Knowledge, belief & agnosticism (Agnosticism)
John Clinch writes: 1) "I do not believe in the God of the three monotheisms." 2) "I cannot fully accept the rather poetic atheist idea of a universe bursting into being, ex nihilo, like a flower..." 3) "I tend to come back to the idea that there has to be a context for the universe, a metaphysical reality of an unknowable kind beyond (or within) the material world." - Astonishingly, once you stop trying to paraphrase my beliefs (and you've gone wrong once again here, of which more in a moment) and you get on with expressing your own, I find myself largely in agreement with you, with just a few minor reservations. These, briefly, relate to 1) in that I would not call the idea "ludicrous", unless you mean the old man with a white beard. "Least likely option", maybe. I see 2) and 3) as alternatives, with 3) as a slight favourite simply because it is so vague that one can't even define what one is supposed to believe in! I can thus cling to your "good reason for being an agnostic", which is that we can't know anything about its nature, but precisely for that reason, I am not prepared entirely to rule out 1). Don't misread that. The fact that I am not ruling it out does NOT mean that I am a would-be theist (though I must admit that it is by far the richest source of speculation and criticism). - Now to two points where we disagree, though not fundamentally. Your "good reason for being an agnostic" is the impossibility of knowing the nature of God (or substitute any supreme being, force or metaphysical reality you like) if God exists. This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. A good reason, I suggest, is being unable to decide whether God exists or not (which is just one step away from the original definition, which is the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not). - And this brings us to your one and only misreading of the day: you disagree with my "point about intelligences being required for the creation of something..." No, that's not what I said. My point comes very close to your second quote. That I cannot fully accept the poetic atheist idea of a lump of matter ... whether suddenly or through George Jelliss's step by step procedure ... unconsciously collecting all the necessary ingredients to bring itself to life, enable itself to reproduce, and provide itself with the potential for an almost infinite range of hereditary adaptations and variations. No matter how people try to gloss it over with words like 'simple' and 'natural', I can't "accept" it, let alone "fully accept" it. Nothing to do with other forms of creation. This is unique. And it simply doesn't matter two hoots whether you think this is or is not a good reason for agnosticism, and it doesn't matter two hoots whether you believe science will crack the code (I'll leave you and David Turell to fight over that), because what needs to be believed is not whether we'll be able to understand it, but whether mindless chance can be that creative. If I really thought it could, I might as well go for your choice No. 2), and I see very little difference in principle (though obviously not in scale) between the two problems. (There are, admittedly, other factors which I've mentioned and which you dismiss ... psychic phenomena etc. ... but let's leave them in the "near-to-death" thread.) Your choice Number 3) may hold the key, but no doors have opened yet, and therefore I go on speculating. And so, it is now very clear, do you. Yes indeed, I would say you are an agnostic. Not as open-minded (indecisive, if you like) as me, but still with space for manoeuvre!
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto 
, Saturday, March 08, 2008, 17:17 (5887 days ago) @ dhw
Quote "That I cannot fully accept the poetic atheist idea of a lump of matter ... whether suddenly or through George Jelliss's step by step procedure ... unconsciously collecting all the necessary ingredients to bring itself to life, enable itself to reproduce, and provide itself with the potential for an almost infinite range of hereditary adaptations and variations. No matter how people try to gloss it over with words like 'simple' and 'natural', I can't "accept" it, let alone "fully accept" it. Nothing to do with other forms of creation. This is unique." - 1. It looks to me quite likely that when the conditions for life are present then often (not necessarily always) life develops, just as for example when the conditions for fire are present a flame develops - 2. Why should this not be so? - 3. We now know that on this planet the conditions for life are much more varied and range between much greater extremes than was previously thought, though we do not yet have evidence for other planets - 4. I suspect (I do so wish I knew!) that life is a a natural and widespread phenomenon throughout the universe, arising where the widely varied conditions are found and that there is nothing particularly mysterious or 'unique' about it - 5. It seems to me that what would be mysterious is if did turn out that life is uncommon, even 'unique' and not 'natural' in much the same way that fire is natural - 6. Once we have life / reproducibility in any form I can see no reason why its development should not be virtually limitless - 7. Why should this not be so? - clayto
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 08, 2008, 19:55 (5887 days ago) @ clayto
clayto writes: "1. It looks to me quite likely that when the conditions for life are present then often (not necessarily always) life develops, just as for example when the conditions for fire are present a flame develops 2. Why should this not be so?" The conditions for oxidation in a fire are easy to create on earth from inorganic and organic matter. Life is very difficult to create from inorganic and organic matter. Yet clayto is correct. The Theory is that Earth cooled enough after formation to allow life about 4 billion years ago (bya). Accepted evidence of life appeared 3.6 bya, and may have appeared 3.8 bya. For some reason life wants to pop up on Earth, seemingly against all odds as shown by the origin of life scientists and their failures. "3. We now know that on this planet the conditions for life are much more varied and range between much greater extremes than was previously thought, though we do not yet have evidence for other planets" "4. I suspect (I do so wish I knew!) that life is a a natural and widespread phenomenon throughout the universe, arising where the widely varied conditions are found and that there is nothing particularly mysterious or 'unique' about it" This is Fred Hoyle's Panspermia theory, and it may be true that life has arisin elsewhere. We have no way of knowing that life is'natural and widespread', only that it seems to have appeared here on Earth in many extreme forms rather quickly and easily. " 5. It seems to me that what would be mysterious is if did turn out that life is uncommon, even 'unique' and not 'natural' in much the same way that fire is natural" I agree that life on Earth uniquely would be a mystery to be carefully considered. A book that takes this viewpoint is "Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe", by Ward and Brownlee, 2000. It points out the unique circumstances on Earth that allow life. "6. Once we have life / reproducibility in any form I can see no reason why its development should not be virtually limitless" "7. Why should this not be so?" It requires an information-rich DNA/RNA coding system. Life an Earth has that coding system, which doesn't just make proteins, ala Watson and Crick; It directs them in the formation of new individuals, with a construction sequence just like the sequence used in building a building. For example, the electricians can't run wires if the walls are completed first. In a fetus the arteries, veins, lymphatics and nerves have to be directed to their proper places of origin and destination. Not like starting a fire.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Clayto writes: "It looks to me quite likely that when the conditions for life are present then often (not necessarily always) life develops...Why should this not be so?" "I suspect (I do so wish I knew!) that life is a natural and widespread phenomenon throughout the universe" although "we do not yet have evidence for other planets." - David Turell has given scientific responses to your various questions, but I would like to approach them from a different angle. If I may link them to the thread heading, we get the following: - 1. Knowledge: we have the right conditions for life here, and we have life. 2. Beliefs: a) where conditions are right for life, it will generate itself spontaneously (= atheist); b) the process whereby non-life becomes life is so complex that the most likely explanation is design (= theist, but not necessarily the God of the monotheistic religions). 3. Agnosticism: a) we shall never know, or b) we can't make up our minds. Let me add George Jelliss's neat maxim: that "one's belief should be proportional to the evidence". - I'm going to assume that you adhere to 2a, but it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, because the point I want to raise is general. Belief is something positive, in so far as it entails an inner conviction. You can't base your faith in 2a on the fact that you don't believe in 2b. When you say "it looks to me quite likely", "I suspect (I do so wish I knew!)", "we do not yet have evidence", you are obviously not basing your beliefs on evidence or on knowledge. There is no evidence of spontaneous generation or of life on other planets. So what is it that gives you your inner conviction? In most areas of life, we need to form beliefs or opinions so that we can make decisions, but there is no urgency here, so why can't you wait and see? (I should add in passing that problems only arise when people who have formed their beliefs ... whether theist or atheist ... try to ram them down other people's throats, or hold others up to ridicule. I'm not passing judgement; I'm genuinely asking a question.) - Here is an interesting test. David Turell writes (Absence of Evidence, 07/03 at 20.12): "There are two key points in discussing agnosticism: The Big Bang Theory of a created universe which allows life; and the appearance and evolution of life itself." In relation to the appearance of life, David explains some of the problems facing the abiogenesis hypothesis in his posting under Near to Death, 05/03 at 17.54, and raises questions about the limitations of science. After drafting this response to you, I logged onto whitecraw's entry on 09/03 (many thanks) under The Real Alternative, in which he draws our attention to a truly fascinating interview with Andrew Knoll, which ties in very neatly with David Turell's entry. If, after reading these two items, you (or anyone reading this thread) still have an inner conviction, what is it based on? My question is not about abiogenesis, but about the nature of belief.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Monday, March 10, 2008, 15:10 (5885 days ago) @ dhw
There is nothing in David Turell's response I have any problem with, except perhaps to make the point that my analogy with fire was not intended to be taken literally or as a scientific comparison, merely to emphasis the point that things happen 'naturally' when the necessary conditions apply (and I do not find the expression 'mindless chance' to be very meaningful). Clearly all the necessary conditions for life origination are as yet unknown (though many are known) and are obviously much less common than in the case of fire (but there is no certainty or even probability about 'uniqueness'). - With regard to dhw's response there are some points / assumptions which I question or require clarification for such as - '2. Beliefs: a) where conditions are right for life, it will generate itself spontaneously (= atheist);' ---- I don't see that '= atheist' is at all valid. It is perfectly possible to believe in spontaneous life generation' without being atheist, to think otherwise seems culturally confined just to those theistic religions and traditions which make a big thing of a god having originated life, there are theistic religionists which do not take that position, including those who believe god created the universe but then allowed it to evolve to include the emergence and development of life. - That was perhaps something of a pedantic point. More significantly 'so why can't you wait and see' seems an odd remark. Of course I can and must wait and see, there is no alternative, though I regret the probability that I will never 'see' as although it is possible I doubt that in my remaining life time (a) science will make the 'ultimate' discovery about the origin of life (b) we will observe or be in communication with life from / on other planets (despite Seti) - plus 'So what is it that gives you your inner conviction?' I don't have any convictions at all on this or anything else. I am a total hard agnostic. I live with uncertainty and at the best probabilities. I believe (which is very different to 'I have faith') in the probability of the (widespread) existence of life for a number of reasons (reasons, not certainties) including - (a) the now well established evidence (most scientists do now say certainty) of the commonality of the physical nature of the universe throughout (elements, processes, laws, etc) (b) the vastness of the universe (not to mention the multiverse) with its billions of star systems and hence the numerical probability of what is found here being found elsewhere, frequently (c) growing evidence and observations of the existence of planets in other solar systems to further support (b), with further breakthrough in knowledge expected soon (d) the history of the retreat of egocentricity including understandings that we are not the only planet / world, it (and we) are not at the centre of the solar system, the solar system is not at the centre of the universe, our galaxy is not at the centre of the universe (and now maybe our universe is not the only universe or at the centre of the multiverse!) - It is quite possible that we are the only life, the only consciousness and intelligence that exists anywhere. Possible, yes, but to think it probable seems to me to be a persistence of that infantile (deliberately chosen word which I can explain) egocentricity which we have been painfully growing away from for centuries. - clayto
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Clayto asks for clarification on some points I raised in my earlier response at 08.48 today. I must apologize for not making it clear that I was trying to raise a general issue about the nature of belief. I did not know if you were asking your original questions from an atheist or agnostic standpoint, and assumed it was atheist so that I could use your questions and comments as a basis. In fact, the issue has now become obscured, and that is my fault. - There is virtually no difference between us on all the things you say. With 2a, my point is that atheists believe in spontaneous generation. If there are "theistic religionists" who also believe in it, that is not relevant to the problem I am trying to deal with (the nature of belief). As regards life elsewhere in the universe, I agree totally. There is no reason at all why the Earth should be unique, but the problem of HOW life originates will remain the same. - "Why can't you wait and see, and what is it that gives you your inner conviction?" Again based on the assumption that you were arguing from an atheist point of view. You say: "I am a totally hard agnostic. I live with uncertainty and at the best probabilities." So do I, and I chose the wrong person to "test". It was your posting that prompted my questions, and that is why I addressed it to you, but I should have switched the whole thing away from you and onto those contributors who do have "inner convictions". At present, these are all atheists. My questions, and the whole preamble, should therefore have been directed towards them and not towards you. - Once again, my apologies.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 12:49 (5883 days ago) @ dhw
I rather suspected that what you say was the case, but of course I had to reply. Regarding the 'origin of life' I have recently come across a view (I am not sure what I think of it yet) that life simply did not 'originate' but has always been here. This is associated with belief that the universe has always existed (although always changing of course, perhaps with an endless succession of Big Bangs and Big Crunches) and that life is a natural and always present (not the same as everywhere present) feature of the universe although always changing (evolving). If one does hold a belief in the eternal nature of the universe / multiverse (as does Buddhism) there does seem to be logic to this concept of the eternal existence of life ---- and it rather changes the notion of both Creation and the Origin of Life. - Chris
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Clayto reports on a theory that life has always been here and the universe has always existed, though both are constantly changing. - First of all, thank you for your understanding. Yes indeed, you had to reply, but I'm glad you replied again! - An endless succession of universes, big bangs and crunches, and evolutions of life is pretty hard to get one's head round, but then so are all the other theories. The difficulty of actually believing in such concepts gives me an excuse (thank you for this too) to revive the question concerning "the nature of knowledge, belief and agnosticism", which George Jelliss originally raised under Absence of Evidence (27 Feb. at 20.18) along with the useful maxim that "one's belief should be proportional to the evidence". - On the understanding that I am using the word "belief" in the sense of an inner conviction that something is true, I would like to find out just what it is that constitutes evidence, and why some people are so confident that their unproven theories are true while other people's aren't. The majority of contributors to this website who have so far professed inner convictions are atheists, although it could be argued that agnostics in the "pure" sense of the word have the inner conviction that it is impossible to know whether God exists. It's easier to tackle the problem in an atheist context. The example we've discussed earlier ... and are still discussing ... is the belief that life on Earth originated through spontaneous (i.e. taking place without the intervention of any outside intelligence) physical and chemical processes. Despite long years of research by many scientists, there appears to be no evidence of the theory, and therefore belief can hardly be called proportional to the evidence, so what is the inner conviction based on? (I could just as well take the example of a Creationist who believes in the literal truth of Genesis, but we don't have any Creationist contributors to ask.) Conversely, if an atheist were confronted with a group of people who had clinically died, been resuscitated, and described how they had entered an extraordinary new world (see Pim van Lommel), why would he/she automatically assume that they hadn't? - I must stress, as George did originally, that this is not about abiogenesis (or about near-death experiences), but about the nature of belief. The answers won't lead us to any of the so-called "deeper" truths, but perhaps they might have a bearing on our social behaviour and the way we use language ... the word "evidence" being one example.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Friday, March 14, 2008, 15:53 (5881 days ago) @ dhw
"Clayto reports on a theory that life has always been here and the universe has always existed, though both are constantly changing." George Jelliss gave us the maxim: "one's belief should be proportional to the evidence". dhw commented " On the understanding that I am using the word "belief" in the sense of an inner conviction that something is true, I would like to find out just what it is that constitutes evidence, I must stress, as George did originally, that this is not about abiogenesis (or about near-death experiences), but about the nature of belief. The answers won't lead us to any of the so-called "deeper" truths, but perhaps they might have a bearing on our social behaviour and the way we use language ... the word "evidence" being one example." - In response to Clayto, the Big Bang involved extreme tempertures and a plasma state without atoms or molecules at first. Life could not have passed thru that transition. Big Bang/Big Crunch theories are disproven by the newly discovered increasingly rapid expansion of the universe thru 'dark energy'. There appears to be no way to prove a cyclical universe. - I applaud dhw in his quest to ask for real evidence, obviously from science, rather than feelings and convictions, not based on hard evidence. We should deal with reasoning before arriving at faith in some concept.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
David Turell writes: "I applaud dhw in his quest to ask for real evidence, obviously from science, rather than feelings and convictions not based on hard evidence. We should deal with reasoning before arriving at faith in some concept." - I'm most grateful for the applause (a rare occurrence on this website), but must confess that I deserve only half a clap. My posting was a question rather than a quest. I can best illustrate the problem through my own beliefs or lack of them. - In my posting, I used two examples. The first was abiogenesis, and here David is absolutely right: it is a scientific hypothesis, and I need scientific evidence before I can believe in it. However, the second example was near-death experiences, and this is different. I don't have any conviction either way about an afterlife. However, if I were to have a near-death experience like those of Pim van Lommel's patients ... entering a different world etc. ... it's perfectly possible that it would dramatically alter my attitude. It might well be "evidence" for me, and give me an inner conviction without any scientific basis. The question that I'm asking is why some people believe in the first hypothesis without evidence, and automatically reject evidence of the second. (Similarly, I could ask of a Creationist why he/she believes in the Genesis account and rejects the findings of science.) What constitutes evidence, and what is the nature of belief?
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, March 15, 2008, 12:15 (5880 days ago) @ dhw
Concerning the difference between belief in the origin of life by natural chemical processes (abiogenesis) and belief in some form of life-after-death. For me the difference is that abiogenesis does not require any radical change to the current scientific paradigm (if I may use that word) of chemistry and physics. All it requires is the discovery of a workable process. - On the other hand ideas of life after death (of which there are many different scenarios) require a radical change. According to the current paradigm, personality, soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, and other such concepts are to be identified with the physical actions of neurons in the brain. As such they must come to an end with the cessation of brain activity (death). - If it is held to be possible for these psychological attributes to somehow survive death, and live on in some form (as ghosts, angels, demons, psychic waves, disembodied spirits, emfoldment in some universal consciousness, or by reincarnation, etc, etc.) then some radical new physics, or a new science of "psychics", is needed to supplement or replace the existing paradigm. - Despite a century or more of psychic research no such new science has yet emerged, or seems at all likely to emerge, other than vague speculations involving extensions of quantum theory.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 15, 2008, 15:50 (5880 days ago) @ dhw
I'd like to reply to dhw and Jelliss at one time without quotes. dhw is correct. Perhaps I was too broad in my reliance on pure science. Only 20-25 % of folks have a near to death episode, and it does alter their thinking, but Per van Pommel studied them in a prospective manner, and turned up some fascinating results that suggest those episodes are real. Experiences that dhw wants can come with deep meditiation and the person thinks he has become 'one with the universe'. I admit that is at a different level than pure science. Jelliss has an extreme faith in origin of life experimentation reaching an answer. Having read several books and articles on the subject, I know it has been a total dead end so far. The mathematical odds against the spontaneous generation of a single RNA molecule are so enormous as to deny a chance event can do it. Which is why Robert Shapiro has suggested a different approach with inorganic cycles that can generate some energy, and then "somehow" reach out into chance and become organic. I would again point out that the DNA/RNA system is very layered and extremely filled with information. Neo-Darwin mechanisms simply re-arrange the deck chairs on the Darwin ship using existing information to create something different and/or new. Where and how did chance originally find the information?
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, March 15, 2008, 17:35 (5880 days ago) @ David Turell
David Turell's statement: The mathematical odds against the spontaneous generation of a single RNA molecule are so enormous as to deny a chance event can do it. is of course correct. But no-one except propagandists against origin of life by natural processes are claiming any such thing. If a natural process is found it will clearly be of the step-by-step kind, not the "now an instantaneous miracle occurs" variety. - Also I don't have any "faith" that a solution will be found, or that one will be found quickly. It is a difficult problem. It may be that some revolution in the scientific paradigm will be necessary (e.g. the much sought-after reconciliation between quantum theory and relativity).
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
George Jelliss writes (15.03 at 12.15): "[belief in] abiogenesis does not require any radical change in the current scientific paradigm...On the other hand ideas of life after death...require a radical change." On 15.03 at 17.35 he writes of abiogenesis, "I don't have any "faith" that a solution will be found...It is a difficult problem. It may be that some revolution in the scientific paradigm will be necessary." - I can't see much difference between a radical change and a revolution. If the possible need for change in the scientific paradigm is grounds for not believing in one hypothesis, why isn't it grounds for not believing in the other? - However, the fact that George doesn't "have any 'faith' that a solution will be found" is what really interests me. Spontaneous generation is crucial to the argument for atheism. Dawkins, in his chapter entitled Why there is almost certainly no God, says that the "spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule...is central to this section of the book", and without faith that the theory will be proved, I don't see how anyone can dismiss alternative explanations. That does not mean that I am advocating belief in a deity, or in an afterlife. I have no convictions about them either. I am simply trying to find out how someone can be convinced that their own unproven theories are right and other people's are wrong. George's two statements leave me as confused as ever. - In response to Clayto's being a "pure" agnostic but not having an inner conviction, by "pure" I meant the original meaning of agnosticism, which is "the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists." (I am working with the definition of belief as an inner conviction.) The "impure" definition that you and I go by is that we just don't know!
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, March 16, 2008, 17:41 (5879 days ago) @ dhw
Perhaps I should have included this well known cartoon with my last posting. - http://socsci2.ucsd.edu/~aronatas/project/cartoon.math.miracle.3.12.htm - To clarify my position: It may be that a radical change in the paradigm will prove necessary to explain the beginnings of life. On the other hand a radical change certainly will be needed to incorporate ideas of life after death. - dhw leaves out part of the quotation from Dawkins. It should be (p.137): "But the spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybe it is - very very improbable, and I shall dwell on this, for it is central to this section of the book." Note the maybe. - dhw says: "I am working with the definition of belief as an inner conviction." But where does an "inner conviction" come from? The way I look at things is that we accumulate experiences for and against propositions and "weigh up" the amount of credence we are prepared to give to them, for and against. This may be done partly subconsciously. Thus one's views should be, as I have stated before, proportional to the evidence, but may well be coloured by one's individual experiences; for instance the amount of trust one is prepared to give to particular authorities (parents and teachers) who have influenced your life. But ultimately basing belief on wish fulfilment or authority must take second place to scientifically reproducible and communicable results.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Saturday, March 15, 2008, 18:39 (5880 days ago) @ David Turell
Quote "In response to Clayto, the Big Bang involved extreme temperatures and a plasma state without atoms or molecules at first. Life could not have passed thru that transition. Big Bang/Big Crunch theories are disproven by the newly discovered increasingly rapid expansion of the universe thru 'dark energy'. There appears to be no way to prove a cyclical universe." - This seems to be a list of assertions that we know things we do not know. The claims are in tune with current scientific consensus but then so have any number of other assertions in the past and (I predict with some confidence though without certainty) in the future. eg. 'life could not have ---'. We don't actually know what life is, only some of its outward manifestations. 'theories are disproven' ---- current evidence suggests Big / Bang Crunch is not a likely explanation but that has not been proven (yet)and we do not know what dark energy is or its many implications (if indeed it does exist or is another 'ether') 'no way to prove a cyclical universe' ---- or disprove? yet? - I hope a current consensus, impressive though the evidence ad maths might be, is not being taken as revealed truth! - Quote "Experiences that dhw wants can come with deep meditation and the person thinks he has become 'one with the universe'. I admit that is at a different level than pure science." - The experience of 'becoming one with the universe' is a common mystical experience in variety of circumstances, cultures, religions. I have experienced it myself. It's commonality can be interpreted both as suggesting it is of little significance or it is of transcendent significance. - Quote: "although it could be argued that agnostics in the "pure" sense of the word have the inner conviction that it is impossible to know whether God exists." I disagree. I as a "pure" (!) agnostic say otherwise. I am agnostic about my agnosticism. I do not have an "inner conviction" it is impossible, I just strongly doubt the possibility of knowing. - clayto
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 18:25 (5877 days ago) @ clayto
edited by unknown, Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 18:31
George Jellis wrote: "If a natural process is found it will clearly be of the step-by-step kind, not the "now an instantaneous miracle occurs" variety - To clarify my [Jellis] position: It may be that a radical change in the paradigm will prove necessary to explain the beginnings of life. On the other hand a radical change certainly will be needed to incorporate ideas of life after death. dhw leaves out part of the quotation from Dawkins. It should be (p.137): "But the spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybe it is - very very improbable, and I shall dwell on this, for it is central to this section of the book." Note the maybe." - Clayto wrote: "we do not know what dark energy is or its many implications (if indeed it does exist or is another 'ether') 'no way to prove a cyclical universe' ---- or disprove? yet? I hope a current consensus, impressive though the evidence ad maths might be, is not being taken as revealed truth! Quote: "although it could be argued that agnostics in the "pure" sense of the word have the inner conviction that it is impossible to know whether God exists." I disagree. I as a "pure" (!) agnostic say otherwise. I am agnostic about my agnosticism. I do not have an "inner conviction" it is impossible, I just strongly doubt the possibility of knowing." - George Jellis is an atheist, and Clayto is a pure agnostic. To me both appear to be unwilling to accept current scientific findings as able to guide oneself to reach conclusions for now. No decisions are irrevocable. I had an internal desire to leave agnosticism as I wanted some conclusion to my struggle, and not keep balancing intellectually on the fence. So I accept current scientific findings when they are broadly accepted. For Clayto, I don't care that we don't fully know why the universe is rapidly expanding, but it is expanding more and more rapidly, and that is very well proven. To my mind that make the Big Bang a form of creation with a small 'c'. For George Jellis, I agree that a chance chemical start of life must be tiny step by tiny step, but each one is hugely improbable. Life may have been a creation of sorts. I can change my mind if the science changes its findings, but I think Spinoza- and Einstein-style that some type of general intelligence exists in the universe, and we developed a little of it in our consciousness.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Just tuned into the latest scientific cacophany. George Jellis says belief must be proportional to the evidence. There's no scientific evidence for abiogenesis but he believes in it and that means there's nothing out there. David Turrell says George (atheist) and Clayto (agnostic) are unwilling to accept current scientific findings as a guide, but he believes there's something out there though he'll change his mind if science changes its findings. That can only mean current scientific findings = there's something out there. I wonder how many scientists know that. Believe what you like, guys, but don't try to kid us that science is on your side.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 15:44 (5876 days ago) @ Peter P
Peter P concludes " That can only mean current scientific findings = there's something out there. I wonder how many scientists know that. Believe what you like, guys, but don't try to kid us that science is on your side." Peter P should recognize whatever is out there can never be proven. But world famous philosophers like Antony Flew (former atheistic philosopher) and John Leslie, philosopher of science, use scientific findings to reach conclusions that satisfy their ponderings. We cannot and should not exclude what science finds. The fact that science is methodological materialism is correct for science. But those science findings can be used for conjecture. Mortimer J. Adler, "How to Think About God", 1980, uses the approach used by jury trials, presuming God from evidence that presents itself as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Science isn't supposed to be trying to find God, whatever "God" means, but some scientists have started to wonder. Check out Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, or Gerald Schroeder as examples. - Look at John Leslie's final conclusion in "Universes":" Much evidence suggests that Life's prerequisites could only amazingly have been fulfilled anywhere unless this is a truth: That God is real and/or there exist vastly many, very varied universes." Parse that sentence. There are three possibilities: God is real and in this universe. God is real and is in many universes, or there are many universes and we are in the lucky one. Nothing else is possible.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Nothing can be proven. Agreed. And "we cannot and should not exclude what science finds." Agreed again. And maybe God is real, and maybe we're just lucky. Agreed again. "Science findings can be used for conjecture." Exactly. And some scientists conjecture that God exists, and some scientists conjecture that God doesn't exist. So science is on nobody's side. That's the point I'm making. Whether you think there is or isn't a God is a matter of belief, not of science.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 20, 2008, 15:07 (5875 days ago) @ Peter P
" Whether you think there is or isn't a God is a matter of belief, not of science." Peter P and I are in total agreement. Pascal's 'leap of faith' is a personal choice. But as Pascal knew, reason can bring you to the edge of the chasm, and what I have been trying to do is put before this website a group of authors who reached that edge and made their personal choice. And I am not trying to prove a greater power by majority opinion. It may be helpful for those at the edge to review all the reasonable thinking that is available. I have not accepted God as defined by religions. I'm probably a panentheist having accepted the premise that more than likely there is an imbedded intelligence within and without this universe, which, more than likely, is the only one that can be proven to exist.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Thursday, March 20, 2008, 16:35 (5875 days ago) @ David Turell
"-----we are in the lucky one. Nothing else is possible." This sort of claim has alway seemed to me to be fundamentally flawed thinking. Whether there is one universe or multiples of multiuniverses the only factor that is required for our world to be one (possibly of many) with intelligent life is that we are here asking the question. If there really is only one inhabited planet (seems unlikely) in the whole of everything it is nothing to do with luck or any sort of god that it is ours that is the one, the very fact that we are here speculating about it means it must be the one (or one of many). 'Nothing else is possible.' On all the empty lifeless worlds there is no one / no thing sitting on a lump of rock thinking 'O how unlucky I am that I do not exist!' - Chris
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 20, 2008, 18:03 (5875 days ago) @ clayto
"-----we are in the lucky one. Nothing else is possible." This sort of claim has alway seemed to me to be fundamentally flawed thinking. Whether there is one universe or multiples of multiuniverses the only factor that is required for our world to be one (possibly of many) with intelligent life is that we are here asking the question. If there really is only one inhabited planet (seems unlikely) in the whole of everything it is nothing to do with luck or any sort of god that it is ours that is the one, the very fact that we are here speculating about it means it must be the one (or one of many). 'Nothing else is possible" > Chris I'm in absolute agreement. I have always thought that the anthropic principle was useless, and further readings of Leslie suggest he is not impressed with that thinking either. Whether there is one inhabited planet with life or many is another issue. The question still remains, why does a universe with life exist, life that can think about the universe and describe it?
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Friday, March 21, 2008, 18:20 (5874 days ago) @ David Turell
1. (a) Why is there ---? (b) Why not? - 2. Why is it assumed there is an answer to either question? - Looking for answers for everythng is clearly a distinct characteristic of humans. Providing an answer for everything might not be a characteristic of the universe.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 22, 2008, 01:15 (5874 days ago) @ clayto
" Looking for answers for everythng is clearly a distinct characteristic of humans. Providing an answer for everything might not be a characteristic of the universe." - I don't expect the universe to provide all the answers, because of the quantum reality that is on the other side of the wall of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Some of the parts of the physics of the universe will never be known. But that doesn't stop some folks from thinking: I've had one person tell me he knew there was a God because of the principle, for that was were God was, on the other side of the wall.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Saturday, March 22, 2008, 14:55 (5873 days ago) @ David Turell
Quote "I've had one person tell me he knew there was a God because of the principle, for that was were God was, on the other side of the wall." What on earth --- heaven or hell --- does that mean?
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Saturday, March 22, 2008, 16:27 (5873 days ago) @ clayto
"Quote "I've had one person tell me he knew there was a God because of the principle, for that was were God was, on the other side of the wall." What on earth --- heaven or hell --- does that mean?" - Sorry if I seemed obtuse. I even misspelled 'where'. I was alluding to the problems in quantum mechanics. A quantum of energy is either a particle of energy or a wave, depending on how we measure it. It never seems to be both at the same time. Quantum calculations are accurate but are the average of all particles or waves. Quanta are entangled. If you split one Quantum into two parts, both parts 'know' what is happening to the other even at great distances, and respond to the other's changes faster than the speed of light. Einstein called this 'spookiness at a distance'. As a result we never can fully investigate energy bundles as we seem to dictate 'what' they are at any given moment through our chosen method of measurement. Thus we look at quanta from 'our' side only. For this reason Heisenberg developed a principle of uncertainty. We can never know everything that is going on. Thus the 'wall'. There are some folks who claim, as a result of all of this, that the universe exists only because we are here to observe it, since quanta become what we choose to observe. I think that is very extreme. The person who gave me his theory about God, felt God was in the area of quantum mechanics that we were not measuring, on the other side of the 'wall of quantum uncertainty'. After all, we never can 'prove' God in an absolute fashion. By the way, Einstein's frustration was that his ingenious insights were in classical Newtonian mechanics, and he could never resolve or accept that he could not bring quantum theory into his relativity theories. And no one has done that since. Which is why we don't have a 'theory of everything', and why there is a huge argument whether 'string theory' will ever lead anywhere. And this why I said we will never know everything.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Sunday, March 23, 2008, 10:51 (5872 days ago) @ David Turell
David, this seems a good summary of things I have been reading a lot about recently including in the remarkably clear and agnostic 'The Universe In A Single Atom' by the Dalai Lama (whose sincerity in the current crisis could hardly be doubted by anybody who has read it). - Regarding 'the universe only exists because we observe it' concept, I have always been attracted to the compelling logic of this having read about Berkley's Idealism as a teenager so I have been interested to see its re-examination with the arrival of Quantum Physics (and its discussion in Paul Davis 'The Goldilocks Principle' for example.) - I understand your use of the term 'extreme' view but in what sense could the universe be said to exist if there was no consciousness present to perceive it, directly or indirectly ----- nothing visible, touchable or able to be felt, nothing audible, nothing to be smelt ---- nothing to be apprehended in any way because there was nothing capable of any form of apprehension? - Chris
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Sunday, March 23, 2008, 15:43 (5872 days ago) @ clayto
" I understand your use of the term 'extreme' view but in what sense could the universe be said to exist if there was no consciousness present to perceive it, directly or indirectly ----- nothing visible, touchable or able to be felt, nothing audible, nothing to be smelt ---- nothing to be apprehended in any way because there was nothing capable of any form of apprehension? " Chris, interesting reply, and I too like to read Paul Davies. At least he is looking at science and wondering what might be 'really' going on. I've not read the Dalai Lama, but I understand that Eastern Religions (other than the Hindus with millions of Gods) do not have a Godhead. And speaking from some ignorance, I had the impression they considered divine levels of creation to exist. I still don't buy the need for an observer; was there a noise in the woods when the tree fell and no one was nearby to hear it? I'm personally too direct. Of course there was a noise. Things happen all the time and no one observes it. I didn't see the eggs laid in the bird house, but they are there when I peak inside. I think this is all part of circular reasoning like the anthropic principle. If multi-universes exist but we can never observe them, do they really exist, or do they have consciousness also so they can exist? But your point of view still raises the issue: how did our inanimate universe develop consciousness? You imply it had to because of your interpretation of quantum theory. That makes it sound almost purposeful, and I'm sure you don't mean that.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
'I understand your use of the term 'extreme' view but in what sense could the universe be said to exist if there was no consciousness present to perceive it, directly or indirectly ----- nothing visible, touchable or able to be felt, nothing audible, nothing to be smelt ---- nothing to be apprehended in any way because there was nothing capable of any form of apprehension?' - Couple of points: - First: Berkeley's idealism is an epistemological theory, not a theory of existence; it proposes what we can know rather than what can exist. And it proposes that we can only know 'phenomena'; that is, things as they appear to us in experience rather than as they may [or may not] be 'in themselves' or apart from our experience of them. Only God, whose consciousness is absolute and therefore non-perspectival, can know what things are 'really' like as distinct from their 'appearances'. - Second: There is no sense in which the universe could be said to exist if there was no 'consciousness' present to perceive it. This is because whatever sense such utterances have is dependent on language and its significations. The idea that the universe exists only has meaning within a matrix of signs, symbols and grammatical rules; therefore, without the apprehension of language ('consciousness' in mentalistic or psychologising terms), the very notion of 'a universe' that 'exists' would be utterly meaningless. In other words, the existence of a universe outside our apprehension of it is unsayable (i.e. 'inconceivable' in psychologising terms). - Third: The anthropic principle, as I've pointed out elsewhere on this board, holds only that we should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that can be observed; a cautionary note that is as old as Protagoras. It may well be that the universe has the appearance of having been designed with us in mind as its crowning glory; but this may only be a result of the way our minds work or language has developed historically.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Monday, March 24, 2008, 01:07 (5872 days ago) @ whitecraw
"Second: There is no sense in which the universe could be said to exist if there was no 'consciousness' present to perceive it. This is because whatever sense such utterances have is dependent on language and its significations. The idea that the universe exists only has meaning within a matrix of signs, symbols and grammatical rules; therefore, without the apprehension of language ('consciousness' in mentalistic or psychologising terms), the very notion of 'a universe' that 'exists' would be utterly meaningless. In other words, the existence of a universe outside our apprehension of it is unsayable (i.e. 'inconceivable' in psychologising terms)." - I am totally confused by this concept. Given that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and humans and their consciousness did not appear until the past few million years, and language even more recently, perhaps the past few hundred thousand years ago, does that mean that the universe really didn't exist for 13.7 billion years, until we appeared to be aware of it, to think about it, and talk about it? Or am I to interpret the word 'exist' as meaning conscious recognition of the existence of something or object before it can be said to exist.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
'I am totally confused by this concept. Given that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and humans and their consciousness did not appear until the past few million years, and language even more recently, perhaps the past few hundred thousand years ago, does that mean that the universe really didn't exist for 13.7 billion years, until we appeared to be aware of it, to think about it, and talk about it? Or am I to interpret the word 'exist' as meaning conscious recognition of the existence of something or object before it can be said to exist.' - Existence is a concept by which we differentiate the content of experience to render it meaningful. Historically, we have made this differentiation in several different ways in accordance with several widely different criteria; to qualify as existent, a thing has at various times been required to be present in experience, present independent of experience, a particular or 'indexical', a universal, sentient, temporal, the ground of every subsequent mode of being (the 'Being of beings')... But however we differentiate existence and non-existence, clearly nothing could be said to exist prior to the construction of a differentiation between existent and non-existent things. - Armed with a differentiation of this kind, we can of course then tell retrospectively the story of a universe that 'existed' long before we appeared on the scene as if someone were there to conceive it ... which, of course, there wasn't. The prehuman universe, we may say, was insensible (since there was no one around to experience it) and inconceivable (since there were no concepts under which any experience of it could have been made meaningful), only anachronistically describable as a 'universe' at all; it was literally (though this is also an anachronistic differentiation) a 'chaos' out of which we have since ordered a 'cosmos' through religion and science and storytelling generally. - The observation isn't that we made the universe in the way that a carpenter makes a table, but only that we make it a 'universe' ... a comprehensive whole rather than just a succession of haphazard happenings. As Wittgenstein said, the limits of our language are the limits of our world. Prior to the appearance of language, the world we inhabit as agents and knowers (the 'real' world?), its past and its possible futures, was necessarily unformed; it had no 'limits', it could not even be said to 'exist'. Only with the appearance of language and its differentiations did it come into existence in any meaningful sense.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 17:17 (5870 days ago) @ whitecraw
I regret to say that this discussion seems to have deteriorated into solipsism from clayto and postmodernist waffle from whitecraw. - To say that something "exists" means that it can be detected by the human senses, augmented by scientific instruments (such as telescopes, microscopes and spectrographs) and by the deductive process applied to these evidences. - On this basis we can say that quarks exist, that Julius Caesar existed, that bacterial life existed on earth long before conscious beings evolved. - And a falling tree makes a noise, even if there is no-one there to hear it; what we mean is that it's fall causes sound waves in the air that would be detected by a human ear, were one there to hear it. - I refute you thus! As Dr Johnson nobly demonstrated.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 26, 2008, 00:50 (5870 days ago) @ George Jelliss
"I regret to say that this discussion seems to have deteriorated into solipsism from clayto and postmodernist waffle from whitecraw. And a falling tree makes a noise, even if there is no-one there to hear it; what we mean is that it's fall causes sound waves in the air that would be detected by a human ear, were one there to hear it. I refute you thus! As Dr Johnson nobly demonstrated." - George Jelliss, thank you!!!
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
'I regret to say that this discussion seems to have deteriorated into solipsism from clayto and postmodernist waffle from whitecraw.' Hardly postmodernist waffle. It's waffle rooted in the 'linguistic turn' that theory of knowledge took almost a century ago in the modernist era, when epistemologists began to examine the role language plays in the constitution of knowledge and belief and the influence it has on the judgements we make, and when psychological models of thinking associated with the Cartesian concept of 'mind' were largely superseded by linguistic models wherein (for example) an 'idea' ceases to be considered as some sort of mysterious quasi-physical content of a no less mysterious quasi-physical receptacle and comes to be considered instead as nothing more occult than the proposition expressed by a declarative sentence. The point I was making is that the world we know and about which we have beliefs is, as a consequence of the crucial role language plays in our getting of knowledge, largely shaped and coloured for us by language. Postmodernist waffle actually challenges this account by exemplifying in its own literary practice a) how the proposition expressed by a declarative sentence is radically indeterminable and b) how brute reality resists being 'humanised' through its conceptualisation in language, thereby declaring its independence from human activity. - 'To say that something "exists" means that it can be detected by the human senses, augmented by scientific instruments (such as telescopes, microscopes and spectrographs) and by the deductive process applied to these evidences.' - That's one definition, which functions to enable us to differentiate a world along certain lines ('esse est percipi'). But if we were to adopt a different policy, defining 'existence' as (say) Berkeley did in his famous dictum 'esse est aut percipere aut percipi' ('to exist is either to perceive or to be perceived'), we would end up with a world differentiated along a different set of lines. What is it that privileges one definition over another? On which of the tablets that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai is it inscribed that to say something 'exists' means that it can be detected by the human senses, aided or unaided, or inferred from what is evident to those senses'? - 'And a falling tree makes a noise, even if there is no-one there to hear it; what we mean is that it's fall causes sound waves in the air that would be detected by a human ear, were one there to hear it.' - That's entirely correct, on the policy assumption that 'noise' is to be defined in this particular way. (Though there is a problem with this definition: it employs the term it is intended to define and therefore 'begs the question'.) Given this definition, one may reasonably infer that a falling tree makes a noise even when there is no one around to hear it. But if we instead made the policy assumption that 'noise' is to be defined rather as a vibration in some material that is picked up via an auditory organ and registered by a brain as a particular quality of sensation, then we may infer with equal reasonableness that a falling tree does not make a noise ... but only a wave-like disturbance of the air ... in the absence of any auditory organ and connected brain to turn those waves into sound waves.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Thursday, March 27, 2008, 00:18 (5869 days ago) @ whitecraw
Whitcraw commented: " if we were to adopt a different policy, defining 'existence' as (say) Berkeley did in his famous dictum 'esse est aut percipere aut percipi' ('to exist is either to perceive or to be perceived')..and then added... [make].... the policy assumption that 'noise' is to be defined rather as a vibration in some material that is picked up via an auditory organ and registered by a brain as a particular quality of sensation, then we may infer with equal reasonableness that a falling tree does not make a noise ... but only a wave-like disturbance of the air ... in the absence of any auditory organ and connected brain to turn those waves into sound waves." - What bothers me about these assertions is they make existence dependent upon human sensory organs. But there are many men who are color blind, and all of us color our observations with our own internal personal prejudices and experiences. Why are so many objects in existence described in the same way by so many people under these circumstances? To state that waves in the air exist but become sound only when heard by an auditory organ is true enough, but is much ado about nothing. Those waves exist and are potential sound waves all of the time. To me the whole argument is semantic mental calisthenics.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by clayto , Monday, March 24, 2008, 17:20 (5871 days ago) @ whitecraw
What does 'existence' mean, apart from some / all the manifestations of existence such as visibility, audability, touchability and so on? - I don't think a falling tree does make any 'sound' on a deserted island. It may or may not exist, it may or may not do something, but it does not make a 'sound' as sound is an experience of consciousness generated by organs, a nervous systems and brain.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Many strongly held positions begin in the gut and then rely on the brain to come up with the appropriate justification. Dawkins seems to fall in this category. His gut tells him there is no god, so he overdrives his reasoning to justify it. The beauty of science is that, in the final stage, ideas must be taken to the lab for proof by observation. In the case of God's existence, no one has succeeded in bringing it to the lab. The distinction between natural and supernatural is the reason. Science can only deal with the natural. One source of knowledge that I have not seen mentioned in your discussions is divine revelation. If a personal God exists, then divine revelation is perfectly reasonable. Atheists will never completely understand theists unless they allow for divine revelation. I suppose it would equate to the gut level ideas mentioned above, but without the need to go to the lab, since it is validated by authority. It sometimes takes the form of mental telepathy. Then the question becomes who has had it, who has imagined it and who is faking it. If you throw out divine revelation, then you can throw out the Bible, since, without God's direct editing, the Bible is just another very old book. To say there is no way to prove God's existence is incorrect. If God would simply appear before a panel of esteemed scientists and perform miracles on request, he could prove his existence. He could also answer their questions about the Big Bang, quantum mechanics and creating living organisms. This would indisputably be divine revelation. My personal gut feeling is that all knowledge is suspect, especially scientific knowledge. It can be overturned with another trip to the lab. Color me agnostic.
- ...
- ...
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Carl: "Many strongly held positions begin in the gut and then rely on the brain to come up with the appropriate justification." - You also draw our attention to divine revelation, and point out that God could prove his existence by appearing before a panel of esteemed scientists to perform miracles and answer all the big questions. - We've had quite a few discussions on the nature of belief, and most of us agreed that some sort of "inner conviction" (= gut feeling) was an integral part. The brain can certainly justify anything, as can be seen from the rational arguments for and against the existence of God, so what is the source of the inner conviction either way? To link up with the "origin of life" thread, how can atheists be convinced that life has arisen spontaneously ... one key condition for atheism ... even though there is absolutely no evidence that it can do so? Why are Christians so certain that not only does God exist, but he's also personal, all-good and loving? How can they be sure they would not have been convinced Muslims/Hindus/ Buddhists had they been born into another society? - Revelation obviously plays a huge part in the monotheistic religions, but unless God accepts Carl's challenge, I don't see how we can know "who has had it, who has imagined it and who is faking it". The same applies to near-death and extra-sensory experiences, ghosts, visions etc. Unless I have or see one myself, I'm going to entertain doubts, but on the agnostic's inevitable other hand, why should anyone have an "inner conviction" that they are all imaginary or fake? - Not so sure about "all knowledge is suspect, especially scientific knowledge". I'd prefer "including scientific knowledge". Otherwise, our colour is the same, even if we spell it differently!
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
dhw asks how atheists can believe in abiogenesis without proof. I suspect it is through a process of elimination. God could not have created life because He doesn't exist. Therefore, it must be spontaneous. Some atheist look favorably on panspermia, since it does not require abiogenesis on earth or divine creation. - Most Christians I have talked to come to their inner conviction through a spiritual experience with a personal God. Having once established the validity of this knowledge, they then formulate logical arguments for their beliefs in discussions with others when argument from scripture is not accepted. - Another word for "gut" or "inner conviction" is "intuition". My definition of intuition is "beliefs arrived at without the process of conscious logic". We rely on intuition to get us through life, since we don't have the time to go through a conscious logic process for most of the decisions we make. Belief arrived at through intuition can be very strong, even in the face of contrary evidence and severe consequences.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 05:56 (5751 days ago) @ Carl
Panspermia just moves abiogenesis to another area of the universe. Same problem, different location. Panspermia is not the panecea is seems to be. Atheists beware.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 15:49 (5751 days ago) @ Carl
Carl writes: "Atheists will never completely understand theists unless they allow for divine revelation." - Dawkins calls it delusion, and I'm with him on this. Gut feelings and intuitions are all very well, they could be evolved faculties, though I would still want independent evidence to confirm they were leading me on the right lines. But believing you have received a divine revelation is a different order of insight, bordering upon insanity. Mental institutions are, or were, full of people who fancied they could hear supernatural voices giving them advice and instruction. - As regards: "how atheists can believe in abiogenesis without proof. We don't. We are just "joining up the dots". We have an explanation for the origin of the elements needed for life (cosmology and atomic physics) and we have an explanation for the development of many different living forms (evolution by natural selection). There is a gap. We just think it more likely to be filled by some natural chemical and physical process than by the intervention of some outside miracle-worker. - Carl writes: Most Christians I have talked to come to their inner conviction through a spiritual experience with a personal God. Having once established the validity of this knowledge, ... But this is the main problem. How do they "establish the validity"? Presumably by asking the advice of their local holy man, who came to his belief by a similar "spiritual experience" and was confirmed in it by consulting his local holy man, and so on ad infinitum, ab initio.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 16:00 (5751 days ago) @ George Jelliss
We don't have a good explanation for speciation from the theory of natural selection. I would wait for publication of the Altenberg conference of 16 Darwinists to reach any conclusions about natural selection. Preliminary interviews indicate NS is about to take a subordinate role to other approaches.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
George writes "divine revelation is a different order of insight, bordering upon insanity". I realized after my post that I should have distinguished between divine inspiration (telepathy) and divine revelation (3d visuals with full surround sound). Inspiration is much less likely to get you institutionalized, but revelation sometimes allows you to start your own religion (Joseph Smith, Mohammad, Moses). I think of divine revelation as the ultimate source of authority, and divine inspiration as the source of the inner conviction that one is correct on a particular issue. David, you should realize the source of their faith, just as the source of your faith is that everything has a natural explanation. Lay out your arguments, let them lay out theirs, acknowledge the differences and focus on questions such as whether ID should be taught in science class. Possibly a compromise could be reached where the legitimate questions about evolution could be raised in the class without diluting the science. This could allow the ID supporters to avoid having a repugnant concept totally crammed down their throats. This is not a "can't we all just get along" speech, but a suggestion to recognize reality and let everyone focus on the science to see where it goes. - David, panspermia does more than just move the question a step away. It removes the need to prove that life arose under conditions of a primitive earth, and moves it to any possible set of conditions in the galaxy. God knows what might be out there. Thanks for the tip on the Altenberg Conference. Looks interesting.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 02:44 (5751 days ago) @ Carl
> David, panspermia does more than just move the question a step away. It removes the need to prove that life arose under conditions of a primitive earth, and moves it to any possible set of conditions in the galaxy. God knows what might be out there. Thanks for the tip on the Altenberg Conference. Looks interesting. - I still view panspermia as a cop out to avoid explaining the appearnce of life, organic matter from an inorganic universe. The odds against spontaneous formation of living organisms wherever it happens are impossibly enormous, even if taken in tiny steps. And yes, let us follow the science, and try to interpret it with neutrality. Altenberg will be a bombshell, if the interviews prior to it are predictive.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by Mark , Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 12:15 (5750 days ago) @ Carl
Let me offer a little on this thread, at the risk of being considered almost insane by George! - Carl says, "If God would simply appear before a panel of esteemed scientists and perform miracles on request, he could prove his existence". - The Christian God could not do this. He could perhaps appear before the panel in some form and perform miracles, I suppose. But there would always be room for doubt from a logical point of view. In my opinion there are two mistakes here. One is to consider God as merely another object whom, if he exists, we could objectively study. If he exists, then he is the ground of all our studying. The idea that we could have a vantage point from which to assess him is like saying that we can pull ourselves up by our own shoe laces. - The second follows on. If God cannot be reached purely by scientific study or logic, then if he exists and if it is possible to know him then there must be another way to know. As it happens, there is another way to "know" which we use all the time, which provides a close analogy. If you can stomach a recent sermon, you read about it here - apologies for the length, but it does save me time to provide a link.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
Not for the first time, I find Mark's train of thought difficult to follow. It would be valuable to know how Christians deal with certain problems that as an agnostic I find impossible to solve, and so I'd be grateful for clarification. - Carl suggested that God could prove his existence by appearing before a panel of scientists, performing miracles etc. You respond as follows: - "The Christian God could not do this. He could perhaps appear before the panel in some form and perform miracles, I suppose. But there would always be room for doubt from a logical point of view." - He could not do it, but perhaps he could do it? And why would there be room for doubt? Is God incapable of making himself clear and convincing? Is it now the official Christian view that the Old Testament Adam and Eve, Cain, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Job etc. either did not exist or were insane? (God talks directly to them, and doesn't seem to leave much room for doubt.) Who sent the vision that changed Saul to Paul? Is God incapable of doing a similar job on Dawkins? Carl's suggestion and my questions have a slightly farcical undertone, but the thinking behind them is serious: why doesn't the Christian God act? Not just to prove his existence, but perhaps more importantly (from a humanistic standpoint) to save the innocent from the natural disasters he has created, and to remove human oppressors of the innocent (like the self-proclaimed Christian Mugabe)? Here are some possible answers to my question: 1) God doesn't care; 2) God is incapable of action; 3) action would spoil his fun; 4) it's all part of a plan we can't understand (so there's no point in trying); 5) God isn't there. Our atheists will have no problem choosing, but in the words of a kindred Fool, the rest of us are "left darkling". - You think Carl has made two mistakes: "to consider God as merely another object whom, if he exists, we could objectively study." Here is a dictionary definition of theology: "the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings." Off with the heads of the theologians, then. You continue: "If he exists, then he is the ground of all our studying." So can we or can't we study him? You go on: "The idea that we could have a vantage point from which to assess him is like saying that we can pull ourselves up by our own shoe laces." . Of course we couldn't assess him. He would simply tell us what's what. The question is why doesn't he? Your answer so far is (a) that he can't, or b) that if he did, there would always be room for doubt ... neither of which says much for his omnipotence. - Thank you for referring us to your sermon. I find the arguments equally difficult to follow, but need to reread it and will try again later. Despite the problems I have in following your reasoning (which of course may well be my fault), I'm grateful to you for taking us along these routes. Discussion in itself is helpful.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Thursday, July 24, 2008, 14:32 (5749 days ago) @ dhw
Here are some possible answers to my question: 1) God doesn't care; 2) God is incapable of action; 3) action would spoil his fun; 4) it's all part of a plan we can't understand (so there's no point in trying); 5) God isn't there. Our atheists will have no problem choosing, but in the words of a kindred Fool, the rest of us are "left darkling". - dhw: I would pick number 4 in your list of suggestions. Stefan Einhorn's book, "A Concealed God", covers this well. If there is a God, He is concealed. As all religions point out, you must know Him by His works, and He, thanks to Pascal,requires that famous leap of faith. That is the sticking point for agnostics. One can accept proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" per Adler, but there is no absolute proof. There was enough 'proof' for Flew. This is where internal innate patterns of thought take over. Do you want to accept partial proof on not? There will never be absolulte proof. That is the way the game is played. There are no other rules.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by Mark , Friday, July 25, 2008, 17:03 (5748 days ago) @ dhw
Part 1 of 3 - Note: As I am about to post all this I see dhw has further posts headed "Sermon..". Hopefully this will answer some of that, but it is not written in response and I will need time to look at those further. - Thanks for all the comments. I will try my best to clarify what I have said, where evidently necessary. - I said: "...The Christian God could not do this. He could perhaps appear before the panel in some form and perform miracles, I suppose. But there would always be room for doubt from a logical point of view. In my opinion there are two mistakes here." - dhw seems to think I am contradicting myself here in the first two sentences. My point is that God may be able to do the miracles, but he couldn't provide scientifically verifiable proof. Carl partly gets what I mean when he gives the example of the burning bush. Another person's testimony may always be questioned. George's alternative interpretation of my faith is an immediate example of that! - But I meant more. Even if we could all together witness the burning bush and hear the voice it would be possible to say that we should first try to understand this without God. You all should be the first to tell me that it is dangerous to use gaps in our understanding as proof of the existence of God. Long ago a solar eclipse would have been taken as evidence of God. Can you imagine how dramatic that must have been to a pre-scientific culture, especially if there was no memory of such events? So anything which God did by way of miracles could be taken simply as a challenge to science. - dhw refers to various Old Testament characters: "God talks directly to them, and doesn't seem to leave much room for doubt". Firstly, the further back you go in the Bible, the longer the gap between the events reported and the writing; the greater the interpretation; the more we should think in terms of historical novels than documented events. It is primarily the witness of the faith of a people as transmitted and recorded. So we may reasonably take the constant reporting of "The Lord spake" as a retrospective interpretation and shorthand. It is certainly not the case that the Bible suggests that such people did not need to live by faith because everything was made plain to their senses. - Having said that, I don't wish to exclude the possibility of a voice from a burning bush, or Saul's conversion by a light from heaven and a voice. Particularly the latter, where it is recorded within living memory of contemporaries. I also believe that God may use such things at times to encourage faith. But it is still possible to resist. Could not Saul have gone away and looked for alternative interpretations? Was the voice a psychological phenomenon, he could have wondered ... or we certainly could nowadays! - dhw wonders why God doesn't do more, "Not just to prove his existence, but perhaps more importantly (from a humanistic standpoint) to save the innocent from the natural disasters he has created, and to remove human oppressors of the innocent" - He offers 5 possible answers: "1) God doesn't care; 2) God is incapable of action; 3) action would spoil his fun; 4) it's all part of a plan we can't understand (so there's no point in trying); 5) God isn't there." - If I were forced to choose from these I would say a combination of 2 and 4, but with a careful interpretation of what I mean by 2. - ... see part 2
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by Mark , Friday, July 25, 2008, 17:06 (5748 days ago) @ Mark
Part 2 of 3 - I think we can all understand that omnipotence cannot sensibly require ability to do what is logically impossible. It would be strange to insist that God should be able to prove that 1+1=3. Whenever we ask a question such as "Why doesn't God do this?" we should therefore remember that we are not in a position to judge what is possible and what is not, even for an almighty God who is the creator of a universe such as this. - The creation of the universe should not be considered as the choosing of pixel colours on a screen, where everything is done independently and the whole is in the direct and immediate control of the creator such that his will may be achieved without constraint. The universe is made such that it should have its own integrity and freedom. It is other than God. Not that it is independent of God, for every moment is a moment of his creation and he is present by his Spirit in all things. But it is a universe ... the word is a good one, meaning literally "turned into one". Like a great work of art, everything is meant to fit and need the other ... and the artist in some sense gives control to the work itself as it is shaped ... an inadequate but useful analogy. It is certainly the case, as we are more and more aware, that everything in the universe is connected with everything else. That is how it is meant to be. At present there are of course great conflicts and disharmonies, but God is still patiently at work. The whole of the Christian faith is about how this is done. And nowhere is this freedom more evident than in human beings ... and nowhere is it more true that our relatedness is the essence of who we are. In this we image God himself, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And sin, in Christian terms, is the denial that our self is found by its being given away, i.e. the claim to be an atomized self-sufficient being. - My point in answer to dhw's question is therefore this: given the universe that God has created, how can we know what is possible for God to do? The moment we start asking for him to intervene, to create faith here, prevent an earthquake there, stop a knife in mid air etc., then very quickly we realise that we are asking for a world unrecognisably different from our own ... not just because of the lack of suffering, but because of the lack of freedom. All that we value most highly would be gone. - Of course, I am not in a position to judge independently what God is logically able to do. It is a matter of faith that the universe is as it is and that God is all loving and almighty. But to insist that God should do this miracle and prevent that disaster and yet we have everything else we enjoy is to claim to know more than we can about what is logically possible. - ...see part 3...
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by Mark , Friday, July 25, 2008, 17:06 (5748 days ago) @ Mark
Part 3 of 3 - Finally, I am amused that George considers me to be a mystic! Believe me, no-one else has ever said that about me! Neither has anyone said that it is difficult to reason with me logically. My background is in such thinking ... first degree in maths, doctorate in engineering. A theology degree came later. - I am not basing my faith on a claim to particular direct experiences of God through visions or whatever. There is a place for such mysticism within Christianity, but essentially the faith is carried in the body of the Church, and borne witness to in the Scriptures. My faith in God must be personal, but it is through the Church that God reveals himself, and into the Church that I am incorporated. If you wish to call it mystical to speak of an inner conviction or a sense of God's presence, then this is something which is common to most Christians. - None of this leaves reason behind. Reason is there on the way to faith, and theology has been famously defined as "faith seeking understanding" (in answer to dhw's definition) ... a rational enterprise. But if God exists, and is the ground of reason, then by definition reason alone cannot demonstrate him. Isn't that logical? If B is supported by A, how can B prove A? I am trying to argue that to insist on logic and science is to restrict your vision to this universe, complaining that you can't see anything beyond it, when you yourselves have shut the windows. And, paradoxically, it is not scientific to close down possibilities. - I would argue that Christianity has a rather higher regard for reason than atheism. For atheists, reason is something which just pops out in a few creatures after billions of years. For Christians, reason is there before all things, indeed by the Word or "Logos" (rational principle in Greek thinking) is the world created. The universe is thought before it is thought about. - Another reason why I think Christianity is rational is that to me it makes more sense than any alternative I know ... in an exhilarating way. And we all have to hold on to something, and live by something, which we cannot ultimately defend absolutely by logic. I cannot here explain why it makes such sense to me. To do that I would have to write an awful lot more. There is an asymmetry here ... and there's no easy way round this ... in that the atheist/agnostic position can be very simply stated, since it is essentially a negative, whereas the Christian faith is based on a big story. It's worth bearing that in mind ... it can seem easy to dismiss Christianity, but it actually requires quite an effort to understand it fairly.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Friday, July 25, 2008, 21:10 (5748 days ago) @ Mark
My faith in God must be personal, but it is through the Church that God reveals himself, and into the Church that I am incorporated. If you wish to call it mystical to speak of an inner conviction or a sense of God's presence, then this is something which is common to most Christians. > > > I would argue that Christianity has a rather higher regard for reason than atheism. For atheists, reason is something which just pops out in a few creatures after billions of years. For Christians, reason is there before all things, indeed by the Word or "Logos" (rational principle in Greek thinking) is the world created. The universe is thought before it is thought about. > Mark: I would agree completely that God 'thought' the universe before he created it.On the other hand the contention that God reveals himself through your church is a human invention, supported by faith in what is revealed in your Bible, written by humans many years after the events described. Your church is a structure based on faith. If the original tenets are accepted then everything else follows logically. I was taught that years ago by a fellow college student who had almost become a Jesuit in training before his life took another direction. (He had studied to be a Jesuit about three years.) Therefore, the logic you describe, the reason, comes only after faith in the underpinnings of a given religion. Many of us cannot take that step in that order. And since I consider all religions a human invention, I am stuck at the point of recognizing a greater power without accepting a religion.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 04, 2022, 23:10 (717 days ago) @ Mark
Agnosticism criticized:
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo15/functional-unbelief
"In "An Agnostic Manifesto" published on June 28, 2010, at Slate, Rosenbaum takes great pains to explain that God-deniers, like God-believers, have childlike faith: faith that reality is nothing but the sum-total of the physical world; faith that science is the sole source of knowledge; faith that the materialistic quest will unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, including the ultimate questions about human existence; and faith that their beliefs are not based on faith, but are settled beyond rational argument.
***
"God-deniers dismiss God-believers for their dogmatic claims, yet fail themselves, as Rosenbaum rightly notes, "to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing." Not to mention the impossibility of nothing creating everything!
"But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."
"It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith. What the agnostic doesn't realize, however, or willfully ignores, is that he is just as much a person of faith as those he tries to distance himself from. It begins with what he really knows.
"What he, or any person, knows is what he accepts as true; and what he accepts as true depends on several factors, starting with personal experience.
***
"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.
"One such source is intellectual predisposition. This was best expressed by the Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who once said: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
"Note that Lewontin's faith in science as the ultimate source of knowledge is based on his intellectual preference for a particular worldview, not on science's proven explanatory power in answering ultimate questions.
"...astrobiologist Paul Davies believes that a yet-to-be-discovered principle has been woven into the cosmos so as to make the emergence of biological life inevitable. He believes this, not because he has any evidence to substantiate this notion, but because, as he says, he is "more comfortable" with it than with the alternatives, which presumably include a necessary, non-contingent Being.
***
"Despite mathematical relationships that describe the effects of gravity with astounding precision, there is no consensus about the nature of the thing. Is it a distortion of space-time? An attractive force of tiny, mediating, and (as of yet) hypothetical particles (gravitons?) that act like a gigantic rubber band? A mysterious "action-at-a distance" between bodies having mass? All of the above? None? Take your pick. The lack of consensus indicates that we know neither the what nor the why of gravity.
"Without such knowledge, belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is nothing more than belief that the future will be like the past. But if the universe is the fluke product of random collisions, as atheists contend, then that simple belief requires faith of a high order—faith not only in the unwavering regularity of nature but, more fundamentally, faith that our sensory experiences correspond to reality, and that our minds and intellects have the ability to discern the true nature of things.
***
"The claims of Ron Rosenbaum notwithstanding, the agnostic, like everyone else, exercises faith. What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain. So in reality, his faith is not in uncertainty at all. And that applies to his practiced faith as well as to his professed faith.
***
"...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea.'"
Comment: I await dhw's view.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
QUOTE: "But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."
A fair summary of the agnostic position, though I don’t know why Rosenbaum would say it “proudly” though the agnostic says it “ever so humbly”. I’ll opt for “humbly”.
QUOTES: "It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith. What the agnostic doesn't realize, however, or willfully ignores, is that he is just as much a person of faith as those he tries to distance himself from. It begins with what he really knows.
"What he, or any person, knows is what he accepts as true; and what he accepts as true depends on several factors, starting with personal experience.
"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.”
The author spends most of the time quite rightly analysing the faith of the atheist, but the quotes above make for one gigantic non sequitur. Agnostics, like everyone else, accept countless everyday “facts” based on experience, and yes, we even have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow! That has nothing whatsoever to do with the list of highly specialized questions! There is no faith involved in the statement that we do not know the answers!
QUOTE: “What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain.”
I can only speak for myself. I do not know the answers. I believe that the only way I will ever know the answers is if God does exist and manifests himself to us – probably in a life after death. If I die before any manifestation, and if there is no life after death, I will never know the answers. I do not say this with pride. I humbly acknowledge that either the theist or the atheist is right, so my lack of faith means that one way or another I am wrong. I have no idea why the author thinks this puts me in the same bracket as theists and atheists with their respective faiths.
QUOTE: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea.'"
Atheism is not “functional” – it is simply disbelief in God. “Revealed truth” is an extraordinary expression if we bear in mind that belief in God requires faith and has no more objectivity than the atheist’s faith in materialism. But uncertainty does not mean rejection. Rejection is atheism. It is true that the agnostic is unlikely to go to church or mosque or synagogue, and does not “order his life” around religion, but why is this classed as a “benefit”? Is he saying that faith in God is a handicap? I hope he’s not implying that atheists and agnostics are not subject to the same social and humanitarian principles as religious people. But it’s not clear what he’s trying to say here. “Weak tea”? I have no problem at all with people who think they know the answers, so long as their faith (in God or in materialism) does not cause harm to others, but I don’t see a confession of ignorance concerning questions to which there are no known objective answers as being a weakness or a strength. Why does the author want to pass such a judgement?
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by David Turell , Thursday, May 05, 2022, 15:28 (716 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "But agnostics, Rosenbaum proudly points out, refuse to believe what is not or cannot be verified as true, and they therefore stand against the dogmatism of both theism and atheism. When faced with the question of cosmogenesis—what "banged," and who or what did the banging—the agnostic shrugs, ever so humbly, and says, "I don't know."
dhw: A fair summary of the agnostic position, though I don’t know why Rosenbaum would say it “proudly” though the agnostic says it “ever so humbly”. I’ll opt for “humbly”.
QUOTES: "It is a response calculated to let you know that the agnostic occupies an elevated plain of intellectual integrity, one on which lives are directed by facts, not faith. What the agnostic doesn't realize, however, or willfully ignores, is that he is just as much a person of faith as those he tries to distance himself from. It begins with what he really knows.
"What he, or any person, knows is what he accepts as true; and what he accepts as true depends on several factors, starting with personal experience.
"In cases where personal experience is no help—as when contemplating questions about the origin of the universe, the existence of heaven or of the soul, the meaning of life, and so on—people depend on non-experiential sources of knowledge.”dhw: The author spends most of the time quite rightly analysing the faith of the atheist, but the quotes above make for one gigantic non sequitur. Agnostics, like everyone else, accept countless everyday “facts” based on experience, and yes, we even have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow! That has nothing whatsoever to do with the list of highly specialized questions! There is no faith involved in the statement that we do not know the answers!
QUOTE: “What's more, his belief in "uncertainty" is an expression of faith in the certainty that the answers to ultimate questions are uncertain.”
dhw: I can only speak for myself. I do not know the answers. I believe that the only way I will ever know the answers is if God does exist and manifests himself to us – probably in a life after death. If I die before any manifestation, and if there is no life after death, I will never know the answers. I do not say this with pride. I humbly acknowledge that either the theist or the atheist is right, so my lack of faith means that one way or another I am wrong. I have no idea why the author thinks this puts me in the same bracket as theists and atheists with their respective faiths.
QUOTE: "...the agnostic, who ever so humbly professes uncertainty as to God's existence, discloses his functional atheism by rejecting revealed truth and ordering his life as if God did not exist. He is attempting to avoid the costs of associating with atheism while at the same time enjoying the "benefits" thereof. In the end, that is pretty "weak tea.'"
dhw: Atheism is not “functional” – it is simply disbelief in God. “Revealed truth” is an extraordinary expression if we bear in mind that belief in God requires faith and has no more objectivity than the atheist’s faith in materialism. But uncertainty does not mean rejection. Rejection is atheism. It is true that the agnostic is unlikely to go to church or mosque or synagogue, and does not “order his life” around religion, but why is this classed as a “benefit”? Is he saying that faith in God is a handicap? I hope he’s not implying that atheists and agnostics are not subject to the same social and humanitarian principles as religious people. But it’s not clear what he’s trying to say here. “Weak tea”? I have no problem at all with people who think they know the answers, so long as their faith (in God or in materialism) does not cause harm to others, but I don’t see a confession of ignorance concerning questions to which there are no known objective answers as being a weakness or a strength. Why does the author want to pass such a judgement?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is exactly as I expected. Hopefully it will help support other agnostics, or explain your position to others who are interested.
Knowledge, belief & agnosticism
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, July 24, 2008, 14:19 (5749 days ago) @ Mark
I've found Mark's sermon quite interesting. Evidently he is a type of mystic. - He writes: "So how do we begin on this journey of knowing God personally? If all I have is doubt, what is the first step? The first step is to open the door of faith. Even if you can't step through, you can speak into what may seem like a void. You can say "Lord, if you are there, help me to know". It is about allowing the possibility of a personal relationship. It is a recognition that our own powers of reflection and calculation may not be the only way. It is about being open to be given what we have not observed or discovered for ourselves." - It seems to me that what he is doing here is allowing room within his conscious mind to be influenced by the archetype of the "Loving Father" within his unconscious. It is a deliberate reduction of one's ego or wilfulness and submission of the reason to intuitions from "Spirit of Love and Unity", another aspect of the "God" archetype. - It seems to me, from my personal experience with people of religious beliefs, that many of them are gentle and peace-loving, with their "hearts in the right place". This can give them an attractive personality. But it also makes it difficult to reason with them logically, because they prefer intuition to logic. They tend to be "god-befogged" as I call it. - Although this concept of "God" is within Mark's own mind, he makes clear that he perceives it as independent of his own desires and wishes, which is what makes it an archetype; part of the "collective unconscious" as Jung called it. This also makes clear why Mark's God is not the exhibitionist sort to do conjuring tricks to impress atheists! - I hope Mark will not take this diversion into psychology as any sort of personal attack. It's a long time since I made any sort of study of psychology, mainly, as is evident here, by reading Jung, and I am not any kind of physician.
The Sermon Part 2
Since I don't know whether God even exists or not, I can hardly begin to know him. I can only take up your Queen analogy, and weigh up what I know about him, and what I know about him is what I see in his creation. I'm going to abandon your beloved Queen, though, and pick on Robert Mugabe instead. I don't know him either (and fortunately he doesn't know me). It's philosophically possible that he doesn't exist, but I hope you and I will agree that he does, so that we can dispense with the philosophical niceties. I have formed certain opinions which are based entirely on what I have read, seen and heard. The accounts make me believe that he is cruel, callous and uncaring, and if I were to meet him in person, I would find it impossible to discount what I already know about him. I suspect most people would have the same problem. I needn't go into any more detail, because that is all I require for my analogy. I have read the science books and believe that the scientists are right, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years before we did. The strong ate the weak. Survival depended on a system of self-interest and bloodshed. Animals feel fear and pain ... otherwise why would they run away from a predator or howl when bitten? This pattern was set long before man came on the scene. Fighting over territory, food, mates ... all deeply ingrained in those creatures that preceded us. The selfishness that underlies evil is not man's invention, but is integral to Nature. I don't know God, but if he created Nature, I would find it impossible to discount the evidence of this Mugabe-like cruelty, callousness etc. I read the Bible, which some believe to be the Word of God, and it is filled with tales of similar savagery (we've already discussed them: the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.). And I look at the world around me, and see yet more slaughter of the innocents caused by the instability of Nature as God ... if he exists ... created it. This is not to deny the beauty and love that are also to be found in Nature and in the Bible, but this very mixture adds to the intellectual attraction of belief in an impersonal universe. You say: "It is God himself by his Spirit who can make himself known to you." I therefore have two questions: What is it that he makes known about himself beyond the facts we learn from Nature and the Bible (I might add history)? And are these facts to be ignored? - Finally, let me go back to the beginning of your sermon, the first words of which are: "It is not possible to know God except by faith." You clearly have faith. But can you in all honesty stand before your congregation and say to them: "I know God"? If you can't, what is the point of your initial statement? If you do say: "I know God"...well, perhaps we shouldn't go down that road. - Your sermon is challenging and stimulating, but the words have a hollow echo for someone in search of a coherent sense. Perhaps there is no coherent sense. Ultimately, faith rests on something inexpressible and incomprehensible, which leaves all of us groping in the same vast, ambiguous darkness.
The Sermon Part 2
Perhaps I should not interject myself into what is a conversation between dhw and Mark, but I will. First, my previous remarks about atheists were directed mostly at David, since I understand dwh's position. In a previous reference to divine inspiration as telepathy, I was referring to the spiritual communication between religious believers and God. The belief is that you must first approach God with your appeals and questions, and he will respond. The communication from you to God can be either aloud or simply as thoughts. God will read your thoughts or hear your words and respond. One way of God responding is to place thoughts in your mind. So, in effect, you are having a mental conversation with God. Another way of God responding is a "sign" in the form of an event in the physical world. Since you must first approach God with complete sincerity, the point can be made that you must concede the outcome before you begin the process. - My roots are in a rural area with a strong evangelical tradition, so I have some familiarity with the beliefs. A common belief is that God has a plan for each of us, and you must pray regularly to stay in concert with God's plan. - I recognize that this form of knowledge is totally inadmissible to anyone who relies exclusively on logical arguments and natural evidence, but it is the ultimate source of knowledge for many theists. - As far as Mark's statement,"only the whole church knows the truth", I think this references the emphasis on the importance of the Church. Each person gets a bit of knowledge about God, and they have to come together and share in order to get a fuller knowledge of God. George was justified in calling it "mystic", but a large portion of the population makes important decisions based on knowledge acquired this way.
The Sermon Part 2
I'd like to combine responses to Carl and Mark, as the posts overlap. - Carl, you should not regard your post as an interjection! I wish more people would join in these discussions, because I have no way of knowing if my failure to understand someone's reasoning is their fault or mine. By joining forces like this, we have a better chance of learning ... and that of course is the argument you have advanced in defence of Mark's concept of "the whole church". I can identify with that, but still not with the claim that "only the whole church knows the truth". Put all the churches together, and you will get a multitude of versions. I still say nobody "knows" except God, if he is there. Interesting that both you and George consider Mark to be a mystic, and Mark is surprised. I don't see how anyone can take the leap of faith in any of the established deities without embracing a degree of mysticism. David Turell's panentheism seems to me to represent the furthest one can go by reason alone (see his latest posting). - I'm grateful, Mark, for your detailed response to my pre-sermon post, and agree with many of the points you make: 1) I wouldn't take the OT literally either (though it does provide useful illustrations), but I'd apply similar scepticism to the NT as well. 2) The interconnectedness of everything in the universe. 3) The comparative freedom of human beings. 4) Even your linking of sin with self chimes in with mine under Sermon Part 2 (the system God may have created, whereby survival and self-interest are interlinked, though our perspective on this is different). 5) The limitations of logic and science. In all these areas, I can travel along the same road with you, and I can even accept that God would not want to intervene, but the implications of this constitute the point at which you go one way, and I get stuck. You say: "It is a matter of faith that the universe is as it is and that God is all loving and almighty." I'm not sure what you mean by "faith that the universe is as it is", but "all loving and almighty" is clear, and it is the crux of the second stage of my great conundrum ... the first being whether God exists anyway. The details are contained within my sermon on your sermon.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Saturday, July 26, 2008, 16:16 (5747 days ago) @ dhw
David Turell's panentheism seems to me to represent the furthest one can go by reason alone (see his latest posting). - This statement about my position needs refinement. I arrived at a conclusion that there had to be a greater power based on scientific discoveries that offered no other resonable explanation. But reasoning that a greater power 'should' exist, based on evidence, is not the same as fully accepting that there is a greater power. Back to Pascal's 'leap of faith'. dhw knows the evidence, which I consider achieving a level of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. dhw is not willing to take the leap. Adler discusses this in Chapter 17 of "How to Think About God", called "To the Chasm's Edge". I do accept there is a greater power religions call God. I am not sure how 'personal' God is, but I have reached a point of faith in Him and that I can relate to Him in prayer.
The Sermon Part 2
David reasons that there has to be a greater power, but quite rightly points out that this is different from "accepting that there is a greater power". Acceptance requires a "leap of faith". - If I have understood panentheism correctly, it = belief in a greater power without the attribution to it of any personal qualities. That is why I suggested it was the furthest that reason could go towards theism. Thank you for clarifying your position, but your analysis of my own is slightly inaccurate. You say that I am "not willing to take the leap". I don't think it's a matter of will. I find the evidence of intelligent design too convincing to allow for faith in chance (which I equate with atheism). But as I've tried to explain in my postings, I find the evidence of indifference/impersonality too convincing to allow for faith that a designer is actually out there, let alone maintaining a loving interest in me and my fellow creatures. I can't pray to a force whose nature is so indeterminate. I use the word "can't", not "won't". A leap of faith would not be confined to acceptance of design (which I think is the limit of reason's reach) but would require a personal trust. You "have faith in Him" and "can relate to Him in prayer", and yet you are "not sure how 'personal' God is". You have probably hit on the ideal balance between reason and hope, and I find it very appealing. But the suffering of the world is real, and it provides a constant barrage of evidence which suggests that whether designed or not, the universe doesn't care. And so I'm faced with the following possibilities: 1) a loving God; 2) a malevolent God; 3) an indifferent God; 4) a God with a dichotomized, human-type nature; 5) no God at all. From a purely personal point of view, of course No 1 is ideal, No 2 is the worst possible scenario, I can live with Nos. 3 and 5, which amount to the same thing, and No 4 fills me with mixed reactions. A "leap of faith" would require a decision between these five possibilities (including No. 5) that I am not able to take.
The Sermon Part 2
by BBella , Sunday, July 27, 2008, 20:12 (5746 days ago) @ dhw
dhw wrote: - <I can't pray to a force whose nature is so indeterminate. I use the word "can't", not "won't". A leap of faith would not be confined to acceptance of design (which I think is the limit of reason's reach) but would require a personal trust. You "have faith in Him" and "can relate to Him in prayer", and yet you are "not sure how 'personal' God is". You have probably hit on the ideal balance between reason and hope, and I find it very appealing. But the suffering of the world is real, and it provides a constant barrage of evidence which suggests that whether designed or not, the universe doesn't care. And so I'm faced with the following possibilities: 1) a loving God; 2) a malevolent God; 3) an indifferent God; 4) a God with a dichotomized, human-type nature; 5) no God at all.> - First off, I just wanted to say I've just caught up with recent threads; my mom had a heart attack and I have recently been very busy taking care of both parents who are quite elderly. My routine has stabilized a bit lately so I have been able to sneak a peek at the threads, and I thought I'd interject a thought from my own personal perspective on coming to a similar moment in life of what dhw wrote above. After many years seeking to behold the mind of God through religion, philosophy, etc, I came to a conclusion I had wasted many hours and days of my life and had come to be more confused than when I first begun the pursuit. Because my confusion began to overwhelm me at a moment in time of life I felt pressed to the edge of the precipice of life and death...I felt at that moment I had to make a decision for "myself" whether there is or is not a God and what the mind of God, if there is one, would be like. And/or, what mental path to take, thoughts to think, if "I" decided to conclude there was no God. At that moment I could care less about the question of whether I would be right or wrong, I just needed a definite to fixate on to save my life at that moment. I then went down both paths...there is one, there is not one. I could feel my spirit/emotion life when I felt there was one opposed to when I felt there was not one. So I went with there is one. Then I went down the path of whether this God was a god of religion and do this and that, etc, or whether this God is one of what at that moment I called love. And, again, I felt a lifting of my physical emotions when I thought on a God of love opposed to a god of religion. So, from that day forward, I have based my perspective, or opinion, from that platform. Not because it is true...but because it feels as if it is a life promoting thought. So, when it comes to the question of "the suffering of the world" dhw proposed as proof "God/universe does not care," my personal perspective is that, in some way yet to be perceived way (by many), suffering has it's place within the concept of God and love. It may have yet to become evident to many at just how that is....yet, I choose to believe it will eventually, at some point, whether here or there (after life) become completely understood. My mind lit on this question and I had to have an answer that could soothe my soul...from my own "chosen" perspective of God and Love. This is the only "answer," if it could be considered such, that came, and continues to come, to the rescue of this question, for me, of whether God/universe cares. Of course, I do not expect it to soothe any other seeking mind/heart. But, it does soothe mine. - BBella
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Sunday, July 27, 2008, 23:54 (5746 days ago) @ BBella
I think BBella has the perfect way of looking at the issue of who or what is the force we call God. If we accept there might be a God, let each of us find a comfortable accomodation with that concept in a personal way. As Carl points out religious theologies take off in every direction, and that leads to the confusion in many peoples' minds. Making up your own mind makes so much more sense.
The Sermon Part 2
Once again, a joint response to the most recent postings, as they draw various threads together. - Firstly, my sympathy to BBella. I vividly remember the problems associated with ageing parents, though I have moved into pole position myself: the older generation dreads becoming a burden, and the younger has to watch them suffer as well as to juggle priorities. - It all emerges from a painful system that may or may not be part of a master plan. Whichever it is, I think BBella and David are absolutely right: one must find one's own salvation, and provided it does not harm anyone, others should accept it. I also regard that as an argument against Mark's prioritization of the Church. But on the usual other hand of the agnostic, even though the Church has much to answer for, there can be no denying (a) that it has done a great deal of good, and (b) that it fulfils the needs of many people. There has to be a place for all beneficial solutions. - I agree with David that the choice is between design and chance, but I do not have to "choose one or the other". This is where it gets complicated. I believe that the odds against chance are astronomical, but I cannot separate the designer from the design. If God is indifferent, there might just as well not be a God, and so it doesn't matter two hoots whether we were designed or not. Personally, I discount the idea of a malevolent God, because I can't imagine any power taking so much trouble over creation in order to vent his hatred on it, though I can certainly imagine him losing interest. David discounts the dichotomized God as "the usual making a human-like 'person' out of God", whereas I see no reason why the creation should not reflect the nature of its creator, so it's up there with loving and/or indifferent. As for no God at all, even if intellectually I go with design, I can't go emotionally with an unknown force which might not care, might have abandoned us, or might even have died. It would be like asking me to worship a computer. I could worship a loving God with heart and soul ... I have no problem with BBella's or David's or Mark's belief in such a being ... and I could worship a human-like God with mixed feelings of admiration and fear, but I can't just blinker myself to the alternatives. I do not have to choose. I can side with Carl: "The ultimate truths are unknowable by mere humans, and, for me, they all go into a folder labelled 'unknown', and I am completely comfortable with that." That is pure agnosticism. I am not "completely comfortable" with it (although I am a happy and not a tormented soul), and am greatly appreciative of the opportunity to share thoughts and experiences with others who have or have not found solutions. That's what this forum is all about.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Monday, July 28, 2008, 19:56 (5745 days ago) @ dhw
> I agree with David that the choice is between design and chance, but I do not have to "choose one or the other". This is where it gets complicated. I believe that the odds against chance are astronomical, but I cannot separate the designer from the design. - dhw: The problem with your position is that you are at the point of accepting a designer, as long as you can be sure of what He represents, that is, his own attributes. But that is exactly what we cannot know, as God is purposely concealed. It appears you want to have faith, but with guarantees as to what you have faith in. Religions give us messages about that, but none of us know that those messages are accurate. BBella and I have made up our own concepts that we are comfortable with. Either you can do that or you can't,and I don't any way past that point, with demands on the God you want to have faith in.
The Sermon Part 2
David: "It appears you want to have faith, but with guarantees as to what you have faith in." - There's no denying that of all the options, a loving God would be the most desirable ... I expect even atheists would agree. The prospect of a happy afterlife, with all victims being compensated for their suffering, and with all the lucky ones continuing to enjoy a new form of existence ... yes, I'd like that. But wanting something is no basis for faith. I have to be careful here, because under no circumstances do I want to attack your faith, or BBella's or Mark's. I can only explain why I can't go with you, and it's not because I want guarantees. It's because I can't force myself to ignore what I regard as evidence. The course of world and individual history suggests to me that there is no pattern: that animals and humans go their own way, and chance in various forms plays a huge part. Hence the apparent randomness of good fortune and misery (the latter all too often being the fate of innocent victims).You say that "God is purposely concealed". Maybe. Or maybe he's indifferent. Or maybe he's not there. These last two options provide a clear explanation of the suffering which is real and present and undeniable, but faith in a loving God demands belief in a master plan which is way beyond our comprehension. Since we can't understand it, and have no evidence of it, it's akin to belief in chance as the creator of life. One or other may be true, but both demand a degree of credulity which is beyond my reach, and that is why I have asked repeatedly how those on either side can have an "inner conviction" that their beliefs are true, in spite of the lack of evidence. You have given me an answer: "BBella and I have made up our own concepts that we are comfortable with." Atheists have done the same. Once again you are right: "Either you can do that or you can't." I can't have faith in something I have made up. - You say: "I don't [see] any way past that point." Nor do I, but these exchanges of views and experiences are valuable to me, and who knows what long-term effects they may have on my thinking? Perhaps on other people's too. For what it's worth, I find it consoling to know that when I die, either it will all be over ... which won't be a problem, since we'll be oblivious ... or it will continue, which may be exciting.
The Sermon Part 2
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 15:02 (5744 days ago) @ dhw
dhw wrote: I have asked repeatedly how those on either side can have an "inner conviction" that their beliefs are true, in spite of the lack of evidence. You have given me an answer: "BBella and I have made up our own concepts that we are comfortable with." Atheists have done the same. - Naturally I contest this last interpretation. As an atheist I have "made up" nothing. I contend that my views are strictly based on the evidence. Our difference is that you do not agree with my evaluation of the evidence, which I consider to be an objective evaluation, but you consider to be subjective.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 03:24 (5744 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Naturally I contest this last interpretation. As an atheist I have "made up" nothing. I contend that my views are strictly based on the evidence. Our difference is that you do not agree with my evaluation of the evidence, which I consider to be an objective evaluation, but you consider to be subjective. - George: I think each of us is making a subjective evaluation, no matter how honestly each of us evaluates our thought patterns. You are honestly evaluating the evidence from your perspective and it is objective for you. When I was totally confirmed agnostic (and by that I mean I still don't think much of manmade theologies even though I have decided there is a greater power, attributes unknown) I decided not to sit up on a fence but come down to one side or the other based on the evidence in science that I studied. Not the Bible, science. What I found made me decide that the facts pointed to a greater power 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Absolute proof, of course not. But it was enough to satisfy me, and that has to be a subjective decision. I have faith in my reasoning capacity, and I am sure you do also. We see the same facts, but we make differing conclusions. That has to be based in part on personal preference. And that represents a personal bias on each of our parts, a subjective influence, recognized or not.
The Sermon Part 2
As our "latest postings" section is useful for people trying to catch up, once again I'll try to save space on it by combining responses. - George says his atheism is "strictly based on the evidence" and considers his evaluation of it to be objective. David has given you a direct answer, to which I would simply add that there is no evidence that abiogenesis (crucial to the case for atheism) happened or could happen. Even if intelligent scientists eventually managed to produce life, it would only prove that intelligence can produce life. - David says I have raised the "problem of evil". I have actually raised two problems ... evil and suffering. I was questioning the basis of faith in a loving God, since all we have to go on is the mixed world as God may or may not have created it. Carl's point about humans coming on the scene so late seems to me like another piece of evidence against the anthropocentric interpretation of creation. One wonders how God's loving nature would have manifested itself during the millions of years of dinosaur (not to mention bacteria) dominance. - However, David says that "part of the problem is the way we want to define God as 'extremely loving' or 'exceedingly loving'. We don't know what God's attributes are." I agree. You also say that panentheism "is simply the belief that God exists within and without the universe", but "panentheism allows for a personal loving God". In that case it must equally allow for an impersonal, unloving God. If we do not attribute any qualities at all to God, panentheism leaves us only a designer label away from agnosticism, and as I suggested in an earlier post, design becomes virtually irrelevant unless one has a humanized concept of the designer. An impersonal God without attributes means that we're on our own, what we have now is all we're going to get, and when we die it's all over anyway, so one might as well be an atheist. Not a problem in itself, but I'm wondering whether panentheism actually gets us anywhere. - Perhaps we should stop referring in this way to 'God', since the word automatically brings associations. Past discussions on the forum have, however, failed to come up with a satisfactory alternative. Any suggestions?
The Sermon Part 2
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, July 31, 2008, 13:34 (5742 days ago) @ dhw
I'm not sure of it is really worth my responding to dhw and DT because we are just going over ground already travelled. But for the benefit of newcomers: - dhw claims: there is no evidence that abiogenesis ... happened or could happen. - On the contrary there is every evidence that abiogenesis (first appearance of life in a lifeless universe) happened and therefore must have been able to happen (without divine or otherwise intelligent intervention). - DT claims: We see the same facts, but we make differing conclusions. That has to be based in part on personal preference. - But David has made clear in other threads that he is prepared to accept anecdotal evidence (such as of near death experiences), and also to rely upon evidence presented by people like the Discovery Institute who have a clear creationist agenda and are pariahs of the peer-reviewed scientific community. Thus despite his claims, his standards of "objectivity" are not scientifically adequate.
The Sermon Part 2
For the benefit of newcomers, George has defined abiogenesis as "first appearance of life in a lifeless universe", and says "there is every evidence that abiogenesis happened and therefore must have been able to happen". - Just in case any newcomers might (quite rightly) be thinking that they themselves constitute evidence that life began, here is a dictionary definition of abiogenesis: "the hypothesis that life can come into being from non-living materials". Despite decades of research by many eminent scientists, this hypothesis remains unproven.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Friday, August 01, 2008, 19:29 (5741 days ago) @ dhw
In general I feel George's definition is correct. Somehow life arose from an inorganic universe. Whether it was spontaneous or caused 'abiogenesis' is a term that covers the process. Life must come from life, but not when life appears from non-life.
The Sermon Part 2
David agrees with George's definition of abiogenesis ("first appearance of life in a lifeless universe"). - This is an unfortunate digression from the two issues I was trying to discuss: 1) the need for theists and atheists to make up their own, non-evidence-based concepts, and 2) what is the point of faith in a God without attributes (panentheism). However, since we need to sort out definitions in view of George's belief that abiogenesis is evidence-based, let me try again. - If you take abiogenesis to mean simply the origin of life ... whether created or not ... then of course, as George says, it happened. We're here to prove it. The dispute is over whether living organisms can arise spontaneously from non-living substances (a theory crucial to atheism), which is why two of my dictionaries call abiogenesis a hypothesis and a third defines it as 'the supposed spontaneous generation of living organisms'. Maybe one should use the old term 'spontaneous generation', or 'autogenesis', in order to avoid further misunderstandings. But whatever terms we use, the fact remains - as I pointed out previously - that despite decades of research by many eminent scientists, this hypothesis is still unproven. - Not only is the hypothesis unproven, but according to David, "the odds against spontaneous formation of living organisms wherever it happens are impossibly enormous" (July 23 at 02.44 under Knowledge, belief & agnosticism).
The Sermon Part 2
How would the discovery of fossils of primitive life on Mars affect this discussion?
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Saturday, August 02, 2008, 16:37 (5740 days ago) @ Carl
How would the discovery of fossils of primitive life on Mars affect this discussion? - My answer is simple: This is a universe whose structural design allows for life to appear on a planet whose attributes are friendly to life. We know those atttributes, described well in two books: "Privileged Planet" and "Rare Earth". If at one time Mars had the right climate, water and temperature there might well have been life there. This upsets the religious conceit that God made only the Earth for his human subjects. The universe, to repeat myself, is designed to allow for life somewhere or anywhere the conditions are right.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Saturday, August 02, 2008, 16:43 (5740 days ago) @ dhw
David agrees with George's definition of abiogenesis ("first appearance of life in a lifeless universe"). > . > > If you take abiogenesis to mean simply the origin of life ... whether created or not ... then of course, as George says, it happened. We're here to prove it. The dispute is over whether living organisms can arise spontaneously from non-living substances (a theory crucial to atheism),> > Not only is the hypothesis unproven, but according to David, "the odds against spontaneous formation of living organisms wherever it happens are impossibly enormous" (July 23 at 02.44 under Knowledge, belief & agnosticism). - I still think George is correct strictly speaking. Abiogenesis may imply in some atheistic minds spontaneous living cells from non-living inorganic material, occurring by chance. But it also could have been caused by a creative source religions call God. that is what my first entry implied.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Friday, August 01, 2008, 19:45 (5741 days ago) @ George Jelliss
But David has made clear in other threads that he is prepared to accept anecdotal evidence (such as of near death experiences), and also to rely upon evidence presented by people like the Discovery Institute who have a clear creationist agenda and are pariahs of the peer-reviewed scientific community. Thus despite his claims, his standards of "objectivity" are not scientifically adequate. - I wish George had reviewed what I have written here in other threads. I have made it quite clear that 12 of my patients described NDE or OOB (out of body)experiences, which piqued my interest. I then read several books and articles on the phenomenon to come to some conclusions. First of all these are not hallucinations. As a physician for many years,I know an hallucination when I hear one. Most of the the NDE folks see and communicate with dead people, not living. The patterns of the stories are all very similar and coherent. Some of the stories from the literature that I quoted in my book have third party corroboration: when the person with the NDE is told that someone has died during the episode and that it is true, and the NDE'r had no way of knowing it beforehand, is corroboration.Further in the Lancet article, introduced by me, by van Lommel (spelling?) it shows that there is a level of consciousness that appears and can work at memory even though the EEG is flat, that is, no cerebral activity. - Further George uses the Discovery Institute in a perjorative way, like Dawkins, the polemicist. I am Jewish, not Christian, and I have carefully reviewed their science. I don't care about their Christian endevours. Their science is of great interest. - Like most atheists I've met George looks at only his side of a question.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Saturday, August 02, 2008, 16:52 (5740 days ago) @ George Jelliss
But David has made clear in other threads that he is prepared to accept anecdotal evidence (such as of near death experiences), and also to rely upon evidence presented by people like the Discovery Institute who have a clear creationist agenda and are pariahs of the peer-reviewed scientific community. Thus despite his claims, his standards of "objectivity" are not scientifically adequate. - I need to make one further reply to George. I have met and talked with Michael Behe of "Darwin's Black Box" fame or infamy as you view him. He is a full professor of biochemistry at Lehigh U. in Philadelphia, and as such is fully peer-reviewed in his scientific papers. It is his considered scientific opinion that is Darwin is wrong, after judging the evidence he weighed. Scientific knowledge is not a majority wins situation. Read Kuhn.
The Sermon Part 2
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, August 02, 2008, 18:52 (5740 days ago) @ David Turell
Apologies to dhw if I have directed this thread in unwanted directions. Perhaps it should be renamed. - In reply to David Turell's latest comment. Professor Behe's views have been disowned by his own University: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe - The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." - Another well-known creationist, Professor Andy McIntosh of Leeds, has also had his views disowned by his institution: - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm - "As an academic institution, the University wishes to distance itself publicly from theories of creationism and so-called intelligent design which cannot be verified by evidence." - I have seen Prof. McIntosh speak at one of the creation conferences held in Leicester. He is a passionate speaker, and believes in a literal interpretaion of Genesis.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Saturday, August 02, 2008, 19:20 (5740 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> In reply to David Turell's latest comment. Professor Behe's views have been disowned by his own University: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe > > The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University > has published an official position statement which says > "It is our collective position that intelligent design > has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, > and should not be regarded as scientific." > > Another well-known creationist, Professor Andy McIntosh of Leeds, has also had his views disowned by his institution: > > http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm > > "As an academic institution, the University wishes to distance itself publicly from theories of creationism and so-called intelligent design which cannot be verified by evidence." > > I have seen Prof. McIntosh speak at one of the creation conferences held in Leicester. He is a passionate speaker, and believes in a literal interpretaion of Genesis. - I am aware of all the Lehigh comments. That does not change the fact that Behe's scientific thinking in his books are valid starting points for considering differing sides of scientific questions regarding Darwin's theory. Unless all opinions are considered, and I've read Kenneth Miller, for example, there is no point in reaching a conclusion. Reading only one side leads to robotic thought, not opinion. Current scientific opinion regarding Darwin is a current consensus, without current proof. Natural Selection may lead to speciation, but there is no current proof. The Altenberg Conference, when published, will give new insights, and I eagerly await it. And one should know to beware of Wikipedia, which may be edited or slanted by almost anyone, although what is quoted about Lehigh is correct. - As I have pointed out before, in the medical community it was accepted gospel that stomach acid caused ulcers until two nutty downunderers wondered about the funny bugs in surgical specimens, grew out H. Pylori, and changed the entire treatment of ulcers, although the acceptance took 20 years! Beware of Kuhn!
The Sermon Part 2
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, August 03, 2008, 12:24 (5739 days ago) @ David Turell
As I understand it the organisers of the Altenberg conference, Pigliucci and Muller are evolutionary biologists (Pigliucci is known for his public defence of evolution against creationists in debates). The purpose of the conference is simply to update the "neo-darwinian synthesis" of the 1930s to take into account the latest findings of molecular biology. Here is Pigliucci's own account: - http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/07/notes-from-altenberg-part-i.html - I'm afraid David Turell's hope for some sort of earth-shattering Kuhnian Paradigm Change away from natural selection is unlikely to be fulfilled. But apparently the full papers aren't being published until 2009. However the summaries given here by Pigliucci don't support DT's contentious statements.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Sunday, August 03, 2008, 17:43 (5739 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Here is Pigliucci's own account: > > http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/07/notes-from-altenberg-part-i.htm ... > I'm afraid David Turell's hope for some sort of earth-shattering Kuhnian Paradigm Change away from natural selection is unlikely to be fulfilled. But apparently the full papers aren't being published until 2009. However the summaries given here by Pigliucci don't support DT's contentious statements. - I've been lazy, not having hunted for any description of Altenberg, so I appreciate George finding a good website blog that describes in brief some of the discussion, and I've added it to my favorites list on Explorer. I have read all three entries. As usual George and I disagree on the import of the scientific discussions. It is clear to me that the modern systhesis, taking into account all of the mechanisms of change and modification and incorportation of the DNA/RNA discoveries, are causing Neo-Darwinism to move away from natural selection as primary. It becomes one of many mechanisms, and evolution is seen as highly complex, not just random mutation and natural selection, the rather simplistic view that grew out of Darwin's original proposals. As Kuhn points out, changes in scientific paradigms take years to develop and are resisted by scientists until they are forced to accept the change by the volume of contrary evidence. I noted that the ulcer-therapy change took 20 years. The Altenberg conference notes are exactly what I expected.
The Sermon Part 2
If you are interested, here is a New Zealand press report on the players in the Altenberg Conference. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm - Here is a paper by Pigliuci explaining the need for Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. I did not see any comfort in it for ID myself, but I didn't understand everything I read. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/pigliuccilab/Papers_files/2007-Evolution-EES.pdf
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Monday, August 04, 2008, 18:30 (5738 days ago) @ Carl
Carl: Thanks for the references. The Susan Mazur article I have seen elsewhere, and she supports my view. Pagliuci doesn't think a Kuhnian type paradigm change is necessary, but that is typical of scientists whose views protect their grants, and I wrote grants years ago, so I know what that implies.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 18:10 (5744 days ago) @ dhw
world and individual history suggests to me that there is no pattern: that animals and humans go their own way, and chance in various forms plays a huge part. Hence the apparent randomness of good fortune and misery (the latter all too often being the fate of innocent victims).You say that "God is purposely concealed". Maybe. Or maybe he's indifferent. Or maybe he's not there. These last two options provide a clear explanation of the suffering which is real and present and undeniable, but faith in a loving God demands belief in a master plan which is way beyond our comprehension. Since we can't understand it, and have no evidence of it, it's akin to belief in chance as the creator of life. - You have raised the issue of 'the problem of evil' or theodicy. Part of the problem is the way we want to define God as 'extremely loving' or 'exceedingly loving'. We don't know what God's attributes are. This may be the only way He could do it and create a universe (dangerous as it is) that would evolve to allow intelligent life. And I don't think that implies chance at all. Again think of the odds against chance creating what we observe about the universe and ourselves.
The Sermon Part 2
David writes about God and the nature of the universe, "This may be the only way He could do it and create a universe (dangerous as it is) that would evolve to allow intelligent life". The implication that the ultimate objective of God was intelligent life and , presumably, humans seems unlikely. 13.7 billion years since the universe was created, 4.5 billion years since the earth was created and 160 million years of dinosaur dominance just to arrive at a few thousand years of humanity seems like the long way around. I would say that if we are special in the eyes of God, we must be just one of many projects. David also asks of an earlier post of mine suggesting self organization of matter, "why should organic material be that way? By chance or by design?". This was a question I had never considered, and it takes the issue all the way back to the Big Bang. Does anyone have any information on whether the properties of the elements and all their of their countless compounds with other elements are thought to be established as part of the physical constants created in the Big Bang, so that a different universe would have different elements with different properties?
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 20:56 (5744 days ago) @ Carl
The implication that the ultimate objective of God was intelligent life and , presumably, humans seems unlikely. 13.7 billion years since the universe was created, 4.5 billion years since the earth was created and 160 million years of dinosaur dominance just to arrive at a few thousand years of humanity seems like the long way around. I would say that if we are special in the eyes of God, we must be just one of many projects. > David also asks of an earlier post of mine suggesting self organization of matter, "why should organic material be that way? By chance or by design?". > This was a question I had never considered, and it takes the issue all the way back to the Big Bang. Does anyone have any information on whether the properties of the elements and all their of their countless compounds with other elements are thought to be established as part of the physical constants created in the Big Bang, so that a different universe would have different elements with different properties? - Carl: As an answer to the first part of your comment. Why God chose to use a process that took 13.7 billion years is part of the mystery about God. As regards to the initial conditions that created the universe, they follow 'laws' of physics that have no explanation as to why they are like they are. Certain organic complounds appear naturally in an inorganic universe, but only 8 of the 20 essential amino acids for life have been found in meteorites, and they are not always left-handed, which is required for life. That puts the idea of panspermia in a very suspect category. All 20 amino acids essential for life are left-handed and the nucleotides in DNA/RNA are right-handed. Very specific rules, when naturally occuring organic chemical reactions produce 50/50 right and left-handed molecules.
The Sermon Part 2
by BBella , Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 08:38 (5729 days ago) @ Carl
David writes about God and the nature of the universe, "This may be the only way He could do it and create a universe (dangerous as it is) that would evolve to allow intelligent life". > The implication that the ultimate objective of God was intelligent life and , presumably, humans seems unlikely. 13.7 billion years since the universe was created, 4.5 billion years since the earth was created and 160 million years of dinosaur dominance just to arrive at a few thousand years of humanity seems like the long way around. I would say that if we are special in the eyes of God, we must be just one of many projects.> - I am just catching up with the discussions, sorry to be so far behind. Just throwing some thoughts on what I've read so far. For me, I have yet to personally conceive of a really good "purpose" for creation, but, I do like some theories I've come across thru the years that seem just as possible as anything else I've thought of! First of all, for the purpose for life on Earth to be God's way to evolve intelligent life seems a remote possibility to me. Something about it just doesn't click. Although, the time problem doesn't get in the way of that possibility, because it could easily be, what may seem a billion years to Earth folks (the human mind) may only be a few thousand years, or even a blink to God (or the minds of a higher being/s). That could easily solve why it seemed to take so long to finally bring about a thinking (or better said) questioning human mind. But, other theories seem more probable to me personally. Like: Earth could simply be a created school (for lack of a better word) of sorts for beings to come and gain certain experience's or to grow certain qualities they could not other wise grow in their own environment/dimension (That seems like a great idea!). Or, Earth could simply be a project for more advanced yet imperfect beings (I personally find myself drawn to this one because the evidence (written word/pictures) of higher beings (gods) visiting down thru the ages). The choice's of possibilities, in my opinion, for why we find ourselves here on Earth, are endless, and limited only by allowing our imagination. Why peruse only two choices: Is there, or is there not, a God. Or, is there, or is there not, an afterlife? What about, is there, or is there not, higher life forms that observe us just like we observe lower life forms, making sure we do not become extinct, just like we do not want the wolf to become extinct. Why? Because we feel responsible for them. Maybe there are higher life forms that feel responsible for us...and we just can't really understand that, yet....just like the wolves cannot understand why we would want to help them. Again, the possibilities are endless.
The Sermon Part 2
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 14:27 (5729 days ago) @ BBella
BBella is right. It is possible to make up all sorts of imaginative fantasies or science fiction or just-so stories to explain our place in the universe, and we can have aesthetic reasons for liking to believe they might be true. In fact the concepts of a god or a designer are just examples of this imaginative fiction. So long as you realise that it is fiction there need be no objection. It is when believers start to claim that their fantasies are reality that problems arise.
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Sunday, July 27, 2008, 20:39 (5746 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:If I have understood panentheism correctly, it = belief in a greater power without the attribution to it of any personal qualities. David:Panentheism allows for a personal loving God. Panentheism is simply the belief that God exists within and without the universe. dhw: I find the evidence of intelligent design too convincing to allow for faith in chance (which I equate with atheism). But as I've tried to explain in my postings, I find the evidence of indifference/impersonality too convincing to allow for faith that a designer is actually out there, let alone maintaining a loving interest in me and my fellow creatures. David: It is either design or chance, not both. No alternative, so you must choose one or the other. And if you choose design, there has to be something out there to create the design. dhw: I can't pray to a force whose nature is so indeterminate. I use the word "can't", not "won't". A leap of faith would not be confined to acceptance of design (which I think is the limit of reason's reach) but would require a personal trust. You "have faith in Him" and "can relate to Him in prayer", and yet you are "not sure how 'personal' God is". You have probably hit on the ideal balance between reason and hope, and I find it very appealing. But the suffering of the world is real, and it provides a constant barrage of evidence which suggests that whether designed or not, the universe doesn't care. And so I'm faced with the following possibilities: 1) a loving God; 2) a malevolent God; 3) an indifferent God; 4) a God with a dichotomized, human-type nature; 5) no God at all. David: You are trying too hard to anthropomorphize whatever the intelligent force really is. Your 1) and 3) are most likely. 2) is really very evil; 4) is the usual making a human-like 'person' out of God, as many religions seem to do. Adler calls it 'a person like no other person'.5) can't be true if the conclusion is design. - > dhw: From a purely personal point of view, of course No 1 is ideal, No 2 is the worst possible scenario, I can live with Nos. 3 and 5, which amount to the same thing, and No 4 fills me with mixed reactions. A "leap of faith" would require a decision between these five possibilities (including No. 5) that I am not able to take. - David: Stick with 1) and 3). the others make no sense if rationality is important.
The Sermon Part 2
All religions have inconsistencies that make them unpersuasive to me. I have also seen enough disagreement and inconsistency in logical debate that I do not believe absolute truth is available there except in very restricted situations such as math. It is hubris to think that from our perspective of a tiny point in the immensity of time and space that we could fathom ultimate reality. Scientific logic applied to theory which leads to new observations and new theory is tedious and imperfect, but it is the only path forward that I can see. I do not expect an argument or event that would alter my belief. The ultimate truths are unknowable by mere humans, and, for me, they all go into a folder labeled "unknown", and I am completely comfortable with that. I would not change anyone's mind about their convictions, since my beliefs hold no benefit for me beyond the fact that they are honestly what I feel. When you look at the suffering in the animal world (including man), I can only believe that, if God did create life, either God is indifferent or , as Bbella said in a previous post, there is an explanation why this is all really benign that it is beyond our comprehension. If it is the latter and there is an afterlife, I would expect amnesty for all our misdeeds. I do find it interesting that all societies seem to have an impetus toward some type of religion, but the results are too varied to think there is some "true" religion behind it. In regard to the origin of life, there is a possibility other than chance and design. It may be that the natural attributes of organic elements are such that anytime they are brought together under the right conditions and allowed a few hundred million years to percolate, the precursors of life and, ultimately, life itself will arise. If you throw in panspermia, then you have the conditions and life span of the entire galaxy to produce the required conditions. I would not call such a scenario "chance".
The Sermon Part 2
by David Turell , Sunday, July 27, 2008, 23:47 (5746 days ago) @ Carl
In regard to the origin of life, there is a possibility other than chance and design. It may be that the natural attributes of organic elements are such that anytime they are brought together under the right conditions and allowed a few hundred million years to percolate, the precursors of life and, ultimately, life itself will arise. If you throw in panspermia, then you have the conditions and life span of the entire galaxy to produce the required conditions. I would not call such a scenario "chance". - Carl's theory sounds like Stuart Kaufman's work and theories on self-organization. Organic molecular organization can lead to emergent properties, but I think actual replicating life structures are a bit much. I still call this (Carl's) scenario chance, and raise the issue, why should organic material be that way? By chance or by design?