On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:46:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Not so much that they're too unlikely, but that they are vague enough
>> as to take anything that fits the criteria and say "well, it happened,
>> so therefore it wasn't improbable enough".  See the difference?
> 
> That's what science is for. And statistics. Generally speaking, it's
> *possible* quantum particles could randomly come into existence in the
> shape of a living, breathing Jesus. Unlikely enough I'd attribute it to
> something else, tho.

Exactly; because your belief is that such a thing is unlikely, so there 
must be a rational (within your frame of reference) explanation for it 
that you're just not seeing.

> It's *possible* that all cancer world-wide spontaneously disappears a
> week after Pat Robertson gets on TV and tells people to pray for that.
> Again, statistically unlikely.
> 
> Yes, I could play the games that religious people play defending their
> faith, but I wouldn't.

So if something were to occur that you couldn't put a scientific 
explanation to, you'd accept that your view was wrong that there isn't a 
god?  I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...

>> Sure, but none of that particularly implies rapture.
> 
> I wasn't trying to be 100% precise, because I have no expectation on any
> reward for my efforts. I don't expect my proof to materialize, and I
> don't expect religious people to respect or understand my atheism any
> more regardless of how precise I am.

That's the rub, innit?  

>> it could well be said that the rest of us are in hell and those few
>> were saved.
> 
> Then this turns into a pretty silly argument, doesn't it? :-)

For you or me, sure.  But you and I don't have the monopoly on 
perspectives that make sense to people, either.  Maybe God told them that 
the perception was right; just because it was a personal experience for 
them doesn't make it less valid just because we didn't see it happen (or 
aren't privy to the "facts").  Of course, you and I are more likely to 
just call BS and move on.
 
>>> I'll personally disagree on this one. Sometimes, you're just f'ed, and
>>> that's necessary for a free society.
>> 
>> Perhaps, but you'll note that I didn't say it was government's role,
>> but society's role.  I think an important part of a decent society is
>> to recognize bad things happening and to say "hey, that's bad" and to
>> do something about it.
> 
> Do something about it with force? You're describing government.

Not exactly, no.

For example, I've a cousin who "kidnapped" his granddaughter because the 
situation she was living in was reportedly abusive.  They were attempting 
to adopt, and the mother (his daughter) decided after all that she didn't 
want to give her daughter up but instead keep her in the allegedly 
abusive situations.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.  From what I know of the 
situation, he did "the right thing", but he did go to jail for what he 
did.

>> That is why, as a society, we have laws.
> 
> I understand. I think it would be a bad law to let the government decide
> what's best for your own children.

I agree; but it's not about government making that decision.  It's about 
decent people like you and me seeing something bad happening to someone 
and doing something about it instead of standing by and saying "gee, 
sucks to be you."

>> second, that God missed.
> 
> <punchline> God damn it, I missed. </punchline>
>
> Heh.

<G>  Though I think it would've been "Me damn it, I missed".

> Plus, of course, an event of size one is really not something easy to
> analyze statistically.

Absolutely.  And that's the fallacy that many who use single events to 
prove (or disprove) something fall into.

>> Statistically speaking, all of those events are quite improbable, yet
>> it happened.
> 
> Statistics doesn't apply to one event, generally speaking. Everything
> that actually happens is 100% probably. :-)

Well, true enough - because the event already happened.  But the 
statistical likelihood of it happening prior to actually happening is 
what I was referring to.

> Is it miraculous that I roll 10 6's in a row? No. Is it miraculous that
> I can do it on demand without cheating? Sure.
> 
> You can't look at an event that already happened, and say "gee, that was
> really unlikely, so something must be up." Basic rule of statistics.

Exactly.  Which is why an event or series of events that have happened 
(as opposed to "if they do happen") is unlikely to prove that God exists 
to anyone - because if they do happen, then they were statistically 
likely to happen and all the information necessary to make that 
determination just wasn't in yet.

>> Agreed, because belief isn't logical.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be
>> belief, it'd be fact-based.
> 
> Well, it isn't (in my experience) logical, but it's also not scientific.
> The two are somewhat different.

Somewhat different, but strongly related.

>>> There's also the other fun kinds of conversations: "Do you believe in
>>> Life After Death?"
>>>     "Sure."
>>> "Then you *are* religious."
>>>     "No, why would you say that? Can't there be LaD without God?"
>> 
>> Heh, yes, that's true enough.  (The "fun conversation" aspect, not the
>> content).
> 
> If you like that sort of stuff, read some Greg Egan works. I'd recommend
> Permutation City for a start, or his Axiomatic short-story collection.

I'll add that to my list as well.  :-)

>>> And it constantly amazes me the number of people who try to support
>>> religion by pretending organization of structure is unimportant. That
>>> there must be some physical "thing" that represents the difference
>>> between a live person and a dead person, beyond how the parts are
>>> positioned.
>> 
>> Well, some people do seem to have the need to think "there's got to be
>> more to it than what I see", and I don't have a problem with that up to
>> the point that they try to convince me that if I just studied harder/
>> prayed harder/did whatever they do, it'd be revealed to me as well. 
>> I've got my own understanding of the universe based - I think like
>> yours - around what I can observe or logically infer from what I
>> observe.
> 
> Well, yes. But what I was trying to say is, I see many arguments along
> the lines that the soul must exist because there's no physical
> difference between the chemicals in a live body and in a dead body. Yet
> these same people will cheerfully ask you to install the operating
> system on their new blank hard drive. :)

LOL, now *that* made me laugh out loud.

Jim

Post a reply to this message