I love religion!

[Purple Rabbit]

Hmmm. In fact with this stance I think you have a more restrictive approach than I have. You're assuming a dichotomy between that what exists and that what can be thought. And most of us accept this dicotomy as truth. I accept it myself as the most probable model of reality but leave open the possibility that some evidence in the future might lead to other conclusions. Like in The Matrix we cannot be 100% of such a dichotomy. I leave open the possibility that deductive reasoning some time in the future might lead us to conclude that something necessarily exists. IMO however it is not possible to conclude conclusively from deductional proof that things in reality either exists or don't exist. BTW, this touches on a subject that interests me much, the relation between mathematics and reality.

No, I’m not assuming that dichotomy. What I mean is that you can’t define something into existence, in the same way you can’t define it into non-existence. For example, I have seen it argued many times that if God is all loving and all knowing, then why does He allow evil. This then leads into semantic tricks, flaws, and so on. However, the fact that people define ‘God’ one way, and then others find contradictions does not then necessitate that a deity does not exist. Off the top of my head, it’s kind of like me asserting that black holes are pink, and because there are no pink black holes, then they don’t exist. Crap example I know, but you see what I mean? A deity could exist regardless of people’s ideas that it has to be omnibenevolent. That sort of thing is fine when dealing with literalist interpretations of religious ideas, but I don’t feel is satisfactory in the broader sense.

I see what you mean. The thing is that the word "god" as a container for every possible and impossible god concept and a particular well defined "god" often switch role in debate. If you have shown the illogic of the latter there is always the hideout of the former. That's why any debate on god should start with a complete definition.

The bit you said after I am in agreement with. I mean, it was (as far as I know) deductively worked out that black holes should exist, or that there is a tenth (now ninth I guess, poor old Pluto) planet which is causing gravitational pull on other things of mass. Maths isn’t my strong point sadly, but I’d be interested to hear your ideas on the relation of mathematics and reality, so much so I think it’ll like a bit with the next bit.

...

What I meant by symbols and codified language was that there are specific ideas related to words being used, and that they refer to quite abstract ideas that are not immediately comprehensible by normal usage of language. To relate to your interest in mathematics; if we had a conversation about advanced mathematics I would get lost very quickly, you would have to explain various phrases to me, and I’d have to understand their definition, context, etc. in order that we had a meaningful discussion. Once you get into abstract mathematics it becomes purely logical and you are dealing with ideas the average person does not understand the intricacies of. I could not hold an equal discussion about quantum physics with a physics graduate, that’s just the nature of it.

Now, regarding theology, the word ‘god’ has a lot of baggage and people bring with them their own preconceptions, some of which may or may not be entirely accurate. I have seen people in discussions simply lump the Muslim concept of Allah and the Hindu concept of Brahman together, and then dismiss them both as the same thing. This comparison just is not accurate, and it’s like comparing Zeus with the Tao, when they are totally different ideas.

Comparing popular Bible study with abstract theology is like me comparing the times tables with Lefschetz hyperplane theorem.

I think you're referring to Lifschitz there. The point is that all the codification and symbol manipulation activity in the case of religion has been done without the reality check of empirical evidence. In most cases it simply has been done to arrive at a preset conclusion called dogma. Theology is the one discipline at universities that indeed glorifies dogmatic thinking as a sound intellectual activity about reality. It is all special pleading. No matter how intricate and sophisticated the result may appear. In mathematics on the other hand assumptions are not intentionally made to reflect anything about reality. Its application to reality is part of the scientific method and is only granted when it demonstrably helps to build a better model of reality with which it is possible to better explain, predict and detail.

Also what you're saying about popular bible study means that the biggest scam on earth walks free without interference of so called serious theology. That is telling. Theology is not concerned with the best possible truth but only with the biggest possible herd of followers.

My interest is not in trying to find some sort of spiritual truth, but is just a general interest in our species, its history and its ideas. I see what you are saying, but religious ideas do have an impact on reality, as people act on them. It is reality for them, whether or not it is for me also.

I agree religion is an interesting subject since it motivates people to act in certain ways. In that respect the religious ideas their origin and interprtation are both interesting and relevant.