[sceptic]

Quote

my question to you is, why stop with child molestation? why not murder? lying? cheating on one's spouse? cursing when one stubs a toe? why not ALL evil?

You call everything here evil, sorry but I think you are way off the mark as to what is evil and what is just human nature

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 2 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

Hmmmnnnn let's see....

Bridge = Religion?

Takes up a lot of time

Requires a large set of rules

Engenders belief in the abilities of others

Gives you hope for what comes next

Causes heated "discussions" at times over very fine points

Develops fervent followings of a specific creed or practice

Encourages the formation of stable "partnerships"

Yup, they are the same.

not bad, al... not bad

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

Quote

my question to you is, why stop with child molestation? why not murder? lying? cheating on one's spouse? cursing when one stubs a toe? why not ALL evil?

You call everything here evil, sorry but I think you are way off the mark as to what is evil and what is just human nature

really? i believe you just made my case

[sceptic]

Quote

huh? actually whether or not you own a car can be determined by the "scientific method" ... the same for the apple tree... it's possible that one of us is confused

possibly me

[Codo]

barmar, on Jan 3 2008, 02:56 AM, said:

God is supposedly omnipotent, couldn't he just remove the urge in the first place? Or if morality comes from God, he could have put child molestation in the DO list rather than the DON'T list, and designed our psychology so that we wouldn't be traumatized by it.

Of course, one of the things that religious people have a hard time explaining in general is why God allows so much evil in the world in the first place -- pedophile priests are just one example that happens to be very obvious because the perpetrators are so closely associated with religion and expected to be moral role models. They'll just say things like "God gave us free will", "evil exists so that we'll appreciate good", or the wishy-washy "God works in mysterious ways."

Yet they still claim that this is a god worthy of worshiping: "God is love".

Yes we have a hard wey in explaining why there is evil on this planet. Why are people so ill that they kill other people?
But we have some modells to explain it:

1. There is a devil who has power over some people. Okay nothing you and I believe, but you cannot proofe that this is wrong, can you?

2. It is our duty to fight for the right way. And we are all just human, so we surely fail from time to time. But if we try hard and if we regret our faults, gods grace is endless and he let us come into paradise.
Again, you cannot proofe whether this is right or wrong. But if you believe in it, it is a nice way to life. You try to do the right things, but when you fail you may get the gift of an endless grace. Sounds like a promising concept to me.

Why on earth should I belive that my life does not base on my descissions? That someone greater then me makes all critical descissions for me? What an horrible idea.

You believe that an omnipotent god must use his power to fight all evil. Sorry, but why should he? This is just your belive and nothing which is confirmed by any big religion. He could if he would, but he left this task to us. Many of us fail, but same is true for every task we have to fullfill. Often we are on our helm and make a difficult 3 NT contract on a squeeze without the count, sometimes we miss the easiest game of the evening.
Life is not much different.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jan 2 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe?

Great analogy.

It doesn't make much sense to me to believe that there is other sentient life, and it also doesn't make much sense to believe that there is not. I think I would have a hard time believing in one or the other even if I wanted to. It seems that I am missing some gullibility skills.

Still, this question makes a lot more sense than asking about god. It is better defined and we can try to find an answer. Certainly it is conceivable that one day we obtain evidence that there is other sentient life. It is even possible that some day we can say with some confindence that there is not.

Until then, I won't spent much time thinking about it.

that's fine, han, but do you think either believing or not believing that sentient life exists in other parts of the universe is inherently illogical? i don't, fwiw

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

you are saying that if something can't be proved by the "scientific method"  it is by definition illogical (i assume this is what you're saying, let me know if my understanding is in error)... i gave an example of a belief of mine that can't be proved by that method and asked in what way it is illogical... now you say i answered my own question, presumably by stating my belief... are you in fact asserting that any belief i (or you) hold that is untestable is illogical?

if so you are in essence saying

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

to believe that, it seems to me that one must also believe that hidden things will remain hidden... do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe? would such a belief be illogical, by your definition? do you believe that all life on earth, in all its present forms, evolved from one organism (molecule, cell, whatever)? is such a belief illogical?

i'm just trying to find out exactly what you are asserting

Let's try something else. Why do you believe that what you referred to is logical? Perhaps I am having trouble forming an argument for a claim that I don't see has really been explained yet.

the only claim i made was that the "scientific method" and logic aren't of necessity mutually exclusive... i then gave an example of a belief i hold and asked why that belief, even though it can't be proved by that method, is considered illogical... i asked so that the answer could enlighten me, so that i could see where (if) i am wrong... so far nobody has answered that question... if you would address my questions to you i think you'll come to the same conclusion

are you in fact saying:

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

sceptic, on Jan 2 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

Quote

you are saying that if something can't be proved by the "scientific method" it is by definition illogical

I think this statement is odd as usual a common arguement

Prove I own a car

1/. I have on eon the drive, I have a log book in my name, I have a reciept


Nothing scientific about that

prove I have an apple tree in my garden

2/. invite you round to see it,m show you a photo, get a written statemnet from a policeman or someone of noteable standing


Prove there is a God

3/. I am waiting?

huh? actually whether or not you own a car can be determined by the "scientific method" ... the same for the apple tree... it's possible that one of us is confused

The problem I have with your post, LW, is that you confuse thought with belief.

I do not hold a belief about whether sentient life exists elsewhere in the universe, and I think it would be illogical to maintain a belief either way.

However, I believe (and/or think) that the hypothesis that such life exists is more likely correct that the contrary hypothesis.

I arrive at that conclusion by reasoning, not by faith. My layperson's understanding of evolution, including the self-organizing properties that can arise in inanimate matter, combined with my even more limited understanding of stellar and planetary formation, and a vague notion of the size of the universe and the time-lines involved persuade me that sentient life should probably have evolved more than once.

I can understand why the god hypothesis once made similar sense to logical thinkers. In other words, I can understand how it would be possible to reason, from the very limited observations available to pre-technological minds, that the Earth was the centre of the universe; that humans represented the pinnacle of creation; that there was a purpose for the world and for people, and that a sentient entity (or, for many cultures, entities) not only created the universe but also actively intervened in it.

As I have previously posted, the realm of the unexplained is shrinking at a tremendous pace. It may well be that there will remain some questions that our minds can pose but that our technology and our reasoning powers will never be able to solve.. certainly such areas still exist.

And it is in those shrinking areas that the god hypothesis still retains some logical plausibility... not because the god answer is proven or provable but because it affords answers to questions not otherwise answerable. But this is not the same as saying that belief in god is logical.

Logic would, it seems to me, require that any acceptance of the god hypothesis be conditional... and that, with every shrinking of the fields of the unexplained, it would become a less and less favoured hypothesis.

Such an attitude, it seems to me, is the very antithesis of religious belief. Thus religious belief, where we are speaking of 'we don't need evidence, we have faith as a substitute' is illogical. Just as having faith that there is sentient life... 100% certainty of that which can not currently be proven or disproven, is illogical.

[helene_t]

Maybe my terminology is weired but would use the word "rational" rather than "logical", Mike. That nonwithstanding I agree with you.

[kenrexford]

Not everything can be tested. Weird things happen to people that seem absurd.

I, for instance, have found weird things happening that I cannot explain. I try, but I get lost in my thought.

For instance, I can make random guesses very well. I was tested once for ESP and passed. I was tested for speed reading and tested at something like 36,000 words a second because I just flipped over each book or story they brought me and then got 75% comprehension because I guessed that well. I got 20 out of 20 on a calculus readiness test, despite a future full-ride Cal Tech student majoring in AI studies getting a 16 out of 20 because I guess well. I always got 90+% on a "pop quiz" multiple choice test, done every monday, without ever reading the materials (psychology course) until later in the week.

One could explain this as really good instinct as to question formation and alternative answer selection, which was part of it, but not that successful.

So, you say, maybe that's a function of this-and-that. OK. I agree. However, what about experienced future events? I've had them where I can plot out who says what and in what order well before it happens. I thought about some weird effect with my brain having two personas, one that immediately hears and reacts, the other that lives vicariously without knowing it and sometimes on a time delay, but then how does the second react with the world before the events? Maybe everyone has, for some external reason, a time delay for the second vicarious persona but the first for me sends messages/leaks to the first? Plausible, but really weird, and no test for that that I can imagine. How about some sort of quantum effect recognized somehow by my brain?

What would all of this have to do with the existence of God? Nothing, really. However, I cannot claim that another's experience is invalid and absurd if I cannot even explain my own.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Let's try something else. Why do you believe that what you referred to is logical? Perhaps I am having trouble forming an argument for a claim that I don't see has really been explained yet.

the only claim i made was that the "scientific method" and logic aren't of necessity mutually exclusive... i then gave an example of a belief i hold and asked why that belief, even though it can't be proved by that method, is considered illogical... i asked so that the answer could enlighten me, so that i could see where (if) i am wrong... so far nobody has answered that question...

That's exactly my point. If this is the only claim you made, then what are you trying to see someone prove you wrong about? Something you have steadfastly avoided claiming at all, even though you clearly believe it is true? That's why I'm asking you to actually make the claim. Why is what you believe is logical?

The fact you keep dancing around answering that makes me think that you can't even think of a reason, other than that it's what you believe gosh darnit...

[mike777]

I hope belief in a higher power may be logical and or rational.

Is belief in a higher power by definition illogical and or irrational?

In any case I am still trying to figure if the selfish, souless, godless, human gene has the right to kill other genes or it does simply because it can.

As for Kenrexford, we need to get this dude tested, and tested now!

Perhaps replication of the human gene is the ultimate religion of faith.

[jocdelevat]

I found this interesting and related to the last debate of this topic.

"He suggests that there is a cousinly relationship between the ways in which science and theology each pursue truth within the proper domains of their interpreted experience and drawing on his experience of the development of Quantum physics suggests that, in both disciplines, there are five points of cousinly relationship between these two great human struggles with the surprising and counterintuitive character of our encounter with reality:[22]

1.Moments of enforced radical revision
2.A period of unresolved confusion
3.New synthesis and understanding
4.Continued wrestling with unresolved problems
5.Deeper implications " John Polkinghorne

You can find his biography here( http://www.answers.c...hn-polkinghorne ) which is interesting too.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jan 2 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

Is belief in a higher power by definition illogical and or irrational?

It isn't, imho, 'by definition' illogical or irrational (and I take helene's point that maybe 'rational' is a better term than is 'logical').

But we are not speaking in a vacuum.

In my view, the evidence in favour of the existence of a higher power as the most plausible explanation of what we experience is now far weaker, comparatively, than it was when the world's current major religions evolved.

5000 years ago it surely made more sense to attribute thunder to anger on the part of a god than it did to invoke electromagnetism and meterology. Disease could be attributed to witchcraft or god's displeasure rather than to the action of literally invisible and undetectable microbes.

But as our knowledge and understanding of the proximate causes of physical phenonema grew, the plausibility of god being the direct actor in these phenonema shrank, even for those not yet understood.

This drove god back, to some extent, from our direct experience and he or it or they became the ultimate cause.... and it remains somewhat plausible that a god or entity that for all intents and purposes is a god is or was the ultimate cause, if not of this universe, then maybe the multiverse in which this is one, and so on.

But it remains plausible only to the extent that other explanations have not been developed with sufficient evidence to destroy its plausibility. The god issue is a question of hypothesis, not belief.

There is no evidence that points strongly to the role of a god in the ultimate questions....

There is certainly no evidence that conclusively demonstrates the role of a god in such questions... to argue otherwise is to argue that a lack of evidence of other answers to ultimate questions is equivalent to the presence of evidence supporting the god hypothesis, and that IS an illogical statement.

OTOH, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So for as long as there are questions that are not yet amenable to the scientific approach, there will be room for the god hypothesis.

But it is one thing to state that the god hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out, and a completely different and irrational thing to conclude from that statement that god exists. At most, a rational being could logically conclude that a god may exist..

Since the weight we give evidence will depend upon the extent of our knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of the evidence, there can rationally be a variance in the strength we accord the god hypothesis. However, to deny that there is a possibility that the god of (any) organized religion does not exist is to substitute faith for reason, and that is irrational, by definition.

I personally expect that ultimately we may be able, if we are capable physiologically, to show that the god concept is a fiction. But I don't 'believe it' as a matter of faith. Show me evidence that points clearly in favour of god, and I will be prepared to change my mind... just as with the case of my expectations concerning sentient extra-terrestial life. And I personally have no need of the god hypothesis... any more than Laplace did.

One qualification: I suspect that many of us conflate 'I believe' with 'I think' or 'In my opnion', and I am certainly guilty of that in day-to-day conversation, but the distinction between belief and thought should be kept clear.

[helene_t]

I'm having problems with the word "logical" as it's used in this thread.

I don't know what it means, the closest I can think of is "valid", which applies to arguments, not to propositions. A false proposition can be supported by a valid argument if the premises are wrong, for example

Quote

All natural satellites are made of green cheese ...

and a false proposition can be made probable by a valid argument if the premises are incomplete, for example

Quote

Most American president candidates are men. Hillary Clinton is an American president candidate .....

Conversely, a correct proposition can easily be supported by an invalid argument, for example

Quote

Mammals must have evolved from cold-blooded creatures. Lizards are cold-blooded ....

In general, we cannot ultimately prove the correctness and completeness of the premises, so the art of argumentation is to construct a valid argument that takes into account the most relevant among generally accepted premises.

"Rational" applies to decision making. Utility maximization is rational. So from a decision-theory pov, the rationality of the belief in a particular hypothesis or paradigm depends on the utility function. So any belief, however implausible or even inconsistent, could be considered "rational" if it makes the believer happy. Obviously, when I call a belief "rational" I have something more specific in mind. I think it can approximately be boiled down to

Quote

To be rational, a belief must assist the believer in making useful predictions

For example, I believe in classical mechanics and I also believe in Maxwell's equations. This is inconsistent, but nevertheless I would say it's rational because it helps me making useful predictions. Of course, acknowledging the inconsistency makes it even more useful because it shields me from applying my "belief" to the wrong problems. I would call that belief "rational". Maybe not rational to someone with a better grasp of modern physics, but rational to me.

I support Mikeh's pov that the belief in a higher power was rational once upon a time. I don't know it for a fact, but I find it likely that belief in one or more "gods" was helpful to stone-age people for making useful predictions.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

In any case I am still trying to figure if the selfish, souless, godless, human gene has the right to kill other genes or it does simply because it can.

Suppose you have an under-cooled glass of water. You drop a tiny ice crystal into it and watch it growing until it has converted all the water to ice. Is the ice selfish? Does it have the "right" to be selfish? FWIW the process is well understood, you can simulate it on your computer or predict mathematically that it will happen.

The "selfish" gene is selfish in the same sense as the ice crystal. Some people find the term "selfish" useful, some find it confusing. That is not important. The important thing is to understand how evolution works.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Let's try something else. Why do you believe that what you referred to is logical? Perhaps I am having trouble forming an argument for a claim that I don't see has really been explained yet.

the only claim i made was that the "scientific method" and logic aren't of necessity mutually exclusive... i then gave an example of a belief i hold and asked why that belief, even though it can't be proved by that method, is considered illogical... i asked so that the answer could enlighten me, so that i could see where (if) i am wrong... so far nobody has answered that question...

That's exactly my point. If this is the only claim you made, then what are you trying to see someone prove you wrong about? Something you have steadfastly avoided claiming at all, even though you clearly believe it is true? That's why I'm asking you to actually make the claim. Why is what you believe is logical?

The fact you keep dancing around answering that makes me think that you can't even think of a reason, other than that it's what you believe gosh darnit...

you seem to have missed exactly what started this... here's the original quote:

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

me said:

you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

barmar made the statement that a belief (i substitute that for "religious person") is unavailable to the scientific method *and* is illogical... i was perfectly within my rights in asking in what way it is illogical... you then made this assertion:

jdonn, on Jan 1 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?

i never stated any such thing, i simply asked a question... you are the one who made assertions and who refuse to clarify your position... i've been as clear as i can by saying that i don't think a belief that is untestable is inherently illogical and for some reason you won't say whether you agree or not... it is not incumbent upon me to offer proofs of non-assertions i made, all i did was ask a question... and answering cryptically ("you answered your own question") doesn't help anyone

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

i don't think a belief that is untestable is inherently illogical and for some reason you won't say whether you agree or not...

If Mike is supposed to answer your question, maybe he would need to know your definition of "logical". Anyway, Mike actually did answer your question:

Quote

it isn't, imho, 'by definition' illogical or irrational (and I take helene's point that maybe 'rational' is a better term than is 'logical').

("it" here referring to belief in a higher power. I suppose that's an example of an untestable hypothesis)

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on Jan 2 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

But it is one thing to state that the god hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out, and a completely different and irrational thing to conclude from that statement that god exists. At most, a rational being could logically conclude that a god may exist..

I have no quarrel with those who say god may exist, even though I don't think so.

The problems arise when people claim that they know what this (hypothetical) god expects of us. And it gets much worse when those people demand that the rest of us fall into line.

It seems to me that some folks have a talent for believing without evidence when it suits them to do so. Others of us simply do not have that talent.

On occasion, I've worked closely with priests in matters advancing social justice. Of course they've known my views about god and were as tolerant of my views as I was of theirs. Twice, over drinks on social occasions (many drinks), I asked a priest how he personally resolved his doubts about god and the church.

In both instances, I got the same answer, word for word, "I never had any doubts."

For me, I can't imagine what process I would use to convince myself to believe something (I mean really, seriously believe it -- not just affirm it for social purposes) without evidence.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 3 2008, 05:09 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

In any case I am still trying to figure if the selfish, souless, godless, human gene has the right to kill other genes or it does simply because it can.

Suppose you have an under-cooled glass of water. You drop a tiny ice crystal into it and watch it growing until it has converted all the water to ice. Is the ice selfish? Does it have the "right" to be selfish? FWIW the process is well understood, you can simulate it on your computer or predict mathematically that it will happen.

The "selfish" gene is selfish in the same sense as the ice crystal. Some people find the term "selfish" useful, some find it confusing. That is not important. The important thing is to understand how evolution works.

hhm so the human gene is going around killing other genes left and right like a crystal? This sounds like a star trek episode, I know it is. Or maybe some killer virus.

As for evolution, as I mentioned before, I find it much more fun to keep in mind we are still evolving, well some of you are, and what that may be rather than worrying about some missing link.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 2 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

Hmmmnnnn let's see....

Bridge = Religion?

Takes up a lot of time

Requires a large set of rules

Engenders belief in the abilities of others

Gives you hope for what comes next

Causes heated "discussions" at times over very fine points

Develops fervent followings of a specific creed or practice

Encourages the formation of stable "partnerships"

Yup, they are the same.

not bad, al... not bad

Thanks J

I find that the level of seriousness of a debate about that which is personal prerogative requires a certain amount of ego-deflation from time to time.

The big problem with the ego's use of the intellect is overkill. Minute, hair-splitting detail. Forget the big picture or what you need to know.....get going with that hammer and tong until you have spent your last breath defending your right to defend your rights to the last breath....

The underlying precepts of all of the conceptions that we have are the same. We are all humans, of like mind and similar capacity. The diversity that we demonstrate within the continuum of the consciousness that we express is a necessary aspect of our existence. We should try to enjoy it a bit more.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

hhm so the human gene is going around killing other genes left and right like a  crystal?

It works like this: There are two competing alleles of the same gene, say the blue-eyes allele and the brown-eyes allele of the eye color gene. If you have one copy of each, they compete for a particular limited resource, namely the eye-color genes of your children. Usually it will just be survival of the fittest: if you live in a country with bright sunshine, the brown-eyed children will have slightly better chance of survival. But some genes have more aggressive modes of competition. For example, a virus is, loosely speaking, a group of genes that are able to bypass normal sexual reproduction and copy themselves into adult cells, within or between organisms.

By the same token, liquid water and ice are two substances that compete for a limited resource, namely the molecules of the water in the glass. Maybe a better example would be an system of different crystals, growing from the same raw materials. The crystal forms that grow fastest and have a composition best matching the available resources would win the race. However, crystal forms don't (AFAIK) mutate into similar but slightly different crystals, but suppose they did. Some day a mutant crystal might acquire the ability to catalyze the synthesis of an acid that breaks down competing crystals, thereby making more raw materials for itself. At that point one might say the crystals had become life.

Quote

As for evolution, as I mentioned before, I find it much more fun to keep in mind we are still evolving, well some of you are, and what that may be rather than worring about some missing link.

Right, why bother about the past, we can't do much about it anyway. The future is much more exiting.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 3 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

hhm so the human gene is going around killing other genes left and right like a  crystal?

It works like this: There are two competing alleles of the same gene, say the blue-eyes allele and the brown-eyes allele of the eye color gene. If you have one copy of each, they compete for a particular limited resource, namely the eye-color genes of your children. Usually it will just be survival of the fittest: if you live in a country with bright sunshine, the brown-eyed children will have slightly better chance of survival. But some genes have more aggressive modes of competition. For example, a virus is, loosely speaking, a group of genes that are able to bypass normal sexual reproduction and copy themselves into adult cells, within or between organisms.

By the same token, liquid water and ice are two substances that compete for a limited resource, namely the molecules of the water in the glass.

Quote

As for evolution, as I mentioned before, I find it much more fun to keep in mind we are still evolving, well some of you are, and what that may be rather than worring about some missing link.

Right, why bother about the past, we can't do much about it anyway. The future is much more exiting.

hmm I am talking about genes killing genes.....humans killing cows or plants or bugs or a virus, killing lots of genes with pollution or other ways. Many times killing genes so we can eat or drink way too much or of course killing genes to "protect or grow our replicated genes"....because the ultimate religion of faith, us, says we can.

See star trek and the killer crystal.


2) I agree lets talk about the future or in the case of Kenrexford's post maybe the future is here today in the form of him?