How to make a your posts scientific.

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Fair enough. Irreligion also has an impact on impressionable minds. So does Disneyland. It's hard to be a parent. It's natural, I think, for parents to want their children to follow the religious practices that they themselves have -- I think it's expecting a great deal from parents not to encourage this. It's also natural, I think, for a Christian to want to spread the message. Irritating, but natural After all, the NT starts with ``This is the beginning of the good news''. It's expecting a great deal of people to keep good news to themselves.

Although I will not argue that there are not many groups (be them governmental, religious, or other) that compete for mind share these days, I will have to make a distinction about what is age appropriate. To present a theistic philosophy to a mere child is brain-washing IMHO. The child is developmentally ill-equipped to receive this information objectively. Yet religion impresses their doctrines on them as fact without hesitation.

One of my children is now six. I would not have brought up the topic of god with him if it wasn’t for the fact that there were those outside of the family that already started impressing religious dogma on him as fact. When he asked me about god I tried to make him understand, on a six year old level, that it is not something that can be known for sure. I told him that this other person believes that god exists but that because there was no evidence that I did not think so. I tried to then draw parallels to ghosts and other supernatural things he may have heard of and illustrate that there is no evidence but some people believe.

This is way too early, imho, to be getting into to this kind of stuff but someone else forced my hand. As my children develop I plan to educate them on empiricism (where it works and where it doesn’t), philosophy, epistemology, etc. and let them decide for themselves. I think as parents we should equip our children to think and give them the tools to come to their own conclusions. Religion is too aggressive (at least here in the states) for my comfort. I really take exception with someone impressing their beliefs as fact on my child. The scary fact is that with the right molding one can turn a child into a suicide-bomber. The potential for abuse is there and I think religion is taking it too far.

The problem is that, if you've got parents passing the message on to their children, and other Christians on to everybody else, before long you've got a church. Given sufficient time and zeal, you've got an Institution. When you've got an Institution, I guess that's when the potential for serious abuses of authority arise.

In the arena of religion the abuse involves the minds of people. To me this makes the implications far more serious.

There's no doubt that religious arguments have been used to justify some thoroughly discreditable actions over the course of history. FWIW, institutional atheism does not have an unblemished record in this respect either; but two wrongs don't make a right.

If you're considering religious belief as a social force, I guess the only important question is: on balance, does good or bad come from this? Where Christianity is concerned, it can be argued either way, I think. For my part, I think that the arguments that Christianity is a force for social good are somewhat more cogent and compelling than arguments that it is a force for ill. But it's not overwhelming, and I appreciate that, as far as winning hearts and minds is concerned, ``On balance, Christianity probably doesn't f**k up the world'' isn't really a winner.

I’ve always tried to get across to people that I am not anti-theistic. I just want people to think for themselves. I think religion is used, more often than not, as a tool for the gain of power and profit. The problem is that this happens at the expense of many people’s mind. Most of the religious people I talk to don’t have the slightest clue why they believe. This is horrifying to me.

 

[madbear]

I would not have brought up the topic of god with him if it wasn’t for the fact that there were those outside of the family that already started impressing religious dogma on him as fact

Maybe children are more intellectually resilient than you think. Or maybe this is a bigger threat to children in the USA than in Britain. I know it's not something that bothers most people here all that much. It seems to me that it's difficult to explain anything to small children as anything other than fact. I don't think they are really equipped to handle `some people believe that...'. Maybe my seven-year old daughter is, just. Younger than that, I don't think so. My young children believe (which is to say, would state in the affirmative) that there is a god and that he lives in `the heavens'. The heavens, incidentally, is in our attic. They also believe in reincarnation, that there are witches and they fly on broomsticks, that Ganesh is the son of Parvati and the daughter of Shiva, that certain steam engines can talk, that Thor had a big hammer which he used to fly, and that Father Christmas will, as a matter of empirical fact, squeeze down the 6-inch flue of our chimney with a sack of toys in a couple of weeks time. I never told them any of this; well maybe the steam engines, but not the rest of it. But we live in a multi-cultural society and children talk. I can see no great harm in our children learning the precepts of Christianity, since they've already found out those of every other religion on the planet.

Eventually, I guess, they'll have to sift through all this and figure out which of it, if any, makes any sense.

One of my colleagues -- another biologist -- regularly went through the books in her infant daughter's bookshelf, expunging all references to God with a marker pen. Her daughter is now a Zen monk somewhere in California. Another colleague -- a well-know atheistic biologist who you will probably have heard of -- did his best to shield his son from Christian influences in his childhood; but his son is now a born-again Christian, studying Greek and Hebrew at university with a view to creating the definitive translation of the NT. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make here -- I guess it's that you can't really introduce children to religion gradually and in a controlled fashion -- it's just too big a part of so many peoples' lives, that they'll hear about it anyway. Incidentally, I should point out that my view might be skewed because I've spent most of my adult life in an area where Christianity is a minority religion.

I think religion is used, more often than not, as a tool for the gain of power and profit.

There's no doubt that religious sentiment can be used as tool to achieve these things, by people who have the knack of it. But, but, but... ignorant, uneducated, and -- above all -- disaffected people can always be manipulated by somebody who can appeal to their baser natures. Hitler did not have to exploit religion (but that's a different thread!), nor did Stalin. Different levers, same effect. Besides, to get me to accept that it happens `more often than not,' I think I'd need to see some figures

Most of the religious people I talk to don’t have the slightest clue why they believe. This is horrifying to me.

I think this might be a cultural thing as well. In the UK, most people who became Christians between the ages of (say) 25 and 35 could tell you why they believe, with charts and and an audiovisual presentation if necessary. It might be more of a problem, I guess, with people who have been Christians all their lives (but my gut feeling is that there aren't many people in that group in the UK right now).

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Maybe children are more intellectually resilient than you think. Or maybe this is a bigger threat to children in the USA than in Britain. I know it's not something that bothers most people here all that much. It seems to me that it's difficult to explain anything to small children as anything other than fact. I don't think they are really equipped to handle `some people believe that...'. Maybe my seven-year old daughter is, just. Younger than that, I don't think so. My young children believe (which is to say, would state in the affirmative) that there is a god and that he lives in `the heavens'. The heavens, incidentally, is in our attic. They also believe in reincarnation, that there are witches and they fly on broomsticks, that Ganesh is the son of Parvati and the daughter of Shiva, that certain steam engines can talk, that Thor had a big hammer which he used to fly, and that Father Christmas will, as a matter of empirical fact, squeeze down the 6-inch flue of our chimney with a sack of toys in a couple of weeks time. I never told them any of this; well maybe the steam engines, but not the rest of it. But we live in a multi-cultural society and children talk. I can see no great harm in our children learning the precepts of Christianity, since they've already found out those of every other religion on the planet.

I’m definitely starting to get the impression there is a great cultural discrepancy influencing our views. Over here a person can go most of their adult life without getting exposed to anything but Christianity. And they are an aggressive bunch at that. Granted that I’m making a gross generalization about the entire cultural current because I know there are plenty of exceptions but just look at this as a current events example: http://www.christianforums.com/t2388687-dating.html This is elevated to a marketing art over here. Here’s a big stuffed lion jimmy! Love jesus more now?

Eventually, I guess, they'll have to sift through all this and figure out which of it, if any, makes any sense.

Ack.. by that time the years of inculcation, promise of reward in the afterlife for being a “good Christian” and the threat of hell have pretty much done their damage here. These kids grow up to deny reality against all logic if it contradicts their particular interpretation of the bible in any way. Then since their inculcators did such a good job convincing them to “save” all the non-christians we’re left with a zombie army of evangelists. Do a little research into YEC to see how nutty it can get.

One of my colleagues -- another biologist -- regularly went through the books in her infant daughter's bookshelf, expunging all references to God with a marker pen. Her daughter is now a Zen monk somewhere in California. Another colleague -- a well-know atheistic biologist who you will probably have heard of -- did his best to shield his son from Christian influences in his childhood; but his son is now a born-again Christian, studying Greek and Hebrew at university with a view to creating the definitive translation of the NT. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make here -- I guess it's that you can't really introduce children to religion gradually and in a controlled fashion -- it's just too big a part of so many peoples' lives, that they'll hear about it anyway. Incidentally, I should point out that my view might be skewed because I've spent most of my adult life in an area where Christianity is a minority religion.

It’s not so much trying to administer it in a controlled fashion here, it’s trying to stem the flood of propaganda.

There's no doubt that religious sentiment can be used as tool to achieve these things, by people who have the knack of it. But, but, but... ignorant, uneducated, and -- above all -- disaffected people can always be manipulated by somebody who can appeal to their baser natures. Hitler did not have to exploit religion (but that's a different thread!), nor did Stalin. Different levers, same effect. Besides, to get me to accept that it happens `more often than not,' I think I'd need to see some figures

I’ll look for stats on suicide bombings and crusade related deaths (present war included) some time and see how it stacks up against people saved.

I think this might be a cultural thing as well. In the UK, most people who became Christians between the ages of (say) 25 and 35 could tell you why they believe, with charts and and an audiovisual presentation if necessary. It might be more of a problem, I guess, with people who have been Christians all their lives (but my gut feeling is that there aren't many people in that group in the UK right now).

yea, I’m definitely getting a clearer picture of the cultural differences. I doubt you have to deal with stuff like this over there http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

 

[madbear]

I've learned a lot in the last few days. I had no idea how worried certain folks are in the USA about the creationist movement and its agenda -- something that really has zero presence in the UK. The hostility that both sides express towards each other both shocks and frightens me, although I'm beginning to understand why people feel the way they do.

For example, earlier today I saw a post which challenged creationists to produce testable scientific evidence of their beliefs. I responded to the effect that, since creationism is not backed up by physical observation, but by Genesis, a fairer challenge would be for creationists to produce testable evidence of the veracity of Genesis. I suggested further that the standard of proof should be the same as it is for documentary evidence in scientific practice. I went on to say that I did not think creationists would be able to meet the challenge, but that it was still fairer than asking them to do the impossible.

Almost immediately, my post was followed up by one accusing me of claiming that Genesis was scientific, and including a tirade of reasons why it was not.

And yet, I had claimed nothing of the sort; in fact, what I had actually claimed was the diametric opposite of what I was accused of. It seems I was guilty of using the word `creationist' in a sentence that did not contain the words `dumb' or `lying'. Happily, the previous sentence does put these words in the correct juxtaposition so I should be safe I find the doctrines of young-earth creationism and (say) substitutionary atonement interesting, if only as social phenomena. But, of course, I appreciate that it's difficult to take an interest in particular views when you're living in fear that the people who hold to those views are seeking to turn my children in zombies.

The right-wing Christian movement in the USA scares the willies out of me, really it does. There are Christians in the UK whose doctrinal views are not very different from your lot -- some of my best friends hold very strong evangelical views -- but I guess the difference is that we don't really have the same combination of evangelicalism, far-right politics, and narrow-mindedness that you seem to have.

But what scares me most of all is how both the creationists, and people who disagree with them, are so hair-triggered. I can appreciate that the oppositing sides are never going to agree, and (most likely) they will never be friends, but it's almost like war could break out at any moment.

I shall have to be very careful how I express myself

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I've learned a lot in the last few days. I had no idea how worried certain folks are in the USA about the creationist movement and its agenda -- something that really has zero presence in the UK. The hostility that both sides express towards each other both shocks and frightens me, although I'm beginning to understand why people feel the way they do.

I’m not sure if it is the recent mainstream attention that has been brought to bear on the ID movement that scares me more or the though of my two young children getting mentally hijacked before they can think for themselves. I suspect it’s a combination of both. It gets personal really quickly when someone else thinks I am condemning my children to hell for not brainwashing them with their dogmatic views. I try to temper my judgment because I honestly think these people think they are doing the right thing and are unable to think deeply about the entire issue and examine the situation with a critical eye.

What I find a bit ironic is that religious people are usually the quickest to play the persecuted theist card while they can be overbearing in their spreading of their particular world view on others whether they want it or not. In my personal experience I find that it is the theists that do most of the persecution. For most of my life I have been more than happy to live and let live while supporting the right for everyone to hold whatever belief is right for them. The irony of my involvement in this crevo mess is a direct result of the overbearing behavior of the creationists and the ID movement.

There are currently two thoughts about why things are the way they are here in America that I adhere to. One possibility is that the lack of involvement by non religious individuals has allowed the fundies to get more political leverage and traction than healthy and we are seeing the fruits of that situation. The other is that these views are in their death throws causing these organizations to act out in any way they can to survive. I can’t tell which is more accurate. It seems to depend on what part of the country you live in. The problem is that it can have national implications.

For example, earlier today I saw a post which challenged creationists to produce testable scientific evidence of their beliefs. I responded to the effect that, since creationism is not backed up by physical observation, but by Genesis, a fairer challenge would be for creationists to produce testable evidence of the veracity of Genesis. I suggested further that the standard of proof should be the same as it is for documentary evidence in scientific practice. I went on to say that I did not think creationists would be able to meet the challenge, but that it was still fairer than asking them to do the impossible.

Almost immediately, my post was followed up by one accusing me of claiming that Genesis was scientific, and including a tirade of reasons why it was not.

And yet, I had claimed nothing of the sort; in fact, what I had actually claimed was the diametric opposite of what I was accused of. It seems I was guilty of using the word `creationist' in a sentence that did not contain the words `dumb' or `lying'. Happily, the previous sentence does put these words in the correct juxtaposition so I should be safe.

I had to take a break from this madness for while at one point. I felt myself getting more and more fervent and abusive in my dealings with some of the more irritating creationists here. It’s had to maintain composure when faced with an onslaught of lies and underhanded tactics used to put down science and spread religious propaganda to those who do not yet have a firm grasp on the situation. It really does come down to a fight for mind share and it’s disturbing to see how some people conduct themselves when someone comes in here, without a preformed opinion on crevo issues, looking for information about the things they have been told. It ranges from misinformation to guilt trips to threat. I honestly have a hard time seeing some participant’s behavior without wanting to go on the attack. The problem comes when someone new comes in mimicking their behavior they gat dealt with unnecessarily harshly. I have the feeling some people around here don’t even read their opponents entire post without jumping all over them. Some “debates” here are just two people with opposing views talking past each other for hundreds of posts.

I find the doctrines of young-earth creationism and (say) substitutionary atonement interesting, if only as social phenomena. But, of course, I appreciate that it's difficult to take an interest in particular views when you're living in fear that the people who hold to those views are seeking to turn my children in zombies.

The right-wing Christian movement in the USA scares the willies out of me, really it does. There are Christians in the UK whose doctrinal views are not very different from your lot -- some of my best friends hold very strong evangelical views -- but I guess the difference is that we don't really have the same combination of evangelicalism, far-right politics, and narrow-mindedness that you seem to have.

But what scares me most of all is how both the creationists, and people who disagree with them, are so hair-triggered. I can appreciate that the oppositing sides are never going to agree, and (most likely) they will never be friends, but it's almost like war could break out at any moment.

I shall have to be very careful how I express myself

I’m sorry you have to feel this way. After months and years of confrontation there are definitely some participants here that are on edge to say the least. I’ve felt the pull myself. It’s hard not to when the discussions degenerate into nothing more than ad hom attacks all too often around here.

At the end of the day I feel that I’ve learned a lot from the members of this forum and the participants here in c&e in particular. That alone makes it worth it for me.

 

[madbear]

It gets personal really quickly when someone else thinks I am condemning my children to hell for not brainwashing them with their dogmatic views.

For many years -- more than I care to remember, to be honest -- I was fervently anti-Christian. To be sure, there are plenty who post on these forums who probably think I still am. For example, in response to what I believed (hah!) was a moderate and balanced post on the differences between the evangelical and liberal viewpoints on scriptural inerrancy (on which I do have a view, but did not in fact express in the post), I got this little gem in reply:

To those of you who have rejected the gospel: When the Lamb of God returns in glory, then you'll be sorry...

It is hard not to take this sort of thing personally. But apart from that, any Christian who really cares about putting his view across knows that this is not the way to win people over. What kind of God wants a faith based on fear, anyhow?

The turning point for me -- the thing that made be realize that there might be at least something in Christianity worth listening to -- was meeting Christians with brains and a sense of humour. For a long time I did not know that such people existed. It's a shame that there are so few people like this in the USA (and in this forum, for that matter), and that so many Americans' only exposure to Christianity is to a spiteful, tawdry, and spiritually impoverished version.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

For many years -- more than I care to remember, to be honest -- I was fervently anti-Christian. To be sure, there are plenty who post on these forums who probably think I still am. For example, in response to what I believed (hah!) was a moderate and balanced post on the differences between the evangelical and liberal viewpoints on scriptural inerrancy (on which I do have a view, but did not in fact express in the post), I got this little gem in reply:

To those of you who have rejected the gospel: When the Lamb of God returns in glory, then you'll be sorry...

Yea, these kind of posts fill me with mixed emotion. Aside from triggering a fight or flight response it really illustrates the fundamental problem I have with religion. I had an opportunity to have a civil discussion with an intelligent and level headed Christian about this very same thing. To some degree it really illustrated how dysfunctional religion has become. If so many people believe the way they do simply for promise of reward and fear of punishment then they are just being controlled mentally via their basest proclivities.

It is hard not to take this sort of thing personally. But apart from that, any Christian who really cares about putting his view across knows that this is not the way to win people over. What kind of God wants a faith based on fear, anyhow?

That’s exactly the point. They don’t stop to think about it at all. I think if they did they would start to realize exactly who does want faith based on fear. You really have to analyze the entire situation objectively and ask yourself who truly benefits from the way religion is set up nowadays. I think an honest look will show it’s not a god or gods if such a thing even exists.

The turning point for me -- the thing that made be realize that there might be at least something in Christianity worth listening to -- was meeting Christians with brains and a sense of humour. For a long time I did not know that such people existed. It's a shame that there are so few people like this in the USA (and in this forum, for that matter), and that so many Americans' only exposure to Christianity is to a spiteful, tawdry, and spiritually impoverished version.

I believe it would be arrogant to assume that we have a complete understanding of existence but it’s impossible for me to accept any inflexible worldview. If the reality of the true nature of existence is unknown then the possible explanations are endless. Once locked into a rigid belief system then the chances of actually being right approach nil. I consider myself agnostic, first and foremost, because I think it’s important to leave the mind open to any possibility. I also consider myself atheist because I do not believe it is how Christianity (or any religion for that matter) says it is. I really don’t want to insult believers, but I honestly feel, IMHO, that an objective look at any bible shows how ridiculous the whole thing really is. If there is more to existence then our current frame then it has to at least make sense. I can’t buy into the lunacy of organized religion of any kind.

 

[madbear]

I can’t buy into the lunacy of organized religion of any kind.

Well, on the whole, `organized religion' in the UK -- insofar as it means the established churches -- is a bumbling but fundamentally well-meaning institution. There are fringe organizations which I consider very dangerous -- some Christian, some not -- but they don't have a huge amount of influence. Yet. As I said in a previous post, I think these organizations are fuelled by disaffection, not by any defensible religious sentiment. `Sensible' Christians (and Moslems, for the most part) distance themselves from those who would exploit religious faith for perverted motives.

I really don’t want to insult believers, but I honestly feel, IMHO, that an objective look at any bible shows how ridiculous the whole thing really is

If you reject any form of supernaturalism on a priori grounds, the Bible sounds fairly wacky. To be honest, a lot of it is wacky even if you don't. Some of it was written by people who'd been smoking too much frankincense, if you want my honest opinion. And would a great chunk of erotic poetry get put into the Bible if modern Christians were re-compiling the Canon? It hardly seems possible. Is the Bible ever going to convince a non-believer of the existence of God? I don't think so.

But that was never its intention -- it was written for, and about, believers. If you want reasoned arguments for theistic belief you'd be better off reading Augustine (if you want that period flavour) or Plantinga or Swinburne or Polkinghorne (if you don't). None of these writers prove that God exists (well, Plantinga sometimes claims to), but they do a reasonable job of showing why a Judeo-Christian theistic view isn't totally stupid.

For what it's worth, the view that the Bible was created by God uploading data into the cerebral cortices of its authors for dictation is not particularly widespread in the UK. To be honest, it wasn't even widespread among the church fathers, but that's a different thread. The problem is that there's no point telling that to fundies because they think all the church fathers were heretics anyway

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Well, on the whole, `organized religion' in the UK -- insofar as it means the established churches -- is a bumbling but fundamentally well-meaning institution. There are fringe organizations which I consider very dangerous -- some Christian, some not -- but they don't have a huge amount of influence. Yet. As I said in a previous post, I think these organizations are fuelled by disaffection, not by any defensible religious sentiment. `Sensible' Christians (and Moslems, for the most part) distance themselves from those who would exploit religious faith for perverted motives.

I find this encouraging. I hope this means that these fringe organizations that are making all the noise here in America right now are in their death throws and are soon to be relegated to antiquity along with their outmoded ideas.

If you reject any form of supernaturalism on a priori grounds, the Bible sounds fairly wacky. To be honest, a lot of it is wacky even if you don't. Some of it was written by people who'd been smoking too much frankincense, if you want my honest opinion. And would a great chunk of erotic poetry get put into the Bible if modern Christians were re-compiling the Canon? It hardly seems possible. Is the Bible ever going to convince a non-believer of the existence of God? I don't think so.

But that was never its intention -- it was written for, and about, believers. If you want reasoned arguments for theistic belief you'd be better off reading Augustine (if you want that period flavour) or Plantinga or Swinburne or Polkinghorne (if you don't). None of these writers prove that God exists (well, Plantinga sometimes claims to), but they do a reasonable job of showing why a Judeo-Christian theistic view isn't totally stupid.

Thank you for the recommendation. I will definitely make some time in my schedule to check one of those out. I think I’ll start with Plantinga because anyone that has themselves convinced they have proven the existence of their god should at least have a good argument. I’m sure I’ll get a lot farther that route than I did with the bible. So far my opinion is based on a less granular overview of religion in general. I’ve taken a class on world religion in college which covered the ten orthodox religions and a few philosophy classes to see what could be offered aside from empiricism. I’m sure that these people you mention will have an intelligent argument for their theistic philosophy but, in the end, I think that Christianity (along with all the other religions) is the philosophy of others. While I can read their books and assimilate their views I feel compelled to return to the fact that, no matter how sound the reasoning, nobody really knows. The truth at this point is not known and opinions on the matter are evident in the number of religions around the world. I feel the need to keep an open mind about the matter and not accept anyone else’s philosophy as fact. It’s not that I feel that I’m smarter then they are mind you… it’s just that if nobody knows for sure then it relegates any religion to conjecture. If there is a god or gods then I think he/she/they should be able to appreciate my reasoning. If not then I’m not sure I want to hang out with them for eternity anyway.

 

[madbear]

I hope this means that these fringe organizations that are making all the noise here in America right now are in their death throws and are soon to be relegated to antiquity along with their outmoded ideas.

I hope so too; but an alternative explanation is that we are behind you, and we will get them later

I think I’ll start with Plantinga because anyone that has themselves convinced they have proven the existence of their god should at least have a good argument.

If you're interested in computers and logic then Plantinga's writings should be interesting, even if you don't find them convincing. His way of dealing with free will and the `problem of evil ' is particularly interesting. However, it's not light reading, by any stretch of the imagination, and it helps to know a bit about the philosophy of logic. It took me three months to read The Nature of Necessity. If I were reading his books now, I would start with Warranted Christian Belief, which is the last technical, and will give you a feel for whether you can face getting to grips with the more intricate stuff. Plantinga is interested in rock climbing, which gives him a head start over everybody else in my view.

I feel the need to keep an open mind about the matter and not accept anyone else’s philosophy as fact. It’s not that I feel that I’m smarter then they are mind you… it’s just that if nobody knows for sure then it relegates any religion to conjecture.

In my view all religion is conjecture or, at least, not a matter of certainty. This is why, in my view, the argument ``Why is your religion right and the 2000+ others all wrong?'' is so misleading. Anybody who says his or her religion is 100% right and everybody else's 0% right should not be listened to, in my opinion, and very few Christians I know say that. Every religion makes claims that may or may not be true, and many of those claims overlap. We don't expect certainty in any other area of life, after all -- the balance of probabilities is usually the best we can expect. To say that `nobody knows for sure' is not the same as to say `nobody knows anything' or even `I shouldn't commit myself'. I don't for sure that I'll live to retirement age, but I plan on the basis that I will because, on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely than not.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I hope so too; but an alternative explanation is that we are behind you, and we will get them later

Better start praying now.

In my view all religion is conjecture or, at least, not a matter of certainty. This is why, in my view, the argument ``Why is your religion right and the 2000+ others all wrong?'' is so misleading. Anybody who says his or her religion is 100% right and everybody else's 0% right should not be listened to, in my opinion, and very few Christians I know say that. Every religion makes claims that may or may not be true, and many of those claims overlap. We don't expect certainty in any other area of life, after all -- the balance of probabilities is usually the best we can expect. To say that `nobody knows for sure' is not the same as to say `nobody knows anything' or even `I shouldn't commit myself'. I don't for sure that I'll live to retirement age, but I plan on the basis that I will because, on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely than not.

If it’s not too personal, I’d like to know exactly what you think is compelling enough to think any theism has the balance of probabilities (If you’re not comfortable putting it out in a public forum this site has a private messaging feature). I have yet to be exposed to any compelling reason to believe it has more than the slightest of probabilities. Anyone I have ever spoken to seriously about this has either no idea why they believe, their reasoning amounts to a “god of the gaps” argument, or boils their belief down to Pascal’s wager.

 

[madbear]

If it’s not too personal, I’d like to know exactly what you think is compelling enough to think any theism has the balance of probabilities

It's not too personal -- I just fear that I'm not articulate enough to do it properly. In addition, my own views are based not on a single specific argument, but on large number of personal observations which, I think, accumulate to tip the balance in the favour of theism for me. I will try to summarise, with references to people who can explain this stuff much, much better than I can. I would urge you (and anyone else) to read the originals, instead of my inadequate summary. And I am aware that none of this, even cumulatively, amounts to `proof', and none of it is `evidence' in any scientific sense. This is not even a scientific issue, so far as I'm concerned, but a metaphysical, intuitive one.

1. The physical universe and the existence of physical laws is something that calls for explanation. A theistic explanation (properly articulated) has more explanatory power than `it's a fact, get used to it'. The facts that the physical laws we have favour the emergence of life, and that we have intellectual capacities tuned to understand them, are also important. Polkinghorne explains this way, way better than I can. See, for example, http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/religion.htm.

2. An intuition that theism is correct is a properly basic belief. That is, the burden of proof is not on the believer to justify his intuition. Calling on someone to defend an intuitive believe of this kind is equivalent to asking somebody to defend his belief that there was a past; or that there are other people. My _intuitive_ understanding that theism is correct comes from the same place, I think, as my belief that the Continuum Hypothesis is correct -- it is simply more intellectually satisfying than the alternative. Both are open to disproof, of course. See Plantiga on this point, eg., http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth03.html (but the explanation in Warranted Christian Belief is much more carefully presented).

3. Like most people, I have a sense of moral absoluteness. I attribute that sense to the existence of an absolute moral order of which my humanistic morality is a reflection. While there is a strong element of `reciprocal altruism' in human morality, there is a great deal else. The fact that people so often feel that they fall short of the moral standards they aspire to suggests to me that morality is not relative or subjective. A very detailed presentation of this argument -- and the counter argument and the objections to the counter arguments -- is given by CS Lewis in the first chapter of `Mere Christianity'. Again, he explains it far better than I can, although his writing style is rather patronising.

4. I frequently experience powerful sensations of somthing that I can only call the immanence of God. I appreciate that this is a pompous and unhelpful term. I think, but cannot be sure, that this is the same as, or related to, the experience that zen Bhuddists described as dai-kensho, which is badly translated into English as `enlightenment'. It is a sensation of the reality beyond the reality we experience the rest of the time. The zen guys maintain that dai-kensho can be elicited by meditation. This never worked for me. They also maintain that it can be elicited by the lengthy study of koans -- problems that have no logical solution. I'm not sure about this either, but I can sort of see where this is going -- it's about unhinging the rational mind from the world for an instant. Sunsets and the like don't do it for me either. Doing ordinary, family stuff with my kids brings it on most strongly, if I am in the right frame of mind. The zen guys have founded an entire religion/philosophy thing on the notion of dai-kensho, so I'm inclined to think there's something in it. Of course, I could be delusional

5. Something happened in first-century Palestine that turned an obscure Jewish sect into a major force in world affairs. Whatever it was, it happened remarkably quickly, particularly considering how slow communication generally was at the time. I think that a rational explanation for this is that the original Christians -- although they would not have described themselves this way -- experienced a truly remarkable event -- one that radically changed their lives and the lives of people they communicated it to. I don't think that the moral or social teachings of Jesus, although important, would be sufficient. I think that the best explanation -- and this is an `on-balance' thing in itself -- is that something profoundly transcendental happened, although I do not claim to know the precise nature of that event.

There is more, but these are the most important points for me. I haven't even attempted to explain how to get from vague theism to a belief that the Christian message merits respect, which would require a rather dull essay anyway.

For what it's worth, our scientific understanding of the world does not in any sense challenge the way I see religion. But the materialism and secularism that pervades everything that happens in the western world does.

I am aware that none of this is conclusive, and every single point I make is contestable. I am aware of the objections, believe me. I used them all myself in my atheist days I am also aware of the ways the contestations can be contested, and so on. It takes a lot of time, and open-mindedness, to plough through all the arguments and counter-arguments to determine what seems to be correct on balance. In my case it has taken twenty years. I am aware also that other people have examined the same arguments with an open mind and reached opposite conclusions, and that other information could come to light which causes me to change my assessment.

For what it's worth, nothing I believe is based on a conviction that is so strong that I would want to put non-believers to the sword, so to speak. I also believe that valuable information about theology and morality can be found in non-Christian religions. Along with CS Lewis, I believe that any interpretation of Christianity that requires me to assume that Socrates went to Hell is unworthy of any consideration at all. Of course, to the fundamentalists, that makes me worse than an atheist, it makes me a minion of the Devil

Best wishes
MadBear

PS. Incidentally, this is way off-topic.The thread started with a call for posts to be more scientific, and I have degenerated it into intuitive metaphysics.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

1. The physical universe and the existence of physical laws is something that calls for explanation. A theistic explanation (properly articulated) has more explanatory power than `it's a fact, get used to it'. The facts that the physical laws we have favour the emergence of life, and that we have intellectual capacities tuned to understand them, are also important. Polkinghorne explains this way, way better than I can. See, for example, http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/religion.htm.

My initial analysis of the anthropic principle lead me to accept it tentatively. I too look at the delicate equilibrium that the universe enjoys and wonder what it means. Here is the one place where I lack the knowledge to tip the scales for me and hence why I am agnostic. Is the universe truly infinite and/or are there an infinite number of universes? If the universe is infinite and our rate of expansion is accelerating then we are only one in an infinite number of hubble volumes then, by necessity, every possibility of existence must occur. If we are but one universe within a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes then, by necessity, every possibility of existence must occur. If this is the case then it tips the scales for existence without god. If we are the only universe and have a finite size then this would tip the scales in favor of some creator for me. (philosophically speaking of course)

The more we delve into things like quantum physics the more counter intuitive the universe seems. This also calls into question the limits of our comprehension IMHO. Like the dog that will never be able to comprehend higher math, what makes us so certain that there are not limits to what we can comprehend. It’s a depressing thought for sure but I think it must be considered to remain intellectually honest in the search for truth. If this is the case then the knowledge I lack (as previously stated) may never be known. If this is the case then I can not get the scales to tip for of against the concept of a creator much less any one particular god.

Pondering creation ex nihilo does me no good because I can not exempt the creator and that only leads to an unfruitful infinite regression exercise.

2. An intuition that theism is correct is a properly basic belief. That is, the burden of proof is not on the believer to justify his intuition. Calling on someone to defend an intuitive believe of this kind is equivalent to asking somebody to defend his belief that there was a past; or that there are other people. My _intuitive_ understanding that theism is correct comes from the same place, I think, as my belief that the Continuum Hypothesis is correct -- it is simply more intellectually satisfying than the alternative. Both are open to disproof, of course. See Plantiga on this point, eg., http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth03.html (but the explanation in Warranted Christian Belief is much more carefully presented).

None of my intuitions are strong enough for me to override the lack of knowledge and place stock in a belief. I feel it’s nothing more than having my own god of the gaps and is akin to believing in a volcano god. I will not deny that it is a well thought out decision for people like you but, then again, so was the volcano god for our ancestors.

3. Like most people, I have a sense of moral absoluteness. I attribute that sense to the existence of an absolute moral order of which my humanistic morality is a reflection. While there is a strong element of `reciprocal altruism' in human morality, there is a great deal else. The fact that people so often feel that they fall short of the moral standards they aspire to suggests to me that morality is not relative or subjective. A very detailed presentation of this argument -- and the counter argument and the objections to the counter arguments -- is given by CS Lewis in the first chapter of `Mere Christianity'. Again, he explains it far better than I can, although his writing style is rather patronising.

I have often though about this too but I can’t rule out the survival advantage such morality would have in the long run. Our morality may very well be just one more favorable attribute in the evolution of man. There are definitely a lot of moral discrepancies from individual to individual and culture to culture.

4. I frequently experience powerful sensations of somthing that I can only call the immanence of God. I appreciate that this is a pompous and unhelpful term. I think, but cannot be sure, that this is the same as, or related to, the experience that zen Bhuddists described as dai-kensho, which is badly translated into English as `enlightenment'. It is a sensation of the reality beyond the reality we experience the rest of the time. The zen guys maintain that dai-kensho can be elicited by meditation. This never worked for me. They also maintain that it can be elicited by the lengthy study of koans -- problems that have no logical solution. I'm not sure about this either, but I can sort of see where this is going -- it's about unhinging the rational mind from the world for an instant. Sunsets and the like don't do it for me either. Doing ordinary, family stuff with my kids brings it on most strongly, if I am in the right frame of mind. The zen guys have founded an entire religion/philosophy thing on the notion of dai-kensho, so I'm inclined to think there's something in it. Of course, I could be delusional

I believe than anything brought to it’s utmost form involves an aspect of art as well as technicality. I had the opportunity to play a sport at a very high level and can look to my profession as an example as well. Those with the ability to take the technical knowledge and apply it artistically are the best. I think this has philosophical implications but lack the knowledge about how our own brain conducts non linear thinking to read too much into it. I simply identify it as another gap.

For what it's worth, our scientific understanding of the world does not in any sense challenge the way I see religion. But the materialism and secularism that pervades everything that happens in the western world does.

I try hard not to let anything, no matter what the –ism, control my thinking. I think the most important thing is original and independent thought. I like to be classified as a free thinker. I think it’s how everyone should be. This does not mean I think everyone should think like I do. On the contrary, I am happy to meet people like you that have opposing views. The one BIG factor in my acceptance of others’ views is that they put deep thought into them and aren’t just regurgitating years of brain-washing.

I am aware that none of this is conclusive, and every single point I make is contestable. I am aware of the objections, believe me. I used them all myself in my atheist days I am also aware of the ways the contestations can be contested, and so on. It takes a lot of time, and open-mindedness, to plough through all the arguments and counter-arguments to determine what seems to be correct on balance. In my case it has taken twenty years. I am aware also that other people have examined the same arguments with an open mind and reached opposite conclusions, and that other information could come to light which causes me to change my assessment.

I applaud your open-mindedness. It’s enjoyable to get to discuss these things with a theistic thinker.

PS. Incidentally, this is way off-topic.The thread started with a call for posts to be more scientific, and I have degenerated it into intuitive metaphysics.

I hate to hijack threads too but I think this one had run it’s course anyway. Besides, this is truly what this forum is about IMHO (no offense to the OPer)

 

[madbear]

I respect your right not to be convinced by the things that I find convincing. I don't think it would be right for me to argue the point, because I would just be doing a second-rate job of something that others do so much better. It's just a shame that there aren't many of them in here

Best wishes
MadBbear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I respect your right not to be convinced by the things that I find convincing. I don't think it would be right for me to argue the point, because I would just be doing a second-rate job of something that others do so much better. It's just a shame that there aren't many of them in here

Too bad… this is one of the more interesting discussions I’ve had here. Thank you for your time and the references to gave me. I’ll definitely be looking into it more.

 

[madbear]

Too bad… this is one of the more interesting discussions I’ve had here.

It's nothing personal It's just that anything I am likely to say about the rational basis for Christian belief has already been said by people who say it better than me. I feel I'd be selling you short by offering a second-rate argument when a first-rate one is available.

However, I'd be very happy to discuss anything that Augustine, Aquinas, John Polkinghorne, Alvin Plantinga, or CS Lewis has written about this subject, in as much detail as you like I'd also be happy to discuss anything that opposes their specific arguments.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

However, I'd be very happy to discuss anything that Augustine, Aquinas, John Polkinghorne, Alvin Plantinga, or CS Lewis has written about this subject, in as much detail as you like I'd also be happy to discuss anything that opposes their specific arguments.

I guess I may as well start at the beginning. In that first link you provided, Polkinghorne starts to outline conditions for embracing belief with integrity.

(1) We must take account of what science has to tell us about the pattern and history of the physical world in which we live. Of course, science itself can no more dictate to religion what it is to believe than religion can prescribe for science what the outcome of its inquiry is to be. The two disciplines are concerned with the exploration of different aspects of human experience: in the one case, our impersonal encounter with a physical world that we transcend; in the other, our personal encounter with the One who transcends us.

Here is what is going through my mind right away…

The part I highlighted in green I whole-heartedly agree with. The parts I highlighted in red illustrate that Polkinghorne is starting to reason from a position of accepting a monotheistic system a priori.

I want to understand what leads someone to the conclusion that a monotheistic view is accurate enough to place belief in it’s validity. Why has he concluded that we transcend the physical world in the first place? I do not share his certainty in this matter.

The latter, in its most literal sense, doesn’t bother me as much because I believe the odds of superior life-forms existing is pretty good given the tenacity of life and the vastness of the universe. The problem is that we are talking about a supernatural, omni-x entity that has the ability to create a universe but leaves behind a conspicuous lack of evidence to that effect. How does Polkinghorne come to the conclusion that this exact entity exists?

The rest seems colored by his beliefs as he points to the delicate balance that the universe maintains just to exist. This is why I brought up the lack of knowledge about the infiniteness of the universe we live in. I would be persuaded to see it his way if we knew that the universe was finite and/or there are a finite number of universes. If the universe is infinite and accelerating in it’s expansion, for example, then it is host to an infinite number of hubble volumes. By introducing the concept of infinity then our highly unlikely and delicately balanced universe had to exist because it is just one possibility in the infinite set. (no intelligence needed)

 

[madbear]

By introducing the concept of infinity then our highly unlikely and delicately balanced universe had to exist because it is just one possibility in the infinite set. (no intelligence needed)...

Indeed. Polkinghorne is aware of this objection. In Beyond Science (p.92ff) he explains the anthropic reasoning of John Leslie which leads up to his conclusion

``God is real and/or there are many and varied universes''.

He then goes on to say that if nothing else were to be said, either interpretation would be equally likely. If one accepts Leslie's argument (and I think it is reasonable to do so, on the basis of what we know, but not provably so) the choice comes down to some notion of God, or gods, or a many-worlds model. But I'm not entirely sure I agree with Polkinghorne on this point. Is it really true that either interpretation is equally likely? It's our old friend epistemology again, isn't it? Arguably the `one God' model is a better application of Occam's razor than the `multiple Gods' model, both of which are better applications that a many-worlds model. Of course, being epistemelogically satisfying isn't the same as being true -- it's just a question of where you put your money ( not in the Pascal sense, of course ). In any case, nothing about Leslie's conclusion leads us to accept any particular religion's view of God, even if it leads to monotheism. I think it does lead to the view that God is distict from the created order (ie., not pantheistic) and therefore (presumably) distinct from space and time, but that as far as it takes us, if even that far.

Rather oddly, in my opinion, in one of his other books (can't remember which), Polkinghorne does seem to take a pantheistic view, and identifies God with the quantum vacuum from which the `bubble universes' arise. I think he calls this `theological etiolation'. But I'm not sure whether he ever intended this to be taken seriously -- it isn't a big theme in any of his other writings.

In any event, having accepted that Leslie's `God and/or many worlds' interpretation is credible, he goes on to say

``But of course I believe there are many other arguments for belief in God -- including those from the intelligibility of the physical world and from religious experience [...] anthropic considerations are but part of a cumulative case for Theism''

Later he says:

``In my opinion, science is possible, and cosmic history has been fruitful, because the universe we inhabit is a creation''.

In other words, I think he is saying that Theism is true (or more probable) not only because life fits the universe, but because at least some living organisms are able to comprehend it. Of course, one could argue that natural selection produces things that comprehend the natural order because such things have a better degree of adaptability, or something like that. In my understanding, however, the most successful organisms on earth (in the sense of being able to withstand environmental disturbance) are far from the smartest. It's possible to argue that the ability to understand, say, quantum gravity is an epiphenomenon of our naturally-selected ability to understand (say) the complex social relations between human beings, but I think the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts such a thing. In any case, Polkinghorne explain this better than me in the book.

In any event, you're right that Polkinghorne does slip easily into an assumption of monotheism. However, it's clear that he doesn't see anthropic considerations (or, for that matter, scientific considerations in general) as sufficient on their own to establish any definite idea of God. He gets this from the interplay between science, his personal experience and intution, and elsewhere.

Incidentally, I don't know of any on-line sources for any of Polkinghorne's writings ( at least, none that can be obtained ethically ) and it's a bit of a nuisance to type stuff in from my printed copy, so please excuse the brevity of the snippets.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[MartinM]

But I'm not entirely sure I agree with Polkinghorne on this point. Is it really true that either interpretation is equally likely? It's our old friend epistemology again, isn't it? Arguably the `one God' model is a better application of Occam's razor than the `multiple Gods' model, both of which are better applications that a many-worlds model.

That might be convincing if many-worlds were simply a case of 'watch carefully as a pull a solution out of a hat' - but, of course, it isn't. It's a natural implication of what we've learned so far about the Universe, and as such is on a far better epistemic footing than invoking a deity, which really is pulling a solution out of a hat.