The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 15, 2010, 18:13 (5425 days ago)
I recently got into a bad argument with my brother in law over the nature of science and how it relates to agnosticism and atheism. It started when he told me that he didn't respect David Attenborough because he was an agnostic. I told him that I thought that agnosticism was a reasonable position, to which he responded with the Dawkins-rhetorical reply, (paraph.) "Because science said so," and the genuine "burden of proof," argument. -The problem here is that as I've argued before, science is about model-building, and science does not inform us at all about anything that isn't physical. I think he got further confused when I argued that zero evidence of God doesn't allow us to say in the definitive "God does not exist." Safer is the claim, "God probably doesn't exist," or my preferred, "I have no reason to believe in God."-The Dawkins view is that if you have zero evidence of something, then you are justified in saying that it doesn't happen or doesn't exist. To me, this isn't the behavior of a detached observer, but that of a judge. As far as I'm concerned, it is at this point that you stop being a scientist and become a layperson. (Of course, bringing up a supernatural being at large means you're not practicing science.) -That argument (which ended in me being called self-righteous) made me think hard about the zero-evidence problem. It is right and true, that the person making the claim must provide evidence of their claim, but the problem between materialists and immaterialists is that they have drastically different criteria as to what they consider valid evidence. This reared its head recently in the scientism post by David. -Materialists only view as evidence those things that they can isolate or manipulate, whereas it seems immaterialists (to my eyes) seem to think anything and everything is valid evidence. The problem with this is that there is no happy medium, and everyone just ends up fighting in circles; materialists being accused of scientism, and immaterialists as stupid. -Bottom line, unless you can agree on what is valid evidence, there is no way to effectively implement the burden of proof issue on this topic.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Sunday, January 17, 2010, 21:51 (5423 days ago) @ xeno6696
xeno wrote: I think he got further confused when I argued that zero evidence of God doesn't allow us to say in the definitive "God does not exist." Safer is the claim, "God probably doesn't exist," or my preferred, "I have no reason to believe in God."-What's wrong with this argument is that you are assuming that you know what is meant by "God". People have all sorts of ideas about different kinds of "God". Most of them are easily shown to be nonexistent by science, or even by simple logic.-Of course if you are prepared to water down your concept of "God" until it is so vague or so ineffectual as to bear little resemblance to any "God" that has ever had any popular acclaim, you are on safe ground in being agnostic.
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 17, 2010, 22:21 (5423 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Thank you George, > xeno wrote: I think he got further confused when I argued that zero evidence of God doesn't allow us to say in the definitive "God does not exist." Safer is the claim, "God probably doesn't exist," or my preferred, "I have no reason to believe in God." > > What's wrong with this argument is that you are assuming that you know what is meant by "God". People have all sorts of ideas about different kinds of "God". Most of them are easily shown to be nonexistent by science, or even by simple logic. > > Of course if you are prepared to water down your concept of "God" until it is so vague or so ineffectual as to bear little resemblance to any "God" that has ever had any popular acclaim, you are on safe ground in being agnostic.-This is identical to another Dawkins' argument. "Someone claims that Zeus is the cause of lightning, we show him the difference of equipotentials is the cause. We reject Zeus and Accept the natural explanation." -However, the water is still more murky than you think; to some Christians, the shroud of Turin to be evidence of Christ's existence. This is because the threshhold they have for evidence is drastically different than someone who is more materialistic. The difficult part about this for everyone involved, is that it isn't necessary to be a strict logician to go about one's daily business; and I don't get to tell evangelicals that they're wrong because of the level of relativity that is permissible. Because everyone is a metaphysician, we all have our own personal criterion for what is credible and what isn't. -There was a fellow I met once. I don't even remember his name, but he told me that he believed in God when a car careened through our neighborhood, hit his father, and his father got up without a scratch. -To him and his father, his father's brush with death was evidence enough. And as I've wandered through this small world, those I've met that are the most devout, always have some tale like this one to tell. -When you get down to this level, what exactly can you say or do? -What my point was with this post, was to demonstrate that the reason why the conflict of materialism and immaterialism exists to the extent that it does. It boils down to what is acceptable evidence. And no one really gets to determine that on the grand scale, because not everything man does is science. If things were so simply logical as Dawkins asserts, no one would believe in any gods at all; but they do. Why do they? It comes down to the items faith, and a lower criterion of what is acceptable evidence.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
George and Matt have focused on two different points. -GEORGE: Of course if you are prepared to water down your concept of "God" until it is so vague or so ineffectual as to bear little resemblance to any "God" that has ever had any popular acclaim, you are on safe ground in being agnostic.-As I see it, the nature of the conflict between our current correspondents is whether there is or is not some kind of intelligence responsible for the creation of life, consciousness etc. But that is only part of it. If Mark or Frank were still with us, the other part would be the nature of that intelligence if there is one. I regard these as different subjects. However, with both arguments I would agree that the agnostic is on comparatively safe ground. It's those who have committed themselves to specific concepts that may find themselves in difficulty. A creationist may be shocked to learn that Professor Frank N. Stein has chucked a few twiddly bits higgledy-piggledy into a cauldron and watched them spring to life, reproduce, and spontaneously adapt to a changing environment, while their descendants spontaneously produce new organs. On the other hand, when George celebrates his hundredth birthday, he may be shocked to hear that Prof. Stein still hasn't cracked it, whereas he himself has just been resuscitated for the umpteenth time, and for the umpteenth time has had to return from an experience suspiciously like an afterlife.-However, I do think that a watered-down version of a God without attributes doesn't serve much of a purpose, and an uncaring, impersonal, deist God might just as well not be there. -Matt's post is very much in line with my own response concerning the subjectivity of criteria. (We do usually come to an agreement.) However, you've quoted examples of "evidence" such as the Turin Shroud, or an acquaintance's brush with death. "When you get down to this level, what exactly can you say or do?" Well, nothing. We all have to set our own criteria. But there is no need for us to discuss things at this level, or for you and your brother-in-law to do so. The fact is that science has been unable (so far) to solve the mysteries of the origin of life and of consciousness, and many scientists including David Turell adhere to the design theory for scientific and not spiritual reasons. One only has to ask a materialist for his theoretical solution to these mysteries, and then to ask what evidence he has, and suddenly the burden of proof shifts dramatically. The materialist claim that science and religion are incompatible (a claim which Darwin himself emphatically rejected) is therefore not only baseless, but is also indirectly a confession of faith no more scientific than theism. Perhaps that will change in the future, but 'perhaps' is the province of agnosticism.
The Nature of this Conflict
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 16:24 (5421 days ago) @ dhw
> GEORGE: Of course if you are prepared to water down your concept of "God" until it is so vague or so ineffectual as to bear little resemblance to any "God" that has ever had any popular acclaim, you are on safe ground in being agnostic.-> > dhw: However, I do think that a watered-down version of a God without attributes doesn't serve much of a purpose, and an uncaring, impersonal, deist God might just as well not be there. - I don't see what is wrong with a 'watered-down' version of God. First of all, none of us, including the most devout religionist, have any idea of what or who God really is, if He is at all. What you seem to want is a soft and fuzzy father figure to nurture you through life. You seem to have done very well as an agnostic; it is obvious you don't need such a figure to enjoy life, to have succeeded in your chosen line of work, have a loving wife and family (one assumes), etc. -What if God is a tough-loved God who expects you to rise above the challenges of every day life, to, in a larger sense, have the smarts to develop a way to knock off asteroids about to kill us all, and at the same time maintain this Earth of ours with proper dominion over animals and plants, basically all by your self (by this I mean the human race). After all God gave you the brains to do it all. He is out there, still watching, as Frank implied. You can still pray to this kind of God, if you wish, and thank Him for the strong self-reliance He instilled in you, if you will accept that gift and recognize it and use it properly. It makes you stronger as you follow a morality that creates in you a kind and caring person for others, as you see it is the right way to live. As this all comes from within yourself, from a brain God gave you, you will have no 'self-esteem' problems so common in this post-modern God-ignoring world we now live in. -(End of Rabbi David's sermon)
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 20:20 (5421 days ago) @ David Turell
There seem to me to have been some weird responses in the last three posts!-xeno maintains that spiritual people have a different "threshhold ... for evidence ... than someone who is more materialistic." ... "Because everyone is a metaphysician, we all have our own personal criterion for what is credible and what isn't." It is necessary to distinguish between personal beliefs or fancies and human knowledge, of value to us all, that can be established by rigorous methods. -The fellow who believes God saved his father from a car crash, is I'm afraid all too common. I've had an occasional brush with death, such as coming off my motorbike some years ago, but I put down my escape to chance factors. Someone who escapes a disaster in which others were killed and thinks it was his personal God looking after him is just showing a despicable inability to see the situation other than from a childishly egotistical viewpoint.- dhw as usual blows up the "mysteries" of the origin of life and of consciousness into mystical proportions, and can't accept that a simple joining up of the dots between the materialist descriptions of the before and after is the most likely explanation, but prefers to think that some sort of spiritual miracle occurred here, rather than a natural process.-dhw continues: "The materialist claim that science and religion are incompatible (a claim which Darwin himself emphatically rejected) is therefore not only baseless, but is also indirectly a confession of faith no more scientific than theism." Here again, it is clear that science and "religion" in most popular senses of that term, are indeed incompatible. It is only a severely watered down "religion" that is compatible with science.-DT says: "I don't see what is wrong with a 'watered-down' version of God." There is nothing wrong with it. That is my point.-Rabbi DT offers the notion of a "tough-love God" who expects the human race to rise above the challenges of every day life and asteroid strikes, and look after the Earth and its animals and plants. But this is litle more than "Nature" personified. I can see no point in "praying" to Nature; it has no effect. One can "worship" Nature in the sense of appreciating its grandeur and power, but would one want to worship its arbitrariness in dealing out death?
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 23:48 (5421 days ago) @ George Jelliss
There seem to me to have been some weird responses in the last three posts! > > xeno maintains that spiritual people have a different "threshhold ... for evidence ... than someone who is more materialistic." ... "Because everyone is a metaphysician, we all have our own personal criterion for what is credible and what isn't." It is necessary to distinguish between personal beliefs or fancies and human knowledge, of value to us all, that can be established by rigorous methods. > > The fellow who believes God saved his father from a car crash, is I'm afraid all too common. I've had an occasional brush with death, such as coming off my motorbike some years ago, but I put down my escape to chance factors. Someone who escapes a disaster in which others were killed and thinks it was his personal God looking after him is just showing a despicable inability to see the situation other than from a childishly egotistical viewpoint. >-Wow. I mean--WOW. I don't think you realize what you did with this post, George.-All of us bring a philosophy to the table, a metaphysic if you will, that frames how we interpret everything we see around us. What you did with your post was say unapologetically, that your philosophy is superior and that YOU get to decide what it is that he (and all other people) should and shouldn't think. You don't get to do that. Dawkins doesn't get to do that. Pope Benedict doesn't get to do that.-How what you said here can be construed as something completely different from what evangelical Christians or Muslims do stretches my credulity to its limits. -Materialism is a philosophy; end of story. And materialism isn't the teleological end of all philosophies, because philosophy is by nature a humanistic endeavor. -I don't see Dawkins or other atheists heading into third-world countries informing the populace that all gods are false. Why is that? Does Dawkins only wish to proselytize to Christians in the West?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 18:14 (5420 days ago) @ xeno6696
xeno wrote: "All of us bring a philosophy to the table, a metaphysic if you will, that frames how we interpret everything we see around us."-The scientific philosophy, which I espouse, maintains that one's presumptions should be as minimal as possible, and one's beliefs based on the soundest of evidence. Where do you start?- xeno: "I don't see Dawkins or other atheists heading into third-world countries informing the populace that all gods are false."-However, he has written a book "The God Delusion" that maintains, and indeed shows, that most forms of religious beliefs in gods are delusions. He doesn't need to go amissionising these days, his ideas get distributed around the world far more quickly by modern methods of communication. He does however allow for a very watered down version of god-belief as being non-delusional, namely the type associated with Einstein or Spinoza.
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 20:50 (5420 days ago) @ George Jelliss
xeno wrote: "All of us bring a philosophy to the table, a metaphysic if you will, that frames how we interpret everything we see around us." > > The scientific philosophy, which I espouse, maintains that one's presumptions should be as minimal as possible, and one's beliefs based on the soundest of evidence. Where do you start? > -As far as my own perspective, I'm in line with you, but with what I would consider an *extra* level of mathematically-founded skepticism. I also recognize that anything that has an "-ism" attached to it is a philosophy and that there is no absolute philosophy. In your post you asserted that your philosophy was somehow superior to all other philosophies--however, each individual human being gets to determine what they qualify as important. To some people, internal consistency and reproducibility simply are not important. Empiricism isn't important. If those things aren't important to a person, guess what--you, myself, Dawkins--no one on earth--can do anything about that, because in order to come in line with your view or Dawkins' view, those things must be important. Dawkins can call it a delusion till he's blue in the face, but it isn't going to change anything. -> > xeno: "I don't see Dawkins or other atheists heading into third-world countries informing the populace that all gods are false." > > However, he has written a book "The God Delusion" that maintains, and indeed shows, that most forms of religious beliefs in gods are delusions. He doesn't need to go amissionising these days, his ideas get distributed around the world far more quickly by modern methods of communication. He does however allow for a very watered down version of god-belief as being non-delusional, namely the type associated with Einstein or Spinoza.-Except that many people in those countries have things more important to them than reading Dawkins, like feeding their families and maintaining cultural connections. And even in those few countries where people have the luxury of money and can read, my bet is that they dismiss Dawkins as offhandedly as he does them, because again there is a philosophical and cultural difference between them.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, January 21, 2010, 11:45 (5419 days ago) @ xeno6696
xeno wrote: "... each individual human being gets to determine what they qualify as important. To some people, internal consistency and reproducibility simply are not important. Empiricism isn't important. If those things aren't important to a person, guess what--you, myself, Dawkins--no one on earth--can do anything about that, because in order to come in line with your view or Dawkins' view, those things must be important. Dawkins can call it a delusion till he's blue in the face, but it isn't going to change anything."-Well obviously, if someone is determined to be irrational then arguing rationally with them is not going to get very far. But why do they choose to be irrational? Why would anyone choose to be irrational? Most things we do in life have to be based on rational empirical judgments. Otherwise we would get run down crossing the road because we ignore the traffic, or we would be bankrupted because we can't add up our shopping bills, or we would end up in jail because we can't appreciate the need for laws.-Personal or traditional fantasies about the universe being run by some supermind, existing before human life appeared, based on no reproducible evidence, are irrational, but need not be harmful unless they start to impinge on our understanding of reality. Believing it may not have practical adverse consequences, unless it be that those who do not conform to it are persecuted, which is unfortunately exactly what is happening in many parts of the world.
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 22, 2010, 02:05 (5419 days ago) @ George Jelliss
edited by unknown, Friday, January 22, 2010, 02:20
George,-You've got yourself trapped in a box, inside and looking out. -When you ask:-But why do they choose to be irrational?-You do the following:-1. Assert your position is more rational for all people. -2. That anyone who analyzes the same information as you but reaches a different philosophical conclusion than yours is irrational. -3. That everyone starts out on the same philosophical and cultural footing.-4. That among all philosophies there is a philosophy that "trumps" all other philosophies. -5. That among all people you have the right to choose what it is that other people call irrational in their own philosophies. -6. That you are completely detached from any and all perspective.-Both Dawkins and yourself claim that the proper place to start is to have 0 assertions, no belief at all. (This is fine, I share this view.) But you have to be at a certain point intellectually, to even be able to make this claim. You have to have a certain level of maturity, and I would go so far to say even, a certain IQ. Most importantly, a certain culture. -In order to be as "rational" as you or I, one must accept and adhere to a level of rigor and discipline higher than what is necessary for nearly every other man; man is an expert in making snap judgments and estimations--it isn't just an expertise, it is what helped us evolve to where we are. But what someone chooses to believe or disbelieve is of no consequence to you or Dawkins, or myself, ultimately. What you see as irrational I see as a judging mind making sense of what they perceive and interpret based upon what they know and feel. And you can't dissociate feelings; it is something that some people value more than rational reason, and neither of us have an claim to that save when [EDIT] some disturbance of the law results--and no freethinker has any more right to claim justice than any theist of any ilk. There is no monopoly on truth. -[EDITED]
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 00:58 (5421 days ago) @ George Jelliss
There seem to me to have been some weird responses in the last three posts! > > DT says: "I don't see what is wrong with a 'watered-down' version of God." There is nothing wrong with it. That is my point.-Seems like we are closer in our thinking than you thought, George > > Rabbi DT offers the notion of a "tough-love God" who expects the human race to rise above the challenges of every day life and asteroid strikes, and look after the Earth and its animals and plants. But this is litle more than "Nature" personified. I can see no point in "praying" to Nature; it has no effect. One can "worship" Nature in the sense of appreciating its grandeur and power, but would one want to worship its arbitrariness in dealing out death?-But I am not praying to Nature. I am connecting with a universal intelligence of which my mind is a part. It is a shame that you are not connected. I follow Humanist rules as well or better than you do as I live my life. I've read Matt's rebuke to you. Please remember that we each have a right to our own point of view. Normally, you are much more polite than this. Did our comments touch one of your 'defensive buttons'?-In regard to "nature...[arbitrarily] dealing out death", we would not be here except for continential subduction, as one of the many ways that Earth is ideal for us. Haiti is a very unfortunate event, but California lives over just as potentially severe a fault line, and they are prepared for it. Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development.
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 18:27 (5420 days ago) @ David Turell
DT: "I am not praying to Nature. I am connecting with a universal intelligence of which my mind is a part. It is a shame that you are not connected."-I am fortunate not to have been indoctrinated with god-belief.- DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development."-I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. -Here is an alternative point of view that I read on another forum: -"Quake-proof buildings are cheap and easy to construct if timber is available or steel affordable. Human greed, in the form of the deforestation of the Carribean Antilles by international capital and the control of substandard building by a small band of absentee landlords has combined well with undue profit taking by the concrete companies: the result is the wholesale murder of thousands in the name of capitalism."
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 19:57 (5420 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development." > > I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. > > Here is an alternative point of view that I read on another forum: > > "Quake-proof buildings are cheap and easy to construct if timber is available or steel affordable. Human greed, in the form of the deforestation of the Carribean Antilles by international capital and the control of substandard building by a small band of absentee landlords has combined well with undue profit taking by the concrete companies: the result is the wholesale murder of thousands in the name of capitalism."- If you really knew the history of Haiti you would not have classified my remarks the way you did. The Dominican Republic is on the same island, and the contrast is enormous. The history of both countries is intertwined. Explore the issue of why the difference. I've travelled in many third world countries. Kenya, Chile, Equador, Mexico, Fiji, Thailand,& India are not Haiti, to mention some of the places I've been.-Your remarks tend to indicate that you believe in post-modern multiculturalism and diversity, and the dangers of the philosophic basis of capitalism, rooted in English and French philosophers of the Enlightenment. If you wish to guess who I am then I may guess about you.-I live in a Texas town that is 75% black. We have dinner with black friends, we party with them, and we work side by side with them on my ranch. As a young man I supported desegregation very actively. but I can be clearly honest about Haiti in my viewpoint.
The Nature of this Conflict
by David Turell , Saturday, February 06, 2010, 01:03 (5404 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development." > > I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. - I've answered George's opinion before, but I live in this hemisphere and know the Hiatian condition. Several million Hiatians are here in the US, because since the so-called country became free in 1820, no truly constructed country has ever developed. I'm no expert, so I present an expert column from the WSJ:- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575038862061751140.html
The Nature of this Conflict
by David Turell , Sunday, February 07, 2010, 18:43 (5402 days ago) @ David Turell
> > DT: "Unfortunately, the Haitians have never developed their society to the point that they are prepared. Is that God's fault? Is it the First World's? It is a tough-love God's challenge to be adult in societal rules and development." > > > > I'm afraid that remark strikes me as being pretty close to racist. > > > I've answered George's opinion before, but I live in this hemisphere and know the Hiatian condition. Several million Hiatians are here in the US, because since the so-called country became free in 1820, no truly constructed country has ever developed. I'm no expert, so I present an expert column from the WSJ:-Another column from the WSJ re' Haiti, supporting my original comments that George objected to. The background of the people in Haiti has not allowed them to develop any maturity in country building. George, whose responsibility is it to develop that sort of maturity? Yours, mine, the useless UN?-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704533204575047163435348660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 07, 2010, 19:10 (5402 days ago) @ David Turell
This is very parallel to my own opposition to the most recent war in Iraq. I don't think its possible for a country to keep its freedom when they had never fought for it in the first place--just as much as you couldn't expect Haiti to develop into an economic powerhouse overnight, neither could you expect a people who had no George Washingtons or Sam Adams to be able to cherish, maintain, and respect the freedom they have when it was not they themselves who sacrificed for it. -Going back to Haiti, I'm also not going to argue that they should "pick themselves up by their bootstraps," but I also don't think that international welfare is a solution. They need to encourage foreign investment--get factories set up there and some training and I bet they could compete cost-wise Vietnam for textiles, etc. But its not going to be a rapid transformation.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
George thinks there have been some weird responses on this thread. And none weirder than George's!-GEORGE: It is necessary to distinguish between personal beliefs or fancies and human knowledge, of value to us all, that can be established by rigorous methods.-That sounds very convincing, but do you honestly think that your own faith in materialism constitutes "knowledge", let alone knowledge of value to us all? Until science comes up with evidence for your materialistic theories, they are nothing more than personal beliefs.-GEORGE (on the origin of life and consciousness): dhw [...] prefers to think that some sort of spiritual miracle occurred here, rather than a natural process.-No, George, I'm an agnostic, and I don't prefer to think any such thing. Your "simple joining up of the dots between the materialist descriptions of the before and after" as the likeliest solution to the mysteries is one of the faiths I am unable to embrace. In any case, I don't see the alternative to abiogenesis as a "spiritual miracle", but as a conscious mind working scientifically, and your use of "natural" in this context is a cloak for "random".-GEORGE: It is only a severely watered down "religion" that is compatible with science. -Why? Once you accept the concept of a designer, you can fit any image you like to the workings of the world. It makes no difference whether the designer is deistic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Olympian ... your theist will still argue that whatever science discovers was created by his God. Do you really believe there are no Deist, Christian, Muslim or Jewish scientists at work today? Or do you think they're all schizophrenics?-*** I've just read the responses by Matt and David. MATT: "Materialism is a philosophy; end of story." Yep, that just about sums it up.
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 16:09 (5420 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > > ... Do you really believe there are no Deist, Christian, Muslim or Jewish scientists at work today? Or do you think they're all schizophrenics? > -I have to say that with this particular thread, my "conversion" as it were to agnosticism is essentially complete. There is no way to remove perspective from this debate, and therefore all answers one generates is based purely on perspective. Back when I started college, I wrote a paper discussing Creationism vs. Evolution that essentially said as much. "An atheist looks at the evidence for evolution and says "Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life, and a scientifically minded theist says "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!"" My conclusion was that both conclusions were being drawn from the same data, but neither conclusion is testable and both are philosophical--NOT scientific. -My initial break from atheism though was really because of Dawkins. At first, he seems intelligent and well-spoken... but before long you begin to see exactly where his hatred creeps in, and before long he's arguing that all theists are idiots. For science to spread and not die it must be pluralistic, and that means that contrary to what Dawkins says, we need more theists. We need more Francis Collins. Why? Theists won't listen to the "enemy," but for Collins to be evangelical and stand up and say "Evolution is fact," it shakes the foundation of that particular religion--and by getting more people like that, we can help the 1/2 of the country that thinks evolution is false. Not just natural selection, but evolution itself.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 18:36 (5420 days ago) @ xeno6696
xeno wrote: "An atheist looks at the evidence for evolution and says "Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life, and a scientifically minded theist says "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!"" My conclusion was that both conclusions were being drawn from the same data, but neither conclusion is testable and both are philosophical--NOT scientific. -I would phrase it: "An open-minded scientist looks at the evidence for evolution and says Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life." There is no need to begin with an atheistic or theistic assumption.-The argument that "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!" is just circular. Mind is a function of life.
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 21:58 (5420 days ago) @ George Jelliss
xeno wrote: "An atheist looks at the evidence for evolution and says "Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life, and a scientifically minded theist says "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!"" My conclusion was that both conclusions were being drawn from the same data, but neither conclusion is testable and both are philosophical--NOT scientific. > > I would phrase it: "An open-minded scientist looks at the evidence for evolution and says Life does what it does without interference, therefore no God is necessary to explain life." There is no need to begin with an atheistic or theistic assumption. > -Well, in the context of my paper it was atheist and theist because the fight over evolution is about exactly these two groups; materialists vs. immaterialists. It has nothing to with science, its a philosophical battle. Massimo Pigliucci agrees on this point. --> The argument that "The complexity of life is so astounding a mind must have come up with it!" is just circular. Mind is a function of life.-But not to people who aren't materialists.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 17:56 (5420 days ago) @ dhw
dhw writes: "I don't see the alternative to abiogenesis as a "spiritual miracle", but as a conscious mind working scientifically"-This is exactly what I mean. You are presuming the pre-existence of "a conscious mind", i.e. a life-form, to explain the origin of life, and later the emergence of consciousness in that life. This is a simple logical fallacy.
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
DHW: I don't see the alternative to abiogenesis as a "spiritual miracle", but as a conscious mind working scientifically. GEORGE: This is exactly what I mean. You are presuming the pre-existence of "a conscious mind". i.e. a life-form, to explain the origin of life, and later the emergence of consciousness in that life. This is a simple logical fallacy.-First of all, I'm not presuming anything. It's all pure speculation, as with your equally speculative materialism. Secondly, you have created a logical fallacy by an equivocation with the expression "the origin of life". Of course if we meant ALL life, we could hardly argue that ALL life originated in a different form of life! In our discussions, however, you know very well that we're talking about the origin of life on Earth.-Nevertheless, the above would still be a logical fallacy if one of two basic premises were true. The first is your own: namely, that life on our planet began spontaneously. If you're right, then of course there is no pre-existing life-form to account for life on Earth. If you're wrong (i.e. if life on Earth is the product of design), then there has to be a form of life that created ours. Simple logic, no fallacy. And that life-form may very well be vastly different from ours. If you're going to ask where it came from, no-one can answer, and that's one of the reasons why I'm an agnostic and not a theist. Substituting one mystery for another merely shifts the problem, but that doesn't change by one iota the problems linked to the quasi-religious faith of materialism. -The other premise is the assumption made by many theists that God knows exactly what he's doing all the time, is all-powerful and omniscient, and humans with their extreme consciousness are the be-all and end-all of his creation. In that case, why did he bother with the whole rigmarole of evolution? Answer by some theists: he didn't. Read the Bible. Well, if I did believe in a God, that would not be my image of him. I would see him as a scientist, consciously experimenting and refining his creation, while at the same time leaving a lot to chance because that would be essential to the entertainment value of his work. I'd be inclined to embrace David's idea of God learning as he goes along. Just like the origin of life, the origin and refinement of consciousness would therefore be part of God's experimentation ... possibly with the aim of creating a creature close to his own image, much as scientists are trying to create robots in the human image. Again, there's no logical fallacy. Only a different basic premise.
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, January 22, 2010, 00:49 (5419 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: "First of all, I'm not presuming anything. It's all pure speculation, as with your equally speculative materialism."-You are offering a selection of "speculations" or "presumptions" or "axioms" or "imaginings" whatever you want to call them. For all of which there is no evidence. I'm simply taking the facts as we know them and not weaving any romances.-It is you who is "equivocating" over the meaning of "life". We could of course speculate that the parameters of our universe were set by human-like scientists in some previous universe, but this would not explain where life came from, originally, only set it back further in time. You prefer to speculate that there is some form of disembodied life form (a god), but this is far more speculative, since it requires the existence of something that has never been seen and is probably impossible on our understanding of physics.-I see very little difference between these "speculations" and those of people like von Daniken who maintained, from selected evidence, that our history was shaped by alien spacemen, of David Icke, who thinks we are ruled by shape-shifting lizards. They could be right. You could be right. But I need more evidence.
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
GEORGE: I'm simply taking the facts as we know them and not weaving any romances.-Here's another romance for you: Once upon a time there were lots of brainless globules of inanimate matter floating around in the wind/water/soup, and they kept brainlessly bumping into each other, until one day some of them brainlessly bumped into each other in such a way that quite accidentally they replicated themselves. Not only did they replicate themselves, but they also managed, quite brainlessly and accidentally, to become animate, to become capable of adapting to different environments and even of creating brand new and very useful bits and pieces which would also replicate themselves. These brainless mechanisms were so flexible that, after a very long time, they even produced brainy beings who tried deliberately to construct the mechanisms that had created themselves by accident. But, dear reader, until this very day they've been unable to do it. Why? Because brainy though they are, they're not as brainy as the brainless globules that had accidentally and brainlessly created the mechanisms.-There may be a romantic sequel to this romance. One day the brainy beings may succeed in creating the mechanisms, and they will be awarded the Nobel Prize for their braininess in proving that you don't need a brain to create the mechanisms they have just created.(Some unromantic people might call this a logical fallacy.)-*********** DHW: That life-form may very well be vastly different from ours. If you're going to ask where it came from, no-one can answer, and that's one of the reasons why I'm an agnostic and not a theist. Substituting one mystery for another merely shifts the problem, but that doesn't change by one iota the problems linked to the quasi-religious faith of materialism.-GEORGE (in response): We could of course speculate that the parameters of our universe were set by human-like scientists in some previous universe, but this would not explain where life came from, originally, only set it back further in time.-You have repeated my own argument, except of course for the last bit about materialism.-********** GEORGE: They [various speculators] could be right. You could be right. But I need more evidence.-Exactly my feelings, in relation to their speculations, my own speculations, and your speculations. I do believe you are in danger of becoming an agnostic! To help you on your way, and since I'm in creative mood, let me offer you two axioms
isbelief in materialism does not provide evidence for a God.-You'll like that, I'm sure. Of course its converse is equally trueisbelief in a God does not provide evidence for materialism.
The Nature of this Conflict
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, January 24, 2010, 11:34 (5416 days ago) @ dhw
dhw writes a romance, edited version: "Once upon a time there were lots of globules of inanimate matter floating around, and they kept bumping into each other, until one day some of them bumped in such a way that they replicated themselves, [and so] become animate, capable of adapting to different environments and XcreatingX [evolving] new bits, after a very long time, they produced brainy beings". This is all true. -However dhw wants us to bear in mind that all this bumping around and evolving just might perhaps, in some far-fetched way, have been guided by the interventions of some brainy interspatial quintessence of a disembodied sky fairy, or something like that, or perhaps something not like that, we shouldn't rule out any possibility just because we have no evidence for it. And of course we don't, in theory, rule out these multitudinous possibilites, but we do, in practice, because we have better things to do with our time than worry about highly improbable unlikelihoods.-dhw offers the thought: "Disbelief in a God does not provide evidence for materialism." True. But lack of evidence for gods does provide evidence for atheism (i.e. not believing in gods). And presence of evidence in everything being made of atoms with mass, does provide evidence for materialism (i.e. believing in chemistry).
--
GPJ
The Nature of this Conflict
"Rabbi David" has admonished me for saying that a watered-down God without attributes doesn't serve much of a purpose. He thinks I want "a soft and fuzzy father figure" to nurture me through life, though he realizes that I personally "don't need such a figure to enjoy life."-Indeed I don't. My life until now has been wonderfully fulfilling, I count myself very lucky, and am happy to use and enjoy whatever abilities Chance or God has given me. Perhaps the time will come when I would appreciate a fuzzy father, but no, that is not what lies behind my remark at all. What I was trying to say was that a God without attributes was irrelevant to our lives. A God without attributes is impersonal. Your "tough-loved God" has attributes; if he expects me to "rise above the challenges", he has attributes; if he is "out there, still watching", he has attributes; and above all if he corresponds to the vision of a loving God that Frank believes in, he has attributes. My remark was made against the deist God and against the concept of a universal intelligence pure and simple. This was what I understood by George's description of a vague, ineffectual, watered-down version. To put it bluntly, if God is not interested in his creations, what is the point in having him there? If he is interested, then he has attributes.
The Nature of this Conflict
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 14:49 (5420 days ago) @ dhw
> My remark was made against the deist God and against the concept of a universal intelligence pure and simple. This was what I understood by George's description of a vague, ineffectual, watered-down version. To put it bluntly, if God is not interested in his creations, what is the point in having him there? If he is interested, then he has attributes.-Thank you for correcting me. You are describing the God I believe in, wth the attributes you listed. I have no proof that God is as loving as religions claim. But He is deeply interested in us. As Schroeder has described, there is a degree of 'process', in that He learns from us, and I doubt that He is an inactive diety. He tweaks things now and then.
The Nature of this Conflict
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 16:34 (5420 days ago) @ dhw
"Rabbi David" has admonished me for saying that a watered-down God without attributes doesn't serve much of a purpose. He thinks I want "a soft and fuzzy father figure" to nurture me through life, though he realizes that I personally "don't need such a figure to enjoy life." > > Indeed I don't. My life until now has been wonderfully fulfilling, I count myself very lucky, and am happy to use and enjoy whatever abilities Chance or God has given me. Perhaps the time will come when I would appreciate a fuzzy father, but no, that is not what lies behind my remark at all. What I was trying to say was that a God without attributes was irrelevant to our lives. A God without attributes is impersonal. Your "tough-loved God" has attributes; if he expects me to "rise above the challenges", he has attributes; if he is "out there, still watching", he has attributes; and above all if he corresponds to the vision of a loving God that Frank believes in, he has attributes. My remark was made against the deist God and against the concept of a universal intelligence pure and simple. This was what I understood by George's description of a vague, ineffectual, watered-down version. To put it bluntly, if God is not interested in his creations, what is the point in having him there? If he is interested, then he has attributes.-I'd have to say that as someone who prefers a more visceral God, that I also think the propensity to destroy is something that I find intriguing. I find a God that throws things at you in order to trip you up to be a more comforting notion than Grandfather. Every time you succeed you beat God. (My Teutonic heritage peeking through again.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"