GOD: The Failed Hypothesis

[chasteh 0]

Quote

Quote

By reservoirs of energy, are you referring to potential candidates for God-Units?

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them.

>I personally think it's folly to think that our science has fully identified all reservoirs of energy

Oh ok. I guess I just don't see where I take advantage of what you consider to be "folly." That must mean you agree with me.

[chasteh 0]

>That’s a forced dichotomy

Really? It appears to not take the form of "Either you choose A or B, not both, and nothing else."
That is a forced dichotomy. I didn't say you had to choose anything.

>(Many) religious beliefs depend on faith.
Not all huh? Which one depends entirely on the provable, necessarily truth? Show me the money baby.

>Testing is often of a personal nature
Sure. It's just that many of their churches don't encourage or even permit "testing" of any sort. That sounds more like bondage to authority than religious love.

>If something is outside of the testable realm -- the “realm of sense-perception” -- science is not the appropriate method.
Amen. Shit.

>One might call religion a process to comprehend the untestable within the limits of our biological human capacity.
They might. They also might say that religion hardly ever aligns itself with the only method we have, outside of logic, of understanding the world it seeks to explain. Isn't that a bit problematic? Where did religion gain the ability to lie to us about things that we can test? (Was Jesus black? Sorry Rastafarian Trent, we can find this one out for real)

>Philosophy -- from Aristotle’s “forms” to Heidegger’s DaSein to post-modern deconstructionism -- has tried to bridge the testable realm with the untestable with varying degrees of success and precision.

Science as an empirical philosophy has tried doing the same. Are you making a claim here against philosophy?

Also, is philosophy's goal the "bridging of the testable realm with the untestable?"

[JackC 0]

Quote

Making the claim that science does provide us information about the "actual" world is naive.

If there exists a thing that doesn't interact with the empirical universe, then there is no way we could ever know anything about it since everything we know about anything is via the empirical universe. Naive or not, for all practical purposes the empirical universe is the actual universe.

[chasteh 0]

(1) "for all practical purposes"

(2) "the empirical universe is the actual universe"

Great. I am not saying that "For all practical purposes the empirical universe is not the actual universe."

I am saying that (2) is very different of a statement from (1) + (2). I am also saying that we never will be in a position, as a result of science, to make a claim such as (2).

edit:

Also, it would be cute to find a scientist/science professor who would admit that you can't just say (2) is true. Most of them would say that a philosopher who points out the invalidity of such an argument is a nutcase. Too bad they can't prove (2), huh.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

By reservoirs of energy, are you referring to potential candidates for God-Units?

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them.

Back in the days when I could solve a time-independent Schrödinger equation (for H),
/Marg

You forgot? I can still do it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

You talk about the Ten Commandments, well, either they come directly from God or Moses made them up. If they come from God then, ok, fine, they're a little paranoid coming from an all mighty being who supposedly is giving us our own free fill, but if they come from Moses, they're just complete and total bullshit by some crazy man with a "magic" walking stick trying to be the leader of a tribe of people wandering the desert.

i think the christians borrowed the idea from greeks.

Let us now turn to the Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60), which run as follows:

594 B.C.E

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

Moses (if he really existed) probably predates 594BCE, but he certainly did NOT predate the Mesopotamian code of conduct, which looks a lot like the precursor of the 10 Commandments. Judeo/Christians do not have priority or a monopoly on moral codes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

If we discovered that one of the authors of the Constitution was not who we thought it was, would that document become total bullshit, a fabrication of crazy men?

Let us know when people can democratically ammend the contents of the Bible.

How is this even a valid comparison?

New Testament

Book of Mormon...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If we discovered that one of the authors of the Constitution was not who we thought it was, would that document become total bullshit, a fabrication of crazy men?

Let us know when people can democratically ammend the contents of the Bible.

How is this even a valid comparison?

New Testament

Book of Mormon...

Never by the masses. Only by the new guy that wanted to be "in charge."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

My take:

Religion is like big government. The more helpless they can make you feel (self doubt or fear of others), the more power they can exert over you.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,991]

>Only by the new guy that wanted to be "in charge."

You realize you are arguing in favor of the "religion is similar to government" meme . . .

[billvon 2,991]

>Let us know when people can democratically ammend the contents of the Bible.

That's happened several times. The Council of Nicaea was one, and was fairly democratic (several groups were represented.) Martin Luther and John Smith made some changes as well, although that was less democratic. (Sorta like executive orders.)

[quade 4]

Quote

>Only by the new guy that wanted to be "in charge."

You realize you are arguing in favor of the "religion is similar to government" meme . . .

And away from the God exists and created the tablets with his finger of fire? Yeah. I'm aware of that.

That was my entire point to begin with. Moses made a pretty remarkable claim and much like Joseph Smith and the tablets HE said God gave him, the entire story was completely unverifiable.

People bag on the Mormons all day and night because they have such a dumb story about how the Book of Mormon was written or Scientology. I don't think the Old Testament holds up any better.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>People bag on the Mormons all day and night because they have such
>a dumb story about how the Book of Mormon was written or Scientology.

Right. And people here bag on Congress or the President all night and day because they're not listening to the Will of the People, they don't hold their interpretation of the Constitution etc etc.

[quade 4]

Quote

>People bag on the Mormons all day and night because they have such
>a dumb story about how the Book of Mormon was written or Scientology.

Right. And people here bag on Congress or the President all night and day because they're not listening to the Will of the People, they don't hold their interpretation of the Constitution etc etc.

Yes, because they know that the Constitution is an actual document and they have signed witnesses to its creation. It's not a divine/mythical document handed down by a supposed God. It's REAL. Moreover, the Constitution puts the ultimate power in the hands of the PEOPLE. It doesn't remain with the God or his appointed surrogate (ruler/king). The people pick the ruler and have the option of kicking him out at a minimum of every four years.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JackC 0]

Quote

(1) "for all practical purposes"

(2) "the empirical universe is the actual universe"

Great. I am not saying that "For all practical purposes the empirical universe is not the actual universe."

I am saying that (2) is very different of a statement from (1) + (2). I am also saying that we never will be in a position, as a result of science, to make a claim such as (2).

edit:

Also, it would be cute to find a scientist/science professor who would admit that you can't just say (2) is true. Most of them would say that a philosopher who points out the invalidity of such an argument is a nutcase. Too bad they can't prove (2), huh.

Other than for a bit of philosophical masturbation, what difference does it make if there is a hidden reality behind empirical reality? You can't see it, you can't detect it in any way, you can never know anything about it and it is completely indistinguishable from it's own non-existance. Postulating such a thing doesn't get you anywhere, it explains nothing, it proves nothing, you have no evidence for it, you have no reason to suggest such a thing. Why waste time trying to trap scientists with such semantic weaseling? The only possible use I can see for this is as an inflatable philosophical cosh (all hot air and very little substance) to try and bash empiricists with.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Does it have to be one or the other?

/Marg

If one is accountable to society then the person must obey the laws of his family, community, etc.

If one is accountable to God then the person must choose the path. The Holy Bible states that God's plan is through Jesus Christ as the gateway. All other spiritual plans are man made and therefore fall short.

So, the first question is, "Do I want to follow a spiritual path in life?"

If the answer is yes, the next question is, "How do I choose the correct path?"

In my case I studied witchcraft, spiritism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Carlos Castaneda, astrology, numerology, Eckankar, et.al. I received a spiritual epiphany when I was stranded alone in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, "Why don't you try Jesus? You've tried everything else."

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

a - Religion is a human construct and, in the best case, is equivalent to a moral code. If it works for someone, great, it if doesn't, one can find another construct to hang morality on. Why belittle the tools another individual uses if that's what it takes for it to work for them? Aren't you tolerant of another's life choices?

Look, I'm FINE with people practicing whatever religion they want. If in a troubling time they find some solace in the belief in God, who am I to deny that?

However, I'm especially annoyed at the idea that some people's beliefs in God is driving them to set public policy for the rest of us. The issue for me is that even recently religion in the US has been the basis for government officials making decisions on not just a national level, but an international one.

Your "god" doesn't trump my "god" or lack of "god". It just doesn't. If you want to believe it does, ok, I guess I can't stop you, but the fact remains that it still doesn't unless you can prove to be that it does, which you can't, so it still doesn't.

And that is the basis for thousands of years of war, right there, "my god is better than your god so I'm 'in charge'." Well, that's just bullshit.

Quote

b - Noting that religion is used to exploit others is interesting...

If we can separate "god" from religion for a moment.

Religions exist for the purpose of controlling the masses. Look at any religion (other than your own of course) and you'll instantly see this to be true. A class of people (priests, medicine men, witch doctors) colludes with the ruler in a symbiotic relationship. They claim he has a divine right to rule because "god" told them he does. No one can question it because only the priest class can talk to "god".

Over and over and over this happened all over the the face of the planet.

Why do you think that is? Is it because "god" spoke to each of these tribes?

It continues to happen today when shyster televangelists claim "god" came to them in a vision and told them he needs money or caused Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins or a 90 foot tall Jesus spoke to them. It's just complete bullshit.

And why does it work? Because of a basic belief in "god". Religion has a very difficult time operating without a "god". Sure, some exist; Taoism, Buddism (and Buddism is huge!) . . . but even they have some central figure that somehow magically knew the way and was "enlightened" beyond our understanding. That knowledge is ways held by the priest class and continues to maintain power in a symbiotic relationship with the "ruler" (in some cases being one in the same).

It's all a way of maintaining power over people.

I agree with you, God or religion and politics are two separate issues.

I am only interested in helping the lost individual find a path out of the woods. I believe Christianity is the best path but it is not the only path.

In the skydiving community we have lost members to alcoholism, addiction and other mental health issues that have gone all the way to suicide.

I was almost a terminal victim and I have dedicated the last 28 years to helping those I am able to reach. I am always searching.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

New Testament

Book of Mormon...

Never by the masses. Only by the new guy that wanted to be "in charge."

The New Testament was written by those who walked with Jesus Christ and/or had personal experience with Him. I'm referring to Saul of Tarsus who became Paul. They were all martyrs. They died tragically. They had no desire to be in charge. Their motivation was to share the truth.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[nerdgirl 0]

Thank you for the additional clarification, especially this from your next post:

Quote

I am only interested in helping the lost individual find a path out of the woods. I believe Christianity is the best path but it is not the only path.

While many do derive ethical and moral codes of behavior (responsibility and accountability) from religious principles, one can also derive ethical & moral codes of behavior from the rule of law, from Enlightenment principles of personal liberty and personal responsibility, and/or from any number of a-religious philosophical approaches, e.g., from Aristotle to Descartes to Ayn Rand to Existentialism (authenticity & Da Sein) to Star Trek.

Nor does that preclude a secularist, a humanist, or an atheist from seeking guidance & inspiration from the great religious traditions and from religious philosophers/ethicists, e.g., from the Norse Poetic Edda to Saint Teresa of Avila (a personal favorite) to Soren Kierkegaard to Spinoza (orthodox Jew who eventually became a pantheist) to the Dalai Lama (another favorite).

It also doesn't preclude someone like me who's at my church two or three times a week from seeking guidance or inspiration from other religious traditions and from secular, humanist, or completely non-religious traditions.


I find intellectually provocative what Kurt Vonnegut succinctly described:

“being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”

Not as call or inspiration to be a secular humanist or adopt other belief system but as a thoughtful challenge -- & that's a good thing, imo -- to my own beliefs.

Im-ever-ho, what Vonnegut describes is the ultimate in personal responsibility: behavior because it’s normatively right, without motivation or expectation of material or immaterial compensation now or at some time in the future. Others will disagree - c’est la vie virtuelle.

There’s a high-ethics question, more of an intellectual/philosophical nature than pragmatic impact: if one’s behavior is based on the ultimate reward system (eternal life), how truly ethical is that behavior? If I need the threat of a powerful deity's wrath to hold me accountable, how much of my own personal responsibility is at play?

Theologians & philosophers throughout history have grappled with this question with less resolution than a typical Speakers Corner's thread.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

By reservoirs of energy, are you referring to potential candidates for God-Units?

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them.

Back in the days when I could solve a time-independent Schrödinger equation (for H),

You forgot? I can still do it.

Guess you've got more 'nerd' credentials than I do.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

BL:
Religion = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions
Science = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions (The assumption that this realm of sense-perception is the true world; Although the probability that it is the realm of Actuality is quite high, it is not something we can attach certainty to)

Quote

Quote

That’s a forced dichotomy

Really? It appears to not take the form of "Either you choose A or B, not both, and nothing else."
That is a forced dichotomy. I didn't say you had to choose anything.

Yes, really. The forced component is a false parallelism w/r/t asserted equivalency of irrationality.

Quote

Quote

(Many) religious beliefs depend on faith.

Not all huh? Which one depends entirely on the provable, necessarily truth?.

Questioning, rather than reliance on faith alone, is encouraged within core tenets of at least a couple religious traditions of which I am aware – Unitarian Universalism and Tibetan Buddhism. Heck, both of those encourage outright skepticism. Those are the couple of which I am aware; others might suggest more.

Quote

Quote

Philosophy -- from Aristotle’s “forms” to Heidegger’s DaSein to post-modern deconstructionism -- has tried to bridge the testable realm with the untestable with varying degrees of success and precision.

Science as an empirical philosophy has tried doing the same. Are you making a claim here against philosophy?

No. Positivism is the underlying philosophy (epistemology).
Science is a process (or methodology) by which positivists explore the knowable/testable world.


What I think you’re arguing … which I very much acknowledge, I may be wrong in my reading of your posts … is the post-positivists/constructivists/critical realist’s perspective (another epistemology). They would concur with your ‘bottom line’ characterization of science versus the metaphysical (ontological epistemology) characterization of religion.

The post-positivists/constructivists/critical realists are less than right when it comes to the physical and life sciences, however. Some things are *not* subjectively constructed. For example, the absorption band of iron porphyrin (the active molecule in hemoglobin protein in red blood cells) is a specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light in the UV-Vis spectrum - that doesn't change regardless of one’s assumptions. The specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light absorbed changes depending on whether oxygen or cyanide is bonded to the iron atom not whether a conservative lesbian black female Jew, a straight white liberal male Hindu, or a libertarian asian transgender secular humanist is observing it.

Where they (the post-positivists/constructivists/critical realists) do have validity is w/r/t the practice of science by humans. E.g., the classic works: The Mismeasure of Man and The Mismeasure of Woman, contain vivid examples.

Humans don’t always behave rationally. Personally, I think that can be a wonderful trait – love, honor, bliss, hope, excitement, and courage are often irrational but can make the human experience worth living, imo.

If you try to measure a water molecule (~0.25nm) with a yardstick, it’s not going to give you a precise result.
If you try to measure the distance from the Earth to Alpha Centauri with a yardstick (~4 x 10^17 yards), it’s not going to give you a precise result.
The underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal. To try to explain the differences in the methods or approaches to measuring parts of the world using the same explanation would be a forced dichotomy too.

Please let me know if that all makes sense or any sense or if I need to go grab Wendy’s rock.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[chasteh 0]

>Other than for a bit of philosophical masturbation, what difference does it make if there is a hidden reality behind empirical reality? You can't see it, you can't detect it in any way, you can never know anything about it and it is completely indistinguishable from it's own non-existance. Postulating such a thing doesn't get you anywhere, it explains nothing, it proves nothing, you have no evidence for it, you have no reason to suggest such a thing.

Because the purpose of philosophy is to "know" or to find "truth" in everything. Science, being an empirical philosophy, seeks to find the truth in everything concerning the physical world. If it cannot obtain genuine facts that are indisputible and outside assumptions (like empirical assumptions) then it cannot obtain knowledge.
Does this mean we shouldn't use science to further the lives that we just assume to be real? Of course not. Does it mean that we can say that we know those lives to be real? NO.

>Why waste time trying to trap scientists with such semantic weaseling?
Why waste time working on assumptions about the sensible world?
For the first question: To come to truth, which is the goal of philosophy. (Duh)
For the second: Because it can aid productivity and the quality of life for those of us who can't know that the empirical world is actual.

>The only possible use I can see for this is as an inflatable philosophical cosh (all hot air and very little substance) to try and bash empiricists with.
I figured you would turn out to be an anti-philosopher. That is fine, just don't discredit philosophers for sticking to its goals of obtaining knowledge of the truth. After all, it took some philosopher to decide that empiricism could be a method of obtaining truths, which could add value to philosophy, did it not?

>all hot air and very little substance
How are you going to argue that?
Oh wait.. you need philosophy and its Logic to do that. Shit.

[winsor 236]

Look, it's really obvious that things are much too complex to have simply happened by themselves.

Thus, it is clear that everything we percieve is the result of something else, which is orders of magnitude more complex and simply happend by itself.

How could one dispute somethinig so obvious?


Blue skies,

Winsor

[chasteh 0]

>Yes, really. The forced component is a false parallelism w/r/t asserted equivalency of irrationality.

Then it wouldn't be a forced dichotomy. It would be a false parallelism. Very different. "Either A or B. Not Both, and Nothing else" is a forced dichotomy. Here is an example:
"Either you are with us, or against us."
Can you show me where I said something as such?
Maybe I won't be convinced you are a nerd after all.

religious folks are irrational in the belief of a "God"

IF and ONLY IF

Scientists are irrational in the disbelief of a "God"

Both depend on assumptions of something that hasn't been proven, and to me, won't ever be proven by empirical means. Can you show me otherwise?

>Heck, both of those encourage outright skepticism.

How does that change the notion that they depend on faith, again? If they depend on skepticism, then they depend on faith in there existing no genuine explanation. That would be belief in something that isn't verifiable. Shit.

>Science is a process (or methodology) by which positivists explore the knowable/testable world.
Uh oh. Knowable is a bit of a stretch, huh? Wait, positivists wouldn't say that. Shit. That looks like another belief in something that skepticism has leverage over.

>that doesn't change regardless of one’s assumptions.

I am a brain in a vat, and such information gained by whatever machinery exists as a fabrication of my brain in a vat, and not actuality. Shit. Looks like that just changed. (Yep, sounds rediculous huh? You need to do something with the BIV scenario to say "That doesn't change with your assumptions."

>The specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light absorbed changes depending on whether oxygen or cyanide is bonded to the iron atom

Unfortunately those all "exist" in the empirical world. You can't use the empirical world as proof that there are undoubtable things in the empirical world. That would result in begging the question. Shit.

>not whether a conservative lesbian black female Jew, a straight white liberal male Hindu, or a libertarian asian transgender secular humanist is observing it.

I guess you will have to show me where I said a person's perspective has bearing on actuality. Shit, I didn't. It is another crazy assumption to say that actuality depends on your perspective. That much is easily disprovable. Given your empirical assumptions, we have even more room to say that it is "possible" that your perspective has no bearing on actuality.

>Humans don’t always behave rationally. Personally, I think that can be a wonderful trait – love, honor, bliss, hope, excitement, and courage are often irrational but can make the human experience worth living, imo.

Ok. That is a bit unavoidable. Does it change the fact that science relies on irrational assumptions, as does religion? Negative. It just says that we can sometimes be irrational, and that it is often "ok" to behave as such.

>The underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal.

Philosophically, the criterion I am using for "knowing" are the same here. They are both applicable in epistemic terms. That is all I need.

>To try to explain the differences in the methods or approaches to measuring parts of the world using the same explanation would be a forced dichotomy too.

It might be time for you to go grab the rock. Applying a continuous standard to things that cannot be measured the same way is not a forced dichotomy.

You have either read some philosophy or taken philosophy courses, I can see that. Do you remember taking Symbolic Logic, or any other upper-level logic course? Did you take epistemology?

>The underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal.

However, the guage I am using (Certainty) is applicable to both religious and empirical assumptions. You can't quite be certain in either realm given the limitations of our sense experiences and the limited supply of evidence we have to come to such a necessary conclusion.

(edit)
In science and religion, you are bound to only being "pretty" certain in epistemic terms.

"But wait, Chasteh, you can't be "Pretty certain." If your are "pretty certain" of something, your not certain. Certainty doesn't come in guages."

"That is right. And if you can't be certain of something, then you can't know it. Shit"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There’s a high-ethics question, more of an intellectual/philosophical nature than pragmatic impact: if one’s behavior is based on the ultimate reward system (eternal life), how truly ethical is that behavior? If I need the threat of a powerful deity's wrath to hold me accountable, how much of my own personal responsibility is at play?

the whole post resonates with my thoughts. but a portion....

I'd had the same question, but I'd throw this out:

a rational person would, deep down, understand that the reward/punishment system is a myth, so therefore, the concept of this reward is really just the subconscious providing an external stimulus to be a decent person

so, therefore, the individual is truly acting from personal responsibility, not just acting in fear of the myth - even when they don't consciously realize it

I'll give credit to actions, which, in the end are always personal/individual choices, and leave the whole intent thing as a weak philosophical exercise.

in other words, I still with the pragmatic viewpoint for philosophical reasons as well

edit: one could argue that the individual is weak since they need subconscious motivation to be moral. One could also argue that the individual is exceptionally clever in that they provided themselves with a subconscious motivation to be moral. I suspect it varies from individual to individual.

personally? my moral motivation is recollection of my Dad kicking my ass if I didn't act morally stimulating a conditioned response well into my adulthood - one of the best techniques yet invented by mankind

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants