religulous

Science can predict the future based on current models. Like describing very accurately the trajectory of an object.

Religion has never, unless by accident, predicted anything. The only way you can believe in religion is blind faith.

 

Oh, I see. I never meant to imply that the brain had any special ability to conjure up universes, I was just taking a pot shot at a particular faith based multiverse model after reading the blog snippet that you posted in an earlier comment. I see how you think I meant that based on my comment though. I'm just pointing to the absurdity of the Many Worlds model and that to believe that it represents the underpinnings of reality requires a very healthy dose of faith.

 

It can predict an extremely simple future, sure. The trajectory of a large object, not very small ones. You almost sound like you're arguing for determinism.

A better question is asking whether science and spirituality are compatible. We know that "religion" (being the massively loaded word that it is) doesn't describe that nature world with any kind of rigour. The times that it has tried it has failed miserably. But that's religion, spirituality, in the sense that I'm using it here has more to do with origins of the universe and our place in it. Science, by definition, concerns itself with the measurement and interpretation of the physical. Science cannot explain the origin of the universe, however well it may describe the nature of the universe. At some point, we all have to start somewhere. The materialist will start with the laws of nature and then invoke some as of yet unproved mechanism to explain how we're here to notice that the universe exists. That's a position of faith whether you like it or not. It is very unclear yet whether we can continue on the path of reductionism. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. Frankly, I hope that we can't because it's implications are bleak. Others have proposed a different path, one which acknowledges all that has been done in science (at certainly values science) but chooses a very different starting point... namely, that consciouness is the fundamental "substance". Also quite unprovable. It doesn't contradict the laws of nature that we've described, it's just a different container for them (or rather it is the container, the laws are the container in the materialist view). It's much more rosey, however, so I'm suspicious of it (that's the materialist side of me, I suppose). To me it smacks of "wouldn't it be great if..."

I don't know which is correct, perhaps they're both wrong.

 

There is no reason to believe science will not find an ultimate explanation of the origin of the universe. It is very similar to biology where we don't know exactly how life began but there is no reason to suppose a supernatural event. Many possible scenarios that can be demonstrated in the lab show how life could have begun.

Similarly we will likely find a complete materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe and it may likely be one of the proposed mechanisms. These are not accepted on faith! These are the derivation of mathematical and physical formulae. It is just a matter of finding out which one is correct. No magic needed.

A materialistic universe for me is the most beautiful. Darwin put it best:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

In my opinion there isn't a comparably beautiful sentence in any religious text.

 

You're making the assumption that one is correct and that what we now know is capable of producing said derivation, if that's even possible. Because we can't test any of these ideas we have no way of knowing. You're starting from the POV that you're correct and are now just trying to connect the dots.

Materialism posits a purposeless universe (or an infinite number of them) devoid of any meaning. I don't find that particularly beautiful, but that's just me.

Darwin's statement is perfectly compatible with the other view that I mentioned. The world need not be governed by materialism to make such a statement.

Given your POV I'd be rather surprised if you didn't think that.

 

You present you viewpoints with absolute proclamations...as evidenced by how many times you use absolute terminology (e.g. 100%). Your 100% "correct" position based on science that is less than 100% right has a hole in the logic. That has been the point that Tripp has been unable to get any acknowlegement about. Instead of constructive dialog, it is the same absolute position stated over and over.

With your unusually narrow definition of religion, you might be 99.9 to 100% right. It turns out for some people "religion" has nothing to do with the creation of the universe and a lot to do with positive values and moral behavior. Sadly, advocating high moral values seems to have a very low priority vs. ensuring that anyone who would call themselves "religious" getting an earful.

 

Once again, you slander me: You insist that as a materialist I "invoke some as of yet unproved mechanism to explain how we're here." I do no such thing!!! I admit freely and openly that we do not yet know how the universe began. I invoke no theories at all. BUT THE FACT THAT SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ANSWER MUST BE SOMEBODY'S IMAGINARY FRIEND IN THE SKY, OR EVEN YOUR UNDEFINED "SPIRITUAL" ORIGIN. I merely say that the abysmal track record of religion, and the phenomenal success of the scientific method make it reasonable (NOT FAITH, BUT REASON!!!) to expect the answer, when it comes, to be natural, not supernatural.

I am surprised that you cannot grasp this, since you call yourself an agnostic. With regard to the origin of the universe, I am an agnostic: I hold no theories. I simply say that I do not believe the origin was a decision by god to violate the natural laws in order to create them. I believe they arose by natural means, but I offer no theory how this happened because we do not know yet. Science, unlike religion!!! admits when it lacks an answer to a question.

By the way, we've had two speakers in my church lately who have spoken of spirituality as an experience of wonder and awe at the beauty of nature, without any need for a supernatural component. For both of these people (one an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister, and the other a trained lay preacher) being a spiritual person does not mean that you believe in supernatural origins or other fairy tales; it merely means that you experience a positive emotional reaction in the presence of the natural world. They both tell me I am a spiritual person for this reason.

"High moral values" like burning people at the stake over disagreements as to whether salvation is by works or faith? "High moral values" like justifying slavery by claiming that dark skin is the mark of Cain? "High moral values" like denying adult couples the right to get married because they are of different race, or because they are the same gender? The "High moral values" of religion usually involve killing someone or relegating someone to a sub-human or second-class category.

I once saw a Catholic and a Pentacostal actually get into a fist fight over a quarrel about faith vs. works. Some "high moral values"!

 

That's surprising how? That's the typical solution of the faithful:
if you can't get 'em to join, beat 'em.
.
_H*

 

daniel, use you inside voice, please. And really, red??? Couldn't you pick a better color than that? you have 40 to choose from and you pick red.

I'm so glad that you've finally admitted that you're taking materialism on faith. Thank you. That's all that I've wanted you to admit. Granted, it took about 4 pages longer than necessary (or more), but I'm learning to be patient (so this thread has served a valuable purpose afterall).

It takes all kinds in this world, daniel. Try being a little less arrogant when you enter into these discussions. Your worldview is not fact.

That said, you are correct to rail against the injustices of religion. That's obviously where your hatred of non-materialist philosophies comes from. That's a pretty common and there's good reason for that disdain. The Inquisition et al did horrible things. I've never argued that religion is bed of roses so I really don't understand why you insist on bringing it up over and over again.

It's clear from your last post that constructive conversation will not be possible (if it really ever existed in this thread). Never the less, I've gained a lot from it and it has certainly help shape my world view... and I learned a little more about the history of physics and read a book I otherwise probably wouldn't have read. The book, by the way was discussed at the Science and Spirtuality group at my UU church. At the time I was too much of a materialist to be arsed to read it, but I'm glad that this thread motivated me to step outside my comfort zone. BTW, that group contains several physicists (including one of the top solar researchers at NREL) who thought the book was worthy of discussion. None of them are materialists even though they are steeped in science.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

 

Where did you come up with that??? You've read nothing I've posted.

 

Just back from seeing the movie finally. It is comical to look back on some of the comments about the movie - that quite obviously came from people who hadn't seen it! I guess they read some review, or saw the trailer. Oops.

Anyway, I had a great time. Sure was quiet there at the end. Eeek.

These last couple of pages of high-intellect discourse has been fascinating. Almost made wading through the previous crap worth the effort! And now I can't decide if I'm an agnostic or athiest. Thanks guys... sigh.

After studying all the definitions (and there certainly is no one single definition for either word - and this appears to be the whole problem that you're arguing over!) I've decided that I'm a bit of all four:

Athiest
Pagan
Heathen
Agnostic

But wait! How can you be both Athiest and Agnostic, I hear you ask. Because I get to choose how I think, that's why. And sometimes it changes. I guestion everything. Even my own certainties.

Mostly, I'm just a big, fat iconoclast.

 

Well, that blows my image of you all to hell. I was picturing a big fit cyclist.

The Pagan and Heathen definitions are fairly easy if you're not of the Christian persuasion. But yeah, that agnostic/atheist distinction is more subtle. I'm pretty sure I fall on the atheist side of the dividing line, but I can appreciate someone not being sure. It's probably safe to say you've got time to think about it.

 

Boy, I do not know. There are some big ol' trucks zooming by me on my commute that seem bent on sending me to the promised land some days.

I *was* a fit cyclist... right up until that third cookie tonight. I need to ask my wife to hide those better. I have zero self control.

 

Unfortunately Tripp doesn't understand a neutral position. For him it is either explained by science and materialistic, or unexplained by science and supernatural.

It falls back to the God of the gaps position. God hides in whatever we don't understand. This position is irrational because as I said many times it is not one or the other. If there is a gap in our knowledge it is just there to be understood and filled with proof. Not for God and woo to hide in.

Tripp has said it. A materialistic world would be too bleak for him to enjoy so he invests time and energy on the mental gymnastics of creating probability out of a gap. To add insult to injury he calls himself an agnostic. If you believe there is a chance of the supernatural existing based on current knowledge you are religious. You have faith that goes against any current knowledge.

However, the logical fallacy of inventing a probability out of an unknown has shone through all this discourse. This is a burden of proof fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

I am not sure it is useful to split hairs over the terms agnostic and atheist. It might be as subtle as saying the agnostic does not waste time in the question because there is no evidence for god while the atheist goes one step further and declares he would be surprised if there was ever evidence for god.

My pet peeve is when a person calls themselves an agnostic because of

a) wanting a middle ground
b) just doesn't like the label atheist
c) or believes there is any chance a god might exist based on current knowledge.

Maybe it all comes down to how long are your forum posts discussing the matter.

 

To me, an agnostic is an atheist in training. One is wondering if there is a god, and the other has decided their isn't.

 

I thought agnosticism in the spiritual sense meant that one was of the opinion that whether at least one deity exists was either unknowable or impossible to prove one way or the other.

It is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Agnostic theist -- "Even though the existence of God (or other deities) is unknowable or impossible to prove, I choose to believe that God (or other dieties) exists."

Agnostic atheist -- "The existence of deities is unknowable or impossible to prove, therefore I do not believe that any deities exist."

The main difference between the two stances is faith, which often is orthogonal to logic and reason.

BJJB

 

I think therefore I yam.

I'm Popeye the Sailor Man!

 

Yes, I saw the movie..........
Daniel, in an earlier post, stated religion kills the capacity for critical thinking'. I agree with him.... and Bill Maher. I am evidently part of the 16 % of the U.S. citizens who left organized religion (25 years now) I like many other religious critics have observed the religious community at work over the years committing atrocities with minors, prohibiting religious members from embracing their sexuality, or tolerating others from celebrating citizens to worship within their own beliefs. That WAS my religion (catholicism, Irish style)
Religion kills the capacity for critical thinking....so does politics! Bill Maher should be praised....ooopps! I meant protected from every potential zealot that felt he exposed in this movie. I read almost every post in this thread, and even the 'thinking' members part of an organized religious group, already became defensive.
I was really bummed out when leaving the theater after seeing this movie.
I realized, however eloquent all of the well-read contributors are in their posts, it just demonstrates how religion is deeply incorporated in all of our's DNA. Religion cannot be reasoned with....with some people...many people do not have the capacity to question their own personal fantasies (oh yes, you do have those)...many people do not have the capacity to be critical with core beliefs...multiply these by uneducated people who believe dying for a 'belief' is the best choice and we have ....Bill Maher's basic premise, questioning religion. It is very frightening!

 

For a good look into how many religious minds think, give
this a read.
.
_H*