Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree and you have missed my point. The quantum mechanics interpretations to which I referred are not hypotheses, they're theoretical interpretations and mathematical models that have been devised in order to make sense of the available empirical evidence gathered from observations and experiments, such as the "double slit experiment", for example.

You're quite free to disagree, but you'll need more than feelings for that disagreement to have any teeth, won't you? Just how has "sense" been made? That's right, reason was applied.

I have presented examples (such as in post 130 on page 13), in which I have demonstrated that there are some areas where pure rationalism requires supplementation.

I saw no such examples. How would you have demonstrated them anyway? What if I just felt that you didn't - that would be the end of it, wouldn't it, because I feel so? No, no, by your choice of words and argument, and by your willingness to have a conversation about these things I think you also prefer reason. I'm just wondering where else "supplementation" may be required - as it hasn't been required in any of these places you mentioned - and at what point you'll get around to doing any supplementing (or making the case for it-or how you'll go about doing that, without staining the whole bit with reason)

[Aractus]

Ok Love, I'm not going through this entire thread, but I gather that most of questions are from atheists. This is what concerns me about your perception of Christianity:

I think I had an extremely simplistic view of Christianity when I was an atheist. I thought what most atheists think, such as refuting the idea that Christ died for our sins and denying the historicity of the resurrection. After studying the history of Christian theology, I now know that these core ideas, in popular denominations such as Catholicism, are simply theological interpretations of the significance of the life and death of Jesus. I do not believe that his crucifixion signifies a redemptive sacrifice for our sins; this is a ridiculous concept to me. I am also a skeptic concerning the historicity of the resurrection. However, I firmly believe that Jesus' consciousness was divine and that his life was vastly more important than his death; just consider how profound an impact his life has had on civilisation as a whole. I also believe that The Bible is not particularly important.

Tell me - why should I, an Anglican, not think of you as a heretic?

Why don't we work our way through the obvious then.

If Christ's crucifixion doesn't represent a redemptive sacrifice - then what was its purpose, and furthermore, what is its significance to a Christian?

The resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Gospels, in Acts, and Paul also talks about it. The risen Christ also meets people and talks to people, including Paul. This would be impossible if Jesus truly died at the cross and was not resurrected. You are therefore lead to the conclusion that the Bible is not accurate, at least inasmuch as the details of Christ's death is concerned. This isn't a unique sceptical viewpoint, in fact many have it. What is interesting though is that there is a clear lack of evidence for: a. a forgery, or b. a different version of the story. This can be attributed to the fact that of the more than 5,000 manuscript copies of the NT in Greek, there is little doubt over what the original texts said, and the little doubt that there is does in no way concern anything fundamental to the faith including the resurrection of Jesus. In other words, it wasn't added, nothing was subtracted, and the text that we have while it may not be 100.00% identical to the original papyrus versions it is very, very close.

You dismiss the Bible almost as if there is clear evidence of either intentional tampering or as if those who wrote it were unconcerned with getting the details right and more concerned with pushing their own agendas. If this was the case then it's difficult to accept that 27 separate Greek books in addition to 49 Hebrew books were accepted as canon. And don't think for a moment that the OT canon was any different to what the Palestinian Jews used in the first century - because it isn't. To claim otherwise is an absurdity since there is no evidence to back up the position, and all the evidence that we have points to the Jewish scriptures being the same 49 books (22 scrolls) that we have today.

---

These are all very good points. I am presently of the opinion that human beings are ultimately limited in terms of being able to comprehend extremely counter intuitive ideas. For example, even quantum physicists / theoretical physicists have trouble coming to terms with concepts such as "wave/particle duality" or even Everett's "many worlds interpretation" of quantum theory. As Dawkins has quoted Richard Feynman on a number of occasions: "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". Although this will be seen as a "cowardly cop out" by some members, I truly believe that there are some things that are completely beyond our comprehension; call it intellectual humility. I think God is one of those areas that is completely beyond our grasp. Just like the idea that nothing existed before the emergence of time; it is beyond our intellectual grasp. What I sense, however, is that the "panentheistic transcendent consciousness" is the source of life, morality and love et cetera.

Physics is an invention of humanity, as is mathematics. Anything invented by humans can be understood by humans, and quantum mechanics is no different. It is almost embarrassingly easy to understand, the difficulty it has is in the fact that it (GASP) represents an invented model of the substructure of the universe, so obviously you cannot actually explain everything in the universe by it. The notion that "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory" is nonsense, QM is far, far, far, far easier to understand than General Relativity - because for the most part QM mimics what we see at the scale of classic mechanics, for the most part it follows the standard Newtonian model. There is nothing special, nothing "beyond comprehension" about a mathematical model invented by humans, nothing whatsoever.

As for the universe itself, that's a-whole-nother matter.

[Love]

Tell me - why should I, an Anglican, not think of you as a heretic?

In this thread, I have already stated on several occasions that I consider myself to be a heretic.

If Christ's crucifixion doesn't represent a redemptive sacrifice - then what was its purpose, and furthermore, what is its significance to a Christian?

Well, I view the crucifixion from a historical perspective. The Roman Empire used this method of execution regularly during the period in which Jesus was tortured. Its significance to orthodox Christians is due to its theological interpretation, to which most Christians subscribe because of The Bible. Also, have you never asked yourself the following question? What kind of an omnibenevolent God would use horrendous sacrifice and torture in order to redeem the human situation? There is no getting around it, this would be an extremely "evil" God. Redemptive sacrifice is just an absolutely ridiculous and hideous concept to me.

The resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Gospels, in Acts, and Paul also talks about it. The risen Christ also meets people and talks to people, including Paul. This would be impossible if Jesus truly died at the cross and was not resurrected. You are therefore lead to the conclusion that the Bible is not accurate, at least inasmuch as the details of Christ's death is concerned.

I just do not count The Bible as valid historical evidence. The Bible is a collection of what I consider to be mythical narratives; The Bible is theological and cannot be counted as historical evidence. I am far more interested in Jesus as a human person, his consciousness and the impact he had on people's lives around him from a historical perspective. John Shelby Spong works very closely with PhD historians who have studied Jesus of Nazareth, and he, like myself, believes that Jesus was a "one off" and really did have a very special type of consciousness and charisma that had the capacity to transform the lives of those around him. That's why his followers believed that they experienced "all that God is" whilst in his presence.

Physics is an invention of humanity, as is mathematics. Anything invented by humans can be understood by humans, and quantum mechanics is no different. It is almost embarrassingly easy to understand, the difficulty it has is in the fact that it (GASP) represents an invented model of the substructure of the universe, so obviously you cannot actually explain everything in the universe by it. The notion that "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory" is nonsense, QM is far, far, far, far easier to understand than General Relativity - because for the most part QM mimics what we see at the scale of classic mechanics, for the most part it follows the standard Newtonian model. There is nothing special, nothing "beyond comprehension" about a mathematical model invented by humans, nothing whatsoever.

Physics is not an invention of humanity, and whether or not mathematics was invented is still an ongoing discussion in the philosophy of mathematics. Physics, once termed "natural philosophy", is a field of study used by human beings to understand the fundamental laws of nature. Fundamental to the scientific method, physicists not only use mathematics, they also formulate hypotheses, make predictions and test whether or not the real world reflects the predictions made in the hypothesis. In essence, the real goal in contemporary science is to try and disprove a theory; if it cannot be disproved, this strengthens the validity of the current theory. For example, biologists have tried to disprove evolution by natural selection hundreds of times, but every attempt has failed thus far.

I think you need to display some humility. It is rather arrogant and pretentious to state that quantum mechanics is "embarrassingly easy to understand", unless, of course, you're an absolute genius in the fields of mathematics and theoretical physics. Quantum mechanics is notoriously difficult to understand, even to Nobel laureates who have/had worked in the field all of their lives, like Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, for example. Are you claiming that you find quantum mechanics easier to understand than these individuals? If so, I think you are delusional.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Ok Love, I'm not going through this entire thread, but I gather that most of questions are from atheists. This is what concerns me about your perception of Christianity:

I think I had an extremely simplistic view of Christianity when I was an atheist. I thought what most atheists think, such as refuting the idea that Christ died for our sins and denying the historicity of the resurrection. After studying the history of Christian theology, I now know that these core ideas, in popular denominations such as Catholicism, are simply theological interpretations of the significance of the life and death of Jesus. I do not believe that his crucifixion signifies a redemptive sacrifice for our sins; this is a ridiculous concept to me. I am also a skeptic concerning the historicity of the resurrection. However, I firmly believe that Jesus' consciousness was divine and that his life was vastly more important than his death; just consider how profound an impact his life has had on civilisation as a whole. I also believe that The Bible is not particularly important.

Tell me - why should I, an Anglican, not think of you as a heretic?

Because you would first have to identify the heresy as a minimum. The definition of heresy and you as an Anglican would require the Anglican dogma to which the heresy is contrary to. It would also help to refer this to the long history of Anglican heresy trials assuming there have ever been any.

Why don't we work our way through the obvious then.

If Christ's crucifixion doesn't represent a redemptive sacrifice - then what was its purpose, and furthermore, what is its significance to a Christian?

Upon what basis do you assume it has any significance at all? ALL the theological interpretations I have come across say it is only the death. The cross is just production values. Death in bed of old age satisfies the theology. Even if one wants pain and suffering bone cancer would beat an abbreviated crucifixion of hours instead of days. Actual death from suffocation instead of an unexplained quick death in three hours hardly qualifies as suffering a crucifixion at all.

...
You dismiss the Bible almost as if there is clear evidence of either intentional tampering or as if those who wrote it were unconcerned with getting the details right and more concerned with pushing their own agendas.

One most reasonably dismisses the bible because the authors are unknown and therefore of unknown character and integrity. They have not more credibility than any random person on the street who also goes unnamed and is of unknown character. Except for GLuke there is no suggestion as to why they were written. Thus there is no reason to assume there was ever any intent to include truthful content in any of the excluded or included books.

If this was the case then it's difficult to accept that 27 separate Greek books in addition to 49 Hebrew books were accepted as canon.

As there is NO RECORD of why any of the books were included and mention of a reason for excluding only one of the 46 gospels that is not even an argument.

And don't think for a moment that the OT canon was any different to what the Palestinian Jews used in the first century - because it isn't.

We are also even back to your claim of 24 Hebrew bible books against Josephus saying there are only 22 holy books among the Judeans. Obviously there was a two book difference and of course we have no knowledge of the remaining 22 being the same in both cases.

To claim otherwise is an absurdity since there is no evidence to back up the position, and all the evidence that we have points to the Jewish scriptures being the same 49 books (22 scrolls) that we have today.

Only if one tries to claim 22 (down from your original 24) scrolls equals 49 books by magical handwaving (gesture magic) does that statement even approach making a lick of sense.

[/quote]

---

These are all very good points. I am presently of the opinion that human beings are ultimately limited in terms of being able to comprehend extremely counter intuitive ideas. For example, even quantum physicists / theoretical physicists have trouble coming to terms with concepts such as "wave/particle duality" or even Everett's "many worlds interpretation" of quantum theory. As Dawkins has quoted Richard Feynman on a number of occasions: "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". Although this will be seen as a "cowardly cop out" by some members, I truly believe that there are some things that are completely beyond our comprehension; call it intellectual humility. I think God is one of those areas that is completely beyond our grasp. Just like the idea that nothing existed before the emergence of time; it is beyond our intellectual grasp. What I sense, however, is that the "panentheistic transcendent consciousness" is the source of life, morality and love et cetera.

Physics is an invention of humanity, as is mathematics. Anything invented by humans can be understood by humans, and quantum mechanics is no different.[/quote]

While rulers and inches are a human invention describing distance, distance is not a human invention. Neither is what physics describes a human invention. What physics describes DOES happen. The manner in which physics expresses it has no merit beyond making correct predictions. Same for math. The same for chemistry and biology and the rest of the sciences.

It is almost embarrassingly easy to understand, the difficulty it has is in the fact that it (GASP) represents an invented model of the substructure of the universe, so obviously you cannot actually explain everything in the universe by it.

No one has ever claimed physics will ever lead to a complete view. In this context it is mere juxtaposed to the believers as being better than total ignorance of the universe. Dare I say even god-like ignorance when looking at the ignorance Yahweh expresses?

The notion that "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory" is nonsense, QM is far, far, far, far easier to understand than General Relativity

As you understand neither how would you know? For the record I read Einstein's little red book on GR back in high school. He proved his claim he could explain what he was doing to a child.

- because for the most part QM mimics what we see at the scale of classic mechanics, for the most part it follows the standard Newtonian model. There is nothing special, nothing "beyond comprehension" about a mathematical model invented by humans, nothing whatsoever.

As for the universe itself, that's a-whole-nother matter.

It is better to remain silent and thought a fool ...

[Love]

The "brain-as-receiver" model seems problematic to me for several reasons:

It doesn't really provide any explanation for what consciousness is or how it works (other than that it's "out there" "somewhere" transmitting to brains somehow).

Again, I am not a qualified professional in this field (consciousness studies), nor have I studied it at academic level, but it is an area in which I am very interested.

At present, the leading reductionist models of consciousness are in the field of neuroscience, and the hardware used has its roots in nuclear medicine. As explained in one of my earlier posts, all that has been observed thus far includes the identification of certain neural correlates with the use of neuroscience/nuclear medicine hardware such as a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner. Cristoph Koch, a Geman professor of biology, is one of the leading experts in this field.

Like the field of quantum mechanics, in which there are 25 different interpretations of the available due its intrinsic complexity, consciousness is very similar in that the current scientific evidence available is very much open to subjective interpretation, hence the reason why science still has absolutely no idea what consciousness is, let alone explaining how it works.

Here is a very interesting video clip on the subject of whether or not consciosuness is definable, in which Koch makes a contribution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMaURchT0XQ

The "blind pitiless indifference" of the Cosmos in general is still a fact whether or not any deities exist. Just ask the dinosaurs. Or anyone who has a child with leukemia. I do not see how gods change the situation. If a god or goddess shows up and says, "Behold! The meaning and purpose of your lives is to [spread the Gospel and convert/kill the heathens!] [be excellent to each other!] [colonize the solar system and spread to the stars!] [insert preferred meaning/purpose here]!" all that does is give us the deity's opinion. And what about the deity? A monotheistic god in particular has no deity of its own to tell it what the meaning and purpose of its life is, provide it with moral guidance, etc. It's an atheist! Again, this is just kicking the can down the road, not providing actual answers to existential questions.

I disagree with this. I believe in absolutely morality and the concept of good versus evil, for example. I really think it is extremely difficult to think of God in conceptual terms (I struggle with this); I simply choose to experience God through transcendental consciousness. Thinking of God in rational terms will just instantly turn you into an atheist, which is exactly what happened to me. However, after reading about epistemology and Kant's transcendental argument (peruse "Critique of Pure Reason"), it made me think about these concepts in much more depth.

Well, this is interesting. At least, this approach offers the virtue of repeatability under controlled conditions. I have done a lot of reading (and a little experimentation *cough*) in this area. So far, the realm of psychedelic experience is IMO "the last, best hope" for a serious challenge to my current world view. Unfortunately our ability to systematically and scientifically explore this terrain is severely constrained at the present time. However, the "trip reports" I'm aware of vary quite a bit, and not all of them support monotheism, or even necessarily "theism" as commonly understood.

Are you willing to divulge the substances with which you experimented? I am tee-total at present and will be for the foreseeable future. I despise alcohol and tobacco and have no interest in taking these or any other purely hedonistic drugs ever again; however, I do not rule out the distinct possibility that I will use psychedelics in the future (any of "the big four": mescaline, DMT, LSD and mushroom) for further consciousness exploration. I have yet to try mescaline, so this is the first on my list if I do, indeed, decide to indulge. This will certainly not be before I have completed my PhD, though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Transcendental arguments made you "think more deeply" about these things and had some effect on the status of your beliefs? I'd love to hear that chestnut.
(you're familiar with the problems of this sort of argument from the outset, yes?)

[Love]

Transcendental arguments made you "think more deeply" about these things and had some effect on the status of your beliefs? I'd love to hear that chestnut.
(you're familiar with the problems of this sort of argument from the outset, yes?)

It made me question the scope of reason. Prior to which, I simply accepted that reason accounts for everything. To my dismay, I discovered that things are not actually that simple and rosey in the totality of the human experience.

Please enlighten me on the "problems" that you have with this type of argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

It made me question the scope of reason. Prior to which, I simply accepted that reason accounts for everything. To my dismay, I discovered that things are not actually that simple and rosey in the totality of the human experience.

Please enlighten me on the "problems" that you have with this type of argument.

Accounts for everything? Well, that's a rather strange way to perceive reason, I think. Regardless of whether or not it can account for everything we're still stuck with the trouble of trying to account for -anything- without it. I've never, personally, felt that reason offered such a comprehensive accounting of all things (what would that even mean, unknowns unknowns and all) - but it does offer a very apt description of the manner in which we seem to be capable of competently considering things. If it cannot be reasoned - it is nigh impossible to conceive of, nigh impossible to discuss. This is probably why so many "unreasonable" propositions are -rationalized-. Whether that has to do with "reason" or the limits of the human mind I suppose would be a matter of opinion (I prefer the latter).

As to the problems, depends on the specific of what you offer, though loosely, transcendental arguments are always subject to objections of experience (and here again, we see your preference for reason btw..when do I get to see the "un-reason" stuff? You keep mentioning it, implying that it's useful, but what it is, where it applies, and how it's useful remains a mystery - you seem content to simply attempt to erode some other position via use of their position by-the-by,- rather than establish your own).

[Kayenneh]

I'm just gonna helicopter in and give my 2 cents:

If anyone is religious and for doing as much good for mankind as possible without as much dogma as possible, I definitely prefer that to the other kinds of religious nutcases.

Carry on!

[Love]

Accounts for everything? Well, that's a rather strange way to perceive reason, I think. Regardless of whether or not it can account for everything we're still stuck with the trouble of trying to account for -anything- without it. I've never, personally, felt that reason offered such a comprehensive accounting of all things (what would that even mean, unknowns unknowns and all) - but it does offer a very apt description of the manner in which we seem to be capable of competently considering things. If it cannot be reasoned - it is nigh impossible to conceive of, nigh impossible to discuss. This is probably why so many "unreasonable" propositions are -rationalized-. Whether that has to do with "reason" or the limits of the human mind I suppose would be a matter of opinion (I prefer the latter).

I should not have used the word "everything" as it comes across as a sweeping generalisation. What I actually meant by "everything" is as follows: I believed that the scope of reason and logic is comprehensive enough to account for the entirety of external universal existence and internal subjective experience, including making sense of love and morality et cetera. Ultimately, I lost my "faith" in my perception that reason is all encompassing, and started to become heavily interested in philosophy (epistomology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics). I would like to you ask you a question: do you think it is possible to have conscious "awareness" of something without conceptualising it from a rationalist perspective? I predict that your answer will be "no". By this, I mean the kind of state at which one arrives during transcendental meditation.

As to the problems, depends on the specific of what you offer, though loosely, transcendental arguments are always subject to objections of experience (and here again, we see your preference for reason btw..when do I get to see the "un-reason" stuff? You keep mentioning it, implying that it's useful, but what it is, where it applies, and how it's useful remains a mystery - you seem content to simply attempt to erode some other position via use of their position by-the-by,- rather than establish your own).

Could you please reframe this paragraph because I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.