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