On 4/24/2011 9:04 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Anyway, I was saying the *religious* people wouldn't even believe it,
> not the atheists.
>
Worse than that. The religious people would, in many cases, dispense 
with crucifying the next one, they would just flat out try to kill them, 
having concluded that this "god" didn't fit their preconception of what 
god was supposed to look/act like. A few of the real right wing nuts 
even said as much themselves.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 4:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Also, at the end, when God is revealed, two of the seven virtues are to
>> disappear from the world: hope& belief, because they won't be possible
>> any more.
>
> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
> that backwards.
>
Why would you need to "believe", if you have evidence? Its even one of 
the arguments some theologians use for what is "valuable" about 
religious faith.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 9:06 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/23/2011 22:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure, but that's different than when it comes to religion.
>
> I was citing it more as a cause, you see. For so long people have been
> persecuted for heresy that maybe it has just become a normal part of
> culture to avoid discussing it.
>
Goes beyond that. Even bringing up the subject in the US in the wrong 
places/situations results in people screaming that you are persecuting 
them, and most of the rest of the people in the room jumping to defend 
them (even if they don't share the same faith). Its almost like, among 
some Christians, there is a *need* to be persecuted. And, in fact, for 
the "end of timers", this is a requirement. If they acknowledged that 
they are actually a) over privileged, b) over protected, c) more 
powerful than most other groups, d) more numerous, etc., their entire 
theological position that the end of times is coming that the first sign 
of it being increased persecution of their faith, simply wouldn't be 
true at all.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 16:48, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Why would you need to "believe", if you have evidence?

I believe I'm sitting in a chair. I believe you are an actual person.

Belief doesn't disappear. Baseless belief disappears.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 16:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing at
> god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they "are"
> god in any real sense.

 > There isn't a lot of room for someone coming up with evidence.

If you hven't read Robert Sawyer's "Calculating God" novel, I highly 
recommend it. It's basically a story involving finding scientific evidence 
of a creator of the universe, without it actually contradicting what we know 
scientifically. (I.e., it's not just "god is lying to us" sorts of things.)

Very thought-provoking.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:43:25 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> I believe that God created the rules of science so ultimately science
> won't contradict God.

Then who created God?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:06:11 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 22:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure, but that's different than when it comes to religion.
> 
> I was citing it more as a cause, you see. For so long people have been
> persecuted for heresy that maybe it has just become a normal part of
> culture to avoid discussing it.

Yeah, but it's gone to the point where (as Patrick seems to say) that now 
whenever someone asks questions about religion, there is an immediate 
reaction of "you're persecuting me!".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:00:05 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?
> 
> yes

Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?  I still 
find that quite unusual.

>> I find that *highly* unusual.
> 
> I don't think it is, I just say it. No matter what evidence they come up
> with (other than the person/thing itself, see below) I would always
> assume that they made a mistake or used a false assumption, even if I
> didn't see immediately what was wrong.

I have to admit that for me it would take something pretty solid, 
something where I might be inclined to assume that there was a mistake or 
a false assumption, but until such was proven to exist, I wouldn't really 
have a reason not to rationally concede that God exists.

>>> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between
>>> them and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So
>>> I am defending the truth and they a fallacy.
>>
>> Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.
> 
> I know some people in this group have trouble accepting that I am a
> religious atheist, but that is what I think too.

I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being self-
contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality, and 
rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.

So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing 
more. :)

>> Otherwise, you'd
>> have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me,
>> I don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I
>> wouldn't just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That
>> doesn't mean I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.
> 
> I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it
> existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.

Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots 
who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't 
constitute proof of any kind.

>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>
>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>
>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
> 
> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the chauvinist
> western view a couple of years ago.
> 
> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries whose
> inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;) )

I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the ability 
for students to think about problems in a rational way....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:08:45 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/24/2011 16:48, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Why would you need to "believe", if you have evidence?
> 
> I believe I'm sitting in a chair. 

Either you are or you're not.  Belief doesn't come into this.

> I believe you are an actual person.

This is a much more complex statement, though - evidence suggests that 
you (and Patrick, and everyone else here) is an actual person.  Belief 
may play into this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:44:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an
>>> extend contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any
>>> evidence(, hence my reference to that book of my father). I think you
>>> will find that true for other atheists as well.
>>
>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?  I find that *highly*
>> unusual.
>>
> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing
> at god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they
> "are" god in any real sense. Hell, to most of the people over thousands
> of years a Jedi would constitute a god, but we would, if any such person
> showed up, be looking at blood samples to work out how the hell they did
> it, not bowing to them in worship, a fact true even for most religious
> people. First, you need a coherent definition of god, then you can talk
> about what constitutes evidence.

Interesting, I hadn't looked at it that way, but that makes a lot of 
sense to me (andrel, is this the sort of thing you're talking about?)

> Since most of the stuff in religious texts fall into these categories:
> 
> 1. Things any two bit magician can replicate. 2. Things we could
> replicate now, with preparation. 3. Things we could at least imagine
> replicating, if we had certain technologies.
> 4. Things we couldn't replicate, like making a new universe, and then
> showing someone around in it, and which are probably not possible.

The first three things you state are things that make sense to me.  #4, 
though, I'm not sure 'probably not possible' seems a little wishy-washy 
to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:12:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/24/2011 16:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone
>> playing at god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and
>> that they "are" god in any real sense.
> 
>  > There isn't a lot of room for someone coming up with evidence.
> 
> If you hven't read Robert Sawyer's "Calculating God" novel, I highly
> recommend it. It's basically a story involving finding scientific
> evidence of a creator of the universe, without it actually contradicting
> what we know scientifically. (I.e., it's not just "god is lying to us"
> sorts of things.)
> 
> Very thought-provoking.

I'll have to check that out - thanks!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 21:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Either you are or you're not.  Belief doesn't come into this.

My belief and the reality of the two are technically orthogonal. Of course, 
my belief is causally caused by the reality of the fact that I am indeed 
sitting in a chair, along with the fact that my senses are brain functions 
are working pretty close to normal.

The fact that I *am* sitting in a chair does not in any way negate the fact 
that I believe I'm sitting in a chair. I'm not sure how you dismiss my 
belief that I'm sitting in a chair as unrelated to the discussion of whether 
that's actually a belief.

> This is a much more complex statement, though - evidence suggests that
> you (and Patrick, and everyone else here) is an actual person.  Belief
> may play into this.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this.

"Do you remember what color car the suspect was driving?"

"I believe it was reddish, maybe orange."

How about "Do you recognize this composer?"  "I believe it's Bach." Does 
that mean if it really is Bach, you don't actually believe it's Bach?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 16:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> looking at blood samples to work out how the hell they did it,

There is already someone in India or something, millions of followers, born 
of a virgin, curing disease and raising the dead, basically everything Jesus 
ever did, wandering around live. Nobody outside of his followers pays any 
attention.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 21:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> reaction of "you're persecuting me!".

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/04/20/piety2/

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Le 25/04/2011 01:38, Darren New nous fit lire :
> On 4/24/2011 11:08, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Also, at the end, when God is revealed, two of the seven virtues are to
>> disappear from the world: hope&  belief, because they won't be possible
>> any more.
> 
> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
> that backwards.
> 
Maybe a misnaming (my fault, blame the languages): hope & faith ?

(Cor. xiii 13)

Just find the names of the 3 daughters of Job, as they are the 3
theological virtues (according to St Gregory (Pope Gregory I) cited by
Thomas Aquinas about Hope being or not a virtue; The doctrine's of
Thomas Aquinas have been declared by pope Benedict XV as being part of
the doctrine of the Church), or whatever version of Corinthians you can
get (if you enjoyed the git/dacs thread, let's have a King James /
Geneva thread about the naming in English of the third virtue)

For precision's sack, this disputatio should be in latin (when using
Thomas Aquinas as reference) or in even more obscure lingua.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 6:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:00:05 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?
>>
>> yes
>
> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?

yes

> I still find that quite unusual.

Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.

>>> I find that *highly* unusual.
>>
>> I don't think it is, I just say it. No matter what evidence they come up
>> with (other than the person/thing itself, see below) I would always
>> assume that they made a mistake or used a false assumption, even if I
>> didn't see immediately what was wrong.
>
> I have to admit that for me it would take something pretty solid,
> something where I might be inclined to assume that there was a mistake or
> a false assumption, but until such was proven to exist, I wouldn't really
> have a reason not to rationally concede that God exists.
>
>>>> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between
>>>> them and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So
>>>> I am defending the truth and they a fallacy.
>>>
>>> Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.
>>
>> I know some people in this group have trouble accepting that I am a
>> religious atheist, but that is what I think too.
>
> I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being self-
> contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality, and
> rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.
>
> So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing
> more. :)

Nothing new that I have not said in the past.
- I don't see how I can base any ethics/morality on the existence of a 
God. Admitting to the existence of one or more of these things would 
result in a few months of work in rewiring my brain to undo all traces 
of 4 decades of thinking. That is too much to ask.
- Almost everything in my working live as a scientist has been 
implicitly based on the notion that all life has a common origin. (I 
wonder if most creationist realise that when they visit a hospital they 
enter into a world that was impossible without Darwin). Again I will 
resist any concept that invalidates everything I have done.
- when I look at a tree I can see how it is related to me. (And also of 
course the obvious things that don't look like me). I don't want to give 
up that feeling for the idea that it is just an object that I can treat 
any way I like.

I think that many atheists have similar reasons for not believing in 
some God even presented with 'convincing' evidence. Luckily we don't 
have to fear that that moment will ever come. This in contrast to 
creationists that are confronted with being wrong everyday.
(and again they will think something similar).

>>> Otherwise, you'd
>>> have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me,
>>> I don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I
>>> wouldn't just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That
>>> doesn't mean I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.
>>
>> I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it
>> existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.
>
> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots
> who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't
> constitute proof of any kind.

I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things 
that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an 
infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an 
empty hat.
Besides even if such a thing would show to be able to create a universe 
I would probably say: 'well ok, now that you have seen what happened to 
this one, why don't you go back and try again and this time avoid the 
obvious bugs in the design.'

>>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>>
>>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>>
>>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
>>
>> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
>> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
>> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
>> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the chauvinist
>> western view a couple of years ago.
>>
>> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
>> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries whose
>> inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;) )
>
> I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the ability
> for students to think about problems in a rational way....

I had chosen deliberately a country where students for another reason 
were supposedly not trained in critical thinking.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:17:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/24/2011 21:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> reaction of "you're persecuting me!".
> 
> http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/04/20/piety2/

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 4:03, andrel wrote:
> - I don't see how I can base any ethics/morality on the existence of a God.

I think if the god in question has scientifically-backed evidence, it's 
unlikely to be a god that has anything to do with human ethics or morality.

I.e., I'd agree with you with the god of the bible, but I can't imagine what 
form scientific evidence in support of that god might be. But there are lots 
of ways one can imagine to find the creator of the universe exists that 
hasn't anything to do with specifically creating life on earth or morality. 
  For example, the "fine tuned universal constants" argument, if actually 
supported, would be evidence (not proof) of a creator that maybe was aiming 
for carbon/water based life, but saying nothing about Earth, morality, 
humans, etc.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
> 
> yes
> 
>> I still find that quite unusual.
> 
> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.

Why do you say that?

>> I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being
>> self- contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality,
>> and rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.
>>
>> So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing
>> more. :)
> 
> Nothing new that I have not said in the past. - I don't see how I can
> base any ethics/morality on the existence of a God. 

OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics, the 
religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.

> Admitting to the
> existence of one or more of these things would result in a few months of
> work in rewiring my brain to undo all traces of 4 decades of thinking.
> That is too much to ask. - Almost everything in my working live as a
> scientist has been implicitly based on the notion that all life has a
> common origin. (I wonder if most creationist realise that when they
> visit a hospital they enter into a world that was impossible without
> Darwin). Again I will resist any concept that invalidates everything I
> have done. - when I look at a tree I can see how it is related to me.
> (And also of course the obvious things that don't look like me). I don't
> want to give up that feeling for the idea that it is just an object that
> I can treat any way I like.
> 
> I think that many atheists have similar reasons for not believing in
> some God even presented with 'convincing' evidence. Luckily we don't
> have to fear that that moment will ever come. This in contrast to
> creationists that are confronted with being wrong everyday. (and again
> they will think something similar).

So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?

>> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots
>> who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't
>> constitute proof of any kind.
> 
> I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things
> that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an
> infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an
> empty hat.

Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.  
Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.

> Besides even if such a thing would show to be able to create a universe
> I would probably say: 'well ok, now that you have seen what happened to
> this one, why don't you go back and try again and this time avoid the
> obvious bugs in the design.'

LOL

>>>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>>>
>>>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
>>>
>>> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
>>> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
>>> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
>>> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the
>>> chauvinist western view a couple of years ago.
>>>
>>> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
>>> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries
>>> whose inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;)
>>> )
>>
>> I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the
>> ability for students to think about problems in a rational way....
> 
> I had chosen deliberately a country where students for another reason
> were supposedly not trained in critical thinking.

I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not getting 
the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch up on 
that idea in Japanese culture?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
> that backwards.

Quoting Douglas Adams:

"Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."

(From the debate between man and god about god's existence)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 9:08, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 4:03, andrel wrote:
>> - I don't see how I can base any ethics/morality on the existence of a God.
>
> I think if the god in question has scientifically-backed evidence, it's
> unlikely to be a god that has anything to do with human ethics or morality.
>
> I.e., I'd agree with you with the god of the bible, but I can't imagine what
> form scientific evidence in support of that god might be.

And by "scientific evidence" I'm implying evidence that doesn't contradict 
all existing scientific evidence, in the same way that a new Grand Unified 
Theory has to actually come up with answers significantly close to General 
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to be taken seriously.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:14:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/24/2011 21:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Either you are or you're not.  Belief doesn't come into this.
> 
> My belief and the reality of the two are technically orthogonal. Of
> course, my belief is causally caused by the reality of the fact that I
> am indeed sitting in a chair, along with the fact that my senses are
> brain functions are working pretty close to normal.
> 
> The fact that I *am* sitting in a chair does not in any way negate the
> fact that I believe I'm sitting in a chair. I'm not sure how you dismiss
> my belief that I'm sitting in a chair as unrelated to the discussion of
> whether that's actually a belief.

It isn't a belief, though - nor is it a matter of opinion.  It's a hard 
fact.

>> This is a much more complex statement, though - evidence suggests that
>> you (and Patrick, and everyone else here) is an actual person.  Belief
>> may play into this.
> 
> I'm not sure why you're arguing this.
> 
> "Do you remember what color car the suspect was driving?"
> 
> "I believe it was reddish, maybe orange."
> 
> How about "Do you recognize this composer?"  "I believe it's Bach." Does
> that mean if it really is Bach, you don't actually believe it's Bach?

In this instance "believe" = "think" (as in "I'm not certain if it is or 
not, but it sounds like Bach to me", or "I don't remember, it could have 
been reddish, it could have been orange").

Do you not remember if you are presently sitting in a chair or not?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 9:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It isn't a belief, though - nor is it a matter of opinion.  It's a hard
> fact.

It's a fact and a belief about a fact.

Or, as the philosophers would say, it is a true justified belief.

I don't stop believing I'm sitting in a chair just because I find out I'm 
right. I don't stop believing that song was by Bach just because you show me 
the CD and it has Bach written on it.

Would you say "I don't believe I'm using the keyboard to type"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 9:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
>> that backwards.
>
> Quoting Douglas Adams:
>
> "Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."

You are conflating "belief" with "faith".  "Faith" is unjustified belief. 
Belief can be justified or not, correct or not. It's a state of mind not 
necessarily indicative of the real world or not.

Is it still faith if you're right? If god really turns out to exist, would 
you say all those people with faith no longer had faith because they were 
right all along?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:30:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 9:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
>>> that backwards.
>>
>> Quoting Douglas Adams:
>>
>> "Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."
> 
> You are conflating "belief" with "faith".  "Faith" is unjustified
> belief. Belief can be justified or not, correct or not. It's a state of
> mind not necessarily indicative of the real world or not.
> 
> Is it still faith if you're right? If god really turns out to exist,
> would you say all those people with faith no longer had faith because
> they were right all along?

Actually, I was just making an amusing observation, or rather, pointing 
to one that was tangentially related. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 10:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Actually, I was just making an amusing observation, or rather, pointing
> to one that was tangentially related. :)

Sure, but it's an excellent example of my point.  If it doesn't stop being 
faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just because 
you have justification for the belief.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:29:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 9:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It isn't a belief, though - nor is it a matter of opinion.  It's a hard
>> fact.
> 
> It's a fact and a belief about a fact.
> 
> Or, as the philosophers would say, it is a true justified belief.

Justified belief seems to me to come into play when dealing with 
scientific principles where you may not have enough evidence to support 
an absolute "yes/no" observation.  For example, "I believe the facts 
support the scientific principle of evolution."  I haven't studied it 
myself, but those who have studied it have explained it well enough that 
I trust their findings.

> I don't stop believing I'm sitting in a chair just because I find out
> I'm right. I don't stop believing that song was by Bach just because you
> show me the CD and it has Bach written on it.

Well, no, you wouldn't stop believing the song was by Bach just because I 
show you the CD and it says "Bach", because the CD could be incorrect 
(I've seen some like that myself).  But you have a justified belief that 
it is because it's a pressed CD and errors are extremely rare.

But if you listen to it and say "Ah, that's Partida #1 by J. S. Bach", 
you don't have to believe it is, because you know it is.

> Would you say "I don't believe I'm using the keyboard to type"?

No, I'd say either I was or I wasn't using a keyboard to type.  Belief 
doesn't play into it, because either I am or I am not - ie, it's an 
absolute.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:31:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> If it doesn't stop being
> faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just
> because you have justification for the belief.

But it does stop being faith when you have knowledge that you are 
correct.  Faith is by definition trusting rather than knowing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/25 00:05, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:43:25 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>> I believe that God created the rules of science so ultimately science
>> won't contradict God.
>
> Then who created God?
>
> Jim

Man!

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:12:22 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/25 00:05, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:43:25 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that God created the rules of science so ultimately science
>>> won't contradict God.
>>
>> Then who created God?
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Man!

Well, that's my own considered opinion as well - that God (or a 
monotheistic or polytheistic deity/deities) are the invention of man to 
explain the inexplicable.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 18:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
>>
>> yes
>>
>>> I still find that quite unusual.
>>
>> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.
>
> Why do you say that?

Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human, no 
real evidence for that)

>>> I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being
>>> self- contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality,
>>> and rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.
>>>
>>> So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing
>>> more. :)
>>
>> Nothing new that I have not said in the past. - I don't see how I can
>> base any ethics/morality on the existence of a God.
>
> OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics, the
> religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.

It is in any case a problem with the Jewish God and the two other main 
religions that worship the same God. There are lots of rules but not 
much of metarules so you can derive the rules yourself. You are not 
allowed to eat pigs, but why? Thou shalt not kill. Ok, but is that in 
general or only humans? What is a human anyway? Is a Jew a human? Is a 
Christian not more than a dog? These may seem silly questions, but in 
any war the religious men often start by excluding the enemy from the 
human race. When becomes an embryo a human? Is there a point when 
Altzheimer's disease patients loose all humanity?
Or (just to show I am Dutch) what is the problem with sex? Why is 
prostitution wrong? Why are hard drugs wrong and if they are why are 
they consuming wine as part of a ritual?
The major problem with a single Jewish type God is that you can not know 
what the rules are. Apparently he has given some rules to some people, 
but do you believe these people when they say so? These rules are 
sometime contradictory, so at least one of them was lying, but which? 
There is no way any man can know.

Buddhism is possibly a better option, but I do not know enough about it 
to be sure.

Anyway a long time ago I found my own way to figure out what to do and 
what not. Being an atheist meant that I had to do most of the work 
myself. Af first I thought that if it didn't work out I could always 
fall back on an imaginary God, then I realized that I couldn't for among 
others the reason mentioned above. That is why if there would turn out 
to be a God after all, I have a severe philosophical problem. 
Essentially an existential one.

>> Admitting to the
>> existence of one or more of these things would result in a few months of
>> work in rewiring my brain to undo all traces of 4 decades of thinking.
>> That is too much to ask. - Almost everything in my working live as a
>> scientist has been implicitly based on the notion that all life has a
>> common origin. (I wonder if most creationist realise that when they
>> visit a hospital they enter into a world that was impossible without
>> Darwin). Again I will resist any concept that invalidates everything I
>> have done. - when I look at a tree I can see how it is related to me.
>> (And also of course the obvious things that don't look like me). I don't
>> want to give up that feeling for the idea that it is just an object that
>> I can treat any way I like.
>>
>> I think that many atheists have similar reasons for not believing in
>> some God even presented with 'convincing' evidence. Luckily we don't
>> have to fear that that moment will ever come. This in contrast to
>> creationists that are confronted with being wrong everyday. (and again
>> they will think something similar).
>
> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?

Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense 
without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a 
coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.

>>> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots
>>> who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't
>>> constitute proof of any kind.
>>
>> I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things
>> that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an
>> infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an
>> empty hat.
>
> Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.
> Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.

You mean, that there was no trick involved?

>>>>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
>>>>
>>>> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
>>>> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
>>>> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
>>>> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the
>>>> chauvinist western view a couple of years ago.
>>>>
>>>> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
>>>> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries
>>>> whose inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;)
>>>> )
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the
>>> ability for students to think about problems in a rational way....
>>
>> I had chosen deliberately a country where students for another reason
>> were supposedly not trained in critical thinking.
>
> I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not getting
> the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch up on
> that idea in Japanese culture?

Actually, no. It is something I heard so often and for such a long time, 
that I don't know a particular source. Basically the concept is that 
Japanese are so drilled in obeying the more powerful that they become 
incapable of original though. Because they would contradict a known 
authority. Basically the same concept as used for the middle ages in 
Europe (with the Europeans and the Muslims as the two sources that broke 
the chain). In both cases I am not sure how much it really explains.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 18:08, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 4:03, andrel wrote:
>> - I don't see how I can base any ethics/morality on the existence of a
>> God.
>
> I think if the god in question has scientifically-backed evidence, it's
> unlikely to be a god that has anything to do with human ethics or morality.
>
> I.e., I'd agree with you with the god of the bible, but I can't imagine
> what form scientific evidence in support of that god might be. But there
> are lots of ways one can imagine to find the creator of the universe
> exists that hasn't anything to do with specifically creating life on
> earth or morality. For example, the "fine tuned universal constants"
> argument, if actually supported, would be evidence (not proof) of a
> creator that maybe was aiming for carbon/water based life, but saying
> nothing about Earth, morality, humans, etc.

That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 18:30, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 9:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
>>> that backwards.
>>
>> Quoting Douglas Adams:
>>
>> "Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."
>
> You are conflating "belief" with "faith". "Faith" is unjustified belief.
> Belief can be justified or not, correct or not. It's a state of mind not
> necessarily indicative of the real world or not.
>
> Is it still faith if you're right? If god really turns out to exist,
> would you say all those people with faith no longer had faith because
> they were right all along?

I was wondering if anyone would quote the Oolon Colluphid books, but 
didn't want to be the one who did.

The longer quote (about the existence of the babel fish) is:
---
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so 
mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some 
have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. 
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," 
says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." 
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could 
not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, 
by Your own arguments, You don't. QED" "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't 
thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that 
was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is 
white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
---
It should be noted that most leading theologians claim that Colluphid's 
argument is "a load of dingo's kidneys."
---


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:42:38 +0200, andrel wrote:

> I was wondering if anyone would quote the Oolon Colluphid books, but
> didn't want to be the one who did.

I was happy to oblige.  :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:28:06 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-4-2011 18:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>>>> I still find that quite unusual.
>>>
>>> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.
>>
>> Why do you say that?
> 
> Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human, no
> real evidence for that)

Well, I am, but I also am secure in knowing that I don't know (or need to 
know) everything there is to know.  I guess maybe that makes me unusual, 
as the reason many invent (or believe) in a deity is to explain things 
that can't be explained - which would stem from not being able to cope 
with having things that can't be explained.

But I think I am starting to see what you're saying.

>> OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics,
>> the religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.
> 
> It is in any case a problem with the Jewish God and the two other main
> religions that worship the same God. There are lots of rules but not
> much of metarules so you can derive the rules yourself. You are not
> allowed to eat pigs, but why? Thou shalt not kill. Ok, but is that in
> general or only humans? What is a human anyway? Is a Jew a human? Is a
> Christian not more than a dog? These may seem silly questions, but in
> any war the religious men often start by excluding the enemy from the
> human race. When becomes an embryo a human? Is there a point when
> Altzheimer's disease patients loose all humanity? Or (just to show I am
> Dutch) what is the problem with sex? Why is prostitution wrong? Why are
> hard drugs wrong and if they are why are they consuming wine as part of
> a ritual? The major problem with a single Jewish type God is that you
> can not know what the rules are. Apparently he has given some rules to
> some people, but do you believe these people when they say so? These
> rules are sometime contradictory, so at least one of them was lying, but
> which? There is no way any man can know.

So perhaps it would be accurate to say that you wouldn't believe in a 
deity as a moral/ethical authority.  Now *that's* something I would agree 
with.

> Buddhism is possibly a better option, but I do not know enough about it
> to be sure.

Nor do I if it comes to that.  I describe myself as non-theistic, and 
some parts of Buddhism seem to align with that, and some don't.

> Anyway a long time ago I found my own way to figure out what to do and
> what not. Being an atheist meant that I had to do most of the work
> myself. Af first I thought that if it didn't work out I could always
> fall back on an imaginary God, then I realized that I couldn't for among
> others the reason mentioned above. That is why if there would turn out
> to be a God after all, I have a severe philosophical problem.
> Essentially an existential one.

That makes sense to me.  It isn't about "some superior being created all 
tihs" but that whole idea of morals and ethics.  OK, I'm with you now, 
both in understanding and in agreement with the concept.

>> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?
> 
> Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense
> without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a
> coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.

True, but I would suspect that this idea (a theistic religion with a 
coherent world view that doesn't contradict the observable universe) 
might be something you'd accept as a possibility, without the moral/
ethical entanglements.

>>>> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of
>>>> crackpots who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example). 
>>>> That doesn't constitute proof of any kind.
>>>
>>> I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things
>>> that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an
>>> infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an
>>> empty hat.
>>
>> Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.
>> Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.
> 
> You mean, that there was no trick involved?

Well, there could be a trick involved, but it would have to be a trick 
that could be exposed and duplicated.

For example, if I make a silk handkerchief vanish into thin air (a trick 
I know how to do and, for the sake of argument, you don't), I could show 
you how it works.  Then you'd know the trick, but there still is a trick, 
but it has to do with misdirection more than the spontaneous creation and 
destruction of the handkerchief itself.

>> I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not
>> getting the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch
>> up on that idea in Japanese culture?
> 
> Actually, no. It is something I heard so often and for such a long time,
> that I don't know a particular source. Basically the concept is that
> Japanese are so drilled in obeying the more powerful that they become
> incapable of original though. Because they would contradict a known
> authority. Basically the same concept as used for the middle ages in
> Europe (with the Europeans and the Muslims as the two sources that broke
> the chain). In both cases I am not sure how much it really explains.

I'll have to ask my brother (in Japan) about that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 10:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But if you listen to it and say "Ah, that's Partida #1 by J. S. Bach",
> you don't have to believe it is, because you know it is.

You're just using the word "belief" to mean what I'd mean by "belief but not 
certainty."  I don't think becoming certain of something means you stop 
believing it; quite the opposite. I don't think believing something that 
turns out to be true means you've stopped believing it either.

If I open my eyes and say "I believe the sun is up already", and then I get 
out of bed and open the curtain and it's all bright and blue sky out, would 
you really say "I no longer believe the sun is up"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 10:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:31:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> If it doesn't stop being
>> faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just
>> because you have justification for the belief.
>
> But it does stop being faith when you have knowledge that you are
> correct.  Faith is by definition trusting rather than knowing.

Right. Just like you can have faith in something that turns out to be true, 
you can have a belief in something of which you are certain.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:09:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 10:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:31:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> If it doesn't stop being
>>> faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just
>>> because you have justification for the belief.
>>
>> But it does stop being faith when you have knowledge that you are
>> correct.  Faith is by definition trusting rather than knowing.
> 
> Right. Just like you can have faith in something that turns out to be
> true, you can have a belief in something of which you are certain.

But it's not necessary - because you are certain, right?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)

That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with 
scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer simulation 
being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually initiated and 
structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the previous Big Crunch, 
you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one gathered as much evidence in 
favor of one of those as there is in favor of evolution?

That's weird to me.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:08:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 10:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But if you listen to it and say "Ah, that's Partida #1 by J. S. Bach",
>> you don't have to believe it is, because you know it is.
> 
> You're just using the word "belief" to mean what I'd mean by "belief but
> not certainty."  I don't think becoming certain of something means you
> stop believing it; quite the opposite. I don't think believing something
> that turns out to be true means you've stopped believing it either.
> 
> If I open my eyes and say "I believe the sun is up already", and then I
> get out of bed and open the curtain and it's all bright and blue sky
> out, would you really say "I no longer believe the sun is up"?

No, because I no longer need to assert a belief that the sun is up.  I 
know it's up - that's a testable and provable state.

It becomes unnecessary to believe it, but that it becomes unnecessary 
doesn't mean it is necessary to state explicitly that the belief is 
unnecessary.

But if I were to describe the change in state, it would be "I no longer 
need to believe that the sun is up - I know it is."

IOW, it's not that finding out causes disbelief, it removes the need for 
belief because it's demonstrably true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 23:11, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
>> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)
>
> That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with
> scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer
> simulation being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually
> initiated and structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the
> previous Big Crunch, you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one
> gathered as much evidence in favor of one of those as there is in favor
> of evolution?

Yes

> That's weird to me.

Oh no, not again!


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If I open my eyes and say "I believe the sun is up already", and then I get 
> out of bed and open the curtain and it's all bright and blue sky out, would 
> you really say "I no longer believe the sun is up"?

  Basically you are stating that there are only two options: Belief and
disbelief. However, it's not a dichotomy. The third option is what you
yourself stated in your post: Certainty (which can be either positive or
negative, so technically speaking there are actually four options).

  Of course in practice is even more fine-grained than that, as there are
many degrees of belief. Even worse, there can be many degress of certainty
(for example gravity and your spouse's love for you are two things you
usually are pretty certain of, even though the first case is physically
testable while in the latter case you just have to take your spouse's word
for it, and there's actually no way to prove it definitely).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:16:52 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-4-2011 23:11, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
>>> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)
>>
>> That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with
>> scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer
>> simulation being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually
>> initiated and structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the
>> previous Big Crunch, you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one
>> gathered as much evidence in favor of one of those as there is in favor
>> of evolution?
> 
> Yes
> 
>> That's weird to me.
> 
> Oh no, not again!

Hey, it's not just me. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 21:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:28:06 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 25-4-2011 18:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
>>>>
>>>> yes
>>>>
>>>>> I still find that quite unusual.
>>>>
>>>> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.
>>>
>>> Why do you say that?
>>
>> Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human, no
>> real evidence for that)
>
> Well, I am,

I have only your word for it.

> but I also am secure in knowing that I don't know (or need to
> know) everything there is to know.  I guess maybe that makes me unusual,
> as the reason many invent (or believe) in a deity is to explain things
> that can't be explained - which would stem from not being able to cope
> with having things that can't be explained.
>
> But I think I am starting to see what you're saying.

More or less that we all think we are rational, but that is only true as 
long as the information is not in conflict with our deepest believes.
What seems to make me unusual here in this group that I freely admit it 
and grand others the right to be so too.

>> Anyway a long time ago I found my own way to figure out what to do and
>> what not. Being an atheist meant that I had to do most of the work
>> myself. At first I thought that if it didn't work out I could always
>> fall back on an imaginary God, then I realized that I couldn't for among
>> others the reason mentioned above. That is why if there would turn out
>> to be a God after all, I have a severe philosophical problem.
>> Essentially an existential one.
>
> That makes sense to me.  It isn't about "some superior being created all
> tihs" but that whole idea of morals and ethics.  OK, I'm with you now,
> both in understanding and in agreement with the concept.

If it didn't create it, it has no business telling us what to do. If it 
does not have a plan for it that we can use to know how to behave, why 
create it in the first place?

>>> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?
>>
>> Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense
>> without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a
>> coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.
>
> True, but I would suspect that this idea (a theistic religion with a
> coherent world view that doesn't contradict the observable universe)
> might be something you'd accept as a possibility, without the moral/
> ethical entanglements.

Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe. 
(my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't 
you missing a negation', but where to put it?)

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 23:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:16:52 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 25-4-2011 23:11, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
>>>> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)
>>>
>>> That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with
>>> scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer
>>> simulation being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually
>>> initiated and structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the
>>> previous Big Crunch, you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one
>>> gathered as much evidence in favor of one of those as there is in favor
>>> of evolution?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> That's weird to me.
>>
>> Oh no, not again!
>
> Hey, it's not just me. ;)

Can someone extract the main points from our discussion and put it on a 
blog as a reference, please?

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:

>>> Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human,
>>> no real evidence for that)
>>
>> Well, I am,
> 
> I have only your word for it.

Touché. ;)

>> but I also am secure in knowing that I don't know (or need to know)
>> everything there is to know.  I guess maybe that makes me unusual, as
>> the reason many invent (or believe) in a deity is to explain things
>> that can't be explained - which would stem from not being able to cope
>> with having things that can't be explained.
>>
>> But I think I am starting to see what you're saying.
> 
> More or less that we all think we are rational, but that is only true as
> long as the information is not in conflict with our deepest believes.
> What seems to make me unusual here in this group that I freely admit it
> and grand others the right to be so too.

In thinking about it, I'm not sure that I really have 'deep beliefs'.  I 
probably do, but I can't think of anything that I'm so certain of that I 
can't be persuaded that I'm wrong.  There are things, certainly, that it 
would take a lot to convince me of (like the existence of a deity), but I 
like to think I have an open mind and am willing to learn new information 
even if it contradicts something I think I'm pretty sure of.

So maybe I'm the weird one after all. ;)

>> That makes sense to me.  It isn't about "some superior being created
>> all tihs" but that whole idea of morals and ethics.  OK, I'm with you
>> now, both in understanding and in agreement with the concept.
> 
> If it didn't create it, it has no business telling us what to do. If it
> does not have a plan for it that we can use to know how to behave, why
> create it in the first place?

I guess I'm separating the 'did something create all this' from the 'does 
that something presume to tell us how to behave', but not being clear 
that I am doing that.

I'm open to discovering that there was a supreme creator of the 
universe.  I'm not open to that supreme creator telling me how to live my 
life, because for me, doing the right thing is reward enough - I don't 
need to be bribed with a promise of eternal life in heaven (for example).

And let's face it, that *is* bribery.

>>>> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?
>>>
>>> Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense
>>> without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a
>>> coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.
>>
>> True, but I would suspect that this idea (a theistic religion with a
>> coherent world view that doesn't contradict the observable universe)
>> might be something you'd accept as a possibility, without the moral/
>> ethical entanglements.
> 
> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe.
> (my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't
> you missing a negation', but where to put it?)

Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want to 
be sure before I comment. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:36:06 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Can someone extract the main points from our discussion and put it on a
> blog as a reference, please?

I'd like to see that, too - this has been (and is) a fascinating 
discussion. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 23:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe.
>> (my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't
>> you missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>
> Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want to
> be sure before I comment. :)

I am prepared to accept any deity if and only if it has never had any 
influence on my universe and it will never have, and as long as it's 
existence can be rigorously and scientifically proven by an experiment.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:05:31 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-4-2011 23:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe.
>>> (my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh,
>>> aren't you missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>>
>> Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want
>> to be sure before I comment. :)
> 
> I am prepared to accept any deity if and only if it has never had any
> influence on my universe and it will never have, and as long as it's
> existence can be rigorously and scientifically proven by an experiment.

So a deity that has no past, present, or future influence over the 
universe?  I'm not sure what purpose that would serve.

But that is how I read what you wrote the first time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 14:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But if I were to describe the change in state, it would be "I no longer
> need to believe that the sun is up - I know it is."

So if evidence obviates belief, and evidence obviates faith, what is the 
difference between the two?

> IOW, it's not that finding out causes disbelief, it removes the need for
> belief because it's demonstrably true.

We're just using the words differently. Knowledge is justified true belief. 
It can be demonstratively true yet not believed (a creationist and 
evolution) and it can be demonstratively true and believed (a scientist and 
evolution).

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message