|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Mar 8th, 2004, 12:41pm A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists. Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation. The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being. Factors that were considered included recognition of goodness, which Dr Unwin said makes the existence of God more likely, countered by things like the existence of natural evil - including earthquakes and cancer. The unusual workings - which even take into account the existence of miracles - are set out in his new book, which includes a spreadsheet of the data used so that anyone can make the calculation themselves should they doubt its validity. The book, The Probability of God: A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth, will be published later this month. Dr Unwin said he was interested in bridging the gap between science and religion. He argues that rather than being a theological issue, the question of God's existence is simply a matter of statistics. "On arriving in America I was exposed to certain religious outlooks that were somewhat of an assault upon my sensibilities - outlooks in which religion actually competes with science as an explanation of the world," he said. "While I could not be sure, having slept through most of the cathedral services I had attended during secondary school, this did not seem like the version of faith I had remembered. In many ways, this project was for me a journey home - a reconciliation of my faith and education." Despite his findings, Dr Unwin maintains that he is personally around 95% certain that God exists. However, Graham Sharp, media relations director at William Hill, said there were technical problems with giving odds on the existence of God. "The problem is how you confirm the existence of God. With the Loch Ness monster we require confirmation from the Natural History Museum to pay out, but who are we going to ask about God? The church would definitely confirm his existence." Mr Sharp said William Hill does take bets on the second coming, which currently stand at 1,000/1. For this confirmation is needed from the Archbishop of Canterbury. "We do take bets on the second coming, whether that confirms the existence of God is up to the theologians to argue, most people wouldn't believe that, though." This is not you, is it towr? :P http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 8th, 2004, 1:32pm nah, I like to think I have a better grasp of probability than to try something like this.. How does he get numerical values for things like P('god exists' | 'goodness in the world') ? It's more likely just guessing than educated guessing.. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Ulkesh on Mar 8th, 2004, 6:27pm This is quite an interesting topic to bring up T&B. Being of a scientific background and upbringing myself, it seems curious to me how very educated people within the scientific community (Einstein, for example), could be convinced that God existed despite there being no real scientific evidence for this. Given that all evidence for anything is based upon observation by instruments of some sort (machinery, senses etc.), and we simply interperet this logically, how can a 'mere' faith in God be justified? Surely evidience such as miracles, which wouldn't stand up to the slightest scientific scrutiny, aren't nearly as powerful as the world's cleverest people (scientists(?)) working in collaboration (generally) to reach a more acceptable truth. This doesn't nearly cover all of the issues I have regarding this topic, but I'd be interested to listen to anything anyone else has to say about it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Speaker on Mar 8th, 2004, 11:19pm Personally, I am still trying to figure out the evolution thing, and making only slow progress. As soon as I got a grasp on that one, maybe I will take a stab at the Omni-sentient being in who's name people are willing to make the ultimate sacrafice for (as well as adminstering the ultimate sacrafice on others). But, isn't what he is doing a sort of blasphemy. Isn't faith dependent on the unprovability of its object? I thought faith was similar to the "surprise quiz" riddle. In that if you can determine with certainty the answer, than what you have determined is not the answer. (I guess I mean religious faith. As opposed to faith in Schrodinger's theory keeping enough molecules of oxygen in the room so that you can breath. [Is that his theory, I am thinking of, or do I have it all wrong?] :-/ |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Mar 9th, 2004, 12:43am Interestingly, Ulkesh, it is thought that around 1/3 of scientists are believers; this is a much higher representation than among non-scientists. As a believer myself, and an aspiring mathematician, I would suggest that the sense numinousness from exploring the perpetual depths of hidden truths pushes them closer to believing. The other point is that belief is independent of every facet of human experience. Some of the cleverest/stupidest people on the planet believe and some don't. The same is true of athletism, beauty, wealth, geographical location, culture, traumatic experiences, and so on. It is this mystery of faith that should make most people ask questions and realise that answers will not necessarily be found in the places you expect. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 9th, 2004, 5:14am Even starting at 50:50 seems an interesting choice... what the guy seems to have proved is that his interpretation of the evidence he's looked at makes it slightly more likely that God exists than if you don't consider that set of evidence at all. Whether his interpretations are correct, and whether the evidence he overlooks (there's got to be some) would tilt things the other way are open questions. For instance, the existence of evil has been argued as overwhelmingly compelling evidence against God, so valuing it highly would almost certainly drop his figure... On the subject of miracles, the definition of a miracle is a tricky one to get right - if you define it as supernatural, then you run into the problem that science, which works by incorporating anything that has been reliably observed to happen, will incorporate any "miraculous" event that is reliably observed to happen, or will accept as a more likely explanation that the account as given is unreliable in some way. Either way, the "miracle" gets scientifically explained away as not actually being "supernatural". If you don't believe in miracles, there is no possible evidence that could change your mind, conversely, if you believe in miracles, there are many occurences for which you will accept divine intervention as the likeliest explanation. Since it's thus not capable of being empirically tested, the concept of "miracle" is not terribly useful for a scientist. C S Lewis argued that one should only believe in God as the result of extraordinary evidence, but that, once convinced, it should take equally extraordinary evidence to change your mind. The fact that evidence sufficient to convince you once was once presented to you should, in itself, be sufficient proof for the rest of your life - that one should not require miracles to be ongoing to sustain faith; faith, once attained, should be self-perpetuating without requiring constant fresh extraordinary evidences. After all, if God exists, then the whole of our existence is testament to Him, and every breath is no less a miracle than walking on water or feeding 5000... I think all Dr Unwin has done is what bad statisticians are notorious for: provided evidence that seems to give the answer he wants, but which is based on highly questionable assumptions and judgements. I seriously doubt anyone will be convinced either way by this, but a (small) number of "religious" people will make a large amount of noise claiming this as proof... |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Benoit_Mandelbrot on Mar 9th, 2004, 1:02pm God must exist, because somehow, everything must have started. Scientists say that we are billions ahead of evolving than predicted. The chances of humans turning out this way with these brains and self-awareness are pretty non-existant. But here we are. Before the big bang, where did the mass come from? Did it just appear? Is the entire universe just a figment of my imagination? Is the universe a computer simulation? If string theory is correct, and there are branes in higher dimensions, then there must be another dimension higher to hold more of the same dimension. So if there are different universes of universes, then there could be even more than that. The universe, instead of being built on large branes, could actually start with infinitely small strings inclosed around themselves. We could just tear a hole in the string and walk out, and become nothing. This couldn't happen because there must be an anti-particle for each particle. Am I making any sense at all? Pretty much all we can do is make theories about the existance of a God or higher being so far. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Mar 9th, 2004, 1:20pm Quote:
The idea that time must have a beginning and an end assumes that 'duality' is a universal constant. Quote:
Google 'anthropic principle'. Quote:
How would you know if it was? Quote:
You started off OK, ("God must exist because...), but, by the time you were finished, He was probably shaking His head wearily. :) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 9th, 2004, 1:40pm on 03/09/04 at 13:02:35, Benoit_Mandelbrot wrote:
If however you're of the opinion God has allways been, then why can't that be so for the universe as well? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Blaise on Mar 9th, 2004, 2:53pm Does it seem that scientists are more and more relying upon God or a god for our existence? Take the membrane theory. Our existence, our creation depends entirely on something that can't be seen, can't be proved or disproved, something from outside our universe that came and touched it. That other brane is a deus ex machina that comes in from nowhere when no other solution is possible and saves the day. And they believe it not on the evidence but on a feeling of rightness, a sort of beauty, symmetry, completeness and simplicity that it gives to their church, the worship of numbers and equations. I think if fits a definition of a god and of faith in an unknown, unknowable higher power. Take string theory, that reduces everything down to the point where we're no longer dealing with something as big and clumsy as matter or energy, but something more basic, information. But what's information at levels where matter and energy don't exist? Could string theory be the thoughts and knowledge of God's mind? How about the bizarre quantum theories that posit that subatomic events neither happen nor don't happen; they're just probability wave functions until someone observes them. Who observed them before we came along? If noone, then are we all just Schroedinger's cats neither here nor not here until someone comes along and opens the box to observe us? To me those theories are a lot easier to get a handle on if God is the one who observes and controls all things, and perhaps deliberately chose to leave some things in flux until the moment when it is observed and has an effect on us, his creatures (kind of like a computer programmer of virtual reality who doesn't waste computer time plotting out parts of his virtual world that no one is observing). |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Blaise on Mar 9th, 2004, 3:05pm Oh yeah, I was going to talk about Pascal's Wager, a rather foolish argument for God for the same reason this scientist has missed the boat. Faith is neither probability nor taking a "leap of faith" by going against the odds. It's trust. It's a personal relationship with God. That's why those people in the Bible who saw miracles, and were given proof positive of God's existence, were no more likely to have faith in him than those today who have no such proof and for whom all the mysteries of the universe are more and more being explained away without need of a god. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Ulkesh on Mar 9th, 2004, 5:52pm Interesting discussion... First of all, faith. I don't understand why someone simply beleives something just because they want it to be true. Just because something is unexplained and has been of great importance to people over the ages, this doesn't justify treating it any differently from any other claims. You remain skeptical. If someone says that there are pink elephants on Mars, and you think it'd be cool it this were true, you don't believe them for the sake of it. Surely, in principle, this is what faith boils down to. Ok, if you have faith that God exists, fair enough. But why? We are logical creatures; we act according to what we see and hear etc, and we believe that things do and don't exist using these senses. Why believe something which has simply no scientific evidence supporting it? Saying that scientific evidence isn't the be-all and and-all of truth isn't valid. We as humans act logically; scientifically. It's how we work. Surely using a logical viewpoint when looking at the existence of God is best for us. In which case, faith, or other systems of truth seem ridiculous. That isn't to say they shouldn't be explored, but they simply can't hold as much water as using logical reasoning. T&B: Denying existence of the infinite? Perhaps you could point out the consequences of doing this. Next is the statisitical evidence regarding how it's very unlikely humans could have evolved naturally. Half of this evidence, as towr says, is purported by creationists, many of whom despise science and have no grasp of simple statistics. So I am dubious of many of the claims, and until I see how they figures have been worked-out, I tend to take them with a pinch of salt. Then there is using the issue of mis-using physical theories to prove what you want to prove. For example, saying that the unknowability of string theory is analogous to the unknowability of God. Strings aren't detectable because they're small. And this is all in theory anyway. It seems that rather than using science to explain things, people just say that God's existence can explain everything. It seems like a bit of an easy fix. There's also the Schrodinger's cat thing. People who read popular science, read one or two theories without understanding the underlying facts and then use them to prove God's existence annoy me. Quantum mechanics is simply a (successful) theory that fits experimental observations. It does predict unusual things, but this theory is full of philisophical problems as well. A conscious observer collapsing a wavefunction isn't necessarily what QM predicts. There are plenty of other possibilities. Therefore it seems a bit premature to muse over what/who is observing the wavefunction of the universe. There is the argument that the universal constants of nature seem just right for life to exist. This does seem like a coincidence. But then again, we are far from understanding the nature of the universe, so I'd more readily believe that there are more fundamental unknowns to us than just to explain everything through the existence of God. There is also no reason why a God needs to have created us in the first place. Surely it is conceivable that some natural phenomena brought about the universe. Why does it necessarily need to be a conscious being? Saying that information exchange could represent God's thoughts is just redefining what God is. If you beleive that God is a collection of all matter in the universe, great. I'll call my cup of tea 'God'. Therefore God exists. It is more reasonable to say that everything in the universe in conscious on some level, and then to say that is God. But it is still a far cry from the deity represented in the bible. I understand not everyone believes in the bible and defines God in different ways, but until it's clear what each person believes God to be, it's hard to argue the issues. Hmm... I've run out of things to say for now. Basically, it seems silly how a rational person can believe in God when there are more realistic explanations. I'm not claiming to disprove the existence of God. I believe that to be impossible. I'm still interested however, in what leads intelligent people to the conclusion that God exists. Have the believers on this board always believed in God, or did you change your mind over time? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Blaise on Mar 9th, 2004, 8:51pm on 03/09/04 at 17:52:04, Ulkesh wrote:
Since you asked, I don't think this board is the place for religion. (That's why I'm Blaise for now, so this discussion doesn't spill over into your general opinion of me; this topic ends here). My previous post was a somewhat light-hearted attempt to spur discussion in a more theoretical, less specifically religious direction. I don't really think strings are the thoughts of God. I don't think I understand QM enough to do anything more than maybe make someone say "hmm" for a second. (and my second post was a suggestion of the triviality of the whole question of proof, no need to be serious here.) But I suspect scientists and rationalists don't appreciate the limits of their philosophies or grasp the point where their wisdom comes up against the infinite and falls short. But since you asked: Why do I believe when "there are more realistic explanations"? I believe there must be a first cause and by its very nature it must be beyond our grasp or comprehension. The finite cannot hold the infinite. The very question of whether a supergod created God says the question is beyond simplistic answer, or even complex answer, whether the answer is God or some other first cause. There is no "more realistic explanation" of the first cause. I believe because my faith works. Christianity has made a lot of huge mistakes over the years, caused wars and hatred and oppression at times, but only because it strayed from the basic principles established by Christ. And my own life has worked much better when I have held to those principles. I have seen no moral, ethical or philosophical system that seems more right and true and beneficial to society (to me, I admit. You may disagree, but that's irrelevant to why I believe). I believe because you can't "believe something just because they want something to be true," and yet I believe anyway. I didn't decide to believe. I believe. That's the Holy Spirit, but again I don't want to get into specific religion or "chapter and verse" here. So, nuf said. I believe for a hundred reasons, some philosophical, some historical, some moral, some personal, none is particularly scientific, although I don't think science is a threat to my faith either. And I really don't plan on placing any bets based on the God-odds anyway. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 10th, 2004, 4:01am on 03/09/04 at 17:52:04, Ulkesh wrote:
It's not often I actually laugh out loud at something someone writes, but humans, logical? You are joking, right? If not, then consider this: logic, as far as it exists in human thought processes, exists in the very topmost layers, and works primarily to help us get what we have already decided we want by following illogical thought processes. Logic makes a very poor motivator of actions - it can enable us to evaluate potential courses of action within an existing framework of values, and even help us to make implicit value judgements and conflicts explicit, but it can't originate values from nothing. "good" and "bad", or "desirable" and "undesirable" are not logical concepts: they're value judgements. If humans are logical, then why 9/11? Why the continuing popularity and multiplicity of religions? For that matter, why love? hate? joy? sorrow? all our emotions? From personal experience, love isn't about logic; love transcends logic. But love doesn't replace logic either. The human logic processes continue to operate, just with a new axiom. Quote:
"more realistic explanations." Who decides how realistic an explanation is? For that matter, how well do these explanations actually explain things? It's all very well talking about how "some natural phenomena brought about the universe." but that doesn't make the questions go away - what context did these phenomena have? What does "natural" mean when talking about things that happen outside the universe? Does it even make sense to talk about "before" when linear time is a property of the universe, and subject to various distortions even within this context? And what caused these phenomena to occur? Iterate the question. Do you end up with an infinite chain of prior causes - which doesn't really solve the problem of the beginning - just defers it indefinitely. Or do you resort to some first cause? Terry Pratchett mentioned the tale of an old lady who claimed the world was carried on the back of a turtle. When questioned as to what supported the turtle, her response: "it's turtles all the way down". To her mind, that was a far more realistic explanation than the world being a spinning lump of rock constantly falling around a giant ball of burning gas... And I resent the assertion that people who believe in God are being silly. I believe in God for much the same reason I believe in the internet, and for much better reason than I believe in most predictions of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. I have directly percieved, however dimly and briefly, something that I can only label as "God", and from that, and the indirect evidence I have of something guiding the web of interactions around us, I consider I have ample reason for belief. Current theoretical physics, I have no direct evidence of, so rely entirely on the word of others for evidence that these theories are good approximations to reality. I regard my belief in the current worldview of theoretical physics as far more of a matter of faith than my belief in something for which the only label I've found that could fit is "God"... |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Mar 10th, 2004, 10:02am on 03/09/04 at 20:51:02, Blaise wrote:
"Blaise" is absolutely right, and I would extend that to the internet in general. If we had these types of discussions sitting around in a pub with a few beers, we'd recognise the difference between a light-hearted comment and a personal assualt on our belief system. The electronic medium we're communicating on now is incapable of either detecting or expressing those subtleties. The original article was posted by T&B to offer a diversionary discussion on the study in question and its objectivity/usefulness or lack thereof. Discussions pertaining towards religious philosophies will never resolve by reason. As I tried to convey in my previous post, historically there have been and always will be people who are much more intelligent than anyone on this forum, and they have had their reasons for believing; equally matched genii have had their reasons for not believing. Belief is entirely independent of logic, reasoning, or intelligence. If we could be persuaded one way or the other, a book would be written, we'd all read it, and we'd all believe/not believe. Actually, a book called the Bible has been written... ::) [e]Edited to clarify, in case the smilie didn't make it apparent, that the last remark was a light-hearted comment.[/e] |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Ulkesh on Mar 10th, 2004, 10:58am Yeah, you're right, Sir Col. Sorry if I caused anyone any offence. My style of writing did seem a little agressive on re-reading. I didn't intend to act with contempt; I'm merely interested in reasons for and against. I'd be happy to continue a discusstion with anyone who's interested, but I think it's best this thread either goes back to what T&B originally posted, or stops here. :-X |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 11th, 2004, 5:25am I haven't reread my post, and don't really want to - I suspect I was probably also rather more aggressive than is appropriate. Nothing I said was intended as an attack against persons, or against any individual (dis)belief in the existence of God. As I said, my personal belief is based on personal experience, and I don't expect anyone to believe just because I do. Some of the things I (over)reacted to are things I am currently sensitised towards, and the phrase "red rag to a bull" springs to mind. To get back to the original topic: While there are many intelligent people who believe in God for personal reasons, which seem good and sufficient to them, I do not believe that a calculation of this kind is a good reason for believing in God, or that the assumptions behind the calculations are liable to stand up under any sort of hostile examination. I may be doing Dr Unwin an injustice, but I doubt anyone who understands his calculations is going to find them persuasive. If they are, after all, capable of surviving peer review, then I'd be very interested in his opinions on my chances of getting a job! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Speaker on Mar 11th, 2004, 5:15pm I agree that a calculation of the probability of the existence of God is not a good reason to have faith. Faith is itself a miracle. (Depending on who you talk to it can be a huge miracle.) So, it is circular, but: The miracle of faith proves the existance of a miraculous God, thus justifying faith in God. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Mar 11th, 2004, 8:22pm An interesting discussion. I disagree that it should stop or limit itself only to T&B's original subject. However, I do agree that it should limit itself to humility and respect. (For those who have been confused about it, "humility" is in essence the willingness to recognize you could be wrong.) It is quite possible to be in strenuous disagreement with someone and still respect them. Patience is key, and a willingness to consider their side even though you disagree are key. I have avoided in the past making overt statements of where I stand on religious matters because I wanted people to consider my arguments on their own merit rather than reacting in blind prejudice against my religious stance. But in this case, I would like to make clear at the start: I am a christian. More specifically, I am an evangelical christian, what some of you would call a fundamentalist, though this is a term with an abundant amount of baggage that does not apply to me (or to most to whom it is applied). on 03/09/04 at 17:52:04, Ulkesh wrote:
No. At one time, I was an "atheistic agnostic", much as you are. I.e., I did not believe in a god, but admitted that believing in the non-existance of God required faith beyond any evidence, just as believing in Him does. How did I change? Evidence. I found myself interacting with a bunch of people with the same problems and flaws as everyone else who somehow managed to show real love and community with each other anyway. These people were on the whole happier and more content than anyone else I had ever met. When faced with problems, they managed to rise above them consistently. I have seen them pull through tragedies that break others without stumbling, and still reach out with love to those most people would have nothing to do with. They are not "saints" as most normally think of that word (the Bible clearly calls all true christians "saints"). But they demonstrate what christianity is really about. As I came to understand this about them, it was clear something was different here. They had a power to overcome their bad habits and desires that I was missing. It was becoming clear to me that I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. So I looked again. It helped that I already had a better understanding of the limitations of science than you (Ulkesh) apparently have (more about that later, though rmsgrey has said some of it). For this reason, I was not bogged down by certain misconceptions that are very common. What I saw was a God that I not only could believe in, but who loved me dearly and wanted me to love Him. And so I became a christian. Since then, I've been in the middle of two camps. On one side is the science camp. I have not turned my back on science or the scientific method to become a christian. Far from there being "being no real scientific evidence for" God, I am surrounded by evidence, and I see it in my own life. Perhaps you could call it "unscientific". It is generally not suitable for repeatable experiment, but it is real non-the-less. "Repeatable experiment" is not the end-all for truth. It is simply a useful tool for the discernment of it. But it is evident that not all things which are true are subject to repeatable experiments. This is the case even in Science itself. The most basic maxim in Archeology is that to investigate a site is to destroy it. Despite this unrepeatability, scientists neither reject archeology as a science, nor it's findings. ("When I escavated the same site Johnson did, all I found was undifferentiated fill. Clearly his claim to have found layers and artifacts is false!") Though seldom repeatable, the evidence is around me. In the changed lives of those I have known, and in the great changes in my life. In the love I feel (and more importantly, act on) toward those around me, including some I would have avoided at all costs were it not for God. An extraordinary example of this is a couple in Missouri that I have heard about who have reached out and befriended the man who raped & murdered their daughter. Though they have every cause to despise this man, they chose instead to forgive him - not legally, they recognize the need to protect others - and try to redeem his life. You cannot act this way without something very different in your heart. This along is strong evidence to me. But the evidence does not end there. Miracles do occur, though most are not recognized as such. A miracle does not have to always violate physical law. The best definition I have heard is that a miracle is an event that occurs with perfect timing to bring glory to God. For example, if someone is involved a ministry which has a financial need, say a bill that must be paid now, but the money is not available. If on the day the money must be paid, the exact amount, to the cent, needed to pay the bill arrives in various checks in that day's mail, I would call that miraculous. If it occurred once, it could be discounted as coincidence. If it happens repeatedly, coincidence becomes a very unlikely explanation. One ministry I am aware of claims this has occured for them, though I cannot verify it, so I do not offer it as proof - merely as an example to broaden your concept of what is a miracle. Around my church, we have a saying, "God sure lucked out on that one", that we use whenever chance seems to operate in accordance to God's will, to remind us that luck is not necessarily responsible at all. We have cause to use it quite a bit. Then there is the historical evidence. History is another subject in which repeatability is sadly (or gladly!) not possible. So the scientific method is of little use in determining what events have occured in the past (archeological results and scientific laws can be used to give better credence to certain histories than to others, but this is about the limit of scientific input into the discovery of historical truth). So historians must turn to other means for evaluating evidence. I have many times heard the claim that you cannot prove that Jesus ever existed. This is true. But by the same token you also cannot prove that George Washington ever existed, or Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, I cannot even easily prove that you exist, nor you me, other than to say that these posts did not appear out of nothingness. And that is the primary means by which we do provide evidence for the existance of these men. Without Washington, the country I live in would not exist. Without Lincoln, it would not be whole. The artifacts of their lives are plentiful. So there is no doubt to their existance. Yet the influence these men have had on our current world is dwarfed by that of Jesus. In the latter half of the first century, a religion arose with ideas significantly different from any around. Those ideas have formed the basis of our modern civilization. Even those from other religious traditions have been influenced by them. Those who reject christianity often argue against it using moral concepts it introduced. This religion did not spring up without a source. The historical record tells us that those who first spread it suffered hardship and execution for doing so. If they had lived lives of wealth and power (like the founders of some modern religions I could name but will not), we could easily imagine them making up the story of Jesus, or lying about who and what Jesus really was, as part of their efforts to establish and maintain such a position. But to have undergone privation, torture, and execution rather than renounce something that they knew was a lie is much harder to explain. I find it far more likely that the apostles believed exactly what they taught. But how could they believe it if they had not witnessed it? There is much to say on this topic and I have already run long. Textually, the New Testament is far and again the most attested document in all antiquity. The writings of Luke (the books of Luke and Acts) were once thought to be riddled with geographical and historical errors. Archeology has since shown that in every case, it was Luke who was correct and the other source wrong. The point of all of this is not to try to convince you of the truth of christianity, but rather to show you that christians do not believe in spite of the evidence, but rather because of it. It comes down to what evidence you accept and what you reject as being dubious. I see clear evidence. I cannot reject it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 12th, 2004, 2:10am The 'problem' with a lot of evidence is that it doesn't force you to one direction. The simple fact the universe exists is evidence for the existence of god, but it is also evidence for the big bang, and probably a few other ideas. There isn't really any evidence that forces a distinction, like the famous evidence of the bending of light during a solar eclipse did in favor of special relativity . There is a lot historical evidence for Jesus, and I'm sure he was a swell guy, just like Buddha, or Albert Schweizer and mother Theresa. Whether he was the (only) son of God, or even God incarnate as some seem to believe, I dunno.. I don't believe so. I don't think he ever said so himself either, I mean he taught to pray "our father who is in heaven", so I figure we're all sons and daughters of God. If nothing else the mythical image of Jesus portrait in the bible is a good role model, regardless of whether or not he was actually like that (If I ever get the ability to travel back in time I'll be sure to take a look ;)) Personally I have my doubts about the bible, if not the rest. People's memory isn't generally that good, and most parts of the new testament were written 50-150 years after the fact whereas many contempory writings didn't make it in. Also around 300 AD emperor Constantin seems to have had a good time editing it (and who knows what later popes did). And by that time there had allready been several schisms in the church. So, if that's all true, one is left to wonder what other versions of Christianity have disappeared from our history.. I'm pretty sure the main point of the story hasn't changed though, as it is the same as in Judaism and Islam, '[exists]!one true God', the rest I'm less sure about. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Mar 12th, 2004, 5:08am Thank you very much for sharing part of your testimony, Icarus. I offer the following with humility and respect... towr, I don't want this to turn into a Bible study (although reading the Bible is my favourite pastime), as what I am about the say requires confidence that the Bible has some authority. However, I would like to dispel one common misconception about Jesus Christ. For Christians, the Bible makes the divinity of Jesus absolutely apparent from the beginning to the end... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, let there be..." (Genesis 1:1-3) Apart from this being the first of countless references to the Trinity, the key phrase is at the beginning of verse 3: "Then God said, let there be..." It is repeated throughout the first chapter of Genesis. In the first chapter of St. John's gospel we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:1-3) The Word spoke in the beginning and all things were made. So who is the Word? In the same chapter... "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14) St. Paul makes similar claims when he wrote to the Churches in Colossus, in talking about Christ he said, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17) In a vision to St. John, and recorded in the book of Revelation, Jesus says, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,' says the Lord, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" (Revelation 1:8) Again in John's gospel, Jesus says, "'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'" (John 10:30-33) Please note that I am not citing this as evidence of God, but I am merely demonstrating that Christians believe in the divinity of Christ because the Bible repeats it throughout: from the Pentateuch (the books of Moses) and the Old Testament prophets right through to the New Testament gospels and letters. I have spent my whole life studying the Bible and the more I read the more I accept that it is a divine works. There is too much uncontested consistency and truth to make me believe that it is the result of separate people's hidden agendas over thousands of years. Of course this is my experience and I realise that other people look at the same book and come to different conclusions. Personally, I love God with my whole being and I continue to get excited every time I am touched by His Word. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 12th, 2004, 9:42am I must say I disagree that all those passages testify to Jesus divinity. But if that means I'm not a Christian, I don't mind much. I wouldn't know where to begin to discribe what my believes are anyway, and not just because they change (and have changed) throughout my life. Just for the record I'm not too fond of Paul and some of the other apostles, and rather take (my interpretation of) Jesus words (as read from the bible) over theirs. And so lend just a smidgen of credence to their words on any subjects.. But this just goes to show it is an easy thing to disagree about. I'm sure God (if he exists) will forgive is for getting any details wrong (As long as we follow the right line, like say not kill each other over them). After all, to err is human and to forgive divine. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by John_Gaughan on Mar 12th, 2004, 12:11pm on 03/12/04 at 09:42:56, towr wrote:
I agree. This is the reason why I have no faith in organized religion anymore -- my perception is that every religion is intolerant of others, and enough of them are out for blood that I am surprised we still have a species. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 12th, 2004, 12:27pm For the record, I don't regard myself as Christian. On the other hand, I find that I actively agree with a lot of Christian beliefs, and can't think of any I actively disagree with. On the other hand, while I sympathise with Towr's statements, I regard the assumption of divine forgiveness as a very dangerous one to make - once you allow yourself to assume that every mistake you make will be forgiven, it's not so very far to the attitude that it doesn't matter what you do: you can repent it all in the end and be forgiven. On the subject of Judgement, and the sorting of the saved from the damned, I am very strongly inclined to believe the version put forwards by C S Lewis in "The Last Battle" (the last book in the Narnia series) - that when the Day comes, all those who live, or have lived, will find themselves in the presence of Truth, and in meeting His gaze, will see themselves as they truly are, naked of all self deception. And some, filled with joy, will go up into paradise, while others, full of fear and self-loathing will turn aside into the great Darkness and be destroyed. OK, so this is my interpretation of C S Lewis' fictional account of the end of Narnia, and may not be quite what he intended, but he also wrote, in "Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer" that he believed in purgatory, not as a temporary Hell to punish those not quite naughty enough to be banished permanently, but as a place of cleansing - purgation - where the ashamed saved could have their contaminations expunged and fit themselves (in their own minds, for He would as gladly welcome them in rags and grime as cleansed and in fine raiment) for Heaven. Anyway, the point of the digression is that, while divine forgiveness is assured, it may not be divine forgiveness that is required, but self-forgiveness. I know that there are many things in my past, mostly things which would seem quite trivial to others, of which I am deeply ashamed, and I honestly cannot say whether, brought face to face with the full record of my life, I would be able to forgive myself. I know I could forgive any of my sins easily in another, but I find it very hard to allow myself to be anything less than perfect. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 12th, 2004, 2:15pm on 03/12/04 at 12:27:45, rmsgrey wrote:
There are a lot of situations where you can't know what choice is the right one, and you will have to choose something anyway. I suppose it just comes down to trying your best, you can't, nor be expected to, do any more than that. And I like to think that if I were God I'd keep that in mind, and I also like to think the real God is a better person than me, regardless of whether or not he exists ;) Sometimes I wonder though. Is it the point to be good, or the point to believe in God? Again personally, I'd much more like to see good athiests get admitted to heaven, rather than let's say a pillaging cruisader who thinks he's on a mission from God. I suppose if I were God I'd be miffed if people didn't believe in me, but still, considering, I wouldn't hold it against them, I mean, if they're good people I'd still believe in them.. *sigh* sometimes I wish I knew the truth about life, the universe and everything. Then again, I'm not sure I want to know.. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by SWF on Mar 12th, 2004, 6:16pm How could Dr. Unwin subtitle his book, "A Simple Calculation That Proves The Ultimate Truth", after his calculation showed only a 67% probability? That seems to indicate he thinks anything greater than 50% is proof. In using Bayes' Theory, he apparently made numerical assumptions for the probability that a god would allow certain natural disasters to occur. This whole thing reminds me of Laplace using Bayes' Theory to estimate the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Mar 13th, 2004, 11:49am on 03/12/04 at 02:10:26, towr wrote:
The purpose of my listing of evidence was not to convince you of its accuracy. or to argue that it demanded acceptance. If I were to do that I would have presented it much differently. What I wanted to do was disabuse Ulkesh & others of the notion that christianity requires going against evidence, or laying aside rational thought. As someone has said (forgive me for being to lazy to look up who it was), faith is trusting in God, not believing in him beyond all evidence. Quote:
That idea is indeed found in the Bible, but Jesus expressed a much higher position for himself. Since Sir Col has listed some (not all) of the passages, I will simply note that the people Jesus was talking to clearly understood his claim was that he was equal to God. Some of them were ready to stone him for it. Quote:
First of all, we have fragments of every book of the new testament that date back to 120 AD at the latest, so all of them were written by then. A fragment of Mark exists that dates back to 56 AD, only 20-30 years after the life of Christ. (Like his birth, the exact year of Christ's death is not certain.) Textual evidence indicates that all of the New Testament was written in the latter half of the first century, 50 years or less after the life of Christ. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, a school of criticism of the Bible arose centered in Germany, which attacked everything they could about the Bible. The charges you mention arose from this school. The essense of their approach was to look for any inconsistency between the Bible and other sources. For each and every one that they found, they claimed that the Bible was wrong, and the other sources were right. But archeology has turned that on its head. In every case, when new evidence has emerged, it has turned out that the New Testament was correct, and the other source was wrong. (This is hardly surprising, even from a non-christian view. As I have already said, strong evidence now supports the New Testament as a 1st century book, or early 2nd century at the very latest for some of it. Most of the other sources were 3rd and 4th century.) Further, sufficient texts exist from before Constantine to give the lie to the claim that he edited it. In fact there are only 300 verses in the New testament whose origins have not been completely verified. (Alas that two favorite stories of Jesus: the woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultry, are among them.) These are present in some early manuscripts but not in others. The question of whether they were added or dropped from the original is unclear. No central teaching of christianity rests upon these verses. An excellent summary of the origins of the New Testament, including references to texts that were not included (with links to english translations of as much of the texts as are still available) is here (http://www.ntcanon.org/). on 03/12/04 at 14:15:11, towr wrote:
By my belief, neither is the point. Or rather, the first is completely off-base, and the second falls far short of the mark. The popular picture of God weighing our good deeds against our bad to decide if we go to heaven is heretical, by what I read in the bible. God's entry requirement for heaven is complete perfection. All good and no bad what-so-ever. Since this would make heaven a very lonely place, with only Jesus in it, God offers an alternative. If we will surrender the rule of our own lives to him, he offers complete forgiveness for our failures, and entry into heaven. For the christian, being good is not something we do to be saved. It is something we do because we have been saved. A consequence, not a cause. God created us because he desires a relationship with us. We have a picture of this in the relationship of (good) parents to their children. Having a child who has struggles and constant failings, but still loves his parents is far more desirable than one who is always well behaved but completely spurns his parents. So also, God would rather forgive one who constantly fails, but struggles to do what is right, and who loves God, than he would the atheist who rejects him but does what is right anyway. Worse than both is the child who publically proclaims how much he loves his parents while privately he ignores them or abuses them. So God also feels about those who pretend to christianity, not only publically, but also even to themselves, but do not even attempt to walk in his way. The point is not to do good, or to simply believe. The point is to love and trust God. on 03/12/04 at 12:11:35, John_Gaughan wrote:
While there is much truth to this, I cannot agree completely. First I have to discuss what it means to be "intolerant". This is a word that has been turned on its head in recent times. There are those today who use "tolerance" as a means to act in ways I would call very "intolerant". They label any who disagree with them as intolerant, and use the charge to attempt to quell any dissent. True tolerance is "agreeing to disagree". For example, towr & I stand almost diametrically opposed on some of these issues, and yet neither has (at least intentionally) insulted or degraded the other. We can discuss our disagreements, let the other know where we stand and why, and reply without rancor, even if the other completely denies what we say. While I would be overjoyed if towr were to come around to my point of view, the more likely event that he will not does not upset me in the least (because of my beliefs, it saddens me, but that is a different matter). Nor will I think less of him for it. While I cannot speak for him, I believe the reverse is also true. That is but one example of what tolerance really is, and I for my part learned it from my church (okay, that is an overstatement, but my church has deepened and reaffirmed my understanding of it). A second matter. It is true that religion has spawned a large amount of intolerance, but I have a challenge that I am going to throw out: Which religion has the bloodiest track record? The answer may surprise you. I will say more on this once people have replied. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Mar 13th, 2004, 12:42pm I would like to address some other issues I mentioned in my original post but got sidetracked from. In particular, there was a comment about understanding the limitations of science better than Ulkesh. I apologize, Ulkesh, if you were offended by that remark. I did not intend to be insulting, but based it on the following: on 03/08/04 at 18:27:26, Ulkesh wrote:
If you have read some other posts of mine in other threads, you know that the corruption of the basic principles of science is of great concern to me. I'm afraid that I see this statement as such a corruption. Miracles, particularly those of a supernatural variety (as opposed to the extraordinary timing definition I gave before), are by definition beyond the bounds of science to scrutinize. The tools of science are simply unable to address them. I should be more specific here. Science can and has been used to determine if purported miracles do not in fact have other explanations. What science cannot do is show that a miracle could not have occured. By way of explanation of what I mean, I offer this analysis: (**Warning** I am about to make a very judgemental statement. All those easily offended should stop reading now.) What has to be one of the stupidest, self-delusional, and conceited opinions I have ever come across, repeated here as close to what was actually said as I can remember it, is "In ancient times, they thought that miracles were possible, but now we know better." First, a miracle (as used here) is something that violates the normal order of things. In particular, it violates physical law. Therefore to argue that we now know they are impossible because physical law is violated is ridiculous. This argument is saying physical law cannot be violated, because to do so would violate physical law! ::) If God exists, then he created the laws, and he gets to break them. It is the very reason that a miracle would be proof of God! So the argument also reduces to "God does not exist, because his existance would require that something like him exists". Second, while ancient peoples did not know Newton's Laws, or the intricacies of quantum mechanics, they did know that people do not start living again after they have died (days after), that the sun does not change directions in its travels across the sky, that water does not pile up to leave a dry path through a sea or river, that walls do not fall simply from being shouted at, that blindness does not go away from the application of a little mud made from spittle, that storms do not immediately cease when told to stop, that water is not capable of supporting a man on its surface, that illnesses are not suddenly healed by the passing of someone's shadow, etc. This is why they called these events "miracles". Because they went beyond what was possible. If this opinion about "knowing better" were an isolated one, it would be easy to just laugh it off. Unfortunately, I hear it repeated in various forms - mostly less arrogant than this version - all the time. If you want to examine whether a purported miracle actually happened, the tools of science can only play a supporting role. The tools needed are not the scientific rules of evidence, but those used by historians and (I say with some trepidation) legal rules. I intended to say more, but I need to stop now. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 13th, 2004, 1:38pm on 03/12/04 at 14:15:11, towr wrote:
A lot of this echoes what Icarus already said. On the other hand, sometimes hearing the same thing in different words can make it clear. Again, I like C S Lewis' take on the problem of the good pagan (again expressed in The Last Battle): he felt that one who truly lived his life as well as possible, and tried to do what he believed to be right, whatever Name he called upon, he was truly acting for Jesus - that no false God or Devil could accept good deeds done under their name, any more than He accepts evil done in his name. I think talking about a question of "belief" in God is misleading - just because I believe Hitler existed doesn't make me a Nazi, and believing in the existence of God (which is how many interpret "belief in God") is no guarantee I will act on that belief. On the other hand, from a Christian perspective, the choice presented, between goodness and faith (which, to my mind at least, includes trust as well as belief), is false. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine, and one borne out by my experience, that it is impossible for any unaided human to achieve true goodness. C S Lewis argues (in "Mere Christianity") that the usual non-Christian idea of "being good" is to suppress ones own desires in favour of "doing the right thing" - fulfilling the acknowledged claims of "morality" or "decency" in the hope that once our conscience is satisfied, we can then indulge ourselves without that nagging voice in the back of our head. The trouble is that this doesn't work. The more you obey your conscience, the greater its demands, until you either abandon the attempt to "be good" or end up frustrated and miserable, forever wondering why no-one appreciates all you sacrifice on their behalf. The Christian way is not to seek to buy off your conscience with a portion of your life in order to free the other, but instead to sacrifice your whole life whole-heartedly to the attempt to be good. Christianity teaches that if you surrender everything that you are and everything that you will ever be to God, then through that faith, you will be reborn, remade into what you should be (which may not be what you should have been had man never rebelled) and, as a consequence of faith, will be a better person. The choice isn't "goodness or faith" but "faith (and goodness) or neither". For the record, I tend to believe that those views I have attributed to Christianity above are actually true, but I really don't want to - I am trying as hard as I can not to believe them because of the inevitable consequences. I firmly believe that I will be a Christian before I die, in much the same way as I believe that I am sitting in a chair typing at this moment. It isn't a matter of my intentions, or even of my hopes, but a question of what is. A fact as unarguable as there being light in this room, and about as useful. Prophecy makes an extremely poor basis for actions, but that's an entirely different discussion. Enough to say that I know I was non-Christian at some point in my past (the first hints of this were what caused me to stop going to church), I know I made a choice early in my first year of university, that leads to my being a Christian at some point in the future, and, despite my current struggles, when I am offered the choice to change my mind, I still decline. What I can't say is whether I am or am not a Christian yet - what I expect to do is to look back at some future point and realise I have been a Christian for some time - whether that some time will include the current present, I don't know. I don't know when that future time will come, but I know it will. Unless I change my mind. That choice is always there, but, despite my frantic struggles, I still do not intend to take it. On the subject of personal belief, I still don't believe in salvation as a reward, like getting a lollipop at the doctor's as a child after recieving some sort of treatment. I see it more along the lines of the consequence of the treatment - if we have the surgery, it will hurt, but afterwards, we will be able to run without pain where before we could only limp in agony. Possibly a better image is that of a smoker. The doctor who tells him that, if he continues smoking, he will die of cancer, while if he stops, he will be able to breathe more easily is not threatening to punish him for continuing, nor promising to reward him for stopping; rather describing the consequences if the man continues. The same doctor may well offer the man all sorts of help if he wishes to stop smoking, but she can't force the man to stop unless he wants to. Of course, the analogy is far from perfect - God is capable of forcing us to do anything, and, in terms of the analogy, he also owns the shop that sells the man his cigarettes (managed by an employee) - but God want's us to obey him, not because we are compelled, but because we choose to do so of our own free will. That doesn't mean that he won't help us when we ask for it - though the help we recieve may well go far beyond the help we ask for - but he wants us to ask - even if we don't walk through the door on our own, he waits for us to knock before escorting us in. Yes, I'm still fighting with (almost) everything I have to defend my pride, but I still refuse to use the "safe word" - when offered the free choice, I still choose to continue onwards, even though I dread the process. Why? Because I trust that the consequences will be worth the pain - that what I give up will prove to be inconsequential compared to what I gain. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Blaise on Mar 13th, 2004, 2:16pm Just one thought for notion of the "good pagan;" suppose you buy a diamond ring as a gift for your girlfriend. Do you think your wife will be pleased, as long as you did it out of love? God says, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart." He says, "I the Lord your God am a jealous God." He says "“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols." He says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." The idea that anyone who is good (compared to whom, to anyone who is worse, or to God whose standards are very high?) should make it to heaven might seem like a nice sentiment, but you won't find it in God's Word (and he's the one who's got the final say). Now you've got me quoting chapter and verse. I've got to stop reading this thread. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 13th, 2004, 3:19pm on 03/13/04 at 14:16:17, Blaise wrote:
I'm not convinced by the analogy. A better one might be that you buy a diamond ring as a gift for someone you met and fell for online, and it turns out to have been your arranged wife (who you have never before met) all along. Attaching importance to the name of God is setting up a word as an idol - the Bible did not originally say "I am the LORD; that is my name!", it used Hebrew letters for a name usually transliterated literally as YHWH and whose original vowel sounds are open to speculation. The name of God has no intrinsic power or significance. When people talk about doing things "in the name of God" it actually means doing them on his behalf or with his authority. The actual name used to refer to the One is unimportant - even within a single denomination, many labels can be used for each aspect of the Trinity, and we are not told what the arrangements are for those who have heard none of those names. We do not know the actual standards for entry into heaven - all we know is that the only way we can enter heaven is through Christ's intercession on our behalf. If a pagan glimpses God directly (however dimly) and confuses the shadows of Him that have been formed into his native religion with the Truth that we have available to us, and submits his life to that Truth as he has glimpsed it, and as it is revealed to us daily through our own natures and the nature of the world around us, then is he not following Christ as much as if he knew the Bible from cover to cover? My theology may well be shaky - it's been a while since I read most of the Bible, and there are some books I still haven't yet got around to. My personal testimony is as true as I know how to make it. My personal opinions are just that - my opinions - and may well miss the mark. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Mar 13th, 2004, 5:20pm If you found The Last Battle interesting, I would recommend C.S.Lewis' The Great Divorce. It is not easy reading, like much of his theological discourse, but it presents a very challenging view on heaven, hell, and judgement. In light of some of the other things you have said, rmsgrey, you may find Proverbs a source of encouragement. Feel free to read the whole of chaper 8 if you suspect that I am trying to force a point by being 'selective'. "My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness." (verse 7) To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance," (verses 13) "I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began." (verse 23) "For whoever finds me finds life and receives favour from the LORD." (verse 35) It seems that Wisdom (which is what this chapter is talking about) was there before the world was made. The verses I quoted in my previous post indicated that Christ, the Word, was there before the world was made. Jesus also claimed to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), which is how Proverbs describes Wisdom. Now look at Matthew 11:27-29. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 'Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" Verse 23 made is clear that Wisdom is not about pride and arrogance; that is something which God detests. In contrast, following the way of Christ (Widsom) means gentleness and humility (the opposite of being proud and arrogant). So what's my point? I believe that a proud and hardened heart is the difference between being accepted and being judged by God. If you believe in your heart that you, in your own strength, are sufficient then you are rejecting God and taking judgement upon yourself. However, if you accept in your heart that you are weak, then God will hear your cry and answer. In Revelation 3:20, Jesus says, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." However, it is not a weakness as the world knows. In St. Paul's second letter to the Church in Corinth he quotes a reply to one of his prayers from Jesus, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthians 12:9). |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Ulkesh on Mar 13th, 2004, 7:18pm Don't worry, Icarus. I'm not going to be offended. However, I probably didn't phrase my point properly in the first place. What I said is kind of being taken the wrong way. I'm not saying that anything the believers say here is necessarily untrue. I'm not being contemptuous, and with all due respect, Icarus, I do believe I have a better understanding of the point of science and its limitations than you may think. What my point was meant to be is that science/logic as a truth system is the best thing we have. It's not infallible, I know, but human beings work on the principle of logic. We do things for reasons. I don't buy the idea that we act spontaneously and illogically for no reason. There are chains of events in our brains causing us to act in certain ways. Behind it all, there is logic. For example, we see what seems to be a dog, so we believe that there is a dog sitting there. It would be silly to think otherwise. Now, with science, we observe and logically deduce things. In essence, we as humans are scientific instruments gathering, analysing and acting on data input. This is what gives us our representation of what we believe to be the world. So surely a system which tries to explain the world using these same principles is a sensible way of looking at things. This is why I feel that saying miracles (by miracle, I mean some event which is scientifally unexplainable) are a possibility makes no sense. Why deny the truth system we are programmed with and adopt another? It seems arbitrary. I admit God's existence being possible and miracles and the like to be possible, but I can't see why someone would choose to believe this (in the context of trying to understand the nature of reality). I hope this makes clearer one of the points I was trying to put across earlier. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 14th, 2004, 4:46am on 03/13/04 at 19:18:26, Ulkesh wrote:
But if you consider what's happening more closely, when you identify a certain pattern of sensory input as a dog, you don't explain why you associate a certain group of patterns of sensory input with the idea "dog" when there is more difference between some pairs of "dog"s than between a given "dog" and a "fox" - which has caused quite a bit of confusion among our local fox population. And while identifying something as a "dog" may be entirely logical, what actions you take are, I claim, motivated by something more than pure logic. If you pet the dog, why? If you ignore the dog, why? If you leave the room in a hurry and refuse to go back, why? Logic may tell us how best to achieve our goals, but I've yet to see any approach to a value system based purely on logic. Every attempt I've seen starts with some assumptions that are not born solely out of logic. Quote:
And how does science ever expect to explain the bare fact that anything exists? A miracle of the first order, and something that science can never hope to explain. Science is very good at explaining what is, but it can't, isn't designed to be able to, explain why what is is. Science can't even explain any given event in full - science works by averaging, by smoothing over small differences and apparently random effects, and hoping they won't turn out to be the chance in a million (or whatever actual probability) that produces a wild result. There's a story of a well-respected theoretical physicist, who appeared to have the property that, whenever he was within a certain distance of an experiment, it failed. On one occasion, the experiment failed unexpectedly on a day when he hadn't come in - later investigation turned up the fact that he had been walking down the street on the other side of the wall at the time. Maybe it was just co-incidence. But all that means is that we can't come up with a more convincing explanation for it. Quote:
A Christian could equally ask you why you deny the truth system we are programmed with and adopt another. Scientific research has discovered that it is possible, by stimulating certain regions of the brain, to trigger a religious experience. In other words, there is something built in to human nature that is "designed" to let us have religious experiences. Yes, there is the temptation to argue that, just because it's possible to manufacture a religious experience on demand a) the manufactured experience must be false and b) all such experiences must be false. By exactly the same logic, as soon as scientists discover a way of stimulating the visual cortex appropriately, we will be able to create the sensation of seeing a red circle (say), and following the logic, all red circles anyone has ever seen must have been false images. There is no automatic conflict between science and logic, and religion. Science and logic are concerned with description, with predictable outcomes. Religion is concerned with motivations, with unique events and with ways of thought. the Bible does not say (as far as I know) "thou shalt not reason"; doesn't say "the earth is flat" or even "evolution didn't happen". It does say that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh, but, to take another created reality, Tolkien created all of Middle Earth in, what, 40 years? And in that time, he created thousands of years of history, and many species. When talking of a being who exists beyond time, even if He somehow put Himself into time for a week and, during that time, worked on creating everything else, who's to say that he wasn't working on the past and on the future at the same time as working in the present - could He not have created things in the sequence described in the Bible, though each subsequent act changed the whole history of the universe from beginning to end? It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and a scientist (though I reserve judgement on Scientology) - the two answer different questions and rarely coincide. As Icarus has said, when Christianity and archaeology have crossed paths, they have agreed. Sometimes organised Christianity has had to reinterpret parts of the Bible in light of scientific discoveries, but it is hardly surprising that something that purports to describe something that transcends human understanding should prove open to misinterpretation. If you are going to condemn Christianity because Christians have made mistakes, both individually and collectively, then you should condemn science, which claims to deal solely in verifiable facts about the concrete universe surrounding us, on the same grounds. After all, scienctific theories are regularly misinterpreted by people, and very few people actually understand the maths involved - most people (myself included) who "believe" scientific theories actually believe an approximate qualitative description in words rather than the equations that form the actual theory. Quote:
One very simple reason is that science and logic can only go so far. As anyone who's tried explaining something to a small child has no doubt discovered, any chain of explanations eventually ends up with the answer "because that's the way things are". To understand things that lie beyond the reach of science and logic, you need to look for something else that offers explanations. If you ask the Christians whose views I respect why they became Christians, they will always be able to say they did it because of some piece of evidence - it's not just a question of randomly choosing a God to believe in, but in many cases, the decision followed a long hard look at the evidence, sometimes even looking for a reason to dismiss God out of hand. One of my (Christian) acquaintance freely admits he only started considering Christianity when a (Christian) friend challenged him to actually look at the evidence rather than just assuming it was all nonsense. He looked, with a half-way open mind and realised that there were a lot of things there that he couldn't just explain away. At the heart of Christianity is Jesus. A man who lived 2000 years ago, who preached many things that even the most devout atheists would regard as true and sensible and practical, who was, above all else, a good man, but who made the preposterous claim to be the Son of God. Not only that, but he exercised the authority to forgive sins on behalf of God - he didn't just claim the authority, he used it, and everything we have recorded about his life bears out that claim. Then he was executed by the state, for treason. But after his state execution, he was seen alive by those who'd been closest to him before he died. Even the most sceptical among them, Thomas, when faced with the evidence was forced to believe. There are only two possible explanations. Either Jesus, this man full of practical advice and sound moral teachings, was completely crazy, and his disciples suffered mass hallucinations after the shock of losing him, or else he was right, in which case all the rest makes sense. Consider the evidence the way you would consider the evidence for King Arthur or Julius Caesar, and see what conclusion you come to, because drawing a conclusion without considering the evidence goes against everything science tries to do. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 14th, 2004, 8:46am There's a bit too much to respond to.. And I suppose I might just as well not do that. I disagree with a lot of course.. I will stick to my own experience of the world, and it is obviously different from any of yours (every individual is pretty unique after all). I interpret the bible quite differently it seems. And this is not in the last place because it was written by people, and I don't believe in their infallibility. And then there is of course the alternative history of Jesus from more recently discovered texts from that era.. The original Jerusalem church seems to have had a totally different story from Pauls. (But on the other hand I don't really trust discovery channel to always give the most reliable picture of things on such matters either). For me there's plenty of grounds for doubt, and so I do. If I pretended to have faith, perhaps even trying to convince myself, that would just be a lie, and that is much worse, isn't it? Not fair to me, not fair to God. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Mar 14th, 2004, 9:50pm on 03/13/04 at 19:18:26, Ulkesh wrote:
My apologies if I sounded like I thought you were. I know you were only trying to explain your point of view. I also am only trying to explain mine, at least as far as religious beliefs go. It is with regard to science that I am preaching a sermon. My real concern here is as a scientist, for on the subject of religion is where the worst corruptions of science and its principles occur. (By the way, I might as well state my thoughts on the original subject of this thread: I believe this is a sterling example of bad science, for the same reasons everyone has already mentioned.) Quote:
Quite possibly, but I would find it far more likely if you hadn't followed this with statements that violate a basic principle of science. Quote:
While I agree to this mostly, I cannot entirely. I find the idea of "cognitive dissonance" as expressed in some popular media - that we do things for no reason, then justify it in our minds afterward - to be ridiculous. But I also do not buy into determinism (that we are essentially automata, our every thought and action immutably determined by physical law), which appears to me to be suggested by your description. Quote:
While logical deduction is useful in science, what science is really about is induction, not deduction. Deduction takes a list of statements assumed to be true and uses logical inference to show that other statements must also be true. Induction is identifying a pattern in observed data and assuming that the pattern applies to data as-yet unobserved. Science is a codefied means for using induction. Quote:
The earlier comments were just minor quibbles, or things that I felt ought to be touched upon, but are not a big deal. But here is where I feel you have erred against scientific principle. First of all, belief in God and miracles in no way what-so-ever is denying "the truth system we are programmed with" to adopt another! Every day, when I open this thread, I see new posts with new comments in them. No physical law of Newton or Einstein explains the appearence of these words on my computer screen. I assume them to be the result of intelligences elsewhere that I have never seen, never met. If I were to apply this same idea that you are applying to miracles and God to these posts, I must conclude that it makes no sense that posts could appear that neither I nor anyone I have observed have made. By your reasoning, my doing so is "adopting another truth system". But it makes far more sense to me to assume that there exist people beyond my personal experience than to deny the possibility of what clearly lies in front of my face! So also it makes more sense to me to assume that there exists an Intelligence capable of going against the ordinary laws of physics when needed, than to deny the possibility of what so many have reported, and of what I have experienced myself. The principle of science that you violate is that only evidence judges what is excepted and what is rejected. But you reject the possibility of miracles and God not on the basis of evidence, but a priori. I don't see why in the world you think that believing in God requires rejecting science as a truth process in the first place. When I said in the earlier post that the evidence I see is not subject to science, I only meant that it is not repeatable on a case-by-case basis. Much of what you deal with is the same way, particularly if there are people involved. The hypothesis that there is a God is like every other scientific hypothesis. Tested by evidence, not by some belief that even to consider such a thing means turning your back on science! Quote:
Someone would choose to believe this if they hold with scientific principles, and make observations that are consistant with the existance of God and miracles. What I can't see is how someone could say they support science, and then say that, without regard to what the evidence says, miracles and God are not possible under science. A miracle (as used here) is something that defies normal physical law. When a good scientist sees something that goes against what he expected because of the laws he knows, he remembers that all scientific laws are nothing more than hypotheses. Rather than rejecting the observation as being impossible, he modifies the laws so that they can include (and, preferably, predict) the new result. In the case of God, the modification is simply that the laws hold only when God does not decide to go against them. Does this seem like a bad change to you? Actually, it is the same sort of condition we must make all the time: Q. Suppose I hold a ball out here where I am now and let go. What does science say will happen? A. The ball will fall to the floor. Q. Not necessarily. I could decide to catch it. Or someone else could. A. Okay, the ball will fall to the floor as long as it is undisturbed by other factors than gravity and air (and the air is not in significant motion). That is the same sort of qualification one uses with God, and for the same reason. Quote:
I hope this makes clear my point. And again, please understand my concern here is not about religion, but science. As an outsider to my religion, you are not in a position to damage it significantly. But as an insider to science, you are positioned to do far more harm. It is for this reason I speak out. I believe in the principles of science, and therefore I am very much opposed to seeing them abused. And this claim that miracles and God must be rejected as being incompatible with science, without regard to evidence, is itself a rejection of scientific principle. I'm afraid I have been less than diplomatic again. I do not mean to be critical or judgmental, but I care deeply about this and it is hard for me to state my case without pouncing all over it. Please be assured that I do respect you and your opnion, even when I disagree vehemently. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 15th, 2004, 2:17am on 03/13/04 at 19:18:26, Ulkesh wrote:
on 03/14/04 at 21:50:29, Icarus wrote:
These are two different definitions.. And you are both right, under your own definitions, I think.. Nothing is fundamentally unexplainable by science, much less so if you also allow God as a viable hypothesis. But it may well defy 'normal' physical law (I suppose it depends on what you call normal) Here's another happy coincidence, dare I say miracle ;) The latest Bob the angry flower, "... a sign?" (http://www.angryflower.com/asign.gif) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Ulkesh on Mar 15th, 2004, 11:55am on 03/14/04 at 21:50:29, Icarus wrote:
I think I have made a mistake in trying to condense my previous point into two paragraphs. This issue really deserves a lot more attention. Firstly because it's an important issue, and secondly because I don't want people to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I don't have the time to talk in depth about these issues for the next couple of days, but I will be thinking about them and taking them seriously. I want to rebutt what Icarus has said here, though. I feel that you've taken what I've said and made unjust assumptions. This is my fault for not being rigorous in explaining my ideas. You have many valid points which I will address in a couple of days. But until then, please reserve judgement on what I'm implying my by previous post until I've elaborated on it. Edit: I haven't forgotten about this post. I just tried to write a reply taking into account all of rmsgrey's points (reply #34) and Icarus' (reply #36), but spent over an hour just dealing with rmsgrey's first one. I've saved it as a word file and will keep adding to it until I'm ready to post. Thanks for your patience ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Mar 15th, 2004, 5:20pm That seemed to me to be what you were saying, but I certainly will await a clarification. I admit that because I am passionate about this issue, I have trouble not jumping to conclusions. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by bastien on Mar 29th, 2004, 1:47pm First, I'd like to say hi to all of you, Then go back to what my country is famous for: Cartesianism. I just have a very simple question to all of you, could some of you be kind enough to tell me what existence means to them? I think before we even get to talk about God and if he exists or not, I'd like to get a clear view of what existing means to you. Perhaps going back to the ethymology would help us apprehend fully what we're talking about. Perhaps not. But it'd definitely clarify things to me, I really don't feel seduced by the statistical argument as I find it completely out of topic. Having a scientific background myself, I really don't enjoy using Science to explain the existence of God. I truly feel that it's through a personal exploration of one's feeling and emotions that we may or not apprehend it. Back to you! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 29th, 2004, 3:06pm on 03/29/04 at 13:47:15, bastien wrote:
I suppose it's a primitive, or perhaps like 'line' preferable taken as one since determining it in terms of other primitives just makes the whole endeaver that much worse.. ;) Of course 'being real'/existing could be interpreted relatively, rather than absolutely.. If something 'exists' in someones mind, it is (or can be) in a sense 'real', to that someone, but not 'real' to others. But applying that here would probably be really condescending, "Yeah, of course God is real, in your mind." And since anything and everything imaginable can exist in this sense it is also very uninteresting with respects to this discussion. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Mar 29th, 2004, 3:29pm Your country certainly has a good pedigree in the realm of philosophising theology: Descartes and Pascal being perhaps two of the greatest thinkers in this area. However, your question regarding the essence of existence is perhaps best addressed by the Danish genius, Kierkegaard: the founder of Existentialism. Sadly, after a great start in this profound and useful way of viewing our very being, it is ironic that Jean-Paul Satre (one of your countrymen, and author of, Being and Nothingness) contributed to the blur of the philosophy by using it against the meaningfulness of God. So in answer to your question... Modern Existentialists would argue that our being is defined by what we do rather than what we are; that is, actions determine the man. By this reasoning, there is no place for God, as Satre argued that "existence precedes who we are". Hence our spiritual and moral guidance comes from what we decide and not through any higher medium. He especially argues that the concept of "human nature" is meaningless. Many people would argue that this form of philosphy is the most overt form of humanism. The problem with this view of our world is that it addresses the challenge to our moral and spiritual being by ignoring them. It is equivalent to dealing with gas and electricity bills by arguing that it is meaningless to talk about the source of fuels, because we don't like paying bills. Therefore fuel does not exist. Evidence is clearly to the contrary. Fuels exist and we know because we use them and are witness to their effect. Not liking the need to pay is hardly proof that fuels do not exist! I could argue that God exists. We know because we are witness to his effect. Whether it be in our lives or the lives of others. Just because some people don't like the responsibility of being a moral and spiritual creature does not make any logical sense to deny it existing and making the leap of faith to the conclusion that God does not exist. Of course, my thesis is no more proof than the modern Existentialist's anti-thesis. Both are flawed. Regardless of how we dress it up, I assume that God exists, therefore we are moral and spiritual creatures... The modern Existentialist assumes that God does not exist, therefore we are not moral and spiritual creatures... They are both circular and prove nothing other than the consistency of the premise: God does/does not exist. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 30th, 2004, 3:38am Subjective vs Objective reality is a whole other debate - the key point being that we can only ever experience our subjective reality, but assuming that our subjective reality accurately represents an objective reality seems to work quite well. As far as existence goes, I'm with Towr in that I think it's best taken as a primitive - dictionary definitions come down to "to exist: to be manifest", which is far from helpful. One possible idea for a more meaningful definition which I'd like to throw out there is: I exist. A thing exists (existed/will exist) if it has (had/will have) an influence on something which exists. Apply inductively. Of course, this definition may be a little too broad - it includes various abstractions such as the concept of justice (though an individual's concept of justice presumably has a physical manifestation in much the same way as a running piece of software does) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by SingGloryHallejuah on Mar 30th, 2004, 6:12pm This site provides pure scientific evidence God exists: http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html Look up at the stars and the moon above you Look at the sky, sun, and clouds above your head. Look at the smile on a child's face. Is this not evidence God exists? Christianity is the oldest religion. Nothing in the Bible contradicts itself. If you follow the Bible truely, the promises it has in it come true. But what about, "Oh God never answers MY prayers!" Yes He does. His answers are "Yes. No. or Later." Do you really think an omnipotent and omnecient Being would know better than than to grant all of your desires? Jesus loves you! God bless! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 30th, 2004, 11:53pm on 03/30/04 at 18:12:56, SingGloryHallejuah wrote:
Quote:
I was going to say, earlier still there were even more different religions, but if you go by the bible literaly that might be problematic. But, in the old testament many other religions are mentioned, all before Jesus was born, and thus before Christianity could exist. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Mar 31st, 2004, 4:22am Having looked at the linked page (noting that the URL, while correct for the site, is misspelled), all it does is repeat the old argument about the first cause - in summary: the universe as we know it had a beginning, so "the atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong" - a cyclically expanding/contracting universe is apparently also finite because it supposedly leaks when it bounces (and there I was thinking that a closed universe couldn't leak...) - anyway, because the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it - the Bible says that there was a beginning and it was caused, therefore the Bible is right, and "the atheist" (who also apparently asserts that "the universe is uncaused and selfexisting") is wrong. Oddly, "the atheist" never makes any assertions that are actually in line with modern scientific theory and the page doesn't go into details of the biblical assertions that (in the form they are stated) match scientific theory. Also, there's no explanation of whether God had a beginning or was somehow caused to be - or has existed eternally - which, as generations of philosophers know, merely defers the problem and puts it firmly beyond the reach of science by putting it in realms beyond our observation, rather than solving it at all. The page also argues that the spontaneous appearance of the universe would violate conservation laws, including mass/energy, angular momentum, and electric charge, respectively invalidating chemistry, physics and electronics. Firstly, subtle violations of conservation laws aren't going to make my computer stop working - running Windows might, but the occasional decay of a neutron into a charged particle won't. Secondly, one of the more intriguing consequences of a flat universe is that the total mass/energy in such a system is zero - the negative gravitational potential energy precisely balances out the positive mass energy, and as far as I know, no-one's yet come up with a way of measuring the overall angular momentum of the universe (under general relativity, a rotating mass twists spacetime near it anyway, so a universe with net angular momentum may be impossible anyway - if space "rotates" at the same rate as the matter in it, then is it meaningful to talk about it rotating?) and there's nothing in current theory (as far as I know - I'm willing to be corrected) to suggest that the universe has a net charge either. The page linked also mentions the anthropic principle as stating that chance is not a valid explanation of the universe. As I understand the anthropic principle, it states that whatever universe happened to exist, whether by pure chance, or by design, any intelligent life looking around would find the universe to be uniquely suited to life as they know it, and so we have no way of judging how likely it is for the universe to turn out the way it has, or how likely it is for any given universe to give rise to intelligent life, because our data is, of necessity, selected from those circumstances where intelligent life (namely ourselves) did arise. The anthropic principle doesn't say that the universe couldn't exist by chance, any more than it says the universe couldn't exist by design - what it says is that we have no evidence to judge the question. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by kellys on Mar 31st, 2004, 12:37pm Time constraints prevent me from writing all I want or proofreading. Oh sigh... Anywho, I'd like to congratulate the posters for keeping this discussion civilized and unbiased. It seems like a lot of important issues are raised. For example, I would agree that there is a misconception among atheists that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I'm glad that you got past that. I have a few critical questions that I would like the believers to answer. First off, I am an atheist and an agnostic, in the sense that I have never accepted the existence of God, or any god, but also that it has not ever been a question I have found necessary to resolve. I was raised with no awareness of religion; it was a long time before I realized that people actually believed in God. One point I'd like to make is that, whereas atheists insult believers by claiming that religion contradicts science, I find myself insulted by the many claims that morality comes from God. Since I never had a religion, I built up my own system of morality when I was a teenager, based on the society I lived in. To say that morality comes from God then tells me that not only am I a heathen, but that I have no moral worth, which I resent. Okay, so onto the existence of a creator. I'm willing to accept the existence of a creator (which I don't normally), and I mean that seriously. I believe that there are very good arguments, though they become unconvincing to an atheist when they are hidden in flowery word and bible quotes. The argument I am thinking of -- the name of the argument escapes me. not the anthropic principle, but similar -- is that, inductively, order comes from design. Here is analogy that I find most convincing. Suppose you are stranded on a desert island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, and as far as you can tell, no one else has ever been there. One day, walking along the beach, you spot a pocket watch in the sand. You didn't put it there, and clearly the most logical conclusion is that the watch was created. It is highly unlikely that, by sheer coincidence, the sand on the beach formed itself over the millenia into the shape of a perfect, working pocket watch. The comparison is then that the Earth is the island, and human beings are the pocket watch. We didn't create ourselves, so someone else must have. Great, I think that's a neat argument, and I'm willing to accept it for the sake of simplicity. My questions to the Christians are these: 1) Whatever created us must have been so incredibly complex, we have almost no chance of understanding it. Internal reflection won't help, anything our parents said won't help, and our neighbor can't tell us. Of course I'm sure that most Christians believe this, but I think this leads to problems. 2) It seems to me to be an *enormous* leap to conclude that God (as a shorthand for "the creator") is in any way anthropomorphic. If we want to talk about God, then it makes no sense to me to use words such as "He," or to assign feelings to God, such as "He loves," "He wants," and any of the other flowery and, at least in my eyes, unjustifiable statements. 3) The only thing that history scientifically proves is what happened in human history. I can see no way to utilize history to prove facts about God. The existence of the Bible only convinces me that it was written by human hands. That the Bible is the word of God is an assumption and scientifically unviable. 4) [e]I realized I miswrote for this statement, so I'll just remove it[/e] So, given that the existance of God is scientifically proven, how do you prove that God is the Judeo-Christian God? In my opinion, it is a leap of faith, and a pretty large one at that. This, to me, is what distinguishes religion from science. I eagerly await your responses. -sk |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Mar 31st, 2004, 2:44pm The name of the argument that escapes you is the teleological argument (it comes from the Greek, "telos", meaning, purpose); it is sometimes referred to as the "argument of design". The first two questions you pose are well founded. Any believer who has seriously considered the theological/philosophical implications of their belief system will conclude that God, by nature, transcends our understanding. If we could comprehend Him, he would be less than God (this is part of the thinking behind the ontological argument). How we talk about God, theologically, depends on the model of God we choose: (i) a realist view (who believes that God and His nature is established, independent of anything I say, think, or do: truth is absolute), or, (ii) an anti-realist view (who believes that God, and His nature, is determined by the truths being affirmed by ourselves: truth is relative). Then, as a realist, myself, I need to find a synthesis of the challenge of God being "wholly simple" (unchanging and out of time), or "everlasing and suffering". In addition, any language or notions we possess will never be correct. Xenophanes of Colophon (circa 530 BCE) put the challenge well: "If oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as people do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds." In other words, it is natural for creatures with consciousness/awareness/intelligence to attempt to articulate gods. So where do these challenges leave people like me? It forces us to asks real questions, not only about what we believe in, but why we believe those things. I'm not trying to avoid your questions, but the potential for what I can say next is too vast to do justice to anything I could say; your questions were too general. I hope, however, that it presents a view of my clear consideration of these difficult questions and reinforces the notion that my belief, which is rock-solid, must be based on some firm "truths". I would recommend God in the Dock, by C.S. Lewis, as an apologetics attempt to address some of these thorny issues. Another interesting book to present a balanced introduction to the hard questions that believers face is The Puzzle of God, by Peter Vardy. If you have any specific questions, and I am not suggesting I know that answers, but I can attempt to present the understanding that satisfies my insatiable curiosity. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Mar 31st, 2004, 8:34pm Thank you, kellys, for an honest and open approach. Here are my thoughts on your comments/questions. As an aside, before we start: concerning the idea that Sir Col refers to as "anti-realism". To me, that one has always been "anti-sense". If I define God, then I created him (her, it, whatchamacallit, ...), not the other way around. What is the point of believing in that? on 03/31/04 at 12:37:39, kellys wrote:
Sorry to be a judgmental here, but I think you are being overly sensitive on this. Your morality is based on that of the society you live in. That morality in turn was derived from an earlier one that found it's basis in the church. So in that alone, your morality has at least some roots in God. Also, I do not take offense when someone says that science contradicts my religion. At least not when they argue this based on scientific principles -- ie, they argue that the evidence is indicative of my religion being false. I disagree, and hold that they are not looking at all the evidence, and misinterpreting what they are seeing, or else are misinterpreting what my religion is (a very common problem). This is the same for any scientific controversy. What I do find upsetting is when people argue that science contradicts my religion, but the arguments they make are not scientific at all - they are philosophical or religious in nature. These people are pretending - usually to themselves as well as everyone else - that their arguments have a foundation that they in fact do not have. And in the process, they are corrupting science by demanding that their philosophies are science. It is because I am a scientist, not because I am a Christian, that I find this to be appalling intellectual dishonesty. Now those who bring up the exact same arguments and do so without claiming that they are scientific, but admit to being philosophical or religious in nature, I still disagree with. But they are not misrepresenting themselves, so I have no problem discussing it with them. I do not get insulted that others refuse to accept what seems so clear to me. After all, I refuse to accept what apparently seems to so clear to them! This is why I appreciate your comments. You did not attempt to give them a false guise of being science, when they are not. Quote:
My answer to both of these is the same. You are making an assumption here - one that is quite contrary to my beliefs: God has no interest or connection with us. Now please consider the possibility that God created us quite purposefully so that we could have a relationship with him, akin - very loosely - to that of a parent and child. Your supposition that we cannot learn anything about God assumes that God has not revealed himself to us. I believe very much the opposite. God has always been in communication with humankind, and has revealed as much as he can about his nature. I do not call God "him" by conceit, but rather because that is how he has refered to himself. I do not claim that God is anthropomorphic. Rather I believe that we are "Theomorphic", because God has said that he created us in his image (a belief that does not refer to a physical image, but rather to the nature of our souls and spirits). God is only unknowable if he isn't talking. I believe he is, so all we need to do to learn about him is listen. Quote:
I wouldn't say that history "scientifically" proves what happened in human history. Science is about hypothesizing from past observations and testing hypotheses with predictions of future observations. History's only part in this is as a record of past observations. More importantly, I would very much like to excise the word "proof" from comments about scientific results. Science is not about "proof". If you want proof, look to mathematics, look to logic. Science is about evidence. The only hard facts in science are observations - everything else is theory - always tentative upon the results of future observations. So no, history does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. It also does not prove that the Bible is not the word of God. As far as being "scientifically viable", that the Bible is the word of God is just as viable a hypothesis as any other. Science evaluates by making predictions based on a hypothesis concerning future observations, and then comparing the results of those observations to the predictions. There are a large number of predictions possible from the assumption that God inspired the writers of the Bible. If this is true, then the Bible should not be contradicted by actual events. People who trust God as the Bible instructs should receive the benefits it promises. I have seen plenty of evidence of this. You, who have not seen this same evidence, are of course doubtful of its validity. Quote:
Indeed, religion is not science. I do not claim my faith is science - it is others claiming this about their religion/philosophy that I dislike! My claim is that my religion is in accordance with what scientific principles tell me, rather than in opposition. But my faith does go beyond science. Science, as I said earlier, holds all results as tentative upon future observations. I do not hold my faith as tentative. This is part of the difference between science and religion. However, to the question of whether God is the Judeo-Christian God, I do not believe that science is quiet. As I have already said, the evidence I see supports the idea that the Bible is the word of God. This being the case, God is as described in the Bible. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Mar 31st, 2004, 11:57pm on 03/31/04 at 20:34:14, Icarus wrote:
Unless we're all just looking at the same 'mountain' from different direction. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Apr 1st, 2004, 12:50am Nicely put, towr; which is why I used the quote from Xenophanes. Over time our view of God has evolved; this is what Christians believe: the Bible is a history of the revelation of God to His people, culminating in the most complete expression of God through Jesus Christ. The "truth" has changed, at least from man's perspective (the pre-Christ Jews had very different ideas about what the Messiah would be and do), and so I must reluctantly accept that the anti-realist view has some credence. The question is, have we invented the truth or did we discover it? This question is not some naive suggestion that we invent God, rather it is an admission that we invent ideas about God. And anything we know about God can never be complete and any truth we possess about the nature of God is always going to be imperfect. Hence the real question is this: is God knowable, in which case our understanding becomes more perfect (but never complete), or is God unknowable, in which case our understanding will be logical and consistent, but always imperfect (man-made)? To use an analogy: (realist) If God were infinite like the list of primes, we would never know Him completely, but we could know parts of God with certainty. (anti-realist) If God were infinite like transfinite integers, we could invent ways of talking about Him, but never really know anything about His nature. A realist would say that our understanding has improved, and will continue to improve. An anti-realist would say that any truth (like an old man sitting in a cloud with a white beard) will never be correct. So, as long as it is coherent, it is "truth". Notice that anti-realists do not say that the truth about God's nature is not absolute, they simply insist that the truth we possess will be relative; He is so intangible that anything we do know will be as wrong as the old man sitting on the cloud. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Apr 1st, 2004, 6:40am The problem with the analogy of the pocket-watch is that there are well-defined "natural" processes that tend to produce something resembling life as we know it. If you've ever seen frost patterns on a window on a winter's morning, you've seen an alternate analogy - something that is generated by simple "blind" laws yet is complex, beautiful, and (almost certainly) unique. Applying the analogy of the pocketwatch you'd conclude that there is some artist who sneaks around painting windows at night (Jack Frost) - when the truth is something stranger. The fact we exist as complex beings is evidence for some creative process, but evolution can account for the existence of beings like us. That doesn't mean we weren't created - there's a massive open question as to why anything exists in the first place, and a (scientifically) unresolvable "why" about the intial conditions that caused life as we know it to be possible. I have yet to see conclusive objective evidence either way for the existence of a creator - and don't expect to see any during my lifetime - but that's where faith comes in. After all, scientific reason is built on unprovable assumptions (starting with the existence of an objective universe) so whatever you believe, your world picture is built on faith anyway. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by kellys on Apr 1st, 2004, 6:44pm Thanks for clearing that up, rmsgrey. I believe the teleological argument is valid not simply because humans are here, but because there is so much order on this little planet. Now, I realize that there is a lot of science and mathematics which is still being developed to study how order can come from random processes. I'm sure that some day soon we will be able to better theorize about how all of this order could have arisen out of something as random as the Big Bang. Even though processes such as the formation of ice crystal and evolution occur through naturally random events, I still think that their existence, and the fact that there are so many of them, is striking. In response to the existence of miracles and other proof that the Bible is the word of God, let me just say this. In my life I, just like anyone else, have seen cruelty and kindness. I have seen people whose lives have been changed by Jesus. I have seen people who have been changed by a mob mentality. I have witnessed remarkable coincidences. But these things only serve to reinforce my belief that I am, and will always be, ignorant. I have complete confidence that when I die, I will be no wiser about the workings of the universe than I am now. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Apr 2nd, 2004, 12:04am on 04/01/04 at 18:44:10, kellys wrote:
There is a very simple problem with the teleological argument, it assumes something complex must have been created by something even more complex. So who/what created God then? The only way to solve this is to say some ((very) complex) things don't need to have been created. And if there is anything that didn't need to have been created, why would that only be God? I'm more inclined to think very simple things needn't have been created than possibly the most complex one. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by kellys on Apr 2nd, 2004, 1:29am on 04/02/04 at 00:04:29, towr wrote:
Of course... I don't want to offend her. Did I say I was an atheist? I didn't mean it. Eris is the true goddess and only the true goddess fnord |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Apr 2nd, 2004, 5:08am The trouble with pointing at all the order and structure in the world is that humans, in general, are extremely good at pattern recognition, and see patterns even when they're not really there. Also, while we may notice coincidences when they occur, estimating the field of possible occurences from which they are drawn is very hard - for instance, suppose some pair of (minor) celebrities each had twin children born at the same time (say noon, February 29th, just to keep things interesting). So what is the "universe" of possible events we should consider to decide whether this is significant or not? All TV presenters having babies? All celebrities of any kind having babies? All pairs of TV presenters doing something unusual at the same time? All births on February 29th? A tree has a certain amount of structure - roots, trunk, branches, twigs, leaves... but there's also a certain amount of randomness - patterns in the bark, the precise arrangements of twigs, which leaves were blown off in the recent wind storm, which branches have birds nesting in them... When we think of a tree, we tend to think of all the common structure of "trees" and ignore the uniquenesses of individual trees. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Pietro K.C. on Apr 18th, 2004, 8:49pm All this talk of bad science by Dr Unwin... was I the only one to interpret the article as a joke? I mean, the whole idea is ludicrous to begin with, and the part about bets on the second coming removed any trace of doubt I may have had. Maybe we all need to Unwin(d) a bit. *dodges tomatoes* Regarding The Big Questions, I must congratulate my forum-mates on what must be some kind of record for politeness while discussing these matters online. (What is it about not seeing your 'opponent' that makes people so hostile on Internet forums?) I'll try to keep my two cents short. The 'watch on the beach' argument has been refuted here on the grounds that, while stopwatches do not have self-reproducing, self-organizing mechanisms, life does, so the analogy is flawed. I agree with this rebuttal. There is another, which is: when you find a watch on the beach, it is clearly very 'different' from everything around it, in a sense that can be made physically precise if one wishes. If you find a lone apple in an orange crate, you're liable to go, 'who put that there?' With life, though, there's no standard with which to compare it with and say 'holy moly, life is so different from the standard, who put life in the standard crate?' Life is 'the same' as the world: there is a continuous transition from human to dog to bird to fish to protozoa to bacteria to viruses to those-weird-things-they-find-in-the-bottom-of-the-ocean-the-names-of-which-I-forget to organic molecules to regular molecules. It's like finding a stopwatch in a world full of stopwatches without as many functions, stopwatches without displays, circuit boards, single chips and transistors. That being said, I still like the first answer better. Next, there is the 'first cause' argument. That has been refuted as well, by noting that it applies equally well to God, i.e. God must have a cause, by the same argument. I assume that answer has been around for a long time, but, as far I know, the following alternative response is due to Kant (with shades of Hume), and in my opinion it addresses more fully the problems with 'first cause' arguments. [Kant] Take a book from your shelf, and place it somewhere sunny. Now wait a few minutes, and pick up the book. The book will be warmer than before. 'Aha,' you say, 'the sunlight made the book warmer.' Consider this carefully. What did you see? You took a cold book. You put it under sunlight. You picked it up again, and it was warm. You never saw sunlight *make the book warmer*. 'Cause' is a human concept, and not necessarily intrisic to 'reality'. The existence of anything, proved thus, is subjective at best, and wrong at worst. Among the many characteristics of the usual conceptions of God, 'subjectiveness' does not figure, so this argument is not valid. [/Kant] Also, we must be very careful of ontological arguments, i.e. things existing by virtue of their definition! See http://www.religiousstudies.co.uk/tripod/onto.htm for a quick introduction. Well, so much for short. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Apr 19th, 2004, 9:49am The main problem with Aristotle's prime mover (first cause) argument is that its solution provides an alternative. I humbly point out that the argument, "God must have had a cause," misses the point slightly. The argument is usually stated as: Each effect has a cause. It is reasonable to say that existence is the effect of some cause. However, the cause of any existing thing must have had a cause, and that cause must have had a cause, ad infinitum. If there was no beginning, there would be no first cause, hence nothing that exists would exist. As things do exist, there must have been a prime mover, and that is God. In other words, the existence of God solves the infinite chain problem. It is a convincing argument, but as I mentioned, the conclusion undoes itself. If God can exist without a cause, He must have existed for all time: no beginning. Therefore it is quite logical to argue that if God's existence can stretch back forever, so too can the chain of causes. Note that there are two possible conclusions of this argument: God exists or there are an infinte chain of causes. There is NO logical alternative. William Paley's Teleological argument is usually argued against by saying that given a sufficient length of time, chance would produce all that is. The "order" we percieve is not designed, it is just one of Nature's many random configurations. In my view and that of many modern philosophers, the "chance" argument is weak. Especially in light of the Fine Tuning Principle (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/design_probability_update_2001.shtml?main) (which is a more intellgent version of the Anthropic Principle). I recommend that you take a look at the link (Dr. Hugh Ross). St. Anselm's Ontological argument is much more difficult to argue against, mainly because its subtlety is rarely understood; which includes the writer of the article you referred us to, Pietro. In fact, the geniuses Descartes and Spinoza were both proponents of the argument. It took around seven centuries from its birth and the brilliance of Kant to make an intelligent attempt to refute it. It is usually stated as: Let God be defined as "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought". If it exists only in the mind, then "that-than-which-a-greater-CANNOT-be-thought" is actually the same as "that-than-which-a-greater-CAN-be-thought", which is clearly a contradiction. Therefore, "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought" must exist in both mind and in reality. Hence God, being "that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought", exists. Now for Kant's attempt to argue against it... A predicate is what is necessary for something to be what it is. For example, a car having an engine and four wheels are predicates. However, Kant argued that existence is not a predicate of God. In fact, existence is not a predicate of anything imagined. Furthermore he said that imagining that God is the greatest conceivable thing cannot be enhanced by imagining that He exists. For example, I can imagine a cool glass of beer; whether or not that glass of beer exists adds nothing nor takes anything away from the thought. Equally I can imagine a naked woman riding the back of a unicorn. Having said this, the Ontological argument is still the most hotly contested arguments, and has been quite stubborn in its refusal to disapper. Some philosophers argue that it has not been properly refuted and continue to find a more definitive rebuttal. It is Kant's attempt to separate existence from "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought" which has caused the disagreements. They argue that existence is preceisly one of the components that makes it "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought". |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by asterix on Apr 19th, 2004, 11:02am You know, God was way ahead of those philosophers. He told Moses, just call me I AM. No beginning, no end, no cause, no source, no proof, no ontological or teleological deductions, no predicate, not even a tense (Hebrew verb tenses don't denote time but a type of action). To paraphrase Decartes, "We think, therefore God is." And if he doesn't fit into our thoughts and definitions and logic and observations, then he isn't. But he says, I AM. Period. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Apr 19th, 2004, 11:52am on 04/19/04 at 09:49:48, Sir Col wrote:
Quote:
But of course if God was the most perfect <whatever> imaginable, he would be such that nobody would doubt his existence.. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Pietro K.C. on Apr 19th, 2004, 4:43pm It's me again! Quote:
I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment of the main problem. I think that questioning the very notion of causality is a much more fundamental attack than accepting the argument and building on top of it. In short, Quote:
is quite false in my opinion, for I have shown a 'logical' alternative: 'cause' is subjective and 'reality' need not abide by it. Also, why must there be a *single* causeless cause? I could very well envision an upwards tree of causes, giving rise to 1010+ first (uncaused) causes. To me, the main problem of attempting to prove anything about 'reality' based on thought alone is this: why does reality have to abide by our logic? If I spent 50 years locked away in an ivory tower, logically proved that 'every crow is black', went out and found a white crow, well, tough luck, it's back to the calculations for me - not for reality. To me, this is the main reason the ontological argument is unconvincing. Without leaving my imagination, I can *prove* stuff only about my imagination. The ontological argument, I think, does nothing more than make my *mental* conception of 'perfect being' a bit clearer. It does not make it actual. If stuff existed by virtue of their definition, I might as well say 'the existing God', which exists by definition. The problem is, I might have said 'the existing pink dog in my living room', and THAT sure isn't there. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you (Sir Col) said much the same thing against the ontological argument as the site I posted, i.e. 'existence' is not a predicate of objects. The teleological argument, I think, has the least credit in modern times. Though we cannot yet fathom what happened as far back as the third or fourth 'causes', let alone the first, we can and have seen evidence that 'chance' has nothing to do with the evolutionary process. I agree that the 'chance' argument is quite weak, but it is NOT used by anyone studying evolution or the origins of life. It's just not needed. The 'Fine Tuning' argument doesn't hold much water with me either: 'fine tuning' of galaxy size or frequency of supernovae explosions can be dismissed by noting that, in a LARGE number of cases, these are not 'fine-tuned', and life probably doesn't show up. It's very hard to estimate probabilities on these kinds of things, knowing next to nothing about cluster/galaxy/system/planet formation in the universe; it's harder still to place bounds and conditions on all forms of 'life', based only on what we see here on Earth. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Apr 20th, 2004, 4:11pm I have to agree with towr & Pietro about these arguments. I find no philosophical argument for God even in the slightest convincing. All of them strike me as houses built on the sand of numerous assumptions, none of which are particularly verifiable.On the other hand, the exact same is true of the various philosophical arguments against God. My philosophy is the scientific method: Does the existence of God or non-existence of God better explain the evidence I observe? More importantly, which better predicts future observations? From what I personally see, God wins this one hands down. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Pietro K.C. on Apr 21st, 2004, 10:01am I agree with Icarus. To me, arguing against the existence of God based on your reason alone is an empty pasttime at best. However, I can't even bring myself to use the scientific method on this issue. Arguing that something is a 'better explanation' is fine in physics and whatnot, because we always take the explanations with a grain of salt. (Better usually means simpler, and from here might ensue another long discussion of how much simpler an infinite perfect being is than any other explanation, however convoluted.) We change our explanations all the time, and we are well aware that such justifications make a theory attractive, not true. Whenever I personally study or do math or any 'hard science' or philosopy (it's what my aptitudes limit me to), I always find myself acutely aware that it might all be nonsense, irrelevant to any objective aspect of 'reality' - if such even has any meaning. I have Socrate's motto tattooed on my brain, is my best guess (but then I can't REALLY know :)). I have never met anyone who takes God thus, as a 'working hypothesis', which is not to say that it can't be done. I don't know if this view is inconsistent with the concept of God (I would guess it's not). The question alone of how you would act on that asumption is an intricately tied philosophical knot. Where do you all stand on this? (Sorry to press the point, but it's SO rare to be engaged in such an intelligent discussion of these matters - most people I've met are easily offended when asked about their reasons for faith, and the conversation stops dead.) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Apr 21st, 2004, 5:05pm I will glady answer as a believer, but first I hope my posts above (on this page) haven't been misunderstood. As I said on the first page of this thread: on 03/10/04 at 10:02:01, Sir Col wrote:
For me, I would emphatically declare that my faith is a mystery and, dare I say, irrational. It is not based on empirical or logical merits, but rooted in a deeper sense of truth beyond reason. What distinguishes it from fanaticism is its non-destructiveness and the very fact that it is personal. I have read more thelogical/philosophical books than I should have done; I wish I could unlearn some of the things I have learned. As Solomon said, "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief." [Ecclesiastes 1:18] But for all the wisdom and the wonder of our understanding (and I still find it addictive) I have never obtained even a smidgen of contentedness or the same measure of divine peace that my faith has offered. Why do I believe? Paradoxically it is because of the lack of rational justification. The fact that I still believe despite the "proof" is proof to me that my faith is real. This is the deeper sense of truth that I talked about. As St. Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth: "I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognise this message as the very power of God. As the Scriptures say, 'I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas.' So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe." [1 Corintians 1:18-21] |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Apr 21st, 2004, 7:05pm Sir Col - I understood that these philosophical arguments were not the basis of your belief, but simply something you are adding to the discussion (and quite appropriately). I too would like to make sure I have not been misunderstood. I do not take God simply as a "working hypothesis". I have said before that my faith goes far beyond any scientific basis. My only point is that my faith is does not go against any scientific basis. The base for my faith is the effect God has had on my life, and on the lives of many others I know. I agree with Pietro that it is good to be able to discuss these things with others who do not believe as I do, without having people take offense and get upset. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Pietro K.C. on Apr 21st, 2004, 8:33pm Regarding both your faiths (I dunno if that's grammatically correct), I understand neither of you actually uses any of the 'logical' arguments as basis. I'm sorry if I gave the impression of thinking that - the regulars in this forum (the three of you in particular) are among the people I hold in highest intellectual regard. Also, I quite agree that faith does not go against anything scientific - and if it is ever claimed that it does, I believe the notion of science will have been made too restrictive. I, for one, always want science to admit what it is: systematic, consistent, admirably simple and often beautiful guesses. I think you have given me a deeper understanding of what 'faith' is than I've had before - plus an invigorating discussion! For that, many thanks. :) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Apr 22nd, 2004, 4:38pm on 04/21/04 at 20:33:46, Pietro K.C. wrote:
My sentiments almost exactly. The only change would be "faith does not go against any scientific principle". Beliefs abound that go against scientific evidence, and current scientific theory. (There are some here in the USA who insist the earth is flat and square, because the Bible talks about the "four corners of the Earth".) It is with those who try to define God out of science that I strongly dispute. With those who argue that the evidence does not support the existence of God, I disagree, but respect (unless their stance is supported by willfully ignoring or mishandling evidence). Quote:
I would not go that far. Scientific theories start out as guesses, but receive more credibility as experimental confirmation mounts. Scientific theories are theories, stronger than guesses, but never, ever, "facts". This is not a weakness of science, but instead is its great strength! Which is why I don't like to see people abandon it in foolish attempts to prop up their favorite theories. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by John_Gaughan on Apr 22nd, 2004, 7:35pm This reminds me of the Baha'i religion. One of its tenets is that science trumps religion when they disagree. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Apr 23rd, 2004, 4:57pm And unfortunately, that is exactly the sort of corruption of scientific principle that I find bothersome. Not actually for the Baha'i, because they apparently admit that this tenet is religious. But this attitude tends toward turning science into a religion, at which point it ceases to be science! It was this exact phenomenon that led to one of the most well known science/religion clashes: the Roman Catholic church's attempted suppression of Copernican theory, and the heresy trial of Galileo. Some centuries before, Jerome (I think) reconciled Ptolemaic theory with biblical tradition, and this adoption of a scientific theory by the church led to the theory becoming religious dogma. So when more accurate observations showed that Ptolemy was wrong, it became a religious issue instead of just a scientific one. This problem was deepened by the Zoroastrian heresy - which was a real religious heresy (as defined by the Catholic church), attempting to mesh Christianity with the ancient middle eastern religion Zoroastrianism - whose supporters enthusiastically embraced Copernican theory, thereby linking it to their own cause. Had it not been for this connection (and unfortunately, one of Galileo's chief supporters was also an outspoken supporter of the Zoroastrian heresy), it is doubtful that Galileo would have been convicted, and quite possible that he never would have been charged. While science has much application to religious study, treating its conclusions in a religious fashion is a terrible idea. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on Apr 24th, 2004, 9:57am At the risk of stirring more controversy, my view on Science vs Religion is that Science, which consists of a process of observation and extrapolation, is very good at explaining observed facts, and the phenomena of "objective" universe in a descriptive fashion, but lacks explanatory power. Religion, on the other hand, concerns itself largely with subjective matters and the nature of worlds beyond objective reach. The two exist primarily on entirely separate layers of reality (to the extent reality has separate layers - I'm still looking for a better handle on the concepts involved) and, except in exceptional cases, the two don't interact. When either attempts to intrude upon the other's aspect of reality, the native, as the natural method of explanation of that aspect, should take precedence. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Apr 24th, 2004, 3:28pm One of the many contributions that Einstein made to science, apart from his obvious scientific insights, was his ability to articulate complex ideas to the uninitiated; if anyone has read his book, Relativity, they will appreciate this. Because of his ability to express ideas succinctly and with objectivity, I find his thoughts on religion and science fascinating. Everyone has probably heard this clever, albeit overly quoted, remark: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Like many of us, Einstein was in constant conflict over what he knew and what he believed. He said, "The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap." Despite his respect for religion, it seems that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. But perhaps most interesting were his own words that were quoted in his obituary (New York Times, 19 April 1955): "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God." I found this excellent website by the physicist, Professor Arnold V. Lesikar, that records some of Einstein's thoughts on the whole subject of God, religion, and science. http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/index.html |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Three Hands on Apr 25th, 2004, 6:45am I think Kirkegaard summarised the problem with looking for rational explanations for God with "Faith begins where reason leaves off". Basically, although an argument for the existence of God might appear to be rational to an individual, if you look closely enough at it, there will be some points at which you have made assumptions. This is not to say you are wrong about your beliefs, just that they are not based on a rationally sound argument. One of the best example of apparant rationalisation I've found is from C. S. Lewis, where on various occasions in the Narnia series people's fundamental beliefs about what is going on differ from others (Uncle Andrew not being able to understand the beasts talking to him in The Magician's Nephew, Eustace believing that they were sailing through a storm in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and the dwarfs unable to see Aslan in the stable in The Last Battle are the three that spring to mind). In each case, these characters believe that their rationalisations are perfectly sensible, while others around them just feel they are being silly. I generally dislike the idea of basing a belief in God because it is likely that such a being exists. After all, what use is 75% of a God? Also, basing your belief in God on a "risk assessment" like Pascal's wager also appears to me to miss the point of a belief in God. Generally, people either believe completely that God exists, believe completely that God doesn't exist, or honestly don't know what they believe about God. The consequences of such beliefs generally don't matter in terms of whether they believe or not, and probabilities are something of a temptation only to those who aren't sure, and is not going to affect their beliefs about God significantly. Of course, several people may well feel that they can rationalise their beliefs, but the arguments tend to either make a large jump which is not logically justified (e.g. "A first cause exists, and this first cause is God" in the First Cause argument) or turn out to be a circular argument (Descartes' Reconstruction in the Meditations, shortly after the Cogito is a good example of this). Tihs doesn't mean that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, just that the arguments don't prove the issue. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Apr 25th, 2004, 8:55am Greetings Three Hands, and welcome to the forum! You make an excellent point about "proofs" for the existence of God: "...if you look closely enough at it, there will be some points at which you have made assumptions." I'm a little curious as to why you think that Aristotle's Prime Mover is "not logically justified", or Descartes' construction of God from a premise of doubt is "circular"? For those who are unfamiliar with Descartes' work, here is a summary of his thinking. I will present it in the first person, and once more, I remind people that I am only the messenger of ideas... The senses can deceive, so who is to say that everything I perceive is not the creation of some "demon"? As a result, everything must be doubted; this would include my very own existence. (now for the reconstruction) The very fact that I am able to doubt my own existence means that I am thinking, therefore (at least) I exist (cogito ergo sum). In other words, I can be sure, at least, of my own existence. (now for God) To know is greater than to doubt, so I cannot be perfect. I cannot be God, otherwise I would have made myself perfect and without doubt. I have an idea of what it is to be perfect, and it must come from somewhere. As I am imperfect I cannot have invented the idea of perfection, so it must come from God. Therefore, God exists! He then goes on to conclude that, as God is perfect, he is not capable of deceiving us. Clearly there are a number of problems with his argument, and we haven't even gone on to see how he proves that bodies, and the world, exists. You will recall that I mentioned eariler that Descartes was a strong proponent of the Ontological argument, and he has, in effect, used this method in his "proof". However, I think it is more difficult to dispose of Descartes argument, as his method is subtlely different. Most importantly, other philosophers/theologians, like Pascal, insisted that the statement, "God is perfect," is meaningless. Pascal argued that our thoughts and ideas are finite and, by definition, are limited. Perfection suggests to be without limit and beyond all bounds. How can a finite being comprehend what it means to be perfect? The notion of perfection is both abstract and intangible to us, therefore any argument that starts with a premise of perfection will lead to uncertainty. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Apr 25th, 2004, 10:22am on 04/25/04 at 08:55:04, Sir Col wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And clearly in leaving us in doubt we are deceived anyway. Quote:
I suppose he must have had some better ideas for people to take him seriously.. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Speaker on Apr 26th, 2004, 12:43am Why does perfection suggest to be without limit? Couldn't there be a perfect pebble? A pebble that is complete and without flaw in its pebbleness. And, doesn't it say in the Bible someplace that God can and will deceive us. Does telling a lie indicate imperfection? I do not think that it does. God is unfathomable. So in what way is He perfect? I do not know. His perfection could include something that we think is imperfect (because we do not understand). All his pictures have gray hair, which is probably not perfect, or is it. And, an old joke from my grammar school days. Q: If God the creator is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? [hide]Sure he can. And then, he can also create a lever to lift the rock. He created physics afterall.[/hide]. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Three Hands on Apr 26th, 2004, 7:47am Descartes' Reconstruction falls down by basing the proof for the existence of God on a "clear and distinct" idea of a perfect being - which Descartes acknowledges is not himself. However, he can only guarantee that his "clear and distinct" ideas are not deceptions through the existence of a perfect, benevolent being, which is what he is attempting to prove the existence of - an error that Arnauld pointed out. Aristotle's Prime Mover argument attributes several properties to the Prime Mover (assuming that there is a first cause - which is not certain either) which are not obviously required for something to be the Prime Mover - after all, it doesn't necessarily have to be benevolent, omnipotent, etc. since it could just have been a random occurance. Hence, it does not logically follow that the Prime Mover is God in the usual meaning of the term God. Descartes may well get a lot of stick for the errors in the Reconstruction, but it is actually a reasonable argument if you accept the existence of God, and very few, if any, dispute the validity of the Cogito. There has also been a recent suggestion that much of what Descartes was writing was more biographical than a philosophical argument, and that if others tried the thought experiment that Descartes did, they would reach similar conclusions, and be convinced by them. This is, of course, ignoring Descartes contributions to mathematics... |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Apr 26th, 2004, 9:57am Speaker, the difficulty most people have in first coming to terms with these philosophical arguments is the concept of perfection. A pebble is a created thing, and so it can only be as perfect as a pebble can be. However, the concept of perfection in terms of God is much more abstract. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a great deal about the language we use to describe God. He argued that the best we can hope for is to speak in metaphors, but he accepted that, although we learn nothing from it, analogical language can be truthful; that is, we may have ideas what it means, but we must accept that it is not the same. For example, "The pebble is perfeclty good," and, "God is perfectly good." For any "thing" to be perfectly good, means that it is perfectly whatever it is to be that "thing". A pebble can fall short of whatever it takes to be a pebble. However, God, by definition, can only be what God is, hence He is perfectly good. Aquinas argued that we are not certain of what it means for Him to be perfectly good, but He is. If there were any measure, or limit, to His attributes, then He would not be perfect (as He could be more), therefore He would not be God. God's perfection and His being are synonymous. In summary, perfection when applied to God (who is uncreated) is NOT the same as perfection when applied to created things. This is what I think you're driving at, Three Hands? It may be down to semantics, but I would suggest that Descartes' argument is not circular, the problem is trying to start (and build) from an unknowable definition. Similarly, Aristotle never intended to deduce anything of the nature of God from his prime mover argument. He was simply showing that a "first mover" is a more logical conclusion than an infinite regression of causality. It is in Aristotle's Physics that he first mentions the prime mover: "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some first mover." Although we read "first mover" as God in this particular argument, it has no personality, intelligence, or deducible form. It is only in his Metaphysics that he begins to explore the nature of the prime mover and concludes that it is a "loving God". His reasoning here is very different and this is NOT the prime mover argument. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Sir Col on Apr 26th, 2004, 11:23am Sorry to double post, but to avoid sounding sanctimonious in my posts I would like to make a point of "virtue" to explain my stance on these issues... In my own opinion ::) what makes me an excellent school teacher is my ability and willingness to understand errors that my students make. When they say something or write something in their books that is incorrect I ask them to explain their reasoning. (It would be so easy to tell them they're wrong and give them the "correct" answer.) I never cease to be amazed at the intelligence often revealed through their error. All too often it is not their reasoning that is wrong, it is the limitations of their experiences that does not allow them to fully express the expected answer. Does that mean they are wrong? Yes in absolute terms, but definitely not in relative terms. What readers, like myself, benefit from studying philosophy and theology is by first understanding the context in which the ideas of these great thinkers were established. Then to grasp the merits of their arguments before finally assessing their validity in light of the advantages of hindsight that we have today. The tragedy is that too many people learn one person's philosophy through the writings of someone else. Usually that writer has a bias, in that they are hoping to counter-argue the reasoning. However, even with the best intentions, they cannot do credit to a entire treatise in a few short paragraphs. I get quite frustrated when I visit websites where it is clear that they have never read the original texts and rarely understand the arguments before they begin an assault. Their criticisms are usually valid, but it serves nothing to anyone else in trying to appreciate the geniuses that formulated the original ideas. Now I've finished my rant... I would also point out that I am making no reference to anyone here. It is clear that most of the posts in this thread are based on a wealth of personal experience and learnedness. I only make my points because my constant doggedness may otherwise appear pedantic. I believe the fact that we're still talking about these "classic" arguments today means that they a worthy of respect and a fuller consideration. Above all I have enjoyed, and hope I will continue to enjoy, the engaging dialogue. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Apr 26th, 2004, 12:22pm Well said, Sir Col. "The tree is known by its fruit." |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Three Hands on Apr 26th, 2004, 2:37pm Well, the main problem I was suggesting in Descartes' argument was that he was attempting to guarantee that what he thought was real, without reference to the senses, since they could deceive him, but just through his rational thoughts, was indeed real. In order for him to do this, he needs an omnipotent and benevolent being (God) to exist. If God exists, then God has no reason to deceive him, and so the rational thoughts are fine. Where this falls down, however, is that Descartes is trying to prove that God exists through his thoughts, which, without the existence of God, could be lies implanted by a powerful demon, thus meaning that Descartes' argument can prove the existence of God ONLY IF God already exists, but cannot if God does not exist. In short, either God does exist, and Descartes is right, or God does not exist, and Descartes is being deceived. This is where the argument is circular. All of this assuming that Descartes' argument is secure against all other objections as well... However, I accept your point, Sir Col, about the Prime Mover argument, as I was not aware that Aristotle limited it to just proving the existence of the First Cause initially, and was originally thinking along the lines of the argument that attempts to show that the Prime Mover is God. Also, I think you may well be highlighting another problem wihch Descartes fails to overcome, so all in all it doesn't look too good for Descartes... I would like to say also that, in my experience of studying Philosophy, quite often the arguments will be shown to be inconclusive on either side, and so from the perspective of being able to know anything for certain, you generally cannot. Indeed, one joke about the history of Philosophy in terms of knowledge is: Socrates - We know nothing. Descartes - We know something exists. (it may be missing some parts, but in my experience these are the only bits of knowledge commonly accepted) However, what Philosophy is very good for, in my opinion, is being able to explore your own beliefs on a given topic, such as whether God exists or not, and work out for yourself what you believe and why you believe it. The why may simply be "because it seems right", but it may be something more based in a particular line of reasoning that appeals to you. This then also allows you to give some justifications for your beliefs, even though others may well (and probably will) disagree about how well it justifies it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Pietro K.C. on Apr 26th, 2004, 2:51pm On the 'cogito ergo sum' argument... I think it is misleading to say that 'very few people' reject it. I would cite entire thought currents, within buddhism, that do. I do, myself, though I'm no buddhist. The main problem is the 'I' in 'therefore I am'. That requires the tying together of several 'mental experiences' into one cohesive whole - i.e. the conjuring up of something to which all these experiences 'belong'. I don't see that. I think our impression of being ourselves, as a cohesive unit, might well stem from the mere fact that we have memories. In a more 'gullible' ontology, if the matter that composes us is continually changing, and the (brain) patterns they form are continually changing (or else we would never learn anything), why is it necessary that we are the 'same person' as yesterday? In a stricter ontology, why does one mental experience have to be in any way related to another that occurs later? When you get to the later one, how do you know that your memory of it corresponds to anything that actually 'existed'? In fact, how do you know you didn't appear just now, with all your current memories in place? Here I'm using 'you' as 'the entity that had the mental experience'. But might it not be merely our lack of imagination that makes mental experiences necessarily associated with an entity? What if there are only mental experiences? Where are 'you' then? Which of your 'mental experiences' are you? The one that appeared just now, with all the memories? I guess a soul would be a good answer to these questions, but alas, I don't know if souls exist. Following Sir Col, I'm sorry if I come off too contradicting. It's just that I would love for any of these questions to be answered with certainty - love it too much to be satisfied with anything but complete certainty. And these arguments don't convince me. As I'm coming to realize, this might be impossible. P.S. - Regarding Descartes' argument that 'God cannot deceive us', how does he explain other religions, radically different from christianity? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Three Hands on Apr 26th, 2004, 3:23pm I think Bertrand Russell made a similar point about the Cogito, given that it is stretching slightly to state that the thing that is existing is "I". While many people believe that this must be the thing Descartes is referring to when he is doubting his own existence, it is a fair point to say that he could be being deceived as to the nature of what is existing. All he can really say is that something exists. Indeed, the nature of the existing thing could be any one of the possibilities you have suggested Pietro. Complete certainty, of course, is something which is incredibly difficult to find. Given that sensory data cannot be held to be true, since we have experience of times when our senses have lied to us, all we can work with is logical thought. This has its limits, however, as most, if not all a priori statements (those that do not rely on experience to ascertain their truth) are tautological, and so do not add anything to our knowledge. Without any knowledge to begin with, as any preconceptions we have are impossible to validate since they could be lies implanted in our minds by a powerful demon seeking to deceive us, aside from the certainty that something exists, otherwise there would not be anything to doubt its own existence, we cannot say anything with complete certainty. Not even this... Of course, going along the lines of complete skepticism, you aren't really reading this, I don't really exist, and all of this is just some weird illusion you are perceiving... ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on Apr 26th, 2004, 5:34pm Alas, I am one who here and elsewhere has commented on the ideas of great philosophers without having read them. But I still must have my say in this discussion, and so must apologize when I have misrepresented someone else's ideas for lack of understanding them. But, I will brazenly procede nonetheless. I do not agree that "perfection" requires unmeasurability. As one who struggles with weight, I can say authoritatively that "more" is not always more perfect! I also do not read DesCartes' argument as demonstrating the existence of the complete "I", however you wish to define that. I doubt (without knowing for sure) that he intended it to. My interpretation of the argument is: 'There is something thinking these thoughts. That something thinks of itself as "I".' There is nothing in this to demand that the "I" has past existence or future continuity, or perceives itself as it truly is. Merely that it exists, and describes itself in that moment of existence as "I". More can be argued than this, and perhaps DesCartes did, or perhaps he left the more unsaid as unnecessary to his point, or perhaps he did not see a need for more. Without having read his work, I do not know, but I do not see that he ever intended his argument to show the complete existence of himself, with all the trappings that Pietro disputes. The question of "do I really have a past, or did I spring into existence just now" is moot, in my opinion. Whether I "really did" or not, effectively I do have a past existence in my memories and in its consequences in my current environment. The only question of any importance in this, is "is my past existence consistent within itself, or with the existence of others' pasts (assuming that such others exist)". |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by THUDandBLUNDER on May 14th, 2004, 12:35pm I think that this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,1215021,00.html) interesting article is pertinent to this thread. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on May 14th, 2004, 1:23pm It was okay (I'm not in total agreement, but was not particularly disagreeable to it), until it got to this statement about why the universe is just right for the existance of life: Quote:
In what way, pray tell, is this "scientific" that other explanations are not - particularly the idea that God designed the universe? If anything, I would say that the God-based explanation is MORE scientific than Rees' explanation. By the meaning of "Universe", Rees' explanation precludes any experimental examination. There is absolutely no way to test this idea. But the concept of God designing offers the possibility of influences on our universe that could be sought and examined, thus allowing some testing. Which is more in line with science? A theory that offers no possibility of experimental examination or one that does, however limited? Yet George Ellis calls the unexaminable hypothesis "the only scientific explanation"! >:( |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Three Hands on May 14th, 2004, 5:01pm It's amazing how easy people find it to find their own opinions are really the "objective truth" (Heavy sarcasm intended, and aimed at Ellis...) Indeed, often the most intelligent people can also be the most short-sighted when it comes to seeing various obvious fallacies in their writing. And of course, some scientific theorists (like Karl Popper) would claim that theories which are impossible to falsify aren't really science - which I think is roughly what Icarus was saying... Generally speaking, I don't think science can really state whether or not God exists. Many religions claim God to be beyond human comprehension, and so would be beyond scientific explanation. Also, as God is said to be beyond time and space, and generally speaking science is limited within time and space, it does make it very difficult for science to state much about God, if anything at all... |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on May 16th, 2004, 6:28pm If God were something truly separate from time and space, I would agree that science could offer nothing on the subject (other than evidence confirming this separation). This is exactly my problem with Ellis's calling Ree's theory "the only scientific one", because Ree's theory does deal with something totally separated from space and time. Ree's theory is not scientific at all. It is strictly philosophical. As such, I have no objection to it (other than disagreeing). It is only calling it "scientific" that I find objectionable. But I also disagree with the concept of God being truly separate from time and space. By my religious belief, God is quite active in this world. As such he has numerous effects on it. These effects are well within the domain of science to investigate and find confirming or debunking evidence, and to hypothesize about the meaning of such evidence. As such, science has much it can say on the subject of God. The problem I have is with those who attempt to redefine science in order to define God out of the picture prior to scientific investigation. And for all of his contributions, that statement suggests Ellis has bought this garbage. (By the way, I am also incensed at those who try to redefine science because the evidence appears to support theories contrary to their faith. I'm sure you know what I am refering to. ;) But this is not really that big of a problem. The more normal course is to simply reject the theory and say that the evidence is misinterpreted. This is a common part of every scientific debate. There are always those on the fringe who reject the established theory, and on rare occasion, they are right!) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on May 17th, 2004, 4:31am I feel I should confess to being another second-hand philosopher - relying on reported versions of philosophical writings rather than reading the originals (mind you, my French/Latin/Greek/German/Russian/whatever else that isn't English isn't up to the task anyway) On "Cogito": I'm very much in the "I think, therefore I am, but what the *censored* am I?" On T&B's link, I think that "the only scientific" refers not to "the only empirically testable," but "the only compatible with my version of principles and ideals extrapolated from the phrasing of empirically tested facts." It seems to be a distressingly common misconception that "Science" has a single, unified world view based on a simple set of principles and assumptions that have equal force with things like Newton's laws of motion. Somehow, the statement "things behave in a way approximately consistent with these equations (provided nothing interferes)" is interpreted as "these equations explain the universe." Science doesn't explain; science describes. Despite the beliefs of people like Hoyle, there is no automatic conflict between science and religion - the former describes the physical universe, while the latter explains it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on May 17th, 2004, 6:33pm on 05/17/04 at 04:31:45, rmsgrey wrote:
But that is exactly my complaint! He is redefining "science" into something it is not and should not ever be! If he had said "the only mechanistic theory" or some similar phrase, I would be fine with it. Instead he fantastically restricts and distorts the meaning of science, so now any non-mechanistic explanation is dismissed as "unscientific" without regard to what true scientific principles are! This is what disgusts me about the entire science & religion debate. It is not my religion that is serious attack. It is science which has been attacked and greviously wounded by those who pretend to themselves that they are defending it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on May 18th, 2004, 2:32am In other words, your problem is with those who treat Science (with a capital S) as a religion (all hail the great prophets Newton and Einstein :)) As I've said before, science and religion (should) cover different topics, and apparent conflicts are usually the result of one trying to fill the role of the other. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on May 19th, 2004, 7:37pm Not really that even. My complaint is against those who would redefine science so as to make it conform to their religious beliefs (and the worst culprits at this are those who deny that their beliefs are religious). And I don't agree that science and religion should each keep to its own separated domain. The scientific method is an investigative tool. As such its use is appropriate anywhere someone seeks knowledge. And religion has been the driving force behind much scientific development. There is a rich interplay possible between the two. The trick is to understand what each is, and not make science subservient to religion - including your own. It is this last that fouls people up - particularly those foolish enough to think that they do not have religious beliefs. They tend to think that because they don't label themselves religious, they are above this mistake. When in fact they are often so dogmatic the Inquisition looks downright open-minded by comparison. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by THUDandBLUNDER on May 19th, 2004, 8:34pm Quote:
.......by Galileo? Or Copernicus perhaps? ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by rmsgrey on May 20th, 2004, 3:14am I really should be more careful in how I express myself. Since I don't always think in words, I tend to leave things out when I attempt to convey concepts in words. Science and Religion focus on different aspects of Truth, and each in the area of it's primary focus has priority. Where the two actually overlap, they agree, but where one is extended beyond its realm of validity, they can (and often do) conflict. So Science speculating about what lies beyond the confines of the observable universe, or Religion making statements about the daily operation of the universe beyond what has been directly revealed is asking for trouble. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on May 20th, 2004, 4:01pm on 05/19/04 at 20:34:01, THUDandBLUNDER wrote:
Actually - yes! To both of those! The religious aspect of the lives of many great scientists is often downplayed these days by those who are hostile towards their religion, but in fact, it was an integral part of their lives, and a motivation for their work. Copernicus in particular was driven by religious ideas. This is why he demanded that the courses of the planets were circular with epicycles (which is actually true by the way: ellipses are epicycles)! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by THUDandBLUNDER on May 21st, 2004, 3:40am Icarus, how can one's religion motivate one's (scientific) work without the former in some way subjectively shaping the latter, as with the epicycle example that you give? Quote:
...and whom should we praise when an irredeemable atheist achieves great things? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on May 21st, 2004, 4:12am on 05/21/04 at 03:40:19, THUDandBLUNDER wrote:
Nature used to be seen as a sort of book, written by God himself. So studying it meticiously was a very pious thing to do, as much or perhaps moreso than studying the bible. That's one of the reasons so many early scientists were monks, aside from the fact most other people were illiterate. But if the church had discouraged and stiffled scientific research those monks wouldn't have done any science. It wasn't untill the church made some ideas into dogmas that later scientific refutations of those same ideas became a problem. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Icarus on May 21st, 2004, 7:48pm Well said. I never claimed that the influence of scientists religious beliefs on there science was all positive, or that only those who believe in a God were motivated. Only that for many great scientists, they were strongly motivated by their faith, and that this part of their lives gets downplayed in modern histories. A scientist's religious faith, be it christianity, atheism, buddhism, islam, etc., will influence the theories they produce. This is an undeniable fact. You simply has be careful not to let your religious belief blind you to other possibilities. This again is part of the problem I see. This is an old lesson for scientists with faith in a God. But many atheists & agnostics tend to think this applies to others, and not their own beliefs. It is they who have the nasty tendency of wanting to reject ideas that disagree with their beliefs as "unscientific" without ever testing. (Many people "of faith" also reject competing ideas without testing, but unlike the atheists & agnostics, few of them try to claim that doing so is "scientific".) (And note please that I said "many" atheists & agnostics, not "every", and not even "most".) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Speaker on Aug 29th, 2004, 6:59pm Just to revive an old thread. The following was forwarded to me in an email. It seemed interesting enough and pertinent to this discussion of scientists proving God exists, so here it is. Does the argument sound logical to you? Is it sound? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Does evil exist? The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied yes, he did!" "God created everything?" The professor asked. "Yes, sir," the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil." The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course," replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat. The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. "These manifestations are nothing else but evil." To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." The professor sat down. The young man's name --- Albert Einstein :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My question? Did Einstein actually say this? I think not, but who knows. Or, more specifically, does anybody out there know? It sounds like an urban legend, because no one in a university class with Einstein would have recorded this kind of exchange. And, it would be forgotten as not special, Professors are caught by students regularly, I think. Anyone have proof that Einstein existed and said the above? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Aug 30th, 2004, 1:42am For all your urban mythical needs, there's http://www.snopes.con In this case http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp Nevertheless, even though it isn't Einstein who said it, it's not a bad argument to counter 'the professor'. Of course a good argument also doesn't need to lend credence from a famous person to start with. On the other hand you can wonder if it's fair to see 'evil' as the absense of go(o)d, I'd sooner say nothingness (absense of everything, and thus of go(o)d) is fundamentally neutral. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by Speaker on Aug 30th, 2004, 1:50am Thanks Towr. IMHO, the use of Einstein gives it credibility, which would seem to bolster the argument. Which is should not need if it is a good/logical argument. But, arguing about God, is not logical. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: "Odds on that God exists", says scientist Post by towr on Aug 30th, 2004, 2:57am on 08/30/04 at 01:50:58, Speaker wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4! Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board |