Council Member
Posts: 1,926 
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
February 1st, 2008, 01:47 AM
You see, pangloss that when human nature suborgates the flesh over the spirit, the results are selfishness, greed and personal gain.
Attach religion to that and you have a disaster, a monster.
That monster is what Jesus came to defeat, that is why He came in the flesh, for none other than God Himself had the power to overcome all that the human flesh desired, or rather the lusts of the flesh.
He did that by becoming that monster and nailing it to the cross, freeing us up from it.
The problem is, that not to many know it, accept it, and or reject it.
But each to their own pearl.
Compassion then is to the ones who can not understand it, believe it or accept it.
For if they did, they wouldn't crucify Jesus afresh every day.
So, I'd say, on the side of God, I win the argument! Not in a boastful way, but in an unconditional way, for what evil can anybody say against someone who is exercising compassion in the face of adversity to them who are administering it?
To say that exercising compassion is evil, or rendering evil for compassion, then their is definitely a flaw in that kind of action or thought, regardless of whether it comes from a religious or nonreligious source.
Love conquers all! Jesus, said not a word to those who were beating Him, and crucifying Him, because if He did, love would have been of none effect.
He rendered love for evil at the cost of His life, as He was willing that no stone be left unturned in the taking away the condition which placed mankind on death row.
That you an all can be grateful for, even if you chose not to believe it. He did it for you and I, even though we accept it or not, for it is a free gift from God to us and need not be earned, but exploited to its fullest extent should we chose.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Pangloss
You are right to a certain extent, which is temporal. But, ultimately, you will find that the exercises of religion though misguided, was good intentioned.
Too late look, your side hopelessly lost this particular argument.
Pangloss
Pangloss
You see, pangloss that when human nature suborgates the flesh over the spirit, the results are selfishness, greed and personal gain.
Attach religion to that and you have a disaster, a monster.
That monster is what Jesus came to defeat, that is why He came in the flesh, for none other than God Himself had the power to overcome all that the human flesh desired, or rather the lusts of the flesh.
He did that by becoming that monster and nailing it to the cross, freeing us up from it.
The problem is, that not to many know it, accept it, and or reject it.
But each to their own pearl.
Compassion then is to the ones who can not understand it, believe it or accept it.
For if they did, they wouldn't crucify Jesus afresh every day.
So, I'd say, on the side of God, I win the argument! Not in a boastful way, but in an unconditional way, for what evil can anybody say against someone who is exercising compassion in the face of adversity to them who are administering it?
To say that exercising compassion is evil, or rendering evil for compassion, then their is definitely a flaw in that kind of action or thought, regardless of whether it comes from a religious or nonreligious source.
Love conquers all! Jesus, said not a word to those who were beating Him, and crucifying Him, because if He did, love would have been of none effect.
He rendered love for evil at the cost of His life, as He was willing that no stone be left unturned in the taking away the condition which placed mankind on death row.
That you an all can be grateful for, even if you chose not to believe it. He did it for you and I, even though we accept it or not, for it is a free gift from God to us and need not be earned, but exploited to its fullest extent should we chose.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
February 1st, 2008, 02:00 AM
Sanctus to stands on his convictions as many of us done, based on our beliefs. For who can say that one is more right than the other?
Let the exercise of love dictate who is right. For love knows no difference, sees no difference but is there for all to exercise.
What have I that you all don't have? You all have compassion, you all hurt when someone else is hurting, and you all would not hesitate to help some one in distress without regard to belief, would you?
Ah! So we are made of the same stuff, just different way of expressing it.
Do I have to have a religion to do so? Absolutely not!
If it is not from the heart, no religion can boast.
Peace>>>AJ
Quote:
To where may I ask? Quoting talloola
I feel that 'Sanctus' is on his way here, as we speak.
Sanctus to stands on his convictions as many of us done, based on our beliefs. For who can say that one is more right than the other?
Let the exercise of love dictate who is right. For love knows no difference, sees no difference but is there for all to exercise.
What have I that you all don't have? You all have compassion, you all hurt when someone else is hurting, and you all would not hesitate to help some one in distress without regard to belief, would you?
Ah! So we are made of the same stuff, just different way of expressing it.
Do I have to have a religion to do so? Absolutely not!
If it is not from the heart, no religion can boast.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
February 1st, 2008, 02:31 AM
Absolutely! Are you aware of the tree of life being held from Adam and Eve for a later time and place?
You see, the tree of knowledge was first given to us to gain knowledge from it upon which recognition, gave us choices like as gods.
In other words, you become the king of your own little empire, your life, and therefore, you and I are condemned by it.
There was also another tree, that which was held from Adam and Eve to be introduced at a later time, an appointed time, to take away the effect of the first, that which condemned us.
Yes, I am fully aware of it, but if you understood the scope of the bible as a whole, you would see the beginning of God’s work in relation to mankind, and how He reveals Himself to us, and then goes to show His great love for us by first giving us the ability to be like Him, (Choice) and then exempting us from the consequences.
I wouldn’t say that Jesus didn’t bring anything new, because He did. You will find after studying the bible the purpose for His coming, the necessity for His coming, and the final results form His coming, that affect every soul that ever lived.
Yes, I understand very well that in the name of God, atrocities were committed and still are to this very day.
But you see, humanity is handicapped by the lusts of the flesh, and nothing can overcome it but the spirit that is in each soul.
Change the spirit of mankind to that of a God kind, then you will see a change in humanity, the likes you’ve never witnesses before.
I believe, Scott by faith and not by histories portrayal of who or what God is, but faith in who God says He is.
Mankind is at liberty to portray God anyway it chooses, but unless it is demonstrated in love, then God exists not.
I don’t rely on mankind’s doctrines for my faith in God, because mankind fails but God doesn’t.
God said, He gave me life, I accept it from the heart, and will endeavor to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, faithful to the death.
You see, I have a pretty good handle on the workings of God based on the whole of the bible, and I can safely, assuredly tell you, that there is not one mean bone in God’s body towards His creation and all His creatures.
If God is made out to be something other than pure love for us, then that is mankind’s problem.
Peace>>>AJ
Quote:
I find these kinds of statements fascinating!
I really have to ask:
Do you realize that civilization and its cornerstones (law, schools, contract, mathematics, writing, weights and measures, music notation, agriculture, etc..) started in a pagan society way before anyone heard of Jesus? >>>Scott free
I really have to ask:
Do you realize that civilization and its cornerstones (law, schools, contract, mathematics, writing, weights and measures, music notation, agriculture, etc..) started in a pagan society way before anyone heard of Jesus? >>>Scott free
Absolutely! Are you aware of the tree of life being held from Adam and Eve for a later time and place?
You see, the tree of knowledge was first given to us to gain knowledge from it upon which recognition, gave us choices like as gods.
In other words, you become the king of your own little empire, your life, and therefore, you and I are condemned by it.
There was also another tree, that which was held from Adam and Eve to be introduced at a later time, an appointed time, to take away the effect of the first, that which condemned us.
Quote:
Do you know that the story of Jesus is almost identical with the story of Horus? That there is no archaeological or historical evidence that there even was a Jesus (or a Horus for that matter)? If the Bible were a term paper the author would flunk as a plagiarist? >>>Scott free
Yes, I am fully aware of it, but if you understood the scope of the bible as a whole, you would see the beginning of God’s work in relation to mankind, and how He reveals Himself to us, and then goes to show His great love for us by first giving us the ability to be like Him, (Choice) and then exempting us from the consequences.
Quote:
Do you know that Jesus brought absolutely nothing new to the world with his ministry? Everything he taught was being taught in pagan temples? How do you explain that? Doesn't it seem strange that mankind had already figured everything he had to say out on their own? Even that there was only one true God was taught by paganism; the gods were just different names and aspects of that entity, a gift from him so people could know Him better. Isn't that odd? >>>Scott free
I wouldn’t say that Jesus didn’t bring anything new, because He did. You will find after studying the bible the purpose for His coming, the necessity for His coming, and the final results form His coming, that affect every soul that ever lived.
Quote:
You do realize that while you claim the world needed Christianity that same religion is responsible for more death, mayhem and slavery then any other before it? That if that had been removed from the world the world would probably have been a much better place? How do you reconcile this in the face of evidence? >>>Scott free
Yes, I understand very well that in the name of God, atrocities were committed and still are to this very day.
But you see, humanity is handicapped by the lusts of the flesh, and nothing can overcome it but the spirit that is in each soul.
Change the spirit of mankind to that of a God kind, then you will see a change in humanity, the likes you’ve never witnesses before.
Quote:
I really am just wondering. It is so strange to me that people will say "I believe" but never really look at what it is they believe? I don't see how you really can believe if you haven't taken a good long hard historical look? >>>Scott free
I believe, Scott by faith and not by histories portrayal of who or what God is, but faith in who God says He is.
Mankind is at liberty to portray God anyway it chooses, but unless it is demonstrated in love, then God exists not.
I don’t rely on mankind’s doctrines for my faith in God, because mankind fails but God doesn’t.
God said, He gave me life, I accept it from the heart, and will endeavor to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, faithful to the death.
You see, I have a pretty good handle on the workings of God based on the whole of the bible, and I can safely, assuredly tell you, that there is not one mean bone in God’s body towards His creation and all His creatures.
If God is made out to be something other than pure love for us, then that is mankind’s problem.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,785 
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 1st, 2008, 02:40 PM
I don't think the religionists (which is very similar to the conservative/Republican mindset) are purposefully being evasive. Nor do I think they misrepresent or deceive, here I mean the religionists only, but both still have similar relevant characteristics.
Our minds work in lineal ways where space time and causation are important factors to imagination and therefore understanding. It isn't possible to understand what you can't imagine except as math equations or absurd physics formulas. The mind needs to (must) keep things separate in time, place and seeks causation. We are also pattern seeking creatures. This is how our minds collect and sort information to create a model of reality we can deal with. Oddly our language isn't so limited and we can pluck out abstractions from our thoughts and string them together out of order to create very abstract concepts; they are better suited to language than a reality we can call functional. Our minds do not create a very convincing reality in the face of evidence but they do create uniform reality most people can comprehend. By this I mean we see things in a narrow range of colour, tend to orient objects and the world around us in a very egocentric way, we hear limited sounds, we have poor smell etc.. all these are often combined in other species which creates a very different world for them from our human world. For example a bat combines sound and sight in its brain for a single interpretation - it literally sees sound, likewise a bird can see magnetic fields (how different would our science be if we could see these fields?) - try showing load stones to a bird its fun.
So it has been my observation that the frame work of perception differs between the religionists and the non-religionists but both use similar abstractions. I think this is important to understanding. I have read Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens (others too) where they tend to assume a superior stance against the religionists and even go so far as to call themselves "brights," because they assume theirs is an intellectually superior vision - they assume they are more intelligent. I think this premise is false. I have met remarkably intelligent religionists that if anyone were to call them unintelligent or even less intelligent would only pass a not so very nice verdict on the observer. They simply are not stupid but they do see things differently, that is, they have different abstractions. Now abstract thought is very much like the bat who sees sound and light as similar things; the bat could say we are stupid because we need a flashlight. We could say the bat doesn't see reality because it is different than our own.
So what I am saying is that to the religionists who places their own experiences and "belief" above evidence are doing so because they perceive a causation of their experience that a non-religionists doesn't. This is also why we end up with sky gods because such a model makes sense to a human brain in terms of place, causation and time. So we end up with a god that we can conceive but is wholly unrealistic in terms of something that really could "create" a universe, but we do get something that is easy to imagine. That being said, the scientist does the same thing with very similar effects. Though they would claim their ideas are grounded in evidence a realistic look at science will reveal that this isn't the case. They very much rely on the "minds of giants" from which to leap off of and make their conclusions (faith in the scientific method). As a result science has become every bit the dogmatic (using the work of previous "great" scientists without question) pseudo science (not actually concerned with reality as much as method) full of mistakes (cooking experiments to get results desired) and superstition (trust in laws that predict not explain) that we would expect given the nature of our minds. I have brought up these observations to scientists and other "skeptics" and received very hostile responses exactly the same as I do when I bring up problems with the religionists world view. They deny what is pure evidence because I have hit a limitation of their abstract thought and challenged their dogma, but also, and more importantly, I have challenged what they hold as evidence. I would recommend a book: The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin because I have no interest in arguing this point. If this contention raises the hackles of any reader of this post I would suggest that now they know how a religionists feels when their own "evidence" is challenged.
As a religionist I observed the hand of god in everything. My observations were drawn from my personal experience and the experience of others. I drew out abstractions and assembled a world that made sense based on these observations. Now that I am not a religionist I do the same thing only I use different evidence. In fact I have married the two together to some extent. I am lucky that I could escape the prison of religiosity (odds: 1 in 12) but I didn't feel it would do to replace it with another dogma.
So what separates the religionist and the skeptic is only the dogma, observations and what they hold faith in. Both are equally absurd but not in the context of how our minds operate. What I have come to question is which group is capable of the most abstract thought. Physics and indeed any science requires a lot of abstraction but so too does the belief in a god bound by time, place and causation. I honestly believe there isn't much difference.
I tested this hypothesis out on the editor of Skeptic magazine. I sent them an email explaining that I suspected they weren't all that skeptical because they seemed to hold too strongly to a belief in evolution. I received a hostile email back of the sort I would expect had I sent a similar email to a clergyman questioning his belief in god.
So my conclusion has been that the difference between a skeptic and religionist is in what evidence they consider, the abstract concepts they conclude, and the arguments between the two groups is really just an argument of semantics, dogma and belief. There really is no empirical evidence that either side is right or wrong in terms of whether there is a God or not. It just boils down to the kinds of abstractions people conclude for themselves.
Sorry for the long post.
Quoting Pangloss
I've been talking to religionists on other forums for quite some time now and also I was one once; I have also been talking to people of different political bents, and made a few observations:
Once again, look is missing the point, deliberately misreading posts, etc, etc.
Sorry, sports fans - I'm done and done.
Pangloss
Sorry, sports fans - I'm done and done.
Pangloss
I don't think the religionists (which is very similar to the conservative/Republican mindset) are purposefully being evasive. Nor do I think they misrepresent or deceive, here I mean the religionists only, but both still have similar relevant characteristics.
Our minds work in lineal ways where space time and causation are important factors to imagination and therefore understanding. It isn't possible to understand what you can't imagine except as math equations or absurd physics formulas. The mind needs to (must) keep things separate in time, place and seeks causation. We are also pattern seeking creatures. This is how our minds collect and sort information to create a model of reality we can deal with. Oddly our language isn't so limited and we can pluck out abstractions from our thoughts and string them together out of order to create very abstract concepts; they are better suited to language than a reality we can call functional. Our minds do not create a very convincing reality in the face of evidence but they do create uniform reality most people can comprehend. By this I mean we see things in a narrow range of colour, tend to orient objects and the world around us in a very egocentric way, we hear limited sounds, we have poor smell etc.. all these are often combined in other species which creates a very different world for them from our human world. For example a bat combines sound and sight in its brain for a single interpretation - it literally sees sound, likewise a bird can see magnetic fields (how different would our science be if we could see these fields?) - try showing load stones to a bird its fun.
So it has been my observation that the frame work of perception differs between the religionists and the non-religionists but both use similar abstractions. I think this is important to understanding. I have read Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens (others too) where they tend to assume a superior stance against the religionists and even go so far as to call themselves "brights," because they assume theirs is an intellectually superior vision - they assume they are more intelligent. I think this premise is false. I have met remarkably intelligent religionists that if anyone were to call them unintelligent or even less intelligent would only pass a not so very nice verdict on the observer. They simply are not stupid but they do see things differently, that is, they have different abstractions. Now abstract thought is very much like the bat who sees sound and light as similar things; the bat could say we are stupid because we need a flashlight. We could say the bat doesn't see reality because it is different than our own.
So what I am saying is that to the religionists who places their own experiences and "belief" above evidence are doing so because they perceive a causation of their experience that a non-religionists doesn't. This is also why we end up with sky gods because such a model makes sense to a human brain in terms of place, causation and time. So we end up with a god that we can conceive but is wholly unrealistic in terms of something that really could "create" a universe, but we do get something that is easy to imagine. That being said, the scientist does the same thing with very similar effects. Though they would claim their ideas are grounded in evidence a realistic look at science will reveal that this isn't the case. They very much rely on the "minds of giants" from which to leap off of and make their conclusions (faith in the scientific method). As a result science has become every bit the dogmatic (using the work of previous "great" scientists without question) pseudo science (not actually concerned with reality as much as method) full of mistakes (cooking experiments to get results desired) and superstition (trust in laws that predict not explain) that we would expect given the nature of our minds. I have brought up these observations to scientists and other "skeptics" and received very hostile responses exactly the same as I do when I bring up problems with the religionists world view. They deny what is pure evidence because I have hit a limitation of their abstract thought and challenged their dogma, but also, and more importantly, I have challenged what they hold as evidence. I would recommend a book: The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin because I have no interest in arguing this point. If this contention raises the hackles of any reader of this post I would suggest that now they know how a religionists feels when their own "evidence" is challenged.
As a religionist I observed the hand of god in everything. My observations were drawn from my personal experience and the experience of others. I drew out abstractions and assembled a world that made sense based on these observations. Now that I am not a religionist I do the same thing only I use different evidence. In fact I have married the two together to some extent. I am lucky that I could escape the prison of religiosity (odds: 1 in 12) but I didn't feel it would do to replace it with another dogma.
So what separates the religionist and the skeptic is only the dogma, observations and what they hold faith in. Both are equally absurd but not in the context of how our minds operate. What I have come to question is which group is capable of the most abstract thought. Physics and indeed any science requires a lot of abstraction but so too does the belief in a god bound by time, place and causation. I honestly believe there isn't much difference.
I tested this hypothesis out on the editor of Skeptic magazine. I sent them an email explaining that I suspected they weren't all that skeptical because they seemed to hold too strongly to a belief in evolution. I received a hostile email back of the sort I would expect had I sent a similar email to a clergyman questioning his belief in god.
So my conclusion has been that the difference between a skeptic and religionist is in what evidence they consider, the abstract concepts they conclude, and the arguments between the two groups is really just an argument of semantics, dogma and belief. There really is no empirical evidence that either side is right or wrong in terms of whether there is a God or not. It just boils down to the kinds of abstractions people conclude for themselves.
Sorry for the long post.
Council Member
Posts: 1,785
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 1st, 2008, 04:00 PM
Quoting talloola
There we go: the argument of a true religionist.
Nice try, but doesn't fly.
NHL Hockey Insider
Posts: 3,639
Location: Vancouver Island
Location: Vancouver Island
February 1st, 2008, 05:22 PM
Quoting Scott Free
Better check that one out.
There we go: the argument of a true religionist.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
February 1st, 2008, 07:33 PM
Nice long read Scott. I agree with your conclusion about skeptic. The god discussion will rage on for a while yet I guess. I think it's very important to the future of mankind that religion be leashed, god can take care of itself. I think somewhat like you do about science, I don't think the physical science can fully address the spiritual man and I know organized religion is a curse.
Quoting Scott Free
I've been talking to religionists on other forums for quite some time now and also I was one once; I have also been talking to people of different political bents, and made a few observations:
I don't think the religionists (which is very similar to the conservative/Republican mindset) are purposefully being evasive. Nor do I think they misrepresent or deceive, here I mean the religionists only, but both still have similar relevant characteristics.
Our minds work in lineal ways where space time and causation are important factors to imagination and therefore understanding. It isn't possible to understand what you can't imagine except as math equations or absurd physics formulas. The mind needs to (must) keep things separate in time, place and seeks causation. We are also pattern seeking creatures. This is how our minds collect and sort information to create a model of reality we can deal with. Oddly our language isn't so limited and we can pluck out abstractions from our thoughts and string them together out of order to create very abstract concepts; they are better suited to language than a reality we can call functional. Our minds do not create a very convincing reality in the face of evidence but they do create uniform reality most people can comprehend. By this I mean we see things in a narrow range of colour, tend to orient objects and the world around us in a very egocentric way, we hear limited sounds, we have poor smell etc.. all these are often combined in other species which creates a very different world for them from our human world. For example a bat combines sound and sight in its brain for a single interpretation - it literally sees sound, likewise a bird can see magnetic fields (how different would our science be if we could see these fields?) - try showing load stones to a bird its fun.
So it has been my observation that the frame work of perception differs between the religionists and the non-religionists but both use similar abstractions. I think this is important to understanding. I have read Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens (others too) where they tend to assume a superior stance against the religionists and even go so far as to call themselves "brights," because they assume theirs is an intellectually superior vision - they assume they are more intelligent. I think this premise is false. I have met remarkably intelligent religionists that if anyone were to call them unintelligent or even less intelligent would only pass a not so very nice verdict on the observer. They simply are not stupid but they do see things differently, that is, they have different abstractions. Now abstract thought is very much like the bat who sees sound and light as similar things; the bat could say we are stupid because we need a flashlight. We could say the bat doesn't see reality because it is different than our own.
So what I am saying is that to the religionists who places their own experiences and "belief" above evidence are doing so because they perceive a causation of their experience that a non-religionists doesn't. This is also why we end up with sky gods because such a model makes sense to a human brain in terms of place, causation and time. So we end up with a god that we can conceive but is wholly unrealistic in terms of something that really could "create" a universe, but we do get something that is easy to imagine. That being said, the scientist does the same thing with very similar effects. Though they would claim their ideas are grounded in evidence a realistic look at science will reveal that this isn't the case. They very much rely on the "minds of giants" from which to leap off of and make their conclusions (faith in the scientific method). As a result science has become every bit the dogmatic (using the work of previous "great" scientists without question) pseudo science (not actually concerned with reality as much as method) full of mistakes (cooking experiments to get results desired) and superstition (trust in laws that predict not explain) that we would expect given the nature of our minds. I have brought up these observations to scientists and other "skeptics" and received very hostile responses exactly the same as I do when I bring up problems with the religionists world view. They deny what is pure evidence because I have hit a limitation of their abstract thought and challenged their dogma, but also, and more importantly, I have challenged what they hold as evidence. I would recommend a book: The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin because I have no interest in arguing this point. If this contention raises the hackles of any reader of this post I would suggest that now they know how a religionists feels when their own "evidence" is challenged.
As a religionist I observed the hand of god in everything. My observations were drawn from my personal experience and the experience of others. I drew out abstractions and assembled a world that made sense based on these observations. Now that I am not a religionist I do the same thing only I use different evidence. In fact I have married the two together to some extent. I am lucky that I could escape the prison of religiosity (odds: 1 in 12) but I didn't feel it would do to replace it with another dogma.
So what separates the religionist and the skeptic is only the dogma, observations and what they hold faith in. Both are equally absurd but not in the context of how our minds operate. What I have come to question is which group is capable of the most abstract thought. Physics and indeed any science requires a lot of abstraction but so too does the belief in a god bound by time, place and causation. I honestly believe there isn't much difference.
I tested this hypothesis out on the editor of Skeptic magazine. I sent them an email explaining that I suspected they weren't all that skeptical because they seemed to hold too strongly to a belief in evolution. I received a hostile email back of the sort I would expect had I sent a similar email to a clergyman questioning his belief in god.
So my conclusion has been that the difference between a skeptic and religionist is in what evidence they consider, the abstract concepts they conclude, and the arguments between the two groups is really just an argument of semantics, dogma and belief. There really is no empirical evidence that either side is right or wrong in terms of whether there is a God or not. It just boils down to the kinds of abstractions people conclude for themselves.
Sorry for the long post.
I don't think the religionists (which is very similar to the conservative/Republican mindset) are purposefully being evasive. Nor do I think they misrepresent or deceive, here I mean the religionists only, but both still have similar relevant characteristics.
Our minds work in lineal ways where space time and causation are important factors to imagination and therefore understanding. It isn't possible to understand what you can't imagine except as math equations or absurd physics formulas. The mind needs to (must) keep things separate in time, place and seeks causation. We are also pattern seeking creatures. This is how our minds collect and sort information to create a model of reality we can deal with. Oddly our language isn't so limited and we can pluck out abstractions from our thoughts and string them together out of order to create very abstract concepts; they are better suited to language than a reality we can call functional. Our minds do not create a very convincing reality in the face of evidence but they do create uniform reality most people can comprehend. By this I mean we see things in a narrow range of colour, tend to orient objects and the world around us in a very egocentric way, we hear limited sounds, we have poor smell etc.. all these are often combined in other species which creates a very different world for them from our human world. For example a bat combines sound and sight in its brain for a single interpretation - it literally sees sound, likewise a bird can see magnetic fields (how different would our science be if we could see these fields?) - try showing load stones to a bird its fun.
So it has been my observation that the frame work of perception differs between the religionists and the non-religionists but both use similar abstractions. I think this is important to understanding. I have read Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens (others too) where they tend to assume a superior stance against the religionists and even go so far as to call themselves "brights," because they assume theirs is an intellectually superior vision - they assume they are more intelligent. I think this premise is false. I have met remarkably intelligent religionists that if anyone were to call them unintelligent or even less intelligent would only pass a not so very nice verdict on the observer. They simply are not stupid but they do see things differently, that is, they have different abstractions. Now abstract thought is very much like the bat who sees sound and light as similar things; the bat could say we are stupid because we need a flashlight. We could say the bat doesn't see reality because it is different than our own.
So what I am saying is that to the religionists who places their own experiences and "belief" above evidence are doing so because they perceive a causation of their experience that a non-religionists doesn't. This is also why we end up with sky gods because such a model makes sense to a human brain in terms of place, causation and time. So we end up with a god that we can conceive but is wholly unrealistic in terms of something that really could "create" a universe, but we do get something that is easy to imagine. That being said, the scientist does the same thing with very similar effects. Though they would claim their ideas are grounded in evidence a realistic look at science will reveal that this isn't the case. They very much rely on the "minds of giants" from which to leap off of and make their conclusions (faith in the scientific method). As a result science has become every bit the dogmatic (using the work of previous "great" scientists without question) pseudo science (not actually concerned with reality as much as method) full of mistakes (cooking experiments to get results desired) and superstition (trust in laws that predict not explain) that we would expect given the nature of our minds. I have brought up these observations to scientists and other "skeptics" and received very hostile responses exactly the same as I do when I bring up problems with the religionists world view. They deny what is pure evidence because I have hit a limitation of their abstract thought and challenged their dogma, but also, and more importantly, I have challenged what they hold as evidence. I would recommend a book: The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin because I have no interest in arguing this point. If this contention raises the hackles of any reader of this post I would suggest that now they know how a religionists feels when their own "evidence" is challenged.
As a religionist I observed the hand of god in everything. My observations were drawn from my personal experience and the experience of others. I drew out abstractions and assembled a world that made sense based on these observations. Now that I am not a religionist I do the same thing only I use different evidence. In fact I have married the two together to some extent. I am lucky that I could escape the prison of religiosity (odds: 1 in 12) but I didn't feel it would do to replace it with another dogma.
So what separates the religionist and the skeptic is only the dogma, observations and what they hold faith in. Both are equally absurd but not in the context of how our minds operate. What I have come to question is which group is capable of the most abstract thought. Physics and indeed any science requires a lot of abstraction but so too does the belief in a god bound by time, place and causation. I honestly believe there isn't much difference.
I tested this hypothesis out on the editor of Skeptic magazine. I sent them an email explaining that I suspected they weren't all that skeptical because they seemed to hold too strongly to a belief in evolution. I received a hostile email back of the sort I would expect had I sent a similar email to a clergyman questioning his belief in god.
So my conclusion has been that the difference between a skeptic and religionist is in what evidence they consider, the abstract concepts they conclude, and the arguments between the two groups is really just an argument of semantics, dogma and belief. There really is no empirical evidence that either side is right or wrong in terms of whether there is a God or not. It just boils down to the kinds of abstractions people conclude for themselves.
Sorry for the long post.
Nice long read Scott. I agree with your conclusion about skeptic. The god discussion will rage on for a while yet I guess. I think it's very important to the future of mankind that religion be leashed, god can take care of itself. I think somewhat like you do about science, I don't think the physical science can fully address the spiritual man and I know organized religion is a curse.
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
February 1st, 2008, 11:06 PM
Scott free
You've earned my respect in elaboration, eloquently written and well thought out message.
I dare not tackle all that intelligent talk for I am but a man with a limited vocabulary, poor grammar and limited intelligence.
But one thing I do know, is that God touched my heart, gave me wisdom to understand Him and allowed me to understand others as well.
If I had nothing at all in this life but love, I'd be above all men, the richest, for my heart would be after that of God's own heart.
Count it a privilege to be one of great intelligence, articulate in word and thought, understanding of the sciences and able to see the world differently.
Yet greater, would be to use all that in the disposition of love, to a suffering world.
Peace>>>AJ
Scott free
You've earned my respect in elaboration, eloquently written and well thought out message.
I dare not tackle all that intelligent talk for I am but a man with a limited vocabulary, poor grammar and limited intelligence.
But one thing I do know, is that God touched my heart, gave me wisdom to understand Him and allowed me to understand others as well.
If I had nothing at all in this life but love, I'd be above all men, the richest, for my heart would be after that of God's own heart.
Count it a privilege to be one of great intelligence, articulate in word and thought, understanding of the sciences and able to see the world differently.
Yet greater, would be to use all that in the disposition of love, to a suffering world.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,706
Location: Alberta, Canada
Location: Alberta, Canada
February 2nd, 2008, 12:05 AM
AJ, I bow to your greater ability to put into words what you know in your heart and soul. Something I am completely unable to do. I can explain it face to face, but trying to put it onto the screen.,.......it just doesn't come out right at all.
Quoting look3467
Scott free
You've earned my respect in elaboration, eloquently written and well thought out message.
I dare not tackle all that intelligent talk for I am but a man with a limited vocabulary, poor grammar and limited intelligence.
But one thing I do know, is that God touched my heart, gave me wisdom to understand Him and allowed me to understand others as well.
If I had nothing at all in this life but love, I'd be above all men, the richest, for my heart would be after that of God's own heart.
Count it a privilege to be one of great intelligence, articulate in word and thought, understanding of the sciences and able to see the world differently.
Yet greater, would be to use all that in the disposition of love, to a suffering world.
Peace>>>AJ
You've earned my respect in elaboration, eloquently written and well thought out message.
I dare not tackle all that intelligent talk for I am but a man with a limited vocabulary, poor grammar and limited intelligence.
But one thing I do know, is that God touched my heart, gave me wisdom to understand Him and allowed me to understand others as well.
If I had nothing at all in this life but love, I'd be above all men, the richest, for my heart would be after that of God's own heart.
Count it a privilege to be one of great intelligence, articulate in word and thought, understanding of the sciences and able to see the world differently.
Yet greater, would be to use all that in the disposition of love, to a suffering world.
Peace>>>AJ
AJ, I bow to your greater ability to put into words what you know in your heart and soul. Something I am completely unable to do. I can explain it face to face, but trying to put it onto the screen.,.......it just doesn't come out right at all.
House Member
Posts: 3,656
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
February 2nd, 2008, 12:47 AM
No Scott, talloolla's right, that long argument simply doesn't fly. You've misunderstood and misrepresented too many things. For instance, "...a bat combines sound and sight in its brain for a single interpretation - it literally sees sound..." No it can't, it hears sound just like we do, it's just much better at it than we are. And " likewise a bird can see magnetic fields..." No it can't, it can detect them with sense organs we don't have, but it doesn't see them.
Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics is completely unrelated to this argument, and if you think it is you've completely misunderstood it. Smolin is not challenging science in any fundamental sense, he's challenging the politics of science as a human enterprise. His essential point is that string theory is sexy and popular and has produced some very creative and interesting mathematics, and engaged some of the brightest minds among physicists for a generation, but it hasn't produced any testable results or predictions or useful insights that quantum theory and relativity don't also make, and that's the ultimate test of any theory of physics. It must be consistent with previous theories, it must predict something so far unseen, and it must be testable; string theory has so far achieved only the first of those, and Smolin's argument is essentially that it's probably a false trail.
No Scott, talloolla's right, that long argument simply doesn't fly. You've misunderstood and misrepresented too many things. For instance, "...a bat combines sound and sight in its brain for a single interpretation - it literally sees sound..." No it can't, it hears sound just like we do, it's just much better at it than we are. And " likewise a bird can see magnetic fields..." No it can't, it can detect them with sense organs we don't have, but it doesn't see them.
Quote:
I've read all that stuff too, that's not what the word means, and there's still a serious ongoing debate among people who'd call themselves brights the way it was originally defined, which I've been part of, simply because it can create that erroneous impression. I will not call myself a bright because of that, though I subscribe to the original definition of the word as the most accurate way to view the world, simply because it falsely implies that brights think everyone else is dim.
I have read Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens (others too) where they tend to assume a superior stance against the religionists and even go so far as to call themselves "brights," because they assume theirs is an intellectually superior vision
Quote:
That's hardly a surprise, because that argument is completely false, and anyone who really understands how science works would instantly recognize it. I've had a 30+ year career in science, and I know that science is first and foremost a human enterprise, so of course mistakes and frauds and arguments from authority will happen, but the process is eventually self-correcting simply because ultimately it does rely on evidence and logic, not dogma and authority, and false claims and ideas are eventually discovered and tossed out. The methods of science are the only reliable means we've ever discovered for testing the truth content of ideas, and the quality of our lives, from the medical science that prolongs them to the electronic devices like the computers we use to entertain and inform ourselves, is a testament to the fact that the methods are spectacularly successful. They work, and they work consistently and reliably no matter what you believe. We can prevent smallpox and diptheria and polio with a simple vaccination, and that works whether you believe it will or not. That is good science.
Though they would claim their ideas are grounded in evidence a realistic look at science will reveal that this isn't the case. They very much rely on the "minds of giants" from which to leap off of and make their conclusions (faith in the scientific method). As a result science has become every bit the dogmatic (using the work of previous "great" scientists without question) pseudo science (not actually concerned with reality as much as method) full of mistakes (cooking experiments to get results desired) and superstition (trust in laws that predict not explain) that we would expect given the nature of our minds I have brought up these observations to scientists and other "skeptics" and received very hostile responses.
Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics is completely unrelated to this argument, and if you think it is you've completely misunderstood it. Smolin is not challenging science in any fundamental sense, he's challenging the politics of science as a human enterprise. His essential point is that string theory is sexy and popular and has produced some very creative and interesting mathematics, and engaged some of the brightest minds among physicists for a generation, but it hasn't produced any testable results or predictions or useful insights that quantum theory and relativity don't also make, and that's the ultimate test of any theory of physics. It must be consistent with previous theories, it must predict something so far unseen, and it must be testable; string theory has so far achieved only the first of those, and Smolin's argument is essentially that it's probably a false trail.
Quote:
No, false again. In principle there is no dogma in science. Because it's a human enterprise and thus subject to human frailties, dogma does sometimes impede progress, and one of the best recent examples of that is the debate over plate tectonics, but ultimately evidence and logic will trump dogma and science and scientists will change their minds.
So what separates the religionist and the skeptic is only the dogma, observations and what they hold faith in.
Quote:
That's hardly a surprise either. Evolution is one of the best attested, most wide ranging, and most successful scientific theories we have. Evolution is not a matter of belief, it's an incontrovertible fact, on about the same scale as the fact that the sun will rise in the morning. It's real, it happens, it's been observed to happen, even to the point of speciation. It's simply wrong to suggest evolution is a belief; it's an observed fact.
I tested this hypothesis out on the editor of Skeptic magazine. I sent them an email explaining that I suspected they weren't all that skeptical because they seemed to hold too strongly to a belief in evolution. I received a hostile email back...
Quote:
No, wrong again. The essence of the skeptical position is, "prove your claim with evidence and reason, otherwise I will withhold belief.." Semantics, dogma, and belief don't enter into it, it's about how nature actually behaves when probed and tested.
So my conclusion has been that the difference between a skeptic and religionist is in what evidence they consider, the abstract concepts they conclude, and the arguments between the two groups is really just an argument of semantics, dogma and belief.
Quote:
Well, yes, you're mostly right about that, but science really deals in probabilities. There's plenty of evidence and argument that strongly suggests there isn't one, and not much good evidence that suggests there is, but even so truculent an atheist as Richard Dawkins doesn't go so far as to claim there cannot be one. The relevant chapter in his The God Delusion is titled, 'Why there is almost certainly no god," not "Why there certainly isn't a god."
There really is no empirical evidence that either side is right or wrong in terms of whether there is a God or not.
Quote:
Hey, if it's interesting and provocative as this one was, that justifies any length.
Sorry for the long post.
