Thus, it has always been

[Rolling_Stone]

Knowledge originates in science and science deals with facts, and I love it—but only a fool does not recognize its limitations. And though you might disagree, I am not a fool. Religion—real religion—is not a primitive belief in something imaginary followed by corresponding values that end up being borrowed by secularists, but emerges from experiences alluded to in my first posting: the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause. When any normal, rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe to the complexity of a living cell, awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected; and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed. The idealization of the things themselves or the science that comprehends them is, to use a Zen saying, mistaking the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself. Newton and Galileo did not make that mistake, nor do I. To them, science and mathematics were a ways of communing with God.

All I ask is that people talk intelligibly about religion or not at all—to learn something about the centuries-old premise of self-existent reality as opposed to emergent properties before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus; to learn the difference between contingent things and non-contingent conditions before speaking out against concepts that take them into consideration.

I am afraid, however, that this is asking too much. Atheist Bertrand Russell said, “Someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape.” This is true no matter what the person’s worldview—atheist or religious. When a person’s comfort zone is threatened, they tend to erect defensive barriers rather than taking up the challenge to adapt or create an entirely new worldview. Confronted with unfamiliar and radically different modes of thought, such as “evolution” or a distinction being made between “emergent properties” and “self-existent reality,” the immediate response is a retreat into the world with which they are most familiar. The reaction is like pulling one’s hand away from a fire before recognizing its usefulness. If they cannot defend their world from the message, the message will be ignored and the messenger put on trial. They will attack the messenger’s character, question his motives, try to damage his credibility, or make the messenger spoon-feed information that can be gleaned from the words themselves or easily acquired.

Thus, it has always been, and thus it is likely to always be.

 

[Ayodhya]

The quote you posted is in direct contradiction to the rationale of posting this.
If atheists are comfortable with their limited world view, let them continue: you have no reason to write this post other than to rant.

 

[Yorda]

The quote you posted is in direct contradiction to the rationale of posting this.
If atheists are comfortable with their limited world view, let them continue: you have no reason to write this post other than to rant.

theists are also "comfortable with their limited world view".

 

[spidergoat]

You are correct that people tend to get defensive when their deeply held views are questioned. In light of this, let us consider what you are saying.

I agree that real religion, AKA spirituality, is not simple belief in fairly tales or Gods or supreme beings. However, to symbolize the various causes of things into one thing is not a full appreciation of reality, but a simplification of it. It replaces natural wonder and curiosity with a symbol as if to place it beyond consideration. Awe directed towards this symbol is misdirected. It can be more comfortable to do so, since people evolved as social animals, but it does not reflect reality. Personification of reality is a reflection of ourselves.

Being in awe of the symbol for everything is exactly the finger pointing, not the moon itself. By definition we can't know the true nature of God. Therefore believing in it is believing in the finger, not what it points to.

 

[Godless]

this double posting an opening thread, you must delete one of them, or it will be done for you. I know you think you've got a point to make, but please do try and save some band-width, don't double post an opening thread!

I'll respond when i get home. I'm at work now.

 

[SnakeLord]

Religion—real religion

For clarification purposes please cite an example of a "real religion" and a not-real religion. Thank you.

the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause.

The dilemma of which is that, if we take your statement as true, what caused the one that caused us? This invariably continues down the line forever - and the only current 'excuse' is that "well, everything else was caused but not 'he'". In saying that, why go to 'he' in the first place? Can 'he' not simply be the universe itself?

rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe

Kindly provide a bit more detail concerning "finely tuned"..

to the complexity of a living cell

Something seeming "complex" to us doesn't really mean much at the end of the day or point to sky beings. What you are doing here is saying "god did it" merely because you don't have an answer yet, which isn't of any worth at the end of the day.

awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected; and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed.

For the sake of discussion I shall agree with you and state that this universe and everything in it was 'created' by some god thingy. But that is not where awe and reverence is being directed. Awe and reverence is being directed at beings 'created' by an unknown ancient person purely on the basis that they said so. You must surely see the worthlessness of that?

All I ask is that people talk intelligibly about religion or not at all—to learn something about the centuries-old premise of self-existent reality as opposed to emergent properties before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus

While I accept that you're new here, what you really need to understand is that people here have been talking "intelligibly" about religion since long before you showed up, and undoubtedly will continue to do so long after you have vanished. What you need to do is debate an issue, (not the person). They might not understand your statements, they might understand those statements but not agree with them - and ask you to state the case from your own perspective. That is just as important a part of discussion. You cannot in all honesty expect everyone to go out and get a degree in religious education just to be able to discuss religious matters on a religious subforum. You go on to say that you're "spoon feeding information".. which is quite naive. If people asks things from you it is generally because they want your opinion concerning the issue - not that they're a blithering uneducated halfwit. We can also add to that: claims. If you make a claim people will naturally ask you to support those claims. It is not upto the person questioning you to go off searching round the entire internet just to support a claim that you make. That is your job.

I hope that helps.

 

[imaplanck.]

The dilemma of which is that, if we take your statement as true, what caused the one that caused us? This invariably continues down the line forever - and the only current 'excuse' is that "well, everything else was caused but not 'he'". In saying that, why go to 'he' in the first place? Can 'he' not simply be the universe itself?



.

Nicely put.
I remember at about aged 13 askINg these Johavas that turned up at the door "If god created us, who created him?". I got the old crap "he was always there!". My logic to think while shutting the door was "why couldnt the molecules that we evolved from have always been there?".
Theists seem to be under the illusion that atheism is taught in 'the school for atheism for the prevention of the spread of the word god' or some stupid shit like that, instead of being a result of using ones education to come to a logical conclusion.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

and so it goes

If I understand you correctly, Spidergoat, I absolutely agree. Hence, there is a distinction to be made between an ideal and the interpretative idea.

Most of what passes for religon, SnakeLord, is theology-dominated...it's a doctrine rather than a way of life. It isolates a part of life and calls it religion when in fact it is nothing more than a body of ideas.

As for the rest...well, no comment.

 

[imaplanck.]

Most of what passes for religon, SnakeLord, is theology-dominated...it's a doctrine rather than a way of life. It isolates a part of life and calls it religion when in fact it is nothing more than a body of ideas.

.

Thats a first! In my entire life I dont think I've ever heard someone talk so modestly and rationally about their religion.

 

[SnakeLord]

It isolates a part of life and calls it religion when in fact it is nothing more than a body of ideas.

Ok, thank you. However I would still be interested in an example of a "real" religion and a non-real one if you would care to do so.

As for the rest...well, no comment

That's a shame. I was especially looking forward to details concerning your claim that the universe is "finely tuned". I guess it's all subjective but I wouldn't personally consider giant chunks of rock and ice whizzing round the cosmos smack, banging into planets as an example of something being "finely tuned". Neither for that matter would I consider those billions upon billions of planets doing bugger all as an example of "finely tuned", indeed I would class it as an 'extreme waste of space'.

My questions and statements were not particularly challenging. Please, I urge you to try.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok, thank you. However I would still be interested in an example of a "real" religion and a non-real one if you would care to do so.

seems like you are only prepared to listen to answers that don't contradict what you already know

That's a shame. I was especially looking forward to details concerning your claim that the universe is "finely tuned". I guess it's all subjective but I wouldn't personally consider giant chunks of rock and ice whizzing round the cosmos smack, banging into planets as an example of something being "finely tuned". Neither for that matter would I consider those billions upon billions of planets doing bugger all as an example of "finely tuned", indeed I would class it as an 'extreme waste of space'.

all that you have established is that you don't know how the universe is operating - it may appear that its just smashing and crashing all over the place but nonetheless when the sun goes down this afternoon you make plans for the next day rather than thinking that the sun has just disappeared and life as we know it on earthg will disappear as temperatures drop - in other words to rationally apply your view of an "untuned universe" would be lunacy

 

[SnakeLord]

seems like you are only prepared to listen to answers that don't contradict what you already know

Uh.. lack of sleep last night? I merely asked for an example of each for clarification purposes. Seemingly that's too much to ask. Why is that exactly?

all that you have established is that you don't know how the universe is operating - it may appear that its just smashing and crashing all over the place but nonetheless when the sun goes down this afternoon you make plans for the next day rather than thinking that the sun has just disappeared and life as we know it on earthg will disappear as temperatures drop

Well, life as we know it on earth might very well disappear due to temperatures.. Such is life. Anyway, it seems you missed the point. A claim was made, I offered some alternatives and wanted him, (not you), to explain how he considered everything "finely tuned". Hell, even you will do, but instead you seem more content to just tell people what they do or do not know, and while that's your right, it's not very helpful.

in other words to rationally apply your view of an "untuned universe" would be lunacy

This is why I'd rather you stay out of it, (put me back on ignore or something). You don't seem to read posts before you jump in on them telling people what they do or do not know. Needless to say I want Rolling Stone, (not you), to explain why he considers this universe "finely tuned".

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, life as we know it on earth might very well disappear due to temperatures.. Such is life. Anyway, it seems you missed the point. A claim was made, I offered some alternatives and wanted him, (not you), to explain how he considered everything "finely tuned". Hell, even you will do, but instead you seem more content to just tell people what they do or do not know, and while that's your right, it's not very helpful.

my point was to claim that the universe is not finely tuned based on what one can know about it, is absurd, since its not clear how our empirical perception of it can be anything but metonymic

 

[SnakeLord]

my point was to claim that the universe is not finely tuned based on what one can know about it, is absurd, since its not clear how our empirical perception of it can be anything but metonymic

My 'point' was to try and get Rolling Stone to explain how he considers the universe to be "finely tuned", because the claim by itself does not really say much.

As you seemingly want to get involved, perhaps you'd like to speak for Rolling Stone and explain to me how you consider the universe finely tuned.

Now please, pay attention.. Me asking you to explain how you consider the universe finely tuned is not me saying it isn't. For some reason you constantly fail to grasp that. Me asking a question of someone is not me instantly believing the exact opposite to be true. Remember, Rolling Stone made the claim.. I need to know more details concerning why he thinks the universe is finely tuned before I can really comment on it. Again, if you would like to answer for him, feel free..

 

[lightgigantic]

My 'point' was to try and get Rolling Stone to explain how he considers the universe to be "finely tuned", because the claim by itself does not really say much.

As you seemingly want to get involved, perhaps you'd like to speak for Rolling Stone and explain to me how you consider the universe finely tuned.

Now please, pay attention.. Me asking you to explain how you consider the universe finely tuned is not me saying it isn't. For some reason you constantly fail to grasp that. Me asking a question of someone is not me instantly believing the exact opposite to be true. Remember, Rolling Stone made the claim.. I need to know more details concerning why he thinks the universe is finely tuned before I can really comment on it. Again, if you would like to answer for him, feel free..

In short, the universe, from the macro to the micro, displays systems of order that are beyond the systems of order we rack our brains to produce.
For instance we would hardly accept a plastic model of the solar system as not being "finely tuned" (we accept instantlythat someone had constructed it with intention) so it s not logical to accept the thing it is based on as having manifested in the absence of fine tuning (since its complexity is incalculably many more times complex and advanced than the plastic one)

the standard response to this is that since the universe is incalcuably many times more complex than what we can understand is an indication it is not fine tuned. This falls back on my original point, taht such a view point is absurd becasue one wouldn't expect our perception of the universe by empiricism to be anything but metonymic

 

[wsionynw]

the standard response to this is that since the universe is incalcuably many times more complex than what we can understand is an indication it is not fine tuned. This falls back on my original point, taht such a view point is absurd becasue one wouldn't expect our perception of the universe by empiricism to be anything but metonymic

We're all agreed then, the universe is and isn't finely tuned.

 

[spidergoat]

In short, the universe, from the macro to the micro, displays systems of order that are beyond the systems of order we rack our brains to produce.

You could point to examples of order, but you could also point to examples of disorder. That we don't yet understand it all completely is no argument for a designer.

Any life form that exists will tend to find itself in an environment suitable for that life, otherwise there would be no life to observe it. This is called the anthropic principle, or anthropic bias.

 

[SnakeLord]

In short, the universe, from the macro to the micro, displays systems of order that are beyond the systems of order we rack our brains to produce.

As Spidergoat has pointed out, there's little room to neglect to also mention the disorder. Would you concur that any system given a lot of time will eventually display some level of order? As an example: Our universe contains trillions upon trillions of planets, suns, and whatever else. Would it be dishonest to state that you wouldn't expect to find any order in something as vast given enough time? (the old monkey/Shakespeare debate).

In a system like this you would expect to find not only some "order", but also disorder - the same does not really apply to a 'designed' system, (a system purportedly designed by the greatest intellect in the universe no less). Can you explain why you would find disorder in a designed system?

 

[lightgigantic]

We're all agreed then, the universe is and isn't finely tuned.

assuming that our intelligence represents the pinnacle of fine tuning, yes (would a jungle tribe be justified in saying that a television is not fine tuned because it is beyond their ability to determine how it was manufactured and how it functions?)

 

[lightgigantic]

You could point to examples of order, but you could also point to examples of disorder.

what process would you apply to distinguish between disorder and something that has an order beyond our capacity to comprehend?

That we don't yet understand it all completely is no argument for a designer.

therefore we have the added element of its function or end cause- for instance the fact that we don't experience elephants suddenly flying off into the sky despite our determining that the laws of gravity keep them earth bound only due to high ratios of probability is hardly a cause for thinking the universe is designerless either.

for instance, depsite lacking the direct perception (and complete understanding) of how and when a european sports car was manufactured, why is considering a european sportscar as having spontaneously appeared without a designer absurd?

Any life form that exists will tend to find itself in an environment suitable for that life, otherwise there would be no life to observe it. This is called the anthropic principle, or anthropic bias.[/QUOTE]