At some point, arguing about what we haven't seen and cannot test becomes fruitless. Either it is or it isn't. What people actually believe becomes irrelevant. If I tell you that I just dropped a pen, what you believe about that is irrelevant -- the pen either dropped or it didn't. It has little to do with what you believe.
But I could have an independent observer verify that the pen dropped. You can argue that maybe the independent observer lied. As far as a pen dropping, I am willing to take your word.
In the matter of something as important as god, I am not willing to take your word. Nor the world of the Bible. Yet, that is all the evidence there is. In addition, at least part of the Bible is merely a story with a message. And that story does not match up with proposals put forth by many others.
Genesis is to let me know that god created me and that he loves me. But that is working from the assumption that there is a god, which there is no evidence to support other than this story that says so.
Depends on what you value. It snowed here last week. If you don't live here, you didn't see it. Does that have value? That may depend on where you live. California values this even though they didn't see it.
It seems our very definition of something being real requires that we can somehow observe it. Otherwise, I am right back to my Santa Claus argument. Why do you choose to deny Santa Claus, Moff? Why?!
The Bible may give us some guidance, but I don't feel that it answers everything.
The guidance gained seems wildly diverse.
I'm not sure what this is referencing directly, but so much of religion seems like "magic". Anything dealing with an "afterlife" regardless of what they believe -- enlightenment, heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc. -- seems a bit like "magic".
If it looks like dog poo, smells like dog poo, feels and taste like dog poo…
My reference was that since religion does not have to obey the world as we understand it, it must be magic. And I do not see any difference between Christian magic and cave men worshiping the sun magic.
|
CourtFool,
To mangle a quote from Hogfather, one of the Discowrld books:
If you take the universe and grind it into the finest powder, then pass that through the finest sieve, I defy you to find me a single atom of justice, or mercy, or fairness. And yet still you act as if they are true.
Why is God not in the same category? Something can be true and yet insubstantial, can it not? If not, show me an atom of truth.
|
CourtFool,
To mangle a quote from Hogfather, one of the Discowrld books:
If you take the universe and grind it into the finest powder, then pass that through the finest sieve, I defy you to find me a single atom of justice, or mercy, or fairness. And yet still you act as if they are true.Why is God not in the same category? Something can be true and yet insubstantial, can it not? If not, show me an atom of truth.
And please don't go with the hardwired theory. Sicne so many people seem not to have that hardwiring. If we are hardwired for belief and many do no believe what does that make all of them?
Why is God not in the same category? Something can be true and yet insubstantial, can it not? If not, show me an atom of truth.
So god is a concept?
|
... I am not willing ...
In which case it becomes a choice. And that's ok.
It seems our very definition of something being real requires that we can somehow observe it.
Not necessarily. I do that with examples because it is easier.
How small can you go? At some point, it was the atom. Then the atom was broken up with different parts (protons, etc.). Then those parts were broken up into more parts (quarks?). I haven't looked into it recently -- is there anything smaller? Will there ever come a point where we cannot see any smaller? Yet does that mean that if we break up a quark (or whatever), that it simply and truly disappears?
Yet if we can't see it, does that mean that it doesn't exist?
Yet these are still physical things. It's hard to give examples of things that are "metaphysical" since that deals more with faith that physical tests.
I'm just saying that while I'm using physical, observable examples, the ideas mostly still fit.
The guidance gained seems wildly diverse.
Hmmm. If you were to provide a "text" about you -- all about you -- could you do it easily and precisely? Without any possibility for misinterpretation, or double meanings, or any other issues? I wouldn't be able to do it with myself. Certainly not with my children. Yet we seem to think that it should be possible to put "God" in a neat little box with a bow on it.
... I am not willing ...In which case it becomes a choice. And that's ok.
Can you choose to believe 1 + 1 = 3?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And please don't go with the hardwired theory. Sicne so many people seem not to have that hardwiring. If we are hardwired for belief and many do no believe what does that make all of them?
We are hardwired to see, but some people are blind. We are hardwired to cooperate, but some people are sociopaths. We are hardwired to reproduce, but some people are sterile.
The hardwired theory (or, rather, the predisposition theory is probably a better term) works. It need not be universal to provide an explanation.
|
|
Can you choose to believe 1 + 1 = 3?... I am not willing ...In which case it becomes a choice. And that's ok.
Not sure what you are implying.
I am struggling with what you essentially said a while ago. Bottom line is that there really is no reason for you to believe what I do. There isn't. It will not make you a better person. It will not make you "right". I cannot make you believe. Besides, forcing someone to believe doesn't make it happen. They just go through the motions.
You are free to choose as you will. I want you to understand that it is a choice that you are making. I cannot make it for you. At the same time, if I were to tell you that your choice wasn't ok, how well would that go over?
What I don't fully understand is why there are those who are trying to convince me of the error of my ways. Assuming that I'm wrong, how am I any worse off than you? That is not a reason to believe, but I don't really understand the other side of things.
And yes you can believe that 1+1=3. (And it sometimes does.)
|
|
And please don't go with the hardwired theory. Since so many people seem not to have that hardwiring. If we are hardwired for belief and many do no believe what does that make all of them?We are hardwired to see, but some people are blind. We are hardwired to cooperate, but some people are sociopaths. We are hardwired to reproduce, but some people are sterile.
The hardwired theory (or, rather, the predisposition theory is probably a better term) works. It need not be universal to provide an explanation.
This goes back to the age old Nature vs. Nurture debate, and can quite frankly be spun in any direction one wishes to. It does not however, at least yet confirm that we are, to use my vulgar term, hardwired to do anything. Rather that some people may have an easier time to believe and that if they are encouraged to do so may in fact find faith very easy. Whereas others may be more predisposed to question everything, even when shown what others consider, proof. This however still fails to explain why some people over time change their minds. C.S.Lewis is just one example of an atheist who came to believe and there are examples of people who were pastors and priests who one day leaves their orders and change, sometimes radically, what they believe. The reason I wanted to leave this concept out of it, is not that I cannot debate the concept but rather it opens another big old bag of worms that does not help the debate at all.
At the same time, if I were to tell you that your choice wasn't ok, how well would that go over?
But is that not essentially what you are telling me? That I am choosing to deny god and therefore I will be separated from him. I am assuming being separated from god is to be considered a bad thing.
Not sure what you are implying. … I cannot make you believe. Besides, forcing someone to believe doesn't make it happen. They just go through the motions.
I think you are making my own point there. Is belief in god a choice? It is not something I can just suddenly do except for maybe going through the motions. Could you suddenly choose to believe in Mormonism?
How is the fact that people change their minds inconsistent with the idea that people in general are predisposed to believing in an unseen force/power?
Could it be a confusing of the terms 'hardwired' and 'predisposed'?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How is the fact that people change their minds inconsistent with the idea that people in general are predisposed to believing in an unseen force/power?Could it be a confusing of the terms 'hardwired' and 'predisposed'?
I suppose, but such a literal reading of "hardwired" is just a strawman built out of the predisposition argument. The argument that people are hardwired towards certain universal behaviors and can't deviate from them is on its face false, so there's really no reason to pretend anyone is making it.
It's like me saying "mothers tend to be protective and loving of their offspring" and having that read as "all mothers always protect and love their offspring because they are biologically incapable of doing otherwise." Clearly, the second argument is an absurd misstatement of the first and demonstrably false. Rebutting the second argument demonstrates nothing with regards to the actual argument being made.
Could it be a confusing of the terms 'hardwired' and 'predisposed'?
Binary thinking is a constant barrier to communication and understanding. "Ice cream is either chocolate or it's strawberry!" Never mind vanilla, or mung bean for that matter. My other favorites are things like, "You either love the president, and support torture, or else you're with the terrorists!" Or the even more inane protestations along the lines of, "You either believe in crystals and become a vegan and live in a hippie commune dropping acid, or else you're an evil warmonger murderer imperialist running-dog lackey."
I must be touching nerves today. Getting it from both sides. :)
I am cool with being labeled a traitor. I would rather stand alone doing the right thing than be a part of a group doing the wrong thing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am cool with being labeled a traitor. I would rather stand alone doing the right thing than be a part of a group doing the wrong thing.
Ah, but it's not just a label. I hope you enjoy your stay in Gitmo. I will send you some soap on a rope in case that standing alone thing doesn't work out for you...
I must be touching nerves today. Getting it from both sides.
Wasn't accusing YOU of that thinking, CF, just pointing out that a lot of people have it, and it blinds them to fine distinctions like the difference between "tends to" and "always has to."
You're one of the least binary people I've run across (must be that poodles are less predisposed...)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I must be touching nerves today. Getting it from both sides.Wasn't accusing YOU of that thinking, CF. You're one of the least binary people I've run across (must be that poodles are less predisposed...)
(And I was just riffing on Kirth's post with my militant atheist v. traitor comment.)
I will send you some soap on a rope in case that standing alone thing doesn't work out for you...
You forget, we poodles like to be humped.
You're one of the least binary people I've run across (must be that poodles are less predisposed...)
I take that as a very sincere compliment.
I would like to think it is humility that allows me to be so fluid. Although, sometimes I have wondered if I am just a hopeless flip-flopper.
Although, sometimes I have wondered if I am just a hopeless flip-flopper.
Anyone who has ever changed their mind about anything is a flip-flopper who has no values. And probably a communist sympathizer. My co-workers told me so all the time during the last two elections, so it must be true.
|
|
You're one of the least binary people I've run across (must be that poodles are less predisposed...)I take that as a very sincere compliment.
I would like to think it is humility that allows me to be so fluid. Although, sometimes I have wondered if I am just a hopeless flip-flopper.
Faith many-a-times brings hope.
Does feeling that communism is a great theory mean one is a communist sympathizer?
Speaking of which…can I coin the phrase 'Green Scare' to apply to militant eco-activist?
Speaking of which…can I coin the phrase 'Green Scare' to apply to militant eco-activist?
I think Michael Crichton may have beaten you to it...
Speaking of which…can I coin the phrase 'Green Scare' to apply to militant eco-activist?I think Michael Crichton may have beaten you to it...
Gah!
I should like to wish a happy Hanukkah to our Jewish boardmates.
Happy Hanukkah.
Sunny Solstice.
Yabba-dabba-Yuletide.
Righteous Ramadan.
Kickin' Kwanzaa.
And a Merry Christmas to all...
...and to all a good night (too much lunch and now I'm in a food coma)
Happy Lifeday to all the Wookies on the boards.
|
|
I have struggled with Crimson Jester's statement that the truth is.
If it is unobservable, does it have any value to me? If it is incomprehensible to us, how can it be in the Bible and what good can the Bible be if we are unable to comprehend it?
Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things. -St. Thomas Aquinas
Bill Clinton had a little trouble with this as well. In his famous "depends on what the definition of is, is." statement.
“If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” We like to think yes. Not just because someone has been in the forest but because our internal “logic” tells us so, but also on faith, faith that things remain consistent. They don’t, we all know this. It is why we are able to make new discoveries or build new businesses. For if all things remained even and constant there would truly be “nothing new under the sun.” So we must rely on the statements of others and make assumptions on them. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has done so before. I can be said to have faith in this truth. Likewise we can say that the sun is a big ball of superheated gas that floats in space with a large gravity well. We have done experiments to prove this and feel that this fact is true. At some point or facts about the sun will change when we have new experiments and ideas to explore. But the sun is, a tree in the forestis. I may never see it but that doesn’t make it less so. Just as a child will learn that when mommy and daddy leave the room they still exist we must at some point have faith that they shall return. So Santa Claus, in the American tradition does not exist, this does not mean that Mall Santa is not a real person. Being paid quite poorly I may add from personal experience.
I don’t know if this helps or hinders the concept for you. I stand very poorly on the backs of much greater men who understood the concept far greater then I. Truth Is. Nothing more nothing less.
But the sun is, a tree in the forestis. I may never see it but that doesn’t make it less so.
I'm not sure anyone disputes this; it's when people take the next step: the sun IS, the tree IS, the omnipotent God as I imagine him IS... that's when the picture starts to get muddy. Why not the 16,000 gods that the Hindus describe ARE? That's when it stops being a matter of objective Truth, and becomes one of subjective Faith.
Just some random wanderings from the poodle.
So Santa Claus, in the American tradition does not exist, this does not mean that Mall Santa is not a real person. Being paid quite poorly I may add from personal experience.
But I feel that kind of proves my point. At some point in your life the Santa Claus of tradition was. Now we know he is something far more mundane.
Why are you so sure god is not something far more mundane? My guess would be 'faith'. For me, Santa Claus, fairies, gremlins, ect. shake my faith.
What is Moshiach?
Still not clear; I stopped reading when I got to this:
"Some things never change: animals, vegetables, minerals. But people do."Since this statement is demonstrably not true (need I explain the rock cycle?), I figured the rest was equally goofy.
I can only try to explain things in my limited way, live my life as the best example of my beliefs and not try to force said beliefs on others.
And this is where, hopefully, we all agree -- irrespective of religion or lack thereof. Well said!
I can only try to explain things in my limited way, live my life as the best example of my beliefs and not try to force said beliefs on others.And this is where, hopefully, we all agree -- irrespective of religion or lack thereof. Well said!
So, um...is humping your leg 'forcing' my beliefs on you?
So, um...is humping your leg 'forcing' my beliefs on you?I can only try to explain things in my limited way, live my life as the best example of my beliefs and not try to force said beliefs on others.And this is where, hopefully, we all agree -- irrespective of religion or lack thereof. Well said!
Only if you force him to marry you.
If you take the universe and grind it into the finest powder, then pass that through the finest sieve, I defy you to find me a single atom of justice, or mercy, or fairness. And yet still you act as if they are true.
That's because those things are emergent rather than fundamental. There are no more atoms of justice then their are atoms of salt (there are, however, atoms of chlorine and sodium which combine to make salt).
Why is God not in the same category? Something can be true and yet insubstantial, can it not? If not, show me an atom of truth.
Obviously, I accept things that are emergent - that are not fundamental but exist only in a specific combination of fundamental elements. And I accept the existence of things that cannot have physical reality, but so far the only non-physical things I've seen evidence for are fundamental (specifically certain irrational ratios or strange attractors). Which I suppose means that most things have some element of the non-physical to them.
However, I have yet to see any evidence of emergent things which are wholly non-physical. As all the definitions of gods and souls attribute them properties which only emergent (rather than fundamental) things can possess, this then is my stumbling block to accepting the idea of wholly non-physical god or soul.
Ok. Romantic love is the aggregate of lust, attraction, and attachment. The lust is the initial rush, a very pleasant sort of desire one usually associates with mating. This lust may develop into attraction where the fixation has gone from merely sexual to include more interpersonal connections. Whereas lust may arise from anyone that seems a suitable mate, attraction is an individualized response to a particular potential (or past, or current) mate. If things progress along normally, the prior two generally give way to attachment, which is the bonding and desire to remain together based on mutual interests, characteristics, and so forth over the long term and thus tends to intertwine with friendship and various commitments. Of course, every relationship is a bit different and for some couples (or larger groups) lust and attraction may continue to be important parts of the relationship for decades.
Platonic and familial love share obvious similarities.
Now all of those things I just listed are brain states. Neurology is a relatively young science, but we've determined that these emotions are strongly associated with the production and release of particular chemicals in the brain. However even without that knowledge, and without monitoring our brains constantly for the chemicals in question, we can readily observe their effects in ourselves.
I can't say that my testosterone is up 5% and therefore I'm in love. But I can say that I'm darn well feeling horny! Since we are a part of the universe, so are our brain states. We can observe them (Even as we experience them, which is itself an experience and thus experiencing the experience can be its own brain state. Recursion is weird.) Reporting on them is reporting on a part of the universe, just like taking a person's temperature or observing the wavelengths of light. We take these stimuli and consult our language faculties, matching them up as best we can with what we have observed in others with the same sounds attached, and call the whole sparking soup by the noises that match the associations: love.
We may, of course, consider different levels of a stimulus necessary to invoke love. Many people, especially adolescents, feel lust and hop right ahead. Others might have very high benchmarks. This is a bit like saying it's hot or cold outside. I'm from Northern Michigan. When it gets to 80 it's usually hot. My friend moved to Hawaii and now I hate him forever because after being there a few years 70 is cold to him.
You might be saying well, there's subjectivity! I'd say not quite. It looks subjective, but what to "hot" and "cold" really mean? We might agree on the basics of temperature and still disagree on where one turns into the other. But those are differences bound up in our own experiences of the world. When we're saying it's hot or cold outside, we're speaking not to the exact temperature itself (the sun is far hotter than any hot we feel, and makes the whole earth seem damned cold by comparison) but rather to our comparison between it and our normal experience. Both of those are empirical measures. We could even take the means, construct a survey, and then make all kinds of graphs as to what people in particular areas consider hot and cold. It turns out that "Seventy is cold" and "Eighty is hot" are empirical statements. They're declarations as to our feelings, which are themselves based on experiences and our comparisons of new stimuli with them.
I feel like I'm starting to get a bit wrapped up in my own verbiage, so let me try to sum up.
1) Our inner worlds are a part of the universe, amenable to the same kinds of investigations and measurement as the outer world is even if science hasn't quite advanced to the point where we can do it with the same accuracy as of yet.
2) Apparently subjective statements about things are actually objective reports of our responses to those things, which are not necessarily intrinsic in the things themselves but may arise from our encounters with past and present stimuli.
3) So when viewed properly (or at least what I think of as properly :) ) these statements are in fact objective, if not in the readily apparent way.
4) Therefore the opinion "Elijah Wood is the sexiest man alive" is objective not in the sense that all people would immediately agree that he was but in that it is a truthful and genuine report of my perception of my own emotional state on looking at him.
5) And people who disagree with the above statement are not empirically wrong. Rather both parties are empirically correct at least insofar as they are honestly reporting on their own emotional states.
Oh, that's right, I was having a conversation in here...sorry about that.
I'm glad you defined your definition of objectivity in your summary points there. And of course, there are observable phenomena that can clue one in to romantic love, but I still think there is a large amount of gray area. A liquid that has reached its boiling point is readily observable, without question. Yet I don't think there is a defined point at which one could measure hormonal levels, body temperature, etc, etc. and say conclusively "This person is/is not in love."
Now, why were we having this conversation again? It reminds me of a conversation I was having with a humanist group at my university. One young woman was taking the stance that everything worth knowing/doing is grounded in science, specifically linking human behavior and biology. She was sitting there at the time with her female partner. I (tactfully) pointed out that if that was the case then her current relationship was not a successful one, as it was unfruitful in a biological sense. Therefore, their love, by her own definition, had no value. She was ignoring your first summary point, as far as I can see.
And of course, there are observable phenomena that can clue one in to romantic love, but I still think there is a large amount of gray area. A liquid that has reached its boiling point is readily observable, without question. Yet I don't think there is a defined point at which one could measure hormonal levels, body temperature, etc, etc. and say conclusively "This person is/is not in love."
But aren't you just labeling our ignorance subjectivity and then calling it truth? We're not omniscient, but it doesn't require that to measure the temperature of a liquid or assess someone's neurotransmitter levels. There will always be a bit of arbitrariness in any measurement (Why does water boil at 100 C instead of 101 C? Because that's how we set the scale up.) If it's not a barrier to our understanding of the water's temperature then why is it a barrier to understanding brain states? I know the technology isn't there yet, but you seem to be saying that it's impossible for it to ever be there.
Now, why were we having this conversation again? It reminds me of a conversation I was having with a humanist group at my university. One young woman was taking the stance that everything worth knowing/doing is grounded in science, specifically linking human behavior and biology. She was sitting there at the time with her female partner. I (tactfully) pointed out that if that was the case then her current relationship was not a successful one, as it was unfruitful in a biological sense. Therefore, their love, by her own definition, had no value. She was ignoring your first summary point, as far as I can see.
I don't see how. She's reporting on her emotional state. It does actually have some biological value too, though I dislike getting into the topic a bit because the one benefit most people acknowledge is about as hypocritical a point as I've ever seen, reproduction. (What? Nobody cries foul when people who haven't had their fertility verified mate. Nor when people who biologically can't be fertile like post-menopausal woman mate.)
But ok, biological values:
1) Pleasure is biological. I mean, people buy euphoria in pills. It's not absurd to class pleasure generation as a biological gain. I mean, I like it and I bet you do too. The experience of pleasure is no stranger a biological goal than reproduction or feeding. (It might be less urgent, but not all biological imperatives are equally urgent anyway.)
2) If one has siblings, those siblings share some of one's genes. By taking oneself out of competition for mates, and through familial bonding still making one available to assist in the rearing of young, one is still assisting in the propagation of one's genes. Natural selection rolls along. I seem to recall a study that indicated among siblings the younger are more likely to be gay, which provides some support for the point aside from the theoretical.
I don't actually agree with the statement that if it's not science, it's crap. But if something's not science, then it's not science and doesn't deserve equal status with science. I adore the hell out of history, but in any case that science comes into conflict with history, history is wrong and that's all there is to it. We should abandon its mistaken findings without hesitation or remorse. In fact we should do so with joy since our understand of the universe just improved. Anything save science might still be fun, inspiring, satisfying, interesting, and so forth. It wouldn't be accurate to call it totally worthless. It's just not worth as much as science is worth.
One young woman was taking the stance that everything worth knowing/doing is grounded in science, specifically linking human behavior and biology. She was sitting there at the time with her female partner. I (tactfully) pointed out that if that was the case then her current relationship was not a successful one, as it was unfruitful in a biological sense. Therefore, their love, by her own definition, had no value. She was ignoring your first summary point, as far as I can see.
Not every member of a species has to engage in reproduction for it to be a contributor to that species's success (even if one measures success in terms of reproduction).
Neo: I just have never...
Rama-Kandra: ...heard a program speak of love?
Neo: It's a... human emotion.
Rama-Kandra: No, it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies. I see that you are in love. Can you tell me what you would give to hold on to that connection?
Neo: Anything.
Rama-Kandra: Then perhaps the reason you're here is not so different from the reason I'm here.