[Trinidad]

mgoetze, on 2012-December-21, 09:25, said:

For all the similarity the poll results suggest between me and the typical BBFer, I do see a rather significant difference. It seems to me that most of my fellow atheists here are perfectly comfortable bandying about words such as "god" and "hell" as if they actually meant something.

Of course "god" and "hell" mean something. The simple fact that something doesn't exist, doesn't make it meaningless. If I talk to you about unicorns or dragons, are you then going to tell me that you don't know what these words mean?

Rik

[kenberg]

mgoetze, on 2012-December-21, 09:25, said:

For all the similarity the poll results suggest between me and the typical BBFer, I do see a rather significant difference. It seems to me that most of my fellow atheists here are perfectly comfortable bandying about words such as "god" and "hell" as if they actually meant something. But ever since reading Wittgenstein, I have been convinced that these words are just empty shells, devoid of all meaning. For me, the answer to the question "do you believe in god?" is not "no," but rather, "I don't understand the question."

I'm not sure yet whether the term "Flying Spaghetti Monster" has meaning, the verdict is still out on that one.

In college, I took courses (yes plural) from both Herb Feigl and Francis Raab. Feigl was from the "famed Vienna Circle" ( see http://www.umass.edu.../Aune/feigl.pdf) and Raab was another logical positivist. I took graduate level stuff from Fegl and found him to be a good guy but I wasn't convinced of his views. I took a couple of lower level courses from Raab and did not care for either him or his philosophical views. I recall him practically shouting "God created the universe out of nothing?, This has no meaning. Who can say what it means?" I raised my hand and repliied "There is a sphere of radius R. At time t_0 nothing is insode the sphere. At time t_1 the universe is inside the sphere. Nothing passed through the boundary between times t_0 and t_1. And God did it. I don't believe this, but I don't think the statement is without meaning". Basically he told me to stop raising my hand if I had no better thoughts than that.

Why did I then take all this stuff? At the undergraduate level we had to take this cultural stuff. At the graduate level, at Minnesota in the early sixties, a requirement for a Ph.D. in mathematics was that the student had to minor in something. I chose Philosophy. When I told the Math department chair of this, he said "Ah, Mr. Berg, that it is a very good choice. It will give you plenty of time to study mathematics". And so it was.One of my required philosophy courses was at the same time as a mathematics course that interested me. I registered for the Philosophy course and attended the Math course. The Math instructor was devoutly Jewish so I got to the Philosophy course on Jewish holidays. I got an A.

I have a friend, also a non-believer, who gets very wrapped up in philosophy. I once explained that I had not only given up religion, I had given up Philosophy. Actually they seem to be sort of the same thing.

[mikeh]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 10:27, said:

Of course "god" and "hell" mean something. The simple fact that something doesn't exist, doesn't make it meaningless. If I talk to you about unicorns or dragons, are you then going to tell me that you don't know what these words mean?

Rik

I think that defining terms is a useful precursor to intelligent discussion. So I am often bemused (and amused in equal measure) by the incoherent meanings ascribed to the term 'god' by religious believers. I appreciate that theologians tend to have more nuanced, tho still puzzling, definitions. So what is a god and what is god?

I raised this issue of definition in the parallel thread but neither I nor anyone else appears to have attempted an answer.

This seems important to me, at least for the religious amongst us, since what use is there to believe in something when you don't know what it is? How can you (why should you) worship an entity without some clear notion of its parameters?

Merely stating that it is all-powerful, all-knowing, and merciful and vindictive and so on doesn't actually 'mean' anything. They are terms without content. Indeed, I would argue that in all other realms of human enquiry, we invoke the limits of a thing or a concept as part of how we define what it is. Much as artists, when painting, utilize the blank areas of the canvas to define the objects portrayed, we use the 'what it is not' as a guide to meaning as much as we do 'what it is'.

When we describe something as having no limits, we are defining something without meaning.

[barmar]

dwar0123, on 2012-December-20, 17:20, said:

Most Christians don't read the bible literally.

40% of Americans believe the Bible's story of Genesis. Not a majority, but still an uncomfortably high number.

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2012-December-21, 10:50, said:

40% of Americans believe the Bible's story of Genesis. Not a majority, but still an uncomfortably high number.

I believe it was written, does that count?

[barmar]

dwar0123, on 2012-December-21, 10:51, said:

I believe it was written, does that count?

No. 40% think the story is TRUE.

[JLOGIC]

billw55, on 2012-December-21, 10:12, said:

tbh it sounds like you are too easily trolled.

Are you also infuriated, say, by those who insist the moon landing was fake? Or that bigfoot exists? How about ghosts? For me, I find any stubborn belief in nonsense to be equally silly, but certainly not worth my emotional energy to get infuriated over. If you are reacting this way specifically to religious arguments, but not to other things you consider nonsense, it might mean something you don't expect.

If you get infuriated by all of them equally, you do get points for consistency. But it seems like a stressful way to live.

I view them the same way, if people brought it up all the time and tried to make me believe the same things and would not listen to any arguments to the contrary then yes, I would find them infuriating and would not spend time with them. I mean, I don't spend time with anyone who actively talks about how god is real, or that the moon landing is fake, or that bigfoot exists, or that they believe in ghosts lol and I never would. However, if it's just a view they held and basically kept quiet about it of course I could and would be friends with them if they were an otherwise good friend.

I do have one friend who has done a lot of hallucenogens who won't watch TV because he is convinced aliens are sending subliminal messages through them. He takes it well when we laugh at him/rib him and he doesn't go off about it very much (pretty much only when he meets someone new) so it is more funny than infuriating. It does not effect my day to day interactions with him, or his life at all as far as I can tell (other than that he won't watch TV).

I think these kind of things can be harmless to the relationship or they can be infuriating and hurtful to the relationship, depending on how important it is to the other person and how much they need to talk to you about it and convince you they are right. I will admit I have never met anyone who was adamant that ghosts were real or the moon landing was faked and tried to actively convince me of this and would not listen to any of my arguments as to why this is a questionable belief to hold. Have you? But surely we have all met religious people who are this way, even if their intentions are good and they're trying to "save" me, I could not have a friendship with that person or be around them because they would be highly annoying. The difference is that it is societally acceptable (in fact, religious people are a large majority) to believe in god, it is not societally acceptable to believe in ghosts, so we get far more religious nuts than ghost nuts.

Let's put it another way, my bridge partner is convinced that 4 card majors are better than 5 card majors, however I still play with him -- and we play 5 card majors

[barmar]

Analogies with other beliefs that you don't agree with are not really relevant. People who believe the moon landing was faked are not generally in positions to make public policy based on this belief. No one is trying to pass laws or constitutional amendments based on their beliefs in astrology.

Religion is given a privileged status in society, so it's not comparable with any other set of beliefs.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2012-December-21, 10:50, said:

40% of Americans believe the Bible's story of Genesis. Not a majority, but still an uncomfortably high number.

As Steven Wright once said, 50% of the populace is below average.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2012-December-21, 10:50, said:

40% of Americans believe the Bible's story of Genesis.

Which one?

[mgoetze]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 10:27, said:

Of course "god" and "hell" mean something. The simple fact that something doesn't exist, doesn't make it meaningless. If I talk to you about unicorns or dragons, are you then going to tell me that you don't know what these words mean?

Oh, I have a pretty good idea about what unicorns are. I think I could give you a pretty good explanation. Do you think you can give me an equally good explanation of what "god" is?

As for dragons, I would at least ask you to clarify whether you are talking about those of Chinese mythology or those of European mythology.

[mgoetze]

kenberg, on 2012-December-21, 10:36, said:

I recall him practically shouting "God created the universe out of nothing?, This has no meaning. Who can say what it means?" I raised my hand and repliied "There is a sphere of radius R. At time t_0 nothing is insode the sphere. At time t_1 the universe is inside the sphere. Nothing passed through the boundary between times t_0 and t_1. And God did it. I don't believe this, but I don't think the statement is without meaning". Basically he told me to stop raising my hand if I had no better thoughts than that.

Well, not only did you not define "God", you did not explain what it means that "he" "did" it either.

Quote

I have a friend, also a non-believer, who gets very wrapped up in philosophy. I once explained that I had not only given up religion, I had given up Philosophy. Actually they seem to be sort of the same thing.

Oh yes, Wittgenstein spared me a lot of effort trying to understand Kant, Hegel and all those fellows. They wrote nonsense as bad as any Religion. After he finished his Tractatus, Wittgenstein quit Philosophy, convinced that he had said all that could possibly be said on the subject. Of course, he did eventually develop some doubts and came back to the subject some 20 years later. That still leaves me about 10 years of Philosophy-free time by my reckoning.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2012-December-21, 10:50, said:

40% of Americans believe the Bible's story of Genesis. Not a majority, but still an uncomfortably high number.

I wonder. Sometimes polls like this mean that 40% of the people know the answer to a quiz. When I was, say, 17 and applied for a job, the answer I inserted in the space Religion was Presbyterian. I wanted the job. As I got older, I answered none. I figured I was looking for a career, not a way to play the bills at the end of the week, and if none was unacceptable we might as well get that straight right away. In one case, at a historically religious but no longer particularly observant college, it was unacceptable. No one would have checked up on me, but I had to have a suitable, for them, answer when asked. Fine, they go their way, I go mine. But for the short term jobs I had fewer such scruples.


Of course the folks in the poll are not applying for a job. True. But a lot of people, often including myself, don't want trouble. Some gut comes up, pencil and paper in hand, and asks if you believe in God. Sure, see you around buddy. The earth, the skiesm and everything in it was created in six days? Yep, sure do. Gotta go now, nice chatting with you. I owe him the truth? Why?

I wouldn't take this result as, well, as Gospel.

[kenberg]

mgoetze, on 2012-December-21, 13:45, said:

Well, not only did you not define "God", you did not explain what it means that "he" "did" it either.

True, but it all happened long before I was born so I perhaps can be excused for being vague about the details.

Maybe I try for a more serious response. John Berryman was another of my college profs. Crazy as a loon, but I liked him a lot. He taught a course in the origins of Christianity and at one point in discussing such things he opined "We are not interested in proving the existence of a brainless God". That seems right. A god, or the God, would have to be a conscious being who can and does impose his will, at least to some degree and on some occasions, on human events. I wouldn't say that He has to be able to turn a person into a pillar of salt, but He has to be able to do something. Creating the universe counts as something. So does raising people from the dead. Of course sometimes doctors do this, and sometimes doctors let this go to their heads, but a God could perhaps do this with no medical training.

Berryman also observed "I don't believe in miracles because I have never seen one, but I have more feeling for those who do believe than I do for those who are positive there could be no such thing". Well, if I saw a lot of burning bushes and angels in the sky, I would either check to see what's in my drink or I would start believing. It's not impossible, but I have seen nothing at all to lead me to believe it has ever happened or ever will.


As long as I am bringing in quotes, I recall one from Isaac Asimov that I learned from the Forum. Something along the lines of "I don't say that is impossible that there is a God, but it seems so unlikely to be true that I don't spend any time thinking about it". I spent quite a bit of time thinking about it in my early days, but that's long past.


And I agree about Kant. Way too much work to attempt to understand something I probably won't agree with, or won't care about.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2012-December-21, 14:24, said:

I wouldn't take this result as, well, as Gospel.

So you basically don't believe that professional polling organizations like Gallup and Pew Research don't know how to conduct valid polls?

Here's the report from Gallup with this statistic: http://www.gallup.co...reationism.aspx

At the bottom of the page they describe the polling method. It's not "some guy comes up, pencil in hand, and asks if you believe in God." They claim that there's a 95% confidence that the margin of error is +/- 4%. Even if that's an underestimate, 30% of Americans believing the literal creation story in the Bible seems like too many. Compare that to how many people believe in Santa Claus (have you ever met an adult who believes in Santa?).

The poll also reported that among people who attend Church weekly, the number is 60%.

But I did make a mistake. The questions in this poll weren't about the "6 days" story in the first chapter of the Bible, just about creationism in general as opposed to evolution. The opinion they agreed with was "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 38% believe in evolution, but believe that God guided it -- this is essentially the loophole used to try to get Intlligent Design into school curricula.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2012-December-21, 15:46, said:

So you basically don't believe that professional polling organizations like Gallup and Pew Research don't know how to conduct valid polls?

Here's the report from Gallup with this statistic: http://www.gallup.co...reationism.aspx

At the bottom of the page they describe the polling method. It's not "some guy comes up, pencil in hand, and asks if you believe in God." They claim that there's a 95% confidence that the margin of error is +/- 4%. Even if that's an underestimate, 30% of Americans believing the literal creation story in the Bible seems like too many. Compare that to how many people believe in Santa Claus (have you ever met an adult who believes in Santa?).

The poll also reported that among people who attend Church weekly, the number is 60%.

But I did make a mistake. The questions in this poll weren't about the "6 days" story in the first chapter of the Bible, just about creationism in general as opposed to evolution. The opinion they agreed with was "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 38% believe in evolution, but believe that God guided it -- this is essentially the loophole used to try to get Intlligent Design into school curricula.

I expect that the confidence interval applies to the confidence about their confidence in the sample as being representative of how the nation would answer, the key word being "answer".

As I understand it, there is good reason for skepticism about the 60% that attend church weekly. It turns out, or so I have heard, that if instead of asking a person if he attends church regularly you instead ask him, without ever mentioning anything religious, to describe his weekend activities, church attendance shows up something more like 30% of the time.
So I am not doubting that 60% of Americans answer yes when asked if they attend church regularly, I am doubting that 60% actually do it.

There are many many questions of this sort where the answers that people give are completely at odds with their actual beliefs or behavior.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2012-December-21, 17:14, said:

So I am not doubting that 60% of Americans answer yes when asked if they attend church regularly, I am doubting that 60% actually do it.

Did anyone claim that they do?

[BunnyGo]

barmar, on 2012-December-21, 10:57, said:

No. 40% think the story is TRUE.

Stories have a type of truth to them. Sadly, it's a different truth than the one most of think of when discussing reality.

[Codo]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 06:54, said:

The difference between science and religion is not in the amount of unknowns. Scientists have to work with many more unknowns than religious believers. The crucial difference is in how these unknowns are treated: Scientists continuously try to falsify the unknowns whereas religion just assumes the unknowns to be true. (And "assume" is an understatement. )

Setting up a model and testing it, over and over and over again to come closer to the TRUTH, is what defines science.*

Setting up a model and believing it to be the TRUTH, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, through prosperity and adversity, despite anything, is what defines religion.

This is why it is utterly futile to prove in a scientific way that religion is not true, or to believe religiously that science is not true: The two models of truth are fundamentally different.

Rik

* This is not only true for beta sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy) but also for alpha (linguistics, history, religious studies) and gamma (economics, psychology) sciences

This is far too much a black/white painting. Science should be like you described it, but reality is quite different.
I do not need any examples to profe this point, do I?

Religions should be quite different then they are, but it is not true that they do not develop. F.E. The pope is using twitter and the inquisiition is not anymore what it had been.
I think there are many aspects in which you cannot compare religion and science, but I thought in the way we explain unprofable theorems to our kids they are quite similar. At the end of the day we can belive it or not- we do not have the ability ourself to profe it. In science, there are often other people who can, so we can trust them. In religion, there is nothing to profe. You belive- or you don't.

And that was the beginning of this discussion.

Anyway, we may agree that science should be(and often is)on the search for evidence for any posted theorem. Religion is not..

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-21, 21:22, said:

Did anyone claim that they do?

That's what I understood the posted claim to be, yes, that 60% of Amreicans attend church weekly, and I understood the evidence for this was the poll. If the claim is only that 60% of Americans say they attend church weekly then we have no disagreement. The number sounds right.