 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
As to Whaleboy, if you still remember your last post (I've been busy...108 pages, yeah baby!), about the danger of abuse of power in organized religion, I think that you might have taken my formal study remark a little too literally. I meant something more along the lines of C.S. Lewis's famous remark: "If Christianity is true, it is of the utmost importance. If it is false, it is of no importance whatsoever. The one thing it cannot be is of moderate importance."
|
I take that on board, a good point  . I broadly concur, except for the distinction I will explain in answer to your second point...
quote:
Fear of Machiavellian abuse appears to me to be based partly on memories of medieval history, e.g. the crusades, but also partly on the assumption that religion's existence is not terribly important except as a pacifier-UR's crutches. So the main value that a faith is judged by today is generally tolerance and open-mindedness. But if the actual truth of a belief doesn't matter, there's no reason to have the belief to begin with. And with something as intensely psychological as faith, there is also a considerable danger of "Machiavellianism" from within. A Personal Faith can grow to be a mouthpiece for feeling good about what you were going to do anyway. It breeds not spiritual hatred but spiritual complacency. It's a different kind of disease but still unpleasant in its own way. And it undermines the whole purpose of faith. Personal Faith is like religious Libertarianism. It has the potential to breed corruption and decay just as badly as the religious "Dictatorship" of the medieval RCC did, though of a different sort. It hasn't really begun, because it's a relatively new phenomenon. Give it time.
|
The difference I see here is a very human one. Because faith exists in both situations its consideration cancels out (in the case of organised religion, there are still faith considerations to make but...) and so we are left with the difference between individual behaviour and group behaviour. Latterly, take the intelligence of the loudest person, divide it by the number of people presence, and you have something that might look like group intelligence. My equation is of course a guestimate. Now the faith considerations of the community are obviously reciprocal, so one ends up with the inevitably comparison an existentialist will draw, of Nazism and the Nuremberg rallies. Faith can breed corruption but no more so than humanity, group faith is a different animal all together.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Ben - quote:
Ever read the Book of Mormon?
They assert first of all, that the old has become corrupt, and that a new testimony must replace the old. Which is the same things the Muslims, and many other religious groups have said about the Bible since it was written.
Now, why should the Muslims with their prophet Muhammed be treated differently from Mormons and their Prophet in Joseph Smith? |
Why should they be treated differently than the gospels? All 3 purport to derive from God or his prophets.
quote:
Look at Christ, did he not affirm the authority of the Old Testament, in saying that he came to fulfill all that was written in the law and the prophets? |
Did Jesus affirm OT divorce law? No, he tried to change it. Does the law of the prophets equal the OT? No, Jesus said the entire law of the prophets was based on the 2 commandments he gave. Compare what Moses did to a man for collecting wood on the Sabbath with how Jesus behaved.
quote:
The first question is a good one, the second less so.
Jesus's statement does not imply that he did not know the hearts of men were hard. All he's saying is that God knew your hearts were hard. |
It doesn't matter if Jesus knew their hearts, only that Jesus attributed an OT law to God and not himself.
quote:
Now, the question you should really be asking, is how does Christ know that God knew their hearts were hard? |
I don't know, only that someone wrote that he did know a long time ago.
quote:
As for the first question, this goes back to the concept of two persons in one Godhead. Christ and God the Father could love each other more than any of us love each other. This statement of Christ's to ask God is remarkable, because it shows the full measure of Christ's suffering. Not only did he suffer the physical consequences of sin, but also the spiritual consequences, in being cut off from God during his Atonement on the cross. |
So we have 1 deity that is 2 (or 3) in one but can separate into at least 2 entities? Pagan! 
Did Jesus lose his divinity in order to die on the cross? Was it restored? By whom? God?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
That is actually a good argument to consider Mormons something other than Christian.
Which would make it for major groups of the book:
Christians
Jews
Moslems
Mormons
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
Well, the example falls apart due to the need for voluntary participation to make religion meaningful, but why do we have democracy, even? Why can't the individual just look at the constitution and decide for him/herself what fits the spirit of the law? Democracy imposes a sort of "tyranny of the masses," and I think it's a good thing not because people are smarter in groups (patently false), but because when people are arguing and fighting for ideological dominance blatant selfishness is suppressed. It won't be spectacularly successful; people don't vote for the guy who says what they need, but the guy who says what they want. All that a democracy does is force the needs of all to be at least temporarily considered. So a democracy endures and preserves, though it does very few spectacular deeds.
And there are different kinds of organized religion, just as there are different forms of government. Orthodoxy is ruled by something like an old Roman Republic, Catholicism by more of a post-Republican Empire, while Protestants tend to favor direct democracy. And that's just within Christianity. Going against "organized religion" in general might be a bit unfair, like my "going against the enlightenment."
BTW, I do rather like Candide, even if Voltaire is a stinking deist. I like anybody who agrees with me that people are innately insane and cruel. And Locke and Hobbes, if they qualify as Enlightenment, aren't bad...see, I told you I'm philosophically ignorant. My beef with the great age of reason and whatnot is based mostly on my grudge against the hypocritical, reactionary contempt for religious belief it fostered, or that came out of it at least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
WRT Mormons, I'm not an expert on them but I think they believe a number of things which run in blatant contradiction to the Bible. There's some weird stuff about Jesus, the Archangel Michael, and Adam all being the same person, and all human beings having the potential to become Gods and rule over their own worlds just like their buddy Yahweh, and who knows what else. While the definition of "Christian" is of course subjective, the Mormons are at the very least outside the mainstream. Oh, and they also hold the Book of Mormon as the greatest scripture, above the Bible.
And then there's the underwear thing, and the whole mythology they built up about Jews on barges coming to America to found dynasties, and those civilizations being destroyed...they're like the Moonies. They've built a very large and complicated idea out of the stripped-down, bare basics of Christian theology. Or like Thomas Jefferson, who thought Jesus was a swell guy but deplored all the superstition and so on, and wound up editing out most of the gospels to turn Jesus into a Jewish Confucius.
Charges that the Mormons aren't Christian are at least a little more legitimate than, say, charges that "Catholics aren't Christian, they're nasty idolaters with their candles and incense and the Pope is the Antichrist."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Well, the example falls apart due to the need for voluntary participation to make religion meaningful, but why do we have democracy, even? Why can't the individual just look at the constitution and decide for him/herself what fits the spirit of the law? Democracy imposes a sort of "tyranny of the masses," and I think it's a good thing not because people are smarter in groups (patently false), but because when people are arguing and fighting for ideological dominance blatant selfishness is suppressed. It won't be spectacularly successful; people don't vote for the guy who says what they need, but the guy who says what they want. All that a democracy does is force the needs of all to be at least temporarily considered. So a democracy endures and preserves, though it does very few spectacular deeds.
|
True, I largely concur with you about democracy, excepting that as a government, "the needs of all" is often a poor baseline.... consider the likes of justice and treatment of unpopular minorities. As for the example, the difference between the likes of organised religion and nazism is that of voluntary participation, except that in both cases voluntary participation is achieved! Whether it be through blackmail of ones life which reasonable people would not call voluntary participation but the invididual still has the choice, or what is effectively a pre-fab belief system, complete with good and evil and the moral rules that people seem to crave.
quote:
And there are different kinds of organized religion, just as there are different forms of government. Orthodoxy is ruled by something like an old Roman Republic, Catholicism by more of a post-Republican Empire, while Protestants tend to favor direct democracy. And that's just within Christianity. Going against "organized religion" in general might be a bit unfair, like my "going against the enlightenment."
|
Very good point! Nicely said! Naturally i would be further inclined against authoritative religions as opposed to Buddhist collective religion etc.
quote:
My beef with the great age of reason and whatnot is based mostly on my grudge against the hypocritical, reactionary contempt for religious belief it fostered, or that came out of it at least.
|
Well I think the understanding of how faith fits in the human condition is more a post-modern phenomenon. Judge it not how it appears to us today but in it's socio-historical context. It's coming after the inquisition, after the religious wars, after strife and turmoil directly attributable to organised religion, with no cause to distinguish faith from categorical religion. Obviously I'm making the mistake of lumping the enlightenment under one banner, but it begs the question of the socio-historical context of religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
Well, you've heard the old axiom about mistaking correlation and causation, haven't you? For thousands of years religions were in power. For those same thousands of years, religions have been abused. It doesn't follow from there that organized religion leads to corruption and the violation of human rights. Any group of people gaining too much power is likely to become corrupt and despotic, and they make do with whatever ideology is available for exploitation. The Inquisition, Crusades, etc. simply took advantage of the nearest philosophical fuel source for political gain.
But if you look at, say, the Muslim Caliphate, it's not so bad. Barbarity isn't a necessary accompaniment to organized religion. (For those even less familiar with history than I, believe it or not, there was a time when the Muslim world was not only devoutly religious, but also educated, civilized, and dedicated to advancing the arts and sciences. They were the most advanced people on Earth at one point. Really, I'm not making it up!)
The only way to ensure that there will be no rule by fanatics whatsoever is to eliminate all strongly held principles so that there are none to abuse, or else to keep society so fragmented that no one faction can gain power. America is currently going by the latter course; I don't know what's going on with Europe, but they seem to be inclined to bicker just like us, only on procedural grounds rather than ideological ones. Maybe that's progress, but I don't know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Well, you've heard the old axiom about mistaking correlation and causation, haven't you? For thousands of years religions were in power. For those same thousands of years, religions have been abused. It doesn't follow from there that organized religion leads to corruption and the violation of human rights.
|
Agreed it doesn't follow simply from that, hence the question begged earlier. My response would be similar to Russells observation that religions are based upon fear, as is cruelty. Fear is inherent to humans and not religion, hence there is no linear chain saying fear -> religion -> cruelty, rather fear -> religion and fear -> cruelty. Some philosophical fuel is, however, more explosive than other. I can't imagine you'd find anyone justifying cruelty on the grounds of moral relativism or pacifism, which isn't to say that this validates those theories, but one must explore all contributing factors. Remember also the rise of extreme ideologies, be they political or religion, correlates to a rise in fear.... say a dying German economy or appalling poverty. Or perhaps America's cultural polarisation and it's history with the God squad. Such things allow Nazism, fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalise Islam to fester.
But organised religions, like any collective, such a political party, are to be judged by the actions of the members and followers, and not the literature. Hence, my pet peeve; the British National Party, while its literature may seem civil (albeit woefully inconsistent and about as well thought out as a screwdriver made of chalk), it's members are little more than insecure, racist, violent thugs. I would seek to judge organised religion by the actions of those who are bound.
quote:
But if you look at, say, the Muslim Caliphate, it's not so bad. Barbarity isn't a necessary accompaniment to organized religion. (For those even less familiar with history than I, believe it or not, there was a time when the Muslim world was not only devoutly religious, but also educated, civilized, and dedicated to advancing the arts and sciences. They were the most advanced people on Earth at one point. Really, I'm not making it up!)
|
No, you're bang on. Islam and the Chinese were the worlds most advanced, intellectual and civil civilisations in history until we in the West started ****ing with them. Note however that the lack of cruelty is not attributable to religion, the socio-economic factors for both were far more significant. To many Dark-age societies in Asia and Africa, Islam was a far better alternative than what they already had, remember the economy of the region was essential dead post Roman empire.
As for alternatives, alas I can provide none. It is an unreasonable expectation that those bound by organised religion will wake/grow up and smell the java, and I'm about as big a fan of democracy as Socrates or Bush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
Meh, my point is that the stereotype of benighted primitives doesn't hold water, is all. And so I don't see why it's inherently worse to have organized religion than to have a political party, or a school of philosophical thought. People don't kill for moral relativism or pacifism because nobody feels all that strongly about them. Okay, killing for pacifism would be hard to argue, but suppression of freedoms in the name of keeping peace is an old card to play. Bush is whacking the world and ignoring torture in the name of freedom as we speak, and the majority of his supporters are not in fact nut-job evangelicals. Those are his single largest support base, yes, but a lot of his backup comes from earnest but terrified Americans who only go to church by rote, if that.
People who will become inhumane for the name of their god will also become inhumane for their economic principles (Lenin, all those Central American Death Squads Reagan propped up), or for one or more other secular cultural institutions (French Revolution, American Civil War). Thing is, it's ultimately never about the principle, really. The Confederates didn't care about States' Rights, they just wanted to have their way. It all depends on the profundity of the message used to justify. Which is why I say the only solution is to have no principles at all.
Nor do I agree that religion is based on fear (surprise, huh?). Half of 'em don't have any concept of damnation, and those that do often stress the idea of community service or virtue for a happier life far more. You could stretch a common thread of all religions, "existential uncertainty," and call it fear, but then I could say that all political systems are based on a "fear" of anarchy and murder. Religion exists as a solution to a perceived problem, often organized for efficiency, and dismissing it as a failure out of hand is as bad for secularists as it is for believers. Scapegoating to dismiss worries solves nothing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
my point is that the stereotype of benighted primitives doesn't hold water, is all.
|
Agreed  . I think we agree on the point that human nature certainly is not pretty.
quote:
You could stretch a common thread of all religions, "existential uncertainty," and call it fear, but then I could say that all political systems are based on a "fear" of anarchy and murder
|
It is the existential nihilism which I think motivates a lot of people to faith... bare in mind that there are ideas that people will simply not accept no matter the strength of reason because it disagrees with them so fundamentally. The antithesis to those ideas seem to be harboured by religion (though of course religion and the way people are brought up is part of the problem of rejecting ideas), which (in the Christian sense) rejects scientific evolution, atheism, moral relativism and is consistently an opponent of the days social liberalisation or egalitarian movement. If you consider moral progress to exist, then the Church has opposed it at every turn, and while Judaism isn't much better, at least it lacks the hubris of a majority religion in most cases. Fear of difficult questions? Fear of difficult answers? Fear of eternal damnation or God's punishment (during or afterlife), and most importantly fear of oneself. I'm making educated guesses here, I'm no shrink.
However I do not think that political systems are motivated by fear of anarchy or murder, they tend to be motivated by the voters self-interest or moral systems, ditto for the politicians. We never think will happen to us until it does, which for the majority it will not.
You're right though, I am overgeneralising and I am being unfair to the better examples of organised religion and also the good work they can do. Mine could well be best described as an illustration of a tendency, or an indictment of none but the conservative religions... so fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, as well as Orthodox Judaism among others. That's there the dogmatism kicks in hardest, as well as a less hygienic organisational strata, if I can call it that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Because in the sense that I use it, reason and faith are dualistic. I believe I have used this analogy before in this thread and also with you, but nontheless;
Imagine one has a rivine or some great chasm to cross (representative of where we are, and theism per se). To jump across it is rather like an act of faith, literally a leap of faith. But that act is devalued if there is a bridge over the chasm, over which one can walk without requiring that faith; one step at a time, as easily as one walked to the chasm itself? Faith and reason are, in that sense, inversely proportional to a given end, you can look at it as simple economics where value is a function of supply and demand, supply is made easier, value falls and demand falls accordingly (where faith is required for deity). Recall the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy take on the matter?
|
You make a very good point here. Reason is dependent upon our knowledge. If we know that there is a bridge across a ravine, it makes no sense to try alternative methods that are less trustworthy. But what if we don't know that there is a bridge across a ravine, or at least, whether there is one within reasonable distance? What if we don't know which direction one would travel to reach the bridge, or even when you got there, the condition of the bridge. In this case, reason cannot provide you the answer as to whether you should attempt an alternative method of crossing the ravine, or whether one ought to continue searching for a bridge.
This is where faith comes in. We cannot be certain of a great number of things in our own life. We can make reasonable decisions, but this only takes us within what we know. It cannot take us beyond what we know. We do not forsee all the consequences of our decisions, and nor should we really foresee them, because if we could, it is unlikely we would get much done.
quote:
Of course that example completely ignores the PSR but you get the point .
|
Yes, it's a good quote.
quote:
Such theories are not something tangible, they are merely conceptual relationships, and yes in that sense they do require faith (remember faith and reason are dualistic in one context, mutually composed in another), but in the same sense that one trusts ones vision, or trusting in the fact that there is not a lion and a gazelle copulating on my desk.
|
Ah, but I do not trust my eyes. They decieve me all the time. They show me what is not there, while hiding what really is there.
People see what they want to see, not always what is there.
quote:
I am not saying that such a test is impossible, it is simply more complicated than you imply, since our environment changes with us, and will affect our evolution too;
|
Which raises the question, as to the mechanism of evolution. If we play a part in how we evolve, in our control over our own environment, then that's quite different from the more traditional theories of evolution, that say it is a natural force, that cannot be altered by human decisions.
What you have here, if we change our own environment, which in turn, changes us, is a feedback loop. It is a cycle, rather than any form of progress leading onwards and upwards.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Darwin wrote his theory when he did. There is much of Victorian thought, with regards to perpetual progress contained within.
quote:
You misunderstand, humanity is subject to evolution and we are animals, simply that rapidly changing human civilisation as an evolutionary influence is not the case with other animals (where are the Chimps and their cities?)
|
Ah, how can we be subject to that which we control? If we shape our environment, how are we to be subject to it?
quote:
That is not because of any inherent difference between human and animals, it is because of a scientific appreciation of the influences that affect the outcomes.
|
Evolution may work differently, if we have conscious control over our environment, something that other species do not seem to have.
quote:
Indeed, consider pre-genetics evolution to be rather like pre-Einsteinian physics. They had the model, not the means (of gravity latterly). Needless to say, Francis and Crick had grounds to be more sure of evolution than Darwin himself, because they had access to evidence and the actual means of evolution, which Darwin didn't. That others can be more sure of a theory than its creator is not somehow a refutation of the creator though.
|
Very true. However, it raises interesting questions to consider the doubts that he did have about the validity of his theory, and whether his doubts have been quelled.
I don't think they have been settled yet, and that there are certainly plenty of questions left to answer before one can definitively say they are solved. Yet, why is this considered heretical among the scientific community, to acknowledge these doubts?
quote:
Where is this evidence, contrary to evolution?
|
Well, first we have to decide what constitutes 'evolution' and what does not.
quote:
He is now . If there is a scientist who has better ideas he should be listened to, but a theory should be judged by virtue of its validity, not by how far from the mainstream it is.
|
I agree. Nor should a theory acquire the devotion of canon even if it is adhered to by the majority. There have been countless occasions where the majority has been proven wrong.
[qutoe]
Soundness and validity is the test applied to creationism consistently, and it simply fails. Paleontology, morphology, genetics... the evidence pro-evolution seems to continuously grow and furthermore supports the other.
[/quote]
Supports what? That there were species that lived long ago, that no longer live now? That one can trace our own heritage through our genes? This supports heredity and paleontology, but it is a lead to go from both, and to say that they are evidence for evolution.
quote:
quote:
Actually no, imo it is as solid (indeed said physics and chemistry support evolution, another reason I dislike artificial barriers between the sciences). The trouble with evolution though is that unlike chemistry and physics, because of its nature; time taken and extrenuous factors, it makes it much harder to test in the laboratory than boiling water with a bunsen burner. Like quantum physics .
|
I agree fully. It is then nature of the subject that makes things far more difficult to study. It is also the reason why theology employs different methodologies.
quote:
One would ask of you this, do you concur with the view that evolution is the best theory for life, as opposed to creationism and Lamarkism?
|
As oppose to Lamarkism? I would say so, even though there are questions to how we know what we do, and why people seem to come as bundled software, and not blank slates.
As for creationism, the devil is in the details. I do not believe the correct theory will ignore evidence from either side, that species may not change from each other, but rather evolve in parallel.
I personally disagree with the theories that place the history of the Earth in 6000 years, but I would agree with folks who say that creation days are much different from our own days.
quote:
I know that the bible contains no compelling reason for God's existence (if i am wrong there do point me to the relevant sections) and I'm only really interested in religion in its external aspects.
|
How do you know it is not there if you don't look? That's the best advice I can give you, is to read it yourself. I'm not saying take time away from other things, but that if you are interested in learning more about this subject, this is the direction to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
I shall attempt to answer the points of your post in a condensed, structured manner as opposed to quote-by-quote, this should be more space-efficient and easier to read in context of our arguments.
Regarding our knowledge of the leap from reason to faith, from one side of the rivine to the other in the absense of knowledge of a bridge. You raise an interesting point that the interface between faith and reason, if I may call it an interface is a subjective one. When I say subjective here, I mean it is subject both to individual interpretation and knowledge, society and general philosophical or scientific progress. If I were unaware of any arguments against God's existence, yet I regarded the pro-God arguments as insufficient I may either believe in God or be agnostic, since I would not have the grounds for atheism. I have the grounds for atheism now however, as a provisional scientific assessment. Now earlier I explained the remit for science, that which is categorically objectifiable, or empirical. It would be arrogant and frankly fallacious if I were to claim that science was even close to fulfilling its remit; it is not, be we can establish grounds for that remit hence my other arguments re. deity. This is why I do not agree with theories or statements premised by faith that present themselves in the scientific context. Remember that in science, the predicate for all knowledge is the statement "I don't know". But of course, regarding holes in science, that is no argument for deity, the proof by ignorance is a fallacy (lack of evidence for |= evidence against, at best it is an indirect, circumstancial indication, often mitigated by other things).
I am concerned though that by your final sentence on the topic, you were implying that inductive reasoning is lumped together with faith... I do not see that as so. Reason needs induction to make reasonable claims, since you're not saying anything Earth-shattering with 2+2=4. The soundness of inductive reasoning depends on external deductive factors subject to the context of consideration, but whereupon those are agreed, progress can be made, like in all arguments.
Now regarding trusting ones "sight" so to speak. As Descartes says it is not prudent to trust one who has previously deceived you. But then, to ignore that bypasses both faith and reason, the conclusion of which is Diogenes in his barrel or my solipcism. One makes presumptions that others exist and one attempts to interact with the world which of course requires reason and faith in one context, and faith in reason/reason -> faith in another. I should like the dilineate there of course, on the higher context where they are not dualistic it may be more prudent to compare it to love and logic, which as you may recall is a device I use often.
Now regarding evolution itself. Let it first be said that when it comes to debating I'm usually flexible and will change my mind when I know better, but that is more the case in science, I have no steadfast attraction to classical evolution. My concurrence with evolution is with the evolution of the moment, with special attention paid to the theory as it was after the work of Francis and Crick. Darwin's theory today, as he wrote it, has been largely superceded by it's modern descendants. It was a groundbreaking piece of science for its time, view it in the context in which it was written; a truly heroic piece of science and personal chutzpah, but Darwin was not a perfect scientist; he made errors and some of his other theories are regarded today by modern science as creationism is also. That we have greater control over our environment, a control subject to our whimsical intelligence and profound stupidity there can be little doubt. That accordingly we exert a control over our own evolutionary progress too is certain, perhaps now more so than ever with the advent of genetic modification/manipulation. You ask if we shape our environment, how are we subject to it? You answered that by mentioning an evolutionary feedback loop. It's not something Darwin could have possibly accounted for, he wasn't even aware of DNA. He couldn't have observed it in the Galapogos islands and it requires a widening of the notion of "survival of the fittest". But does any of this contravene the basic laws of evolution, as that theory is today (which you might more safely regard as an aspect of genetics more than anything else)? I do not think it does. Consider the analogy of the artillery piece and the rocket. The cannonball is subject to the laws of ballistics. The muzzle velocity, angle of launch, local gravitational field etc, will all effect flight path, flight time, maximum height, range, and all the rest of it. A rocket on the other hand is not bound by the same model because it has a source of onboard acceleration, control surfaces and what have you. It's flight path cannot be predicted by the same equation that governs the flight of a cannonball, however, does this now mean that it is not bound by Newtonian mechanics?
You say that a theory should not be adhered to as canonical even if the majority hold it as true, and I completely agree. Like I said, a theory should be judged by its merits, and should not rely on faith. You can read up on evolution and faith is redundant when concurring with it. That scientists do have faith in it, yes it's true. Do atheists have unnecessary faith that there is no god? Yes! (the lady doth protest too much). I maintain though that this is not an indictment of the theories, which are, after all, what we are discussing. They are an unfortunate consequence of having humans in the world. Few scientists are also philosophers, in my experience I would have no greater expectation of them to understand the philosophy of science or distinctions between faith and reason than a pornographer. However, if you'll forgive the digression, I think this error on the part of scientists is understandable.
Since the time of the inquisition, when science and natural philosophy was starting to encroach on the doctrine of the Church, science had been persecuted. It doesn't do ones psyche any good to be constantly ostracised for ones views or approach, especially when the people that do it act unreasonably. Couple that with general popular mistrust of the scientist, the intellectual and the technician and you'll see that some of these peoples lives must have been incredibly sad and lonely. Consider poor Galileo, I certainly don't envy his life. It is only natural therefore that they would get angry or bitter, and entrench themselves, and indeed it is easy when a theory becomes increasingly self-evident, against something like the Aristotolian model of the solar system or biblical creationism, that it's easy to justify and magnify the justice of your cause against your oppressors. From a modern, scientific point of view I don't think that this kind of oppositional polarisation is helpful, though it still continues on both sides, creationists denouncing and refusing to listen to evolutionists, evolutionists ridiculing creationists etc... but it's perfectly understandable. The best thing for us, as reasonable people able to rise above all of this, is to cut through a half-millenium of bickering and to judge the theory by its merits, it's validity, and not by those who have espoused it.
EDIT: As for the bible, yes I should read it but it's not convenient to do so at this point in time, if any passages come to mind that actually deal with (and not presume) the existence of God it may well be useful for the debate. At your convenience of course, I'll google in the morning.
Last edited by Whaleboy on 08-01-2005 at 08:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
What I'm defending is a little bit different from what you're attacking...I think. There's a phenomenon almost unique to Orthodox Christians, which I call OrthoShock. It comes from our basic ignorance of the vast differences between us and the other Christian faiths. So I, at least, wind up defending my religion against patently untrue statements...that were technically correct in describing the beliefs of the majority of Christians. Like the Blood Atonement doctrine, which sounds absurd to most of us but is standard-issue for just about everyone else, apparently.
I'm not trying to proselytize or anything, it's just that after going through an Eastern Religions course this past semester I've come to appreciate that my own faith-the most ancient form of preserved Christian worship-is far more similar to the eastern religions in spirit than to the West. So yeah, do be careful about them thar generalizations. I'm assuming you've read something about buddhism, or hinduism, or zen, or taoism, or some other eastern religion?
Oh, and to Ben, and maybe Whaleboy too, I give my first great precept, the same one that drives me to refute every attack on religion: people do not dedicate their lives to an idea that is so internally inconsistent as to be hacked to bits by a few simple words from a casual armchair expert. This applies for both religious ideas and scientific ones. There is no truth in the mental image of a complacent idiot resting securely in a narrow viewpoint and defending it fanatically. I think we both know that to be a real fanatic is to be eternally contemplative of your mania, because it becomes the truth on which your whole reality is founded. I therefore consider it safe to say that any "blatant holes" presented by opponents of an idea should be held in extreme suspicion, because I've never met a single one that wasn't a strawman. Espousal of one established system of beliefs over another is based more on judgment of competing values, weighing one concern against another, than on actual clear-cut reason. I prefer to measure those instead of holes which won't be found.
Just another of Elok's cutesy pearls of dubious wisdom...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
I'm not trying to proselytize or anything, it's just that after going through an Eastern Religions course this past semester I've come to appreciate that my own faith-the most ancient form of preserved Christian worship-is far more similar to the eastern religions in spirit than to the West. So yeah, do be careful about them thar generalizations. I'm assuming you've read something about buddhism, or hinduism, or zen, or taoism, or some other eastern religion?
|
Naturally. Went through quite a long Buddhist phase before I became a cynic, during which time I read the Bhargavad Gita and a few commentaries. English translations of course, but still, Sanskrit .
It is a dangerous game I concur, which is why precision is needed. If we call something an organised religion then there are certain things in common with that phenomenon that make it an organised religion, and one must be specific about making deductions using that.
quote:
Espousal of one established system of beliefs over another is based more on judgment of competing values, weighing one concern against another, than on actual clear-cut reason. I prefer to measure those instead of holes which won't be found.
|
As a relativist yes I concur, however some basic principles of arguments apply, and as arguments get more and more complex errors in suppositions and reasoning appears. That is common in all arguments, and I do not take it as an indication of soundness or validity that an argument is popular, long-lived and has people devoting their lives to it. People are firstly easily manipulated and secondly whereupon they have faith in something, the flaws in the reasoning of said something cease to matter. But as I said with BK, it is far better to judge each argument by its own merits not by how many people agree with it, and how strongly.
And there are arguments which are full of holes that are very long lived. How nice the conclusions are and how sound they are usually dictate the longevity, but that says nothing about the premises.
quote:
Just another of Elok's cutesy pearls of dubious wisdom...
|
It’s cool, I appreciate the insight because though I do not agree it helps us all to clarify and understand our own positions more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
Actually, ideologies that people invest a lot of energy in tend to be perfectly consistent internally...they just rely on certain basic suppositions or viewpoints that outsiders dispute. Things that people feel genuinely passionate about, they tend to investigate, and that investigation tends to root out inconsistencies.
I was answering Ben more than you, BTW; I was thinking of the various forms of Creation Science specifically. Scientists have been researching and writing papers about evolutionary theory for a hundred-odd years. Holes as blatantly obvious as people claim exist are very unlikely. The only possible hole I can detect in it is the over-haste to claim natural selection, but that's not some sinister campaign of disinformation, it's just the only naturalistic explanation, hence the name "natural selection." A basic assumption, but provided that basic assumption is correct, it's perfectly consistent.
Similarly, most of the "inconsistencies" people find in the bible have been noted for years by scholars in monasteries, as is natural given their need to all but memorize the book. Half of them are taken badly out of context (e.g. the things about "why aren't Christians kosher" is answered plainly in the Acts of the Apostles, if they even applied to begin with given that the Law was given specifically to the tribes of Israel), and the rest seem silly only when based on invalid assumptions (Noah's flood would require a band of water about the earth this big and blah blah...because a being that can create the whole universe can't just make water appear, right?).
But I shouldn't even need to say that. It's the most published book in western history. Huge as it is, I don't think that any chunks of the Bible have somehow not been noticed by the absolutely massive numbers of seminarians and theologians doing theses on them for the past 1500 years. The usual allegation is that there was a conspiracy theory, or cover-up, or some such. Not the simpler explanation, that it actually makes sense with closer study. If people really wanted an explanation they'd ask a priest or theologian, not some zitfaced cynic armed with quotes from abusiveatheist.org.
I'm not saying not to investigate, I just prefer to be skeptical of anything Against the Establishment until it's done a good job of proving itself and explaining why the Establishment's been around for so long if it doesn't do somebody some good. The tendency of people to corrupt their ideologies is counterbalanced, for me, by the tendency of people to make a big fuss over nothing just to get attention.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
That would be akin to the "black-hole has no hair" theorum (of which Hawkings' latest work is derivation). That all you can know of a blackhole are some of the properties of the body that caused it... mass, spin and charge.
If time was absolute, then yes you may well have a point since that would enable God to manipulate that as a spatial dimension according to *our* perception, so effectively creating a conscious communication, but special relativity shows time to be relative so that cannot happen.
The programmer analogy is an interesting one but not perfect... since the dimensions of consideration (as is the case with the flaw in my rubber mat example) are not running perpendicular to each other (consider a hypercube). |
What exactly do you mean by truly conscious communication? Do you mean something more than making intelligible information available?
You may have to explain how special relativity comes into play for the imbedding of information in the spacetime as a part of it's creation. Time isn't absolute, but that only means that manipulations of it as a spatial dimension (which I do not see as necessary for communication) would give differing apparent results dependent on frame of reference.
back to the rubber mat anaology:
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy Picture a tramampoline, or any stretched out rubber mat. This represents Einsteinian space-time. Now if you put a body of mass, say, a cricket ball on the mat, there will be an indentation created, which represents the warping of space-time by mass. Now a cricket ball weighs about 300g, and has a diameter of about 8cm. Imagine that you keep the mass constant, but you halve the diameter. The pressure on the mat will obviously increase (pressure = force/area) and the indentation too. If you keep halving the diameter of the ball, eventually the pressure on the mat will get so great that it will break and the ball will drop through and hit the ground beneath. What I have described is a simple analogy for the creation of a black hole; a point of infinite density, infinitesimal size and infinite gravity (so a good example when dealing with infinities).
Now we can perceive perfectly well what has happened on the mat because it exists within dimensions that comply with our senses and consciousness. Now imagine that your plane of existence was that rubber mat. You could perceive only what is on the mat, nothing else. To you, a black hole has just been created and yet *we* can see what has happened. What I am trying to say is that infinity is relative to dimensions, God, in his dimensions, is finite. To us the notion is that he is infinite but by that conclusion we would be unaware of him. Note that my example is not perfect since our extra dimension of time to the fictitious little people on the mat is not perpendicular to their world…. Theirs is still a 4D world, hence they would be aware of us placing a ball on the mat, and we would be perceptible and finite to them, but you get the idea . |
It would seem that if the rubber mat is simply a perfect simulation the inhabitants thereof could be made unaware of the ball being placed on the mat by placing it there before the simulation was even 'executed' - ie at it's creation. The ball will simply appear to instantly appear in place to the n-1 spacetime simulation 'inhabitants' but in fact it had been coded in from the start to appear that way.
Last edited by Geronimo on 10-01-2005 at 06:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
To perceive, as a conscious, let alone communicate or understand information (knowledge, empirical), requires the same time dimension (and of course relative time).
No manipulation of time as a spatial dimension would have to occur for communication to take place if time was not relative, which is the only way information could be "encoded" at the point time = 0. As time is relative that renders the possibility academic.
Manipulations of it as a spatial dimension would obviously not manipulate it as a temporal dimension, so any spatial manipulation would be a change "before" (for want of a better word... before in the 5D sense) Time* = 0.
*4D. |
I don't think it requires the same time dimension in the broader sense of 'communication' involving an apparent exchange of information to at least one of the involved powers. Sharing the same time dimension in fact would preclude precognitive omniscience of the n-1 dimension by the n dimensional being so it is less useful as a way of modeling 'god' anyway.
The situation that is most workable would appear to be that in which the time dimension is not shared, ie for 5d vs 4d the 5d entity would perceive our time dimension as spacial and we would not perceive it's time dimension at all. The 5d entity would thus observe our entire spacetime as a static object. 'Communication' might appear to be real and ordinary to the 4d entities but for the 5d entity it is simply a matter of observation and perhaps a single creative event which made any information exchange part of the static object from it's creation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Sharing the same time dimension in fact would preclude precognitive omniscience of the n-1 dimension by the n dimensional being so it is less useful as a way of modeling 'god' anyway.
|
Indeed, as a consequence, God, should he exist, cannot see us either, just as we could not see a three-dimensional being living inside my reading glasses. Such is a conseqeunce of the "infinite" definition of omnipotent/scient.
quote:
'Communication' might appear to be real and ordinary to the 4d entities but for the 5d entity it is simply a matter of observation and perhaps a single creative event which made any information exchange part of the static object from it's creation.
|
Well you can model the effect by saying we are n dimension, and a hypothetical n-1 dimensional object. A communication, if you accept that communication requires time to emit and time to perceive (and the same time dimension such that it is not infinite and infinitesimal to the sender or (more importnatly) the receiver), would effect the entire length of that dimension, since you have eliminated uncertainty principle and contextual the finite cognitive (we could not understand all in our universe), it is determinable.... to borrow from the sum over histories, the path of the particle from A-B would be a curve in that dimension, a straight line to anyone on it of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Indeed, as a consequence, God, should he exist, cannot see us either, just as we could not see a three-dimensional being living inside my reading glasses. Such is a conseqeunce of the "infinite" definition of omnipotent/scient.
Well you can model the effect by saying we are n dimension, and a hypothetical n-1 dimensional object. A communication, if you accept that communication requires time to emit and time to perceive (and the same time dimension such that it is not infinite and infinitesimal to the sender or (more importnatly) the receiver), would effect the entire length of that dimension, since you have eliminated uncertainty principle and contextual the finite cognitive (we could not understand all in our universe), it is determinable.... to borrow from the sum over histories, the path of the particle from A-B would be a curve in that dimension, a straight line to anyone on it of course. |
A three dimensional being living inside your reading glasses would certainly be detectable if it was 'inside' your reading glasses. Of course to be 'inside' of them in any meaningful way it would be necessary for it to be subject to our laws of phyics and it's 3 dimensional nature would require breaking the symmetry of our 3 spacial dimensions to say nothing of the need to allow our laws of physics to accomodate life in 2 spacial dimensions - none of which is consistent with all that we know about the universe. However, there is no need to assume that the 5d universe which would contain our 4d spacetime contains only our physical laws. That appears to be where we are not seeing eye to eye. The assertion that a 5d entity could not percieve our 4d spacetime only applies if we assume the 5d spacetime otherwise resembles our own.
If I create a program that models a simple 3d spacetime and allow some sort of simple 3d entity to exist confined to information obtainable within that 3d simulated environment, it might likewise surmise that our 4d reality is logically impossible and that we (the creators of the program) logically cannot exist as entities aware of it's existance or able to have influenced it in any manner. Of course in part this would be true, since from our perspective the 3d simulated environment and the sentient entity it contains is a static object. On the other hand if we embedded in the simulated environment information that 'eventually' (ie at some point and all points futureward along the simulated time dimension of the programmed reality) gave the 3d entities information about us, they could know all about us without having access to any way of independantly verifying the information. In this manner the 3d entities could percieve 'communication' with us even though from our perspective their reality is a static (pointlike with respect to time) object.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
A communication, if you accept that communication requires time to emit and time to perceive (and the same time dimension such that it is not infinite and infinitesimal to the sender or (more importnatly) the receiver), would effect the entire length of that dimension, since you have eliminated uncertainty principle and contextual the finite cognitive |
I should speak further on this part of your post. I think you need to explain why it matters if the time dimensions are different.
Suppose when god is lolling about in his exotic 5d universe he decides the simple 4d reality he is going to simulate will contain message that will be made to appear in the sky at the point on our time axis corresponding to jan 14th 2005. god then goes and makes his 4d simulation and executes it. To god the finished universe is just a static 4d object, like a computer printout would be a static object for us. He examines the output and notes that indeed the message "Whaleboy, know that I am the 5d entiy that created this universe - God" duly appears in the output as having appeared in the sky on the 4d time point of jan 14th 2005 and effected all portions of the simulated environment further along the simulated 4d time dimension from that point forward. Nothing changed when the communication was made because it was there from the very beginning. It didnt matter that the time dimensions were different for the simualted environment and for the 5d spacetime, the message still got through. So long as all communication is imbedded in this way in the event of creation there is no need to worry about whether the same time dimension is shared.
I should add that nothing would ever make the communication appear to be normal communication for both entities. From the point of view of god everthing we have to say is said all at once so a give and take style of communication is impossible.
Last edited by Geronimo on 10-01-2005 at 08:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
Whaleboy:
I find I post better if I try to squeeze my thoughts, rather than allowing them to ramble. Hence my style.
quote:
If I were unaware of any arguments against God's existence, yet I regarded the pro-God arguments as insufficient I may either believe in God or be agnostic, since I would not have the grounds for atheism.
|
Depends. If you felt the arguments in favour of God to be insufficient, that presumes the fault lies, not with God, but with the argument. I would tend to think that once you reach that point, you will look to find better arguments for God that will satisfy you, rather than sitting on the sidelines as an agnostic. To be an agnostic is to admit that the argument is not so much insufficient, but rather that it is also, the best one can do.
quote:
This is why I do not agree with theories or statements premised by faith that present themselves in the scientific context.
|
Agreed. And I do not believe I have defended such theories, or insisted that they be taught as such. That is not the purpose of scripture. That is the realm of science. However, I also do not agree with scientific statements that present themselves in the realm of theology, or attempt to reach theological conclusions in addition to their normal ones.
quote:
The soundness of inductive reasoning depends on external deductive factors subject to the context of consideration, but whereupon those are agreed, progress can be made, like in all arguments.
|
Yet it must be acknowledged that inductive reasoning has its limits. That is the point I was trying to draw out. Rather than saying faith ought to supercede inductive reasoning, it makes more sense to say that it goes beyond inductive reasoning, given the limits that such reason is subject.
quote:
That accordingly we exert a control over our own evolutionary progress too is certain, perhaps now more so than ever with the advent of genetic modification/manipulation. You ask if we shape our environment, how are we subject to it? You answered that by mentioning an evolutionary feedback loop. It's not something Darwin could have possibly accounted for, he wasn't even aware of DNA. He couldn't have observed it in the Galapogos islands and it requires a widening of the notion of "survival of the fittest".
|
I agree. I do not hold Darwin to blame for all his errors, particularly one such as this.
However, I want to extend the thought one step further. If we look back at Darwin, and wonder how he could have thought what he thought, will we not say the same for the current scientific theories today?
quote:
A rocket on the other hand is not bound by the same model because it has a source of onboard acceleration, control surfaces and what have you. It's flight path cannot be predicted by the same equation that governs the flight of a cannonball, however, does this now mean that it is not bound by Newtonian mechanics?
|
If it reaches velocities close to c, then yes. 
quote:
Since the time of the inquisition, when science and natural philosophy was starting to encroach on the doctrine of the Church, science had been persecuted.
|
Many of the best scientists of the Renaissance were Christians, and many of the greatest discoveries were made by Christians.
Science is not contradictory to religion. I agree that there may have been some who said that, but more often then not, it is those who reject faith who say this, and not those who reject science.
quote:
It doesn't do ones psyche any good to be constantly ostracised for ones views or approach, especially when the people that do it act unreasonably. Couple that with general popular mistrust of the scientist, the intellectual and the technician and you'll see that some of these peoples lives must have been incredibly sad and lonely.
|
General popular mistrust of a scientist? That's an interesting claim. There isn't much that we have that is written by the 'rabble' of the Renaissance that we can use to evaluate this claim.
quote:
Consider poor Galileo, I certainly don't envy his life. It is only natural therefore that they would get angry or bitter, and entrench themselves, and indeed it is easy when a theory becomes increasingly self-evident, against something like the Aristotolian model of the solar system or biblical creationism, that it's easy to justify and magnify the justice of your cause against your oppressors.
|
Actually, the church only started to get worried about Galileo when he starting philosophising about the empirical nature of mathematical claims. Essentially, what was real, was to be defined, as to what one could calculate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Oh, and to Ben, and maybe Whaleboy too, I give my first great precept, the same one that drives me to refute every attack on religion: people do not dedicate their lives to an idea that is so internally inconsistent as to be hacked to bits by a few simple words from a casual armchair expert.
|
No, it is often the child who does a far better job of this.
You have to remember Elok, I was in science. For me to say that all scientists are foolish, that their concepts are so internally inconsistent, is to cast aspersions on my own thoughts. I respect their thoughts, because most of the ones that are there, are ones I have had myself, particularly with whaleboy's on evolution. They are my own writings from first year, being flung back at me.
So consider this please, before being quick to pigeonhole me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2005 21:59
This is either the fourth or the fifth time of telling you, that that is wholly not the case, as has been mentioned by myself and others multiple times, and yet still you persist with this strawman. Why?
.
|