Author |
Topic: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist (Read 5535 times) |
|
SWF
Uberpuzzler
Posts: 879
|
 |
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #25 on: Mar 12th, 2004, 6:16pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
How could Dr. Unwin subtitle his book, "A Simple Calculation That Proves The Ultimate Truth", after his calculation showed only a 67% probability? That seems to indicate he thinks anything greater than 50% is proof.
In using Bayes' Theory, he apparently made numerical assumptions for the probability that a god would allow certain natural disasters to occur. This whole thing reminds me of Laplace using Bayes' Theory to estimate the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender: 
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #26 on: Mar 13th, 2004, 11:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 12th, 2004, 2:10am, towr wrote:| The 'problem' with a lot of evidence is that it doesn't force you to one direction. |
|
The purpose of my listing of evidence was not to convince you of its accuracy. or to argue that it demanded acceptance. If I were to do that I would have presented it much differently. What I wanted to do was disabuse Ulkesh & others of the notion that christianity requires going against evidence, or laying aside rational thought. As someone has said (forgive me for being to lazy to look up who it was), faith is trusting in God, not believing in him beyond all evidence.
Quote:| Whether he was the (only) son of God, or even God incarnate as some seem to believe, I dunno.. I don't believe so. I don't think he ever said so himself either, I mean he taught to pray "our father who is in heaven", so I figure we're all sons and daughters of God. |
|
That idea is indeed found in the Bible, but Jesus expressed a much higher position for himself. Since Sir Col has listed some (not all) of the passages, I will simply note that the people Jesus was talking to clearly understood his claim was that he was equal to God. Some of them were ready to stone him for it.
Quote:| Personally I have my doubts about the bible, if not the rest. People's memory isn't generally that good, and most parts of the new testament were written 50-150 years after the fact whereas many contempory writings didn't make it in. Also around 300 AD emperor Constantin seems to have had a good time editing it (and who knows what later popes did). |
|
First of all, we have fragments of every book of the new testament that date back to 120 AD at the latest, so all of them were written by then. A fragment of Mark exists that dates back to 56 AD, only 20-30 years after the life of Christ. (Like his birth, the exact year of Christ's death is not certain.) Textual evidence indicates that all of the New Testament was written in the latter half of the first century, 50 years or less after the life of Christ.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, a school of criticism of the Bible arose centered in Germany, which attacked everything they could about the Bible. The charges you mention arose from this school. The essense of their approach was to look for any inconsistency between the Bible and other sources. For each and every one that they found, they claimed that the Bible was wrong, and the other sources were right. But archeology has turned that on its head. In every case, when new evidence has emerged, it has turned out that the New Testament was correct, and the other source was wrong. (This is hardly surprising, even from a non-christian view. As I have already said, strong evidence now supports the New Testament as a 1st century book, or early 2nd century at the very latest for some of it. Most of the other sources were 3rd and 4th century.)
Further, sufficient texts exist from before Constantine to give the lie to the claim that he edited it. In fact there are only 300 verses in the New testament whose origins have not been completely verified. (Alas that two favorite stories of Jesus: the woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultry, are among them.) These are present in some early manuscripts but not in others. The question of whether they were added or dropped from the original is unclear. No central teaching of christianity rests upon these verses.
An excellent summary of the origins of the New Testament, including references to texts that were not included (with links to english translations of as much of the texts as are still available) is here.
on Mar 12th, 2004, 2:15pm, towr wrote:| Sometimes I wonder though. Is it the point to be good, or the point to believe in God? Again personally, I'd much more like to see good athiests get admitted to heaven, rather than let's say a pillaging crusader who thinks he's on a mission from God. |
|
By my belief, neither is the point. Or rather, the first is completely off-base, and the second falls far short of the mark.
The popular picture of God weighing our good deeds against our bad to decide if we go to heaven is heretical, by what I read in the bible. God's entry requirement for heaven is complete perfection. All good and no bad what-so-ever. Since this would make heaven a very lonely place, with only Jesus in it, God offers an alternative. If we will surrender the rule of our own lives to him, he offers complete forgiveness for our failures, and entry into heaven. For the christian, being good is not something we do to be saved. It is something we do because we have been saved. A consequence, not a cause.
God created us because he desires a relationship with us. We have a picture of this in the relationship of (good) parents to their children. Having a child who has struggles and constant failings, but still loves his parents is far more desirable than one who is always well behaved but completely spurns his parents. So also, God would rather forgive one who constantly fails, but struggles to do what is right, and who loves God, than he would the atheist who rejects him but does what is right anyway. Worse than both is the child who publically proclaims how much he loves his parents while privately he ignores them or abuses them. So God also feels about those who pretend to christianity, not only publically, but also even to themselves, but do not even attempt to walk in his way.
The point is not to do good, or to simply believe. The point is to love and trust God.
on Mar 12th, 2004, 12:11pm, John_Gaughan wrote:| This is the reason why I have no faith in organized religion anymore -- my perception is that every religion is intolerant of others, and enough of them are out for blood that I am surprised we still have a species. |
|
While there is much truth to this, I cannot agree completely.
First I have to discuss what it means to be "intolerant". This is a word that has been turned on its head in recent times. There are those today who use "tolerance" as a means to act in ways I would call very "intolerant". They label any who disagree with them as intolerant, and use the charge to attempt to quell any dissent. True tolerance is "agreeing to disagree". For example, towr & I stand almost diametrically opposed on some of these issues, and yet neither has (at least intentionally) insulted or degraded the other. We can discuss our disagreements, let the other know where we stand and why, and reply without rancor, even if the other completely denies what we say. While I would be overjoyed if towr were to come around to my point of view, the more likely event that he will not does not upset me in the least (because of my beliefs, it saddens me, but that is a different matter). Nor will I think less of him for it. While I cannot speak for him, I believe the reverse is also true. That is but one example of what tolerance really is, and I for my part learned it from my church (okay, that is an overstatement, but my church has deepened and reaffirmed my understanding of it).
A second matter. It is true that religion has spawned a large amount of intolerance, but I have a challenge that I am going to throw out: Which religion has the bloodiest track record? The answer may surprise you. I will say more on this once people have replied.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2004, 3:14pm by Icarus » |
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #27 on: Mar 13th, 2004, 12:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I would like to address some other issues I mentioned in my original post but got sidetracked from. In particular, there was a comment about understanding the limitations of science better than Ulkesh. I apologize, Ulkesh, if you were offended by that remark. I did not intend to be insulting, but based it on the following:
on Mar 8th, 2004, 6:27pm, Ulkesh wrote:| Surely evidience such as miracles, which wouldn't stand up to the slightest scientific scrutiny, aren't nearly as powerful as the world's cleverest people (scientists(?)) working in collaboration (generally) to reach a more acceptable truth. |
|
If you have read some other posts of mine in other threads, you know that the corruption of the basic principles of science is of great concern to me. I'm afraid that I see this statement as such a corruption. Miracles, particularly those of a supernatural variety (as opposed to the extraordinary timing definition I gave before), are by definition beyond the bounds of science to scrutinize. The tools of science are simply unable to address them.
I should be more specific here. Science can and has been used to determine if purported miracles do not in fact have other explanations. What science cannot do is show that a miracle could not have occured. By way of explanation of what I mean, I offer this analysis:
(**Warning** I am about to make a very judgemental statement. All those easily offended should stop reading now.)
What has to be one of the stupidest, self-delusional, and conceited opinions I have ever come across, repeated here as close to what was actually said as I can remember it, is "In ancient times, they thought that miracles were possible, but now we know better."
First, a miracle (as used here) is something that violates the normal order of things. In particular, it violates physical law. Therefore to argue that we now know they are impossible because physical law is violated is ridiculous. This argument is saying physical law cannot be violated, because to do so would violate physical law!  If God exists, then he created the laws, and he gets to break them. It is the very reason that a miracle would be proof of God! So the argument also reduces to "God does not exist, because his existance would require that something like him exists".
Second, while ancient peoples did not know Newton's Laws, or the intricacies of quantum mechanics, they did know that people do not start living again after they have died (days after), that the sun does not change directions in its travels across the sky, that water does not pile up to leave a dry path through a sea or river, that walls do not fall simply from being shouted at, that blindness does not go away from the application of a little mud made from spittle, that storms do not immediately cease when told to stop, that water is not capable of supporting a man on its surface, that illnesses are not suddenly healed by the passing of someone's shadow, etc. This is why they called these events "miracles". Because they went beyond what was possible.
If this opinion about "knowing better" were an isolated one, it would be easy to just laugh it off. Unfortunately, I hear it repeated in various forms - mostly less arrogant than this version - all the time.
If you want to examine whether a purported miracle actually happened, the tools of science can only play a supporting role. The tools needed are not the scientific rules of evidence, but those used by historians and (I say with some trepidation) legal rules.
I intended to say more, but I need to stop now.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #28 on: Mar 13th, 2004, 1:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 12th, 2004, 2:15pm, towr wrote:
Sometimes I wonder though. Is it the point to be good, or the point to believe in God? Again personally, I'd much more like to see good athiests get admitted to heaven, rather than let's say a pillaging cruisader who thinks he's on a mission from God.
|
|
A lot of this echoes what Icarus already said. On the other hand, sometimes hearing the same thing in different words can make it clear.
Again, I like C S Lewis' take on the problem of the good pagan (again expressed in The Last Battle): he felt that one who truly lived his life as well as possible, and tried to do what he believed to be right, whatever Name he called upon, he was truly acting for Jesus - that no false God or Devil could accept good deeds done under their name, any more than He accepts evil done in his name.
I think talking about a question of "belief" in God is misleading - just because I believe Hitler existed doesn't make me a Nazi, and believing in the existence of God (which is how many interpret "belief in God") is no guarantee I will act on that belief. On the other hand, from a Christian perspective, the choice presented, between goodness and faith (which, to my mind at least, includes trust as well as belief), is false. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine, and one borne out by my experience, that it is impossible for any unaided human to achieve true goodness. C S Lewis argues (in "Mere Christianity") that the usual non-Christian idea of "being good" is to suppress ones own desires in favour of "doing the right thing" - fulfilling the acknowledged claims of "morality" or "decency" in the hope that once our conscience is satisfied, we can then indulge ourselves without that nagging voice in the back of our head. The trouble is that this doesn't work. The more you obey your conscience, the greater its demands, until you either abandon the attempt to "be good" or end up frustrated and miserable, forever wondering why no-one appreciates all you sacrifice on their behalf. The Christian way is not to seek to buy off your conscience with a portion of your life in order to free the other, but instead to sacrifice your whole life whole-heartedly to the attempt to be good.
Christianity teaches that if you surrender everything that you are and everything that you will ever be to God, then through that faith, you will be reborn, remade into what you should be (which may not be what you should have been had man never rebelled) and, as a consequence of faith, will be a better person.
The choice isn't "goodness or faith" but "faith (and goodness) or neither".
For the record, I tend to believe that those views I have attributed to Christianity above are actually true, but I really don't want to - I am trying as hard as I can not to believe them because of the inevitable consequences. I firmly believe that I will be a Christian before I die, in much the same way as I believe that I am sitting in a chair typing at this moment. It isn't a matter of my intentions, or even of my hopes, but a question of what is. A fact as unarguable as there being light in this room, and about as useful. Prophecy makes an extremely poor basis for actions, but that's an entirely different discussion. Enough to say that I know I was non-Christian at some point in my past (the first hints of this were what caused me to stop going to church), I know I made a choice early in my first year of university, that leads to my being a Christian at some point in the future, and, despite my current struggles, when I am offered the choice to change my mind, I still decline. What I can't say is whether I am or am not a Christian yet - what I expect to do is to look back at some future point and realise I have been a Christian for some time - whether that some time will include the current present, I don't know. I don't know when that future time will come, but I know it will. Unless I change my mind. That choice is always there, but, despite my frantic struggles, I still do not intend to take it.
On the subject of personal belief, I still don't believe in salvation as a reward, like getting a lollipop at the doctor's as a child after recieving some sort of treatment. I see it more along the lines of the consequence of the treatment - if we have the surgery, it will hurt, but afterwards, we will be able to run without pain where before we could only limp in agony. Possibly a better image is that of a smoker. The doctor who tells him that, if he continues smoking, he will die of cancer, while if he stops, he will be able to breathe more easily is not threatening to punish him for continuing, nor promising to reward him for stopping; rather describing the consequences if the man continues. The same doctor may well offer the man all sorts of help if he wishes to stop smoking, but she can't force the man to stop unless he wants to. Of course, the analogy is far from perfect - God is capable of forcing us to do anything, and, in terms of the analogy, he also owns the shop that sells the man his cigarettes (managed by an employee) - but God want's us to obey him, not because we are compelled, but because we choose to do so of our own free will. That doesn't mean that he won't help us when we ask for it - though the help we recieve may well go far beyond the help we ask for - but he wants us to ask - even if we don't walk through the door on our own, he waits for us to knock before escorting us in. Yes, I'm still fighting with (almost) everything I have to defend my pride, but I still refuse to use the "safe word" - when offered the free choice, I still choose to continue onwards, even though I dread the process. Why? Because I trust that the consequences will be worth the pain - that what I give up will prove to be inconsequential compared to what I gain.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Blaise
Guest
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #29 on: Mar 13th, 2004, 2:16pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Just one thought for notion of the "good pagan;" suppose you buy a diamond ring as a gift for your girlfriend. Do you think your wife will be pleased, as long as you did it out of love? God says, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart." He says, "I the Lord your God am a jealous God." He says "“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another
or my praise to idols." He says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." The idea that anyone who is good (compared to whom, to anyone who is worse, or to God whose standards are very high?) should make it to heaven might seem like a nice sentiment, but you won't find it in God's Word (and he's the one who's got the final say).
Now you've got me quoting chapter and verse. I've got to stop reading this thread.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #30 on: Mar 13th, 2004, 3:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 13th, 2004, 2:16pm, Blaise wrote:| suppose you buy a diamond ring as a gift for your girlfriend. |
|
I'm not convinced by the analogy. A better one might be that you buy a diamond ring as a gift for someone you met and fell for online, and it turns out to have been your arranged wife (who you have never before met) all along. Attaching importance to the name of God is setting up a word as an idol - the Bible did not originally say "I am the LORD; that is my name!", it used Hebrew letters for a name usually transliterated literally as YHWH and whose original vowel sounds are open to speculation. The name of God has no intrinsic power or significance. When people talk about doing things "in the name of God" it actually means doing them on his behalf or with his authority. The actual name used to refer to the One is unimportant - even within a single denomination, many labels can be used for each aspect of the Trinity, and we are not told what the arrangements are for those who have heard none of those names. We do not know the actual standards for entry into heaven - all we know is that the only way we can enter heaven is through Christ's intercession on our behalf. If a pagan glimpses God directly (however dimly) and confuses the shadows of Him that have been formed into his native religion with the Truth that we have available to us, and submits his life to that Truth as he has glimpsed it, and as it is revealed to us daily through our own natures and the nature of the world around us, then is he not following Christ as much as if he knew the Bible from cover to cover?
My theology may well be shaky - it's been a while since I read most of the Bible, and there are some books I still haven't yet got around to. My personal testimony is as true as I know how to make it. My personal opinions are just that - my opinions - and may well miss the mark.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #31 on: Mar 13th, 2004, 5:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If you found The Last Battle interesting, I would recommend C.S.Lewis' The Great Divorce. It is not easy reading, like much of his theological discourse, but it presents a very challenging view on heaven, hell, and judgement.
In light of some of the other things you have said, rmsgrey, you may find Proverbs a source of encouragement. Feel free to read the whole of chaper 8 if you suspect that I am trying to force a point by being 'selective'.
"My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness." (verse 7)
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance," (verses 13)
"I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began." (verse 23)
"For whoever finds me finds life and receives favour from the LORD." (verse 35)
It seems that Wisdom (which is what this chapter is talking about) was there before the world was made. The verses I quoted in my previous post indicated that Christ, the Word, was there before the world was made. Jesus also claimed to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), which is how Proverbs describes Wisdom.
Now look at Matthew 11:27-29.
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 'Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'"
Verse 23 made is clear that Wisdom is not about pride and arrogance; that is something which God detests. In contrast, following the way of Christ (Widsom) means gentleness and humility (the opposite of being proud and arrogant).
So what's my point?
I believe that a proud and hardened heart is the difference between being accepted and being judged by God. If you believe in your heart that you, in your own strength, are sufficient then you are rejecting God and taking judgement upon yourself. However, if you accept in your heart that you are weak, then God will hear your cry and answer. In Revelation 3:20, Jesus says, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."
However, it is not a weakness as the world knows. In St. Paul's second letter to the Church in Corinth he quotes a reply to one of his prayers from Jesus, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthians 12:9).
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2004, 5:22pm by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #32 on: Mar 13th, 2004, 7:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Don't worry, Icarus. I'm not going to be offended. However, I probably didn't phrase my point properly in the first place. What I said is kind of being taken the wrong way.
I'm not saying that anything the believers say here is necessarily untrue. I'm not being contemptuous, and with all due respect, Icarus, I do believe I have a better understanding of the point of science and its limitations than you may think. What my point was meant to be is that science/logic as a truth system is the best thing we have. It's not infallible, I know, but human beings work on the principle of logic. We do things for reasons. I don't buy the idea that we act spontaneously and illogically for no reason. There are chains of events in our brains causing us to act in certain ways. Behind it all, there is logic. For example, we see what seems to be a dog, so we believe that there is a dog sitting there. It would be silly to think otherwise.
Now, with science, we observe and logically deduce things. In essence, we as humans are scientific instruments gathering, analysing and acting on data input. This is what gives us our representation of what we believe to be the world. So surely a system which tries to explain the world using these same principles is a sensible way of looking at things. This is why I feel that saying miracles (by miracle, I mean some event which is scientifally unexplainable) are a possibility makes no sense. Why deny the truth system we are programmed with and adopt another? It seems arbitrary. I admit God's existence being possible and miracles and the like to be possible, but I can't see why someone would choose to believe this (in the context of trying to understand the nature of reality).
I hope this makes clearer one of the points I was trying to put across earlier.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #33 on: Mar 14th, 2004, 4:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 13th, 2004, 7:18pm, Ulkesh wrote:There are chains of events in our brains causing us to act in certain ways. Behind it all, there is logic. For example, we see what seems to be a dog, so we believe that there is a dog sitting there. It would be silly to think otherwise.
|
|
But if you consider what's happening more closely, when you identify a certain pattern of sensory input as a dog, you don't explain why you associate a certain group of patterns of sensory input with the idea "dog" when there is more difference between some pairs of "dog"s than between a given "dog" and a "fox" - which has caused quite a bit of confusion among our local fox population. And while identifying something as a "dog" may be entirely logical, what actions you take are, I claim, motivated by something more than pure logic. If you pet the dog, why? If you ignore the dog, why? If you leave the room in a hurry and refuse to go back, why? Logic may tell us how best to achieve our goals, but I've yet to see any approach to a value system based purely on logic. Every attempt I've seen starts with some assumptions that are not born solely out of logic.
Quote:This is why I feel that saying miracles (by miracle, I mean some event which is scientifally unexplainable) are a possibility makes no sense.
|
|
And how does science ever expect to explain the bare fact that anything exists? A miracle of the first order, and something that science can never hope to explain. Science is very good at explaining what is, but it can't, isn't designed to be able to, explain why what is is. Science can't even explain any given event in full - science works by averaging, by smoothing over small differences and apparently random effects, and hoping they won't turn out to be the chance in a million (or whatever actual probability) that produces a wild result. There's a story of a well-respected theoretical physicist, who appeared to have the property that, whenever he was within a certain distance of an experiment, it failed. On one occasion, the experiment failed unexpectedly on a day when he hadn't come in - later investigation turned up the fact that he had been walking down the street on the other side of the wall at the time. Maybe it was just co-incidence. But all that means is that we can't come up with a more convincing explanation for it.
Quote:
Why deny the truth system we are programmed with and adopt another?
|
|
A Christian could equally ask you why you deny the truth system we are programmed with and adopt another. Scientific research has discovered that it is possible, by stimulating certain regions of the brain, to trigger a religious experience. In other words, there is something built in to human nature that is "designed" to let us have religious experiences. Yes, there is the temptation to argue that, just because it's possible to manufacture a religious experience on demand a) the manufactured experience must be false and b) all such experiences must be false. By exactly the same logic, as soon as scientists discover a way of stimulating the visual cortex appropriately, we will be able to create the sensation of seeing a red circle (say), and following the logic, all red circles anyone has ever seen must have been false images.
There is no automatic conflict between science and logic, and religion. Science and logic are concerned with description, with predictable outcomes. Religion is concerned with motivations, with unique events and with ways of thought. the Bible does not say (as far as I know) "thou shalt not reason"; doesn't say "the earth is flat" or even "evolution didn't happen". It does say that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh, but, to take another created reality, Tolkien created all of Middle Earth in, what, 40 years? And in that time, he created thousands of years of history, and many species. When talking of a being who exists beyond time, even if He somehow put Himself into time for a week and, during that time, worked on creating everything else, who's to say that he wasn't working on the past and on the future at the same time as working in the present - could He not have created things in the sequence described in the Bible, though each subsequent act changed the whole history of the universe from beginning to end?
It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and a scientist (though I reserve judgement on Scientology) - the two answer different questions and rarely coincide. As Icarus has said, when Christianity and archaeology have crossed paths, they have agreed. Sometimes organised Christianity has had to reinterpret parts of the Bible in light of scientific discoveries, but it is hardly surprising that something that purports to describe something that transcends human understanding should prove open to misinterpretation. If you are going to condemn Christianity because Christians have made mistakes, both individually and collectively, then you should condemn science, which claims to deal solely in verifiable facts about the concrete universe surrounding us, on the same grounds. After all, scienctific theories are regularly misinterpreted by people, and very few people actually understand the maths involved - most people (myself included) who "believe" scientific theories actually believe an approximate qualitative description in words rather than the equations that form the actual theory.
Quote:
I can't see why someone would choose to believe this (in the context of trying to understand the nature of reality).
|
|
One very simple reason is that science and logic can only go so far. As anyone who's tried explaining something to a small child has no doubt discovered, any chain of explanations eventually ends up with the answer "because that's the way things are". To understand things that lie beyond the reach of science and logic, you need to look for something else that offers explanations. If you ask the Christians whose views I respect why they became Christians, they will always be able to say they did it because of some piece of evidence - it's not just a question of randomly choosing a God to believe in, but in many cases, the decision followed a long hard look at the evidence, sometimes even looking for a reason to dismiss God out of hand. One of my (Christian) acquaintance freely admits he only started considering Christianity when a (Christian) friend challenged him to actually look at the evidence rather than just assuming it was all nonsense. He looked, with a half-way open mind and realised that there were a lot of things there that he couldn't just explain away.
At the heart of Christianity is Jesus. A man who lived 2000 years ago, who preached many things that even the most devout atheists would regard as true and sensible and practical, who was, above all else, a good man, but who made the preposterous claim to be the Son of God. Not only that, but he exercised the authority to forgive sins on behalf of God - he didn't just claim the authority, he used it, and everything we have recorded about his life bears out that claim. Then he was executed by the state, for treason. But after his state execution, he was seen alive by those who'd been closest to him before he died. Even the most sceptical among them, Thomas, when faced with the evidence was forced to believe.
There are only two possible explanations. Either Jesus, this man full of practical advice and sound moral teachings, was completely crazy, and his disciples suffered mass hallucinations after the shock of losing him, or else he was right, in which case all the rest makes sense. Consider the evidence the way you would consider the evidence for King Arthur or Julius Caesar, and see what conclusion you come to, because drawing a conclusion without considering the evidence goes against everything science tries to do.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #34 on: Mar 14th, 2004, 8:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
There's a bit too much to respond to.. And I suppose I might just as well not do that. I disagree with a lot of course..
I will stick to my own experience of the world, and it is obviously different from any of yours (every individual is pretty unique after all).
I interpret the bible quite differently it seems. And this is not in the last place because it was written by people, and I don't believe in their infallibility.
And then there is of course the alternative history of Jesus from more recently discovered texts from that era.. The original Jerusalem church seems to have had a totally different story from Pauls. (But on the other hand I don't really trust discovery channel to always give the most reliable picture of things on such matters either).
For me there's plenty of grounds for doubt, and so I do. If I pretended to have faith, perhaps even trying to convince myself, that would just be a lie, and that is much worse, isn't it? Not fair to me, not fair to God.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 14th, 2004, 8:52am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #35 on: Mar 14th, 2004, 9:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 13th, 2004, 7:18pm, Ulkesh wrote:| I'm not saying that anything the believers say here is necessarily untrue. I'm not being contemptuous ... |
|
My apologies if I sounded like I thought you were. I know you were only trying to explain your point of view. I also am only trying to explain mine, at least as far as religious beliefs go. It is with regard to science that I am preaching a sermon.
My real concern here is as a scientist, for on the subject of religion is where the worst corruptions of science and its principles occur. (By the way, I might as well state my thoughts on the original subject of this thread: I believe this is a sterling example of bad science, for the same reasons everyone has already mentioned.)
Quote:| ... and with all due respect, Icarus, I do believe I have a better understanding of the point of science and its limitations than you may think. |
|
Quite possibly, but I would find it far more likely if you hadn't followed this with statements that violate a basic principle of science.
Quote:| ... but human beings work on the principle of logic. We do things for reasons. I don't buy the idea that we act spontaneously and illogically for no reason. There are chains of events in our brains causing us to act in certain ways. Behind it all, there is logic. |
|
While I agree to this mostly, I cannot entirely. I find the idea of "cognitive dissonance" as expressed in some popular media - that we do things for no reason, then justify it in our minds afterward - to be ridiculous. But I also do not buy into determinism (that we are essentially automata, our every thought and action immutably determined by physical law), which appears to me to be suggested by your description.
Quote:| Now, with science, we observe and logically deduce things. In essence, we as humans are scientific instruments gathering, analysing and acting on data input. This is what gives us our representation of what we believe to be the world. |
|
While logical deduction is useful in science, what science is really about is induction, not deduction. Deduction takes a list of statements assumed to be true and uses logical inference to show that other statements must also be true. Induction is identifying a pattern in observed data and assuming that the pattern applies to data as-yet unobserved. Science is a codefied means for using induction.
Quote:| So surely a system which tries to explain the world using these same principles is a sensible way of looking at things. This is why I feel that saying miracles (by miracle, I mean some event which is scientifally unexplainable) are a possibility makes no sense. Why deny the truth system we are programmed with and adopt another? |
|
The earlier comments were just minor quibbles, or things that I felt ought to be touched upon, but are not a big deal. But here is where I feel you have erred against scientific principle.
First of all, belief in God and miracles in no way what-so-ever is denying "the truth system we are programmed with" to adopt another! Every day, when I open this thread, I see new posts with new comments in them. No physical law of Newton or Einstein explains the appearence of these words on my computer screen. I assume them to be the result of intelligences elsewhere that I have never seen, never met. If I were to apply this same idea that you are applying to miracles and God to these posts, I must conclude that it makes no sense that posts could appear that neither I nor anyone I have observed have made. By your reasoning, my doing so is "adopting another truth system".
But it makes far more sense to me to assume that there exist people beyond my personal experience than to deny the possibility of what clearly lies in front of my face! So also it makes more sense to me to assume that there exists an Intelligence capable of going against the ordinary laws of physics when needed, than to deny the possibility of what so many have reported, and of what I have experienced myself.
The principle of science that you violate is that only evidence judges what is excepted and what is rejected. But you reject the possibility of miracles and God not on the basis of evidence, but a priori. I don't see why in the world you think that believing in God requires rejecting science as a truth process in the first place. When I said in the earlier post that the evidence I see is not subject to science, I only meant that it is not repeatable on a case-by-case basis. Much of what you deal with is the same way, particularly if there are people involved. The hypothesis that there is a God is like every other scientific hypothesis. Tested by evidence, not by some belief that even to consider such a thing means turning your back on science!
Quote:| It seems arbitrary. I admit God's existence being possible and miracles and the like to be possible, but I can't see why someone would choose to believe this (in the context of trying to understand the nature of reality). |
|
Someone would choose to believe this if they hold with scientific principles, and make observations that are consistant with the existance of God and miracles. What I can't see is how someone could say they support science, and then say that, without regard to what the evidence says, miracles and God are not possible under science.
A miracle (as used here) is something that defies normal physical law. When a good scientist sees something that goes against what he expected because of the laws he knows, he remembers that all scientific laws are nothing more than hypotheses. Rather than rejecting the observation as being impossible, he modifies the laws so that they can include (and, preferably, predict) the new result. In the case of God, the modification is simply that the laws hold only when God does not decide to go against them.
Does this seem like a bad change to you? Actually, it is the same sort of condition we must make all the time:
Q. Suppose I hold a ball out here where I am now and let go. What does science say will happen?
A. The ball will fall to the floor.
Q. Not necessarily. I could decide to catch it. Or someone else could.
A. Okay, the ball will fall to the floor as long as it is undisturbed by other factors than gravity and air (and the air is not in significant motion).
That is the same sort of qualification one uses with God, and for the same reason.
Quote:| I hope this makes clearer one of the points I was trying to put across earlier. |
|
I hope this makes clear my point. And again, please understand my concern here is not about religion, but science. As an outsider to my religion, you are not in a position to damage it significantly. But as an insider to science, you are positioned to do far more harm. It is for this reason I speak out. I believe in the principles of science, and therefore I am very much opposed to seeing them abused. And this claim that miracles and God must be rejected as being incompatible with science, without regard to evidence, is itself a rejection of scientific principle.
I'm afraid I have been less than diplomatic again. I do not mean to be critical or judgmental, but I care deeply about this and it is hard for me to state my case without pouncing all over it. Please be assured that I do respect you and your opnion, even when I disagree vehemently.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #36 on: Mar 15th, 2004, 2:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 13th, 2004, 7:18pm, Ulkesh wrote:| (by miracle, I mean some event which is scientifally unexplainable) |
|
on Mar 14th, 2004, 9:50pm, Icarus wrote:| A miracle (as used here) is something that defies normal physical law. |
|
These are two different definitions.. And you are both right, under your own definitions, I think..
Nothing is fundamentally unexplainable by science, much less so if you also allow God as a viable hypothesis. But it may well defy 'normal' physical law (I suppose it depends on what you call normal)
Here's another happy coincidence, dare I say miracle 
The latest Bob the angry flower, "... a sign?"
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #37 on: Mar 15th, 2004, 11:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 14th, 2004, 9:50pm, Icarus wrote:
And this claim that miracles and God must be rejected as being incompatible with science, without regard to evidence, is itself a rejection of scientific principle. |
|
I think I have made a mistake in trying to condense my previous point into two paragraphs. This issue really deserves a lot more attention. Firstly because it's an important issue, and secondly because I don't want people to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I don't have the time to talk in depth about these issues for the next couple of days, but I will be thinking about them and taking them seriously.
I want to rebutt what Icarus has said here, though. I feel that you've taken what I've said and made unjust assumptions. This is my fault for not being rigorous in explaining my ideas. You have many valid points which I will address in a couple of days. But until then, please reserve judgement on what I'm implying my by previous post until I've elaborated on it.
Edit: I haven't forgotten about this post. I just tried to write a reply taking into account all of rmsgrey's points (reply #34) and Icarus' (reply #36), but spent over an hour just dealing with rmsgrey's first one. I've saved it as a word file and will keep adding to it until I'm ready to post. Thanks for your patience
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 19th, 2004, 10:33am by Ulkesh » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #38 on: Mar 15th, 2004, 5:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
That seemed to me to be what you were saying, but I certainly will await a clarification. I admit that because I am passionate about this issue, I have trouble not jumping to conclusions.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
bastien
Guest
|
 |
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #39 on: Mar 29th, 2004, 1:47pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
First, I'd like to say hi to all of you,
Then go back to what my country is famous for: Cartesianism.
I just have a very simple question to all of you, could some of you be kind enough to tell me what existence means to them?
I think before we even get to talk about God and if he exists or not, I'd like to get a clear view of what existing means to you.
Perhaps going back to the ethymology would help us apprehend fully what we're talking about.
Perhaps not.
But it'd definitely clarify things to me, I really don't feel seduced by the statistical argument as I find it completely out of topic.
Having a scientific background myself, I really don't enjoy using Science to explain the existence of God. I truly feel that it's through a personal exploration of one's feeling and emotions that we may or not apprehend it.
Back to you!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #40 on: Mar 29th, 2004, 3:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 29th, 2004, 1:47pm, bastien wrote:| I just have a very simple question to all of you, could some of you be kind enough to tell me what existence means to them? |
|
'being real', but that doesn't really help..
I suppose it's a primitive, or perhaps like 'line' preferable taken as one since determining it in terms of other primitives just makes the whole endeaver that much worse..
Of course 'being real'/existing could be interpreted relatively, rather than absolutely.. If something 'exists' in someones mind, it is (or can be) in a sense 'real', to that someone, but not 'real' to others.
But applying that here would probably be really condescending, "Yeah, of course God is real, in your mind."
And since anything and everything imaginable can exist in this sense it is also very uninteresting with respects to this discussion.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 29th, 2004, 3:07pm by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #41 on: Mar 29th, 2004, 3:29pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Your country certainly has a good pedigree in the realm of philosophising theology: Descartes and Pascal being perhaps two of the greatest thinkers in this area.
However, your question regarding the essence of existence is perhaps best addressed by the Danish genius, Kierkegaard: the founder of Existentialism.
Sadly, after a great start in this profound and useful way of viewing our very being, it is ironic that Jean-Paul Satre (one of your countrymen, and author of, Being and Nothingness) contributed to the blur of the philosophy by using it against the meaningfulness of God.
So in answer to your question...
Modern Existentialists would argue that our being is defined by what we do rather than what we are; that is, actions determine the man. By this reasoning, there is no place for God, as Satre argued that "existence precedes who we are". Hence our spiritual and moral guidance comes from what we decide and not through any higher medium. He especially argues that the concept of "human nature" is meaningless. Many people would argue that this form of philosphy is the most overt form of humanism.
The problem with this view of our world is that it addresses the challenge to our moral and spiritual being by ignoring them. It is equivalent to dealing with gas and electricity bills by arguing that it is meaningless to talk about the source of fuels, because we don't like paying bills. Therefore fuel does not exist. Evidence is clearly to the contrary. Fuels exist and we know because we use them and are witness to their effect. Not liking the need to pay is hardly proof that fuels do not exist!
I could argue that God exists. We know because we are witness to his effect. Whether it be in our lives or the lives of others. Just because some people don't like the responsibility of being a moral and spiritual creature does not make any logical sense to deny it existing and making the leap of faith to the conclusion that God does not exist.
Of course, my thesis is no more proof than the modern Existentialist's anti-thesis. Both are flawed. Regardless of how we dress it up, I assume that God exists, therefore we are moral and spiritual creatures... The modern Existentialist assumes that God does not exist, therefore we are not moral and spiritual creatures... They are both circular and prove nothing other than the consistency of the premise: God does/does not exist.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 29th, 2004, 3:53pm by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #42 on: Mar 30th, 2004, 3:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
Subjective vs Objective reality is a whole other debate - the key point being that we can only ever experience our subjective reality, but assuming that our subjective reality accurately represents an objective reality seems to work quite well.
As far as existence goes, I'm with Towr in that I think it's best taken as a primitive - dictionary definitions come down to "to exist: to be manifest", which is far from helpful. One possible idea for a more meaningful definition which I'd like to throw out there is: I exist. A thing exists (existed/will exist) if it has (had/will have) an influence on something which exists. Apply inductively. Of course, this definition may be a little too broad - it includes various abstractions such as the concept of justice (though an individual's concept of justice presumably has a physical manifestation in much the same way as a running piece of software does)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
SingGloryHallejuah
Newbie
~!*The pen is mightier than the sword*!~
Posts: 8
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #43 on: Mar 30th, 2004, 6:12pm » |
Quote Modify
|
This site provides pure scientific evidence God exists:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look up at the stars and the moon above you
Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head.
Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face. Look at the smile on a child's face.
Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists?
Christianity is the oldest religion. Nothing in the Bible contradicts itself. If you follow the Bible truely, the promises it has in it come true.
But what about, "Oh God never answers MY prayers!" Yes He does. His answers are "Yes. No. or Later." Do you really think an omnipotent and omnecient Being would know better than than to grant all of your desires?
Jesus loves you! God bless!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #44 on: Mar 30th, 2004, 11:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 30th, 2004, 6:12pm, SingGloryHallejuah wrote:Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? Is this not evidence God exists? |
|
No.. Well, not to me, at least.
Quote:| Christianity is the oldest religion. |
|
What makes you think that? Judaism isn't Christianity, and existed long before that. That's where the old testament comes from.
I was going to say, earlier still there were even more different religions, but if you go by the bible literaly that might be problematic. But, in the old testament many other religions are mentioned, all before Jesus was born, and thus before Christianity could exist.
Quote:| Nothing in the Bible contradicts itself. |
|
Depends on how you read it. There's certainly no text in the bible explicitly stating an earlier or later part is false, but many parts seem to disagree on certain points. Of course since most of the bible consists of stories about what certain people do, and aren't a transcript of what God says that's no wonder..
Quote:| If you follow the Bible truely, the promises it has in it come true. |
|
I suppose we'll find out, but there is no way for me, nor most of us, to know..
Quote:| But what about, "Oh God never answers MY prayers!" Yes He does. His answers are "Yes. No. or Later." |
|
I never heard him say any of those things. And non-action doesn't seem to speak louder than words..
Quote:| Do you really think an omnipotent and omnecient Being would know better than than to grant all of your desires? |
|
That really depends on his motivation. Of course it's much easier to have all your desires granted by reducing your desires.
Quote:| Jesus loves you! God bless! |
|
Thank you for the kind sentiment.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #45 on: Mar 31st, 2004, 4:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
Having looked at the linked page (noting that the URL, while correct for the site, is misspelled), all it does is repeat the old argument about the first cause - in summary: the universe as we know it had a beginning, so "the atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong" - a cyclically expanding/contracting universe is apparently also finite because it supposedly leaks when it bounces (and there I was thinking that a closed universe couldn't leak...) - anyway, because the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it - the Bible says that there was a beginning and it was caused, therefore the Bible is right, and "the atheist" (who also apparently asserts that "the universe is uncaused and selfexisting") is wrong. Oddly, "the atheist" never makes any assertions that are actually in line with modern scientific theory and the page doesn't go into details of the biblical assertions that (in the form they are stated) match scientific theory. Also, there's no explanation of whether God had a beginning or was somehow caused to be - or has existed eternally - which, as generations of philosophers know, merely defers the problem and puts it firmly beyond the reach of science by putting it in realms beyond our observation, rather than solving it at all.
The page also argues that the spontaneous appearance of the universe would violate conservation laws, including mass/energy, angular momentum, and electric charge, respectively invalidating chemistry, physics and electronics. Firstly, subtle violations of conservation laws aren't going to make my computer stop working - running Windows might, but the occasional decay of a neutron into a charged particle won't. Secondly, one of the more intriguing consequences of a flat universe is that the total mass/energy in such a system is zero - the negative gravitational potential energy precisely balances out the positive mass energy, and as far as I know, no-one's yet come up with a way of measuring the overall angular momentum of the universe (under general relativity, a rotating mass twists spacetime near it anyway, so a universe with net angular momentum may be impossible anyway - if space "rotates" at the same rate as the matter in it, then is it meaningful to talk about it rotating?) and there's nothing in current theory (as far as I know - I'm willing to be corrected) to suggest that the universe has a net charge either.
The page linked also mentions the anthropic principle as stating that chance is not a valid explanation of the universe. As I understand the anthropic principle, it states that whatever universe happened to exist, whether by pure chance, or by design, any intelligent life looking around would find the universe to be uniquely suited to life as they know it, and so we have no way of judging how likely it is for the universe to turn out the way it has, or how likely it is for any given universe to give rise to intelligent life, because our data is, of necessity, selected from those circumstances where intelligent life (namely ourselves) did arise. The anthropic principle doesn't say that the universe couldn't exist by chance, any more than it says the universe couldn't exist by design - what it says is that we have no evidence to judge the question.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
kellys
Junior Member
Gender:
Posts: 78
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #46 on: Mar 31st, 2004, 12:37pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Time constraints prevent me from writing all I want or proofreading. Oh sigh...
Anywho, I'd like to congratulate the posters for keeping this discussion civilized and unbiased. It seems like a lot of important issues are raised. For example, I would agree that there is a misconception among atheists that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I'm glad that you got past that.
I have a few critical questions that I would like the believers to answer. First off, I am an atheist and an agnostic, in the sense that I have never accepted the existence of God, or any god, but also that it has not ever been a question I have found necessary to resolve. I was raised with no awareness of religion; it was a long time before I realized that people actually believed in God.
One point I'd like to make is that, whereas atheists insult believers by claiming that religion contradicts science, I find myself insulted by the many claims that morality comes from God. Since I never had a religion, I built up my own system of morality when I was a teenager, based on the society I lived in. To say that morality comes from God then tells me that not only am I a heathen, but that I have no moral worth, which I
resent.
Okay, so onto the existence of a creator. I'm willing to accept the existence of a creator (which I don't normally), and I mean that seriously. I believe that there are very good arguments, though they become unconvincing to an atheist when they are hidden in flowery word and bible quotes. The argument I am thinking of -- the name of the argument escapes me. not the anthropic principle, but similar -- is that, inductively, order comes from design. Here is analogy that I find most convincing. Suppose you are stranded on a desert island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, and as far as you can tell, no one else has ever been there. One day, walking along the beach, you spot a pocket watch in the sand. You didn't put it there, and clearly the most logical conclusion is that the watch was created. It is highly unlikely that, by sheer coincidence, the sand on the beach formed itself over the millenia into the shape of a perfect, working pocket watch. The comparison is then that the Earth is the island, and human beings are the pocket watch. We didn't create ourselves, so someone else must have.
Great, I think that's a neat argument, and I'm willing to accept it for the sake of simplicity. My questions to the Christians are these:
1) Whatever created us must have been so incredibly complex, we have almost no chance of understanding it. Internal reflection won't help, anything our parents said won't help, and our neighbor can't tell us. Of course I'm sure that most Christians believe this, but I think this leads to problems.
2) It seems to me to be an *enormous* leap to conclude that God (as a shorthand for "the creator") is in any way anthropomorphic. If we want to talk about God, then it makes no sense to me to use words such as "He," or to assign feelings to God, such as "He loves," "He wants," and any of the other flowery and, at least in my eyes, unjustifiable statements.
3) The only thing that history scientifically proves is what happened in human history. I can see no way to utilize history to prove facts about God. The existence of the Bible only convinces me that it was written by human hands. That the Bible is the word of God is an assumption and scientifically unviable.
4) [e]I realized I miswrote for this statement, so I'll just remove it[/e]
So, given that the existance of God is scientifically proven, how do you prove that God is the Judeo-Christian God? In my opinion, it is a leap of faith, and a pretty large one at that. This, to me, is what distinguishes religion from science. I eagerly await your responses.
-sk
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 31st, 2004, 3:03pm by kellys » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #47 on: Mar 31st, 2004, 2:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The name of the argument that escapes you is the teleological argument (it comes from the Greek, "telos", meaning, purpose); it is sometimes referred to as the "argument of design".
The first two questions you pose are well founded. Any believer who has seriously considered the theological/philosophical implications of their belief system will conclude that God, by nature, transcends our understanding. If we could comprehend Him, he would be less than God (this is part of the thinking behind the ontological argument).
How we talk about God, theologically, depends on the model of God we choose: (i) a realist view (who believes that God and His nature is established, independent of anything I say, think, or do: truth is absolute), or, (ii) an anti-realist view (who believes that God, and His nature, is determined by the truths being affirmed by ourselves: truth is relative). Then, as a realist, myself, I need to find a synthesis of the challenge of God being "wholly simple" (unchanging and out of time), or "everlasing and suffering". In addition, any language or notions we possess will never be correct.
Xenophanes of Colophon (circa 530 BCE) put the challenge well: "If oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as people do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds."
In other words, it is natural for creatures with consciousness/awareness/intelligence to attempt to articulate gods.
So where do these challenges leave people like me? It forces us to asks real questions, not only about what we believe in, but why we believe those things.
I'm not trying to avoid your questions, but the potential for what I can say next is too vast to do justice to anything I could say; your questions were too general. I hope, however, that it presents a view of my clear consideration of these difficult questions and reinforces the notion that my belief, which is rock-solid, must be based on some firm "truths".
I would recommend God in the Dock, by C.S. Lewis, as an apologetics attempt to address some of these thorny issues. Another interesting book to present a balanced introduction to the hard questions that believers face is The Puzzle of God, by Peter Vardy.
If you have any specific questions, and I am not suggesting I know that answers, but I can attempt to present the understanding that satisfies my insatiable curiosity.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #48 on: Mar 31st, 2004, 8:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thank you, kellys, for an honest and open approach. Here are my thoughts on your comments/questions.
As an aside, before we start: concerning the idea that Sir Col refers to as "anti-realism". To me, that one has always been "anti-sense". If I define God, then I created him (her, it, whatchamacallit, ...), not the other way around. What is the point of believing in that?
on Mar 31st, 2004, 12:37pm, kellys wrote:One point I'd like to make is that, whereas atheists insult believers by claiming that religion contradicts science, I find myself insulted by the many claims that morality comes from God. Since I never had a religion, I built up my own system of morality when I was a teenager, based on the society I lived in. To say that morality comes from God then tells me that not only am I a heathen, but that I have no moral worth, which I
resent. |
|
Sorry to be a judgmental here, but I think you are being overly sensitive on this. Your morality is based on that of the society you live in. That morality in turn was derived from an earlier one that found it's basis in the church. So in that alone, your morality has at least some roots in God. Also, I do not take offense when someone says that science contradicts my religion. At least not when they argue this based on scientific principles -- ie, they argue that the evidence is indicative of my religion being false. I disagree, and hold that they are not looking at all the evidence, and misinterpreting what they are seeing, or else are misinterpreting what my religion is (a very common problem). This is the same for any scientific controversy.
What I do find upsetting is when people argue that science contradicts my religion, but the arguments they make are not scientific at all - they are philosophical or religious in nature. These people are pretending - usually to themselves as well as everyone else - that their arguments have a foundation that they in fact do not have. And in the process, they are corrupting science by demanding that their philosophies are science. It is because I am a scientist, not because I am a Christian, that I find this to be appalling intellectual dishonesty.
Now those who bring up the exact same arguments and do so without claiming that they are scientific, but admit to being philosophical or religious in nature, I still disagree with. But they are not misrepresenting themselves, so I have no problem discussing it with them. I do not get insulted that others refuse to accept what seems so clear to me. After all, I refuse to accept what apparently seems to so clear to them!
This is why I appreciate your comments. You did not attempt to give them a false guise of being science, when they are not.
Quote:1) Whatever created us must have been so incredibly complex, we have almost no chance of understanding it. Internal reflection won't help, anything our parents said won't help, and our neighbor can't tell us. Of course I'm sure that most Christians believe this, but I think this leads to problems.
2) It seems to me to be an *enormous* leap to conclude that God (as a shorthand for "the creator") is in any way anthropomorphic. If we want to talk about God, then it makes no sense to me to use words such as "He," or to assign feelings to God, such as "He loves," "He wants," and any of the other flowery and, at least in my eyes, unjustifiable statements. |
|
My answer to both of these is the same. You are making an assumption here - one that is quite contrary to my beliefs: God has no interest or connection with us. Now please consider the possibility that God created us quite purposefully so that we could have a relationship with him, akin - very loosely - to that of a parent and child. Your supposition that we cannot learn anything about God assumes that God has not revealed himself to us. I believe very much the opposite. God has always been in communication with humankind, and has revealed as much as he can about his nature. I do not call God "him" by conceit, but rather because that is how he has refered to himself. I do not claim that God is anthropomorphic. Rather I believe that we are "Theomorphic", because God has said that he created us in his image (a belief that does not refer to a physical image, but rather to the nature of our souls and spirits).
God is only unknowable if he isn't talking. I believe he is, so all we need to do to learn about him is listen.
Quote:| 3) The only thing that history scientifically proves is what happened in human history. I can see no way to utilize history to prove facts about God. The existence of the Bible only convinces me that it was written by human hands. That the Bible is the word of God is an assumption and scientifically unviable. |
|
I wouldn't say that history "scientifically" proves what happened in human history. Science is about hypothesizing from past observations and testing hypotheses with predictions of future observations. History's only part in this is as a record of past observations. More importantly, I would very much like to excise the word "proof" from comments about scientific results. Science is not about "proof". If you want proof, look to mathematics, look to logic. Science is about evidence. The only hard facts in science are observations - everything else is theory - always tentative upon the results of future observations. So no, history does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. It also does not prove that the Bible is not the word of God.
As far as being "scientifically viable", that the Bible is the word of God is just as viable a hypothesis as any other. Science evaluates by making predictions based on a hypothesis concerning future observations, and then comparing the results of those observations to the predictions. There are a large number of predictions possible from the assumption that God inspired the writers of the Bible. If this is true, then the Bible should not be contradicted by actual events. People who trust God as the Bible instructs should receive the benefits it promises. I have seen plenty of evidence of this. You, who have not seen this same evidence, are of course doubtful of its validity.
Quote:So, given that the existance of God is scientifically proven, how do you prove that God is the Judeo-Christian God?
In my opinion, it is a leap of faith, and a pretty large one at that. This, to me, is what distinguishes religion from science. |
|
Indeed, religion is not science. I do not claim my faith is science - it is others claiming this about their religion/philosophy that I dislike! My claim is that my religion is in accordance with what scientific principles tell me, rather than in opposition. But my faith does go beyond science. Science, as I said earlier, holds all results as tentative upon future observations. I do not hold my faith as tentative. This is part of the difference between science and religion.
However, to the question of whether God is the Judeo-Christian God, I do not believe that science is quiet. As I have already said, the evidence I see supports the idea that the Bible is the word of God. This being the case, God is as described in the Bible.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist
« Reply #49 on: Mar 31st, 2004, 11:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 31st, 2004, 8:34pm, Icarus wrote:
As an aside, before we start: concerning the idea that Sir Col refers to as "anti-realism". To me, that one has always been "anti-sense". If I define God, then I created him (her, it, whatchamacallit, ...), not the other way around. What is the point of believing in that? |
|
Well, it would be strange to believe in a god which you believe you created yourself. But it is not so strange to believe others believe in a god they created themselves (but don't believe they created). With all the different contradicting god-images that seems to have to be true.
Unless we're all just looking at the same 'mountain' from different direction.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print