full knowledge of all simultaneous and non-simultaneous events throughout history, an unimaginable number, and can do literally... anything, again a notion that creates a number of philosophical absurdities.

This is all supposition If ..., If ...

If the moon was cheese Apollo 11 would have taken crackers... so what?

(August 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: In short, religious faith and science are not compatible. Science demands that we not content ourselves until detailed descriptions of phenomena can be given; God is by nature an idea that is designed to elude such an investigation.

God is designed to elude such investigation, but that does not make it incompatible with science, just means it is beyond the enquiry of science, which - if I were a god - actually sounds like a godly quality to me.

MM

The issue of a god's existence is a not a purely philosophical question or abstract concept when that assertion naturally follows with the assertion is that everything is that being's creation. It's a question with real, physical implications.

"God did it" is not a valid answer to the scientific question "how did the universe come to exist". It can't be falsified, and as such, it is an answer with no explanatory value.

(August 11, 2014 at 9:47 am)ManMachine Wrote: God is designed to elude such investigation, but that does not make it incompatible with science, just means it is beyond the enquiry of science, which - if I were a god - actually sounds like a godly quality to me.

MM

Yes, it is, and very poorly so. Human beings really aren't all that good at imagining non-falsifiable things, or things which cannot be investigated (if not currently, than in-principle). We have no experience with that sort of thing, and so our lack of ability in this regard is understandable. I would add that it;s really only the apologists god that is designed this way, of course.

(August 11, 2014 at 11:18 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 9:47 am)ManMachine Wrote: God is designed to elude such investigation, but that does not make it incompatible with science, just means it is beyond the enquiry of science, which - if I were a god - actually sounds like a godly quality to me.

MM

Yes, it is, and very poorly so. Human beings really aren't all that good at imagining non-falsifiable things, or things which cannot be investigated (if not currently, than in-principle). We have no experience with that sort of thing, and so our lack of ability in this regard is understandable. I would add that it;s really only the apologists god that is designed this way, of course.

I would suggest that it is an anachronistic view to see the belief in the existence of God, or the 'design of God', as one which is trying to avoid investigation by science (or by other means). I would see the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, as much more of a 'sense-making' exercise of the history of the people who would become known as Jews.

(August 11, 2014 at 11:06 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: The issue of a god's existence is a not a purely philosophical question or abstract concept when that assertion naturally follows with the assertion is that everything is that being's creation. It's a question with real, physical implications.

"God did it" is not a valid answer to the scientific question "how did the universe come to exist". It can't be falsified, and as such, it is an answer with no explanatory value.

As far as scientific enquiry is concerned, I agree. But I'm not aware any religious person ever stating god was the answer to any scientific enquiry. God has been presented often as an alternative, but that's a different debate.

MM

---

(August 11, 2014 at 11:29 am)Michael Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 11:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, it is, and very poorly so. Human beings really aren't all that good at imagining non-falsifiable things, or things which cannot be investigated (if not currently, than in-principle). We have no experience with that sort of thing, and so our lack of ability in this regard is understandable. I would add that it;s really only the apologists god that is designed this way, of course.

I would suggest that it is an anachronistic view to see the belief in the existence of God, or the 'design of God', as one which is trying to avoid investigation by science (or by other means). I would see the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, as much more of a 'sense-making' exercise of the history of the people who would become known as Jews.

Historically I think that is very true, but we are a long way (historically and theologically speaking) from that particular god.

MM

I'm not so sure we are so far from that God, MM. I think it is that God (the god of the patriarchs) many people relate to and discover across the ages. Take, for example, the enslaved negroes. On the one hand it's amazing that they embraced so enthusiastically the religious texts of their enslavers, but on the other hand you can see how they found such great resonance and hope in the enslavement and the emancipation of the Hebrews, and that is without even the hope of ultimate freedom promised in the New Testament scriptures. I take your point (I think it was your point) that the God of the apologist often comes across as different (somewhat slippery perhaps?), but I don't think that is the God most people find. But I must admit to a rather jaded view of apologists (with the exception of C.S.Lewis) even though they are supposed to be on 'my side'.

(August 11, 2014 at 8:00 am)Michael Wrote: So you ask whether what I call 'God', or the numinous, could be within us; that we create God rather than vice versa. The short answer is 'yes' that could be the case. The Quakers sometimes talk of God as the 'Light within', which I think allows them more flexibility in allowing for God as either entirely internal or external. I have some sympathy with that view. But I don't go there myself.

Just to be clear, I don't mean that we consciously invent God or that God is the result of a choice we make. My idea is that God is prior to our sense of self and is responsible for the possibility of who we take ourselves to be. What I have in mind would be true whether or not one 'believes in' God or not; it isn't up to us any more than we decide during our time in the womb whether to go through transformations which cause us to resemble other creatures before finally emerging human.

I believe there is a totality of the 'self', for the lack of a better word, which includes our rational mind or ego but is not limited to that. One can live his entire life without regard to anything beneath the surface and either find satisfaction or not. But I also value the power of silence and an interest in what comes if I leave space for it. I have a high regard for the mystery that makes possible what we are and try to remain open to it. I just don't call it God and I don't anthropomorphize it.