Kevin's Watch

rusmeister wrote:OK. So the physicist smuggled in the idea of pre-existing space, not you.

If you really think a modern physicist, a cosmologist, could smuggle in the idea of a pre-existing space, you haven't read any modern physicists or cosmologists.

Malik, the point is, whatever stance you take is ultimately religious. I have been saying this all along. Quoted earlier, and here it is again (since it is obviously needed again,

I know you've been saying it all along! That why I said you wouldn't let this charge go! It is not religious to acknowledge what exists in the natural world. Religion begins where the natural world ends (or begins ). I wasn't speaking of anything beyond what we can experience in this world.

The Origin of the Universe
It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.
{Saint Thomas Aquinas, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933, 174}

Considering that Aquinas died half a millennium before Darwin was born, I'm not entirely convinced this quote came from Aquinas. A quick web search links it to Chesterton. Which makes sense, considering that he is your primary source.

Anyway, the quote is wrong. An infinite, all-powerful, intangible, untestable, non-falsifiable, non-empirical entity is much more problematic in terms of its origins than an "explosive fireball" (my paraphrase ). Look, I admitted that I find it mysterious how Being came into being. How time/space and matter/energy just happens. But quantum mechanics at least provides testable theories and observations to establish this possibility. It does not take faith to entertain the possibility of the demonstrably possible.

i ADMIT that God is unthinkable! You're the one who doesn't admit that the alternative is at least equally unthinkable.

It is not unthinkable. I just provided the means by which to think it. Your paraphrase is incorrect on several accounts. The main one being the "shred of evidence" part.

You saying "Dawkins is your priest," is like me saying "Jesus is your scientist." It's nonsensical. Jesus wasn't a scientist. Dawkins isn't a priest. Please stop trying to define me and my world-view in terms of your own world-view. The fact that you must encompass the beliefs of others in terms of your own beliefs only exhibits your inability to see beyond your world-belief to even the bare possibility of alternate world-views. I'm not saying you have to agree with me. You can think my world-view is wrong. But in doing so, there is no need to subsume it within yours, as if all "truths" must be reclaimed by your one Absolute Truth. Can't others simply be wrong in your eyes, without their views also "partaking" of the same structure and definitions as yours? Why do you feel this predatory "conquering" need to subsume other beliefs in the language of your own beliefs? Can't you at least contemplate that there are alternate world-views which don't include your superstition, worship, and dogma? I know you think we're the blind ones, because we can't see how our "absence" of superstition, worship, and dogma are actually the "presence" of superstition, worship, and dogma. But I've been on both sides of that divide. I've been a Christian before, for 15 years. I know the difference through experience. I'm not merely trying to distinguish myself from you for purely argumentative reasons. I'm trying to tell you what the world looks like from over here. But you keep insisting on interpreting that view in terms of what it looks like from over there.

I have no priest. I have no dogma. You are only talking about yourself, not me. Stop trying to describe me as a default member in your club.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, granted, I don't mean to say I view death as good news. It simply is. As far as my own death goes, I'm not particularly concerned. I hope I make it through at least the next several years, because I don't want my children to be children when their father dies. But other than that, I'm much, much more concerned with the dying than the death.

And my children... There's no possibility that anything could hurt a human being more than the death of their child. But do you think there's any chance I have put enough thought into this over the decades, I know myself well enough, to know that I would not turn to God (or spit venom at him) if I went through it?

Sounds a lot like me, and I'm sure you have.

The way you avoided the question, not allowing any chance that I know where I stand, might be interpreted as meaning, "But since I wasn't truly aware of how I felt about these things, I'm sure you're not either." Heh.

rusmeister wrote:Thanks! I'll try to get around to it!

I'll bet you you'll be hooked! The moments of introspection; the times talking with Tracie (Furls Fire); the other people he meets and helps; the time he gets mugged... It's just amazing!

Malik, Thanks for taking the time to writing the post that I have been contemplating for a long time.

Rusmeister seem to think that we think he's an idiot. So, he settles for including materialst agnostics like Malik and me into the group he belongs to, and leave it at that.

Two things:

1: I don't think you're an idiot. Far from it. You are one of the most eloquent people around here, which is saying a lot in this forum.

2: We don't have the same world view. You think mine is wrong and vice versa

I don't call you scientist, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped calling me religious. Malik has explained why.

I have to agree with Malik23's eloquent post above. Rusmeister, to call my interest in astrophysics religious is absurd in the extreme. I am not so blinded by faith to accept things without question - science is built on an edifice of constantly reassessing every theory, unlike Christianity and other religions where the concept of God creating the universe is unquestioned and lacks a shred of evidence. Which leads me to the next point.

To state that a scientist is religious is incorrect; most scientists do not use terms such as 'belief' or 'truth'; their understandings of the universe is tempered by concepts such as limited understanding, errors in measurement, etc. No scientist 'worth his or her salt' would dare to posit a theory of the universe's creation and claim it as truth - at best they can only use varying measures to validate or invalidate theories. There's always doubt driving further studies, and pride driving criticism which fuels more studies . . . you can't argue that's religious - there is simply no belief system (nor is science itself a belief system; it's a system that operates outside of anyone's 'operating paradigms' simply because it's objective-based).

Thanks for the warm admiration, fellows!

Hmm,… I have to make a case for my terminology before I can even state what the main problem is, it would seem.

First of all, I am not speaking about scientific method, or evidence or discoveries regarding what science can discover. I’m talking about the beginning, or cause, about which we can only have opinions, speculate, or believe. Here holding an opinion dogmatically is equally possible for a religious, and non-religious person.

I was incautious in saying “religious”, so the rebuke is deserved – let me amend by saying “mystical and dogmatic” – which is an awful lot of what you guys load into the idea of religion. To me it really does look religious, even if technically it is not. You accept a totally mystical beginning, as I do – the difference being that you say that it is not mystical that space, time and matter appear spontaneously out of literally nothing – that, or that it was always ‘there’ to pop out. And you are dogmatic about it. You defend it as fiercely as I do my own dogma, and you are equally unwilling to concede the possibility that I may be right. In a word, dogma.

I do accept that religion includes dogma and worship. However, superstition is another matter:

a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

(I do think that non-religious people have a stronger tendency towards superstition, whether it is astrological, lucky moon watches, rabbit’s feet, or whatever for the precise reason that we do need mysticism in our lives, and having excluded it in religion, they turn to superstition.)

I’ll concede that casting Dawkins as a priest is overstating the case. But I think it is no exaggeration to suggest that you (Malik) admire him and see in him a figure of wisdom and some authority as I do Chesterton. I quote Chesterton (who I only began reading a few years ago) because he cuts to the heart of the fallacies that the modern world operates under (and that I see in full operation here). To cast him (as it seems you do) as a primary source of all of my info and knowledge is certainly unfair and untrue.
To clarify, the quote was from GKC’s book on Aquinas.

It does not take faith to entertain the possibility of the demonstrably possible.

But it does take faith to believe that it is more probable.

If my world view is right, then it necessarily “subsumes” your world view, which here means conception of the truth. If it is right, then your conception is necessarily wrong. If your conception is wrong, it is due in large part to the fact that your terminology and definitions are wrong (as in the assumption of superstition as a necessary part of religion), and therefore adopting them would lead to falling into the same fallacies. Our terminology and definitions not only reflect our world view, but influence it as well. The whole challenge is to cut to the point where the disagreement begins – the root. This is what I have found Chesterton does brilliantly, and I am trying to learn from him.

Curious question, Malik – were you a Christian for 15 adult years? (ie, was your knowledge of your faith mature and well-informed?)

Loremaster, I do agree with what you say about science. However, scientists are human beings, with human hearts and minds, which are not products of pure reason (the ideal of, say, Sherlock Holmes) and do, as a general rule, adopt one position or other – be it atheistic, agnostic or faith in a Creator. That is the point I am speaking about. Not about the scientific method, which of course excludes belief and opinion, but about the scientist, who comes to conclusions of opinion based on the evidence he has seen over his lifetime regarding the origin of the universe.

I’m back to Chesterton’s quote. I'll add another one:

Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural.

(Heretics)

rus, you're not suggesting that someone's knowledge of their faith will be mature and well-informed if they are an adult, are you? Because I'm sure you don't think that's true in my case (Or can it be mature and well-informed, and still wrong?), and I hope you don't think it's true in that Phelps guy's case.

(Sorry for double-posting. I can't make long posts with my cell.)

I'd like to try this approach. Slightly different from things I've said before.

I don't have the slightest guess about how the universe can exist. Something from nothing, as I've said, seems impossible. But I know the universe exists, so, clearly, it's possible. Science may never indisputably determine how such a thing can have come about. The Big Bang likely destroyed every trace of evidence of anything that may have existed before, after all. And even if I had any understanding of how they detect a particle popping in and out of existence in the void of space, I'm not sure that would explain the universe. No, to me, it's a huge mystery, and it would not surprise me if humanity never fully understands it. But that's ok. It's our nature to strive to understand everything, but that doesn't mean we'll succeed.

I do not see the need to introduce something else as the uncaused thing - something for which there is no evidence; something which seems as impossible to understand as being uncaused; something which is not more acceptable as an uncaused thing, even if it's not less acceptable -and posit that it caused the universe.

(Same for triple. You have no idea how many times I had to type that last post!! )

rus, what I'm trying to do is get down to the very center of things. A place where we cannot disagree. Then, we can build up, attempting to build in ways that neither of us objects to.

rusmeister wrote:Loremaster, I do agree with what you say about science. However, scientists are human beings, with human hearts and minds, which are not products of pure reason (the ideal of, say, Sherlock Holmes) and do, as a general rule, adopt one position or other – be it atheistic, agnostic or faith in a Creator. That is the point I am speaking about. Not about the scientific method, which of course excludes belief and opinion, but about the scientist, who comes to conclusions of opinion based on the evidence he has seen over his lifetime regarding the origin of the universe.

But the scientist - or a 'true scientist' - does not claim his or her theory is fact or truth. Most scientists are aware of the fallibility of the human mind and so do not , or should, make such statements. Until we develop better measurements and more accurate theories, no one, not a scientist or religious scholar can make the claim that this is undeniably how the universe came to exist; no one truly knows.

Rus, I was a Christian for the first 15 years of my life. I was "informed" just like everyone else raised to believe in God: going to church, reading the Bible, going to Sunday school, living in a Christian home. However, my parents were probably more fanatical about it than most people. When we couldn't make it to church, we had "church" in our home. I was home schooled with Christian a curriculum. And there are other embarrassing examples of fanaticism which I won't go into. We didn't have merely one church, or one denomination. I've been to many different churches, holding many different beliefs.

What possible difference can it make how I was "informed" when we're talking about belief in God? The faith of a child is absolute. I certainly know what it feels like to believe in God--which was the point I was making in my post above.

Re: superstition. I read your definitions. I see no reason to refrain from using this word to describe belief in god. Any god. Any time. We're talking about a supernatural, infinite being that can't be observed in the natural universe. That is an irrational belief. And that belief does arise from ignorance . . . that's part of the point we're arguing here: we don't know how the universe began, or what happens to us after we die, so people who are inclined to believe in the supernatural substitute "god" for an explanation. And I believe this substitution is motivated out of fear. Fear of death, fear of uncertainty, fear of meaninglessness. It is a way to push back the Void, the Abyss. It is a way to put one's worries over those things you can't control "in god's hands" so you don't have to agonize over them. It is a way to cope with "what's wrong with the world," and to rectify how you think the world *should* be with how it actually is.

I think Dawkins is a wise man, but not in any way an "authority." I am my own, sole authority figure. I have people I feel a kinship with--Nietzsche, Donaldson, Dawkins (to name a few), but they hold no authority over my thoughts. I cherish their works because it reminds me of something I already felt or believed prior to reading them, not because I decided to adopt their views as my own.

I wasn't criticizing you for your use of Chesterton. I was talking about the number of your quotes. He seems to be the one you quote the most (nothing wrong with that), so I was using that as a way to deduce the source of your previous quote (since I knew it couldn't be Aquinas).

As for Chesterton cutting "to the heart of the fallacies that the modern world operates under," I haven't seen one example of that in all your quotes. All I've seen is his own fallacies, including the quote in question.

I'll grant that if your view is right, mine must be wrong. But that still doesn't mean that scientists are suddenly priests.

But it does take faith to believe that it is more probable.

It does NOT take faith to believe that natural phenomena have natural causes. To believe otherwise is precisely where faith begins.

The whole challenge is to cut to the point where the disagreement begins – the root. This is what I have found Chesterton does brilliantly, and I am trying to learn from him.

The root is very simple. You can stop reading Chesterton now--I'll explain it to you. You believe in things beyond this universe affecting this universe (the supernatural). I reserve my judgments to the natural world. That's the root of our all our disagreements.

And you illustrate it beautifully with your final Chesterton quote:

Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural.

Without the context, I'll have to make a guess as to exactly what this means. But it seems the reasonable inference would be that he thinks the entire universe is supernatural . . . unless he thinks the universe itself is unnatural, which would be absurd.

So in order to shoehorn into reality his beliefs about the supernatural, he has to remake reality itself into something just as implausible as the supernatural. This is another form of the inauthenticity I keep mentioning. He would turn the entire world into a fantasy land to protect his irrational belief in an even greater fantasy land.

As I've quoted before: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? (Douglas Adams--I believe he cuts to the fallacies of the modern world better than any philosopher or theologian ).

Malik23 wrote: As I've quoted before: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? (Douglas Adams--I believe he cuts to the fallacies of the modern world better than any philosopher or theologian ).

Yeah, it seems there is a long standing argument in this world of ours of which came first, the chicken or the egg, or rather, the god or the earth? I don't know the answer to it, and don't presume to. And to borrow from Douglas Adams a little more, "Hang the sense of it, and just keep yourself occupied." But it is fun to discuss it all, isn't it?

Speaking of Douglas Adams, here's a great interview on his atheism. One that I can't quite see eye to eye with, but it makes some sense to me personally.

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Loremaster, I do agree with what you say about science. However, scientists are human beings, with human hearts and minds, which are not products of pure reason (the ideal of, say, Sherlock Holmes) and do, as a general rule, adopt one position or other – be it atheistic, agnostic or faith in a Creator. That is the point I am speaking about. Not about the scientific method, which of course excludes belief and opinion, but about the scientist, who comes to conclusions of opinion based on the evidence he has seen over his lifetime regarding the origin of the universe.

But the scientist - or a 'true scientist' - does not claim his or her theory is fact or truth. Most scientists are aware of the fallibility of the human mind and so do not , or should, make such statements. Until we develop better measurements and more accurate theories, no one, not a scientist or religious scholar can make the claim that this is undeniably how the universe came to exist; no one truly knows.

Of course. And THAT is the scientist that I truly respect, because he recognizes the limits of his field.

But many scientists DO in spite of that hold their opinions as dogma, and are even unwilling to admit that scientific discoveries in the future could turn everything they know upside down, in the sense that one piece of knowledge could transform what we see and know, revealing our present assumptions and conclusions to be wrong, or almost, but not the case, so to speak.

By the same token, the true priest does not raise millions in teleevangelism and then run off to a motel with his young and naive female adherents. But this is the kind of 'Christianity' that a great many non-believers love to talk about. They rightly find the conduct outrageous and are pleased that what they deny in general (the Christian faith) appears to be revealed as hypocrisy and lies (by one who claims to be a priest, or preacher, of that faith). The thing that really challenges them - priests who really do practice their stated faith - is something in that sense displeasing, and to be avoided. It is even worse if their faith turns out to be sensible and compatible with reason. It would force them to reconsider the position that they themselves hold., because it does turn out to be reasonable, when what they want most is for it to turn out to be unreasonable.

My only objection, in general, is looking to science as to a faith. It very frequently seems this is what people do. 'Because science says this, I can't believe anything else'. The thing I really want to blow the whistle on is when that dogmatic faith in science is held unconsciously - a pride in having no dogmas while still actually retaining some.

I referenced it before, but the final chapter of "Heretics" speaks exactly to this.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch20.html

I'll post two excerpts that are most relevant here:

Whether the human mind can advance or not, is a question too little discussed, for nothing can be more dangerous than to found our social philosophy on any theory which is debatable but has not been debated. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there has been in the past, or will be in the future, such a thing as a growth or improvement of the human mind itself, there still remains a very sharp objection to be raised against the modern version of that improvement. The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut. Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

If then, I repeat, there is to be mental advance, it must be mental advance in the construction of a definite philosophy of life. And that philosophy of life must be right and the other philosophies wrong. Now of all, or nearly all, the able modern writers whom I have briefly studied in this book, this is especially and pleasingly true, that they do each of them have a constructive and affirmative view, and that they do take it seriously and ask us to take it seriously. There is nothing merely sceptically progressive about Mr. Rudyard Kipling. There is nothing in the least broad minded about Mr. Bernard Shaw. The paganism of Mr. Lowes Dickinson is more grave than any Christianity. Even the opportunism of Mr. H. G. Wells is more dogmatic than the idealism of anybody else. Somebody complained, I think, to Matthew Arnold that he was getting as dogmatic as Carlyle. He replied, "That may be true; but you overlook an obvious difference. I am dogmatic and right, and Carlyle is dogmatic and wrong." The strong humour of the remark ought not to disguise from us its everlasting seriousness and common sense; no man ought to write at all, or even to speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other man in error. In similar style, I hold that I am dogmatic and right, while Mr. Shaw is dogmatic and wrong. But my main point, at present, is to notice that the chief among these writers I have discussed do most sanely and courageously offer themselves as dogmatists, as founders of a system. It may be true that the thing in Mr. Shaw most interesting to me, is the fact that Mr. Shaw is wrong. But it is equally true that the thing in Mr. Shaw most interesting to himself, is the fact that Mr. Shaw is right. Mr. Shaw may have none with him but himself; but it is not for himself he cares. It is for the vast and universal church, of which he is the only member.

Let us, then, go upon a long journey and enter on a dreadful search. Let us, at least, dig and seek till we have discovered our own opinions. The dogmas we really hold are far more fantastic, and, perhaps, far more beautiful than we think. In the course of these essays I fear that I have spoken from time to time of rationalists and rationalism, and that in a disparaging sense. Being full of that kindliness which should come at the end of everything, even of a book, I apologize to the rationalists even for calling them rationalists. There are no rationalists. We all believe fairy-tales, and live in them. Some, with a sumptuous literary turn, believe in the existence of the lady clothed with the sun. Some, with a more rustic, elvish instinct, like Mr. McCabe, believe merely in the impossible sun itself. Some hold the undemonstrable dogma of the existence of God; some the equally undemonstrable dogma of the existence of the man next door.

Fist and Faith wrote:rus, you're not suggesting that someone's knowledge of their faith will be mature and well-informed if they are an adult, are you? Because I'm sure you don't think that's true in my case (Or can it be mature and well-informed, and still wrong?), and I hope you don't think it's true in that Phelps guy's case.

Not at all.

Malik wrote: What possible difference can it make how I was "informed" when we're talking about belief in God? The faith of a child is absolute. I certainly know what it feels like to believe in God--which was the point I was making in my post above.

I am referring to a common phenomenon, when a person is raised in a given faith* as a child, and leave it as soon as they can (teen or young adult). They do not learn in-depth the history or theology of the faith they were raised in, but they consider that they really know that faith. They DO know it experientially - but it's the same as saying that a pupil in a public school (or even an adult who graduated from such a school) understands public schools, when he doesn't know the history of those schools (and thus the actual aim of the schools in the first place), what goes on behind the curtains, what teachers actually have to do or experience to become/remain teachers, etc etc.

There is a huge difference between experiencing a faith as a child and seriously learning it as an adult convert. The child who grows up and leaves the faith may be said to not really know the faith.

*(I'm talking about traditional faiths that have at least centuries, if not millenia behind them. The faiths I really respect have millenia behind them. Yours, Malik, probably had (I'm guessing) 100 years or less - ie, what is the true history of that church?)

Fist and Faith wrote:(Sorry for double-posting. I can't make long posts with my cell.)

I'd like to try this approach. Slightly different from things I've said before.

I don't have the slightest guess about how the universe can exist. Something from nothing, as I've said, seems impossible. But I know the universe exists, so, clearly, it's possible. Science may never indisputably determine how such a thing can have come about. The Big Bang likely destroyed every trace of evidence of anything that may have existed before, after all. And even if I had any understanding of how they detect a particle popping in and out of existence in the void of space, I'm not sure that would explain the universe. No, to me, it's a huge mystery, and it would not surprise me if humanity never fully understands it. But that's ok. It's our nature to strive to understand everything, but that doesn't mean we'll succeed.

I do not see the need to introduce something else as the uncaused thing - something for which there is no evidence; something which seems as impossible to understand as being uncaused; something which is not more acceptable as an uncaused thing, even if it's not less acceptable -and posit that it caused the universe.

This comes down to you saying that either something caused it, or nothing caused it. I see no reason to introduce nothing as the uncaused thing -for which there is no evidence.
It strikes me that the principle of cause and effect rather depends on having a cause...

rusmeister wrote:This comes down to you saying that either something caused it, or nothing caused it. I see no reason to introduce nothing as the uncaused thing -for which there is no evidence.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I see a difference between saying something is uncaused, and saying the cause is nothing. Are you saying there is no difference between those two things?

rusmeister wrote:It strikes me that the principle of cause and effect rather depends on having a cause...

We don't know that. That's the same as me saying a being like the God you believe in is less likely to be uncaused than the universe. You were right when you pointed out to me that I can't possibly be sure of that. Yes, it "strikes" me that way, but that doesn't make it fact. Well, you have no way of knowing that a cause & effect system - our universe - must itself have a cause. Maybe the overall system is not subject to the rules at play within it. Or maybe it was not always a c&e system; maybe it evolved that quality. Or maybe something else.

Malik wrote:Re: superstition. I read your definitions. I see no reason to refrain from using this word to describe belief in god. Any god. Any time.

I do. Ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or false conceptions of causation have nothing to do with faith as I am speaking of it. The purpose of using that word (superstition) is an emotional appeal to attempt to belittle faith, so I don’t accept it.

Also, there are other words that I can accept only if we clarify what is behind them. I don’t accept transposing of the use of the word “irrational” to merely mean, at one moment, ‘not depending on rational processes’ and at the next moment ’crazy’. I can only accept the use of words like that if it is absolutely clear (and frequently pointed out) that it means only the former. You use words like fear in a sense that means ‘irrational’, when I see a completely rational application of fear. I would say that it is irrational to not ‘fear the Abyss’, as you put it. If you do not fear it, then you are insane (unhealthy, mentally unbalanced). It would be like not fearing a T-Rex standing over you and about to devour you. You may be proud of not fearing, but I would call it foolishness. Nothingness, the complete end of all that you are, is something to be feared. However, it is merely your belief that the idea of God is an invention in response and that the belief arises from ignorance. I claim that the awareness of and belief in God anticipates fear of death. Death, pain, etc, are, in that sense, merely God’s way of getting our attention. But I digress into what I believe.

We must be very careful with words. I hate rhetorical use that denigrates my view as much as you do that which denigrates yours. Maybe we can all learn to use more precise language rather than merely expressing what we feel.

You speak of adopting one’s views as your own, as if they were not the discovery of validation of what you already knew. Certainly, in my case anyway, Chesterton is not someone I abjectly follow and worship, but he does validate all of my own knowledge and experience. He puts into words what I have always known, as well as developing that knowledge further. Thus, Chesterton does not ‘hold any authority over my thoughts’. I find that he speaks the truth, and expresses it better than I do, in general. Maybe someday I’ll surpass him. I kind of doubt it, though.

Malik wrote:I'll grant that if your view is right, mine must be wrong. But that still doesn't mean that scientists are suddenly priests.

(Conditionally) If you hold an unshakeable faith in the ability of science to reveal all truth about life, then they ARE priests (to you). If not, then obviously, not.

Malik wrote: It does NOT take faith to believe that natural phenomena have natural causes. To believe otherwise is precisely where faith begins.

Almost agree. But the first natural phenomenon had … as its ‘natural cause’? This is where denial of a Creator is as much an affirmation of faith as the acceptance of a Creator. It is a definite faith in NO God, rather than a mere lack of faith in a God.

I do concede that a little context wouldn’t hurt on that quote. The nutshell can be difficult to grasp without it.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch6.html

G.K. Chesterton wrote:The strange truth about the matter is told in the very word "holiday." A bank holiday means presumably a day which bankers regard as holy. A half-holiday means, I suppose, a day on which a schoolboy is only partially holy. It is hard to see at first sight why so human a thing as leisure and larkiness should always have a religious origin. Rationally there appears no reason why we should not sing and give each other presents in honour of anything--the birth of Michael Angelo or the opening of Euston Station. But it does not work. As a fact, men only become greedily and gloriously material about something spiritualistic. Take away the Nicene Creed and similar things, and you do some strange wrong to the sellers of sausages. Take away the strange beauty of the saints, and what has remained to us is the far stranger ugliness of Wandsworth. Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.

Even this excerpt calls for the greater context of the chapter. I want to try to make everything simple – but sometimes I can’t. It's about the exclusion of the supernatural from things like human celebration, specifically holidays, though.

I do appreciate the time you've taken in doing me the courtesy of serious response. However, I’m back to thinking it’s a waste of time saying all this. I feel that I am up against the dilemma of describing color to a blind man. But to comment on Prebe’s earlier thought (and I do thank you for the complement, Prebe! ) it’s not really that I think you think I’m an idiot. It’s that you think that the Christian faith is idiocy, including the Orthodox Faith (and subsequently, that my stand is well-meaning idiocy). Call me wrong all you want. I can accept argument there. But say that faith is incompatible with reason, and I will say that you have heard nothing that I say.

PS – I love D. Adams’ humor, too – but he was a serious pessimist – his humor is largely based on it, imo. But that’s another thread…

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:This comes down to you saying that either something caused it, or nothing caused it. I see no reason to introduce nothing as the uncaused thing -for which there is no evidence.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I see a difference between saying something is uncaused, and saying the cause is nothing. Are you saying there is no difference between those two things?

rusmeister wrote:It strikes me that the principle of cause and effect rather depends on having a cause...

We don't know that. That's the same as me saying a being like the God you believe in is less likely to be uncaused than the universe. You were right when you pointed out to me that I can't possibly be sure of that. Yes, it "strikes" me that way, but that doesn't make it fact. Well, you have no way of knowing that a cause & effect system - our universe - must itself have a cause. Maybe the overall system is not subject to the rules at play within it. Or maybe it was not always a c&e system; maybe it evolved that quality. Or maybe something else.

No. But whether you say that the universe is infinite and eternal (something I believe that the theories of the expansion and shrinking of the universe deny) and is therefore uncaused, or is finite and was caused by nothing, you are engaging in mystical dogmatism. Even if you speak of the 'spontaneous appearance of matter", it is entirely assumption that it appears out of nothing. It's just a more sophisticated way of burying the dogma. So make your choice, God or no God, you're still being ultimately mystical in affirming anything. (This also applies to principled agnosticism - an insistence that we cannot know.)

As to 'how it strikes me', yes of course I have no way of knowing. That's why I expressed it that way. Of course, it is a reasonable position to take, though. Let the uncaused thing be supernatural, and I can admit that the natural universe is natural, that it obeys its own laws, that cause and effect really is true - in the natural universe. Everything falls into place. That one piece of dogma is the light by which I see everything else.

rusmeister wrote: We must be very careful with words. I hate rhetorical use that denigrates my view as much as you do that which denigrates yours. Maybe we can all learn to use more precise language rather than merely expressing what we feel.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. I never intended my language to be offensive or belittling. I realized I was taking the risk with my language, but I chose to go ahead because it added to my point; it's not an emotional ploy. I'm not trying to denigrate your beliefs--and (as Prebe said) I certainly don't think you are unintelligent. If I can be frank, I enjoy these debates even more than the political minutiae we obsess over in the Tank. I wish there were more discussions like this.

However, I don't think that the statement, "your belief is superstitious," is any different from, "I think your belief is unreal." You already know that I think your belief in God is a belief in an entity which doesn't exist. How can "superstitious" be any worse than a mythical fantasy? That's what my understanding of the "God concept" is. And that's inherent in what it means to be an atheist: I think your belief is an illusion. If I can't use the word, "superstition," then I can't even say I'm an atheist. To you.

I'm talking about traditional faiths that have at least centuries, if not millenia behind them. The faiths I really respect have millenia behind them. Yours, Malik, probably had (I'm guessing) 100 years or less - ie, what is the true history of that church?

So if you'd lived a couple years after Jesus died, you wouldn't have been a Christian because the story hadn't been repeated long enough? How does the number of years behind a dogma mean anything? If the central attitude is to not question--to believe dogmatically--then it would be no surprise that such a belief would sustain itself unchanged over time. That's another way you can tell the difference between people looking for the truth, and people who won't consider any other than the one to which they are committed.

Years don't earn you anything in that determination other than the obstinate refusal to admit you're wrong. Nothing is that perfect. Even Moses fucked up. (Actually, the entire narrative of the Bible can be viewed as an account of how we have all fucked up, right from the beginning with Snakes and Apples. Perfect people do not exist even within the framework of your unchanged dogma.)

I never meant "irrational" to mean "crazy." You've got to know that by now. I'm speaking in technical terms.

You use words like fear in a sense that means ‘irrational’, when I see a completely rational application of fear. I would say that it is irrational to not ‘fear the Abyss’, as you put it. If you do not fear it, then you are insane (unhealthy, mentally unbalanced).

Ok, you got me. Perhaps it's not entirely irrational to fear the Abyss. But as Camus said, the only rational response to this is an irrational one: Revolt. Revolt against your own meaningless. Continue to seek meaning DESPITE an meaningless world. You don't have to succumb to it, you don't have to give up the truth of its opacity, but at the same time you don't have to settle for a "solution" that sweeps the problem under the rug. Yes the world is meaningless and absurd, but goddamnit, I'm not going to let that stop me. I'm going to accept both the truth of this existence, and my own absurd need for meaning in a meaningless world, and carve my own meaning into the eroding bedrock of existence. I don't care if the only people left to read it are those who are here after I die, or aliens who can't even understand it. I'm going to carve my story and my meaning because it's what I choose, what I decide, and what I value. I won't pretend that my story encompasses all other views within mine, or that it has reached a bedrock of universal truth. It will suffice that it reaches to the truth of *my* being in this world.

Just look at my avatar. That's what I mean.

rusmeister wrote:No. But whether you say that the universe is infinite and eternal (something I believe that the theories of the expansion and shrinking of the universe deny) and is therefore uncaused, or is finite and was caused by nothing, you are engaging in mystical dogmatism. Even if you speak of the 'spontaneous appearance of matter", it is entirely assumption that it appears out of nothing. It's just a more sophisticated way of burying the dogma. So make your choice, God or no God, you're still being ultimately mystical in affirming anything. (This also applies to principled agnosticism - an insistence that we cannot know.)

As to 'how it strikes me', yes of course I have no way of knowing. That's why I expressed it that way. Of course, it is a reasonable position to take, though. Let the uncaused thing be supernatural, and I can admit that the natural universe is natural, that it obeys its own laws, that cause and effect really is true - in the natural universe. Everything falls into place. That one piece of dogma is the light by which I see everything else.

What's wrong with assuming the uncaused thing is the thing we know exists? At least until we have reason to believe it cannot be uncaused and/or there's reason to believe in the existence of the other thing? What is unreasonable about not assuming that something exists without evidence of its existence?

rusmeister wrote:Nothingness, the complete end of all that you are, is something to be feared.

No, it isn't. At least not to me. Am I insane?

rusmeister wrote:

Malik wrote:Re: superstition. I read your definitions. I see no reason to refrain from using this word to describe belief in god. Any god. Any time.

I do. Ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or false conceptions of causation have nothing to do with faith as I am speaking of it. The purpose of using that word (superstition) is an emotional appeal to attempt to belittle faith, so I don’t accept it.

Also, there are other words that I can accept only if we clarify what is behind them. I don’t accept transposing of the use of the word “irrational” to merely mean, at one moment, ‘not depending on rational processes’ and at the next moment ’crazy’. I can only accept the use of words like that if it is absolutely clear (and frequently pointed out) that it means only the former.

Very well said.

Malik23 wrote:I enjoy these debates even more than the political minutiae we obsess over in the Tank. I wish there were more discussions like this.

So start a couple of threads here in the Close.

--A